ii UAE ΠΟ att 
ae ae 
TSG 
if i tit i att iit ΠῚ 
ἘΜΉΝ ΜΗ ΜΗΝΗΜΉΝΙ ᾿ ἘΠΕ Hitt 
ἈΝ Ν ΝΝΝ 
ae SS 
etait itt {πα Heth ἢ 
ΡΡΕΠΕΚ ΝΜ ΔΕΕΠΠΠΔ ΜΝ rh ΠΝ 
! rain ΜΝ ἘΠ ΝΒ ΝΙΝ 
, jit) anit ἘΠ ΜΗ if it i i) stat ἜΗΝ 
᾿ ΒΟ t 
Hea tata ΗΠΡΗΝ ἮΝ ΠΝ ΜΉΝ a 
ae ent 
see RE ΜΝ ἐγ ντη αὶ i ᾿ ai ᾿ it 
. i ΠΝ Thiele i Ἷ ty 
a SR EA 
ἀπ erate } τῇ HH 
, Hitt ἮΝ Hilt ett i i tH xb 
ἢ ἢ ἈΠΉΝΗΣ ἈΝΕ ΜΗ ΝΣ HIS πη τς 
oe ἘΝ ἮΝ ‘ 47) iia tt] th " ὑ 
: ΠΝ ΝΜ ΜΝ ΑΝ ΗΜ ΝΠ ἡ ἐν ἡ (τι 
ἷ ΠΗ ΜΜΜΉΝΙ i Hint i 
ὶ . pele at) j\ a . i 1 ᾿ ἮΝ 
᾿ ; ἐπ aut ᾿ Ν Ot 
: ih ; 
ν itt 
aa 
δου Reese 
iTeraeieiglt tas 
rete iia 
x a 
ν᾿ } ΔΑΝ * ΠΝ, " τ 


νό φόε ει. 
teat 
‘ 


bitieie ᾿ 
“ιν ale ὁ «6, Η ὁ je ν) ὁ ἐἰὁ eee ee 
ANd P ‘ LR Peta are ei eis te ee 4: eee ee eit tie 


‘ , i 
‘ ee ee [ 
| Ἡ - J ἷ ‘ { 
ee Hleleleleigie: ΙΝ ut 
᾿ 


‘ 
se 
fat 

[Ἢ] 
ΠΟΥ tt 
aye ΟΝ 
‘ ἐν 
° i 
y iH ᾿ ῃ 
ih 
ἣ 

ae 1 

‘ tp I 7 

‘ i* Heh eee 

a Aree arate) 
‘ 
δι Δ 
δ 
ἢ ee 
: J ‘ 
‘ ν᾽. οἷς 
; . een 
ΠῚ 


νιν 
sisivie vitivis 
Pie 1] ti 


HW HENS a ΤῊΣ “25: | 
3 : a = xe 7 
SS A Wit | 
HEX LIBRIS igi ἢ 
-}} 


REFERENCE 
& BIBLIOG, 


AJ OIC TIONARY.Of 


CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY 
AND LITERATURE 


A DICTIONARY OF 


CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY 
AND LITERATURE 


TO THE END OF THE SIXTH CENTURY A.D., WITH 
AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL SECTS AND HERESIES 


EDITED BY 


HENRY WACE, D.D. 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY 


AND 


| WILDTAM “Cy PIERCY, IMA: 


DEAN AND CHAPLAIN OF WHITELANDS COLLEGE, 8.W,. 


IN ONE VOLUME 


BOSTON 
LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY 


IgII 


PRINTED BY 
HAZELL, WATSON AND VINEY, LD., 
LONDON AND AYLESBURY, 
ENGLAND. 


wees 
weee 
® 


PREFACE 


Tuts volume is designed to render to a wider circle, alike of clergy and 
of laity, the service which, as is generally admitted, has been rendered to 
the learned world by The Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, 
Sects, and Doctrines, published under the editorship of Dr. Wace and the 
late Dr. Wm. Smith, about twenty years ago, in four large volumes. That 
work covered the whole of the first eight centuries of the Christian era, and 
was planned on a very comprehensive scale. It aimed at giving an account, 
not merely of names of importance, but of all names, however small, con- 
cerned in the Christian literature of those eight centuries ; and toillustrate its 
extent and minuteness, it may be enough to mention that no fewer than 596 
Johns are recorded in due order inits columns. The surviving Editor may 
be pardoned for expressing his satisfaction that the work is now recognized, 
abroad as well as at home, as a valuable work of reference, being constantly 
quoted alike in the great Protestant Cyclopaedia of Herzog, in its third edition 
now happily complete, and in the Patrology of the learned Roman Catholic 
Professor at Munich, Dr. Bardenhewer. To the generous band of great 
English scholars to whose unstinted labours the chief excellences of that 
work are due, and too many of whom have now passed away, it is, or it would 
have been, a welcome satisfaction to find it described in the Patrology of 
that scholar as ‘“‘very useful, relatively complete and generally reliable.” * 

But that work was mainly adapted to the use of men of learning, and 
was unsuited, both by its size and expense, and by the very wideness of 
its range, for the use of ordinary readers, or even for the clergy in general. 
In the first place, the last two centuries of the period which it covered, 
although of immense interest in the history of the Church, as including 
the origins of the Teutonic civilization of Europe, have not an equal 
interest with the first six as exhibiting primitive Christianity in its purer 
forms. With the one important exception of John of Damascus, the 
Fathers of the Church, so called, alike in East and West, fall within the 
first six centuries, and in the West the series is closed by St. Gregory 
the Great, who died in the year 604. English divines accordingly, since the 
days of Bp. Jewel, have, like Bp. Cosin, appealed to the first six centuries 
of the Church as exhibiting, in doctrine as well as in practice, subject to 
Holy Scripture, the standards of primitive Christianity. Those six centuries, 
consequently, have a special interest for all Christian students, and part- 

* Edition of 1908, published in English at Freiburg im Breisgau, and at St. Louis, Mo., 
U.S.A., translated from the second German edition by Dr. T. J. Shahan, Professor of 
Church History in the Catholic University of America, Ps Ile 

ν 


230337 


vi PREFACE 


icularly for those of our own Church, and deserve accordingly some special 
treatment. It was thought, therefore, that a Dictionary of Christian 
Biography which confined itself to this formative and authoritative period 
of the Church’s history would be of special interest and service, not only 
to the clergy, but also to the Christian laity and to students for Holy Orders. 

But the limitation of such a work to this period at once disembarrassed 
our pages of the mass of Teutonic, and sometimes almost pagan, names 
with which, after the settlement of the barbarians in Europe, we were over- 
whelmed ; and thus of itself rendered it possible to bring the work into 
much narrowercompass. Moreover, a mass of insignificant names, which the 
principles of scholarly completeness obliged us to introduce into the larger 
Dictionary, were not needed for the wider circle now in contemplation. 
They were useful and necessary for purposes of learned reference, but they 
cast no light on the course and meaning of Church history for ordinary 
readers. We have had to exercise a discretion (which may sometimes seem 
to have been arbitrary) in selecting, for instance, from the 596 Johns just 
mentioned those which were the most valuable for such readers as we had 
in view; and for the manner in which we have exercised that discretion 
we must trust ourselves to the indulgent judgment of our readers. The 
publisher gave us generous limits; but it seemed to him and to ourselves 
indispensable for the general usefulness of the Dictionary that it should be 
restricted to one volume; and we were thus, with respect to the minor 
names, obliged to omit many which, though of some interest, seemed to be 
such as could be best dispensed with. 

By omissions of this nature we have secured an object which will, we 
are sure, be felt to be of inestimable value. We have been able to retain, 
with no material abbreviation, the admirable articles on the great characters 
of early Church history and literature which were contributed, with an 
unselfish devotion which can never be sufficiently acknowledged, by the 
great scholars who have been the glory of the last generation or two of 
English Church scholarship, and some of whom are happily still among us. 
To mention only some of the great contributors who have passed away, such 
articles as those of Bp. Westcott on Clement of Alexandria and Origen, 
Bp. Lightfoot on Eusebius, Archbp. Benson on St. Cyprian, Dr. Bright 
on St. Athanasius and kindred subjects, Dr. Salmon on varied subjects 
of the first importance, Bp. Stubbs on early English history, and some by 
the learned Professor Lipsius of Jena, have a permanent value, as the ap- 
preciations of great characters and moments of Church history and literature 
by scholars and divines who have never been surpassed, and will hardly be 
equalled again, in English sacred learning. We deemed it one of the greatest 
services which such a work as this could render that it should make ac- 
cessible to the wide circle in question these unique masterpieces of patristic 
and historical study. It has therefore been one of our first objects to avoid, 
as far as possible, any abbreviation of the body of these articles. We have 
occasionally ventured on slight verbal condensation in secondary passages, 
and we have omitted some purely technical discussions of textual points 
and of editions. But in the main the reader is here placed in possession, 
within the compass of a moderate volume, of what will probably be allowed 
to be at once the most valuable and the most interesting series of monographs, 


PREFACE Vii 


on the chief characters and incidents of early Church history, ever con- 
tributed to a single undertaking by a band of Christian scholars. We 
feel it no more than a duty to pay this tribute of gratitude and admira- 
tion to the great divines, to whose devotion and learning all that is per- 
manently valuable in these pages is due, and we are confident that their 
monographs, thus rendered generally available, will prove a permanent 
possession of the highest value to English students of Church history. 

We must further offer the expression of our cordial gratitude to several 
living scholars, who have contributed new articles of similar importance 
to the present volume, in place of some in the original edition which the 
lapse of time or other circumstances had rendered less valuable than 
the rest. In particular, our warmest thanks are due to Dr. Robertson, the 
present Bp. of Exeter, who has substituted for the sketch of St. Augustine 
contributed to the original edition by an eminent French scholar, M. de 
Pressensé, a study of that great Father, similar in its thoroughness to the 
other great monographs just mentioned. We are also deeply indebted 
to the generosity of Chancellor Lias for fresh studies of such important 
subjects as Arius and Monophysitism ; and a valuable account of the Nes- 
torian Church has been very kindly contributed by the Rev. W. A. Wigram, 
who, as head of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission, possesses 
unique qualifications for dealing with the subject. We have to thank also 
the eminent learning of Dr. A. J. Mason for an article on Gaudentius of 
Brescia, who was unaccountably omitted from the larger work, and whose 
name has of late acquired new interest. The gratitude of the Editors, is 
also specially due to Dr. Knowling and Dr. Gee, of Durham University, for 
their assistance in some cases in which articles required to be supplemented 
or corrected by the most recent learning. 

In all cases where the writers of the original articles are still living 
they were afforded the opportunity, if they desired it, of revising their 
work and bringing it up to date, and of checking the condensations : 
though the Editors and not the writers must take the responsibility for 
the latter and also, in most cases, for bibliographical additions. The 
Editors desire gratefully to record their appreciation of the assistance 
thus readily and kindly rendered by most of the original writers who are 
still spared to us, and, as an example, we are glad to thank the Rev. 
E. B. Birks for his very thorough revision of his article on the Epistle to 
Diognetus. 

Cross-references are inserted, where needed, on the principle adopted 
in Murray’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (to which this is intended to be 
a companion volume in size, appearance, and price)—namely, the name 
of the article to which a cross-reference is intended is printed in capitals 
within brackets, but without the brackets when it occurs in the ordinary 
course of the text. 

In the headings of articles the numbers in brackets after names which 
are common to more than one person are retained as in the large edition, 
to facilitate reference to that edition when desired, and also to indicate 
that there were other persons of the same name. 

It was not consistent with the limits of the work to retain in all cases 
the minute bibliography sometimes furnished in the larger edition, But, 


viii PREFACE 


on the other hand, an endeavour has been made to give references, at the 
end of articles, to recent publications of importance on each subject ; and 
in this endeavour the Editors must express their great indebtedness to the 
valuable Patrology of Professor Bardenhewer, already referred to, and to 
the admirable third edition of Herzog and Hauck’s Protestant Cyclopaedia, 
and occasionally to the parallel Roman Catholic Cyclopaedia of Wetzer and 
Welte, edited by Cardinal Hergenréther. It may be permissible, in referring 
to these auxiliary sources, to express a deep satisfaction at the increasing 
co-operation, in friendly learning, of Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars, 
and to indulge the hope that it is an earnest of the gradual growth of a 
better understanding between those two great schools of thought and life. 

The Editors cannot conclude without paying a final tribute of honour 
and gratitude to the generous and devoted scholar whose accurate labours 
were indispensable to the original work, as is acknowledged often in its Pre- 
faces, and who rendered invaluable assistance in the first stage of the pre- 
paration of the present volume—the Rev. Charles Hole, late Lecturer for 
many years in Ecclesiastical History in King’s College, London. Dr. Wace 
hoped to have had the happiness of having his own name associated with 
that of his old teacher, friend, and colleague on the title-page of this volume, 
and he laments that death has deprived him of this privilege. He cannot, 
however, sufficiently express his sense of obligation to his colleague, Mr. 
Piercy, for the ability, skill, and generous labour without which the pro- 
duction of the work would have been impossible. 


LIST OF WRITERS 


The Ricut Hon. A. H. Dyke AcLanp, LL.D. 
Hon. Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. 
The late Rev. M. F. ArGLEs, M.A. 
Formerly Principal of St. Stephen’s House, Oxford. 
Rev. C. J. Batt, M.A. 
Lecturer in Assyriology, Oxford; Rector of Blechingdon. 
The late Rev. J. Barmsy, B.D. 
Formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield’s Hall, Durham, and Rector of 
Pilkington. 
S. A. BENNETT, EsQ., B.A. 
Of Lincoln’s Inn. 
The late Most Rev. E. W. Benson, D.D. 
Formerly Archbishop of Canterbury. 
Rev. E. B. Brrxks, M.A. 
Vicar of Kellington; formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
The late Rev. C. W. BoaseE, M.A. 
Formerly Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. 
The late Rev. CANon W. Bricut, D.D. 
Formerly Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford. 
The late Ricut Hon. T. R. BucHanan, M.A., M.P. 
Fellow of All Souls’ College, Oxford. 
The late Rev. D. Butter, M.A. 
Formerly Rector of Thwing, Yorkshire. 
The late Rev. J. G. CazENovE, D.D 
Furmerly Provost of Cumbrae College, N.B. 
Rev. M. B. Cowe tt, M.A. 
Vicar of Ash Bocking. 
F. H. BLackBuRNE DANIEL, EsQ. 
Of Lincoln’s Inn. 
The VEN. G. W. DANIELL, M.A. 
Archdeacon of Kingston-on-Thames. 
The late Rev. T. W. Davips. 
Upton. 
Rev. L. DAvipson, M.A. 
Rector of Stanton St. John, Oxford. 
Rev. J. Lu. Davies, D.Litt. 
Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Rev. C. DEEDEs, M.A. 
Prebendary of Chichester. 
The late Rev. W. P. Dickson, D.D. 
Formerly Professor of Divinity, Glasgow. 
The late Rev. E. S. Frourxkes, M.A. 
Formerly Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Vicar of St. Mary’s. 
The late Ricut Rev. A. P. Fores, D.C.L. 
Formerly Bishop of Brechin. 
The Very Rev. ΑΝ Hon. W. H. FREMANTLE, D.D. 
Dean of Ripon. 
The late Rev. J. M. Fuiver, M.A. 
Formerly Fellow of St. John’ s College, Cambridge. 


ix 


LIST OF WRITERS 


Rev. J. GaAmMack. M.A. 

Rector of St. James’s, Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A. 
Rev. H. Gee, D.D. 

Master of University College, Durham. 
The Ricut Rev. C. Gore, D.D. 

Bishop of Birmingham. 
Rev. J. Gwynn, D.D., D.C.L. 

Regius Professor of Divinity, T.C.D. 
The late Rev. A. W. Happan, B.D. 

Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. 
The late Rev. T. R. Hatcoms, M.A. 

Formerly Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. 
The late Rev. C. Hore, B.A. 


Formerly Rector of Loxbear, and Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History 


in King’s College, London. 

Rev. Canon H. Scotr Houianp, D.D. 

Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford. 
The late Rev. F. J. A. Hort, D.D. 

Formerly Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. 
The late Rev. D. R. Jones. 

Oxford. 
Rev. Canon R. J. Knowzine, D.D. 

Professor of Divinity, Durham. 
Rev. CHANCELLOR J. J. Lras, M.A. 

Chancellor of Llandaff Cathedral. 
The Ricut Rev. J. B. Licutroot, D.D. 

Formerly Bishop of Durham. 
The late R. A. Liestus, D.D. 

Formerly Professor of Divinity, University of Jena. 
Rev. W. Lock, D.D. 

Ireland Professor of Exegesis, Oxford; Warden of Keble College. 
The late Rev. J. H. Lupton, M.A. 

Formerly Fellow of St. John’ s College, Cambridge. 
The late Rev. G. F. Macrear, D.D. 

Formerly Warden of St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury. 
A. C. Mapan, Esg., M.A. 

Senior Student of Christ Church, Oxford. 
The late Rev. 5. MANSELL, M.A. 

Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Rev. A. J. Mason, D.D. 

Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and Canon of Canterbury. 
The late Rev. W. Miriican, D.D. 

Formerly Professor of Divinity, Aberdeen. 
The late Rev. ἃ. H. MoBrErty, M.A. 

Formerly Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. 
The late Rev. T. D. C. Morse. 

Formerly Rector of Drayton, Nuneaton. 
The Ricut Rev. H. G. C. Mouteg, D.D. 

Bishop of Durham. 
J. R. ΜοζΖιξυ, Esg., M.A. 

Formerly Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. 
The Ricut Rev. F. Pacet, D.D. 

Bishop of Oxford. 
The late Rev. H. W. Puittott, M.A. 

Formerly Rector of Staunton-on-Wye. 
Rey. W. C. Piercy, M.A 

Dean and Chaplain ae Whitelands College, S.W. 
The late Rev. E. H. Prumptre, D.D. 

Formerly Dean of Wells. 
The late Rev. P. ONsLow, B.A. 

Formerly Rector of Upper Sapey. 
The late Rev. CANON J. RAINE, M.A. 

Formerly Feilow of Durham University. 


INITIALS 
H.R.R. 


E.S.T. 
R.St.J.T. 
ELV. 
H.W. 
M.A.W. 
H.W.W. 


W. or B.F.W. 


W.A.W. 
H.A.W. 
j.w. 
E.MY. 


LIST OF WRITERS xi 


The late Rev. H. R. Reynowps, D.D. 
Formerly Principal of Cheshunt College. 
The Ricut Rev. A. Rospertson, D.D. 
Bishop of Exeter. 
The late Rev. G. Satmon, D.D. 
Formerly Regius Professor of Divinity and Provost of Trinity College, 
Dublin. 
The late Rev. P. ScHAFF. 
Bible House, New York. 
The Ven. ΝΥ. M. Srncrarr, D.D. 
Formerly Archdeacon of London. 
Revel. Go. oMITH, GED: 
Formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. 
The late Very Rev. R. P. Situ, D.D. 
Formerly Dean of Canterbury. 
The late Rev. G. T. Stoxes, M.A. 
Formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Dublin. 
The late Ricgut Rev. W. Stusss, D.D. 
Formerly Bishop of Oxford. 
The Ricut Rev. E. 5. ΤΑΣ ΒΟΥ D.D. 
Bishop of Winchester. 
The late Rev. R. St. J. TyrRwuitt. 
Formerly Student of Christchurch, Oxford. 
The late Rev. CANon E. VENABLES. 
Formerly Precentor of Lincoln Cathedral. 
The Very Rev. H. Wace, D.D. 
Dean of Canterbury. 
Mrs. Humproy ΑΚ. 
Stocks House, Tring. 
The Ven. H. W. Warkins, D.D. 
Prof. of Hebrew, Durham University, and Archdeacon of Durham. 
The late RricuHt Rev. B. F. Westcott, D.D. 
Formerly Bishop of Durham. 
Rev. W. A. WicrRaAM, M.A. 
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission to Assyria. 
Rev. H. A. Witson, M.A 
Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 
The Ricut Rev. J. WorpswortH, D.D. 
Bishop of Salisbury. 
The late Rev. E. M. Youne, M.A. 
formerly Headmaster of Sherborne School. 


DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN 
BIOGRAPHY 


A 


Abercius (‘ASépxios, ᾿Αουίρκιος, ᾿Αουέρκιος, 
etc.; Lat. Avircius, or Avercius ; on the form 
and origin, see Ramsay, Expositor, ix. (3rd 
ser.), pp. 268, 394, and Zahn, art. ‘‘ Aver- 
cius,” Realencyclopadie fiir protest. Theol. und 
Kirche, Hauck). The Life of the saint, de- 
scribed as bp. of Hierapolis in Phrygia in the 
time of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, as given by 
Symeon Metaphrastes and in the Bollandist 
Acta Sanctorum, Oct. 22, is full of worthless 
and fantastic tales. But the epitaph which 
the Acts incorporate, placed, according to the 
story, on the altar brought from Rome by the 
demon whom the saint had driven out of 
the emperor’s daughter, is of great value, and 
the discovery of some of the actual fragments 
of the inscription may well be called ‘‘a 
romance of archaeology.’’ For this redis- 
covery our thanks are due to the rich labours 
of Prof. Ramsay. The fact that Abercius 
was described as bp. of Hierapolis at the 
time mentioned above had contributed to 
hesitation as to the genuineness of the epitaph. 
But Ramsay (Bulletin de correspondance hel- 
lénique, Juillet 1882) pointed out that Hiera- 
polis had been frequently confounded with 
Hieropolis ; and he also published in the same 
journal a metrical and early Christian epitaph 
of a certain Alexander (A.D. 216), discovered 
at Hieropolis, and evidently copied from the 
epitaph of Abercius, as given in his Life. As 
to the copying, there can be no doubt, for the 
third line of the epitaph of Alexander, son of 
Antonius, will not scan, owing to the substi- 
tution of his name for that of Abercius (Light- 
foot, Apost. Fathers2, i. p. 479; Headlam in 
Authority and Archaeology, pp. 307 ff., 1899). 
Ramsay’s attention being drawn to the earlier 
epitaph, he collected various topographical 
notices in the Life of the saint, which pointed 
to Hieropolis, near Synnada (not Hierapolis 
on the Maeander), and he further established 
the case for the former by finding, in 1883, 
in the bath-room at some hot springs near 
Hieropolis, a small portion of the epitaph of 
Abercius himself on the fragment of an altar- 
shaped tomb; the hot springs in their posi- 
tion mear the city exactly correspond with 
the position of the hot springs described in 
the Life. We have thus fortunately a three- 
fold help in reconstructing the text of the 
whole epitaph—(1) the text in the Life; (2) 
the rediscovered fragments in the stone ; (3) 
the epitaph on the tomb of Alexander. 

There is much to be said for the identifica- 
tion of Abercius with the Avircius Marcellus 
(Eus. H. E. v. 16) to whom the extracts of 


ABERCIUS 


the anonymous writer against Montanus are 
dedicated. Wecannot besure as to the date of 
these extracts, but there is reason to place them 
towards the close of the reign of Commodus, 
180-192, and the epitaph of Abercius must at 
least have been earlier than 216, the date of 
the epitaph of Alexander. But the writer of 
the extracts addresses the person to whom he 
dedicates his work as a person of authority, 
although he does not style him a bishop (but 
see Lightfoot, u.s. p. 483), who had urged 
him a very long time ago to write on the 
subject. Avircius Marcellus might therefore 
have well flourished in the reign of M. Aurelius, 
and might have visited Rome at the time men- 
tioned in the legend, a.p. 163. Further, in 
the extracts mention is made by the writer 
of one Zoticus of Otrous, his “" fellow-presby- 
ter,’’ and Otrous was in the neighbourhood of 
this Hieropolis (for the identification, see 
further Lightfoot and Zahn, u.s.; Headlam, 
u.s.; Ramsay, Expositor, ix. (3rd ser.), p. 
394). Against the attempt of Ficker to prove 
that the epitaph was heathen, S1tzungsberichte 
d. Berl. Akad. 1895, pp. 87-112, and that of 
Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, xii. 4b, 
p. 21, to class it as partly heathen and partly 
Christian, see Zahn, u.s., and further in Neue 
Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1895, pp. 863-886; also 
the criticism of Ramsay, quoted by Headlam, 
u.s. Both external and internal evidence are 
in favour of a Christian origin, and we have 
in this epitaph what Ramsay describes, 
C. R. E. pp. 437 ff., as “‘a testimony, brief, 
clear, emphatic, of the truth for which Avir- 
cius had contended—the one great figure on 
the Catholic side produced by the Phrygian 
church during this period,’ a man whose 
wide experience of men and cities might in 
itself have well marked him out as such 
a champion. The faithful, 1.6. the sacred 
writings, the Sacraments of Holy Baptism 
and Holy Communion, the miraculous birth 
of our Lord (the most probable reference of 
παρθένος ἁγνή), His omnipresent and omni- 
scient energy, the fellowship of the members 
of the church, not only in Rome but else- 
where—all these (together with the mixed 
cup, wine and water; the prayer for the 
departed; the symbolic IXOT2, one of its 
earliest instances) have a place in the picture 
of early Christian usage and belief gained 
from this one epitaph ; however widely Aber- 
cius travelled, to the far East or West, the 
same picture, he assures us, met his gaze. 
We thus recover an instructive and enduring 
monument of Christian life in the 2nd cent., 
all the more remarkable because it is pre- 


1 


© Cao £7 
«ὦ ς 
“ 


<i cet ABGAR 


sented to us, not in any systematic form, but 
as the natural and simple expression of a 
pure and devout soul. For full literature, see 
Zahn, u.s.; for the development of the legend 
from the facts mentioned in the epitaph, and 
for the reconstruction of the text by Light- 
foot and Ramsay, see three articles by the 
latter in Exposttor, ix. (3rd ser.), also Ram- 
say’s Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii. 722. 
In addition to literature above, cf. art. by 
Lightfoot in Expositor, i. (3rd ser.), pp. 3 ff. ; 
and Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, i. pp. τὸ ff. 
Prof. V. Bartlet discusses Harnack’s hypo- 
thesis in the Critical Review, April 1896, and 
regards it as at present holding the field; 
though he finds Harnack’s elimination of any 
reference to Paul the Apostle in the inscrip- 
tion quite unintelligible. Even Schmiedel 
(Encvel. Bibl. ii. 1778) refers unhesitatingly to 
the inscription as Christian. See further Dr. 
Swete’s art. J. T. S. July 1907, p. 502, on 
Avircius and prayers for the departed. 


The following is a translation of the epitaph: 
“Citizen of a chosen city I have made this (tomb) in 
my lifetime, that I may have here before the eyes of 
men (φανερῶς v.l. καιρῷ) a resting-place for my 
body—Avircius by name, a disciple of the pure 
Shepherd, who on the mountains and plains feedeth 
the flocks of His sheep, who hath eyes large and be- 
holding allthings. For He was my Teacher, teaching 
me (διδάσκων, So Ramsay, omitted by Zahn) the 
faithful writings ; whosent me to Rome to behold the 
King (βασιλῆαν, so Ramsay, but Lightfoot βασίληαν, 
Zahn, Bactdyn ἀναθρῆσαι), and to see the Queen in 
golden robes and golden sandals, and there, too, I saw 
a people bearing a shining seal (a reference to Bap- 
tism). And I saw the plain of Syria and allits cities, 
even Nisibis, having crossed the Euphrates, and 
everywhere I had fellow-worshippers (συνομήθεις, SO 
Lightfoot and Ramsay; συνοδίτην, Zahn, referring 
to Paul), With Paulin my hands J followed (i.e. the 
writings of Paul, Ramsay; but Lightfoot and Di 
Rossi apparently ‘with Paul as my comrade’; 
whilst Zahn conjectures ἔποχον, or rather ἐπ᾿ ὀχῶν 
instead of ἑπόμην), while Faith everywhere led the 
way, and everywhere placed before me food, the Fish 
from the fountain, mighty, pure, which a spotless 
Virgin grasped (Ramsay refers to the Virgin Mary, 
but see also Lightfoot and Farrar). And this she 
(i.e. Faith) gave to the friends to eat continually, 
having excellent wine, giving the mixed cup with 
bread. These words,I, Avircius, standing by, bade 
to be thus written; I was in fact in my seventy- 
second year. Onseeing thislet every one who thinks 
with him (1.6. who is also an anti-Montanist, so 
Ramsay; Lightfoot and Farrar simply ‘fellow- 
Christian’) pray for him (i.e. Avircius). But no one 
shall place another in my tomb, but if so, he shall 
pay 2000 gold pieces to the Romans, and 1000 gold 
pieces to my excellent fatherland Hierapolis”’ (so 
Ramsay, vide Expositor, ix. 3rd ser. p. 271, for a 
justification of this reading). [R.J.K.] 


Abgar. [THADDAEUs.] 

Acacius (2), bp. of Caesarea, from a personal 
defect known as ὁ μονόφθαλμος, the pupil and 
biographer of Eusebius the church historian. 
He succeeded his master as bishop, a.p. 340 
(Socr. H. E. ii. 4; Soz. H. E. iii. 2). He is 
chiefly known to us as the bitter and uncom- 
promising adversary of Cyril of Jerusalem, 
and as the leader of an intriguing band of 
ambitious prelates. The events of his life 
show Acacius to have been a man of great 
intellectual ability but unscrupulous. After 
the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, c. 342, 
he became the head of the courtly Arian party, 
and is thought by some to be the person styled 


ACACIUS 


by Greg. Naz. (Orat. xxi. 21) ‘‘ the tongue of 
the Arians,’’ George of Cappadocia being “‘ the 
hand.’’ He assisted in consecrating Cyril, A.D. 
351, and in accordance with the 7th Nicene 
Canon claimed a right of priority for the metro- 
political see of Caesarea over that of Jeru- 
salem. This Cyril refused to yield. Acacius, 
supported by the Palestinian bishops, deposed 
Cyril on frivolous grounds, and expelled him 
from Jerusalem, A.D. 358. [CYRIL OF JERU- 
SALEM.] (Soz. iv. 25; Theod. ii. 26.) 
Acacius attended the council of Antioch, 
A.D. 341 (Soz. iii. 5), when in the presence of 
the emperor Constantius ‘‘ the Golden Basil- 
ica’? was dedicated by a band of ninety 
bishops, and he subscribed the ambiguous 
creeds then drawn up from which the term 
Homoousion and all mention of “Ὁ substance ” 
were carefully excluded. With other bishops 
of the Eusebian party he was deposed at the 
council of Sardica, A.D. 347. They refused to 
submit to the sentence, and withdrew to 
Philippopolis, where they held a council of 
their own, deposing their deposers, including 
Pope Julius and Hosius of Cordova (Theod. 
ii. 26; Socr. ii. 16; Soz. iii. 14; Labb. Cone. 
ii. 625-699). According to Jerome (Vz. III. 
98), his influence with the emperor Constan- 
tius was considerable enough to nominate 
Felix (the antipope) to the see of Rome at the 
fall of Liberius, A.D. 357. Acacius took a 
leading place among the intriguing prelates, 
who succeeded in splitting into two the 
oecumenical council which Constantius had 
proposed to summon, and thus nullifying its 
authority. While the Western bishops were 
assembling at Rimini, A.D. 359, he and his 
brethren of the East gathered at Seleucia, 
where he headed a turbulent party, called 
after him Acacians. After the majority had 
confirmed the semi-Arian creed of Antioch 
(‘‘ Creed of the Dedication ’’), Acacius brought 
forward a Confession (preserved by Athan- 
asius, de Synod, § 29; Socr. ii. 40; Soz. iv. 
22) rejecting the terms Homoousion and Ho- 
moiousion ‘‘as alien from Scripture,’ and 
anathematizing the term ‘‘ Anomoeon,”’ but 
distinctly confessing the ‘‘likeness’’ of the 
Son to the Father. This formula the semi- 
Arian majority rejected, and becoming ex- 
asperated by the disingenuousness of Acacius, 
who interpreted the “ likeness of the Son to 
the Father’’ as ‘likeness in will alone,’”’ 
ὅμοιον κατὰ τὴν βούλησιν μόνον, and refused 
to be judged by his own published writings 
(Socr. and Soz. l.c.), they proceeded to de- 
pose him and his adherents. Acacius and 
the other deposed prelates flew to Con- 
stantinople and laid their complaints before 
the emperor. The adroit Acacius soon 
gained the ear of the weak Constantius, and 
finding that the favour he had shown to the 
bold blasphemies of Aetius had to some de- 
gree compromised him with his royal patron, 
he had no scruple in throwing over his former 
friend. A new council was speedily called at 
Constantinople, of which Acacius was the 
soul (Philostorg. iv. 12). Mainly through his 
intrigues the Council was brought to accept 
the Confession of Rimini, by which, in Jerome’s 
strong words, ‘“‘ the whole world groaned and 
wondered to find itself Arian’’ (Dial. adv. 
Luc. 19). To complete their triumph, he and 


ACACIUS 


Eudoxius of Antioch, then bp. of Con- 
stantinople, put forth their whole influence to 
bring the edicts of the Nicene council, and all 
mention of the Homoousion, into disuse and 
oblivion (Soz. iv. 26). On his return to the 
East in 361 Acacius and his party consecrated 
new bishops to the vacant sees, MELETIUS 
being placed in the see of Antioch. When 
the imperial throne was filled by the orthodox 
Jovian, Acacius with his friends found it con- 
venient to change their views, and in 363 
they voluntarily accepted the Nicene Symbol 
(Soer. iii. 25). On the accession of the Arian 
Valens in 364 Acacius once more went over 
to the more powerful side, making common 
cause with the Arian Eudoxius (Socr. iv. 2). 
But he found no favour with the council of 
Macedonian bishops at Lampsacus, and his 
deposition at Seleucia was confirmed. Accord- 
ing to Baronius, he died A.p. 366. 

Acacius enriched with parchments the 
library at Caesarea founded by Pamphilus 
(Hieron. Ep. ad. Marcellam, 141). He wrote 
on Ecclesiastes, six books of σύμμικτα 
ζητήματα and other treatises; a considerable 
fragment of his ᾿Αντιλογία against Marcellus 
of Ancyra is preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. 
72, 6-9). His Life of Eusebius Pamphili has 
unhappily perished. See Fabricius, ᾿. 
Vii. p. 336, ix. pp. 254, 256 (ed. Harless) ; 
Tillemont, Mem. eccl. vi. (passim); Rivington 
(Luke), Dublin Review, 1894, i. 358-380; 
Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. i. E.V.] 

Aeacius (4), bp. of Beroea, in Syria, c. a.p. 
379-436. He was apparently a Syrian by 
birth, and in his early youth adopted the 
ascetic life in the monastery of Gindarus near 
Antioch, then governed by Asterius (Theod. 
Vit. Patr. c. 2). Not much is known with 
certainty of this period of his life. He ap- 
pears, however, to have been prominent as a 
champion of the orthodox faith against the 
Arians, from whom he suffered (Baluz. Nov. 
Collect. Conc. p. 746), and it is specially men- 
tioned that he did great service in bringing 
the hermit Julianus Sabbas from his retire- 
ment to Antioch to confront this party, who 
had falsely claimed his support (Theod. Vit. 
Pair. 2, H. E. iv. 24). We find him in Rome, 
probably as a deputy from the churches of 
Syria when the Apollinarian heresy was treated 
before pope Damasus (Baluz. Conc. 763). 
After the return of Eusebius of Samosata from 
exile, A.D. 378, Acacius was consecrated to the 
see of Beroea (the modern Aleppo) by that 
prelate (Theod. H. E. v. 4. As bishop he 
did not relax the strictness of his asceticism, 
and like Ambrose (August. Confess. vi. 3), 
throwing the doors of his house open to every 
comer, he invited all the world to witness the 
purity and simplicity of his life (Soz. H. E. 
vii. 28). He attended the council of Con- 
stantinople in 381 (Theod. v. 8). The same 
year, on the death of Meletius, taking a pro- 
minent part in the consecration of Flavian to 
the bishopric of Antioch [FLAvIANUs], thus 
perpetuating the Eustathian schism, he in- 
curred displeasure both in East and West, 
and was cut off from communion with the 
church of Rome (Soz. vii. 11). The council 
of Capua at the close of 391 or 392 received 
Acacius again into communion, together with 
the prelates of Flavian’s party (Ambros. Ep. 


ACACIUS 3 


9; Labb. Cone. if. 1072) ; while Flavian him- 
self, through the exertions of Acacius, received 
letters of communion not only from Rome, 
but also from Theophilus of Alexandria and 
the Egyptian bishops. The whole merit of 
this success was ascribed by the bishops of the 
East to ‘‘ their father ’’ Acacius (Socr. vi. 9 ; 
Soz. viii. 3; Theod. v. 23; Labb. Cone. iii. 
p- 391; Pallad. p. 39). Acacius was one of 
the most implacable of the enemies of Cury- 
sostom. He bore part in the infamous 
‘* Synod of the Oak,’’ A.p. 403; took the lead 
in the Synod of 404, after Chrysostom’s return 
from exile; and joined in urging Arcadius to 
depose him (Pallad. p. 82). He added acts of 
open violence to his urgency with the timid 
emperor, until he had gained his end in the 
final expulsion of the saint, June 20, 404. 
Nor was his hostility even now satiated. 
Acacius sent to Rome one Patronus, with 
letters accusing Chrysostom of being the 
author of the conflagration of his own church. 
The pope treated the accusation with deserved 
contempt, and Acacius was a second time sus- 
pended from communion with Rome (Pallad. 
p. 35), which he did not regain till 414, and 
then chiefly through Alexander of Antioch. 
The letter sent to the pope by Acacius, with 
those of Alexander, was received with haughty 
condescension, and an answer was returned re- 
admitting the aged prelate on his complying 
with certain conditions (Conc. il. 1266-8). His 
communion with Alexander was fully restored, 
and we find the two prelates uniting in ordain- 
ing Diogenes, a ‘‘ bigamus ”’ (Theod. Ep. 110). 
Acacius’s enmity to Chrysostom’s memory 
seems however to have been unquenched ; 
and on the succession of Theodotus of Antioch, 
A.D. 421, he took the opportunity of writing 
to Atticus of Constantinople to apologize for 
the new bishop’s having, in defiance of his 
better judgment, yielded to popular clamour 
and placed Chrysostom’s name on the diptychs 
(Theod. v. 34; Niceph. xiv. 26, 27). On the 
rise of the Nestorian controversy Acacius 
endeavoured to act the part of a peacemaker, 
for which his age of more than 100 years, and 
the popular reverence which had gained for 
him the title of ‘‘the father and master of all 
bishops,’’ well qualified him. With the view 
of healing the breach between Cyril of Alex- 
andria and Nestorius, he wrote a pacificatory 
reply to a violent letter of the former (A.D. 
430). Inthe general council which followed 
at Ephesus, A.D. 431, he entrusted his proxy 
to Paul of Emesa. The influence of the aged 
Acacius was powerful at court. Theodosius 
wrote to him in most reverential terms be- 
seeching him to give his endeavours and 
prayers for the restoration of unity to the 
distracted church. Acacius was also ap- 
pealed to by Pope Sixtus III. for the same 
object (Baluz. Conc. pp. 721, 754, 757; Labb. 
Cone. iii. 1087). 

Acacius disapproved of Cyril’s anathemas 
of Nestorius, which appeared to him to 
savour of Apollinarianism ; but he spent his 
last days in promoting peace between the 
rival parties, taking part in the synod held at 
the emperor’s instance in his own city of 
Beroea, A.D. 432, by John of Antioch, and 
doing all in his power, both by personal in- 
fluence and by letters to Cyril and to the 


4 ACACIUS 


Roman bp. Coelestinus to bring about an 
agreement. He ultimately succeeded in 
establishing friendly communion between 
John and Cyril. He saw the peace of the 
church re-established, and died full of days 
and honour, aged, it is said, more than 110 
years, A.D. 436. 

Three letters are still extant out of the large 
number that he wrote, especially on the 
Nestorian controversy: two to Alexander of 
Hierapolis, Baluzius, Nov. Collect. Conctl. 
c. xli. p. 746, c. lv. p. 757; and one to Cyril, 
4b. c. xxii. p. 440 ; Labbe, Cone. vol. 111. p. 382 
(Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 417; Tillemont, Mem. eccl. 
vol. xiv. ; Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii.). [E.v.] 

Acacius (7), patriarch of Constantinople, 
A.D. 471-489. Acacius was originally at the 
head of an orphanage at Constantinople, 
which he administered with conspicuous suc- 
cess (Suidas, s.v. ᾿Ακάκιος). His abilities at- 
tracted the notice of the emperor Leo, over 
whom he obtained great influence by the arts 
of an accomplished courtier (Suidas, /.c.). On 
the death of Gennadius (471) he was chosen 
bp. of Constantinople, and soon found him- 
self involved in controversies, which lasted 
throughout his patriarchate, and ended in 
a schism of thirty-five years’ duration be- 
tween the churches of the East and West. 
On the one side he laboured to restore unity 
to Eastern Christendom, which was distracted 
by the varieties of opinion to which the Euty- 
chian debates had givenrise ; and on the other 
to aggrandize the authority of his see by 
asserting its independence of Rome, and 
extending its influence over Alexandria and 
Antioch. In both respects he appears to 
have acted more in the spirit of a statesman 
than of a theologian ; and in this relation the 
personal traits of liberality, courtliness, and 
ostentation, noticed by Suidas (l.c.), are not 
without importance. 

The first important measures of Acacius 
carried with them enthusiastic popular support 
and earned for him the praise of pope Sim- 
plicius. In conjunction with a Stylite monk, 
Daniel, he placed himself at the head of the 
opposition to the emperor Basiliscus, who, 
after usurping the empire of the East, had 
issued an encyclic letter in condemnation of 
the council of Chalcedon, and taken Timo- 
theus Aelurus, the Monophysite patriarch of 
Alexandria, under his protection, a.D. 476. 
The resistance was completely successful. In 
the meantime Zeno, the fugitive emperor, 
reclaimed the throne which he had lost; and 
Basiliscus, after abject and vain concessions to 
the ecclesiastical power, was given up to him 
(as it is said) by Acacius, after he had taken 
sanctuary in his church, A.D. 477 (Evagr. H. E. 
iii. 4 ff.; Theod. Lect. i. 30 ff.; Theophan. 
Chron. pp. 104 ff. ; Procop. B. V.i.7, p. 195). 
At this period the relations between Zeno, 
Acacius, and Simplicius appear to have been 
amicable, if not cordial. They were agreed 
on the necessity of taking vigorous measures 
to affirm the decrees of the council of Chalce- 
don, and for a time acted in concert (Simplic. 
Epp. 5, 6). Before long a serious difference 
arose, when Acacius, in 479, consecrated a 
bishop of Antioch (Theophan. Chron. p. 110), 
and thus exceeded the proper limits of his 
jurisdiction. However, Simplicius admitted 


ACACIUS 


the appointment on the plea of necessity, 
while he protested against the precedent 
(Simplic. Epp. 14, 15). Three years later 
(482), on the death of the patriarch of Alex- 
andria, the appointment of his successor gave 
occasion to a graver dispute. The Mono- 
physites chose Petrus Mongus as patriarch, 
who had already been conspicuous among 
them; on the other side the Catholics put 
forward Johannes Talaia. Both aspirants 
lay open to grave objections. Mongus was, 
or at least had been, unorthodox ; Talaia was 
bound by a solemn promise to the Emperor 
not to seek or (as it appears) accept the 
patriarchate (Liberat. c. 17; Evagr. H. E. 
111. 12). Talaia at once sought and obtained 
the support of Simplicius, and slighted 
Acacius. Mongus represented to Acacius 
that he was able, if confirmed in his post, to 
heal the divisions by which the Alexandrine 
church was rent. Acacius and Zeno readily 
listened to the promises of Mongus, and in 
spite of the vehement opposition of Simplicius, 
received the envoys whom he sent to discuss 
the terms of reunion. Shortly afterwards the 
Henoticon (An Instrument of Union) was 
drawn up, in which the creed of Nicaea, as 
completed at Constantinople, was affirmed to 
be the one necessary and final definition of 
faith; and though an anathema was pro- 
nounced against Eutyches, no express judg- 
ment was pronounced upon the doctrine of the 
two Natures (Evagr. H. E. iii. 14). Mongus 
accepted the Henoticon, and was confirmed in 
hissee. Talaiaretired to Rome (482-483), and 
Simplicius wrote again to Acacius, charging 
him in the strongest language to check the 
progress of heresy elsewhere and at Alexandria 
(Simplic. Epp. 18, 19). The letters were 
without effect, and Simplicius died soon after- 
wards. His successor, Felix III. (II.), es- 
poused the cause of Talaia with zeal, and 
despatched two bishops, Vitalis and Misenus, 
to Constantinople with letters to Zeno and 
Acacius, demanding that the latter should 
repair to Rome to answer the charges brought 
against him by Talaia (Felix, Epp. 1,2). The 
mission utterly failed. Vitalis and Misenus 
were induced to communicate publicly with 
Acacius and the representatives of Mongus, 
and returned dishonoured to Italy (484). On 
their arrival at Rome a synod was held. 
They were themselves deposed and excom- 
municated; a new anathema was issued 
against Mongus, and Acacius was irrevocably 
excommunicated for his connexion with 
Mongus, for exceeding the limits of his juris- 
diction, and for refusing to answer at Rome 
the accusations of Talaia (Evagr. H. E. iii. 
21; Felix, Ep. 6); but no direct heretical 
opinion was proved or urged against him. 
Felix communicated the sentence to Acacius, 
and at the same time wrote to Zeno, and to 
the church at Constantinople, charging every 
one, under pain of excommunication, to 
separate from the deposed patriarch (Epp. 9, 
10, 12). Once again the envoy of the pope 
was seduced from his allegiance, and on his 
return to Rome fell under ecclesiastical cen- 
sure (Felix, Ep. 11). For the rest, the threats 
of Felix produced no practical effect. The 
Eastern Christians, with very few exceptions, 
remained in communion with Acacius; Talaia 


ACEPHALI 


acknowledged the hopelessness of his cause 
by accepting the bishopric of Nola; and 
Zeno and Acacius took active measures to 
obtain the general acceptance of the Henoti- 
con. Under these circumstances the con- 
demnation of Acacius, which had been made 
in the name of the Pope, was repeated in the 
name of the council of Chalcedon, and the 
schism was complete * (485). Acacius took 
no heed of the sentence up to his death in 489, 
which was followed by that of Mongus in 
490, and of Zeno in 491. Fravitas (Flavitas, 
Flavianus), his successor, during a very short 
atriarchate, entered on negotiations with 
elix, which led to no result. The policy of 
Acacius broke down when he was no longer 
able to animate it. In the course of a few 
years all for which he had laboured was un- 
done. The Henoticon failed to restore unity 
to the East, and in 519 the emperor Justin 
submitted to pope Hormisdas, and the con- 
demnation of Acacius was recognized by the 
Constantinopolitan church. 

Tillemont has given a detailed history of 
the whole controversy, up to the death of 
Fravitas, in his Mémoires, vol. xvi., but with 
a natural bias towards the Roman side. The 
original documents, exclusive of the histories 
of Evagrius, Theophanes, and Liberatus, are 
for the most part collected in the 58th volume 
of Migne’s Patrologia. See also Hefele, Konz. 
Gesch. Bd. ii. [w.] 

Acephali (from a and κεφαλή, those without 
a head or leader) is a term applied :—(1) To 
the bishops of the oecumenical council of 
Ephesus in 431, who refused to follow either 
St. Cyril or John of Antioch—the leaders of 
the two parties in the Nestorian controversy. 
(2) To a radical branch of Monophysites, who 
rejected not only the oecumenical council of 
Chalcedon in 451, but also the Henoticon of 
the emperor Zeno, issued in 482 to the Chris- 
tians of Egypt, to unite the orthodox and the 
Monophysites. Peter Mongus, the Monophy- 
site patriarch of Alexandria, subscribed this 
compromise [Acacius (7)]; for this reason 
many of his party, especially among the 
monks, separated from him, and were called 
Acephali. They were condemned, under J us- 
tinian, by a synod of Constantinople, 536, as 
schismatics, who sinned against the churches, 
the pope, and the emperor. Cf. Mansi, Conc. 
tom. viii. p. 891 sqq.; Harduin, Conc. tom. 
ii. 1203 sqq.; Walch, Ketzerhistorie, vol. vii. ; 
Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii. pp. 549, 
744. (3) To the clerict vagt, i.e. clergy- 
men belonging to no diocese (as in Isid. 
Hispal. de Offic. Eccl., the so-called Egbert’s 
Excerpts, 160, and repeatedly in Carlovingian 
Councils: see Du Cange) [D. C. A. art. 
Vac Crerict]. (4) It is said to be used 


sometimes for αὐτοκέφαλοι. [D. C. A. art. 
AUTOCEPHALI.] [p.s.] 
Adamantius (1). [OrRIGEN.] 


Aerius, ᾿Αέριος, founder of the heretical sect 
of the Aerians, c. 355, still living when 
Epiphanius wrote against heresies, 374-376. 
He was the early friend and fellow-disciple of 
EuUSTATHIUS OF SEBASTE in Pontus. While 


* This appears to be the best explanation of 
the “‘double excommunication’ of Acacius. Cf. 
Tillemont, Mémoires, xvi. 0. 25, pp. 764f. 


AETIUS 5 


they were living an ascetic life together, the 
bishopric of Sebaste became vacant. Each 
of the friends was a candidate for the office. 
The choice fell on Eustathius. This was 
never forgiven by Aerius. Eustathius endea- 
voured to soften his friend’s disappointment 
by at once ordaining Aerius presbyter, and 
setting him over the hospital established at 
Sebaste (ξενοδοχεῖον, Or mrwxorpopeiov). But 
all his attempts were fruitless. Aerius threw 
up his charge, deserted the hospital, and 
openly published grave accusations against 
his bishop. The rupture with Eustathius 
widened into a rupture with the church. 
Aerius and his numerous followers openly 
separated from their fellow-Christians, and 
professed ἀποταξία, or the renunciation of 
all worldly goods. They were consequently 
denied not only admission to the churches, 
but even access to the towns and villages, and 
they were compelled to sojourn in the fields, 
or in caves and ravines, and hold their re- 
ligious assemblies in the open air exposed to 
the severity of Armenian winters. 

Our knowledge of Aerius is from Epiphanius 
(Haer. 75). Augustine, de Haeresibus, c. 53, 
merely epitomises Epiphanius. Aerius went 
so fearlessly to the root of much that the 
church was beginning to cling to, that we 
cannot feel much surprise at the vehemence of 
Epiphanius with regard to his teaching. 

Epiphanius asserts that he went beyond 
Arius in his impieties, specifying four counts. 
(x) The first, with which the name of Aerius 
has been chiefly identified in modern times, 
is the assertion of the equality of bishops 
and presbyters, μία τάξις, μία τιμή. ἕν ἀξίωμα. 
(2) Aerius also ridiculed the observance of 
Easter as a relic of Jewish superstition. (3) 
Prayers and offerings for the dead he regarded 
as pernicious. If they availed for the de- 
parted, no one need trouble himself to live 
holily: he would only have to provide, by 
bribes or otherwise, a multitude of prayers and 
offerings for him, and his salvation was secure. 
(4) All set fasts he condemned. A Christian 
man should fast when he felt it to be for his 
soul’s good: appointed days of fasting were 
relics of Jewish bondage. Philaster, whose 
unconfirmed authority is very small, con- 
founds the Aerians with the ENcrRaTITES, and 
asserts that they practised abstinence from 
food and rejected marriage (Philast. Haer. 
72). Consult Schréckh, Christliche Kirch. 
Gesch. vol. vi. pp. 226-234 ; Walch, Ketzerhtst. 
vol. iii. pp. 221 seq. ; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. 
iii. pp. 461-563 (Clark’s trans.) ; Herzog. Real- 
encycl. vol. i. 165; Tillemont, Hist. eccl. vol. 
ix. pp. 87 seq. [E. v.] 

Aetius (’Aérios), the founder and head of 
the strictest sect of Arianism, upon whom, 
on account of the boldness of his reasonings 
on the nature of God, was affixed the surname 
of “the ungodly,’ ἄθεος (Soz. iii. 15). He 
was the first to carry out the doctrines of 
Arius to their legitimate issue, and in opposi- 
tion both to Homoousians and Homoiousians 
maintained that the Son was unltke, ἀνόμοιος, 
the Father, from which his followers took the 
name of ANOMOEANS. They were also known 
as Eunomians, from his amanuensis EuNo- 
ius, the principal apologist of the party ; and 


6 AETIUS 


as Heterusiasts and Exukontians, as affirming 
that the Son was ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας from the 
Father, and created ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. 

The events of his singularly vagrant and 
chequered career are related from very differ- 
ent points of view by the Eunomian Philos- 
torgius, and the orthodox writers Socrates, 
Sozomen, Theodoret, and Gregory Nyssen. 
We must regard Aetius as a bold and unprin- 
cipled adventurer, endowed with an indomit- 
able love of disputation, which led him into 
incessant arguments on the nature of the God- 
head, the person of our Lord, and other trans- 
cendental subjects, not only with the orthodox 
but with the less pronounced Arians. He was 
born at Antioch. His father, dying insolvent, 
left Aetius, then a child, and his mother in 
extreme destitution (Philost. H. E. iii. 15; 
cf. Valesius’s notes; Suidas, sub. voc. “Aértos). 
According to Gregory Nyssen, he became the 
slave of awoman named Ampelis ; and having 
obtained his freedom in some disgraceful 
manner, became a travelling tinker, and after- 
wards a goldsmith. Having been convicted 
of substituting copper for gold in an ornament 
entrusted to him for repair, he gave up his 
trade, and attaching himself to an itinerant 
quack, picked up some knowledge of medicine. 
He met with a ready dupe in an Armenian, 
whose large fees placed Aetius above the reach 
of want. He now began to take rank as a 
regular and recognized practitioner at Antioch 
(Greg. Nys. adv. Eunom. lib. i. vol. ii. p. 293). 
Philostorgius merely tells us that he devoted 
himself to the study of philosophy and dia- 
lectics, and became the pupil of Paulinus the 
Arian bishop, recently removed from Tyre to 
Antioch, c. 323 (Philost. iii. 15). Aetius at- 
tached himself to the Aristotelian form of 
philosophy, and with him, Milman remarks 
(Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 443), the strife 
between Aristotelianism and Platonism among 
theologians seems to have begun. His chief 
study was the Categories of Aristotle, the scope 
of which, according to Socrates (H. E. ii. 35), he 
entirely misconceived, drawing from them soph- 
istical arguments repudiating the prevailing 
Platonic mode of argument used by Origen and 
Clemens Alex. On the death of Paulinus his 
protector, c. 324, he was banished to Anazar- 
bus in Cilicia, where he gained his livelihood by 
his trade. Here his dialectic skill charmed a 
grammarian, who instructed him more fully, 
receiving repayment by his menial services. 
Aetius tried his polemic powers against his 
benefactor, whom he put to public shame by 
the confutation of his interpretation of Scrip- 
ture. On the ignominious dismissal which natu- 
rally followed, Athanasius, the Arian bishop of 
the place, opened his doors to the outcast, and 
read the Gospels with him. Aetius also read 
St. Paul’s Epistles at Tarsus with Antonius, 
who, like Athanasius, was a disciple of Lucian, 
Arius’s master. On Antonius’s elevation to 
the episcopate, Aetius returned to Antioch, 
where he studied the prophets, particularly 
Ezekiel, with Leontius, afterwards bishop 
of that see, also a pupil of Lucian. A 
storm of unpopularity soon drove him from 
Antioch to Cilicia; but having been defeated 
in argument by one of the Borborian Gnostics, 
he betook himself to Alexandria, where he 
soon recovered his character as an invincible 


AETIUS 


adversary by vanquishing the Manichean 
leader Aphthonius. Aphthonius, according to 
Philostorgius (H. E. iii. 15), only survived his 
defeat seven days. Here Aetius took up his 
former professions, studying medicine and 
working as a goldsmith. 

On the return of St. Athanasius to Alex- — 
andria in 349, Aetius retired to Antioch, of 
which his former teacher Leontius was now 
bishop. By him Aetius was ordained deacon, 
6. 350 (Philost. iii. 17; Socr. H. E. ii. 35; 
Athan. de Synod. § 38, Oxf. trans. p. 137; 
Suidas, s.v.). His ordination was protested 
against by Flavian and Diodorus, and he was 
inhibited from the exercise of his ministry 
(Theod. H. Ε. ii. 24). Epiphanius errone- 
ously asserts that he was admitted to the 
diaconate by George of Cappadocia, the in- 
truding bp. of Alexandria (Epiph. Haeres. 
Ixxvi. 1). Aetius now developed more fully 
his Anomoean tenets, and he exerted all his 
influence to induce the Arian party to refuse 
communion with the orthodox. He also be- 
gan to withdraw himself from the less pro- 
nounced Arians (Socr. H. E. ii. 359). This 
schism in the Arian party was still further 
developed at the first council of Sirmium, 
A.D. 351, where he attacked the respectable 
semi-Arian (Homoiousian) bishops, Basil of 
Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste (Philost. 
H. E. iii. 16), reducing them to silence. Exas- 
perated by his discomfiture, Basil denounced 
Aetius to Gallus. His life was spared at 
the intercession of bp. Leontius; and being 
subsequently introduced to Gallus by Theo- 
philus Blemmys, he was sent by him to his 
brother Julian to win him back from the 
paganism into which he was lapsing. Gallus 
also appointed him his religious teacher 
(Philost. H. E. iii. 27 ; Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 294). 

The fall of Gallus in 354 caused a change in 
the fortunes of Aetius, who returned to Alex- 
andria in 356 to support the waning cause of 
Arianism. The see of Athanasius was then 
occupied by George of Cappadocia, under 
whom Aetius served as a deacon, and when 
nominated to the episcopate by two Arian 
bishops, Serras and Secundus, he refused to be 
consecrated by them onthe ground that they 
had held communion with the Homoousian 
party (Philost. iii. 19). Here he was joined 
by his renowned pupil and secretary Eunomius 
(Greg. Nys. as. p. 299; Socr. H. ΕΝ 22° 
Philost. H. E. iii. 20). Greater troubles were 
now at hand for Aetius. Basil of Ancyra de- 
nounced him to the civil power for his supposed 
complicity in the treasonable designs of Gallus, 
and he was banished to Pepuza in Phrygia. 
The influence of Ursacius and Valens procured 
his recall; but he was soon driven again into 
exile. The hard irreverence of Aetius, and 
the determination with which he pushed con- 
clusions from the principles of Arius, shocked 
the more religious among the Arian party, and 
forced the bishops to use all measures to crush 
him. His doctrines were also becoming alarm- 
ingly prevalent. ‘‘ Nearly the whole of 
Antioch had suffered from the shipwreck of 
Aetius, and there was danger lest the whole 
(once more) should be submerged ’’ (Letter 
of George, bp. of Laodicea, ap. Soz. H. E. vi. 
13). A synod was therefore appointed for 
Nicomediain Bithynia. A violent earthquake 


AFRICANUS, JULIUS 


and the intrigues of the court brought about 
its division into two synods. The West met 
at Ariminum ; the East at Seleucia in Isauria, 
A.D. 359. The latter separated without any 
definite conclusion. ‘‘The Arians, semi-Arians, 
and Anomoeans, mingled in tumultuous strife, 
and hurled anathemas at one another ’’ (Mil- 
man, Hist. Christ. iii. c. 8). Whatever triumph 
was gained rested with the opponents of the 
Aetians, who appealed to the emperor and the 
court, and a second general council was sum- 
moned to meet at Constantinople (Athan. de 
Synod. ὃ το, 12). Of this council Acacius 
was the leading spirit, but a split occurred 
among the Anomoean followers of Aetius. The 
party triumphed, but its founder was sent into 
banishment, first to Mopsuestia, then to Am- 
blada in Pisidia. Here he gained the good- 
will of the savage inhabitants by his prayers 
having, as they supposed, averted a pestilence 
(Theod. ii. 23 ; Soz. iv. 23, 24; Philost. iv. 12; 
Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 301). 

The death of Constantius, A.D. 361, put an 
end to Aetius’s exile. Julian recalled all the 
banished bishops and invited Aetius to his 
court (Ep. Juliant, 31, p. 52, ed. Boisson ; Soz. 
v. 5), and at the instance of Eudoxius (Philost. 
ix. 4) presented him with an estate in the is- 
land of Lesbos. The ecclesiastical censure was 
taken off Aetius by Euzoius, the Arian bp. of 
Antioch (ἐδ. vii. 5), who, with the bishop of 
his party, compiled a defence of his doctrines 
(ib. viii. 2). According to Epiphanius (Haer. 
#.s.), he was consecrated bishop at Constanti- 
nople, though not to any particular see; and 
he and Eunomius consecrated bishops for his 
own party (Philost. viii. 2). On the death of 
Jovian, A.p. 364, Valens shewed special favour 
to Eudoxius, between whom and Aetius and 
Eunomius a schism had arisen. Aetius in dis- 
gust retired to his farm in Lesbos (ἰδ. ix. 
4). The revolt of Procopius once more en- 
dangered his life. He was accused to the 
governor, whom Procopius had placed in the 
island, of favouring the cause of Valens, 
A.D. 365-366 (tb. ix. 6). Aetius returned to 
Constantinople. He was the author of several 
letters to Constantius and others, filled with 
subtle disquisition on the nature of the Deity 
(Socr. ii. 35), and of 300 heretical proposi- 
tions, of which Epiphanius has preserved 47 
(Haer. Ixxvi. ὃ 10), with a refutation of each. 
Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. i. [E.v.] 

Africanus, Julius (’Agpixavos), a Christian 
writer at the beginning of the 3rd cent. A 
great part of his life was passed at Emmaus in 
Palestine—not, however, the Emmaus of St. 
Luke (xxiv. 16), as assumed by the ancient 
authorities (Soz. H. E. v. 21; Hieron. tn libro 
de Locis Hebraicis, s.v. ᾿Ε μμαοῦς, li. p. 439; et 
tn Epitaph. Paulae, iv. p. 673); but, as Reland 
has shewn in his Palaestina, pp. 427, 758 (see 
also Smith’s Dict. of Geogr. s.v. Emmaus), 
the Emmaus in the plain (1 Mace. iii. 40), 22 
Roman miles (=176 stadia) from Jerusalem. 
He may have been born A.p. 170 or a little 
earlier, and died a.p. 240 or a little later. 
There seems to be no ancient authority for 
dating his death a.p. 232. 

Africanus ranks with Clement and Origen as 
among the most learned of the ante-Nicene 
fathers (Socr. H. E. ii. 35; Hieron. Ep. ad 
Magnum, 83, vol. iv. p. 656). His great work, 


AFRICANUS, JULIUS 7 


a comparative view of sacred and profane his- 
tory from the creation of the world, demanded 
extensive reading; and the fragments that 
remain refer to the works of a considerable 
number of historical writers. His only work 
now extant in a complete state is his letter 
to Origen referred to by many authors (Eus. 
H. E. vi. 31; Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c. 63; Photius, 
Cod. 34 ; Suidas, s.v. ᾿Λφρικανός ; Niceph. Call. 
H. E. v. 21, and others). The correspondence 
originated in a discussion between Origen and 
a certain Bassus, at which Africanus was pre- 
sent, and in which Origen appealed to the au- 
thority of that part of the Book of Daniel which 
contains the story of Susanna. Africanus 
afterwards wrote a short letter to Origen urg- 
ing several objections to the authenticity of 
this part of the book ; among others, that the 
style is different from that of the genuine book, 
that this section is not in the book as received 
by the Jews, and that it contains a play on 
Gk. words which shews that, unlike other 
O.T. books, it was originally written in Gk. 
and not in Heb. Origen replied at greater 
length. That Africanus had any intimate 
knowledge of Heb. must not be regarded as 
proved by this letter. The date of the corre- 
spondence is limited by the facts that Origen 
writes from Nicomedia, having previously 
visited Palestine, and refers to his labours in 
a comparison of the Gk. and Heb. text, indi- 
cating that he had already published the 
Hexapla. These conditions are best satisfied 
by a date c. 238. 

Not less celebrated is the letter of Africanus 
to Aristides on the discrepancy in our Saviour’s 
genealogies as given by St. Matthew and St. 
Luke. A considerable portion of this has been 
preserved by Eusebius (H. E. i. 7), and Routh 
(Rel. Sac. ii. 228) has published this together 
with a fragment not previously edited. A 
compressed version of the letter is given also in 
Eusebii ad Stephanum, Quaest. ἵν, (Mai, Script. 
Vet. Nov. Coll. vol. i.). Africanus begins by 
rejecting a previous explanation that the gene- 
alogies are fictitious lists, designed to establish 
our Lord’s claim to be both king and priest by 
tracing His descentin one Gospel from Solomon, 
in the other from Nathan, who was assumed to 
be Nathan the prophet. Africanus argues the 
necessity of maintaining the literal truth of 
the Gospel narrative, and against drawing dog- 
matic consequences from any statements not 
founded on historical fact. He then gives his 
own explanation, founded on the levirate law 
of the Jews, and professing to be traditionally 
derived from the Desposyni (or descendants of 
the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near the 
villages of Nazareth and Cochaba. According 
to this view Matthew gives the natural, Luke 
the legal, descent of our Lord. Matthan, it is 
said, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi of the 
house of Nathan, married the same woman, 
whose name is given as Estha. Heli the son of 
Melchi (the names Matthat and Levi found in 
our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by 
Africanus) having died childless, his uterine 
brother Jacob, Matthan’s son, took his wife 
and raised up seed to him ; so that the offspring 
Joseph was legally Heli’s son as stated by St. 
Luke, but naturally Jacob’s son as stated by 
St. Matthew. For a critical examination and 
defence of this solution, which is adopted by St. 


8 AFRICANUS, JULIUS 


Augustine (Retract. lib. ii. c. vii.), see Mill, On 
the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, p. 201. 

The great work of Africanus was his “ accu- 
rately laboured’’ (Eus. H. E. vi. 31) treatise 
on chronology, in five books. As a whole it is 
lost, but we can form a good idea of its general 
character from the still remaining Chrontcon of 
Eusebius, which was based upon it, and which 
undoubtedly incorporates much of it. Euse- 
bius himself, p. 132, mentions Africanus among 
his authorities for Jewish history, subsequent 
toO.T. times. Several fragments of the work of 
Africanus can be identified by express quota- 
tions, either by Eusebius in his Praeparatio and 
Demonstratio Evangelii, or by other writers, in 
particular by Georgius Syncellus in his Chrono- 
graphia. These have been collected by Gal- 
landi (Bibl. Vet. Pat. vol. ii.), and more fully by 
Routh (Rel. Sac. vol. ii.). 

Christian Apologists had been forced to en- 
gage in chronological discussions, to remove 
the heathen contempt of Christianity as a 
novelty, by demonstrating the great antiquity 
of the Jewish system, out of which the Chris- 
tian sprang. Thus Tatian (Or. ad Graec. c. 
39), Theophilus of Antioch (ad. Avutol. 111. 21), 
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, i. 21), dis- 
cuss the question of the antiquity of Moses, 
and, following Josephus (cont. Apion. i. 16), 
arrive at the conclusion that Moses was a con- 
temporary of Inachus, and that the Exodus 
took place 393 years before the coming of 
Danaus to Argos. Africanus set himself to 
make a complete synopsis of sacred and pro- 
fane history from the Creation, and to establish 
asynchronism between the two. He concludes 
that Moses and Ogyges were contemporaries. 
He thinks a connexion between the Ogygian 
deluge and the plagues of Egypt likely; and 
confirms his conclusions by deducing from 
Polemo, Apion, and Ptolemaeus Mendesius, 
that Moses was a contemporary of Inachus, 
whose son, Phoroneus, reigned at Argos in the 
time of Ogyges. Africanus follows the LXX: 
he counts 2262 years to the Deluge; he does 
not recognize the second Cainan ; he places the 
Exodus A.M. 3707. In computing the years 
of the Judges he is blamed by Eusebius for 
lengthening the chronology by adding, without 
authority, 30 years for the elders after Joshua, 
40 for anarchy after Samson, and 25 years of 
peace. He thus makes 740 years between the 
Exodus and Solomon. Our Lord’s birth he 
places A.M. 5500, and two years before our 
common computation of Anno Domini. But 
he allows only one year for our Lord’s public 
ministry, and thus dates the Crucifixion A.M. 
5531. He calculates the commencement of 
the 70 weeks from the 2oth year of Artaxerxes: 
from this to the death of our Lord he counts 
only 475 years, contending that the 70 weeks 
of Daniel are to be understood as 490 lunar 
years of 354 days each, equivalent to 475 
Julian years. 

Another interesting passage in the yporixa is 
one in which he treats of the darkness at the 
Crucifixion, and shews, in opposition to the 
Syrian historian Thallus, that it was miracu- 
lous, and that an eclipse of the sun could not 
have taken place at the fullmoon. Lastly, we 
may notice his statement that there were still 
in his time remains of Jacob’s terebinth at 
Shechem, Gen. xxxv. 4, held in honour; and 


AGAPETUS 


that Jacob’s tent had been preserved in 
Edessa until struck by lightning in the reign 
of the emperor Antoninus (Elagabalus ?). 
Africanus probably had personally visited 
Edessa, whose king, Abgarus, he elsewhere 
mentions. 

The work in all probability concluded with 
the Doxology, which St. Basil has cited (de 
Spir. Sanct. § 73, iii. 61) in justification of the 
form of doxology σὺν ᾿Αγίῳ ΠΡνεύματι. 

It remains to speak of another work, the 
κεστοί, expressly ascribed to Africanus by Euse- 
bius (H. E. vi. 31), Photius (J.c.), Suidas (l.c.), 
and Syncellus (p. 359), perhaps (as Scaliger 
suggests) quoting the Chronica of Eusebius. 
According to this authority, the work consisted 
of nine books; and it is probably owing to 
errors of transcribers that we now find Photius 
enumerating 14 and Suidas 24. The work 
seems to have received the fanciful name of 
Cestt, or variegated girdles, from the miscella- 
neous character of its contents, which em- 
braced the subjects of geography, natural his- 
tory, medicine, agriculture, the art of war, etc. 
The portions that remain have suffered muti- 
lation and addition by different copyists. The 
external evidence for ascribing the Cestz and 
Chronology to the same author is too strong to 
be easily set aside, and is not without some in- 
ternal confirmation. Thus the author of the 
Cestt was better acquainted with Syria than 
with Libya ; for he mentions the abundance of 
a certain kind of serpent in Syria, and gives its 
Syrian name (Vet. Math. p. 290), but when he 
gives a Libyan word (Geopon. p. 226) he does 
so on second-hand testimony. And he was a 
Christian, for he asserts (Geopon. p. 178) that 
wine may be kept from spoiling by writing on 
the vessels ‘‘ the divine words, Taste and see 
that the Lord is gracious.’? The unlikelihood 
of Africanus having written such a work be- 
comes less if we look upon him not as an eccle- 
siastic, but as a Christian philosopher, pursuing 
his former studies after his conversion, and 
entering in his note-books many things more 
in accordance with the spirit of his own age 
than with that ofours. Cf. Harnack on Julius 
Africanus Sextus in Herzog, 3rd ed. The 
last edition of the Chronography is in Gelzer, 
Sex. Jul. Afr. (2 vols. Leipzig, 1880-1898) ; 
see also Spitta (Halle, 1877) on the letter to 
Aristides, Harnack, Lit. i. 507-513 and ii. 1, 
pp- 124 sqq. [G.s.] 

Agapetus, bp. of Rome, was, we are told, a 
Roman by birth, the son of Gordianus a priest 
(Anast. quoted by Clinton, Fasti Romant, 
p- 763; Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum, p. 73). He 
was already an old man when, six days after 
the death of Johannes II., he was elected pope 
in June 535. He began by formally reversing 
an act of Bonifacius II., one of his own imme- 
diate predecessors, fulminating anathemas 
against the deceased antipope Dioscorus, A.D. 
530 (Anast. vol. i. p. 100). 

We next find him entering Constantinople 
on Feb. 19, 536 (Clint. F. R. p. 765), sent 
thither by Theodahad to avert, if possible, the 
war with which he was threatened by the em- 
peror Justinian in revenge for the murder of 
his queen Amalasontha: and we are told that 
he succeeded in the objects of his mission 
(Anast. vol. i. p. 102), which must refer to 
other objects, for he certainly failed to avert 


AGATHA 


the war; Justinian had already incurred such 
expense as to be unwilling to turn back (Lib- 
erat. quoted by Baronius, Annales Ecclest- 
astici, vii. p. 314), and as a matter of fact Beli- 
sarius took Rome within the year. In 535 
Anthimus, who was suspected of Monothelit- 
ism, had been appointed patriarch of Constan- 
tinople by the influence of Theodora. Agape- 
tus, on his first arrival, refused to receive An- 
thimus unless he could prove himself orthodox, 
and then only as bp. of Trebizond. for he was 
averse to the practice of translating bishops. 
At the same time he boldly accused Justinian 
himself of Monophysitism ; who was fain to 
satisfy him by signing a ὁ libellus fidei’’ and 
professing himself a true Catholic. But the 
emperor insisted upon his communicating 
with Anthimus, and even threatened him with 
expulsion from the city if he refused. Agapetus 
replied with spirit that he thought he was visit- 
ing an orthodox prince, and not a second Dio- 
cletian. Then the emperor confronted him 
with Anthimus, who was easily convicted by 
Agapetus. Anthimus was formally deposed, 
and Mennas substituted ; and this was done 
without a council, by the single authority of 
the pope Agapetus ; Justinian of course allow- 
ing it, in spite of the remonstrances of Theo- 
dora (Anast. vol. i. p. 102; Theophanes, 
Chronogr. p. 184). Agapetus followed up his 
victory by denouncing the other heretics who 
had collected at Constantinople under the 
patronage of Theodora. He received petitions 
against them from the Eastern bishops, and 
from the ‘“‘ monks ”’ in Constantinople, as the 
Archimandrite coenobites were beginning to 
be called (Baronius, vii. p. 322). He died on 
April 21, 536 (Clint. F. R. p. 765). His body 
was taken to Rome and buried in St. Peter’s 
basilica, Sept. 17. Five of his letters remain : 
(1) July 18, 535, to Caesarius, bp. of Arles, 
about a dispute of the latter with bp. Con- 
tumeliosus (Mansi, vili. p. 856). (2) Same 
date, to same, “De augendis alimoniis 
pauperum "’ (7b. 855). (3) Sept. 9, 535, Reply 
to a letter from African bishops to his pre- 
decessor Johannes (ib. 848). (4) Same date, 
reply to Reparatus, bp. of Carthage, who had 
congratulated him on his accession (7b. 850). 
(5) March 13, 536, to Peter, bp. of Jerusalem, 
announcing the deposition of Anthimus and 
consecration of Mennas (ib. 921). Hefele, 
Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii. [G.H.M.] 
Agatha, a virgin martyred at Catana in Sicily 
under Decius, Feb. 5, 251, according to her 
Acta; but under Diocletian according to the 
Martyrol. and Aldhelm (de Virgin. 22) ; men- 
tioned by Pope Damasus A.D. 366 (Carm. v.), 
and by Venantius Fortunatus c. 580 ; inserted 
in the Canon of the Mass by Gregory the Great 
according to Aldhelm (u.s., and see also S. 
Greg. M. Dial. iii. 30) ; and commemorated in 
a homily by Methodius, c.900. Hernameis in 
the Carthag. Calendar of c. 450; in Ruinart, 
p. 695 ; and in the black-letter calendar in our 
Prayer-book. Churches at Rome were dedi- 
cated to her by pope Symmachus c¢. 500; by 
Ricimer a.D. 460, enriched with her relics by 
Gregory the Great ; and by Gregory II. in 726. 
She is the patroness of Malta (Butler’s Lives 
of Saints). See also the homily against Peril 
of Idolatry, p. iii. [A.W.H.] 
Agnes, M. a virgin, 12 or 13 years old, be- 


AGNOETAE 9 


headed at Rome under Diocletian, celebrated 
by Ambrose (de Offic. i. 41; de Virg. ad Mar- 
cell. i. 2), Jerome (Ep. 97 ad demetriad.), 
Augustine (Serm. 273, 286, and 354), Sulp. 
Sever. (Dial. ii. 14), Prudentius (περὶ Στεφάνων, 


Syriac in Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 148 seq. ; 
besides Acta falsely attributed to St. Ambrose, 
a doubtful homily of St. Maxim. Taurin., and 
some verses questionably assigned to pope 
Damasus. Her name is in the Carthag. Cal. of 
c. 450, Jan. 21; in Ruinart, p. 695. A church 
at Rome, in her honour, said to have been built 
under Constantine the Great, was repaired by 
Pope Honorius, A.D. 625-638, and another was 
built at Rome by Innocent X. (Assemani, Act. 
Mart. ii. 154, 155). See also Act. SS. Jan. 21, 
on which day her name stands in the black- 
letter calendar of our Prayer-book. Baeda 
and Usuard place it on Jan. 23; the Menolog. 
and Menaea on July 5. [A.W.H.] 

Agnoetae (from ἀγνοέω, to be ignorant of), a 
name applied to two sects who denied the 
omniscience either of God the Father, or of God 
the Son in His state of humiliation. 

I. The first were a sect of the Arians, and 
called from Eunomius and Theophronius “ Eu- 
nomto-Theophronians’’ (Socr. H. FE. v. 24). 
Their leader, Theophronius, of Cappadocia, 
who flourished about 370, maintained that God 
knew things past by memory and things future 
only by uncertain prescience. Sozomen (H. E. 
vii. 17) writes of him: ‘‘ Having given 
some attention to the writings of Aristotle, 
he composed an appendix to them, entitled 
Exercises of the Mind. But he afterwards en- 
gaged in many unprofitable disputations, and 
soon ceased to confine himself to the doctrines 
of his master. [EuNomrus.] Under the assump- 
tion of being deeply versed in the terms of 
Scripture, he attempted to prove that though 
God is acquainted with the present, the past, 
and the future, his knowledge on these subjects 
is not the same in degree, and 15 subiect to some 
kind of mutation. As this hypothesis appeared 
positively absurd to the Eunomians, they 
excommunicated him from their church ; and 
he constituted himself the leader of a new sect, 
called after his own name, ‘ Theophronians.’ ”’ 

II. Better known are the Agnoétae or The- 
mistiant, in the Monophysite controversy in 
6th cent. Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, 
representing a small branch of the Monophy- 
site Severians, taught, after the death of 
Severus, that the human soul (ποῖ the Divine 
nature) of Christ was like us in all things, even 
in the limitation of knowledge, and was ignor- 
ant of many things, especially the day of judg- 
ment, which the Father alone knew (Mark xill. 
32, cf. John xi. 34). Most Monophysites rejected 
this view, as inconsistent with their theory of 
one nature in Christ, which implied also a 
unity of knowledge, and they called the follow- 
ers of Themistius Agnoétae. The orthodox, 
who might from the Chalcedonian dogma of 
the two natures in Christ have inferred two 
kinds of knowledge, a perfect Divine and an 
imperfect human admitting of growth (Luke 
ii. 52), nevertheless rejected the view of the 
Agnoétae, as making too wide a rupture be- 
tween the two natures, and generally under- 
stood the famous passage in Mark of the official 


10 ALARIC 


ignorance only, inasmuch as Christ did not 
choose to reveal to His disciples the day of 
judgment, and thus appeared ignorant for a 
wise purpose (κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν). His inquiry 
concerning Lazarus was explained from refer- 
ence to the Jews and the intention to increase 
the effect of the miracle. Eulogius, Patriarch 
of Alexandria, wrote against the Agnoétae a 
treatise on the absolute knowledge of Christ, 
of which Photius has preserved large extracts. 
Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, anathema- 
tized Themistius. Agnoétism was revived by 
the Adoptionists in the 8th cent. Felix of 
Urgel maintained the limitation of the know- 
ledge of Christ according to His human nature, 
and appealed to Mark xiii. 32. Gallandi, Bzbl. 
Patr. xii. p. 634; Mansi, Conc. xi. 502; Leont. 
Byz. de Sectis, Actio X. c. iii. ;_ Photius, Cod. 
230 (ed. Bekk. p. 284); Baronius, Annal. ad 
A.D. 535; Walch. Hist. der Ketzereten, viii. 
644-684; Baur, Lehre v. der Dreieintgkett, etc., 
ii. pp. 87 ff; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte, 
etc., ii. pp. 172f; cf. D.C. B. (4 vol. ed.) art. 
PERSON OF CHRIST. [p.s.] 

Alaric (Teut. prob. = Athalaric, noble ruler), 
general and king (398) of the Goths, the most 
civilized and merciful of the barbarian chiefs 
who ravaged the Roman Empire. 

Alaric first appears among the Gothic army 
who assisted Theodosius in opposing Eugenius, 
394. He led the revolt of his nation against 
Arcadius, ravaged the provinces south of the 
Danube, and invaded Greece 395. Athens 
capitulated, and afterwards Corinth, Argos, and 
Sparta. Under the title of Master-General of 
Eastern Illyricum, 398, he became the ally of 
Arcadius and secretly planned the invasion 
of Italy. Inthe winter of 402 he crossed the 
Alps, was defeated by Stilicho at Pollentia on 
Easter Day 403, and driven from Italy. In 404 
he exchanged the prefecture of Eastern for that 
of Western Illyricum, and the service of Ar- 
cadius for that of Honorius, and, after the in- 
cursion and annihilation of Radagaisus and 
his Sclavonian hordes in 405, he was sub- 
sidized for his supposed services to the empire 
by the payment of 4,000 pounds of gold. 
Stilicho’s ruin and death in 408, the subsequent 
massacre of the Goths settled in Italy, and 
Honorius’s impolitic refusal of Alaric’s equit- 
able terms, caused the second invasion of Italy, 
and the first siege of Rome, which ended in 
a capitulation. At the second siege in 409, 
preceded by the capture of Ostia, the city was 
surrendered unconditionally, and Alaric set up 
Attalus as emperor, in opposition to Honorius, 
who remained at Ravenna. At the close of 
the third siege, in 410 (Aug. 24), the city was 
in the hands of the Goths for six days, during 
three of which the sack was continued. Alaric 
died at Consentia late in 410. 

The effect of Alaric’s conquests on the cause 
of Christianity, and on the spiritual position 
of Rome in Western Christendom, is well 
traced by Dean Milman (Lat. Christ. i. 110- 
140). Alaric and his Goths had embraced 
Christianity probably from the teaching of 
Ulfilas, the Arian bishop, who died in 388 
(Mosheim, ed. Stubbs, i. 233). This age wit- 
nessed the last efforts of Paganism to assert 
itself as the ancient and national religion, and 
Rome was its last stronghold. Pagans and 
Christians had retorted upon each other the 


ALARIC 


charge that the calamities of the empire were 
due to the desertion of the old or new system 
of faith respectively, and the truth or falsehood 
of either was generally staked upon the issue. 
The almost miraculous discomfiture of the 
heathen Radagaisus by Stilicho, in spite of his 
vow to sacrifice the noblest senators of Rome 
on the altars of the gods which delighted in 
human blood, was accepted as an ill omen by 
those at Rome who hoped for a public restora- 
tion of Paganism (Gibbon, iv. 47-49, ed. Smith ; 
Milman, Lat. Christ. i. 122). Rome, impreg- 
nable while Stilicho, her Christian defender, 
lived, could submit only to the approach 
of Alaric, ‘‘a Christian and a soldier, the 
leader of a disciplined army, who understood 
the laws of war, and respected the sanctity 
of treaties.’ In the first siege of Rome 
both pagan and Christian historians relate the 
strange proposal to relieve the city by the 
magical arts of some Etruscan diviners, who 
were believed to have power to call down 
lightning from heaven, and direct it against 
Alaric’s camp. That pope Innocent assented 
to this public ceremony rests only on the au- 
thority of the heathen Zosimus (v. 41). It is 
questioned whether this idolatrous rite actu- 
ally took place. Alaric perhaps imagined that 
he was furthering the Divine purpose in be- 
sieging Rome. Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. ix. c. 7) 
mentions as a current story that a certain 
monk, on urging the king, then on his march 
through Italy, to spare the city, received the 
reply that he was not acting of his own accord, 
but that some one was persistently forcing 
him on and urging him to sack Rome. 

The shock felt through the world at the 
news of the capture of Rome in Alaric’s third 
siege, 410, was disproportioned to the real 
magnitude of the calamity: contrast the ex- 
aggerated language of St. Jerome, Ep. ad Prin- 
ctpiam, with Orosius, 1. vii. c. 39, and St. 
Augustine, de Civ. Det, ii. 2 (a work written be- 
tween 413 and 426 with the express object of 
refuting the Pagan arguments from the sack of 
Rome), and his tract, de Excidio Urbis (Opp. 1. 
vi. 622-628, ed. Bened.). The book in which 
Zosimus related the fall of Rome has been lost, 
so that we have to gather information from 
Christian sources ; but it is plain that the de- 
struction and loss was chiefly on the side of 
Paganism, and that little escaped which did 
not shelter itself under the protection of Chris- 
tianity. ‘‘ The heathens fled to the churches, 
the only places of refuge. . . . There alone 
rapacity and lust and cruelty were arrested and 
stood abashed ”’ (Milman, p. 133). The pro- 
perty of the churches and the persons of Chris- 
tian virgins were generally respected. The 
pagan inhabitants of Rome were scattered over 
Africa, Egypt, Syria, and the East, and were 
encountered alike by St. Jerome at Bethlehem 
and by St. Augustine at Carthage. Innocent I. 
was absent at Ravenna during the siege of 
Rome. On his return heathen temples were 
converted into Christian churches; ‘‘ with 
Paganism expired the venerable titles of the 
religion, the great High Priests and Flamens, 
the Auspices and Augurs. On the pontifical 
throne sat the bp. of Rome, who would soon 
possess the substance of the imperial power ”’ 
(tb. p. 139). Alaric was also instrumental in 
driving Paganism from Greece. Zosimus (Vv. 7) 


ALBANUS 


asserts that on his approach to Athens its walls 
were seen to be guarded by Minerva and 
Achilles. Gibbon says that ‘‘ the invasion of 
the Goths, instead of vindicating the honour, 
contributed, at least accidentally, to extirpate 
the last remains of Paganism ”’ (vol. iv. p. 37). 
The conquests of Alaric, though achieved at 
an age when the Church boasted many eminent 
saints and writers, afford far fewer materials 
for the martyrologist and hagiologist than 
those of Attila. Alaric, though an Arian, is 
nowhere recorded to have persecuted the 
Catholics whom war had placed in his power. 
Jornandes and Isidore of Seville, Gothic his- 
torians, and Orosius, a Spanish Catholic, are 
equally silent on this point. The following 
facts of personal history have been preserved. 
In the sack of Rome Marcella, an aged matron, 
was thrown on the ground and cruelly beaten 
(Hieron. Ep. ad Princip.) ; a nameless lady, 
who persistently repelled her capturer, was 
conducted by him to the sanctuary of the Vati- 
can; and an aged virgin, to whose charge some 
sacred vessels had been entrusted, through her 
bold constancy preserved them intact. At 
the plunder of Nola in Campania, St. Paulinus 
its bishop is said to have prayed, ‘‘ Lord, let 
me not suffer torture either for gold or silver, 
since Thou knowest where are all my riches” 
(Fleury, Eccl. Hist. ed. Newman, bk. xxii.c. 21). 
Proba, widow of the prefect Petronius, retired 
to Africa with her daughter Laeta and her 
granddaughter Demetrias (Hieron. Ep. cxxx. 
t. i. p. 969, ed. Vallars.), and spent her large 
fortune in relieving the captives and exiles. 
(See Tillemont, Mém. ecclés. t. xiii. pp. 620- 
635.) Valuable contributions to the history 
of Alaric not already mentioned are Sigonius, 
Opp. t. i. par. 1, pp. 347 sqq. ed. Argellati; 
Aschbach, Gesch. der Westgothen. [c.D.] 
Albanus, M. The protomartyr of Britain 
was martyred probably at Verulamium, and 
according to either the ‘‘ conjecture’’ or the 
“knowledge ’’ (conjicimus or cognoscimus) of 
Gildas, in the time of Diocletian, and if so, A.p. 
304, but according to another legend, which, 
however, still speaks of Diocletian, in 286 
(Anglo-Sax. Chron., Lib. Landav.). Eusebius 
(H. E. viii. 13, and de Mart. Palaest. xiii. 10, 11), 
Lactantius (de Mort. Persecut. xv. xvi.), and 
Sozomen (i. 6) deny that there was any perse- 
cution during the time of Constantius in ‘‘ the 
Gauls,” which term included Britain. Possibly, 
however, Constantius may have been com- 
pelled to allow one or two martyrdoms. It is 
certain that 125 years after the latest date 
assigned to Alban’s martyrdom, 144 after the 
earliest, viz. A.D. 429 (Prosper, Chron.), Ger- 
manus visited his relics in Britain, presumably 
at Verulamium (Constant. in V. S. Germant, 
written A.D. 473-492). Gildas mentions him 
in 560 (his statement, however, about the 
persecution is of no value, being simply a 
transference of Eusebius’s words to Britain, 
to which Eusebius himself says they did not 
apply), and Venantius Fortunatus (Poem. viii. 
iv. 155) c. 580. Bede, in 731, copies Constan- 
tius and certain Acta otherwise unknown. 
And the subsequent foundation of Offa in 793 
only serves to identify the place with the 
tradition. The British Life discovered by the 
St. Albans monk Unwona in the roth cent., 
according to Matthew Paris, in VV. Abb. 


ALBOIN 11 


S. Alban., is apparently a myth; and the Life 
by William of St. Albans (12th cent.) is of the 
ordinary nature and value of lives of the kind 
and date. But the testimony of Germanus, 
in Constantius’s Life of him, seems sufficient 
proof that a tradition of the martyrdom of 
somebody named Albanus existed at Veru- 
lamium a century and something more after 
the supposed date of that martyrdom. His 
martyrdom with many fabulous details is re- 
lated in Bede (i. 7). W. Bright, Chapters of 
Early Ch. Hist. (1897), p. 6. [A.W.H.] 
Albion, king of the Langobardi, or Lom- 
bards, and founder of the kingdom subject to 
that people in Italy, was the son of that Audoin 
under whom the Lombards emerge from ob- 
scurity to occupy Pannonia, invited by the 
Emperor of Constantinople, in accordance 
with the usual Byzantine policy, as a check 
to the Gepidae. In the wars with the latter 
nation Alboin first appears. The confused 
accounts of them which Procopius preserves 
exhibit the tribe and their prince as rude 
and ferocious barbarians, and Alboin was a fit 
leader of such a tribe (Paul. Diac. i. 27, ii. 
28). That he was personally a Christian, 
though an Arian, is proved by a letter from a 
Gallic bishop to his first wife, a Gallic princess, 
which deplores, not his heathenism, but his 
heresy (Sirmond. Conc. Gall. i.). Succeed- 
ing his father, Alboin accomplished, by the aid 
of the Avars, the destruction of the Gepidae 
(see Gibbon, c. xlv.). The conquest of Italy 
followed. Alboin’s invading army was hetero- 
geneous. Besides 20,000 Saxons accompanied 
by their families, who recrossed the Alps after 
the conquest, Muratori has deduced (Antich. 
It. i. diss. 1) from Italian topography the pre- 
sence of the Bavarians, and Paul. (ii. 26) adds 
distinctly the names of several other tribes. 
The number of the army is unknown, but was 
considerable, as it was a migration of the whole 
tribe, and it largely changed the character and 
arrangements of population in Italy. Alboin 
left Pannonia in April 568; the passes were 
unguarded, and he learnt from his own success 
the need of securing his rear and the frontier of 
his future kingdom, and entrusted the defence 
and government of Venetia Prima, his first con- 
quest, to Gisulf his nephew, with the title of 
duke and the command of those whom he 
should himself select among the most eminent 
of the “‘ Farae’”’ or nobles (Paul. ii. ix.). From 
this point the conquest wasrapid. In Liguria 
(the western half of north Italy), Genoa, with 
some cities of the Riviera, alone escaped. 
Pavia held out for three years: perhaps its 
siege was not very vigorously pressed, for we 
know that a great part of Alboin’s force was de- 
tached in flying squadrons which ravaged the 
country southwards all through Tuscany and 
Aemilia, to so great a distance that Paul men- 
tions Rome and Ravenna as almost the only 
places which escaped. The death of Alboin 
followed the fall of Pavia. The story of his 
death is like that of his early life in the picture 
which it gives of a thoroughly barbaric society, 
where the skull of an enemy is used as a 
drinking-cup, and the men hold their banquets 
apart from the women (Gibbon, c. 45). Paul. 
avouches that the cup was to be seen in his 
own day. The chief authority for the life of 
Alboin, Paulus Diaconus, lived towards the 


12 ALEXANDER 


end of the 8th cent., in the last days of the 
Lombard monarchy. [E.s.T.] 
Alexander, St., archbp. of Alexandria, ap- 
pears to have come to that see in 313, after 
the short episcopate of Achillas. He was an 
elderly man, of a kindly and attractive disposi- 
tion; ‘‘ gentle and quiet,’’ as Rufinus says (i. 
1), but also capable of acting with vigour and 
persistency. Accusations were laid against 
him by the malcontent Meletian faction, ‘‘ be- 
fore the emperor,’’ Constantine (Athan. 
Apol. c. Ary. 11; ad Ep. Aeg. 23), but appar- 
ently without result. He was involved in a 
controversy with one Crescentius as to the 
proper time for keeping Easter (Epiph. Haer. 
70,9). But in 319 he was called upon to con- 
front a far more formidable adversary. [ARIUS.] 
Arius was the parish priest, as he may be de- 
scribed, of the church of Baukalis, the oldest 
and the most important of the churches of 
Alexandria, situated ‘‘ in the head of the mer- 
cantile part of the city’’ (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 
116), a man whose personal abilities enhanced 
the influence of his official position; he had 
been a possible successor at the last vacancy 
of the ‘‘ Evangelical Throne,’’ and may have 
consequently entertained unfriendly feelings 
towards its actual occupant. But it would be 
unreasonable to ascribe his opinions to private 
resentment. Doubtless the habits of his mind 
(Bright, Hist. Ch. p. 11) prepared him to adopt 
and carry out to their consequences, with a 
peculiar boldness of logic, such views as he now 
began to disseminate in Alexandrian society: 
that the Son of God could not be co-eternal 
with His Father ; that He must be regarded as 
external to the Divine essence, and only a crea- 
ture. The bishop tried at first to check this 
heresy by remonstrance at an interview, but 
with no real success. Agitation increasing, 
Alexander summoned a conference of hisclergy; 
free discussion was allowed ; and, according to 
Sozomen, Alexander seemed to waver between 
the Arian and anti-Arian positions. Ulti- 
mately he asserted in strong terms the co- 
equality of the Son; whereupon Arius criti- 
cized his language as savouring of the Sabellian 
error [SABELLIUS] which had ‘‘ confounded the 
Persons.’’ The movement increased, and 
Alexander himself was charged with irresolu- 
tion or even with some inclination towards the 
new errors. It was then, apparently, that 
Colluthus, one of the city presbyters, went so 
far as toseparate from his bishop’s communion, 
and, on the plea of the necessities of the crisis, 
““ ordained ’’ some of his followers as clergy. 
(See Valesius on Theod. i. 4, and Neale, i. 116). 
Alexander’s next step was to write to Arius and 
his supporters, including two bishops, five 
priests, and six deacons, exhorting them to re- 
nounce their “‘ impiety ’’ ; and the majority of 
the clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis, at 
his request, subscribed his letter. The ex- 
hortation failing, the archbishop brought the 
case formally before the synod of his suffragans, 
who numbered nearly 100. The Arians were 
summoned to appear: they stated their 
opinions ; the Son, they held, was not eternal, 
but was created by the impersonal ‘‘ Word,”’ or 
Wisdom of the Father; foreign, therefore, to 
the Father’s essence, imperfectly cognizant of 
Him, and, in fact, called into existence to be 
His instrument in the creationofman. ‘‘ And 


ALEXANDER 


can He then,’’ asked one of the bishops, 
““change from good to evil, as Satan did? ”’ 
They did not shrink from answering, “‘ Since 
He is a creature, such a change is not impos- 
sible’’ ; and the council instantly pronounced 
them to be ‘‘ anathema.’’ Such was the ex- 
communication of Arius, apparently in 320. 
It was as far as possible from arresting the 
great movement of rationalistic thought (for 
this, in truth, was the character of Arianism) 
which had now so determinedly set in. The 
new opinions became extraordinarily popular ; 
Alexandrian society was flooded with colloquial 
irreverence. But Arius ere long found that he 
could not maintain his position in the city 
when under the ban of the archbishop ; it may 
be that Alexander had power actually to banish 
him ; and he repaired to Palestine, where, as 
he expected, he found that his representations 
of the case made a favourable impression on 
several bishops, including Eusebius of Caesarea. 
Some wrote in his favour to Alexander, who, on 
his part, was most indefatigable in writing to 
various bishops in order to prevent them from 
being deceived by Arius; Epiphanius tells us 
that seventy such letters were preserved in his 
time (Haer. 69. 4). Of these, some were suffi- 
ciently effectual in Palestine to constrain Arius 
to seek an abode at Nicomedia. He had se- 
cured the support of the bishop of the city, the 
able but unprincipled Eusebius (Theod. i. 5 ; 
Athan. de Syn. 17) ; and he now wrote (Athan. 
de Syn. 16) in the name of “‘ the presbyters and 
deacons’’ who had been excommunicated, to 
Alexander, giving a statement of their views, 
and professing that they had been learned from 
Alexander himself; the fact being, probably, 
as Mohler thinks, that Alexander had formerly 
used vague language in an anti-Sabellian 
direction. Eusebius now repeatedly urged 
Alexander to readmit Arius to communion ; 
and the other bishops of Bithynia, in synod 
(Soz. i. 15), authorized their chief to send cir- 
cular letters in his favour to various prelates. 
A Cilician bishop, Athanasius of Anazarbus, 
wrote to Alexander, openly declaring that 
Christ was ‘‘one of the hundred sheep”’ ; 
George, an Alexandrian presbyter, then stay- 
ing at Antioch, had the boldness to write to his 
bishop to the effect that the Son once “ἡ was 
ποί,᾽ just as Isaiah ‘‘ was not,’’ before he was 
born to Amoz (Athan. de Syn. 17), for which 
he was deposed by Alexander from the priest- 
hood. Arius now returned into Palestine, and 
three bishops of that country, one of whom 
was Eusebius of Caesarea, permitted him to 
hold religious assemblies within their dioceses. 
This permission naturally gave great offence to 
Alexander. He had hitherto written only to 
individual bishops, but he now * drew up (per- 
haps with the help of his secretary and “‘ arch- 
deacon,’’ Athanasius) his famous encyclic to 
all his fellow-ministers, i.e. to the whole Chris- 
tian episcopate, giving an account of the 
opinions for which the Egyptian synod had ex- 
communicated the original Arians, adducing 
Scriptural texts in refutation, and warning his 
brethren against the intrigues of Eusebius 
(Socr. i. 6). This letter, which he caused his 


* A comparatively late date for this encyclic ap- 
pears necessary, on account of its allusions to Euse- 
bius. (See Neale, Hist. Alex.i. 127.) Some identify 
the encyclic with the Tome. 


= he 


ἘΣ 


ee eee ee 


“πο. τὰ 5 


ALEXANDER 


clergy to sign, probably preceded the ‘‘ Tome ”’ 
or τλάρφα ΜῈ faith abies he referred to 
as having been signed by some bishops, when 
he wrote to Alexander, bp. of Byzantium, the 
long and elaborate letter preserved by Theod. 
i. 4; in which, while using some language 
which in strictness must be called inaccurate, 
he gives an exposition of texts which became 
watchwords of the orthodox in the struggle 
(A.D. 323). 

Another correspondent now appears on the 
scene. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had a 
strong influence over the emperor Constantine, 
persuaded the latter to write, or to adopt and 
sign, a letter to Alexander and Arius, in which 
the controversy was treated as a logomachy 
(Eus. Vit. Con. ii. 64 seq. ; Socr.i. 7). The im- 

erial epistle was entrusted to a prelate of very 
bigh position, Hosius of Cordova, who can have 
had but little sympathy with the tone assumed 
bytheEmperor. The councilheldat Alexandria 
on his arrival decided one point very unequivo- 
cally: the ordinations performed by Colluthus 
were pronounced absolutely null (Athan. A pol. 
76). Peace was impossible on the basis of in- 
differentism, and Constantinesummoned a gen- 
eral assembly of bishops to meet at Nicaea, in 
June 325. [D. C. A., art. NICAEA, COUNCIL OF.] 
The Arians were condemned, and the Nicene 
Creed, in its original form, was drawn up. 

The story told by Epiphanius, of severities 
used by Alexander towards the Meletians 
{Me.Letius], and of a consequent petition ad- 
dressed by them to Constantine, appears to be 
one of several misstatements which he adopted 
from some Meletian sources. Athanasius tells 
us expressly that Alexander died within five 
months after the reception of the Meletians 
into church communion in the council of 
Nicaea (Apol. c. Art. 59), and this, if strictly 
reckoned from the close of the council, would 
place his death in Jan. 326. It cannot be 
dated later than April 18 in that year. See 
further, ATHANASIUS. 

Athanasius mentions a circumstance of Alex- 
ander’s local administration which furnished a 
precedent, on one occasion, for himself. Alex- 
ander was building the church of St. Theonas 
at Alexandria, on a larger scale than any of the 
existing churches, and used it, for convenience’ 
sake, before it was completed (Ap. ad Const. 
15). Heisalsosaid by tradition to have never 
read the Gospels in a sitting posture, and to 
have never eaten on fast days while the sun 
was in the skv (Bolland. Act. SS., Feb. 26). 
Two short fragments of a letter addressed by 
him to a bishop named Aeglon, against the 
Arians, are quoted in the works of Maximus 
the Confessor (in the Monothelite controversy), 
vol. 11. p.152. A trans. of his extant writings 
. isin the A nte- Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). [w.B.] 

Alexander, St., bp. of Byzantium, as the 
city was then called (Theod. Hist. i. 19) for 
about 23 years, his consecration being vari- 
ously dated from a.p. 313 to 317. He was al- 
ready 73 years old at the time (Socr. Hist. ii. 6; 
Soz. Hist. iii. 3). He is highly praised by 
Gregory of Nazianzum (Or. 27), and by Epi- 

hanius (adv. Haer. \xix. 10). Theodoret calls 
im an ‘‘apostolic’’ bishop (Hist. i. 3, cf. 
Phil. 12). In the commencement of the Arian 
troubles the co-operation of Alexander was 
specially requested by his namesake of Alex- 


ALEXANDER 13 


andria (Theod. i. 4); and he was present at 
the council of Nicaea (Soz. ii. 29). When 
Constantine, induced by the Eusebians (Athan. 
Ep. ad Serap.; Rufinus, Hist. i.), and deceived 
by the equivocations of Arius (Socr. i. 37), 
commanded that Arius should be received to 
communion, Alexander, though threatened by 
the Eusebians with deposition and banish- 
ment, persisted in his refusal to admit the 
archheretic to communion, and shut himself 
up in the church of Irene for prayer in this 
extremity. Alexander did not long survive 
Arius (Socr. ii. 6; Theod. i. 190). On his death- 
bed he is said to have designated Paulus as 
his successor, and warned his clergy against 
the speciousness of Macedonius. [1.G.S.] 

Alexander, bp. of Hierapolis Euphratensis 
and metropolitan in the patriarchate of Anti- 
och; the uncompromising opponent of Cyril 
of Alexandria, and the resolute advocate of 
Nestorius in the controversies that followed the 
council of Ephesus, A.p. 431. His dignity as 
metropolitan gave him a leading place in the 
opposition of which the patriarch John of An- 
tioch was the head, and his influence was con- 
firmed by personal character. He may have 
commenced his episcopate as early as A.D. 404, 
when with uncompromising zeal he erased 
from the diptychs of one of his churches the 
name of Julian, a man famous for sanctity, but 
accused of Apollinarianism (Baluz. Nov. Coll. 
Conc. p. 867). 

Alexander arrived at the council of Ephesus 
in company with his brother metropolitan 
Alexander of Apamea on or about June 20, 431. 
As soon as the Alexanders discovered Cyril’s 
intention to open the council before John of 
Antioch’s arrival they, on June 21, united 
with the other bishops of the East in signing a 
formal act demanding delay (Labbe, Concil. iii. 
552, 660, 662; Baluz. 697, 699). The council 
heeded them not, opened their sittings the 
next day, June 22, and soon did the work for 
which they had been summoned, the condem- 
nation of Nestorius. When John at last 
arrived, June 27, Alexander joined in the 
counter-council held by him and the prelates 
of his party in his inn, and signed the acts 
which cancelled the proceedings of the former 
council, deposing Cyril and Memnon, bp. of 
Ephesus, and declaring Cyril’s anathemas here- 
tical. As a necessary consequence Alexander 
was included in the sentence against John, and 
cut off from communion with Cyril’s party 
(Labbe, iii. 764 ; Baluz.507). Later he joined 
the council held by John at Tarsus, which pro- 
nounced a fresh sentence of deposition on 
Cyril (Baluz. 840, 843, 874); also that at An- 
tioch in the middle of December, ratifying the 
former acts and declaring adherence to the 
Nicene faith. A meeting was held at Antioch 
early in 432, attended by Alexander, when six 
alternative articles were drawn up, one of which 
it was hoped Cyril would accept, and so afford 
a basis of reconciliation (7b. 764). One de- 
clared a resolution to be content with the 
Nicene Creed and to reject all the documents 
that had caused the controversy. Another 
council was summoned at Beroea. Four more 
articles were added to the six, and the whole 
were despatched to Cyril. Cyril was well con- 
tent to express his adherence to the Nicene 
Creed, but felt it unreasonable that he should 


14 ALEXANDER 


be required to abandon all he had written on 
the Nestorian controversy (Labbe, ili. 114,1151, 
1157, iv. 666; Baluz. 786). Cyril's reply was 
accepted by Acacius and John of Antioch, 
and other bishops now sincerely anxious for 
peace, but not by Alexander or Theodoret 
(Baluz. 757, 782). The former renewed his 
charge of Apollinarianism and refused to sign 
the deposition of Nestorius (7b. 762-763). This 
defection of Acacius of Beroea and John of 
Antioch was received with indignant sorrow 
by Alexander. It was the first breach in the 
hitherto compact opposition, and led to its 
gradual dissolution, leaving Alexander almost 
without supporters. In a vehement letter to 
Andrew of Samosata, he bitterly complained 
of Acacius’s fickleness and protested that he 
would rather fly to the desert, resign his 
bishopric, and cut off his right hand than recog- 
nize Cyril as a Catholic until he had recanted 
his errors (7b. 764-765). The month of April, 
433, saw the reconciliation of John and the 
majority of the Oriental bishops with Cyril 
fully established (Labbe, iv. 659; Cyril, Ep. 
31, 42, 44). Alexander was informed of this 
in a private letter from John, beseeching him 
no longer to hinder the peace of the church. 
Alexander’s indignation now knew no bounds. 
He wrote in furious terms to Andrew and 
Theodoret (Baluz. 799, 800). His language 
became more and more extravagant, “ exile, 
violent death, the beasts, the fire, the preci- 
pice, were to be chosen before communion 
with aheretic’”’ (7b. 768, 775, 799, 800, 809, 
810), and he even ‘‘made a vow to avoid 
the sight, hearing, or even the remembrance 
of all who in their hearts turned back again 
to Egypt’’ (16. 865). Alexander’s contumacy 
had been regarded as depriving him of his func- 
tions as metropolitan. John, as patriarch, 
stepped in, A.D. 434, and ordained bishops in 
the Euphratensian province. This act, of very 
doubtful legality, excited serious displeasure, 
and was appealed against by Alexander and 
six of his suffragans (7b. 831-833, 865). 

The end was now near at hand. Pulcheria 
and Theodosius had been carefully informed of 
the obstinate refusal of Alexander and the few 
left tosupport him to communicate with those 
whose orthodoxy had been recognized by the 
church. John had obtained imperial rescripts 
decreeing the expulsion and banishment of all 
bishops who still refused to communicate with 
him (7b. 876). This rescript was executed 
in the case of other recusants ; Alexander still 
remained. John expressed great unwilling- 
ness to take any steps towards the deprivation 
of his former friend. He commissioned Theo- 
doret to use his influence with him. But Theo- 
doret had again to report the impossibility of 
softening his inflexibility. John now, Α.Ὁ. 
435, felt he could not offer any further resist- 
ance to the imperial decrees. But no compul- 
sion was needed: Alexander obeyed the order 
with calmness, and even with joy at laying 
aside the burdens and anxieties of the episco- 
pate. He went forth in utter poverty, not 
taking with him a single penny of his episcopal 
revenue, or a book or paper belonging to the 
church. His sole outfit consisted of some neces- 
sary documents, and the funds contributed 
by friends for the hire of vehicles (ἐδ. 868, 881, 
882). The banishment of their beloved and 


ALOGIANS 


revered bishop overwhelmed the people of 
Hierapolis with grief. Fear of the civil au- 
thorities deterred them from any open mani- 
festation, but they closed the churches, shut 
themselves up in their houses, and wept in pri- 
vate. In exile at the mines of Phamuthin in 
Egypt, Alexander died, sternly adhering to his 
anathemas of Cyril to the last (Tillemont, Mém. 
Ecclés. xiv. xv.; Labbe, Concil. vol. iii. ; 
Baluz. Nov. Collect.) [ΕΞ] ΤῊΣ 
Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, was an early 
friend and fellow scholar of Origen at Alex- 
andria, where they studied together under 
Pantaenus and Clemens Alex. (Eus. H. E. vi. 
14). He was bishop of a city in Cappadocia 
(tb. vi. I1); or, according to Valesius (Not. 
ad Euseb.) and Tillemont (Mém. eccl. iii. p. 
183), of Flaviopolis in Cilicia. He became a 
confessor in the persecution of Severus, A.D. 
204, and was thrown into prison, where he con- 
tinued some years. He was still a prisoner at 
the commencement of Caracalla’s reign, A.D. 
211, when he sent a letter by the hand of Cle- 
mens to congratulate the church of Antioch on 
the appointment of Asclepiades as their bishop 
in the room of Serapion (Eus. vi. 11). The next 
year he was released from prison, and, in fulfil- 
ment of a vow, visited Jerusalem, where he was 
chosen coadjutor to the aged bp. Narcissus. 
This being the first occasion of the translation 
of a bishop, as well as of the appointment of a 
coadjutor bishop, and in apparent violation 
of the canons of the church, it was deemed 
essential to obtain the sanction of the whole 
episcopate of Palestine. A synod was sum- 
moned at Jerusalem, and the assembled bish- 
ops gave their unanimous consent to the step, 
A.D. 213 (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. ; Vales. Not. 
in Euseb. vi. 11; Socr. vii. 36; Bingham, Ort- 
gines, bk. ii. § 4). On the death of Narcissus, 
Alexander succeeded as sole bishop. His chief 
claim to celebrity rests on the library he formed 
at Jerusalem, and on the boldness with which 
he supported Origen against his _ bishop, 
Demetrius of Alexandria. [Or1GEN.] The 
friendship of Alexander and Origen was warm 
and lasting ; and the latter bears testimony to 
the remarkable gentleness and sweetness of 
character manifested in all Alexander’s public 
instructions (Orig. Homil. I. in Lib. Reg. No. 
1). Alexander was again thrown into prison 
at Caesarea in the Decian persecution, where 
he died a.p. 251 (Eus. ἢ. E. vi. 46; Hieron. 
Script. Eccl.). Eusebius has preserved some 
fragments of Alexander’s letters: to the An- 
tinoites, H. E. vi. 11, to the church of Antioch, 
1b. ; to Origen, ἢ. E. vi. 14, and to Demetrius, 
H. E. vi. 19. These have been published by 
Galland, Biblioth. Vet. Patrum, vol. ii. pp. 201 
seq. Clemens Alex. dedicated his Canon 
Ecclesiasticus to him (Eus. vi. 13). [E.v.] 
Alexander I., bp. of Rome, is stated by all 
the authorities to have been the successor of 
Evaristus. Eusebius (H. Ε. iv. 4) makes him 
succeed in A.D. 109, in his Chronicle, a.D. 111 
(f. 89). He assigns him in both works a reign 
of ten years. He has been confused with a 
martyr of the same name, who is mentioned 
in a fragment of an inscription. [G.H.M.] 
Alogians, or Alogi (from ἀ privative and 
Λόγος, deniers of the Logos, or at least of the 
strongest witness for the Logos; not from 
ἄλογοι, unreasonable), a heretical sect of dis- 


AMBROSIASTER 


puted existence in the latter half of 2nd 
cent. (c. 170). Epiphanius invented the term 
(Haeres. 1. 1, adv. Al. c. 3), to characterize 
their rejection of the Divine Word preached by 
John (ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸν Λόγον οὐ δέχονται τὸν παρὰ 
᾿Ἰωάννου κεκηρυγμένον, ᾿Αλογοι κληθήσονται). 
He traces their origin to Theodotus of Byzan- 
tium (Haer. liv. c. 1). According to his re- 


presentation they denied, in ardent opposition 


to the Gnosticism of Cerinthus on the one 
hand, and to the Montanists on the other, that 
Jesus Christ was the eternal Logos, as taught 
in John i. 1-14; and rejected the Fourth 
Gospel and the Apocalypse as productions of 
Cerinthus.* Heinichen supposes that the 
Alogi rejected only the Apocalypse and not 
the Fourth Gospel; but this is directly con- 
tradicted by Epiphanius (Il. c. 3; cf. Haer. 
l. iv. 1). That they attributed these books to 
Cerinthus, the Docetist and-enemy of St. John, 
shows their utter want of critical judgment. 
They tried to refute the Gospel of St. John by 
the Synoptic Gospels, but with very poor 
arguments. In opposition to the Montanists, 
they also denied the continuance of the 
spiritual gifts in the church. It is not clear 
from Epiphanius whether the Alogi rejected 
only St. John’s doctrines of the Logos, or also 
the divinity of Christ in any form. He calls 
them in his violent way (Il. c. 3) ἀλλότριοι 
παντάπασιν τοῦ κηρύγματος τῆς ἀληθείας ; and 
says of their heresy (Haer. liv. c. 1) that it 
denied the Gospel of St. John and the God- 
Word taught therein (τὸν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν ἀρχὴ ὄντα 
θεὸν λόγον). Yet he clearly distinguishes them 
from the Ebionites; and their opposition 
to Cerinthus implies that they believed in the 
real humanity of Christ. Dorner (Hist. of 
Christology, i. p. 503, German ed.) thinks it 
probable that they allowed no distinctions in 
the Godhead, and thought that the divinity 
of the Father dwelt in the man Jesus. But 
this would identify them with the Patripas- 
sians. Lardner (Works, iv. 190, viii. 627) 
doubts the existence of this sect, because of 
the absence of other data, and the tendency of 
Epiphanius to multiply and exaggerate here- 
sies. But the testimony of Epiphanius is 
essentially sustained by Irenaeus, who men- 
tions persons who rejected both the Gospel 
of St. John and the prophetic Spirit (simul et 
evangelium et propheticum repellunt Spiritum: 
adv. Haer. iii. c. 11, § 9). 

Epiphanius, Haer. 50, and esp. 54; M. 
Merkel, Historisch-kritische Aufklarung der 
Streitigkeit der Aloger iiber die Apokalypsis 
(Frankf. and Leipz. 1782); F. A. Heinichen, 
de Alogis, Theodotianis atque Artemonitis 
(Leipz. 1829); Neander, Kirchengesch. i. ii. 
ῬΡ. 906, 1003 ; Dorner, op. cit. vol. ii. pp. 500- 
503; Harnack, Literatur, ii.1; Zahn, Neutest. 
Kanon. i. 220, ii. 967. [p.s.] 

Ambrosiaster, or Pseudo-Ambrosius, a 
name generally employed to denote the un- 
known author of the Commentaria in xiii 


* This, it may be remarked, is an argument against 
the criticism of the Tiibingen school, which would 
bring the composition of the Gospel of St. John down 
to the middle of the 2nd cent.; for Cerinthus was 
a contemporary of the apostle. Had the Alogi had 
any idea of the recent origin of St. John, they would 
have made much account of it. 


AMBROSIASTER 15 


Epistolas beati Pauli, formerly ascribed to St. 
Ambrose and usually printed along with his 
works. The commentary itself contains no 
definite indication of its authorship. An in- 
cidental remark, however, on 1 Tim. iii. 15, 
“Ecclesia . . . cujus hodie rector est Dama- 
sus,’’ shows that it was written during the 
pontificate of Damasus (366-384). It has 
been suggested that this clause may be an 
interpolation; but such an _ interpolation 
seems difficult to account for. Other marks, 
negative and positive, point to the same 
period. The text used is not the Vulgate, 
but a prior form of the Latin version. The 
ecclesiastical authors to whom he refers— 
Tertullian, Cyprian, Victorinus—belong to an 
earlier date. Among the heresies which he 
mentions he applies himself more especially to 
those of the 4th cent.—e.g. those of Arius, 
Novatian, Photinus—while the absence of 
allusion to later forms of error points the same 
way. Hespeaks of the Marcionites as on the 
verge of extinction (‘‘ quamvis pene defecer- 
int,’ in Ep. ad Timoth. I. iv. 1. The date 
thus indicated would be the latter half of the 
4th cent.; although, in that case, it is 
certainly somewhat surprising that Jerome 
in his treatise de Scriptoribus Ecclestasticis 
should not mention any other Latin comment- 
ator on the Pauline Epistles than Victorinus. 
It was the generally received opinion in the 
Middle Ages that our author was Ambrose, bp. 
of Milan; but this belief, which Erasmus was 
among the first to question, is now universally 
admitted to rest on no sufficient grounds, 
though opinions differ much as to the probable 
author. From certain expressions which ap- 
pear favourable to Pelagianism the work has 
been assigned by some to Julian of Aeclanum ; 
but, as Richard Simon has naively remarked, 
ΔΕ the writer does not always appear ortho- 
dox to those who profess to follow the doctrine 
of St. Augustine, it must be taken into account 
that he wrote before that Father had pub- 
lished his opinions.’’ The expressions in 
question were probably employed without re- 
ference to the Pelagian controversy, and 
previous to its emergence, and are, moreover, 
accompanied by others entirely incompatible 
with a Pelagian authorship (e.g. the statement 
in Ep. ad Rom. v. 12, “᾿ Manifestum est in 
Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massa”’’). 
The only positive statement as to the 
authorship is contained in the following pas- 
sage of Augustine, Contra duas Eptstolas 
Pelagianorum, lib. iv. c. 7: ‘‘ Nam et sic 
sanctus Hilarius intellexit quod scriptum est, 
in quo omnes peccaverunt : ait enim, ‘ In quo, 
id est in Adam omnes peccaverunt.’ Deinde 
addidit: ‘ Manifestum est in Adam omnes 
peccasse quasi in massa; ipse enim per 
peccatum corruptus, quos genuit omnes nati 
sunt sub peccato.’ Haec scribens Hilarius 
sine ambiguitate commonuit, quomodo in- 
telligendum esset, in quo omnes peccaverunt.”’ 
As the words cited are found in this com- 
mentary, it may be reasonably assumed that 
the statement applies toit, and that Augustine 
reckoned Hilarius its author. Of the persons 
of that name, Augustine elsewhere mentions 
only Hilarius the Sardinian, deacon of the 
Roman church, sent by pope Liberius in 354 
to the emperor Constantius after the synod 


16 AMBROSIUS 


of Arles. By many modern scholars Hilary 
the deacon has been accepted as the author 
of the work. But Petavius and others have 
objected that Augustine was not likely to 
apply the epithet sanctus to one whom he 
must have known to be guilty of schism. 
There can be little doubt that, whoever was 
the author, the work no longer retains its 
original form. The well-meaning zeal of 
copyists appears to have freely inserted com- 
ments from various sources, such as Augustine, 
Chrysostom, Jerome, the commentary which 
is printed at the end of the works of Jerome 
and is usually ascribed to Pelagius. These 
circumstances sufficiently account for the 
various forms of the text in MSS., and for the 
discrepancies and inequalities of treatment 
in several parts. 

There is, moreover, a marked affinity be- 
tween this commentary and certain portions 
of the Quaestiones Veteris et Novt Testamentt 
usually printed with the works of St. Augus- 
tine. The similarity of ideas and, in various 
cases, identity of language can only be 
explained by supposing either that they have 
had a common author, or that the writer of 
the one work has borrowed largely from the 
other. The note of time in the Quaestiones— 
300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem— 
and some references to contemporary events 
suit the period of Damasus, and have induced 
many to ascribe this work also to Hilary the 
deacon. But the authorship of both remains 
uncertain, and probably the Quaestiones was 
composed subsequently to the commentary. 

The commentary on the Pauline Epistles, 
notwithstanding its inequalities of treatment, 
is of great value, and is well characterized by 
Sixtus Senensis as ‘‘ brief in words, but 
weighty in matter” ; and, although the writer 
is frequently controversial, he speedily returns 
to the proper work of exegesis. In conse- 
quence of his use of the old Latin version and 
frequent reference to various readings, his 
work affords important materials for textual 
criticism. 

The commentary on the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, which accompanies the others in 
some editions, but is omitted by the Benedic- 
tine editors, is a compilation from various 
Patristic sources, principally from Chrysostom. 
Cf. H. B. Swete, Theod. Mops. Comm. (1880), 
vol. i. p. Ixxviil., vol. ii. p. 351. 

The commentary was issued separately at 
Cologne in 1530 and 1532. Cf. A Study of 
Ambrosiaster by A. Souter (Camb. Univ. Press) ; 
Text and Studies, vol. vii. No. 4. [w.p.p.] 

Ambrosius (1) (Αμβρόσιος) of Alexandria, a 
deacon according to Jerome (de Vzr. 11]. 56), 
the disciple and friend of Origen, died δ. 250. 

It is not certain whether Ambrose was a 
Christian by birth; but he was of a noble 
and wealthy family (Orig. Exhort. ad. Mart. 
14f. 49; Hieron. [.6.), and probably occupied 
some office under the Imperial Government 
(Epiph. Haer. 64, 3: cf. Orig. 7b. c. 36). 
Endowed with an active and critical mind, he 
at first neglected the simple teaching of the 
Gospel for the more philosophic systems of 
heresy (Orig. in Johann. tom. v.). However, 
when he met Origen he recognized his true 
teacher, and embraced the orthodox faith 
(Epiph. 1,0.), From that time to his death 


AMBROSIUS 


Ambrose devoted his whole energy to en- 
couraging his great master in his labours on 
Holy Scripture, and used his fortune to 
further them (Eus. H. E. vi. 23). 5εᾷ 

Ambrose left no writings of his own excep 
some letters, but it is evident that he exer- — 
cised a powerful influence upon Origen, who 
called him his ‘‘ taskmaster,’’ ἐργοδιώκτης (in 
Johann. tom. v.), andit may have beenthrough ~ 
his zeal in “collation”? (Orig. Ep. 1.) that τ 
Origen undertook his critical labours. Through 
mistaken devotion, Ambrose indiscreetly per- 
mitted the publication of some unrevised 
treatises of Origen which were intended only 
for his own use (Hieron. Ep. 84,10). [B.F.w.] 

Ambrosius (2), ‘(a chief man of Greece,” 
and a ‘‘ senator,” ‘“‘ who became a Christian,” 
and, according to the title of the Syriac trans- 
lation, wrote the ‘‘ Address to the Greeks” 
(Λόγος πρὸς "ΕλληναΞ), which is published with 
the works of Justin Martyr (Cureton, Spiczl. 
Syr. pp. xi. 61). There is no other trace of this 
tradition, nor ground for identifying him with 
Ambrose of Alexandria. [B.F.W.] 

Ambrosius, St., bp. of Milan (A.D. 374-397). 
The chief materials for his life are his own 
works, which include an important collection 
of letters. Another source is a Life by 
Paulinus, his nofarius or secretary, who had 
been with him at his death and wrote at the 
suggestion of St. Augustine. This Lzfeis full 
of prodigies, and adds hardly anything to 
what we learn from the works. The letters 
have been reduced to a chronological order 
with great care by the Benedictine editors 
of St. Ambrose, who have also digested the 
various particulars into a useful biography. 

Ambrose’s father, who bore the same name, 
was a Roman of the highest rank, and at the 
time of St. Ambrose’s birth was prefect of 
the Galliae, a province which included Britain 
and Spain, and constituted one of the four 
great praetorian prefectures of the empire. 
The only datum for determining the year of © 
Ambrose’s birth is a passage in one of his 
letters in which he happens to mention that 
he is fifty-three years old, and at the same time 
contrasts the quiet of Campania with the com- 
motions by which he was himself surrounded 
(Ep. lix. 3). There are two periods to which 
this description would apply, A.D. 387 or 
393. If we assume, as seems most probable, 
that Ambrose was fifty-three years old in 393, 
we shall place his birth in 340. 

After receiving a liberal education at Rome, 
Ambrose devoted himself to the profession of 
the law, which was then the usual path to the 
highest civil offices (see Gibbon, c. xvii.). He 
practised at the court of the praetorian prefect 
of Italy, Probus, who appointed him “ con- 
sular’’ * magistrate of the provinces of Liguria 
and Aemilia. He made an admirable 
magistrate, and became known to the people 
of Milan, where he held his court, as a high- 
minded, conscientious, and religious man. 
Whilst he was discharging his office, Auxen- 
tius, whom the Arian party had foisted into 
the see of Milan, died. The Catholic party 
had now grown stronger, and a vehement strife 

* The empire was divided into 116 provinces, of 
which 3 were governed by pro-consuls, 37 by 
consulars, 5 by correctors, and 71 by presidents 
(Gibbon, 4#.s.). 


AMBROSIUS 


arose as to the appointment of a successor 
to Auxentius. The consular came down to 
the church to keep the peace and was ad- 
dressing the people in his character as a civil 
magistrate, when a cry (which tradition 
asserts to have been that of a child) was 
heard, ‘‘ Ambrose for bishop !’’ In a moment 
it struck the whole multitude as a solution in 
which both parties might acquiesce without 
the sense of defeat, and a unanimous shout 
arose, ‘“‘ We will have Ambrose for bishop !”’ 
It was asingular choice, even for those rougher 
and more tumultuous times, for Ambrose was 
not yet so much as baptized. But he was an 
earnest Christian in his belief, and had only 
been kept from seeking baptism by a religious 
awe, of which there were then many examples. 
Such an one naturally shrank from being 
made bishop. With undoubted sincerity, he 
resisted this popular nomination. He was, 
he says, raptus a tribunalibus ad sacerdotium 
de Officiis, i. 4). He was baptized, passed 
summarily through the intermediate eccle- 
siastical stages, and on the eighth day was 
consecrated bp. of Milan. This was in the 
year 374 (a year after the death of Athan- 
asius, and before the death of Valentinian 
1.), Ambrose being thirty-four years of age. 
The vox populi was never more thoroughly 
justified. The foundation of his excellence 
was laid in a singular and unsullied purity of 
character. In the see of Milan Ambrose had 
found precisely his place, and he laboured 
indefatigably as its bishop for twenty-three 
years till his death. 

One of his first cares after his ordination was 
to divest himself of the charge of private 
ety. As a member of a wealthy family 

€ appears to have possessed both money and 
lands. What he did not give away to the poor 
or the church or reserve as an income for his 
sister, he placed entirely under the manage- 
ment of a dearly loved brother named Satyrus. 
He was thus free to devote his whole energies 
to the work of his calling. His writings 
enable us to follow him in both his ordinary 
and his extraordinary occupations. He was 
wont to “ celebrate the sacrifice’? every day 
(Ep. xx. 15). Every Lord’s Day he preached 
in the Basilica. His extant works consist 
mainly of addresses and expositions which had 
been first spoken in the church and were after- 
wards revised for publication. They bear 
traces of this mode of composition in their 
simplicity and naturalness, and also in their 
popular character and undigested form. 
Ambrose had to begin, as he ingenuously de- 
clares, to learn and to teach at the same time 
(de Officits, lib. i. cap. i. 4). In doctrine he 
followed reverently what was of best repute in 
the church in his time, carefully guarding his 
own and his people’s orthodoxy from all 
heresy, and urging, but with wholesome, if not 
always consistent, qualifications, the ascetic 
religious perfection which the best Christians 
were then pursuing. The sacred books, for 
which he had a profound reverence, were to 
him—what pastoral and didactic theology has 
always tended to make them—verbal mater- 
ials for edification, which was to be extracted 
from them by any and every kind of inter- 
pretation to which their letter could be 
subjected. His writings, therefore, or ser- 


AMBROSIUS 17 


mons, are chiefly of interest with reference to 
the history and character of their author; but 
they are lively and ingenuous, full of good 
practical advice, and interspersed with gnomic 
sentences of much felicity. 

One of the secrets of Ambrose’s influence 
over the people was his admission of them into 
all his interests and cares. He had nothing 
private from the congregation in the Basilica. 
The sister Marcellina and the brothers Satyrus 
and Ambrose (this was the order of their ages) 
were united together by a remarkable affec- 
tion. The three loved one another too de- 
votedly to think of marrying. Marcellina 
became early a consecrated virgin, but con- 
tinued to feel the keenest and _ tenderest 
concern in her brothers’ lives. When Ambrose 
became a bishop, Satyrus appears to have 
given up an important appointment in order 
to come and live with his brother and take 
every secular care off his hands. These 
domestic virtues of Marcellina and Satyrus we 
learn from sermons of Ambrose. His dis- 
courses on virginity became famous, and 
attracted virgins from distant parts to receive 
consecration at his hands. These discourses, 
in the third year after his ordination, he 
digested into three books, de Vuirginibus, 
which were addressed in their new form to his 
sister, and which contain, besides much praise 
of Marcellina, the address made to her at her 
consecration by the bp. of Rome. A year or 
two later occurred the death of Satyrus, in 
the flower of his age. In the depth of his 
grief Ambrose pronounced a funeral discourse 
upon his brother (de Excessu Satyrt), which 
was followed seven days after by a sermon 
upon the hope of a future life (de Fide Res.). 

The bp. of Milan, exercising the authority of 
a patriarchate, and presiding over a city which 
was frequently the residence of the emperor, 
was a great dignitary. But we cannot fail to 
recognize the high reputation which Ambrose 
had won for himself personally and in a sur- 
prisingly short period, when we observe the 
deference paid to him by the emperors of his 
time. He was certainly fortunate in the 
sovereigns with whom he had to do. The 
youths Gratian and Valentinian II., and the 
great Theodosius, were singularly virtuous and 
religious princes. Gratian was a boy of six- 
teen when the death of his father placed him 
on the throne, and in the year 377, the third 
of Ambrose’s episcopate, he was two years 
older. In that year he was preparing to go 
to the assistance of his uncle Valens against 
the barbarian invaders by whom he was hard 
pressed ; and desiring to be fortified against 
the arguments of the Arians whom Valens was 
favouring at Constantinople, he wrote to 
Ambrose, and asked him to furnish him with a 
controversial treatise in support of the ortho- 
dox faith. Ambrose complied with the pious 
youth’s request by writing two books de Fide. 
In the following year Gratian wrote a letter, 
preserved with those of Ambrose, in which he 
requests another copy of that work, together 
with an additional argument upon the divinity 
of the Holy Spirit. In this letter he calls 
Ambrose fparens. Ambrose amplified his 
former treatise by adding three books to the 
two he had already composed. This work de 
Fide was reckoned an important defence of the 


2 


18 AMBROSIUS 


orthodox faith. The work de Spiritu Sancto, 
in three books, was written in the year 381. 

The successes of the Goths which attended 
the defeat and death of Valens were the 
occasion of frightful calamities to the empire. 
From Illyricum and Thrace, especially, an 
immense number of captives were carried off 
by the barbarians, in ransoming whom the 
whole available resources of the church were 
exhausted by Ambrose; and when everything 
else had been taken, he did not scruple to 
break up and sell the sacramental vessels. 
He himself relates this fact with pride (de 
Of. lib. ii. 136, 138). We now see Ambrose 
zealous in the general affairs of the church, 
and the leading ecclesiastic of his time. Pre- 
siding in the council of Aquileia, 381, he 
questioned the two Arianizing prelates who 
were put on their trial before it. Several 
letters addressed to the emperor at this time 
in the name of the council of Aquileia or of the 
Italian episcopate on the general government 
of the church are preserved amongst Am- 
brose’s letters (Epp. ix.-xii.). When Acholius 
died—the bp. of Thessalonica by whom Theo- 
dosius had been baptized—his death was 
formally announced to Ambrose by the clergy 
and people of his diocese ; and we have two 
letters in reply, one written to the church 
and the other to Anysius the new bishop. 
The next two letters of the collection (xvii., 
xviii.) are addressed to the emperor Valen- 
tinian, after the death of Gratian, to exhort 
him not to comply with a request of Symma- 
chus, prefect of the city, that he would replace 
the altar of Victory in the Senate House, and 
restore the funds for certain heathen cere- 
monies. Ambrose, whose influence was in- 
voked by the bp. of Rome, protested strongly 
against any such concessions to paganism ; 
and Victory, as it was said, favoured in the 
result her enemy more than her champion. 

The struggle between Ambrose and Justina, 
the mother of Valentinian II., which after- 
wards reached such a height at Milan, had 
been begun with a preliminary trial of strength 
about the appointment of a bishop at Sirmium. 
But when the usurpation of Maximus occurred 
(A.D. 383), and had been stained by the 
violent death of Gratian, Justina in her alarm 
had recourse to the great Catholic bishop, and 
persuaded him to go on an embassy to Max- 
imus, to beg him to leave Italy untouched. 
Maximus had Theodosius to deal with behind 
the boy-emperor and his mother ; and his first 
act, when Gaul had fallen into his hands, was 
to send to Theodosius and propose to him, 
instead of war, the partition of the empire. 
Theodosius was constrained by motives of 
policy to assent to the proposal; and Ambrose 
had the comfort of returning to Milan with 
the announcement that the new emperor 
would refrain from passing the boundary of 
the Alps. Allusions are made to this embassy 
in a letter of Ambrose (Ep. xxiv. 7) in which 
he reports the less successful issue of a later 
appeal to Maximus. 

One of the chief glories of Ambrose is that 
St. Augustine ascribed to him his conver- 
sion, and sought Christian baptism at his 
hands. The circumstances of his intercourse 
with St. Ambrose (A.D. 383-387) are related 
by St. Augustine in his Confessions. He 


AMBROSIUS 


tells us of the singularly eminent position 
of St. Ambrose (vi. 3), of his reputation for 
eloquence (vi. 13), of the difficulty of getting 
an opportunity of conversing with him on 

account of his many engagements, and his 
habit of reading to himself when company was 
present (v. 3), and of his method of expounding 
the Old Testament by finding under the letter 
a spiritual or mystical sense (vi. 4). 

It was during this period, in the years 385-6, 
that Ambrose defended the churches of Milan 
so stoutly against the intrusion of Arian wor- 
ship. Justina, who patronized the languishing 
Arian party, was bent on obtaining one of the 
churches at Milan for the use of her friends. 
Ambrose was not likely to make the con- 
cession. How in this matter he resisted the 
violent efforts of Justina, and the authority of © 
her son (at this time fifteen years of age), is 
described at length by Ambrose himself in 
letters to his sister Marcellina and to Valen- 
tinian, and in a sermon preached at the crisis 
of the struggle (Epp. xx. xxi., and the Sermo 
de Basilicis Tradendis which follows them). 
There appear to have been two churches at 
Milan, the one without, the other within, the 
walls. The former, as of less importance, 
was first asked for. This being refused, some 
persons of the court came to Ambrose, and 
begged him to concede—probably for partial 
use only—the newer and larger basilica, and 
to exert his influence to prevent any popular 
disturbance. For it is important to observe 
that throughout the struggle the people were 
on the Catholic side. Ambrose replied loftily 
that the temple of God could not be sur- — 
rendered by His priest. The next day, which © 
was Sunday, as Ambrose was officiating in ~ 
the principal basilica, news came that police- — 
agents had been sent from the palace, who © 
were hanging on the Portian basilica the cur- ᾿ 

> 
Ὶ 


5h EDLC TOOT AES 


δ: ΣΎ; 


tains which marked a building as claimed for © 
the imperial treasury. A part of the multitude 
hastened thither ; Ambrose remained to per- 
form Mass. Then he heard that the people 
had seized on a certain Arian presbyter, whom 
they met on the way. Ambrose began to 
pray with bitter tears that the cause of the 
church might not be stained with blood; and — 
sent presbyters and deacons, who succeeded Ἵ 
in rescuing the prisoner unhurt. Justina, in 

her irritation, treated the rich men of the city 
as responsible for a tumult, and threw many 
of them into prison. The imperial authority 
was being dangerously strained. Politic offi- 
cials came to Ambrose and entreated him to — 
give way to the sovereign rights of the em- — 
peror ; Ambrose replied that the emperor had — 
no rights over what belonged to God. A 

body of troops was sent to take possession of © 
the basilica, and there was great fear of blood — 
being shed ; but after mutual appeals between 
their officers and Ambrose, the soldiers with- 
drew, and Ambrose remained all day in the © 
church. At night he went home, and on 
coming out the next morning he found that © 
the church (the Portian) was surrounded by — 
soldiers. But the soldiers were in awe of 
Ambrose, and, learning that he had threatened 

them with excommunication, they began to 
crowd in, protesting that they came to pray — 
and not to fight. Ambrose took the lesson — 
for the day as the subject of a sermon, and — 


waa. 


AMBROSIUS 


whilst he was preaching he was told that the 
imperial curtains were taken down. The 
emperor was worsted by the bishop, and was 
“| maturally angry. He sent a secretary to 
(reproach Ambrose, and ask if he meant to 
make himself a tyrant. Soldiers continued to 
urround the church, and Ambrose remained 
ithere singing psalms with the faithful. 
he next day the soldiers were withdrawn, 
and the merchants who had been imprisoned 
were released. The struggle was over; but 
Ambrose heard that the emperor had said 
bitterly to the soldiers, ‘‘ If Ambrose orders 
νοῦ, you will give me up in chains.” He 
jrecords another saying, which drew from him 
ja retort of characteristic felicity. The court 
chamberlain sent him a message: ‘‘ Whilst I 
am alive, shall you despise Valentinian? I 
will take off your head.’’ Ambrose answered : 
“May God grant you to fulfil what you 
threaten ; for then my fate will be that of a 
bishop, your act will be that of a eunuch.” 

In the course of the following year the 
attempts of the Arian party, and of the em- 
peror as at this time governed by that party, 
were renewed. Ambrose was asked to hold 
a discussion with Auxentius, an Arian bishop, 
before chosen judges in the presence of the 
court, or else to withdraw from Milan. He 
consulted such bishops and presbyters as were 
within reach, and in their name wrote a letter 
to the emperor (Ep. xxi.), declining the dis- 
cussion. An alarm was spread amongst the 

ple that he was going to be taken away 
| from Milan, and for some days, by night and 
by day, he was surrounded and watched by 
“ ἢ immense concourse of his friends. He 
| preached them a sermon (de Basilicis Traden- 
dis), assuring them of his steadfastness, and 
encouraging them to confidence, and at the 
same time gave them hymns composed by 
himself to sing—hymns in honour of the 
Trinity—by which their fervour was greatly 
stimulated. Again the court party found 
themselves worsted, and gave way. 

The singing of hymns, by which this re- 
markable occupation of the basilica was char- 
acterized, is described by St. Augustine as 
extremely moving (Conf. vi. 7), and is said 
by him to have been an imitation of Eastern 
customs, and to have been followed generally 
throughout the church. Paulinus also ob- 
serves that at this time “‘ antiphons, hymns, 
and vigils began to be performed in the 
church of Milan, and had spread thence 
amongst all the churches of the West ”’ (Vita, 
13). The reputation of St. Ambrose as a 
composer of hymns was such that many cer- 
| tainly not his have been attributed to him, 
and amongst them the Te Deum. The Bene- 
dictine edition gives twelve hymns, which 
there is some good authority for ascribing to 
Ambrose, the best known of which are those 
beginning Aeterne rerum conditor, Deus creator 
omnium, Vent redemptor gentium, and O lux 
beata Trinitas. They have a brightness and 
felicity which have reasonably made them 
favourites in the church to the present day. 

We must take into account the state of 
mind brought about in the bishop and his 
flock by that protracted vigil in the basilica, 
when we read of the miracles into which their 
triumph over heresy blazed forth. We have 


AMBROSIUS 19 


a narrative from St. Ambrose’s own pen, in a 
letter to Marcellina (Ep. xxii.), of the wonder- 
ful discovery of the remains of two martyrs, 
and of the cures wrought by them. A basilica 
was to be dedicated, and Ambrose was longing 
to find some relics of martyrs. A presage 
suddenly struck him. (This “ presagium”’’ is 
called a vision by St. Augustine, Conf. Ix. 7, 
de Civ. Det, xxii. 8.) He caused the ground 
to be opened in the church that was conse- 
crated by the remains of St. Felix and St. 
Nabor. Two bodies were found, of wonderful 
size (ut prisca aetas ferebat), the heads 
severed from the shoulders, the tomb stained 
with blood. This discovery, so precious to a 
church “‘ barren of martyrs,’’ was welcomed 
with the wildest enthusiasm. Old men began 
to remember that they had heard formerly the 
names of these martyrs—Gervasius and Pro- 
tasius—and had read the title on their grave. 
Miracles crowded thick upon one another. 
They were mostly cures of demoniacs, and of 
sickly persons; but one blind man received 
his sight. Ambrose himself, for once, eagerly 
and positively affirms the reality of the cure ; 
and Augustine, who generally held that the 
age of miracles was past, also bears witness to 
the common acceptance of the fact at Milan. 
Gibbon has some excuse for his note, “I 
should recommend this miracle to our divines, 
if it did not prove the worship of relics, as well 
as the Nicene Creed.’? The Arians, as we 
learn from Ambrose and Paulinus, made light 
of the healing of demoniacs, and were sceptical 
about the blind man’s history. The martyrs’ 
bones were carried into the ‘t Ambrosian ”’ 
Basilica (now the church of St. Ambrogio), and 
deposited beneath the altar in a place which 
Ambrose had designed for his own remains. 
The memory of this conflict did not restrain 
Justina and her son from asking help shortly 
after of Ambrose. It was evident that 
Maximus was preparing to invade Italy; and 
as Ambrose had apparently been successful in 
his former embassy, he was charged with 
another conciliatory appeal to the same ruler. 
The magnanimous bishop consented to go, but 
he was unfavourably received, and having 
given great offence by abstaining from com- 
munion with the bishops who were about 
Maximus, he was summarily ordered to return 
home. He reports the failure of his mission 
in a letter to Valentinian (Ep. xxiv.). It is 
worthy of remark that the punishment of 
heresy by death was so hateful to Ambrose 
that he declined communion with bishops who 
had been accomplices in it (‘‘qui aliquos, devios 
licet a fide, ad necem petebant,’’ 7b. 12). 
These bishops had prevailed on Maximus to 
put to death Priscillian—the first time that 
heresy was so punished. [PRISCILLIANUS.] 
Maximus was not diverted from his project. 
He crossed the Alps, and Justina, with her son, 
fled to Theodosius. It was not long before the 
vigour and ability of Theodosius triumphed 
over Maximus, who perished in the conflict 
he had provoked. Ambrose, who withdrew 
from Milan when Maximus came to occupy it, 
appears to have been near Theodosius in the 
hour of victory, and used his influence with 
him in favour of moderation and clemency, 
which the emperor, according to his usual 
habit, displayed in an eminent degree (Ep. xl. 


20 AMBROSIUS 


32). But Ambrose unhappily prevailed upon 
Theodosius to abandon a course which his 
stricter sense of his duty as a ruler had 
prompted him totake. Insome obscure place 
in the East the Christians had been guilty of 
outrages, from which it had often been their 
lot tosuffer. With the support of their bishop, 
they had demolished a Jewish synagogue and 
a meeting-house of certain Gnostic heretics. 
Theodosius, hearing of this violence, had 
ordered that the bishop should rebuild the 
synagogue at his own expense, and that the 
rioters, who were chiefly monks, should be 
punished at the discretion of the local gover- 
nor. This order naturally affronted the party 
spirit of the Christians. Ambrose could not 
bear that his fellow-believers should be thus 
humiliated. He wrote a letter to the em- 
peror (who was at Milan, Ambrose being for 
the moment at Aquileia), entreating him most 
earnestly to revoke the order. With much 
that Ambrose says we can sympathize ; but he 
lays down a principle fruitful in disastrous 
issues: Cedat oportet censura (the functions of 
the civil ruler) devotiont (Ep. x]. 11). Shortly 
after, he had the opportunity of preaching be- 
fore the emperor at Milan. In a letter to his 
sister he gives the sermon at length, with its 
conclusion, addressed directly to the emperor, 
and begging of him the pardon of those who 
had been caught in a sin. When he came 
down from the pulpit, Theodosius said to him, 
De nobis proposutsti. ‘‘ Only with a view to 
your advantage,’’ replied Ambrose. “ In 
truth,’’ continued the emperor, ‘‘ the order 
that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue 
was too hard. But that is amended. The 
monks commit many crimes.’’ Then he re- 
mained silent for a while. At last Ambrose 
said, ‘‘ Enable me to offer the sacrifice for thee 
with a clear conscience.’’ The emperor sat 
down and nodded, but Ambrose would not be 
satisfied without extracting a solemn engage- 
ment that no further proceedings should be 
taken in the matter. After this he went up 
to the altar; ‘‘ but I should not have gone,”’ 
adds Ambrose, “‘ unless he had given me his 
full promise’’ (Ep. xli. 28). 

About two years later (A.D. 390) the lament- 
able massacre at Thessalonica gave occasion 
for a very grand act of spiritual discipline. The 
commander of the garrison at Thessalonica and 
several of his officers had been brutally 
murdered by amobinthat city. Theindigna- 
tion of the emperor was extreme; and after 
appearing to yield to gentler counsels, he sent 
orders, which were executed by an indis- 
criminate slaughter of at least 7,000 persons 
in Thessalonica. Ambrose protested against 
this in the name of God and of the church. 
He had always acted on the principle that 

““nothing was more dangerous before God or 
base amongst men than for a priest not to 
speak out his convictions freely,’’ and his lofty 
disinterestedness (non pro meis commodis 
faciebam, Ep. lvii. 4) gave him great power 
over a religious and magnanimous mind like 
that of Theodosius. Ambrose now wrote 
him a letter (Ep. li.), which Gibbon most 
unjustly calls ‘‘a miserable rhapsody on a 
noble subject,’ but which most readers will 
feel to be worthy of its high purpose. With 
many protestations of respect and sympathy 


AMBROSIUS 


Ambrose urges his Emperor to a genuine 
repentance for the dreadful deed to which 
in an access of passion he had given his 
sanction. He intimates that he could not 
celebrate the Eucharist in the presence of one 
so stained with blood. Gibbon represen 
the behaviour of Ambrose as marked by a 
prelatical pomposity, of which there is no» 
trace whatever in the only documents on 
which we can rely. In his own letter the 
bishop is most considerate and tender, though 
evidently resolute. He and Paulinus record 
simply that the emperor performed public | 
penance, stripping himself of his royal insignia, ~ 
and praying for pardon with groans and tears ; 
and that he never passed a day afterwards 
without grieving for his error (Paulinus, 24 4 
Amb. de Ob. Theod. 34). a 

In the course of the following year (391), 
Theodosius having returned to the East, the. 
weak authority of Valentinian II. was over= 
thrown by Arbogastes and his puppet 
Eugenius, and the unfortunate youth perished | 
by the same fate as his brother. He was in 
Gaul at the time of his death, and Ambrose} 
was at that moment crossing the Alps to vidal 
him there, partly by the desire of the Italian 
magistrates, who wished Valentinian to return 
to Italy, and partly at the request of the 
emperor himself, who was anxious to be 
baptized by him. In the next year (392) a 
funeral oration was delivered at Milan by 
Ambrose (de Obitu Valentiniant), in which he 
praises the piety as well as the many virtues 
of the departed. It appears that under the 
influence of Theodosius, Valentinian had 
learnt to regard Ambrose with the same 
reverence as his brother had done before him — 
(Letter to Theodosius, Ep. liii. 2). He had 
died unbaptized; but Ambrose assures his 
sorrowing sisters that his desire was equivalent ~ 
to the act of baptism, and that he had been 
washed in his piety as the martyrs in their 
blood (de Ob. Val. 51-53). 

Eugenius held the sovereign power in thal 
West for two or three years, and made friendly 
overtures to the great Italian prelate. But 
Ambrose for a time returned no answer; and 
when Eugenius came to Milan, he retired from 
that city. Shortly after this withdrawal, he | 
wrote a respectful letter to Eugenius, explain- 
ing that the reason why he had refused to hold | 
intercourse with him was that he had given 
permission, though himself a Christian, that 
the altar of Victory should be restored—the — 
boon which Symmachus had begged for in 
vain being yielded to the power of Arbogastes. 

When the military genius and vigour οὗ. 
Theodosius had gained one more brilliant 
triumph by the rapid overthrow of Arbogastes © 
and Eugenius, Ambrose, who had returned 
to Milan (Aug. A.D. 394), received there a 
letter from Theodosius requesting him to offer 
a public thanksgiving for his victory. Ambrose ~ 
replies (Ep. lxi.) with enthusiastic congratula- 
tions. But the happiness thus secured did not 
lastlong. Inthe following year the great Theo- 
dosius died at Milan (Jan. 395), asking for 
Ambrose with his last breath (de Obitu Theod. | 
35). The bishop had the satisfaction of paying » 
a cordial tribute to his memory in the funeral 
oration he delivered over his remains. 

Ambrose himself had only two more years | 


AMBROSIUS 


olive. The time was filled with busy labours 
f exposition, correspondence, and episcopal 
‘overnment ; and, according to Paulinus, with 
arious prodigies. Unhappily this biographer 
poils with his childish miracles what is still a 
jouching account of the good bishop’s death. 


“ft became known that his strength was failing, 


nd the count Stilicho, saying that the death 
»f such a man threatened death to Italy itself, 
Induced a number of the chief men of the 
hity to go to him, and entreat him to pray to 


| od that his life might be spared. Ambrose 


feplied, ‘‘ 1 have not so lived amongst you, 
hat I should be ashamed to live; and I do 
rot fear to die, because we have a good 
ord.’? * For some hours before his death 
he lay with his hands crossed, praying; as 
Paulinus could see by the movement of his 
ips, though he heard no voice. When the 
ast moment was at hand, Honoratus, the 
yp. of Vercellae, who was lying down in 
nother room, thought he heard himself thrice 
ed, and came to Ambrose, and offered 
jim the Body of the Lord; immediately after 
eceiving which he breathed his last breath— 
4 man, Paulinus says well, who for the fear 
of God had never feared to speak the truth 
o kings or any powers. He died on Good 
riday night, 397, and was buried in the 
Ambrosian Basilica, in the presence of a 
ultitude of every rank and age, including 
sven Jews and pagans. 

By the weight of his character St. Ambrose 
zave a powerful support to the tendencies 
vyhich he favoured. He held without mis- 
ivings that the church was the organ of God 
ἢ the world, and that secular government had 


‘the choice of heing either hostile or subser- 
{ ient to the Divine authority ruling in the 
hurch. To passages already quoted which 
=xpress this conviction may be added a remark 
et fall by Ambrose at the council of Aquileia, 
“Sacerdotes de laicis judicare debent, non 
aici de sacerdotibus’’ (Gesta Conc. Aqu. 51). 
e was of strict Athanasian orthodoxy as 
against heresy of every colour. His views of 
he work of Christ in the Incarnation, the 
Passion, and the Resurrection, have in a 
marked degree the broad and_ universal 
haracter which belongs to the higher pat- 
istic theology on this subject. (For example, 
speaking of the resurrection of Christ, he says, 
* Resurrexit in eo mundus, resurrexit in eo 
oelum, resurrexit in eo terra,’ de Fide Res. 


᾿ς πο.) With regard to religion and religious 


practices, he is emphatic in insisting that the 
worship of the heart is all-important (‘‘ Deo 
enim velle pro facto est,’’ de Fide Res. 115; 
“Deus non sanguine sed pietate placatur,” 
ib. 98; ‘““Non pecuniam Deus sed fidem 
quaerit,’’ de Poen. ii. ix.) ; but at the same time 
jhis language concerning the two Sacraments 
s often undeniably that of materializing theo- 
ogy. Attempts have been made, chiefly on this 
account, to call in question the Ambrosian 


» authorship of the treatises de Mystertts and 


de Sacramentis; but their expressions are 
supported by others to be found in undoubted 
jworks of Ambrose. He praises his brother 


᾿ Satyrus for having tied a portion of the conse- 


Φ St. Augustine was wont to express his peculiar 
admiration of this saying, with its elimata ac librata 
verba (Possidius, Vit. Aug. c. xxvii.). 


AMBROSIUS 21 


crated elements in a napkin round his neck 
when he was shipwrecked, and adds, that 
having found the benefit of ‘“‘ the heavenly 
mystery "’ in this form, he was eager to receive 
it into his mouth—‘‘ quam majus putabat 
fusum in viscera, quod tantum sibi tectum 
orario profuisset !'’ (de Exc. Sat. 43, 46). He 
argues for the daily reception of the Eucharist 
from the prayer, Give us this day our daily 
bread (de Sacr. v. 25). His frequent strong 
recommendations of virginity are based, not 
on a theory of self-denial, but rather on one 
of detachment from the cares of the world and 
the troubles inseparable from matrimony and 
parentage. According to him, marriage is 
the more painful state, as well as the less 
favourable to spiritual devotion. Neverthe- 
less, he did not expect or desire a large number 
to embrace the life which he so highly eulo- 
gized. ‘‘Dicet aliquis: Ergo’ dissuades 
nuptias ? ego vero suadeo, et eos damno qui 
dissuadere consuerunt. . . . Paucarum quippe 
hoc munus [virginity] est, illud omnium”’ (de 
Virginibus, I. vii.). He and his sister used to 
press Satyrus to marry, but Satyrus put it 
off through family affection—“ ne a fratribus 
divelleretur’’ (de Exc. Sat. §§ 53, 59). Fast- 
ing is commended, not as self-torture pleasing 
to God, but as the means of making the body 
more wholesome and stronger. A keen sense 
of the restraints and temptations and annoy- 
ances which reside in the flesh is expressed 
in Ambrose’s remarkable language concerning 
death. It is a great point with him that 
death is altogether to be desired. He argues 
this point very fully in the address de Fide 
Resurrectionis and in the essay de Bono 
Mortis. There are three kinds of death, he 
says—the death of sin, death /o sin, and the 
death of the body (de B. M. ὃ 3). This last is 
the emancipation of the soul from the body. 
He appeals to the arguments of philosophers 
and to the analogies of nature, as well as to 
Scripture, toshew not only that such a deliver- 
ance may be hoped for, but that it must be a 
thing to be desired byall. The terrors of the 
future state almost entirely disappear. He 
admits now and then that punishment must be 
looked for by the wicked ; but he affirms that 
even to the wicked death is a gain (de B. M. 
§ 28). There are two reasons why the foolish 
fear death: one because they regard it as 
destruction ; ‘“‘ altera, quod poenas reformi- 
dent, poetarum scilicet fabulis territi, latratus 
Cerberi, et Cocyti fluminis tristem voraginem, 
etc., etc. Haec plena sunt fabularum, nec 
tamen negaverim poenas esse post mortem" 
(tb. 33). ‘‘ Qui infideles sunt, descendunt in 
infernum viventes; etsi nobiscum videntur 
vivere sed in inferno sunt ’’ (tb. 56). 

The see of Milan was in no way dependent 
upon that of Rome; but Ambrose always 
delighted to pay respect to the bp. of Rome, 
as representing more than any other the unity 
of the church. His feeling towards Rome 
is expressed in the apology with which he 
defends the custom of washing the feet in 
baptism—a custom which prevailed at Milan 
but not at Rome. ‘ In omnibus cupio sequi 
Ecclesiam Romanam; sed tamen et nos 
homines sensum habemus; ideo quod alibi 
rectius servatur, et nos rectius custodimus. 
Ipsum sequimur apostolum Petrum,. .. qui 


22 AMBROSIUS 


sacredos fuit Ecclesiae Romanae”’ (de Sacra- 
mentis, III. §§ 5, 6). 

As a writer, St. Ambrose left a multitude 
of works behind him, which show competent 
learning, a familiar acquaintance with Plato, 
Cicero, Vergil, and other classics, and much 
intellectual liveliness and industry. Their 
want of originality did not hinder them from 
obtaining for their author, through their 
popular and practical qualities, a distinguished 
reputation as a sound and edifying teacher. 
He is often mentioned with respect by his 
contemporaries, St. Jerome and St. Augustine 
(see especially the latter, de Doctrind Chrts- 
tiand, iv. 46, 48, 50). He came to be joined 
with them and Gregory the Great as one of 
the four Latin doctors of the church. His 
writings may be classified under three heads, 
as (1) Expository, (2) Doctrinal or Didactic, 
and (3) Occasional. 

(1) The first class contains a long list of 
expositions, delivered first as sermons, of 
many books of Scripture. They begin with 
the Hexaemeron, or commentary on the 
Creation. Of this work St. Jerome says, 
““Nuper 5. Ambrosius sic Hexaemeron illius 
[Origenus] compilavit, ut magis Hippolyti 
sententias Basiliique sequeretur”’ (Ep. 41). It 
is in a great part a literal translation from 
St. Basil. St. Augustine was interested by the 
method of interpretation in which Ambrose 
followed Basil, Origen, and Philo Judaeus, 
finding a spiritual or mystical meaning latent 
under the natural or historical. The Hexae- 
meron (6 books) is followed by de Paradiso, 
de Cain et Abel (2), de Noe et Arca, de 
Abraham (2), de Isaac et Anima, de Bono 
Mortis, de Fuga Saecult, de Jacob et Beata 
Vita (2), de Joseph Patriarcha, de Benedtction- 
tbus Patriarcharum, de Elid et Jejunio, de 
Nabuthe Jezraelita, de Tobia, de Interpella- 
tione Job et David (4), Apologia Prophetae 
David, A pol. altera ib., Enarrationes in Psalmos 
(12), Expositio in Ps. cxvtit., Expositio Evang. 
secundum Lucam (10). ἢ 

(2) The second class contains de Offictis 
Ministrorum (3 books), de Virginibus (3), de 
Viduis, de Virginitate, Exhortatio Virginitatts, 
de Lapsu Virginis Consecratae, de Mysteris, 
de Sacramentis (6), de Poenttenita (2), de 
Fide (5), de Sptiritu Sancto (3), de Incarna- 
tionis Dominicae Sacramento. Of these the 
books de Officits, addressed to the clergy 
(imitated from Cicero), and those de Fide, 
mentioned above, are the most important. 

(3) The occasional writings, which are 
biographically the most valuable, are the dis- 
courses de Excessu Fratris sut Satyrt (2), de 
Obtiu Valentiniant Consolatio, de Obitu Theo- 
dostt Oratio, and the Epistles, ninety-one in 
number, with the Gesta Concilit A quiletensis 
inserted amongst them. 

Various ecclesiastical writings have been 
attributed to Ambrose, which critical exami- 
nation has determined to be spurious. [Am- 
BROSIASTER.] Most of these are given in the 
Benedictine edition ; in that of Migne there 
is an additional appendix, containing some 
other compositions which have borne Am- 
brose’s name, but are either manifestly 
spurious or have no sufficient title to be 
considered genuine. Some of his genuine 
works appear to have been lost, especially 


AMMONIUS 


one, mentioned with high praise by St 
Augustine (Ep. xxxi. 8), against those wh 
alleged that our Lord had learnt from Plato. 
Of the connexion of St. Ambrose with the 
liturgical arrangement which bears his name, 
we know nothing more than what has been 
quoted above from Paulinus. [See D. C. 
arts. LirurGIES; AMBROSIAN Music.] 
There are three principal editions of 
brose’s works—that of Erasmus, the Rom 
and the Benedictine. 


ἢ 
Erasmus’s ed. was pub. : 
at Basle, by Froben, in 1527. He divided the 
works into four tomes, with the titles, (τ). 
Ethica, (2) Polemica, (3) Orationes, Epistolae,: 
et Conctones, (4) Explanationes Vet. et Novt 
Testamenti. The great Roman edition was. 
the work of many years’ labour, undertaken 
by the desire of popes Pius IV. and Pius V.,. 
and begun by a monk who afterwards became 
pope with the name of Sixtus V. It was pub. 
in 5 vols. at Rome, in the years 1580-1-2-5. 
This edition superseded all others, until the 
publication of the excellent work of the Berie- 
dictines (du Frische and Le Nourry) at Paris, 
A.D. 1686 and 1690. A small revised ed. of 
the de Offictts and the Hexaemeron has been 
printed in the Bibliotheca Pat. Eccl. Latin. 
Selecta (Tauchnitz, Leipz.). Some of his works) 
are reprinted in the Vienna Corpus Ser. Eccl. 
Lat.; andin the roth vol. of the Nic. and Post- 
Nic. Fathers are English trans. of select works. 
An elaborate Life of St. Ambrose by Baronius, 
extracted from his Annales, is prefixed to the 
Roman edition; but improved upon by the 
more critical investigations of the Benedictine. 
editors, who have laid the basis for all sub- 
sequent Lives. (Cf. Th. Forshaw, Ambrose, Bp. 
of Milan, 1884; a Life by the duc de Broglie 
in Les Saints, 1899 (Paris). A cheap popular 
Life by R. Thornton is pub. by S.P.C.K. in 
their Fathers for Eng. Readers.) [J-LL.pD.] 
Ammon (or Amon), St., the founder of the 
celebrated settlement of coenobites and her- 
mits on and near Mons Nitria (Ruf. de Mon. 
30) ; he is often styled the “‘ father of Egyp- 
tian monasticism.’’ He was contemporary 
with St. Anthony, and filled the same place in 
Lower Egypt as Anthony in the Thebaid. 
Being left an orphan by his parents, wealthy 
people near Alexandria, he was forced by his 
uncle to marry. But on the wedding day he 
persuaded his bride to take a vow of celibacy, 
and for eighteen years they lived together as 
brother and sister: afterwards with her con- 
sent he withdrew to Nitria, and from that time 
only visited his wife twice a year (Pall. Hist. 
Laus. 8). A great multitude of zealous dis- 
ciples soon gathered round him; so that 
Palladius not many years later found about 
five thousand monks, some living quite alone, 
some with one or more companions; while 
six hundred “‘ advanced in holiness ’’ (τελείοι) 
dwelt apart from the rest in more complet 
isolation (7b.). Several miracles are related of 
Ammon (Socr. Hist. iv. 23; Soz. Hist. i. 14; 
Niceph. Hist. viil. 41). [1.G.S.] 
Ammonius, a disciple of Pambo, and one of 
the most celebrated of the monks of Nitria. 
Being of unusual stature, he and his brothers 
Dioscorus, Eusebius, and Euthymius were 
called the Tall Brothers (Soz. Hist. viii. 12). 
Ammonius himself was distinguished by the 
epithet παρωτής (Niceph. Hist. xi. 37), im 


| ga). 


i a a a a re πὰ ee i δὰ ποις ,«ὐὐπδμδ 


AMMONIUS SACCAS 


consequence of having cut off one of his ears 
to escape being made a bishop (Pall. Hist. 
Laus. 12). In his youth he accompanied St. 
Athanasius to Rome (Socr. Hist. iv. 23; Pall. 
He was a learned man, and could 
repeat, it is said, the O. and N. T. by heart, 
as well as passages from Origen and other 
Fathers (Pall. 12). He was banished to Dio- 
caesarea in the persecution under Valens (ἰδ. 
117). After being for some time high in 
favour with Theophilus of Alexandria, he and 
his brothers were accused by him of Origenism. 
Sozomen (viii. 12) and Nicephorus (xiii. ro) 
ascribe the accusation to personal animosity 
on the part of Theophilus. Socrates (vi. 7) 
explains the accusation as an attempt to divert 
from himself the odium which he had incurred 
as an Origenist. Jerome considers the ac- 
cusation merited (Ep. ad Alex.). Driven from 
Egypt, the brothers took refuge first in Pales- 
tine (Niceph. xiii. rx) and afterwards at Con- 
stantinople, where they were well received 
by Chrysostom (viii. 13). There they were 
tected also by the favour of the Empress 
udoxia (Soz. vili. 13), and even satisfied 
Epiphanius of Salamis, who came to Constan- 
tinople at the instigation of Theophilus to 
convict them of heresy (viii. 15). At the 
- “ad Quercum,’’ held on the arrival of 
heophilus, they were persuaded to submit 
to him, Ammonius being ill at the time. 
He died shortly afterwards. Perhaps this 
Ammonius is the author of the Instttutiones 
Asceticae, of which 22 chapters are extant 
(Lambec. Biblioth. Vindob. iv. 155). [1.G.s.] 
Ammonius Saceas. Next to nothing is 
known of this philosopher. That he obtained 
his name of Saccas (= σακκοφόρος) from having 
been a porter in his youth is affirmed by 
Suidas (under Origenes) and Ammianus Mar- 
cellinus (xxii. 528). He was a native of 
Alexandria; Porphyry asserts that he was 
born of Christian parents, and returned to 
the heathen religion. Eusebius (H. E. vi. 
19, 7) denies this, but perhaps confounds 
him with another Ammonius, the author of a 
Diatessaron, stillextant. That the founder of 
the Alexandrian school of philosophy (for 
such Ammonius Saccas was) should have been 
at the same time a Christian, though not 
impossible, seems hardly likely. Moreover, 
the Ammonius of Eusebius wrote books; 
whereas, according to both Longinus and 
Porphyry, Ammonius Saccas wrote none. 
Plotinus is said to have been most strongly 
impressed with his first hearing of Ammonius, 
and to have cried out, ‘‘ This is the man I was 
looking for!” (τυῦτον ἐζήτουν), after which he 
remained his constant friend till the death of 
the elder philosopher. Among other disciples 
of Ammonius were Herennius, the celebrated 
Longinus, Heracles the Christian, Olympius, 
Antonius, a heathen called Origen, and also 
the famous Christian of that name. It is 
possible, however, that the Christians, Origen 
and Heracles, may have been the disciples of 
that Ammonius whom Eusebius confounds 
with Ammonius Saccas, and who was himself 
a Christian; but this cannot be certainly 
known. We may guess something concerning 
the philosophy of Ammonius Saccas from the 
fact that Plotinus was his pupil. Hierocles 
(ap. Photius) affirms that his aim was to 


AMPHILOCHIUS 23 


reconcile the philosophies of Plato and Aris- 
totle, hence he appears to have combined 
mysticism and_ eclecticism. Nemesius, a 
bishop and a neo-Platonist of the close of the 
4th cent., cites two passages, one of which he 
declares to contain the views of Numenius 
and Ammonius, the other he attributes to 
Ammonius alone. They concern the nature 
of the soul and its relation to the body; but 
they appear to have been merely the tradi- 
tional views of Ammonius, not any actual 
written words of his. The life and philosophy 
of Ammonius have been discussed by Vache- 
rot, Hist. de l’Ecole d’Alex. i. 342; Jules 
Simon, Hist. del’ Ecole d’ Alex. i. 204; Dehaut 
in his historical essay on the life and teaching 
of our philosopher; and Zeller in his Phtlo- 
sophte der Griechen, who also mentions other 
writers on Ammonius. [J.R.M.] 

Amphilochius (1), archbp. of Iconium. Of 
this great Catholic leader, who was regarded 
by his contemporaries as the foremost man 
in the Eastern church after his friends Basil 
of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, very 
scanty information remains. The works 
ascribed to him are mostly spurious ; and the 
Life (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxix. p. 14) is a later 
fiction. Various references to the writings 
of Basil and Gregory contain nearly all that 
is known of him and his family. Amphilochius 
appears to have been a first cousin of Gregory 
Nazianzen. The language of Basil (Ep. 161) 
might imply that he was born and lived in 
Basil’s own town Caesarea. Gregory ex- 
presses regret that he did not see much of 
Amphilochius during his earlier years (Ep. 13). 
Their intimate friendship commenced at a 
later date. Amphilochius, like many other 
eminent Christian fathers, was educated for 
the bar. The letters of his cousin imply that 
he carried on his profession at Constantinople. 

It is not improbable that trouble in regard 
to money matters about 369 weaned Amphi- 
lochius from his worldly pursuits and turned 
his thoughts inward. He had abandoned his 
profession, and was then living in retirement 
at Ozizala, devoting himself apparently to 
religious exercises and to the care of his aged 
father. His cousin Gregory appears to have 
been mainly instrumental in bringing about 
this change. At least he says with honest 
pride, that ‘‘ together with the pure Thecla”’ * 
he has ‘‘ sent Amphilochius to God’”’ (Op. ii. 
p. 1068). And now his closer friendship with 
Basil and Gregory begins. Ozizala was situ- 
ated not far from Nazianzus, for Gregory’s 
correspondence implies that they were near 
neighbours. A letter of Basil, apparently 
belonging to this period, is in the name of one 
Heraclidas, who, like Amphilochius, had re- 
nounced the profession of the bar and devoted 
himself to a religious life. Heraclidas, lodged 
in a large hospital (πτωχοτροφεῖον) recently 
erected by Basil near Caesarea, and enjoying 
the constant instructions of the bishop, urges 
Amphilochius to obtain leave from his father 
to visit Caesarea and profit by the teaching 
and example of the same instructor (Ep. 150). 
This letter was written in the year 372 OF 373 
(see Garnier’s Basil. Op. iii. p. cxxxiv-). The 

* This seems to be the same Thecla with whom 
Gregory elsewhere corresponds, and not the monas- 
tery of St. Thecla, whither Gregory retired. 


24 AMPHILOCHIUS 


invitation to Caesarea appears to have been 
promptly accepted, and was fraught with 
immediate consequences. It does not appear 
that at that time Amphilochius was even 
ordained; yet at the very beginning of the 
year 374 we find him occupying the important 
see of Iconium. Amphilochius can hardly 
have been then more than about 35 years of 
age. A few months before Faustinus, bp. of 
Iconium, had died, and the Iconians applied 
to the bp. of Caesarea to recommend them a 
successor (Basil. Ep. 138). It is impossible 
not to connect this application to Basil with 
the ultimate appointment of Amphilochius. 

From this time forward till his death, about 
five years afterwards, Basil holds close inter- 
course with Amphilochius, receiving from him 
frequent visits. The first took place soon 
after his consecration, about Easter 374, and 
was somewhat protracted, his ministrations on 
this occasion making a deep impression on the 
people of Caesarea (Ep. 163, 176). 

It was probably in another visit in 374 (see 
Garnier, Op. iii. p. cxl.) that Amphilochius 
urged Basil to clear up all doubt as to his 
doctrine of the Holy Spirit by writing a 
treatise on the subject. This was the occasion 
of Basil’s extant work, de Spiritu Sancto (see 
§ 1), which, when completed, was dedicated 
to the petitioner himself and sent to him 
engrossed on vellum (Ep. 231). During this 
and the following year Basil likewise ad- 
dresses to Amphilochius his three Canonzcal 
Letters (Ep. 188, 199, 217), to solve some 
questions relating to ecclesiastical order, which 
the bp. of Iconium had propounded to him. 
At this same period also we find Amphilochius 
arranging the ecclesiastical affairs of Isauria 
(Ep. 190), Lycaonia (Ep. 200), and Lycia 
(Ep. 218), under the direction of Basil. He 
is also invited by Basil to assist in the adminis- 
tration of his own diocese of Caesarea, which 
has become too great a burden for him, 
prostrated as he now is by a succession of 
maladies (Ep. 200, 201). The affectionate 
confidence which the great man reposes in his 
younger friend is a powerful testimony to the 
character and influence of Amphilochius. 

After the death of Basil, the slender thread 
by which we trace the career of Amphilochius 
is taken up in the correspondence of Gregory. 
Gregory writes with equal affection and 
esteem, and with more tenderness than Basil. 
He has been ill, and he speaks of Amphilochius 
as having helped to work his cure. Sleeping 
and waking, he has him ever in his mind. He 
mentions the many letters which he has 
received from Amphilochius (μυριάκις γράφων, 
and which have called forth harmonies from 
his soul, as the plectrum strikes music out of 
the lyre (Ep. 171). The last of Gregory’s 
letters to Amphilochius (Ep. 184) seems to 
have been written about the year 383. Not 
long before (A.D. 381) Amphilochius had been 
present with his friend at the council of Con- 
stantinople, and had subscribed to the creed 
there sanctioned, as chief pastor of the 
Lycaonian church, at the head of twelve other 
bishops (Labb. Cone. ii. p. 1135, ed. Coleti). 
At this council a metropolitan authority was 
confirmed to, rather than conferred on, his see 
of Iconium; for we find it occupying this 
position even before his election to the 


AMPHILOCHIUS 


episcopate. During this sojourn at Constanti- 
nople he signs his name as first witness to 
Gregory’s will (Greg. Op. ii. p. 204), in which 
the testator leaves directions to restore to 
his most reverend son the bp. Amphilochius 
the purchase-money of an estate at Canotala_ 
(tb. p. 203). It was probably on this occasion — 
also that Amphilochius fell in with Jerome 
and read to him a book which he had written | 
on the Holy Spirit (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 133) 
as Jerome is known to have paid a visit to: 
Gregory Nazianzen at this time (Hieron. Of. . 
xi. 65 seq., ed. Vallarsi). 

About two years later must be placed the » 
well-known incident in which the zeal of! 
Amphilochius against the Arians appears: 
(Theod. H. E. v. 16).* Obtaining an audience » 
of Theodosius, he saluted the emperor him- 
self with the usual marks of respect, but paid | 
no attention to his son Arcadius, who had 
recently (νεωστί) been created Augustus and — 
was present at the interview. Theodosius, . 
indignant at this slight, demanded an ex- 
planation. ‘‘Sire,’’ said the bishop, “ any ~ 
disrespect shewn to your son arouses your ~ 
displeasure. Be assured, therefore, that the 
Lord of the universe abhorreth those who are 
ungrateful towards His Son, their Saviour 
and Benefactor.’? The emperor, adds Theo- 
doret, immediately issued an edict prohibiting 
the meetings of the heretics. As Arcadius 
was created Augustus in the beginning of the 
year 383 (Clinton, Fast. Rom. i. p. 504), and 
as Theodosius issued his edict against the 
Eunomians, Arians, Macedonians, and Apol- 
linarians in Sept. of that year (zb. p. 507), 
the date is accurately ascertained (see Tillem. 
Mém. eccl. vi. pp. 627 seq., 802). In 383 
also we find Amphilochius taking energetic 
measures against heretics of a different stamp. 
He presided over a synod of 25 bishops 
assembled at Sida in Pamphylia, in which the 
Messalians were condemned, and his energy 
seems to have instigated the religious crusade 
which led to the extirpation of this heresy 
(Photius, Bibl. 52; Theod. E. H. iv. 10; cf. 
Labb. Cone. ii. 1209, ed. Coleti). 

The date of Amphilochius’s death is un- 
certain. When Jerome wrote the work quoted 
above, he was still living (A.D. 392); and 
two years later (A.D. 394) his name occurs 
among the bishops present at a synod held 
at Constantinople, when the new basilica of 
St. Peter and St. Paul was dedicated (Labb. 
Conc. ii. 1378, ed. Coleti). On the other hand, 
he is not mentioned in connexion with the 
troubles of St. Chrysostom (A.D. 403 seq-) ; 
and it is a fairly safe assumption that he was 
no longer living. Despite the martyrologies, 
he probably died in middle life. His day is 
Nov. 23 in both Greek and Latin calendars. 

The works ascribed to Amphilochius (Zambi 
ad Seleucum, Homilies, etc.) seem to be mostly 
spurious, with the exception of an Eptstola 
Synodica (Migne, p. 94), on the Macedonian 
heresy. Its object is to explain why the 
Nicene fathers did not dwell on the doctrine 
of the Spirit, and to justify the ordinary form 


* Sozomen (vii. 6) tells the story, but without the 
name of the bishop. He describes him as ‘“‘an old 
man, a priest of an obscure city, simple and in- 
experienced in affairs.’’ This description is as 
unlike Amphilochius as it could possibly be, 


AMPHILOCHIUS 


of the doxology. It is entitled "Audryoxly 
Βασίλειος in one MS., but was certainly not 
written by Basil, who indeed is mentioned 


it. 

Of his ability as a theologian and a writer 
the extant fragments are a wholly inadequate 
criterion; but his reputation with his con- 
temporaries and with the later church leaves 
very little ground for doubt. His contem- 
porary Jerome, an eminently competent judge, 
speaks of the Cappadocian triad, Basil, Gre- 

, and Amphilochius, as writers ‘‘ who 
cram [refarctunt] their books with the lessons 
and sentences of the philosophers to such an 
extent that you cannot tell which you ought to 
admire most in them, their secular erudition or 
their Scriptural knowledge” (Ep. 70, i. p. 429). 

Of his character his intimate friends are the 
best witnesses. The trust reposed in him by 
Basil and Gregory appears throughout their 
correspondence. The former more especially 
praises his love of learning and patient in- 
vestigation, addressing him as his “ brother 
Amphilochius, his dear friend most honoured 
of all’’ (de Spir. Sanct. ὃ 1) ; while the latter 
speaks of him as “‘ the blameless high-priest, 

e loud herald of truth, his pride ’’ (Carm. ii. 
p. 1068). He seems to have united the genial 
sympathy which endears the friend, and the 
administrative energy which constitutes the 
ruler, with intellectual abilities and acquire- 
ments of no mean order. [L.] 

Amphilochius (2), bp. of Sida in Pamphylia. 
Like his more famous namesake of Iconium, 
he appears as an antagonist of the Messalians. 
He was urged, as one of the Pamphylian 
metropolitans, to take measures against them 
in encyclical letters written by two successive 
bps. of Constantinople, Atticus and Sisinnius 
(Phot. Brbl. 52), and seems to have prose- 
cuted the matter with zeal. He brought for- 
ward the subject at the council of Ephesus 
(A.D. 431) in conjunction with Valerianus ; 
and in consequence of their representations 
the council confirmed the decrees of former 
synods against these heretics (Labbe, Conc. 
ili. 1331 seq., ed. Coleti). At this same 
council we find him assenting to Cyril’s 
letter, and subscribing in very strong language 
to the condemnation and deposition of Nes- 
torius (ἐδ. pp. 1012, 1046, 1077, 1133). His 
conduct, later, was marked by great vacilla- 
tion, ifnotinsincerity. It is sometimes stated 
that he was present at the ‘‘ Robbers’ Synod ”’ 
(A.D. 449), and there committed himself to 
the policy of Dioscorus and the heresy of 
Eutyches (Le Quien, Oriens Christ. i. 998); 
but his name does not appear in the list of 
bishops assembled there (Labbe, Conc. iv. 
889 seq.). At the council of Chalcedon, how- 
ever (A.D. 451), he shewed great tenderness 
for Dioscorus, and here his career of tergiver- 
sation began. He tried to defer the second 
citation of Dioscorus (iv. 1260); and when 
after three citations Dioscorus did not appear, 
he consented to his condemnation, though 
with evident reluctance (iv. 1310, 1337). At 
a later session, too, he subscribed his assent to 
the epistle of pope Leo (iv. 1358, 1366; and 
we find his name also appended to the canons 
of the council (iv. 1715). Thus he committed 
himself fully to the principles of this council, 
and to the reversal of the proceedings of 


ANASTASIUS I. 25 


Latrocintum. But a few years later (a.p. 
458), when the emperor Leo wrote to the 
oneaba Ἧ to elicit their opinions, Amphilochius 
stated, in reply, that, while he disapproved 
the appointment of Timotheus Aelurus, he 
did not acknowledge the authority of the 
council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. FE. ii. ro). 
Yet, as if this were not enough, we are told 
that he shortly afterwards assented and 
subscribed to its decrees (Eulogius in Phot. 
Bibl. 230). [L.] 

Anastasia. (Curysoconus.] 

Anastasius (1), a presbyter of Antioch, the 
confidential friend and counsellor of Nestorius, 
the archbp. of Constantinople. Theophanes 
styles him the ‘“syncellus,’’ or confidential 
secretary of Nestorius, who never took anv 
step without consulting him and being guided 
by his opinions. Nestorius having com- 
menced a persecution against the Quarto- 
decimans of Asia in 428, two presbyters, 
Antonius and Jacobus, were dispatched to 
carry his designs into effect. They were 
furnished with letters commendatory from 
Anastasius and Photius, bearing witness to the 
soundness of their faith. The two emissaries 
of the archbp. of Constantinople did not 
restrict themselves to their ostensible object, 
to set the Asiatics right as to the keeping of 
Easter, but endeavoured to tamper with their 
faith. At Philadelphia they persuaded some 
simple-minded clergy to sign a creed of doubt- 
ful orthodoxy, attributed to Theodore of 
Mopsuestia. This was strongly opposed by 
Charisius, the oeconomus of the church, who 
charged Jacobus with unsoundness in the 
faith. His opposition aroused the indignation 
of Anastasius and Photius, who dispatched 
fresh letters, reasserting the orthodoxy of 
Jacobus, and requiring the deprivation of 
Charisius (Labbe, Conc. iii. 1202 seq.; Socr. 
Vii. 29). 

It was in a sermon preached by Anastasius 
at Constantinople that the fatal words were 
uttered that destroyed the peace of the church 
for so many years. ‘* Let no one call Mary 
Θεοτόκος. She was but a human being. It is 
impossible for God to be born of a human 
being.’’ These words, eagerly caught up by 
the enemies of Nestorius, caused much excite- 
ment among clergy and laity, which was 
greatly increased when the archbishop by 
supporting and defending Anastasius adopted 
the language as his own (Socr. H. E. vii. 32; 
Evagr. H. E. i. 2). [Nestortius.] In 430, 
when Cyril had sent a deputation to Constan- 
tinople with an address to the emperor, An- 
astasius seems to have attempted to bring 
about an accommodation between him and 
Nestorius (Cyril, Ep. viii. ; Mercator, vol. ii. 
p- 49). We find him after the deposition of 
Nestorius still maintaining his cause and ani- 
mating his party at Constantinople (Lupus, 
| RS ERM ΟΥΌΝ 

Tillemont identifies him with the Anastasius 
who in 434 wrote to Helladius, bp. of Tarsus, 
when he and the Oriental bishops were refusing 
to recognize Proclus as bp. of Constantinople, 
bearing witness to his orthodoxy, and urging 
them to receive him into communion (Baluz. 
§ 144). [E.v.] 

Anastasius I., bp. of Rome, was consecrated 
A.D. 398 (‘‘ Honorio IV. et Eutychiano coss,”’ 


26 ANASTASIUS II. 

Prosp. Aq. Chron.), and died in April, 402 
(Anast. Bibl. vol. i. p. 62). According to 
Anastasius Bibliothecarius, he put an end to 
an unseemly strife between the priests and 
deacons of his church, by enacting that priests 
as well as deacons should stand bowed (“‘ curvi 
starent ’’) at the reading of the Gospels. Jer- 
ome calls him a “‘ vir insignis,’’ taken from the 
evil to come, t.e. dying before the sack of 
Rome by Goths, a.p. 410. One letter by 
Anastasius is extant. Rufinus wrote to him 
shortly after his consecration (not later than 
A.D. 400, Constant. Epp. Pont. Rom. p. 714) 
to defend himself against the charge of com- 
plicity in the heresy ascribed to Origen. 
Anastasius replied (see Constant. l.c.) in a 
tone which, dealing leniently with Rufinus, 
explicitly condemned Origen. Nine other 
letters are referred to :—(1-5) To Paulinus, bp. 
of Nola (Paul. Nol. Ep. 20). (6) To Anysius. 
bp. of Thessalonica, giving him jurisdiction 
over Illyria ; referred to by Innocent I., in his 
first letter (Constant.). (7) To Johannes, bp. 
of Jerusalem. (8) To African bishops who 
had sent him an embassy to complain of the 
low state of their clergy. (9) Contra Rufinum, 
an epistle sent ad Orientem (Hieron. A pol. 
lib. 3). [G.H.M. ] 

Anastasius II., bp. of Rome, succeeded 
Gelasius I. in Nov. 496 (Clinton’s Fast 
Romani, pp. 536, 713). The month after his 
accession Clovis was baptized, and the new 
Pope wrote congratulating him on his conver- 
sion. Anastasius has left a name of ill-odour 
in the Western church; attributable to his 
having taken a different line from his pre- 
decessors with regard to the Eastern church. 
Felix III. had excommunicated Acacius of 
Constantinople, professedly on account of his 
communicating with heretics, but really be- 
cause Zeno’s Henoticon, which he had sanc- 
tioned, gave the church of Constantinople a 
primacy in the East which the see of Rome 
could not tolerate. Gelasius I. had followed 
closely in the steps of Felix. But Anastasius, 
in the year of his accession, sent two bishops, 
Germanus of Capua and Cresconius of Todi, 
(Baronius) to Constantinople, with a proposal 
that Acacius’s name, instead of being expunged 
from the roll of patriarchs of Constantinople 
as Gelasius had proposed, should be left upon 
the diptychs, and no more be said upon the 
subject. This proposal, in the very spirit of 
the Henoticon, gave lasting offence to the 
Western church, and it excites no surprise 
that he was charged with communicating 
secretly with Photinus, a deacon of Thessa- 
lonica who held with Acacius ; and of wishing 
to heal the breach between the East and West 
—for so it seems best to interpret the words 
of Anastasius Bibliothecarius—‘“‘ voluit revo- 
care Acacium”’ (vol. i. p. 83). 

Anastasius died in Nov. 498. He was still 
remembered as the traitor who would have 
reversed the excommunication of Acacius ; 
and Dante finds him suffering in hell the 
punishment of one whom “ Fotino”’ seduced 
from the right way (Dante, Inf. xi. 8, 9). 

Two epistles by him are extant: one in- 
forming the emperor Anastasius of his acces- 
sion (Mansi, viii. p. 188) ; the other to Clovis 
as above (ib. p. 193). [G.H.M.] 

Anastasius Sinaita ( Αναστάσιος Zwairys). 


ANATOLIUS 


Three of this name are mentioned by eccle- 
siastical writers, among whom some confusion 
exists. 


they were ever monks of Mount Sinai, and 
whether the title ‘‘ Sinaita’’ has not been 
given to them from a confusion with the one 
who really was so, and who falls outside our 
period (see Smith’s D. C. B. im loc.). 


(1) Bp. of Antioch, succeeded Domnus III. — 


A.D. 559 (Clinton, Fasti Romant). He is 
praised by Evagrius (H. E. iv. 40) for his 


theological learning, strictness of life, and — 


well-balanced character. He resolutely op- 


Two were patriarchs of Antioch, and 
it has been reasonably questioned whether — 


posed Justinian’s edict in favour of the ὦ 


Aphthartodocetae, and encouraged the mon- 
astic bodies of Syria against it, A.D. 563 
(Evagr.iv. 39, 40). Justinian threatened him 
with deposition and exile, but his death in 
565 hindered his design, which was carried 
into effect by his nephew Justin II., a.p. 570. 
Fresh charges were brought against Anastasius 
of profuse expenditure of the funds of his see, 
and of intemperate language and action in 
reference to the consecration of John, bp. of 
Alexandria, by John, bp. of Constantinople, 
in the lifetime of the previous bp. Eutychius 
(Evagr. v. 1; Valesius’s notes, ib. ; Theoph. 
Chron.; Clinton, Fast. Rom.).. He was suc- 
ceeded by Gregory, on whose death, in the 
middle of 593 (Clinton), he was restored to his 
episcopate. This was chiefly due to the in- 
fluence of Gregory the Great with the emperor 
Maurice and his son Theodosius (Evagr. vl. 24; 
Greg. Mag. Ep. i. 25, 27, Ind. ix.). 
wrote him a congratulatory letter on his return 
to Antioch (Ep. iv. 37; Ind. xiv.) ; and several 
epistles of his are preserved relating to the 
claim the bp. of Constantinople was then 
making to the title of ‘‘ universal bishop ”’ 


(Ep. iv. 36, Ind. xiii.; vi. 24, 31, Ind. xv.)3m 


Anastasius defended the orthodox view of the 
Procession of the Holy Ghost (Baron. Annal. 
Eccl. 593), and died at the close of 598 (Clinton, 
Fast. Rom.). Five sermons, ‘‘ de Orthodoxa 
Fide,” and five others, printed in a Latin 
version by Migne and others, are ascribed by 
some to this Anastasius. Oudin, Dupin, and 
others refer them more probably to a later 
Anastasius. For a catalogue and description 
of the works assigned to him, either existing 
or lost, see Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. 
Pp. 332-336, and Migne. 


(2) Followed the preceding as bp. of An- ἢ 


tioch in the beginning of 599. A letter of 
Gregory the Great to him (Ep. vii. 48, Ind. ii.) 
acknowledges one announcing his appointment 
and declaring his adherence to the orthodox 
faith. Gregory had written to him before 597 
(Ep. vii. 3, Ind. i.), exhorting him to con- 
stancy under the persecutions of heretics. 
translated Gregory’s de Curd Pastoralt into 
Greek (ib. x. 22, Ind. ν.). His death occurred 
in an insurrection of the Jews, Sept. 610 
(Clinton, F. R.). Nicephorus (H. E. xviii. 
44) confounds him with (1). [E.v.] 
Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, 449 A.D., 
through the influence of Dioscorus of Alex- 
andria with Theodosius II., after the deposi- 
tion of Flavian by the ‘‘ Robber Council,” 
having previously been the “ apocrisiarius’’ or 
representative of Dioscorus at Constantinople 
(Zon. Ann. iii.) After his consecration, being 


He 


fe Se Ye 


ΕΣ πω ὦ 


Gregory | 


ANATOLIUS 


under suspicion of Eutychianism (Leo, Epp. | 
ad. Theod. 33 ad Pulch. 35), he publicly con- 
demned the heresies both of Eutyches and 
Nestorius, signing the letters of Cyril against 
Nestorius and of Leo against Eutyches (Leo, 
Epp. 40, 41, 48). In conjunction with Leo of | 
Rome, according to Zonaras (Amn. iii.), he | 
requested the emperor Marcian to summon a 
Sain council against Dioscorus and the) 
utychians ; but the imperial letter directing 
Anatolius to make preparations for the 
council at Chalcedon sneaks only of Leo} 
(Labbe, Conc. Max. Tom.iv.). In this council | 
Anatolius presided in conjunction with the 
Roman legates (Labbe, Conc. Max. iv. ; Evagr. 
H. E. ii. 4, 18; Niceph. ἢ. E. xv. 18). By the 
famous 28th canon, passed at the conclusion 
of the council, equal dignity was ascribed to 
Constantinople with Rome (Labbe, iv. 796; 
Evagr. ii. 18). Hence arose the controversy 
between Anatolius and the Roman pontiff. 
Leo complained to Marcian (Ep. 54) and to 
Pulcheria (Ep. 55) that Anatolius had out- 
stepped his jurisdiction, by consecrating 
Maximus to the see of Antioch; and he re- 
monstrated with Anatolius (Ep. 53). After 
the council of Chalcedon some Egyptian 
bishops wrote to Anatolius, earnestly asking 
his assistance against Timotheus, who was 
usurping the episcopal throne at Alexandria 
(Labbe, Conc. Max. iv. iii. 23, p. 897). Ana- 
tolius wrote strongly to the emperor Leo 
against Timotheus (Labbe, iii. 26, p. 905). 
The circular of the emperor requesting the 
advice of Anatolius on the turbulent state 
of Alexandria is given by Evagrius (H. E. 
ii. 9), and by Nicephorus (H. E. xv. 18). 
The crowning of Leo on his accession by 
Anatolius is said (Gibbon, iii. 313) to be the 
first instance of the kind on record (Theoph. 
Chron. a5 Par.). [1.G.s. ] 
Anatolius, bp. of Laodicea in Syria Prima 
(Eus. H. E. vii. 32). He had been famous at 
Alexandria for proficiency in the liberal arts, 
while his reputation for practical wisdom was 
so great that when the suburb of Brucheium 
was besieged by the Romans during the revolt 
of Aemilianus, A.D. 262, the command of the 
=e was assigned to him. Provisions having 
ailed, and his proposition of making terms 
with the besiegers having been indignantly 
rejected, Anatolius obtained leave to relieve 
the garrison of all idle mouths, and by a clever 
deception marched out all the Christians, and 
the greater part of the rest, many disguised as 
women. Having passed over to Palestine, he 
was ordained by Theotecnus, bp. of Caesarea, 
as bishop-coadjutor, with the right of suc- 
cession. But going to Antioch to attend the 
synod against Paul of Samosata, on his way 
through Laodicea, which had just lost its 
bishop, his old friend Eusebius, he was de- 
gi and made bishop in his room, a.p. 
269. 
Eusebius speaks of him as not having 
_ written much, but enough to show at once 
his eloquence and manifold learning. He 
specially mentions a work on the Paschal 
question, published in a Latin version by 
Bucherius (Doct. Temp., Antv. 1634). Some 
fragments of his mathematical works were 
ub. at Paris, 1543, and by Fabricius (Bibl. 


eau. iii. 462 ; Hieron. Sc. Eccl. c. 73). For 


ANDREAS SAMOSATENSIS 27 


an Eng. trans. of his extant works see Ante- 
Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). {E-V.] 
-Ancyra, Seven Martyrs of, female victims 
of Diocletian’s persecution, 304. They were 
unmarried, about 70 years old, and notable 
for piety and good works. When the perse- 
cution was determined upon, Theotecnus, a 
magician, a philosopher and pervert from 
Christianity, was dispatched as governor to 
Galatia to root out Christianity. Among 
the earliest victims were the seven virgins, 
Tecusa, Alexandra, Faina, Claudia, Euphrasia, 
Matrona, Julitta. Theotecnus called upon 
them to offer incense, and upon their refusal 
condemned them to the public brothel, from 
which they escaped scatheless on account of 
their age, and by the ingenuity of Tecusa their 
leader. He then ordered them to officiate as 
priestesses of Diana and Minerva in washing 
their statues according to the annual custom 
of Ancyra. They were accordingly carried 
naked through the streets to a neighbouring 
lake, where garlands and white garments were 
offered them in which to fulfil his commands. 
Upon their refusal Theotecnus ordered them 
to be drowned in the lake, with heavy stones 
tied round their necks lest their bodies should 
be recovered and buried by their fellow- 
Christians. Many legends have gathered 
round thestory. The acts of the seven virgins 
and of St. THroporus (a tavern-keeper of 
Ancyra martyred for rescuing and burying 
the bodies) are recorded in Gk. in a Vatican 
MS., purporting to have been written by an 
eye-witness named Nilus. They are found in 
Gk. and Lat. in Boll. Acta SS. May 18; cf. 
also Ruinart, Acta Sincera, p. 336; Ceillier, 
511. ΤῈ: G.T.S.] 
Andreas of Caesarea. [ARETHAS.] 
Andreas Samosatensis, bp. of Samosata at 
the time of the council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. 
Sickness prevented his attending the council 
(Labbe, Conc. iii. 506), but he took a leading 
part in the controversies between Cyril and 
the Oriental bishops that succeeded it. With- 
out identifying himself with the erroneous 
teaching ascribed to Nestorius, he shewed 
himself his zealous defender, and remained 
firm to him when his cause had been deserted 
by almost all. For his zeal in the defence of 
an heresiarch he is styled by Anastasius Sinaita 
ὁ δράκων. The reputation of Andreas for 
learning and controversial skill caused John 
of Antioch to select him, together with his 
attached friend Theodoret, to answer Cyril’s 
anathemas against Nestorius (Labbe, ili. 1150 ; 
Liberatus, c. iv. p. 16). Cyril replied and 
wrote in defence of his anathemas, which 
called forth a second treatise from Andreas 
(Labbe, iii. 827). In 453 Andreas accom- 
panied Alexander and Theodoret to the 
council summoned at Antioch by Aristolaus 
the tribune, in compliance with the commands 
of Theodosius, to consult how the breach with 
Cyril might be healed (tb. 764). On the 
amicable reception by Acacius and John of 
Cyril’s letter written in answer to the rescript 
of this council, Andreas fully sympathized 
with his aged metropolitan Alexander’s dis- 
tress and indignation. Andreas deplored the 
recognition of Cyril’s orthodoxy by so many 
bishops, and desired to bury himself in some 
solitude where he might weep (tb. 784, 785, 


ANICETUS 


796, 797). This was before he had _ see 
Cyril’s letter. On perusing Cyril’s own state- 
ment his opinions changed. What Cyril had 
written was orthodox. No prejudice against 
him ought to prevent his acknowledging it. 
The peace of the church was superior to all 
private feelings. His alteration of sentiments 
exasperated Alexander, who refused to see or 
speak to his former friend (ib. 810, 811). 
Andreas deeply felt this alienation of one he so 
much venerated, but it could not lead him to 
retrace his steps. He used his utmost en- 
deavours in vain to persuade Alexander to 
attend the council at Zeugma, which acknow- 
ledged the orthodoxy of Cyril’s letter (7b. 805). 
His death must have occurred before 451, 
when Rufinus was bp. of Samosata. Theo- 
doret speaks of Andreas with much affection 
and esteem, praising his humility and readi- 
ness to help the distressed (Theod. Ep. xxiv. 
p- 918). His own letters give us a high idea of 
his sound, practical wisdom, readiness to con- 
fess an error, and firmness in maintaining what 
he believed right. [E.v.] 
Anicetus, bp. of Rome, stated in Eusebius’s 
History (iv. 11) and by Irenaeus (Adv. omn. 
Haer. iii. 3, 3) to have succeeded Pius. As to 
the date of his pontificate, see Lightfoot’s 
elaborate discussion in A post. Fathers (part i. 
vol. i. pp. 201-345). As Polycarp visited him 
at Rome, and as Polycarp’s death has been 
fixed by recent criticism in 155, Lightfoot says 
that ‘‘the latest possible date for the accession 
of Anicetus is 154,’’ and if he sat for eleven 
years, as is said, his death would be in 165. 
Anastasius Bibliothecarius singles him out as 
the pope who prescribed the tonsure for the 
clergy (Anast. vol. i. p. 13); and a forged 
letter upon this subject is given by Isidorus 
Mercator (Constant. p. 75). But the single re- 
liable fact recorded of him has reference to the 
early Paschal controversy (Eus. H. E. iv. 24). 
He, like his four predecessors, did not allow 
the Jewish or Quartodeciman usage within 
their own church, but communicated as freely 
as before with other churches which did allow 
it. Polycarp visited Rome, hoping to _per- 
suade Anicetus to adopt the Quartodeciman 
practice. But Anicetus was firm, even against 
the age and saintliness of Polycarp. As a 
mark of personal respect, he allowed him to 
celebrate the Eucharist in Rome; but they 
parted without agreement, though with mutual 
cordiality. We are told that Anicetus was 
buried in the Calixtine cemetery on April 
20. [G.H.M.] 
Anomoeans (from ἀνόμοιος. dissimilar), one 
of the appellations of the radical Arians who, 
in opposition to the Athanasian or Nicene 
doctrine of the consubstantiality (ὁμοουσία) 
and the semi-Arian view of the Iltkeness 
(ὁμοιουσία) of the Son to the Father, taught 
that the Son was dissimilar, and of a different 
substance (€Tepoovo.os). [ARIANISM.]  [P.S.] 
Anonomastus (Iren. 56: cf. 54). [VALEN- 
TINUS; EPIPHANES.] [H.] 
Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, a contemporary 
of St. Basil bp. of Caesarea in Cappodocia 
(Basil. Ep. 58). In 372 he joined in sub- 
scribing a circular letter addressed by the 
Oriental bishops to those of Italy and Gaul 
(Ep. 92). But dissensions broke out between 


28 


ANTHROPOMORPHITAE 


them. (1) When the civil province of Cap- 
padocia was divided and Tyana became the 
capital of the second division, Anthimus, in- 
sisting that the ecclesiastical arrangements 
should follow the civil, claimed metropolitan 
rights over several of Basil’s suffragans. 
Herein he was assisted by the disaffection 
which prevailed in Basil’s province. He was 
even bold enough to attack Basil on a journey, 
and plunder a train of mules laden with sup- 
plies of money and provisions for the bp. of 
Caesarea. Basil, thinking to establish an ~ 
invincible outpost against his aggressive an- 
tagonist, consecrated his friend Gregory bp. 
of Sasima, a town not far from Tyana and one 
over which Anthimus claimed metropolitan 
rights. So long as Gregory remained there, 
he staunchly resisted alike the enticements 
and the menaces of Anthimus; but he soon 
resigned the see which he had unwillingly 
occupied. [GREGORY NAZIANZEN.] A peace 
was patched up between Basil and Anthimus, 
apparently by the intercession of Gregory. 
This happened in the year 372 (Greg. Naz. 
Or. xliii. i. pp. 813 seq. ; Ep. 47, 48, 49, 50, ii. 
pp- 42 seq.; Carm. ii. pp. 696 seq.). (2) A 
certain Faustus had applied to Basil to con- 
secrate him to an Armenian see; but as he 
did not produce the proper authority, the 
consecration was deferred. Faustus imme- 
diately applied to Anthimus, who at once 
complied with his request, thus setting 
canonical rules at defiance (Basil, Ep. 120, 
121, 122). A reconciliation, however, seems 
to have been effected, as Basil afterwards 
spoke of Anthimus in very friendly terms 
(Ep. 210, Tov ὁμόψυχον ἡμῶν). Except in 
connexion with Basil and Gregory, nothing is 
known of this prelate. (See Tillemont, Mém. 
eccl. ix. pp. 174 seq., 196 seq.; Garnier, Vit. 
Bas. Op. iii. pp. cxi. seq., pp. cxxiii. seq.) [L.] 
Anthropolatrae (AvépwréX\arpa), a nick- 
name given by the Apollinarians (c. A.D. 371) 
to the Catholics, on the assumption that the 
union of ‘‘ perfect God’ with “ perfect Man ” 
necessarily involved two Persons in Christ, 
and therefore that the Catholic exposition of 
the doctrine implied the worship of a man: 
an inference assumed to be avoided by the 
special Apollinarian dogma. See APOLLIN- 
ARIS (the Younger). The nickname in ques- 
tion is mentioned by St. Greg. Naz. Orat. li., 
who retorts that in truth, if any one is to be 
called by a name of the kind, the Apollinarian 
ought to be called “ σαρκολάτρης.᾽ [A.w.H.] 
Anthropomorphitae (Anthropomorphism), 
(ἄνθρωπος, man, and μορφή, form). Terms 
applied to those who ascribe to God human 
shape and form. We must distinguish two 
kinds of anthropomorphism, a doctrinal and 
a symbolical. The former is heretical, the 
latter Scriptural, and necessarily arises from 
the imperfection of human language and 
human knowledge of God. The one takes the 
Scripture passages which speak of God’s arm, 
hand, eye, ear, mouth, etc., literally; the 
other understands and uses them figuratively. 
Anthropomorphism is always connected with 
anthropopathism (from ἄνθρωπος and πάθος, 
passion), which ascribes to God human pas- 
sions and affections, such as wrath, anger, 
envy, jealousy, pity, repentance. The latter, 
however, does not necessarily imply the 


ttt ti i ΑΕ ἘΠ ὅς δ ἘΝ’ ΘΟ Βα οι Ὁ 


ANTIDIKOMARIANITAE 


former. All forms of idolatry, especially) 
those of Greece and Rome, are essentially | 
anthropomorphic and anthropopathic. The, 
classical divinities are in character simply | 
deified men and women. The Christian, 
Jewish, and Mohammedan religions teach | 
that God is a Spirit, and thus elevate him | 
above the reach of materialistic and sensual | 
conceptions and representations. But within | 
the Christian church anthropomorphism ap- | 
peared from time to time as an isolated opinion | 
or as the tenet of a party. Tertullian is often | 
charged with it, because he ascribed to God | 
a body (Adv. Prax. c. 7: “ Quis enim nega- | 
bit, Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est ? | 
Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in effigie’’). | 
But he probably identified corporeality with | 
substantiality, and hence he maintained that | 
everything real had a body of some kind (de) 
Carne Chr. c. 11: ‘“‘Omne quod est, corpus | 
est sui generis, nihil est incorporale, nisi quod | 
non est’). The pseudo-Clementine Homilies 
(xvii. 2 seq.) teach that God, in order to be 
an object of love, must be the highest beauty, 
and consequently have a body, since there is 
no beauty without form; nor could we pray 
to a God Who was mere spirit. (Cf. Baur, 
Vorlesungen tiber die Dogmengeschichte, vol. i. 
p- 412.) In the middle of the 4th cent. 
Audius, or Audaeus, of Syria, a bold censor 
of the luxury and vices of the clergy, and an 
irregularly consecrated bishop, founded ἃ. 
strictly ascetic sect, which were called A udians | 
or Anthropomorphites, and maintained them- 
selves, in spite of repeated persecution, till 
the close of the 5th cent. He started from 
a literal interpretation of Gen. i. 28, and 
reasoned from the nature of man to the nature 
of God, Whose image he was (Epiphanius, 
Haer. 70; Theod. H. E. iv. 9; Walch, Ket- 
serhistorie, iii. 300). During the Origenistic 
controversies towards the end of the 4th cent., 
anthropomorphism was held independently | 
by many Egyptian monks in the Scetic desert, 
who, with Pachomius at their head, were the 
most violent opponents of the spiritualistic 
theology of Origen, and were likewise called 
Anthropomorphites; they felt the need οὗ 
material conceptions in their prayers and 
ascetic exercises. Theophilus of Alexandria, 
formerly an admirer of Origen, became his 
bitter opponent, and expelled the Origenists 
from Egypt, but nevertheless he rejected the | 
Anthropomorphism of the anti-Origenistic | 
monks (Ep. Pastr. for 399). In the present 
century Anthropomorphism has been revived 
by the Mormons, who conceive God as an} 
intelligent material being, with body, mem- 
bers, and passions, and unable to occupy two 
distinct places at once. [P.s.] 
Antidikomarianitae (Αντιδικομαριανίται = 
Adversaries of Mary: Epiph. Haer. 1xxxix.). 
The name given to those in Arabia in the latter 
part of the 4th cent. who (in opposition to the 
Κολλυριδιάνιδες) maintained the novel supposi- 
tion advanced at that time by Bonosus of | 
Sadica, and by Helvidius, that ‘‘ our Lord’s | 
brethren ’’ were children borne by the Blessed | 
Virgin to Joseph after our Lord’s birth. The 
controversy arose out of the then prevailing | 
reverence for virginity, which in its extreme | 
form had led certain women, originally from | 
Thrace, but dwelling in Arabia, to celebrate | 


ANTONINUS, PIUS 29 


an idolatrous festival in honour of the Virgin, 
by taking certain cakes (xo\\vpides) about in 
chariots, and then solemnly offering them to her 
and consuming them, in imitation of the Lord's 
Supper, or (more probably) of the pagan wor- 
ship of Ceres. The reaction from this super- 
stition led to the existence of the sect spoken 
of in this article, which, contemporaneously 
with the controversy carried on by St. Jerome 
and by others against Helvidius and Bonosus, 
the literary supporters of the hypothesis, was 
led to endeavour to cut away all pretence for 
the Collyridian superstition by adopting their 
view and so denying its very groundwork. The 
controversy itself is discussed in Smith’s D. B. 
(4 vols. 1893) under BRoTHERs and J Ames, and 
in Murray’s Illus. B. D. (1908) under J AMEs. 
For its literary history, see under HELvipIUus, 
HIERONYMUS. [A.W.H.] 
Antiochus (1), bp. of Ptolemais, c. a.p. 401. 
To display his oratorical powers in a wider 
field he left Ptolemais and settled at Con- 
stantinople, where his fine voice and appro- 
priate action, together with the eloquent and 
perspicuous character of his discourses, soon 
attracted large auditories, by whom, like his 


| great contemporary John, he was surnamed 


“The Golden-mouthed.’’ Having amassed 
considerable wealth, he returned to his de- 


| serted see, where he employed his leisure in 


composing a long treatise “* against avarice.” 
He took a zealous part in the proceedings 
against Chrysostom, and is reckoned by Pall- 
adius among his bitterest enemies. He died 
in the reign of Arcadius, before a.p. 408, and, 
according to Nicephorus, his end, like that of 
all the enemies of Chrysostom, was miserable. 
A homily on The Cure of the Blind Man is 
also mentioned. With the exception of a 
sentence quoted by Theodoret, Dial. 2, and a 
longer fragment given in the Catena on St. 
John, xix. p. 443, his works have perished 
(Soer. vi. 11; Soz. viii. 10; Niceph. xiii. 26; 
Gennadius in Cataloy.; Pallad. Dialog. p. 49 ; 
Fabr. Bibl. Gk. ix. 259). [E.v. 

Antipopes, claimants to the popedom in 
opposition to the lawful popes. There were 
seven such during the first six centuries, some 
owing their elevation to the existence of con- 
flicting parties at Rome, others intruded into 
the see by the civil power. A fuller account 
of them, with the authorities, is given under 
their respective names—viz. NOVATIANUS ; 
Fe.t1x; Ursinus (or Ursicinus); EvLaius ; 
LAURENTIUS; DioscorRus; VIGILIUS. 

[1- B—y.] 

Antoninus, Pius, emperor, a.p. 138-161. 
The character of this prince as loving righteous- 
ness and mercy, choosing rather, in his own 
noble words, ‘‘ to save the life of one citizen 
than to slay a thousand foes,”’ shewed itself, 
as in other things, so also in his treatment of 
the Christians of the empire. Hadrian had 
checked the tendency to persecution by im- 
posing severe penalties on false accusers 
(Just. Mart. Apol. i. c. 68). In some way or 
other, Antoninus was led to adopt a policy 
which was even more favourable to them 


| (Xiphilin. Epit. Dion. Cass. 1, 70, Ρ. 1173). 


Melito, writing his Apologia to Marcus Aure- 
lius (Eus. H. E.iv. 26), speaks of edicts which 
Antoninus had issued, forbidding any new and 
violent measures against the Christians. A 


80 ANTONIUS 


more memorable proof of his tolerance is 
found, if the document be genuine, in the 
decree addressed to the general assembly of 
the proconsular province of Asia, at a time 
when the Christian church was exposed to 
outrages of all kinds (πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ᾿Ασίας). 
It speaks in admiring terms of the innocence 
of the Christians, declares the charges against 
them to be unproved, bids men admire the 
steadfastness and faith with which they met 
the earthquakes and other calamities that 
drove others to despair, ascribes the perse- 
cution to the jealousy which men felt against 
those who were truer worshippers of God 
than themselves. Unfortunately, however, 
the weight of both textual and internal 
evidence preponderates against the genuine- 
ness of the edict as it stands, but some 
modern authorities are disposed to regard 
it as an interpolated form of a real edict 
of similar character. See, e.g., Renan, 
L’Eglise Chrétienne, p. 302. In any case 
it is natural to connect the more lenient 
policy, which there is no doubt that 
Antoninus adopted, with the memorable 
Apologia which Justin addressed to him. 
Confining ourselves to its bearing on the charac- 
ter of the emperor, we note (1) that there had 
been at least the threat of persecution even 
unto death (c. 68); (2) that it is written 
throughout in a tone of manifest respect as 
to men not unworthy of the epithets that were 
attached to their names (“ὁ Pius’”’ to Anto- 
ninus, ‘‘ philosopher’’ to Verissimus and 
Lucius) ; (3) that the mere fact of the dedi- 
cation and, apparently, presentation of such 
an address implies a tolerance which had not 
been often found in preceding emperors; (4) 
that even the forged document, if it be such, 
shews a certain verisimilitude in the ascription 
of such adocument tohim. See Champagny, 
Les Antonines (Paris), and Aubé, Hist. des 
Persécut. (Paris, 1875), pp. 297-341. [E.H.P.] 

Antonius, St. (Abbas), termed by Athan- 
asius ‘‘ the founder of asceticism’’ and his 
life a ‘‘ model for monks’’ (Praef. Vit. St. 
Ant.). We have a tolerably complete, but 
probably interpolated, biography of him by 
Athanasius, derived in part from his own 
recollections, in part from others who had 
known him, as well as frequent mention of 
him by the ecclesiastical historians; and we 
shall here treat Anthony as a historic char- 
acter, despite the recent assumption that he 
is “ἃ myth” (see, e.g., Gwatkin’s Arian Con- 
troversy, 1891, and cf. F. W. Farrar, Contemp. 
Rev. 1887, pp. 617-627). 

Anthony was born ¢. A.D. 250 at Coma, on 
the borders of Upper Egypt (Soz. Hist. i. 13). 
By his parents, who were wealthy Christians. 
he was trained in pious habits (Athan. Vit. St. 
Ant.; Aug. de Doct. in Prol.). Six months 
after the death of his parents, being then 18 
years of age, he chanced to hear in church the 
words “‘ If thou wilt be perfect,’’ etc., and re- 
solved to obey the precept literally, reserving 
only a small portion for his sister. Returning 
into the church he heard, ‘‘ Take no thought 
for the morrow.’”’ On this he resolved to 
commend her to the care of some devout 
woman, and gave away all his property to the 
poor (Athan. cf. Soz. i. 13). 

At that time cells of Anchorites (μοναστηρία) 


ANTONIUS 


were very rare in Egypt, and none far from 
the habitations of men. Anthony retired by 
degrees farther and farther from his native 
village, fixing his abode first in a tomb, 
afterwards in a ruined castle near the Nile. 
Here he remained some 20 years, shut up for 
months at a time with only bread and water 
(the bread of the country is said to be good for 
keeping), and issuing forth only to instruct 
the multitudes who flocked to see and hear 
him ; at other times communication was pre- 
vented by a huge stone at the entrance. 
During the persecution of Maximinus (a.p. 
311), in which their bishop had fallen, he went 
to comfort the Christians of Alexandria; and 
though the presence of monks at these trials 
was forbidden as encouraging the martyrs in 
their disobedience to the emperor’s edict, he 
persisted in appearing in court. When the 
storm had ceased he withdrew, though now 
an old man, to a more complete isolation than 
ever, near the Red Sea; and here, to save his — 
disciples the trouble of bringing him food, he 
made a small field of wheat, which he culti- 
vated with his own hands, working also at 
making mats. From time to time he re- 
visited his former disciples in the Thebaid, 
always, however, declining to preside over a 
convent. About a.p. 335 he revisited Alex- 
andria, at the urgent request of Athanasius, to 
preach against the Arians (Theod. Hist. iv. 
27), and there was followed by crowds as © 
“the man of God.’’ But he soon returned to 
the congenial seclusion of his cell, and there 
died, at the great age of 105, in the presence 
of the two disciples, Amathas and Macarius, 
who had ministered to his wants during the 
last 15 years. To them he bequeathed his 
hair-shirt ; and the rest of his worldly goods, 
his two woollen tunics and the rough cloak 
on which he slept, to bp. Serapion and St. 
Athanasius (Athan. Vit. St. Ant.). 

The fame of Anthony spread rapidly 
through Christendom; and the effect of his 
example in inducing Christians, especially in 
the East, to embrace the monastic life is 
described by his biographers as incalculable. 
In the next century he began to be venerated 
as a saint by the Greek church, and in the 
ninth by the Latin. St. Jerome says he was 
the author of seven Epistles to certain Eastern 
monasteries, which have been translated from 
the Egyptian into the Greek (Hieron. de 
Script. 88), but whether these are the same as 
those now extant in Latin is doubtful (cf. 
Erdinger’s ed. of them (Innsbruck, 1871). 
Though by all accounts far from being a 
learned man (Soz. Hist. i. 13; Niceph. Hist. 
vii. 40; Athan. Vit. St. Ant.), his dis- 
courses are evidence that he was not alto- 
gether illiterate. His influence was great at 
the court of the emperor. Constantine the 
Great and his sons wrote to him as a father 
(Athan.), and when Athanasius was contending 
with the Meletians, Anthony wrote from his 
cell to the emperor in behalf of his friend 
(Soz. ii. 31). His austerities were great; as 
a rule he fasted till sunset, and sometimes for 
four days together. Of sleep he was equally 
sparing. His coarse rough shirt is said to 
have lasted him for a lifetime; and his only 
ablutions seem to have been involuntary in 
wading occasionally through a river. Yet 


-APHRAAT 


e lived to an unusual age, robust, and in full 
ession of his faculties to the last. He 
as not morose to others; only to heretics 
as he austere and repulsive, refusing to hold 
y intercourse with them even for a moment. 
e was careful always, though so universally 
vered, not to arrogate to himself priestly 
unctions, shewing, even in his old age, a 
marked and studious deference even to the 
youngest deacons. 

Anthony was evidently a man, not merely 
of strong determination, but of ability, and 
the discourses, if indeed they are his, which 
his disciples record as addressed to themselves 
and to the pagan philosophers who disputed 
with him, shew that if he read little he thought 
much. He met objections against the doc- 
trines of the Incarnation and the Resurrection 
as mysterious by the retort that the pagan 
mythology, whether in its grossness as appre- 
hended by the vulgar or as the mystical system 
of philosophers, was equally above reason. 
From their dialectical subtleties he appealed 
to facts, to a Christian’s contempt of death 
and triumph over temptation; and con- 
trasted the decay of pagan oracles and magic 
with the growth of Christianity in spite of 
persecutions. He taught that prayer to be 
ot must be ecstatic (Cass. Coll. ix. 31). 

ingled with sound and practical advice are 
strange stories of his visions, in which he 
describes himself as engaged continually in 
deadly conflict with evil spirits. 

Beyond these encounters and powers of 
exorcism it is not clear how far and in what 
manner Anthony believed himself able to 
work miracles. It would indeed be strange if 
so lonely an existence did not breed many in- 
voluntary and unconscious illusions ; still more 
strange if those whose eyes were dazzled by 
the almost more than human self-abnegation 
of the great eremite had not exaggerated 
this aspect of his story. Amongthe many in 
whom the marvellous experiences of Anthony 
awoke a longing to renounce the world was 
Augustine himself (Aug. Conf. viii. 6, 12). 
A. Verger, Vie de St. Antoine le Grand 
(Tours, 1898). [1.G.s.] 

Aphraat (Aphrahat, Farhad, “the Sage of 
Persia’’). Little is known of the life of this 
writer, who was the principal theologian of 
the Persian (1.6. Eastern or Nestorian) church 
in the 4th cent. He was born late in the 3rd 
cent., and was certainly a monk, and probably 
a bishop of his church. Tradition says that 
he resided at the monastery of Mar Mattai, 
near Mosul, and was bishop in that province. 
Either at his baptism or consecration he 


adopted the name Jacob (.3QmN.) in 


addition to his own, and for this reason his 
works have sometimes been attributed to 
better-known namesakes. 

In the year 344 he presided over a council 
of the church of his province (Adiabene), and 
the synodal letter is included in his works 
(Homily xiv.). Sapor’s persecution was then 
raging in the country, but is known to have 
been, for local reasons, less severe in this 
district than elsewhere. The time and man- 
ner of his death are not known. 

Works.—These consist of a collection of 22 
Homilies, written at the request of a friend (a 


APHTHARTODOCETAE 31 


monk) to give an exposition of the Christian 
faith. Their importance consists in the 
picture that they give of the current teaching 
of an independent church, already organized 
under its own primate, outside the Roman 
empire. The language is Syriac, the quota- 
tions from the O.T. are taken from the 
Peshitta, but in the N.T. he quotes the Gospels 
from the Diatessaron. Some of his inter- 


pretations (e.g. Hom. xv.) shew signs of 
Jewish or “ Talmudical’’ teaching. 
Doctrine.—As a theologian, Aphraat is 


strikingly independent and remote from the 
controversies of his day in the Roman empire. 
Writing 20 years after the council of Nicaea, 
he expresses himself in a way impossible for 
any one who had heard of the Arian contro- 
versy, whatever his sympathies in it; with 
him we are back in the indefiniteness of an 
earlier age, when an orthodox writer might 
use on one page the language of psilanthropism 
(Hom. xvii.) and on another confess both the 
Trinity and the Divinity of Christ (vi. ll). 
This is consistent with the fact that the 
“church of the East’’ was so isolated that it 
was never asked to accept the Nicene Creed 
till the year 410; and apparently used, till 
that date, the formula that Aphraat gives 
(Hom. i.). See NrESTORIAN CHURCH. 

A curious feature in Aphraat’s teaching is 
the use of expressions that plainly suggest that 
he regarded the Holy Spirit as the female 
element in the Godhead (xvili. το). It is a 
thought strange to us, but not necessarily 
unorthodox, and natural toa mind of Semitic 
cast, that used a word for “ spirit’’ that is 
feminine; its absence from Greek and Latin 
theology may account in part for the enthrone- 
ment of another figure as Queen of Heaven. 
Aphraat’s whole teaching has the ascetic cast 
natural to a 4th-cent. Oriental monk. The 
celibates (xviii.) are emphatically the aristo- 
cracy of the church, the professors of the 
higher life, who alone can attain to true 
communion with God. Any one who doubts 
his own capacity for the keeping of a vow of 
virginity, which apparently was often taken 
at the time of baptism, is advised to marry 
before that rite, a fall subsequent to it being 
a heinous sin (vii. 10). Nevertheless, all are 
warned that open abandonment of the reso- 
lution and avowed marriage is better than 
secret incontinence. 

Broadly, Aphraat shews us the existence of 
an independent Oriental theology, which, 
however, was not allowed to develop on its 
own lines, but was assimilated to Greek 
standards a few generations later. This was 
a distinct loss to the fullness of Christian 
thought, and a misfortune to the Syriac 
church itself, in that it soon shewed itself 
unable to think on Greek lines, so that schisms 
resulted that endure to this day. Parisot, 
Patrol. Syriac. Aphraatis Demonstrationes ; 
Labourt. Christianisme dans l’emptre perse ; 
Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity. [w.a.w.] 

Aphthartodocetae (from ἄφθαρτος, incor- 
ruptible, and doxéw, to think), a sect of the 
Monopnysites, which arose in the 6th cent. 
They were also called Phantasiastae, because 
they appeared to acknowledge only a seeming 
body of Christ, and to border on Docetism ; 
and Julianists, from their leader Julian, bp. of 


32 APION 

Halicarnassus, and his contemporary Xenajas 
of Hierapolis. They argued, from the com- 
mingling (σύγχυσις) of the two natures of 
Christ, that the body of our Lord, from the 
very beginning, became partaker of the in- 
corruptibility of the Logos, and was subject 
to corruptibility merely κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν. They 
appealed in proof especially to Christ’s walking 
on the sea during His earthly life. Their 
opponents among the Monophysites, the 
Severtans (from Severus, patriarch of Anti- 
och), maintained that the body of Christ before 
the Resurrection was corruptible, and were 
hence called Phthartolatrae (Φθαρτολάτραι. from 
φθαρτός and Adrpela), or Corrupticolae, i.e. 
Worshippers of the Corruptible. Both parties 
admitted the incorruptibility of Christ’s body 
after the Resurrection. The word φθορά was 
generally taken in the sense of corruptibility, 
but sometimes in the sense of mere frailty. 
This whole question is rather one of scholastic 
subtlety, though not wholly idle, and may be 
solved in this way: that the body of Christ, 
before the Resurrection, was similar in its 
constitution to the body of Adam before the 
Fall, containing the germ or possibility of 
immortality and incorruptibility, but subject 
to the influence of the elements, and was 
actually put to death by external violence, but 
through the indwelling power of the sinless 
Spirit was preserved from corruption and 
raised again to an imperishable life, when— 
to use an ingenious distinction of St. Augustine 
—the tmmortalitas minor became immortalitas 
major, or the posse non mori a non posse mort. 

The Aphthartodocetae were subdivided into 
Ktistolatrae, or, from their founder, Gajanitae, 
who taught that the body of Christ was created 
(κτιστόν), and Aktistetae, who asserted that the 
body of Christ, although in itself created, yet 
by its union with the eternal Logos became 
tncreate, and therefore incorruptible. The 
most consistent Monophysite in this direction 
was the rhetorician Stephanus Niobes (about 
550), who declared that every attempt to 
distinguish between the divine and the human 
in Christ was improper and useless, since they 
had become absolutely onein him. An abbot 
of Edessa, Bar Sudaili, extended this principle 
even to the creation, which he thought would 
at last be wholly absorbed in God. 

Cf. the dissertations of Gieseler, Monophysi- 
tarum variae de Christi Persona Opiniones, 1835 
and 1838; the remarks of Dorner, History of 
Christology, ii. 159 ff. (German ed.); Ebrard, 
Church and Doctrine History, i. 268; and 
Schaff, Church History, iii. 766 ft. [P.s.] 

Apion. The name is properly Egyptian 
(see Procop. Pers. i. 8; Ross. Inscr. fasc. 2, 
p- 62) and derived from the god Apis, after the 
analogy of Anubion, Serapion, etc. 

(1) The son of Poseidonius (Justin (?) Coh, 
ad Gent. § 9; Africanus in Eus. Pr. Ev. x. το. 
Pp. 490), a grammarian of Alexandria in the 
Ist cent. His literary triumphs and critical 
labours on Homer do not fall within our scope, 
but his conflict with Jews and Jewish Chris- 
tians entitles him to a place here. 

(i) His hostility to Judaism was deep, per- 
sistent, and unscrupulous (Joseph. c. Ap. ii. 
I-13; Clem. Hom. iv. 24, v. 2, πάνυ ᾿Ιουδαίους 
dv ἀπεχθείας ἔχοντα, v. 27, 29, ὁ ἀλόγως μισῶν 


APOLINARIS 


τὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων κιτιλ.; Clem. Strom. i. 21), as_ 


the direct extracts preserved by Josephus — 


from his writings clearly prove. These at-— 
tacks were contained in two works especially : 
in his Egyptian History (Αἰγυπτιακά), and in 


a separate treatise Against the Jews (kata | 


᾿Ιουδαίων βίβλος, Justin. (?) 1.0. ; Africanus, 
l.c.). Josephus exposes the ignorance, men- 
dacity, and self-contradictions of Apion. 

(ii) It is not surprising that the spent wave 
of this antagonism should have overflowed on 
Judaic Christianity. 
came in contact with any members of the new — 
brotherhood is more than questionable. His 
early date (for he flourished in the reigns of 
Tiberius, Caius, and Claudius) renders this 
improbable. But in the writings of the Petro- 
Clementine cycle he holds a prominent place 
as an antagonist of the Gospel. In the 
Clementine Homilies he appears in company 
with Anubion and Athenodorus among the 
satellites of Simon Magus, the arch-enemy of 
St. Peter and St. Peter’s faith. The Clementine 
Recognitions contain nothing corresponding to 
the disputes of Clement and Apion in the 4th, 
5th, and 6th books of the Homilies; but at 
the close of this work (x. 52), as at the close 
of the Homilies, he is introduced as a sub- 
sidiary character in the plot. See the 
treatises on these writings by Schliemann, 
Uhlhorn, Hilgenfeld, Lehmann, and others. 

(2) A Christian author about the end of 2nd 
cent., who wrote on the Hexaemeron (Eus. 
H. E. v. 27; Hieron. Vzr. Lil. 409). {L.] 

Apolinaris, or Apolinarius Claudius. ᾿Απο- 
λινάριος : so spelt in the most ancient Gk. 
MSS.; Latin writers generally use the form 
Apollinaris), bp. of Hierapolis, in Phrygia 
A.D. 171 and onwards (Eus. Chron.); one 
of the most active and esteemed Christian 
writers of the day, he is praised by Photius 
for his style (Phot. Cod. 14). Jerome enumer- 
ates him among the ecclesiastical writers who 
were acquainted with heathen literature, and 
who made use of this knowledge in the refuta- 
tion of heresy (Ep. ad Magnum, iv. 83, p. 656. 
Cf. Theod. Haer. Fab. Compend. iii. 2). 

Only a few fragments of his works have been 
preserved. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 27) gives the 
following list of those which had fallen into his 
hands; and his list is repeated by St. Jerome 
(de Vir. Ill. c. 26) and Nicephorus (H. E. 
iv. 11). (1) An apology addressed to Marcus 
Aurelius, probably written after A.D. 174, 
since it is likely that it contained the reference 
to the miracle of the Thundering Legion else- 
where quoted by Eusebius from Apolinaris 
(H. E. v. 5). (2) Five books πρὸς “λληνας, 
written according to Nicephorus in the form 
of a dialogue. (3) Two books περὶ ἀληθείας. 
(4) Two books πρὸς ᾿Ιουδαίους : these are 
not mentioned by St. Jerome, and the refer- 
ence to them is absent from some copies of 
Eusebius. (5) Writings against the Phry- 
gian heresy, published when Montanus was 
first propounding his heresy; 7.e. according to 
the Chronicon of Eusebius, c. 172. These writ- 
ings, which were probably in the form of letters, 
are appealed to by Serapion, bp. of Antioch 
(Eus. H. E. v. 19); and Eusebius elsewhere 
(v. 16) describes Apolinaris as raised up as a 
strong and irresistible weapon against Mon- 


Whether Apion actually 


APOLINARIS 


The situation of his see sufficiently 
accounts for the prominent part taken by 
Apolinaris in this controversy. We are told 

indeed by an anonymous writer who probably 


| 
᾿ . 


i wrote at the end of the gth cent. (Auctor, 


belli Synodict apud Labbe et Cossart, i. 599) 
ithat Apolinaris on this occasion assembled 
] wenty-six other bishops in council, and ex- 
communicated Montanus and Maximilla, as 
well as the shoemaker Theodotus. Besides 
he works mentioned by Eusebius, who does 
not give his list as a complete one, Theodoret 
Haer. Fab. ii. 21) mentions (6) that Apolinaris 
ote against the Encratites of the school of 
Severus (πρὸς τοὺς Σεουηριανοὺς ᾿Εγκρατίτας). 
(7) Photius (Cod. 14) mentions having read 
Apolinaris’s work πρὸς EXAnvas καὶ περὶ 
ἀληθείας καὶ περὶ eboeSeias. (8) In the pre- 


' face to the Alexandrian Chronicle a work 


epi τοῦ πάσχα is attributed to Apolinaris, 
from which two extracts are _ furnished 
which have given rise to much _ contro- 
ersy; the main point being whether (if the 
fragments are genuine) Apolinaris wrote 
on the side of the practice of the Roman 
hurch, or on that of the Quartodecimans of 
Asia Minor. In support of the former view 
is urged the similarity of the language of these 
fragments with that of Clement of Alexandria 
and of Hippolytus, who advocated the West- 
ern practice; and also the fact that Apolin- 
aris is not claimed as a Quartodeciman by 
Polycrates, bp. of Ephesus, in his letter to 
Victor of Rome. On the other side it is urged 


jthat Apolinaris speaks of his antagonists as 


\**some who raise contention through ignor- 
ance,’’ language which would rather convey 
‘the impression that Apolinaris was writing 
jagainst the opinions of some small sect than 
that he was combating the belief of the whole 
church of Asia Minor to which he belonged; 
and it is further urged that if Apolinaris had 
been the first to defend in the East the prac- 
tice which ultimately prevailed, it is incredible 
that neither Eusebius nor any early writer 
mentions this early champion of the Catholic 
practice. Socrates the historian (H. E. iii. 7) 
names Apolinaris, together with Irenaeus, 
Clement, and Serapion, as holding the doctrine 
that our Lord when He became man had a 
human soul (ἔμψυχον τὸν ἐνανθρωπήσανταλ). © 

Apolinaris had been set down as a Chiliast 
on St. Jerome’s authority (de Vir. IIl. c. 
18), but Routh (Rel. Sac. i. 174) has given 
good reason for thinking that the Apollinaris 
intended is the younger Apollinaris, of 
Laodicea; since Jerome speaks of Irenaeus 
and Apollinaris as the first and the last of the 
Greek Millenarians (lib. xi. Comm. in Ezech. 
c. 36, iil. 952), and also states that Apolli- 
Maris answered Dionysius of Alexandria 
(Prooem. in lib. xviii. Comm. Esaiae iii. 
478). 

The Martyrologies commemorate the death 
of Apollinaris on Feb. 7. Of the year or of 
the place and manner of his death nothing is 
known; but that it was before the end of 
the 2nd cent. may be inferred from the lan- 


| guage in which he is described in the letter of 


Serapion written about that time (Κλαυδίου 
Ἀπολιναρίου τοῦ μακαριωτάτου γενομένου ἐν 
Ἱεραπόλει τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἐπισκόπου). [α.5.] 


APOLLINARIS THE ELDER 33 
Apollinarianism, Apollinarians, Apolli- 
narists. [APOLLINARIS THE YOUNGER.] 


Apollinaris, St. and Mart., first bp. or 
archbp. of Ravenna, perhaps from 50-78. 
According to the Life written by Agnellus in 
goth cent. (Liber Ponttficalis, ap. Muratori, 
Rer. It. Script. ii. part i.), St. Apollinaris was 
a native of Antioch, well instructed in Gk. 
and Lat. literature, who followed St. Peter 
to Rome, and was sent by him to Ravenna. 
On his way he healed the son of Irenaeus who 
was blind, and did other miracles. At Rav- 
enna he baptized in the river Bidens, and 
raised the daughter of the patrician Rufus to 
life; imprisoned by the heathen near the 
capitol, he was there fed by angels. After- 
wards, being expelled from the city, he 
preached in Dalmatia, Pannonia, Thrace, and 
Corinth. After three years he returned, 
suffered new persecutions, and did new mir- 
acles, destroying a statue and temple of 
Apollo by his prayers. He was martyred 
under Vespasian, after an episcopate of over 
28 years. 

Other lives, such as that in the Acta Sanc- 
torum, are more full of miracles, but do not 
add anything else of importance. The day 
of his death is agreed upon as July 23; the 
year may have been 78. From a sermon of 
St. Peter Chrysologus in 5th cent. (No. 128, 
pp. 552 seq. ed. Migne), it appears that St. 
Apollinaris was the only bp. of Ravenna who 
suffered martyrdom, and that he, strictly 
speaking, can only be called a confessor. He 
did not die, it would seem, a violent death, 
though it may have been hastened by the 
persecutions he underwent. Probably, like 
his successor Aderitus, he died in the port- 
town Classis, where he was buried. A new 
church, still existing, was built about the 
same time as that of St. Vitale, and into this 
his body was translated by St. Maximianus 
c. 552. The mosaic over the apse seems to 
realize the words of St. Peter Chrysologus 
(u.s.), ‘* Ecce vivit, ecce ut bonus pastor suo 
medius assistit in grege.’’ As early as 575 
it was the custom to take solemn oaths upon 
his relics (St. Greg. Magn. Ep. vi. 61). His 
body was taken to Ravenna in 1515 for 
safety, but restored in 1655 (see authorities 
in Acta Sanctor. for July 23). This most 
interesting basilica, with the vacant monas- 
tery adjoining, is now the only remnant of 
the town of Classis. [1.»ν.] 

Apollinaris (or, according to Greek ortho- 
graphy, Apollinarius) the Elder, of Alex- 
andria, was born about the beginning of the 
4th cent. After teaching grammar for some 
time at Berytus in Phoenicea, he removed, 
A.D. 335, to Laodicea, of which church he 
was made presbyter. Here he married and 
had a son, afterwards the bp. of Laodicea. 
[APOLLINARIS THE YOUNGER.] Both father 
and son were on intimate terms with the 
heathen sophists Libanius and Epiphanius of 
Petra, frequenting the lecture-room of the 
latter, on which account they were admonished 
and, upon their venturing to sit out the 
recitation of a hymn to Bacchus, excommuni- 
cated by Theodotus, bp. of Laodicea, but 
restored upon their subsequent repentance 
(Socr. Eccl. Hist. iii. 16 ; Soz. vi. 25). 

The elder Apollinaris is chiefly noted for 


3 


94 APOLLINARIS THE YOUNGER 
his literary labours. When the edict of Julian, 
A.D. 362, forbade the Christians to read 


Greek literature, he undertook with the aid 
of his son to supply the void by reconstructing 
the Scriptures on the classical models. Thus 
the whole Biblical history down to Saul’s 
accession was turned into 24 books of Homeric 
hexameters, each superscribed, like those of 
the Iliad, by a letter of the alphabet. Lyrics, 
tragedies, and comedies, after the manner of 
Pindar, Euripides, and Menander, followed. 
Even the Gospels and Epistles were adapted 
to the form of Socratic disputation. Two 
works alone remain as samples of their in- 
domitable zeal: a tragedy entitled Christus 
Patiens, in 2601 lines, which has been edited 
among the works of Gregory Nazianzen; and 
a version of the Psalms, in Homeric hexa- 
meters. The most that can be said of this 
Psalter is that it is better than the tragedy, 
and that as a whole it fully bears out the 
reputation of the poet (Basil. Ep. 273, 406) 
that he was never at a loss for an expression. 
Socrates, who is more trustworthy than Sozo- 
men (v. 18), ascribes the O.T. poems to the 
father (ili. 16), and adds that the son as the 
greater rhetorician devoted his energies to 
converting the Gospels and Epistles into 
Platonic dialogues. He likewise mentions a 
treatise on grammar compiled by the elder 
Apollinaris, χριστιανικῷ τύπῳ. For different 
opinions as to the authorship of father and 
son, cf. Vossius, de Hist. Graec. ii. 18 ; de Poet. 
Graec.c. 9; Duport, Praef. ad Metaph. Psalm. 
(Lond. 1674). 

The Metaphrasis Psalmorum was published 
at Paris 1552; by Sylburg, at Heidelberg, 
1596; and subsequently in various collections 
of the Fathers. The latest edition is that in 
Migne’s Pair. Gk. xxiii. [E.M.Y.] 

Apollinaris the Younger, bp. of Laodicea, 
flourished in the latter half of the 4th cent. 
and was at first highly esteemed, even by 
Athanasius and Basil, for his classical culture, 
piety, and adhesion to the Nicene Creed 
during the Arian controversy, until he intro- 
duced a Christological heresy which is called 
after him, and which in some respects pre- 
pared the way for Monophysitism. He 
assisted his father in rewriting the Christian 
Scriptures in imitation of the style of Homer, 
Menander, etc., mentioned in the preceding 
article. He also wrote in defence of Christian- 
ity against Julian and Porphyry ; of orthodoxy 
against the Manicheans, Arians, Marcellus, 
Eunomius, and other heretics; Biblical com- 
mentaries, and other works, of which only 
fragments remain. Jerome enjoyed his in- 
struction, A.D. 374. He did not secede from 
the communion of the church and begin to 
form a sect of his own till 375. He died about 
392. After his death his followers, who were 
not numerous, were divided into two parties, 
the Polemians and Valentinians. His doctrine 
was condemned by a synod of Alexandria 
(not naming him), by two synods at Rome 
under Damasus (377 and 378), and by the 
second oecumenical council (381). Imperial 
decrees prohibited the public worship of the 
Apollinarists (388, 397, 428), until during the 
5th cent. they were absorbed partly by the 
orthodox, partly by the Monophysites. But 
the peculiar Christology of Apollinaris has 


APOLLINARIS THE YOUNGER 


reappeared from time to time, in a modified 
shape, as an isolated theological opinion. — 
Apollinaris was the first to apply the results 
of the Nicene controversy to Christology pro-— 
per, and to call the attention of the church to” 
the psychical and pneumatic element in the 
humanity of Christ; but in his zeal for the 
true deity of Christ, and fear of a double 
personality, he fell into the error of a partial 
denial of His true Humanity. Adopting the 
psychological trichotomy of Plato (σῶμα, puxt, 
πνεῦμα), for which he quoted I. Thess. v. 23 | 
and Gal. v. 17, he attributed to Christ a 
human body (σῶμα) and a human soul (the 4 
ψυχὴ ἄλογος, the anima animans which man 
has in common with the animal), but not a 
rational spirit (νοῦς, πνεῦμα. ψυχὴ λογική, 
anima rationalis), and put in the place of the’ 
latter the divine Logos. In opposition to the — 
idea of a mere connexion of the Logos with 
the man Jesus, he wished to secure an organic 
unity of the two, and so a true incarnation; 
but he sought this at the expense of the most _ 
important constituent of man. He reached 
only a θεός capxopépos, as Nestorianism only 
an ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος, instead of the proper 
θεάνθρωπος. He appealed to the fact that the 
Scripture says, ‘‘ the Word was made flesh ’— 
not spirit; ‘‘ God was manifest in the flesh,” 
etc. To which Gregory Nazianzen justly 
replied that in these passages the term σάρξ, 
was used by synecdoche for the whole human 
nature. In this way Apollinaris established 
so close a connexion of the Logos with human 
flesh, that all the divine attributes were trans- 
ferred to the human nature, and all the human 
attributes to the divine, and the two merged — 
in one nature in Christ. Hence he could 
speak of a crucifixion of the Logos, and ἃ 
worship of His flesh. He made Christ a 
middle being between God and man, in Whom, ~ 
as it were, one part divine and two parts — 
human were fused in the unity of a new nature. 
He even ventured to adduce created analogies 
of mixtures in nature. Christ, said he, is — 
οὔτε ἄνθρωπος ὅλος, οὔτε θεός, ἀλλὰ θεοῦ καὶ 
ἀνθρώπου μίξις. On the other hand, he re- 
garded the orthodox view of a union of f ἱ 
humanity with a full divinity in one person— ~ 
of two wholes in one whole—as an absurdity, 
in a similar category with the mythological 
figure of the Minotaur. But the Apollinarian — 
idea of the union of the Logos with a trun- 
cated human nature might be itself more 
justly compared with this monster. Starting 
from the Nicene homoousion as to the Logos, 
but denying the completeness of Christ’s 
humanity, he met Arianism half-way, which ἡ 
likewise put the divine Logos in the place oft 
the human spirit in Christ. But he strongly ¥ 
asserted Christ’s unchangeableness, while 
Arians taught His changeableness (τρεπτότης). 
The faith of the church revolted against — 
such a mutilated and stunted humanity οὗ 
Christ, which necessarily involved also ἃ 
merely partial redemption. The incarna-_ 
tion is an assumption of the entire human | 
nature, sin only excluded. The ἐνσάρκωσις is 
ἐνανθρώπησι. To be a full and complete 
Redeemer, Christ must be a perfect man 
(τέλειος ἄνθρωπος). The spirit or rational 
soul is the most important element in man, 


Ι APOLLONIUS 


he seat of intelligence and freedom, and 
eeds redemption as well as the soul and the 
ody; for sin has corrupted all the faculties. 
Athanasius, the two Gregories, Basil, and 
piphanius combated the Apollinarian error, 


“Shut were unprepared to answer duly its 


nain point, that two integral persons cannot 
orm one person. The later orthodox doc- 
ine surmounted this difficulty by teaching 
he impersonality of the human nature of 
hrist, and by making the personality of 
hrist to reside wholly in the Logos. 
Apollinarianism opened the long line of 
hristological controversies, which resulted in 
he Chalcedonian symbol. 
} Lirerature.—Of the writings of Apolli- 
haris, περὶ σαρκώσεως, περὶ πίστεως, περὶ ἀναστά- 
ews, κατὰ κεφάλειον, and other polemical and 


») xegetical works and epistles, only fragments 


jemain in the answers of Gregory of Nyssa and 
Theodoret, in Leontius Byzant. in the Catenae, 


ind in Angelo Mai’s Nova Bibliotheca Patrum, 


om. vii. (Rom. 1854) pt. ii. 82-91. 


Ag ainst Apollinaris are directed Athanasius’s 
Pontra Apollinarium, or rather περὶ σαρκώσεως 
fod Κυρίου ἡμῶν “I. X. (Opera, ed. Bened. tom. 


)Pheod. Fabulae Haer. iv. 8, v. 9. 


t. ii. pp. 921-955), written about 372 
ithout naming Apollinaris; Gregory of 
yssa, Λόγος, ἀντιῤῥητικὸξ πρὸς τὰ ᾿Απολ- 
wapiov, first edited by Zaccagni, Rom. 1698, 
nd then by Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Patr. vi. 517- 
77; Basilius M., Ep. 265 (Opera, ed. Ben. t. 
ii. pt. ii. 591 sqq.); Epiph. Haer. Ixxvii. ; 
Of the 
ater literature, cf. especially Petavius, de In- 
arnatione Verbi, i. c. 6; Dorner, History of 
hristology, i. 974-1080; Neander, History, 


_ 334-338; Schaff, History of the Christian 


hurch, iii. 708-714 ; Harnack, Dogmengesch. 
}rg09), ii. 324-334 ; Thomasius, Dogmengesch. 
1889), 314 f. ; Schwane, Dogmengesch. (1895), 
477-283; G. Voisin, L’Apollinarisme (Paris, 


gor). [p.s.] 

Apollonius, M. [Commopus.] 

Apollonius of Ephesus, so called on the 
loubtful authority of the writer of Prae- 
lestinatus, ed. by Sirmond, who styles him bp. 
of Ephesus, but the silence of Eusebius and 

other earlier testimony makes it difficult to 
ay much stress on this statement. He wrote 

work in five books against the Cataphrygian 
o Montanist heresy. Fragments of the first 
hree books are extant in Eusebius (H. E. 
. 18), and contain much that is curious 
nd valuable with regard to the lives and 
haracters of Montanus, the prophetesses 
Priscilla and Maximilla, and their followers. 
erome also devotes an article to Apollonius. 
ir. Illust. c. 50, in which he calls him ἀνὴρ 

Ογιμώτατος, the author of a μέγα καὶ 
mignuov τεῦχος, and quotes him as stating 
hat Montanus and his prophetesses hanged 
hemselves. The book professes to be written 
o years after the commencement of Mon- 
anus’s pretensions to prophesy. Taking for 
he rise of Montanism the date given in the 
-hronicon of Eusebius (A.p. 172), this would 

ve about A.D. 210 for the date of this work. 

usebius mentions also that Apollonius cites 
he Revelation of St. John, that he relates the 
aising to life of a dead man at Ephesus by 
he same John, and that he makes mention 


APOLLONIUS 35 


of the tradition quoted also by Clement of 
Alexandria (S/rom. vi. 5 sub finem) from the 
Apocryphal ‘‘ Preaching of Peter’ that our 
Lord commanded His apostles not to leave 
Jerusalem for twelve years after His ascension. 
This work of Apollonius was thought suffi- 
ciently important by Tertullian to demand 
an answer; bk. vil. of his lost work, de 
Ecstast, was devoted to a refutation of his 
assertions (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c. 50). Tille- 
mont, Hist. Eccl. ii. 426; Bonwetsch. Gesch. 
des Montanismus (Erlanger, 1881). [Ἐ.ν.] 

Apollonius of Tyana. The life of this 
philosopher is related by Philostratus, but 
the entire fabulousness of his story is obvious. 
The prodigies, anachronisms, and geographical 
blunders, and entire absence of other authority 
are fatal to it (see H. Conybeare in the Guard- 
tan, June 21, 1893, and Apollon. Apology, 
Acts, etc, Lond. 1894). Philostratus indeed 
claims the authority of ‘‘ the records of cities 
and temples, and Apollonius’s epistles to the 
Eleans, Delphians, Indians, and Egyptians ”’ ; 
but the cities and temples are nameless. 

What, then, can we really be said to know 
of Apollonius of Tyana? That he was born 
at Tyana and educated at Aegae, that he 
professed Pythagoreanism, and that he was 
celebrated in his day for what were considered 
magical arts, are the only facts that rest on 
altogether unexceptionable authority. The 
account of his. opposition to the Stoic 
Euphrates may perhaps also be taken as 
authentic. His reputation as a magician is 
confirmed by the double authority of Moera- 
genes and Lucian (Pseudomantis, c. 5). Yet 
there are also reasons for believing that he 
was more than a mere magician, and even a 
philosopher of some considerable insight. 
Eusebius (Praep. Ev. p. 1506) quotes a pas- 
sage from his book On Sacrtfices (with the 
reservation ‘‘ Apollonius is said to write as 
follows’’), which if really his is certainly re- 
markable. All later authorities base their 
accounts on the Life by Philostratus ; except 
Origen, who quotes Moeragenes. Hierocles 
mentions Maximus of Aegae and Damis, but 
probably only knew of them through Philos- 
tratus. We now come to the collection of 
letters still extant which are attributed to 
Apollonius. Prof. Jowett (in the D. of G. and 
R. Biogr.) thinks that part may be genuine ; 
but Kayser and Zeller reject them summarily, 
and most writers on Apollonius barely mention 
them. Zeller evensays that they are obviously 
composed to suit the Life by Philostratus. We 
do not think that this opinion can be held by 
any one who attentively compares the letters 
with the biography; and we think it probable 
that the letters, whether genuine or not, were 
composed before the work of Philostratus, and 
hence form our earliest and best authority 
respecting Apollonius. 

The question arises, Had Philostratus in the 
biography any idea of attacking Christianity 
by setting up a rival to Christ? Hierocles, 
at the end of the 3rd cent., was the first person 
who actually applied the work of Philostratus 
to this purpose, as is said expressly by Euse- 
bius, who replied to him. The Deists of the 
18th cent., both in France and England, used 
them thus; but whereas Hierocles would admit 
the miracles both of Christ and of Apollonius, 


36 APOLLONIUS 


Voltaire and Lord Herbert had an equal dis- 
belief in both. Naturally, none of these 
writers held that Philostratus wrote in direct 
imitation of the Gospels, as it would have 
marred their point to do so. But equally 
naturally the orthodox writers, beginning 
with Huet, bp. of Avranches, and coming 
down through Paley to our own day, have 
considered Philostratus a direct though con- 
cealed antagonist of Christianity. This view 
has been opposed in Germany by Meiners, 
Neander, Buhle, and Jacobs, and in England 
by Watson (Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1867). Baur 
took an intermediate view in his Apollonius 
von Tyana und Christus, Tiibingen, 1832), 
which in its main outline will we think com- 
mend itself as by far the most probable ac- 
count. According to this view Philostratus 
wrote with no strictly polemical reference to 
Christianity, but, in the eclectic spirit of his 
time, strove to accommodate Christianity to 
the heathen religion. We are disposed to 
believe, without attributing to Philostratus 
any formal design of opposing or assimilating 
Christianity, that he was strongly influenced 
by its ideas and history. 

The central aim of his biography is to set 
forth, not merely wise precepts in the abstract, 
but an example of supreme wisdom for 
humanity to imitate. It is not implied by 
this that Philostratus considered Apollonius 
as entirely and necessarily unique among 
men; but it is implied that he considered 
him as more than a mere teacher of doctrine, 
as a pattern to men in his own person, as one 
in whom wisdom and truth were incorporate. 
He wished men to honour Apollonius himself, 
and not merely to study or believe certain 
truths delivered by Apollonius. This cannot, 
we think, be doubted by any one who reflects 
on the whole tone of the book. Apollonius 
is called ‘‘ divine’’; his disciples stand in 
an altogether different relation to him from 
that in which the disciples of Socrates stand to 
Socrates; they do not argue with him as 
equals with an equal; they follow him, listen 
to him, are rebuked by him. His miracles, 
again, do not result from his being in posses- 
sion of any secret communicable to other men, 
but arise from his own nature and wisdom. 
Such a character must remind us, however 
different in some respects, of the Christ of the 
Gospels. But was any character like this, or 
approaching to this, drawn by any heathen 
writer before Christ ? Wethink not. Philo- 
sophy and magic, the search after knowledge 
and the search after power, were familiar to 
men who had never heard of Christianity ; 
but this ideal is different from either, and from 
both of them united. Those who affirm that 
Philostratus never thought of the Christian 
history in his work, say that he intended 
Apollonius as arival to Pythagoras. But by 
whom was Pythagoras portrayed as this super- 
human ideal? Not certainly by any writer 
of the centuries before Christ. Even Plutarch 
(Numa, c. vill.) does not set him up as an 
ideal exemplar. Is it possible that the age of 
Caracalla and Severus, so eclectic, so tradi- 
tional, so unoriginal, can of its own mere 
motion have gone off into this new and un- 
heard-of line?—unheard of, that is, unless, as 
we must, we suppose it to have been borrowed 


APOSTOLIC FATHERS ᾿ 
from Christianity. The Christians were not 
then by any means an unknown sect; so well 
known were they that Alexander Severus— 
(with a singular parallelism to the supposed 
conduct of Philostratus) placed Christ with 
Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius himself, | 
among his household gods. Secondly, t 
resemblance to the Gospel histories is in par-~ 
ticular instances very broad indeed. The 
miraculous birth of Proteus, and the ΟΣ 


owe 


stances attending it; the healing of demonti} 
acal possessions (was the idea of such posses. 
sions in any way familiar to the Greeks ?); 
the raising of the dead; the appearance of) 
Apollonius to two of his disciples after his) 
deliverance from Domitian; his ascent to 
heaven, and appearance after his death. 
these are points of similarity that cannot be 
evaded : and, taken together with the central. 
idea of the book, they seem to imply that. 
Philostratus consciously borrowed from the. 
Gospels. It should be noticed that the very 
striking resemblances between the biography 
of Apollonius and the Gospels are resem-- 
blances in externals; the inner spirit is’ 
entirely different: in the one we find the 
self-contained philosophic spirit, striking even’ 
amid all the rhetoric and tawdry marvels with 
which Philostratus has dressed it ; in the other, 
the spirit of the insufficiency of self. 

Those who wish to examine the whole’ 
question respecting Apollonius should consult 
Baur, op. cit. ; Kayser’s Philostratus ; Zeller’s 
Philosophie der Griechen; and the writers 
noticed above. [J-R-M.] 

Apostolic Fathers. Definition of the Term.— 
The adjective Apostolicus (ἀποστολικός) is 
used to denote either morally or doctrinally 
accordance with the Apostles, or historically 
connexion with the Apostles. In this latter 
sense it is especially applied to churches 
founded directly by Apostles, or to persons 
associated with and taught by Apostles. The 
former are Apostolicae ecclesiae; the latter 
Apostolict virt, or Apostolict simply. See 
especially Tertull. de Praescr. 32, ‘‘ ut primus 
ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apos- 
tolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis persever- 
avit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc 
enim modo ecclesiae apostolicae census suos 
deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Poly- 
carpum ab Joanne collocatum refert, sicut 
Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum 
itidem,’”’ with the whole context. Cf. also de 
Praescr. 20, 21; adv. Marc. i. 21, v. 2; de 
Carn. Chr. 2; de Pudic. 21. Hence among 
the Evangelists, while St. Matthew and St. 
John are Apostoli, St. Mark and St. Luke are 
A postolict (adv. Mare. iv. 2). In accordance 
with this usage the term Apostolic Fathers is 
confined to those who are known, or may 
reasonably be presumed, to have associated 
with and derived their teaching directly from 
some Apostle. In its widest range it will 
include Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens, Ignatius, 
Polycarp, Papias, and the writer of the epistle 
to Diognetus. Some of these fail to satisfy 
the conditions which alone entitle to a place 
among the works of the Apostolic Fathers. 
Thus the ‘‘ Shepherd’”’ of Hermas has been 
placed in this category, because it was sup- 
posed to have been written by the person οἵ 
this name mentioned by St. Paul (Rom. xviv 


APOSTOLIC FATHERS 


14; see Origen ad loc. Op. iv. 683); but a 
more authentic tradition ascribes it to the 
brother of Pius, who was bp. of Rome a little 
before the middle of 2nd cent. (Canon. Murat. 
p- 58, ed. Tregelles; see pseudo-Tertull. 
Poem. adv. Mare. iii. 294, in Tertull. Op. ii. 
792, ed. Oehler). Thus again the claim of 
Papias to be considered an Apostolic Father 
rests on the supposition that he was a disciple 
of St. John the Evangelist, as Irenaeus 
apparently imagines (Haer. v. 33, § 4); but 
Eusebius says that Irenaeus was mistaken, 
and that the teacher of Papias was not the 
Apostle St. John, but the presbyter of the 
same name (H. E. iii. 39). Again, there 
is some uncertainty about the Epistle to 
Diogne Its claim is founded on an ex- 


tus. 
ression which occurs in ὃ rr, and which has 
τίνα interpreted literally as implying that 
the writer was a personal disciple of one or 
| other of the Apostles. But tm the first place 
the context shews that this literal interpreta- 
tion is out of place, and the passage must be 
explained as follows: ‘‘I do not make any 
strange statements nor indulge in unreason- 
able questionings, but having learnt my 
lessons from the Apostles (lit. having become 
a disciple of Apostles), I stand forward as a 
teacher of the nations’’; and secondly, this 
is no part of the Ep. io Diognetus proper 
§§ 1-10), but belongs to a later writing, which 
as been accidentally attached to the Epistle, 
owing to the loss of some leaves in the MS. 
This latter fact is conclusive. If therefore the 
Epistle has any title to a place among the 
Apostolic Fathers, it must be established by 
internal evidence; and though the internal 
character suggests an early date, perhaps as 
early as about A.D. 117 (see Westcott, Canon, 
p- 79), yet there is no hint of any historical 
connexion between the writer and the 
Apostles. Lastly, the so-called Ep. of Bar- 
nabas occupies an unique position. If the 
writer had been the companion of St. Paul 
who bore that name, then he would more 
properly be styled, not an “‘ apostolic man,”’ 
as he is designated by Clement of Alexandria 
(Strom. ii. 20, p. 489, ὁ ἀποστολικὸς BapvaBas), 
but an “‘ apostle,”’ as the same Clement else- 
where styles him (Strom. ii. 6, p. 445; ii. 7, 
. 447), in accordance with St. Luke’s language 
Acts xiv. 14). But if the writer be not the 
Apostle Barnabas, then we have no evidence 
of any personal relations with the Apostles, 
though such is not impossible, as the Epistle 
must have been written at some date between 
the age of Vespasian and that of Nerva. 
Three names remain, Clement, Ignatius, and 
Polycarp, about which there is no reasonable 
ground for hesitation. 

All the genuine writings of these three 
Apostolic Fathers are epistolary in form, 
modelled more or less after the pattern of the 
Canonical Epistles, especially those of St. 
Paul, and called forth by pressing temporary 
needs. In no case is any literary motive 
prominent. A famous teacher writes in the 
name of the community over which he pre- 
sides to quell the dissensions of a distant but 
friendly church. An aged disciple on his 
way to martyrdom pours out a few parting 
words of exhortation to the Christian brother- 
hoods with whom he is brought in contact 


APOSTOLIC FATHERS 


during his journey. A bishop of a leading 
church, having occasion to send a parcel to 
another brotherhood at a distance, takes the 
opportunity of writing, in answer to their 
solicitations, a few plain words of advice and 
instruction. Such is the simple account of 
the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp 
respectively. 

The same form is preserved in the Ep. of 
Barnabas and the letter to Diognetus. But 
the spirit is somewhat different. They are 
rather treatises clothed in an epistolary dress, 
the aim of the one being polemical, of the other 
apologetic. Herein they resemble Hebrews 
more than the Epp. of St. Paul. 

“The Apostolic Fathers,’’ says de Pres- 
sensé, “ἅτ not great writers, but great 
characters’ (Trots Premiers Siécles, ii. 384). 
Their style is loose; there is a want of ar- 
rangement in the topics, and an absence of 
system in their teaching. On the one hand 
they present a marked contrast to the depth 
and clearness of conception with which the 
several N.T. writers place before us different 
aspects of the Gospel, and by which their title 
to a special inspiration is established. On the 
other, they lack the scientific spirit which 
distinguished the Fathers of the 4th and 5th 
cents., and which enabled them to formulate 
the doctrines of the faith as a bulwark against 
unbridled speculation. But though they are 
deficient in distinctness of conception and 
power of exposition, “‘ this inferiority’’ to 
the later Fathers ‘‘ is amply compensated by 
a certain naiveté and simplicity which forms 
the charm of their letters. If they have not 
the precision of the scientific spirit, they are 
free from its narrowness.’’ There is a breadth 
of moral sympathy, an earnest sense of per- 
sonal responsibility, a fervour of Christian 
devotion, which is the noblest testimony to 
the influence of the Gospel on characters 
obviously very diverse, and which will always 
command for their writings a respect to which 
their literary merits could lay no claim. The 
gentleness and serenity of Clement, whose 
whole spirit is absorbed in contemplating the 
harmonies of nature and of grace; the fiery 
zeal of Ignatius, in whom the one over- 
mastering desire of martyrdom has crushed 
all human passion; the unbroken constancy 
of Polycarp, whose protracted life is spent in 
maintaining the faith once delivered to the 
saints,—these are lessons which can never 
become antiquated or lose their value. 

Thetr Relation to the Apostolic Teaching and 
to the Canonical Scriptures.—Of the respective 
provinces of the Apostolic Fathers, we may 
say that Clement co-ordinates the different 
elements of Christian teaching as left by 
the Apostles; and Ignatius consolidates the 
structure of ecclesiastical polity, as sketched 
out by them; while for Polycarp, whose 
active career was just beginning as theirs 
ended, and who lived on for more than half 
a century after their deaths, was reserved the 
task of handing down unimpaired to a later 
generation the Apostolic doctrine and order 
thus co-ordinated and consolidated by his 
elder contemporaries—a task for which he 
was eminently fitted by his passive and 
receptive character. 

The writings of these three Fathers lie well 


37 


98 APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

within the main stream of Catholic teaching. 
They are the proper link between the Canon- 
ical Scriptures and the church Fathers of the 
succeeding ages. They recognize all the 
different elements of the Apostolic teaching, 
though combining them in different propor- 
tions. ‘‘ They prove that Christianity was 
Catholic from the very first, uniting a variety 
of forms in one faith. They shew that the 
great facts of the Gospel narrative, and the 
substance of the Apostolic letters, formed 
the basis and moulded the expression of the 
common creed ’”’ (Westcott, Canon, p. 55). 

But when we turn to the other writings for 
which a place among the Apostolic Fathers 
has been claimed, the case is different. Though 
the writers are all apparently within the pale 
of the church, yet there is a tendency to that 
one-sided exaggeration—either in the direc- 
tion of Judaisms or the opposite—which 
stands on the very verge of heresy. In the 
Ep. of Barnabas and in the letter to Diognetus, 
the repulsion from Judaism is so violent, that 
one step further would have carried the 
writers into Gnostic or Marcionite dualism. 
On the other hand, in the Shepherd of 
Hermas, and possibly in the Expositions 
of Papias (for in this instance the inferences 
drawn from a few scanty fragments must be 
precarious), the sympathy with the Old Dis- 
pensation is unduly strong, and the distinctive 
features of the Gospel are darkened by the 
shadow of the Law thus projected upon them. 
In Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, both 
extremes are avoided. 

For the relation of these writers to the 
Canonical Scriptures the reader is referred to 
the thorough investigation in Westcott’s Hist. 
of the Canon, pp. 19-55. It will be sufficient 
here to state the more important results: (1) 
The Apostolic Fathers do not, as a rule, quote 
by name the canonical writings of the N.T. 
But (2), though (with exceptions) the books 
of the N.T. are not quoted by name, fragments 
of most of the canonical Epistles lie embedded 
in the writings of these Fathers, whose 
language is thoroughly leavened with the 
Apostolic diction. In like manner the facts 
of the Gospel history are referred to, and the 
words of our Lord given, though for the most 
part not as direct quotations. For (3) there 
is no decisive evidence that these Fathers 
recognized a Canon of the N.T., as a distinctly 
defined body of writings; though Barnabas 
once introduces our Lord’s words as recorded 
in Matt. xx. 16, xxii. 14, with the usual 
formula of Scriptural citation, ‘‘ As it is 
written (ws γέγραπται). But (4), on the 
other hand, they assign a special and pre- 
eminent authority to the Apostles which 
they distinctly disclaim for themselves. This 
is the case with Clement (§§ 5, 7) and Ignatius 
(Rom. 4), speaking of St. Peter and St. Paul; 
and with Polycarp (§ 3), speaking of St. Paul 
—the only Apostles that are mentioned by 
name in these writings. (5) Lastly, though 
the language of the Canonical Gospels is 
frequently not quoted word for word, yet 
there is no distinct allusion to any apocryphal 
narrative. [L. 

The standard work on the Apostolic 
Fathers is by the writer of the above article, 
the late bp. Lightfoot. His work on the 


AQUILA 


principal subject, in five 8vo volumes, in- 
cludes Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp. But after 
his death a single vol. was pub. containing re- 
vised texts of all the Apostolic Fathers, with 
short introductions and Eng. translations. 
Apostolici, one of the names adopted by ar 
ascetic sect in Phrygia, Cilicia, and Pamphylia. 
Their leading principle seems to have been 
the rejection of private property. They a 
also said to have resembled Tatian, th 
Encratites, and the ‘ Cathari’’ (Novatian 
ists), in that they refused to admit offenders te 
communion, and condemned marriage. They 
appealed chiefly to the apocryphal Acts of 
Andrew and of Thomas. They entitled them- 
selves A potactici, i.e. ‘‘ Renuntiants.’’ What 
little is recorded about them, beyond the name, 
we owe to Epiphanius (Haer. Ixi. 506-513), 
who apparently knew them only by vague 
oral report. Their place in his treatise would 
naturally assign them to the 3rd cent.; and 
they evidently had not ceased to exist in the 
4th. ‘‘ Encratites, Saccophori, and Apotac- 
tites,’’ described together as ‘‘ an offshoot of 
the Marcionites,’”’ are associated with Nova- 
tianists by Basil in a letter answering queries 
from Amphilochius of Iconium (cxcix. can. 
47; cf. clxxxvili. can. 1), written in 375, when 
Epiphanius had begun and not completed 
his work. A law of Theodosius against the 
Manicheans in 381 (Cod. Theod. XVI. ν. 7; cf. 
11 an. 383) alleges that some of these heretics 
endeavoured to evade the existing severe 
legislation by calling themselves ‘‘ Encratites, 
Apotactites, Hydroparastatae, or Saccophori.’ 
Any true historical connexion, however, 
between the Apostolici and either the Ma 
cionists or the Manicheans is highly improb- 
able. [H.] 
Apphianus, or Appianus, or Amphianus, 
M., a son of rich parents at ‘‘ Pagae”’ (pro 
bably Araxas) in Lycia, educated in the 
schools of Berytus, who being not twenty 
years old interrupted the governor at Caesarea 
when sacrificing, by an exhortation to desist 
from idolatry, and was, after horrible tortures 
—e.g. by his feet being wrapped in a tunica 
molesta of flax steeped in oil and set on fire— 
finally martyred by drowning, April 11, 306 
(Eus. de Mart. Palaest. iv.; Syriac Acta, in 
Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 189 seq.). [A-W.H.] | 
Aquila (᾿ Ἀκύλας), the author of a translation ~ 
of the O.T. into Greek, which was held in ~ 
much esteem by the Jews and was reproduced — 
by Origen in the third column of the Hexapla, | 
seems to have belonged to the earlier half of 
2nd cent. Little is known regarding his per- 
sonal history beyond the fact that he was, — 
like the Aquila associated with St. Paul, ἃ 
native of Pontus, and probably, according ἴθ. 
the more definite tradition, of Sinope. We © 
learn also from Irenaeus, in whom we find © 
the earliest mention of him (adv. Haer. | 
iii. 24), that he was a proselyte to the Jewish 
faith—a statement confirmed by Eusebius 
(Demonst. Evang. vii. 1: προσήλυτος δὲ ὁ 
᾿Ακύλας ἣν οὐ φύσει lovdatos), Jerome (Ep. ad | 
Pammach. Opp. iv. 2, p. 255), and other © 
Fathers, as well as by the Jerusalem Talmud 
(Megill. 1. 71, c. 3; Ktddush. f. 59, C. Ty 
where there can be little doubt that the Akilas * 
referred to is to be identified with Aquila). — 


2 
: 


Se Se eee ee ee 


᾿ 


ΓΘ... ΟΝ 


| 


ARCHELAUS 


rom this circumstance he is frequently called 
Aquila the proselyte.”’ j 
| The object of Aquila was to furnish a 
anslation on which the Jews could rely as 
more accurate rendering of the Hebrew 
‘han that of the Septuagint, which not only 
yas in many instances loose and incorrect 
rom the first, but had also in the course 
of four centuries undergone change and 
torruption. With this view he made _ his 
bersion strictly literal, striving to provide a 
reek equivalent for every Hebrew word 
nd particle, in frequent disregard of the 
bales of grammar and of idiom, and with the 
esult of often rendering his meaning hardly 
ntelligible to those who were not acquainted 
with Hebrew (as in Job xxx. 1, καὶ νῦν 
ἔλασαν ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ βραχεῖς παρ᾽ ἐμὲ ταῖς ἡμέρας 
Ps. xlix. 21, ὑπέλαβες ἐσόμενος ἔσομαι ὅμοιός σοι 
Ps. ΟΧΙΪΧ. 6, καὶ μάχαιρα στομάτων ἐν χερσὶν 
αὐτῶν). He carefully endeavoured even to re- 
roduce Hebrew etymologies in Greek, and for 
hat purpose freely coined new forms (as in 
Ps. xxi. 13, δυνάσταιΒασὰν διεδημα τίσαντό με 
Ps. exviii. 10, μὴ ἀγνοηματίσῃς με). Origen 
accordingly characterizes him as δουλεύων τῇ 
Ἐβραϊκῇ λέξει (Ep. ad Afric.), and the frag- 
ments of the version which have been preserved 
amply bear out the truth of the description. 
But the excessively literal character of the 
work, while impairing its value as a translation 
for those who were not Jews, renders it all 
the more valuable as a witness to the state 
of the Hebrew text from which it was made. 
(ἃς to the nature and value of the version, 
568 Smith’s D. B. iii. 1622.) 
| Several scholars of eminence have recently 
maintained that Aquila is to be identified 
jnot only with the Akilas of the Talmud, but 
also with Onkelos, whose name is associ- 
tated with the well-known Targum on the 
Pentateuch ; holding that the latter is merely 
- tan altered form of the name, and that the. 
Chaldee version came to receive what is now 
its ordinary designation from its being drawn 
_ | up on the model, or after the manner, of that 
of Aquila. The arguments in support of this 
view, which appear to have great weight, are 
set forth with much clearness and force by Mr. 
Deutsch in his article on ‘‘ Versions, Ancient, 
(Targum),’’ in Smith’s ἢ. B. iii. 1642-1645. 
The fragments of the version of Aquila— 
first collected by Morinus for the Sixtine 
edition of the Septuagint, Rome, 1587, and 
subsequently by Drusius, in his Veterum tnterp. 
Graec. in V. T. Fragmenta, Arnb. 1622—are 
more fully given in the edition of the Hexapla 
by Montfaucon, Paris 1714, andits abridgment 
by Bahrdt, 1769-1770. A most complete and 
valuable edition is that by Mr. Frederick 
Field: Oxf. 1867-1870 (see Field, Herapla 
[1875], xvi-xxvii). The chief questions con- 
nected with Aquila are discussed by Mont- 
faucon, and by Hody (de Bibliorum Textibus 
Originalibus, Oxf. 1705). [w.p.pD.] 
helaus, supposed bp. of Carchar (perhaps 
Carrhoe Harrom in Mesopotamia). A work is 
attributed to him called Acta Disputationis 
Archel. Ep. Mesop. et Manetis haeresiarchae. 
It is extant in a Latin translation from a 
Greek text, but some think the Greek is 
derived from a Syriac original, The author 


; 
; 


ARETHAS 39 


was probably (cf. Phot. Cod. 85) a certain 
Hegemonius. The disputation and Archelaus 
himself seem to be fictitious; but the work 
affords valuable information respecting the 
Manichean system (cf. Bardenhewer, 1908, pp. 
208-260). {H.w.] 
Arethas, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and 
Andreas, an earlier archbp. of the same see, 
are so intimately associated as commentators 
on the Book of Revelation, and so little 
known otherwise, that they may most fitly 
be noticed together. We have no direct in- 
formation regarding either, beyond the bare 
fact of their common connexion with the see 
of Caesarea. The dates at which they flour- 
ished can only be inferred approximately, and 
somewhat vaguely, from incidental notices of 
persons or of events in their writings. The 
question has been most fully discussed by 
Rettig (Die Zeugnisse des Andreas und Arethas 
- in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken for 
1831, pp. 734 seq.); and his conclusions have 
been very generally accepted. He has shewn 
by enumerating the succession of bishops in 
Caesarea that the last 30 or 40 years of the 
5th cent. may be assigned to Andreas and 
Arethas; and the absence of any reference 
to later events favours the belief that the 
work was prepared towards the close of the 
5th, or in the earlier part of the 6th, cent. 
The commentary of Andreas on the Apo- 
calypse (entitled "Epunveta els τὴν ᾿Αποκάλυψιν) 
seems to have been the earliest systematic 
exposition of the book in the Greek church. 
The statement of R. Simon, Fabricius, Rosen- 
miiller, and others, that the work belongs to 
the class of Catenae, is not borne out either by 
its form or by the language of the Preface, 
which simply means that he made use of the 
materials which he found in the early writers 
whom he names, and occasionally quoted 
their expressions (παρ᾽ ὧν ἡμεῖς πολλὰς λαβόντες 
ἀφορμάς... καθὼς ἔν τισι τόποις χρήσεις 
τούτων παρεθέμεθα). He wrote, in compliance 
with the urgent request of persons who had a 
greater opinion of his judgment than he had 
himself, ‘‘ to unfold the meaning of the Apo- 
calypse, and to make the suitable application 
of its predictions to the times that followed 
it”? (ἀναπτύξαι τὴν... ᾿Αποκάλυψιν. καὶ τοῖς 
μετὰ τὴν αὐτῆς ὀπτασίαν χρόνοις ἐφαρμόσαι τὰ 
προφητευθέντα). His method rests on the 
distinction of a threefold sense in Scripture 
—the literal or outward historical (τὸ γράμμα 
καὶ ἡ κατ᾽ αἴσθησιν ἱστορία), the tropological or 
moral (ἡ τροπολογία ἐξ αἰσθητῶν ἐπὶ τὰ νοητὰ 
ὁδηγοῦσα τὸν ἀναγιν ὠσκονταὶ, and the mystical 
or speculative (ἡ τῶν μελλόντων καὶ ὑψηλο- 
τέρων ἀναγωγὴ καὶ θεωρία); the expositor of 
the Revelation is chiefly concerned with the 
latter. He divided the text into twenty-four 
λόγοι corresponding to the four-and-twenty 
elders, and 72 κεφάλαια, according to the 
threefold distinction of body, soul, and spirit 
(24 Χ 3=72). The exposition contains not 
a little that is of value, but it is full of the 
fanciful interpretations to which the method 
gave rise. The paucity of MSS. of the Apo- 
calypse renders the text which accompanies 
the commentary of great importance to 
criticism ; and Bengel was of opinion that the 


40 ARINTHAEUS 


work of Andreas, by directing fresh attention 
to the book, contributed in no small degree 
to its more frequent use and transcription. 
An interesting passage in the Preface, where 
the writer mentions Papias among the other 
Fathers whose testimony to the inspiration 
of the book rendered it superfluous to enlarge 
on that point, has been much discussed. 
The work of Arethas, again, professes to be 
a compilation. It is no mere reproduction of 
the work of his predecessor, although it incor- 
porates a large portion of the contents of that 
work, occasionally abridging or modifying the 
language of Andreas, and often specifying with 
more precision the sources of his quotations. 
But it contains much derived from other 
sources, or contributed by Arethas himself. 
The commentary of Andreas was first 
printed in the form of an imperfect and in- 
accurate Latin version by Peltanus in 1574. 


The Greek text was first edited by Sylburg | 
from a collation of three MSS. in 1596, along | 


with a reprint of the Latin version. It has 
been several times reissued in connexion with 
the works of Chrysostom. The Greek text of 
Arethas is presented in its fullest and best 
form by Cramer (in his Catenae Gk. Patrum in 
N. T., Oxf. 1840) ; whose valuable additions, 
furnished chiefly by the Codex Baroccianus, 
exhibit the text in a shape so different from 
that previously printed as to make the latter 
often appear a mere abridgment.  [w.P.D.] 
Arinthaeus, a general under Valens, with 
whom St. Basil corresponds, and from whom 


he seeks protection for a friend in difficulty | 


(Ep. 179). On his death Basil writes a letter 
of consolation to his widow, in which he 
dwells on his remarkable endowments, his 
striking personal beauty and strength, as 
well as his lofty character and renown. Like 
many others in that age, Arinthaeus, though 
a devout Christian and a protector of the 
Church, deferred his baptism till at the point 
of death (Ep. 269). He was consul in the 
year 372, and must have died before Basil 
(A.D. 379). If the story told by Theodoret 
(H. E. iv. 30) be true, that he was present and 
seconded the rebuke administered to Valens 


by the general Trajan in 378 for his persecu- | 
tion of the Catholics, his death cannot have | 


preceded his friend’s by many months. For 
his military achievements see Tillemont, 
Empereurs, Vv. 100. [L.] 
Aristides, of Athens; mentioned by Euse- 
bius as having presented to the emperor 
Hadrian an Apology for the Christians (Hist. 
Eccl. iv. c. 3). Jerome also (de Vir. 11]. c. 20, 
and Ep. 83, ad Magnum) mentions him as 
an Athenian philosopher and a disciple of 
Christ ; and says that his Apology, containing 
the principles of the faith, was well known. 
But it was lost until, in 1878, the Mechitarists 
published part of an Armenian translation, the 
genuineness of which was vindicated by Har- 
nack in Texte und Untersuch. i. 1,2. But in 
1891 J. Rendel Harris and J. Armitage Robin- 
son (now Dean of Westminster) published 
in Texts and Studies, 1. i., a complete Syrian 
translation from the Codex Sinait. Syr. 16, 
and shewed that the greater part of the 
Apology was found in Greek in the legend of 
Barlaam and Josaphat. These texts have 
been carefully discussed, especially by Seeberg 


ARISTO PELLAEUS 


(in Zahn’s Forschungen, V. p. 159, and in an 
edition published at Erlangen 1894), and it is 
not yet agreed whether the Syrian or the Greek 
represents the original. It seems clear that 
the Apology was presented, not to Hadrian, 
but to Antoninus Pius. The main subject of 
the Apology, which, in the legend, is suppose 
to be addressed by Barlaam to Josaphat, i 
that the Christians alone possess the true 
knowledge of God. The emperor is invite 
to consider the conceptions of God among th 
various races of mankind, Barbarians and 
Greeks, Jews and Christians; it is then shewn 
how the Christians express their belief in their 
lives, and an attractive sketch of Christian 
life is given. The Apology has points of con: 
tact with the Preaching of Peter, with the 
Shepherd, with the Didaché, with Justin 
Martyr, and particularly with the Ep. to 
Diognetus. Mention is made of the Incarna 
tion of the Son of God through a Hebrew 
maiden and of Christ’s return to judgment. 
The Apology is thus of an interesting and 
original character. Two other fragments — 
exist in Armenian which are ascribed to 
Aristides, a homily on the cry of the Robber 
and the answer of the Crucified, and a passage 
from ‘‘ a letter to all philosophers,’’ but their | 
genuineness is doubtful, and F. C. Conybeare, — 
in the Guardian, 1894 (July 18), has shewn | 
that in the 5th and 7th cents. literary frauds | 
were often connected with the name of Aris- — 
tides and other names of old Christian — 
literature. TH.w.] 
Aristion, one of the “‘ elders’’ from whom © 
Papras professed to have derived traditional 
information (Eus. H. E. iii. 39), and described 
by him as a personal follower of our Lord. 
Beyond this, there is no trustworthy infor-_ 
mation about him. The Roman Martyrology 
(Ρ. 102, Ven. 1630), apparently referring to the 
description just quoted, states on the author- 
ity of Papias that he was one of the seventy- — 
two disciples of Christ. It commemorates his ” 
martyrdom at Salamis in Cyprus on Feb. 22, 
the same day as that of Papias at Pergamus. 
Cotelerius conjectures that he may be the © 
Aristo who is given as the first bp. of Smyrna | 
(A post. Const. vii. 45; Harnack, Altchr. Lit. 
i. 64; Conybeare, in Expositor, 1893). [G.s.] 
Aristo Pellaeus, the supposed author of a 
lost dialogue between Papiscus and Jason, © 
quoted, without his name, by Origen (cont. — 
Celsus, iv. 52) and referred to by Eusebi 
(Hist. Eccl. iv. c. 6, pp- 145, 146) ; by Moses | 
Chorenensis, in a history of Armenia (bk. ii. © 
c. 57); and by Maximus, in his notes on the 
work de Mystica Theol., ascribed to Dionysius 
the Areopagite (c. i. p. 17, ed. Corderii) in 
these words, “1 have also read the expression - 
“seven heavens’ in the dialogue of Papiscus — 
and Jason, composed by Aristo of Pella, 
which Clemens of Alexandria in the 6th book 
of his Hypotyposes says was written by St. 
Luke.’’ This testimony is the only one con- 
necting the name of Aristo with the dialogue, — 
and though doubt has been thrown on its — 
trustworthiness by its strange assertion that 
Clement attributed the work to St. Luke, 
Maximus is far less likely to be in error when 
simply giving the name of an author than 
when repeating another’s words. Jason, ἃ 
Jewish Christian, argues so conclusively that — 


pa, 


Ree 


ARIUS 


ithe Messianic prophecies are fulfilled in our 
Lord that his opponent, the Jew Papiscus, begs 
 \to be baptized. : 

We cannot fix the date of this dialogue, 
except that it must have been written before 
the time of Celsus, t.e. before the middle of 
the 2nd cent.; and, if Aristo be its author, 
we see from Eusebius (/.c.) that he lived after 
the destruction of Jerusalem. It is referred 
to in a pseudo-Cyprianic Ep. Hartd. Opp. 
Cypr. iii. p. 119. If Maximus’s information 
be correct, Clement’s belief that St. Luke was 
the writer of the Dialogue shews at least that 
it must have been commonly assigned to a 
very early date (Routh, Rel. Sac. 1. 91-109; 
Harnack, Alt. Chr. Lit. i. 92 95-97). [5.Μ.} 

Arius (Ἄρειος) the heresiarch was born in 
Africa—the locality is disputed—in a.p. 256. 
In his early days he was a pupil of Lucian of 
Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher, anda 
martyr for the faith. By some Arius is said 
to have derived his heresy from Lucian (see 
Luctanus, 12). This statement is made in 
a letter written by Alexander, bp. of Alex- 
andria, to bp. Alexander of Constantinople. 
The object of the letter is to complain of 
the errors Arius was then diffusing. The 
writer says of Lucian that he lived for 
many years out of communion with three 
bishops (Theod. Eccl. Hist. i. 4). But the 
charge is somewhat vague in itself; it is un- 
supported by other authority, and Alexander’s 
language, like that of most controversialists in 
past days, is not a little violent. Moreover, 
Lucian is not stated, even by Alexander him- 
self, to have fallen into the heresy afterwards 
promulgated by Arius, but is accused generally 
—trather ad invidiam, it would seem—of 
hereticaltendencies. The question of the exact 
nature of the relation between the Father 
and the Son had been raised some 50 years 
before the Nicene controversy arose. But the 
discussion of it at that time had been in- 
sufficient and unsatisfying. So far as the 
earlier controversy could be said to have been 
decided, it was decided in favour of the 
opinions afterwards held by Arius. But so 
unsatisfactory was that settlement that the 
reopening of the question sooner or later was 
practically unavoidable, especially in an 
atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alex- 
andria. The reason of the deposition of 
PauL OF SamosaTA in A.D. 269 was his 
agreement with those who had used the 
word ὁμοούσιος to express the relation of the 
Father and the Son. The expression was at 
that time thought to have a Sabellian ten- 
dency, though, as events shewed, this was 
on account of its scope not having been satis- 
factorily defined. In the discussion which 
then arose on the question, Dionysius, bp. of 
Alexandria, had used much the same language 
as Arius afterwards held, and a correspondence 
is extant in which Dionysius of Rome blames 
his brother of Alexandria for using such lan- 
guage. Dionysius of Alexandria withdrew, 
or perhaps rather explained (see Athan. de 
Decret. Syn. Nic. c. 25), the expressions com- 

lained of, and posterity has been inclined to 

lame him for vacillation. Whether this accu- 
sation be just or not, it is quite clear that the 
position in which a question of such supreme 
importance was left by the action of Dionysius 


ARIUS 


could only postpone the controversy, and 
that its resumption was therefore only a 
question of time. For the synod of Antioch 
which condemned Paul of Samosata had ex- 
pressed its disapproval of the word ὁμοούσιος in 
onesense. The bp. (Alexander) of Alexandria 
(c. 320) undertook its defence in another. 

The character of Arius has been severely 
assailed by his opponents. Alexander, bp. of 
Alexandria, in a letter to Alexander of Con- 
stantinople, describes it in very unfavourable 
terms. But in those days it was customary 
to mingle personal attacks with religious con- 
troversies. Arius appears to have been a man 
of ascetic character, pure morals, and decided 
convictions. It has been stated that his 
action was largely the result of jealousy on 
account of his having been a candidate for 
the patriarchal throne of Alexandria, when 
Alexander was elected to it. But the best 
early authorities are doubtful on the point. 
He had no doubt a disproportionate number 
of female supporters, but there seems no 
ground for the insinuation of Alexander of 
Alexandria, in the above-mentioned letter, 
that these women were of loose morals. 
There appears, however, more foundation for 
the charge that Arius allowed the songs or 
odes contained in the book called Thaleia— 
which he wrote after his first condemnation, 
in order to popularize his doctrine—to be set 
to tunes which had gross and infamous associa- 
tions. Nor can he be acquitted of something 
like a personal canvass of the Christian popu- 
lation in and around Alexandria in order to 
further his views. 

The patriarch of Alexandria has also been 
the subject of adverse criticism for his action 
against his subordinate. He too, like his pre- 
decessor Dionysius, has been charged with 
vacillation in his treatment of Arius. Yet it 
is difficult to see how he could have acted 
otherwise than he did. The question, as we 
have seen, had been left unsettled two gener- 
ations previously, or, if in any sense it could be 
said to have been settled, it had been settled 
in favour of the opponents of the Homoousion. 
Therefore Alexander allowed the controversy 
to go on until he felt that it was becoming 
dangerous to the peace of the church. Then 
he called a council of bishops (about 100 in 
number), and sought their advice. They de- 
cided against Arius. Alexander then delayed 
no longer. He acted with resolution as well 
as promptitude, deposed Arius from his office, 
and repelled both him and his supporters from 
communion. Then he wrote (the letters are 
extant) to Alexander of Constantinople and 
Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor 
was then residing), detailing the errors into 
which Arius had fallen, and complaining of the 
danger to the Christian church arising from his 
heresy. It is clear, from Arius’s own letter 
(also extant) to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that 
Alexander’s charges against Arius were in no 
way unfair. The question, as the event has 
shewn, was a vital one, and plainly called for 
an authoritative decision. Arius taught: (1) 
that the Logos and the Father were not of the 
same οὐσία (essence) ; (2) that the Son wasa 
created being (κτίσμα or ποίημα) ; and (3) 
that though He was the creator of the worlds, 
and must therefore have existed before them 


41 


42 ARIUS 


and before all time, there was—Arius refused 
to use such terms as χρόνος or aiwyv—when He 
did not exist. The subsequent controversy 
shews that the absence of the words χρόνος or 
αἰών was a mere evasion, and that when de- 
fending himself he argued in just the same 
manner as though he had used those words. 
Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had an 
ἀρχή (beginning); yet not only Athanasius, 
but Origen before him, had taught that the 
relation of the Son to the Father had no 
beginning, and that, to use Dorner’s words 
(Person of Christ, ii. 115), ‘‘the generation of 
the Sonis an eternally completed, and yetan 
eternally continued, act’’; 1.6. the Father has, 
from all eternity, been communicating His 
Being to the Son, and is doing so still. 
Arius was obviously perplexed by this doc- 
trine, for he complains of it in his letter to the 
Nicomedian Eusebius, who, like himself (see 
~ above), had studied under Lucian, in the 
words, ἀειγεννής ἐστίν; ἀγεννητογενής ἐστίν. It 
is unquestionably to be lamented that so much 
stress should have been laid in the contro- 
versy on words which, when used, not popu- 
larly, but in metaphysical discussions, had a 
tendency to confound the eternal generation 
of the Son with the purely physical process 
of the generation of men and animals. The 
latter is a single act, performed at a definite 
momentin time. The former is a mysterious, 
eternal process, for ever going on. Had the 
defenders of the Nicene doctrine made more 
general use of the term communication of 
Being, or Essence, they would have made it 
clearer that they were referring to a continual 
and unchangeable relation between the First 
and Second Persons in the Trinity, which bore 
a very slight analogy indeed to the process 
which calls inferior creatures into existence. 
Moreover, Arius contended that the Son was 
unchangeable (d7pemros). But what he thus 
gave with the one hand he appears to have 
taken away with the other. For so far as we 
can understand his language—on a subject 
which even Athanasius seems to have admitted 
to have been beyond his power thoroughly to 
comprehend—he taught that the Logos was 
changeable in Essence, but not in Will. The 
best authorities consider that he was driven to 
this concession by the force of circumstances. 
[See art. Artus, FoLttowers or.] He was 
doubtless confirmed in his attitude by his 
fear of falling into Sabellianism [SABELLIUS], 
which practically represented the Logos as a 
sensuous emanation of the Godhead for the 
purpose of carrying out the work of salvation, 
or else as a purely subjective human concep- 
tion of certain aspects of the Divine Being— 
not as an eternal distinction subsisting objec- 
tively in the Godhead itself. Arius, while 
opposing the Sabellian view, was unable to 
see that his own view had a dangerous ten- 
dency to bring back Gnosticism, with its long 
catalogue of aeons. MAcrpoNnius, who had 
to a certain extent imbibed the opinions of 
Arius, certainly regarded the Son and the 
Spirit in much the same light in which the 
Gnostic teachers regarded their aeons. Yet 
Arius undoubtedly derived some support 
from the dangerous language of Origen, who 
had ventured to represent the Logos as a 


ARIUS 


δεύτερος (or δευτερεύων) θεός. Origen (see 
his de Principiis, 1. ii. 6, 12) had also made 
use of expressions which favoured Arius’s 
statement that the Logos was of a different 
substance to-the Father, and that He owed His 
existence to the Father’s will. But it is not 
sufficiently remembered that the speculations 
of Origen should be regarded as pioneer work 
in theology, and that they were often hazarded 
in order to stimulate further inquiry rather 
than to enable men to dispense with it. This 
explains why, in the Arian, as well as other 
controversies, the great authority of Origen is 
so frequently invoked by both sides. 

The Christian church had by this time 
become so powerful a force in the Roman 
world that Constantine, now sole emperor, 
found himself unable to keep aloof from the 
controversy. He was the less able to do so 
in that he had himself been brought up under 
Christian influences. [CONSTANTINE.] He 
therefore sent the venerable Hosius, bp. of 
Cordova, a man who had suffered cruelly on 
behalf of his faith, on a mission to Egypt, with 
instructions to put an end, if possible, to the 
controversy. But as it continued to rage, 
Constantine took a step hitherto unprece- 
dented in Roman history. Republican Rome 
of course had her free institutions, and the 
Christian church had been accustomed to 
determine matters of faith and practice in 
her local assemblies. But anything like a 
council of delegates, summoned from all parts 
of the empire, had been hitherto unknown. 
Such an assembly Constantine determined to 
call together. All the secular dioceses into 
which the empire had been for some time 
divided, Britain only excepted, sent one or 
more representatives to the council. The 
majority of the bishops came from the East, but 
there was, nevertheless, an imposing display of 
men of various races and languages. Sylvester 
of Rome, himself too aged to be present, 
sent two presbyters as his delegates. The 
object of the council, it must be remembered, 
was not to pronounce what the church ought 
to believe, but to ascertain as far as possible 
what had been taught from the beginning. Τῷ 
was indeed a remarkable gathering. There 
was not only as good a representation of race 
and nationality as was possible under the 
circumstances, but the ability and intellect of 
the church were also well represented. There 
was Eusebius of Nicomedia, the astute poli- 
tician and man of the world. There was also 
the renowned Eusebius of Caesarea, a sound 
theologian, and perhaps the most well-in- 
formed, careful, impartial, and trustworthy 
ecclesiastical historian the church has ever 
possessed. Alexander, patriarch of -Alexan- 
dria, was also a man of mark. And, young as 
he was, the great Athanasius was already ἃ 
host in himself, from his clearness of insight 
into the deepest mysteries of our religion. — 
And beside these there were men present who 
manifested the power of faith—the brave 
“ἢ confessors,” as they were called, whose faces — 
and limbs bore evident traces of the sufferings 
they had undergone for their Master. Nor 
could any one object that it was a packed 
assembly. The emperor did his best to secure 
an honest selection and an honest decision. 

The council met (325) at Nicaea, in Bithynia, 


ARIUS 


a town of some importance, on the Sea of 
Marmora, near Constantinople. The number of 
bishops present is variously stated at from 250 
to 318. But the latter number, as typified 
by the number of Abraham’s servants when 
he rescued Lot, was generally accepted before 
the councilof Constantinople. No Acts of the 
councilareextant. Inthewritingsoftwomen | 
of note who were present, Athanasius, then a 
young deacon of about 28 years old, and the 
already celebrated and learned Eusebius of 
Caesarea, we have accounts of what hap- 

ed. Moreover, well-informed and honest, 
fsometimes more or less inaccurate, historians 
have studied and handed down documents of 

t value, bearing on the proceedings. 
Stktantine himself was present at the 
council. At first he refused to take part in 
its deliberations, or even to take a seat until 
invited. But he afterwards departed from 
that humble attitude, if some of our author- 
ities are to be trusted, and when he found 
difficulties arising, did his best to remove them 
by joining in the discussions. At the outset 
he administered a well-merited rebuke to the 
bishops for the spirit in which many of them 
had come to the council. Producing a num- 
ber of recriminatory letters from those who 
were present, he called for a brazier, and burnt 
them all before the assembly, begging the 
bishops to lay aside their personal animosities, 
and to devote themselves whole-heartedly to 
setting forth the truth. The question next 
arose, in what form the universal belief of the 
church from the beginning should be ex- 
pressed. This, of course, was the crux of the 
wholesituation. Hitherto particular churches 
had their own forms of creed (πίστις) for use 
at baptisms and in catechetical instruction. 
There was no substantial difference between 
them, consisting as they did of a confession of 
faith in the Trinity, as well as a summary of 
the main facts recorded in the gospels. But 
now a dogmatic formula for Christendom had 
to be drawn up, a task full of difficulty and 
even of danger. Some few of the bishops, 
we learn, apparently under the leadership of 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, presented a document 


so frankly Arian that it was at once torn to 
pieces by those present, and Arius was ex- 
communicated by all but Theonas and 
Secundus. Then, as it seems, the famous 
scholar and ecclesiastical historian Eusebius 
of Caesarea intervened, and produced a Pales- 
tinian Creed, which he said he had received 
from ‘‘the bishops before him.” He adds 
that “‘no one present could gainsay’’ the 
orthodoxy of this creed. This statement 
must, however, be taken with some limita- 
tions. The Palestinian Creed could only, if 
accepted, have been accepted as a basis for 
discussion. It was not ultimately adopted in 
the shape in which it was propounded, but 
underwent considerable alteration. The sen- 
tence γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός μονογενῆ was 
made definitely τούτεστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ 
Πατρός. Further on, the words ὁμοούσιον τῷ 
Πατρί were added after the words “ be- 
gotten, not made.” And the word ἐνανθρωπή- 
σαντα, which means rather more than “ made 
man,” and implies an intimate association of 


the Godhead with the Manhood, was added | 


ARIUS 43 


after ‘‘ was Incarnate”’ (f.e. made flesh— 
σαρκωθέντα---α phrase which was felt to be 
insufficient and even misleading by itself). 
The anathema which was also added embraces 
those who deny that the Son and the Father 
were of one οὐσία or ὑπόστασις, as well as 
those who say that there was a time when the 
Son did not exist, or that He was created from 
nothing, or that He was liable to change or 
alteration. At this stage of the controversy the 
words οὐσία (essence) and ὑπόστασις (substance) 
were used as synonymous. It will be seen 
fart. ARrus, FOLLOWERS oF] that Basil and the 
Gregories afterwards wrung from Athanasius 
a concession on this point. Athanasius had 
warmly attacked Arius for asserting that there 
were three hypostases in the Trinity. But at 
the later date it was agreed that the word 
οὐσία might be used to denote what was 
common to all three Persons, and ὑπόστασις 
to denote the distinctions (which we call Per- 
sons) between them. For the present, however, 
any distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις 
was considered heretical. The council then 
broke up, after having addressed a letter to 
the churches in and around Alexandria. 
Constantine issued a circular letter to the same 
effect. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus were de- 
posed and banished, while three other bishops, 
who had displayed leanings toward Arius, 
namely Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of 
Nicaea itself, and Maris of Chalcedon, a city 
on the Asiatic shore opposite Constantinople, 
were unwilling signatories of the document, 
but affixed their signatures in deference to the 
emperor’s wishes. Eusebius of Caesarea de- 
scribes himself, in a letter to some Arians who 
had accused him of tergiversation, as having 
demurred to the changes in the creed which 
he had himself presented, but as having finally 
accepted them in the interests of peace (Theod. 
H. E.i. 12, from Athan. de Decret. Syn. Nic.). 

That the apparent unanimity of the council 
(Secundus and Theonas of Lower Egypt being 
the only dissentients) covered a considerable 
amount of divergent opinion is indisputable. 
Doubts of the wisdom of employing a term 
which had been rejected at an important 
council as savouring of Sabellianism weighed 
on the minds of many who had submitted. 
Eusebius of Caesarea has been charged by 
many later writers as having coquetted with 
Arianism. But his moderate attitude through- 
out the period which followed proves that his 
objections to the decision, which he allowed 
his love of peace to overrule, were more owing 
to the dread of possible consequences than 
to the decision in itself. Though a man of 
ability, learning, and honesty, he was timorous 
withal, and desirous to stand well with the 
powers that be. And his allusion to the pro- 
ceedings at Nicaea in the letter just mentioned 
shews that his apprehensions were not alto- 
gether unreasonable. For he remarks how it 
was elicited after considerable discussion at 
the council that the term ὁμοούσιον was not 
intended to signify that the Son formed an 
actual portion (μέρος) of the Father. That 
would have been Sabellianism pure andsimple, 
a danger against which it was necessary to 
guard. And much of the dissension to which 
the adoption of the creed of Nicaea led was 


44 ARIUS 


due to this very natural apprehension. But 
Eusebius emphatically condemned the lan- 
guage of Arius, and there is no reason whatever 
to suspect his sincerity in so doing. On the 
other hand, Athanasius was convinced—and 
the event proves that he was right—that un- 
less the Essence of the Son was definitely 
understood to be the same as that of the 
Father, it would inevitably follow that the 
Son would at best be no more than the highest 
of a series of Gnostic aeons. As to Eusebius 
of Nicomedia, it is clear that Constantine 
found some reason to suspect his sincerity, as 
well as that of Theognis and Maris, for he soon 
after included them in the sentence pro- 
nounced on Arius. Philostorgius says that 
Secundus and Theonas predicted that this 
would happen when they themselves had been 
sentenced to banishment. Possibly expressions 
fell from them in the heat of argument which 
led Constantine to the conclusion that their 
submission was not genuine. 

It must be confessed that the Nicene settle- 
ment, though necessary in itself and satis- 
factory in the end, was at least premature. 
The controversy recommenced as soon as the 
decrees were promulgated. When Alexander 
died at Alexandria in 327, the election of 
Athanasius in his place was only secured 
in the face of violent opposition from the 
Arianizing faction. Soon after, Eusebius of 
Nicomedia was reinstated in his see, after 
having written a diplomatic letter to the 
emperor. Arius, who had taken refuge in 
Palestine, was also soon permitted to return, 
after having made a somewhat disingenuous 
recantation. So astute a politician as the 
Nicomedian Eusebius was not long before he 
regained his influence with the emperor, and 
then began a series of intrigues which led to 
a complete reversal of the position of the 
contending parties. Eustathius of Antioch, 
one of the staunchest adherents of Athana- 
sius, was the first victim. The question 
of heterodoxy was skilfully kept in the back- 
ground, and a number of false and odious 
personal charges were trumped up against 
him by men and women of abandoned lives. 
If Theodoret is to be trusted, one of the 
women aforesaid, when seized by a serious 
illness, retracted her accusation in a remark- 
ably sensational manner. But the other his- 
torians (Socrates and Sozomen) are reticent 
about the nature of the charges, and only tell 
us that Eustathius had been unfortunate 
enough to get involved in a controversy 
with Eusebius Pamphili (of Caesarea). Eusta- 
thius was at once ejected from his see, and 
was regarded by the emperor as having been 
the cause of the riot his expulsion excited 
among the people, with whom Eustathius was 
a favourite. Marcellus of Ancyra was the 
next victim. He had all along been the friend 
and champion of Athanasius. But unfor- 
tunately he was not at home in the thorny 
paths of metaphysical theology, and found it 
impossible to defend the Nicene decisions 
without falling into Sabellianism. There was 
no need, therefore, for the Arianizers to bring 
personal charges against him. Accordingly 
few, if any such, were brought. He was 
charged, and quite fairly, with Sabellianism. 
On this point Eusebius Pamphili came safely to 


ARIUS 


the front, and wrote strongly against Marcellus, — 
while the latter sturdily defended himself. 
The actual condemnation of Marcellus was 
deferred till 336, and in the meantime Eusebius ~ 
of Nicomedia had commenced proceedings 
against the only rival he really dreaded, 
Athanasius himself. He had, as we have seen 
contrived the restoration of Arius to th 
emperor’s favour by inducing the latter t 
write an insincere retractation, and when th 
emperor, deceived by this manceuvre, laid hi 
commands on Athanasius to readmit Ari 
to communion, Athanasius, naturally, pleaded | 
reasons of conscience against doing so. Then — 
the storm burst forth in all its fulness. The - 
accusations of treason against the emperor ~ 
and the insinuations that the patriarch wished © 
to set up an empire of his own against or — 
above the supreme authority of the divine 
Augustus had certainly some effect on the 
mind of Constantine. Charges were made — 
of sacrilege, tyranny, magic, mutilation, 
murder, of immorality (as some allege), and, x 
worst of allin the emperor’s eyes, of raising — 
funds for treasonable objects. They were in- 
vestigated (if the scenes of violence and passion ~ 
which took place can be termed an investiga- — 
tion) at a synod of 150 bishops at Tyre (335). 
The triumphant vindication of himself by — 
Athanasius at that council, the dramatic 
scenes with which that vindication, according | 
to some historians, was accompanied, and the © 
equally dramatic appeal from his accusers to © 
Constantine himself in the streets of Con- — 
stantinople (which all the accounts describe 
as having taken place), belong rather to the 
history of Athanasius than of Arius. [ATHAN-_ 
ASIus.] Suffice it to say that the bold and — 
decisive action, backed by innocence, of the — 
great archbishop only succeeded in deferring — 
his fall. The synod of Tyre had already — 
issued a condemnation while he was on his ~ 
way to Constantinople in order to appeal to — 
the emperor. The emperor, for the moment, 
was struck and touched by the appeal and — 
by the commanding personality of Athan- 
asius. But Eusebius proved ultimately to be © 
master of the situation. With consummate — 
dexterity the wily tactician, with the aid of © 
Theognis and Maris, his old associates, as well 
as of the arch-intriguers Ursacius and Valens, 
of whom we shall hear so much in the next — 
article, contrived that the old charges of © 
ecclesiastical offences should be dropped, and — 
that fresh charges of interference with the — 
secular affairs of the empire should be sub- — 
stituted for them. Accordingly, Athanasius — 
was now charged with detaining the corn ~ 
which was ordered to be sent from Egypt to © 
Constantinople. The artifice succeeded. Con- 
stantine was weary of the strife. His only — 
object had been the settlement of the question. 
The shape which that settlement took was to 
him a secondary matter. He had, as he him- 
self tells us (see his letters to Alexander and — 
Arius in the Life of Constantine by Eusebius — 
Pamphili), a strong objection to idle and word- 
splitting discussions, private or public, and 
considered them unnecessary and unprofitable. 
The measures he had been persuaded to take 
at Nicaea had not produced the effect which 
he had expected from them. So, like other 
despots ina similar position, he turned fiercely 


ARIUS 


on those who had induced him to adopt them. 
That it was Athanasius who had advocated the 
measures which had so palpably failed needed 
no demonstration. So he was exiled to Trier 
(Tréves), after a number of leading bishops 
had been assembled at Constantinople to try 
him, and Alexander of Constantinople was 
| ordered to receive Arius back into church 
communion. But God had otherwise or- 
dained. Alexander was in dire perplexity. 
He dared not disobey the command, neither 
dare he obey it. In his extremity he asked the 
prayers of the orthodox that either he or Arius 
might be removed from the world before 
the latter was admitted to communion. The 
rayer was, we must admit, a strange one. 
But even Gibbon records the incident as a fact, 
though he makes it the occasion for one of his 
characteristic gibes at Christianity and Christ- 
jians. Meanwhile, as the historian Socrates 
tells us, Arius was ordered to appear before the 
emperor, and asked whether he was willing to 
sign the Nicene decrees. He replied, without 
hesitation, that he wasready todoso. Asked 
whether he would confirm his signature by an 
oath, he agreed to do this also. This last fact 
Socrates declares (H. E. i. 38) that he had 
verified by an inspection of the imperial 
archives. The very day before the one ap- 
pointed for his readmission to communion, 
Arius died suddenly, and in a most remark- 
able manner. Whether his death can be 
described as a miracle or not may be dis- 
puted. It seems preferable to attribute it to 
natural causes. But that the event was one 
of the numerous occasions in history when we 
are compelled to recognize a Divine inter- 
position can hardly be doubted. The extra- 
ordinary occurrence made a vast impression 
throughout Christendom. The heresiarch 
had only been able to obtain the decree for 
readmission to communion by a feigned 
adherence to the Nicene symbol. His posi- 
tion was, therefore, in the eyes of Christendom 
one of gross and palpable deception—nothing 
less than an act of glaring and defiant impiety. 
Socrates tells us that in his time, a century 
afterwards, the place where he died was still 
pointed out. Athanasius himself describes 
theincident (de Morte Arii). There are there- 
fore few facts in history more fully attested. 
The tragic death of Arius, followed as it was a 
year later by that of Constantine himself, led 
to a temporary lull in the controversy. The 
sequel will be found in the next article. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY.—(1) Ancient. The writings 
of Athanasius generally, especially his de In- 
carnatione Verbt Det and de Decretis Synodi 
Nicenae; the Vita Constantini of Eusebius 
Pamphili; and the ecclesiastical histories of 
Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Of these 
the first is the best, though the documents 
cited at length by Theodoret are valuable. 
English translations of these authors, save of 
quite recent date, are by no means implicitly 
to be trusted, especially as to metaphysical 
terms. The ecclesiastical history of Philo- 
storgius, which would give us the Arian point 
of view, is unfortunately only known to 
-us through a hostile epitome by Photius, 
patriarch of Constantinople in gth cent. 
(2) Of comparatively modern works the 
church histories of Neander and Gieseler 


ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF 45 


contain very valuable information, as does 
also Dorner’s learned and impartial treatise 
On the Person of Christ. Bp. Martensen’s 
History of Christian Dogmatics is also valuable ; 
Gibbon’s Decline and Fall is useful in giving 
us the secular view of the period. Bp. Kaye’s 
Counctl of Nicaea will be found worth reading. 
De Broglie’s L’Eglise et Empire romain au 
IVe siécle is full of information. Newman's 
Arians of the Fourth Century is marred by some 
prejudices and prepossessions. Dean Stanley’s 
account of the Nicene council in his Eastern 
Church will be found more picturesque than 
accurate. Prof. Gwatkin’s Studies of Artan- 
ism is, as its title implies, rather a series 
of sketches than a detailed history, but 
contains a vast amount of original research, 
illuminated by flashes of insight into the char- 
acters and motives of the principal actors in 
the controversy, and gives an exhaustive bib 
liography. His Arian Controversy is a brief 
summary for popular use. There isa valuable 
article in Texts and Studies, vol. vil. (1901), by 
Mr. Bethune Baker on ‘‘The Meaning of Homo- 
ousios in the Constantinopolitan Creed.’ His 
Introduction to the Early Hist. of Christian 
Doctrine (1903) will be found useful, as will the 
art. ‘‘ Arianism’’ in Hastings’s Encycl. of Re- 
ligion and Ethics, i. (1908). Harnack, Hist. of 
Dogma (Eng. trans. 1894-1899), gives the 
modern German view. 7.1.1.] 
Arius, Followers of. After the deaths of 
Arius and Constantine we enter on a tangled 
web of controversy which lasted from A.D. 336 
to 381, when the question was finally decided 
by the acceptance of the Nicene Creed at the 
council of Constantinople. This period of 
confusion is due to the change of conditions 
under which the contest was carried on. For 
a time the division of the empire between 
three Augusti contributed an additional ele- 
ment of uncertainty to the conflict. Yet when 
the deaths of the younger Constantine and his 
brother Constans left the whole empire for 
eleven years in the hands of Constantius, 
matters were scarcely less involved. Con- 
stantius, though by no means devoid of 
ability, as his success in maintaining his un- 
divided authority against such rebellions as 
those of Magnentius and Vetranio proves, was 
far inferior to his father in clearness of vision 
and breadth of aim. The great Constantine 
himself was not altogether inaccessible to 
flattery and family influences. His sister 
Constantia is credited with having prevailed 
upon him to allow Eusebius of Nicomedia and 
Arius to return from exile. But her influence 
was still more strongly felt in the next reign, 
and after the death of the astute and able 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, mere intriguers, such 
as Ursacius and Valens, and even the worth- 
less eunuchs about the court, were able to 
persuade the emperor into unreasonable and 
tortuous courses, of which jealousy of the 
great Athanasius formed in reality the secret 
motive. Amid all the distractions of the 
time, three main stages may be marked in the 
progress of the controversy. The first con- 
sisted of the six years between the death of 
Constantine and the council of Sardica (343). 
During this period the attitude of all the 
various parties save those who adhered to 
the Nicene symbol is most perplexing, and 


46 ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF 


the changes of opinion most bewildering. 
Court intrigue occupies a prominent place in 
the history. Yet it gradually became clear, as 
far as the march of opinion was concerned, 
that the West was irrevocably attached to 
the views of Athanasius, while in the East 
opinion was divided and variable, and the 
court influence grew more decisive on the 
progress of events in proportion as the power 
of Constantius increased. The second period 
was that between the councils of Sardica and 
Ariminum (Rimini, in Italy) in 359, during 
which opinion was gradually settling down into 
three distinct forms, which may be roughly de- 
scribed as the orthodox, the semi-Arian, and 
the Arian view. The last period, that between 
359 and 381, is that during which Homoean- 
ism and Anomoeanism (see below) became 
gradually discredited, while Homoiousians and 
orthodox approximated by degrees, until the 
final victory of the Nicene symbol at Con- 
stantinople. The ferment of opinion may be 
gauged by the fact that the historian Socrates 
gives no less than ten forms of creed—eleven 
if we count that presented at Nicaea by Euse- 
bius of Caesarea—which were produced at 
various councils in hope of settling the con- 
troversy. But the Nicenes remained firmly 
attached to the creed of Nicaea, while their 
opponents were divided into three groups—the 
Anomoeans, or Arians proper, who taught the 
unlikeness of the nature of the Son to that of 
the Father ; the Homoeans, who believed the 
Son’s nature to bear only a general resem- 
blance to that of the Father; and the Homoi- 
ousians, who believed in the similarity (but 
not the identity) of the essence of the Son to 
that of the Father. These last are also called 
semi-Arians. 

The first important step in the history of 
the controversy after the death of Arius 
was the return of Athanasius to his diocese 
(337) permitted by Constantine II., in 
whose division of the empire Egypt lay. 
But he was not suffered to remain long un- 
molested. In 340 Constantine II. died, and 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, the ablest of Athan- 
asius’s antagonists, contrived to get himself 
removed to Constantinople after the death of 
the bishop, Alexander. His proximity to the 
emperor secured to him the leading influence 
in affairs ecclesiastical. The orthodox party 
had elected Paul as their bishop, but Eusebius 
contrived to get this election annulled, and 
to secure the vacant post for himself. He 
“left no stone unturned,’’ as the historian 
Socrates puts it, to overthrow one whom he 
had long regarded as a rival. A council was 
assembled at Antioch (338-339), in which the 
old charges were revived against Athanasius, 
and which confirmed his sentence of deposi- 
tion from his see. Athanasius was expelled 
in the spring of 339; and after a third Eusebius 
(afterwards bp. of Emesa), a man of principle 
and character, had declined to take his place, 
one Gregory was appointed, who speedily 
became unpopular in consequence of his 
violence and cruelty. Eusebius Pamphili of 
Caesarea, who would undoubtedly, had he 
survived, have been a moderating force, died 
about this time, and was succeeded by Acacius, 
who played a prominent part in the sub- 
sequent proceedings, but lacked the special 


ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF 


knowledge of Church history, as well as the 

experience and judgment, of his celebrated 

predecessor. Athanasius fled to Rome, and 

thus brought its bishop Julius on the scene. — 
Julius acted with spirit and discretion. He 
summoned a synod of 50 bishops of the 
West, who annulled the deposition of 
Athanasius, and acquitted him of all th 
charges against him. He further trans-_ 
mitted to Antioch a strong remonstrance — 
against the inconsistency and unfairness o 
the proceedings at the council held there. 
The Eastern bishops, however, were not to be 
deterred from their course by his representa- 
tions. At the council held at the dedication — 
(encaenta) of achurch at Antioch in 341, the 
sentence on Athanasius was confirmed, and 
after the rejection of a creed of distinctly — 
Arian tendencies, a new creed, either com- — 
posed by Lucian the Martyr or by his disciple — 
Asterius, was brought forward as a substitute — 
for the symbol of Nicaea. It rejected the © 
expression ὁμοούσιον, but it as emphatically — 
rejected Arianism by declaring the Son to be © 
unchangeable and unalterable, and by adding δ 
that He was ‘‘the Image of the essence, © 

the power, the will, and the glory of the © 
Father.’’ But Eusebius had not thrown over — 
the symbol of Nicaea for such a halting sub- — 
stitute as this. On the other hand, Athan- — 
asius did not failto point out that thelanguage 
of the creed of Lucian was not more that of © 
Scripture than was the language of the creed — 
of Nicaea. The court party, whose object — 
was simply to produce a formula which would, 
as they thought, meet.the emperor’s views by 
putting a stop to controversy, endeavoured to 4 
force another creed on the council, but in vain. 
This additional creed was a compromise pure © 
and simple, enshrining no truth, although in 
form corresponding as nearly to the Nicene 
formula as possible. Its supporters then put — 

the document into the hands of Constans, 
emperor of the West, who had demanded the ~ 
assembling of another general council. The 
West had been roused by the proceedings at 
Antioch, and Constantius, now engaged in a 
war with Persia, dared not refuse. The able 
leader of the dissentients, however, Eusebius 
of Nicomedia, was now dead, and the leader- 
ship had fallen into the hands of Ursacius 
and Valens, who were mere opportunists. To 
their dismay and that of their party, it was 
settled that the council should be held at 
Sardica, in Dacia, just within the limits of the 
Western empire. Thither, in 343, the de- 
puties repaired. But the courtiers perceived 
that there was no chance whatever of forcing 
their views upon a phalanx consisting, as it 
is now thought, of about 100 Western bishops 
devoted to the decisions of Nicaea. So they 
left Sardica in haste, and betook themselves 
to Philippopolis, a city just across the Eastern 
border. There, after declaring that the de- 
crees of one council cannot be revised by 
another, they began inconsistently to revise 
the decrees of former councils, and to hurl 
charges against the venerated Fathers of the 
West, Hosius and Julius. The Westerns at 
Sardica, meanwhile, had once more acquitted 
Athanasius and his allies, and had rejected the 
Eastern formulae, as leaning to the Gnostic 
doctrine of successive emanations from the 


ἐῳ 


ah he ἐκ eal tl al nll ca a 


“ 


ΝΠ ὧν 


ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF 


source of all being. The proceedings at 
Philippopolis and the outrageous conduct of 
Stephen, then patriarch of Antioch, gave 
offence even in the East, and the decision of 
|the Western bishops to hold no communion 
| with their Eastern brethren while the existing 
state of things lasted produced a reaction. 
Another council was held at Antioch, and a 
new and more conciliatory creed, usually 
called μακρόστιχος, from its exceeding length, 
was substituted for the Lucianic document. 
As Constans pressed for the restoration of 
Athanasius, and Constantius had the war 
with Persia still on hand, the latter gave way, 
the more readily because Gregory the intruder 
was now dead (345). Constantius summoned 
Athanasius to his presence, and after a friendly 
interview dismissed him, and wrote three 
letters, one to the bishops and clergy in 
Egypt, one to the laity, and one to the 
governors of provinces, explaining that it was 
his will that Athanasius should be allowed to 
return in peace to his flock. But when he 
demanded of Athanasius that he should allow 
the use of one church to the Arians in Alex- 
andria, the latter preferred a request in his 
turn that the same thing should be done in 
cities where the Arians were in possession— 
[ἃ request which Constantius did not deem 
it prudent to grant. Athanasius therefore, 

ettered by conditions, returned (346) to 
Alexandria, and the people, wearied of Arian 
violence and cruelty, received him with the 
warmest demonstrations of joy. 

Peace was thus restored for the moment, 
| but it endured only so long as Constantius 
was occupied with foreign war and intestine 
strife. It is noteworthy that the restless 
intriguers, Ursactus and Valens, found it 
prudent just at present to repair to Rome and 
make friends with Julius and the West. 
Socrates (H. E. ii. 37) remarks on their dis- 
| position to identify themselves with the 
strongest side. But permanent peace was 
impossible until the questions at issue had 
been fully threshed out. As soon as Constans 
(350) was dead, and Magnentius, the usurper, 
defeated and slain (353), the strife recom- 
menced. For ten years Athanasius had 
remained undisturbed at Alexandria, but 
premonitory signs of the eruption which 
was soon to burst forth had long been dis- 
cernible. On the one hand the Easterns were 
beginning to substitute the semi-Arian doctrine 
of the likeness (ὁμοιούσιος) of the Son to the 
Father for the vaguer conception of the 
more moderate Arians of the earlier period. 
On the other hand, the uwnlikeness of the 
Son to the Father was more boldly and de- 
fiantly pressed by the holders of that doctrine, 
and by degrees a sect, which almost reduced 
Christ to the level of a mere man, appeared 
on the scene. The chief exponents of this 
doctrine were ArtTius and Evzorus. The 
Anomoeans now began to separate themselves 
more definitely from the orthodox. All this 
was not without its effect on Constantius, 
whose sole object, like that of most poli- 
ticians, was to avoid dissensions. When the 
tide turned, Ursacius and Valens were ready, 
as usual, with suggestions. But he could not 
at once take the steps they urged. New wars 
confronted him, and the attitude of the West 


ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF 


was decidedly disquieting. The Western 
church had found a new champion in 
Hilary of Poictiers (Hilarius Pictavensis), whose 
ability, learning, and high character were 
recognized by his own contemporaries. Con- 
stantius shewed his sense of his abilities 
by exiling him, as well as Liberius, bp. of 
Rome, who had succeeded Julius (355). Early 
in 356 the imperial troops burst into the 
cathedral at Alexandria to seize ATHANASIUS, 
who was at prayer with his flock. It was 
night, and Athanasius almost miraculously 
escaped in the tumult, and remained secreted 
for some time. From his undiscovered re- 
treat he issued numerous letters and treatises, 
by which he kept up the courage of his 
adherents. His Arian successor, one George, 
did not venture to set foot in Alexandria till 
a year after the departure of Athanasius, 
and his atrocious cruelties soon made him 
hated as well as feared by the populace. 
Meanwhile the court intriguers resumed their 
activity. Sirmium, in Slavonia, between the 
Save and the Drave, now takes the place of 
Antioch in the matter of creed-making. A 
creed had already been issued thence in 351 
against Sabellianism. In the latter part of 
357 the emperor was in residence there, and 
Ursacius and Valens naturally took the oppor- 
tunity of renewing their mischievous activity. 
A second creed was promulgated there, in 
which the difference between the Father and 
the Son was strongly insisted upon; the 
Father and the Son were declared to be two 
Persons (πρόσωπα), and the use of the words 
οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, as applied to God’s 
nature, was condemned, as not warranted by 
Scripture. The intriguers no doubt imag- 
ined that, as the supporters of the Nicene 
formula were in exile, they could give no 
further trouble, and that the line of least 
resistance would be to come to an arrangement 
with the Arian (Anomoean) party. But 
events proved them utterly wrong. The re- 
sult was just the opposite: to convert the 
moderates into a distinctly semi-Arian party, 
laying especial stress on the likeness of the 
Son’s essence (ὁμοιούσιον) to that of the Father, 
instead of minimizing the likeness, as the 
Homoeans had done. The Homoiousians 
thus began to lean to the orthodox side, while 
the Homoeans inclined more and more to 
those who denied even the likeness of the Son’s 
essence to that of the Father. Hilary now 
(359) intervened with his de Synodis, in which 
he reviewed the action of previous councils, 
and defended the Nicene Creed, yet in such a 
way as he thought best calculated to win back 
the semi-Arians (or Homoiousians) to the 
orthodox camp. This treatise marks the 
stage in the controversy in which semi- 
Arianism began definitely to separate itself 
from its doubtful allies, and to draw towards 
union with the orthodox party. Hilary, it 
may be added, admits the force of some semi- 
Arian objections to the word ὁμοούσιον, and 
suggests certain express limitations of its 
meaning. Two other creeds of considerable 
length, one of them provided with innumerable 
anathemas, were drawn up at Sirmium. The 
last of these, commonly known as the dated 
creed (359), was ridiculed by Athanasius for 


47 


48 ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF 


its pompous opening, and for its assumption 
that the Catholic faith had, at the date given, 
been proclaimed for the first time. It is 
clear, he adds, from their own confession, 
that theirs is a new faith, not the old one. 
We now enter upon the last stage of the con- 
troversy. It is marked by the first attempt to 
make a distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις 
—terms which had hitherto been regarded as 
synonymous—and to use the former as in- 
dicating the nature which is common to beings 
of the same order, while the latter was used 
to express the diversities between these pos- 
sessors of acommon nature. The word οὐσία 
was used to indicate the Divine Nature, 
while ὑπόστασις was henceforth used by the 
Greeks of the Persons in the Trinity. (It 
should, however, be observed that substantia 
remained the Latin equivalent of οὐσια.) 
The first to press this use of language 
was Basil of Ancyra, at a council he had 
called to protest against the proceedings at 
Sirmium. He defends the new use of the 
word ὑπόστασις in an able minute he issued, 
criticizing the proceedings at Sirmium, by 
pointing out that a word was needed—and it 
must be neither οὐσία nor ἀρχή---ἰο denote the 
underlying and definitely existing (ὑπαρχούσαΞ) 
distinctions (ἰδιότητα) of the Persons (προσώ- 
πων); and he acutely remarks that if οὐσία 
was a term not to be found in Scripture, the 
Godhead was indicated there by the words 
ὁ ὦν. Inthe end, this new and more careful use 
of words completely revolutionized the situa- 
tion. Henceforth the semi-Arians as a body not 
only laboured for an understanding with the 
orthodox, but also drew still more markedly 
apart from the Homoeans and Anomoeans. 
The calling of anew council in the same year at 
Rimini (Ariminum) in Italy brought these new 
tendencies very plainly tolight. Constantius, 
finding it impossible to lay down a common 
basis for action between the East and the 
West, commanded the Eastern bishops to 
meet at Seleucia in Cilicia, a mountain fortress 
near the sea. Sozomen tells us that the 
reason for calling this council was the growing 
influence of Anomoeanism through the in- 
fluence of Aetius. The Western bishops, who 
numbered more than 200, had no scruples in 
the matter. They boldly deposed Ursacius 
and Valens, who had been sent to bring them 
to submission, and as boldly reaffirmed the 
Nicene symbol, and they sent a deputation 
of 20 bishops to the emperor to defend their 
action. He was, however, (or pretended to 
be) too busy to see them. The Easterns 
were still inclined to hesitate. The semi- 
Arian majority desired to accept the Nicene 
Creed, with the omission of the obnoxious 
ὁμοούσιον. The Homoeans, under the leader- 
ship of Acacius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
condemned the expressions ὁμοούσιον and 
ὁμοιούσιον, but anathematized the expression 
ἀνόμοιον. ‘‘ The Acacian [Homoean] party” 
(Socr. H. E. ii. 40) “affirmed that the Son was 
like the Father as respected His will only, 
and not in His substance or essence.’? And 
they tendered yet another creed in accordance 
with these views, which the council rejected, 
and deposed those who had tendered it. 


ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF 


Among those who were present at this council 
were men so diverse as the hated tyrant 
George of Alexandria, and Hilary of Poictiers, 
still exiled from his diocese. Meanwhile, Ur- 
sacius and Valens were engaged in the con- 
genial task of endeavouring to persuade the 
deputies from Ariminum to sign yet another 
creed at Niké in Thrace, in the hope, if some | 
authorities are to be trusted, of making the. 
world believe, from the similarity of name 
that it was the renowned document prom 
gated at the Nicene council. But this w 
surely an impossibility. The Nicene symb 
was far too well known to the Christian world, | 
Athanasius now intervened from his retreat, 
and wrote his famous treatise de Synodis, | 
in which he reviewed the creeds and acts - 
of the various councils. But he assumed ποὺ 
non-possumus attitude. He had even seemed 
inclined, for a moment, to admit the ortho- | 
doxy of the expression ὁμοιούσιον. But in this 
treatise he points out (c. 41) that though brass — 
is like gold, tin like iron, and the dog like the 
wolf, yet they are of different natures, and no 
one could call the wolf the offspring of the 
dog. Nevertheless, he still endeavours to 
bridge over the gulf between himself and the — 
semi-Arians. Σ 
These two councils were the final turning-— 
point of the controversy. It had clearly 
appeared that, whenever the Nicene defini-— 
tions had been rejected, Anomoeanism, which | 
was Arianism in a more definite philosophical — 
shape, came once more to the front, and this 
fact was increasingly seen to point to the | 
Nicene symbol as the only safe way out of the © 
difficulty. Henceforth the secular authority 
might retard, but it could not prevent, the 
victory of Athanasius and his followers. From — 
this moment (see Socr. H. E. ii. 22) the 
Western churches definitely renounced com-— 
munion with those of the East. The episode — 
of Meletius of Antioch (not to be confounded 
with Meletius of Egypt) shewed plainly which 
way events were tending. He had been ~ 
elected patriarch of Antioch by the Homoean _ 
party. But in his inaugural speech he frankly 
confessed his Nicene leanings, and when a 
busy archdeacon rushed up and closed his_ 
mouth, he continued by gestures to affirm — 
what he had previously affirmed by his voice. — 
Meletius was promptly banished, but before 
the year (361) was over Constantius was dead. — 
The action of his successor Julian, who had 
renounced Christianity, gave a still further — 
impulse to the policy of conciliation. As — 
between heathenism and Christianity, impar- — 
tiality cannot certainly be predicated of him. 
But he was impartial enough in his hostility Ἵ 
to Christians of all shades of opinion. This 
threw them, for the time, into one another's 
arms. True, when the external pressure was 
removed, the suspicions and jealousies, as is — 
commonly the case, broke out afresh. But — 
none the less had an impulse been given — 
towards union which henceforth never ceased — 
to be felt. The oppressor George had been © 
expelled from Alexandria by a rising of the — 
populace as early as 358. In 361, on his — 
return to Alexandria, he was seized and — 
murdered by his exasperated flock. The edict — 
of Julian (361) permitting the return of the 
exiles left the way open to Athanasius to rejoin — 


Ἣν 


ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF 


his people. He at once (362) summoned a 

council, in which Macedonianism [MAcEpDo- 
‘| nrus], an offshoot from Arianism which applied 
"| the same line of argument to the Holy Spirit 
which had previously been applied to the Son, 
was condemned as well as Arianism. But 
Athanasius was wise and liberal enough to 
make overtures to the semi-Arians. Three 
men almost worthy to stand on a level with 
Athanasius himself had appeared among the 
Eastern bishops—men who were capable of 
negotiating on equal terms with that great 
and prescient theologian. These were Basi1, 
afterwards bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
his brother GreGcory, bp. of Nyssa, and the 
brilliant orator, poet, and thinker GREGORY 
or NazIAnzus, who was the intimate friend 
of both. These men had some opinions in 
common with the less extreme members of the 
semi-Arian party, and were therefore quite 
ready toresume the work of conciliation which, 
as we have seen, had been attempted by Basil 
of Ancyra. Athanasius, on his part, was ready 
to accept the distinction mentioned above 
between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, which had not 
been recognized at Nicaea. Before the death 
of Jovian (364), Acacius of Caesarea, who 
cannot be acquitted of being an unworthy 
intriguer or at best a time-server, came for- 
ward to make his peace by accepting the 
Nicene formula. On the death of Jovian 
the empire was divided between Valentinian 
and Valens, the former taking the West, the 
latter the East, under his charge. Valen- 
tinian, as a man unacquainted with theology, 
was naturally influenced by the general 
opinion in the West, which had remained 
| decisively Nicene. Valens as naturally fell 
| under the influence of the Eastern bishops, 
| and the time was not yet ripe for their accept- 
| ance of the Nicene decision. The Anomoeans 
were still a powerful party, and so deter- 
| mined were they to enforce their views that 
they persecuted not only the orthodox but 
the semi-Arians and Macedonians. When the 
semi-Arians, with the permission of Valen- 
tinian, held a council at Lampsacus in 364, 
its decisions were set aside by Valens, whose 
hand had already been heavy on the Homo- 
ousians, and who now exiled the semi-Arian 
bishops. Four years later he dealt equally 
harshly with the Macedonians, who were 
terrified into imploring the help of the ortho- 
dox West, and endeavoured to secure it by 

‘omising Liberius that they would receive the 

icene Creed. But the latter replied in a 
letter in which he declared that the faith 
depended on the acceptance of the words 
hypostasis (in the sense in which it is used 
in the Nicene formula) and homodéusios. On 
the other hand, the dissensions which broke 
out between Eupoxius, patriarch of Antioch 
and afterwards of Constantinople and _ his 
Arian (or Anomoean) allies, drove both him 
and Valens into the arms of the Homoeans, 
in whose possession most of the churches 
Were. But the affairs of the empire fell into 
confusion in the incompetent hands of Valens, 
and the influence of the Arian and Homoean 
parties was steadily waning. Athanasius died 
in 373, after a noteworthy attempt to cast 
his shield over his faithful] supporter and friend 
Marcellus. The result was that Marcellus was 


ARNOBIUS 49 


acquitted, but his school disappeared with him 
(he died in 371), and the way lay clear for 
the conciliatory action of the three great 
Eastern leaders already mentioned. There 
was no theologian in Christendom who could 
withstand them. Among their opponents no 
concert reigned, but only confusion; their 
ascendancy was founded on court intrigue and 
imperial violence. Sozomen (H. E. vi. 6) tells 
us how Valentinian, while he stedfastly clung 
to orthodoxy, studiously refrained from har- 
assing those opposed to it, and notes with 
disapproval the different course taken by 
Valens. The cause of genuine, practical 
Christianity suffered seriously under these 
divisions, intrigues, and acts of violence, and 
men of earnest and even indifferent minds were 
longing for peace. When Theodosius suc- 
ceeded Valens in 379 (Valentinian was already 
dead) there was no force strong enough 
among the heretical factions to resist the 
coalition between the semi-Arians and the 
Nicenes. The West was united in support of 
the latter, the strength and patience of the 
divided East were exhausted. A council of 
150 bishops—all Easterns—assembled at 
Constantinople, and the weary 56 years of 
conflict and confusion terminated in the 
acceptance of the symbol * which, in the East 
and West, is repeated whenever Christians who 
profess the Catholic faith meet for communion 
with one another and their Lord. Arianism 
had no moral strength with which to resist 
persecution. But it still lingered among the 
Goths for some centuries. They were not an 
educated race, and Ulphilas, who converted 
them to Christianity, was a missionary rather 
than a theologian. And so it came to pass 
in the end that, so far as this vital doctrine of 
the Christian faith is concerned, “ they all 
escaped safe to land.” 

The bibliography of this period is much the 
same as has been given in art. Arrus, only 
that the Life of Constantine, by Eusebius Pam- 
phili, is of course no longer available. The 
de Synodis of Athanasius passes in review the 
various councils and their creeds, from the 
Encaenia at Antioch to the councils of 
Ariminum and Seleucia. Various mono- 
graphs connected with the history of this 
period will be found mentioned by Prof. 
Gwatkin in his Studies of Arianism, if the 
student wishes to go more deeply into the 
subject than is possible here. [J-J-L-] 

Arnobius, an eminent Latin apologist for 
Christianity. The records of his life are 
meagre and somewhat uncertain; consisting 
in a few brief notices by St. Jerome, and 
another by Trithemius, aided by his own few 
incidental allusions to himself. 

The outbreak of the last great persecution 
(303-313) found Arnobius a professor of 
rhetoric at Sicca, in Africa. His reputation 
was high, and his pupils numerous and 
distinguished ; among them was LACTANTIUS. 
Arnobius was a sincere pagan; versed in 
schemes of philosophy; but none the less an 
unhesitating and even abject idolator. He 
was, moreover, active as a lecturer in attacks 
upon Christianity. The sight, however, of 


* It ends, however, as far as the council of Nicaea 
is concerned, with the words, ‘‘ And I believe in the 
Holy Ghost.” 


4 


50 ARNOBIUS 


the martyrdoms which followed the edict of 
Nicomedia appears speedily to have touched 
him; and a dream or vision (says St. Jerome) 
warned him to submit to Christ. He pre- 
sented himself to the church at Sicca; but 
““they were afraid of him,’’ and demanded 
from their late enemy some hostage for 
sincerity. The result was the composition of 
the Disputations against the Pagans ; whether 
in their present form or not. He was there- 
upon baptized, and (according to Trithemius) 
attained the rank of presbyter. Of his sub- 
sequent history we know nothing. Some 
doubt attaches to the exact date of the con- 
version of Arnobius and publication of his 
treatise. On the whole the evidence points to 
some date between 303 and 313 (Hieron. de 
Scr. Eccl. c. 79; id. in Chronicon Eusebit ; 
Trithemius, de Scr. Eccl. p. 10 @). 

The title of Arnobius’s work usually appears 
as Disputationes adversus Gentes ; occasion- 
ally, adv. Nationes. It is divided into seven 
books of unequal length. The first two are 
devoted to the defence of Christianity, the 
remainder to the exposure of paganism. 

Of God, he speaks in the noblest and fullest 
language of adoration. His existence is 
assumed (i. 33) as a postulate in the argument. 
He is the First Cause; the Father and Lord 
of things; foundation of all; author of only 
good; unborn; omnipresent ; infinite, incor- 
poreal; passionless ; shrouded in light ; to be 
known only as the Ineffable (see especially 
i. 31). Arnobius hesitates, however, over the 
details of creation; thinking apparently that 
alike the human soul and the lower animals— 
insects and reptiles—are the work of some 
intermediate creator (ii. 36, 47). 

Of the Lord Jesus Christ he uses the most 
glowing language. As a man He is the 
supreme philosopher and teacher, both of 
nature and religion. But He is also God: 
““Deus re certa: Deus, homo tamen natus ; 
Deus interiorum potentiarum ; Deus sublimis ; 
radice ex intima; ab incognitis regnis; 
sospitator, ab omnium principe missus ”’ ; His 
ponttfictum is to give salvation to thesoul; He 
is the only path to light ; His followers alone 
are saved; He is stronger than fate. Some 
doubt may, perhaps, be thrown over the 
extent of these ascriptions of deity by the 
vague language with which Arnobius speaks of 
the gods (see below). But with every de- 
duction they are magnificent, and at least lie 
in the direction of the fullest orthodoxy. The 
allusions to the incarnation, life, and death of 
the Redeemer are numerous. The first is 
somewhat vaguely described as the assump- 
tion of a man to the self, the God; its motive 
was the presentation of the God to human 
senses, and the general performance of Christ’s 
mission. His resurrection and the subsequent 
appearances are insisted upon; it is asserted 
(apparently) that He still appears to the 
faithful. To the Second Advent there is at 
most only a doubtful allusion (i. 39). (See 
generally, i. 36, 65; ii. 60.) 

On the origin of the Soul he is far more 
speculative than is his wont. Its sin, im- 
perfection, and inborn infirmity (he holds) 
forbid the belief that it comes direct from the 
Supreme Cause. It cannot for the like reasons 
be immortal (1.6. absolutely and per 56), it 


mele 


ARNOBIUS 


outlives the body, but depends wholly on the 
gift of God for eternal duration. After death 
there awaits the evil 
Gehenna of unquenchable fire, in which 
gradually they are consumed and annihilated 
(see especially ii. 15-54). The resurrection 
of the flesh is emphatically asserted, but in 
somewhat obscure terms (il. 13). 

Of the existence of gods he speaks with 
much ambiguity. The actual objects of 


heathen worship he concludes from the nature + 
of their mythology and ritual to be real tal Ἶ 


evil beings. But he nowhere denies tha 
there exist also dii bont; only he views them 


(if existent) as mere reflexes of the Supreme ~ 
Nature, and as in nosense distinct objects οὗ. 
In worshipping the — 


worship and prayer. 
Supreme (he argues), we worship by implica- 
tion—if to be worshipped they are—such gods 
as are gods indeed. 

On the nature and efficacy of prayer he 
uses perplexing language. His belief appar- 


ently is that in the present life all externals 


are fixed by an immovable destiny (vii. 10) ; 


that prayer is useful only as a means of divine — 
communion ; but he yet describes the prayers — 


of the Christian church as petitions for peace 
and pardon for all classes of mankind; the 
emperor, the magistrate, the armies, etc. (iv. 
36). Prayer is regarded as (in some sense 
not specified) efficacious for the dead (l.c.). 
Arnobius asserts the ‘‘ freedom of the will” ; 
God calls man ‘‘ non vi sed gratia” (ii. 64). 

In the latter books his arguments against 
heathen sacrifices are so managed as logically 
to exclude altogether the sacrifices both of 
the Jewish temple and of the Cross. Of idol- 
worship and incense he speaks in terms which 
prove that he can have known nothing of 
images, or incense, or a local presence, in the 
conventicula of the Christians. 


Of the Holy Scriptures Arnobius appears to ~ 


have known very little. He makes some 
acute remarks (i. 58) on the rude style of the 
evangelists, but only one text (I. Cor. iii. 19) is 


quoted verbatim ; and even this is introduced as — 


illud vulgatum (ii. 6). He records apocryphal 
miracles as evangelical (i. 46, 53) ; he knows 
nothing of any promise of temporal happiness 
(ii. 76); he confuses the Pharisees with the 
Sadducees (iii. 12). Of the O.T. he was 
apparently quite ignorant. In one passage 
(iii. 10) he even seems to speak of it with dis- 
respect; though the passage has been ex- 
plained of the Rabbinical books. In many 
places he shews by implication a total ignor-- 


ance of the national election and the ritual — 


of the Jews (to whom he scarcely alludes at: 
all), and of the Scriptural prophecies and! 
chronology. These phenomena are, of course,, 
in great measure accounted for by the allegedi 
circumstances of the composition of the 
work. They render more remarkable the 
faintness of the tinge of Gnosticism in its: 
pages. Obviously the authority of Arnobius: 


on points of Christian doctrine is reduced — 


almost ad nihilum by these indications; and 
we can hardly wonder that in the 5th cent. 
his treatise was banished by pope Gelasius 
to the index of apocryphal works. 

Critical opinions on the merits of Arnobius 
have been very various. St. Jerome’s verdict 


| varies between praises of his {γι luculentissimt 


a second death, a> 


| 


ARNOBIUS, JUNIOR 


and censure of his defects as inaequalis, nimius, 
confusus, in style, method, and doctrine. 
Dr. Woodham (in his edition of Tertullian’s 
Apology, preliminary Essays, ed. 1850) pro- 
tests against the obscurity and neglect which 
have attended his name; holds that his 
“ peculiar position and character invest his 
sentiments and reasoning with very singular 
interest and value’’; pronounces him to be 
in some respects ‘“‘ the keenest of the apolo- 
| gists,’’ and to be remarkably apposite to the 
popular arguments of modern times (pp. 21, 
29, 52, 53)- : : ; 

To the whole of this verdict we subscribe. 
Arnobius presents as a man a mind and 
character combining much ardour with much 
common sense. His sincerity is eminently 
manifest. He has apprehended to a degree 
| nowhere and never common the great fact of 
human ignorance. As a writer, he appears as 
the practised and facile, but not very fanciful, 
rhetorician of his time and country; and is 
even a master and model of that peculiar 
style of a declining age which consists in a 
subtle medium between the dictions of poetry 
and of prose. 

As a storehouse of old Latinity and of 
allusions to points of antiquity—to heathen 
mythology and ceremonial; to law, educa- 
tion, and amusements—his work is of the 
greatest interest and importance. 

The following editions of Arnobius may be 
mentioned :—1816, Leipz., J. C. Orellius (ex- 
cellent for a full and learned commentary) ; 
Halle, 1844, ed. G. F. Hildebrand; Paris, 
1844, Migne’s Patr. Lat.; Reifferscheid, 
Vienna, 1875 (Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. iv.). 
For an Eng. trans. see Ante-Nicene Lib. 
(T. &. T. Clark). [H.c.G.M.] 
| Arnobius, Junior, a presbyter, or possibly 
| bp., of Gaul; presumed, from internal evid- 
| ence of his writings, to have lived at least as 
late as A.D. 460. 

The only external notices seem to be those 
of Venerable Bede, who praises his Com- 
mentary on the Psalms, and of Alcuin, who 
favourably alludes to his Altercation with 
Serapion in a letter addressed to Flavius 
Merius, and in the sixth book of his treatise 
Contra Felicem Urgelitanum. The internal 
evidence is based upon the Commentarium in 
Psalmos, the Notes on some passages of the 
Gospels, and the Altercatio cum Serapione. 
The Commentary and Altercation may both 
be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima 
(tom. viii.), Lyons, 1677; but the contents 
render it very difficult to believe that the 
same person was author of both. 

The Commentary on the Psalms is avowed 
by its author, who dedicates it to Leontius, 
bp. of Arles, and to Rusticus, bp. of Narbonne. 

16 comments are devout, practical, and 
pointed, but brief and uncritical, interpreting 
everything as referring to Christ and the 
church. They are, however, accused of a 
semi-Pelagian tendency; and a very learned 
writer, whose Hist. Eccl. appeared c. 1686, 
Natalis Alexander, invites special attention 
| to remarks of Arnobius upon Pss. 1. ciii. eviii. 
and exxvi. (in the Heb.; in A.V., li. civ. 
ete.). But Nat. Alexander was a Jansenist ; 
and anti-Jansenist writers, such as the Bollan- 
dists, might maintain that the majority were 


ARSACIUS 51 


capable of an orthodox interpretation. It 
must, however, be allowed that the author of 
the Commentary is anti-Augustinian; as on 
Ps. eviii. (cix.) 16, 17, he speaks of the heresy, 
‘quae dicit Deum aliquos praedestindsse ad 
benedictionem, alios ad maledictionem.”’ 

The Altercatio cum Serapione is a dialogue, 
represented as having been held between 
Arnobius and Serapion. Serapion by turns 
plays the part of a Sabellian, an Arian, and a 
Pelagian, and is gradually driven from each 
position. Considerable learning is displayed 
and a clear apprehension of the points at 
issue, combined with much real ingenuity of 
argument. The circumstance of Arnobius 
being the chief speaker does not of course 
prove that the authorship is his, any more 
than the position of Socrates in certain of the 
Platonic dialogues would prove that Socrates 
wrote them. Moreover, just as we cannot 
make Socrates responsible for all that Plato 
has put into his mouth, so neither can Arnobius 
junior be justly credited with the tenets here 
ascribed to him by some unknown author. 
Both the style and tone of the Altercation 
seem different from that of the Commentary ; 
and though there is in both works a con- 
sentient rejection of the errors condemned in 
the first four general councils, yet it is hardly 
possible that an author of semi-Pelagian 
leanings, who had stigmatized predestinarian 
doctrine as a heresy, should declare, as Arno- 
bius is made to do towards the conclusion of 
the Altercatio cum Serapione, that he “‘ accepts 
and defends the dicta of St. Augustine con- 
cerning Pelagianism, as if they were the most 
hallowed writings of the Apostles.” 

The Notes on some passages of the Gospels, 
which seem really to belong to Arnobius 
juntor, are given in the edition of his works 
by Laurence de la Barre (Paris, 1639). But 
for a new view of the authorship of these 
works see G. Morin in Revue Bénédictine (1903). 
He thinks that the author of the Adnotationes, 
the Altercatio, andthe Predestinatusis probably 
an Illyrian, who lived in Rome. Of the 
events of our author’s life we are wholly 
ignorant. [y-G.c.] 

Arsacius, the intruding archbp. of Con- 
stantinople, after the violent expulsion of 
Chrysostom (A.D. 404). He was the brother 
of Nectarius, Chrysostom’s predecessor, and 
had served as archpresbyter under Chrysostom 
(Photius C. 59). In earlier life his brother had 
selected him for the bishopric of Tarsus, and 
had attributed his refusal to an ambitious 
design of becoming his successor at Constanti- 
nople. On this, Palladius asserts, he swore 
voluntarily that he would never accept the see 
of Constantinople (Pallad. c. xi.). After he 
had passed his 80th year, the success of the 
base intrigue of Eudoxia and Theophilus 
against Chrysostom opened an unexpected 
way for his elevation to the archiepiscopal 
throne. Eudoxia and the party now trium- 
phant wanted for their new archbishop a 
facile tool, under whose authority they might 
shelter the violence of their proceedings. 
Such an instrument they had in Arsacius. 
Moreover, his hostility to Chrysostom had 
been sufficiently testified at the synod of the 
Oak, when he appeared as a witness against 
him and vehemently pressed his condemna- 


52 ARSENIUS 


tion. He was consecrated archbishop on 
June 27, 404. Chrysostom, on hearing of it, 
denounced him ‘‘ as a spiritual adulterer, and 
a wolf in sheep’s clothing’ (Ep. cxxv.). The 
diocese soon made it plain that they regarded 
the new archbishop as an intruder. The 
churches once so thronged became empty ; 
with the exception of a few officials, the de- 
pendants of the court party, and the expect- 
ants of royal favour, the people of Constanti- 
nople refused to attend any religious assembly 
at which he might be expected to be present. 
Deserting the sacred edifices, they gathered 
in the outskirts of the city, and in the open 
air. Arsacius appealed to the emperor 
Arcadius, by whose orders, or rather those of 
Eudoxia, soldiers were sent to disperse the 
suburban assemblies. Those who had taken 
a leading part in them were apprehended and 
tortured, and a fierce persecution commenced 
of the adherents of Chrysostom. [OLYMPIAS 
(2)]. We learn from Sozomen (H. E. viii. 23) 
that Arsacius was not personally responsible 
for these cruel deeds ; but he lacked strength 
of character to offer any decided opposition to 
the proceedings of his clergy. They did what 
they pleased, and Arsacius bore the blame. 
His position became intolerable. In vain all 
the bishops and clergy who, embracing 
Chrysostom’s cause, had refused to recognize 
him were driven out of the East (Nov. 18, 
404). This only spread the evil more widely. 
The whole Western episcopate refused to 
acknowledge him, and pope Innocent, who 
had warmly espoused Chrysostom’s interests, 
wrote to the clergy and laity of Constantinople 
strongly condemning the intrusion of Arsacius, 
and exhorting them to persevere in their 
adhesion to their true archbishop (Soz. H. E. 
vi. 22, 26). It is no cause for surprise that 
Arsacius’s episcopate was a brief one, and 
that a feeble character worn out by old age 
should have soon given way before a storm of 
opposition so universal. He died Nov. 11, 
405 (Socr. H. E. vi. 19; Soz. H. E. viii. 23, 
26; Phot. C. 59; Pallad. Dial. c. xi.; Chrys. 
Ep. Cxxv.). [E.v.] 
Arsenius, called “the Great,” one of the 
most famous of the monks of Egypt. He was 
of high Roman family ; born probably in 354. 
He was deeply read in Greek literature. 
About 383, Theodosius the Great being de- 
sirous of finding a suitable instructor for his 
sons Arcadius and Honorius, the elder of 
whom was then about six years old, Arsenius 
was recommended to him, it is suid, by the 
Roman bishop, and in this way came into the 
service of the best of the Christian Caesars. 
The time that Arsenius spent at the court 
came to an end when he was forty years old, 
in 394. A thoughtful and high-souled Roman 
Christian living under the ascendancy of 
Rufinus might not unnaturally be impelled 
towards monastic seclusion by sheer disgust 
and despair as to the prospects of so-called 
Christian society. He gave up his charge, 
in obedience, as he said, to a voice which 
bade him “ fly from men, if he would be safe.”’ 
Arsenius, arriving at the monastic wilder- 
ness of Scetis, begged the clergy there to put 
him in the way of salvation by making him a 
monk. They took him to abbot John Colobus 
(the Dwarfish), who invited them to a meal: 


ARTEMON, ARTEMONITES 


Arsenius was kept standing while they sat; a 
biscuit was flung at him, which he ate in a 
kneeling posture. ‘‘ He will make a monk,” 
said John; and Arsenius stayed with him 
until he had learned enough of the monastic 
life from John’s teaching, and then established 
himself as a hermit in Scetis, where he con-- 
tinued forty years. His love of solitude- 
became intense ; the inward voice had seemed ° 
to bid him “be silent, be quiet,” if he would 
keep innocency. One visitor he even drove: 
away with stones; he discouraged the visits « 
of Theophilus the archbp. ; and when a high- - 
born Roman lady visited him during one of 
his occasional sojourns outside the desert, her : 
request to be remembered in his prayers was « 
met by the brusque expression of a hope that 
he might be able to forget her. Whenever he 
came into a church he hid himself behind a) 
pillar; he even shrank at times from his ~ 
brother hermits, remarking that the ten. 
thousands of angels had but one will, but men 
had many. But with all his sternness, which | 
was coupled with more than the usual mon- — 
astic austerities, Arsenius could be cordial, 
and even tender. His humility was worthy | 
of a follower of Anthony. He was heard to 
cry aloud in his cell, ‘‘ Forsake me not, O 
God! Ihave done no good in Thy sight, but, | 
in Thy goodness, grant me to make a begin- 
ning.’? A very famous saying of his referred 
to faults of the tongue: ‘* Often have I been 
sorry for having spoken—never for having 
been silent.’”” The Evxhortation to Monks, 
ascribed to him (Combefis, Gr. Patr. Auc- 
tarium, i. 301; Galland, Bzblioth. vii. 427), 
exhibits the results of deep spiritual experi-— 
ence. It warns the monk not to forget that 
his great work is not the cleansing of the outer 
life, but of the inner man: spiritual sins, not 
carnal only, have to be conquered; many a 
good action has, through the tempter’s sublety, - 
become the door to unexpected evil; many 
who have thought their battle with sin 
accomplished have relapsed through the 
perilous hearing of other men’s sin: “ we 
must keep guard all round.” a 
In 434 Arsenius left Scetis, driven forth by 
an irruption of the Mazici. He stayed at 
Troe, near Memphis, until 444; then spent 
three years at the little island (not the city) 
of Canopus; returned to Troe for the two 
remaining years of his long monastic life. 
The Greek church honours him as “ our 
Father, Arsenius the Great,’’ on May 8; the 
Latin, on July 19. [w.B.] 
Artemon, Artemonites, belong to that 
class of ante-Nicene Monarchians, or Anti- 
trinitarians, who saw in Christ a mere man 
filled with divine power. Of Artemon, or 
Artemas, we know very little. He taught in 
Rome at the end of the 2nd and beginning — 
of the 3rd cent., and was excommunicated 
by pope Zephyrinus (202-217), who, as we 
learn from the Philosophumena of Hippolytus, 
favoured the opposite error of Patripassianism. — 
He declared the doctrine of the divinity of 
Christ to be an innovation dating from the 
time of Zephyrinus, the successor of Victor, © 
and a relapse into heathen polytheism. He 
asserted that Christ was a mere man, but born 
of a virgin, and superior in virtue to the 
prophets. The Artemonites were charged. 


> 


TE, O_O τυ δ» εν »"ννδδον.. φὰ.,.. ΧὩ. ὔὩὍ-ὦϑὍ..ἡ ... -ς-.- 


Swe S| ee CU 


el allie tiie —= - 


“Ott 


ASTERIUS 


with placing Euclid above Christ, and aban- 
doning the Scriptures for dialectics and mathe- 
matics. This indicates a critical or sceptical 
turn of mind. The views of Artemon were 
afterwards more fully developed by Paul of 
Samosata, who is sometimes counted with the 
Artemonites. The sources of our fragmentary 
information are Eusebius, Htst. Eccl. v. 28; 
Epiphanius, Haer. lxv. 1, 4; Theodoret, Haer. 
Fab. ii. 4; Photius, Biblioth. 48. Cf. Schleier- 
macher's essay on the Sabellian and Athanasian 
conceptions of the Trinity (Works, vol. ii.), and 
Dorner’s Entwicklungsgeschichte der L. v. d. 
Person Christi, 2nd ed. i. 508 ff. [Ρ.5.] 
Asterius (1), a bp. of Arabia (called bp. of 
Petra, Tomus ad Antioch. ὃ 10). He accom- 
panied the Eusebians to the council of Sar- 
dica, but separated himself from them along 
with bp. Arius or Macarius (who by some 
confusion is also called bp. of Petra), com- 
plaining of the violent treatment to which 
the deputies had been subjected, with the view 
of driving them into supporting the Eusebian 
faction (Theod. ii. 8). The Eusebians soon 
had their revenge, and the two bishops were 
banished to Upper Libya, where they endured 
much suffering (Athan. Hist. Arian. ὃ 18; 
Apol. § 48). On the promulgation of the 
ict of Julian, recalling all the banished 
bishops, Asterius returned, and (a.p. 362) 
took part in the important council summoned 
by the newly restored Athanasius at Alex- 
andria, for the purpose of promoting union 
between the orthodox and those who, without 
embracing the errors of Arius, had held 
communion with the Arian party. One of 
the chief subjects that came before this synod 
was the unhappy schism at Antioch between 
the Eustathians and the Meletians. [Luct- 
FERUS (1); MELETIUS; PAULINUS (6).] On the 
singular fact that the name of Asterius, to- 
ther with that of Eusebius of Vercelli, is 
und among those to whom this letter is 
addressed, as well as among those by whom it 
was written, of which it is difficult to give a 
satisfactory explanation, cf. Tillemont, Mém. 
Vili. p. 707; Baronius, Ann. sub. ann. 362, 
§ 219. [E.v.] 
Asterius (2), bp. of Amasea in Pontus, a 
contemporary of St. Chrysostom. He him- 
self tells us that his teacher was a certain 
Scythian (i.e. Goth), who, having been sold 
in his youth to a citizen of Antioch, a school- 
master, had made marvellous progress under 
his owner’s instructions, and won himself a 
great name among Greeks and Romans (Phot. 
Bibl. 271, p. 1500). Beyond this not a single 
incident in his life is recorded. His date, how- 
ever, is fixed by allusions to contemporary 
events in his Homilies. He speaks of the 
apostasy of Julian as having happened within 
his memory (Aster. Or. 3, p. 56, ed. Combefis) ; 
and in his sermon on the Festival of the 
Calends (Or. 4, p. 76) he mentions the consulate 
and fall of Eutropius as an event of the pre- 
ceding year. This sermon therefore must 
have been delivered on New Year’s Day, 400. 
Elsewhere he spoke of himself as a man of 
very advanced age (Phot. Amphil. 125 [312]). 
The extant works of Asterius consist almost 
solely of sermons or homilies. Of these we 
possess twenty-two perfect ; twelve on various 
subjects included in the edition of Combefis 


ATHANASIUS 53 


(Paris, 1648) ; eight on the Psalms, of which 
one is found among the works of St. Chrysos- 
tom, and the remaining seven were published 
by Cotelier, Mon. Eccl. Graec. ii. (Paris, 1688) ; 
and two again on other subjects, which are 
published among the works of Gregory 
Nyssen, but must be assigned to Asterius on 
the authority of Photius. Besides these 
Photius (Bibl. 271) gives extracts from 
several others. In addition to these homilies, 
a Life of his predecessor, St. Basil of Amasea, 
printed in the Acta Sanctorum, April 26, is 
ascribed to him. A complete collection of his 
works will be found in Migne’s Patr. Gk. xl. ; 
a complete list in Fabric. Bibl. Gk. ix. 513 
seq. ed. Harles. An account of their contents 
is given by Tillemont, x. 409 seq. 

Asterius was a student of Demosthenes (Or. 
II, p. 207), and himself no mean orator. His 
best sermons (for they are somewhat uneven) 
display no inconsiderable skill in rhetoric, 
great power of expression, and great earnest- 
ness of moral conviction ; and some passages 
are even strikingly eloquent. His orthodoxy 
was unquestioned. Photius (Amphil. 1.6.) 
contrasts him with his Arian namesake, as 
stanch in the faith, devoting himself to the 
care of his flock, and setting an example of 
a virtuous and godly life. His authority was 
quoted with great respect in later ages, more 
especially during the Iconoclastic controversy 
at the second council of Nicaea, when with a 
play on his name he was referred to as “ἃ 
bright star (astrum) illumining the minds of 
811 (Labbe, Conc. viii. 1385, 1387, ed. 
Coleti). Bardenhewer (1908) refers to a 
Syllogehistorica on Asterius by V. de Buck in 
Acta SS. Oct. (Paris, 1883), xiil. 330-332. [L.] 

Athanasius, St., archbp. of Alexandria. 
The life of Athanasius divides itself naturally 
into seven sections, respectively terminated 
by (1) his consecration; (2) his first exile ; 
(3) his second exile; (4) his second return ; 
(5) his third exile; (6) his fourth exile; (7) 
his death. 

(1) He was born at Alexandria, and had but 
scanty private means (Apol. c. Ar. 51; Socr. 
iv. 13). We must date his birth c. 296; not 
earlier, because he had no personal remem- 
brance of the persecution under Maximian in 
303 (Hist. Ar. 64), and was comparatively a 
young man when consecrated bishop, soon 
after the Nicene council; not later, because 
he received some theological instruction from 
persons who suffered in the persecution 
under Maximian II. in 311 (de Incarn. 56), 
and the first two of his treatises appear to 
have been written before 319. There can 
be no reason to doubt that Athanasius 
became an inmate of bp. Alexander’s house, 
as his companion and secretary (Soz. ii. 
17). The position involved great advan- 
tages. The place held by Alexander as 
“‘successor of St. Mark,’’ and occupant of 
“the Evangelical throne,’’ was second in 
the Christian hierarchy : we may call the bps. 
of Alexandria in the 4th cent., for conveni- 
ence’ sake, archbishops or patriarchs, al- 
though the former name was then very rarely 
applied to them, and the latter not at all, 
and they were frequently designated, though 
not in contradistinction to all other prelates, 
by the title of Papas (pope), or ‘‘ dear father.”’ 


δ4 ATHANASIUS 


Their power throughout the churches of 
Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis was, by ancient 
custom, which the Nicene council afterwards 
confirmed, almost monarchical, extending over 
about a hundred bishops, who revered their 
judgments as the decisions of the see of 
Rome were revered in Italy. One experience 
of a different kind, most fruitful in its con- 
sequences, was Athanasius’s acquaintance 
with the great hermit Anthony. He tells us, 
in his Life of Anthony, that he often saw him ; 
and although that reading of the conclusion 
of the preface, which makes him say that 
“he himself for some time attended on him, 
and poured water on his hands,”’ may be con- 
sidered doubtful, yet we know that he was 
afterwards spoken of as ‘‘ the ascetic,’’ and 
that when, years later, he took shelter in the 
cells of the monks of Egypt, he found himself 
perfectly at home. He contracted an admir- 
ation for monasticism, which will not surprise 
those who remember that the spiritual inten- 
sity of the Christian life had found a most 
emphatic, though a one-sided expression, in 
the lives of men who fled, like Anthony, from 
a society at once tainted and brutalized 
beyond all modern conception. [ANTONIUS.] 

The two essays of Athanasius, Against the 
Gentiles and On the Incarnation, which form 
one complete work addressed to a convert 
from heathenism, cannot be dated later than 
the end of 318; for they make no reference to 
the Arian controversy which broke out in 319. 
Dorner, in his work On the Person of Christ, 
has given a résumé of their argument on the 
threefold subject of God, man, and the Incar- 
nate Word; and Mohler calls the book on the 
Incarnation ‘‘ the first attempt that had been 
made to present Christianity and the chief 
circumstances of the life of Jesus Christ under 
a scientific aspect. By the sure tact of his 
noble and Christian nature, everything is 
referred to the Person of the Redeemer: 
everything rests upon Him: He appears 
throughout.’” The young author seems to 
have been ordained deacon about this time, 
and placed in the position of chief among the 
Alexandrian deacons. Among the clergy who 
joined the archbishop in calling on Arius to 
retract, and who afterwards assented to his 
deposition, was the young archdeacon of 
Alexandria (see the Benedictine Athanasius, 
i. 396 seq.). In this spirit he attended Alex- 
ander to the Nicene council in 325. 

In that assembly he is represented by 
Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. 21) as ‘‘ foremost 
among those who were in attendance on 
bishops,’ and as “‘ doing his utmost to stay 
the plague.’”’ His writings may assure us of 
the argument which he would maintain: that 
the real Divinity of the Saviour was (i) as- 
serted in many places of Scripture, (ii) involved 
in the notion of His unique Sonship, (iii) re- 
quired by the Divine economy of redemption, 
and (iv) attested by the immemorial conscious- 
ness of the church. And although, as he 
himself informs us, the council would willingly 
have confined themselves to purely Scriptural 
terms (de Decr. 19) if their legitimate sense 
could have been bond fide admitted ; although 
too he was far from imagining that any form 
or expression of human thought would 
adequately represent a Divine mystery; yet 


ATHANASIUS 


his convictions went thoroughly with the 
adoption of the term ““ Homoousion ”’ or 
essential,’ explained, as it was, in a sense 
which made it simply equivalent to ‘ truly 
Son of God,’’ and proposed as a test of adher- | 
ence to the Scriptural Christology. And if 
we are to understand his mind at the close of 
the council, we must say that he regarde 
its proceedings as something done, in fact 
“for the rightful honour of Jesus.’’ Nothin 
was to him more certain than that Jesus was, — 
in the full force of the words, God Incarnate 
that Arianism was essentially a denial, an 
the ‘‘ Homoousion’’ the now authenticated 
symbol, of His claim on men’s absolute — 
devotion; and that it was infinitely worth — 
while to go through any amount of work or © 
suffering in defence of such a truth, and in — 
the cause of such a Master. ᾿ 
More work was near at hand, and suffering 
was not far off. A solemn and touching in- | 
cident of Alexander’s last moments is con- | 
nected with the history of Athanasius, who 
was then absent from Alexandria. The dying | 
man, while his clergy stood around him, — 
called for Athanasius. One of those present, — 
also bearing that name, answered, but wasnot | 
noticed by the archbishop, who again repeated — 
the name, and added, ‘‘ You think to escape 
—but it cannot be.’’ Some time appears to — 
have elapsed between his death and the 
assembling of the Egyptian bishops to con- 
secrate a successor. An encyclical letter οὗ 
these same Egyptian prelates proclaimed to ἢ 
all Christendom, some years later, that a 
majority of them had elected Athanasius in 
the presence, and amid the applause, of the 
whole Alexandrian laity, who for nights | 
and days persevered in demanding him as | 
“the good, pious, ascefic Christian,’ who 4; 
would prove a ‘‘ genuine bishop,’’ and prayed © 
aloud to Christ for the fulfilment of their | 
desire (Apol. c. Ar. 6). It was granted; and 
then, in the words of Gregory, ‘‘ by the 
suffrages of the whole people, and not by those 
vile methods, afterwards prevalent, of force 
and bloodshed, but in a manner apostolic and 
spiritual, was Athanasius elevated to the | 
throne of Mark,’’ some time after the begin- — 
ning of May in 326, and very probably on — 
June 8. j 
(2) From his Consecration (326) to his First — 
Exile (336).—At the outset of his archiepisco-— 
pate is to be placed the organization of the 
church in Ethiopia or Abyssinia by his con- — 
secration of Frumentius as bp. of Axum. 
[EpeEstus.] Another event of these com- 
paratively quiet times was Athanasius’s © 
visitation of the Thebaid, a region where | 
much trouble was being caused by the Arians, 
and by the Meletians, who resisted his earnest __ 
efforts to repress their separatist tendency. 
Now began the troubles from which the 
Arians never suffered Athanasius to rest till 
the last hour of his life. It was probably — 
in 330 that he had his first severe experience 
of their hatred. After the Nicene council, 
Constantine had become a zealot for ortho- 
doxy, and Eusebius of Nicomedia had been 
exiled. But Eusebius had procured his recall 
by orthodox professions; it may have been 
by his means that Arius himself was recalled, 
perhaps in Nov. 330. Eusebius now entered 


ATHANASIUS 


into a league with the Meletians of Egypt, of 
whom a bishop named John Arcaph was the 
head. ‘‘ He bought them,’’ says Athanasius, 
“by large promises, and arranged that they 
should help him on any emergency ” by that 
machinery of false accusation which they had 
already employed against three archbishops. 
The charges were not to be theological: to 
attack Athanasius’s teaching would be to 
declare against the Nicene doctrine, and this 
was a step on which Eusebius could not 
venture. He began by writing to Athanasius 
in behalf of Arius, and urging that, as a man 
whose opinions had been seriously misrepre- 
sented, he ought in justice to be received to 
church communion. Athanasius’s answer 
shews the ground on which he took his stand. 
“Tt cannot be right to admit persons to com- 
munion who invented a heresy contrary to 
the truth, and were anathematized by the 
oecumenical council.” It is probable that 
(as Fleury thinks, though Tillemont and 
Neander date it much later) we should refer to 
this period the visit of Anthony to Alexandria 
(Vit. Ant. 69), when he confounded the Arians’ 
report that he ‘‘agreed with them.’ This 
would be a great support to Athanasius. But 
Eusebius had recourse to Constantine, who 
thereupon wrote, commanding Athanasius to 
admit into the church “all who desired it,” 
on pain of being removed from his see by sheer 
State power. This gave him an opportunity 
of laying before Constantine his own views of 
his duty. ‘‘ There could be no fellowship,” 
he wrote, ‘‘ between the Catholic church of 
Christ and the heresy that was fighting against 
Him.’’ Not long afterwards, in compliance 
with instructions from Eusebius, three Mele- 
tians, Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus, ap- 
peared before the emperor at Nicomedia with 
a charge against Athanasius that he had 
assumed the powers of the government by 
taxing Egypt to provide linen vestments for 
the church of Alexandria. But two of 
Athanasius’s priests, happening to be at 
court, at once refuted this calumny; and 
Constantine wrote to Athanasius, condemning 
his accusers, and summoning him to Nicome- 
dia. Eusebius, however, persuaded the ac- 
cusers to meet him on his arrival with a bolder 
charge: ‘‘he had sent a purse of gold to 
Philumenus, a rebel.’’ This, being easily 
overthrown, was at once followed up by the 
famous story of the broken chalice. A certain 

yras, ἃ layman pretending to the character 
of a presbyter, officiated at a little hamlet 
called ‘‘ the Peace of Sacontarurum,”’ in the 
Mareotis ; Athanasius, being informed of this 
while on a visitation tour, sent a priest named 
Macarius, with the actual pastor of the dis- 
trict, to summon Ischyras before him, but 
found him ill. Ischyras, on recovering, 
attached himself to the Meletians, who, re- 
solving to use him as a tool, made him declare 
that Macarius had found him in church 
“ offering the oblations,’? had thrown down 
the holy table, broken the chalice, and burnt 
the church books ; of which sacrilege Athan- 
asius was to share the responsibility. But 
Athanasius was able to prove before Constan- 
tine at Nicomedia, early in 332, that, point by 
point, it was a falsehood. About mid-Lent he 
returned home with a letter from Constantine 


ATHANASIUS 55 


reprobating his enemies and praising him as 
“ἃ man of God ’’; whereupon Ischyras came 
to him, asking to be received into the church, 
and piteously protesting that the Meletians 
had set him on to assert a falsehood. But he 
was not admitted to communion; and the 
story was ere long revived in an aggravated 
form—Athanasius himself being now called 
the perpetrator of the outrage (Apol. 62, 64, 
25; Σὰν 27,, 65, 68): 

A darker plot followed. John Arcaph per- 
suaded a Meletian bishop, named Arsenius, 
to go into hiding. A rumour was then spread 
that he had been murdered, and dismembered 
for purposes of magic, by Athanasius, in proof 
of which the Meletians exhibited a dead man’s 
hand (Apol. 63, 42; Socr. i. 27; Soz. ii. 25; 
Theod. i. 30). The emperor was persuaded 
to think it a case for inquiry. Athanasius 
received a summons to appear at Antioch and 
stand his trial. At first he disdained to take 
any steps, but afterwards sent a deacon to 
search for the missing Arsenius. The deacon 
ascertained that Arsenius was concealed in a 
monastery at Ptemencyrcis, on the eastern 
side of the Nile. Before he could arrive there 
the superior sent off Arsenius, but was himself 
arrested by the deacon, and obliged to confess 
“that Arsenius was alive.’ At Tyre Arsenius 
was discovered. Constantine stopped the 
proceedings at Antioch on hearing of this 
exposure, and sent Athanasius a letter, to be 
read frequently in public, in which the 
Meletians were warned that any fresh offences 
would be dealt with by the emperor in person, 
and according to the civil law (A pol. 9, 68). 

The slandered archbishop had now a 
breathing-time. Arcaph himself ‘‘ came into 
the church,’”’ announced to Constantine his 
reconciliation with Athanasius, and received 
a gracious reply ; while Arsenius sent to his 
“blessed pope’’ a formal renunciation of 
schism, and a promise of canonical obedience 
(Apol. 66, 17, 70, 69, 8, 27). 

But the faction had not repented. Eusebius 
persuaded Constantine that such grave scand- 
als as the recent charges ought to be examined 
in a council; and that Caesarea would be the 
fitting place. There a council met in 334 
(see Tillemont, Ath. a. 15; cf. Festal. Epp. 
index, for A.D. 334). Athanasius, expecting 
no justice from a synod held under such 
circumstances, persisted, Sozomen says (ii. 25), 
‘* for thirty months ’’ in his refusal to attend. 
Being at last peremptorily ordered by Con- 
stantine to attend a council which was to 
meet at Tyre, he obeyed, in the summer of 
335, and was attended by about fifty of his 
suffragans. Athanasius saw at once that his 
enemies were dominant ; the presiding bishop, 
Flacillus of Antioch, was one of an Arian 
succession. Some of the charges Athanasius 
at once confuted; as to others he demanded 
time. Incredible as it may seem, the dead 
man’s hand was again exhibited. Athanasius 
led forward a man with downcast face, closely 
muffled; then, bidding him raise his head, 
looked round and asked, ‘‘Is not this Ar- 
senius?’’ The identity was undeniable. 
He drew from behind the cloak first one hand, 
and then, after a pause, the other; and 
remarked with triumphant irony, ‘‘ I suppose 
no one thinks that God has given to any man 


‘56 ATHANASIUS 


more hands than two.’’ The case of the 
broken chalice now remained ; it was resolved 
to send a commission of inquiry to the Mare- 
otis. Ischvras accompanied the commis- 
sioners, as “ἃ sharer in lodging, board, and 
wine-cup’’; they opened their court in the 
Mareotis. It appeared in evidence that no 
books had been burned, and that Ischyras 
had been too ill to officiate on the day of the 
alleged sacrilege. An inquiry of such an ex 
parte character called forth indignant protests 
from the Alexandrian and Mareotic clergy, 
one of the documents bearing the date 
Sept. 7, 335- The commissioners, disregarding 
remonstrance, returned to Tyre (Apol. 27, 
73-76, 17, 15)- x 

Athanasius, regarding the proceedings of the 
council of Tyre as already vitiated (A pol. 82), 
resolved, without waiting for the judgment of 
such an assembly, ‘‘to make a bold and 
dangerous experiment, whether the throne 
was inaccessible to the voice of truth.” 
Attended by five of his suffragans, he took the 
first vessel for Constantinople, and suddenly 
presented himself in the middle of the road 
when the emperor was riding into the city. 
Constantine, on learning who he was, and 
what was his errand, tried to pass him by in 
silence; but Athanasius firmly stood his 
ground. ‘‘ Either summon a lawful council, 
or give me opportunity of meeting my accusers 
in your presence.’’ The request was con- 
ceded. The bishops of the council, after 
receiving their commissioners’ report, had by 
a majority condemned Athanasius, and then 
pronounced Arius orthodox on the ground of 
a doctrinal statement made five years earlier, 
when they were startled by an imperial letter 
expressing suspicion of their motives, and 
summoning them to Constantinople. Many 
of them, in alarm, fled homewards; but the 
two Eusebii, Theognis, Patrophilus, Valens, 
and Ursacius repaired to court, and, saying 
nothing of ‘‘ the chalice,”’ or the report of the 
commission, presented a new charge, like the 
former quasi-political ones—that Athanasius 
had talked of distressing Constantinople by 
preventing the sailing of Alexandrian corn- 
ships. ‘‘ How could I, a private person, and 
poor, do anything of the kind?” asked 
Athanasius. Eusebius of Nicomedia answered 
by affirming with an oath that Athanasius 
was rich and powerful, and able to do any- 
thing. The emperor cut short Athanasius’s 
defence with a show of indignation; and, 
perhaps not from real belief in the charge, but 
by way of getting rid of the case and silencing 
the archbishop’s enemies in his own interest, 
banished him to the distant city of Trier or 
Tréves, the seat of government of his eldest 
son Constantine, who received the exile with 
much kindness, in Feb. 336. 

(3) From his First Exile (336) to his Second 
(340).—His life at Tréves, including nearly two 
years and a half, was an interval of rest, much 
needed and doubtless invigorating, between 
the storms of the past and those of the future. 
He had now to “stand and wait ’’—a new 
experience for him. He was “ abundantly 
supplied with all necessaries ’’ (Constantine II. 
in Apol. 87); he had the friendship of Maxi- 
min, the orthodox bp. of Tréves, afterwards 
canonized ; he had with him some Egyptian 


|‘ brethren,’? and kept up a correspondence 


| Arian bishop named Secundus. 


ATHANASIUS 


with his friends at home, although at the risk 
of having his letters seized. ~q 

For more than a year Constantine’s death 
produced no change in Athanasius’s position ; 
but at length, on June 17, 338, Constantine IL., 
who in the partition of the empire had a 
certain precedency over his brothers Con- 
stantius and Constans, the sovereigns of the 
East and of Italy, wrote from Tréves to the 
Catholics of Alexandria, announcing that he 
had resolved, in fulfilment of an intention of 
his father, to send back Athanasius, of whose 
character he expressed high admiration (A pol. 
87). In this he appears to have presumed his 
brother’s consent, and to have then taken 
Athanasius with him to Viminacium, an 
important town of Moesia Superior, on the 
high-road to Constantinople. Here the three 
emperors had a meeting, and all concurred in 
the restoration of Athanasius, who, after pass 
ing through Constantinople, saw Constantius 
a second time, at a farther point on his 
homeward journey, at Caesarea in Cappadocia 
(Apol. ad Const. 5; Hist. Ar. 8). His arrival 
at Alexandria, in Nov. 338, was hailed b 
popular rejoicing: the churches resounded 
with thanksgivings, and the clergy ‘‘ thought 
it the happiest day of their lives.’ But his 
enemies bestirred themselves, and ‘‘ did no 
shrink from long journeys ’”’ in order to press” 
on the emperors new charges against him— 
that he had misappropriated the corn granted 
by the late emperor for charitable purposes in 
Egypt and Libya, and that the day of his re- 
turn had been signalized by bloodshed. Con- 
stantius wrote to him in anger, assuming the 
truth of the former charge; but Athanasius 
was successful in disproving both. However, 
Constantius—who was so soon to be “his | 
scourge and torment ’’ (Hooker, v. 42, 2)—fell 
more and more under the influence of his great 
enemy Eusebius, now transferred from Nico- 
media to the see of Constantinople, which had 
been forcibly vacated by the second expulsion 
of the orthodox Paul. The Eusebians now 
resumed a project which had been found im- 
practicable while Constantine lived; this was 
to place on ‘‘ the Evangelical throne” an 
Arian named Pistus, who had been a priest 
under Alexander, had been deposed by him 
for adhering to Arius, and had been conse- 
crated, as it seems (Apol. 24), by a notorious 
It was argued 
that Athanasius had offended against all eccle- 
siastical principles by resuming his see in 
defiance of the Tyrian sentence, and by virtue 
of mere secular authority. The charge did 
not come well from a party which had leaned 
so much on the court and the State; but it 
must be allowed that Athanasius’s return had 
given some colour to the objection, although 
he doubtless held that the assembly at Tyre 
had forfeited all moral right to be respected as’ 
a council. By way of harassing Athanasius, 
the Eusebians, apparently about this time, 
made Ischyras a bishop, after obtaining an — 
order in the name of the emperor that a church 
should be built for him—an order which failed ~ 
to procure him a congregation (A pol. 12, 85). 

The Eusebians now applied to the West in — 
behalf of their nominee Pistus. Three clergy 
appeared as their envoys before Julius, bp. of 


ely 
Dass 
at 

Wi 
ἰχὶ 


my 


᾿νε. .-- 


oe A oe --5 “Ta 


bo δὲ 


ATHANASIUS 


}Rome; on the other hand, Athanasius sent 


to Rome presbyters to state his case, and an 


}encyclic—the invaluable document which has 


furnished us with so much information—from 
“ the holy synod assembled at Alexandria out 
of Egypt, Thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis,” 
composed, says Athanasius, of nearly 100 
prelates. At Rome his envoys gave such 
evidence respecting Pistus as to cause the 
senior of the Eusebian envoys to decamp by 
night in spite of an indisposition. His com- 
panions asked Julius to convoke a council, 
and to act, if he pleased, as judge. He 
accordingly invited both parties to a council, 
to be held where Athanasius should choose. 
Thus matters stood about the end of 339. 
Early in 340 anew announcement disquieted 
the Alexandrian church. It was notified in a 
formal edict of the prefect that not Pistus, 
but a Cappadocian named Gregory, was com- 
ing from the court to be installed as bishop 
(Encycl. 2). This, says Athanasius, was con- 
sidered an unheard-of wrong. The churches 


| were more thronged than ever; the people, 


in great excitement, and with passionate out- 
cries, called the magistrates and the whole city 
to witness that this attack on their legitimate 
bishop proceeded from the mere wantonness of 
Arian hatred. Gregory, they knew, was an 
Arian, and therefore acceptable to the Euse- 
bian party: he was a fellow-countryman of 
Philagrius. Philagrius attacked the church 
of St. Quirinus, and encouraged a mob of the 
lowest townspeople and of savage peasants to 
perpetrate atrocious cruelties and profana- 
tions. Athanasius was residing in the pre- 
einets of the church of St. Theonas: he knew 
that he was specially aimed at, and, in hope of 
preventing further outrage, he withdrew from 
the city to a place of concealment in the 
neighbourhood, where he busied himself in 
preparing an encyclic to give an account of 
these horrors. This was on March 19. Four 
days later Gregory is said to have ‘‘ entered 
the city as bishop.’’ Athanasius, after hastily 
completing and dispatching his encyclic, 
sailed for Rome in the Easter season of 340, 
some weeks after Constantine II. had been 
slain during his invasion of Italy. 

(4) From his Second Exile (340) to his Second 
Return (346).—After Julius had welcomed 
Athanasius, he sent two presbyters, Elpidius 
and Philoxenus, in the early summer of 340, to 
repeat his invitation to the Eusebian prelates, 
to fix definitely the next December as the time 
of the proposed council, and Rome as the 

lace. Athanasius received much kindness 

‘om the emperor’s aunt, Eutropion, and from 
many others (Ap. ad Const. 417; cf. Fest. 
Ep. 13). He had with him two Egyptian 
monks. Their presence in the city, and 
Athanasius’s enthusiasm for Anthony and 
other types of monastic saintliness, made a 
strong impression on the Roman church 
society, and abated the prejudices there exist- 
ing against the very name of monk, and the 
disgust at a rude and strange exterior. In 
fact, Athanasius’s three years (340-343) at 
Rome had two great historic results. (a) The 
Latin church, which became his ‘“ scholar ”’ 
as well as his “‘ loyal partisan,’’ was confirmed 
by the spell of his master-mind ‘in its 
adhesion to orthodoxy, although it did not 


ATHANASIUS 57 


imbibe from him the theological spirit ’’; and 
(6) when Gibbon says that ‘‘ Athanasius intro- 
duced into Rome the knowledge and practice 
of the monastic life,’’ he records the origination 
of a vast European movement, and represents 
the great Alexandrian exile as the spiritual 
ancestor of Benedict, of Bernard, and of the 
countless founders and reformers of ‘“ re- 
ligious ’’ communities in the West. 
Meantime Elpidius and Philoxenus had 
discharged their errand. The Eusebians at 
Antioch, finding that Athanasius was at Rome, 
and that the council to which they were 
invited would be a free ecclesiastical assembly, 
detained the Roman legates beyond the time 
specified, and then dismissed them with the 
excuse that Constantius was occupied with 
his Persian war. At the same time they 
stimulated Philagrius and Gregory to new 
severities. Orthodox bishops were scourged 
and imprisoned ; Potammon never recovered 
from his stripes; Sarapammon, another 
confessor-bishop, was exiled (Hist. Ar. 12). 
The letters of Alexandrians to Athanasius, 
consolatory as proofs of their affection, gave 
mournful accounts of torture and robbery, of 
hatred towards himself shewn in persecution 
of his aunt, of countenance shewn to Gregory 
by the ‘‘ duke”’ Balacius; and some of these 
troubles were in his mind when, early in 341, 
he wrote ‘‘ from Rome” his Festal Letter for 
the year. That year had begun without any 
such settlement of his case as had been hoped 
for at Rome. December had passed, and 
no council could be held, for the Eusebians 
had not arrived. January came, and at last 
the legates returned, the unwilling bearers of 
a letter so offensive that Julius ‘‘ resolved 
to keep it to himself, in the hope that some 
Eusebians ’”’ would even yet arrive (A pol. 24) 
and render the public reading of it unneces- 
sary. No one came. On the contrary, the 
Eusebians resolved to take advantage of the 
approaching dedication of a new cathedral at 
Antioch, ‘‘ the Golden Church,’’ in order to 
hold a council there. Accordingly, ninety- 
seven bishops, many of whom were rather 
negatively than positively heterodox, as- 
sembled on this occasion, apparently in Aug. 
341. Constantius was present. The sentence 
passed against Athanasius at Tyre was af- 
firmed; several canons were passed; and 
three creeds were framed, in language partly 
vague and general, partly all but reaching the 
Nicene standard (cf. Newman, Arians, c. 4, 
s. 1; cf. Athan. Treatises, i. 105 seq.). This 
business necessarily lasted some time; and 
no information as to this council had reached 
Rome when, in Nov. 341, Athanasius having 
now been waiting at Rome for eighteen 
months (A pol. 29), Julius assembled the long- 
delayed council, consisting of more than fifty 
bishops, in the church of the presbyter Vito. 
Athanasius’s case was fully examined; Ath- 
anasius was formally pronounced innocent ; 
his right to brotherly treatment and church 
communion—admitted from the first by the 
Roman bishop—was solemnly recognized by 
the Italian council. The year 342 is not 
eventful in his history. Constans had shewn 
himself friendly to Athanasius, who at his 
request had sent him from Alexandria some 
bound copies of the Scriptures (A p.ad Const. 4). 


58 ATHANASIUS 


Narcissus, Maris, and two other prelates ap- 
peared before Constans at Tréves, spoke in 
support of the decisions against Athanasius, 
and presented a creed which might, at first 
sight, appear all but to confess the “* Homo- 
ousion.’’ But Constans, doubtless swayed by 
bp. Maximin, who would not admit the 
Eastern envoys to communion, dismissed them 
from his presence (Athan. de Syn. 25 ; Soz. iii. 
10; Hil. Fragm. 111. 27). ; 

Athanasius remained at Rome until the 
summer of 343, when, “‘in the fourth year” 
from his arrival, he received a letter from 
Constans, by which he was ordered to meet 
him at Milan (Ap. ad Const. 3, 4). Surprised 
at the summons, he inquired as to its probable 
cause, and learned that some bishops had 
been urging Constans to propose to Constan- 
tius the assembling of a new council, at which 
East and West might be represented. On 
arriving at the great capital of Northern Italy, 
which was to be so memorably associated with 
the struggle between the church and Arianism, 
he was admitted, with Protasius, bp. of Milan, 
behind the veil of the audience-chamber, and 
received with ‘‘ much kindness’ by Constans, 
who told him that he had already written to 
his brother, ‘‘ requesting that a council might 
be Ποιά." Athanasius left Milan immediately 
afterwards, being desired by Constans to come 
into Gaul, in order to meet Hosius, the ven- 
erated bp. of Cordova, and accompany him to 
the council, which both sovereigns had now 
agreed to assemble on the frontier line of their 
empires, at the Moesian city of Sardica. And 
there, about the end of 343, some 170 prelates 
met, a small majority being Westerns. 

It soon appeared that united action was 
impossible. The majority, ignoring the 
councils of Tyre and Antioch, and treating 
the whole case as open, could not but regard 
Athanasius as innocent, or, at least, as not 
yet proved guilty; and he “‘ joined them in 
celebrating the Divine mysteries’’ (Hil. 
Fragm. iii. 14). The Eusebian minority, on 
reaching Sardica, had simply announced their 
arrival, and then shut themselves up in the 
lodgings provided for them at the palace, and 
refused to join their brethren until the persons 
whom they denounced as convicted men 
should be deprived of seats in the council. 
The answer was, that the council was pre- 
pared to go into all the cases which could be 
submitted to it: each party would be free to 
implead the other. The Eusebian bishops, 
although urged to confront their adversaries, 
withdrew from Sardica and established them- 
selves as a council at Philippopolis within the 
Eastern empire, renewed the sentences against 
Athanasius, put forth new ones against Julius, 
Hosius, and others, drew up an encyclic, and 
adopted a creed (A pol. 36, 45, 48; Hust. Ar. 15, 
16, 44; Hil. de Syn. 34; Fragm. 3). The pre- 
lates at Sardica proceeded with their inquiry, 
recognized the innocence of Athanasius, and 
excommunicated eleven Eusebian bishops, as 
men who “‘ separated the Son from the Father, 
and so merited separation from the Catholic 
church.”’ They enacted several canons, in- 
cluding the famous one providing for a 
reference, in certain circumstances, to ‘‘ Julius, 
bp. of Rome,” in ‘‘ honour of Peter’s mem- 
ory,’ so that he might make arrangements 


ATHANASIUS 


for the rehearing of a prelate’s cause. It need © 
hardly be added that they would have no 
creed but the Nicene. They wrote letters of 
sympathy to the suffragans of Athanasius and 
the churchmen of Alexandria, urging the 
faithful ‘‘ to contend earnestly for the sound 
faith and the innocence of Athanasius.’’ 
The bold line taken at Sardica provoked 
the advisers of Constantius to fresh severities ; 


orders to behead Athanasius, or certain of his 
clergy expressly named, if they should come 
near the city. Athanasius, still kept under 
the emperor’s ban, had gone from Sardica 
to Naissus, and thence, at the invitation of — 
Constans, to Aquileia. There, in company 
with the bp. Fortunatian, he was admitted 
to more than one audience; and whenever — 
Constans mentioned Constantius, he replied 
in terms respectful towards the latter. Con- 
stans peremptorily, and even with a threat — 
of civil war, urged his brother to reinstate — 
Athanasius (Socr. ii. 22). The death of Gre- 
gory, about Feb. 345 (Hist. Ar. 21), gave 
Constantius an occasion for yielding the point. — 
He therefore wrote to Athanasius, affecting to 
be solicitous of the Western emperor’s assent _ 
to an act of his own free clemency. He wrote 
two other letters (Apol. 51; Hust. Ar. 22), 
and employed six ‘‘ counts’”’ to write encour- — 
agingly to the exile; and Athanasius, after 
receiving these letters at Aquileia, made up — 
his mind, at last, to act on those assurances; _ 
but not until Constantius could tell Constans — 
that he had been ‘“ expecting Athanasius for — 
a year.” Invited by Constans to Tréves, 
Athanasius made a diversion on his journey 
in order to see Rome again; it was some six _ 
years since he had been cordially welcomed — 
by Julius, who now poured forth his generous 
heart in a letter of congratulation for the — 
Alexandrian church, one of the most beautiful 
documents in the whole Athanasian series. 
Julius dwelt on the well-tried worth of Athan- 
asius, on his own happiness in gaining such a 
friend, on the steady faith which the Alex- 
andrians had exhibited, on the rapture with 
which they would celebrate his return; and 
concluded by invoking for his ‘‘ beloved 
brethren”’ the blessings ‘“‘ which eye had ποῦ 
seen, nor ear heard.’’* Athanasius travelled 
northward about midsummer; visited Con- 
stans, passed through Hadrianople (Hist. Ar. 
18), proceeded to Antioch, and saw Constan- 
tius for the third time (Ap. ad Const. 5). The 
reception was gracious: the emperor valued 
himself on his impassive demeanour (Ammian. | 
xvi. 10). Athanasius, without vilifying his 
enemies, firmly desired leave to confront them — 
(Ap. ad Const. l.c.; Hist. Ar. 22, 44). ‘* No,” 
said Constantius, ‘“‘ God knows, I will never 
again credit such accusations; and all records 
of past charges shall be erased.’’ This latter 
promise he at once fulfilled, by orders sent 
to the authorities in Egypt; and he wrote — 
letters in favour of the archbishop to the 
clergy of Egypt and the laity of Alexandria. 
One thing he asked, that Athanasius would 
allow the Alexandrian Arians a single church. 
Athanasius promptly replied that he would do 
so, if a church might be granted at Antioch to 
* Apol. 55. Socrates (ii. 23) inserts eulogistic 
phrases which Athanasius’s text does not give. 


ATHANASIUS 


the ‘“‘ Eustathian’’ body, which held aloof 
from the crypto-Arian bp. Leontius, and whose 
services, held in a house, he had been attend- 
“)ing. The emperor would have agreed to this, 
“} but his advisers stood in the way.* 
| From Antioch Athanasius proceeded to 
Jerusalem, where an orthodox council met to 
“}do him honour, and to congratulate his 
}echurch. And now he had but to return home 
* | and enjoy the welcome which that church was 
j eager to give. This he did, according to the 
Festal Index, on Oct. 21 (Paophi 24), 346. 
We see in Gregory Nazianzen’s panegyric a 
picture of the vast mass of population, dis- 
τ tributed into its several classes, and streaming 
forth, ‘like another Nile,’’ to meet him at 
some distance from Alexandria; the faces 
gazing from every eminence at the well-known 
form, the ears strained to catch his accents, 
the voices rising in emulous plaudits, the 
hands clapping, the air fragrant with incense, 
the city festal with banquets and blazing with 
illuminations—all that made this return of 
Athanasius in after-times the standard for any 
splendid popular display. 

(5) From his Second Return (346) to his Third 
Extle (356).—His 19th Festal Letter, for 347, 
begins with a thanksgiving for having been 
“ brought from distant lands.’’ The Egyptian 

relates, in council, received the decrees of 
dica. More than 400 bishops of different 
countries, including Britain, were now in 
communion with Athanasius; he had a mul- 
titude of their ‘‘ letters of peace’’ to answer. 
Many persons in Egypt who had sided with 
the Arians came by night to him with their 
excuses: it was a time ‘‘ of deep and wondrous 
peace’’ (Hist. Ar. 25), which lasted for a few 
years. Valens and Ursacius had already, it 
seems, anathematized Arianism before a 
council at Milan; but they deemed it ex- 
pedient todo more. In 347 they appeared at 
Rome, and presented to Julius a humble 
apologetic letter, having already written in a 
different strain to Athanasius, announcing 
that they were ‘‘ at peace with him.’’ 7 He 
believed at the time that they were sincere ; 
they afterwards ascribed their act to fear of 
Constans (Hist. Ar. 29). This motive, if it 
existed, was ere long removed; the revolt of 
Magnentius brought Constans to an ignomini- 
ous death at the foot of the Pyrenees, in 
Feb. 350. This tragedy was a severe shock 
to Athanasius. He received, indeed, letters 
from Constantius, assuring him of continued 
favour, and encouraging him to pursue his 
episcopal work. The Alexandrian authorities 
were also commanded to suppress any “‘ plot- 
ting against Athanasius.” Thereupon in pre- 
sence of high state officers, including the 

* See Socr. ii. 23, Soz. iii. 20. They were called 
after bp. Eustathius (Hist. Ar. 4), deposed by Arians 
in 330. For Leontius, see de Fuga, 26; Theod. 
ii. 24; Hooker, v. 42, 9. Many of the orthodox 
continued to worship in his churches (e.g. Flavian 
and Diodore). Constantius’s absolute dependence 
on his advisers is scornfully noted in Hist. Ar. 69, 70. 

+ See Newman's note, Hist. Tracts, p. 86 (Apol. 
19): cf. Apol.2; Hist. Ar. 26, 44. As Westerns, 
they naturally treated the bp. of Rome with much 
greater deference than the bp. of Alexandria; and 
even in their statement to Julius they betray their 
distrust of Athanasius. That they should retract, 
from motives of policy, was for them no unnatural 
course: cf. Hil. Fragm. i. 20. 


ATHANASIUS 59 


bearers of these letters, Athanasius desired 
his people, assembled in church, ‘‘ to pray for 
the safety of the most religious Constantius 
Augustus.’’ The response was at once made, 
“Ὁ Christ, help Constantius!"’ (Ap. ad 
Const. 9, 10, 23; Htst. Av. 24, 51). He 
had leisure for writing On the Nicene Definition 
of Faith * and On the Opinions of Dionysius, 
his great predecessor in the 3rd cent., whose 
language, employed in controversy with 
Sabellianism, had been unfairly quoted in 
support of Arianism.t [D1ionysius.] He 
also brought out, at this time, what is called 
his Apology against the Arians, although he 
afterwards made additions to it.t It may 
have been about this time that he chose the 
blind scholar Didymus, already renowned for 
vast and varied learning, to preside over the 
““Catechetical School.’’ [Dipymus.] When 
Magnentius sent envoys to Constantius, one 
of them visited Alexandria; and Athanasius, 
in speaking to him of Constans, burst into 
tears. He at first had some apprehension of 
danger from Magnentius; but it was soon 
evident that his real danger was from the 
Arianizing advisers of Constantius. Valens 
and Ursacius, having now recanted their re- 
cantation, were ready to weave new plots; 
and Liberius, the new bp. of Rome, was plied 
with letters against him, which were out- 
weighed, in the judgment of a Roman synod, 
by an encyclic of eighty Egyptian prelates ; 
and Rome remained faithful to his cause. 
(See Liberius’s letter to Constantius, Hil. 
Fragm. 5. Another letter, in which Liberius 
is made to say that he had put Athanasius out 
of his communion for refusing to come to 
Rome when summoned, is justly regarded as 
aforgery.) This wasin 352; and Athanasius, 
in May 353, thought it well to send 5 bishops 
(Soz. iv. 9, and Fragm. Maff.), one being his 
friend Serapion of Thmuis, and 3 presbyters, 
to disabuse Constantius of bad impressions as 
to his conduct. Five days later, May 23, 
Montanus, a “‘ silentiary ’’ or palace chamber- 
lain, arrived with an imperial letter for- 
bidding him to send envoys, but granting 
a request for himself to go to Milan. 
Athanasius, detecting an attempt to decoy 
him, replied that as he had never made such 
a request, he could not think it right to use a 
permission granted under a misconception ; 
but that if the emperor sent him a definite 
order, he would set forth at once (Ap. ad 
Const. 19-21). Montanus departed; and the 
next news that Athanasius received from 
Europe was such as to make him forget all 
personal danger. The Western usurper had 
been finally overthrown in August; and 
Constantius, having gone to Arles for the 


* In this treatise he guards the Catholic sense of 
the title ‘‘ Son,” gives some account of the council’s 
proceedings, and defends the language adopted by 
it, adducing ante-Nicene authorities. (He upholds 
Origen’s orthodoxy.) 

+ He urged that Dionysius had been speaking 
simply of Christ’s Manhood (see Liddon’s Bamp. 
Lect. p. 425). 

t In the Bollandist Life (Act. SS., May 2), the 
Apology against Arians is called the Syllogus, or 
collection of documents, etc., framed about 342, and 
afterwards appended to the Arian History “ad 
Monachos.”’ The old name of Second Apology is, at 
all events, clearly misapplied. 


60 ATHANASIUS 


winter, was induced by the Arians to hold 
there, instead of at Aquileia, the council which 
Liberius and many Italian bishops had re- 
quested him to assemble.* The event was 
disastrous: Vincent, the Roman legate, was 
induced to join with other prelates in con- 
demning Athanasius; but Paulinus of Tréves 
had inherited Maximin’s steadfastness, and 
preferred exile to the betrayal of a just cause. 

In the Lent of 354 the Alexandrian churches 
were so crowded that some persons suffered 
severely, and the people urged Athanasius to 
allow the Easter services to be held in a large 
church which was still unfinished, called the 
Caesarean. The case was peculiar (Ap. ad 
Const. 15; Epiph. Haer. 69, 2): the church 
was being built on ground belonging to the 
emperor; to use it prematurely, without his 
leave, might be deemed a civil offence; to 
use it before dedication, an ecclesiastical im- 
propriety. Athanasius tried to persuade the 
people to put up with the existing inconveni- 
ence: they answered, they would rather keep 
Easter in the open country. Under these 
circumstances he gave way. The Arianizers 
were habitually courtiers, and ready, on 
occasion, to be formalists likewise; and this 
using of the undedicated imperial church was 
one of several charges now urged at court 
against their adversary, and dealt with in his 
A pology to Constantius ; the others being that 
he had stimulated Constans to quarrel with 
his brother, had corresponded with Magnen- 
tius, and that he had not come to Italy on 
receiving the letter brought by Montanus. A 
letter which Athanasius wrote before the 
Easter of this year, or perhaps of 355, is par- 
ticularly interesting; he seeks to recall 
Dracontius, a monk who had been elected to 
a bishopric, and had weakly fled from his 
new duties. The earnestness, good sense, and 
affectionateness of this letter are very charac- 
teristic of Athanasius. He dwells repeatedly 
on the parable of the Talents, reminds Dra- 
contius of solemn obligations, and warns him 
against imagining the monastic life to be 
the one sphere of Christian self-denial.+ The 
calm contemplation of fast-approaching trials, 
which would make a severe demand on 
Christian men’s endurance, shews a ‘‘ discern- 
ment ”’ of the “ signs ”’ of 354-5 in Athanasius. 

For, in the spring of 355, he would hear of 
the success of Constantius in terrorizing the 
great majority of a large council at Milan, 
which had been summoned at the urgent desire 
of Liberius. A few faithful men, such as 
Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Caliaris, 
Dionysius of Milan, after a momentary weak- 
ness, and Maximus of Naples, who was suffer- 
ing at the time from illness, alone refused to 
condemn Athanasius (Hist. Ar. 32-34); and 
in standing out against the incurable tyran- 
nousness of Caesarism, as thus exhibited, must 
have felt themselves to be contending both for 
civil justice and for Nicene orthodoxy. 

That some coup d’ état was meditated against 
Athanasius must have been evident, not only 


* See Liberius’s letter to Hosius in Hil. Fvagm. 6. 
The spurious letter referred to above (as to which see 
de Broglie, L’Egl.et l’Emp. 2me part. i. 233) begins 
“Studens paci,” and forms Fr, 4. 

t+ “ I know of bishops who do, and of monks who 
do not, fast.’’ 


’ ATHANASIUS 


from the emperor’s passionate eagerness te 
have him condemned, and from the really 
brutal persecution which began to rage 
throughout the empire against those who 
adhered to his communion (Hist. Ar. 31), but 
from the appearance at Alexandria, in Jul} 
or Aug. 355, of an imperial notary, name 
Diogenes, who, though he brought no expres 
orders, and had no interview with Athanasius 
used every effort to get him out of the city, 
Failing in this, he departed in Dec.; and on| 
Jan. 5, 356, Syrianus, a general, with anothe 
notary named Hilarius, entered Alexandria. | 
The Arian party exulted in their approachi 
triumph; Athanasius asked Syrianus if 
had brought any letter from the Emperor. e 
said he hadnot. The archbishop referred him } 
to the guarantee of security which he had 
himself received; and the presbyters, the 


supported him in demanding that no chan 
should be made without a new imperial let 


paring to send a deputation to Constantius 
The prefect of Egypt and the provost 
Alexandria were present at this intervie 
and Syrianus, at last, promised ‘‘ by the 
of the emperor’’ that he would comply witk 
the demand. This was on Jan. 18; and fo; 
more than three weeks all was quiet. B 
about midnight on Thursday, Feb. 8, wh 
Athanasius was at a night-long vigil serv 
in St. Theonas’s church, preparatory to t 
Friday service, Syrianus, with Hilarius, a 
Gorgonius, the head of the police force, bese’ 
the church with a large body of soldiers. ‘IT 
sat down,”’ says Athanasius, ‘‘ on my throne”” 
(which would be at the extreme end of th 
church), ‘“‘ and desired the deacon to read t 
Psalm’’ (our 136th), ‘‘and the people 


then all to depart home.’ This majestic 
“act of faith’’ was hardly finished, when the 
doors were forced, and the soldiers rushed in 
with a fierce shout, clashing their arms 
discharging their arrows, and_ brandishi 
their swords in the light of the church lam 
Some of the people in the nave had alrea 
departed, others were trampled down 
mortally injured; others cried to the are 
bishop to escape. ‘‘ I said I would not do so 
until they had all got away safe. So I stood 
up, and called for prayer, and desired all to ~ 
go out before me . . . and when the greater 
part had gone, the monks who were there, 
and certain of the clergy, came up to me and ~ 
carried me away.’’ And then, he adds, hi 
passed through the mass of his enemies un- — 
observed, thanking God that he had been able 
to secure in the first instance his people’s 
safety, and afterwards his own. As on a | 
former occasion, he deemed it his duty to 
accept an opportunity of escape, especially 
when the sacrifice of his life would have been | 
ruinous to the cause of the church in Egypt | 
(see Augustine, Ep. 228, 10); and he there- — 
fore concealed himself in the country, “ hiding 
himself,”’ as the Arian History, c. 48, employs | 
the prophet’s words, ‘‘ for a little moment, — 
until the indignation should be overpast.” 
(6) From his Third to his Fourth Exile (356- § 
362).—On leaving Alexandria, Athanasius at | 
first thought of appealing in person to Con- ὁ 


ATHANASIUS 


tantius, who could not, he tried to hope, have 
anctioned the late outrage. But he was de- 
terred by the news of one woe following upon 
nother (Ap. ad Const. 27, το). Bishops of 
he West who had refused to disown him were 
$uffering under tyranny, or had been hurried 
into exile. Among the latter class was the 
» Roman bishop himself, who had manfully 
spurned both gifts and menaces (Theod. ii. 16); 
and Hosius, on addressing to Constantius a 
emonstrance full of pathetic dignity, had been 
sent for to be detained at Sirmium. Then 
me news which touched Athanasius more 
. It was given out that one George, 
a Cappadocian of evil reputation and ruthless 
emper, was coming to supersede him; and 
hat a vague creed, purporting to be simply 
Scriptural, but in fact ignoring the Nicene 
doctrine, was to be proposed for his suffragans’ 
acceptance. This last report set him at once 
o work on a Leiter to the Egyptian and Libyan 
Bishops. But he had soon to hear of a 
repetition of the sacrileges and brutalities of 
the days of Gregory. As before, Lent was 
the time chosen for the arrival of the usurper. 
Easter brought an increase of trouble in the 
\persecution of prelates, clergy, virgins, widows, 
the poor, and even ordinary Catholic house- 
holders. On the evening of the Sunday after 
Pentecost, when ‘‘ the brethren’ had met for 
worship, apart from the Arians, in the pre- 
cincts of a cemetery, a military commander, 
named Sebastian, a fierce-tempered Mani- 
chean, whose sympathies went with George, 
|} came to the spot with more than 3000 soldiers, 
and found some virgins and others still in 
ad after the general congregation had 
ken up. On their refusal to embrace 
| Arianism, he caused them to be stripped, and 
beaten or wounded with such severity that 
some died from the effects, and their corpses 
were kept without burial. This was followed 
by the banishment of sixteen bishops, doubt- 
less for rejecting the new-made creed; more 
than thirty fled, others were scared into 
an apparent conformity, and the vacated 
churches were given over to men whose moral 
disqualifications for any religious office were 
compensated by their profession of Arianism. 
Tragical as were these tidings, Athanasius still 
clung to his purpose of presenting himself 
before Constantius, until he learned that one 
imperial letter had denounced him as a fugitive 
criminal who richly merited death, and an- 
other had exhorted the two Ethiopian sove- 
reigns to send Frumentius to Alexandria, that 
ge might instruct him in the knowledge 

of “the supreme God.” 
Then it was that Athanasius, accepting the 
pee of a proscribed man who must needs 
Ὁ as a fugitive, ‘“‘ turned back again,” as he 
Says, “ towards the desert,’’ and sought for 
welcome and shelter amid the innumerable 
monastic cells. Anthony had died at the be- 
ginning of the year, desiring that a worn-out 
sheepskin cloak (the monk’s usual upper dress), 
which when new had been the gift of Athan- 
asius, might be returned to him (Vit. Ant. 91). 
5 Athanasius appears to have made secret 
visits to Alexandria, he probably spent some 
time among the recluses of Lower Egypt, but 
he also doubtless visited what Villemain calls 
the pathless solitudes which surround Upper 


ATHANASIUS 61 


Egypt, and the monasteries and hermitages of 
the Thebaid.’’ A veil of mystery was thus 
drawn over his life; and the interest was 
heightened by the romantic incidents naturally 
following from the Government’s attempts to 
track and seize him. When comparatively 
undisturbed, he would still be full of activities, 
ecclesiastical and theological. Athanasius made 
those six years of seclusion available for 
literary work of the most substantial kind, 
both controversial and historical. The books 
which he now began to pour forth were appar- 
ently written in cottages or caves, where he 
sat, like any monk, on a mat of palm-leaves, 
with a bundle of papyrus beside him, amid the 
intense light and stillness of the desert (Kings- 
ley’s Hermits, p. 130, 19). He finished his 
Apology to Constantius, a work which he had 
for some time in hand, and which he still 
hoped to be able, in better days, to deliver in 
the emperor’s presence. He met the taunts 
of ‘‘ cowardice’ directed against him by the 
Arians with an Apology for his Flight. To 
the same period belong the Letter to the 
Monks, with the Arian History (not now 
extant as a whole), which it introduces (and 
as to which it is difficult to resist the impres- 
sion that part of it, at least, was written under 
Athanasius’s supervision, by some friend or 
secretary) ; a Letter to Serapion, bp. of Thmuis, 
giving an account of the death of Arius, the 
details of which he had learned from his 
presbyter Macarius, while he himself was re- 
sident at Tréves; and, above all, the great 
Orations or Discourses against the Artans. 
These last have been described by Montfaucon 
as ‘‘ the sources whence arguments have been 
borrowed by all who have since written in 
behalf of the Divinity of the Word.” The 
first discourse is occupied with an exposition 
of the greatness of the question at issue ; with 
proofs of the Son’s eternity and uncreatedness, 
with discussion of objections, and with com- 
ments on texts alleged in support of Arianism 
(te. Phil. ii. 9, 10; Ps. xlv. 7, 8; Heb i. 4). 
The second, written after some interval, pur- 
sues this line of comment, especially on a text 
much urged by Arians in the LXX version 
(Prov. vili. 22). The third explains texts in 
the Gospels, and in so doing sets forth the 
Christ of the church, as uniting in Himself 
true Godhead and true Manhood; and it then 
passes to the consideration of another Arian 
statement, that the Sonship was a result of 
God’s mere will. Differing from other writers, 
Dr. Newman considers the fourth Discourse to 
be an undigested collection of notes or memo- 
randa on several heresies, principally that 
which was imputed to his friend Marcellus, 
and to persons connected with him—an 
imputation which Athanasius, about 360, 
began to think not undeserved. It may be 
thought by some who have no bias against 
the theology of the Discourses that his tender- 
ness towards an old associate is in striking 
contrast with the exuberance of objurgation 
bestowed on the Arian ‘‘ madmen ”’ and “ foes 
of Christ.”” But not to urge that the 4th 
cent. had no established rules of controversial 
politeness, and that the acerbity of Greek 
disputation and the personalities of Roman 
society had often too much influence on the 
tone of Christian argument, one must remem- 


62 ATHANASIUS 


ber that Athanasius is not attacking all 
members of the Arian communion, but repre- 
sentatives of it who had been conspicuous, 
not for heterodoxy alone, but for secularity in 
its worst form, for unscrupulousness, and for 
violence. He followed up his Discourses by 
four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, of which 
the second briefly repeated the teaching of the 
Discourses, while the others were directed 
against a theory then reported to him by 
Serapion as springing up, and afterwards 
known as Macedonianism ; which, abandon- 
ing the Arian position in regard to the Son, 
strove with singular inconsistency to retain it 
in regard to the Spirit. Athanasius met this 
error by contending for “ἃ Trinity real and 
undivided,’’ in which the Spirit was included 
with the Father and the Son. ς 

The general aspect of church affairs was 
very unhopeful. At Constantinople an Arian 
persecution had again set in. But the defec- 
tion of Hosius in 357, and Liberius in 358, 
after hard pressure and cruel usage, from the 
steadfastness which Athanasius had so much 
admired, must have wounded him to the 
heart. Yet he speaks of them with character- 
istic and most generous tenderness, and with 
full recognition of the trials under which they 
had given way (Hust. Ar. 45, 41; Apol. 89; 
de Fugd, 5). In 359 the general body of 
Western bishops, at the council of Ariminum, 
were partly harassed and partly cheated into 
adopting an equivocal but really Arian con- 
fession, which was also adopted at the begin- 
ning of 360 by the legates of the Eastern 
council of Seleucia. An account of the earlier 
proceedings of these two councils was drawn 
up, in the form of a letter, by Athanasius, 
who, on the ground of a few words in the 
opening of this Letter on the Councils of Ari- 
minum and Seleucia, has been thought by 
Tillemont and Gibbon to have been present 
at any rate at the latter place. The treatise 
is remarkable for his considerateness towards 
those of the semi-Arians whose objections to 
the Nicene Creed were rather verbal than 
real, while the second creed of Sirmium had 
driven them into open hostility to the Arians 
properly so-called, which they had expressed 
in their council of Ancyrain 358. Athanasius, 
then expressly naming their leader, Basil of 
Ancyra, welcomes them as brothers who mean 
essentially what churchmen mean. He will 
not for the present urge the Homoousion upon 
them. He is sure that in time they will 
accept it, as securing that doctrine of Christ’s 
essential Sonship which their own symbol 
“ Homoiousion ”? could not adequately guard 
(de Syn. 41). But while exhibiting this large- 
minded patience and forbearance he is careful 
to contrast the long series of Arian creeds with 
the one invariable standard of the orthodox; 
the only refuge from restless variations will 
be found in a frank adoption of the creed of 
Nicaea (1b. 32; cf. ad Afros, 9). 

On Nov. 30 the accession of Julian was 
formally proclaimed at Alexandria. The 
Pagans, in high exultation, thought that their 
time was come for taking vengeance on the 
Arian bishop, whom they had once before 
tumultuously expelled for oppressive and 
violent conduct. They rose in irresistible 
force, threw George into prison, and on Dec. 


ATHANASIUS 


24 barbarously murdered him. The Arians 
set up one Lucius in his place; but Julian, as — 
if to shew his supercilious contempt for the — 
disputes of ‘‘ Galileans,’’ or his detestation ~ 
of the memory of Constantius, permitted all © 
the bishops whom his predecessor had exiled — 
to return ; and Athanasius, taking advantage 
of this edict, reappeared in Alexandria, to the — 
joy of his people, Feb. 22, 362. 

One of his first acts was to hold a counci 
at Alexandria for the settlement of severa 
pressing questions. (a) Many bishops deeply 
regretted their concessions at Ariminum in 
359: how were they to be treated? (δ) It 
had become urgently necessary to give some 
advice to Paulinus and his flock at Antioch, ~ 
with a view to healing the existing schism — 
there. (c) A dispute which had arisen as to 
the word “‘ hypostasis’’ had to besettled. (4) 
A correct view as to the Incarnation and the — 
Person of Christ had to be established. The — 
work before the council was that of harmoniz- — 
ing and reconciling. A synodal letter, or 
““Tome,’’ addressed ‘‘to the Antiochenes” — 
(1.6. to Paulinus and his flock), and composed ~ 
by Athanasius, is one of the noblest documents 
that ever emanated from a council. But it~ 
came too late to establish peace at Antioch. 
Lucifer of Caliaris had taken upon him to 
consecrate Paulinus as the legitimate bp. of © 
Antioch, and so perpetuated the division — 
which his wiser brethren had hoped to heal. — 

The pagans of Alexandria had been rebuked — 
by Julian for the murder of George, but hem 
lent a ready ear to their denunciations οὗ 
Athanasius as a man whose influence would 
destroy their religion. Julian assured them 
that he had never intended Athanasius to 
resume ‘‘ what is called the episcopal throne”’ ; 
and peremptorily commanded him to leave 
Alexandria ; the imperial edict was communi- 
cated to Athanasius on Oct. 23 (= Paophi 27, 
Fest. Ind., Fragm. Maff.). The faithful 
gathered around him weeping. ‘‘ Be of good 
heart,” he said; ‘‘it is but a cloud; it will 
soon pass.’’ He instantly embarked to go up 
the Nile. But Julian’s implied orders were — 
not forgotten; some Government agents — 
pursued his vessel. They met a boat coming ~ 
down the river, and asked for news of Athan- — 
asius. ‘‘ He is not far off,’? was the reply. — 
The boat was his own—he himself, perhaps, — 
the speaker (Theod. iii. 9). His facilities of 
information had given him warning of the — 
peril, and his presence of mind had baffled it. 
He sailed on towards Alexandria, but con- 
cealed himself at Chaereu, the first station — 
from the capital, then proceeded to Memphis, 
where he wrote his Festal Letter for 363, and 
then made his way to the Thebaid. ἢ 

(7) From his Fourth Exile to his Death — 
(362-373). It was probably about this time, 
shortly before Easter, 363, that Athanasius 
was met, while approaching Hermopolis, by 
Theodore of Tabenne, the banks of the Nile 
being thronged by bishops, clergy, and monks. 
Night apparently favoured this demonstra- 
tion; Athanasius, having disembarked, 
mounted an ass which Theodore led, and pur- 
sued his way amid a vast body of monks 
bearing lanterns and torches, and chanting 
psalms. He stayed some time at Hermopolis 
and Antinoe, for the purpose of preaching ; 


a 


ATHANASIUS 


then proceeded southwards to Tabenne. At 
fnidsummer, according to another narrative, 


Whe was at Antinoe, apprehensive of being 


ested and put to death, when Theodore 
hnd another abbot named Pammon came to 


l/ kee him, and persuaded him to embark with 


| eturned by night to Alexandria. 


them in Theodore’s closely covered boat, in 
brder to conceal himself in Tabenne. Athan- 
hsius was in prayer, agitated by the prospect 
pf martyrdom, when Theodore, according to 
he story, assured him that Julian had at that 
hour been slain in his Persian war. The 

day of Julian’s death was June 26, 363. 
*The cloud had passed,’’ and Athanasius 
After his 

val, which was kept secret, he received a 

etter from the new emperor Jovian, desiring 
him to resume his functions, and to draw up 
ὁ statement of the Catholic faith. Athanasius 
at once assembled a council, and framed a 
synodal letter, in which the Nicene Creed was 
sambodied, its Scripturalness asserted, and the 
great majority of Churches (including the 
British) referred to as professing it : Arianism 
was condemned, semi-Arianism pronounced 
nadequate, the Homoousion explained as 
expressive of Christ’s real Sonship, the co- 
equality of the Holy Spirit maintained in 
erms which partly anticipate the language 
of the Creed of Constantinople. On Sept. 5 
Athanasius sailed to Antioch, bearing this 
etter. He was most graciously received, 
while the rival bp. Lucius and his companions 
were rebuffed with some humour and some 
impatience by the blunt soldier-prince, who, 
jhowever, during his brief reign, shewed him- 
bbe as tolerant as he was orthodox. The 
jgeneral prospects of the church must now 
jhave seemed brighter than at any time since 
330. Liberius was known to have made a 
full declaration of orthodoxy; and many 
estern bishops, responding to the appeals of 
‘Eusebius and Hilary of Poictiers, had eagerly 
enounced the Ariminian Creed and professed 
the Nicene. But the local troubles of Antioch 
were distressing; and Athanasius, seeing no 
other solution, recognized their bishop Paulinus 
as the true head of the Antiochene church, on 
his appending to his signature of the Tome a 
full and orthodox declaration, which, accord- 
ing to Epiphanius (Haer. 77, 20), Athanasius 
himself had framed. 

Having written his Festal Letter for 364 
at Antioch, Athanasius reached home, appar- 
ently, on Feb. 13, a few days before Jovian’s 
death. Valentinian I. succeeded, and soon 
afterwards assigned the East to his brother 

alens. The Alexandrian church was not at 
first a sufferer by this change of monarchs ; 
and 364-365 may be the probable date for the 
publication of the Life of Anthony, which 
Athanasius addressed ‘‘ to the monks abroad,” 
-€. those in Italy and Gaul. But, ere long, 
his troubles to some extent reappeared. Ac- 
cording to the Egyptian documents, it was 
the spring of 365 when Valens issued an order 
for the expulsion of all bishops who, having 
been expelled under Constantius, had been 
recalled under Julian, and thereby announced 
that he meant to follow the Arian policy of 
Constantius. On May 5 this order reached 
Alexandria, and caused a popular ferment, 
only quieted on June 8 by the prefect’s pro- 


ATHANASIUS 63 
mise to refer the case of Athanasius to the 
emperor. If we may combine his statement 
with Sozomen’s (who, however, places these 
events in a subsequent year), we should sup- 
pose that the prefect was but biding his time; 
and on the night of Oct. 5, Athanasius, having 
doubtless been forewarned, left his abode in 
the precinct of St. Dionysius’s church, and 
took refuge in a country house near the New 
River. For four months the archbishop’s 
concealment lasted, until an imperial notary 
came to the country house with a great multi- 
tude, and led Athanasius back into his church, 
Feb. rt (Mechir 7), 366. His quiet was not 
again seriously disturbed, and Athanasius was 
free to devote himself to his proper work, 
whether of writing or of administration. His 
Festal Letter for 367 contained a list of the 
books of Scripture which, so far as regards 
the New Testament, agrees precisely with our 
own (see, too, de Decr. 18). The canonical 
books are described as ‘‘ the fountains of 
salvation, through which alone ’’ (a mode of 
speaking very usual with Athanasius) “is the 
teaching of religion transmitted’’; a second 
class of books is mentioned, as ‘‘ read”’ in 
church for religious edification; the name 
“apocryphal ”’ is reserved for a third class to 
which heretics have assigned a fictitious dig- 
nity (Westcott, On the Canon, pp. 487, 520). 
To this period has been assigned the comment 
on doctrinal texts which is called a treatise 
On the Incarnation and against the Arians ; 
but its entire genuineness may be reasonably 
doubted. In or about 369 he held a council 
at Alexandria, in order to receive letters from 
a Roman council held under Damasus, the 
successor of Liberius, and also from other 
Western prelates, excommunicating Ursacius 
and Valens, and enforcing the authority of the 
Nicene Creed. Hereupon Athanasius, in a 
synodal letter addressed To the Africans, i.e. 
to those of the Carthaginian territory, con- 
trasts the ‘‘ ten or more’’ synodical formulas 
of Arianism with the Nicene Creed, gives some 
account of its formation, and exposes the 
futile attempt of its present adversaries to 
claim authority for the later, as distinct from 
the earlier, proceedings of the Ariminian 
council. It appears that on Sept. 22, 369, 
Athanasius, who had in May 368 begun to 
rebuild the Caesarean church, laid the 
foundations of another church, afterwards 
called by his own name (Fest. Ind.). We 
find him excommunicating a cruel and licen- 
tious governor in Libya, and signifying the 
act by circular letters. One of these was 
sent to Basil, who had just become exarch, or 
archbp., of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and had 
received, perhaps at that time, from Athan- 
asius, a formal notification of the proceedings 
of the council of 362 (Ep. 204). Basil immedi- 
ately announced to his own people the sentence 
pronounced in Egypt; the strong sense of 
church unity made such a step both regular 
and natural, and he wrote to assure Athan- 
asius that the offender would be regarded by 
the faithful at Caesarea as utterly alien from 
Christian fellowship (Ep. 60). This led to a 
correspondence, carried on actively in 371. 
Basil, who had troubles of all kinds weighing 
upon his spirit, sought aid in regard to one of 
them—the unhappy schism of Antioch (Ep. 


64 ATHANASIUS 


66). He wanted Athanasius to promote the 
recognition by the Westerns of Meletius as 
rightful bp. of Antioch, and to induce Paulinus 
to negotiate. In the autumn Basil wrote 
again (Ep. 69), and the tone which he adopts 
towards Athanasius is very remarkable. He 
calls him the foremost person (literally, the 
summit) of the whole church, the man of 
“‘truly grand and apostolic soul, who from 
boyhood had been an athlete in the cause of 
religion ’’—‘‘ a _ spiritual father,’’ whom he 
longed earnestly to see, and whose conversa- 
tion would amply compensate for all the 
sufferings of a lifetime (Ep. 69, 80, 82). But 
although Athanasius consented to act as a 
medium between Basil and the Westerns 
(Ep. 90), he could not take any direct part in 
favour of Meletius, whose rival’s position he 
had unequivocally recognized. Nothing came 
of the application. 

Athanasius was far from tolerating, in these 
latter years of his life, any theories which 
seemed definitely heterodox respecting what 
may be called the human side of the Incar- 
nation. If, in his Letter to Adelphius, he 
condemned a certain class of Arians, and 
vindicated against their cavils the adoration 
paid to Christ’s Manhood, that is, to His one 
Person Incarnate; if, in his Letter to Maximus, 
he denounced those who spoke of the man 
Christ as simply a saint with whom the 
Word had become associated; he was also, 
in his Letter to Epictetus, bp. of Corinth—a 
tract called forth by a communication from 
Epictetus—most earnest against some who, 
while ‘“ glorying in the Nicene confession, 
represented Christ’s body as not truly human, 
but formed out of the essence of Godhead. 
This was, in fact, the second proposition of the 
heresy called Apollinarian ; the first being that 
which had attracted the attention of the 
council of 362, and had been disclaimed by 
those whom the council could examine—as 
to the non-existence, in Christ, of a rational 
soul, the Word being supposed to supply its 
place. These views had grown out of an 
unbalanced eagerness to exalt the Saviour’s 
dignity: but the great upholders of Nicene 
faith saw that they were incompatible with 
His Manhood and His Headship, that they 
virtually brought back Docetism, and that one 
of them, at any rate, involved a debased con- 
ception of Deity. In the next year, 372, he 
combated both these propositions with ‘‘ the 
keenness and richness of thought which dis- 
tinguish his writings generally ᾿ (see Newman, 
Church of the Fathers, p. 162; Praef. ed. 
Benson, ii. 7) in two books entitled Against 
Apollinaris. These books are remarkable for 
the masterly distinctness with which the one 
Christ is set forth as ‘ perfect God and 
perfect Man” (i. 16): if words occur in 
li. 10 which seem at first sight to favour 
Monothelitism, the context shews their mean- 
ing to be that the Divine will in Christ was 
dominant over the human; if in the next 
chapter the phrase ‘‘ God suffered through 
the flesh”’ is called unscriptural, the whole 
argument shews that he is contending against 
the passibility of the Saviour’s Godhead. 
Inexact as might be some of his phrases, the 
general purport of his teaching on this great 
subject is unmistakable; it is, as he says in 


ATHANASIUS 


Orat. iii. 41, that Christ was “ very God i 
the flesh, and very Flesh in the Word.” fj 
truth, these later treatises, like the grea 
Discourses, exclude by anticipation both th 
forms of heresy, in reference to the Person anc 
Natures of Christ, which troubled the chure 
in the next three centuries (see especiall i 
11, 11. ro). Athanasius, in the fruits of hi 
work, was “in truth the Immortal”’ (Christ 
Remembr. xxxvii. 206): he was continua 
‘‘ planting trees under which men of a later 
age might sit.’’ It might indeed be said tha 
he ‘‘ waxed old in his work ’’ (Ecclus. xi. 20) 
But the time of work for him came to ar 
end in the spring of 373. The discussion: 
about the year of his death may be considereg 
as practically closed; the Festal Index 
although its chronology is sometimes te 


may be considered as confirming the date o 
373, given in the Maffeian Fragment, sup: 
ported by other ancient authorities, anc 
accepted by various writers. The exact day 
we may believe, was Thursday, May 2, on 
which day of the month Athanasius is vener 
ated in the Western church. He had sat or 
the Alexandrian throne, as his great successoj 
Cyril says in a letter to the monks of Egypt’ 
‘* forty-six complete years’’; had he lived € 
few weeks longer, the years of his episcopate 
would have been forty-seven. Having recom: 
mended Peter, one of his presbyters, for 
election in his place, he died tranquilly in his 
own house, “ after many struggles,” as Rufinus 
says (ii. 3), ‘‘ and after his endurance had won 
many a crown,’’ amid troubles which Tille 
mont ventures to call a continual martyrdom, 
Such was the career of Athanasius the 
Great, as he began to be called in the ne xt 
generation. Four points, perhaps, ought’ 
especially to dwell in our remembrance : (a) 
the deep religiousness which illuminated al) 
his studies and controversies by a sense of his 
relations as a Christian to his Redeemer; (6) 
the persistency, so remarkable in one whose 
natural temperament was acutely sensitive; 
(c) the combination of gifts, ‘‘ firmness with’ 
discretion and discrimination,’ as Newman’ 
expresses it, which enabled him, while never) 
turning aside from his great object, to be, as’ 
Gregory Nazianzen applies the apostolic 
phrase, “all things to all men’’; and in) 
close connexion with this, (4) the affectionate-| 
ness which made him so tender as a friend, 
and so active as a peacemaker—which won’ 
for him such enthusiastic loyalty. and endowed | 
the great theologian and church ruler with he 
powers peculiar to a truly lovableman. That 
he was not flawless, that his words could be 
somewhat too sharp in controversy, or some-’ 
what unreal in addressing a despot, that he 
was not always charitable in his interpretation | 
of his adversaries’ conduct, or that his casu-" 
istry, On one occasion, seems to have lacked 
the healthy severity of St. Augustine’s—this’ 
may be, and has been, admitted; but it is” 
not extravagant to pronounce his name the 
greatest in the church’s post-apostolic history. 
In 1698 appeared the great Benedictine. 
ed. of his works, enriched by the Life from the 
pen of Montfaucon, who in 1707 published, 
in one of the volumes of his Nova Patrum é 
Scriptorum Graecorum Collectio, additional 
remains collected by his industry. The work 


᾿ the Fathers.” 


| 


ATHANASIUS 


ic. Antonelli at Rome, in 1746; and in 1777 
\ppeared at Padua an ed. in 4 vols. fol., com- 
jining the labours of previous editors. 

A few English translations of some of 
ithanasius’s works had appeared before the 
jublication of any part of the “ Library of 
But the volume of Histortcal 
vacts of St. Athanasius, and the two volumes 
Mf Treatises in Controversy with the Arians, 
jublished in that series at Oxford in 1843- 
844, under Dr. Newman’s editorship, must 
whatever exceptions may be taken toa few 
assages in the notes) be always ranked among 
he richest treasures of English Patristic 
terature. These translations have been re- 
rinted and revised in what is now the best 

lection in English of Athanasius’s chief 

orks, with a very valuable introduction, life, 
nd illustrative notes by Dr. A. Robertson, 

p. of Exeter, in the Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. 
y Dr. Schaff and Dr. Wace. The Orations 
gainst Arius, with an account of the life of 

thanasius by W. Bright, are pub. by the 
larendon Press, as also his Historical Writings 
ceording to the Benedictine text, with intro. 

y W. Bright. A cheap popular Life of 

thanasius by R. W. Bush is pub. by S.P.C.K. 
a their Fathers for Eng. Readers ; anda cheap 
rans. of the Ovations in ‘‘ A. and M. Theol. 

ib.” (Griffith). [w.B.] 

Athanasius (1), bp. of Anagastus in Cilicia 

ecunda and metropolitan, a disciple of St. 

ucian of Antioch (Philost. H. E. iii. 15), 

oned by Arius, in his letter to Eusebius 
among the bishops who ee 
he 


icom., 
ith him in doctrine (Theod. H. E. i. 5). 


(reat Athanasius (de Synod. p. 886) accuses 


‘him of having, previous to the council of 
Nicaea, written blasphemies equal to those of 
ius, of which he gives a specimen. He is 
aid by Le Quien, on the authority of the Lib. 
Synod. Graec., to have supported Arius at the 
souncil of Nicaea. Philostorgius (H. E. iii. 
5) tells us that when Aetius was expelled from 
is master’s house, after his unlucky victory 
nh argument, Athanasius received him and 
ad the Gospels with him. [Ε.ν.] 
Athanasius (2), an Arian bp. who succeeded 
Philip in the see of Scythopolis, c. 372. He is 
harged by Epiphanius with pushing his Arian 
enets to the most audacious impiety, asserting 
hat the Son and HolySpirit were creatures, and 
had nothing in common with the Divine nature 
Epiph. Haer. |xxiii. c. 37, p. 885). [E.v.] 
us (8), bp. of Perrha,a see dependent 
yn the Syrian Hierapolis; present at the council 
»f Ephesus, 431, supporting Cyril of Alex- 
ia. Grave accusations, brought against 
aim by his clergy, led him to resign his see. 
hrough the intervention on his behalf of 
oclus of Constantinople and Cyril of Alex- 
Domnus II., patriarch of Antioch, 
ummoned a council to consider the matter. 
thanasius, refusing to appear, was unani- 
nously condemned by default and deposed 
om his bishopric, to which Sabinianus was 
onsecrated. After ‘‘the Robber Synod” 
of Ephesus, a.p. 449, had made Dioscorus of 
‘Alexandria the temporary ruler of the Eastern 
hurch, Sabinianus was in his turn deposed, 
nd Athanasius reinstated at Perrha. Sabini- 
nus appealed to the council of Chalcedon, 


. 
indi 


65 


ATHENAGORAS 


n the “‘ Titles of the Psalms ”’ was edited by | A.p. 451, where both he and his rival signed as 


bp. of Perrha. His case was fully heard, and 
it was determined that the original charges 
against him should be investigated by Maximus 
at Antioch. We are in complete ignorance of 
the issue of this investigation. (Labbe, Conc, 
iv. 717-754; Liberatus Diac. in Brevtario. 
Labbe, v. 762 ; Cave, Hist. Lit.i. 479; Christ. 
Lupus, ii.) [Ε.ν.] 
Athanasius (4), bp. of Ancyrain N. Galatia 
(A.D. 360-369). His father, who bore the same 
name, was a man of high family and great 
learning, and had held important offices in the 
State (ἐθνῶν καὶ πόλεων ἀρχὰς duevOtivavros) ; 
but was reputed harsh and unfatherly to his 
children. This rumour, reaching St. Basil's 
ears, led him to write a friendly remonstrance, 
and hence arose a correspondence of which 
one letter is preserved (Ep. 24). The son 
Athanasius was raised to the see of Ancyra by 
the Arian Acacius of Caesarea, through whose 
influence his predecessor Basilius had been 
deposed at a synod held at Constantinople 
A.D. 360 (Soz. iv. 25; Philost. v. 1). But not- 
withstanding this inauspicious beginning, he 
gave unquestionable proofs of his orthodoxy 
by taking an active part in the Synod of 
Tyana (A.D. 367), at which the Nicene symbol 
was accepted (Soz. vi. 12). .By St. Basil he 
is commended as “ἃ bulwark of orthodoxy ”’ 
(Ep. 25), and Gregory Nyssen praises him as 
“valuing the truth above everything’’ (c. 
Eunom. i. ii. 292). Owing to some misunder- 
standing, however, Athanasius had spoken in 
very severe terms of St. Basil, misled, as Basil 
conjectures, by the fact that some heretical 
writings had been fathered upon him; and 
the bp. of Caesarea sends an affectionate letter 
of remonstrance (Ep. 25), in which he speaks 
of Athanasius in the highest terms. At his 
death Basil writes a letter of condolence to the 
church of Ancyra, on the loss of one who was 
truly ‘‘ a pillar and foundation of the church ”’ 
(Ep. 29). This seems to have happened a.p. 
368 or 369 (see Garnier, Basil. Op. iii. p. 
Ixxvii. seq.). [1.] 
Athenagoras.—I. Life.—There is scarcely 
one catalogue of the ancient writers of the 
church wherein we find mention of Athen- 
agoras or his works. He is not noticed by 
Eusebius, Jerome, Photius, or Suidas. But 
in a fragment of the book of Methodius, bp. 
of Tyre (3rd cent.), de Resurrectione Antm- 
arum against Origen, there is an unmistakable 
quotation from the Apology (c. 24, p. 27 B) 
with the name of Athenagoras appended. 
This fragment is given by Epiphanius (Haer. 
64, c. 21) and Photius (Cod. 224, 234). Scanty 
as this information is, it yet assures us of the 
existence of the Apology in the 3rd cent. and 
its ascription to Athenagoras. Much more is 
told us by Philippus Sidetes, deacon of Chry- 
sostom (5th cent.), in a fragment preserved 
by Nicephorus Callistus (Dodwell, Diss. in 
Irenaeum, 429) to this effect: ‘‘ Athenagoras 
was the first head of the school at Alexandria, 
flourishing in the times of Hadrian and An- 
toninus, to whom also he addressed his A pol- 
ogy for the Christians ; a man who embraced 
Christianity while wearing the garb of a 
philosopher, and presiding over the academic 
school. He, before Celsus, was bent on 
writing against the Christians ; and, studying 


5 


66 ATHENAGORAS 


the divine Scriptures in order to carry on the 
contest with the greater accuracy, was thus 
himself caught by the all-holy Spirit, so that, 
like the great Paul, from a persecutor he 
became a teacher of the faith which he 
persecuted.” Philippus says, continues Nice- 
phorus, ‘“‘ that Clemens, the writer of the 
Stromata, was his pupil, and Pantaenus the 
pupil of Clemens.’”’ But Philippus’sstatement 
about Pantaenus is not true, according to 
Clemens and Eusebius; his character as an 
historian is severely criticized, and his book 
pronounced valueless by Socrates Scholasticus 
(Hist. Eccl. vii. 27) and Photius (Cod. 35, p. 7, 
Bekker) ; and his assertion that the Apology 
was addressed to Hadrian and Antoninus is 
contradicted by its very inscription. Never- 
theless, as he was a pupil of Rhodon (head 
of the school in the reign of Theodosius the 
Great) he may be supposed to have had some 
facts as the groundwork of what he has said. 
The only other source of information about 
Athenagoras is the inscription of his Apology 
with such internal evidence as may be gath- 
ered from his works themselves. The inscrip- 
tion runs thus: ‘‘ The embassy (πρεσβεία) of 
Athenagoras of Athens, a Christian philoso- 
pher, concerning Christians, to the emperors 
Marcus Aurelius, Antoninus, and Lucius 
Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaci, Sarmatici, 
and, greatest of all, philosophers.’’ Without 
at present considering the peculiar difficulties 
involved in this inscription (of which below), 
we learn from it in general that Athenagoras 
was an Athenian and a philosopher, which 
character and profession he evidently retained 
after his conversion. His connexion with 
Athens (probably his birth there) and pro- 
fession of philosophy are thus substantiated ; 
and the manner in which he became converted 
to Christianity may very well have been as 
described by Philippus, whose account that 
he was head of the Academics is probably but 
an exaggeration of the fact that he had be- 
longed to that sect. That he was ever leader 
of the Catechetical school of Alexandria cannot 
be definitely proved. In the Commentatio of 
Clarisse, § 8, is the acute conjecture that the 
treatise de Resurrectione was written at 
Alexandria rather than Athens, from c. 12, 
p- 52 A, where the builder of a house is repre- 
sented as making stalls for his camels; and 
on a supposed Alexandrian tinge in the philo- 
sophy of Athenagoras vide Brucker (Hist. 
Crit. Philosophiae, iii. 405 seq.). Of his death 
nothing is known, the idea that he was 
martyred apparently arising from a confusion 
between him and Athenogenes. That the 
Apology was really intended to be seen and 
tread by the emperors is obvious; how it 
reached them is less clear; we are hardly 
entitled to assert that it was in any formal or 
public manner delivered to them by Athen- 
agoras himself, an idea which may be due to 
the title it bears, of Πρεσβεία, or “ Embassy.”’ 
Πρεσβεία, however, according to Stephanus 
(Thesaur. Ling. Graec. iii. col. 543), is occasion- 
ally used for an apology, intercession, or 
deprecation. 

II. Genuine Works.—These are, (1) the 
Apology ; (2) the Treatise on the Resurrection 
of the Dead. 

(1) Apology. Genuineness.—The testimonies 


ATHENAGORAS 


to this work are the inscription which it bears 
and the quotation by Methodius given above 
Some indeed have supposed that when Jerome 
speaks of an apology delivered by Justin 
Martyr to Marcus Antoninus Verus and Lucius 
Aurelius Commodus, he refers (since these ob- 
tained the empire after Justin’s death) to the 
Apology of Athenagoras and attributes it t 
Justin ; but it appears that he intends Marcus. 
Aurelius and Lucius Verus (Mosheim, Disse 
ad Hist. Eccles. pertinent. 1. 279), to whom 
Justin’s Lesser Apology was given (vid. Pro- 
legomena to Maranus’s Justin, pt. iii. c. 8, § 4, 
pp- 93 sqq.). Attempts to prove the work in 
question to be that of Justin (vid. Le Moyne, 
Varia sacra, ii. 171), or of a later author (uta 
Semler, Introduction to Baumgarten’s Theol 
Strettigkeiten, li. 70 note) have alike fail 
There is nothing whatever in the writings o 
Athenagoras unsuitable to their assigned age 
and Athenagoras’s name was not sufficient 
known to have been selected for the author o 
a supposititious book. Z 
Date.—This is a difficult question; some) 
have taken the Commodus of the inscription — 
for Lucius Aelius Aurelius Verus (d. 169), son- 
in-law and brother of Marcus Antoninus. B t 
Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus, Antoninus’s” 
son and successor, must be intended; for 
Verus dropped the name of Commodus after | 
obtaining a share in the government, am 
could never have been called Sarmaticus ; fot 
Sarmatia was not conquered till after his 
death. Mommsen, following Tentzel, bu t 
without MS. authority, would read Τερμανικοῖς, 
for ᾿Αρμενιακοῖς. As little right had Com- 
modus to the title of ‘‘ philosopher.”’ Athen- » 
agoras may have only intended to include the 
son in the honours of the father. At 
events, the illustration (at c. 18, p. 17 δ) 
the Divine government, taken from that of 
the two emperors, 
conclusive. We have also allusions to the} 
profound peace of the empire, appropriate | 
only between A.D. 176, when Avidius Crassus’s | 
insurrection was crushed, and a.p. 178, wh 
the outbreak of the Marcomannic wi 
occurred. The Apology cannot well ha 
been of later date than A.D. 177, since in th 
year arose the fearful persecution of t 
Christians of Vienne and Lyons, upon t 
accusations brought by their slaves ; where 
in c. 35, p. 38 B, Athenagoras declares that 
no slaves of Christians had ever charged their | 
masters with the crimes popularly imputed to — 
them; nor is there any allusion whatever to. 
this persecution, which would hardly have | 
been passed over in silence. We therefo 
conclude that the Apology was written be- | 
tween the end of a.D. 176 and that of A.D. 177. 
Analysis.—The Apology consists of cate-~ 
gorical answers to the three charges usually | 
brought against the Christians, of (a) atheism, " 
(δ) incest, and (c) cannibalism. (a) They wor- 
ship one God, and can give a reason why. — 
The philosophers have held like views ; Poly- / 
theism and its worship are absurd, modern, © 
and the work of demons. (b) Incest is most 
contrary to their pure and even ascetic life. 
(c) They are even more humane than the’ 
heathen, condemning abortion, infanticide, . 
and gladiatorial games as murder. 
(2) Treatise on the Resurrection 


SSeS Ὁ 


— 


Ἂν 


‘a 


father and son, seems 


| 
1 
᾿ 
, 


2 | 
a. 


Genuine- 


ATHENAGORAS 


ness and Date—There is no independent 
external evidence for the authorship of this 
work; but there is no reason whatever to 
doubt that, as its inscription informs us, it 
is from the pen of Athenagoras. It closely 
agrees with the Apology in style and thought, 
and all that has been said above of the internal 
evidence for the genuineness of the former 
work applies equally to this. That such a 
treatise was in Athenagoras’s mind when he 
wrote the Apology appears from the words 
near its close, c. 36, p. 39 c, “ἰδὲ the argument 
u the Resurrection stand over’’; from 
which words we may not unfairly gather that 
the Treatise on the Resurrection shortly fol- 
lowed the former work. This is the only clue 
to its date which we possess. From the 
closing sentences of c. 23 (p. 66) it seems 
that it was intended as a lecture. ‘‘ We bave 
not made it our aim to leave nothing unsaid 
that our subject contained, but summarily to 
point out to those who came together what 
view ought to be taken in regard to the 
Resurrection ’’ must allude not merely to a 
few friends who might happen to be present 
when the book was read, but to a regular 
audience. From a reference, c. I, p. 41 B, to 
an occasional mode for arranging his argu- 
ments, it may be supposed that Athenagoras 
was in the habit of delivering public lectures 
upon Christianity. The arrangement, too, 
and peculiar opening of the treatise decidedly 
favour the view that it was a lecture, some- 
what enlarged or modified for publication. 
Analysis ——The work consists of two parts : 
| (i) The removal of the objections (1) that God 
|} wants the power (2) or the will to raise the 
dead. (1) He does not want the power to do 
it, either through ignorance or weakness— 
as Athenagoras proves from the works of 
creation ; defending his positions against the 
philosophic objections, that the bodies of men 
jafter dissolution come to form part of other 
bodies ; and that things broken cannot be re- 
stored to their former state. (2) God wants 
not the will to raise the dead—for it is neither 
unjust to the raised men, nor to other beings ; 
nor unworthy of Him—which is shewn from 
the works of creation. (ii) Arguments for 
the Resurrection. (1) The final cause of 
man’s creation, to be a perpetual beholder of 
the Divine wisdom. (2) Man’s nature, which 
requires perpetuity of existence in order to 
attain the true end of rational life. (3) The 
necessity of the Divine judgment upon men in 
body and soul, (a) from the Providence, (bd) 
from the justice of God. (4) The ultimate 
end of man’s being, not attainable on earth. 
III. Athenagoras as a Writer—To most of 
the apologists Athenagoras is decidedly 
superior. Elegant, free from superfluity of 
language, forcible in style, he rises occasion- 
ally into great power of description, and his 
reasoning is remarkable for clearness and 
cogency; e.g. his answer to the heathen 
argument, that not the idols, but the gods 
represented, are really honoured. His treat- 
ment of the Resurrection is for the most part 
admirable. Even where the defective science 
of the day led him into error, e.g. in answering 
the question, apparently so difficult, as to the 
assimilation of the materials of one human 
body into another the line taken is one that 


ATHENAGORAS 67 


shews no little thought and ability ; and his 
whole writings indicate a philosophic mind, 
which amply justifies the title given to him in 
the inscription of his two works. 

His style, however, is not unfrequently 
somewhat obscured by difficult elliptic or 
parenthetical passages, and anacolutha (for 
examples of which see the A pology, c. 1, p. 2 C; 
ὈΣ 6, Pre ig Bs. 22, Ὁ. 258. -and δ 
Resurr. c. 18, p. 60 dD). Among his peculiar 
words and phrases, Clarisse notices his use of 
ἄγειν in the sense of ducere, to think, and τὰ 
ἐπισυμβεϑηκότα Θεῷ for the attributes of God. 

IV. His Philosophy.—Mosheim represents 
Athenagoras as having been the first of the 
Eclectics. It is far more true to say that he 
shared in the eclecticism which then pervaded 
all philosophy. That he had been a Platonist 
appears, on the whole, from his continual 
reference to Plato and the thoroughly Pla- 
tonic view which on many points pervades his 
works. We easily recognize this view in his 
language about matter and the souls, angels, 
natures sensible and intelligible, and the con- 
templation of God as the end of man’s being ; 
and also in that referring to the Son of God as 
the Logos and Creator (except that this is not 
at all peculiar to Athenagoras), more especially 
in his calling the Word “ idea (or archetype) 
and energy’’ in the work of Creation. He 
also appears to allude slightly to the doctrine 
of reminiscences (de Resurr. c. 14, Ρ. 55 A)- 
The Platonism of Athenagoras was modified, 
however, by the prevailing eclecticism (cf. 
e.g. the Peripatetic doctrine of the mean, so 
alien to Plato, Resurr. c. 21, p. 64 B), and still 
more, of course, by his reception of Christian- 
ity, which necessitated the abandonment of 
such views as the unoriginated nature of the 
soul. With all this agrees excellently so much 
of Philippus Sidetes’s account as connects 
Athenagoras with the Academics; whose 
Platonism was precisely such as is here de- 
scribed. Allusions to the other philosophers 
are abundant; e.g. to Aristotle and the Peri- 
patetics, Apol. c. 6, p. 7 A; Cc. 16, p. 15 D; to 
the Stoics, 7b. c. 6, p. 7B; to the Cyrenaics 
and Epicureans, Resurr. c. 19, p. 62 B. We 
see from Afol. c. 7, p. 8 A, that he regarded 
the Gentile philosophers as possessing some 
measure of Divine light in their minds, but 
unable thereby to come to the full know- 
ledge of God, because this could only be ob- 
tained by revelation, which they never sought. 

V. Theology, etc.—Athenagoras’s proof of 
the Divine unity rests on the propositions, 
expressed or implied, that God is perfect, self- 
existent, uncompounded; the Creator, Sus- 
tainer, and Ruler of the universe. Were there 
more gods than one, they could not co-exist 
and co-work as a community of beings similar 
to each other, in the same sphere; for things 
self-existent and eternal cannot be like a 
number of creatures formed all on one pattern, 
but must be eternally distinct and unlike. 
They could not be parts of one whole, for God 
has no parts. There could be no place for 
another God in connexion with this universe, 
for the Creator is over and around His own 
works. Another God, confined to some other 
universe of his own, could not concern us; 
and so would be but a finite being. 

The Son of God.—In God, since He is an 


68 ATHENAGORAS 


eternal, rational Mind, there dwelt from eter- 
nity the ‘‘ Logos” (‘‘ Reason,” ‘‘ Expression,”’ 
or ‘‘Word’’) as His Son, and in the Son 
dwelt the Father. To bring matter into 
existence, and afterwards give it form and 
order, the Divine Word ‘‘ came forth ”’ (1.6. the 
eternal Son assumed, towards the finite, the 
office and relation of ‘‘ the Word” or Mani- 
festor of God), to be the Archetype and 
Effectuating Power of creation (Apol. c. τὸ, 
Ρ- 10D). His Incarnation is only indirectly 
mentioned, in the supposition at c. 21, p. 21D 
(ib.), of God assuming flesh according to divine 
dispensation. me 

The Holy Ghost is said to be the Spirit Who 
spoke by the prophets, and an Emanation 
from God (A pol. c. το, p. 10 D), flowing forth 
and returning as a ray from the sun. It has 
hence been much disputed whether Athen- 
agoras believed the Blessed Spirit to be a 
distinct Person, or not. His expressions 
greatly resemble those used by some whom 
Justin condemns for their denial of the per- 
sonality of the Son: ‘‘ They say that this 
virtue is indivisible and inseparable from the 
Father, as the sunlight on earth is indivisible 
and inseparable from the sun in the heavens ”’ 
(Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128, p. 3588). But it 
must be remembered that the apologists 
present the actings and offices of the three 
Blessed Persons of the Godhead in creation, 
etc., rather than Their eternal subsistence ; and 
of necessity do this in a form intelligible to a 
heathen mind, yet so as not to be confounded 
with polytheism. It is not doubted that 
Athenagoras held the personality of the 
Father, but with ‘‘ God the Father, and God 
the Son”’ (Apol. c. 10, p. 11 A) he joins as 
third, the Holy Spirit ; so also c. 12, p. 62 D, 
and again c. 24, p. 26p. That two Divine 
Persons and an impersonal emanation should 
be thus enumerated together by so philosophic 
a writer as Athenagoras is not conceivable. 
The angels, too—indubitably personal beings 
—are mentioned as holding a place after the 
Trinity, in Christian theology (c. 10); and it 
is worthy of notice that, in the passage cited 
above from Justin, angels as well as the Word 
are described by the persons whom that writer 
is condemning as temporary appearances; as 
if it were the Sadducees, or some similar Jewish 
sect, of which he is speaking. We are, there- 
fore, decidedly of opinion that the personality 
of the Holy Spirit is held by Athenagoras ; cf. 
however, Clarisse. 

Man he holds to be composed of body and 
soul, the latter immortal, with spiritual powers 
of its own (Apol. c. 27, p. 31 A); but assigns 
the rational judgment not to the soul alone, 
but to the whole compound being, man; 
perhaps implying that in the actings and 
expression of thought both the mind and the 
bodily organs share. Hence he shews that 
the soul without the body is imperfect ; that 
only when embodied can man be justly judged, 
or render to God perfect service, in a heavenly 
life. The sin and misery of man are described, 
in the Platonic manner, as entanglement with 
matter (Apol. c. 27, p. 30 Cc), and missing the 
true aim of his existence (Resurr. c. 25, p. 
68 B); which is said to be the state of the 
majority, a prevalence of evil which he con- 
nects with the influence of the demons, 1.6. 


ATHENAGORAS 


of fallen angels, or their offspring by human 
wives, a view common with the apologists, 
The evil angels he regards as having fallen by 
misuse of free will, as did also man; cf. A pol. 
c. 25, Ρ- 29 B- Of infants he remarks (Resurr. 
614, Ρ- 55D) that they need no judgment, 
inasmuch as they have done neither good nor 
evil. The nature of the scheme of redemption 
is not treated of by Athenagoras. 

VI. Was Athenagoras a Montanist ?>—This 
idea was suggested by Tillemont, who founds. 
it upon two points in the opinions of Athen- 
agoras, his account of prophecy, and his abso- 
lute condemnation of second marriages. In 
the Apology, c. 9, p- 9 D, Athenagoras’s vie 
of inspiration is thus given: ‘“‘ who”? (1.6. the 
prophets) ‘‘ rapt in mind out of themselves by 
the impulse of the Spirit of God, uttered the 
things with which they were inspired; the 
Spirit using them as if a flute player wer 
breathing into his flute.’”’ With this has been 
compared the language of Montanus (Epi- 
phanius Panar. Haer. 48, c. 4, p. 405), wher 
the prophet is said to be as a lyre, the Spirit 
like the plectrum. So Tertullian, Againsi 
Marcion, c.22. Yet similar language is found 
in Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 115, p. 343 A); 
and Athenagoras may only mean that the 
prophet was carried beyond himself by the 
Holy Spirit, and that the words uttered were 
not his own. The severe condemnation oj 
second marriage, in the works of Athenagoras, 
is doubtless a point of contact with the Mon- 
tanists; but the same view is very common 
with the Greek Fathers (vid. Hefele’s Beitrage, 
vol. i. lect. 2). Moreover, of the authority and 
office of the Paraclete, in the sense attributed 
to Montanus, there is no trace in the writings 
of Athenagoras. ὦ 

VII. Quotations of Scripture, Early Writers. 
etc.—The inspiration of Scripture is strongly) 
stated by Athenagoras, e.g. Apol. c. 9, p. 9 D 
He is seldom careful to quote exactly, so thai 
it is not always certain what version is em: 
ployed ; probably the Septuagint throughout 
From the N.T. he often quotes or borrow 
phrases, without mentioning whence they 
come. It is treated as authoritative amongst 
Christians; its maxims being used shewing 
their discipline and practice (vid. Lardner 
Credibility ; Clarisse, Athenag. § 55). 

It has been disputed whether Athenagora: 
refers to other Christian writers, especially thr 
Apology of Justin Martyr, which some con 
sider him to have made the foundation of hi 
own. Certainly the resemblance betweer 
them seems too great to be the result o 
accident alone. Both Justin and Athenagora: 
urged that Christians were unconvicted 0 
any crime, that the mere name does no. 
deserve punishment, and that they were nt 
more Atheists than the poets and the philo 
sophers ; and both, in a similar manner, shey 
the unworthiness of sacrificial worship. The! 
give very much the same view of the Christiat 
way of life; and both lay great stress Οἱ 
chastity, and on the confining of marriage t 
its sole end, the begetting of children. Nearly 
the same account of the fall of the angels i 
found in both: the same books are quoted 
often the same passages; by both the ver; 
same phrases are occasionally employed 
This correspondence is especially seen betweel 


ee ἐπ. 


Fe Me 


a τι, 


~~ Oe ee — Με 


«ὦ Me me = a 
Gs a 


a a a τ δ, τοἱὖἍΚῦ See ee Sa Sa = em Ss. ὧδ ΘῈΣ ἈὸΠνὅ-ε ES om, 


“νυ “τε Ψ’ν 


a δὲ 


= 


ATTICUS 


‘the exordium of Justin’s first Apology and 
that of Athenagoras. Hence Clarisse infers 
(Comm. in Athenag. ὃ 57) that Athenagoras 
intended to rearrange and epitomize the work 
of his predecessor. In the treatise On the 
Resurrection, c. 8, p. 48c, is an apparent 
imitation of Tatian, Or. ad Graec. c. 6, p. 146 B. 

VIII. Editions.—A good ed. of Athenagoras 
is that of Otto (Jena, 1857); its text is based 
on the three earliest MSS. (viz. the Cod. Paris. 
CDLI., Cod. Paris. CLXXIV., and Cod. Ar- 
gentoratensis), with which the rest have been 
collated, some for the first time; the most 
recent is by E. Schwartz, Leipz. 1891 (Texte 
und Untersuchungen, ἵν. 2). There is an Eng. 
trans. in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 

ΙΧ. Spurious Works.—From a careless ex- 

ion of Gesner, in reference to the books 
of Antoninus, Περὶ τῶν εἰς ἐαντόν͵, a notion 
arose of the existence, amongst Gesner’s 
books, of a work by Athenagoras with the 
above title; an idea which, though wholly 
erroneous, was entertained by Scultatus, and 
at one time by Tentzel, with some others. 

About the close of the 16th cent. there 
appeared a French romance, entitled Du vray 
et parfait Amour, purporting to bea work of 
A agoras, trans. by M. Fumée, Seigneur 
de S. Geuillac. Its many anachronisms and 
whole character prove it, however, the work 
of some later author, probably Fumée him- 
self. Certainly no Greek original has ever 
been produced. 

The following may be consulted: Clarisse, 
Comm. in Athen. ; Hefele, Bettrdge ; Mohler, 
Patrol.; 1. Donaldson, Hist. Christ. Lit. ; L. 
Arnould, de A pol. Athen. (Paris, 1898). [s.M.] 

Atticus, archbp. of Constantinople, suc- 
ceeding Arsacius in March 406. He died 
Oct. 10, 426. Born at Sebaste in Armenia, 
he early embraced a monastic life, and re- 
ceived his education from some Macedonian 
monks near that place. Removing to Con- 
stantinople, he adopted the orthodox faith, 
was ordained presbyter, and soon became 
known as arising man. He proved himself 
one of Chrysostom’s most bitter adversaries. 
If not, as Palladius asserts (c. xi.), the architect 
of the whole cabal, he certainly took a very 
leading part in carrying it into execution. 
The organization of the synod of the Oak 
owed much to his practical skill (Phot. Cod. 
59). The expulsion of Chrysostom took 
place June το, 404. His successor, the aged 
Arsacius, died Nov. 5, 405. Four months of 
intrigue ended in the selection of Atticus. 

Vigorous measures were at once adopted by 
Atticus in conjunction with the other members 
of the triumvirate to which the Eastern 
church had been subjected, Theophilus of 
Alexandria, and Porphyry of Antioch, to 
crush the adherents of Chrysostom. An 
imperial rescript was obtained imposing the 
severest penalties on all who dared to reject 
the communion of the patriarchs. A large 
number of the bishops of the East persevered 
in the refusal, and suffered a cruel persecu- 
tion; while even the inferior clergy and laity 
were compelled to keep themselves in conceal- 
ment, or to fly the country. The small 
minority of Eastern bishops who for peace’s 
sake deserted Chrysostom’s cause were made 
to feel the guilt of having once supported it, 


ATTILA 


being compelled to leave their sees and take 
other dioceses in the inhospitable regions of 
Thrace, where they might be more under 
Atticus’s eve and hand (Socr. vii. 36; Niceph. 
ἘΠῚ. 307. Pallad. c. xx.). 

Unity seemed hardly nearer when the death 
of Chrysostom (Sept. 14, 407) removed the 
original ground of the schism. A large pro- 
portion of the Christian population of Con- 
stantinople still refused communion with the 
usurper, and continued to hold their religious 
assemblies, more numerously attended than 
the churches, in the open air in the suburbs 
of the city (Niceph. xiv. 23, 27), until Chry- 
sostom’s name took its place on the registers 
and in the public prayers of the church of 
Constantinople. 

Atticus’s endeavours were vigorously di- 
rected to the maintenance and enlargement of 
the authority of the see of Constantinople. 
He obtained a rescript from Theodosius sub- 
jecting to it the whole of Illyria and the 
“ Provincia Orientalis."’ This gave great 
offence to pope Boniface and the emperor 
Honorius, and the decree was never put into 
execution. Another rescript declaring his 
right to decide on and approve of the election 
of all the bishops of the province was more 
effectual. Silvanus was named by him bp. 
of Philippolis, and afterwards removed to 
Troas. He asserted the right to ordain in 
Bithynia, and put it in practice at Nicaea, A.D. 
425, a year before he died (Socr. vii. 25, 28, 37). 

He also displayed great vigour in combat- 
ing and repressing heresy. He wrote to the 
bishops of Pamphylia and to Amphilochius of 
Iconium, calling on them to drive out the 
Messalians (Phot. c. 52). The zeal and energy 
he displayed against the Pelagians are highly 
commended by pope Celestine, who goes so 
far as to style him “ἃ true successor of St. 
Chrysostom ’’ (Labbe, Conc. iii. 353, 361, 365, 
1073; cf. S. Prosper. Ὁ: 5493S) Leo. Ep: 
cvi.; Theod. Ep. cv.). His writings were 
quoted as those of an orthodox teacher 
by the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon 
(Labbe, iii. 518, iv. 831). 

Atticus was more an actor than a writer ; 
and of what he did publish little remains. A 
treatise On Virginity, combating by anticipa- 
tion the errors of Nestorius, addressed to 
Pulcheria and her sisters, is mentioned by 
Marcellinus, Chron. sub ann. 416, and Gen- 
nadius, de Scrip. Eccl. c. 52. 

Socrates, who is a partial witness, attributes 
to him a sweet and winning disposition which 
caused him to be regarded with much affec- 
tion. Those who thought with him found in 
him a warm friend and supporter. Towards 
his theological adversaries he at first shewed 
great severity, and after they submitted, 
changed his behaviour and won them by 
gentleness (Socr. vii. 41; Soz. vili. 27). [Ε-ν.] 

Attila, king and general of the Huns. For 
the facts of his life and his personal and moral 
characteristics see D. of G. and R. Biogr. It 
comes within our scope only to note his in- 
fluence upon Christendom ; though, through- 
out, it is difficult to separate legend from 
history. The rapid series of events between 
the Hunnish attack on the Eastern empire in 
441 and the battle of Chalons in 451 has been 
compared to a deluge of rain which sweeps a 


69 


70 ATTILA 


district and leaves no further trace than the 
débris which the torrent has washed down. 
But in Eastern Europe, though Attila’s 
kingdom was dismembered at his death, the 
great body of the Huns, who had followed him 
from the wilds of Central Asia, settled per- 
manently in the wide plains of the Lower 
Danube; while, viewed as a special instru- 
ment of Providence, ‘‘ a Messiah of grief and 
ruin,’ whose mission it was to chastise the 
sins of Christians, the ‘‘ scourge (or rather flat!) 
of God”’ had an abiding influence over Western 
Christendom, and the virtues and merits of 
the saints who thwarted him by bold resist- 
ance or prudent submission shone forth the 
brighter, the darker became the picture of 
the oppressor. 

Portents in sky and earth announced to the 
inhabitants of Gaul that the year 450 was the 
opening of a terrible epoch (Idat. Chron. ann. 
450). Servatius, bp. of Tongres, visiting 
Rome to consult St. Peter and St. Paul, was 
informed that Gaul would be entirely devas- 
tated by the Huns, but that he himself would 
die in peace before the devastation came 
(Paul. Diac. ap. Bouquet, Rec. i. p. 649). 
Attila, strengthened by an alliance with Gen- 
seric, king of the Vandals (Jorn. Reb. Get. 36), 
had two pretexts for his attack—his claim 
to the hand of Honoria, and the vindication 
of the rights of an elder son of a Frank prince 
against his brother, whom Aetius had given 
possession of their paternal territory (Prise. 
Exc. Leg. p. 40). Theodoric, king of the Goths, 
whose alliance was sought by both Attila and 
Valentinian, inclined to the side of order, and 
the Hun, who now took the rvdle of chastising 
his rebellious subjects, the Visigoths, marched 
with five, or perhaps seven, hundred thousand 
warriors, including many Franks, Burgun- 
dians, and Thuringians (Sid. Apoll. Paneg. 
Autt. v. 324), to the banks of the Rhine, which 
he crossed near Coblenz. He installed him- 
self at Tréves, the Roman metropolis of Gaul, 
which was pillaged. After one fruitless at- 
tempt, he entered Metz on Easter Eve, April 
8, slaughtered indiscriminately priests and 
people, except the bishop, and reduced the 
city to ashes, all the churches perishing except 
the oratory of St. Stephen (Paul. Diac. ap. 
Bouquet, Rec. i. p.650). Rheims, deserted by 
its inhabitants, was easily reduced, and a Hun 
struck off the head of its bishop, Nicacius, 
while he was precenting the words ‘‘ Quicken 
me according to Thy word”’ (Ps. cxix. 25) 
(Frodoard. Martyr. Remens. p. 113). Tongres, 
Arras, Laon, and Saint-Quentin also fell. The 
inhabitants of Paris had resolved on flight, 
but the city was saved by the resolution and 
devotion of St. Geneviéve (Genovefa), the 
maiden of Nanterre who was warned in a 
vision that Paris would be spared (Act. SS. 
Boll. Jan. i. 143-147). Attila did not wish to 
wage war against Christianity, though doubt- 
less some of his followers were stimulated by 
polemical rancour; he fought against Rome, 
not itschurch. Nor did he intend to give up 
Gaul to indiscriminate pillage; he hoped to 
crush the Visigoths first, and then to cope 
separately with Aetius and the Roman forces. 
About April τὸ he left Metz for Orleans. 
Anianus (St. Agnan), bp. of Orleans, hastened 
to Arles to apprise Aetius of their danger, but 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


Orleans was only relieved by the influence of. 
the senator Avitus of Clermont, who secured > 
the help of Theodoric, when the gates had 
actually been opened to the Huns and pillage 
was beginning (Vita 5. Aniani, in Bouquet, 
Rec. i. 645). Attila retreated precipitately | 
towards Chalons-sur-Marne, in the Cam 
Catalaunict. Near Troyes he was met by its . 
bishop, Lupus (St. Loup), at whose inter | 
cession Attila spared the defenceless inhabi 
ants of Champagne, carrying Lupus wit 
him as a hostage to the banks of the Rhine. — 
For the subsequent military movements and — 
the battle of Chdalons, see Thierry, Hist. ' 
@ Attila, pp. 172-188, 428-437, and art. ‘“‘Attila” 
in the Nouv. Biog. Gén. In the spring of 452 © 
Attila penetrated into Italy by the passes © 
of the Julian Alps (Prosp. Aquit. Chron.), 
Aetius having sent Valentinian for safety to 
Rome. Attila received his first check at the — 
walls of Aquileia; but after three months’ 
resistance he observed some storks preparing } 
to leave their nests with their young (Jorn. 
Reb. Get. 42), and, taking this as a favourable | 
omen, redoubled the vigour of his siege, and — 
a century afterwards Jornandes (2b.) could — 
scarcely trace the ruins of Aquileia. Milan 
and Pavia were sacked, and probably also_ 
Verona, Mantua, Brescia, Bergamo, and Cre- 
mona. An embassy, sent by the people and 
senate of Rome, to endeavour to obtain 
Attila’s peaceful evacuation of Italy, met the 
invaders on the Mincio, near Mantua and — 
Vergil’s farm. Atits head were twoillustrious - 
senators and the eloquent Leo the Great, who — 
had been bp. of Rome since 440. His appear-— 
ance in pontifical robes awoke in Attila some 
feeling akin to awe, and he retired as before a 
power superior to hisown. Soon after he died 
from the bursting of a blood-vessel, though 
not without suspicion of foul play. Cf. Lro 1. 

Undoubtedly the great and distinguishing — 
feature of the war in the eyes of 5th-cent. 
Christians would be the threefold repulse of 
Attila, “ the scourge of God’; from Orleans by 
St. Agnan, from Troyes by St. Loup, and, — 
above ail, from Rome by St. Leo; so signal 
a triumph was it of the church’s spiritual 
weapons over the hosts who were held to 
symbolize the powers of darkness and of Anti- 
christ. It was the final and conclusive 
answer to the few heathen who still referred 
all the misfortunes of the empire to the 
desertion of the ancient polytheism. For ἃ 
discussion of the various national legends that 
have clustered around Attila, ‘‘ the hammer 
of the world,’ see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v. 
The leading authorities for his life are in 
Gibbon’s Roman Empire (ed. Smith), iv. 191 
(notes). See also his Life by Am. Thierry, 
1855. [οὐ 
Augustinus, Aurelius. 

A. Earty Lire.—§&§ 1, 2, Name, Materials 
for biography; § 3. Early life; § 4. 
Manicheism ; ὃ 5. Philosophical period ; 
§ 6. Conversion; § 7. Early Christian 
life: (a) as layman, (b) as presbyter. 

B. EpiscopaTe.—§ 8. Donatism : (a) Origin, 
(b) Early history, (c) Augustine and 
the schism; ὃ 9. Paganism and the 
de Civitate Det; ὃ το. Pelagianism: © 
(a) Origin, (b) Zosimus and Julian, (c) 
The semi-Pelagians, (4) Doctrinal — 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


3 issues; ὃ τι. Augustine and Greek 
gil Christendom; ὃ r2. Augustine and the 
hierarchy: (a) Church authority and 
episcopate, (b) Equality of episcopate, 

(c) Rome and the episcopate: Case of 

Apiarius, (d) Rome and _ doctrinal 

authority, (e) Ultimate authority; 

§ 13. Death and character. 

C. INFLUENCE.—§ 14. Writings; ὃ 15. 
Asceticism and the ‘‘ Rule’: The 
Church and property; § 16. Intel- 
lectual influence: (a) Philosophic 
Theism, (δ) Ecclesiasticism, (c) Pre- 
destinarianism; ὃ 17. Bibliography. 

A. Eary Lire.—§ 1. Name.—Orosius, Hist. 

adv. Pagan. 1. 4; Prosper, Car. de Ingrat. i. 3, 

and Chron. ad ann. 430; Claudian Mamert. 

de Stat. An. ii. 10; Bede, Vit. St. Cuthb., 
sive the name as above. The name Aurelius 

s not given by Possidius, nor is it ever used 

by Augustine himself nor by any of his cor- 

espondents. But the Benedictine editors 
find it in the earliest MS. titles of his works, 
and it is probably authentic. 

§ 2. Materials for Biography.—These are 
exceptionally ample. For his first thirty- 
hree years we have, in the Confessions, the 
most perfect of religious autobiographies (see 
below, ὃ 8, ad init.). The word “‘ Confessions’”’ 
includes not only the idea of self-accusation, 
but also that of thanksgiving (see IX. vi. con- 

zor ttbt dona tua, and the use of confiteor in 

he Vulgate Psalter). For his career as a 

hristian and a bishop, we possess an admir- 
ably simple and graphic life by his pupil and 
friend Possidius, bp. of Calamis. The writings 
and correspondence of Augustine himself 

opiously supplement the narrative. The 

» |Benedictine editors have worked up the 

whole of the material into a very accurate 
| {biography in eight books. It fills 513 columns 

- jof the Patr. Lat., and leaves little to be added 

by others. (See below, § 17.) 

§ 3. Birth and Early Years (354-373)-— 
Augustine was born at Thagaste in Numidia 
Proconsularis, on Nov. 13, 354 (for evidence 
as to this date, see Bened. Life in Patr. Lat. I. 
118). His father Patricius, a jovial, sensual, 
passionate man, and till near the end of his 
life a heathen, was one of the curtales of the 
town, but without large means. His mother 
Monnica was a Christian by parentage, con- 
viction, and character. Augustine acknow- 
ledged (de Vit. Beat. i. 6) that he owed his 
all to her; conversely we can trace to her 
anxious care for her son’s spiritual well-being 
a distinct deepening of her own character (see 
Conf. II. iii. sub fin. ; IX. viii. ix.). From his 
mother he received the elements of Christian 
teaching, and, as he tells us, a devotion to the 
very name of Jesus Christ which his later 
spiritual wanderings never wholly extin- 
guished, and which forbade him to find satis- 
faction in any writings which lacked it (Conf. 
ΠῚ. iv. 3). Asa child he had a severe illness, 

πᾶ demanded baptism. His mother had 

agreed to allow it ; but when he recovered, in 
accordance with the then prevailing dread of 

| post-baptismal sin, she put off his baptism to 
riper years. Augustine was one of several 
children (we read of his brother Navigius, 
Conf. IX. xi., de Beat. Vit. i. 6; a sister, Ep. 

| 2114; nieces, Possid. xxvi.; nephew Patricius 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 71 


and nieces, Serm. 3563, see Bened. Life, 1. 
i. 4). He early shewed signs of pre-eminent 
ability, and his parents, both of whom enter- 
tained the ordinary parental ambitions, found 
means to send him to school at the neigh- 
bouring town of Madaura. Here, though he 
found the study of Greek distasteful, he made 
good progress; in fact it became clear that 
he was ripe for the higher schools of Carthage, 
and he was withdrawn from Madaura. The 
difficulty of providing the means for his 
studies at the more expensive and distant 
capital kept him at home for a year (369-370). 
He laments bitterly the company he kept and 
the habits into which he fell at this period. 
The boyish freak of robbing a pear-tree with 
his companions weighed heavily on his mind 
in later years (Conf. 11. iv. ix.). He tells us, 
however, with shame, that in order not to be 
outdone by his companions he boasted of 
licentious acts which he had not committed. 
This may modify our natural inferences from 
the self-accusing language of the Confessions. 

At last, aided by their wealthy and benevo- 
lent neighbour Romanianus, his parents were 
able to send him to Carthage. Here, at the 
age of sixteen, Augustine began his ‘ univer- 
sity’ life, as a student of Rhetoric. Again 
he speaks with an agony of remorse of his life 
asastudent. It is certain that he contracted 
an irregular union, and in 372 he became the 
father of a son, Adeodatus. But he remained 
faithful to his mistress until the very eve of his 
conversion, and watched over his son’s educa- 
tion and character. Eventually father and 
son were baptized together (see below, § 6; 
also cf. Conf. VI. xv. 25). We must infer that 
his life was on the whole above the average 
level of student life in Carthage. He tells us 
that the ‘‘ best set’’ among them were given 
to brutal horse-play, directed especially 
against shy freshmen; but although he 
associated with these ‘‘ eversores,’’ he took 
no part in their wild doings. 

In 371 his father had died, but, aided once 
more by the kindness of Romanianus, Mon- 
nica was able still to keep her son at Carthage. 
Ambition for social success, and for a future 
career at the bar, rather than any deeper 
motive, led him to pursue his studies with 
ardour. But in his nineteenth year, while 
reading Cicero’s Hortensius, he became deeply 
impressed with the supreme value of Wisdom, 
as contrasted with the vain hopes and fleeting 
opinions of the world. From this time on- 
ward he is a restless seeker after Truth (Conf. 
III. iv.). His first impulse was toward the 
Scriptures, but their simplicity repelled him ; 
“they seemed to me to be far inferior to the 
dignity of Tully.” 

§ 4. Manicheism (373-383).—A baffled in- 
quirer, he was attracted by the Manichean 
system, which appears to have been actively 
pushed in Africa at this period. This is not 
the place for a description of Manicheism. 
From Augustine’s many allusions to its tenets, 
it appears to have been a strange medley of 
dualism and materialism, asceticism and 
licence, theosophy and rationalism, free- 
thought and superstition. What specially 
attracted Augustine appears to have been the 
high moral pretensions of the sect, their criti- 
cism of Scripture difficulties, and their explana- 


72 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


tion of the origin of evil by the assumption 
of an independent evil principle. For nine 
years (373-382, Conf. IV. i., de Util. Cred. 2) 
Augustine was an ardent Manichean. He 
brought over his friends Alypius and Honor- 
atus, and his patron Romanianus, to the same 
convictions, and delighted in controversy with 
Catholics. He remained an ‘‘ auditor’ only. 
The “‘ electi’’ were bound to strict continence, 
and Augustine was increasingly conscious of 
the chasm between his ideal and his practice. 
““ Make me chaste, but not yet,’’was his prayer 
during this period of his life (Conf. VIII. vii.). 
Augustine completed his studies, and returned 
to Thagaste as a teacher of grammar. His 
mother, overwhelmed with horror at his new 
opinions, refused to receive him at home. At 
first, therefore, he lived with Romanianus. 
Monnica’s prayers were answered by a con- 
soling dream (Conf. III. xi.) and a friend, a 
bishop, himself a convert from Manicheism, 
whom she entreated to argue with her son, 
while wisely refusing her request, dismissed 
her with the words, ‘‘ It cannot be that the son 
of those tears of yours should be lost.’’ She 
accepted the words as a voice from Heaven, 
and received Augustine into her household. 
The death of a dear friend—Augustine was a 
man of warm friendships (Conf. IV. ix.)— 
moved him to leave Thagaste, and return, as 
a teacher of Rhetoric, to Carthage. Here he 
studied zealously, devoting attention to the 
“liberal arts,’? astronomy, and other sub- 
jects, and lived a life of cultivated society and 
successful literary effort. He tells us of a 
prize poem which won a crown in the theatre 
from the proconsul Vindicianus, a wise old 
physician who convinced him (but see Con}. 
VII. vi.) of the futility of astrology (Conf. IV. 
111. ; this apparently occurred at Carthage). 
About this time he wrote a work in two or 
three books, de Pulcro et Apto, which he in- 
scribed to Hierius, a professor of Rhetoric at 
Rome, whom he had come to admire by 
reputation. These books he did not preserve ; 
they appear to have been his first. Mean- 
while, he began to be less satisfied with the 
Manichean view of existence; these mis- 
givings were intensified by disillusion in regard 
to the morals of the electi (de Moribus Man. 
68 sqq.). But his Manichean friends urged 
him to await the arrival at Carthage of Faust- 
us, a “‘ bishop” of the sect, who enjoyed a 
reputation for brilliant ability and learning, 
and who could be trusted to resolve all his 
doubts. But when the great Faustus appeared, 
Augustine soon discovered him to be a very 
ordinary person, “Οὗ charming manner and 
pleasant address, who said just what the others 
used to say, but in a much more agreeable 
style’? (Conf. V. iii. 6). When, after his 
addresses to the crowd, Augustine laid before 
him some of his doubts, his mediocrity was 
transparent. ‘‘He knew that he did not 
know, and was not ashamed to confess the 
fact .. . and for this I liked him all the 
better.’’ But he liked the system all the less ; 
and without formally separating from the 
Manicheans, he adopted an ‘ academic” 
suspense of judgment in regard to the opinions 
he had hitherto adopted; henceforth he held 
them provisionally, pending the discovery of 
something better (de Vit. Beat. i. 4). 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


§ 5. Rome. Philosophy (383-386).—Mainly 
in disgust at the rough and disorderly studeni 
of Carthage (Conf. V. viii.), Augustine now 
migrated to Rome. With bitter self-reproack 
he tells us of the deceit by means of which he 
left his mother, who had followed him t 
Carthage, behind (Conf. V. viii.) At Rome 
his host was a Manichean, Alypius and othe 
Manichean friends surrounded him, and i 
severe illness he received the greatest kindne 
from them all. But the students of Romed 
appointed Augustine. They were less rude, 
but also less honest, than those of Carthage, 
especially in the matter of payment of their 
fees (Conf. V. xi.). Presently (about the 
summer of 384) Symmachus, the Praefectus 
Urbi, was commissioned by the Milanese to 
find them a professor of Rhetoric. Augustine, 
by the aid of his Manichean friends, obtained 
the post, and travelled, at the public expense, 
to Milan. Here he was attracted by the elo- 
quence of Ambrose, then at the height of his 
fame, and soon made his acquaintance. “T 
began to love him, not at first as a teacher of 
the truth, which I despaired of finding in Thy 
Church, but as a fellow-creature who was kind 
tome.’’ Contemptuous of the subject-matter 
of his sermons, Augustine listened to them as 
an interested professional critic. ‘‘I cared 
not to understand what he said, but only to 
hear how he said it.’’ But it was impossible 
to keep form and substance wholly apart, and 
by degrees he began to realize that the case for 
Catholic Christianity was not wholly beneath 
discussion. This was especially the case with 
regard to the O.T., a principal target for 
Manichean ridicule. The allegorical method: 
of exegesis by which Ambrose explained every 
difficulty struck away the substratum of 
literalism upon which Manichean objections 
were based. ‘‘ For while I read those Scrip- 
tures in the letter, I was slain in the spirit. 
But though one main foundation of his Mani- 
cheism was thus giving way, the materialistic 
presuppositions remained. ‘‘ Had I been able 
to conceive of a spiritual substance, all their’ 
devices would have been broken, but this as 
yet I found impossible.’’ He remained in a 
state of suspense; his philosophic position 
was that of the ‘‘ New Academy,” one of pure’ 
negation. However, pending further light, 
he resumed the position he had occupied in 
boyhood of a catechumen in the Catholic’ 
church (Conf. V. xiv.). Alypius, who was in 
legal practice, had accompanied him to Milan, 
and presently their friend Nebridius joined 
them. Monnica, probably accompanied by 
his brother Navigius, soon followed her son to 
Milan (Conf. VI. ix.). The friends appear 
(Conf. VIII. viii.) to have hired a roomy house 
and garden. Augustine’s worldly prospects 
seemed excellent, a career of official distinction 
was opening before him (Conf. VI. xii.) ; his’ 
mother, hoping that it would lead to his bap- 
tism, encouraged him in the selection of a wife. © 
But two years had to pass before the lady was” 
of age (Conf. VI. xiii.) Meanwhile his mis- | 
tress was dismissed (ib. xv.), to his and her 
great grief, and Augustine took another. 
Augustine was now thirty years of age. He’ 
had almost wholly shaken off Manicheism, and ἡ 
was, as his mother saw, steadily gravitating | 
towards the Catholic church. His successful ἡ 


ΝΥ ΣΝ i νὰ κω... ς΄: π-  Ξν" 


a ame 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


and interesting work, honourable position, 
and delightful social surroundings made his 
lot outwardly enviable. But he pronounces, 
and apparently with some truth, that at this 

iod he touched his lowest moral level (Conf. 

T. xvii, VII. i, VIII. v.). At any rate 
the contrast between his actual life and his 
habitual idealism was never more painfully 
realized. His ideal was the philosophic life, 
and but for his matrimonial plans and his still 
active ambition, he would probably have 
joined his friends in founding a small philo- 
sophic community with a common purse and 
household (Conf. VI. xiv.; ὃ. Academ. II. 
ii. 4, de Beat. Vit. i. 4, ne in philosophiae 

ium celeriter advolarem, uxoris honor- 
isque illecebra detinebar). But his enthu- 
siasm burned low (c. Acad. 11. ii. 5), until it 
was kindled afresh by his study of the Platonic 
philosophy. A friend (apparently Theodorus, 
who became consul in 399—see Retr. I. ii. 
Displicet autem, etc., and Conf. VII. ix. 
immanissimo typho turgidum) put into his 
hands (Conf. VII. ix., de Beat. Vit. i. 4) some 
translations of the neo-Platonist authors, pro- 
bably by Victorinus. The effect was rapid 
and profound. Much Christian truth he 
found there, but not inward peace: the 
eternal Word, but not Christ the Word made 
flesh. But his flagging idealism was braced, 
he was once for all lifted out of materialism, 
and his tormenting doubts as to the origin of 
evil were laid to rest by the conviction that 
evil has its origin in the will, that evil is but 
the negation of good, and that good alone has 
a substantive existence (Conf. VII. vii. xiv.). 
His first impulse was to give up all earthly 
ties (“‘ omnesillas ancoras,’’ zt. Beat. 4), resign 
his professorship, and live for philosophy 
alone. But this he delayed to do, until, after 
his conversion, a serious lung-attack gave him 
what was now a welcome excuse (Conf. IX. 
ii., cf. Soltl. I. i. 1; c. Acad. 1.i. 3; de Beat. 
Vit. i. 4). Meanwhile he read with care the 
Epistles of St. Paul, in which he found a 
provision for the disease of sin, which he had 
vainly sought in the Platonic books. But his 
life remained unregenerate, and his distress 
thickened. He then laid his case before 
Simplicianus, the spiritual adviser, and even- 
tually the successor, of Ambrose. Simplici- 
anus described to him the conversion of the 
aged Victorinus, to whose translation of the 
Platonists he had owed so much (Conf. VIII. 
ii.). Augustine longed to follow the example 
of his public profession of faith, but the flesh 
still held him back, like a man heavy with 
drowsiness who sinks back to sleep though he 
knows that the hour for rising has struck. 
So he went on with his usual life. 

§ 6. Conversion (386-387)—One day a 
Christian fellow-townsman, Pontitianus, who 
held an appointment at court, called to 
visit Alypius. Observing with pleasure a 
volume of St. Paul's Epistles, he went on to 
talk to his friends of the wonderful history 
of the hermit Anthony, whose ascetic life had 
begun from hearing in church a passage of 
the gospel (Matt. xix. 21), on which he had 
promptly acted ; he then described the spread 
of the monastic movement, and informed his 
astonished hearers that even at Milan there 
Was ἃ monastery in existence, 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 73 


told his tale, Augustine was filled with self- 
reproach. Conscience shamed him that after 
ten years of study he was still carrying a 
burden which men wearied by no research had 
already cast aside. When Pontitianus had 
gone, he poured out his incoherent feelings to 
the astonished Alypius, and then, followed by 
his friend, fled into the garden. ‘ Let it be 
now—let it be now,’ he said to himself; but 
the vanities of his life plucked at his clothes 
and whispered, ‘‘ Do you think you can live 
without us ?’’ Then again the continence of 
the monks and virgins confronted him with 
the question, ‘*‘ Can you not do as these have 
done ?’’ Alypius watched him in silence. 
At last he broke down and, in a torrent of 
tears, left his friend alone. He threw himself 
down under a fig-tree, crying passionately, 
““Lord, how long ?—to-morrow and to-mor- 
row !—why not now?’’ Suddenly he heard 
a child’s voice from the next house repeating, 
in a sing-song voice, ‘‘ Take and read’? (folle, 
lege). He tried to think whether the words 
were used in any kind of children’s game ; but 
no, it must be a divine command to open the 
Bible and read the first verse that he should 
happen upon. He thought of Anthony and 
the lesson in church. He ran back to Alypius 
and opened ‘‘ the Apostle’”’ at Rom. xil. 13, 
14, ‘‘ Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in 
chambering and wantonness, not in strife and 
envying; but put ye on the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and make not provision for the flesh 
to fulfil the lusts thereof.’’ ‘‘ No further 
would I read, nor was it necessary.’’ The 
peace of God was in his heart, and the shadows 
of doubt melted away. He marked the pas- 
sage and told Alypius, the friends exchanged 
confidences, and Alypius applied to himself 
the words, a little further on, ‘‘ Him that is 
weak in the faith receive’? (Rom. xv. 1). 
They went in, and filled the heart of Monnica 
with joy at the news (Con/. VIII. viii.). It 
was now the beginning of the autumn vaca- 
tion. Augustine decided to resign his chair 
before the next term, and meanwhile wrote to 
Ambrose to announce his desire for baptism. 
His friend Verecundus, who was himself on 
the eve of conversion, lent his country house 
at Cassiciacum, near Milan, to Augustine and 
his party ; there they spent the vacation and 
the months which were to elapse before bap- 
tism (winter 386-387). At Cassiciacum he 
spent a restful, happy time with his mother 
and brother, his son Adeodatus, Alypius, and 
his two pupils, Licentius and Trygetius, the 
former a son of his old patron Romanianus. 
He wrote several short books here, ‘‘in a 
style which, though already enlisted in Thy 
service, still breathed, in that time of waiting, 
the pride of the School’’ (Conf. IX. iv.). 
These were the three books contra Academtcos, 
two de Ordine, the de Beata Vita, and two 
books of Soliloquies ; to this period also belong 
letters 1-4, of which 3 and 4 are the beginning 
of his correspondence with Nebridius (Con/. 
IX. iii.) Ambrose had, in answer to his re- 
quest for advice, recommended him to read 
Isaiah. But he found the first chapter so hard 
that he put it aside till he should be more 
able to enter into its meaning. The Psalms, 
however, kindled his heart at this time. To 


As Pontitianus | him, as to many in most diverse conditions, 


74 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


they seemed to interpret the depths of his 
soul and the inmost experiences of his life 
(Conf. IX. iv.). But Augustine’s main in- 
tellectual interest was still philosophical. Ex- 
cept when engaged upon the classics with his 
pupils, or on fine days in country pursuits (“‘ in 
rebus rusticis ordinandis,”’ c. Acad. 1. v. 14; cf. 
II. iv. 10), the time was spent in discussing 
the philosophy of religion and life. The above- 
mentioned books, of which those de Ordine are 
perhaps the most characteristic, are, excepting 
of course the Soliloquies, in the form of notes 
of these discussions. The time to give in his 
name for baptism was approaching, and the 
party returned to Milan. Augustine was 
baptized by Ambrose, along with his heart’s 
friend Alypius, and his son Adeodatus. The 
church music, which Milan, first of all the 
Western churches, had recently adopted from 
the East, struck deep into his soul: “‘ The tide 
of devotion swelled high within me, and the 
tears ran down, and there was gladness in 
those tears.” 

§ 7. (a) Early Christian Life. Death of 
Monnica. Return to Africa. Life as a Lay- 
man (387-391).—While waiting for baptism 
at Milan, Augustine had written a short book, 
de Immortalitate Animae, and the first part, de 
Grammatica, of a work on the “ liberal arts’”’ : 
the latter, though included by Possidius in his 
list of Augustine’s literary remains, was early 
lost by him (Retr. I. vi.). After the baptism, 
Augustine, with Alypius, and Evodius, a 
fellow-townsman, converted before Augustine 
himself, who had joined him at Milan, set out 
for Africa, with the intention of continuing 
their common life. But at Ostia, Monnica 
was seized with fever, and died “‘ in the fifty- 
sixth year of her age, and the thirty-third of 
mine.’’ Augustine’s account of her life and 
character, and of his conversations with her, 
shortly before her death, on Eternal Life, 
forms perhaps the most exquisite and touching 
part of the Confessions (IX. viii.-xiii.). He 
prayed for her soul, believing that what he 
prayed for was already performed. “ Let 
none have power to drag her away from Thy 
protection. . . . For she will not answer that 
she owes nothing, lest she should be confuted 
and seized by the crafty accuser; but she will 
answer that her debt has been forgiven by 
Him, to Whom none can give back the ransom 
which He paid on our behalf, though He owed 
it not.’’ Augustine now remained in Rome 
till the autumn of 388 (‘jam post Maximi 
tyranni mortem,” c. lit. Petil. 111. 30, cf. Retr. 
I. vii.-ix.). Of his life there, the two books 
de Mortbus Ecclesiae Catholicae et de Moribus 
Manichaeorum, the de Quantitate Animae, and 
the first of his three books de Libero Arbitrio, 
are the monument. From them we gather 
that he lived with Evodius a life of ‘‘ abun- 
dant leisure,’ entirely given to the studies 
begun at Cassiciacum. The book on the 
morals of the Manicheans, founded on his 
former converse with them at Rome (see 
above, § 5), was reserved for completion and 
publication in Africa (xii. 26). At last Augus- 
tine crossed with Alypius to Carthage (de Civ. 
XXII. viil.), and returned to Thagaste. A 
work composed by him here, de Magistro 
(Conf. IX. vi.; Retr. I. xii.), is in the form of 
a dialogue with Adeodatus, and Augustine 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


assures us that the substance of the words was — 
really from the lips of his son at the age of © 
sixteen, 2.6. not later than 388. The boy died © 
young, full of piety and promise; we do not 
know the date, but he was present at Mon-- 
nica’s death (Conf. IX. xi.), and very pro- 
bably lived to accompany his father to Atria 
At Thagaste Augustine and his friends lived 
on his paternal estate for nearly three years, 
a quiet, industrious, and prayerful life. Ne 
bridius (Ep. 5) condoles with him for having 
to giveso much time to the negotia civium; but 
evidently there was plenty of leisure for study. 
We saw above (ὃ 6) that Augustine’s studies = 
were, up to the present, philosophical rather : 
than Biblical. His ordination found him still 
but little versed in Scripture (Ep. 213). His © 
continued correspondence with Nebridius 
(Epp. 5-14) shews the continued predominance © 
of philosophical interest; the same may be ~ 
said of the writings of the period, de Genest adv. 
Manichaeos, de Musica, de Magistro, de Vera 
Religione, and parts of the Liber de Diversts | 
Quaestiontbus LXXXIII. The de Musica 
was a portion of the above-named unfinished 
work on the ‘liberal arts’’: he wrote it αἵ. 
the request of an African bishop. It is inter- 
esting as giving one side of Augustine’s view 
of secular culture, for which he claims, in the 
spirit of Plato, that if rightly used, it leads 
up to God, the underlying Truth of all things. 
The other works of this period are still per- 
vaded with the Manichean controversy. This” 
is the origin of the de Vera Religione, one of 
Augustine’s ablest works; years later (about — 
414) he refers Evodius to it for the theistic 
argument (Ep. 162, 2). There is a difference 
of opinion as to the exact time at which — 
Augustine sold his father’s estate, and as to — 
the monastic or lay character of the life at 
Thagaste. The Benedictine Life (III. ii.-v.), 
maintaining that Augustine’s settlement δὲ. 
Thagaste was strictly monastic, accounts for 
the fact that he lived on his patrimony by 
supposing that he did so as a tenant of the 
purchaser. Of this there is no evidence 
whatever. The most probable inference from 
the crucial passage (Serm. 355, 2) combined 
with the statements of Possidius, is briefly as 
follows :—Augustine and his friends lived at 
his home in Thagaste, realizing approximately 
the ideal, formed already at Milan (Conf. VI. 
xiv.), and partially realized at Cassiciacum, 
of a common life of study and detachment 
from worldly cares. The tendency to a mon- 
astic ideal was there, and as time went on, 
Augustine determined to sell his property, 
and find a home more suitable for a monastery. 
Possibly the importunate demands of his — 
fellow-citizens upon his kindness (see above) — 
made Thagaste itself unsuitable. Hand in ~ 
hand with the question of the place went the 
question of recruits. Augustine travelled to 
different places in search of a suitable site— 
avoiding towns where the see was vacant, for 
he knew that his growing fame might lead men 
tothink of him. Among other places, hecame — 
to Hippo (Bona), where he knew of a young ~ 
official whom he hoped to enlist for his — 
monastery (‘‘ juvenis veni ad istam civitatem, — 
quaerebam ubi constituerem monasterium... | 
veni ad istam civitatem propter videndum | 
amicum quem putabam lucrari me posse Deo | 


Ι AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
N% lut nobiscum esset in monasterio.’’ The 
\monasterium is clearly prospective). This was 
iprobably early in 391. Augustine had come 
i (te Hippo intending to stay no time, “ with 
© Inothing but his clothes ’’ ; but as it happened, 
i ‘he entered the church just as Valerius, the 
 laged bishop, was addressing the people on 
he necessity of choosing a new presbyter. 
ἃ /Valerius, by birth a Greek (Possid. v. ‘‘ homo 
natura Graecus’’), wanted a fluent Latin 
preacher. Augustine’s reputation had come 
before him. With one accord the people 
4 seized Augustine, and presented him to Vale- 
rius for ordination. With sincere reluctance 
nd many tears Augustine yielded; Hippo 
became his home, and the Christian ministry 
his calling. Knowing of his plans, Valerius 
gave him a monastertum in the episcopal 
gardens. He had possibly already sold his 
small estate at Thagaste; if not, he did so 
now: the proceeds were spent on the poor of 
that place, and the people of Hippo approved 
and felt no jealousy (see Ep. 1267, 157%"). 
He assembled in his monastery a number of 
brethren like-minded, each with nothing of 
his own and all things common; above all, 
the common aim, “ἡ commune nobis ut esset 
magnum et uberrinum praedium ipse Deus.”’ 
(δ) Augustine a Presbyter of Hippo (391- 
395)-—Augustine at the time of his ordi- 
nation as presbyter (he does not appear 
to have passed, as Ambrose had formally 
done, through the diaconate) was a Christian 
Platonist. His temper was_ absolutely 
| Christian, his stock of ideas wholly Platonic. 
| He had used the Bible devotionally rather 
| than worked at its theology. Fully conscious 
οὗ this, he obtained from his bishop a short 
Ft period of leisure in order to master the mini- 
-|mum of Scriptural knowledge necessary for 
|the discharge of his office (Ep. 21). At 
| Easter, 391, he was entrusted with the 
traditio symbolt. His addresses to the candi- 
dates for baptism on that occasion are still 
extant (Serm. 214-216). He was, in fact, 
soon full of work. His monastery, the first 
in Africa (see below, § 15), became a training- 
school for clergy. Possidius tells us of ten 
bishops who proceeded from it. Among the 
earliest were Alypius, who in 394 went to 
Thagaste, and Evodius, to Uzala. Possidius 
himself became bp. of Calamus, but appears 
to have spent much of his time at Hippo, 
which was only some forty miles away. 
Moreover, the example of the monastic life 
spread rapidly (Ep. 24, sub fin.); before 
Augustine died, there were at least three 
monasteries in Hippo alone (Vit. Ben. III. v. 
4). Of his life as a presbyter we know few 
details. He corresponds with Aurelius, the 
new bp. of Carthage, with a view to putting 
down the disorderly feasts over the tombs of 
the martyrs (Epp. 22, 29; Conf. V. ii.). At 
the end of Aug. 392, he held a public dis- 
cussion for two days with Fortunatus, a 
Manichean presbyter, the notes of which re- 
main. Possidius tells us that as the result 
Fortunatus left Hippo and never returned. 
In 393 a general council of African bishops met 
at Hippo, and Augustine preached to them 
de Fide et Symbolo (one of his best-known 
shorter works); he also mentions (Retr. I. 
23) a stay at Carthage which must have been 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 75 


of some length, as it was there that he held 
his epoch-marking discussions of difficulties 
in the Ep. to the Romans, and at the re- 
quest of his friends committed the results to 
writing (see below, ὃ 10). We know that a 
council was held at Carthage in 394: pos- 
sibly that may have been the occasion of his 
presence. The Manichean controversy still 
claimed his energies. In addition to the 
public discussions already referred to, he 
wrote at this time the famous tract de Utilitate 
Credendi; another, de Duabus Animabus, a 
tract against the Manichean Adimantus; and 
theimperfect work de Genest ad Literam, a work 
which he abandoned, as he felt his novice- 
hand unequal to the task (Retr. I. xviii. ; 
see below, ὃ 14). A new task, imposed upon 
him by his official responsibilities, was the 
controversy with the Donatists (see below, 
§ 8). Early in his presbyterate he wrote to a 
neighbouring bishop of that sect to remon- 
strate with him for rebaptizing (Ep. 23). He 
also composed, for popular use, an acrostic 
song in refutation of the sect (about 394: 
Psalmus contra partem Donati), and a tract, 
now lost, contra Epistolam Donatt. To this 
period, lastly, belong a group of exegetical 
works which shew a rapid advance in the 
command of Holy Scripture, the fruit of 
systematic study: an exposition of the Ser- 
mon on the Mount, a commentary on Gala- 
tians, some of the Quaestiones LXXXIII. 
(supra, § 7a), and the above-mentioned notes 
on Romans. He began a continuous commen- 
tary on the Epistle, but only succeeded in 
completing the Salutation. The de Mendacto 
(see Retr. I. xxvii.) was also written at this 
period, but its issue was deferred till about 
420, when the contra Mend. was also published 
(Retry. 11. Ix.): Generally speaking, the works 
of this transition period are remarkable for the 
supersession of the philosophical form of the 
older works by Biblical, and to a great extent 
Pauline, categories. The philosophical sub- 
stratum of Platonism remains, but Augustine 
is now a Biblical and ecclesiastical theologian. 
(For a detailed analysis of the ideas distinctive 
of this and the preceding periods respectively, 
see the masterly article of Loofs, mentioned 
at the end of this article, pp. 270-276.) Lastly, 
it was as a presbyter that he completed his 
three books de Libero Arbitrio (supra, ὃ 7a): 
they were directed against the Manichean 
theory of the origin of evil (supra, ὃ 4), and 
vindicate the moral responsibility of man 
against the theory of a physical principle of 
evil. othe position taken up in these books 
the Pelagians (infra, § 10) appealed, against 
Augustine’s later doctrine of irresistible grace. 
Augustine has no difficulty in shewing that 
he had even at this early date refuted them by 
anticipation. But it was less easy to meet 
the appeal of the so-called semi- Pelagians (see 
below, § rod), who were on the side of the 
church against Pelagius, but demurred to 
positions taken up by Augustine later in life. 
Of personal interest is Augustine’s correspond- 
ence with the saintly Paulinus of Nola, to 
whom he sent the books on Free Will. 
Paulinus had heard of the growing fame of 
Augustine, and sought his acquaintance by 
letters addressed to Alypius and to Augustine 
himself (Epp. 24-27, 30-32). Augustine at this 


76 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 

period also began to correspond with Jerome 
(Fp. 28); in a letter of about this date he 
indignantly rejects the theory that the scene 
at Antioch between SS. Paul and Peter was 
to be explained patrocinium mendacit sus- 
ctptiendo. 

B. Episcopate (from 395).—§ 8. The Don- 
atist Controversy. (a) Ovigin.—Valerius was 
old and infirm, and had marked out Augustine 
as his successor. But he daily feared that 
some other church might elect him as bishop, 
and that he would therefore be lost to Hippo. 
So, with the eager consent of his flock, he 
took a step then almost without precedent, 
and, unconsciously breaking the letter of the 
eighth canon of Nicaea, induced Megalius 
of Calama, the “ὁ primae sedis Episcopus,”’ 
1.6. bishop senior by consecration in Numidia, 
to consecrate Augustine as his coadjutor with 
right of succession. Valerius had (Possid. 
viii.) privately gained the consent of Aurelius, 
bp. of Carthage; Megalius made some per- 
sonal objections, which he subsequently 
withdrew (references in Vzt. Ben. IV. i. 2). 
Valerius did not long survive the fulfilment of 
his hopes and prayers ; for nearly thirty-five 
years Augustine was bp. of Hippo. His 
episcopate was occupied by grave controver- 
sies, and productive of monumental works ; 
but it was not eventful as regards Augustine’s 
personal history. It will be best, therefore, 
to deal with it, not by annalistic narrative, 
but by considering in turn the great questions 
with which Augustine had to deal. We have 
spoken sufficiently of the Manichean contro- 
versy. Asa bishop (about 397-400) Augustine 
wrote against these heretics the tracts c. Ep. 
Fundamentt and de Agone Christiano. The 
Confessions, written about this time, give an 
insight into Augustine’s personal experiences 
of Manicheism (see above, §§ 2, 4). About 
400 he refuted, in thirty-three short books, a 
treatise by his old Manichean friend Faustus ; 
at the end of 404 (Retr. II. viii., cf. Ep. 29) 
he held a public discussion with a Manichean 
named Felix, and as a result penned the short 
tract de Natura Bont. Somewhat later he was 
brought into controversy with the Manichean 
“auditor’’ Secundianus. Of his reply he says, 
“omntbus, quae adversus tllam pestem scribere 
potut, facile praepono.”’ These are writings 
drawn out by occasional contact with a con- 
troversy which Augustine had outgrown. It 
was otherwise with the Donatist struggle, 
which pressed continually upon him for the 
first twenty years of his episcopate. As we 
have seen, it claimed some of his energy 
already as a presbyter. But it may fairly be 
called the one great question of his earlier 
episcopate. According to Possidius, the 
Donatists were at the time of Augustine’s 
ordination a majority among the Christians 
of the African provinces ; at Hippo they were 
a very large majority, and terrorized the 
Catholics by exclusive dealing (c. Duas Lit. 
Pettl. 11. 184). The schism had existed since 
about 311, when Caecilianus was elected bp. 
of Carthage. Personal dislike to the election 
found a pretext for denying its validity. 
Felix of Aptunga, his consecrator, was alleged 
to have been a traditor—i.e. to have given up 
the sacred books during persecution. This, it 
was argued, vitiated his power to give valid 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


Orders. For to communicate with an offend 
is to take part in his offence; and Felix’ 
offence, tpso facto, cut him off from the 
church. Like Cyprian, the opponents of 
Caecilianus denied the validity of any sacra- 
ment conferred outside the church. These 
two principles, then, wereinvolved: firstly, the 
old Cyprianic denial of the validity of sacra 
ments conferred by heretical (or schismatical) 
hands; secondly, the nullity of sacraments 
performed by unworthy mimtsters: ‘“ oleum 
peccatoris non impinguet caput meum 
(Ps. cxl. 5, Vulg.). The question at issue, 
then, was really that of the essential nature of” 
the church as a holy society (see Reuter, pp. 236 
sqq. note 2). The Catholics, inreply, insist on 
the fact that the church throughout the world 
is on their side, and that the Donatists are, 
by their separation, offenders against the bond 
of charity which maintains the peace and 
unity of the church: ‘‘ Una est columba mea, — 
speciosa mea’’ (Cant. vi. 9). + 
(b) Earlier History of Donatists.—It is not 
necessary here to detail the phases through 
which the controversy had passed in the nearly 
three generations which preceded the episco-— 
pate of Augustine, nor to unravel the intricate 
charges and counter-charges which encumber 
the real principles at issue. The principal 
landmarks in the question were : (1) The appeal 
to Constantine, apparently first made by the 
Donatists, which resulted in the adverse 
decisions of the councils of Rome (313) and 
Arles (314). (2) The consecration of Ma- 
jorinus as bp. of Carthage in opposition to — 
Caecilianus (311). He died in 315, and was 
succeeded by Donatus, a man of great energy, ° 
to whom the schism probably owes its name. — 
(3) Imperial persecution of the Donatists, 
first by Constantine in 316, and then, after an 
attempt to bribe the Donatists into submission _ 
(340), a ruthless suppression by Constans im 
347. This was successful in producing tem- / 
porary submission, but it intensified the feeling © 
of protest ; moreover, the fanatical ferocity © 
of the ‘‘ Circumcellions,’”’ which Constantine’s 
first persecuting edict had evoked, was 
smouldering in readiness to break out again. 
(4) Return of the Donatists under Julian. 
In 361, agreeably to his general policy of the 
restoration of ecclesiastical exiles, Julian re- © 
pealed his predecessor’s measures against the | 
Donatists, and during his short reign they — 
exercised a violent supremacy in Africa. (5) | 
Optatus and Parmenian. Donatus had died 
in exile, and was now succeeded by Parmeni- — 
anus, an able and comparatively moderate | 
man. With him begins the first phase of the © 
literary debate between Donatists and Catho- 
lics. The opponent of Parmenianus was Op- © 
tatus of Milevis, who wasstill living after 384. | 
His work on the Donatist schism is a rich — 
mine of materials for its history. It is to be 
noted that Parmenianus and Optatus both 
believe in the visible unity of the church. | 
But Parmenianus, insisting on the holiness of — 
the church, identifies it with the separatist 
body in Africa, while Optatus insists upon © 
the Catholicity of the church, and upon its 
A postolicity as tested by communion with the 
chair of St. Peter and with the seven churches © 
of the Apocalypse. (6) Disintegration of 
Donatism. This began to be apparent in the 


—— 


δι 
« 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


. 
| auretanian schism of Rogatus, whose fol- 
bwers unchurched the other Donatists, and 
lepudiated the Circumcellions ; in the moder- 
Ate Donatism of Tyconius (the author of a 
Work on exegesis, of which Augustine speaks 
highly, de Doctr. Chr. 111. xxx.), who exposed 
he inconsistencies of the Donatist position, 
| nd was consequently excommunicated by 
Parmenianus; and lastly, in the formidable 
Maximianist schism of 393, which resulted in 
he election of a second Donatist bishop, 
faximianus, at Carthage, in opposition to 
mianus, the successor of Parmenianus. 
Dyer roo bishops sided with Maximianus; a 
souncil of 310 Donatist bishops in 394 decided 
gainst him. The civil authority was then 
nvoked against the dissidents, who were per- 
ted with the usual severity. 
Meanwhile the council of Hippo in 393 
supra, § 76) had, by judicious reforms and 
sonciliatory provisions, paved the way back 
ὁ the church for any Donatists who might 
»e disillusioned by the inward breakdown of 
he sect. But its external position was still 
mposing. Edicts issued against the Dona- 
tists (since 373, Cod. Theod. XVI. vi.) by 
alentinian and Gratian had had, owing to the 
state of the empire, but little effect. The 
edict of Theodosius against heretics (392, Cod. 
heod. XVI. v.) was not enforced against 
hem; in fact, from some time previous to 
he death of Theodosius in 395 till 398 the 
-iimperial writ did not run in the African 
provinces. 
(c) Augustine and Donatism. — When 
\Stilicho recovered Africa for Honorius from 
‘the usurper Gildo, Augustine had been a 
‘|bishop seven years. He had preached, cor- 
responded, and written actively against the 
_|Donatists, who had heard his sermons and 
read his tracts in great numbers. Their 
leaders had realized that they were now op- 
by a champion of unexampled power, 
and endeavoured to keep their publications 
from falling into his hands. His earliest epis- 
copal work, contra Partem Donati,islost. But 
in 400 he wrote a reply to an old letter of 
Parmenianus, and the seven books de Bapt. 
c. Donat. In 401 and 402 he replied to a 
letter of Petilianus, the Donatist bp. of Cirta, 
and wrote his letter to the Catholics, de Unitate 
Ecclesiae, an important contribution to the 
controversy. In 403 the Catholic bishops in 
| synod at Carthage agreed to propose a decisive 
conference ; the Donatists declined, and in 404 
the Catholic synod determined to ask for a 
_ | revival of the imperial laws against the schism. 
| From 405-409 the remedy of force was once 
more tried, with very partial success. In the 
latter year the Catholic synod petitioned 
_| Honorius to order a conference, and as the 
| Donatists were now understood to agree, 
_ | Mareellinus, a ‘‘ tribune,” was specially com- 
_ | missioned to arrange for the meeting. At the 
| conference Augustine naturally played the 


{ 


cipal part on the Catholic side. Marcel- 
us closed the proceedings by giving judg- 
ment in favour of the Catholics, and in 412 
this was followed up by an imperial edict of 
drastic severity. 

During this period Augustine wrote, in 
_ | addition to twenty-one extant letters on the 
ΟῚ controversy, and four lost works, the following, 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 77 


which we still have: four books contra 
Crescontum; one de Unico Baptismo, the Bre- 
viculus Collationts (a report of the conference 
mentioned above), and a book contra Donatis- 
tas post Collationem. After 412, physical force 
had to some extent diminished the need for 
argument. A few more letters—an address 
to the people at Caesarea (Algiers), a public 
discussion with Emeritus, on Sept. 20, 418, 
two books contra Gaudentium (a Donatist 
bishop, c. 420)—are the remains of a waning 
controversy. Fora fuller account of the history, 
and of the contents of some of Augustine's 
anti-Donatist writings, see art. DoNaTisM, 
D.C. B. (4-vol. ed.). 

It remains to gather up briefly the import- 
ance of the controversy in Augustine’s life and 
thought. So far as Donatism fell before ar- 
gument, its fall was the work of Augustine. 
But what was the reflex effect of the contro- 
versy upon Augustine himself? Augustine 
was the first Christian writer who made the 
church, as such, the subject of systematic 
thought. But this was not wholly the result 
of the Donatist crisis. He fought Donatism 
in part with arguments which had been current 
for over two generations of the controversy, 
and which we find less lucidly formulated in 
Optatus, partly with conceptions which his 
own personal history and reflections had im- 
pressed upon his mind before he came into the 
conflict. The utmost that can justly be said 
—but that much is important—is that the 
Donatist conflict crystallized ideas which 
needed a shock of the kind to bring them into 
clear shape and form. It was beside the 
purpose to insist, as Cyprian had done, upon 
the episcopate, which the Donatists possessed, 
or upon the unity of the church, which they 
claimed for themselves. The question at issue 
went behind these points to the spiritual 
conditions necessary to the saving efficacy of 
means of grace. This exists, argued Augustine, 
only in the Catholic church. The baptism 
and orders of the Donatists were valid sacra- 
mentally, but useless spiritually. In a sense, 
the Holy Spirit operates in schismatical sacra- 
ments, so that a convert to the Catholic church 
will not be re-baptized or re-ordained. But it 
is only in the Catholic church that the Spirit 
operates, as the Spirit of peace and love. ‘** Non 
autem habent Dei caritatem qui ecclesiae non 
diligunt unitatem ; ac per hoc rece intelligitur 
dici non accipi nist in Catholica Spiritus 
Sanctus”’ (de Bapt. 111. xvi.). Augustine 
formulates with a clearness not found in any 
previous writer the distinction between what 
in later times was called the ‘“ gratia gratis 
data,’’ which confers status only (the indelible 
‘character ’’ of a ‘‘ baptizatus’’ or a priest), 
without any necessary change in the moral 
or spiritual character; and “ gratia gratum 
faciens,’”? which makes a man not only ἃ mem- 
ber of the visible church, but a real member 
of Christ, not merely a priest, but a good 
priest. This distinction was hardly perceived 
by Cyprian (see Cypr. Epp. 65-67, esp. 66: 
‘“ceredere quod indigni . . . sint qui ordinan- 
tur quid aliud est quam contendere quod non 
a Deo. . . . sacerdotes ejus in ecclesia con- 
stituantur ?’’), who regarded a deposed bishop 
as a mere layman with but ‘*‘ the empty name 
and shadow ”’ of priesthood. The recognition 


78 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


of the validity of Donatist orders and sacra- 
ments was imposed upon Augustine by the 
settled judgment of the Catholic church, 
especially of the council of Arles, in 314 (Can. 
xiii., cf. viii., rejecting the Cyprianic view). 
But he clearly found it difficult to grasp 
habitually the distinction between the 
“ Spiritus Sanctus,’ the agent im every 
“‘ valid’ sacrament (=“‘ gratia gratis data’’), 
and the “ Spiritus caritatis,’’ which makes the 
sacrament a means of grace ("ἢ gratum 
faciens’’) to the Catholic recipient. His fre- 
quent denials that ‘‘ the Holy Spirit ”” could 
be possessed outside the visible unity of the 
church relate really to the latter, though 
there are passages which seem to extend to 
the former. But on the whole his mind is 
clear. He distinguishes sharply between 
Office and Person; between the sacramental 
act and its benefit to the soul. The former 
can exist outside the Catholic church, the 
latter only within it. In this respect Augus- 
tine is an uncompromising assertor of Cyprian’s 
axiom, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But it 
must be observed that he subordinates the 
institutional to the spiritual conception of the 
church. The Donatists are wrong, because 
they have broken the bond of caritas which 
unites the Catholic society. It is this, and 
not the mere fact, necessary though it be, of 
the episcopal succession, that unites Catholics 
with the Apostolic churches and through 
them by an ‘‘inconcussa series’’ with the 
Apostles themselves. (See below, § 16, (Ds (BE 
also Gore, The Church and the Ministry, latter 
part of c. iii.; Hatch, Organzzation, v-; Reuter, 
pp- 231-283, an able and thorough discussion.) 

§ 9. Augustine and the Heathen. Philosophy 
of History.—Augustine tells us (de Civ. Det, 
XVIII. liii. 2) of an oracle current among the 
heathen, that the Christian religion would last 
365 years, and then come to an end. He 
reckons that this time expired in the year 399. 
As a matter of fact, the year in question was 
marked by a widespread destruction of pagan 
temples throughout the Roman world (Vit. 
Bened. lV. xvi.). In this year apparently the 
counts Gaudentius and Jovius arrived in 
Africa to execute an imperial decree for the 
dismantling of the temples. At Carthage the 
splendid temple of Dea Coelestis, which had 
been closed, as it seems, since the law of 391 
(Cod. Th. XVI. x. 10), and was already over- 
grown with weeds and bushes, was taken 
possession of by the Christians. But in 421 it 
was razed to the ground (Prosper, de Praed. 
111. xxxviii.). In some places images were 
hidden to preserve them from destruction. 
Heathen customs, as we gather from a sermon 
of Augustine (Serm. 62, 4), were still secretly 
observed even by some Christians. A council 
at Carthage in 401 petitioned the emperor to 
abolish public feasts and games which were, 
in spite of a previous imperial prohibition 
(Cod. Th. 1b. 17), occasions of heathenish 
observances. The destruction of a statue of 
Hercules at Colonia Suffectana (? Sufetula) 
was the cause of a riot in which sixty Christians 
lost their lives (Ep. 50). In 407-408 a sweep- 
ing law, confiscating temples and ordering the 
destruction of altars, images, etc., was issued 
(Cod. Th. ib. 19, cf. Vit. Bened. VI. iv. 2, 
ν. 3). Its promulgation was attended by most 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 1 


serious riots at Calama, where the church was 
repeatedly wrecked by the heathen (Ep. 90 
ΟἹ, 103, 104). The murder of Stilicho (Sept: 
408), and the rumours that the laws against 
the heathen and the Donatists passed during 
his life lapsed with his death, caused a furt 
widespread outburst of heathen violence 
Africa (cf. Cod. Th. App. Sirm. XIV.; A 
Ep. 97). A stringent law, passed apparently 
at the instance of the provincial council a 
Carthage, of which Augustine was not a 
member, ordered rigorous penalties against 
all the offenders, and against conniving οἷς 
ficials. Alarmed by the state of the empire, 
the ministers of Honorius appear to have 
relaxed for a time the rigour of the laws 
against paganism and heresy alike, but at the 
urgent request of the African bishops they 
were again strictly enforced. On the whole 
Augustine’s tone and attitude towards the 
pagans is dignified and conciliatory (Epp. 133, 
etc.), but he shares in the general responsibility 
for persecution which must be allotted to the 
churchmen of this degenerate age. 

In 408 and 409 the Goths, under Alaric, had 
laid siege to Rome, and after long and fruitless 
negotiations, the city was taken and sacked! 
on Aug. 24, 410. The sack of Rome, in it 
direct effects, was but an incident in the pro- 
found abasement of the empire in the miser- 
able reign of Honorius. But the downfall of 
the ‘‘ Eternal City ’’ struck awe into the minds 
of men who failed to appreciate the material 
and moral exhaustion which the disaster 
merely symbolized. Augustine’s friend Mar- 
cellinus, the imperial officer who had been in 
charge of the conference with the Donatists, 
introduced him to a distinguished (‘ illustris ”’) 
official, Volusianus, who was kept back from 
the Christian faith by difficulties relating to the 
Old Testament, the Incarnation, and the in- 
compatibility of some principles of the Gospel 
with civil life and the public good (Epp. 135- 
138, cf. 132). The last-named question natur- 
ally connected itself with the prevalent 
heathen explanation of the fall of Rome, a 
due to the desertion of the old gods and the 
progress of Christianity. Augustine, unable 
at the time to discuss this question except 
in passing (Ep. 1381, 9-16, cf. 1368), presently 
began a more thorough consideration of i 
This is his famous treatise de Czvitate Det, 
begun about the end of 412, and not com- 
pleted until 426. The first two books are 
addressed to Marcellinus, who was put to 
death, Sept. 13, 413; with a third book, they 
were published before 415. In this year, 
about Lent, he wrote two more (Ep. 169") 
In 416-417, when he was advising Orosius to’ 
write his Historia adversus Paganos, Augustine 
had published ten books, and was at work on 
the eleventh. By 420 he had published four 
teen; the eighteenth was finished ‘‘ nearly 
thirty years’ after the consulate of Theodorus 
(399), 1.6. hardly earlier than 426. The work 
then was continued amid interruptions, and 
the plan widened out from a refutation of the 
heathen calumny (εἶν. 11. xliii.) to ἃ compre- 
hensive explanation of the course of human 
affairs—a religious philosophy of history. 

The problem was one of terrible actuality.’ 
The ancient world and its civilization were in’ 
real truth breaking up, and the end of Rome’ 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


seemed like a giving way of the solid earth 
beneath men’s feet. Lesser men were moved 
to write: Orosius, mentioned above, in 417, 
and Salvian, whose lurid indictment of the 
sins of the Christian world (de Gubernatione 
Det) was penned in 451, four years before the 
jsack of Rome by Gaiseric. But it was 
Augustine who brought the problem under a 
single master-idea. This idea (which occurs 
already in de Catech. Rud., written as early 
as A.D. 400) is that of the two ctuttates, which, 
\after a refutation of paganism as_ useless 
alike in this world (I.-V.) and in the next 
(VI.-X.), are treated of constructively in the 
jremainder of the work, in respect of their 
origin (XI.-XIV.), history (XV.-XVIII.), and 
destiny (XIX.-XXII.).. The work would 
have gained by condensation, but as it stands, 
with all the marks of discontinuous produc- 
tion, it is a priceless legacy of Augustine’s 
most characteristic thoughts (on Ep. 102, 


about 409, see below, ὃ 16a). By the word 
civitas, commonly rendered “‘ city,’’ Augustine 
means rather a bond of union, or citizenship 
(ef. Philipp. iii. 20 Gk., “ἀπο quaedam genera 
humanae societatatts’’ XIV. i., the ‘‘ civitas’”’ 
takes visible form in the shape of a government, 
but its essential character is in the spirit that 
animates it). There are then two, and only 
two, civitates, the one heavenly, the other 
earthly. The civitas terrena began with the 
fall of the angels, was continued by that of 
man, in the history of the Cainites, of Babel, 
and of the great world-empires. The civttas 
Dei began with Creation ; its earthly realiza- 
| tion is traceable in the history of the Sethites, 


| of Noah, Abraham, Israel, of Christ, and of His 


| people. The one is rooted in love of God, 
| usque ad contemptum sui ; the other in love of 
self, usque ad contemptum Det. The chief good 
of the one is the pax coelestis (XIX. 13), that of 
the other, the pax terrena. The great empires 
are, in their genesis, the State is per se (remota 
justitia), ‘“‘latrocintum magnum’”’ (IV. 4). 
So that, looked upon in the abstract, since 
there are but two civitates, the state is the 
civitas diaboli, the church the civitas Det. 
But this conclusion is not, thus baldly 
stated, that of Augustine. To begin with, his 
conception of the church (see §§ 8, 16, b, c) 
is not consistent. Does he mean the visible 
church, the communio externa, or the com- 
munio sanctorum, the number of those pre- 
destined to life, to which not all belong who 
are members of the visible church, and to 
which some belong who are not ἢ Augustine’s 
language on this point is not always uniform. 
But at the time when he wrote the de Civitate, 
the predestinarian idea was growing upon him, 
and the two civitates tend to coincide with 
the predestined on the one hand, and, on 
the other, the rest of mankind. Again, the 
visible church, even apart from its merely 
nominal members, is but part of a larger whole, 
but the empirical shadow of a transcendent 
reality, the civitas superna, which includes 
angels as well as redeemed humanity (XI. 7). 
And in its earthly visible existence the church 
borrows the form of the earthly state (XV. 2). 
Again, historically, the two civitates are 
gled together and interpenetrate. More- 
over, the church needs the pax terrena, and 


| which illustrates the de Crv., and was written | 


|separated, is the destruction of 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 79 


is dependent for it on the ctvitas terrena (XIX. 
17, cf. ‘‘ per jura regum possidentur posses- 
siones,’”’ in Joh. Tr. VI. 15) ; practically for all 
civil purposes the churchman must obey the 
law. But, onthe other hand, the ctvttas terrena 
cannot attain its chief good, the pax lerrena, 


/unless heavenly motives are brought to bear ; 


for the social bond of caritas, for the elemen- 
tary requisite of justitia, it is dependent upon 
the ctuvitas Det. 

The destiny of the civttas terrena, therefore, 
when at the Judgment the two are finally 
its social 
bond; it will cease to be a ctvttas at all. 
There is, then, if we look at things in their 
eternal aspect, only one ctvitas, and, applying 
the ideal to the empirical, the state (qua good, 
t.e.if Christian) isin thechurch. Optatus had 
said (de Schism. III. 3) ‘‘ Ecclesia in Imperio.” 
Augustine reverses this relation: ‘‘ Dominus 
jugo suo im gremto ecclestae toto orbe diffuso 
omnia terrena regna subjecit.’’ The state is 
in the church, and is bound to carry out the 
church’s aims. The subject of ‘‘ Church and 
State ’’ was not the theme of the book, and it 
is not easy to extract from it a strictly consis- 
tent theory of their relations (see Reuter, pp. 
125-150, 380-392). But these relations were 
the question of the future, and in the de 
Civitate Augustine laid the theoretical founda- 
tion for the medieval system (see also below, 
ὃ 16 ad fin.). The modifying ideas alluded 
to above were not forgotten, but their asser- 
tion was the work of the opponents of the 
medieval hierocracy; and Dante, de Mon- 
archia, is practically a reversal of the charac- 
teristic doctrine of the de Civitate Det, after 
that doctrine, tested by being put into prac- 
tice, has been found to lead to unchristian 
results. One unchristian corollary of Augus- 
tine’s doctrine was the persecution of heretics 
as a duty of the Christian state. In his earlier 
days Augustine disapproved of this (contr. 
Ep. Man. 1-3; Ep. 23, 73 93, 2} 5; etc:) ; 
but the stress of the Donatist controversy 
changed his mind; in the interest of the 
doubtful, the weak, the generations to come, 
he found a sanction for persecution in St. 
Luke xiv. 23: Cogite intrare. 

§ το. The Pelagian Controversy (412-430).— 
Augustine, in his first days as a Christian, held 
the common view that, while the grace of God 
is necessary to the salvation of man, the first 
step, the act of faith, by which man gains 
access to grace, is the act of man, and not 
itself the gift of God (de Praed. 111. 7). This 
view is manifest in the Expos. Propos. in Rom. 
13-18, 55, etc., and traceable in de Quaest. 
LXXXIII., qu. 68 and 83). Hecame to see 
that faith itself is the gift of God, and that 
the very first step to Godward must be of 
God’s doing, not of our own. This conviction 
was not due to reaction against Pelagianism ; 
on the contrary, Pelagius himself was roused 
to contradiction by Augustine’s language in 
his Confessions : ‘‘ Domine da quod jubes”’ (see 
de Don. Persev. 53). Augustine’s change of 
mind was directly and wholly due to his study 
of St. Paul (see above, ὃ 76); partly his 
wrestling with the difficulties of the Ep. to 
the Romans; but especially his reflection on 
St. Paul’s question (I. Cor. iv. 7), ‘‘ What 
hast thou that thou hast not received ?’”’ 


80 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


coupled with Rom. ix. 16. The change may 
be assigned to the year 396, when, in the first 
book, he wrote as a bishop (de Divers. Quaest. 
ad Simplic. 1.), as he says (Retr. 11. i. 1), “‘to 
solve this question, we laboured in the cause 
of the freedom of the human will, but the 
grace of God won the day”’ (cf. de Don. Pers. 
52, plentus sapere coepi). To Simplicianus he 
says, I. ii. 13: ‘‘ If it is in man’s own power 
not to obey the call, it would be equally correct 
to say, ‘Therefore it is not of God that 
sheweth mercy, but of man that runs and 
wills,’ because the mercy of Him that calls 
does not suffice, unless the obedience of him 
who is called results. . . . God shews mercy 
on no man in vain; but on whom He has 
mercy, him He calls in such sort as He knows 
to be fitted for him [congruere], so that He does 
not reject him that calleth.’”’ Here we have 
the essential of the ‘‘ Augustinian ’’ doctrine 
of grace, the distinction of the vocatio congrua 
and vocatio non congrua (‘ Illi enim elects qui 
congruenter vocati’’), formulated more than 
fifteen years before the Pelagian controversy 
began (see also Loofs, pp. 279-280, who shews 
in detail that Augustine’s whole later position 
is virtually contained in de Div. Quaest. ad Sim- 
plician.). For the details of this controversy, 
see the church histories; D. C. B. (4-vol. 
ed.), s.v.; Bright, Introd. to Anti-Pelagian 
Treatises, and other authorities. (A lucid 
summary in Gibson, XXXIX. Articles, art. 
ix.) It will suffice here to mention the main 
outlines. 

(a) 410-417.—PELAGIuS, offended at a pas- 
sage in Augustine’s Confessions (see above), 
began at Rome (405-409) to express his dis- 
approval of such an insistence upon Divine 
grace as should undermine human responsi- 
bility. Before the siege of Rome (supra, § 9) 
he left with his friend Coelestius for Africa ; 
there Pelagius left Coelestius, and went to 
Palestine. Coelestius sought ordination at 
Carthage, and thus attracted additional atten- 
tion to his doctrines. A council of bishops 
in 412 condemned him; he went away to 
Ephesus, and there he was ordained. Subse- 
quently he went to Constantinople and (417) 
to Rome. Meanwhile, opposed by Jerome in 
Palestine, Pelagius was found not guilty of 
heresy by John, bp. of Jerusalem, and by 
councils at Jerusalem and Diospolis (415). 
He dispatched to Rome (417) a confession 
of faith to be submitted to Innocentius: it 
arrived after that bishop’s death. Coelestius 
shortly afterwards (still in 417) arrived at 
Rome, and submitted his confession of faith 
to the new bp. Zosimus. Augustine appears 
to have been partly aware of the opinions of 
Pelagius before his arrival in Africa (see de 
Gest. Pel. 46; also probably through Paulinus 
of Nola, see de Grat. Christi, 38), but he appears 
to have attached little importance to them at 
the time; and the arrival of Pelagius found 
him in the very thick of other questions (see 
above, §§ 8, 9). He alludes to the Pelagian 
doctrines (without any mention of names) in 
preaching (Serym. 170, 174, 175), but took no 
part in the proceedings at Carthage in 412. 
But his friend Marcellinus (supra, § 9) pressed 
him for his opinion upon the questions there 
discussed, and his first anti-Pelagian writings 
(A.D. 412, de Pecc. Meritis et Remiss. lib. III., 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUs 


and de Spiritu et Litera) were addressed to 
him. In 415 he wrote de Natura et Gratia, 
and probably the tract, in the form of a letter to 
Eutropius and Paulus, de Perfectione J ustitiae 
Hominis, in refutation of the propositions of 
Coelestius in 412; in 417 he wrote de Gestis 
Pelagti, a discussion of the proceedings in 
Palestine above referred to. Augustine and 
the African bishops, who had been represented 
in Palestine not only by Jerome, but by 
Orosius, fresh from Hippo, were naturally 
dismayed at what had happened there. They 
knew that Pelagius and Coelestius were likely 
to address themselves to Rome, where they 
had a strong following (Ep. 177, 2). Accord- 
ingly councils at Carthage and at Milevis, at 
the latter of which Augustine was present, — 
wrote to urge Innocentius to support then 
against the “‘ alleged’”’ decision of the Pales- — 
tinian councils, either by reclaiming the heretics 
or by adding the authority of his see to their 
condemnation. A letter carefully explaining — 
the doctrinal issue was also sent by Aurelius 
of Carthage, Augustine, Alypius, Possidius, Ὁ 
and Evodius (see above, §§ 6, 7). Augustine — 
certainly drew up the latter two (Epp. 176, 
177), and his inspiration is also manifest in 
the Carthaginian letter. Innocent, unable to — 
conceal his satisfaction at so important an 
appeal to his authority (he assumes that the © 
African bishops, though they do not refer to 
them, are not unacquainted with the ‘ in-— 
stituta patrum,” which direct that nothing © 
shall be done in any province of the church — 
without reference to the Apostolic See; Epp. — 
18r', 1827; see below, ὃ 12, 6), responded 
cordiaily with a prompt condemnation οὗ 
Pelagianism, root and branch. Augustinewas — 
triumphant. lhe unfortunate proceedings οὗ 
Diospolis were more than neutralized. Preach- 
ing on Sunday, Sept. 23, 417, he savs: ‘‘ Jam 
enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt δά 
sedem Apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta 
venerunt. Causa finita est; utinam  ali- 
quando finiatur error’’ (Serm. 131). But the 
author of the rescripta was already dead six — 
months before, and there was need of another — 
council. The cause was not “‘ finished’”’ yet. — 
(δ) Zosimus. Julian (418-430).—Zosimus, 
the new bp. of Rome (see D. C. B. 4-vol. 
ed. s.v.), was favourably impressed with the 
confessions of faith submitted by Pelagius — 
and Coelestius, as well as by their deference — 
to his authority. He pronounced them ortho- — 
dox, and twice wrote indignantly to Aurelius — 
and the Africans for their hasty condemnation — 
of the accused in their absence. He adds that — 
he has admonished Coelestius and others to ἢ 
abstain from curious and unedifying questions. 
But the original accusers of Pelagius were — 
unmoved. After some correspondence with — 
Zosimus they held a plenary council at Car- — 
thage (May 418), in which they passed nine 
dogmatic canons condemning the characteristic — 
Pelagian theses. Meanwhile, Aurelius had ~ 
been taking more practical steps. A rescript ~ 
in the emperor’s name (Honorius was here, as 
in the Donatist question, the passive instru- 
ment of his advisers, probably count Valerius, 
whose ear Aurelius gained—‘‘ secuta est cle- 
Mmentia nostra judicium sanctitatis tuae,” 
Honorius writes in 419) ordered the banish- 
ment of Pelagius, Coelestius, and all their 


ee 5. ὦ 


_AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


idherents. Zosimus at once came round to 
he side of the Africans. In a circular letter 
| actorta) he condemned Coelestius and 
Jelagianism alike, and required all the bishops 

his jurisdiction to signify their adhesion. 
hus ended the official support of Pelagius in 
ne West. (On Augustine's view of Zosimus, 
e Reuter, pp. 312-322, and below, ὃ 12d. 
ἃ the whole question, see Garnier in Marti 
Tercat. opp. I. p. 19.) Zosimus appears to 
ave imperfectly grasped the points at issue, 
nd in this case, as in that of Apiarius in the 
ame year (infra, § 12, c), and in that of the 
xetropolitan rights of Arles, he appears to 
ve been in a greater hurry to assert the 
aims of his see than to ascertain the merits 
f the question in debate. 

The most able advocate of Pelagianism now 
ppears in the person of Julian, bp. of Ecla- 
um in Southern Italy. He refused to sign 
he ¢ractoria, accused Zosimus of changing his 


erculsos,”’ c. Duas Epp. Pelag. ii. 3), and ap- 
ealed to a general council. This appeal came 
9 nothing (ἰδ. iv. 34). Julian was deposed 
y Zosimus, banished by the Government, and 
ook refuge in the East. He is said to have 
ound a friend in Theodore of Mopsuestia. 
it any rate, in 431 the Westerns secured the 
ondemnation of Pelagianism (without speci- 
cation of its tenets) along with Nestorianism 
t the counci] of Ephesus, on the ground of 
he kindred nature of the two heresies. This 
not without substantial reason. The two 
eresies rest upon the same fundamental idea 
)f the benefit which the redemptive work of 
hrist brings to man—viz. moral improvement 
y perfect teaching and example, rather than 
tonement for an inherently guilty race (“αἰ 
vel sero redamaremus eum,” Julian in Op. 
_(mperf.I. xciv.). Augustine continued to write 
wgainst Pelagianism. In 418 he wrote two 
»00ks, de Gratia Christi et de Peccato Originali ; 
n the two following years the two books de 
uptiis et Concupiscentia, and four de Anima 
jusqgue Origine. These works bore on the 
ansmission of original sin, and the difficult 
sollateral question of the origin of the soul, 
vhether by direct creation or ex traduce. 
ertullian had roundly maintained tradux 
imae, tradux peccati. Pelagius denied both. 
Augustine cannot decide the question; he 


ἢ 
Ι 


Ὁ require the other alternative (see below, 
} 15). Julian attacked the de Nuptiis hotly. 
Augustine’s four books, contra Duas Epp. Pela- 
m (420) are in reply to Julian on this 
s well as on the historical questions; they 
were followed by six books contra Julianum 
about 421). Julian replied with vigour, and 
ugustine at the time of his death had only 
inished six books of a rejoinder which he in- 
tended to be complete (Opus Imperfectum). 
(c) The semt-Pelagians (from about 426).— 
n the combat with Pelagianism, Augustine 
annot be said to have changed his views 
supra, ὃ το, sub init.); but he stated, with 
ucreasing clearness and sharper consistency, 
»pinions which he had gathered from his study 
of St. Paul long before the combat began. 
These opinions were new to most churchmen, 
although reaction from the paradoxes of 
Pelagius, and Augustine’s immense authority 


71ano 


ont underimperial pressure (‘‘jussionis terrore | 


ialf leans to creation, but his theory appears | 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 81 


throughout the Latin church, gained them 
widespread acceptance. But there were, 
especially in monastic circles, grave misgivings 
as to their soundness. The three points to 
which most serious objection was felt were 
the doctrines of the total depravity of fallen 
man, of irresistible grace, and of absolute 
predestination, mot on the ground of foreseen 
merit. The Christian, as taught by Augustine, 
received instruction, baptism, the subsequent 
beneficia gratiae which went to build up the 
Christian life and train the soul for its eternal 
home. But the success or failure, the per- 
manent value of the whole process, depended 
upon the crowning beneficium gratiae, the 
Donum Perseverantiae, which even at the very 
moment of death decides whether the soul 
departs in Christ or falls from Him. This 
awful gift, which alone decides between the 
saved and the lost, may be withheld from 
many who have lived as good and sincere 
Christians: it may be granted to those whose 
lives have been far from Christ. Its giving 
or withholding depends upon the Divine pre- 
destination only; God’s foreknowledge of 
those who will ‘‘ persevere’’ is but His own 
foreknowledge of what He Himself will give 
or withhold. Only the foreknown in this 
sense are called with vocatio congrua. If these 
doctrines were true, if free will was by itself 
entirely powerless to accept the Divine call 
|or to reject the vocatio congrua, if man’s sal- 
vation at bottom depended simply and solely 
upon the Divine predestination, what appeal 
was possible to the conscience of the wicked 
(correptio) ? Was not preaching deprived of 
its raison d’étre ? 

This was the view of John Cassian, the 
father of Western monachism, and of Vincent 
and other monks of Lerins on the southern 
coast of Gaul. These ‘‘ semi-Pelagians,’’ who 
may with equal justice be called ‘‘ semi- 
Augustinians,’’ were not a sect outside the 
church, but a party of dissentient Catholics. 
Excepting the above-mentioned points and 
certain obvious corollaries, such as the doctrine 
of “ particular’? redemption, they accepted 
the entire Augustinian position. The contro- 
versy, which is in reality insoluble, lasted long 
after Augustine’s death. Temporarily laid to 
rest at Orange (where a modified Augustinian- 
ism was adopted by a small council in 529), 
it burst out again in the Gottschalk troubles 
in the 9th cent., it ranged the Scotists against 
the Thomists in the 13th, the Arminians 
against the Calvinists, the Jesuits against the 
Jansenists in the 17th. Intellectually it is 
a case of an ‘‘antinomy,” in which from 
obvious truths we are led by irresistible logic 
to incompatible conclusions. Morally, our 
crux is to insist on human responsibility while 
excluding human merit. The religious instinct 
of deep and genuine self-accusation is not easy 
to combine with the unreserved acknowledg- 
ment that we have no power of ourselves to 
help ourselves. We must, with Cassian, ap- 
peal to free will from the pulpit, but Augustine 
is with us in the secret sanctuary of prayer. 

Augustine’s attention was drawn to these 
difficulties by Hilary and Prosper of Aquitaine, 
| the latter the most active, and indeed bitter, 
|opponent of the Jngrati, as he calls Cassian 
| and his friends. The works de Gratia et Libero 


6 


82 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


Arbitrio and de Correptione et Gratia (426-427) 
relate to the moral issues of the question, while 
the de Praedest. Sanctorum and de Dono Per- 
severantiae (428, 9) are in direct controversy 
with the ‘“ brethren’? of Southern Gaul. _ 
(4) The Doctrinal Issues.—Pelagianism split 
upon the rock of infant baptism. Had this 
practice not become general by the time when 
Pelagius arose, Augustine would have had to 
combat him by arguments which churchmen 
at large would have found difficulty in follow- 
ing. As it was, to the question, ‘* Why ”’—if 
Adam’s sin directly affected himself only, and 
extended to his descendants non propagine 
sed exemplo—‘‘ why, then, are infants bap- 
tized ?’”’ Pelagius had no satisfactory reply. 
His answer, that the unbaptized infant is 
excluded, not from eternal life, but only from 
the kingdom of heaven, was a relic of Millen- 
iarism with which the Eastern church had 
even less sympathy than the West. Pelagius 
allowed that man can do no good thing without 
the graceof God. But his conception of grace 
was loose and shallow; practically it went 
back to the general providence of God, which 
supplies our temporal and spiritual wants 
alike. His assertion that a sinless life was 
not only possible, but was actually lived by 
many of the holy men of the Bible, was in 
direct conflict with the promptings of a deep 
religious sense (de Nat. et Grat. xxxvi. 42). 
His conception of the benefictum Christi (supra, 
b, c) was shallow and unsatisfying. Pelagius 
was an ardent churchman, a strict ascetic, 
and a believer in sacramental grace. The 
earlier church had reflected but little on the 
questions raised by him. ‘‘ Unde factum est 
ut de gratia Dei quid sentirent breviter ac 
transeuntes attingerent.’’ Free will equipped 
with sacraments, the Christian religion a 
““New Law,’’ predestination founded upon 
prescience, fairly represent the implicit pre- 
Augustinian view of the Christian life and its 
relation to the mystery of Divine election. 
Augustine pressed Pelagius with the implica- 
tions of sacramental grace. If free will is as 
complete as Pelagius believed, sacraments 
are in reality superfluous as means of grace. 
If sacramental grace is as real as Pelagius 
admitted it to be, then man depends for his 
salvation not upon his own free will, but upon 
the gift of God. Augustine, assuming the 


church doctrine of sacramental grace, gave it | 


a deeper meaning and a wider context, and 
brought it into close relation with the almost 
forgotten Pauline categories of sin, faith, justi- 
fication, and the gratia Christi (see Reuter, 
Pp. 40-45). It was formerly thought (by Baur 
and others) that Augustine’s antagonism to 
Pelagius was dictated by his conception of 
the church and the sacraments, especially of 
baptism. This we have seen to be incorrect. 
As a matter of fact, Pelagius was, as the pro- 
ceedings at Diospolis shew, hard to convict of 
heresy on merely ecclesiastical grounds. The 
theological principles which Augustine brought 


to the analysis of ecclesiastical practice, and | 
to the refutation of Pelagianism, he had | 


learned from St. Paul at first hand. Pelagius 
appealed to the naive language of churchmen 
before him, who as Augustine says, ‘ Pela- 
gianis nondum litigantibus securvius loque- 
bantur.’’ Augustine shewed that the accord 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


was superficial, and that if Pelagius were right, 
the church and the positive religion of Christ 
had only a relative value. Moreover, it was 
impossible for the Pelagians to argue out their — 
case without exposing themselves to an array — 
of damaging quotations from recognized 
Fathers of the church (c. Julian. 1. 11.).. And 
it is impossible to deny that Augustine, in the 
points at issue with the semi-Pelagians, was 
following out the strict logical consequences 
of the elementary truths which Pelagius and 
Julian denied. He admits frankly, in this as 

in some other questions, that he had changed _ 
his mind, plentus sapere coepi, but he again 
and again protests that he is merely defending ~ 
the doctrine which nunquam Ecclesia Christi — 
non habuit (i.e. predestination, de Don. Persev. — 
Xiv. 36, etc:). t 

This is certainly sincere, but also certainly 
incorrect, so far as concerns the formal asser- — 
tion of absolute predestination, irresistible 
grace, and total depravity. And it must 
further be noted that the doctrine of pre- 
destination is, logically at least, as subversive 
of the worth of church and sacraments as is — 
the Pelagian doctrine of human nature (see 
below, § 16, c). Probably neither Augustine 
nor the Pelagians were conscious of the full © 
consequences of their position—the naturalism 
of the one and the transcendentalism of the — 
other were alike tempered by common church — 
teaching. But the ecclesiastical instinct has 
generally been (in spite of the rapier-thrusts 
of a Pascal) to seek some illogical via media 
between the Augustinian and the semi-Pela- 
gian (itself an illogical) position. Instinct in 
such a matter is perhaps a safer guide than 
logic. But it is important to bear in mind — 
that in rejecting Pelagianism the whole 
church, Augustinian and semi-Pelagian alike, _ 
were as one. [PELAGIANISM.] 

§ τι. Augustine and Greek Christendom.— 
The last sentence may seem questionable so 
far as the Greek-speaking churches were con- 
cerned. But we must remember that Coeles- 
tius found no welcome at Constantinople, that 
Augustine not only wrote (Ep. 179) to bp. 
John of Jerusalem to warn him of Pelagius’s 
errors, but also quotes John’s arguments as 
decisive against Pelagianism (Ep. 18636, de 
Gest. Pel. 37 seq., “᾿ sanctus Johannes’’), and 
that Pelagianism was formally condemned at 
the council of Ephesus. But Augustine is 
somewhat biased in his review of the proceed- 
ings in Palestine by the assumption, which it 
never occurred to him to question, of the 
absolute doctrinal homogeneity of the East and 
West. Accordingly he explains the acquittal 
of Pelagius by the difficulty of language, 
and by the evasive answers of Pelagius, with- — 
out allowing for the strangeness to Greek 
theology of the very categories of the question 
at issue. The catholicity of the church, he - 
argues against the Donatists, is to be tested 
by communion, not only with the apostolic 
see of Rome, but with the other apostolic 
churches, and with Jerusalem, the common 
source of all (ad Don. Post Collat. xxix. 50; 
de Unit. x. xi.; Ep. 523). In Augustine’s 
time the first symptoms of the coming rift 
between the Greek and Latin churches had 
indeed appeared, but few realized their mean- 
ing. Augustine certainly did not. He meets 


Ἷ 


b 
i 


᾿ 


| 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


the arguments of Julian, who claimed the 
Greek Fathers for his side, by an appeal to 
the Greek text of Chrysostom. On the other 
hand, he does not, even in the de Trinitate 
(written 400-416: ‘‘ juvenis inchoavi senex 
edidi’’), spontaneously build much upon 
Greek theology. The Nicene Creed, which he 
accepted of course ex animo, is but seldom re- 
ferred to in that work; of the ‘‘ Constantino- 
politan ’’ Creed he shews no knowledge. The 
de Trinitate is Western in the texture of its 
thought, true to the original sense of the 
ὁμοούσιον, a formula imposed on the Eastern 
church at Nicaea by Western influences (see 
the present writer’s Prolegomena to Athanasius 
in Nic. Lib. IV. p. xxxii., etc.) in the interest 
of the Divine Unity. Augustine paves the 
way, by his insistence on the doctrine of the 
One Personal God, for the scholastic doctrine 
of the Una Res, the specifically Western pro- 
duct of Trinitarian theology. Thesame holds 
good of Christology. At Chalcedon, Leo’s 
tome, which shews the profound influence of 
Augustine, carried the day in the teeth of the 
dominant tone of Greek Christology; and it 
is interesting to find Theodoret, who of all 
Greek churchmen had most reason to welcome 
the result, quoting Ambrose and Augustine as 
authorities in his dogmatic Dialogues—an ex- 
ception to the general indifference of the East 
to Latin theologians. Another exception, 
due in part to independent controversial 
reasons, is the protest of Leontius and the 
“Scythic monks,’’ under Justinian, against 
the “‘ semi-Pelagianism ’’ of Faustus of Reii; 
Leontius shews some knowledge, direct or 
second-hand, of Augustine (Loofs’s Leontius, 
pp. 231ff.). Augustine’s influence, then, 
on Greek Christianity has been very slight. 
But although he has powerfully contributed 
to the divergence in thought and feeling of 
Latin Christianity from Greek, he is personally 
unconscious of any such tendency. Of his 
own knowledge of Greek he speaks slightingly ; 
Gibbon (c. xxiii28) and others take him 
strictly at his word, but Reuter (pp. 179, etc.) 
shews that we must rate it somewhat more 
highly than Augustine himself does. 

§ 12. Augustine and the Constitution of the 
Church. The Roman See.—Augustine’s view 
of the relation of the church to the civil power 
(see above, § 9) prepared the way for the 
medieval system. But in Augustine’s hands 
the theory lacked elements indispensable for 
its practical application. Not only did his 
conception of the church hover between the 
transcendental spiritual ideal and the empir- 
ical, tangible organization, but his conception 
of the organization of the visible church itself 
lacked that practical precision without which 
the church could assert no effective claim to 
control the secular arm. To the authority of 
the church he surrendered himself with pas- 
Sionate affection. ‘‘I should not believe in 
the Gospel,’’ he wrote in the early days of 
his episcopate, ‘‘ did not the authority of the 
Catholic church compel me” (c. Ep. Fund. 6, 
Im A.D. 397). But this was the immanent 
authority which the church by her life, creed, 
and worship exercised upon his soul, rather 
than her official decisions. These, again, he 
accepted with all his heart. But what was the 
ultimate organ of the church’s authority ? 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 83 


Where wasits centre ? What was the final stan- 
dard of appeal? To these questions it is hard 
to obtain from Augustine a definite answer. 
Augustine was not an ecclesiastical statesman. 
His interest was above all in personal religion, 
and therefore, in a secondary degree, in doctrine 
and discipline. Although he takes for granted 
the Cyprianic view of the episcopal office, he 
does not insist upon it with special emphasis ; 
he emphasises, on the other hand, in a marked 
manner, the universal priesthood of Christians. 
His insistence on the indelible character of the 
priestly ordination is not in the interest of 
““sacerdotalism,’’ but as against the spiritual 
value of valid but schismatical orders (supra, 
§ 8, c). He accepts the authority of Nicaea 
(the only strictly general council known to 
him), but as to the authority of other councils 
his language is ambiguous. He disallows 
Julian’s appeal to a general council on the 
ground that ‘‘ the cause is finished’’ by “ἃ 
competent judgment of bishops”’ (c. Jul. III. 
5). But in another passage (supra, § 10, a, 
fin.) he is understood to say, “‘ the cause is 
finished’ by two African councils, plus “ re- 
scripts from the apostolic 566. What is his 
real view of the supreme organ of church 
authority ? 

(a) The Apostles in their lifetime were the 
leaders, ‘‘ principes’’ (Ps. Ixvii.2® Vulg.; see 
Enarr. in loc.), and ‘ patres’’ (Ps. xliv.17 
and Enarr.); now that they are gone, we 
have their filizi in their place, the bishops, 
who are principes super omnem terram. The 
Apostles still live on in the bishops, who are 
accordingly the vehicle of the supreme author- 
ity of the church. The Donatist bishops 
cannot claim this status (Ep. 533, etc.), because 
they are out of communion with the apostolic 
churches. Hence (b) the unity and continuity 
of the episcopate are essential to its Apostolic 
rank. Jn this unity even mali praepositi are 
authoritative, ‘‘non enim sua sunt quae dicunt, 
sed Dei, qui in cathedra unitatis doctrinam 
posuit veritatis’? (Ep. 1051®). This is the old 
Cyprianic doctrine, which Augustine, like 
Cyprian, finds in the symbolic foundation of 
the Church upon Peter, who represents the 
whole body. All bishops are equal; there is 
no Episcopus episcoporum (de Bapt. 111. 5, 
VI. 9, quoting Cyprian). But as Peter repre- 
sented his co-equal colleagues, the Apostles, 
so his successors in the Roman see represent 
their co-equal colleagues the bishops (cf. ad 
Classic. in Ep. 250, ad fin. . . . “πὶ concilio 
nostro agere cupio, et si opus fuerit tad Sedem 
Apost. scribere, ut . . . quid sequi debeamus 
communi omnium auctoritate . . . firmetur’’). 
All bishops alike hold the cathedra umitatis, 
all alike trace their succession to one or other 
of the Apostles. This is more easily traceable 
in some cases (1.6. the churches quibus A pos- 
toli scripserunt) than in others, but most 
obvious in the Roman see, whose bishops, 
from the sedes (i.e. episcopate, c. Ep. Fund. 
5; cf. ‘ primae sedis episcopus,” supra, ὃ 8, 
mit.) of Peter himself, have followed one 
another in a succession known to all (Psalm 
c. Donat. sub fin., Ep. 533). The successto 
sacerdotum at Rome and the successtones 
episcoporum generally (de Util. Cred. xvii. 
35) are, to Augustine, co-ordinate and convert- 
ible ideas. Even with regard to the authority 


84 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 

of councils, there is no real finality. Earlier 
councils are subject to correction by later (de 
Bapt. 11. iii. 4). This is the position of Julius 
I. (see below, § 16, and the present writer’s 
Roman Claims to Supremacy, iii. fin.). 

(c) The Episcopate and the Roman See.——The 
Roman see was Apostolica sedes, not ex- 
clusively (c. Faust. xi. x.; de Doct. Christ. I1. 
viii. 12), but conspicuously. This implied a 
pre-eminence of rank, at any rate over sees not 
“ Apostolic”’ (Ep. 434, ‘Rom. ecclesiae, in qua 
semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit princtpa- 
tus’’; c. Jul. 1. iv. 13, prior loco; c. Duas Epp. 
Pel. I. i. 2 [to pope Bonifatius], ‘‘ quamvis 
ipse in ea [sc. communi specula pastorali] 
praeemineas celsiore fastigio,”’ and ib. 1, “ qui 
non alta sapis quamvis altius praesideas’’). 
But in none of the passages where this is fully 
recognized is any definite authority assigned to 
the ‘‘ apostolic see.” 
Apostles, superior to any bishop (even to 
Cyprian, de Bapt. 111. i.-2); but he is simply 
the representative of the Apostles, nor does 
Augustine ascribe to him authority over the 
others (see Serm. 463°), and the same applies 
to his estimate of Peter’s successors. 

Augustine’s own instinct towards Rome is 
one of unbounded respect. Towards the end 
of his life (about 423) he had to remove, for 
obvious unfitness, Antonius, the bishop of the 
newly-created see of Fussala, a daughter- 
church of Hippo (Ep. 209). Antonius, like 
Apiarius (of whom presently), and possibly 
encouraged, like others (7b.8), by his example, 
decided to try his fortune at Rome. He 


obtained from the senior bp. of Numidia a | 


favourable verdict and an introduction to 
Bonifatius, who was, prima facie, inclined to 
take up his cause, and wrote to that effect. 
But Bonifatius died (422), and his successor 
Coelestinus had to deal with the case. 
Rumours reached Fussala that he would insist 
on the restoration of Antonius, and that the 
Government would support him by military 
force. Augustine, in fear lest the people of 
Fussala should go back en masse to the 
Donatists, writes to Coelestinus to entreat his 
support. He entreats him by the memory of 
St. Peter, 
Christian peoples not to domineer over their 
brethren ᾿᾿ (7b. 9). The case is an interesting 
one, but it loses some of its importance in view 
of the fact that the African church was then 
still bound by voluntary promise, pending in- 
quiry into the genuineness of an alleged Nicene 
canon to that effect, to allow appeals to Rome 
by bishops. The promise arose out of the 
famous case of Apiarius. This presbyter was 
deposed by Augustine’s friend and pupil 
Urbanus, bp. of Sicca, and appealed to Zosi- 
mus, bp. of Rome. Zosimus had hastily taken 
his side and ordered his restoration. Urbanus 
refused, both on the merits of the case, which 
he knew and Zosimus did not, and also on the 
ground that Zosimus had no right to interfere. 
This was the real question at issue. Zosimus 
first wrote (418), basing his right to interfere 
on the canons of Nicaea. As the African 
bishops found no such provision in their copy 
of the canons, they postponed the matter for 
further verification of the true text, promising 
meanwhile (paulisper) to act (without pre- 
judice) on the assumption that the alleged 


Peter was first of the | 


““who warned the praepositi of | 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


canon was genuine. 


three legates—Faustinus, bp. of Potentia in — 
and the presbyters Philip and 


Picenum, 
Asellus—to Carthage, with written and oral 
instructions. The written instructions (com- 
monitorium) comprised four points (Bruns 
Canones, I. 197): (1) the right of the Roman 
See toreceive appeals from bishops (see Can. 
Sard. Lat. 3, 4); (2) bishops not to go over 
the sea to court (1.6. from Africa) “‘ importune” 
(7b. 8); (3) presbyters and deacons excom- 
municated by their bishop to have an appeal 
to finitimi episcopi (tb. 17); (4) Urbanus to 
be excommunicated, “‘ or even cited to Rome.” 
Of these points, (2) betrays the soreness of 
Zosimus at the way in which Aurelius had 
forced his hand (supra, § 10, b); (4) hangs 
upon (1); (3) is necessary in order to bring 
the case of Apiarius, who was not a bishop, 
somehow under the scope of the pretended 
Nicene canon relating to (1); the case of 
Apiarius would become a factor in that of 
Urbanus, which Zosimus would, by stretching 
the right of receiving appeals to a right of 
evocatio, claim to deal with under (1). A re- 
ference to the Sardican canons will shew how 
flimsy a foundation they offer for the claims 
founded upon them. But what is important 
to observe is that Zosimus, like Innocentius 
(supra, ὃ το, a), bases his right to interfere 
simply upon canonical authority. On neither 
side is there any notion of jurisdiction inherent 
in the Roman see prior to ecclesiastical legis- 
lation. If the alleged canon was genuinely 
Nicene, it established the jurisdiction ; if not, 
the jurisdiction fell to the ground. 

When Faustinus and his colleagues reached 
Africa, Zosimus had been succeeded by Boni- 
fatius. They were received by the plenary 
council of the African provinces at Carthage 
(419). Alypius and Augustine were there, 
and joined in the proceedings (Bruns, pp. 
155 ff.). The council cut short the verbal 
instructions of Faustinus (7b. p. 197), and in- 
sisted upon hearing the commonitorium. When 
it was read, and the canon on episcopal ap- 
peals was quoted, Alypius undertook the in- 
vidious duty of pointing out that the Latin 
and the Greek copies of the Nicene canons 
accessible at Carthage contained no such 
canon. He suggested that both sides should 
obtain authentic copies from the bps. of 
Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. 
Meanwhile, the copies above referred to should 
be placed on the minutes; but the alleged 
canon should be observed donec integra exem- 
plaria veniant. Augustine proposed a like 
action with regard to (3); the proposals were 
unanimously carried, and accepted, though 
with no good grace, by Faustinus. The 
council wrote to Bonifatius intimating their 
action (Bruns, pp. 196 f.), stating how they had 
dealt with Apiarius, and complaining with 
dignity and firmness of the insolence of 
Faustinus, which, they add, they believe and 
hope they will not, under the new Roman 
bishop, be called upon to suffer. The signa- 
tures include those of Augustine and Alypius. 
Six years later (425) an African council 
(Bruns, p. 200) receive Faustinus once again. 
Coelestinus, now bp. of Rome, writes that 
‘“ he has been rejoiced by the coming of Api- 
arius,’’ and with Faustinus, Apiarius once more 


In reply, Zosimus sent — 


μ 


+ 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


reappears at Carthage. But not only did the 
culprit finally and ignominiously break down 
before the council: the replies from the 
Eastern churches had come in, with authentic 
copies of the Nicene canons; and the canons 
put forward by Zosimus and his successors 
were not there. [It must be noted that, al- 
though Gratus of Carthage was possibly pre- 
sent at Sardica in 343 (see Nicene Lib. vol. 4, 
Athanasius, p. 147), the African church knew 
nothing of the canons passed there. They 
only knew Sardica by repute as an “ Arian”’ 
synod, and friendly to the Donatists (Ep. 

6; c. Crescon. IV. xliv. 52). The canons 
of Sardica had not passed into the generally 
accepted rules of the church.] The council 
press the ignominious exposure, which makes 
a clean sweep of papal jurisdiction in Africa, 
with a firm but respectful hand. They are 
eontent to ask Coelestinus to observe the 
canons, not to receive appellants, not to send 
legates tanquam a latere, and, above all, not 
to inflict Faustinus upon them any more. 
Roman chancery did not learn from this pain- 
ful experience not to tamper with the canons 
(see the present writer’s Roman Claims to 
Supremacy, iv., S.P.C.K. 1896), but the in- 
cident is decisive as to the mind of the African 
church. Though Reuter, in his scrupulous 
desire to be fair, minimizes the part taken by 
Augustine in the case (pp. 306 seq.), there is 
nothing to shew that in this matter he was in 
other than perfect accord with Aurelius and 
the African bishops. On the contrary, he 
says, late in his life, of clergy who merely 
evade his own rigorous diocesan rule: ‘“ in- 
terpellet contra me mille concilia, mnaviget 
contra me quo voluerit, adjuvabit me Deus ut 
ubi ego episcopus sum, ille clericus esse non 
possit.’’ This tone implies that the Apiarius 
ease is now matter of history (Serm. 1561). 
But Reuter is probably right in his view that 
Augustine’s interest in constitutional ques- 
tions was small compared to his concern for 
doctrine. 

(d) The Roman See and the Final Doctrinal 
Authority —Augustine shews no jealousy of 
the power and prestige of the Roman see. On 
the contrary, he regarded it as, in a special 
degree, the depository of apostolic tradition. 
What degree of dogmatic authority did this 
imply? The principal data for answering 
this question are connected with the Pelagian 
controversy (supra, ὃ 10, a, δ). Innocentius 
certainly reads into the letters of the Africans 
Aug. Epp. 175-177, see 181-183) ἃ hyper- 

ardican attitude towards his chair of which 
they were innocent. But it is clear that the 
Africans attach the greatest importance to his 
approbation of their decision, only they do 
not treat the doctrinal issue as at all doubtful 
or subject to papal decision ; on the contrary, 
in the private letter (Ep. 1778, 69) which 
Augustine sends to ensure that Innocentius 
shall not lack full information on the merits of 
the case, he takes for granted that the eccle- 
Stastica et apostolica veritas is already certain. 
He assumes (with probable historical correct- 
ness) that the African church owes its original 
tradition to Rome (7b.19) ; but both have their 
source (*‘ ex eodem capite’’) in the Apostolic 
tradition itself (see Reuter, pp. 307-311). 
Augustine refers to Innocentius’s reply in a 


The | 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 85 


letter to Paulinus of Nola (Ep. 186). He 
treats it mot as a doctrinal decision, but as a 
splendid confirmation of a doctrine already 
certain (see Reuter, p. 311). As a result, the 
Pelagians have definitely lost their case: 
“causa finita est.’’ Augustine uses this phrase 
twice: once (§ 10, a, fin.) with reference to the 
African councils and the reply of Innocentius ; 
once (see beginning of this section) in 421 of 
the condemnation of Pelagianism by the 
judicitum episcoporum. With the latter pas- 
sage we must compare Ep. 19022 (written in 
418), where the “ adjutorium Salvatoris qui 
suam tuetur ecclesiam ”’ is connected with the 
‘“conciliorum episcoporum vigilantia,’’ not 
with the action of popes Innocentius and 
Zosimus. At a much later date (426), review- 
ing the controversy as a whole, he speaks of 
the whole cause as having been dealt with 
conciliis episcopalibus; the letters of the 
Roman bishops are not dignified with separate 
mention (Ep. 214°). On the whole, these utter- 
ances are homogeneous. The prominence, if 
any, assigned to the rescripla over the concilia 
in Serm. 131, 10 (supra, ὃ τὸ, a, fin.) is relative 
to a passing phase of the question. Its sense 
is, moreover, wholly altered in the utterance in- 
vented for Augustine by some Roman Catholic 
apologists : Roma locuta est, el causa finita est. 
It occurred to no one in those days to put 
any bishop, even of an apostolic see, above 
a council, although there are signs at Rome 
of a tendency to work the Sardican canons in 
that direction. Augustine experienced, as 
we have seen, a signal, and to him especially 
galling, papal blunder in the action of Zosimus 
with reference to the Pelagians. The brunt 
of the correspondence with Zosimus at this 
painful crisis apparently fell upon Aurelius 
and the bishops of his province (Afri. c. Duas 
Epp. Pel. I1.iii. 5), rather than upon Numidia, 
Augustine’s own province. Augustine, as 
compared with the African bishops, distinctly 
minimizes the indictment. Zosimus had pro- 
nounced the [δεῖ of Coelestius catholic. 
Augustine explains this favourably, as refer- 
ring not to his doctrine, but to his profession of 
submission to correction; ‘* voluntas emen- 
dationis, non falsitas dogmatis approbata est.”’ 
The action of Zosimus was well meant, even 
if too lenient (lentus actum est. See also de 
Pecc. Orig. vi. 7, vii. 8). The letter of the 
Afri, which was stern and menacing in tone 
(‘‘ Constittuimus . . . per venerabilem . . 

Innocentium... prolatam manere sententiam,”’ 
Prosp. adv. Coll. v. 15) put an end to all hopes 
of compromise. Zosimus, however (c. Duas 
Epp., u.s.), ‘‘ never by a word, in the whole 
course of the proceedings,’’ denied original 
sin. His faith was consistent throughout. 
Coelestius deceived him for a time, but tllam 
sedem usque ad finem fallere non potutt (de 
Pecc. Orig. xxi. 24). ‘‘ The Roman church, 
where he was so well known, he could not 
deceive permanently ”’ (ἐδ. viii. 9). But there 
had been danger. ‘‘ Supposing—which God 
forbid !—the Roman church had gone back 
upon the sentence of Innocentius and ap- 
proved the dogmata condemned by him, then 
it would be necessary rather [pottus] to brand 
the Roman clergy with the note of ‘ praevart- 
catio.’’’ Even in contemplating the repellent 
possibility that the action of Rome had been 


86 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


worse than he will allow, Augustine evidently 
shrinks from pushing the conclusion to its 
full consequences to the extent of censuring 
Zosimus by name. ‘“ Rather’? he would 
brand ‘‘ the Roman clergy’ im confuso. But 
this reserve must not be misconstrued as an 
anticipation of later Roman infallibilism ; not 
even St. Peter was strictly infallible in August- 
ine’s eyes (refs. in Reuter, pp. 326 ff.), much 
less his successors’, none of whom “‘ Petriaposto- 
latui conferendus est’ (de Bapt. VI. ii. 3). 

(6) Conclusion.—Augustine has no consistent 
theory of the ultimate organ of church 
authority, whether legislative, disciplinary, or 
dogmatic. This authority resides in the Epis- 
copate, its content is the catholica veritas, and 
in practical matters the consuetudo or tradttio. 
These are to be interpreted by the bishops 
acting in concert—especially in councils. The 
‘‘regional’’? council is subordinate to the 
“plenary,” the plenary council of the province 
to that of the whole church (de Bapt. V. 
χυ Wille, li) ops 4g.) Oo) ae) Βαρὺ" ὙΠ’ 
iii. 4); while of the latter, the earlier are 
subject to amendment by later councils. 
Even, then, with regard to the authority of 
councils there is no real finality; Augustine 
sees, like Julius of Rome in 340 (see the 
writer’s Roman Claims to Supremacy, iii. ad 
fin.), no remedy but the revision of earlier 
councils by later. Clearly we have here no 
complete system of thought. Augustine falls 
back on the sensus catholicus, a real and valu- 
able criterion, but not easy to bring within a 
logical definition. The church is infallible, 
but he cannot point to an absolutely infallible 
organ of her authority. By his very vague- 
ness on this point, Augustine practically paved 
the way for the future centralization of in- 
fallible authority in the papacy (on the whole 
question, see Reuter, pp. 329-355; and below, 
§ τό, 5). 

§ 13. Death and Charactey—Augustine died 
on Aug 28, 430. Clouds were thickening over 
his country and church. The Vandals, invited 
by the error, too late discovered, of August- 
ine’s friend count Bonifatius (see Ep. 220), 
welcomed by the fierce Moors and the perse- 
cuted Donatists, had swept Numidia and 
Africa. Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo alone re- 
mained untaken (Possid. xxviii.). Bonifatius, 
routed by Gaiseric, was besieged by him in 
Hippo itself. Augustine had exhorted all 
bishops, so long as they had any flocks to 
minister to, to remain at their posts (Ep. 228 ; 
Possid. xxx.) ; but many, whose dioceses were 
swept away, took refuge, like Possidius him- 
self, at Hippo. Up to the time of his death, 
during three months of the siege, Augustine 
was working at his unfinished refutation of 
Julian. He prayed, so he told his friends at 
table, that God would either see fit to deliver 
the city, or fortify His servants to bear His 
will, or at any rate would take him out of this 
world to Himself. In the third month he was 
attacked by fever. Now, as on other marked 
occasions (Possid. xxix.), his prayer was 
heard. He healed a sick man who came to 
him as he lay upon his death-bed. He hada 
copy of the Penitential Psalms written out, 
and fixed to the wall opposite his bed. For ten 
days, at his special request, he was left alone, 
except when the physician came or food was 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


brought. He spent his whole time in prayer, — 
and died in the presence of his praying friends, _ 
in a green old age, with hearing, sight, and all 
his bodily faculties unimpaired. The Sacrifice 
was offered and he was buried. He left no 
will, nor any personal property. His books — 
he had given to the church to be kept for ever ; 
fortunately, they survived when Hippo was 
destroyed by the Vandals; his writings, says 
Possidius, ‘‘ will for ever keep his character 
fresh in the minds of his readers, yet not even 
they will supply, to those who knew him, the 
place of his voice and his presence. For he 
was one who fulfilled the word of St. James: 
‘So speak ye, and so do.’’’ He had lived 
76 years, and nearly 40 in the ranks of the 
clergy. Till his last illness he had preached 
regularly. His arbitration was greatly in 
request, on the part both of churchmen and 
non-churchmen. He gladly aided all, taking 
opportunity when he could to speak to them 
for the good of their souls. For criminals, he 
would intercede with discrimination and tact, 
and rarely without success. He attended 
councils whenever he could, and in these, as 
in the ordination of bishops and clergy, he 
was conspicuously conscientious. In dress and 
furniture he followed a just mean between 
luxury and shabbiness; his table was spare, 
his diet mainly vegetarian, though meat was 
there for visitors or for infirmiores. Wine he 
always drank. His spoons were silver, but 
his other vessels wood, earthenware, or marble. 
His hospitality never failed: his meals were 
made enjoyable, not by feasting and carousing, 
but by reading or conversation. Ill-natured 
gossip he sternly repressed. He had this 
motto conspicuously displayed : 


ae 


ότι 


Quisquis amat dictis absentem rodere vitam, 
Hance mensam indignam noverit esse sibi. 


He sharply rebuked even _ bishops ἴογ 
breaches of this excellent rule. He freely 
spent upon the poor both the income of his 
see and the alms of the faithful. To ill- 
natured grumblings about the wealth of his 
see, he replied that he would gladly resign all 
the episcopal estates, if the people would 
support him and his brethren wholly by their 
offerings. ‘‘ Sed nunquam id laici suscipere 
voluerunt.”” The whole management of the 
property of the see was entrusted to the more 
capable clergy in rotation, subject only to an 
annual report to himself. He would never 
increase the estate by purchase, but he 
accepted bequests. Only he refused them if 
he thought they entailed hardship upon the 
natural heirs. He felt but little interest in 
such affairs—his part was that of Mary, not 
that of Martha. Even building he left to his 
clergy, only interfering if the plans seemed 
extravagant. If the annual accounts shewed 
a deficit, he would announce to the Christian 
people that he had nothing left to spend on 
the poor. Sometimes he would have church 
plate melted to relieve the poor or ransom 
prisoners. His clergy lived with him, and no 
one who joined them was permitted to retain 
any property of his own. If one of them 
swore at table, one of the regulation number 
of cups of wine (these were strictly limited, 
even for visitors) was cut off by way of fine. 
Women, even near relatives, were excluded. 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


He never would speak to them solus cum solis. 
He was prompt in visiting the fatherless and 
widows in their affliction, andthe sick. But 
he would never visit the femtnarum monasteria 
except under urgent necessity. In regard to 
death, he was fond of quoting the dying 
Ambrose, who replied to his friend’s entreaty 
that he would ask God for a respite of life: 
“T have not so lived as to be ashamed to 
remain with you; but neither do I fear to 
die, for we have a gracious God.’’ To this 
artless picture, drawn by Possidius, it seems 
| impertinent to add supplementary touches. 
Possidius, as Loofs has excellently remarked, 
shews himself saturated by the consciousness 
that he is erecting a lasting memorial to a 
great historical personage. 

Without doubt Augustine is the most 
commanding religious personality of the early 
church. No Christian writer since the 
apostolic age has bequeathed to us so deep an 
insight into the working of a character pene- 
trated with the love of God, none has struck 
deeper into the heart of religion in man. 

C. INFLUENCE.—$ 14. Retractations and Other 
Writings—Shortly before his last illness 
(Possid. xxviii.) he went over all his writings, 
noting points, especially in the earlier books, 
which he would wish amended. The result is 
his two books of Retractationes, which, from 
the chronological order, and the mention of 
the circumstances which elicited the several 
writings, places the literary history of St. 
Augustine on an exceptionally sure footing. 
He enumerates, characterizes, and identifies 
by the first words, two hundred and thirty- 
two books. His letters and sermons he 
mentions collectively, but he did not live to 
reconsider them in detail. Possidius includes 
most of them in the indiculus of Augustine’s 
works appended to the Life; but it is not 
always easy to identify them by the titles he 
employs. Some of the letters, however, are 
counted as “‘ books’”’ in the Retractations, while 
the books de Unitate Ecclesiae, de Bono Vidut- 
tatis ad Julianum, and de Perfectione J ustitiae 
are passed over (being reckoned as letters) in 
the Retractations. The Sermons are not chrono- 
logically arranged in the Bened. ed.; some 
are duplicate recensions of the same discourse. 
Augustine preached extempore, but with 
careful preparation (de Cat. Rud. 2, 3); his 
words were taken down by shorthand, or else 
dictated by himself. On one occasion we 
read (Possid. xv.) that he abandoned his pre- 
pared matter and spoke on another subject, 
with the result of the conversion of a Mani- 
chean who happened to be present. His 
homilies (tvactatus) on St. John, and on the 
“Epistle of John to the Parthians’”’ (1.6. 1 
John), belong to the ripest period of his theo- 
logical power, about 416; these and the 
somewhat later Enarrationes in Psalmos are 
his most important exegetical works. 

_ Many of his works have been already men- 
tioned in connexion with the occasion of their 
production. For a full list of other writings, 
see ἢ. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v., and the art. of 
Loofs referred to below. But one or two of 
special importance must be briefly charac- 
terized. He accomplished by 415 the task, 
his first attempt at which had failed, of a 
commentary on Genesis ad literam (Retr. 11. 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 87 


xxiv.; cf. I. xviii., and supra, ὃ 7, 6). But 
even now, he claims to have reached only 
problematical results. The de Catechizandis 
Rudibus (c. 400) gives a syllabus of the 
course for catechumens, with hints as to 
effective method in their instruction. It is 
full of wisdom, and suggestive to all engaged 
in teaching. The de Spiritu et Litera (supra, 
ὃ 10) was supplemented (c. 413) by the 
book de Fide et Operibus, in which he deals 
with the obligations of the Christian life, 
insisting that faith cannot save us without 
charity. Here occurs the often quoted refer- 
ence to the Lord’s Prayer as the quotidiana 
medela for sins not demanding public penance 
(xxvi. 48), nor even fraternal rebuke (correptto, 
Matt. xviii. 15, cl. Serm. 352). The Encheiri- 
dion (c. 421) is Augustine’s most complete 
attempt at a brief summary of Christian 
doctrine. Nominally it is based on the triple 
scheme of Fides, Spes, Charitas. But the 
latter two are very briefly treated at the end ; 
practically the whole comes under the head 
of Fides, and is an exposition of the Creed and 
its corollaries. It should be compared with 
the much earlier tract de Fide et Symbolo 
(supra, ὃ 7, δ). On the de Trinitate, see above, 
§ 11. The last work to be specially mentioned 
is the de Doctrina Christiana (written in 397 
as far as III. xxv.), which contains Augustine’s 
principles of Scriptural exposition, and a dis- 
cussion of the exegetical ‘‘ rule’’ of Tyconius. 
Bk. iv. (added in 426) is on the method and 
spirit in which the sense of Scripture should 
be taught. It supplements the more special 
‘‘ nedagogics’’ of the de Catech. Rudibus. 

Of Augustine as a writer, Gibbon says: 
‘“‘ His style, though sometimes animated by 
the eloquence of passion, is usually clouded 
by false and affected rhetoric.’”” This verdict 
would gain in justice if the words “ usually” 
and ‘‘ sometimes ’’ were transposed. August- 
ine had indeed learned and taught rhetoric to 
some purpose; but tried by Aristotle’s cri- 
terion—the revelation of character—Augustine 
stands far above the category of rhetorical 
writers. He rarely or never spends words 
upon mere effect. He is always intent upon 
bringing home to his hearers or readers things 
which he feels to be momentously real. He 
handles subjects of intimate and vital interest 
to the human spirit. And whether he is right 
or wrong, his deep feeling cannot fail to kindle 
the hearts of those who read him. 

§ 15. Asceticism. Estimate of Poverly and 
Riches—Among the attractions which Mani- 
cheism had for Augustine in his youth, the 
strict continency supposed to prevail among 
the perfecti (supra, § 4) had been prominent. 
His whole early experience had led him to 
regard sexual temptation as the great ordeal of 
life. Disillusioned with the perfecti, he was 
fired with the ideals of Catholic monasticism 
(§ 6), and one of his earliest resolves at the 
time of his conversion was to forswear for 
ever even lawful marriage. The whole drift 
of Christian feeling at that period was in this 
direction. The influence of Ambrose, the 
horror of representative churchmen at the 
anti-monastic tenets of Jovinian and Vigil- 
antius, the low tone even of nominally Christ- 
ian society in an age of degenerate civilization, 
all tended to fix in him the conviction, exem- 


88 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


plified in his last letter to count Bonifatius, 
that practically the one escape from an 
immoral life was in the vow of monastic 
continence. He is aware of the difficulties of 
the questions raised, and endeavours to face 
them in his books de Bono Conjugali, de Vir- 
ginitate (401, against Jovinian), and de 
Continentia. He is specially anxious not to 
depreciate marriage; but in his attempt to 
explain the transmission of original sin, not 
merely by the fact ‘‘ that the human embryo 
grows from the very first in a soil positively 
sinful,’ but by the assumption that the mode 
of ordinary human generation is inevitably 
sinful, he fairly lays himself open to the charge 
of doing so (de Nupt. Il. 15; Enchir. xii. 
34; de Civ. XIV. xvi.-xxi.). The orthodox 
theology of original sin has by common consent 
dropped this element of the Augustinian 
theory, which shifts the fundamental Christian 
condemnation of sensuality from the basis of 
moral insight to that of semi-Manichean 
dualism. But Julian was wrong in setting it 
down wholly to Augustine’s Manichean past. 
This may at most account for a bias, which 
neither his subsequent philosophical studies 
nor the atmosphere of the church were likely 
to eradicate. Augustine only exaggerates an 
instinct not dominant, but really present 
(Matt. xix. 12; I. Cor. vii. 1, 26) in the Christian 
religion from the first, strengthened by the 
influences of the times, especially that of 
the Christian Platonism, and by the end of 
the 4th cent. elevated to unassailable supre- 
macy. In that cent. the influx of heathen 
society into the church threatened her dis- 
tinctive character as a holy society. The 
monastic ideal of life, with its corollary of 
a double standard of Christian morality— 
baleful as the latter was in its effects—was 
probably the church’s then only possible re- 
sponse to the challenge of a momentous peril. 
Augustine introduced monachism into North 
Africa, and its spread there was rapid. In 
Hippo it was compulsory for the clergy. At 
first, Augustine permitted a “‘ secular ”’ clergy, 
but toward the end of his life the permission 
was revoked. With celibacy went the com- 
mon life and the obligation of absolute per- 
sonal poverty. We saw above (§ 7, a) how 
Augustine had followed, early in his Christian 
career, the example of Anthony. He took the 
communism of Acts iv. 32 as the normal ideal 
of Christian life (Enarr. in Ps. cxxxi. 5), and 
his community was modelled upon it (supra, 
§ 13). At the same time, in the book de 
Opere Monachorum (c. 400), he insists that 
monks must work, and not idly rely upon the 
alms of the faithful. He shews an almost 
prophetic appreciation of monastic abuses 
(cf. what he says of the Euchites, de Haer. 
Ivii.). He regards poverty as a consilium (de 
Bono Conj. xxiii. 30, Ep. 15729), not a prae- 
ceptum. Worldly possessions are allowed to 
the good as well as to the evil, ‘‘ et a malis 
habetur et a bonis; tanto melius habetur 
quanto minus amatur’”’ (Ep. 15326, cf. de Civ. 
XVIII. liv.). The Pelagians, who naturally 
insisted on human effort as a condition of 
salvation, took a severer view of wealth than 
did Augustine (Epp. 157, 18632, divites bap- 
tizatos, sqq.). He combats them on Biblical 
grounds: Dives and Lazarus, the rich Abra- 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


ham, the rich young man, the camel and the 


needle’s eye, St. Paul’s charge to the rich in 
this world; but his treatment of the question 
is not constructively built on first principles. 
He perceives that it is the spirit, not the mere 
fact of riches or poverty that is all-important ; 
even a rich man may be poor in spirit and 
ready to suffer not only the loss of all, but 
martyrdom itself, for Christ’s sake (see Serm. 
50°, 14; Ep. 157,29, 34,36, etc.; de Virg. 14). 
Yet riches—and this is the reflection towards 
which he gravitates—are, as a matter of ex- 
perience, a great hindrance; the rich are as 
a rule the chief offenders “‘ difficile est ut non 
plura peccata contrahant”’ (in Psalm. cxxxii. 


4), therefore ‘‘ abstineamus nos, fratres, a pos- — 


sessione rei privatae . . . fac locum domino” 
(tb. cxxxi.6); the counsel of poverty is the 
safe course. 
temptation to misuse of wealth; this would 
tend to place the man who uses his wealth 


Augustine bases this on the © 


. 


Ἢ 


well and wisely, overcoming temptation, in © 
God’s service, higher than him who evades the © 


trial. But the drift of church feeling was too 
strong for this thought to prevail. Augustine 
and Pelagius were agreed that monks as @ 
class must rank above “ secular ’’ Christians ; 
widely removed as Augustine was from the 
Pelagian idea of merit, yet practically he often 
subordinates the importance of the inward to 
the outward, of character to works. 


But | 


monks must live, and, as we haveseen, August- — 


ine would have them work. To ‘“‘ take no 
thought for the morrow”’ means to seek first 


the Kingdom of God; not improvidence or — 


laziness, but singleness of aim is the note of 
the Christian life (ὧν Serm. in Mont. 11. 56). 

Augustine had occasion (Ep. 211) to address 
a long letter to his nuns, giving directions for 


the abatement of evils incidental to the com- © 


mon life, and for the regulation of their 
prayers, food, costume, and other details. 
This letter, a model of good sense and right- 
mindedness, is the basis of the ‘‘ Regula’’ for 
monks printed among his works. This Rule 
is therefore an adaptation of Augustine’s actual 
counsels, but can hardly be from his own 
hand. It has been much valued by monastic 
reformers, and was the basis of the rules of 
St. Norbet, of St. Dominic (1216), and of the 
different communities of ‘‘ canons regular” 
and friars which have borne the title of 
“ Augustinian’? (from 1244). 

It will be noticed that*Augustine’s theory 
of property is vitiated by the assumption that 
Acts iv. 32 implies a permanent condemnation 
of private property. This was even more 
conspicuously the case with St. Ambrose, who 
speaks very strongly of the duty of Christians 
to treat their possessions as the property of 
the poor. Augustine, in a passage not wholly 
consistent with some referred to above, speaks 
similarly of the private property of Christians 
as the common property of all; to treat it 
otherwise is damnabilis usurpatio (Ep. 10535). 
This *‘ Christian communism,” it may be re- 
marked in passing, differs from that of Proud- 
hon (‘‘ la propriété c’est le vol’’) as the duty 
to give differs from the right to take. In one 
point Augustine takes the opposite view to 
Ambrose, namely, in the theory of church 
property. Ambrose, in his resistance to the 
action of the empress Justina, who attempted 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


to transfer the church at Milan to the Arian 
bishop, anticipated the medieval theory of the 
absolute right of the church to ecclesiastical 
property, a right with which the emperor, 
who is intra ecclestam, may not presume to 
tamper. This agrees perfectly with principles 
laid down by Augustine in the de Crvitate Det 
(supra, § 9: imperium in ecclesia, etc.). But 
Augustine, defending the action of Honorius 
a his ministers) in transferring to the 

atholics the church property of the Donatists, 
strongly maintains that all rights to property 
are created bytheState. Thechurch’sexternal 
power and property are hers by indirect Divine 
right, ἐξ. because they are conferred on her 
by the ordinatissima potestas of the sovereign 
power (Ep. 105°, δ). “* Per jura regum possi- 
dentur possessiones ”’ (in Joh. Tr. vi. 25); the 
Donatist objects to state interference with 
religion, but *‘ Noli dicere Quid mihi et Regi ! 
Quid tibi εἰ possesstoni ?”’ (tb. 15). As one 
side of Augustine’s theory of the church pre- 
pares the way for the Gregorian system (§ 9), 
so here we have that conception of Apostolic 
poverty consistently applied to church pro- 
perty, which underlies so much medieval 
reaction against the Gregorian system from 
Arnold of Brescia onwards. 

§ 16. Intellectual Influence on Christian 
Posterity.—The diverse influences which met 
in Augustine, held together rather than fused 
into unison by the strength of his superb 
personality, parted in after-times into often 
conflicting streams. It has been said with 
truth (Loofs) that three primary elements 
determine Augustine’s complex realm of ideas : 
his neo-Platonist philosophical training (supra, 
§ 5), his profound Biblical studies (§§ 7, δ, 10, 
tnit.), and his position as an officer of the 
ehurch. In combinations which we can in 
part analyse, these elements, given the 
Augustine of a.p. 387, go to constitute 
Augustine as he became—the greatest of the 
Latin doctors, the pioneer of modern Christi- 
anity—in his threefold significance for the 
church of all time. Augustine is (a) the 
prince of theists, (6) the incomparable type of 
reasoned devotion to the Catholic church, and 
(c) the founder of the theology of sin and 

ace. 

(a) Theistic Transcendentalism.—The passion 
of theism was the core of his personal religion. 
His was an experimental theism, a theism of 
the heart. The often quoted words, “Τὰ 
Domine fecisti nos ad te, et inquietum est cor 
nostrum donec requiescat in te’’ (Conf. I. i.), 
sum up his inmost personal experience. This 
is, above all, what Augustine found in the 
Psalms, which were his introduction to the 
deeper study of Scripture (supra, ὃ 6). ‘* Mihi 
autem adhaerere Deo bonum est”’ (Ps. 1xxii. 
28, Vulg.) is the immovable centre upon 
which his whole religion and theology turns. 
But his theism was also speculative and 
metaphysical, and intimately bound up with 
the philosophical framework of his theology. 
God, though not beyond our apprehension (‘‘ ex 
minima quidem parte, sed tamen sine dubi- 
tatione,” c. Ep. Fund. 5), is beyond our know- 
ledge; ‘‘ego sum qui sum quae mens potest 
capere?”’ (in Joh. Tr. viii. 8). To be, to be 
good, to be one, are correlative attributes ; 
they belong to God alone. All things that 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 89 


exist, do so by “ participation”’ of God (in 
Joh. Tr. xxxix. 8—the Platonic doctrine of 
uéBe&s) ; but by comparison with God they 
are non-existent (Enarr. in Ps. xxxviii. 22, 
Cxxxiv. 4). Real being is tncommutable being, 
which belongs to God only. Reality, then, 
can only be found out of time: “ut ergo et tu 
sis, transcende tempus” (in Joh. Tr. xxxviii. 
10); anything mutable is not really existent 
— it is in process, has been, is to be, but is not 
tn being: ‘‘ praesens quaero, nihil stat’? (7b.). 
Absolute good is therefore the only reality, 
namely, God. Absolute evil is the non- 
existent. All created existence, so far as it 
has reality (‘‘ Deus fecit hominem, substantiam 
[t.e. aliquid esse] fecit,’’ Enarr. in Ps. Ixviii. 5), 
is good (‘‘in quantum swmus, bont sumus,”’ de 
Doctr. I. 35). There is no “ natura tenebra- 
rum,’’ no evil substance (Conf. IV. xv. 24). 
Sin has its roots in the evil will; it is negative 
(“non est substantia,’”’ Ps. Ixviii. 3, Vulg.); 
the evil will consists in ‘‘ inordinate moveri, 
bona infertora superioribus praeponendo”’ (de 
Gen. ad lit. xi. 17); sin is therefore an in- 
clinatio in nthilum; yet the sinner ‘ non 
penitus perit, sed in infimis ordinatur”’ 
(Enarr. in Ps. viii. 19)—even Satan, in that 
he exists, has something of the good, though 
he is worse than the worst we know. ‘In 
quantum mali sumus, in tantum etiam minus 
sumus’”’ (de Doctr., u.s.). It is easy to 
see that this idealism, taken by itself, tends 
to lower the importance of everything that 
takes place in time, of everything empirical 
and historical, in comparison with the trans- 
cendent being and unchangeable will of God, 
in which nothing “ takes place,’’ but all is 
eternally, immovably real. In Augustine this 
idealism did not stand alone; but under all 
his passionate appreciation of the church and 
the historical elements of Christianity there 
is in the background, as a limiting influence, 
the appeal to the view of things sub specie 
aeterni; and the drift of his theological re- 
flection strengthened this element in his view 
of ultimate problems. 

From this point of view we can partly under- 
stand Augustine’s famous conception of the 
universality of the Christian Religion. This he 
insists on in his letter to Deogratias (Ep. 102) 
contra Paganos. At all times, he writes, since 
the world began, the same faith has been 
revealed to men, at one time more obscurely, 
at another more plainly, as the circumstances 
altered ; but what we now call the Christian 
religion is but the clearest revelation of a 
religion as old as the world. Never has its 
offer of salvation been withheld from those 
who were worthy of it (see references, Reuter, 
p- gi πη), even though they may not be (like 
Job, etc.) mentioned in the sacred record. Such 
men, who followed His commands (however 
unconsciously), were implicit believers in 
Christ. The changing (and therefore semi- 
real) form represents the one constant reality, 
the saving grace of God, revealed through the 
passion and resurrection of Christ (Ep. 18915). 

(b) Catholic Churchmanship.—Of this we 
have already spoken (ὃ 8). Augustine was not 
the first to formulate belief in the Holy 
Catholic Church; but no one before him had 
reflected so deeply, or expressed himself with 
such inimitable tenderness and devotion, on 


90 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


the church as the nurse and home of the 
Christian life, and the saving virtue of her 
means of grace. The church to him is the 
society of the saints, the Kingdom of God on 
earth. With the whole drift of contemporary 
churchmanship, asceticism, miracles, relics, 
the incipient cultus of saints (he believes in 
their intercession, but strongly dissuades from 
“placing our hope’’ in them: ‘‘ noli facere”’ ; 
if we pray to God alone, we shall be the more 
likely to benefit by their intercession: “ἡ non 
solum tibi non succensebunt ; sed tunc ama- 
bunt, tunc magis favebunt’’; but Augustine 
is evidently correcting a known tendency to 
invocation, Seym. 461"), he is in entire sym- 
pathy. It is unnecessary to multiply examples 
of what every page of his writings abundantly 
illustrates. But it must be noted that his 
interest throughout is in the spiritual life 
rather than in the external system ; the latter 
is but the means to the former. Augustine, 
first of all extant Christian writers, identifies 
the Kingdom of God (so far as it exists on 
earth ; its full realization, in common with 
all Christian antiquity, he reserves for the 
end) with the Catholic church: but not in 
respect of its government or organization. It 
is the Kingdom of Christ in so far as Christ 
reigns in His saints and they (even on earth, in 
a sense) reign with Him. From this point of 
view, we may trace the negative influence of 
Augustine’s idealism (supra, a) upon his view 
of the church. We saw above (§ 15, e) his 
inability to complete his theory of church 
authority by the essential feature of an infalli- 
ble organ of authority. Councils are authori- 
tative, but earlier councils are subject to later 
ones, there is no final expression of absolute 
positive truth (of course there is relative truth ; 
the church will never rehabilitate Arianism 
nor Pelagianism infertora superioribus prae- 
ponendo, see above, a). Truth is, ideally, 
perceived by the reason (de Util. Cred. 34) ; 
infallibility is an zdeal attribute of the church, 
its realization now is subject to the semi-reality 
which is the condition of all things on earth. 
She has catholica veritas, but never as ultimate 
truth that man can explicitly grasp. To the 
church, as to the individual, it may be said, 
“ut et tu sis, transcende tempus.’’ Ideally, 
authority is but the ‘‘door’’ to reason; 
authority is for the babes, the stulti, who are 
not the type of mature Christian growth. The 
tntelligendi vivacitas is for the paucissimi, the 
credendi simplicitas is safest for the turba (c. 
Ep. Fund. 5). But Augustine does not press 
these thoughts to their full issue. ‘‘ Alia est 
ratio verum tacendi, alia verum dicendi neces- 
sitas . . . ne pejores factamus eos qui non 
intelligunt dum volumus eos qui intelligunt 
facere doctiores’’ (de Dono Persev. 40). Prac- 
tically they operate negatively, by leaving in 
the vague the question of an infallible organ 
of authority, while the positive conception of 
the church is left unaffected. In the sphere 
of transcendent reality, the decrees of councils 
may be provisional only ; but in practice any 
authoritative decision is final, even the appeal 
to a general council (supra, § 10, b, Julian) may 
be ignored, “‘ causa finita est” (supra, 15, d). 
Medieval ecclesiasticism accepted Augustine’s 
homage to the external fabric of the church, 
and concerned itself little with his metaphy- 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


sical conception of Reality (see references to 


Gregory VII., in Reuter, pp. 499 seq.). 
(c) Influence of his Doctrine of Grace. 


Augustine’s conception of the church, little as — 
it was modified in practice by his transcen- — 
dental theory of ‘‘ Being’ taken by itself, was — 
more seriously affected by his predestinarian 


doctrine, which his transcendentalism certain- 
ly tended to reinforce. 
found salvation in the Catholic church (c. Ep. 


Fund. 6) in self-surrender to the authority οὗ 
““mihi autem cer- 
tum est nusquam prorsus ab auctoritate 


Christ (c. Acad. 111. 43: 


Christi discedere,’’ etc.). His whole religious 
thought, founded upon his experience of the 
Catholic church, turned upon Christ as its 
fountain-head and centre (see the passages 
collected by Reuter, pp. 19-25). His whole 
being, and that of the church, was owing to 
the grace of Christ (‘‘ gratia Dei per Christum, 


propter Christum,”’ etc.) ; the gratia Christi is 


the central idea of his theology. We saw 
above (§ 10) by what steps he was led, from 
the inward recognition of the sovereignty of 
grace in his personal life, to the logical con- 
clusion that salvation depends upon the 
Divine will irrespective of merit or of anything 
which takes place on earth. Membership of 
the church, a holy life, use of the means of 
grace, may be indispensable to the pre- 
destined ; but they are in no sense conditions 
of predestination, which is absolute. They 


depend on it, not it on them. Even the 


historical work of Christ is secondary to the 
Divine purpose to save some and “ pass over” 


the rest of mankind. Hence, on the one hand, 


the doctrine of particular redemption (for none 
perish for whom Christ died, Ep. 1694, while 
those predestined ad interitum are “non ad 
vitam aeternam sui sanguinis pretio compar- 
ati’ —in Joh. Tr. xlvii. 11, 4), on the other 
hand, a tendency to make the atonement not 
an efficient cause of redemption but a proof (to 
the elect) of God’s love: ‘ ut ostenderet Deus 
dilectionem suam,”’ etc. (de Catech. Rud. 4; 
cf. Ep. 17715: ‘‘ gratia Dei quae revelata est 
per passionem et resurrectionem Christi’’). 
The number of the predestined is irrevocably 
fixed, and this certus numerus constitute the 
church as it will be in the perfect Kingdom of 
God. The church on earth, viewed as it is 
in God’s sight, in its true ‘“‘ being,’ consists 
of the elect and of them alone. The old 
Catholic axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus thus 
acquires a new and unlooked-for meaning: 
out of the number of the elect there is no salva- 
tion. This is the Augustinian doctrine of the 
communion of saints, which stands in contrast 
with the externa communio or visible church 
as the invisible reality with the semi-real 
phenomenon. The distinction is not quite 
identical with the familiar distinction of wheat 
and tares, nominal and real Christians; for 
even real Christians have no certainty that 
they are ‘ elect.’”” The donum perseverantiae, 
which is as absolutely unmerited as that of 
faith, and is, in fact, the turning-point of the 
whole predestinarian scheme, may fail them 
(supra, ὃ το, c). In that case they are, after 
all, vessels of wrath; while again it may be 
vouchsafed to others who are now but nominal 
Christians, or not even that. When Augustine 
identifies the church with the Kingdom of 


Augustine had first — 


Ως 


ties 


es 


icmaione 


‘- 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 


God, it is really of the communio sanctorum | 
that he is thinking. The logical incompati- | 
bility of the predestinarian and the Catholic 
view of the church is obvious, and Augustine 
never effected their reconciliation. The ob- 
vious reconciliation, upon which he often 
appears to fall back, is that although the 
church contains many who are not “ elect,”’ 
it yet contains all the elect. But this is to 
assume that the Divine election is absolutely 
bound to external means, which Augustine 
does not really hold. On the contrary, his 
conception of the universality of the One 
Religion of Christ (swpra, a, sub fin.) brings in 
Job, the Sibyl, and doubtless many others 
“qui secundem Deum vixerunt eique placuer- 
unt, pertinentes ad spiritalem Hierusalem ”’ 
(de Civ. XVIII. xlvii.). Again, there are the 
unjustly excommunicated, who have nothing 
of the character of schismatics : ‘* hos coronat 
in occulto Pater,’’ etc. (de Vera Relig. ii. cf. 
de Bapt. 1. 26, Epp. 78. 3, 250, fragm. ad. fin.). 
But practically Augustine passes to and fro 
between the thought of the mwmerus prae- 
destinatorum and that of the visible church 
without being careful to distinguish them, 
and he freely applies to the latter the exalted 
and ideal prerogatives which are theoretically 
proper to the former. 

To this side of Augustine’s teaching applies 
the remark of Gibbon, that “ the rigid system 
of Christianity which he framed or restored 
has been entertained with public applause and 
secret reluctance by the Latin church.” In 
fact, as the ecclesiastical side of Augustine’s 
thought supplied the inspiration for the medi- 
eval theocracy, so his predestinarian idea of 
the church furnished the theological founda- 
tion for most of the medieval counter-move- 
ments, especially those of Marsilius, of Wyclif, 
and of Hus; and the Zwinglian idea of 
an invisible church is little more than an 
isolation of this doctrine from the Catholic 
context which surrounded it in Augustine’s 
own theology. 

8 17. Select Bibliography. (1) History of Pub- 
lication.—Augustine’s Retractationes, coupled 
with the Indiculus of Possidius, give a prac- 
tically complete list of his authentic works 
and of the occasions of their composition and 
publication. During his lifetime they were 
widely multiplied in Latin Christendom (Pos- 
sid. vii.) ; the Emendatiora Exempla, revised 
by himself, and bequeathed to the church of 
Hippo, were preserved through the disasters 
which overtook the town (ἐδ. xviii.). The 
history of the study and literary influence of 
Augustine in after-times must be read in the 
histories of Christian doctrine. For the 11th 
cent. we have a useful investigation by Mirbt 
(pupil of Reuter), Die Stellung Augustins in 
der Publizistik des Gregorianischen Kirchen- 
streits (Leipz. 1888). The history of manu- 
script transmission may be read in the prefa- 
tory notes to the several treatises in the 
Benedictine ed., and in the Prolegomena to 
the instalments of Augustine’s works that have 
so far been published in the Vienna Corpus 
Script. Eccles. Latinorum. The list of editions 
since the first by Amerbach (Basel, 1506) may 
be found in the article by Loofs (infra). The 
standard ed. is that by the Benedictines of 


St. Maur (see Kukula and Rottmanner in Hist. 


AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 91 


Phil. Transactions of the Vienna Academy, 
1890-1892, and Tassin, Hist. lit. de la Congrég. 
de 5. Maur., Brux. 1770), completed in 1690. 
The edition was by several hands, and was 
attacked fiercely by the opponents of J ansen- 
ism. This was perhaps inevitable in the at- 
tempt to make Augustine speak for himself. 
The principal points of attack were the Preface, 
by Mabillon, to the Tenth Volume, which its 
author revised under pressure, and the Jndex. 
The latter is a marvel of completeness, and 
many of its articles are in substance theologi- 
cal treatises. The Vita, mainly by Vaillant, 
is largely indebted to the contemporary work 
of Tillemont, the thirteenth vol. of whose 
Mémoires, a Life of St. Augustine, in 1075 pp., 
appeared after his death (1698). The Bened. 
ed. was reprinted at Venice, 1729-1735. The 
eleven vols. in folio were replaced in the 
next reprints (Venice, 1756-1769, Bassano, 
1797-1807) by eighteen in quarto. The Paris 
reprint of Gaume (1836-1839) and that of 
Migne (in the Patr. Lat., vols. 32-46) return to 
the arrangement of eleven vols. ; but in Migne 
some of the vols. are subdivided, and a twelfth 
of supplementary matter (Patr. Lat. 47) is 
added. This edition is better printed than 
many of the series, and is the most convenient 
for reference. Its text should be superseded 
by that of the Vienna Corpus; but at present 
only a portion of Augustine’s works have 
appeared in this series (Confessions, de Civ. 
Dei, Letters, 1-133, Speculum, several exegeti- 
cal works, anti-Manichean treatises, various 
anti-Pelagian works, and a vol. containing de 
Fid. et Symb., the Retractationes, and other 
works (1900); also the excerpts of Eugippius, 
an edition important for the light thrown by 
it on the text of Augustine). 

(2) Editions of Separate Works.—We have a 
good edition of the de Civitate Det, by Dom- 
bart (Triibner, 1863), and a more recent one of 
bks. xi. and xii., with intro., literal trans., and 
notes by Rev. H. Gee (Bell, 5s-), who has also 
ed. In Joannis Evang. Tract. xxiv.-xxvii. and 
Ixvii.-lxxix. (1s. 6d. each, Bell), with trans. 
by Canon H. Brown; a number of smaller 
tracts, and the de Trinitate in the SS. Patr. 
Opusc. Selecta, by H. Hurter, S.J. (Inns- 
bruck, Wagner); Anti-Pelagian Treatises, 
with valuable Introduction by Dr. Bright 
(Clarendon Press, 1880) ; de Catechiz. Rud., by 
Kriiger (in his Quellenschriften, 4, Frieburg, 
1891) ; Confessions, by Pusey (Oxf. 1838), 
and Gaume (Paris, 1836, 1z2mo). The new 
ed. of Tract. in Joh. \xvii.-lxxix., by H. F. 
Stewart (Camb. 1900), has a translation and 
some admirably digested introductory matter. 

(3) Translations.—The translations in the 
Oxford Library of the Fathers, and in Clark’s 
series (Edin. 1866-1872), are incorporated 
and supplied with useful introductory matter 
in the Post-Nicene Library (ser. τὴ. ed. by 
Dr. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, 1886-8). Three 
Anti-Pelagian Treatises, by Woods and John- 
ston (D. Nutt, 1887). The Confessions, bks. 
i.-ix., are translated by Dr. Charles Bigg 
(Methuen, 1897, with a most interesting Intro- 
duction). The extracts in this article follow 
this translation. Another ed. by Temple 
Scott, with intro. by Mrs. Meynell, is pub. by 
Mowbray (7s. 6d. net.), and follows Dr. Pusey’s 
trans. Dr. Hutchings trans. and ed. the Con- 


92 AUGUSTINUS 


fessions (Longmans, 2s. 6d.). Preaching and 
Teaching acc. to S. Aug. is a new trans. of 
the de Doct. Christ. bk. iv., and de Rudibus 
Catech. with 3 intro. essays by Rev. W. J. V. 
Baker and C. Bickersteth and a preface by 
Bp. Gore (Mowbray, 2s. 6d.). 

(4) Biographies.—In addition to that of 
Possidius, and those of the Benedictines and 
Tillemont mentioned above, see Remy Ceillier, 
Auteurs Sacrés, vols. 11 and 12; Acta Sanc- 
torum: Aug. vol. 6; Poujoulat, Hist. de Saint 
Aug. (Paris, 1843); Bohringer, Aur. Aug. 
(2 ed., Stuttg. 1878); Naville, St. Aug.: 
Etude sur le développement de sa pensée, etc. 
(Geneva, 1872); Bindemann, der h. Aug. (3 
vols., Berlin, 1844-1869); Harnack, Augus- 
tin’s Confesstonem (Giessen, 1888). The 
greater Church Histories, and works on Chris- 
tian literature, deal fully with Augustine. A 


brochure, S. Augustine and African Church | 


Divisions by the Rev. W. J. Sparrow Simpson, 
was pub. by Longmans in 1910. Of articles 
in Dictionaries, etc., we may mention those of 
de Pressensé, in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), which 
gives a very useful list of the contents of the 
several vols. of his works in the great Bene- 
dictine edition, and Loofs, in Herzog-Hauck’s 
Real-Encyclopadie (Leipz. 1897), an article 
worthy of the writer’s high reputation, and 
much used in the present article. 

(5) Doctrinal and General.—For older litera- 
ture, see the references to fuller bibliographies 
at the end. The Augustinische Studien of 
Hermann Reuter (Gotha, 1887), so frequently 
quoted above, are beyond comparison for 
thoroughness and impartiality, and indispens- 
able. The histories of doctrine should be 
consulted. Harnack’s treatment of Augustine 
(in his Dogmengeschichte, vol. 3) is among the 
most sympathetic and powerful portions of 
that work; the writer’s instinctive apprecia- 
tion of a great religious personality is nowhere 
more apparent than here. Loofs’s Leztfaden 
is also most useful. Mozley, The Augustinian 
Doctrine of Predestination (3rd. ed. 1883) ; 
Nourrisson, La Philosophie de St. Augustin 
(Paris, 1886, 2 vols.); Bright, Lessons from 
the Lives of Three Great Fathers (ed. 2, Oxf. 
1801); Cunningham, St. Austin (Hulsean 
Lectures, 1886); Bigg, Christian Platontsts 
of Alexandria (Bampton Lectures, 1886; 
comparison of Aug. with Origen, etc.) ; 
Robertson, Regnum Det (Bampton Lectures, 
No. 5); Dorner, Augustinus (Berlin, 1873) ; 
Gibb and Montgomery’s ed. of the Confessions 
in the Camb. Patristic Texts, 1908, a valuable 
critical ed. with Introduction. 

The above list is a mere selection. For more 
complete bibliography see Loofs (u.s.); Barden- 
hewer’s Patrology, Dr. Shahan’s trans. 1908, 
pub. by Herder, Freiburg i/B. and St. Louis, 
Mo.; Potthast, Bibliotheca Hist. Medit A evi (ed. 
2, 1896), vol. ii. p. 1187 ; Chevallier, Répertoire 
des sources historiques; de Pressensé (u.-s.) ; 
Nicene and post-Nicene Libr., ser. 1, vol. i. 
A short popular Life of St. Augustine is pub. 
in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, by S.P.C.K.., 
who also pub. an Eng. trans. of the Treatise 


on the City of God, by F. R. M. Hitchcock. | 


Cheap trans. of the Confessions and the City 

of God (2 vols.) are in A. and M. Theol. Lib. 

(Griffith). [A.R., IQOI.] 
Augustinus, St., archbp. of Canterbury. 


AUGUSTINUS 


The materials for the life of the first archbp, 
of Canterbury are almost entirely comprised 
in the first and second books of Bede’s Eccle- 
siastical History, with some additional points 
in Gocelin’s Life of St. Augustine, Thorn’s 
Chronicles of St. Augustine's Abbey; a few 
letters of Gregory the Great; the Lives of © 
Gregory the Great by Paul the Deacon and 
John the Deacon. 3 
His mission to England was due to the 
circumstance of Gregory the Great, a monk in 
the monastery of St. Andrew, on the Caelian 
Mount at Rome, one day passing through the 
market-place of the city, and noticing three 
boys exposed for sale who told him they were 
Angles from Deira, a province of King Ella, 
By a playful interpretation of the word he was 
reminded of angels, delivered from wrath, with 
songs of hallelujah. Years passed away and 
the idea ripened into a mission to Britain 
headed by Augustine the abbot of St. Andrew’s. 
In the summer of A.D. 596 they set out, 
traversed the north of Italy, and reached 
the neighbourhood of Aix, in Provence, and 
the north of France. They crossed _ the 
English Channel and landed at Ebbe’s Fleet, 
in the Isle of Thanet and kingdom of Kent. 
King Ethelbert received the missionaries in 
a friendly spirit, either in the open space near 
Ebbe’s Fleet, or, according to another ac- 
count, under an ancient oak in the middle of Ὁ 
the island. To make a deeper impression on 
the monarch’s mind, Augustine came up from _ 
the shore in solemn procession, preceded by | 
a verger carrying a large silver cross, and — 
followed by one bearing aloft on a board, © 
painted and gilded, a representation of the 
Saviour. Then came the rest of the brethren 
and the choir, headed by Honorius and the © 
deacon Peter, chanting a solemn litany for 
the eternal welfare of themselves and the 
people amongst whom they had come. 
Ethelbert listened attentively to Augustine’s | 
address, delivered through interpreters, and — 
then, in a manner at once politic and courteous, © 
replied that the promises of the strangers were — 
fair, but the tidings they announced were new ~ 
and full of a meaning he did not understand. _ 
He could not give his assent to them and 
leave the customs of his people, but he pro- 
mised the strangers kindness and hospitality, 
together with liberty to celebrate their ser- 
vices, and undertook that none of his subjects 
who might be so disposed should be prohibited > 
from espousing their religion. Augustine and 
his companions again formed a procession, and 
crossing the ferry to Richborough, advanced _ 
to Canterbury, chanting one of the solemn 
litanies learnt from Gregory, and took up 
their abode in the Stable-gate, near the present 
church of St. Alphege, till the king should 
finally make up his mind. 4 
Thus admitted into the city, the mission- 
aries commended their message by their self- 
devotion and pure and chaste living. Before 
long they were allowed to worship in the 
church of St. Martin, which Ethelbert’s 
Christian queen Bertha, a Gallic princess 
with bp. Liudhard for her chaplain, had been _ 
accustomed to attend, and they were thus 
| encouraged to carry on their labours with — 
| renewed zeal. At last Ethelbert avowed him- — 
| self ready to accept Christianity, and was bap- 


ATLL TOR TGS SS aS eee ον 


a wn ent 


ee 


= 


AUGUSTINUS 


tized on Whitsunday, June 2, 597, probably 
at St. Martin’s church. 

The conversion of their chief was, as is 
illustrated again and again in the history of 
medieval missions, the signal for the baptism 
of the tribe. At the next assembly, therefore, 
of the Witan, the matter was formally referred 
to the authorities of the kingdom, and they 
decided to follow the example of Ethelbert. 
Accordingly, on Dec. 25, 597, upwards of 
10,000 received baptism in the waters of the 
Swale, at the mouth of the Medway, and thus 
sealed their acceptance of the new faith. 

Thus successful in the immediate object of 
the mission, Augustine repaired to France, and 
was consecrated the first archbp. of Canter- 
bury by Virgilius, the metropolitan of Arles. 
On his return he took up his abode in the 
wooden palace of Ethelbert, who retired to 
Reculver, and this, with an old British or 
Roman church hard by, became the nucleus of 
Augustine’s cathedral. Another proof of the 
king’s kindness was soon displayed. To the 
west of Canterbury, and midway between it 
and the church of St. Martin, was a building, 
once a British church, but now used as a Saxon 
temple. This Ethelbert, instead of destroy- 
ing, made over to the archbishop, who dedi- 
eated it to St. Pancras, in memory, probably, 
of the young Roman martyr on the tombs of 
whose family the monastery on the Caelian 
Mount at Rome had been built. Round this 
building now rose another monastery, at the 
head of which Augustine placed one of his 
companions, Peter, as its first abbot. 

Before, however, these arrangements were 
completed, he sent Peter and Laurence to in- 
form Gregory of the success of the mission. 

Gregory was overjoyed at the receipt of the 
intelligence, and after an interval sent over a 
reinforcement of fresh labourers for the mis- 
sion, amongst whom were Mellitus, Paulinus, 
and Justus. They brought ecclesiastical vest- 
ments, sacred vessels, some relics of apostles 
and martyrs, a present of books, and the pall 
of a metropolitan for Augustine himself, who 
was thus made independent of the bishops 
of France. In a lengthened epistle Gregory 
sketched out the course which the archbishop 
was to take in developing his work. London 
was to be his metropolitan see, and he was to 
consecrate twelve bishops as suffragans. More- 
over, whenever Christianity had extended to 
York, he was to place there also a metropolitan 
with alike number of bishops underhim. As 
to the British bishops, they were all entrusted 
to his care, “that the unlearned might be 
instructed, the weak strengthened by per- 
Suasion, the perverse corrected with author- 
ity.” Augustine, thereupon, invited the 
British clergy to a conference on the confines 
of Wessex, near the Severn, under an oak, long 
after known as Augustine’s oak. Prepared to 
make considerable concessions, he yet felt 
that three points did not admit of being sacri- 
ficed. He proposed that the British church 
should (1) conform to the Roman usage in the 
celebration of Easter; and (2) the rite of 
baptism ; and (3) that they should aid him in 
evangelizing the heathen Saxons. The dis- 
cussion was long and fruitless. At last the 
archbishop proposed that an appeal should be 
made to the Divine judgment. A blind Saxon 


AUGUSTINUS 93 
was introduced, whom the British clergy were 
unable to cure. Augustine supplicated aid 
from above, and the man, we are told, forth- 
with recovered his sight. 

Convinced but unwilling to alter their old 
customs, the vanquished party proposed 
another meeting. Seven British bishops met 
on this occasion, together with Dinoth, abbot 
pf the great monastery of Bangor in Flint- 
Shire. Before the synod assembled, they pro- 
posed to ask the advice of an aged hermit 
whether they ought to change the traditions 
of their fathers. ‘‘ Yes,’’ replied the old man, 
“if the new-comer be aman ofGod?’”’ ‘“ But 
how,”’ they asked, ‘‘ are we to know whether 
he be a man of God?” ‘ The Lord hath 
said,’’ was the reply, ‘‘ ‘Take My yoke upon 
you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly.’ 
Now if this Augustine is meek and lowly, be 
assured that he beareth the yoke of Christ.’ 
“ Nay, but how are we to know this?” they 
asked again. ‘‘ If he rises to meet you when 
ye approach,’’ answered the hermit, “ hear 
and follow him; but if he despise you, and 
fails to rise up from his place, let him also be 
despised by νοι." The synod met, and Augus- 
tine remained seated when they approached. 
It was enough. It was deemed clear that he 
had not the Spirit of Christ, and no efforts of 
the archbishop could induce the British clergy 
to yield to any of his demands. Thereupon 
Augustine broke up the conference with an 
angry threat that, if the British clergy would 
not accept peace with their brethren, they 
must look for war with their foes, and if they 
would not proclaim the way of life to the 
Saxons, they would suffer deadly vengeance 
at their hands. Thus, unsuccessful, Augus- 
tine returned to Canterbury, and there relaxed 
none of his efforts to evangelize the Saxon 
tribes. As all Kent had espoused the Faith, 
it was deemed advisable to erect a second 
bishopric at Rochester. Over it Augustine 
placed his companion Justus, and Ethelbert 
caused a cathedral to be built, which was 
named after St. Andrew, in memory of the 
monastery dedicated to that Apostle on the 
Caelian Hill at Rome, whence the missionaries 
had started. At the same time, through the 
connexion of the same monarch with the king 
of Essex, who was his nephew, Christianity 
found its way into the adjacent kingdom, and 
the archbishop was able to place Mellitus in 
the see of London, where Ethelbert built a 
church, dedicated to St. Paul. 

This was the limit of Augustine’s success. 
It fell, indeed, far short of Gregory’s grand 
design ; but this had been formed on a very 
imperfect acquaintance with the condition of 
the island, the strong natural prejudices of 
the British Christians, and the relations which 
subsisted between the different Anglo-Saxon 
kingdoms. On Mar. 12, 604, Gregory died, and 
two months afterwards according to some 
authorities, or a year after according to 
others, Augustine followed his patron and 
benefactor, and was buried in the cemetery 
which he himself had consecrated, beside the 
Roman road that ran over St. Martin’s Hill 
from Richborough to Canterbury. 

The most important modern authorities for 
the life of the first archbp. of Canterbury 
are Montalambert, Monks of the West, iii. ; 


94 AURELIAN 


Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury, i.; Stanley, 
Memorials of Canterbury, 4th ed. 1865; 
Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity, ii. 4th ed. 
1867 ;. A. J. Mason, The Mission of St. Aug. 
to Eng., 1897; Bp. Browne, Aug. and his 
Companions, 1895; Gasquet, Missions of St. 
Aug.; Bp. Collins, Beginnings of Eng. Chris- 
tianity. [G.F.M.] 
Aurelian, a.p. 270-275. The few facts 
which connect the name of this emperor with 
the history of the Christian church are as 
follows :—(1) he is said (Vopiscus, c. 20) to 
have reproached the Roman senate for not 
consulting the Sibylline books, as their fathers 
would have done, at a time of danger and per- 
plexity. ‘It would seem,”’ he said, “as if 
you were holding your meetings in a church 
of the Christians instead of in the temple of 
all the gods.’”’ The words clearly imply a 
half-formed suspicion that the decline of the 
old faith was caused by the progress of the 
new. The decree of Gallienus recognising 
Christianity as a religio licitta had apparently 
stimulated church building. (2) Startled by 
the rapid progress of Christianity, Aurelian is 
said to have resolved towards the close of his 
reign on active measures for its repression. 
The edict of Gallienus was to be rescinded. A 
thrill of fear pervaded the Christian popula- 
tion of the empire. The emperor was sur- 
rounded by counsellors who urged on him a 
policy of persecution, but his death hindered 
the execution of his plans. (3) In the interval 
we find him connected, singularly enough, 
with the action of the church in a case of 
heresy. Paul of Samosata had been chosen 
as bp. of Antioch in a.p. 260. A synod of 
bishops including Firmilianus of the Cappado- 
cian Caesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and 
others, had condemned his teaching; but on 
receiving promises of amendment had left him 
in possession of the see. Another (A.D. 270) 
deposed him, and Domnus was appointed in 
his place. Paul refused to submit and kept 
possession of the episcopal residence. Such 
was the position of affairs at Antioch when 
Aurelian, having conquered Zenobia, became 
master of the city. The orthodox bishops 
appealed to the emperor to settle whose the 
property was, and he adjudged it to belong 
to those to whom the bishops in Italy and 
in Rome had addressed their epistles (Eus. 
H. E. viii. 27-30). [E.H.P.] 
Aurelius, Marcus, emperor, a.p. 161-180. 
The policy adopted by Marcus Aurelius to- 
wards the Christian church cannot be separ- 
ated from the education which led him to 
embrace Stoicism, and the long training which 
he had, after he had attracted the notice of 
Hadrian and been adopted by Antoninus Pius, 
in the art of ruling. In the former he had 
learnt, as he records with thankfulness, from 
his master Diognetus (Medtt. i. 6), the temper 
of incredulity as to alleged marvels, like those 
of seers and diviners. Under Haprian and 
ANTONINUS Pius he had acquiesced, at least, 
in a policy of toleration, checking false accu- 
sations, requiring from the accusers proof of 
some other crime than the mere profession of 
Christianity. It is, therefore, startling to find 
that he takes his place in the list of persecutors 
along with Nero and Domitian and Decius. 
The annals of martyrdom place in his reign 


AURELIUS, MARCUS 


the deaths of Justin Martyr at Rome (a.p. | 
166), of Polycarp at Smyrna (A.D. 167), of 
Blandina and Pothinus and the other sufferers 
at Lyons (A.D. 177). The last-named year 
seems indeed to have witnessed an outburst 
of popular fury against the new sect, and this 
could not have been allowed to rage without 
the emperor’s sanction, even if there were no 
special edicts like those of which Melito 
speaks (Eus. H. E. iv. 26) directly authoriz- 
ing new measures of repression. It was ac- 
cordingly an era of Apologies; Justin had led © 
the way under Antoninus Pius, and the second 
treatise that bears his name was probably 
written just before his own martyrdom under 
Aurelius. To the years 177 and 178 are 
assigned those which were written by Melito, 
Tatian, Athenagoras, Apollinaris, and Theo- 
philus, perhaps also that of Miltiades. The 
causes of this increased rigour are not difficult 
to trace. (1) The upward progress of Chris- 
tianity brought its teachers into rivalry with 
the Stoic philosophers who up to this time, 
partly for good and partly for evil, had occu- 
pied the position of spiritual directors in the 
families in which there was any effort to rise 
out of the general debasement. They now 
found themselves brought into contact with 
men of a purer morality and a nobler fortitude 
than their own, and with a strange mysterious 
power which enabled them to succeed where 
others failed. Just in proportion, therefore, 
as the emperor was true to his Stoicism was 
he likely to be embittered against their rivals. 
(2) A trace of this bitterness is found in his 
own Meditations (xi. 3). Just as Epictetus 
(Arrian, Epict. iv. 7) had spoken of the 
“counterfeit apathy’’ which was the off- 
spring not of true wisdom, but “ of madness 
or habit like that of the Galileans,’’ so the 
emperor contrasts the calm considerate pre- 
ference of death to life, which he admired, 
with the ‘‘ mere obstinacy (παράταξις) of the 
Christians.’”’ ‘‘ The wise man,’ he says, 
“should meet death σεμνῶς καὶ ἀτραγῴδως." 
The last word has, there seems reason to be- 
lieve, a special significance. Justin, towards 
the close of his second Apology, presented to 
this emperor, had expressed a wish that some 
one would stand up, as on some lofty rostrum, 
and “cry out with a tragic voice, Shame, 
shame on you who ascribe to innocent men the 
things which ye do openly yourselves. . . . 
Repent ye, be converted to the ways of purity 
and wisdom (Meraéecbe, cwhpovicbyre).” If 
we believe that his acts were in harmony with 
his words or that what he wrote had come 
under the emperor’s eye, it is natural to see 
in the words in which the latter speaks so 
scornfully of the ‘‘ tragic airs”’ of the Chris- 
tians a reference to what had burst so rudely 
upon his serene tranquillity. (3) The period 
was one of ever-increasing calamities. The 
earthquakes which had alarmed Asia under 
Antoninus were but the prelude to more 
serious convulsions. The Tiber rose to an 
unprecedented height and swept away the 
public granaries. This was followed by a 
famine, and that by a pestilence, which spread 
from Egypt and Ethiopia westward. Every- 
where on the frontiers there were murmurs of 
insurrection or invasion. The year 166 was 
long known as the “‘ annus calamitosus,’”’ and 


(t 
) 


ty 


οὐ of Ὁ ee 96... 


| 
| 
| 


—— 


AUSONIUS, DECIMUS MAGNUS 


it was in that year that the persecution broke 
out and that Justin suffered. These calami- 
ties roused the superstition of the great mass 
of the people, and a wild fanaticism succeeded 


to an epicurean atheism. The gods were | 
wroth, and what had roused their anger but | 


the presence of those who denied them ? 
“ Christianos ad leones"’ seemed the remedy 
for every disaster. The gods might accept 
that as a piacular offering. On the other 
hand, the Christians saw in them signs of the 
coming judgment, and of the end of the 
world; and now in apocalyptic utterances, 


now in Sibylline books, uttered, half exult- | 


antly, their predictions of the impending 
woe (cf. Tertull. ad Scap. c. 3). All this, of 
course, increased the irritation against them 
to the white heat of frenzy (Milman’s Hist. 
of Christianity, bk. ii. c. 7). They not only 
provoked the gods, and refused to join in 
sacrifices to appease them, but triumphed in 
their fellow-citizens’ miseries. 

Two apparent exceptions to this policy of 
repression have to be noticed. (1) One edition 
of the edict πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν της Ασίας, though 
ascribed by Eusebius (H. Ε. iv. 13) to 


Antoninus Pius, purports, as given by him, to | 


come from Aurelius. But the edict is unques- 
tionably spurious, and merely shows the wish 
of some Christians, at a later stage in the con- 
flict, to claim the authority of the philosopher 
in favour of his brethren. (2) There is the 
decree mentioned by Eusebius (H. E. v. 5) on 
the authority of Tertullian (A pol. ο. 5, ad Scap. 
δ. 4, p- 208) and appended to Justin’s first 
Apology, which purports to be addressed to the 
Senate, informing them how, when he and his 
army were in danger of perishing for want of 
water in the country of the Marcomanni, the 
Christians in his army had prayed to their 
God, and refreshing rain had fallen for them, 
and a destroying hail on their enemies, and 
bidding them therefore to refrain from all 
accusations against Christians as such, and 
ordering all who so accused them to be burnt 
alive. (Cf. THUNDERING LEGION in D.C. B. 
4-vol. ed.) The decree is manifestly spurious. 
An interesting monograph, M. Aurelius An- 
toninus als Freund und Zettgenosse des Rabbis 
Jehudas ben Nasi, by Dr. A. Bodek (Leipz. 
1868), may be noticed as maintaining that this 
emperor is identical with the Antoninus ben 
Ahasuerus, who is mentioned in the Talmud 
as on terms of intimacy with one of the 
leading Jewish teachers of the time. If this 
be accepted, it suggests another possible 
element in his scorn of Christianity. G. H. 
Rendal, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, to Him- 
self, Eng. trans. with valuable Intro. (Lond. 
1898). [E.H.P.] 

Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, a native of 
Bordeaux, was the son of Julius Ausonius, a 
physician of Cossium (Bazas), in Aquitania 
(Aus. Idyll. ii. 2). His poems, which are 
singularly communicative as to his private 


history, display him to us in riper years both | 


as student and courtier, professor and prefect, 
poet and consul. At the age of 30 he was 


promoted to the chair of rhetoric in his native ] 


city, and not long after was invited to court 
by the then Christian emperor Valentinian I., 
who appointed him tutor to his son Gratian 
(Praef. ad Syagr. 15-26). Ausonius was held 


/studious retirement (Ep. xxiv.). 


AUSONIUS, DECIMUS MAGNUS 95 


in bigh regard by the emperor and his sons 
and accompanied the former in his expedition, 
against the Alemanni. It was no doubt 
during the residence of the court at Tréves at 
this time that he composed his Mosella. From 
Valentinian he obtained the title of Comes and 
the office of Quaestor, and on the accession 
of Gratian became successively Prefect of 
Latium, Libya, and Gaul, and finally, a.p. 379, 
was raised to the consulship (Praef. ad Syagr. 
35, etc.; Epigr. ii. iii., de fast.). After the 
death of Gratian, A.p. 383, although he seems 
to have enjoyed the favour of Theodosius 
(Praef. ad Theodos.), it is probable that he 
returned to the neighbourhood of his native 
city and spent the remainder of his life in 
His corre- 
spondence with Paulinus of Nola evidently 
belongs to these later years. The date of his 
death is unknown, but he was certainly alive 
in A.D. 388, as he rejoices in the victory of 
Theodosius over the murderer of Gratian at 
Aquileia (Clar. Urb. vii.). 

The question of the poet’s religion has 
always been a matter of dispute. Voss, Cave, 
Heindrich, Muratori, ete., maintain that he 
was a pagan, while Jos. Scaliger, Fabricius, 
Funccius, and later M. Ampére, uphold the 
contrary view. Without assenting to the 
extreme opinion of Trithemius, who even 
makes him out to have held the see of Bor- 
deaux, we may safely pronounce in favour of 
his Christianity. The negative view rests 
purely upon assumptions, such as that a 
Christian would not have been guilty of the 
grossness with which some of his poems are 
stained, nor have been on such intimate terms 
with prominent heathens (Symmach. Epp. ad 
Auson. passim), nor have alluded so constantly 
to pagan rites and mythology without some 
expression of disbelief. On the other hand, 
he was not only appointed tutor to the Chris- 
tian son of a Christian emperor, whom he 
seems at any rate to have instructed in the 
Christian doctrine of prayer (Grat. Act. 43) ; 
but certain of his poems testify distinctly to 
his Christianity in language that is only to be 
set aside by assuming the poems themselves 
to be spurious. Such are (1) the first of his 
idylls, entitled Versus Paschales, and com- 
mencing Sancta salutiferi redeunt solemnia 
Christi, the genuineness of which is proved by 
a short prose address to the reader connecting 
it with the next idyll, the Epicedion, inscribed 
to his father. (2) The Ephemeris, an account 
of the author’s mode of spending his day, 
which contains not merely an allusion to the 
chapel in which his morning devotions were 
performed (I. 7), but a distinct confession of 
faith, in the form of a prayer to the first two 
Persons of the Trinity. (3) The letters of the 
poet to his friend and former pupil St. Paulin- 
us of Nola, when the latter had forsaken the 
service of the pagan Muses for the life of a 
Christian recluse. This correspondence, so far 
from being evidence that he was a heathen 
(see Cave, etc.), displays him to us rather as a 
Christian by conviction, still clinging to the 
pagan associations of his youth, and incapable 
of understanding a truth which had revealed 
itself to his friend, that Christianity was 
not merely a creed but a life. The letters 
are a beautiful instance of wounded but not 


96 AVITUS, ALCIMUS ECDICIiUS 


embittered affection on the one side, and of 
an attachment almost filial tempered by firm 
religious principle on the other. Paulinus 
nowhere chides Ausonius for his paganism ; 
on the contrary, he assumes his Christianity 
(Paulin. Ep. ii. 18, 19), and this is still further 
confirmed by a casual passage in one of the 
poet’s letters to Paulinus, in which he speaks 
of the necessity of returning to Bordeaux in 
order to keep Easter (Ep. viii. 9). Ausonius 
was not a Christian in the same sense as 
Paulinus; he was one who hovered on the 
borderland which separated the new from 
the old religion: not ashamed, it is true, to 
pen obscenities beneath the eye and at the 
challenge of his patron, yet in the quiet of his 
oratory feeling after the God of the Christians ; 


convinced apparently of the dogma of the! 


Trinity, yet so little penetrated by its awful 
mystery as to give it a haphazard place in a 
string of frivolous triplets composed at the 
dinner-table (Gryph. Tern. 87) : keenly alive to 
natural beauty, and susceptible of the tender- 
est affection, he yet fell short of appreciating 
in his disciple the more perfect beauty of 
holiness, and the entire abnegation of self for 
the love of a divine master. Probably his 
later Christianity would have disowned his 
own youthful productions. 

The works of Ausonius comprise : Epigram- 
maton Liber, a collection of 150 epigrams 
on all manner of subjects, political, moral, 
satirical, amatory ; many of which for terse- 
ness and power of sarcasm are only sur- 
passed by those of Martial. Ephemeris (see 
above). Parentalia, a series of tributes to the 
memory of those of his family and kindred 
who had died before him, many of which are 
full of pathos. The Mosella is a poem in 
praise of his favourite river. The Epistolae 
are, on the whole, the most interesting, be- 
cause the most heartfelt, of the works of 
Ausonius; they number 25, addressed to 
various friends. Those to St. Paulinus of 
Nola prove that the poet was capable of 
earnestness when his heart was stirred. 

The works of Ausonius are published in 
Migne’s Patr. Lat. vol. xix. There is a com- 
plete ed. by R. Peiper (Leipz. 1886); H. de 
la V. de Mirmont, Mosella, with trans. (Bor- 
deaux, 1889); also de Mosella (Paris, 1892); 
Dill, Roman Society (Lond. 1898). [E.M.y.] 

Avitus, Aleimus Eedicius, archbp. of Vienne 
in Narbonian Gaul; born about the middle 
of 5th cent. His father belonged to a family 
of senatorial rank. His mother, Audentia, 
was, in all probability, a sister of M. Maecilius 
Avitus, emperor of the West, a.p. 456. The 
mother of Sidonius Apollinaris the poet, who, 
in a letter to Alcimus Avitus, speaks of their 
near relationship and the identity of their 
youthful pursuits, seems to have been another 
sister of the same illustrious family (Sidon. 
Apoll. Ep. iii. 1, 61). A student’s life at- 
tracted Avitus more than did wealth and rank, 
and at an early age he bestowed his patrimony 
upon the poor and retired into the seclusion 
of a monastery close to the walls of his native 
city. Here he gained so high a reputation for 


piety and learning that in 490 Α.Ὁ., upon the | 
death of his father, he was elected to succeed | 
The fame of Avitus | 


him in the archbishopric. 
rests partly upon his poetry and partly upon 


AVITUS, ALCIMUS ECDICIUS 


the important part he was called to play in the 
controversies of his time. In 499 Vienne 
was captured by Gundobald, king of the 
Burgundians, who was at war with Clovis, 
king of the Franks; and Avitus, as metro- 
politan of S. and E. Gaul, took the lead in 
a conference between the Catholic and Arian 
bishops held in presence of Gundobald at 
Sardiniacum near Lyons (Greg. Turon., ii. 
34). The king was convinced by the earnest 
entreaties and powerful reasoning of Avitus, 
who addressed several extant letters to him, 
but could never be induced to recant his 
errors publicly. His successor Sigismund was 
converted by Avitus from Arianism. : 
Avitus published treatises in confutation 
of the Nestorian, Eutychian, and Sabellian 
heresies ; he also wrote against the Pelagian © 
errors of Faustus, abbot of Lerins, and con- 
verted many Jews who had settled in his 
diocese (Venant. Fortun. 1. v. c. 5). 
From a letter of pope Hormisdas to Avitus 
(Ep. x.) we gather that he was made vicar 
apostolic in Gaul by that pontiff; and in a.p. 
517 he presided in this capacity at the council 
of Epaune (Concilium Epaonense) for the 
restitution of ecclesiastical discipline in Nar- — 
bonian Gaul. But his influence seems to have — 
extended far beyond the limits of his own 
diocese, as is shewn by his correspondence ~ 
with several historical personages at Rome, 
Faustus, Symmachus, Vitalianus, ete. 
He appears also to have exerted himself to — 
terminate the dispute between the churches © 
of Rome and Constantinople which arose out 
of the excommunication of Acactus; that 
this was accomplished before his death we 
gather from his letters (Epp. iii, vii.). Ἢ 
Avitus died Feb. 5, 523, and was buried in 
the monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul at 
Vienne, where the greater part of his youth 
had been spent. 
The extant works of St. Avitus are as 
follows: A poem in five books on subjects — 
drawn from Genesis and Exodus: de Origine 
Mundi; de Peccato Originali; de Sententia 
Det; de Diluvio; de Transitu Mavis Rubri, 
this is dedicated to his brother Apollinaris, — 
and consists of 2611 hexameter lines. The 
first three books might almost have suggested ἡ 
the idea of Milton’s Paradise Lost, to which 
they bear a curious and in many points 
interesting analogy. A collection of gf 
letters, several of historical interest, especially — 
that addressed to Clovis (Ep. xli.) upon his | 
baptism. A homily, de Festo Rogationum, — 
from which the religious observance of Roga-_ 
tion days took its origin. [MameErtus.] A 
second homily representing the Rogation of 
the third day, which was discovered in the — 
library of the Grande Chartreuse, and first 
published in 1717 by Dom Marten (Thesaur. — 
Anecd. p. 47). A homily preached on the 
occasion of the dedication of a church erected © 
by Maximus, bp. of Geneva. Seventy-two — 
short fragments of homilies, sermons, etc. — 
The Collatio Episcoporum contra Arianos coram 
| Gundobaldo rege, first published in d’Achery’s — 
Spicilegium, 1655 ff. (tom. iii. p. 304, ed. Paris, — 
1725). These remains contain much that is 
valuable with reference to the history, doc- — 
trine, and discipline of the church in the 5th 
cent. The works of Avitus are contained — 


4 


᾿ 


«αἴ 


BABYLAS 


in Migne’s Patrologia, vol. lix. 
N. Chevallier (Lyons, 1890). 


B 


Babylas (1), bp. of Antioch from A.p. 237 
or 238 until his martyrdom, A.D. 250 or 251, 
under Decius, either by death in prison for the 
faith (Eus. H. E. vi. 39), or by direct violence 
(St. Chrys. de St. Bab. c. Gentes, tom. i.) ; other 
authorities—Epiphanius (de Mens. xviii.), Sozo- 
men (v. 19), Theodoret (H. E. iii. 6)—simply 
calling him martyr, while St. Jerome (de Scripit. 
Ecel. liv. lxii.) gives both accounts in different 
places. The Acta of Babylas (Acta SS. Jan. 
24), place his martyrdom under Numerian, by 
ἃ confusion(according to Baronius’s conjecture, 
ad ann. 253, § 126) with one Numerius, who 
was an active officer in the Decian persecution 
(Tillemont, M. E. iii. 729). The great act of 
his life was the compelling the emperor Philip, 
when at Antioch shortly after the murder of 
Gordian, to place himself in the ranks of the 
penitents, and undergo penance, before he was 
admitted to church privileges (κατέχει λόγος, 
according to Eus. H. E. vi. 34, but asserted 
without qualification by St. Chrysostom, as 
above, while the V. St. Chrys. in Acta SS. Sept. 
tom. iv. 439, transfers the story, against all 
probability, to Decius, and assigns it as the 
cause of St. Babylas’s martyrdom). But his 
fame has arisen principally from the triumph 
of his relics after his death over another 
emperor, viz. Julian the Apostate, A.D. 362. 
The oracle of Apollo at Daphne, it seems, was 
rendered dumb by the near vicinity of St. 
Babylas’s tomb and church, to which his body 
had been translated by Gallus, A.p. 351. And 
Julian in consequence, when at Antioch, 
ordered the Christians to remove his shrine 
(Adpyaxa), or rather (according to Amm. 

ll. xxii.), to take away all the bodies 
buried in that locality. A crowded procession 
of Christians, accordingly, excited to a pitch 
of savage enthusiasm characteristic of the 
Antiochenes, bore his relics to a church in 
Antioch, the whole city turning out to meet 
them, and the bearers and their train tumul- 
tuously chanting psalms the whole way, 
especially those which denounce idolatry. On 
the same night, by a coincidence which Julian 
strove to explain away by referring it to 
Christian malice or to the neglect of the 
heathen priests, the temple of Apollo was 
struck by lightning and burned, with the great 
idol of Apollo itself. Whereupon Julian in 
revenge both punished the priests and closed 
the great church at Antioch (Julian Imp. 
Misopog. Opp. ii. 97 (Paris, 1630); St. Chrys. 
Hom. de St. Bab. c. Gent. and Hom. de St. Bab. ; 
Theod. de Cur. Graec. Affect. x. and H. E. iii. 
6,7; Socr. iii. 13; Soz. v. 19, 20; Rufin. x. 
35; Amm. Marcell. xxii. pp. 225, 226). St. 
Chrysostom also quotes a lamentable oration 
of the heathen sophist Libanius upon the event. 
The relics of St. Babylas were subsequently 
removed once more to a church built for them 
on the other side of the Orontes (St. Chrys. 
Hom. de St. Bab. ; Soz. vii. 10). [A.W.H.] 

Trius, a monk, early in the 5th cent., 
author of two short treatises printed in the 
Biblioth. Vet. Patr. of Galland, vol. ix. and the 
Patrologia of Migne, vol. xx. He is com- 


Oeuvres, ed. 
(E.M.Y.] 


BARDAISAN 97 


memorated by Gennadius (c. 24), who attri- 
butes to him several works, only one of which 
he acknowledges to have reaad—viz. the Libellus 
de Fide A pologeticus, to satisfy the bp. of Rome 
of his orthodoxy, who regarded him with 
suspicion on account of his being a native of 
a country tainted with heresy. What this 
country was there is nothing in his Libellus to 
determine. Bachiarius’s profession of faith 
is thoroughly orthodox in all leading points. 
Its date is fixed approximately at about the 
middle of the 5th cent., by his denial of the 
tenets of Origen regarding the soul and the 
resurrection life, and those of Helvidius on the 
perpetual virginity of the Virgin (§ 3, 4), and 
by his omission of the Son when speaking of 
the procession of the Holy Ghost. This con- 
fession is an interesting document, and will 
repay perusal. It was first printed by Mura- 
tori (Anecd. Latin. ii. 939). He also wrote ad 
Januartum Liber de Reparatione Lapsi in 
behalf of a monk whom Januarius had ex- 
pelled from the monastery of which he was the 
head for immorality with anun. He rebukes 
Januarius and his monks for refusing to 
receive the monk again on his penitence. 
Bachiarius has been confused by Cave, Bale, 
and others with Mochta, a disciple of St. 
Patrick. Tillemont, xvi. 473-476 ; Cave, Hist. 
Lit. i. 429. [ε.ν.] 
Bardaisan (Bardesanes). A Syrian theo- 
logian, commonly reckoned among Gnostics. 
Born at Edessa a.p. 155, and died there A.D. 
222-223. His theology as known to us is 
doubtless a mere fraction of his actual theo- 
logy. His reception of the Pentateuch, which 
he seemed to contradict, is expressly attested, 
and there is no reason to suppose that he 
rejected the ordinary faith of Christians as 
founded on the Gospels and the writings of 
the apostles, except on isolated points. The 
more startling peculiarities of which we hear 
belong for the most part to an outer region 
of speculation, which it may easily have 
seemed possible to combine with Christianity, 
more especially with the undeveloped Chris- 
tianity of Syria in the 3rd cent. The local 
colour is everywhere prominent. In passing 
over to the new faith, Bardaisan could not 
shake off the ancient glamour of the stars, 
or abjure the Semitic love of clothing 
thoughts in mythological forms. Scarcely 
anything survives of his writings, for a Dia- 
logue concerning Fate, extant in Syriac 
under the title ‘‘ Book of the Laws of the 
Countries,’’ is by his disciple Philip. The 56 
Hymns of Ephrem Syrus against Heresies are 
intended to refute the doctrines of Marcion, 
Bardaisan, and Mani, but Ephrem’s criticism 
is harsh and unintelligent. On the whole, 
whatever might have come to Bardaisan 
through Valentinianism might as easily have 
come to him directly from the traditions of his 
race, and both alternatives are admissible. 
It is on any supposition a singular fact that 
the remains of his theology disclose no traces 
of the deeper thoughts which moved the 
Gnostic leaders. That he held a doctrinal 
position intermediate between them and the 
church is consistent with the circumstances of 
his life, but is not supported by any internal 
evidence. On this, as on many other points, 
we can only deplore our ignorance about a 


7 


98 BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF 


person of singular interest—(From H. in 
D. C. B. 4-vol. ed.; cf. Bardenhewer, p. 78.) 

Barnabas, Epistle of.—I. Authenticity.—Is 
this epistle the production of the Barnabas so 
often associated with St. Paul; or has it been 
falsely connected with his name? The ques- 
tion is one of deep interest, bearing on the 
historical and critical spirit of the early Chris- 
tian church. 

It is admitted on all sides that the external 
evidence is decidedly in favour of the idea that 
the epistle is authentic. Clement of Alex- 
andria bears witness to it as the work of 
‘‘ Barnabas the apostle’’—‘‘ Barnabas who 
was one of the seventy disciples and the 
fellow-labourer of Paul’’—‘‘ Barnabas who 
also preached the Gospel along with the 
apostle according to the dispensation of the 
Gentiles ’’ (Strom. ii. 7, 35; 11. 20, 116; ν. 10, 
64 Cty αἴξ τ Ὁ; 51,1: τὸ δ. 1|- 18) 83; 
v. 8, 52). The same may be said of Origen, 
who speaks of it as ‘‘ the Catholic Ep. of 
Barnabas ”’ (c. Cels. i. 63). Eusebius disputes 
its canonicity, but is hardly less decided 
in favour of its authenticity. It is included 
by him at one time among the disputed, at 
another among the spurious books; yet there 
is no reason to doubt that when, in both pas- 
sages, he calls it the Ep. of Barnabas, he under- 
stands not an unknown person of that name 
but the Barnabas of Scripture (vi. 14, iii. 25). 
Jerome must be understood to refer to it when 
he tells us of an Ep. read among the apocry- 
phal books, and written by Barnabas of 
Cyprus, who was ordained along with Paul 
the Apostle of the Gentiles (de Vir. Ill. c. vi.). 
In the Stichometria of Nicephorus, in the 5th 
cent., it is enumerated among the uncanonical 
books; and, at the close of that cent., a 
similar place is assigned to it by Anastasius 
Sinaita. Since it is, moreover, found in 
Codex § attached to the books of N.T., there 
is no doubt the early Christian church con- 
sidered it authentic. That she refused to allow 
its canonicity islittle tothe purpose. The very 
fact that many thought it entitled to a place 
in the canon is a conclusive proof of the opinion 
that had been formed of its authorship. The 
early Church drew a line between apostles and 
companions of apostles; and, although writ- 
ings of the latter, such as the Gospels of 
St. Mark and St. Luke, and the Ep. to the 
Hebrews, were received into the canon, the 
connexion between the writers of these books 
and one or other of the apostles was believed 
to be such that the authority of the latter 
could be transferred to the former. Such a 
transference would be more difficult in the 
case of Barnabas, because, although associ- 
ated at one time with St. Paul in his labours, 
the two had differed in opinion and separated. 

It is on ¢tnternal evidence that many dis- 
tinguished critics have denied its authenticity. 
That there is great force in some at least of 
the arguments adduced by them from this 
source it is impossible to deny, yet they do 
not seem so irresistible as to forbid renewed 
consideration. They have been summed up 
by Hefele (Patr. A post. p. 14), and succeeding 
writers have added little to his statement. 
Of his eight arguments, five may be at once 
rejected: The first, that the words of Augus- 
tine regarding the Apocrypha of Andrew and 


BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF 


John, si illorum essent recepta essent ab ecclesia, Ὁ 
show that our epistle would have been placed 
in the canon had it been deemed authentic; _ 
for Andrew and John were apostles, Barnabas 
was not. The second, that Barnabas had died 
before the destruction of Jerusalem, while the 
epistle bears clear marks of not having been 
written until after that date; for this idea is 
no just inference from the texts referred to, 
Col. iv. το, x Pet. v. 13, 2 Tim. 11]. (iv. ἢ) ἘΝ 
and the authority of a monk of the 6th or 
gth cent. is not to be relied on. The third, 
that the apostles chosen by our Lord are 
described in c. v. as ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν 
ἀνομώτεροι ; for these words are simply intro- 
duced to magnify the grace of Christ in calling 
not the righteous but sinners to repentance. 
It was an undoubted fact that the Saviour had 
associated with publicans and sinners, and 
Barnabas may mean no more than that out of 
that class were the apostles chosen. He may 
even have had the career of Saul previous to 
his call to the apostleship mainlyin view. The 
fourth argument of Hefele, that the epistle be- 
trays in c. x. so much ignorance of the habits 
of various animals, is not valid; for natural 
history was then but little known. The fifth 
argument of the same writer to be set aside 
is that Barnabas, who had travelled in 
Asia Minor, and lived at Antioch in Syria, 
could not have asserted in c. ix. that the 
Syrians were circumcised, when we know from 
Josephus (contr. Ap. i. 22; Antiq. viii. το, 3) 
that they were not; for, however frequently — 
this statement has been repeated, Josephus 
says nothing of the kind. What he says is, 
that a remark of Herodotus, to the effect that 
the Syrians who live in Palestine are circum- 
cised, proves that historian’s acquaintance 
with the Jews, because the Jews were the only 
inhabitants of Palestine by whom that rite 
was practised, and it must have been of them, 
therefore, that he was speaking, and he quotes 
Herodotus, and without any word of dissent, 
as saying that the Syrians about the rivers 
Thermodon and Parthenius, that is in the 
northern parts of Syria, did submit to circum- 
cision. He may thus be even said to confirm 
the statement of our epistle. ; 

The three remaining arguments of Hefele 
are more important. 

(1) That the many trifling allegories of cc. 
v.-xl. are unworthy of one who was named the 
‘Son of Consolation.’’ It is true that it is 
difficult to conceive how such a one could find 
in the numeral letters of the Greek version of 
the O.T. an indication of the will of Him Who 
had given that Testament in Hebrew to His 
ancient people. Yet, after all, is it not the 
time rather than the writer that is here in 
fault ? It is unfair to take as our standard of 
judgment the principles of interpretation just 
now prevailing. We must transfer ourselves 
into the early Christian age, and remember the 
spirit of interpretation that then prevailed. 
We must call to mind the allegorical explana- 
tions of both Jewish and heathen schools, 
whose influence passed largely into the Christ- 
ian church. Above all, we must think of the 
estimation in which the epistle was held for 
centuries, e.g. by Clement and Origen; that 
some would have assigned it a place in the 
canon; and that, even by those who denied 


SE ἔπ 55. ον ας δ 


& 


δῳωρν 6: ἐν 


= 


BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF 


it that place, it was regarded as a most useful 
and edifying work. In judging, therefore, of 
the ability of our author, we must turn from 
the form to the substance of his argument, 
from the shell in which he encloses his kernel 
of truth to that truth itself. When we do so 
his epistle will appear in no small degree 
worthy of approbation. It exhibits a high 
appreciation of many of the cardinal truths of 
iretianity, of the incarnation and death of 
Christ, of the practical aims of the Gospel, 
of the freedom and spirituality of Christian 
living; while the general conception of the 
relation of the N. T. to the Old, although in 
some respects grievously at fault, embodies 
the important principle that the Old is but the 
shadow of the New, and that “‘ the testimony 
of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’’ Through- 
out the epistle there are many sentences of 
great beauty and warmth of Christian feeling, 
and the description of the rebuilding of the 
spiritual temple in c. xvi. is most eloquent. 

(2) Against its authenticity are urged, next, 
the numerous mistakes committed by the 
writer in cc. vii. viii. with regard to the rites 
and ceremonies of Judaism, mistakes to all 
appearance inconsistent with the idea that he 
could be a Jew, a Levite, who had lived long 
in Jerusalem, and must have been acquainted 
with the ceremonial institutions of the Jews. 
It is impossible not to feel the great force of 
the objection, or even to complain of one who, 
upon this ground alone, should reject the 
authorship of Barnabas. Let it only be 
remembered that these mistakes are almost 
equally inexplicable on the supposition that 
the author was not Barnabas. If such rites 
were not actually practised, whence did he 
learn their supposed existence? It is out of 
the question to think that they were a mere 
fancy of his own. And how came the great 
Fathers whose names have been already men- 
tioned, how came the church at large, to value 
the epistle as it did if in the mention of them 
we have nothing but absurdity and error? 
We are hardly less puzzled to account for such 
inaccuracies if the writer was an Alexandrian 
Christian of heathen origin than if he were a 
Jew and a Levite. 

(3) The third and last important argument 
adduced by Hefele is founded upon the unjust 
notions with regard to Judaism which are 
presented in our epistle. They are correctly 
so described. But it is not so clear that they 
might not have been entertained by one who, 
educated in the school of St. Paul and ani- 
mated by a high sense of the spirituality and 
universality of the Christian faith, would be 
easily led, in the heat of the Judaic contro- 
versies of his day, to depreciate a system which 
was threatening to overthrow the distinctive- 
ness and power of the Gospel of Christ. 

To these arguments recent writers have 
added that the strong anti-J udaistic tendency 
of the epistle is inconsistent with its ascrip- 
tion to Barnabas, inasmuch as he erred in too 
great attachment to the Jewish party (Gal. 
li. 13). But the incident thus referred to 
reveals no such trait in the character of Bar- 
nabas. His conduct on that occasion was a 
momentary weakness by which the best may 
be overtaken; and it rather shews us that his 
position on the side of the freer party had 


BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF 99 


been previously a decided one, ‘‘ insomuch 
that even Barnabas was carried away by their 
dissimulation.’’ The incident may also have 
made him in time to come ashamed of his 
weakness, firmer and more determined than 
before. 

To sum up the evidence, it seems to the 
present writer that its balance favours its 
composition by Barnabas more than critics 
have been generally willing to allow. The 
bearing of the external evidence upon this 
result is unquestionable ; and, where we have 
such evidence, it is a sound principle that 
nothing but the strongest internal evidence 
should be permitted to overcome it. The 
traditions of the early church with regard to 
historical facts do not appear to have been 
so loose as is often alleged. It is difficult 
also to imagine how a generally accepted and 
firmly held tradition could arise without some 
really good foundation. 

Finally, we are too prone to forget that the 
substance of Christian truth may be held by 
others in connexion with misapprehensions, 
imperfections, misinterpretations, of Scrip- 
ture, absurd and foolish views, in connexion 
with which it would be wholly impossible for 
us to hold it. The authorship of Barnabas is 
rejected by, among others, Neander, Ullman, 
Hug, Baur, Hefele, Winer, Hilgenfeld, Donald- 
son, Westcott, Miihler, while it is maintained 
by Gieseler, Credner, Guericke, Bleek, Mohler, 
and, though with hesitation, De Wette. [The 
weighty judgment of bp. Lightfoot must now 
(1911) be added to the list in favour, and 
will generally be considered as decisive: see 
Apost. Fathers, pt. i. vol. ii. pp. 503-512.] 

Il. The Date of the Eptstle-—External evi- 
dence does not help us here. We are thrown 
wholly upon the internal. Two limits are 
allowed by all, the destruction of Jerusalem 
on the one hand, and the time of Clement of 
Alexandria on the other—that is, from A.D. 70 
to the last years of the 2nd cent. Between 
these two limits the most various dates have 
been assigned to it ; the general opinion, how- 
ever, being that it is not to be placed earlier 
than towards the close of the 1st, nor later 
than early in the 2nd cent. Most probably 
it was written only a very few years after the 
destruction of Jerusalem. 

III. Object of the Epistle, and Line of Argu- 
ment pursued in 1t.—Two points are especially 
insisted on by the writer: first, that Judaism, 
in its outward and fleshly form, had never 
been commended by the Almighty to man, 
had never been the expression of God’s cove- 
nant ; secondly, that that covenant had never 
belonged to the Jews at all. 

In carrying out his argument upon the first 
point, the writer everywhere proceeds on the 
idea that the worship which God requires, 
which alone corresponds to His nature, and 
which therefore can alone please Him, is 
spiritual, not a worship of rites and ceremon- 
ies, of places and seasons, but a worship of the 
heart and life. It is not by sacrifices and 
oblations that we approach God, Who will 
have no offerings thus made by man * (c. ii.) ; 
it is not by keeping sabbaths that we honour 

* The reading of Codex δαὶ is to be preferred to 
that of the Latin, ἵνα ὁ καινὸς... μὴ ἀνθρωποίητον 
ἔχῃ τὴν προσφοράν. For the sense cf. Matt. xv. 9. 


100 BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF 


Him (c. xv.) ; nor is it in any temple made 
with hands that He is to be found (c. xvi.). 
The true helpers of our faith are not such 
things, but fear, patience, long-suffering, 
continence ; and the “ way of light ’’ is found 
wholly in the exhibition of moral and spiritual 
virtues (c. xix.). But how was it possible to 
reconcile with such an idea the facts of history? 
Judaism had had, in time past, and still had, 
an actual existence. Its fasts and sacrifices, 
its sabbaths and temple, seemed to have been 
ordained by God Himself. How could it be 
pleaded that these things were not the ex- 
pression of God’s covenant, were not to be 
always binding and honoured? It is to the 
manner in which such questions are answered 
that the peculiar interest in our epistle be- 
longs. They are not answered as they would 
have been by St. Paul. The Apostle of the 
Gentiles recognized the value of Judaism and 
of all the institutions of the law as a great 
preparatory discipline for the coming of the 
Messiah, as “‘ a schoolmaster to bring us unto 
Christ.’”” There is nothing of this kind in the 
argument of Barnabas. Judaism has in it 
nothing preparatory, nothing disciplinary, in 
the sense of training men for higher truths. 
It has two aspects—the one outward and 
carnal, the other inward and spiritual. The 
first was never intended by God; they who 
satisfy themselves with it are rather deceived 
by “‘ an evil angel.’’ The second is Christian- 
ity itself, Christianity before Christ (c. ix. 
and passim). This view of the matter is 
made good partly by shewing that, side by 
side with the institutions of Israel, there were 
many passages of the Prophets in which God 
even condemned in strong language the out- 
ward ceremony, whether sacrifice, or fasting, 
or circumcision, or the temple worship (cc. 
ii. iii. ix. xvi.); that these things, in their 
formal meaning, were positively rejected by 
Him; and that the most important of them 
all, circumcision, was fully as much a heathen 
as a divine rite (c. ix.). This line of argument, 
however, is not that upon which the writer 
mainly depends. His chief trust is in the 
γνῶσις, that deeper, that typical and alle- 
gorical, method of interpreting Scripture 
which proceeded upon the principle that the 
letter was a mere shell, and had never been 
intended to be understood literally. By the 
application of this principle the whole actual 
history of Israel loses its validity as history, 
and we see as the true meaning of its facts 
nothing but Christ, His cross, His covenant, 
and the spiritual life to which He summons 
His disciples. It is unnecessary to give illus- 
trations. What is said of Moses, that he 
spoke ἐν πνεύματι, is evidently to be applied 
to the whole O. T. The literal meaning is 
nowhere what was really intended. The 
Almighty had always had a deeper meaning 
in what was said. He had been always 
thinking, not of Judaism, but of Christ and 
Christianity. The conclusion, therefore, could 
not be mistaken ; Judaism in its outward and 
carnal form had never been the expression of 
God’s covenant. To whom, then, does God’s 
covenant belong? It is indeed a legitimate 
conclusion from the previous argument that 
the Jews cannot claim the covenant as theirs. 
By the importance they always attached, and 


BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF 


still attach, to outward rites they prove that 
they have never entered into the mind of God ; 
that they are the miserable victims of the wiles 
of Satan (cc. iv. ix. xvi.). But the same thing 
is shewn both by Scripture and by fact—by 
Scripture, for in the cases of the children of 
Rebekah, and of the blessing of Ephraim and 
Manasseh, we learn that the last shall be first 
and the first last (c. xiii.); by fact, for when 
Moses broke the two tables of stone on his 
way down from the mount, the covenant 
which was at that moment about to be 
bestowed upon Israel was dissolved and trans- 
ferred to Christians (c. xiv.). 

This line of argument clearly indicates what 
was the special object of the epistle, the 
special danger against which it was designed 
to guard. It was no mere Judaizing tendency 
that was threatening the readers for whom it 
was intended. It was a tendency to lapse 
into Judaism itself. The argument of those 
who were endeavouring to seduce them was, 
““ The covenant is ours ”’ (c. iv.).* These men, 
as appears from the tenor of the whole chapter, 
must have been Jews, and their statement 
could have no other meaning than that Juda- 
ism, as the Jews understood and lived it, was 
God’s covenant, that it was to be preferred to 
Christianity, and that the observance of its 
rites and ceremonies was the true divine life 
to which.men ought to be called. Yet 
Christians were shewing a disposition to listen 
to such teaching, and many of them were 
running the serious risk of being shattered 
against the Jewish law (ce. iii.).¢ With this 
the errors of a coarsely Judaistic life naturally 
connected themselves, together with those 
many sins of the “ evil way’ in which, when 
we take the details given of them in c. xx., 
we can hardly fail to recognize the old features 
of Pharisaism. In short, those to whom 
Barnabas writes are in danger of falling away 
from Christian faith altogether; or, if not in 
actual danger of this, they have to contend 
with those who are striving to bring about 
such a result, who are exalting the ancient 
oeconomy, boasting of Israel’s nearness to 
God, and praising the legal offerings and 
fastings of the O.T. as the true way by which 
the Almighty is to be approached. It is the 
spirit of a Pharisaic self-righteousness in the 
strictest sense of the words, not of a Judaizing 
Christianity, that is before us. Here is at 
once an explanation of all the most peculiar 
phenomena of our epistle, of its polemical 
zeal pointed so directly against Judaism that, 
as Weizacker has observed, it might seem to 


* The as ἤδη δεδικαιωμένοι of c. iv. has led 
Hilgenfeld (die A post. Vater, p. 38) to think of those 
who were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. 
But the whole passage leads rather to the thought ofa 
proud Judaic self-righteousness, ‘‘ the temple of the 
Lord, the temple of the Lord are we.” 

t “Ilva μὴ προσερχώμεθα ws ἐπηλύται τῷ ἐκείνων 
νόμῳ. So Hilgenfeld reads, Nov. Test. extra 
Canonem; but Codex &, ἵνα μὴ προσρησσώμεθα 
ὡς ἐπίλυτῳ τῷ ἐκείνων νόμῳ. The passage is 
almost unintelligible. Weizacker proposes to read 
ἐπιλύτῳ ; and to render by means of 2 Pet.i. 20, which 
is utterly untenable. Might we suggest that ἐπίλυτοι 
may here be used in the sense of “‘set loose,” the 
figure being that of persons or things loosened from 
their true foundations or securities, and then dashed 
against a wall, or perhaps against the beach, and thus 
destroyed ? 


SR ἕω TE ὦ Fy ali 


BARSUMAS 


be directed as much against Jews as against 
Judaizers *; of its effort to shew that the 
whole O. T. cultus had its meaning only in 
Christ ; of its denial of all value to outward 
Judaism ; of its aim to prove that the inward 
meaning of that ancient faith was really 
Christian ; of its exclusion of Jews, as such, 
from all part in God’s covenant; and of its 
dwelling precisely upon those doctrines of the 
Christian faith which were the greatest 
stumbling-block to the Jewish mind, and those 
graces of the Christian life to the importance 
of which it had most need to be awakened. 
IV. Authorities for the Text.—These consist 
of MSS. of the Greek text, of the old Latin 
version, and of citations in early Christian 
writings. The MSS. are tolerably numerous, 
but the fact that, except the Sinaiticus (δ), 
which deserves separate mention, they all lack 
exactly the same portion of the epistle, the 
first five and a half chapters, seems to shew 
that they had been taken from a common 
source and cannot be reckoned as independent 
witnesses. Since the discovery of Codex & 
by Tischendorf a new era in the construction 
of the text has begun. Besides bringing to 
light the portion previously wanting, valuable 
readings were suggested by it throughout, and 
it is now our chief authority for the text. The 
old Latin version is of high value. The MS. 
from which it is taken is probably as old as 
the 8th cent., but the translation itself is 
supposed by Miiller to have been made from 
a text older even than that of Codex δὲ. It 
wants the last 4 chapters of the epistle. Cita- 
tions in early Christian writings are extensive. 
Editions and Literature.-—Valuable editions 
are those of Hefele, 1855 (4th ed.) ; Dressel, 
1863; Hilgenfeld, 1866; and Miller, 1869. 
Dressel was the first to make use of Codex δὶ, 
but of all these editors Miller seems to have 
constructed his text upon the most thoroughly 
scientific principles. The literature is very 
extensive. Notices of the Epistle will be 
found in the writings of Dorner, Baur, Schweg- 
ler, Ritschl, Lechler, Reuss, and others. The 
following monographs are especially worthy 
of notice; Hefele, Das Sendschretben des 
Apostels Barnabas aufs neue untersucht, tiber- 
setzt und erklart (Tubingen, 1840) ; Hilgenfeld 
in his Die A postolischen Vater (Halle, 1853) ; 
Weizacker, Zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefes aus 
dem Codex Sinaiticus (Tiibingen, 1863); J. ἃ. 
Miiller’s Erkldrung des Barnabasbriefes, Ein 
Anhang zu de Wette’s Exegetischem Handbuch 
zum neuen Testament (Leipz. 1869), contains 
general prolegomena to the epistle, a critically 
constructed text, and an elaborate com- 
mentary, together with careful Excursus on 
all the most important difficulties. W. 
Cunningham, A Dissertation on the Ep. of B. 
(Lond. 1877). A trans. of the epistle is 
contained in the vol. of the A post. Fathers in 
the Ante-Nicene Christian Lib. (T. & T. Clark, 
105. 6d.). The ed. princeps by archbp. Ussher 
(Oxf. 1642) has been reprinted by the Clar- 
endon Press with a dissertation by J. H. 
Backhouse. The best text for English scholars 
is given in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ed. by 
bp. Harmer (Lond. 1891), pp. 237-242. [w.M.] 
_Barsumas (the Eutychian), an archimand- 
tite of a Syrian monastery, who warmly 


Τρ. PDs (5s, 15. 


BASILIDES 101 


espoused the cause of Eutyches. When, in 
448, Eutyches was denounced before the local 
synod of Constantinople, Barsumas, who was 
resident in the city, raised a violent opposition 
to the Eastern bishops. The next year, 449, 
at the ‘‘ Robbers’ Synod ’’ of Ephesus, Theo- 
dosius II. summoned Barsumas as the repre- 
sentative of the malcontent monastic party, 
and granted him a seat and vote among the 
bishops. He was the first monk allowed to 
act as a judge at a general council. Barsumas 
brought with him a turbulent band of 1000 
monks to coerce the assembly, and took a 
prominent part in the disorderly proceedings, 
vociferously expressing his joy on the acquittal 
of Eutyches and joining in the assault on the 
aged Flavian by the monks and soldiers. The 
injuries inflicted were so serious that the 
venerable patriarch died three days after- 
wards. When with great effrontery Barsumas 
presented himself at the council of Chalcedon, 
451, an outcry was raised against him as “ the 
murderer of the blessed Flavian.’’ He active- 
ly propagated Eutychian doctrines in Syria 
and died 458. His disciple, Samuel, carried 
Eutychianism into Armenia. He is regarded 
among the Jacobites as a saint and worker of 
miracles (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. ii. 4 ; Labbe, 
iv. 105 seq.; Liberatus, ὁ. 12; Tillemont, 
xv.; Schréckh, xvii. 451 seq.). [E.v.] 

Barsumas (the Nestorian), bp. of Nisibis 
and metropolitan, 435-489, who, after the 
suppression of Nestorianism within the em- 
pire, engaged successfully in its propagation 
in Eastern Asia, especially in Persia. Ban- 
ished from Edessa by Rabulas, after his 
desertion of his former friends, Barsumas 
proved the chief strength and wisdom of the 
fugitive church. In 435 he became bp. of 
Nisibis, where, in conjunction with Maanes, 
bp. of Hardaschir, he established a theological 
school of deserved celebrity, over which Narses 
presided for fifty years. Barsumas had the 
skill to secure for his church the powerful 
support of the Persian king Pherozes (Firuz), 
who ascended the throne in the year 462. He 
worked upon his enmity to the Roman power 
to obtain his patronage for a development of 
doctrine which had been formally condemned 
by the emperor and his assembled bishops, 
representing to him that the king of Persia 
could never securely reckon on the allegiance 
of his subjects so long as they held the same 
religious faith with his enemies. Pherozes 
admitted the force of this argument, and 
Nestorianism became the only form of Christ- 
ianity tolerated in Persia. Barsumas died in 
489, in which year the emperor Zeno broke 
up the theological seminary at Edessa on 
account of its Nestorianism, with the result 
that it flourished still more at Nisibis. Mis- 
sionaries went out from it in great multitudes, 
and Nestorianism became the recognized form 
of Christianity in Eastern Asia. The Malabar 
Christians are the lineal descendants of their 
missions. Assemanni, Bibl. Or, iii. 1, 16-70 ; 
Wigram, Hist. of Assyrian Ch. c. vili. [NEsS- 
TORIAN CHURCH.] [Ε.ν.] 

Basilides (Βασιλείδης), the founder of one 
of the semi-Christian sects, commonly called 
Gnostic, which sprang up in the early part of 
the 2nd cent. 

I. Biography.—He called himself a disciple 


= og " * ‘BASILIDES 


of one Glaucias, alleged to be an interpreter 
(ἑρμηνέα) of St. Peter (Clem. Strom. vii. p. 
898). He taught at Alexandria (Iren. p. 100 
Mass. ; followed by Eus. H. E. iv. 7; Epiph. 
Haer. xxiv. 1, p. 68c; cf. xxiii. 1, p. 62B; 
Theod. Haer. Fab. i. 2): Hippolytus (Haer. 
vii. 27, p- 244) in general terms mentions 
Egypt. Indeed Epiphanius enumerates 
various places in Egypt visited by Basilides ; 
but subsequently allows it to appear that his 
knowledge of the districts where Basilidians 
existed in his own time was his only evidence. 
If the Alexandrian Gnostic is the Basilides 
quoted in the Acts of the Disputation of Arche- 
laus and Mani (c. 55, in Routh, Rell. Sac. v. 
196; see later, p. 276), he was Teported to 
have preached in Persia. Nothing more is 
known of his life. According to Epiphanius 
(62 B, 68 D, 69 A), he had been a fellow-disciple 
of Menander with Saturnilus at Antioch in 
Syria; but this is evidently an arbitrary ex- 
tension of Irenaeus’s remarks on the order of 
doctrines to personal relations. If the view 
of the doctrines of Basilides taken in this 
article is correct, they afford no good grounds 
for supposing him to have had a Syrian educa- 
tion. Gnostic ideas derived originally from 
Syria were sufficiently current at Alexandria, 
and the foundation of what is distinctive in 
his thoughts is Greek. 

Several independent authorities indicate the 
reign of Hadrian (A.p. 117-138) as the time 
when Basilides flourished. To prove that the 
heretical sects were ‘‘ later than the Catholic 
church,’’ Clement of Alexandria (l.c.) marks 
out early Christian history into different 
periods: he assigns Christ’s own teaching to 
the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius; that of 
the apostles, of St. Paul at least, ends, he says, 
in the time of Nero; whereas ‘‘ the authors of 
the sects arose later, about the times of the 
emperor Hadrian (κάτω δὲ περὶ τοὺς k.T.X. 
γεγόνασι), and continued quite as late as the 
age of the elder Antoninus.’’ He gives as ex- 
amples Basilides, Valentinus, and (if the text 
is sound) Marcion, taking occasion by the way 
to throw doubts on the claims set up for the 
two former as having been instructed by 
younger contemporaries of St. Peter and St. 
Paul respectively, by pointing out that about 
half a century lay between the death of Nero 
and the accession of Hadrian. Again Eusebius 
(l.c.) places Saturnilus and Basilides under 
Hadrian. Yet his language about Carpocrates 
a few lines further on suggests a doubt whether 
he had any better evidence than a fallacious 
inference from their order in Irenaeus. He 
was acquainted with the refutation of Basilides 
by Agrippa Castor; but it is not clear, as is 
sometimes assumed, that he meant to assign 
both writers to the same reign. His chronicle 
(Armenian) at the year 17 of Hadrian (A.p. 
133) has the note ‘‘ The heresiarch Basilides 
appeared at these times’’ ; which Jerome, as 
usual, expresses rather more definitely. A 
similar statement without the year is repeated 
by Jerome, de Vir. 111. 21, where an old corrupt 
reading (mortuus for movatus) led some of the 
earlier critics to suppose they had found a 
limit for the date of Basilides’s death. Theo- 
doret (l.c.) evidently follows Eusebius. Ear- 
liest of all, but vaguest, is the testimony of 
Justin Martyr. Writing in or soon after A.D. 


BASILIDES 


145, he refers briefly (4. i. 26) to the founders 
of heretical sects, naming first the earliest, — 
Simon and Menander, followers of whom were 
still alive; and then apparently the latest, 
Marcion, himself still alive. The probable 
inference that the other great heresiarchs, 
including Basilides, were by this time dead 
receives some confirmation from a passage 
in his Dialogue against Trypho (c. 35), a later 
but probably not much later book, where the 
“‘Marcians,’’ Valentinians, Basilidians, Sat- 
urnilians, ‘‘and others,’’ are enumerated, 
apparently in inverse chronological order: 
the growth of distinct and recognized sects 
implies at least the lapse of some time since 
the promulgation of their several creeds. It 
seems therefore impossible to place Basilides 
later than Hadrian’s time; and, in the ab- 
sence of any evidence to the contrary, we may 
trust the Alexandrian Clement’s statement 
that his peculiar teaching began at no earlier 
date. 

Il. Writings.—According to Agrippa Castor 
(Eus. ΗΠ. E. l.c.), Basilides wrote ‘‘ twenty-four — 
books (βιβλία) on the Gospel.’”’ These are no 
doubt the Exegetica, from the twenty-third of 
which Clement gives an extract (Strom. iv. 
§§ 83 ff., pp. 599 f.). The same work is doubt- 
less intended by the “‘ treatises ”’ (tractatuum), 
the thirteenth book of which is cited in the 
Acta Archelat, if the same Basilides is referred 
to. The authorship of an actual Gospel, of 
the ‘‘ apocryphal ”’ class, is likewise attributed 
to Basilides on plausible grounds. The word 
“taken in hand’’ (ἐπεχείρησαν) in Luke i. 1 
gives Origen occasion to distinguish between 
the four evangelists, who wrote by inspiration, 
and other writers who “ took in hand”’ to 
produce Gospels. He mentions some of these, 
and proceeds ‘‘ Basilides had even the auda- 
city’ (ἤδη δὲ ἐτόλμησεν, more than ἐπεχείρησεν) 
““to write a Gospel according to Basilides ” ; 
that is, he went beyond other fabricators of 
Gospels by affixing his own name (Hom. in 
Luc. i.). This passage is freely translated, 
though without mention of Origen’s name, 
by Ambrose (Exp. in Luc. i. 1); and is pro- 
bably Jerome’s authority in an enumeration 
of the chief apocryphal Gospels (Com. im 
Matt. praef. t. vii. p. 3); for among the six 
others which he mentions the four named by 
Origen recur, including that of the Twelve 
Apostles, otherwise unknown (cf. Hieron. 
Dial. cont. Pelag. iii. 2, t. 11. p. 782). Yet no 
trace of a Gospel by Basilides exists elsewhere ; 
and it seems most probable either that Origen 
misunderstood the nature of the Exegetica, or 
that they were sometimes known under the 
other name (cf. Hilgenfeld, Clem. Rec. u. 
Hom. 123 ff.). 

An interesting question remains, in what 
relation the Exegetica stand to the exposition 
of doctrine which fills eight long chapters of 
Hippolytus. Basilides (or the Basilidians), 
we are told (vii. 27), defined the Gospel as 
“the knowledge of supermundane things” 
(ἡ τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων yv@o.s), and the idea of 
the progress of ‘“‘ the Gospel” through the 
different orders of beings plays a leading part 
in the Basilidian doctrine (cc. 25 ff.). But 
there is not the slightest reason to think that 
the ‘“‘ Gospel’’ here spoken of was a substitute 
for the Gospel in a historical sense, any more 


ἜΝ 


απ ἐνὸν 


Ψ ere oo 


BASILIDES 


than in St. Paul’s writings. Indeed several 
passages (p. 238, 1. 28 ff.; 239, 42, 58; 240, 
70 ff. of Miller), with their allusions to Rom. 
mera. Vill. 19, 22, 23; I. Cor. ii. 13; II. Cor. 
xii. 4; Eph. i. 21, iii. 3, 5, 10, prove that the 
writer was throughout thinking of St. Paul’s 
“mystery of the Gospel.” 
distinctly that the Basilidian account of “‘ all 
things concerning the Saviour ’’ subsequent to 
“the birth of Jesus’’ agreed with that given 
in ‘‘the Gospels.”’ It may therefore be 
reasonably conjectured that his exposition, if 
founded on a work of Basilides himself (see 
§ III.), is a summary of the opening book or 
books of the Exegetica, describing that part 
of the redemptive process, or of the prepara- 
tion for it, which was above and antecedent 
to the phenomenal life of Jesus. The com- 
ments on the Gospel itself, probably containing 
much ethical matter, as we may gather from 
Clement, would have little attraction for 
Hippolytus. 

The certain fragments of the Exegetica have 
been collected by Grabe (Spicil. Patr. ii. 35-43), 
followed by Massuet and Stieren in their 
editions of Irenaeus ; but he passes over much 
in Clement which assuredly has no other 
origin. A single sentence quoted in Origen’s 
commentary on Romans, and given further 
on (p. 275), is probably from the same source. 
In an obscure and brief fragment preserved in 
a Catena on Job (Venet. 1587, p. 345), Origen 
implies the existence of Odes by Basilides and 
Valentinus. No other writings of Basilides 
are mentioned. 

Ill. Authentictty of the Hippolytean Extracts. 
—In endeavouring to form a clear conception 
of the work and doctrine of Basilides, we are 
met at the outset by a serious difficulty. The 
different accounts were never easy to harmon- 
ize, and some of the best critics of the first 
half of the 19th cent. considered them to refer 
to two different systems of doctrine. But till 
1851 their fragmentary nature suggested that 
the apparent incongruities might conceivably 
be due only to the defects of our knowledge, 
and seemed to invite reconstructive boldness 
on the part of the historian. The publication 
of Hippolytus’s Refutation of all Heresies in 
1851 placed the whole question on a new 
footing. Hardly any one has ventured to 
Maintain the possibility of reconciling its 
ample statements about Basilides with the 
reports of Irenaeus and Epiphanius. Which 
account then most deserves our confidence ? 
_ Before attempting to answer this question 
it is well to enumerate the authorities. They 
are Agrippa Castor as cited by Eusebius, 
Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, the 
anonymous supplement to Tertullian, de 
Praescriptione, the Refutation of Hippolytus, 
Epiphanius, Philaster, and Theodoret, and 
possibly the Acta Archelait, besides a few 
scattered notices which may be neglected here. 
This ample list shrinks, however, into small 

ensions at the touch of criticism. 
Theodoret’s chapter is a disguised compilation 
from previous Greek writers. The researches 
of Lipsius have proved that Epiphanius 
followed partly Irenaeus, partly the lost 
Compendium of Hippolytus, this same work 
being also the common source of the Latin 
authors pseudo-Tertullian and  Philaster. 


Hippolytus states | 


whole, consistent with other accounts ? 
| does it agree best with the reports of Irenaeus 


BASILIDES 103 


Our ultimate authorities therefore are Irenaeus 
(or the unknown author from whom he took 
this section of his work), the Compendium of 
Hippolytus (represented by Epiphanius [part], 
Philaster, and pseudo-Tertullian), Clement 
and the Refutation of Hippolytus, together 
with a short statement by Agrippa Castor, 
and probably a passing reference and quota- 
tion in the Acts of Archelaus. 

It is now generally allowed that the notices 
of Clement afford the surest criterion by which 
to test other authorities. Not only does his 
whole tone imply exact personal knowledge, 
but he quotes a long passage directly from the 
Exegetica. Is then his account, taken as a 
And 


and Hippolytus in his younger days, or with 
the elaborate picture drawn by Hippolytus at 
a later time? This second question has 
received opposite answers from recent critics. 
A majority have given the preference to 
Hippolytus; while Hilgenfeld (who three 
years before, in his earliest book, the treatise 
On the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, 
pp. 125-149, had described the Basilidian 
system from the then known records, en- 
deavouring with perverse ingenuity to shew 
their virtual consistency with each other) 
has prided himself on not being dazzled by 
the new authority, whom he holds to be in 
effect describing not Basilides but a late 
development of his sect; and Lipsius takes 
the same view. 

It should be observed at the outset that 
the testimony of Clement is not quite so 
homogeneous as is generally assumed. Six 
times he criticises doctrines of ‘‘ Basilides”’ 
himself; eight times he employs the 
ambiguous plural (οἱ ἀπὸ B., of ἀμφὶ τὸν B.). 
Are we to suppose a distinction here, or is 
the verbal difference accidental ? Both views 
might be maintained. The quotation from 
the Exegetica (Strom. iv. pp. 599 f.) is a piece 
of moral argument on Providence, wholly 
free from the technical terms of Gnostic 
mythology. In the succeeding discussion 
Clement eventually uses plurals (εἰ. .. τις 
αὐτῶν λέγοι---πέπτωκεν ἡ ὑπόθεσις αὐτοῖς-- ὡς 
φάναι, apparently a misreading for ws φασιν 
—ws αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν), which might equally 
imply that he employs both forms indifferent- 
ly, or that he distinguishes Basilides from his 
followers within the limits of a single subject. 
The other references to ‘‘ Basilides’”’ are like- 
wise of a distinctly ethical character, while 
several of the passages containing the plural 
name abound in technical language. Yet 
the distinction is not absolute on either side. 
“ Basilides’’ furnishes the terms “ the 
Ogdoad,”’ ‘‘ the election,’’ “‘ supermundane ”’ ; 
while such subjects as the nature of faith, 
the relation of the passions to the animal 
soul, and the meaning of Christ’s saying about 
eunuchs, occur in the other group, though 
they remind us rather of Basilides himself. 
In the last passage, moreover (Strom. iii. pp. 
508 ff.), the ambiguous plural (οἱ ἀπὸ Β. φασί 
---λέγουσι -- Enyoivrar—gaci bis) is applied to 
a quotation intended to shame by contrast 
the immoral Basilidians of Clement’s own 
time; and a similar quotation from Basi- 


104 BASILIDES 


lides’s son Isidore immediately follows; the 
authors of the two quotations being designated 
as ‘“‘ the forefathers of their (the late Basili- 
dians’) doctrines.’’ It is hard to believe that 
mere anonymous disciples, though of an earlier 
date, would be appealed to in this manner, or 
would take precedence of the master’s own 
son. On the whole, there can be no reasonable 
doubt that all the doctrinal statements in 
Clement concern Basilides himself, when not 
distinctly otherwise expressed, and depend on 
direct knowledge of the Exegetica. With good 
reason therefore they may be assumed as a 
trustworthy basis for the whole investigation. 
The most doubtful instances are the passages 
cited presently on the Baptism and (in the 
Exc. Theod.) on the descent of the Minister 
(διάκονο5), 1.6. the Holy Spirit. 

The range of possible contact between the 
quotations and reports of Clement and any of 
the other authorities is not large. His extant 
writings contain nothing like an attempt to 
describe the Basilidian System. The Strom- 
ates, which furnish the quotations from Basil- 
ides, expressly limit themselves to moral and 
practical questions (ὁ ἠθικὸς Adyos); and 
reserve for a future work, 1.6. the lost Hypotyp- 
oses, the exposition of the higher doctrine 
(τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐποπτικὴν θεωρίαν yydoews,— 
τὴν τῷ ὄντι γνωστικὴν φυσιολογίαν) belonging 
to the department of knowledge which the 
Stoics called Physics, beginning with the 
Creation and leading up to Theology proper 
(Strom. i. p. 3243 iv. pp. 563 f., 637; Vi. pp. 
735 f., 827; vii. 829, 902; cf. Bunsen, Anal. 
Antenic. i. 159 ἢ). Now it is precisely to 
this latter department that the bulk of Gnostic 
speculation would belong, and especially such 
theories as Hippolytus ascribes to Basilides ; 
and moreover Clement distinctly promises 
that in the course of that loftier investigation 
he will ‘‘ set forth in detail the doctrines of the 
heretics (τῶν ἑτεροδόξων), and endeavour to 
refute them to the best of his power”’ (iv. 
§ 3, p- 564). We have therefore no right to 
expect in the Stvomates any cosmological or 
even theological matter respecting Basilides 
except such as may accidentally adhere to 
the ethical statements, the subjects treated 
of in the various books “‘ against all heresies ”’ 
being formally excluded by Clement. His 
sphere being thus distinct from theirs, the 
marked coincidences of language that we do 
find between him and Hippolytus afford a 
strong presumption that, if the one account 
is authentic, the other is so likewise. Within 
the narrow limits of Clement’s information we 
meet with the phrases ‘‘ primitive medley and 
confusion ”’ (σύγχυσις), and on the other hand 
“separation ’’ (differentiation) and restora- 
tion (σοφία φυλοκρινητική, ἀποκαταστατική) ; 
with a division of the universe into stages 
(διαστήματα), and prominence given to the 
sphere of ‘‘ super-mundane”’ things; with an 
““Ogdoad’”’ and an ‘‘ Archon’’; all of these 
terms being conspicuous and essential in the 
Hippolytean representation. Above all, we 
hear of the amazement of the Archon on 
receiving ‘‘ the utterance of the ministering 
Spirit’? or ‘‘ Minister’? (διάκονος, cf. Ecl. 
Theod. p. 972) as being that fear of the Lord 
which is called the beginning of wisdom 


BASILIDES 


(Strom. ii. p. 448); the utterance itself being f 


implied to be a Gospel (εὐηγγελισμένον) ; while 
Hippolytus describes the same passage as 
interpreted of the amazement of the Great 
Archon on receiving ‘‘ the Gospel,’”’ a revela- 
tion of things unknown, through his Son, who 
had received it from a “ power”’ within the 
Holy Spirit (vii. 26). The coincidences are 
thus proportionately great, and there are no 
contradictions to balance them: so that it 
would require strong evidence to rebut the 
conclusion that Clement and Hippolytus had 
the same materials before them. Such evi- 
dence does not exist. The coincidences between 
Clement and the Irenaean tradition are limited 
to the widely spread ‘‘ Ogdoad”’ and a single 
disputable use of the word ‘ Archon,” and 
there is no similarity of doctrines to make up 
for the absence of verbal identity. The only 
tangible argument against the view that 
Hippolytus describes the original system of 
Basilides is its Greek rather than Oriental 
character, which is assumed to be incom- 
patible with the fundamental thoughts of a 
great Gnostic leader. We shall have other 
opportunities of inquiring how far the evidence 
supports this wide generalization as _ to 
Gnosticism at large. As regards Basilides 
personally, the only grounds for expecting 
from him an Oriental type of doctrine are the 
quotation in the Acts of Archelaus, which will 
be discussed further on, and the tradition of 
his connexion with Saturnilus of Antioch, 
which we have already seen to be founded on 
a misconception. The fragmentary notices 
and extracts in Clement, admitted on all 
hands to be authentic, are steeped in Greek 
philosophy ; so that the Greek spirit of the 
Hippolytean representation is in fact an 
additional evidence for its faithfulness. 

It may yet be asked, Did Hippolytus con- 
sult the work of Basilides himself, or did he 
depend on an intermediate reporter? His 
own language, though not absolutely decisive, 
favours the former alternative. On the one 
hand it may be urged that he makes no 
mention of a book, that occasionally he quotes 
by the words ‘‘they say,’’ ‘“‘ according to 
them,’’ and that his exposition is immediately 
preceded by the remark, ‘‘ Let us then see 
how openly both Basilides and [his son] Isi- 
dore (B. ὁμοῦ καὶ 1.) and the whole band of them 
not merely calumniate Matthias [from whom 
they professed to have received records of 
Christ’s secret teaching], but also the Saviour 
Himself ’’ (c. 20). Against these indications 
may be set the ten places where Basilides is 
referred to singly, and the very numerous 
quotations by the words ‘‘he says.’ It is 
true that Greek usage permits the occasional 
use of the singular even when no one writer or 
book is intended. But in this case the most 
natural translation is borne out by some of 
the language quoted. The first person sin- 
gular (ὅταν δὲ λέγω, φησίν, τό Hy, οὐχ ὅτι ἢν 
λέγω, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα σημάνω τοῦτο ὅπερ βούλομαι 
δεῖξαι, λέγω, φησίν, ὅτι ἣν ὅλως οὐδέν"... 
καὶ οὐ δέχομαι, φησίν x.7.\.) proves the 
book in Hippolytus’s hands to have been 
written by an original speculator; yet this 
very quotation is immediately followed by a 
comment on it with the third person plural 


+ 


io 
<>. 


pre + 


+ Nea aca flit, 


BASILIDES 


which here at least can mean no more than 
that Hippolytus held the Basilidians of his 
own day responsible for the doctrines of his 
author. The freshness and power of the whole 
section, wherever we touch the actual words of 
the author, strongly confirm the impression 
that he was no other than Basilides himself. 
Thus we are led independently to the conclu- 
sion suggested by the correspondence with the 
information of Clement, whom we know to 
have drawn from the fountain-head, the 
Exegetica. The fancy that the book used by 
Hippolytus was itself the Traditions of 
Matthias has nothing to recommend it. The 
whole form is unlike that which analogy would 
lead us to expect in such a production. If it 
was quoted as an authority in the Exegetica, 
the language of Hippolytus is justified. Nor 
is there anything in this inconsistent with the 
fact vouched for by Clement (Strom. vii. 
p. 898) that Basilides claimed to have been 
taught by Glaucias, an ‘‘ interpreter’’ of St. 
Peter. 

We shall therefore assume that the eight 
chapters of Hippolytus (vii. 20-27) represent 
faithfully though imperfectly the contents of 
part at least of the Evegetica of Basilides ; and 
proceed to describe his doctrine on their 
authority, using likewise the testimony of 
Clement wherever it is available. 

IV. Doctrine.—Basilides asserts the begin- 
ning of all things to have been pure nothing. 
He uses every device of language to express 
absolute nonentity. He will not allow the 
primitive nothing to be called even “ unspeak- 
able’’: that, he says, would be naming it, and 
it is above every name that is named (20). 
Nothing then being in existence, ‘‘ not-being 
God” (or Deity, οὐκ ὧν θεός : the article is 
omitted here) willed to make a not-being world 
out of not-being things. Once more great 
pains are taken to obviate the notion that 
“ willing’ implied any mental attribute what- 
ever. Also the world so made was not the 
extended and differentiated world to which we 
gave the name, but “a single seed containing 
within itself all the seed-mass of the world,” 
the aggregate of the seeds of all its forms and 
substances, as the mustard seed contains the 
branches and leaves of the tree, or the pea- 
hen’s egg the brilliant colour of the full-grown 
peacock (21). This was the one origin of all 
future growths ; their seeds lay stored up by 
the will of the not-being God in the single 
world-seed, as in the new-born babe its future 
teeth and the resemblances to its father which 
are thereafter to appear. Its own origin too 
from God was not a putting-forth (προβολ ἢ), 
as a spider puts forth its web from itself. (By 
this assertion, on which Hippolytus dwells 
with emphasis, every notion of ‘‘ emanation ” 
is expressly repudiated.) Nor was there an 
antecedent matter, like the brass or wood 
wrought by a mortal man. The words “ Let 
there be light, and there was light ”’ convey 
the whole truth. The light came into being 
out of nothing but the voice of the Speaker ; 
“and the Speaker was not, and that which 
came into being was not.’ 

What then was the first stage of growth of 
the seed? It had within itself ‘‘ a tripartite 
sonship, in all things consubstantial with the 
not-being God.” Part of the sonship was 


BASILIDES 


subtle of substance (Aerrouepés), part coarse 
of substance (waxuuepés), part needing puri- 
fication (ἀποκαθάρσεως δεόμενον). Simulta- 
neously with the first beginning of the seed 
the subtle sonship burst through (διέσφυξεν) 
and mounted swiftly up “like a wing or a 
thought ’’’ (Odyss. vii. 36) till it reached the 
not-being God; ‘ for toward Him for His 
exceeding beauty and grace (ὡραιότητος) 
every kind of nature yearns (ὀρέγεται), each 
in its own way.’’ The coarse sonship could 
not mount up of itself, but it took to itself as 
a wing the Holy Spirit, each bearing up the 
other with mutual benefit, even as neither 
a bird can soar without wing, nor a wing 
without a bird. But when it came near the 
blessed and unutterable place of the subtle 
sonship and the not-being God, it could take 
the Holy Spirit no further, as not being con- 
substantial or of the same nature with itself. 
There, then, retaining and emitting downwards 
the fragrance of the sonship like a vessel that 
has once held ointment, the Holy Spirit re- 
mained, as a firmament dividing things above 
the world from ‘‘ the world ’’ itself below (22). 

The third sonship continued still within the 
heap of the seed-mass. But out of the heap 
burst forth into being the Great Archon, “ the 
head of the world, a beauty and greatness and 
power that cannot be uttered.’’ He too raised 
himself aloft till he reached the firmament 
which he supposed to be the upward end of all 
things. Then he became wiser and every way 
better than all other cosmical things except 
the sonship left below, which he knew not to 
be far better than himself. So he turned to 
create the world in its several parts. But 
first he ‘‘ made to himself and begat out of 
the things below a son far better and wiser 
than himself,’’ for thus the not-being God had 
willed from the first ; and smitten with wonder 
at his son’s beauty, he set him at his right hand. 
“This is what they call the Ogdoad, where 
the Great Archon is sitting.’’ Then all the 
heavenly or ethereal creation (apparently 
included in the Ogdoad), as far down as the 
moon, was made by the Great Archon, in- 
spired by his wiser son (23). Again another 
Archon arose out of the seed-mass, inferior to 
the first Archon, but superior to all else 
below except the sonship; and he likewise 
made to himself a son wiser than himself, and 
became the creator and governor of the aerial 
world. This region is called the Hebdomad. 
On the other hand, in the heap and seed-mass, 
constituting our own (the terrestrial) stage, 
“those things that come to pass come to pass 
according to nature, as having been previously 
uttered by Him Who hath planned the fitting 
time and form and manner of utterance of 
the things that were to be uttered (ws φθάσαντα 
λεχθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ τὰ μέλλοντα λέγεσθαι ὅτε δεῖ 
καὶ οἷα δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ λελογισμένου) : and these 
things have no one to rule over them, or exer- 
cise care for them, or create them: for suffi- 
cient for them is that plan (λογισμός) which 
the not-being One planned when He was 
making ’’ {the seed-mass] (24). 

Such is the original cosmogony as conceived 
by Basilides, and it supplies the base for his 
view of the Gospel, as well as of the interval 
before the coming of the Gospel into the 


105 


106 BASILIDES 


world. When the whole world had been 
finished, and the things above the world, and 
nothing was lacking, there remained in the 
seed-mass the third sonship, which had been 
left behind to do good and receive good in the 
seed; and it was needful that the sonship 
thus left behind should be revealed (Rom. viii. 
1g) and restored up yonder above the Limit- 
ary Spirit to join the subtle and imitative 
.sonship and the not-being One, as it is written, 
““And the creation itself groaneth together 
and travaileth together, expecting the revela- 
tion of the sons of God.’’ Now we the 
spiritual, he said, are sons left behind here to 
order and to inform and to correct and to 
perfect the souls whose nature it is to abide 
in this stage. Till Moses, then, from Adam sin 
reigned, as it is written ; for the Great Archon 
reigned, he whose end reaches to the firma- 
ment, supposing himself to be God alone, and 
to have nothing above him, for all things 
remained guarded in secret silence; this is 
the mystery which was not made known to 
the former generations. But in those times 
the Great Archon, the Ogdoad, was king and 
lord, as it appeared, of all things: and more- 
over, the Hebdomad was king and lord of 
this stage; and the Ogdoad is unutterable, 
but the Hebdomad utterable. This, the 
Archon of the Hebdomad, is he who spoke 
to Moses and said, ‘‘ I am the God of Abraham 
and Isaac and Jacob, and the name of God 
did I not make known to them”? (for so, 
says Hippolytus, they will have it read), that 
is, of the unutterable God who is Archon of 
the Ogdoad. All the prophets, therefore, 
that were before the Saviour, spoke from that 
source (ἐκεῖθεν). 

This short interpretation of the times before 
Christ, which has evidently suffered in the 
process of condensation by Hippolytus, carries 
us at once to the Gospel itself. ‘‘ Because 
therefore it was needful that we the children 
of God should be revealed, concerning whom 
the creation groaned and travailed, expecting 
the revelation, the Gospel came into the world, 
and passed through every principality and 
power and lordship, and every name that is 
named.” There was still no downward coming 
from above, no departure of the ascended son- 
ship from its place ; but ‘‘ from below from the 
formlessness of the heap the powers penetrated 
(διήκουσιν) up to the sonship”’ (1.6. probably 
throughout the scale the power of each stage 
penetrated to the stage immediately above), 
and so thoughts (νοήματα) were caught from 
above as naphtha catches fire at a distance 
without contact. Thus the power within the 
Holy Spirit ‘‘ conveyed the thoughts of the 
sonship, as they flowed and drifted (ῥέοντα καὶ 
φερόμενα) to the son of the Great Archon”’ 
(25); and he in turn instructed the Great 
Archon himself, by whose side he was sitting. 
Then first the Great Archon learned that he 
was not God of the universe, but had himself 
come into being, and had above him yet 
higher beings ; he discovered with amazement 
his own past ignorance, and confessed his sin 
in having magnified himself. This fear of his, 
said Basilides, was that fear of the Lord which 
is the beginning of wisdom (wisdom to ‘“‘ separ- 
ate and discern and perfect and restore,” 
Clem. Strom. ii. 448 f.). From him and the 


; 
BASILIDES τς 


Ogdoad the Gospel had next to pass to 
the Hebdomad. Its Archon’s son received — 
the light from the son of the Great Archon, he 
became himself enlightened, and declared mt 


Gospel to the Archon of the Hebdomad, and — 
he too feared and confessed, and all that was - 
in the Hebdomad received the light (26). _ 

It remained only that the formlessness of — 
our own region should be enlightened, and ~ 
that the hidden mystery should be revealed ᾿ 
to the third sonship left behind in the form- 
lessness, as to “‘ one born out of due time” 
(οἱονεὶ ἐκτρώματι, I. Cor. xv. 8). The light © 
came down from the Hebdomad upon Jesus ° 
the Son of Mary. That this descent of the 
light was represented as taking place at the 
Annunciation, and not merely at the Baptism, © 
is clearly implied in the express reference to — 
the words of the angel in Luke i. 35, ‘‘ A Holy 
Spirit shall come upon thee,’ which are ex- + 
plained to mean “ that [Ὁ spirit] which passed — 
from the sonship through the Limitary Spirit 
to the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad till it 
reached Mary’ (the interpretation of the — 
following words, ‘‘ And a power of the Most 
High shall overshadow thee,’ appears to be — 
hopelessly corrupt). On the other hand, © 
when it is described as a result of the descent 
of the light from the Hebdomad ‘‘ upon Jesus — 
the Son of Mary,” that He ‘“‘ was enlightened, 
being kindled in union with the light (cur- 
εξαφθεὶς τῷ φωτί) that shone on Him,” the 
allusion to the traditional light at the Bap- 
tism can hardly be questioned ; more especi- 
ally when we read in Clement’s Excerpta 
(Ρ. 972) that the Basilidians interpreted the — 
dove to be ‘“‘ the Minister,’’ 2.6. (see pp. 270, 
276) the revealing ‘“‘ power”’ within the Holy 
Spirit (26). 

From the Nativity Hippolytus’s exposition 
passes on at once to its purpose in the future — 
and the final consummation. The world holds ἡ 
together as it is now, we learn, until all the 
sonship that has been left behind, to give 
benefits to the souls in formlessness and to 
receive benefits by obtaining distinct form, 
follows Jesus and mounts up and is purified 
and becomes most subtle, so that it can mount 
by itself like the first sonship; ‘“‘ for it has 
all its power naturally established in union 
(συνεστηριγμένην) with the light that shone 
down from above”’ (26). When every son- 
ship has arrived above the Limitary Spirit, 
‘then the creation shall find mercy, for till 
now it groans and is tormented and awaits 
the revelation of the sons of God, that all the 
men of the sonship may ascend from hence” 
(27). When this has come to pass, God will 
bring upon the whole world the Great Ignor- 
ance, that everything may remain according to 
nature, and that nothing may desire aught 
that is contrary to nature. Thus all the souls 
of this stage, whose nature it is to continue 
immortal in this stage alone, will remain 
without knowledge of anything higher and 
better than this, lest they suffer torment by 
craving for things impossible, like a fish 
desiring to feed with the sheep on the moun- 
tains, for such a desire would have been to 
them destruction. All things are indestruc- 
tible while they abide in their place, but 
destructible if they aim at overleaping the 
bounds of Nature. Thus the Great Ignorance 


Sa ee Le 


} 
| 
t 
| 


ee 
᾿Ξ 


BASILIDES 


will overtake even the Archon of the Heb- 
domad, that grief and pain and sighing may 
depart from him: yea, it will overtake the 
Great Archon of the Ogdoad, and all the 
creations subject to him, that nothing may in 
any respect crave for aught that is against 
nature or may suffer pain. ‘‘ And in this 
wise shall be the Restoration, all things accord- 
ing to nature having been founded in the seed 
of the universe in the beginning, and being 
restored at their due seasons. And that each 

ing has its due seasons is sufficiently proved 
by the Saviour’s words, ‘ My hour is not yet 
come,’ and by the beholding of the star by 
the Magi; for even He Himself was subject 
to the ‘genesis’ [nativity] of the periodic 
return (ἀποκαταστάσεως, here used in the 
limited astrological sense, though above as 
‘restoration’ generally) of stars and hours, 


as foreordained [προλελογισμένος : cf. c. 24, 


s. f.; x. 14] in the great heap.’’ “‘ He,” adds 
Hippolytus, evidently meaning our Lord, “ is 
{in the Basilidian view] the inner spiritual 
man in the natural [psychical] man ; that is, 
a sonship leaving its soul here, not a mortal 
soul, but one remaining in its present place 
according to nature, just as the first sonship 
up above hath left the Limitary Holy Spirit 
in a fitting place; He having at that time 
been clothed with a soul of His own”’ (27). 
These last two remarks, on the subjection 
to seasons and on the ultimate abandonment 
of the immortal but earth-bound soul by the 
ascending sonship or spiritual man, taking 
place first in the Saviour and then in the 
other ‘‘sons of God,” belong in strictness to 
an earlier part of the scheme; but they may 
have been placed here by Basilides himself, to 
explain the strange consummation of the Great 
Ignorance. The principle receives perhaps 
a better illustration from what purports to 
be an exposition of the Basilidian view of 
the Gospel, with which Hippolytus concludes 
his report. ‘‘ According to them,’ he says, 
“the Gospel is the knowledge of things above 
the world, which knowledge the Great Archon 
understood not: when then it was shewn to 
him that there exists the Holy Spirit, that is 
the Limitary Spirit, and the sonship and a 
God Who is the author (αἴτιος) of all these 
things, even the not-being One, he rejoiced 
at what was told him, and was exceeding glad : 
this is according to them the Gospel.’’ Here 
Hippolytus evidently takes too generally the 
ol form under which Basilides represented 
e Gospel as made known to the Great 
Archon. Nor, when he proceeds to say that 
“Jesus according to them was born in the 
manner that we have previously mentioned,”’ 
is it clear that Basilides gave a different 
account of the Nativity itself from that 
accepted by the church, because he gave a 
peculiar interpretation to the angel’s words. 
* After the Nativity already made known,” 
adds Hippolytus, “all incidents concerning 
the Saviour came to pass according to them 
re Basilidians} as they are described in the 
pels.’’ But all this is only introductory 

to the setting forth of the primary principle. 
“These things’? (apparently the incidents 
of our Lord’s life) “ are come to pass that 


' Jesus might become the first fruits of the 


sorting of the things confused "’ (τῆς φυλοκρι- 


BASILIDES 107 


νἠσεῷς τῶν συγκεχυμένων). For since the world 
is divided into the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad 
and this stage in which we dwell, where is the 
formlessness, ‘it was mecessary that the 
things confused should be sorted by the divi- 
sion of Jesus. That therefore suffered which 
was His bodily part, which was of the form- 
lessness, and it was restored into the formless- 
ness; and that rose up which was His psychical 
part, which was of the Hebdomad, and it was 
restored into the Hebdomad; and he raised 
up that which belonged to the summit where 
sits the Great Archon (τῆς ἀκρωρείας τοῦ μ. d.), 
and it abode beside the Great Archon: and 
He bore up on high that which was of the 
Limitary Spirit, and it abode in the Limitary 
Spirit ; and the third sonship, which had been 
left behind in [the heap] to give and receive 
benefits, through Him was purified and 
mounted up to the blessed sonship, passing 
through them 411. ‘ Thus Jesus is become 
the first fruits of the sorting ; and the Passion 
has come to pass for no other purpose than 
this [reading γέγονεν ἢ ὑπέρ for γέγονεν ὑπό], 
that the things confused might be sorted.’’ 
For the whole sonship left behind in the 
formlessness must needs be sorted in the same 
manner as Jesus Himself hath been sorted. 
Thus, as Hippolytus remarks a little earlier, 
the whole theory consists of the confusion of 
a seed-mass, and of the sorting and restoration 
ne their proper places of things so confused 
27). 

Clement’s contributions to our knowledge of 
Basilides refer chiefly, as has been said, to the 
ethical side of his doctrine. Here “ Faith”’ 
evidently played a considerable part. In itself 
it was defined by “‘ them of Basilides ”’ (of ἀπὸ 
B.) as ‘‘an assent of the soul to any of the 
things which do not excite sensation, because 
they are not present’’ (Strom. ii. p. 448) ; the 
phrase being little more than a vague rendering 
of Heb. xi. 1, in philosophical language. 
From another unfortunately corrupt passage 
(v. p- 645) it would appear that Basilides 
accumulated forms of dignity in celebration of 
faith. But the eulogies were in vain, Clement 
intimates, because they abstained from setting 
forth faith as the ‘‘ rational assent of a soul 
possessing free will.’’ They left faith a matter 
of ‘“‘nature,’’ not of responsible choice. So 
again, while contrasting the honour shewn by 
the Basilidians to faith with its disparagement 
in comparison with ‘“ knowledge’’ by the 
Valentinians, he accuses them (οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν B.) 
of regarding it as ‘‘ natural,” and referring it 
to ‘‘ the election ’’ while they apparently con- 
sidered it to ‘‘ discover doctrines without 
demonstration by an intellective apprehen- 
sion” (τὰ μαθήματα ἀναποδείκτως εὑρίσκουσαν 
καταλήψει νοητικῇ). He adds that accord- 
ing to them (oi ἀπὸ B.) there is at once a 
faith and an election of special character 
(οἰκείαν) in each ‘‘stage’’ (διάστημα), the 
mundane faith of every nature follows in 
accordance with its supermundane election, 
and for each (? being or stage) the [Divine] 
gift of his (or its) faith corresponds with his 
(or its) hope (ii. 433 f.). What ‘‘ hope”’ was 
intended is not explained: probably it is 
the range of legitimate hope, the limits of 
faculty accessible to the beings inhabiting 


108 BASILIDES 


this or that “ stage.’ It is hardly likely that 
Clement would have censured unreservedly 
what appears here as the leading principle of 
Basilides, the Divine resignment of a limited 
sphere of action to each order of being, and 
the Divine bestowal of proportionally limited 
powers of apprehending God upon the several 
orders, though it is true that Clement himself 
specially cherished the thought of an upward 
progress from one height of being to another, 
as part of the Divine salvation (Strom. vii. p. 
835, etc.). Doubtless Basilides pushed elec- 
tion so far as to sever a portion of mankind 
from the rest, as alone entitled by Divine 
decree to receive the higher enlightenment. 
In this sense it must have been that he called 
** the election a stranger to the world, as being 
by nature supermundane’’; while Clement 
maintained that no man can by nature be a 
stranger to the world (iv. p. 639). It is hardly 
necessary to point out how closely the limita- 
tion of spheres agrees with the doctrine on 
which the Great Ignorance is founded, and 
the supermundane election with that of the 
Third Sonship. 

The same rigid adhesion to the conception 
of natural fixity, and inability to accept 
Christian beliefs, which transcend it, led 
Basilides (6 B.) to confine the remission of sins 
to those which are committed involuntarily 
and in ignorance; as though, says Clement 
(Strom. iv. p. 634), it were a man and not God 
that bestowed the gift. A like fatalistic view 
of Providence is implied in the language held 
by Basilides (in the 23rd book of his Exegetica, 
as quoted by Clement, Strom. iv. pp. 599-603) 
in reference to the sufferings of Christian 
martyrs. In this instance we have the benefit 
of verbal extracts, though unfortunately their 
sense is in parts obscure. So far as they go, 
they do not bear out the allegations of Agrippa 
Castor (ap. Eus. H. E. iv. 7, § 7) that Basilides 
taught that the partaking of food offered to 
idols, and the heedless (ἀπαραφυλάκτως) abjur- 
ation of the faith in time of persecution was 
a thing indifferent ; and of Origen (Com. in 
Mait. iii. 856 Ru.), that he depreciated the 
martyrs, and treated lightly the sacrificing to 
heathen deities. The impression seems to 
have arisen partly from a misunderstanding of 
the purpose of his argument, partly from the 
actual doctrine and practices of later Basili- 
dians ; but it may also have had some justifi- 
cation in incidental words which have not been 
preserved. Basilides is evidently contesting 
the assumption, probably urged in controversy 
against his conception of the justice of Provi- 
dence, that the sufferers in ‘‘ what are called 
tribulations”? (ἐν ταῖς λεγομέναις θλίψεσιν) are 
to be regarded as innocent, simply because 
they suffer for their Christianity. He suggests 
that some are in fact undergoing punishment 
for previous unknown sins, while ‘“‘ by the 
goodness of Him Who brings events to pass ”’ 
(τοῦ περιάγοντος) they are allowed the comfort 
of suffering as Christians, ‘‘ not subject to the 
rebuke as the adulterer or the murderer ”’ 
(apparently with reference to 1 Pet. iii. 17, 
ἵν. 15, 16, 19) ; and if there be any who suffers 
without previous sin, it will not be “‘ by the 
design of an [adverse] power’? (κατ᾽ ἐπιβουλὴν 
δυνάμεως), but as suffers the babe who appears 
to have committed no sin. The next quota- 


BASILIDES 


tion attempts at some length an exposition of 
this comparison with the babe. The obvious 
distinction is drawn between sin committed 
in act (ἐνεργῶς) and the capacity for sin (τὸ 
ἁμαρτητικόν) - the infant is said to receive 


vidence (τὸ mpovoiv) evil.” He did not shrink, - 
Clement says, and the language seems too. 
conclusive, from applying his principle even 
to the Lord. “ If, leaving all these arguments, 
you go on to press me with certain persons, | 
saying, for instance, ‘Such an one sinned 
therefore, for such an one suffered,’ if you will 
allow me I will say, ‘ He did not sin, but he 
is like the suffering babe’; but if you force 
the argument with greater violence, I will say 
that any man whom you may choose to name. 
is a man, and that God is righteous; for ‘no. 
one,’ as it has been said, ‘is clear of defile- 
ment’”’ (ῥύπου). He likewise brought in the 
notion of sin in a past stage of existence 
suffering its penalty here, ‘‘ the elect soul” 
suffering ‘‘honourably (ἐπιτίμω) through 
martyrdom, and the soul of another kind 
being cleansed by an appropriate punishment.” 
To this doctrine of metempsychosis (τὰς 
ἐνσωματώσει5) “the Basilidians’’ (οἱ ἀπὸ B.) © 
are likewise said to have referred the language 
of the Lord about requital to the third and 

fourth generations (Exc. Theod. 976) ; Origen 

states that Basilides himself interpreted Rom. 

vii. 9 in this sense, ‘‘ The Apostle said, ‘ I lived 

without a law once,’ that is, before I came into — 
this body, I lived in such a form of body as- 
was not under a law, that of a beast namely, 
or a bird’’ (Com. in Rom. iv. 549, Ru.); and - 
elsewhere (Com. in Matt. l.c.) Origen com- 

plains that he deprived men of a salutary fear 

by teaching that transmigrations are the only _ 
punishments after death. What more Basil- 

ides taught about Providence as exemplified — 
in martyrdoms is not easily brought together 

from Clement’s rather confused account. He \ 
said that one part of what is called the will 
of God (1.6. evidently His own mind towards © 
lower beings, not what He would have their — 
mind to be) is to love (or rather perhaps be > 
satisfied with, ἠγαπηκέναι) all things beca 
all things preserve a relation to the universe 


-Φφφ ὩΣ ως 4 eer. ~ ee; 


(λόγον ἀποσώζουσι πρὸς TO πᾶν ἅπαντα), and © 
another to despise nothing, and a third to hate - 
no single thing (601). In the same spirit pain : | 
and fear were described as natural accidents | 
of things (ἐπισυμβαίνει τοῖς πράγμασιν), as” 
rust of iron (603). In another sentence (602) ἢ 
Providence seems to be spoken of as set in 

motion by the Archon ; by which perhaps was _ 
meant (see Hipp. c. 24, cited above, p. 272 A)” 
that the Archon was the unconscious agent 
who carried into execution (within his own | 
“*stage’’) the long dormant original counsels _ 
of the not-being God. The view of the har-’ 
mony of the universe just referred to finds — 
expression, with a reminiscence of a famous ἢ 
sentence of Plato (Tim. 318), in a saying | 
(Strom. v. p. 690) that Moses ‘‘set up one H 


{ 
| 
| 
| 
| 


BASILIDES 


emple of God and an only-begotten world ”’ 
μονογενῆ τε κύσμον : cf. Plut. ii. 423 4, 
va τοῦτον [τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ 
al ἀγαπητόν). ᾿ 
We have a curious piece of psychological 
heory in the account of the passions attri- 
uted to the Basilidians (οἱ audi τὸν B.). 
hey are accustomed, Clement says (Strom. 
ii. p. 488), to call the passions Appendages 
(πτροσαρτήματα), stating that these are certain 
pirits which have a substantial existence 
(κατ οὐσίαν ὑπάρχειν), having been appended 
(or “ attached,” or ‘‘ adherent,’’ various kinds 
of close external contact being expressed by 
προσηρτημένα, cf. M. Aur. xii. 3, with Gataker’s 
jnote, and also Tertullian’s ceterts appen- 
dicibus, sensibus et affectibus, Adv. Mare. i. 25, 
cited by Gieseler) to the rational soul in a 
certain primitive turmoil and confusion, and 
that again other bastard and alien natures 
of spirits grow upon these (προσεπιφύεσθαι 
ταύταις), as of a wolf, an ape, a lion, a goat, 
whose characteristics ((διώματα), becoming per- 
ceptible in the region of the soul (φανταζόμενα 
περὶ τὴν ψυχήν), assimilate the desires of the 
son to the animals; for they imitate the 
actions of those whose characteristics they 
wear, and not only acquire intimacy (προσοι- 
κειοῦνται) with the impulses and impressions 
of the irrational animals, but even imitate 
(ζηλοῦσ) the movements and beauties of 
plants, because they likewise wear the char- 
acteristics of plants appended to them; and 
{the passions] have also characteristics of 
habit [derived from stones], as the hardness 
| of adamant (cf. p. 487 med.). In the absence 
of the context it is impossible to determine 
| the precise meaning and origin of this singular 
th It was probably connected with the 
doctrine of metempsychosis, which seemed to 
find support in Plato’s Timaeus 42, 90 f.), and 
was cherished by some _ neo-Pythagoreans 
later in the 2nd cent. (cf. Zeller, Philos. d. 
Gr. y. 198 f.) ; while the plurality of souls is 
derided by Clement as making the body a 
Trojan horse, with apparent reference (as 
Saumaise points out, on Simplic. Epict. 164) 
ΟῚ toasimilar criticism of Plato in the Theaetetus 
(184 pd). And again Plutarch (de Comm. Not. 
45, p- 1084) ridicules the Stoics (1.6. appar- 
ently Chrysippus) for a ‘strange and out- 
landish’’ notion that all virtues and vices, 
arts and memories, impressions and passions 
and impulses and assents (he adds further 
down even “ acts,’’ ἐνεργείας, such as “ walk- 
ing, dancing, supposing, addressing, reviling ”’) 
are not merely ‘“ bodies’’ (of course in the 
familiar Stoic sense) but living creatures or 
animals ({wa), crowded apparently round the 
central point within the heart where ‘“ the 
ruling principle’ (τὸ ἡγεμονικόν) is located : 
by this ‘“‘ swarm,” he says, of hostile animals 
y turn each one of us into ‘‘a paddock or 
a stable, or a Trojan horse.”’ Such a theory 
might seem to Basilides an easy deduction 
from his fatalistic doctrine of Providence, and 
of the consequent immutability of all natures. 
The only specimen which we have of the 
tactical ethics of Basilides is of a favourable 
, though grossly misunderstood and mis- 
Lea by Epiphanius (i. 211f.). _Reciting 
6 views of different heretics on Marriage, 


BASILIDES 109 


Clement (Strom. iii. 508 ff.) mentions first its 
approval by the Valentinians, and then gives 
specimens of the teaching of Basilides (ol ἀπὸ 
B.) and his son Isidore, by way of rebuke to the 
immorality of the later Basilidians, before 
proceeding to the sects which favoured licence, 
and to those which treated marriage as unholy. 
He first reports the exposition of Matt. xix. 
11 f. (or a similar evangelic passage), in which 
there is nothing specially to note except the 
interpretation of the last class of eunuchs as 
those who remain in celibacy to avoid the 
distracting cares of providing a livelihood. 
He goes on to the paraphrase of I. Cor. vii. 9, 
interposing in the midst an illustrative sen- 
tence from Isidore, and transcribes the language 
used about the class above mentioned. ‘ But 
suppose a young man either poor or (?) de- 
pressed [κατηφής seems at least less unlikely 
than κατωφερής], and in accordance with the 
word [in the Gospel] unwilling to marry, let 
him not separate from his brother ; let him say 
‘ [ have entered into the holy place [τὰ ἅγια, 
probably the communion of the church], 
nothing can befall me’; but if he have a 
suspicion [ἢ self-distrust, ὑπονοίαν ἔχῃ], let him 
say, ‘ Brother, lay thy hand on me, that I 
may sin not,’ and he shall receive help both 
to mind and to senses (νοητὴν καὶ αἰσθητήν); 
let him only have the will to carry out com- 
pletely what is good, and he shall succeed. 
But sometimes we say with the lips, ‘ We will 
not sin,’ while our thoughts are turned towards 
sinning: such an one abstains by reason of 
fear from doing what he wills, lest the punish- 
ment be reckoned to his account. But the 
estate of mankind has only certain things at 
once necessary and natural, clothing being 
necessary and natural, but τὸ τῶν ἀφροδισίων 
natural, yet not necessary’ (cf. Plut. Mor. 


89). 

Although we have no evidence that Basil- 
ides, like some others, regarded our Lord’s 
Baptism as the time when a Divine being first 
was joined to Jesus of Nazareth, it seems clear 
that he attached some unusual significance to 
the event. ‘‘ They of Basilides (ol ἀπὸ B.),” 
says Clement (Strom. i. 146, p. 408), ‘‘ cele- 
brate the day of His Baptism by a preliminary 
night-service of [Scripture] readings (προδια- 
νυκτερεύοντες ἀναγνώσεσι) ; and they say 
that the ‘ fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar ’ 
(Luke iii. 1) is (or means) the fifteenth day of 
the [Egyptian] month Tybi, while some [make 
the day] the eleventh of the same month.’’ 
Again it is briefly stated in the Excerpta (16, 
p- 972) that the dove of the Baptism is said 
by the Basilidians (οἱ ἀπὸ B.) to be the Minister 
(ὁ διάκονος). And the same association is 
implied in what Clement urges elsewhere 
(Strom. li. p. 449): ‘‘ If ignorance belongs to 
the class of good things, why is it brought to 
an end by amazement [7.e. the amazement of 
the Archon], and [so] the Minister that they 
speak of [αὐτοῖς] is superfluous, and the Pro- 
clamation, and the Baptism: if ignorance had 
not previously existed, the Minister would not 
have descended, nor would amazement have 
seized the Archon, as they themselves say.’’ 
This language, taken in conjunction with 
passages already cited from Hippolytus (c. 26), 
implies that Basilides regarded the Baptism 


110 BASILIDES 


as the occasion when Jesus received “ the 
Gospel”’ by a Divine illumination. The sup- 
posed descent of ‘‘ Christ’’ for union with 
““Jesus,’’ though constantly assumed by 
Hilgenfeld, is as destitute of ancient attesta- 
tion as it is inconsistent with the tenor of 
Basilidian doctrine recorded by Clement, to 
say nothing of Hippolytus. It has been ar- 
gued from Clement’s language by Gieseler (in 
the Halle A.L.Z. for 1823, i. 836 f.; cf. K.G. 
i. 1. 186), that the Basilidians were the first 
to celebrate our Lord’s Baptism. The early 
history of the Epiphany is too obscure to 
allow a definite conclusion on this point ; but 
the statement about the Basilidian services 
of the preceding night receives some illustra- 
tion from a passage of Epiphanius, lately 
published from the Venice MS. ii. 483 Dind. : 
lii. 632 Oehler), in which we hear of the night 
before the Epiphany as spent in singing and 
flute-playing in a heathen temple at Alex- 
andria: so that probably the Basilidian rite 
was a modification of an old local custom. 
According to Agrippa Castor (Eus. /.c.) Basil- 
ides ‘“‘in Pythagorean fashion’’ prescribed a 
silence of five years to his disciples. 

The same author, we hear, stated that 
Basilides ‘‘named as prophets to himself 
Barcabbas and Barcoph, providing himself 
likewise with certain other [? prophets] who 
had no existence, and that he bestowed upon 
them barbarous appellations to strike amaze- 
ment into those who have an awe of such 
things.”” The alleged prophecies apparently 
belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian 
literature popular with various Gnostics. 

From Hippolytus we hear nothing about 
these prophecies, which will meet us again 


presently with reference to Basilides’s son | 


Isidore, but he tells us (Haer. vii. 20) that, 
according to Basilides and Isidore, Matthias 
spoke to them mystical doctrines (λόγους 
ἀποκρύφους) which he heard in private teach- 
ing from the Saviour: and in like manner 
Clement (Strom. vii. goo) speaks of the sect of 
Basilides as boasting that they took to them- 
selves the glory of Matthias. Origen also 
(Hom. in Luc. i. t. iii. p. 933) and after him 
Eusebius refer to a ‘‘ Gospel”’ of or according 
to Matthias (H. E. iii. 25, 6). The true name 
was apparently the Traditions of Matthias : 
three interesting and by no means heretical 
extracts are given by Clement (Strom. ii. 452 ; 
iii. 523 [copied by Eusebius, H. E. iii. 29. 
4]; vii. 882). In the last extract the respon- 
sibility laid on ‘‘ the elect’ for the sin of 


a neighbour recalls a passage already cited | 


(p- 275 B) from Basilides. 

It remains only to notice an apparent 
reference to Basilides, which has played a 
considerable part in modern expositions of his 
doctrine. Near the end of the anonymous 


Acts of the Disputation between Archelaus and | 
Mani, written towards the close of the 3rd | 
cent. or a little later, Archelaus disputes the | 


originality of Mani’s teaching, on the ground 
that it took rise a long time before with “a 
certain barbarian” (c. 55, in Routh, Rell. 
Sac. v. 196 ff.). ‘‘ There was also,” he says, 
““a preacher among the Persians, a certain 
Basilides of great [or ‘ greater,’ antiugqior| 
antiquity, not long after the times of our 
Apostles, who being himself also a crafty man, 


/iron as natural accidents (émicupBulver). 


BASILIDES 


and perceiving that at that time everything 
was preoccupied, decided to maintain that 
dualism which was likewise in favour with 
Scythianus,’”’ named shortly before (c. 51 
p- 186) as a contemporary of the Apostles, whe 
had introduced dualism from a Pythagorean 
source. ‘“‘ Finally, as he had no assertion te 
make of his own, he adopted the sayings o 
others ”’ (the last words are corrupt, but this 
must be nearly the sense). ‘‘ And all his 
books contain things difficult and rugged.’ 
The writer then cites the beginning of the © 
thirteenth book of his treatises (tractatuum), in — 
which it was said that “ the saving word ”’ (the 
Gospel) by means of the parable of the rich 
man and the poor man pointed out the source 
from which nature (or a nature) without aroot | 
and without a place germinated and extended | 
itself over things (rebus supervenientem, unde © 
pullulaverit). He breaks off a few words later 
and adds that after some 500 lines Basilides 
invites his reader to abandon idle and curious — 
elaborateness (varietate), and to investigate 
rather the studies and opinions of barbarians 
on good and evil. Certain of them, Basilides 
states, said that there are two beginnings of all 
things, light and darkness; and he subjoins 
some particulars of doctrine of a Persian cast. 
Only one set of views, however, is mentioned, 
and the Acts end abruptly here in the two 
known MSS. of the Latin version in which 
alone this part of them is extant. 

It is generally assumed that we have here 
unimpeachable evidence for the strict dualism 
of Basilides. It seems certain that the writer 
of the Acts held his Basilides responsible for 
the barbarian opinions quoted, which are 
clearly dualistic, and he had the whole book 
before him. Yet his language on this point is 
loose, as if he were not sure of his ground; 
and the quotation which he gives by no means 
bears him out: while it is quite conceivable 
that he may have had some acquaintance with 
dualistic Basilidians of a later day, such as 
certainly existed, and have thus given a wrong 
interpretation to genuine words of their 
master (cf. Uhlhorn, 52f.). It assuredly 
requires considerable straining to draw the 
brief interpretation given of the parable to a 
Manichean position, and there is nothing to 
shew that the author of it himself adopted the 
first set of ‘‘ barbarian ’’ opinions which he re- 
ported. Indeed the description of evil (for evil 
doubtless is intended) as a superventent nature, — 
without root and without place, reads almost ~ 
as if it were directed against Persian doctrine, 
and may be fairly interpreted by Basilides’s 
comparison of pain and fear to the rust of 
The 
identity of the Basilides of the Acts with the 
‘Alexandrian has been denied by Gieseler with 
some shew of reason. It is at least strange 
that our Basilides should be described simply 
as a ‘“‘ preacher among the Persians,” a | 
character in which he is otherwise unknown ; — 
and all the more since he has been previously 
mentioned with Marcion and Valentinus as a 
heretic of familiar name (c. 38, p. 138). On 
the other hand, it has been justly urged that 
the two passages are addressed to different 
persons. The correspondence is likewise 
remarkable between the “ treatises”? in at 
least thirteen books, with an interpretation of 


xi 


BASILIDES 


parable among their contents, and the 


| ‘twenty-four books on the Gospel’’ mentioned 


y Agrippa Castor, called Evxegetica by 
lement. Thus the evidence for the identity 
f the two writers may on the whole be treated 
preponderating. But the ambiguity of 
interpretation remains ; and it would be im- 
ossible to rank Basilides confidently among 
dualists, even if the passage in the Acts stood 
alone: much more to use it as a standard by 
hich to force a dualistic interpretation upon 


other clearer statements of his doctrine. 


Gnosticism was throughout eclectic, and 
Basilides superadded an eclecticism of his own. 
Antecedent Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, and 


the Christian faith and Scriptures all exercised 


a powerful and immediate influence over his 
mind. It is evident at a glance that his 
system is far removed from any known form of 
Syrian or original Gnosticism. Like that of 
Valentinus, it has been remoulded in a Greek 
spirit, but much more completely. Historical 
records fail us almost entirely as to the per- 


-|sonal relations of the great heresiarchs ; yet 


internal evidence furnishes some indications 
which it can hardly be rash to trust. Ancient 
writers usually name Basilides before Valen- 
tinus ; but there is little doubt that they were 
at least approximately contemporaries, and it 
is not unlikely that Valentinus was best 
known personally from his sojourn at Rome, 
which was probably (Lipsius, Quellen d. alt. 
Ketzergeschichte, 256) the last of the recorded 
stages of his life. There is at all events no 
serious chronological difficulty in supposing 


| that the Valentinian system was the starting- 


| point from which Basilides proceeded to con- 


| struct by contrast his own theory, and this is 


ὶ 


| suggests. 


the view which a comparison of doctrines 
In no point, unless it be the reten- 
tion of the widely spread term archon, is 
Basilides nearer than Valentinus to the older 
Gnosticism, while several leading Gnostic 
forms or ideas which he discards or even re- 
pudiates are held fast by Valentinus. Such 
are descent from above (see a passage at the 
end of c. 22, and p. 272 Β, above), putting 
forth or pullulation (imperfect renderings of 
προβολή, see p. 271 B), syzygies of male and 
female powers, and the deposition of faith to 
a lower level than knowledge. Further, the 
unique name given by Basilides to the Holy 
Spirit, “the Limitary (μεθόριον) Spirit,’ to- 
gether with the place assigned to it, can hardly 
be anything else than a transformation of the 
Strange Valentinian ‘‘ Limit” (ὅρος), which 
in like manner divides the Pleroma from the 
lower world ; though, in conformity with the 
unifying purpose of Basilides, the Limitary 
Spirit is conceived as connecting as well as 
vaheo the two worlds (cf. Baur in Theol. 

ahrb. for 1856, 156f.). The same softening of 
oppositions which retain much of their force 
even with Valentinus shews itself in other 
instances, as of matter and spirit, creation 


| and redemption, the Jewish age and the 


| 
7 


Christian age, the earthly and the heavenly 
elements in the Person of our Lord. The 
Strongest impulse in this direction probably 
came from Christian ideas and the power of a 
true though disguised Christian faith. But 
Greek speculative Stoicism tended likewise to 


break down the inherited dualism, while at 


Ἵ 


BASILIDES 111 


the same time its own inherent limitations 
brought faith into captivity. An antecedent 
matter was expressly repudiated, the words 
of Gen. i. 3 eagerly appropriated, and a 
Divine counsel represented as foreordaining all 
future growths and processes ; yet the chaotic 
nullity out of which the developed universe 
was to spring was attributed with equal bold- 
ness to its Maker: Creator and creation were 
not confused, but they melted away in the 
distance together. Nature was accepted not 
only as prescribing the conditions of the lower 
life, but as practically the supreme and per- 
manent arbiter of destiny. Thus though faith 
regained its rights, it remained an energy of 
the understanding, confined to those who 
had the requisite inborn capacity ; while the 
dealings of God with man were shut up within 
the lines of mechanical justice. The majestic 
and, so to speak, pathetic view bounded by 
the large Basilidian horizon was well fitted to 
inspire dreams of a high and comprehensive 
theology, but the very fidelity with which 
Basilides strove to cling to reality must have 
soon brought to light the incompetence of his 
teaching to solve any of the great problems. 
Its true office consisted in supplying one of the 
indispensable antecedents to the Alexandrian 
Catholicism which arose two generations later. 

V. Refuiations.—Notwithstanding the wide 
and lasting fame of Basilides as a typical 
heresiarch, no treatise is recorded as written 
specially in confutation of his teaching except 
that of Agrippa Castor. He had of course a 
place in the various works against all heresies ; 
but, as we have seen, the doctrines described 
and criticized in several of them belong not to 
him but to a sect of almost wholly different 
character. Hippolytus, who in later years 
became acquainted with the Evxegetica, con- 
tented himself with detecting imaginary 
plagiarisms from Aristotle (vii. 14-20). Even 
Origen, who likewise seems to have known 
the work (if we may judge by the quotation 
on metempsychosis given at p. 275, and by 
a complaint of ‘“ long-winded fabling,’’ aut 
Basilidis longam fabulositatem: Com. in 
Matt. xxiv. 23, Ρ. 864 Ru.), shews in the few 
casual remarks in his extant writings little real 
understanding even of Basilides’s errors. On 
the other hand, Clement’s candid intelligence 
enables him to detect the latent flaws of 
principle in the Basilidian theory without 
mocking at such of the superficial details as he 
has occasion to mention. Hilgenfeld, writing 
(1848) on the pseudo-Clementine literature, 
made a singular attempt to shew that in one 
early recension of the materials of part of the 
Recognitions Simon was made to utter Basil- 
idian doctrine, to be refuted by St. Peter, the 
traces of which had been partly effaced by 
his becoming the mouthpiece of other Gnostics 
in later recensions. Ritschl took the same 
view in the first ed. of his Entstehung d. altkath. 
Kirche (1850, pp. 169-174); but the whole 
speculation vanishes in his far maturer second 
ed. of 1857. The theory lacks even plausi- 
bility. The only resemblances between this 
part of the Recognitions and either the true or 
the spurious Basilidianism are common to 
various forms of religious belief; and not a 
single distinctive feature of either Basilidian 
system occurs in the Recognitions. A brief but 


112 BASILIDES 


sufficient reply is given in Uhlhorn’s Hom. u 
Recog. d. Clem. Rom. 1854, pp. 286 ff. 

VI. IJsodorus.—In the passage already 
noticed (Haer. vii. 20) Hippolytus couples 
with Basilides ‘‘ his true child and disciple ”’ 
Isidore. He is there referring to the use 
which they made of the Traditions of Matthias ; 
but in the next sentence he treats them as 
jointly responsible for the doctrines which he 
recites. Our only other authority respecting 
Isidore is Clement (copied by Theodoret), who 
calls him in like manner “ at once son and 
disciple” of Basilides (Strom. vi. 767). In 
this place he gives three extracts from the 
first and second books of Isidore’s Expositions 
(Eénynrixa) of the Prophet Parchor. They are 
all parts of a plea, like so many put forward 
after the example of Josephus against A pion, 
that the higher thoughts of heathen philo- 
sophers and mythologers were derived from a 
Jewish source. The last reference given is to 
Pherecydes, who had probably ἃ peculiar 
interest for Isidore as the earliest promulgator 
of the doctrine of metempsychosis known to 
tradition (cf. Zeller, Philos. d. Griechen, i. 
55 f. ed. 3)" His allegation that Pherecydes 
followed ‘* the prophecy of Ham”’ has been 
perversely urged as a sign that he set up the 
prophets of a hated race against the prophets 
of Israel. The truth is rather that the 
identification of Zoroaster with Ham or Ham’s 
son, whatever may have been its origin, 
rendered it easy to claim for the apocryphal 
Zoroastrian books a quasi-biblical sanctity 
as proceeding from a son of Noah, and that 
Isidore gladly accepted the theory as evidence 
for his argument. ‘‘ The prophets’”’ from 
whom ‘‘some of the philosophers” appro- 
priated a wisdom not their own can be no other 
than the Jewish prophets. Again Clement 
quotes his book On an Adherent Soul (Περὶ 
προσφυοῦς ψυχῆϑ) in correction of his preced- 
ing quotation from Basilides on the passions 
as ‘‘appendages’’ (Strom. ii. 488). If the 
eight lines transcribed are a fair sample of the 
treatise, Isidore would certainly appear to 
have argued here against his father’s teaching. 
He insists on the unity (μονομερής) of the 
soul, and maintains that bad men will find 
““no common excuse ’’ in the violence of the 
‘“ appendages ’’ for pleading that their evil 
acts were involuntary: our duty is, he says, 
““by overcoming the inferior creation within 
us (τῆς ἐλάττονος ἐν ἡμῖν κτίσεως) through 
the reasoning faculty (τῷ λογιστικῷ), to shew 
ourselves to have the mastery.’’ A third 
passage from Isidore’s Ethics (Strom. iii. 510) 
is intercalated into his father’s argument on 
I. Cor. vii. 9, to the same purport but in a 
coarser strain. Its apparent difficulty arises 
partly from a corrupt reading (avréxou μαχίμης 
γυναικος, where γαμετῆς must doubtless be 
substituted for μαχίμης, ἀντέχου meaning not 
“‘resist,’’ which would be ἀντέχε, as in the 
preceding line, but “‘ have recourse to”’) ; 
partly from the assumption that the following 
words ὅταν δὲ x.7.X. are likewise by Isidore, 
whereas the sense shews them to be a con- 
tinuation of the exposition of Basilides himself. 

Basilides had to all appearance no eminent 
disciple except his own son. In this respect 
the contrast between him and Valentinus is 


BASILIDES 


remarkable. A succession of brilliant fol- 
lowers carried forward and developed the 
Valentinian doctrine. It is a singular testi-— 


fy 


mony to the impression created at the outset a 


by Basilides and his system that he remained — 
for centuries one of the eponymi of heresy; 
his name is oftener repeated, for instance, in 
the writings of Origen, than that of any other 
dreaded of the ante-Nicene church except 
Marcion, Valentinus, and afterwards Mani. 
But the original teaching, for all its impressive- 
ness, had no vitality. The Basilidianism 
which did survive, and that, as far as the 
evidence goes, only locally, was, as we have 
seen, a poor and corrupt remnant, adulterated 
with the very elements which the founder 
had strenuously rejected. 4 

VII. The Spurious Basilidian System.—In 
briefly sketching this degenerate Basilidianism 
it will seldom be needful to distinguish the 
authorities, which are fundamentally two, 


Irenaeus (ror f.) and the lost early treatise οὗ. 4 


Hippolytus ; both having much in common, 
and both being interwoven together in the 
report of Epiphanius (pp. 68-75). The other 
relics of the Hippolytean Compendium are the ~ 
accounts of Philaster (32), and the supplement 
to Tertullian (4). At the head of this theology 
stood the Unbegotten (neuter in Epiph.), the 
Only Father. From Him was born or put 
forth Nus, and from Nus Logos, from Logos 
Phronesis, from Phronesis Sophia and Dyna- 
mis, from Sophia and Dynamis principalities, 
powers, and angels. This first set of angels 


4 


first made the first heaven, and then gave ὁ 


birth to a second set of angels who made a 
second heaven, and so on till 365 heavens had 
been made by 365 generations of angels, each 
heaven being apparently ruled by an Archon 
to whom a name was given, and these names 
being used in magic arts. The angels of the 
lowest or visible heaven made the earth and 
man. They were the authors of the pro- 
phecies ; and the Law in particular was given 
by their Archon, the God of the Jews. He 
being more petulant and wilful than the other 
angels (/rauwrepov καὶ αὐθαδέστερον), in his 
desire to secure empire for his people, pro- 
voked the rebellion of the other angels and 


their respective peoples. Then the Unbegotten ~ 


and Innominable Father, seeing what discord 
prevailed among men and among angels, and 
how the Jews were perishing, sent His First- 
born Nis, Who is Christ, to deliver those Who 
believed on Him from the power of the makers 
of the world. ‘‘ He,” the Basilidians said, 
‘is our salvation, even He Who came and 
revealed to us alone this truth.’’ He accord- 
ingly appeared on earth and performed mighty 
works ; but His appearance was only in out- 
ward show, and He did not really take flesh. 
It was Simon of Cyrene that was crucified ; 

for Jesus exchanged forms with him on the 
way, and then, standing unseen opposite in 
Simon’s form, mocked those who did the deed. 
But He Himself ascended into heaven, passing 
through all the powers, till He was ‘restored 
to the presence of His own Father. The 
two fullest accounts, those of Irenaeus and 
Epiphanius, add by way of appendix another 
particular of the antecedent mythology; a 
short notice on the same subject being like- 
wise inserted parenthetically by Hippolytus 


BASILIDES 


of Epiphanius’s a’r@v: Irenaeus substitutes 
“heavens,” which in this connexion comes 
to much the same thing) is Abrasax, the 
Greek letters of whose name added together 
as numerals make up 365, the number of the 
heavens; whence, they apparently said, the 
year has 365 days, and the human body 365 
members. This supreme Power they called 
“the Cause’? and ‘“‘the First Archetype,” 
while they treated as a last or weakest product 
(Hysterema, a Valentinian term, contrasted 
with Pleroma) this present world as the work 
of the last Archon (Epiph. 74 a). It is evident 
from these particulars that Abrasax was the 
name of the first of the 365 Archons, and 
accordingly stood below Sophia and Dynamis 
and their progenitors; but his position is not 
expressly stated, so that the writer of the 
supplement to Tertullian had some excuse for 
confusing him with ‘‘ the Supreme God.” 
On these doctrines various precepts are 
said to have been founded. The most dis- 
tinctive is the discouragement of martyrdom, 
which was made to rest on several grounds. 
To confess the Crucified was called a token 
of being still in bondage to the makers of the 
body (nay, he that denied the Crucified was 
pronounced to be free from the dominion of 
those angels, and to know the economy of the 
Unbegotten Father); but it was condemned 
| especially as a vain and ignorant honour paid 
᾿ not to Christ, Who neither suffered nor was 
crucified, but to Simon of Cyrene; and 
further, a public confession before men was 
stigmatized as a giving of that which is holy 
to the dogs and a casting of pearls before 
swine. This last precept is but one expression 
of the secrecy which the Basilidians diligently 
cultivated, following naturally on the supposed 
possession of a hidden knowledge. They 
evaded our Lord’s words, ‘“‘ Him that denieth 
Me before men,” etc., by pleading, ‘‘ We are 
the men, and all others are swine and dogs.” 
He who had learned their lore and known all 
angels and their powers was said to become 
invisible and incomprehensible to all angels 
and powers, even as also Caulacau was (the 
sentence in which Irenaeus, our sole authority 
here, first introduces Caulacau, a name not 
peculiar to the Basilidians, is unfortunately 
corrupt). And as the Son was unknown to 
all, so also, the tradition ran, must members 
of their community be known to none; but 
while they know all and pass through the 
midst of all, remain invisible and unknown 
to all, observing the maxim, ‘‘ Do thou know 
all, but let no one know thee.’”’ Accordingly 
they must be ready to utter denials and un- 
willing to suffer for the Name, since [to out- 
| ward appearance] they resembled all. It 
naturally followed that their mysteries were 
to be carefully guarded, and disclosed to 
“only one out of 1000 and two out of 10,000.’’ 
| When Philaster (doubtless after Hippolytus) 
tells us in his first sentence about Basilides 
that he was “called by many a heresiarch, 
because he violated the laws of Christian truth 
by making an outward show and discourse 
| (proponendo et loqguendo) concerning the Law 


Ite 
nfs 
we 


BASILIDES 113 


and the Prophets and the Apostles, but 
believing otherwise,”’ the reference is probably 
to this contrast between the outward confor- 
mity of the sect and their secret doctrines and 
practices. The Basilidians considered them- 
selves to be no longer Jews, but to have be- 
come more than Christians (such seems to 
be the sense of the obscure phrase Χριστιανοὺς 
δὲ μηκέτι γεγενῆσθαι, for the nondum of the 
translator of Irenaeus can hardly be right). 
Repudiation of martyrdom was naturally 
accompanied by indiscriminate use of things 
offered to idols. Nay, the principle of in- 
difference is said to have been carried so far 
as to sanction promiscuous immorality. In 
this and other respects our accounts may 
possibly contain exaggerations ; but Clement’s 
already cited complaint of the flagrant de- 
generacy in his time from the high standard 
set up by Basilides himself is unsuspicious 
evidence, and a libertine code of ethics would 
find an easy justification in such maxims as 
are imputed to the Basilidians. It is hardly 
necessary to add that they expected the 
salvation of the soul alone, insisting on the 
natural corruptibility of the body. They 
indulged in magic and invocations, ‘‘ and all 
other curious αγίβ. A wrong reading taken 
from the inferior MSS. of Irenaeus has added 
the further statement that they used “ im- 
ages ’’; and this single spurious word is often 
cited in corroboration of the popular belief 
that the numerous ancient gems on which 
grotesque mythological combinations are 
accompanied by the mystic name ABPAZAZ 
were of Basilidian origin. It is shewn in 
D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), art. ABRASAX, where 
Lardner (Hist. of Heretics, ii. 14-28) should 
have been named with Beausobre, that there 
is no tangible evidence for attributing any 
known gems to Basilidianism or any other 
form of Gnosticism, and that in all probability 
the Basilidians and the heathen engravers of 
gems alike borrowed the name from some 
Semitic mythology. 

Imperfect and distorted as the picture may 
be, such was doubtless in substance the creed 
of Basilidians not half a century after Basilides 
had written. Were the name absent from 
the records of his system and theirs, no one 
would have suspected any relationship be- 
tween them, much less imagined that they 
belonged respectively to master and to dis- 
ciples. Outward mechanism and inward 
principles are alike full of contrasts; no 
attempts of critics to trace correspondences 
between the mythological personages, and to 
explain them by supposed condensations or 
mutilations, have attained even plausibility. 
Two misunderstandings have been specially 
misleading. Abrasax, the chief or Archon of 
the first set of angels, has been confounded 
with ‘‘ the Unbegotten Father,’ and the God 
of the Jews, the Archon of the lowest heaven, 
has been assumed to be the only Archon re- 
cognized by the later Basilidians, though 
Epiphanius (69 s.c.) distinctly implies that 
each of the 365 heavens had its Archon. The 
mere name ‘“ Archon’’ is common to most 
forms of Gnosticism. So again, because 
Clement tells us that Righteousness and her 
daughter Peace abide in substantive being 
within the Ogdoad, “ the Unbegotten Father ”’ 


8 


114 BASILIDES 


and the five grades or forms of creative mind 
which intervene between Him and the creator- 
angels are added in to make up an Ogdoad, 
though none is recorded as acknowledged by 
the disciples : a combination so arbitrary and 
so incongruous needs no refutation. On the 
other hand, those five abstract names have 
an air of true Basilidian Hellenism, and the 
two systems possess at least one negative 
feature in common, the absence of syzygies 
and of all imagery connected directly with 
sex. On their ethical side the connexion 
is discerned with less difficulty. The con- 
tempt for martyrdom, which was perhaps the 
most notorious characteristic of the Basil- 
idians, would find a ready excuse in their 
master’s speculative paradox about martyrs, 
even if he did not discourage martyrdom 
‘himself. The silence of five years which he 
imposed on novices might easily degenerate 
into the perilous dissimulation of a secret 
sect, while their exclusiveness would be nour- 
ished by his doctrine of the Election; and 
the same doctrine might further after a while 
receive an antinomian interpretation. The 
nature of the contrast of principle in the 
theological part of the two creeds suggests 
how so great a change may have arisen. The 
system of Basilides was a high-pitched philo- 
sophical speculation, entirely unfitted to exer- 
cise popular influence, and transporting its 
adherents to a region remote from the sym- 
pathies of men imbued with the old Gnostic 
phantasies, while it was too artificial a 
compound to attract heathens or Catholic 
Christians. The power of mind and character 
which the remains of his writings disclose might 
easily gather round him in the first instance 
a crowd who, though they could enter into 
portions only of his teaching, might remain 
detached from other Gnostics, and yet in their 
theology relapse into “‘ the broad highway of 
vulgar Gnosticism ἡ (Baur in the Tiibingen 
Theol. Jahrb. for 1856, pp. 158 f.), and make 
for themselves out of its elements, whether for- 
tuitously or by the skill of some now forgotten 
leader, a new mythological combination. In 
this manner evolution from below might once 
more give place to emanation from above, 
Docetism might again sever heaven and earth, 
and a loose practical dualism (of the pro- 
founder speculative dualism of the East there 
is no trace) might supersede all that Basilides 
had taught as to the painful processes by which 
sonship attains its perfection. The composite 
character of the secondary Basilidianism may 
be seen at a glance in the combination of the 
five Greek abstractions preparatory to creation 
with the Semitic hosts of creative angels bear- 
ing barbaric names. Basilidianism seems to 
have stood alone in appropriating Abrasax ; 
but Caulacau plays a part in more than one 
system, and the functions of the angels recur 
in various forms of Gnosticism, and especially 
in that derived from Saturnilus. Saturnilus 
likewise affords a parallel in the character 
assigned to the God of the Jew as an angel, 
and partly in the reason assigned for the 
Saviour’s mission; while the Antitactae of 
Clement recall the resistance to the God of 
the Jews inculcated by the Basilidians. Other 
“ Basilidian “ features appear in the Pistis 
Sophia, viz. many barbaric names of angels 


BASILIDES 


(with 365 Archons, p. 364), and elaborate — 
collocations of heavens, and a numerical image 
taken from Deut. xxxii. 30 (p. 354). The 
Basilidian Simon of Cyrene is apparently — 
unique. 

VIII. History of the Basilidian Sect.—There — 
is no evidence that the sect extended itself — 
beyond Egypt ; but there it survived for along — 
time. Epiphanius (about 375) mentions the © 
Prosopite, Athribite, Saite, and ‘‘ Alexandrio- 2 
polite ’’ (read Andropolite) nomes or cantons, ~ 
and also Alexandria itself, as the places in — 
which it still throve in his time, and which he © 
accordingly inferred to have been visited by | 
Basilides (68c). All these places lie on the 
western side of the Delta, between Memphis 
and the sea. Nearer the end of cent. iv. 
Jerome often refers to Basilides in connexion 
with the hybrid Priscillianism of Spain, and the 
mystic names in which its votaries delighted. 
According to Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii. 46) + 
this heresy took its rise in “the East and © 
Egypt’”’; but, he adds, it is not easy to say © 
‘“‘what the beginnings were out of which it | 
there grew” (quibus 1bi initiis coaluerit). He | 
states, however, that it was first brought to © 
Spain by Marcus, a native of Memphis. © 
This fact explains how the name of Basilides — 
and some dregs of his disciples’ doctrines or 
practices found their way to so distant a land 
as Spain, and at the same time illustrates the 
probable hybrid origin of the secondary Basil- 
idianism itself. 

IX. Literature.—Basilides of course occupies 
a prominent place in every treatise on Gnosti- 
cism, such as those of Neander (including the 
Church History), Baur (the same), Lipsius, 
and MoOller (Geschichte der Kosmologie in der 
Christlichen Kirche). Two reviews by Gieseler 
(Halle A. L. Z. for 1823, pp. 335-338 ; Studien 
u. Kritiken for 1830, pp. 395ff.) contain valuable 
matter. The best monograph founded on 
the whole evidence is that of Uhlhorn (Das 
Basilidianische System, G6ttingen, 1855), 
with which should be read an essay by Baur 
(Theol. Jahrb. for 1856, pp. 121-162) ; Jacobi’s 
monograph (Basilidis Philosopht Gnostict 
Sententius, etc., Berlin 1852) being also good. 
Able expositions of the view that the true 
doctrine of Basilides is not represented in 
the larger work of Hippolytus Against all 
Heresies will be found in a paper by Hilgenfeld, 
to which Baur’s article in reply is appended 
(pp. 86-121), with scattered notices in other 
articles of his (especially in his Zeitschrift for 
1862, pp. 452 ff.) ; and in Lipsius’s Gnosticis- 
mus. Three articles by Gundert (Zeitschrift 
f. d. Luth. Theol. for 1855, 209 ff., and 1856, 
37 ff., 443 ff.) are of less importance. The 
lecture on Basilides in Dr. Mansel’s_post- 
humous book on The Gnostic Heresies is able 
and independent and makes full use of the 
best German criticisms, but underrates the — 
influence of Stoical conceptions on Basilides, — 
and exaggerates that of Platonism ; and after 
the example of Baur’s Christliche Gnosis in 
respect of Gmosticism generally, though 
starting from an opposite point of view, it 
suffers from an effort to find in Basilides a 
precursor of Hegel. Cf. Harnack, Gesch. Alt. 
Chr. Lit. 1893, pp. 157-161 ; Th. Zahn, Gesch. 
des N. T. Kanon (1888-1880), i. 763-774; J- 
Kennedy, ‘‘ Buddhist Gnosticism : the System 


= 
— 


Δ. το Ae . Ἐ- 


ann aaa 


ἱ 


β 
| 


Ι 


BASILISCUS 


of Basilides”’ (Lond. 1902, Journal of the Royal 
Asiatic Society). [Η.} 
Basiliscus, martyr, bp. of Comana, martyred 
with Lucianus at Nicomedia under Maximin, 
A.D. 312 (Pallad. Dial. de V. St. Chrys. xi., 


misreading, however, Maximian for Maximin). | 


St. Chrysostom, when exiled, was received 
upon his journey in a “ martyrium,’’ built 
some five or six miles out of Comana in 
memory of Basiliscus, and there died and was 
buried (Theod. H. E. v. 30; Soz. viii. 28; 
Pallad. as above; Niceph. xiii. 37). Basiliscus 
is said to have been shod with iron shoes, red 
hot, and then beheaded and thrown into the 
river (Menol. in Baron. May 22). =‘ [A.w.H.] 
Basilius of Ancyra (Βασίλειος, also called 
Basilas, Socr. ii. 42), a native of Ancyra, 
originally a physician (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 89 ; 
Suidas, s.v.), and subsequently bp. of that 
city, A.D. 336-360, one of the most respectable 
prelates of the semi-Arian party, whose essen- 
tial orthodoxy was acknowledged by Athan- 
asius himself, the differences between them 
being regarded as those of language only 
(Athan. de Synod. tom. i. pp. 915, 619, ed. 
Morell, Paris, 1627). He was a man of learn- 
ing, of intellectual power, and dialectical skill, 
and maintained an unwavering consistency 
which drew upon him the hostility of the 
shifty Acacians and their time-serving leader. 
The jealousy of Acacius was also excited by 
the unbounded influence Basil at one time 
exercised over the weak mind of Constantius, 
and his untiring animosity worked Basil’s over- 
throw. On the deposition of Marcellus, the 
aged bp. of Ancyra, by the Eusebian party, 
on the charge of Sabellianism, at a synod 
meeting at Constantinople, a.p. 336, Basil 
was chosen bishop in his room. He enjoyed 
the see undisturbed for eleven years; but in 
347, the council of Sardica, after the with- 
drawal of the Eusebians to Philippopolis, 
reinstated Marcellus, and excommunicated 
Basil as ‘‘ a wolf who had invaded the fold ”’ 
(Socr. ii. 20). Three years later, a.D. 350, 
the Eusebians were again in the ascendant, 
through the powerful patronage of Constan- 
tius, and Basil was replaced in his see by the 
express order of the emperor (Socr. ii. 26). 
Basil speedily obtained a strong hold over 
Constantius, who consulted him on all eccle- 
siastical matters, and did nothing without his 
cognizance. He and George of Laodicea 
were now the recognized leaders of the semi- 
Arian party (Epiph. Haer. 1xxiii. 1). 
next year, A.D. 351, Basil took the chief part 
in the proceedings of the council that met at 
Sirmium, where Constantius was residing, to 
depose Photinus the pupil of Marcellus, who 
was developing his master’s views into direct 
Sabellianism (7b. Ixxi. Ixxiii.; Socr. ii. 30). 
Shortly after this we find him attacking with 
equal vigour a heresy of an exactly opposite 
character, disputing with Aetius, the Ano- 
Moean, in conjunction with Eustathius of 


Sebaste, another leader of the semi-Arian | 


party. The issue of the controversy is vari- 


ously reported, according to the proclivities | 


of the historians. Philostorgius (H. E. iii. 
16) asserts that Basil and Eustathius were 
worsted by their antagonist ; orthodox writers 
assign them the victory (Greg. Nys. in 
Eunom. lib. i. pp. 289, 296). Basil’s repre- 


The | 


BASILIUS OF ANCYRA 115 


|sentations of the abominable character of 


Aetius’s doctrines so exasperated Gallus 
against him that he issued an order for his 
execution; but on having personal inter- 
course with him pronounced him maligned, 
and took him as his theological tutor. 
[Artius.] Basil’s influence increased, and 
just before Easter, A.p. 358, when a number 
of bishops had assembled at Ancyra for the 
dedication of a new church that Basil had 
built, Basil received letters from George of 
Laodicea speaking with great alarm of the 
spread of Anomoean doctrines, and entreating 
him to avail himself of the opportunity to 
obtain a synodical condemnation of Aetius 
and Eunomius. Other bishops were accord- 
ingly summoned, and eighteen anathemas 
were drawn up. Basil himself, with Eusta- 
thius and Eleusius, were deputed to commu- 
nicate these anathemas to Constantius at Sir- 
mium. The deputies were received with much 
consideration by the emperor, who ratified 
their synodical decrees and gave his authority 
for their publication. Basil availed himself 
of his influence over Constantius to induce him 
to summon a general council for the final 
settlement of the questions that had been so 
long distracting the church. It was ultimate- 
ly decided to divide the council into two, and 
Ariminum was selected for the West, and 
Seleucia in Isauria for the East. The Eastern 
council met, Sept. 27, 359. Basil did not 
arrive till the third day. He was soon made 
aware that his influence with the emperor had 
been undermined by his Acacian rivals, and 
that his power was gone. When he reproved 
Constantius for unduly favouring them, the 
emperor bid him hold his peace, and charged 
him with being himself the cause of the dis- 
sensions that were agitating the church 
(Theod. ii. 27). At another synod convened 
at Constantinople under the immediate super- 
intendence of Constantius, Acacius found him- 
self master of the situation and deposed whom 
he would. Basil was one of the first to fall. 
No doctrinal errors were charged against him. 
He was condemned on frivolous and unproved 
grounds, together with Cyril of Jerusalem, 
Eustathius of Sebaste, and other leading pre- 
lates. Banishment followed deposition. Basil 
was exiled to Illyria (Soz. iv. 24; Philost. v. 
1). On the accession of Jovian, A.D. 363, he 
joined the other deposed bishops in petitioning 
that emperor to expel the Anomoeans and 
restore the rightful bishops; but Basil seems 
to have died in exile (Socr. iii. 25). 
Athanasius speaks of his having written 
περὶ πίστεως (Athan. de Synod. u.s.). Ittigius 
(de Haer. p. 453) defends him from the charge 
of Arianism. Jerome identifies him, but un- 
justly, with the Macedonian party (Tillemont, 
vol. vi. passim). [E.v.] 
Basilius of Ancyra, a presbyter who became 
a martyr under Julian Α.Ὁ. 362. During the 
reign of Constantius he had been an uncom- 
promising opponent of Arianism. He was 
more than once apprehended by the provin- 
cial governors, but recovered his liberty. The 
Arian council under Eudoxius at Constanti- 
nople in 360 forbade him to hold any eccle- 
siastical assembly. The zeal of Basil was still 
further quickened by the attempts of Julian 
to suppress Christianity. Sozomen tells us 


116 BASIL THE GREAT 


that he visited the whole of the adjacent dis- 
trict, entreating the Christians everywhere to 
be constant to the faith and not to pollute 
themselves with sacrifices to idols (Soz. ἢ. E. 
v. 11). He was apprehended and put to the 
torture. On the arrival of Julian at Ancyra, 
Basil was presented to him, and after having 
reproached the emperor with his apostasy was 
further tortured. Basil’s constancy remained 
unshaken, and after a second interview with 
Julian, in which he treated the emperor with 
the greatest contumely, he suffered death by 
red-hot irons on June 29 (Soz. H. E. v. 11; 
Ruinart, Act. Sinc. Martyr. pp. 559 seq- ; 
Tillemont, vii. 375 seq.). [E.v.] 
Basilius, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
commonly called Basil the Great, 
strenuous champion of orthodoxy in the East, 
the restorer of union to the divided Oriental 
church, and the promoter of unity between 
the East and the West, was born at Caesarea 
(originally called Magaca), the capital of Cap- 
padocia, towards the end of 329. His parents 
were members of noble and wealthy families, 
and Christians by descent. His grandparents 
on both sides had suffered during the Maxi- 
minian persecution, his maternal grandfather 
losing both property and life. Macrina, his 
paternal grandmother, and her husband, were 
compelled to leave their home in Pontus, of 
which country they were natives, and to take 
refuge among the woods and mountains of that 
province, where they are reported to have 
passed seven years (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 319). 
[MAcCRINA.] 
Basil, was an advocate and teacher of rhetoric 


whose learning and eloquence had brought | 


him a very large practice. Gregory Nazianzen 
speaks of this elder Basil in terms of the 
highest commendation as one who was re- 
garded by the whole of Pontus as “the 
common instructor of virtue’’ (Or. xx. p. 
324). The elder Basil and Emmelia had ten 
children, five of each sex, of whom a daughter, 
Macrina, was the eldest. Basil the Great was 
the eldest son; two others, Gregory Nyssen 
and Peter, attained the episcopate. Naucra- 
tius the second son died a layman. Four of 
the daughters were well and honourably 
married. Macrina, the eldest, embraced a life 
of devotion, and exercised a very powerful 


influence over Basil and the other members | 


of the family. [Macrina, (2).] Basil was 
indebted for the care of his earliest years to 


his grandmother Macrina, who brought him | 


up at her country house, not far from Neo- 
caesarea in the province of Pontus (Bas. Ep. 
210, § 1). The date of Basil’s baptism is 
uncertain, but, according tothe prevalent cus- 
tom, it was almost certainly deferred until he 
reached man’s estate. For the completion of 
his education, Basil was sent by his father 
first to his native city of Caesarea (Greg. Naz. 
Or. XxX. p. 325). From Caesarea he passed to 


Constantinople (Bas. Epp. 335-359; Liban. | 
Vita, p. 15), and thence to Athens, where he | 
studied during the years 351-355, chiefly under | 


the Sophists Himerius and Prohaeresius. His 


acquaintance with his fellow-student and | 


inseparable companion Gregory Nazianzen, 
previously begun at Caesarea, speedily ripened 
at Athens into an ardent friendship, which sub- 
sisted with hardly any interruption through 


the | 


His father, whose name was also | 


BASIL THE GREAT 


the greater part of their lives. Athens also 
afforded Basil the opportunity of famili 


Julian. The future emperor conceived a 
warm attachment for the young Cappado- 
cian, with whom—as the latter reminds him 
when the relations between them had so sadly — 
changed—he not only studied the best model 
of literature, but also carefully read the sacred — 
Scriptures (Epp. 40, 41; Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. 
adv. Julian, pp. 121 seq.). Basil remained at | 
Athens till the middle or end of 355, when — 
with extreme reluctance he left for his native 
|city. By this time his father was dead. 

His mother, Emmelia, was residing at the 
village of Annesi, near Neocaesarea. Basil’s 
Athenian reputation had preceded him, and — 
he was received with much honour by the 
people of Caesarea, where he consented to 
settle as a teacher of rhetoric (Greg. Naz. Or. — 
| XxX. p. 334). He practised the profession of a — 
rhetorician with great celebrity for a consider- 
able period (Rufin. ii. 9), but the warnings and © 
counsels of Macrina guarded him from the ὁ 
seductions of the world, and eventually in- — 
duced him to abandon it altogether and 
| devote himself to a religious life (Greg. Nys. 
u.s.). Basil, in a letter to Eustathius of 
Sebaste, describes himself at this period as 
one awaked out of a deep sleep, and in the 
marvellous light of Gospel truth discerning 
| the folly of that wisdom of this world in the 
study of which nearly all his youth had van- 
ished. His first care was to reform his life. 
Finding, by reading the Gospels, that nothing 
tended so much toward perfection as to sell 
| all that he had and free himself from worldly 
cares, and feeling himself too weak to stand 
alone in such an enterprise, he desired earnestly 
to find some brother who might give him his 
| aid (Ep. 223). No sooner did his determina- 
| tion become known that he was beset by the 
|remonstrances of his friends entreating bim, 
some to continue the profession of rhetoric, 
| some to become an advocate. But his choice 
| was made, and his resolution was inflexible. 
| Basil’s baptism may be placed at this epoch. 
| He was probably baptized by Dianius, bp. of 
| Caesarea, by whom not long afterwards he 
was admitted to the order of reader (de Spir.. 
| Sancto, c. xxix. 71). Basil’s determination 
in favour of a life of devotion would be 
strengthened by the death of his next brother, 
Naucratius, who had embraced the life of a 
| solitary, and about this period was drowned 
while engaged in works of mercy (Greg. Nys. 
|de Vit. 5. Macr. p. 182). About A.D. 357, 
when still under thirty, Basil left Caesarea to 
seek the most celebrated ascetics upon whose 
life he might model his own; visiting Alex- 
andria and Upper Egypt, Palestine, Coelesyria, 
and Mesopotamia. He records his admira- 
tion of the abstinence and endurance of the 
ascetics whom he met, their mastery over 
hunger and sleep, their indifference to cold 
|and nakedness, as well as his desire to 
imitate them (Ep. 223, § 2). The year 358 
saw Basil again at Caesarea resolved on the 
|immediate carrying out of his purpose of 
|retiring from the world, finally selecting for 
his retreat a spot near Neocaesarea, close to 


— kee == Sea 


—— ane 


BASIL THE GREAT 


the village of Annesi, where his father’s 
estates lay, and where he had passed his 


childhood under the care of his grandmother 


Macrina. To Annesi his mother Emmelia and 
his sister Macrina had retired after the death 
of the elder Basil, and were living a semi- 
monastic life. Basil’s future home was only 
divided from Annesi by the river Iris, by 
which and the gorges of the mountain torrents 
a tract of level ground was completely in- 
sulated. A wooded mountain rose behind. 
There was only one approach to it, and of 
that he was master. The natural beauties of 
the spot, with its ravines, precipices, dashing 
torrents, and waterfalls, the purity of the air 
and the coo!ness of the breezes, the abundance 
of flowers and multitude of singing birds 


_ravished him, and he declared it to be more 


beautiful than Calypso’s island (Ep. 14). His 
glowing description attracted Gregory for a 
lengthy visit to study the Scriptures with him 
(Ep. 9), together with the commentaries of 
Origen and other early expositors. At this 
time they also compiled their collection of the 
“ Beauties of Origen,” or ‘‘ Philocalia’’ (Socr. 
iv. 26; Soz. vi.17; Greg. Naz. Ep. 87). In this 
secluded spot Basil passed five years, an epoch 
of no small importance in the history of the 
church, inasmuch as it saw the origin under 
Basil's influence of the monastic system in the 
coenobitic form. Eustathius of Sebaste had 
already introduced monachism into Asia 
Minor, but monastic communities were a 
novelty in the Christian world, and of these 
Basil is justly considered the founder. His 
rule, like that of St. Benedict in later times, 
united active industry with regular devotional 
exercises, and by the labour of his monks over 
wide desert tracts, hopeless sterility gave place 
to golden harvests and abundant vintages. 
Not the day only but the night also was 
divided into definite portions, the intervals 
being filled with prayers, hymns, and alternate 
psalmody. The day began and closed with 
a psalm of confession. The food of his monks 
was limited to one meal a day of bread, water, 
and herbs, and he allowed sleep only till 
midnight, when all rose for prayer (Ep. 2, 
207). On his retirement to Pontus, Basil 
devoted all his worldly possessions to the 
service of the poor, retaining them, however, 
in his own hands, and by degrees divesting 
himself of them as occasion required. His 
life was one of the most rigid asceticism. He 
had but one outer and one inner garment ; he 
slept in a hair shirt, his bed was the ground ; 
he took little sleep, no bath; the sun was his 
fire, his food bread and water, his drink the 
running stream (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 358; 
Greg. Nys. de Basil. p. 490). The severe 
bodily austerities he practised emaciated his 
frame and ruined his already feeble health, 
sowing the seeds of the maladies to which in 
later years he was a martyr. His friend 
describes him as “ without a wife, without 
property, without flesh, and almost without 
blood” (Greg. Naz. Or. xix. p. 311). Basil’s 
reputation for sanctity collected large numbers 
about him. He repeatedly made missionary 
journeys through Pontus ; his preaching result- 
ing in the founding of many coenobitic in- 
dustrial communities and monasteries for both 
sexes, and in the restoration of the purity of the 


BASIL THE GREAT 117 


orthodox faith (Rufin. ix. 9; Soz. vi. 17; Greg. 
Nys. de Basil. p. 488). Throughout Pontus and 
Cappadocia Basil was the means of the erection 
of numerous hospitals for the poor, houses of 
refuge for virgins, orphanages, and other homes 
of beneficence. His monasteries had as their 
inmates children he had taken charge of, 
married persons who had mutually agreed to 
live asunder, slaves with the consent of their 
masters, and solitaries convinced of the danger 
of living alone (Basil, Regulae, 10, 12, 15). 

After two years thus spent Basil was sum- 
moned from his solitude in 359 to accompany 
Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste, 
who had been delegated by the council of 
Seleucia to communicate the conclusions of 
that assembly to Constantius at Constanti- 
nople. Basil seems from his youth and natural 
timidity to have avoided taking any part in 
the discussions of the council that followed, 
360, in which the Anomoeans were condemned, 
the more orthodox semi-Arians deposed, and 
the Acacians triumphed. But when Con- 
stantius endeavoured to force those present 
to sign the creed of Ariminum, Basil left the 
city and returned to Cappadocia (Greg. Nys. 
in Eunom. pp. 310, 312; Philost. iv. 12). 
Not long after his return George of Laodicea 
arrived at Caesarea as an emissary of Con- 
stantius, bringing with him that creed for 
signature. To Basil's intense grief, bp. 
Dianius, a gentle, undecided man, who valued 
peace above orthodoxy, was persuaded to sign. 
Basil felt it impossible any longer to hold 
communion with his bishop, and fled to 
Nazianzus to find consolation in the society 
of his dear friend Gregory (Ep. 8, 51). He 
denied with indignation the report that he 
had anathematized his bishop, and when two 
years afterwards (362) D1anrus was stricken 
for death and entreated Basil to return and 
comfort his last hours, he at once went to him, 
and the aged bishop died in his arms. 

The choice of Dianius’s successor gave rise 
to violent dissensions at Caesarea. At last 
the populace, wearied with the indecision, 
chose Eusebius, a man of high position and 
eminent piety, but as yet unbaptized. They 
forcibly conveyed him to the church where the 
provincial bishops were assembled, and com- 
pelled the unwilling prelates first to baptize 
and then to consecrate him. Eusebius was 
bp. at Caesarea for 8 years (Greg. Naz. Or. 
xix. 308, 309). 

Shortly before the death of Dianius, Julian 
had ascended the throne (Dec. 11, 361), and 
desired to surround himself with the associates 
of his early days (Greg. Naz. Or. iv. 120). 
Among the first whom he invited was his 
fellow-student at Athens, Basil. Basil at 
first held out hopes of accepting his old friend’s 
invitation; but he delayed his journey, and 
Julian’s declared apostasy soon gave him 
sufficient cause to relinquish it altogether. 
The next year Julian displayed his irritation. 
Receiving intelligence that the people of 
Caesarea, so far from apostatizing with him 
and building new pagan temples, had pulled 
down the only one still standing (Greg. Naz. 
Or. iii. 91, xix. 309; Socr. v. 4), he expunged 
Caesarea from the catalogue of cities, made 
it take its old name of Mazaca, imposed heavv 
payments, compelled the clergy to serve in the 


118 BASIL THE GREAT 

police force, and put to death two young men 
of high rank who had taken part in the 
demolition of the temple. Approaching 
Caesarea, he dispatched a minatory letter to 
Basil demanding a thousand pounds of gold 
for the expenses of his Persian expedition, 
or threatening to rase the city to the ground. 
Basil, in his dauntless reply, upbraids the em- 
peror for apostasy against God and the church, 
the nurse and mother ofall, and for his folly in 
demanding so vast a sum from him, the poorest 
of the poor. The death of Julian (June 26, 
363) delivered Basil from this imminent peril. 

One of the first acts of bp. Eusebius was to 
compel the reluctant Basil to be ordained 
priest, that the bishop might avail himself of 
Basil’s theological knowledge and intellectual 
powers to compensate for his own deficiencies. 
At first he employed him very largely. But 
when he found himself completely eclipsed he 
became jealous of Basil’s popularity and 
treated him with a marked coldness, amount- 
ing almost to insolence, which awoke the 
hostility of the Christians of Caesarea, whose 
idol Basil was. A schism was imminent, but 
Basil, refusing to strengthen the heretical 
party by creating divisions among the ortho- 
dox, retired with his friend Gregory to Pontus, 
where he devoted himself to the care of the 
monasteries he had founded (Greg. Naz. Or. 
XX. Pp. 336, 337; S0Z. vi. 15). ; 

Basil had passed about three years in his 
Pontic seclusion when, in 365, the blind zeal 
of the emperor Valens for the spread of 
Arianism brought him back to Caesarea. As 
soon as it was known that Valens was ap- 
proaching that city, the popular voice de- 
manded the recall of Basil as the only bulwark 
against the attack on the true faith and its 
adherents meditated by the emperor. Greg- 
ory acted the part of a wise mediator, and 
Basil’s return to the bishop was effected (Greg. 
Naz. Ep. 19, 20, 169; Or. xx. p. 339). Treat- 
ing Eusebius with the honour due to his 
position and his age, Basil now proved him- 
self, in the words of Gregory, the staff of his 
age, the support of his faith; at home the 
most faithful of his friends ; abroad the most 
efficient of his ministers (7b. 340). 

The first designs of Valens against Caesarea 
were interrupted by the news of the revolt of 
Procopius (Amm. Marc. 26, 27). He left 
Asia to quell the insurrection which threatened 
his throne. Basil availed himself of the 
breathing-time thus granted in organizing the 
resistance of the orthodox against the Euno- 
mians or Anomoeans, who were actively pro- 
pagating their pernicious doctrines through 
Asia Minor; and in uniting the Cappadocians 
in loyal devotion to the truth. The year 368 
afforded Basil occasion of displaying his large 
and universal charity. The whole of Cappa- 
docia was desolated by drought and famine, 
the visitation pressing specially on Caesarea. 
Basil devoted his whole energies to helping 
the poor sufferers. He sold the property he 
had inherited at the recent death of his 
mother, and raised a large subscription in the 
city. He gave his own personal ministrations 
to the wretched, and while he fed their bodies 
he was careful to nourish their souls with the 
bread of life (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 340-342; 
Greg. Nys. in Eunom. i. 306). 


BASIL THE GREAT 


Eusebius died towards the middle of 3700. 
in Basil’s arms (Greg. Naz. Or. xix. 316 
xx. 342). Basil persuaded himself, not alto- — 
gether unwarrantably, that the cause of 
orthodoxy in Asia Minor was involved in Ἢ 
his succeeding Eusebius. Disappointed οὗ 
the assistance anticipated from the younger — 
Gregory, Basil betook himself to his father, 
the aged bp. of Nazianzus of the same name. 
The momentous importance of the juncture — 
was more evident to the elder man. Orthodoxy _ 
was at stake in Basil’s election. ‘‘ The Holy ~ 
Spirit must triumph ”’ (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 342). 
Using his son as his scribe, he dictated a letter ~ 
to the clergy, monks, magistrates, and people ὦ 
of Caesarea, calling on them to choose Basil; 
another to the electing prelates, exhorting — 
them not to allow Basil’s weakness of health 
to counterbalance his marked pre-eminence 
in spiritual gifts and in learning (Greg. Naz. _ 
Ep. 22, 23). No orthodox prelate had at that — 
time a deservedly greater influence than 
Eusebius of Samosata. Gregory wrote tohim — 
and persuaded him to visit Caesarea and 
undertake the direction of this difficult busi- 
ness (Bas. Ep. 47). On his arrival, Eusebius 
found the city divided into two opposite — 
factions. All the best of the people, together 
with the clergy and the monks, warmly advo- 
cated Basil’s election, which was vigorously ὦ 
opposed by other classes. The influence and 
tact of Eusebius overcame all obstacles. The 
people warmly espoused Basil’s cause; the 
bishops were compelled to give way, and the 
triumph of the orthodox cause was consum- 
mated by the arrival of the venerable Gregory, 
who, on learning that one vote was wanting 
for the canonical election of Basil, while his 
son was still hesitating full of scruples and 
refused to quit Nazianzus, left his bed for a 
litter, had himself carried to Caesarea at the 
risk of expiring on the way, and with his own 
hands consecrated the newly elected prelate, 
and placed him on his episcopal throne (Greg. 
Naz. Ep. 29, p- 793, Or. Xix. 311, XX. 349) 
Basil’s election filled the orthodox everywhere 
with joy. Athanasius, the veteran champion 
of the faith, congratulated Cappadocia on 
possessing a bishop whom every province 
might envy (Ath. ad. Pallad. p. 953, ad 
Joann. et Ant. p. 951). At Constantinople it 
was received with far different feelings. 
Valens regarded it as a serious check to his 
designs for the triumph of Arianism. Basil 
was not an opponent to be despised. He 
must be bent to the emperor’s will or got rid 
of. As bp. of Caesarea his power extended 
far beyond the limits of the city itself. He 
was metropolitan of Cappadocia, and exarch 
of Pontus. In the latter capacity his author- 
ity, more or less defied, extended over more 
than half Asia Minor, and embraced as many 
as eleven provinces. Ancyra, Neocaesarea, 
Tyana, with other metropolitan sees, acknow- 
ledged him as their ecclesiastical superior. 

Basil’s first disappointment in his episcopate 
arose from his inability to induce his dear 
friend Gregory to join him as his coadjutor in 
the government of his province and exarchate. 
He consented at last for a while, but soon with- 
drew. Difficulties soon thickened round the ἡ 
new exarch. The bishops who had opposed his __ 
election and refused to take part in his con- 


EL IE OO A  νμανώνα, 


BASIL THE GREAT 


secration, now exchanged their open hostility 
for secret opposition. While professing out- 
ward union, they withheld their support in 
everything. They treated Basil with marked 
slight and shewed a complete want of sym- 
pathy in all his plans (Ep. 98). He complains 
of this to Eusebius of Samosata (Epp. 48, 141, 
282). This disloyal behaviour caused him 
despondency and repeated attacks of illness. 
He overcame all his opponents in a few years 
by firmness and kindness, but their action had 
greatly increased the difficulties of the com- 
-mencement of his episcopate. 

Basil had been bishop little more than 
twelve months when he was brought into open 
collision with the emperor Valens, who was 
traversing Asia Minor with the fixed resolve 
of exterminating the orthodox faith and 
establishing Arianism. No part of Basil’s 
history is better known, and in none do we 
more clearly discern the strength and weak- 
ness of his character. ‘‘ The memorable inter- 
view with St. Basil,” writes Dean Milman, 
“ἐᾷς it is related by the Catholic party, dis- 
plays, if the weakness, certainly the patience 
and toleration of the sovereign—if the uncom- 
promising firmness of the prelate, some of that 
leaven of pride with which he is taunted by 
St. Jerome”’ (Hist. of Christiantty, 111. 45). 
Valens had never relinquished the designs 
which had been interrupted by the revolt of 
Procopius, and he was now approaching 


or 


| Caesarea determined to reduce to submission 
: | the chief champion of orthodoxy in the East. 
- | His progress hitherto had been one of uniform 
- | victory. The Catholics had everywhere fallen 


before him. Bithynia had resisted and had 
become the scene of horrible tragedies. The 
fickle Galatia had yielded without a struggle. 
The fate of Cappadocia depended on Basil. 
His house, as the emperor drew near, was 
besieged by ladies of rank, high personages of 
state, even by bishops, who entreated him to 
bow before the storm and appease the emperor 
by atemporary submission. Their expostula- 
tions were rejected with indignant disdain. A 
band of Arian bishops headed by Euippius, an 
aged bishop of Galatia and an old friend of 
Basil’s, preceded Valens’s arrival with the 
hope of overawing their opponents by their 
numbers and unanimity. Basil took the 
initiative, and with prompt decision separated 
himself from their communion (Bas. Epp. 68, 
128, 244, 251). Members of the emperor’s 
household indulged in the most violent men- 
aces against the archbishop. One of the most 
insolent of these was the eunuch Demosthenes, 
the superintendent of the kitchen. Basil met 
his threats with quiet irony, and was next 
confronted by Modestus, the prefect of the 
Praetorium, commissioned by the emperor to 
offer Basil the choice between deposition or 
communion with the Arians. This violent and 
unscrupulous imperial favourite accosted Basil 
with the grossest insolence. He refused him 
the title of bishop ; he threatened confiscation, 
exile, tortures, death. But such menaces, 
Basil replied, were powerless on one whose 
sole wealth was a ragged cloak and a few 
books, to whom the whole earth was a home, 
or rather a place of pilgrimage, whose feeble 
body could endure no tortures beyond the 
first stroke, and to whom death would be a 


BASIL THE GREAT 119 


mercy, as it would the sooner transport him 
to the God to Whom he lived. Modestus 
expressed his astonishment at hearing such 
unusual language (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 351; 
Soz. vi. 16). ‘That is,” replied Basil, 
“because you have never before fallen in 
with a true bishop.’’ Modestus, finding his 
menaces useless, changed his tone. He 
counselled prudence. Basil should avoid 
irritating the emperor, and submit to his 
requirements, as all the other prelates of Asia 
had done. If he would only yield he promised 
him the friendship of Valens, and whatever 
favours he might desire for his friends. Why 
should he sacrifice all his power for the sake 
of a few doctrines ? (Theod. iv. 19). But flat- 
tery had as little power as threats over Basil’s 
iron will. The prefect was at his wit’s end. 
Valens was expected on the morrow. Modes- 
tus was unwilling to meet the emperor with a 
report of failure. The aspect of a court of 
justice with its official state and band of 
ministers prepared to execute its sentence 
might inspire awe. But judicial terrors were 
equally futile (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. p. 315). 
Modestus, utterly foiled, had to announce to 
his master that all his attempts to obtain sub- 
mission had been fruitless. ‘‘ Violence would 
be the only course to adopt with one over 
whom threats and blandishments were equally 
powerless ’’ (Greg. Naz. Ov. xx. p. 350). Such 
Christian intrepidity was not without effect on 
the feeble, impressionable mind of Valens. He 
refused to sanction any harsh measures against 
the archbishop, and moderated his demands to 
the admission of Arians to Basil’s communion. 
But here too Basil was equally inflexible. To 
bring matters to a decided issue, the emperor 
presented himself in the chief church of Cae- 
sarea on the Epiphany, a.p. 372, after the 
service had commenced. He found the church 
flooded with ‘‘a sea’’ of worshippers whose 
chanted psalms pealed forth like thunder, 
uninterrupted by the entrance of the emperor 
and his train. Basil was at the altar celebrat- 
ing the Eucharistic sacrifice, standing, accord- 
ing to the primitive custom, behind the altar 
with his face to the assembled people, sup- 
ported on either hand by the semicircle of his 
attendant clergy. ‘‘ The unearthly majesty 
of the scene,” the rapt devotion of the arch- 
bishop, erect like a column before the holy 
table, the reverent order of the immense 
throng, ‘‘ more like that of angels than of 
men,’ overpowered the weak and excitable 
Valens, and he almost fainted away. When 
the time came for making his offering, and the 
ministers were hesitating whether they should 
receive an oblation from the hand of a heretic, 
his limbs failed him, and but for the aid of one 
of the clergy he would have fallen. Basil, it 
would seem, pitying his enemy’s weakness, 
accepted the gift from his trembling hand (ἰδ. 
Ρ- 351). The next day Valens again visited 
the church, and listened with reverence to 
Basil’s preaching, and made his offerings, 
which were not now rejected. The sermon 
over, Basil admitted the emperor within the 
sacred veil, and discoursed on the orthodox 
faith. He was rudely interrupted by the 
cook Demosthenes, who was guilty of a gross 
solecism. Basil smiled and said, ‘‘ We have, 
it seems, a Demosthenes who cannot speak 


120 BASIL THE GREAT 


Greek; he had better attend to his sauces 
than meddle with theology.’”’ The retort 
amused the emperor, who retired so well 
pleased with his theological opponent that he 
made him a grant of lands for the poor-house 
Basil was erecting (Theod. iv. 19 ; Greg. Naz. 
Or. xx. 351; Bas. Ep. 94).. The vacillating 
mind of Valens was always influenced by the 
latest and most imperious advisers, and when 
Basil remained firm in his refusal to admit 
them to his communion, the Arians about the 
emperor had little difficulty in persuading him 
that he was compromising the faith by per- 
mitting Basil to remain, and that his banish- 
ment was necessary for the peace of the East. 
The emperor, yielding to their importunity, 
ordered Basil to leave the city. Basil at once 
made his simple preparations for departure, 
ordering one of his attendants to take his 
tablets and follow him. He was to start at 
night to avoid the risk of popular disturbance. 
The chariot was at his door, and his friends, 
Gregory among them, were bewailing so great 
a calamity, when his journey was arrested by 
the sudden and alarming illness of Galates, 
the only son of Valen and Dominica. The 
empress attributed her child’s danger to the 
Divine displeasure at the treatment of Basil. 
The emperor, in abject alarm, sent the chief 
military officials of the court, Terentius and 
Arinthaeus, who were known to be his friends, 
to entreat Basil to come and pray over the 
sick child. Galates was as yet unbaptized. 
On receiving a promise that the child should 
receive that sacrament at the hands of a 
Catholic bishop and be instructed in the 
orthodox faith, Basil consented. He prayed 
over the boy, and the malady was alleviated. 
On his retiring, the Arians again got round the 
feeble prince, reminded him of a promise he 
had made to Eudoxius, by whom he himself 
had been baptized, and the child received 
baptism from the hands of an Arian prelate. 
He grew immediately worse, and died the 
same night (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 352, 364; 
Theod. iv. 19; Socr. iv. 26; Soz. iv. 16; 
Eph. Syr. apud Coteler. Monum. Eccl. Graec. 
iii. 63; Rufin. xi. 9). Once more Valens 
yielded to pressure from the wunwearied 
enemies of Basil. Again Basil’s exile was 
determined on, but the pens with which Valens 
was preparing to sign the decree refused to 
write, and split in his agitated hand, and the 
supposed miracle arrested the execution of the 
sentence. Valens left Caesarea, and Basil re- 
mained master of the situation (Theod. iv. το ; 
Ephr. Syr. u.s. p. 65). Before long his old 
enemy Modestus, attacked by a severe malady, 
presented himself as a suppliant to Basil, and 
attributing his cure to the intercessions of the 
saint, became his fast friend. So great was 
Basil’s influence with the prefect that persons 
came from a distance to secure his intercession 
with him. We have as many as six letters 
from Basil to Modestus in favour of different 
individuals (Bas. Epp. 104, 110, 111, 279, 280, 
281; Greg. Naz. Or. xx. pp. 352, 353). 

The issue of these unsuccessful assaults was 
to place Basilin a position ofinviolability, and 
to leave him leisure for administering his 
diocese and exarchate, which much needed his 
firm and unflinching hand. His visitation 
disclosed many irregularities which he sternly 


BASIL THE GREAT 


repressed. The chorepiscopi had admitted 
men to the lower orders who had no intention 
of proceeding to the priesthood, oreven tothe — 
diaconate, but merely to gain immunity from — 
military service (Ep. 54). Many of his suffra- 
gans were guilty of simony in receiving a fee — 
for ordination (Ep. 55). Men were raised to © 
the episcopate from motives of personal ine 
terest and to gratify private friends (Ep. 290). . 
The perilous custom of unmarried priests — 
having females (συνείσακται, subintroductae) — 
residing with them as “spiritual sisters” ~ 
called for reproof (Ep. 55). A fanatic deacon, 
Glycerius, who had collected a band of pro- 
fessed virgins, whom he forcibly carried off 
by night and who wandered about the country 
dancing and singing to the scandal of the 
faithful, caused him much trouble (Epp. 169, 
170, 171). To heal the fountain-head, Basil 
made himself as far as possible master of 
episcopal elections, and steadily refused to 
admit any he deemed unworthy of the office. 
So high became the reputation of his clergy 
that other bishops sent to him for presbyters 
to become their coadjutors and successors 
(Ep. 81). Marriage with a deceased wife’s 
sister he denounced as prohibited by the laws 
both of Scripture and nature (Ep. 160). Feeble 
as was his health, his activity was unceasing. 
He visited every part of his exarchate, and 
maintained a constant intercourse by letter 
with confidential friends, who kept him in- 
formed of all that passed and were ready to 
carry out his instructions. He pushed his 
episcopal activity to the very frontiers of 
Armenia. In 372 he made an expedition by 
the express command of Valens, obtained by 
the urgency of his fast friend count Terentius, 
to strengthen the episcopate in that country 
by appointing fresh bishops and infusing fresh 
life into existing ones (Ep. 99). He was very 
diligent in preaching, not only at Caesarea and 
other cities, but in country villages. The 
details of public worship occupied his atten- 
tion. Even while a presbyter he arranged 
forms of prayer (εὐχῶν διατάξεις), probably 
a liturgy, for the church of Caesarea (Greg. 
Naz. Or. xx. 340). He established nocturnal 
services, in which the psalms were chanted by 
alternate choirs, which, as a novelty, gave 
great offence to the clergy of Neocaesarea (Ep. 
207). These incessant labours were carried 
out by one who, naturally of a weak constitu- 
tion, had so enfeebled himself by austerities 
that ‘‘ when called well, he was weaker than 
persons who are given over”’ (Ep. 136). His 
chief malady, a disease of the liver, caused him 
repeated and protracted sufferings, often 
hindering him travelling, the least motion 
bringing on a relapse (Ep. 202). The severity 
of winter often kept him a prisoner to his house 
and often even to hisroom (Ep. 27). A letter 
from Eusebius of Samosata arrived when he 
had been 50 days ill of a fever. ‘‘ He was 
eager to fly straight to Syria, but he was un- 
equal to turning in his bed. He hoped for 
relief from the hot springs”’ (Ep. 138). He 
suffered ‘‘ sickness upon sickness, so that his 
shell must certainly fail unless God’s mercy 
extricate him from evils beyond man’s cure” 
(Ep. 136). At 45 he calls himself an old man. 
The next year he had lost allhisteeth. Three 
years before his death all remaining hope of 


BASIL THE GREAT 


life had left him (Ep. 198). He died, pre- 
maturely aged, at 50. Seldom did a spirit of 
so indomitable activity reside in so feeble a 
frame, and, triumphing over weakness, make 
it the instrument of such vigorous work for 
Christ and His church. 

In 372 a harassing dispute with Anthimus, 
bp. of Tyana, touching ecclesiastical juris- 
diction, led to the chief personal sorrow of 
Basil’s life, the estrangement of the friend of 
his youth, Gregory of Nazianzus. The cir- 
cumstances were these. Towards the close of 
371 Valens determined to divide Cappadocia 
into two provinces. Podandus, a miserable 
little town at the foot of mount Taurus, was 
at first named as the chief city of the new 
province, to which a portion of the executive 
was to be removed. The inhabitants of 
Caesarea entreated Basil to go to Constanti- 
nople and petition for the rescinding of the 
edict. His weak health prevented this, but 
he wrote to Sophronius, a native of Caesarea 
in a high position at court, and to Aburgius, a 
man of influence there, begging them to use 
all their power to alter the emperor’s decision. 
They could not prevent the division of the 
province, but did obtain the substitution of 
Tyana for Podandus (Epp. 74-76). Anthimus 
thereupon insisted that the ecclesiastical divi- 
sion should follow the civil, and claimed 
metropolitan rights over several of Basil’s 
suffragans. Basil appealed to ancient usage 
in vain. Anthimus called a council of the 
bishops who had opposed Basil’s election and 
were ready to exalt his rival. By flattery, 
intimidation, and even the removal of oppo- 
nents, Anthimus strengthened his faction. 
Basil’s authority was reduced to a nullity in 
one-half of his province (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 
355; Epp. 31, 33; Bas. Ep. 259). Basil 
appealed to his friend Gregory, who replied 
that he would come to his assistance, though 
Basil wanted him no more than the sea wanted 
water. He warned Basil that his difficulties 
were increased by the suspicions created by 
his intimacy with Eustathius of Sebaste and 
his friends, whose reputation for orthodoxy 
was more than doubtful (Greg. Naz. Ep. 25). 
On Gregory’s arrival the two friends started 
together for the monastery of St. Orestes on 
mount Taurus, in the second Cappadocia, the 
property of the see of Caesarea, to collect the 
produce of the estate. This roused Anthi- 
mus’s indignation, and despite his advanced 
age, he occupied the defile, through which the 
pack-mules had to pass, with his armed re- 
tainers. A serious affray resulted, Gregory 
fighting bravely in his friend’s defence (Greg. 
Naz. Or. xx. 356; Ep. 31, Carm.i. 8). Basil 
erected several new bishoprics as defensive 
outposts against his rival. One of these was 
near St. Orestes at Sasima, a wretched little 
posting-station and frontier custom-house at 
the junction of three great roads, hot, dry, and 
dusty, vociferous with the brawls of muleteers, 
travellers, and excisemen. Here Basil, dis- 
regarding Gregory’s delicate temperament, 
determined toplace himasbishop. Gregory’s 
weaker character bowed to Basil’s iron will, 
and he was most reluctantly consecrated. 
But Anthimus appointed a rival bishop, and 
Gregory took the earliest opportunity of 
escaping from the unwelcome position which 


BASIL THE GREAT 121 


he could only have maintained at the risk 
of continual conflict, and even bloodshed. 
[GREGORY NAZIANZEN; ANTHIMUS.] A peace 
was ultimately patched up, apparently 
through the intercession of Gregory and the 
mediation of Eusebius of Samosata and the 
senate of Tyana. Anthimus was recognised 
as metropolitan of the new province, each 
province preserving its own revenues (Bas. 
Epp. 97, 98, 122). Gregory attributed Basil’s 
action to a high sense of duty, but could never 
forget that he had sacrificed his friend to that, 
and the wound inflicted on their mutual 
attachment was never healed, and even after 
Basil’s death Gregory reproaches him with his 
unfaithfulness to thelaws of friendship. ‘This 
lamentable occurrence took place seven years 
before Basil’s death. He had before and after 
it many trials, many sorrows; but this prob- 
ably was the greatest of all’’ (Newman, 
Church of the Fathers, p. 144). 

The Ptochotropheion, or hospital for the 
reception and relief of the poor, which Basil 
had erected in the suburbs of Caesarea, 
afforded his untiring enemies a pretext for 
denouncing him to Helias, the new president 
of the province. This establishment, which 
was so extensive as to go by the name of 
the ‘“‘ New Town,”’ ἡ καινὴ πόλις (Greg. Naz. Or. 
XX. p. 359), and subsequently the “‘ Basileiad”’ 
after its founder (Soz. vi. 34), included a 
church, a palace for the bishop, and resi- 
dences for his clergy and their attendant min- 
isters ; hospices for the poor, sick, and way- 
farers; and workshops for the artisans and 
labourers whose services were needed, in 
which the inmates also might learn and 
practise various trades. There was a special 
department for lepers, with arrangements for 
their proper medical treatment, and on these 
loathsome objects Basil lavished his chief 
personal ministrations. By such an_ enor- 
mous establishment Basil, it was hinted, was 
aiming at undue power and infringing on 
the rights of the civil authorities. But Basil 
adroitly parried the blow by reminding the 
governor that apartments were provided in 
the building for him and his attendants, and 
suggesting that the glory of so magnificent 
an architectural work would redound to him 
(Ep. 84). ; ; 

Far more harassing and more lasting 
troubles arose to Basil from the double dealing 
of Eustathius, the unprincipled and time- 
serving bp. of Sebaste. [EUSTATHIUS OF 
SEBASTE.] Towards the middle of June 
372, the venerable Theodotus, bp. of Nico- 
polis, a metropolitan of Lesser Armenia, a 
prelate of high character and unblemished 
orthodoxy, deservedly respected by Basil, 
had invited him to a festival at Phargamon 
near his episcopal see. Meletius of Antioch, 
then in exile in Armenia, was also to be there. 
Sebaste was almost on the road between 
Caesarea and Nicopolis, and Basil, aware of 
the suspicion entertained by Theodotus of 
the orthodoxy of Eustathius, determined to 
stop there on his way, and demand a definite 
statement of his faith. Many hours were 
spent on fruitless discussion until, at three 
in the afternoon of the second day, a sub- 
stantial agreement appeared to have been 
attained. To remove all doubt of his ortho- 


122 BASIL THE GREAT 


doxy, Basil requested Theodotus to draw up 
a formulary of faith for Eustathius to sign. 
To his mortification not only was his request 
refused, but Theodotus plainly intimated that 
he had now no wish for Basil’s visit. While 
hesitating whether he should still pursue his 
journey, Basil received letters from his friend 
Eusebius of Samosata, stating his inability to 
come and join him. This at once decided 
him. Without Eusebius’s help he felt himself 
unequal to face the controversies his presence 
at Nicopolis would evoke, and he returned 
home sorrowing that his labours for the peace 
of the church were unavailing (Epp. 98, 99). 
A few months later the sensitive orthodoxy 
of Theodotus prepared another mortification 
for Basil. In carrying out the commands of 
Valens, mentioned above, to supply Armenia 
with bishops, the counsel and assistance of 
Theodotus as metropolitan was essential. As 
a first step towards cordial co-operation, Basil 
sought a conference with Theodotus at Getasa, 
the estate of Meletius of Antioch, in whose 
presence he made him acquainted with what 
had passed between him and Eustathius at 
Sebaste, and his acceptance of the orthodox 
faith. Theodotus replied that Eustathius had 
denied that he had come to any agreement 
with Basil. To bring the matter to an issue, 
Basil again proposed that a confession of 
faith should be prepared, on his signing which 
his future communion with Eustathius would 
depend. This apparently satisfied Theodotus, 
who invited Basil to visit him and inspect his 
church, and promised to accompany him on 
his journey into Armenia. But on Basil’s 
arrival at Nicopolis he spurned him with 
horror (ἐβδελύξατο) as an excommunicated 
person, and refused to join him at either 
morning or evening prayer. Thus deserted 
by one on whose co-operation he relied, Basil 
had little heart to prosecute his mission, but 
he continued his journey to Satala, where he 
consecrated a bishop, established discipline, 
and promoted peace among the prelates of 
the province. Basil well knew how to dis- 
tinguish between his busy detractors and one 
like Theodotus animated with zeal for the 
orthodox faith. Generously overlooking his 
former rudenesses, he reopened communica- 
tions with him the following year, and visiting 
Nicopolis employed his assistance in once more 
drawing up an elaborate confession of faith 
embodying the Nicene Creed, for Eustathius 
to sign (Bas. Ep. 125). Eustathius did so in 
the most formal manner in the presence of 
witnesses, whose names are appended to the 
document. But no sooner had this slippery 
theologian satisfied the requirements of Basil 
than he threw off the mask, broke his promise 
to appear at a synodical meeting called by 
Basil to seal the union between them and 
their respective adherents, and openly assailed 
him with the most unscrupulous invectives 
(Epp. 130, 244). He went so far as to hold 
assemblies in which Basil was charged with 
heterodox views, especially on the Divinity of 
the Holy Spirit, and with haughty and over- 
bearing behaviour towards his chorepiscopi 
and other suffragans. At last Eustathius 
pushed matters so far as to publish a letter 
written by Basil twenty-five years before to 
the heresiarch Apollinaris. It was true that 


BASIL THE GREAT 


at that time both were laymen, and that it — 
was merely a friendly letter not dealing with © 
theological points, and that Apollinaris had — 
not then developed his heretical views and 
stood high in the esteem of Athanasius. But 
its circulation served Eustathius’s ends in ~ 
strengthening the suspicion already existing 
against Basil as a favourer of false doctrine, — 
The letter as published by Eustathius had been ~ 
disgracefully garbled, and was indignantly 
repudiated by Basil. By a most shameful 
artifice some heretical expressions of Apol-— 
linaris, without the author’s name, had been 
appended to Eustathius’s own letter accom- — 
panying that attributed to Basil, leading to 
the supposition that they were Basil’s own. — 
Basil was overwhelmed with distress at being — 
represented in such false colours to the church, 
while the ingratitude and treachery of his — 
former friend stung him deeply. He restrained — 
himself, however, from any public expression — 
of his feelings, maintaining a dignified silence — 
for three years (Bas. Epp. 128, 130, 224, 225, 
226, 244). During this period of intense trial 
Basil was much comforted in 374 by the ap- 
pointment of his youthful friend AMPHILO- 
cuius to the see of Iconium. But the same — 
year brought a severe blow in the banishment 
of his intimate and confidential counsellor | 
Eusebius of Samosata. At the end of this © 
period (375) Basil, impelled by the calumnies 
heaped upon him on every side, broke a silence 
which he considered no longer safe, as tending 
to compromise the interests of truth, and 
published a long letter nominally addressed 
to Eustathius, but really a document intended 
for the faithful, in which he briefly reviews the — 
history of his life, describes his former intimacy — 
with Eustathius, and the causes which led to 
the rupture between them, and defends him- 
self from the charges of impiety and blasphemy 
so industriously circulated (Bas. Epp. 223, 226, 
244). It was time indeed that Basil should 
take some public steps to clear his reputation 
from the reckless accusations which were 
showered upon him. He was called a Sabel- 
lian, an Apollinarian, a Tritheist, a Mace- 
donian, and his efforts in behalf of orthodoxy 
in the East were continually thwarted in every 
direction by the suspicion with which he was 
regarded. Athanasius, bp. of Ancyra, misled 
by the heretical writings that had been fath- 
ered upon him, spoke in the harshest terms 
of him (Ep. 25). The bishops of the district 
of Dazimon in Pontus, giving ear to Eusta- 
thius’s calumnies, separated themselves from 
his communion, and suspended all intercourse, 
and were only brought back to their allegiance 
by a letter of Basil’s, written at the instance 
of all the bishops of Cappadocia, characterized 
by the most touching humility and affection- 
ateness (Ep. 203). The alienation of his rela- 
tive Atarbius and the church of Neocaesarea, | 
of which he was bishop, was more difficult to 
redress. To be regarded with suspicion by 
the church of a place so dear to himself, his 
residence in youth, and the home of many 
members of his family, especially his sainted 
grandmother, Macrina, was peculiarly painful. 
But the tendency of the leading Neocaesareans 
was Sabellian, and the emphasis with which 
he was wont to assert the distinctness of the 
Three Persons was offensive to them. They 


BASIL THE GREAT 


took umbrage also at the favour he shewed to 


monasticism, and the nocturnal services he 


had established. Basil wrote in terms of 


affectionate expostulation to them, and took 
advantage of the existence of his brother 
Peter’s monastic community at Annesi to pay 
the locality a visit. But as soon as he was 
known to be in the neighbourhood a strange 
panic seized the whole city; some fled, some 
hid themselves: Basil was everywhere de- 
nounced asa publicenemy. Atarbius abrupt- 
ly left the synod at Nicopolis on hearing of 
Basil’s approach. Basil returned, mortified 
and distressed (Epp. 126, 204, 207, 210). Be- 
sides other charges Basil was widely accused of 
denying the proper divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
This charge, which, when made by some Cap- 
padocian monks, had been already sternly 
reproved by Athanasius (Ath. ad. Pall. 11. 
763, 764), was revived at a later time on the 
plea that he had used a form of the doxology 
open to suspicion, “‘ Glory be to the Father, 
through the Son, in the Holy Spirit’’ * (de 
Spir. Sanct. c. 1, vol. iii. p. 3). Self-defence 
was again reluctantly forced on the victim of 
calumny. He prayed that he might be de- 
serted by the Holy Ghost for ever if he did 
not adore Him as equal in substance and in 
honour (ὁμοούσιον καὶ ὁμότιμον) with the 
Father and the Son (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 365). 
Similar charges made at the festival of St. 
Eupsychius in 374 led Amphilochius to re- 
quest him to declare his views, which he 
did in his treatise de Spiritu Sancto (ὃ 1; 
Ep. 231). Maligned, misrepresented, regarded 
with suspicion, thwarted, opposed on all 
hands, few champions of the faith have had 
a heavier burden to bear than Basil. The 
history of the Eastern church at this period is 
indeed little more than a history of his trials 
and sufferings. But his was not a nature to 
give way before difficuities the most tremen- 
dous and failures the most disheartening. The 
great object he had set before himself was 
the restoration of orthcdoxy to the Eastern 
church, and the cementing of its disorganized 
fragments into one compact body capable of 
withstanding the attacks of hostile powers. 
This object he pursued with undaunted per- 
severance, notwithstanding his feeble health, 
“which might rather be called the languor 
of a dying man.’’ Cut to the heart by 
the miserable spectacle which surrounded 
him, the persecution of the orthodox, the 
triumphs of false doctrine, the decay of piety, 
the worldliness of the clergy, the desecration 


ΠΥ Hooker, Eccl. Pol. V. xiii. 12, ‘ Till 
Arianism had made it a matter of great sharp- 
hess and subtilty of wit to be a sound believing 
Christian, men were not curious what syllables 
or particles of speech they used. Upon which 
when St. Basil began to practise the like indif- 
ferency, and to conclude public prayers, glorifying 
Sometime the Father with the Son and the Holy 
Ghost, sometime the Father by the Son in the Spirit, 
whereas long custom had inured them to the former 
kind alone, by means whereof the latter was new 
and strange in their ears; his needless experiment 
brought afterwards upon him a necessary labour of 
excusing himself to his friends and maintaining his 
own act against them, who because the light of his 
candle too much drowned theirs, were glad to lay 
hold on so colourable a matter, and exceedingly 
forward to traduce him as an author of suspicious 
innovation.” 


BASIL THE GREAT 123 


of the episcopate by ambition and covetous- 
ness, riva] bishops rending asunder the vener- 
able church of Antioch, Christians wasting 
in mutual strife the strength that should have 
been spent in combating the common foe, 
feeling himself utterly insufficient in his 
isolation to work the reformation he desired, 
Basil had looked round eagerly for effectual 
aid and sympathy. He naturally turned 
first to that ‘‘ great and apostolic soul who 
from boyhood had been an athlete in the 
cause of religion,” the great Athanasius (Epp. 
69, 80, 83). In the year 371 he begged his 
assistance in healing the unhappy schism of 
Antioch by inducing the Western Church to 
recognize Meletius, and persuading Paulinus 
to withdraw. He called on him to stir up 
the orthodox of the East by his letters, and 
cry aloud like Samuel for the churches (Epp. 
66, 69). In his request about Antioch, Basil 
““ was inviting Athanasius to what was in fact 
impossible even to the influence and talents 
of the primate of Egypt ; for being committed 
to one side in the dispute he could not mediate 
between them. Nothing then came of the 
application’ (J. H. Newman, Church of the 
Fathers, p. 105). Basil had other requests to 
urge on Athanasius. He was very desirous 
that a deputation of Western prelates should 
be sent to help him in combating the Eastern 
heretics and reuniting the orthodox, whose 
authority should overawe Valens and secure 
the recognition of their decrees. He asked 
also for the summoning of a council of all the: 
West to confirm the decrees of Nicaea, and 
annul those of Ariminum (Epp. 66, 69). 
Basil next addressed himself to the Western 
churches. His first letter in 372 was written 
to Damasus, bp. of Rome, lamenting the 
heavy storm under which almost the whole 
Eastern church was labouring, and entreating 
of his tender compassion, as the one remedy 
of its evils, that either he, or persons like- 
minded with him, would personally visit the 
East with the view of bringing the churches 
of God to unity, or at least determining with 
whom the church of Rome should hold com- 
munion (Ep. 70). Basil’s letters were con- 
veyed to Athanasius and Damasus by Doro- 
theus, a deacon of Antioch, in communion 
with Meletius. He returned by way of Alex- 
andria in company with a deacon named 
Sabinus (afterwards bp. of Piacenza) as bearer 
of the replies of the Western prelates. These 
replies were full of expressions of sympathy, 
but held out no definite prospect of practical 
help. Something, however, was hoped from 
the effect of Sabinus’s report on his return to 
the West, as an eye-witness of the lamentable 
condition of the Eastern church. Sabinus 
was charged with several letters on his return 
to Italy. One, bearing the signatures of 
thirty-two Eastern bishops, including besides 
Basil, Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samo- 
sata, Gregory Nyssen, etc., was addressed to 
the bishops of Italy and Gaul; another was 
written in Basil’s own name to the bishops of 
the West generally. There were also private 
letters to Valerian of Aquileia and others. 
These letters gave a most distressing picture 
of the state of the East. ‘‘ Men had learnt 
to be theorists instead of theologians. The 
true shepherds were driven away. Grievous 


124 BASIL THE GREAT 
wolves, spoiling the flock, were brought in 
instead. The houses of prayer were destitute 
of preachers, the deserts full of mourners. 
The faithful laity avoided the churches as 
schools of impiety. Priestly gravity had 
perished. There was no restraint on sin. 
Unbelievers laughed, the weak were unsettled. 
.. . Let them hasten to the succour of their 
brethren, nor allow the faith to be extinguished 
in the lands whence it first shone forth’ (Ep. 
93). A Western priest, Sanctissimus, who 
visited the East towards the end of 372— 
whether travelling as a private individual or 
deputed by Damasus is uncertain—again 
brought assurances of the warm attachment 
and sincere sympathy of the Italian church ; 
but words, however kind, were ineffectual to 
heal their wounds, and Basil and his friends 
again sent a vehement remonstrance, beseech- 
ing their Western brethren to make the 
emperor Valentinian acquainted with their 
wretched condition, and to depute some of 
their number to console them in their misery, 
and sustain the flagging faith of the orthodox 
(Epp. 242, 243). These letters, transmitted by 
Dorotheus—probably a different person from 
the former—were no more effectual. The 
only point gained was that a council—con- 
fined, however, to the bishops of Illyria—was 
summoned in 375 through the instrumentality 
of Ambrose, by which the consubstantiality 
of the Three Persons of the Trinity was de- 
clared, and a priest named Elpidius dispatched 
to publish the decrees in Asia and Phrygia. 
Elpidius was supported by the authority of 
the emperor Valentinian, who at the same 
time promulgated a rescript in his own name 
and that of his brother Valens, who dared 
not manifest his dissent, forbidding the 
persecution of the Catholics, and expressing 
his desire that their doctrines should be 
everywhere preached (Theod. iv. 8, 9). But 
the death of Valentinian on Nov. 17, 375, 
frustrated his good intentions, and the per- 
secution revived with greater vehemence. 
The secret of the coldness with which the 
requests for assistance addressed by the 
Eastern church were received by the West 
was partly the suspicion that was entertained 
of Basil’s orthodoxy in consequence of his 
friendship with Eustathius of Sebaste and 
other doubtful characters, and the large- 
heartedness which led him to recognize a 
real oneness of belief under varying technical 
formulas, but was principally due to his refusal 
to recognize the supremacy of the bp. of Rome. 
His letters were usually addressed to the 
bishops of the West, and not to the bp. of 
Rome individually. In all his dealings Basil 
treats with Damasus as an equal, and asserts 
the independence of the East. In his eyes 
the Eastern and Western churches were two 
sisters with equal prerogatives; one more 
powerful than the other, and able to render 
the assistance she needed, but not in any 
way her superior. This want of deference in 
his language and behaviour offended not 
Damasus only, but all who maintained the 
supremacy of Rome. Jerome accused Basil 
of pride, and went so far as to assert that 
there were but three orthodox bishops in the 
East—Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Paulinus 
(ad Pammach. 38). His appeals proving in- 


BASIL THE GREAT 


effectual, Basil’s tone respecting Damasus — 
and the Western prelates changed. He began — 
to suspect the real cause of the apathy with 
which his entreaties for aid had been received, 
and to feel that no relief could be hoped from 
their ‘‘ Western superciliousness ”’ (τῆς δυτικῆς 
ὀφρύος), and that it was in vain to send emis- 
saries to ‘‘ one who was high and haughty and 
sat aloft and would not stoop to listen to the 
truth from men who stood below; since an 
elated mind, if courted, is sure to become 
only more contemptuous ’”’ (Epp. 215, 239). 
But while his hope of assistance from the 
West lessened, the need for it increased. The 
persecution of the orthodox by the Arians 
grew fiercer. ‘‘ Polytheism had got posses- 
sion. A greater and a lesser God were wor- 
shipped. All ecclesiastical power, all church 
ordinances, were in Arian hands. Arians 
baptized; Arians visited the sick; Arians 
administered the sacred mysteries. Only one 
offence was severely punished, a strict observ- 
ance of the traditions of the Fathers. For 
that the pious were banished, and driven to 
deserts. No pity was shewn to the aged. 
Lamentations filled the city, the country, the 
roads, the deserts. The houses of prayer 
were closed; the altars forbidden. The 
orthodox met for worship in the deserts 
exposed to wind and rain and snow, or to the 
scorching sun’’ (Epp. 242, 243). In his dire 
extremity he once more appealed to the West, 
now in the language of indignant expostulation. 
‘“ Why,”’ he asks, ‘‘ has no writing of consola- 
tion come to us, no visitation of the brethren, 
no other of such attentions as are due to us 
from the law of love? This is the thirteenth 
year since the war with the heretics burst 
upon us. Will you not now at last stretch 
out a helping hand to the tottering Eastern 
church, and send some who will raise our 
minds to the rewards promised by Christ 
to those who suffer for Him?” (Ep. 242). 
These letters were dispatched in 376. But 
still no help came. His reproaches were as 
ineffectual as his entreaties. A letter addressed 
to the Western bishops the next year (377) 
proves that matters had not really advanced 
a single step beyond the first day. We find 
him still entreating his Western brethren in 
the most moving terms to grant him the 
consolation of a visit. ‘‘ The visitation of 
the sick is the greatest commandment. But 
if the Wise and Good Disposer of human 
affairs forbids that, let them at least write 
something that may comfort those who are 
so grievously cast down.’’ He demands of 
them ‘‘ an authoritative condemnation of the 
Arians, of his enemy Eustathius, of Apollin- 
aris, and of Paulinus of Antioch. If they 
would only condescend to write and inform 
the Eastern churches who were to be admitted 
to communion and who not, all might yet be 
well”? (Ep. 263). The reply brought back 
by the faithful Dorotheus overwhelmed him 
with sorrow. Not a finger was raised by the 
cold and haughty West to help her afflicted 
sister. Dorotheus had even heard Basil’s 
beloved friends Meletius and Eusebius of 
Samosata spoken of by Damasus and Peter 
of Alexandria as heretics, and ranked among 
the Arians. What wonder if Dorotheus had 
waxed warm and used some intemperate lan- 


τ 


Ρ ΎΌΈΘΨΘΌ ΟΝ ἈΦ en NL ee a ἐπ te ὧν νοσν να δ τὰ δον ae OP a ἂν πο ον - 


| 


) 
! 
) 
| 
' 


BASIL THE GREAT 


guage to the prelates? If he had done so, 
wrote Basil, let it not be reckoned against 
him, but put down to Basil’s account and the 
untowardness of the times. The deep de- 
spondency which had seized Basil is evidenced 
by his touching words to Peter of Alexandria : 
ΕἼ seem for my sins to prosper in nothing, 
since the worthiest brethren are found de- 
ficient in gentleness and fitness for their 
office from not acting in accordance with my 
wishes’ (Ep. 266). 


Foiled in all his repeated demands, a deaf | 


ear turned to his most earnest entreaties, the 
council he had begged for not summoned, the 
deputation he had repeatedly solicited unsent, 
Basil’s span of life drew to its end amid blasted 
hopes and apparently fruitless labours for the 
unity of the faith. It was not permitted him 
to live to see the Eastern churches, for the 
purity of whose faith he had devoted all his 

wers, restored to peace and unanimity. 
“He had to fare on as he best might—admir- 
ing, courting, but coldly treated by the Latin 
world, desiring the friendship of Rome, yet 
wounded by her superciliousness—suspected 
of heresy by Damasus, and accused by Jerome 
of pride’? (Newman, Church of the Fathers, 
ΒΕ 15). 
" Some gleams of brightness were granted to 
cheer the last days of this dauntless champion 
of the faith. The invasion of the Goths in 378 
gave Valens weightier cares than the support 
of a tottering heresy, and brought his perse- 
cution of the orthodox to an end on the eve of 
his last campaign, in which he perished after 
the fatal rout of Hadrianople (Aug. 9, 378). 
One of the first acts of the youthful Gratian 
was to recall the banished orthodox prelates, 
and Basil had the joy of witnessing the event 
so earnestly desired in perhaps his latest ex- 
tant letter, the restoration of his beloved 
friend Eusebius of Samosata (Ep. 268). Basil 
died in Caesarea, an old man before his time, 
Jan. 1, 378, in the s5oth year of his age. He 
rallied before his death, and was enabled to 
ordain with his dying hind some of the most 
faithful of his disciples. ‘‘ His death-bed was 
surrounded by crowds of the citizens, ready,” 
writes his friend Gregory, ‘‘to give part of 
their own life to lengthen that of their bishop.” 
He breathed his last with the words “ Into 
Thy hands I commend my spirit.’’ His funeral 
was attended by enormous crowds, who 
thronged to touch the bier or the hem of his 
funeral garments, or even to catch a distant 
glimpse of his face. The press was so great 
that several persons were crushed to death, 
almost the object of envy because they died 
with Basil. Even Jews and pagans joined in 
the general lamentations, and it was with 
some difficulty that the bearers preserved their 
sacred burden from being torn to pieces by 
those who were eager to secure a relic of the 
departed saint. He was buried in his father’s 
sepulchre, ‘‘ the chief priest being laid to the 
priests; the mighty voice to the preachers ; 
the martyr to the martyrs”’ (Greg. Naz. Or. 
XX. 371, 372). In person he was tall and 
thin, holding himself very erect. His com- 
plexion was dark, his face pale and emaciated 
with close study and austerities ; his forehead 
projecting, with retiring temples. A quick 
eye, flashing from under finely arched eye- 


BASIL THE GREAT 125 


brows, gave light and animation to his coun- 
tenance. His speech was slow and deliberate. 
His manner manifested a reserve and sedate- 
ness which some of his contemporaries attri- 
buted to pride, others to timidity. Gregory 
says, ‘‘ It was the self-possession of his char- 
acter, and composure and polish, which they 
called pride,’ and refers not very convincingly 
to his habit of embracing lepers as a proof 
of the absence of superciliousness (Or. xXx. 
360). Basil’s pride, indeed, was not the empty 
arrogance of a weak mind; but a well- 
grounded confidence in his own powers. His 
reserve arose partly from natural shyness— 
he jestingly charges himself with ‘‘ the want 
of spirit and sluggishness of the Cappadocians ”’ 
(Ep. 48)—partly from an unwillingness to 
commit himself with those of whom he was 
not sure. It is curious to see the dauntless 
opponent of Modestus and Valens charged 
with timidity. The heretic Eunomius after 
his death accused him of being “ἃ coward 
and a craven skulking from all severer la- 
bours,’” and spoke contemptuously of his 
‘solitary cottage and close-shut doors, and 
his flustered look and manner when persons 
entered unexpectedly’’ (Greg. Nys. adv. 
Eunom. i. p. 318). Philostorgius also speaks 
of Basil as “from timidity of mind with- 
drawing from public discussions”’ (H. E. iv. 
12). The fact seems to be that Basil was like 
many who, while shewing intrepid courage 
when once forced into action, are naturally 
averse from publicity. He was a great lover 
of natural beauty, as shewn by his letters. 
The playful turn of his mind is also seen in 
many passages of his familiar letters, which 
sufficiently vindicate him from the charge of 
austerity of character. In manner he united 
Oriental gravity with the finished politeness 
of the Greeks, and sedateness with sweetness ; 
his slightest smile was commendation, and 
silence was his only rebuke (Greg. Naz. Or. 
XX. 260, 261). 

The voice of antiquity is unanimous in its 
praise of Basil’s literary works (Cave, Hist. 
Lit. i. 239). Nor has the estimate of modern 
critics been less favourable. ‘‘ The style of 
Basil,” writes Dean Milman, “did no dis- 
credit to his Athenian education. In purity 
and perspicuity he surpasses most of the 
heathen as well as Christian writers of his 
age’’ (Hist. of Christianity, iii. 110). 

The works of Basil which remain may be 
classed as: I. Expository, 11. Dogmatic, III. 
Moral, IV. Epistolary, V. Liturgical. 

I. Expository.—Cassiodorus records that 
Basil wrote commentaries on almost all the 
books of Holy Scripture. The greater part of 
these are lost. Those that remain are— 

1. Hexaemeron.—Nine Homilies on the Six 
Days’ Work of Creation. This is the most 
celebrated of all his works. 

2. Seventeen Homilies on the Psalms.—These 
were preached ad populum. The first, on the 
Psalms generally, was translated by Rufinus, 
and is found prefixed to St. Augustine’s Com- 
mentaries. The only other homilies that have 
reached us are those on Ps. 7, 14 (two), 28 
(two), 29, 32, 33, 37, 44, 45, 48, 59, 61, and 
114 (two). 

3. Commentaries on the first Sixteen Chapters 
of Isaiah, a continuous work. 


126 BASIL THE GREAT 


11. Dogmatic. 

I. Five books against Eunomius.—Com- 
mended by Jerome (egregit libri), Gregory 
Nazianzen, and Photius (ἐξαίρετοι λόγοι). 

2. On the Holy Spirit, addressed to Amphi- 
lochius and written at his request. 

3. On Baptism, two books. 

4. Homilies. 

III. Moral and Ascetic. 

1. Homilies, against envy, drunkenness, 
anger, on fasting, etc. A very sensible ad- 
monition to a young man how to read the 
books of heathen writers with profit (Homul. 
24), included among these homilies, has been 
frequently translated and separately pub- 


lished, among others by abp. Potter, 1694. | 


Several homilies are in honour of local martyrs, 
St. Julitta, St. Barlaam, St. Mammas, etc. 

2. On true Virginity, a treatise addressed 
to Letoius, bp. of Melitene, rejected by Garnier 
on internal evidence, but generally accepted. 

3. Ascetic Writings,* including—(a) Pre- 
fatory Discourse ; (Ὁ) Discourse on the Renun- 
ciation of Worldly Goods ; (c) On the Ascetical 
Life; (d) On Faith; (e) On the Judgment of 


God, a prologue to the Ethics; (ἢ Ethtcs | 


or Morals, under 80 heads, compiled from 
N.T. ; (g) On the Monastic Institutions, includ- 
ing λόγος ἀσκητικὸς, and ὑποτύπωσις ἀσκήσεως ; 
(ἢ) The Greater Monastic Rules, ὅροι κατὰ 
πλάτος, 55 in number (in the form of Basil’s 
answers to questions of his monks), with 
ἃ proem; (i) The Lesser Rules, ὅροι κατὰ 
ἐπιτομήν, 313 in number, in the same form 
of question and answer; (k) Animadversions 
on Delinquent Monks and Nuns, a very early 
example of a Poenitentiale ; (1) Monastic Con- 
stitutions, ἀσκητικαὶ διατάξεις, in 34 chapters. 

IV. Epistolary.x—In addition to those just 
mentioned we have a collection of no fewer 
than 365 letters addressed by Basil to his 
private and official correspondents, including 
two attributed to the emperor Julian and 
twelve to Libanius (cf. F. Loofs, Eustathtus 
von Sebaste und die Chronologte der Bastlian- 
tschen Briefe, Halle, 1897). Excerpts from 
some Letters of Basil from papyrus MSS. were 
published by H. Landwehr: Greek MS. from 
Fayoum, 1884. 

V. Liturgical—There is no reason to call 
in question the universal tradition of the East, 
that Basil was the composer of a liturgy. 
Those offices, however, which have come down 
to us under his name have been so largely 
interpolated at many different periods, that it 
is impossible to ascertain the correct text of 
the liturgy as drawn up byhim. There are 
three chief editions of the Liturgy bearing 
Basil’s name: (1) the Greek or Constantino- 
politan, (2) the Syriac, translated into Latin 
by Masius, (3) the Alexandrian, found in 
Coptic, Greek, and Arabic, which versions 
concur in establishing one text. Of these, 
the Constantinopolitan furnishes the surest 
materials for ascertaining the genuine form. 

The standard edition is the Benedictine, 
pub. at Paris, 1721-1730, by Julian Garnier, 
in 3 vols. fol., reprinted by Migne, Patr. Gk. 


* Sozomen informs us that in his day the ascetic 
writings commonly attributed to Basil were ascribed 
by some to his, at one time, friend and companion 
Eustathius of Sebaste. 


BASILIUS 
vol. 29-32. 


Psalmos were ascribed to Basil. An English 
and useful Prolegomena are given in Post- 
Nicene Fathers (Wace and Schaff) by W. 
Blomfield Jackson, 1895. A revised text 
of the treatise On the Holy Spirit with 
notes and intro. is pub. by the Clarendon 
Press. A cheap popular Life by R. T. Smith 
|is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. 
Readers. [E.v.] 
Basilius, the intimate friend of Curysostom, 
with whom he resolved on the adoption of an 
ascetic life, and whose consecration to the 
episcopate he secured by a strange deception. 
| His see is unknown, but was probably near 
Antioch. [Ε.ν.] 
Basilius of Cilicia, presbyter of Antioch and 
bp. of Irenopolis in Cilicia, c. 500; the author 
|of an Ecclesiastical History in three books, 


Photius speaks disparagingly of it (Cod. 42). 
He also wrote a violent book against Joannes 
Scythopolitanus, and Photius (Cod. 107) says 
its object was to oppose the doctrine of the 
union of the two natures in Christ. [E.v.] — 

Basilius, bp. of Seleucia, in Isauria, and 
metropolitan, succeeded Dexianus, who at- 
tended the council at Ephesus, and therefore 
after 431. He is erroneously identified by 
Photius with the early friend of Chrysostom, 
who must have been considerably his senior 
(Tillemont, xv. p. 340). Heis very unfavour- 
ably known from the vacillation he displayed 
with regard to the condemnation of Eutyches. 
He took a leading part in the council at 
Constantinople in 448, at which Eutyches 
was condemned; and the next year, when 
| the fidelity of the acts of the council was 
called in question, was one of the commission 
appointed to verify them (Labbe, Concil. 
vol. iv. 182, 230). But at the ‘‘ Robbers’ 
Synod ’”’ held at Ephesus a few months later 
his courage gave way, and he acquiesced in 
the rehabilitation of Eutyches, and retracted 
his obnoxious language. Before long he re- 
turned to orthodoxy, and in 450 affixed his 
signature to the famous Tome of pope Leo, 
on the Incarnation. At the council of 
Chalcedon, 451, the imperial commissioners 
proposed his deposition, together with that of 
other prelates who had aided in restoring 
Eutyches. But Basil submitted, concurred 
in the condemnation of Eutyches, and his 
offence was condoned (1b. 553, 604, 787). 

His extant works comprise 39 homilies (17 
on O.T. and 22 on N.T.), the titles and subjects 
being given by Fabricius, Bzbl. Graec. lib. v. 
c. 19, το. Four on John xi., published as his, 
prove to be the work of St. Chrysostom. A 
Homily on the Transfiguration was added to 
the series in the ed. of the Jesuit Daus- 
queius, in 1604. 
and Miracles of St. Thecla has been attributed 
to him; but not only does the style differ, 
and savour of a later age, but we learn from 
Photius that Basilius wrote St. Thecla’s life 
in verse. Another supposititious work is the 
Demonstratio contra Judaeos, which appears in 
the Heidelberg ed. of 1596. Basil’s homilies 


use of figurative language. He does not lose 


In Pitra’s Analecta (Paris, 1888) 
some Fragmenta Ascetica and Epitimia, and in 


δ᾿ 


translation of some selected works and letters — 


|from A.D. 450 to the close of Justin’s reign. 


A prose work on The Life 


shew much oratorical power and skill in the 


BGS Re lipo r= 


r 


BEDA 


sight of perspicuity, but overburdens his style 
with metaphors. He not unfrequently re- 
minds us of Chrysostom, though greatly his 
inferior in power. His homilies were first 
ub. in Gk. by Commelin, Lugd. Bat. 1596, 
vo; and in Latin by Claud. Dausqueius, 
1604, 8vo. They are in the Bzrbl. Patr. 
Colon. v. and Lugd. Bat. viii. 1677. They 
were also printed at the end of the works of 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Paris, 1672, fol. 
(Phot. Cod. 168 ; Tillemont, Mém. eccl. xv. 340, 
seq. et passim; Cave Hist. Litt.441). [E.v-] 
eda, more correctly Baeda, The Vener- 
able. [(Note-—Though not properly coming 
within the period of this condensed ed., Dr. 
Stubbs’s valuable art. is retained as Bede 
is the classical historian of the English 
Church for so much of our proper period.— 
Ed.] Bede was born on the estate given by 
Ecgfrith, king of Northumbria, to Benedict 
Biscop for the foundation of his sister monas- 
teries of Wearmouth and Jarrow, probably, 
however, before the lands were so bestowed ; 
for the Wearmouth estate was given in 674, 
and the Jarrow one in 682, whilst the birth of 
Bede seems satisfactorily fixed to 673. The 
lace of his birth is uncertain, for whilst tra- 
ition and local history fix it at Jarrow, there 
is no positive evidence. Nor are the names 
of his parents preserved. He himself, writing, 
as may be reasonably concluded, immedi- 
ately on the completion of his History in 731, 
describes himself then as in his 59th year; 
this would fix his birth in 673 ; but as he lived 
until735, and the passage may have been added 
at any time between 731 and 735, his birth has 
been sometimes put as late as 677. Mabillon, 
however, whose arguments are sound and 
whose conclusion has been generally received, 
accepts 673. At the age of 7 Bede was handed 
over by his relations to the care of Benedict 
Biscop, who had not, in 680, begun the build- 
ings at Jarrow, but had just returned from 
Rome bringing the arch-chanter John. Bede 
was educated in one or both of the sister monas- 
teries, and after Benedict’s death he passed 
under the rule of Ceolfrith. At the age of 19 
he was ordained deacon by John of Beverley, 
then bp. of Hexham, and in his 30th year 
received the priesthood from the same prelate ; 
as John ceased to be bp. of Hexham in 705, 
and the later date for Bede’s birth would place 
his ordination as priest in 706 at the earliest, 
this conclusively favours the earlier date; in 
which case he was ordained deacon in 691 and 
priestin 7oz. From his admission to the joint 
monastery to his death he remained there 
ae ret in study and devotional exercises, 
and there is no evidence that he ever wan- 
dered further than to York, which he visited 
shortly before his death. In the valuable 
MS. Cotton, Tiberius A. xv. fo. 50, which is 
not later than the roth cent., is preserved a 
letter of pope Sergius to Ceolfrith, desiring 
him to send to Rome ‘‘religiosum famulum 
Dei N. venerabilis monasterii tui,’’ to assist 
in the examination of some points of eccle- 
siastical discipline. This letter was very early 
believed to refer to Bede; and by the time of 
William of Malmesbury had begun to be read, 
“religiosum Dei famulum Bedam, venerabilis 
monasterii tui presbyterum’’; the name of 
Bede resting on the authority of William of 


BEDA 127 


| Malmesbury only, and the word presbyterum 
on an interlineation in the Cotton MS. as well. 
If presbyterum be authentic, it is a strong 
argument against the identification of Bede, 
for he was not ordained priest until 702, and 
Sergius died in 7o1; but it is not essential to 
the sense, rests apparently on an interpolation, 
and if genuine may be a mistake of the pope. 
Intercourse between Wearmouth and Rome 
was nearly continuous at this time, and there 
‘is no more likely monk under Ceolfrith’s rule 
than Bede. Some monks of the monastery 
went to Rome in 7or (Bede, de Temporum 
Ratione, c. 47), and brought a privilege from 
Sergius on their return (Hist. Abbat. c. 12), 
but Bede was not among them. The invita- 
tion was probably meant for Bede, and per- 
haps the acceptance of it was prevented by 
the death of Sergius. Whether Bede’s studies 
were mainly at Wearmouth or at Jarrow is 
not important ; as he died and was buried at 
Jarrow, he probably lived there chiefly, but 
the two houses were in strict union, and he 
was equally at home in both. Under the 
liberal and enlightened ministration of Bene- 
dict Biscop and Ceolfrith, he enjoyed advan- 
tages perhaps not elsewhere available in 
Europe, and perfect access to all existing 
sources of learning in the West. Nowhere 
else could he acquire at once the Irish, Roman, 
Gallican, and Canterbury learning; that of the 
accumulated stores of books which Benedict 
had bought at Rome and at Vienna; or the 
disciplinary instruction drawn from the 
monasteries of the continent as well as from 
the Irish missionaries. Amongst his friends 
and instructors were Trumbert, the disciple of 
St. Chad, and Sidfrid, the fellow-pupil of St. 
Cuthbert under Boisil and Eata; from these 
he drew the Irish knowledge of Scripture and 
discipline. Acca, bp. of Hexham and pupil of 
St. Wilfrid, furnished him with the special lore 
of the Roman school, martyrological and 
other; his monastic learning, strictly Bene- 
dictine, came through Benedict Biscop from 
Lerins and many other continental monas- 
teries; and from Canterbury, with which he 
was in friendly correspondence, he probably 
obtained instruction in Greek, in the study of 
the Scriptures, and other refined learning. 
His own monastery offered rest and welcome 
to learned strangers like abbot Adamnan 
(Bede, H. E. v. 21), and Bede lost no oppor- 
tunity of increasing his stores. 

He describes the nature of his studies, the 
meditation on Scripture, the observance of 
regular discipline, the care of the daily singing 
in church, ‘“‘semper aut discere, aut docere, 
aut scribere dulce habui.’’ These were the 
occupations of his youth. After his ordina- 
tion he devoted himself to selecting from the 
Fathers passages suitable for illustration and 
edification, and, as he says modestly, added 
contributions of his own after the pattern of 
their comments. 

The list of his works given at the conclusion 
of his History, Bede seems to have arranged 
in order of relative importance, not of their 
composition ; and most of them afford only 
| very slight indications of the dates of writing. 
| Probably the earliest of his writings are the 
more elementary ones, on Orthography, the 
| Ars Metrica and the de Natura Rerum. The 


128 BEDA 


Ars Metrica is dedicated to Cuthbert, a “‘ con- 
levita,’’ which seems to fix the date of writing 
before 7oz (Opp. ed. Giles, vi. 78). The de 
Temportbus, the latest date of which is 702, 
may have followed almost immediately, and 
the de Natura Rerum has been referred to the 
same date. The de Sex aetatibus Saecult was 
written 5 years later to be read to Wilfrid. 
The whole of the commentaries are later; 
they are all dedicated to bp. Acca, who suc- 
ceeded his master Wilfrid in 709. The Com- 
mentaries on the Apocalypse, the Catholic 
Epp., and Acts, came first. Then that on 
St. Luke; that on Samuel followed, 3 books 
of it being written before the death of Ceol- 
frith in 716; that on St. Mark many years 
after. De Temporum Ratione is assignable on 
internal evidence to 726. Before the History 
come the Life of Cuthbert and of the 
abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow which are 
referred to in the greater work. The History 
was completed in 731, after which only the 
Ep. ad Egbertum seems to have been written. 
The work on which he was employed at the 
time of his death was the translation of St. 
John’s Gospel. 

Bede’s attainments were very great. He 
certainly knew Greek (H. E. v. 24) and some 
Hebrew. He knew Vergil, Ovid, Lucan, 
Lucretius, Terence, and a host of smaller 
poets. Homer he quotes once, perhaps at 
second-hand. He knew nearly all the second- 
rate poets, using them to illustrate the Ars 
Metrica. The earlier Fathers were, of course, 
in familiar use. The diversity and extent of 
his reading is remarkable: grammar, rhetoric, 
poetry, hagiography, arithmetic, chronology, 
the holy places, the Paschal controversy, 
epigrams, hymns, sermons, pastoral admoni- 
tion and the conduct of penitents; even 
speculations on natural science, on which he 
specially quotes Pliny, employed his pen, 
besides his great works on history and the 
interpretation of Scripture. On all these 
points his knowledge was thoroughly up to 
the learning of the day; his judgment inde- 
pendent and his conclusions sound. He must 
have had good teachers, a good library, and 
an insatiable desire for learning. These 
qualifications fitted him for the remarkable 
place he holds in literature. 

By promoting the foundation of the school 
of York, he kindled the flame of learning in 
the West at the moment that it seemed to be 
expiring both in Ireland and in France. This 
school transmitted to Alcuin the learning of 


continent, when England was relapsing into 
barbarism under the terror of the Danes. It 
is impossible to read the more popular writings 
of Bede, especially the Ecclesiastical History, 
without seeing that his great knowledge was 
coupled with the humility andsimplicity of the 
purest type of monasticism. Employed on a 
theme which, in the prevailing belief of mira- 
culous stories, could scarcely be treated of 
without incurring the charge of superstition, 
he is eminently truthful. The wonders he 
relates on his own account are easily referred 
to natural causes; and scarcely ever is a 
reputed miracle recounted without an author- 
ity. His gentleness is hardly less marked. 
He is a monk and politician of the school of 


| was of very varied character. 


BEDA 


Benedict Biscop, not of that of Wilfrid. The 
soundness and farsightedness of his ecclesias- 
tical views would be remarkable in any age, 
and especially in a monk. His letter to 
Egbert contains lessons of wisdom, clear 
perception of abuses, and distinct recommen- 
dation of remedies, which in the neglect of 
observance of them might serve as a key for 
the whole later history of the Anglo-Saxon 
church. 
ism and most sincere love of souls. There is 
scarcely any father whose personal history is 
so little known, and whose personal character 
comes out in his writings so clearly as does 
that of Bede in this letter, and in his wonderful 
History. 

Loved and honoured by all alike, he lived 
in a period which, at least for Northumbria, 
The wise Ald- 
frid reigned during his youth and early man- 
hood, but many years of disquiet followed his 
death, and even the accession of his friend 
Ceolwulf in 731 did not assure him of the end 
of the evils, the growth of which, since king 
Aldfrid’s death, he had watched with mis- 
givings. His bishops, first John of Beverley, 
and after the few years of Wilfrid’s final 
restoration, Acca his friend and correspondent, 
and his abbots, first Ceolfrith and then Huaet- 
bert, were men to whom he could look up and 
who valued him. His fame, if we may judge 
from the demand for his works immediately 
after his death, extended wherever English 
missionaries or negotiators found their way, 
and must have been widespread during hislife. 
Nearly every kingdom of England furnished 
him with materials for his history: a London 
priest searched the records at Rome for him; 
abbot Albanus transmitted him details of the 
history of the Kentish church; bp. Daniel, the 
patron of Boniface, supplied the West Saxon ; 


|the monks of Lastingham, the depositories © 
of the traditions of Cedd and Chad, reported — 


how Mercia was converted; Esi wrote from 
East Anglia, and Cynibert from Lindsey. 
Soon after visiting Egbert at York in 734 
his health began to fail; and by Easter, 735, 
he had become asthmatic. But he laboured to 


the last, and, like Benedict Biscop, spent the | 
time of unavoidable prostration in listening — 


to the reading and singing of his companions. 
When he could, he continued the work of trans- 
lation, and had reached the gth verse of J ohn vi. 


on the day he died. As the end approached, he 


distributed the few little treasures he had been 


| allowed to keep in his chest, a little pepper, | 
Bede, and opened the way for culture on the | 


incense, and a few articles of linen; then, 


having completed the sentence he was dic- — 


tating, he desired to be propped up with his 
face towards his church. He died repeating 
the Gloria Patrt. 
letter of Cuthbert, who details the events of 


' 


It breathes also the purest patriot-— 


The day is fixed by the — 


PDE > ee mp! 


his deathbed to his friend Cuthwin, May 26, 


{SEO ἰῷ NE ἱ 
died ; his relics were in the 11th cent. removed 


to Durham, and in 1104 were found in the 


same coffin with those of St. Cuthbert. The 
story of his epitaph and the tradition of the 
bestowal of the title of Venerable is too well 


known and too apocryphal to be repeated here. — 


For the subsequent fate of his remains see 
CUTHBERT. Alcuin has preserved one of his 
sayings: “1 know that the angels visit the 


He was buried at Jarrow where he © 


BEDA 


canonical hours and gatherings of the brethren; 
what if they find not me there among the 
brethren ὃ Willthey not say, Where is Bede : 
why does he not come with the brethren to the 
prescribed prayers ? ’’ (Alc. Ep. 16, ed. Migne). 
Of the legendary or fictitious statements 
about Bede, the following are the most 
important : L I 1 
Alcuin, which is impossible; his education 
and sojourn at Cambridge, on which see Giles, 
PP. Eccl. Angl.i.\xx. seq.; his visits to Italy 
and burial at Genoa or at Rome, which seem 
to belong to another person of the same name, 
(ib. i. evi.), and the legendary statements about 
his title of Venerable (7b. i. ci.). Fora detailed 
investigation of these, and the alleged author- 
ities for them, see Gehle’s learned monograph, 
Disp. Hist. Theol. de Bed. Ven. (Leyden, 1838), 
| pp. 2-4, 17-21, and for the fallacies as to the 
| date of Bede’s death, 7b. pp. 31 seq. 
Bede’s own list of his works may be re- 
arranged as follows: ᾿ 
(1) Commentaries on O.T.—viz. Gen. 4 
_ books, derived chiefly from Basil, Ambrose, 
-jand Augustine; the Tabernacle, 3 books; 
-|Sam. 3 books; the Building of the Temple, 
_\2 books; on Kings, 30 questions dedicated to 
Nothelm ; Prov. 3 books ; Canticles, 7 books ; 
on Isa., Dan., the 12 minor prophets, and part 
of Jer., extracts from Jerome; on Ezra and 
Neh. 3 books; on the Song of Habakkuk, 1 
book; on Tobit, 1 ; chapters of lessons on the 
Pentateuch, Josh., and Judges; Kings, Job, 
| Prov. Eccles. Canticles, Isa., Ezra, and Neh. 
β | (2) Commentaries on N.T.: St. Mark, 4 


| books ; St. Luke, 6 books ; 2 books of homilies 
-}on the Gospels; Acts, 2 books; a book on 
each Catholic Ep.; 3 books on the Apocalypse, 
| Lessons on the whole N.T. except the Gospels. 
| (3) Letters: de Sex Aetatibus ; de Mansion- 
| ibus filtorum Israel ; de eo quod ait Esaias “ et 
 \claudentur, etc.” ; de Ratione Bissexti; de 
Aequinoctio. 

(4) Hagiographies: on St. Felix, rendered 
from the poem of Paulinus; on Anastasius, a 
revised trans. from the Greek; on St. Cuth- 
bert, in verse and prose ; the abbots of Wear- 
mouth and Jarrow; the History of the 
English Church; the Martyrology. 

(5) Hymns and epigrams. 
(6) Scientific books: de Natura Rerum, de 

_ | Temporibus, de Temporum Ratione. 

(7) Elementary books: on Orthography, Ars 
Metrica, Schemato, and Trope. 

Besides these he wrote translations into 
English, none of which are extant, from the 

Scriptures ; Retractationes on the Acts; the 

_ | Letter to Egbert; and a book on penance is 

_ | ascribed to him. 

_Bede’s collected works, including many not 

_ | his, were pub. at Paris, 1544; Basle, 1563; 

_ | Cologne, 1612, 1688 ; and by Dr. Giles (Lond. 

_ jand Oxf.) in 1843; and in Migne’s Patr. xc.- 

| | XCv. [5.] 

| All study of Bede must henceforth begin 

with Mr. C. Plummer’s monumental edition 

of the historical writings Baedae Opera His- 
torica (Clarendon Press, 1896). It contains 
the Historia Ecclestastica Gentis Anglorum, the 

Historia Abbatum, the Ep. ad Egbertum, and 

the anonymous Historia Abbatum. An excel- 

lent introduction presents a critical survey of 

Bede's works with large references in footnotes 


i θα i να 


/ 
| 
| 


his personal acquaintance with | 


BENEDICTUS OF NURSIA 129 


to modern authorities. The student should 
consult the index in vol. ii. 418 for the fre- 
quent allusions scattered throughout the two 
vols. to the various writings of Bede. For the 
text of works other than historical reference 
must still be made to Migne’s Patr. Lat. (vols. 
94-95), or to Dr. J. A. Giles’s Patres Ecclesiae 
Anglicanae (vols. 1-12). <A critical edition of, 
at all events, the Biblical words of Bede is still 
a desideratum. Dr. Giles edited some of the 
smaller treatises 50 years ago, and Mr. Edward 
Marshall published Bede's Explanation of the 
Apocalypse in 1878; but with these exceptions 
few, if any, of his writings have in recent years 
appeared separately. In the 16th and 17th 
cents. homilies and other works were frequently 
printed. Reference may be made on this point 
to the art. BEpE in the 4-vol. ed. of this Dicr. 
Translations of the historical books were made 
by Dr. Giles in 1840, Mr. Gidley in 1870, and 
by Miss A. M. Sellar in1g07. The last named 
is the most useful for the student. It is a 
revision of Dr. Giles, and his work is in turn 
based upon Mr. Stevens (1723). The notes in 
Mayor and Lumby’s ed. of H. E. iii. and iv. 
(Camb. Univ. Press) are learned andimportant. 
Reference should also be made to Lives of Bede 
by Bp. Browne(1879)and CanonH.D. Rawnsley 
(1904),and to the general treatment of Bedeand 
his times in Dr. Bright’s Chapters from Early 
English Church Hist. (pp. 335-338), and Dr. W. 
Hunt’s History of the English Church (vol. i. 
pp- 205-208). A monograph on ‘‘Place Names 
in the English Bede and the Localization of 
the MSS.,” by Thomas Miller, was contri- 
buted to Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- 
und Culturgeschichte der germanischen Volker 
(Strassburg, 1896). The important question 
of the chronological order of Bede’s works is 
discussed by Mr. Plummer, op. cit. (i. cxlv.- 
clix.). H.G.] 

Benedictus of Nursia. St. Benedict, abbot 
of Monte Cassino (‘‘ Abbas Casinensis’’), 
called ‘“‘ patriarch of the monks of the West,’’ 
lived during the troubled and tumultuous 
period after the deposition of Augustulus, 
when most of the countries of Europe were 
either overrun by Arians or still heathen. 
There were many monks in southern Europe, 
but without much organization till Benedict 
reformed and remodelled the monastic life 
of Europe (Mab. Ann. I. i.). The principal, 
almost sole, authority for the life of St. Bene- 
dict are the Dialogues of Gregory the Great. 
The genuineness of these has been questioned, 
but without sufficient cause. 

Benedict was born about A.p. 480 at Nursia 
(Norcia), anciently belonging to the Sabines 
(‘‘frigida Nursia,’’ Virg.), an episcopal city in 
the duchy of Spoleto in Umbria. His parents 
were of the higher class (‘‘ liberiori genere,”’ 
Praef. Dial.). A later writer gives their 
names, Euproprius and Abundantia (Petr. 
Diac. de Vir. 111. i.). The ruins of the an- 
cestral palace are shewn at Norcia, with a 
crypt, the reputed birthplace of Benedict 
(Mab. Ann. i. 4). He was sent as a boy to 
be educated at Rome; but soon, shocked by 
the immorality of his companions, fled, 
followed by his nurse (Cyrilla; Petr. D. de 
Vir. Ill. i.), to Ahle (Effide), on the Anio 
(Teverone), about forty miles from Rome 
(Dial. ii. 1), Thence he retired to a cave at 


9 


a 


130 BENEDICTUS OF NURSIA 


Sublaqueum (Subiaco), where he lived as a 
hermit in almost utter isolation for some years, 
visited only from time to time by a priest of 
the neighbourhood, Romanus (Dial. ii. 1). 
The cave, the well-known “il Sagro Speco,”’ 

is shewn about three miles of very steep ascent 
above the town of Subiaco, and the tradition- 
ary spot marked by a monastery, once famous 
for its library and for the first printing press 
in Italy, where the youthful anchoret rolled 
naked in the thorn-bushes to overcome sensual 
temptations (Mab. Ann. i. 8). The fame of 
his sanctity spreading abroad, Benedict was 
invited, his youth notwithstanding, by the 
monks ‘of a neighbouring monastery (at Vico- 
varro) to preside over them, and very reluc- 
tantly consented. Soon, however, their laxity 
rebelled against his Sar at reformation 
(he seems thus early to have shewn the or- 
ganizing faculty for which he became after- 
wards so remarkable), and he abdicated, after 
miraculously escaping being poisoned by them 
(Dial. ii. 3). He retired to his cave; and 
undertook the superintendence of youths, 
among whom were two who became foremost 
among his followers, Maurus and Placidus, 
sons of Roman patricians (Dial. 11. 4). Here 
he founded, it is said, twelve monasteries, 
each of twelve monks with a “ father’”’ at the 
head of them (Dzal. 11. 3). Of these only 
two remain, “111 Sagro Speco” and “ Sta. 
Scholastica ’’; the rest being in ruins, or 
merely oratories (Mab. Ann. ii. 1). That of 
“Sta. Scholastica,’’ so named after Benedict’s 
sister, enjoys special privileges, and takes 
precedence among the Benedictine foundations 
even of Monte Cassino, as of older date (Alb. 
Butler, Lives of the Saints). Several of the 
miracles ascribed to Benedict are connected 
with Subiaco. But, after some time, finding 
his work continually hindered by the machi- 
nations of a dissolute priest, Florentius, he re- 
moved, probably c. 530 (Mab. Amn. 111. 5), with 
some of his disciples to Monte Cassino (Dial. ii. 
8), destined to become illustrious as the head- 
quarters of the great Benedictine order, and as 
a stronghold of learning and liberal arts even 
in the darkest ages. The mountain, with a town 
and stream at its base, all of the same name, 
stands on the borders of what were formerly 
Latium and Campania, nearer to Naples than 
Rome, a few miles from the birthplace of the 
great Dominican, Thomas Aquinas. Some ruins 
of an old Roman amphitheatre mark the site of 
the town, near the modern St. Germano; the 
little stream flows into the Rapido, a tributary 
of the Garigliano (Liris). The summit of the 
mountain three miles above the town, and 
even at the present time inaccessible to 
carriages, was crowned, before the arrival of 
Benedict, by a temple of Apollo; frequented 
even then by the rustics (Dzal. i. 8), although 
the existence of a bp. of Cassino is indicated 
by the list of bishops present at the Roman 
council, A.D. 484 (Mab. Amn. 111. 5). On this 
precipitous eminence, looking down on the 
plains washed by the peaceful Liris (‘‘ taci- 
turnus amnis,’’ Hor.), and backed by the wild 
crags of the Abruzzi Benedict set himself with 
new vigour to carry out his plans of a revival 
of monasticism. The miraculous intervention 
of which-Gregory hands down the story (Dial. 
ii. 9, 10) is not necessary to explain how the 


BENEDICTUS OF NURSIA 


missionary spirit of Benedict and his monks 
overthrew the image and altar of Apollo, and 
reared shrines of St. John Evang. and St. 
Martin, the founder of monasticism in France, — 
within the very walls of the Sun-god’s temple 
—it was customary to reconsecrate, not to — 
destroy, pagan edifices (Greg. M. Ep. xi. 76} 
—where now stands one of the most sump« 
tuous of Italian churches. Here Benedict — 
commenced the monastery destined to @ 
world-wide reputation. Here for12 years or — 
more he presided over his followers; here he © 
is believed to have composed the Benedictine | 
Rule, in the same year, it is said, in which the | 
schools of Athens were suppressed, and his 
famous Code was promulgated by Justinian; 
and from this sequestered spot he sent forth 
his emissaries not only to Anxur (Terracina, _ 
Dial. ii. 22), but beyond the borders of Italy — 
to Sicily (Mab. Ann. 111. 25). Mabillon con- » 
siders the narrative in Greek by Gordianus 
of the Mission of Placidus into Sicily spurious, _ 
but the mission itself beyond doubt. Not 
many years elapsed before this and other 
similar foundations were richly endowed with — 
lands and other offerings (Greg. M. Ep. ili. 3), 

It was in the vicinity of Monte Cassino that 
Benedict confronted and rebuked the ferocious ~ 
Totila (A.D. 542) at the head of his victorious | 
Ostrogoths (Dzal. ii. 14, 15), and that he was | 
wont to cheer his solitude by brief and rare 
interviews with his beloved sister, Scholastica, 
herself a recluse at no great distance (7b. 33). ἡ 
He is said to have been summoned to a synod 
at Rome (A.D. 531) by Boniface 11. (Cave, — 
Hist. Litt. on the authority of a codex in | 
Bibl. Vat. by Ant. Scrip. Mon. Cas., Eleg. Abb. 
Cas. p. 25). His death is variously computed 
from 539 (Schol. Bened. in Honor. August. 
iii. 30 ap. Fabr. Bibl. Eccl.) to A.D. 543 
(Trithem, de Vzur. Ill. c. 300, ap. Fabr.; cf. 
Clint. Fast. Rom. and Mab. AA. SS. 0.5.8: 
Praef.). Some few writers assign a yet later 
date. His sister (his twin-sister according to 
Trithemius, but cf. Mab. Amn. iii. 14) shortly 


I 

| a 
predeceased him. She is called abbess by 
Bertharius, Abb. Cas. in the 8th cent. ἘΠ 

ie 


ι 
21 


fi 


but probably lived alone (cf. Greg. M. Dial. 11], 
7, 14), or as one of ἃ sisterhood. The words 

““adcellam propriam recessisset”’ areambiguous 
(Dial. ii. 34; cf. Act. Sanct. Feb. 10). 

The character of St. Benedict τη be best 
estimated from his Regula Monastica, if, as 
indeed is reasonable to suppose, it was his 
composition. In contrast to monastic rules _ 
already in existence, chiefly of Eastern origin, 
it breathes a spirit of mildness and considera- , a 
tion, while by the sanction for the first time 
given to study it opened the way for those — ; 
literary pursuits which afterwards developed i 
themselves so largely within convent walls.: 
The account of the great Reformer’s tender, — 
affection for his sister, and of his withdrawal 
before opposition at Subiaco, seems to give’ τῷ 
verisimilitude to the traditionary portraits 
of him, as of gentle though dignified aspect. y 
His demeanour before Totila, the strict rule) 
under which he kept others as well as himself, _ 
‘Dial. ii. 23, etc.), and his severity in repress-} 
ing the slightest disobedience (24, 28, etc.)| 
testify to his practical insight into character, Rs 
(20), as well as to his zeal and courage. In 
Dial. iii. 161 he is said (like Anthony) to have) Ι 


be 
δὲ 
Be: 


᾿ 
᾿ 
! 
| 


BENEDICTUS I. 


reproved a hermit who had chained himself to 
a rock, in these words, ‘‘ Brother, be bound 
only by the chain of Christ !’’ The character 
of the Benedictine Order, by the specialities 
which have always distinguished it from other 
religious orders, attest the sagacious and liberal 
character of its founder. Fleury thinks he was 
not ordained, although he preached (Eccl. Hist. 
xxxii. 15). The idea of his being a priest is 
modern (Mab. Ann. O.S.B. v. 122 ; Murat. Scr. 
Ttal. iv. 27). 

Some, probably not all, of the remains of 
St. Benedict were transferred from his shrine 
at M. Cassino to the Benedictine abbey at 
Floriacum (Fleury), on the Loire, in the 7th 
cent. or at a later date (Mab. Acta, ii. 339). 
The question is discussed at length in AA. SS. 
Boll. 21 Mar. iii. 299-301, and in Mab. AA. 
SS. 0.S.B. Saec. ii. 337-352. 

For his life, see Greg. M. Dial. lib. ii. in 
Migne’s Patr. Ixvi., also in Mabillon’s Acta 
Sanctorum O.S.B. Saec. i., in Muratori, Script. 
Rer. Italic. iv., and elsewhere. Vita S. Bene- 
dicti (in verse), by Marcus Poeta, said to be 
a disciple of St. Benedict, in Mab. AA. SS. 
Saec. i.; cf. Pauli Diac. Histor. Langobard. i. 
26; see also Grégoire le Grand, la vie de St. 
Benoit, etc., par Jos. Mege, Par. 1734, 4to; 
Mab. Ann. O.S.B. i. viii., Acta Sanctorum 
(Bolland.), 21 Mar. iii. Bened. Haefteni, 
Commentar. in Vit. S. Bened. For a more 
complete catalogue of hymns, sermons, etc., 
on St. Benedict see Potthast s.v. Among 
modern biographies see Le pitture dello Zingaro 
nel chtostro di 5. Severino in Napolt pubblicate 
per la prima volta ὁ dilucidate da Stanislao 
d@ Aloe (Napoli, 1846, 410); also Tosti Sz. 
Ben., historical discourse on his life from the 
Italian (Lond. 1896), and Essays on Tosti’s 
Life (Lond. 1896). In anew ed. of the English 
trans. of Montalembert’s Monks of the West 
(Lond. 6 vols. 1896) is an introduction by 
Dom Gasquet onthe Rule. A convenient ed. 
of the Rule, by D. H. Blair, with Eng. 
translation, was pub. at Lond. and Edin. 
(2nd. ed.), 1896. [1.6.5.] 

Benedictus I., pope, called by the Greeks 
Bonosus (Evagr. Sc. H. E. v. 16), son of 
Boniface, a Roman, was elected successor to 
John III. on June 3, 574 (Jaffé, Regesta Pont. ; 
the dates given by Baronius are erroneous ; 
ef. Clinton, F. R. ii. 543, on the causes of 
discrepancy in the pontifical chronology). 
During his pontificate Italy was harassed by 
the invasion of the Lombards. Though they 
never actually penetrated into the city of 
Rome, they ravaged the suburbs, violated the 
cemeteries, and persecuted the Christians. 
Misery and famine ensued, and Rome was 
only relieved eventually by a corn fleet from 
Egypt, dispatched at the pope’s request by 
the emperor Justin. Benedict died in July 
578, and was buried on the last day of that 
month in St Peter’s. He was succeeded by 
Pelagius IT. (Anastas. Liber. Pontif. ; cf. Paul. 
Diac. de Gestis Long. ii. 10, ap. Muratori, i.). 


According to Ciacconius (Vitae Pont. Rom.) | 


his memory was eulogized by Gregory the 
Great. His restoration of certain lands to 
the Abbot of San Marco at Spoleto rests on 
the same authority (Greg. Op. ii. 950, ed. 
Bened.); see generally Baronius, sub annis 
573-577; Labbe, Concil. vol. v.). [1.R.B.] 


BERYLLUS 131 


Bertha (Bercta), wife of Ethelbert, king of 
Kent. She was daughter of Caribert, king 
of Pars, by his wife Ingoberga (Greg. Turon. 
iv. 26, ix. 26), and lost her father in 575, her 
mother in 589. The date of her marriage is 
unknown, but it was probably after the death 
of her mother, although Bede speaks of the 
king receiving her ‘‘a parentibus.’’ Ethel- 
bert was still a heathen, and on his marriage 
it was made a condition that his wife should 
be allowed to enjoy the exercise of her own 
religion, and should be attended by a bishop. 
Liudhard, or Letard, who is called by the 
Canterbury historians bp. of Senlis (Thorn, 
ed. Twysden, 1767), was chosen to accompany 
her, and the remains of the church of St. 
Martin, at Canterbury, were allotted for 
Christian worship (Bede, H. E. i. 26). It was 
partly, no doubt, by her influence that Ethel- 
bert was induced to receive the Roman mission 
and to be baptized. Pope Gregory, in 601, 
when sending Mellitus to reinforce Augustine’s 
company, addressed a letter to Bertha, in 
which he compliments her highly on her faith 
and knowledge of letters, and urges her to 
make still greater efforts for the spread of 
Christianity. He also ascribes the conversion 
of the English mainly to her, and compares 
her to the empress Helena (St. Greg. Epp. 
xii. 29; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 
17, 18). The date of her death is unknown. 
She was buried in the porch of St. Martin, in 
the church of SS. Peter and Paul (Bede, H. E. 
ii. 5). Ethelbert seems to have married again 
after her death. She was the mother of 
Eadbald, who succeeded to the throne on 
Ethelbert’s death, and of Ethelburga, who, in 
625, was married to Edwin, King of North- 
umbria. As her son was unbaptized in 616, 
it is probable that she found considerable 
difficulty in promoting Christianity in her own 
family, or else that she died whilst her children 
were very young. Elmham (ed. Hardwick, p. 110) 
says she took part in founding the monastery 
of St. Augustine, at Christmas, 604, but this is 
merely traditional; and the latest trustworthy 
trace of her is St. Gregory’s letter of 6or. [5.] 

Beryllus, bp. of Bostra,* in Arabia, known 
in his day as one of the most learned teachers 
of the church. He conceived heretical views 
as to the person of our blessed Lord, to con- 
sider which a synod assembled at Bostra, A.D. 
244. The bishops unanimously condemned 
his teaching, and declared that Christ at His 
Incarnation was endowed with a human soul 
(Socr. H. E. iii. 7), but were unable to con- 
vince Beryllus of his error. Origen, however, 
who, having been recently degraded from Holy 
Orders and excommunicated at Alexandria, 
was then residing at Caesarea, had been in- 
vited to the synod, and by his intellectual 
superiority, dialectical skill, and friendly 
moderation succeeded in proving to Beryllus 
the unsoundness of his tenets, and in leading 
him back to the orthodox faith. For this, 
according to Jerome, he received the thanks 
of Beryllus in a letter extant in histime. Our 
only authority as to the tenets of Beryllus is 
a somewhat obscure passage of Eusebius, 
H. E. vi. 33, and a fragment of Origen’s com- 
mentary on the Epistle to Titus, found in the 

* Socr. H. E. iii. 7, erroneously makes Beryllus 
bp. of Philadelphia, 


192 BLANDINA 


apology of Pamphilus, Orig. Opp. tom. iv. 
p. 22, ed. Bened., which have led to very 
opposite conclusions. These may be seen in 
Dorner, where the whole question is discussed 
at length. His views were Monarchian, and 
are identified by Schleiermacher with those 
of the Patripassians, and by Baur with those 
of Artemon and the neo-Ebionites. Accord- 
ing to Dorner, Beryllus occupies a middle 
place, forming a connecting link between 
the Patripassians and Sabellius. The leading 
ideas of his teaching as developed by Dorner 
from Eusebius were as follows: (1) there 
existed a πατρικὴ θεότης in Christ, but not an 
ἰδία θεότης: (2) Christ had no independent 
existence in a circumscribed form of being 
of His own (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν οὑσίας περιγραφήν), 
before His Incarnation (ἐπιδημία). (3) Sub- 
sequently to His Incarnation, He Who had 
been identified with the πατρικὴ θεότης became 
a circumscribed Being possessed of an in- 
dependent existence; the being of God in 
Christ being a circumscription of the θεότης 
of the Father, 1.6. of God Himself. According 
to Eusebius, H. E. vi. 20, Beryllus was the 
author of epistles and treatises displaying 
considerable elegance. Hieron. de Script. Eccl. 
No. lx.; Niceph. H. FE. v. 22; Neander. ii. 
pp. 350 ff.; Gieseler, v. p. 219; Dorner, 
Person of Christ, First Period, Second Epoch, 
§ i. c. 2, div. i. vol. ii. pp. 35-45, Clark’s 
trans. ; Schréckh, iv. 38; Mosheim, de Reb. 
Christ. ante Constant. p. 699 ; Ullman, Comment. 
de Beryll. Bost. (Hamb. 1835); Fock, Diss. de 
Christolog. Beryll. Bost. (1843). [E.v.] 
Blandina, martyr, a female slave, reckoned 
as the chief among the martyrs of Lyons, in 
that, although weakest in body, she suffered 
longest and most bravely the most various 
and prolonged torture. Among other things 
she was stretched upon a cross and thrown to 
wild beasts, which, however, refused to touch 
her; and finally she was tied up in a net and 
gored to death bya bull. (Eus. H. E. v. 1; 
Eucher. Lugdun. Hom. inter Hom. Euseb. 
Emesen. xi.; Greg. Tur. de Glor. Marvtt. xlix. ; 
Baron. June 2.) [A.W.H.] 
Boéthius (Βοέτιος, Procop.), Anicius Man- 
lius Severinus.* This honourable name, in- 
vested by the church for so many centuries 
with a halo of sanctity, can hardly be ex- 
cluded from a Dictionary of Christian Bio- 
graphy, though some criticism in modern 
times has tended to distinguish the Roman 
senator, the author of the Consolatio Philoso- 
phiae, from the writer of certain theological 
treatises which bear his name, and upon 
the genuineness of which depends his claim 
to be enrolled among the martyrs of 
Christendom. These works, (i.) de Sancta 
Trinitate, (ii.) Utrum Pater et Filius Substan- 
tialiter Praedicentur, (iii.) de Duabus Naturalis 
et una Persona Christi, contra Eutychen et 
Nestorium, (iv.) Fidet Confessio seu brevis 
Institutio Religionis Christianae, based upon 
the Aristotelian Categories, and compiled in 
great measure from the writings of St. Augus- 
tine, being concerned entirely with abstract 
questions of dogma, offer but little to compare 


* The additional name of Torguatus does not 
occur before the 15th cent. Bertius is the only 
commentator who gives the praenomen Flavius, 


| persona (πρόσωπον). 


| knows nothing of St. Boéthius, the festival of 


BOETHIUS 


with the Consolatio, into which the mind and 
heart of its author were manifestly thrown; — 


nevertheless Hand (Encyclopddie, v. Ersch. — 
u. Gruber, 1 voce) has endeavoured to shew 
that they are alien in point of philosophy as — 
well as in the method of thought and expres- 
sion from the undoubted writings of Boéthius. — 
For instance, although philosopher and theo- 
logian alike demonstrate the substantial as — 
opposed to the accidental nature of God, 
Boéthius (ad Arist. Categ. c. 4) maintains 
Aristotle’s distinction of substances, whereas 
the author of the first theological treatise 
insists upon the substantial indifference of 
the three persons in the Trinity. Again, 
while Boéthius translates the οὐσία of Aristotle 
by substantia, the author of the third treatise 
adopts the later rendering essentia, while 
he also follows ecclesiastical writers in his © 
use of the words substantia (ὑπόστασις) and 
The arguments of Hand 
have been controverted by Gustave Baur (de 
Boéth. Christianae Fidet Assertore, c. 1), but 
the theory of a second Boéthius, whom Hand ~ 
supposes to have been confounded at an early | 
date with the philosopher, so far from being 
refuted, has suggested the still more plausible © 
conjecture of Obbarius (Proleg. ad Consol. 
Phil. p. xxxvii. Jenae, 1843) that another 
Severinus was the author of the works in 
question, and that to this person, and not to 
the author of the Consolatio, belong the 
honours of martyrdom in defence of the | 
Catholic faith. In support of this conjecture © 
there are the facts: (i.) That no author is 
known to mention the theological works of 
Boéthius before Alcuin (de Proc. Spir. Sancti, 
p- 752), who flourished nearly three centuries © 
after his death. (ii.) That although the 

tradition was current in the Middle Ages, from © 
Paulus Diaconus (8th cent.) downwards, that © 
Boéthius laid down his life in his zeal for the 
Catholic faith against the Arian invaders of © 
Italy, this is not his own account of his fall © 
from court favour nor is it supported by any — 
contemporary writer. (iii.) That in the © 
epitaph of Gerbertus, bp. of Ravenna, after- 
wards pope Sylvester II., inscribed upon the 
monument raised in his honour by Otho III., — 
A.D. 996, no mention is made of martyrdom 

or of canonization (Migne, Patr. vol. 139, Pp. 
287). (iv.) That while the church of Rome — 


St. Severinus has been held on Oct. 23 ever 
since the 8th cent., in the neighbourhood of © 
Ticinum, where Boéthius is popularly believed 
to have been executed. The double clue runs 
throughout the history of Boéthius, as derived © 
from various sources; the same twofold 
character, half secular, half ecclesiastical, 
pervades the whole; and hence the unusual 
number of so-called fables mingled with the 
best authenticated facts—e.g :— 

(1) The wife of Boéthius was unquestion- 
ably Rusticiana, the daughter of the senator 
Symmachus (Cons. Phil. ii. 3, 4;  Procop. 
Goth. iii. 20), by whom he had two sons, 
Aurelius Anicius Symmachus and Anicius ; 
Manlius Severinus, who were consuls A.D. 522 ᾿ 
(Cons. Phil. ii. 3, 4); but tradition makes 
him to have been also the husband of Elpis, 
a Sicilian lady and the authoress of two 
hymns in the Breviary [Evris], and by her to 


LE OWES ae να 


Oey > see 


nae 


BOETHIUS 


have had two sons, Patricius and Hypatius, 
Greek consuls A.D. 500. ἢ 

(2) According to his own statement, Boéthius 
was imprisoned (Cons. Phil. 1. ii. metr. 24) 
at a distance of 500 miles from Rome (ἐδ. 1. 
4}; according to other accounts he was simply 
exiled, a confusion which no doubt arose from 
the epitaph of the said Elpis, in which she is 
said (Burm. Anth. Lat. tom. ii. epigr. 138) to 
have followed her husband into banishment. 

(3) His fall and death is mixed up by 
Paulus Diaconus and other writers, who 
are followed among modern writers by Bahr 
(Rom. Lit. p. 162) and Heyne (Censar. Ingentt, 
etc., Boeth.), with the constrained embassy of 
pope John to Constantinople on behalf of 
the Arians of the East, which is said to have 
resulted in the suspicion of his treachery and 
finally in his death; whereas Boéthius was 
put to death, according to others (Anonym. 
Vales., etc.), before the embassy, or at least 
before the return of the pope, A.D. 525, and 
as he himself implies (Cons. Phil. i. 4), on 
suspicion of conspiracy, not against Arianism, 
but for the restoration of the liberty and power 
of the senate. 

(4) Two distinct accounts exist of his 
execution, one stating that he was beheaded 
at Ticinum (Anast. Vzt. Ponttf. in Johanne I. ; 
Aimoin, Hist. Franc. ii. 1), where he was 
imprisoned, according to popular tradition, 
in a tower still standing at Pavia in 1584 
Tiraboschi, iii. 1. 1, c. 4); another relating 
τ τ μῶῳ Vales. p. 36, in Gronov. ed. Amm. 
Marcell.) that he was confined along with 
Albinus in the baptistery of a church, and 
soon afterwards executed ‘‘in agro Calven- 
tiano,” first being tortured by a cord tightly 
twisted round his forehead, and then beaten 
to death with a club. 

(5) He is claimed by the church as a saint 
and martyr under the name of Severinus, 
the friend of St. Benedict (Tritenhem, ap. 
Fabric. Bibl. Lat. iii. 15), and the worker of 
a miracle at his death (Martianus Rota, vid. 
Boéth. in usum Delphin.), but of all this his 
contemporaries knew nothing, and no hint of 
it appears until three centuries after his death, 
when he also becomes the author of four 
dogmatic treatises on the mysteries of the 
Trinity. 

Whether or not this double tradition has 
grown out of the history of two distinct 
individuals, there can be little doubt that to 
obtain a true estimate of the character and 
writings of Boéthius, the author of the 
Consolatio must be distinguished from 
Severinus, saint and martyr, or whoever else 
was the writer of the above-mentioned 
theological works. It remains for us briefly 
to notice the most authentic facts of the 
philosopher’s life, and to inquire how far his 
thoughts were coloured by the contempor- 
aneous influence of Christianity, or exercised 
an influence in their turn upon the religious 
thought of the Middle Ages. 

Boéthius was born between the years A.D. 
470-475, as is inferred from his contemporary 
Ennodius (Eucharisma de Vitéd sud), who says 
that he himself was sixteen when Theodoric 
invaded Italy, a.p. 490. Asa wealthy orphan 
(Cons. Phil. ii. 3) Boéthius inherited the patri- 
mony and honours of the Anician family, was 


BOETHIUS 133 


brought up under the care of the chief men 
at Rome (ἐδ. ii. 3), and became versed in 
the erudition of his own country and like- 
wise in that of Greece. In the words of 
his friend Cassiodorus, ‘‘ The geometry of 
Euclid, the music of Pythagoras, the arith- 
metic of Nicomachus, the mechanics of 
Archimedes, the astronomy of Ptolemy, the 
theology of Plato, and the logic of Aristotle,” 
were translated and illustrated for the benefit 
of the Romans by his indefatigable pen (Var. 
i. Ep. 45). Nor was he less distinguished for 
his virtue. His purse was ever open to the 
poor of Rome (Procop. Goth. I. i.). He 
exerted his authority and eloquence on behalf 
of the oppressed provincials (Cons. Phil. i. 4). 
Such conspicuous merit was at first appre- 
ciated by Theodoric. He received the title 
of patrician while still a youth (7b. i. 3), 
became consul A.D. 510, and princeps senatus 
(Procop. Goth. I. i.), was employed in the 
important station of master of the offices 
(Anonym. Vales. p. 26), in which post his 
scientific knowledge and mechanical skill 
were turned to ample account (Cassiod. Ep. i. 
10, 45, ii. 40), and reached the summit of 
his fortune on the day when, supported by his 
two sons, who had just been inaugurated in 
the consulship, he pronounced a panegyric 
upon Theodoric and gratified the populace 
with a largess (Cons. Phil. ii. 3). But a re- 
verse was at hand. The philosopher had 
exerted himself to rescue the state from the 
usurpation of ignorance; the senator had 
opposed his integrity to the tyranny and 
avarice of the barbarians who did not in 
general share the moderation of their leader. 
His expression, “ palatini canes’’ (2b. 1. 4), 
shews his uncompromising spirit against their 
iniquities; and it is not surprising that 
the courage and sympathy he shewed in 
pleading the cause of Albinus, a senator who 
was accused of ‘‘ hoping the liberty of Rome ”’ 
(ib.), joined to other similar conduct, and 
misrepresented by his foes, at length poisoned 
the mind of Theodoric, who seems to have 
appointed one Decoratus, a man of worthless 
character, to share and control the power 
of his favourite (ib. iii. 4). As to the 
existence of any widespread conspiracy to 
overthrow the Ostrogothic rule there is but 
very faint evidence, and against this must be 
set down his own indignant self-justification 
(ib. i. 4). A sentence of confiscation and death 
was passed upon him by the senate without 
a trial; he was imprisoned in the Milanese 
territory, and ultimately executed in one of 
the ways named above, probably about the 
5oth year of his age, A.D. 520-524. His 
father-in-law, Symmachus, was involved in his 
ruin (Procop. Goth. I. i.), and his wife, Rus- 
ticiana, reduced to beggary (δ. 111. 20). The 
remorse of Theodoric, which came too late 
to save ‘‘ the last of the Romans,’’ is the 
natural and tragic finish to a story which has 
too many parallels in history. 

It was during his imprisonment that Boé- 
thius composed his Consolation of Philosophy, 
a work described by Gibbon as “ἃ golden 
volume, not unworthy of the leisure of Plato 
or Tully.” It is a dialogue in prose and verse 
(a species of composition suggested probably 
by the medleys of Petronius and Capella) 


134 BOETHIUS 


between the author and his visitant, Philo- 
sophy, whom he represents as a woman of 
reverend mien and varying stature, upon the 
borders of whose vesture were woven the 
letters IT and 0, symbolizing no doubt the 
Platonic division of philosophy into πρακτική 
and θεωρητική. Those who regard the “‘ Con- 
solation ’’ as the work of a Christian have not 
unnaturally been perplexed by its total silence 
as to the distinctive faith of Christianity, and 
have been forced to suppose it incomplete 
(Bertius, Lips. 1753), or to interpret it allegori- 
cally (Gervais, vid. Schréckh, Hist. Eccles. xvi. 
118). It breathes a spirit of resignation and 
hope, but so does the Phaedo. It is based 
upon a firm belief in Providence, but it is 
only in his poetic flights that the author’s 
language seems to savour of a belief in a 
personal God (Cons. Phil. iii. metr. 9), his 
faith never elsewhere rising higher than 
Theism, and occasionally passing into Pan- 
theism (7b. iii. 12, et pass.). He asserts the 
efficiency of prayer, but the injunction thereto 
is drawn from the Timaeus and not from the 
N.T. (tb. ili. 9), while the object of his 
aspirations is not the στέφανος ζώης or δικαιο- 
σύνης of the Apostle, but the swmmum bonum 
of the Greek philosopher. He has been 
thought to betray an acquaintance with the 
Christian idea of heaven (ἐδ. i. 5, iii. 12, iv. 
I, v- 1), but his patria is the peace of the 
philosophic mind, not the πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανῷ 
ὕπαρχον. In short, the whole work, with 
the exception of words and phrases which 
merely imply an acquaintance with Christian 
writers, might have been written, so far as 
theology is concerned, by Cicero himself. The 
works of Boéthius prove his intimate know- 
ledge of Greek literature, and were for centuries 
the only vehicle by which Greek philosophy 
penetrated to the West; but his chief work 
is now of value only as serving, along with 
the poetry of Claudian and Ausonius, to mark 
the point of contact between the thought of 
heathendom and the faith of Christianity. 
That from the 6th to the 14th cent. its author 
was invested with a monopoly of philosophic 
greatness was natural in the utter decay of 
learning, but it was the excess of darkness 
which made his light of brightness sufficient 
to shine across the ages till it paled in the 
rising splendour of the revival of letters. 

_His works are: de Consolatione Philosophiae 
libri v.; in Porphyrit Isagogen a Victorino 
Translatam Dialogi ii.; in eandem a se ipso 
Latine Translatam libri v.; in Categorias 
Aristotelis libri ii.; in Ejusdem Librum περὶ 
ἑρμηνείας lib. i.; Editionis secundae libri Wass 
Analyticorum Aristotelis Priorum et Posteri- 
orum libri iv. ; Topicorum Aristotelis libri viii. ; 
in Artstotelts Topica libri viii. (not extant) ; 
Introductio in Syllogismos Categoricos; de 
Syllogismis Hypotheticis libri ii. ; de Divisione ; 
de Definitione ; de Differentiis Topicis libri iv. ; 
tn Topica Ciceronis libri vi.; Elenchorum 
Sophisticorum libri ii.; de Arithmeticd libri 
ii.; de Musica libri v.: de Geometrid libri 
ii.; also two short treatises entitled respec- 
tively ‘‘ de Rhetoricae Cognatione,” and “ Loc- 
ovum Rhetoricorum Distinctio,” discovered by 
cardinal Mai in a MS. of the 11th cent. 
Doubtful works: de Unitate et Uno; 


de | 


BONIFACIUS I. 


Bono ; de Hebdomadibus ; all of which are © 
dedicated to pope John. ' 

The most complete ed. of his works is in 
Migne’s Patr. Lat., which is a collation of the 
best edd. The best edd. of the Consolatio are : 
those of Theod. Obbarius (Jenae, 1843) and 
R. Peiper (Leipz. 1871), the latter including 
the theological works and prolegomena. The — 
most interesting trans. is that into Anglo- 
Saxon by Alfred the Great, edited by W. J. 
Sedgefield (Lond. 1899). See also G. Boissier, 
“Le Christianisme de Boéce”’ in Journal des 
savants (Paris, 1899). 

The chief ancient authorities for the life of 
Boéthius are the epistles of his contemporaries 
Cassiodorus and Ennodius, and the History of 
Procopius. The best modern authorities are 
Hand, in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclop.; and 
for an opposite view of his religious faith, 
Gustave Baur, de Boéth. Christianae Fidet As- 
sertore (Darmst. 1841) ; Heyne, Censura Boéth. 
de Cons. Phil. (Gotting. 1805), in Opuse. 
Academ. vi. 142; the ‘‘ Prologomena de 
Boéthii vita et scriptis’’ to the ed. of the 
Cons. Phil. by Obbarius; A. Hildebrand, 
Boéthius und seine Stelling zum Christenthum 
(Regussburg, 1885); and H. F. Stewart, 
Boéthius, an Essay (Edin. 1891). [£.M.Y.] 

Bonifacius I., pope and saint, successor of 
Zosimus, a Roman, son of a priest, Jocundus, 
has been identified with Boniface the priest, 
the papal representative at Constantinople 
during the time of Innocent I. (Baronius s.a. 
405, § 15, cf. Bianchi-Giovini, Storia det Papi, 
i. 353). Zosimus died on Dec. 26, 418. On 
the 28th Boniface was elected bishop in the 
Church of St. Theodora by a majority of the 
clergy and people, and consecrated next day 
in the church of St. Marcellus. Previously, 
however, a small body of the clergy, contrary ὁ 
to the command of the prefect Symmachus, 
had shut themselves up in the Lateran, and 
as soon as the burial of Zosimus took place, 
proclaimed Eulalius the archdeacon pope. 
Three bishops (including the bp. of Ostia) 
assisted at the consecration of Eulalius, nine 
at that of Boniface. Symmachus reported to 
the emperor Honorius in favour of Eulalius. 
Honorius decided accordingly, and ordered 
Boniface to quit the city, but ultimately pro- 
nounced in his favour. This was the third 
disputed election (see full account, with all 
the documents, in Baronius 5.4. 419; Jaffe, 
Regesta). Personally, Boniface is described as 
an old man at the time of his appointment, 
which he was unwilling to accept, of mild 
character, given to good works (Anastasius, 
Lib. Pont.). In the contest against Pelagius, 
Boniface was an unswerving supporter of 
orthodoxy and Augustine. [PELAGius.] Two 
letters of the Pelagians had fallen into the 
pope’s hands, in both of which Augustine was 
calumniated. Boniface sent them promptly 
by the hands of Alypius to Augustine him- 
self, that he might reply to them. His reply, 
contained in the ‘‘ Quatuor libri contra duas 
Epp. Pelagianorum ”’ (Opp. x. 411, Ben. ed.; 
cf. Repr. ii. 61 in vol i.), is addressed to Boni- 
face, and bears testimony to the kindness and 
condescension of his character. Boniface 
was strenuous in enforcing the discipline of 
the church. Thus he insisted that Maximus, 
bp. of Valence, should be brought to trial for 


BONIFACIUS II. 


his misdemeanours before the bishops of Gaul 
(see letter in Labbe, Cone. ii. 1584). 50 also 
in the case of the vacancy of the see of Lodéve 
he insisted on a rigid adherence to the decrees 
of the council of Nicaea, that each metropoli- 
tan, and in this case the metropolitan of 
Narbonne, should be supreme within his own 
rovince, and that the jurisdiction conferred 
τὸ his predecessor Zosimus on the bp. of Arles 
should be of none effect (Labbe, 7b. 1585). 
On the significance of this transaction as re- 
gards the history of the relation of the pope 
to the metropolitans, see Gieseler, Ecc. Hist. 
i. § 92 (p. 265, Eng. trans.). Nor was he less 
strenuous in his assertion of the rights of the 
Roman see. Following the policy of his pre- 
decessors, Siricius and Innocent, he vindicated 
the supremacy of his patriarchate over the 
province of Eastern Illyria. The people of 
Corinth had elected a certain Perigenes bishop, 
and sent to Rome to ask the pope to ratify 
the election. Boniface refused to entertain 
their request until sent through the hands 
and with the consent of the papal legate, 
Rufus, archbp. of Thessalonica. The party 
in Corinth opposed to Perigenes appealed to 
the Eastern emperor. Theodosius decreed 
that canonical disputes should be settled 
by a council of the province with appeal 
to the bp. of Constantinople. Boniface im- 
mediately complained to Honorius that this 
law infringed the privileges of his see, and 
Theodosius, on the request of his uncle, an- 
nulled it. Proposals, however, had actually 
been made for the convocation of a provincial 
council to consider the Corinthian election. 
To check this tendency to independence, and 
to defeat the rival claims of Constantinople, 
Boniface forthwith addressed letters to Rufus, 
to the bishops of Thessaly, and to the bishops 
of the entire province. Rufus was exhorted 
to exercise the authority of the Roman see 
with all his might; and the bishops were 
commanded to obey him, though allowed the 
pevicce of addressing complaints concerning 
im to Rome. ‘‘ No assembly was to be held 
without the consent of the papal vicar. Never 
had it been lawful to reconsider what had once 
been decided by the Apostolic see’’ (see 
documents in Labbe, iv. 1720 sqq.). Among 
the lesser ordinances attributed to him by 
Anastasius the most important is that whereby 
he forbade slaves to be ordained without the 
consent of their masters. Boniface died on 
Sept. 4, 422, and was buried, according to the 
Martyr. Hieronym. (ap. Jaffé, Reg.), in the 
cemetery of St. Maximus, according to Anas- 
tasius in that of St. Felicitas (cf. Ciacconius, 
Vit. Pont. who gives several epitaphs). He 
was succeeded by Celestine I. His letters are 
given by Labbe, vol. iv. ; Migne, Patr. vol. xx. ; 
Baronius. (Cf. Jaffé, Regesta and App. pp. 
932, 933, where spurious letters and decrees 
attributed to Boniface are given). [T.R.B.] 
Bonifacius II., pope, successor to Felix IV., 
of Roman birth but Gothic parentage, son of 
Sigisbald or Sigismund, was elected bp. of 
Rome on Sept. 17, 530, and consecrated five 
days later in the basilica of Julius (Jaffé, 
Regesta Pont.). At the same time a rival party 
in the basilica of Constantine elected and con- 
secrated Dioscorus. The Roman church was 
saved from schism by the death of Dioscorus 


BONOSUS 135 


a few weeks afterwards ; but Boniface carried 
his enmity beyond the grave, and anathema- 
tized his dead rival for simony (cf. Cassiodorus, 
Var. 9, Ep. 5). This anathema was subse- 
quently removed by Agapetus I. It has been 
conjectured (by Baronius, Labbe, Cave, etc.) 
that the double election was brought about by 
Athalaric the Gothic king, that he might have 
an opportunity to intervene after the example 
of Theodoric, and place a partisan of his own 
upon the papal throne. [THEODORICUS (3) ; 
Frurx III. (cf. Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. i. § 115, p- 
340, Eng. trans. and reff.).] The pontificate of 
Boniface is chiefly remarkable for the bold 
measure proposed and carried by him at a 
council at St. Peter’s, by which he was em- 
powered to nominate his own _ successor. 
Accordingly he nominated the deacon Vigilius 
(subsequently pope, 537), and obtained the 
consent of the clergy thereto. Shortly after- 
wards, however, another council met and 
annulled the previous decree as contrary 
to the canons. Boniface acknowledged his 
error and publicly burned the document with 
his own hands. Some (e.g. Bianchi-Giovini, 
Storia det Papt, ii. 165) have conjectured that 
Boniface acted throughout as the tool of the 
unprincipled Vigilius; others (e.g. Baronius, 
Milman, etc.) that the object of Boniface was 
to prevent for the future the interference of 
the Gothic king, and that it was the Gothic 
king that compelled him to rescind the decree. 
It would have been equally difficult, however, 
to have brought the clergy and people of Rome 
to tolerate such a scheme. Of the pontificate 
of Boniface there is little else to record. A 
petition was presented to him (in which he is 
styled ‘‘ Universal Bishop’’) by Stephen, 
archbp. of Larissa, metropolitan of Thessaly, 
complaining of the encroachments of the 
patriarch of Constantinople, who had suspend- 
ed Stephen from his office. The result of the 
council held is unknown, but there can be 
little doubt that Boniface followed the policy 
of his predecessors in this matter and asserted 
the authority of the Roman see over the 
whole of the province of Illyria (see documents 
in Labbe, Conc. iv. 1690 seq., also BONIFACIUS 
I.). He died in Oct. 532, and was buried on 
the 17th in St. Peter’s. He was succeeded 
by John II. (see generally Anastasius, Lzb. 
Pont. ; Labbe, Conc. iv. 1682 sqq. ; Baronius, 
sub annis; Migne, Patr. Ixv.). [T-R.B.] 
Bonosus, the founder of the sect of the 
Bonosiani, was bp. of Sardica in Illyria at 
the end of the 4th cent. (Tillemont, x. 754). 
Bonosus is only known to us as holding the 
same views with Helvidius with regard to the 
perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, 
and as to His brethren, whom he affirmed to 
have been the natural offspring of Joseph and 
Mary. At the synod of Capua, convened by 
Valentinian, A.D. 391, to settle the rival claims 
of Flavian and Evagrius to the see of Antioch, 
opportunity was taken to lay an accusation 
against Bonosus. The synod was unwilling 
to consider the question, and transferred it 
to Anysius, the bp. of Thessalonica and 
metropolitan, and his suffragans, who, as a 
neighbour of Bonosus, might be supposed to 
be more fully acquainted with the merits of 
the case (Labbe, ii. 1033). Bonosus was 
condemned for heretical teaching, deposed, 


136 BOSPHORIUS 
and his church closed against him. Bonosus 
consulted Ambrose, who recommended pati- 
ence and submission. This prudent counsel 
was not followed, and the difference was ex- 
aggerated into a schism, which lasted into the 
7th cent. Bonosus and his followers were 
widely accredited with heretical views respect- 
ing the conception and person of Christ. 
Mercator calls him an Ebionite, and a pre- 
cursor of Nestorius (Dissert. i. de Haeres. 
Nestor. ὃ 6, ii. 315). But the Bonosians were 
more usually charged with Photinianism 
(Gennadius, de Eccl. Dogm. c. 52, ‘‘ Photini- 
ani quinunc vocantur Bonosiaci’’). Whether 
these charges were well grounded, or were 
based on the general unpopularity of the sect, 
it is impossible to determine. Their baptism 
was pronounced valid by the 17th canon of 
the second synod of Arles, A.D. 445, on the 
ground that, like the Arians, they baptized in 
the name of the Trinity (Labbe, iv. 1013). 
But Gregory the Great, in a letter to the Irish 
bishops (Ep. lib. ix. 61), includes them in 
those whose baptism the church rejected be- 
cause the name of the Trinity was not invoked 
(cf. Gennadius, de Eccl. Dogm., u.s.). They 
on their part rebaptized those who joined 
them. The third council of Orleans, a.p. 
538, ordained that they who did so should be 
arrested by the royal officers and punished. 
The Bonosians were anathematized by pope 
Vigilius (Ep. xv. ; Labbe, v. 333). [E.v.] 
Bosphorius, bp. of Colonia in Cappadocia 
Secunda, a confidential friend and corre- 
spondent of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the 
Great. His episcopate was prolonged through 
at least 48 years (Pallad. c. 20, p. 203), and 
must have commenced in 360. From the 
letters of Gregory we learn that he and Bos- 
phorius had lived together in youth, laboured 
together, and grown old together (Greg. Ep. 
141, 227). He had great influence over the 
gentler nature of Gregory, who speaks of him 
with the highest respect, both for the purity 
of his faith and the sanctity of his life, as well 
as for his successful exertions in bringing 
back wanderers to the truth, acknowledging 
the benefit he had derived, both as hearer 
and teacher, from him (Ep. 164, 225). He 
persuaded Gregory to remain at Nazianzus 
after his father’s death, and to accept the 
unwelcome charge of the see of Constantinople. 
Gregory bitterly complained of his unscrupu- 
lous importunity, but yielded (Ep. 14, 15). 
In 383 Bosphorius was accused of unsound- 
ness in the faith—a charge which greatly 
distressed Gregory, who wrote urgently in his 
behalf to Theodore of Tyana, Nectarius, and 
Eutropius (Ep. 225, 227, 164). Basil ad- 
dressed to him a letter denying the charge of 
having excommunicated his bp. Dianius (Fp. 
li.). He attended the second oecumenical 
council at Constantinople in 381 (Labbe, ii. 
956). Palladius speaks with gratitude of the 
sympathy shewn by him towards the bishops 
banished in 406 for adherence to Chrysos- 
tom’s cause (Pallad. c. 20, p. 203). [E.v.] 
Brigida (5), V., abbess of Kildare—Feb. 1, 
523. The designation ‘‘ Fiery Dart’’ seems 
peculiarly appropriate for “the Mary of 
Ireland,’’ who, although her fame on the 
continent is eclipsed by the greater reputation 
there of her namesake the widow-saint of 


CAECILIA ἘΠ 


Sweden, yet stands forth in history with a very 
marked individuality, though the histories 
that have come down to us are mainly devoted — 
to a narrative of the signs and wonders which 

God wrought by her. As toher Acts, Colgan — 
has published six Lives in his Trias Thauma- 
turga, and the Bollandists five. It is more © 
difficult to trace the historical points in St. 
Bridget’s life than to recount the legendary 

accretions which testify to a basis of fact, 

could we but find it after so many centuries. — 
In the legend there is no little beauty, and in 
almost all we find an undercurrent of true — 
human feeling and deep Christian discern- — 
ment. (See some of them given at length 

in Bp. Forbes’s Kal. Scott. Saints, 288 seq., 

from Boéce, Breviary of Aberdeen, and Col- 

gan’s Tr. Thaum. For a full and critical 
account of her life, see Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. 

Ir. i. 68, 335, and chaps. viii. and ix. passim; 

Todd, Book of Hymns, i. 65 seq. ; O’Hanlon, 
Ir. Satnts, ii. τ seq. ; Baring-Gould, Lives of — 
the Saints, ii. 14 seq.) Her chief residence 
was the monastery of Kildare, ‘‘ cella quercus,” 
which she founded; but affiliated houses of 
both men and women (‘‘ de utroque sexu”’) 
were raised all over the country, she being 
abbess above all other abbesses, and the 
bishop with her at Kildare being similarly 
above all bishops in her other monasteries. 
Montalembert (Monks of the West, Edin. ii. 
393-395) gives an account of St. Brigida and 
her monasteries, and places her birth at a.p. 
467 and her death at a.p. 525. He says, 
““There are still 18 parishes in Ireland which 
bear the name of Kilbride or the Church of 
Bridget ”’ (2b. ii. p. 395, π.). The Irish annals, 
however, vary as to the date of her death, 
but the most probable, and resting on highest 
authority, is A.D. 523 (O’Conor, Rer. Hib. 
Scrip. iv. 13; Bp. Forbes, Kal. Scott. Saints, 
287). In Scotland the cultus of this saint was 
very extensive, her dedications being chiefly 
found in the parts nearest to Ireland and 
under Irish influence. (For a short list see Bp. 
Forbes, Kal. Scott. Saints, 290-291.) [a.P.F.] 


C 


Caecilia (1), St., a Roman lady, one of 
the four principal virgins and martyrs of the 
Western Church, who is commemorated in 
both the Latin and Greek churches on Noy. 
22, but of whom we have hardly any authen- 
tic account. 

The veneration paid to her can be traced 
to a very early period. Her martyrdom and 
that of her three companions is referred to 
in nearly all the most ancient Latin breviaries 
and missals—e.g. in the Sacramentary of 
pope Gregory; the breviary and missal of 
Milan ascribed to St. Ambrose; the Moz- 
arabic or Spanish liturgy, with proper prayers ὦ 
and prefaces ; and a grand office for her feast 
is contained in the Gallican missal, which is 
believed to have been in use in Gaul from the 
6th cent. down to the time of Charlemagne. 
Her name appears in the Martyrology attri- 
buted to Jerome, in that of Bede, and in all 
the others, and her martyrdom is placed at 
Rome. Yet it is very difficult, says Tille- 
mont, to find her true place in the chronology. 


CAECILIA 


The earliest writer who mentions her is For- 
tunatus, bp. of Poictiers, at the end of the 6th 
cent., who states that she died in Sicily be- 
tween A.D. 176 and 180, under the emperor 
M. Aurelius or Commodus. The Life of St. 
Caecilia by Symeon Metaphrastes, a hagio- 
grapher of the roth cent., makes her contem- 
porary with Urban, and places her martyrdom 
at Rome under Alexander Severus, ¢. 230; 
the Greek menologies place it under Diocle- 
tian (284-305). On the other hand, the 
Roman calendar drawn up at Rome under 
pope Liberius, c. A.pD. 352-366, contains no 
mention of her. This, indeed, is not a com- 
plete list of martyrs, but a list of the chief 
feasts (Rossi, i. 116). Her body must, how- 
ever, have been there not long after this 
period; for in the time of pope Symmachus 
(a.D. 498) there was a church of St. Caecilia 
at Rome, in which he held a council. 

The account of her life and martyrdom by 
Symeon Metaphrastes, to be found in Surius, 
is of no authority. The narrative is full of 
marvels and improbabilities, and the internal 
evidence alone is quite sufficient to prove its 
legendary character, though some critics have 
of late endeavoured to uphold its credibility, 
and to refer its compilation in its present form 
to the commencement of the 5th cent. (cf. 
Ceillier, Hist. des Auteurs Sacrés, vol. ii. Paris, 
1859, and see below). There can be little doubt 
that these Acts of St. Caecilia were composed 
to be read in the church of the saint on the 
day of her feast. According to the legend, she 
was born at Rome of a noble family. She re- 
solved, from love to her Lord, to devote her- 
self to Him by a vow of perpetual virginity. 
Her parents wished her to marry Valerian, a 
young Roman, who at that time was not a 
Christian. She went through the marriage 
ceremonies; but when alone with her young 
husband, told him of her vow, and Valerian 
allowed her to keep it. At her entreaty, he 
sought out the retreat of Urban, and received 
baptism at his hands. On returning to his 
spouse, wearing the white robe of a neophyte, 
he found her praying in her chamber, and 
an angel of God at her side. In answer to 
Valerian’s prayer, the angel promised that 
his brother, Tiburtius, should become a 
Christian, and foretold that both brothers 
should receive the crown of martyrdom. In 
A.D. 230 Turcius Almachius, prefect of the 
city, took advantage of the emperor’s absence 
to give free vent to his hatred of the Christians, 
and daily put many to death. Valerian and 
Tiburtius were soon brought before his tri- 
bunal. After being scourged, the two brothers 
were commanded to offer incense to the gods. 
On refusing, they were condemned to be be- 
headed and given in charge to Maximus. So 
moved was he by their exhortations that 
in the night he and all his family, together 
with the lictors, believed and were baptized. 
On the morrow his prisoners were beheaded 
at the place called Pagus Triopius on the Via 
Appia at the fourth mile from Rome. When 
the news reached the prefect that Maximus 
also had become a Christian, he ordered him 
to be scourged to death with leaden balls. 
Soon afterwards he sent his officers to Caecilia 
and bade her sacrifice to the gods. As she 
tefused, he commanded her to be shut up in 


CAECILIA 137 


her bath, and that the furnace should be 
heated with wood seven times hotter than it 
was wont to be. But a heavenly dew falling 
upon the spouse of Christ refreshed and cooled 
her body, and preserved her from harm. A 
day and a night the prefect waited for news 
of her death. Then he sent one of his soldiers 
to behead her; but though the sword smote 
her neck thrice, the executioner could not 
cut off her head, and he departed, leaving her 
on the floor of her bath bathed in blood. For 
three days longer she lived, never ceasing to 
exhort the people whom she loved to continue 
steadfast in the Lord, and watching over the 
distribution of her last alms. Having given 
her house to the church, she gave up her 
spirit into the hands of theliving God. Urban 
and his deacons buried her in the cemetery of 
Calixtus on the Via Appia near the third mile- 
stone. Her house he consecrated to God as a 
church for ever. It is alleged that her body 
was found αἵ. Rome by pope Paschal I. (A.p. 
821), in the cemetery of Praetextatus, adjoin- 
ing that of Calixtus on the Via Appia, and 
that it was removed by him to the church of 
St. Caecilia, which he was then rebuilding, 
and which stands, as is said, on the site of 
her house, at the extremity of the Trastevere. 
Here, it is said, her body was again dis- 
covered at the end of the 16th cent. in the 
time of Clement VIII. Baronius has given a 
long account of the circumstances connected 
with this pretended discovery, of which he 
Was a witness (5. ann. 821). 

The legend of this saint has furnished the 
subject of several remarkable pictures. The 
oldest representation of her is a rude picture 
or drawing on the wall of the catacomb called 
the cemetery of San Lorenzo, of the date 
probably of the 6th or 7th cent. (See d’Agin- 
court, plate xi.) In the 13th cent. Cimabue 
painted an altar-piece, representing different 
episodes in the life of the saint for the church 
dedicated to her at Florence. In both these 
she appears with the martyr’s crown. In 
fact, before the 15th cent. St. Caecilia is 
seldom depicted with her musical instruments. 
She has generally the martyr’s palm and the 
crown of red or white roses. When she came 
to be regarded as the patron saint of musicians 
is unknown, nor have we any record of her 
use of instruments of music. The most cele- 
brated representation of St. Caecilia as 
patroness of this art is the picture by Raphael 
(c. A.D. 1513), now in the gallery of Bologna. 

In 1584, in the time of pope Pius V., an 
academy of music was founded at Rome, and 
placed under the tutelage of St. Caecilia. 
Thenceforward she came to be more and more 
regarded as queen of harmony, and Dryden’s 
well-known ode has rendered her familiar to 
us in this character. 

For a more detailed account, we may refer 
to the following: de Vitis Sanctorum, ed. 
Surius (Venice, 1581), tom. vi. p. 161, s.d. 
Nov. 22; Acta Sanctorum, by the Bollandists, 
s.d. April 14, p. 204; Baronitt Annales s. an. 
A.D. 821; Tillemont, vol. iii. pp. 259-689 ; 
S. Caeciliae Acta a Laderchio (Rome, 1722), 
2 vols. 4to, incorporating the work of Bosio, 
with large additions; Sacred and Legendary 
Art, by Mrs. Jameson, 3rd ed. (Lond. 1857), 
pp. 583-600; Ceillier, Histoire des Auteurs 


138 CAECILIANUS 


Sacrés, vol. ii. (Paris, 1859); 5. Cécile, par 
Dom. Guéranger (Paris, 1874). [T.D.c.M.] 

Here may be added the ingenious ex- 
planation, given by bp. Fitzgerald, of how 
St. Caecilia became regarded as the patron 
of music. She is described as steeling her 
heart at her marriage festivities against all the 
allurements to sensual pleasure, and among 
these, special mention is made of the ‘‘ sym- 
phonia instrumentorum ”’ to which she refused 
to hearken; but ‘‘ organis cantantibus die 
nuptiarum ”’ she made melody in her heart to 
God, saying, ‘“‘ May my heart and body be 
undefiled.’’ The necessities of the pictorial 
art demanded that each saint should be 
depicted with an appropriate and distinc- 
tive symbol. Bp. Fitzgerald suggests that 
St. Caecilia was hence represented in early 
pictures with the organ prominent in her 
Acts; and that she was thence imagined to 
be a musician by those who did not under- 
stand that she was only represented with an 
organ as other saints are depicted with the 
instrument of torture by which they suffered. 
We may certainly believe that Dryden’s 
“drew an angel down”’ had its origin in a 
misunderstanding of pictures. The Acts 
relate that on her wedding night she told 
Valerianus that she was under the protection 
of an angel who would punish him if he did 
not respect her chastity, and whom he could 
see for himself if he would be baptized. This 
no doubt is the angel who appears in pictures 
of St. Caecilia, and there is no ground for 
the idea that the angel came down to listen 
to her music. 

Erbes (Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschtchte, ix. 1) 
thinks that the Acts of St. Caecilia are not 
earlier than the end of the 5th cent. They 
not only exhibit a use of St. Augustine’s 
work on the Trinity which appeared in a.p. 
416, but coincidences in language, as well as 
in substance, make it probable that the whole 
story of Caecilia is derived from the story 
of Martinianus and Maxima told by Victor 
Vitensis, I. 30. This would bring down the 
date of the Actstoc.a.p.490. Erbesremarks 
that the original day of commemoration of 
St. Caecilia was Sept. 16: Nov. 22 really 
commemorates the dedication of the church 
of St. Caecilia, which probably took place 
under Sixtus III. between 434 and 440. 
Concerning the neighbourhood of the burial- 
place of St. Caecilia in the catacombs to that 
of certain popes, Erbes holds that in the year 
236 a suitable burial-place was being prepared 
for the body of Pontianus, then brought from 
Sardinia, as well as for that of Anteros who 
had died in Rome, that the site was furnished 
by the Caecilian family, and that in order to 
make room for the two bishops the body of 
Caecilia was moved to an adjacent side 
chamber. As to how Caecilia suffered martyr- 
dom we have no authentic information. [c.s.] 

Caecilianus (2), first archdeacon, then 
(A.D. 311) bp., of Carthage. Of importance 
in connexion with the Donatist controversy. 
When archdeacon, he resolutely supported 
his bishop Mensurius in opposing the fanatical 
craving for martyrdom. The Christianity of 
N. Africa exhibited an extravagance in this 
respect which reached its height after Diocle- 
tian’s persecution. Men courted death that 


CAECILIANUS 


they might be honoured as martyrs and con: 
fessors; some, without doubt, in a spirit — 
which commands our respect, but others in a 
spirit which fostered the supposition that the — 
martyr’s cross would wash away for eternity 
the misery, follies, sins, and crimes of a whole 
life. 

On the death of Mensurius, Caecilian was 
nominated as his successor. The part he had 
taken against the would-be martyrs was then — 
brought up against him. The religious world — 
of Carthage divided itself broadly into two 
sections, the moderate and rigoristic parties, 
or the supporters and opponents of the prin- | 
ciples of Caecilian. At the head of the latter 
was a devout and wealthy lady named 
Lucilla, who had been severely rebuked by 
the archdeacon for superstitious veneration 
for martyrs’ relics. The rigoristic party 
wished to fill the vacant see with one of their 
own followers. Caecilian’s party hastened 
matters, and the archdeacon was consecrated 
by Felix, bp. of Aptunga; whether in the 
presence of any Numidian bishops or not 
seems uncertain. Secundus, primate of 
Numidia and bp. of Tigisis, was presently 
invited to Carthage by the rigoristic party. 
He came, attended by 70 bishops, and cited 
Caecilian before them. Felix of Aptunga was 
denounced as a “traditor’”’ (t.e. one who had 
delivered up the sacred writings in his pos- 
session), and consequently it was claimed that 
any ordination performed by him was invalid. 
Caecilian himself was charged with unneces- 
sary and heartless severity to those who had 
visited the confessors in prison; he was de- 
nounced as a “‘ tyrannus”’ and a “‘ carnifex.”” 
He declined to appear before an assembly so 
prejudiced ; but professed his willingness to 
satisfy them on all personal matters, and 
offered, if right was on their side, to lay down 
his episcopal office, and submit to re-ordina- 
tion. Secundus and the Numidian bishops 
answered by excommunicating him and his 
party, and ordaining as bishop the reader 
Majorinus, a member of Lucilla’s household. 

The church of N. Africa now became a prey 
to schism. The party of Caecilian broke off © 
from that of Majorinus, and the Christian 
world was scandalized by fulminations, ex- 
communications, invectives, charges, and 
countercharges. Both parties confidently an- 
ticipated the support of the state; but Con- 
stantine, now emperor of this part of the 
Roman world, took the side of the Caecilianists. 
In his largesse to the Christians of the province, 
and in his edicts favourable to the church 
there, he expressly stipulated that the party 
of Majorinus should be excluded: their 
views were, in his opinion, the ‘‘ madness”’ of 
men of ‘‘ unsound mind.’ The rigoristic 
party appealed to the justice of the emperor, | — 
and courted full inquiry to be conducted in © 
Gaul—at a distance, that is, from the spot 
where passions and convictions were so strong 
and one-sided. A council met A.D. 313 at 
Rome, in the Lateran, presided over by 
Melchiades (Miltiades), bp. of Rome, who had 
as his assessors the bishops of Cologne, Arles, 
and seventeen others. Caecilian appeared 
with ten bishops; Donatus, bp. of Casae | 
Nigrae, in Numidia, headed the party of | 
Majorinus. The personal charges against 


δ ωΝ 


CAESARIUS 


Caecilian were examined and dismissed, and 
his party proclaimed the representatives of 
the orthodox Catholic church ; Donatus him- 
self was declared to have violated the laws 
of the church, and his followers were to be 
allowed to retain their dignity and office only 
on condition of reunion with Caecilian’s party. 
The bitterness of this decision was modified 
by Caecilian’s friendly proposal of compromise ; 
but his advances were rejected, and the cry 
ofinjustice raised. It was wrong, the rigorists 
pleaded, that the opinion of twenty should 
overrule that of seventy ; and they demanded 
first that imperial commissioners should in- 
vestigate matters at Carthage itself, and that 
then a council should be summoned to examine 
their report, and decide upon its information. 
Constantine met their wish. Jurists went to 
Carthage, collected documents, tabulated the 
statements of witnesses, and laid their report 
before the bishops assembled (a.p. 314) at 
Arles. This council, presided over by Marinus, 
bishop of the see, and composed of about 200 
persons, was the most important ecclesiastical 
assembly the Christian world had yet seen; 
and its decisions have been of permanent value 
tothe church. As regarded Caecilian person- 
ally, the validity of his ordination was con- 
firmed, the charge raised against his conse- 
crator, Felix, being proved baseless; and as 
regarded the general questions debated—such 
as traditorship, its proof or disproof; ordina- 
tion by traditors, when valid or not ; baptism 
and re-baptism—canons of extreme import- 
ance were passed. [ARLES, SYNOD ΟΕ, in 
mac. Α.] 

The temper displayed by the victors was 
not calculated to soothe the conquered ; and 
an appeal was at once made from the council 
to the emperor himself. Constantine was 
irritated ; but, after some delay, ordered the 
discussion of the question before himself per- 
sonally. This occurred at Milan (A.p. 316). 
The emperor confirmed the previous decisions 
of Rome and Arles, and followed up his 
judgment by laws and edicts confiscating the 
goods of the party of Majorinus, depriving 
them of their churches, and threatening to 
punish their rebellion with death. 

From this time the schism in the N. African 
church lost its purely personal aspect, and 
became a stern religious contest on questions 


ofdiscipline. [Donatism.] Caecilian lived to 
δ. A.D. 345. (For authorities, etc., see DoNna- 
TISM.) [J-M.F.] 


Caesarius (2), St., of Nazianzus, physician, 
son of Gregory bp. of Nazianzus, brother of 
St. Gregory of the same place, and youngest 
of the family, born probably c. a.p. 330. His 
death occurred in a.p. 368 or 369. The name 
15 simply a derivative from Caesar, originally 
adopted in compliment to the reigning family. 

Authorities-—The funeral oration by his 
brother, St. Gregory Nazianzen (the 7th, in 
some ed. the roth) ; two letters addressed by 
Gregory to Caesarius and one to the Praeses 
Sophronius (numbered 17, 18, 19, or, more 
commonly, 50, 51, 52), and a few lines in the 
Carmen de Vita Sud of the same. Photius, 
Bibliotheca Cod. 210 (p. 168 ed. Bekker, 
Berolini, 1824). 

Life-—According to the testimony of his 
brother, Caesarius owed much to the careful 


CAESARIUS 139 


training received from his parents. He be- 
took himself to Alexandria, ‘‘ the workshop of 
every sort of education,’’ for better instruc- 
tion in physical science than he could obtain 
in Palestine. There he behaved as a model 
student, being very careful in the matter of 
companionship, and earnest in pursuit of 
knowledge, more especially of geometry and 
astronomy. This last-named _ science he 
studied, says his panegyrist, in such wise as 
to gain the good without the evil—a remark 
readily intelligible to those who are aware 
how deeply a fatalistic astrology was at that 
period associated with the study of astronomy. 

Refusing a post of honour and emolument 
at Byzantium, he came home for a time, but 
returned to the court and was much honoured 
by Julian. There is a slight, but not per- 
haps irreconcilable, discrepancy between the 
funeral oration delivered by Gregory and the 
letter (17 or 51) which Gregory addressed to 
his brother. The oration seems to depict 
Caesarius as from the first spurning all offers 
of Julian, but the letter severely rebukes 
Caesarius for becoming a member of the im- 
perial household, and taking charge of the 
treasury. Such a step iscalled ascandal ina 
bishop’s son, and a great grief to his mother. 
Caesarius, however, finally avowed himself a 
Christian, and broke with Julian. His con- 
duct, together with that of Gregory, caused 
Julian to exclaim, ‘‘Oh happy father! oh 
unhappy sons!’’ Under subsequent emperors, 
more especially under Valens, Caesarius more 
than regained his former honours, and became 
a quaestor of Bithynia. A remarkable escape 
from a terrible earthquake at Nicaea, appar- 
ently δ. A.D. 367 or 368, to which many dis- 
tinguished men fell victims, induced Caesarius, 
at his brother’s suggestion, to arrange for 
retirement from worldly cares. He received 
Baptism, and soon after died. 

The Πύστεις or Quaestiones (sive Dialogt) de 
Rebus Divinis, attributed to this physician, 
may be safely ascribed to some Caesarius. 
But the name was not an uncommon one, and 
some considerations seem to shew that the 
author was not Caesarius of Nazianzus. 
Photius treats the supposed authorship as 
merely a current unexamined tradition, and 
the book refers to Maximus, who lived sub- 
sequently. j-G.C.] 

Caesarius (3), St., sometimes called of Chalons 
(Cabillonensis seu Cabellinensts) from his birth- 
place Chdalons-sur-Sa6ne; but more usually 
known as Caesarius of Arles (Avelatensis) from 
his see, which he occupied for forty years. He 
was certainly the foremost ecclesiastic in the 
Gaul of his own age. The date of his birth 
lies between A.p. 468 and 470; the date of his 
death is Aug. 27, 542. 

Authorities—(1) The biography, written by 
his admiring: disciple, St. Cyprian, bp. of 
Toulon (Tolonensis) with the aid of other 
ecclesiastics (ed. by d’Achery and Mabillon 
in the Acta Sanctorum Ord. S. Benedicti, Venet. 
1733, tom. i. p. 636, et sqq., also in the Bol- 
landists’ Acta Sanctorum under date of Aug. 
27). (2) His will, first published by Baronius 
(Annal. tom. vi. ad ann. 508) from archives 
preserved at Arles; also given by Surius, 
l.c.; a document of some interest for the 
student of Roman law, but thought by 


140 CAESARIUS 


Brugsch (archives of the Society of Ancient 
History) to be a forgery of Hincmar of Rheims. 
(3) Acts of various councils, over all of which 
Caesarius presided (Labbe, Concilia, tom. ii. 
PP- 995-1098, ed. Parisiis, 1714). (4) The 
Regula ad Monachos and Regula ad Virgines, 
drawn up by him for a monastery and a con- 
vent of his own foundation (ed. by Holstenius 
in his Codex Regularum, and by P. de Cointe 
in his Annales Ecclesiastict Francorum). Tri- 
themius, fixing the date of Caesarius much 
too late, fell into the error of supposing him 
to be a Benedictine. (5) His sermons. Of 
these 40 were pubd. at Basle in 1558; 46 in 
a Bibliotheca Patrum, ed. at Leyden in 1677 ; 
14 more in another Bibl. Patr. of Gallandi, 
Venice 1776 (cf. Oudin in Comment. de Script. 
Eccles. vol. i. p. 1339); and 102, formerly 
ascribed to St. Augustine, are by the Bene- 
dictine editors assigned to Caesarius (Appen- 
dix to tom. v. of the works of St. Augustine). 
Others have been separately pubd. by Baluz ; 
but Neander justly remarks that a complete 
collection of his sermons, conveying so much 
important information respecting the charac- 
ter of Caesarius and his times, still remains a 
desideratum (Church Hist. vol. v. p. 4, note). 
Cf. also A. Malnory, St. Césatre, évéque d’ Arles 
(Paris, 1894); Arnold, Cesarius von Arelate, 
(Leipz. 1894). 

Life.—Caesarius was born at Chalons of 
pious parents. His sister Caesaria afterwards 
presided over the convent which he founded, 
and to her he addressed his Regula ad Virgines. 
At the age of thirteen he betook himself to 
the famous monastery of Lerins (Lerinum), 
where he rapidly became master of all which 
the learning and discipline of the place could 
impart. Having injured his health by 
austerities, he was sent to Arles (Arelate) to 
recruit. There the bp. Eonus, having made 
his acquaintance, ordained him deacon and 
then presbyter. For three years he presided 
over a monastery in Arles ; but of this building 
no vestige is now left. 

At the death of Eonus the clergy, citizens, 
and persons in authority proceeded, as Eonus 
himself had suggested, to elect Caesarius, 
sincerely against his own wish, to the vacant 
see. He was consecrated in A.D. 502, being 
probably about 33 years of age. In the fulfil- 
ment of his new duties he was courageous and 
unworldly, but yet exhibited great power of 
kindly adaptation. He took great pains to 
induce the laity to join in the sacred offices, 
and encouraged inquiry into points not made 
clear in his sermons. He also bade them 
study Holy Scripture at home, and treat the 
word of God with the same reverence as the 
sacraments. He was specially zealous in 
redeeming captives, even selling church 
ornaments for this purpose. 

A notary named Licinianus accused Caesar- 
ius to Alaric as one who desired to subjugate 
the civitas of Arles to the Burgundian rule. 
Caesarius was exiled to Bordeaux, but was 
speedily, on the discovery of his innocence, 
allowed to return. He interceded for the life 
of his calumniator. Later, when Arles was 
besieged by Theodoric, apparently c. a.D. 512, 
he was again accused of treachery and im- 
prisoned. An interview with the Ostrogothic 
king at Ravenna in A.D. 513 speedily dispelled 


CAESARIUS 


these troubles, and the remainder of his epi 
copate was passed in peace. 
The directions of Caesarius for the conduct — 
of monks and nuns have been censured as | 
pedantic and minute. They certainly yielded 1] 


to the spread of the rising Benedictine rule, 4: 
τ 


but must be judged by their age and in the 
light of the whole spirit of monasticism. 

As the occupant of an important see, the 
bishop of Arles exercised considerable influ- 
ence, Official as well as personal. 
was ‘liberal in the loan of sermons, and sent 
suggestions for discourses to priests and even 
bishops living in Spain, Italy, Gaul, and 
France (t.e. the province known as the Isle 
of France). The great doctrinal question of 
his age and country was that of semi-Pelagian- 
ism. Caesarius, though evidently a disciple 
of St. Augustine, displayed in this respect 
considerable independence of thought. His 
vigorous denial of anything like predestination 
to evil has caused a difference in the honour 
paid to hismemory, according as writers incline 
respectively towards the Jesuit or Jansenist 
views concerning divine grace. 

The most important local council over which 
Caesarius presided was that of Orange. Its 
statements on the subject of grace and free 
agency have been justly eulogized by modern 
historians (see, e.g., Canon Bright’s Church 
History, ch. xi. ad fin.). The following pro- 
positions are laid down in canon 25: ‘‘ This 
also do we believe, in accordance with the 
Catholic faith, that after grace received 
through baptism, all the baptized are able 
and ought, with the aid and co-operation of 
Christ, to fulfil all duties needful for salvation, 
provided they are willing to labour faithfully. 
But that some men have been predestinated 
to evil by divine power, we not only do not 
believe, but if there be those who are willing 
to believe so evil a thing, we say to them with 
all abhorrence anathema. This also do we 
profess and believe to our soul’s health, that 
in every good work, it is not we who begin, 
and are afterwards assisted by Divine mercy, 
but that God Himself, with no preceding 
merits on our part, first inspires within us 
faith and love.’”’ On the express ground that 
these doctrines are as needful for the laity as 
for the clergy, certain distinguished laymen 
(illustres ac magnifict virt) were invited to 
sign these canons. They are accordingly sub- 
scribed by 8 laymen, and at least 12 bishops, 
including Caesarius. [PELAGIANISM.] 

As a preacher, Caesarius displayed great 
knowledge of Holy Scripture, and was emin- 
ently practical in his exhortations. 
reproving ordinary vices of humanity, he had 
often to contend against lingering pagan 
superstitions, as auguries, heathen rites on 
the calends, etc. Hissermons on O.T. are not 
critical, but dwell on its typical aspects. 

Some rivalry appears to have existed in 
the 6th cent. between the sees of Arles and 
Vienne, but was adjusted by pope Leo, whose 
adjustment was confirmed by Symmachus. 
Caesarius was in favour at Rome. A book 
he wrote against the semi-Pelagians, entitled 
de Gratid et Libero Arbitrio, was sanctioned by 
pope Felix ; and the canons passed at Orange 
were approved by Boniface II. The learned 
antiquary Thomassin believed him to have 


Caesarius — 


Besides | 


ee ee 


.......ὕ...------------------Ο-------ὄ.... 


CAESARIUS 


been the first Western bishop who received 
a pall from the pope. Guizot, in his Civilisa- 


tion en Franve, cites part of one of his sermons 


as that of a representative man; while 
Neandec has nothing but eulogy for his *‘ un- 
wearied, active, and pious zeal, ready for 
every sacrifice in the spirit of love,’’ and his 
moderation on the controversy concerning 
semi-Pelagianism. This is indeed the great 
glory of Caesarius. He more than anticipates 
the famous picture drawn by Chaucer of a 
teacher, earnest, sincere, and humble, but 
never sparing reproof where needed. [1.6.0.] 

Caesarius (7). Among the works attributed 
to Chrysostom is a treatise entitled ad Caesar- 
tum Monachum Epistola contra A pollinartstas. 
We only possess it in a Latin translation, 
though a few fragments of the Greek original 
are found in Anastasius and John Damascene 
and elsewhere. This tract, the literary 
history of which is very curious, is of disputed 
authenticity. If it is genuine, Caesarius had 
embraced a religious life from his childhood 
and become a monk; his piety had secured 
Chrysostom’s affection, and at one time he 
had lived with him. Meeting with some 
Apollinarists, he purchased a book by Apolli- 
narius which led him eagerly to embrace 
those views. The intelligence caused great 
grief to Chrysostom, then in exile at Cucusus, 
who sent him this letter to refute the Apolli- 
narian heresy. It contains a _ celebrated 
passage illlustrating the doctrine of the two 
distinct natures in the one person of Jesus 
Christ by reference to the holy Eucharist, in 
which he speaks of the nature of bread as 
remaining in that which by the sanctifying 
grace of God is freed from the appellation of 
bread and thought worthy to be called the 
body of the Lord. This passage was adduced 
in controversy about the year 1548 by Peter 
Martyr, who deposited a transcript of it in 
archbp. Cranmer’s library. After Cranmer’s 
death this document was lost, and Martyr 
was accused of having forged it (Perron, de 
P Euchar. 381-3). His reputation was cleared 
by the rediscovery by Emeric Bigot, in a 
Florentine library, of doubtless the very MS. 
which Martyr, himself a Florentine, had used. 
Bigot in 1680 printed the epistle with Palla- 
dius’s Life of Chrysostom.» Previous to pub- 
lication, through the influence of two censors 
of the Sorbonne, Louis XIV. ordered the 
leaves containing the letter to be cancelled. 
For an account of the mutilation see Mend- 
ham’s Index of Pope Gregory X VI. xxxii.-xxxiv. 
But Bigot having made known his discovery 
to literary friends, Allix (preface to Anastasius 
in Hexaemeron, 1682) protested against the 
Suppression, and the cancelled leaves were 
a? by le Moyne, Varia Sacra, 1685, by 

ake, 1686, and by Basnage, 1687. The 
Jesuit Harduin published the epistle in 1689, 
accepting it as Chrysostom’s, and vindicating 
the consistency of its doctrine with that of 
his church. It is accepted as genuine by 
Tillemont and Du Pin. The genuineness was 
first assailed by Le Quien (1712) in the preface 
to his edition of John of Damascus, and his 
arguments were adopted and enlarged by 
Montfaucon. Maffei found a Greek fragment 
also at Florence, professing to be from Chry- 
sostom, the first sentence of which is identical 


CAIUS 141 


with one in this letter, but proceeding to illus- 
trate its doctrine by two similes not found 
in the Latin. The extract was printed by 
Basnage in Canisius’s Lectiones Antiquae 
(Antwerp, 1725), pp. 283-287. The second 
paragraph may be taken from a different work, 
but the MS. gives no indication of a change 
of author. Perhaps the Latin does not re- 
present the whole of the letter. Against the 
genuineness it is urged that Caesarius is not 
mentioned elsewhere by Chrysostom, though 
the letter implies that they had been intimate 
from youth ; that the style (if so little of the 
Greek allows us to judge) is rugged and abrupt, 
and the tone more scholastic than is common 
with Chrysostom; that the earliest Greek 
author who quotes it as Chrysostom’s is of 
the 7th cent., though we should expect it to 
have been used in the Eutychian disputes, 
and quoted in the Acts of the 4th, 5th, and 
6th councils. Le Quien also urged that lan- 
guage is used which is not heard of until 
employed by Cyril of Alexandria in contro- 
versy with Nestorius. Montfaucon, however, 
has produced precedents for much of this 
language from Athanasius, and has clearly 
proved that the letter was directed not against 
Eutychianism, but against Apollinarianism ; 
and with much probability he identifies the 
work assailed with a work of Apollinarius 
quoted by Eulogius (ap. Photium, Cod. 230, 
p- 849). This being so, we are more inclined 
to accept the letter as written while the 
Apollinarian disputes were raging than, as 
Montfaucon conjectures, forged a century or 
two afterwards for use in the Eutychian 
controversy, since one of the arguments 
against its genuineness is that there is no 
evidence that it ever was so used. On the 
controversy as to the genuineness, see the 
authorities referred to by Fabricius, Bzbl. 
Gyr., ed. Harles, i. 699; Chrys. 111. 747-760, 
and xiii. 496, ed. Migne; ili. 736-746, ed. Mont- 
faucon ; Tillemont, vii. 629, and xi. 340-343 ; 
Routh, Opuscula, 11. (479-488). [E.v-] 

Cainites. [CARPocRATES.] 

Caius (2), an ecclesiastical writer at the 
beginning of the 3rd cent., according to late 
authority, a presbyter of the Roman church. 
Eusebius mentions but one work of his, to 
which he refers four times (H. E. ii. 25, 11]. 
28, 31, vi. 20), and from which he gives some 
short extracts. This was a dialogue pur- 
porting to be a report of a disputation held 
at Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus 
(A.D. 201-219) between Caius and Proclus, a 
leader of the sect of Montanists. [PRoctus.] 

This dialogue is mentioned by the following 
writers, who may, however, have only known 
it from the account given by Eusebius :— 
Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 59 ; Theod. Haer. Fab. ii. 
3; iii. 2, where the present text, doubtless 
by a transcriber’s error, reads Patroclus in- 
stead of Proclus (Niceph. Call. H. Ε. iv. 12, 
20; Photius, Bibl. 48). Only the last of these 
attributes any other work to Caius. Theo- 
doret says that he wrote against Cerinthus, 
but is probably referring to a part of the 
dialogue in question. 

In the short fragments preserved, Proclus 
defends the prophesyings of his sect by appeal- 
ing to the four daughters of Philip, who with 
their father were buried at Hierapolis; Caius, 


142 CAIUS 


on the other hand, offers to shew his anta- 
gonist at the Vatican and on the Appian Way 
the tombs of the apostles ‘‘ who founded this 
church.”? That Caius should have conducted 
a disputation at Rome does not of itself prove 
that he, any more than Proclus, permanently 
resided there. Yet the expression cited con- 
veys the impression that he did; and Eusebius 
was apparently of that opinion, for elsewhere 
(vi. 20), having mentioned that Caius only 
counted St. Paul’s epistles as thirteen, omit- 
ting that to the Hebrews, he adds that even in 
his own time ‘‘ some of the Romans ”’ did not 
ascribe that epistle to the apostle. It is just 
possible that we are still in possession of 
the list of genuine apostolic writings which 
Eusebius (l.c.) intimates that Caius gave, in 
order to rebuke the rashness of his opponents 
in framing new Scriptures. Muratori attri- 
buted to Caius the celebrated fragment on 
the canon published by him, which concludes 
with a rejection of Montanist documents. 
[MURATORIAN FRAGMENT.] But it is difficult 
to believe that if this were the list referred 
to by Eusebius, he would not have quoted it 
more fully. Among the heretical writings 
rejected by Caius was a book of Revelations 
(Eus. ii. 25) purporting to be written by a 
great apostle and ascribed by Caius to Cerin- 
thus, in which the author professes to have 
been shewn by angels that after the resurrec- 
tion Christ’s kingdom should be earthly, that 
men should inhabit Jerusalem, should be the 
slaves of lusts and pleasures, and should spend 
a thousand years in marriage festivities. The 
strongest reason for thinking that the book 
intended is the canonical book of the Revela- 
tion is that Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. 
vii. 25) asserts that some of his predecessors 
had maintained that the Apocalypse is the 
work of Cerinthus, and describes their views 
in language strongly resembling that of Caius. 
There had been much speculation respect- 
ing Caius himself (s.v. D. C. B. 4-vol. ed.) ; and 
Lightfoot, in his Apostolic Fathers (Clement of 
Rome, vol. ii. p. 377), questions his existence. 
But Dr. Gwynn, of Dublin, pub. in Herma- 
thena VI. some fragments of Capita adv. 
Caium, written by Hippolytus, which he had 
discovered in Cod. Mus. Brit. Orient. 560. 
These passages shew that he had attacked 
the Apocalypse of St. John, and treated the 
book as inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures. 
Harnack (Herzog.3) thinks it not improbable 
that he had treated the Apocalypse as a work 
of Cerinthus ; and as he would be at one in 
this opinion with the Alogi of Asia Minor, a 
connexion between him and them may be 
supposed. Nothing more is known with 
certainty of him (cf. Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. 
Kanons, ii. 985 seq.). [G.S. AND ED.] 
Caius (3). Pope from Dec. 17 (16 ?) a.pD. 283 
(9 or τὸ days after the death of his predecessor 
Eutychianus), to Apr. 22, A.D. 296, 7.6. for 
12 years 4 months 1 week (Pontifical, Bucher, 
p-. 272), but only for 11 years according to 
Anastasius (c. 24) and to most Latins, and for 
15 years according to Eusebius, who speaks of 
him as a contemporary (H. E. vii. 32 ; Chron. 
284). He is probably the same as Caius the 
deacon, imprisoned with pope Stephen, a.p. 
257 (Anastas. c. 24). Just as he was raised to 
the chair, the stern old Roman Carus died 


CALANDIO 


mysteriously in a thunderstorm in the East, 
and his profligate son Carinus succeeded to 
the empire at Rome. These events would © 
seem to make a persecution, such as is assigned _ 
to this period by various martyr Acts, not in | 
itself improbable, and though the Acts in — 
question are untrustworthy (see Tillemont, — 
iv. 565), we are hardly justified in taking © 
Eusebius for a witness to the contrary, as 
far as concerns the West. The probability 
is confirmed by the delay of the funeral of 
Eutychianus till July 25, 284 (v. Rossi, ii, — 
378). The persecution is not represented as 
general, but as aimed at a few obnoxious de- 
votees, and Caius does not appear as leading, 
accompanying, or inciting them, but only as 
exercising a fatherly supervision. Probably — 
the persecution continued for some time under — 
Diocletian. The early Pontifical, as well as — 
Anastasius, makes Caius of Dalmatian origin 
and cousin to this emperor. The Acts of St. 
Susanna confirm this, but are untrustworthy 
(Till. iv. 760). Caius is said in the early Pon- 
tifical to have avoided persecution by hiding 
in the crypts. During his latter years the 
Church must have enjoyed peace. He is said 
by Anastasius to have established the 6 orders 
of usher, reader, exorcist, subdeacon, deacon, 
and presbyter, as preliminary stages necessary 
before attaining the episcopate, and also to 
have divided Rome into regions assigned to 
the deacons. He is said to have sent Protus 
and Januarius on a mission to Sardinia (Mart. 
Rom. Baron. Oct. 25). He died in peace 
according to the 6th-cent. Pontifical, and is 
not called a martyr by any one earlier than 
Bede and Anastasius. He was succeeded by 
Marcellinus. A decretal is ascribed to him. 
From a confusion between the calends of 
March and of May in the Mart. Hieron., © 
Rabanus assigns his death, and Notker his © 
burial, to Feb. 20 (Rossi, 11. 104). His com- 
memoration on July 1 in the Mart. Hieron. is 
unexplained (7b. p. 105). He was the last of 
the 12 popes buried in the crypt of Sixtus, in 
the cemetery of Callistus (7b. p. 105). Heis © 
therefore mentioned again, Aug. 9, at which | 
date a copy of the inscription set up by Sixtus 
111. was placed in the margin of the ancient 
martyrology (1b. pp. 33-46). [E.B.B.] 
Calandio or Calendio (Κι αλανδίων), succeeded — 
Stephen 11. as bp. of Antioch, a.p. 481. He 
owed his promotion to the episcopate to the 
emperor Zeno and Acacius, bp. of Constanti- 
nople; but the exact circumstances of his 
appointment are uncertain. There is a large 
body of evidence (not, however, to be admitted 
without grave question) that Calandio’s elec- 
tion was of the same uncanonical character as 
that of his predecessor in the see [STEPHEN 
II.]; and that being at Constantinople on 
business connected with the church of Antioch 
at the time of the vacancy of the see, he was 
chosen bishop, and ordained by Acacius; but 
the letter of pope Simplicius to Acacius, dated 
July 15, a.p. 482, conveying his sanction of 
Calandio’s election (Labbe, Conc. iv. 1035), 
suggests a possible confusion between the 
election of Calandio and of Stephen II. 
Calandio commenced his episcopate by 
excommunicating his theological opponents. 
He refused communion with all who declined ἢ 
to anathematize Peter the Fuller, Timothy | 


CALLIGONUS 


the Weasel, and the Encyclic of Basiliscus 
condemning the decisions of the council of 
Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. iii. 10; Niceph. ἢ. E. 
xy. 28). He is reported to have endeavoured 
to counteract the Monophysite bias given to 
the Trisagion by Peter the Fuller in the 
addition of the words 6 σταυρωθεὶς δὲ ἡμᾶς, by 
prefixing the clause Χριστὲ Βασιλεῦ (Theod. 
Lector. p. 556 B.) Calandio translated the 
remains of Eustathius, the banished bp. of 
Antioch, with the permission of Zeno, from 
Philippi in Macedonia, where he had died, to 
his own city—a tardy recognition of the 
falsehood of the charges against Eustathius, 
which had the happy result of reuniting to 
the church the remains of the party that still 
called itself by his name (Theod. Lector. 
. 577; Theophanes, p. 114). Calandio fell 
into disfavour and was banished by the Em- 
peror Zeno, at the instigation of Acacius, to 
the African Oasis, A.p. 485, where, probably, 
he died. The charge against him was that of 
having erased from the diptychs the name 
of Zeno, as the author of the Henoticon ; and 
of having favoured Illus and Leontius in their 
rebellion, A.D. 484. But the real cause of his 
deposition was the theological animosity of 
Acacius, whom he had offended by writing a 
letter to Zeno accusing Peter Mongus of adul- 
tery, and of having anathematized the decrees 
of the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. ii. 
16; Liberatus Diaconus, Breviar. c. xviii. ; 
Gelasius, Ep. xiii. ad Dardan. Episc.; Labbe, 
iv. 1208-1209, xv. ad Episc. Orient. ib. 1217). 
On his deposition, the victorious Peter the 
Fuller was recalled to occupy the see of 
Antioch. [Ε-ν. 
Calligonus, eunuch and chamberlain to 
Valentinian II., insulted Ambrose, A.D. 385 
(Ambr. Ep. xx. (1), iii. p. 859). He conveyed 
a message, or reported a saying, of the em- 
peror’s, and added, “‘ While I am alive, dost 
thou contemn Valentinian? I will remove 
thy head from off thee.’’ Ambrose answered, 
“God grant thee to fulfil thy threat ; for I 
shall suffer what bishops suffer, and thou wilt 
do what eunuchs do. And would that God 
would avert them from the church, that they 
might turn all their weapons on me.”’ Calli- 
gonus was afterwards put to death on a 
uliarly infamous charge (Augustine, contra 
ulianum, vi. 14, vol. x. 845). Tillemont 
(x. 175) supposes that these events were in 
the mind of Ambrose when he wrote the 6th 
chapter of his book on Joseph. This is very 
robable, but the further inference that that 
ook was written two years later seems wholly 
erroneous. The event that occurred after two 
ears was the usurpation of Maximus. It 
is possible that Ambrose encountered two 
eunuchs. Cf. also de Broglie, l’Eglise et 
VEmpire, vi. 173. [E.B.B.] 
Callistus (1) (i. q. formosissimus; later 
spelt Calistus, but Calixtus first in 11th cent., 
Bunsen’s Hippolytus, i. 131, note), the suc- 
cessor of pope Zephyrinus in A.p. 218, said to 
have been a Roman, and the son of Domitius. 
Nothing was known of Callistus, except that 
the Martyrologium Romanum contained a 
tradition of his martyrdom, till the discovery 
of the Philosophumena in 1850. This work, 
which first appeared under the name of 
Origen, but is now ascribed to Hippolytus, 


CALLISTUS 143 


almost certainly the contemporary bp. of 
Portus, gives an account of the life of Callistus 
which is scarcely credible respecting one of 
the bishops of Rome, who had before been 
honoured as a saint and martyr. According- 
ly, much controversy has sprung up round the 
names of Callistus and Hippolytus. If Hippo- 
lytus is to be believed, Callistus was an 
unprincipled adventurer ; if Callistus can be 
defended, grave doubt is thrown upon the 
veracity of Hippolytus. Bunsen and Words- 
worth adopt the former view; D6llinger the 
latter, in an ingenious treatise translated by 
Dr. Plummer (T. & T. Clark, 1876). The 
story as told by Hippolytus is lifelike and 
natural, and, however much we may allow 
for personal rancour, we cannot but believe 
it to be substantially true. 

He tells us that Callistus was originally a 
slave in the household of a rich Christian called 
Carpophorus. His master intrusted to his 
charge a bank in the Piscina Publica, where 
Callistus induced his fellow-Christians to 
deposit their savings upon the security of the 
name of Carpophorus. The bank broke, and 
Callistus fled, but Carpophorus tracked him 
to Portus, and found him on board an out- 
ward-bound ship. The slave threw himself 
overboard in despair, but was picked up, and 
delivered to his master, who brought him 
back and put him to the pistvinum, or mill 
worked by the lowest slaves, for a punishment. 
After a time, however, he was set at liberty, 
and again attempted suicide, and for this 
purpose raised a riot in a synagogue of the 
Jews. By them he was brought before 
Fuscianus, the praefectus urbi, who, in spite 
of the fact that Carpophorus claimed him as 
his slave, condemned him, as a disturber of 
public worship allowed by the Roman laws, 
to be sent to the mines of Sardinia (Philoso- 
phumena, ed. Miller, pp. 286, 287). 

His supposed desire for death certainly 
seems an inadequate motive for raising the 
riot in the Jewish synagogue. Dd6llinger 
supposes that, while claiming his debts at the 
hands of members of the Jewish synagogue, 
his zeal for religion impelled him to bear 
witness for Christ, and that thus his exile to 
Sardinia was a species of martyrdom for 
Christianity (D6llinger, Hippolytus u. Kallis- 
tus, p. 119). The date of his exile is proxi- 
mately fixed, since Fuscianus served the office 
of praefectus urbi between a.p. 188 and A.D. 
193 (Bunsen’s Hippolytus, i. 138). Some time 
after, proceeds Hippolytus, Marcia, the 
Christian mistress of CommMopwvs, persuaded 
the emperor to grant an amnesty to Christians 
undergoing punishment in Sardinia; and 
Callistus, at his own entreaty, was released, 
although his name was not on the list (supplied 
by the then bp. Victor) of those intended to 
benefit by Marcia’s clemency. Callistus re- 
appeared in Kome, much to the annoyance of 
Victor, for the outrage on the synagogue was 
recent and notorious. He therefore sent him 
to Antium, making him a small monthly 
allowance (Philosophumena, p. 288). Milman 
dates this c. A.D. 190, in the very year of 
Victor’s accession (Lat. Christ. i. 55, note). 

That Carpophorus’s runaway slave should 
be of such importance that the pope should 
buy him off with an allowance, and insist upon 


144 CALLISTUS 


his residing at a distance, shews that Callistus 
was already thought to be no ordinary man. 
He must have resided at Antium for a long 
time; for Zephyrinus, who did not succeed 
Victor till A.D. 202, recalled him. The new 
bishop ‘‘ gave him the control of the clergy, 


CAPRASIUS 


proclaim a heresy quite as deadly as thal 
other. If he is to be believed, he is right in © 
thus characterizing it. The Father and the — 
Son, Callistianism said, were one; together — 
they made the Spirit, which Spirit took flesh — 
in the womb of the Virgin. 


and set him over the cemetery ”’ (Phil. p. 288). 
This suggests that Callistus had been ordained 
at Antium; and the words ‘“‘set him over the 
cemetery’’ (εἰς τὸ κοιμητήριον κατέστησεν) 
have a special interest ; for one of the largest 
catacombs in Rome is known as the Coe- 
meterium Sti. Calixti. That this should have 
been intrusted to the same man to whom also 
was given the control of the clergy proves 
what a high value was set upon this first 
public burial-place of the Christians in Rome. 
Thirteen out of the next eighteen popes are 
said to have been buried here ; and the names 
of seven of the thirteen (Callistus himself 
being one of the exceptions) have been 
identified from old inscriptions found in one 
crypt of this cemetery. 

Now (A.D. 202) for the first time Callistus 
became a power in the Roman church. To 
Hippolytus, who held a double position in 
that church [H1ppotytus], he became especi- 
ally obnoxious. Being set over the Roman 
clergy, he was over Hippolytus, who was the 
presbyter of one of the Roman cardines or 
churches ; but as a presbyter himself, he was 
inferior ecclesiastically to one who was also 
the bp. of Portus. Hippolytus claims to have 
detected Callistus’s double-dealing from the 
first; but tells us that Callistus, aspiring to 
be bp. of Rome himself, would break openly 
with neither party. The question which now 
divided the church was that of the Monarchia, 
or how to reconcile the sovereignty of the 
Father with the Godhead of the Son. Cal- 
listus, who had obtained a complete ascend- 
ancy over the mind of Zephyrinus, according 
to Hippolytus an ignorant and venal man, 
took care to use language now agreeing with 
the Sabellians, now with Hippolytus. But 
he personally sided with Sabellius, called 
Hippolytus a Ditheist, and persuaded Sabel- 
lius, who might otherwise have gone right, to 
coalesce with the Monarchians. His motive, 
says Hippolytus, was that there might be two 
parties in the church which he could play off 
against each other, continuing on friendly 
terms with both (Phil. p. 280). 

We find from Tertullian that Zephyrinus 
began, no doubt under Callistus’s influence, 
the relaxation of discipline which he himself 
afterwards carried further when he became 
bishop. Under Zephyrinus the practice first 
obtained of allowing adulterers to be re- 
admitted after public penance (de Pudicitid, 
i. 21; DOllinger, pp. 126-130). Zephyrinus 
died in a.p. 218, and Callistus was elected 
bishop instead; and Hippolytus does not 
scruple to avow that by this act the Roman 
church had formally committed itself to 
heresy. He regards his own as the orthodox 
church, in opposition to what he henceforth 
considers as only being the Callistian sect 
(Phil. pp. 289, 292). Yet the first act 
apparently of Callistus as bishop was towards 
conciliating his rival. He threw off, perhaps 
actually excommunicated (ἀπέωσε), Sabellius. 
But he only did this, says Hippolytus, to 


Hippolytus indignantly, is as Patripassian as 

Sabellius, for he makes the Father suffer with 

the Son, if not as the Son (2b. pp. 289-330). 
Hippolytus brings against him several other 


grave accusations of further relaxing the bonds ~ 
of church discipline (1b. pp. 290, 291)—eg. — 


(1) He relaxed the terms of readmission into 
the church: accounting no sin so deadly as to 


be incapable of readmission, and not exacting 


penance as a necessary preliminary. (2) He 


relaxed the terms of admission into orders, 


ordaining even those who had been twice or 
thrice married ; and permitting men already 
ordained to marry freely. (3) He also re- 


laxed the marriage laws of the church, thereby 


bringing them into conflict with those of the 
state; and Hippolytus says that a general 
immorality was the consequence. D6llinger, 
however, pertinently observes that Hippolytus 


does not even hint a charge of personal im- 


morality against Callistus (Ddéllinger, Hippo- 
lytus und Kallistus, p. 195). (4) He allowed 
second baptisms, which perhaps means that 
a repetition of baptism was substituted for 
the penance which had been necessary at the 
readmission of grievous sinners into the 
church. This is the only accusation which 
D6llinger meets with a distinct contradiction, 
on the ground that no such practice was known 
in the later Roman church (p. 189). 
surely is not as inconceivable as it seemed to 
him that later bishops of Rome might have 
reversed the acts of their predecessor. 


Callistus is said to have died in A.D. 223 © 


(Eus. H. E. vi. 20). Tradition tells us that 
he was scourged in a popular rising, thrown 
out of a window of his house in Trastevere, 
and flung into a well. This would account for 
no epitaph being found to Callistus in the 
papal crypt of his own cemetery in the cata- 
combs. E. Rolffs, in Texte und Untersuch. 
(1893), xi. 3; P. Battifol, Le Décret de Callist. 
in Etudes d’ Hist. et de Théol. (Paris, 1902), pp. 
69 seq. [G.H.M.] 
Caprasius (2), St., presbyter at Lérins (I’Isle 
de St. Honorat). Having a great desire to 
become a hermit, he distributed his goods to 
the poor and with St. Honoratus ultimately 
fixed on the isle of Lérins, described as a 
frightful desert where nothing was to be seen 
but serpents and other venomous creatures. 
There Honoratus built a monastery, into 
which he received many monks from the 
neighbouring countries. It was under the 
discipline of Caprasius and Honoratus, who 
are said to have made it the home of saints. 
Hilarius describes their new monastery as 
being distinguished for chastity, faith, wisdom, 
justice, truth. They also built in the island 
a church, of which Honoratus became minister. 
Caprasius died c. 430, and is commemorated 
on June 1. (Acta Sanctorum, Jun. 1, p. 77; 
Hilar. Arelat. de Vita 5. Honoratt, cap. ii. Patr. 
Lat.1.p. 1255; Eucherius Lugd. de Laud. Eremt, 
42, Patr. Lat.1. p. 711 ; Sidonius Apoll Carm. 
§ 384, Patr. Lat. \viii. p. 721; Ceillier, Hist. des 
Auteurs Sacrés et Ecclés. t. viii. p. 439.) [C-H.] 


Callistus, says : 


Yet it | 


; 
Ϊ 


᾿. 


CAPREOLUS 


Capreolus, bp. of Carthage, known in con- 
nexion with the council of Ephesus, A.p. 431. 
N. Africa at that time being ravaged by the 
Vandals under Genseric, it was impossible to 
convene the bishops to appoint representatives 
from the church of Carthage at the council. 
The bishop, however, in his zeal for the 
eatholic doctrine, dispatched an elaborate 
letter in its defence, which is extant, both in 
Greek and Latin. There is also extant an- 
other letter by Capreolus on this controversy, 
written in answer to inquiries addressed to 
him from Spain, by Vitalis and Constantius. 
Both letters are in Migne, vol. 111]. p. 843. 
Also a fragment of the letter which he 
addressed to Theodosius, who convoked the 
council, is quoted by Ferrandus in his letter 
to Pelagius and Anatolius, c. 6, Patr. Migne, 
Ixvii. 925. The Sermo de Tempore Barbarico, 
on the Vandal invasion of Africa, usually 
attributed to St. Augustine, and other ser- 
mons in which Augustine describes the Vandal 
ravages, are considered by Tillemont (xvi. 502) 
to have been written by Capreolus (Hardouin, 
i. 1419-1422; Fleury, xxv. 41; Till. xii. 559, 
xiii. gor, xiv. 376, 399, XVI. 495, 502, 7869), 
but this is doubtful. [D.B.] 

Tillemont supposes Capreolus to have suc- 
ceeded to the see of Carthage shortly before 
the death of Augustine (430), as the letter 
convoking the council of Ephesus seems to 
have been addressed to him and to Augustine 
(xii. 559). Another object of his letter to 
Ephesus was to implore the council not to re- 
open the question of the Pelagian heresy. 
When his letter was read, Cyril and all the 
bishops exclaimed, ‘‘ That is what we all say ; 
that is what we all wish,’’ and they ordered it 
to be inserted in the Acts of the council (Vine. 
Lerin. c. 31; Labbe, Cone. 111. 529). He is 
probably the “ priest’’ in Africa in the time 
of Aspar, mentioned in the Book of Promises, 
ascribed to Prosper (i. 4, c. 6). 

It is instructive to note the importance 
that he attaches to the descent of the God-man 
into Hades. Chaps. 5-12 are taken up with 
answering the new error. He quotes Ps. xvi. 
mon yponn x. 18; I. Cor. ii. 7, 8 ; 11. Cor. v. 18, 
ἘΠ ΟΡΟῚ. 2, 3; (ΟἹ. 11. 15; Heb. x. 28-30; 
John xx. 17. He does not quote John xvi. 
32, but says (c. 13) that it would be endless to 
adduce all scripture testimonies. His answer 
to the argument from Ps. xxii. 1 is drawn from 
the latter half of the verse (as it is in the 
LXX and Vulgate, which are not improbably 
right), ‘‘ Far from my health are the words of 
my failings,” and based on the mystery of the 
union of the two natures, “‘ that human con- 
dition should know itself ’’ (c. 5). 

The death of Capreolus is generally dated 
δ. A.D. 435. His burial was commemorated 
in the calendar of Carthage between July 21 
and 30; the note of the day is lost. [r.B.B.] 

Caracalla, the nickname of M. Aurelius 
Severus Antoninus Bassianus, son of Lucius 
Septimius Severus, born April 4, 188, declared 
Caesar A.D. 196, three years after his father’s 
accession ; succeeded to the empire in con- 
junction with his brother Geta, Feb. 211, sole 
emperor after slaying his brother in his 
mother’s arms A.D. 212, in Gaul 213, in Ger- 
many and on the Danube 214, at Antioch and 
Alexandria 215, marched against Parthia 216, 


CARACALLA 145 


killed on the way from Edessa to Carrhae, 
April 8, 217. His mother, according to con- 
temporary authorities, was Julia, a Syrian 
woman, whom Severus had married because 
of certain prophecies. Spartianus, in the 
time of Constantine, assures us that Julia was 
his stepmother, and that his mother was 
Severus’s first wife Marcia. This would make 
his story somewhat less horrible, but compels 
the historian at the cost of some inconsistency 
to refer his birth to 174, or earlier. 

The principal authorities are Tertullian, ad- 
dressing Scapula, governor of Africa, in 211 ; 
the sober, contemporary, and apparently im- 
partial, narrative of Herodian (bks. vii. viii.) ; 
the abridgment, by the very late compiler 
Xiphilinus, of the 77th book of the contem- 
porary historian Dion Cassius, with which the 
compiler seems to have incorporated fragments 
of other works of a like early date ; the narra- 
tive written for Constantine by Lampridius 
Spartianus in the Historia Augusta; laws, 
coins, inscriptions (see Clinton), and especially 
a record in the Digest, bk 1, tit. 5, l. 17, from 
the 22nd book of Ulpian. 

Dion charges him with inheriting all the 
worst features of the races from which he 
sprang; on his father’s side, the braggart 
levity of the Gaul and the truculence of the 
African; on his mother’s, the tricksiness of 
the Syrian. Tertullian (ad Scap. c. 4) calls 
him Antoninus, and informs us that “his 


father Severus had a regard for Christians ; 


. and Antoninus .. . was brought up on 
Christian milk. And, moreover, Severus knew 
most illustrious men and most illustrious 
women to be of this sect, and not only did not 
hurt, but honoured [exornavit or, more pro- 
bably, exoneravit, exonerated] them by the wit- 
ness he bore them, and withstood the raging 
populace.”’ Jt has been inferred that the young 
prince was not only brought up amid Christian 
influences, but had a Christian wet-nurse. 

We can easily conceive how injurious it must 
have been for the child to find the Christians in 
the palace screened, while yet he was taken to 
see shows of wild beasts where Christians were 
thrown to them to devour. Spartianus tells 
us that he was a most charming child, quick at 
learning, engaging with his prattle, and of a 
very tender heart. ‘“‘ If he saw condemned 
criminals thrown to the beasts, he cried, or 
looked away, which more than won the hearts 
of the people. At seven years of age, when he 
heard that a boy that was his playmate had 
been severely beaten for Jewish superstition, 
it was a long while before he would look at his 
own father or the boy’s father again, or at the 
people who had him flogged. By his own in- 
tercession he restored their ancient rights to the 
people of Antioch and Byzantium, who had 
helped Niger against his father. It was for his 
cruelty that he took an aversion to Plautianus. 
But all this was only while he was a boy [sed 
haec puer).”’ The ‘‘ Jewish superstition ”’ has 
been interpreted, with great probability, to 
mean Christianity. The Plautianus men- 
tioned was, teste Herodian, a vile tyrant, all- 
powerful with Severus, whose daughter Cara- 
calla was compelled to marry, much against 
his will, in the hope of reforming him from 
certain low tastes, such as won him the favour 
of the city populace, 


10 


146 CARACALLA 

Spartianus tells us that when Caracalla 
emerged from boyhood, before his accession, 
he was so changed, so stern, that no one would 
have known him; whereas his brother Geta, 
who had been an unpleasing child, was very 
much improved as he grew up. Hisnarrative, 
and the abridgment of Dion, afford no clue 
to the enmity that sprang up between the 
brothers, and deeper principles seem to have 
been involved than mere fraternal jealousy. 
Caracalla’s early life was such as to teach him 
heart-hardening dissimulation; Tertullian, 
while the brothers yet ruled jointly, urges at 
once the uncertainty of human life, and the 
probability that Caracalla would favour the 
Christians ; and it is the fact that his victory 
coincided with a general and prolonged cessa- 
tion of a long and cruel persecution. 

We cannot tell whether he had any higher 
motives than a mean malice and uneasy envy 
in his murder of his brother, and whether the 
mother, for whose sake he claimed to have 
done it and whom he would not allow to utter 
or even listen to a complaint, ever forgave 
him. The incredible charge of incest was 
afterwards brought against them. But there 
is little doubt as to the results of the deed. 
He did not become a Christian, and the ancient 
gods of the state were the last to whom he 
had recourse. He patronised Philostratus, 
who wrote for his mother and for him the Life 
of Apollonius of Tyana. He thus fostered one 
of the chief counterfeits of Christianity. He 
gathered round him all who professed to read 
the future, and he worshipped the spirits of 
the dead. But they could not rid his ears of 
his brother’s dying cry, μῆτερ, μῆτερ, τεκοῦσα, 
τεκοῦσα, βοήθει, σφάζομαι. He continued to 
court the city populace, and enriched Rome 
with magnificent baths, which even in ruins 
are the most superb monuments of refined 
luxury. But his fits of savagery must have 
made it hard for him to continue a favourite 
of the populace. Henceforth he relied mainly 
on his army, and sought ease of mind in 
excitement. Both necessities involved ex- 
pense. Whatever impulse he gave to the 
corruption of the capital, he himself con- 
tentedly shared the roughest privileges of the 
soldiers. But that alone could not secure their 
affection. In the first day of his crime he 
had lavished the wealth his father had been 
eighteen years in acquiring. New sources of 
revenue were needed. 

It is the method that Caracalla adopted to 
raise a revenue that gives him his main claim 
to a place in the catalogue of men whose lives 
affected the Christian church. His act, as 
Gibbon has shewn, marked an era in the de- 
cline of the empire. But more than that, it 
affected very greatly the position of Christians 
in all future persecutions. It is this indeed 
mainly that enables us to pronounce with 
certainty that the act was his, and belonged 
to no earlier date. ‘‘ All who are in the 
Roman world,’ says Ulpian, ‘‘ have been 
made citizens of Rome by an institution of the 
emperor Antoninus.”’ ‘ A most grateful and 
humane deed !”’ exclaims Augustine (de Civ. 
Dei, v. 17, vol. vii. 161), and immediately 
subjoins the proviso that made the boon so 
equivocal. At a stroke the Roman world 
Was pauperized. Every citizen resident in the 


CARITAS ᾿. 
. 
capital was entitled to receive every month, 
at a cheap rate—the indigent quite gratuitous- 
ly—a certain amount of corn or bread. This 
was one of the chief drains upon the revenue, 
and one of the main causes of extortion in the © 
provinces. But Augustus laid a tax on 
citizens from which aliens were exempt, a tax 
which made the franchise in many cases a 
burden to be declined rather than a boon to be © 
coveted, a duty of five per cent. on all be- 
quests. Nerva and Trajan, however, exempted 
the passage of moderate inheritances from 
parent to child, or vice versd (Plin. Paneg. 37, _ 
38). Caracalla, by raising the provincials to © 
the franchise, did not free them from the | 
tribute they owed before, but imposed this 
additional burden, which he doubled in 
amount, and which involved the odious intru- 
sion of the taxgatherer in seasons of domestic 
bereavement. The act seems to synchronize 
with a congiarium or largess to the populace 
in A.D. 214. Thenceforward Caracalla’s laws, 
wherever promulgated, seemed to be dated at | 
Rome. Oppressive as were the effects of the 
act, it seems yet to have been welcomed. It 
was but fair, thought Augustine, that rustics 
who had lands should give food to citizens who 
had none, so long as it was granted as a boon 
and not extorted as a right. 

But besides its effects as a financial measure, 
Caracalla’s act broke down the barriers of so- 
ciety ; annulled, as far as any imperial institu- 
tion could, the proud old sovereign common- 
wealth, the queen of nations, whose servants 
and ministers the emperors had ever professed | 
to be; opened the command of armies to 
unlettered barbarians ; removed the bars to | 
the influx of Greek and Syrian and Egyptian 
corruption into Rome; reduced the subjects 
to a level, above which only the emperor, the 
minion of the army, towered supreme. 

In earlier times St. Paul’s Roman citizenship 
had stood him in good stead ; and in the story 
of the martyrs in Gaul under M. Aurelius the 
Roman citizens had been reserved till the 
emperor’s will was known. A boon now so 


widely diffused could scarcely retain the same 


value. But we hear no more of Christians — 
being crucified, unless they were slaves, or 
first reduced to slavery. Unutterably horri- 
ble as the tortures devised against them were, 
they were no longer commonly thrown to the 
beasts asashow. They suffered by the sword 
at last, and all their tortures were such as 
might befall any citizen of Rome who trans- | 
gressed the mandate of theemperor. [2. 6.4. 
PERSECUTION ; TORTURE.] Thus martyrdom, 
instead of the obstinacy of an abject alien 
superstition, became the bold and cheerful 
resistance of free citizens to the arbitrary will 
of one who, when he began to torture, became 
a barbarous tyrant. [E.B.B.] 
Caritas. Charity with her virgin sisters, 
Faith and Hope, and their mother Wisdom, 


a ae 


seem to have been the names of real martyrs.| 


The names were very natural ones for Chris- 
tians to give to theirchildren. On the Aurelian 
Way, in the church of St. Pancras, lay Sophia 
with her three daughters: Sapientia, with her’ 
daughters Fides, Spes, and Charitas, as Wil 
liam of Malmesbury calls them ; but the Latin’ 
names nowhere else occur in this order, the 
Greek names, when given in full, always do. 


[ 
! 
) 


CARPOCRATES 


Sophia, Pistis, Elpis, Agape, are said to have 
been a mother and daughters who suffered in 
September, and whose relics were transferred 
to the church of St. Silvester. On the other 
hand, Sapienta, Spes, Fides, Caritas, are said 
by Ado to have suffered Aug. 1, and were 
buried on the Appian Way, in the crypt of 
St. Caecilia. In that crypt has been found the 
inscription, PISTE SPEI SORORI DULCISSIMAE 
Fecir. In thesame place, if we rightly under- 
stand de Rossi, was found AGAPE QVE VXIT 
ANNIS VGINTI ET SEX IN PACE—Agape, who 
lived twenty-six years in peace. There is no 
statement of relationship in the notices of the 
tombs on the Appian Way. It appears pro- 
bable that Ado has confounded the widely 
celebrated martyrs who are said to have suf- 
fered in September under Adrian, with the 
occupants of some Christian tombs in a crypt 
where there were many celebrations early in 
August. The Menology gives the ages of 
Faith, Hope, and Love as 12,10, andg. (De 
Rossi, Rom. Sott. i. 180-183, ii. 171 ff., pl. lv. 
το; Bede, Mart. July 1, Bede, Mart. Auct. 
June 23; Usuard, Aug. 1; Menol. Basil. 
Sept. 16.) [E.B.B.] 
arpocrates (Kaproxparns, Irenaeus ; Kapro- 
xpas, Epiphanius and Philaster, both probably 
deriving this form from the shorter treatise 
against heresies by Hippolytus), a Platonic 
philosopher who taught at Alexandria early in 
the 2nd cent., and who, incorporating Chris- 
tian elements into his system, became the 
founder of a heretical sect mentioned in one 
of our earliest catalogues of heresies, the list 
of Hegesippus, preserved by Eusebius (H. E. 
iv. 22). These heretics are the first of whom 
Irenaeus expressly mentions that they called 
themselves Gnostics ; Hippolytus first speaks 
of the name as assumed by the Naassenes or 
Ophites (Ref. v. 1). Of all the systems called 
Gnostic, that of Carpocrates is the one in 
which the Hellenic element is the most strong- 
ly marked, and which contains the least of 
what is necessarily Jewish or Oriental. He is 
described as teaching with prominence the 
doctrine of a single first principle: the name 
μοναδικὴ γνῶσις, given by Clement of Alex- 
andria (Strom. iii. 2) to the doctrine of the 
school which he founded, is made by Neander 
to furnish the key to the whole Carpocratian 
system; but possibly is only intended to 
contrast with the doctrine of the Valentinian 
teachers, who thought it necessary to provide 
the first Being with a consort, in order that 
emanations from Him might be conceivable. 
Carpocrates taught that from the one unknown 
unspeakable God different angels and powers 
had emanated, and that of these the lowest in 
the series, far below the unbegotten Father, 
had been the makers of the world. The privi- 
lege of the higher souls was to escape the rule 
of those who had made the world; even by 
Magical arts to exercise dominion over them, 
and ultimately, on leaving the world, to pass 
completely free from them to God Who is 
above them. Jesus he held to be a mere man 
naturally born of human parents, having no 
prerogatives beyond the reach of others to 
attain. His superiority to ordinary men con- 
sisted in this, that His soul, being steadfast and 
pure, remembered those things which it had 
seen in the revolution (τῇ περιφορᾷ) in which 


CARPOCRATES 147 


it had been carried round with the unbegotten 
God, and therefore power [or a “‘ power ’’] had 
been sent from God enabling Him to escape the 
makers of the world. Though brought up in 
Jewish customs, He had despised them, and 
therefore had received powers enabling Him to 
destroy the passions which are given to men as 
a punishment. But in this there was nothing 
special: others might be the equals or the 
superiors not only of Peter or Paul, but of our 
Lord Himself. Their souls, too, might remem- 
ber the truths they had witnessed; if they 
despised the rulers of the world as much as 
Jesus did, they would be given the same privi- 
leges as He, and higher if they despised them 
more. Thus the Carpocratians gave honour, 
but not an exclusive honour, to Christ. They 
had pictures of Him, derived, it was said, 
from a likeness taken by Pilate’s order; and 
images, which they crowned and treated with 
other marks of respect ; but this they did also 
in the cases of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, 
and other philosophers. 

In the opening statement concerning the 
making of the world, the doctrine ascribed to 
Carpocrates is almost identical with that as- 
cribed to Saturninus; but in the next para- 
graph the language is distinctly taken from the 
myth in Plato’s Phaedrus, in which human 
knowledge is made to be but a recollection of 
what the soul had seen when carried round 
with the gods in their revolution, and per- 
mitted to see the eternal forms of things. 

The doctrine of the duty of despising the 
rulers of the world received among the Car- 
pocratians an interpretation which enabled 
them to practise immorality without scruple. 
Things in themselves were indifferent ; no- 
thing was in its own nature good or evil, and 
was only made so by human opinion. The 
true Gnostic might practise everything—nay, 
it was his duty to have experience of all. 
A doctrine concerning the transmigration of 
souls which was taught by other Gnostic sects, 
and which harmonized well with Platonic 
teaching, was adopted by the Carpocratians in 
the form that a soul which had had its com- 
plete experience passed at once out of the 
dominion of the rulers of the world, and was 
received up to society with the God above 
them: those which had not were sent back to 
finish in other bodies that which was lacking 
to them; but all ultimately would be saved. 
But as was also taught by the Basilidians of 
Irenaeus and by the Ophites, salvation be- 
longed to the soul alone ; there would be no 
resurrection of the body. In conformity with 
this theory was interpreted the text from the 
Sermon on the Mount, ‘‘ Agree with thine 
adversary quickly.”’ The “‘adversary’’ (whom, 
Epiphanius tells us, they named Abolus, a 
corruption, doubtless, from the Diabolus of 
Irenaeus) was one of the world-making angels, 
whose office it was to conduct the soul to the 
principal of these angels, ‘‘ the judge.’’ If he 
found that there were acts left undone, he de- 
livered it to another angel, “‘ the officer,’’ to 
shut it up ‘‘in prison ’’—+7.e. in a body—until it 
had paid the last farthing. The doctrine that 
we ought to imitate the freedom with which our 
Lord despised the rulers of the world raiscs the 
question, Did Carpocrates intend to impute 
immorality to Him? On this point Carpo- 


148 CARPOCRATES 

crates was misunderstood either by Hippolytus 
or by his own disciples. According to Hippo- 
lytus, Carpocrates taught that Jesus surpassed 
other men in justice and integrity (σωφροσύνῃ 
καὶ ἀρετῇ καὶ βίῳ δικαιοσύνης, Epiphanius), and 
no doubt our Lord’s example might have been 
cited only in reference to freedom from Jewish 
ceremonial obligations ; yet the version of Ire- 
naeus seems more trustworthy, which does not 
suggest that the superiority of Jesus consisted 
in anything but the clearer apprehension of 
eternal truths which His intellect retained. 
Carpocrates claimed to be in possession of the 
true teaching of Christ spoken secretly by Him 
to His apostles, and communicated by them in 
tradition to the worthy and faithful; and the 
apostolic doctrine that men are to be saved by 
faith and love was used by him to justify an 
antinomian view of the complete indifference of 
works. EPpIPHANES, the son of Carpocrates by 
a Cephallenian woman, maintained a licentious 
theory of communism in all things, women 
included. The Carpocratians and the Cainites 
have often been coupled together as the two 
most immoral of the Gnostic sects, and in 
practical effects their doctrines may not have 
been very different; but the Carpocratian 
theory of the indifference of human actions fell 
short of the inversion of good and evil which 
is ascribed to the Cainites. Whereas the latter 
represented the God of the Jews and Maker of 
the world as an evil Being who ought to be 
resisted the former only spoke of the makers 
of the world as inferior beings whose restric- 
tions it is true enlightenment to despise ; and 
the arguments of Epiphanes, derived from the 
equality that reigns in nature, assume that the 
creation is so far conformed to the will of God 
that from the laws which pervade it we may 
infer what is pleasing to the supreme power. 
Whether immorality were directly taught by 
Carpocrates himself or not, his followers be- 
came proverbial for deliberate licentiousness of 
life. The Christians thought it likely that the 
stories current among the heathen of scenes of 
shameless debauchery in the Christian love- 
feasts had a real foundation in what took place 
among the Carpocratians. Philaster, who, 
apparently through oversight, enumerates the 
Carpocratians twice, the second time (57) 
giving them the alternative names of Floriani 
and Mulites, directly asserts this. His pre- 
decessors had suggested it as probable (Clem. 
Alex. Strom. iii. 2; cf. Justin Martyr, A pol. 
26). Irenaeus counts Carpocratian doctrines 
and practices as means employed by Satan 
to discredit the Christian name among the 
heathen. (See also Eus. H. E. iv. 7.) 

A more trifling heathen belief about the 
Christians generally seems to have been true 
of the Carpocratians, viz. that they knew 
each other by secret bodily marks (notaculo 
corports, Minucius Felix, cc. 9, 31); for the 
Carpocratians marked their disciples by 
cauterizing them in the back of the lobe of the 
right ear. It appears from Heracleon (Clem. 
Alex. p. 995, Eclog. ex Script. Proph. xxv.) that 
this was a baptismal ceremony, intended to 
represent the ‘‘ baptism with fire,” predicted 
of our Lord by the Baptist. This confirms the 
evidence as to the use of at least St. Matthew’s 
Gospel by the Carpocratians furnished by 
Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. p. 138) and by the 


CARPOCRATES 


use made of the Sermon on the Mount. Celsus 
probably refers to this rite (Origen, v. 64) when 
he says that Christians gave to certain others 
of them the opprobrious name ἀκοῆς καυστήρια. 
Origen, however, supposes that I. Tim. iv. 2 
is here referred to. 

Mention has already been made of the culti- 
vation of magic by the Carpocratians, and 
their pretension to equal the miraculous 
powers of our Lord. Hippolytus, in the 
fourth book of the Refutation, gives us several 
specimens of wonders exhibited by magicians, 
not very unlike feats performed by profes- 
sional conjurors to-day. It was easy for Ire- 
naeus to shew (ii. 32) how very unlike these 
transient wonders were to be permanent 
miracles of healing effected by our Lord, and 
which, as he claimed, continued in the church. 

According to Neander, the Carpocratian 
system sees in the world’s history one struggle 
between the principles of unity and of multi- 
plicity. From one eternal Monad all existence 
has flowed, and to this it strives to return. 
But the finite spirits who rule over several 
portions of the world counteract this universal 
striving after unity. From them the different 
popular religions, and in particular the Jewish, 
have proceeded. Perfection is attained by 
those souls who, led on by reminiscences of 
their former condition, soar above all limita- 
tion and diversity to the contemplation of the 
higher unity. They despise the restrictions 
imposed by the mundane spirits ; they regard 
externals as of no importance, and faith and 
love as the only essentials ; meaning by faith, 
mystical brooding of the mind absorbed in the 
original unity. In this way they escape the 
dominion of the finite mundane spirits ; their 
souls are freed from imprisonment in matter, 
and they obtain a state of perfect repose (cor- 
responding to the Buddhist Nirwana) when 
they have completely ascended above the 
world of appearance. . 

With respect to the Carpocratians, the pri- 
mary authorities are Irenaeus (i. 25, ii. 31-34), 
Clem. Alex. (Strom. iii. 2); Tertullian (de 
Anima, 23, 35), who appears to have drawn his 
information from Irenaeus ; Philaster (35) and 
Pseudo-Tertullian (9), who represent the ear- | 
lier treatise of Hippolytus ; Epiphanius (27), | 
who weaves together the accounts of Hippoly- 
tus and of Irenaeus; and Hippolytus, whoin © 
his later treatise (vii. 20) merely copies Ire- ὦ 
naeus, with some omissions, thereby suggesting fe 
that he was not acquainted with the work of 
Irenaeus when he wrote the earlier treatise.) 
He certainly had at that time other sources of 
information, for he mentions three or four i { 
points not found in Irenaeus—e.g. he empha- 
sizes the Carpocratian doctrine of the unity of ΓΙ 
the first principle, tells of emanations from 
that principle of angels and powers, gives a 
different version of the excellence of Jesus, and rap ve 
says that Carpocrates denied the resurrection δ... 
of the body. [1115 ποῖ impossible that Justin's) 
work on heresies may have furnished some, 
materials for Irenaeus. In any case Irenaeus i a: 
probably added much of his own, for the pains 
he has taken with the confutation make it | Ἧς, 
probable that in his time the sect was still, ξ 
active at Rome. : 

We cannot assign an exact date to Carpo- [ὦ 
crates; but there are affinities between his 


Se —, & -- Sa - ἃ τὸ τοὶ 


CASSIANUS JULIUS 


system and those of Saturninus and Basilides, 
which suggest one a little later than Basilides, 
from whom he may have derived his know- 
ledge of Christianity. Eusebius is probably 
right in placing him in the reign of Hadrian 
(d. A.D. 138). It suffices merely to mention the 
invention of the writer known as Praedestin- 
atus (i. 7) that the Carpocratians were con- 
demned in Cyprus by the apostle Barnabas. 
Matter, in his history of Gnosticism, gives an 
account of certain supposed Carpocratian in- 
scriptions, since found to be spurious (Giese- 
ler’s Ecc. Hist. c. ii. § 45, note 16). [G.s.] 
Cassianus (2) Julius, a heretical teacher who 
lived towards the end of the 2nd cent., chiefly 
known to us by references to his writings made 
on two occasions by Clemens Alexandrinus. In 
the first passage (Strom. i. 21, copied by Euse- 
bius, Praep. Ev. x. 12) Clement engages in a 
chronological inquiry to shew the greatly 
superior antiquity of Moses to the founders of 
Grecian philosophy, and he acknowledges him- 
self indebted to the previous investigations 
made by Tatian in his work addressed to the 
Greeks, and by Cassian (spelt Castanus in the 
MS. of Clement, but not in those of Eusebius) 
in the first book of his Exegetica. Vallarsi (ii. 
865) alters without comment the Cassianus of 
previous editors into Casianus, in Jerome’s 
Catalogue 33, a place where Jerome is not us- 
ing Clement directly, but is copying the notice 
in Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13). Jerome adds that 
he had not himself met the chronological work 
in question. In the second passage (Strom. 
iii. 13, seq.) Cassian is also named in con- 
nexion with Tatian. Clement is, in this 
section, refuting the doctrines of those 
Gnostics who, in their view of the essential 
evil of matter, condemned matrimony and the 
procreation of children; and after consider- 
ing some arguments urged by Tatian, says 
that similar ones had been used by Julius 
Cassianus whom he describes as the origi- 
nator of Docetism (ὁ τῆς δοκήσεως ἐξάρχων), 
astatement which must be received with some 
Modification. [DocrTar.] He quotes some 
Passages from a treatise by Cassian on Con- 
tinence (περὶ ἐγκρατείας, ἢ περὶ εὐνουχίας), in 
which he wholly condemned sexual inter- 
course, and referred its origin to instigations 
of our first parents by the serpent, alleging in 
proof II. Cor. xi. 3. Cassian quoted Is. ἵν]. 3. 
Matt. xix. 12, and probably several other 
Passages which are discussed by Clement 
without express mention that they had been 
used by Cassian. Cassian also uses certain 
alleged sayings of our Lord, cited likewise in 
the so-called second epistle of the Roman 
Clement to the Corinthians, cap. xii., as well 
as in the Excerpta Theodoti, \xvii. p. 985. 
Lightfoot notices (Clement, 1.6.) that Cassian, 
by the omission of a clause, makes the Encra- 
tite aspect of the passage much stronger than it 
appears in the citation of the Pseudo-Clement. 
Clemens Alexandrinus makes no complaint of 
unfairness in the quotation ; but while he re- 
marks that the sayings in question arenot found 
mour four Gospels, but only in the Gospel ac- 
cording to the Egyptians, he gives adifferent ex- 
planation far less natural than that of Cassian. 
~ Another specimen of Cassian’s arguments in 
this treatise is preserved in Jerome’s Commen- 
tary on Gal. vi. ἃ, Jerome there answers an 


CASSIANUS 149 


Encratite argument founded on this text, viz. 
that he who is united to a woman soweth to the 
flesh, and therefore shall of the flesh reap 
corruption. This argument is introduced with 
words which, according to the common read- 
ing, run, ‘“‘ Tatianus qui putativam Christi 
carnem introducens, omnem conjunctionem 
masculi ad foeminam immundam arbitratur, 
tali adversum nos sub occasione praesentis 
testimonii usus est argumento.’’ There is 
little doubt that we are to read instead of 
Tatianus, Cassianus. The Benedictine editor 
who retains the old reading notes that Cas- 
sianus is the reading of two of the oldest 
MSS., while Vallarsi says that Cassianus was 
the reading of every MS. he had seen. 

The Docetism of Cassian was closely con- 
nected with his Encratism, for it was an 
obvious answer of the orthodox to his doctrine 
on Continence, that if the birthof children were 
essentially evil, then our Lord’s own birth was 
evil, and His mother an object of blame. This 
was met by a denial of the reality of our Lord’s 
body. Cassian also taught that man had not 
been originally created with a body like ours, 
but that these fleshly bodies were the “‘ coats 
of skin”’ in which the Lord clothed our first 
parents after the Fall. This notion, probably 
derived from Valentinus (fren. I. v. p. 27), had 
considerable currency. References for it will 
be found in Huet’s Origeniana, ii. Qu. 12, viii., 
and Beausobre, Manichéisme, ii. 135). 

Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 8) enumerates 
among the followers of Valentinus one Cossian, 
by whom, no doubt, Julius Cassianus is in- 
tended ; for many greater inaccuracies in the 
names are in the present text of Theodoret, 
and Theodoret would have found authority in 
Clement for classing Cassian with Valentinus. 

The coincidences between Tatian and Cas- 
sianus seem too close to be accidental, but we 
have not data to determine their relative 
priority. If Cassian were really the founder of 
the sect called Docetae, he must have been 
some time antecedent to Serapion (Eus. H. E. 
vi. 12). His country may have been Egypt 
(cf. Harnack, Gesch. der Alt. Chr. Lit. pp. 201- 
204). [DocETAE ; ENCRATITES]. [α.5.] 

Cassianus (6), bp. of Autun. The date we 
assign him will vary according as we attach 
more weight to the ancient Life of him, which 
professes to be based on a contemporary record 
(Acta SS. Aug. 5, vol.ii. p. 64), as Ruinart prefers 
to do, or to a casual statement by Gregory of 
Tours, who was shewn his tomb (Glor. Conf. 74, 
75), as do Tillemont and the Bollandists. The 
Life tells us that he was born of noble parents 
in Alexandria, and brought up by a bp. Zonis ; 
that he made his house a Christian hospital in 
the time of Julian, liberated his slaves, and 
built a church to St. Lawrence at Orta in 
Egypt, at which place he was made bishop 
against his will in the time of Jovian, A.D. 363. 

The tomb of Cassian was famous. A stain 
in the form of a cross appeared on it, which is 
said to have prompted Germanus to hold a con- 
versation with the saint in his tomb. He 
asked him how he did, and the saint answered 
that he was at rest. This is told in his Life, 
and may explain the great eagerness to obtain 
dust scraped from the stones of his tomb, 
which was almost bored through in con- 
sequence, as testified by Gregory.  [E£.B.B.] 


150 CASSIANUS JOHANNES 


Cassianus (11) Johannes has been called the 
founder of Western monachism and of the semi- 
Pelagian school. More exactly, he was the first 
to transplant the rules of the Eastern monks 
into Europe, and the most eminent of the 
writers who steered a course between Pelagian- 
ism and the tenets of St. Augustine. Like St. 
Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, and others, 
he is usually designated by his agnomen. His 
birth is dated between A.D. 350 and 360; his 
birthplace is not known. Gennadius calls him 
“ Scytha ’’ (Fabric. Biblioth. Eccles. s.v.) ; but 
this may be merely a corruption from Scetis or 
Scyathis, where Cassian resided for some time 
among the monks of Nitria. His parents, of 
whose piety he speaks gratefully (Coll. xxiv. 1), 
sent him to be educated in a monastery at 
Bethlehem ; and there he would have frequent 
intercourse with pilgrims from the West. This 
cannot have been, as some have thought, the 
monastery of St. Jerome, for that was not then 
in existence, nor does Cassian ever refer to 
Jerome as his teacher. Here Cassian became 
intimate with Germanus, the future companion 
of his travels. The fame of the Egyptian 
monks and hermits reached Cassian and his 
friend in their cells. About A.p. 390 they 
started, with leave of absence for seven years, 
to study by personal observation the more 
austere rules of the ‘‘ renuntiantes,’’ as they 
were called, in the Thebaid. At the end of 
seven years they revisited Bethlehem; and 
thence returned very soon to the Egyptian 
deserts (Coll. xvii. 31). Thus Cassian collected 
the materiaJs for his future writings. Besides 
other voluntary hardships, he speaks of the 
monks having to fetch water on their shoulders 
a distance of three or four miles (Coll. xxiv. 10). 
Evidently in his estimation, as in that of his 
contemporaries generally, the vocation of a 
solitary is holier than even that of a coenobite. 

About A.D. 403 we find Cassian and Ger- 
manus at Constantinople, perhaps attracted by 
the reputation of Chrysostom. By him Cas- 
sian was ordained deacon, or, as some think, 
appointed archdeacon ; and in his treatise de 
Incarnatione (vii. 31) he speaks of Chrysostom 
with affectionate reverence. Cassian and his 
friend were entrusted with the care of the cathe- 
dral treasures; and, after the expulsion of 
Chrysostom, they were sent by his adherents 
on an embassy to Rome c. A.D. 405 to solicit 
the intervention of Innocent I. No further 
mention is made of Germanus; nor is much 
known of Cassian during the next ten years. 
Probably he remained at Rome after Chrys- 
ostom died, A.D. 407, until the approach of 
the Goths under Alaric, and thus acquired a 
personal interest in the Pelagian controversy. 

After quitting Rome it has been inferred 
from a casual expression in the de Insittutis 
(iii. 1) that Cassian visited the monks of Meso- 
potamia; some say that he returned for a 
time to Egypt or Palestine; and by some he 
is identified with Cassianus Presbyter. Prob- 
ably Cassian betock himself from Rome to 
Massilia (Marseilles). In this neighbourhood 
he founded two monasteries (one afterwards 
known as that of St Victor) for men and 
women respectively. Tillemont says that the 
rule was taken from the fourth book of the de 
Tustitutis ; and that many monasteries in that 
part of Gaul owed their existence to this foun- 


CASSIANUS JOHANNES 


dation. As Cassian is addressed in the Epis 
tola Castoris as ‘‘ abbas,”’ ‘‘ dominus,’’ and — 
“pater,” it is argued, but not with certainty, — 
that he presided over his new monastery. 
Here he devoted himself to literary labours fot 
many years, and died at a very great age, ] 
probably between A.D. 440 and 450. ἢ 
The de Institutis Renuntiantium, in twelve ᾿ 
books, was written c. 420 at the request οὗ 
Castor, bp. of Apta Julia, in Gallia Narbo- 
nensis (Praef. Inst.). Books i.-iv. treat of the 
monastic rule; the others of its especial | 
hindrances. The former were abridged by Eu- | 
cherius Lugdunensis. The Collationes Patrum Ὁ 
in Scithico Eremo Commorantium, in which — 
Cassian records his Egyptian experiences, were — 
evidently intended to complete his previous 
work ; his purpose being to describe in the de 
Institutts the regulations and observances of 
monachism; in the Collationes its interior — 
scope and spirit: in the former he writes of 
monks, in the latter of hermits. The Colla-— 
tiones were commenced for Castor, but after 
his death Collat. i.-x. were inscribed to Leon- 
tius, a kinsman of Castor, and Helladius, 
bishop in that district ; xi.-xvii. to Honoratus, | 
abbat of Lerins, and Eucherius, bp. of Lug- 
dunum (Lyons) ; Xviil.-xxiv. to the monks and 
anchorets of the Stoechades (Hyéres). The 
Collationes have been well called a ‘‘ speculum 
monasticum ’’: St. Benedict ordered them to 
be read daily ; they were highly approved also 
by the founders of the Dominicans, Carthu- 
sians, and Jesuits. But the orthodoxy of 
the Collationes, especially of ili. and xiii., on 
the subject of Grace and Freewill, was 
impugned by St. Augustine and Prosper of 
Aquitania. [PFLAGIANISM.] An attempt was ἢ 
made by Cassiodorus and others to expur- 
gate them. Cassian’s last work, de Incar- 
natione Christi (cf. i. 3, v. 2), was directed 
against the Nestorian heresy, c. 429, at the 
suggestion of Leo then archdeacon and after- 
wards pope. Probably Cassian was selected 
for this controversy as a disciple of Chrys- 
ostom, the illustrious predecessor of Nestorius 
in the see of Constantinople (Jvc. vii. 31). | 
The treatises de Spirituali Medicina Monacht, © 
Theologica Confessto, and de Conflictu Virtutum | 
ac Vitiorum are generally pronounced spurious. 
Cassian is remarkable as a link between — 
Eastern and Western Christendom, and as com- — 
bining in himself the active and the contem- 
plative life. It is difficult to overestimate his 
influence indirectly on the great monastic © 
system of mediaeval Europe. His writings © 
have always been in esteem with monastic re- © 
formers ; especially at the revival of learning 
in the 15th cent. Even his adversary Prosper | 
calls him “insignis ac facundus.’’  Cassian 
shews a thorough knowledge of the Holy 
Scriptures ; often with a good deal of quaint- | 
ness in his application of it. His style, if not 
so rich in poetic eloquence as that of his great 
opponent, is clear and forcible; and he is 
practical rather than profound. His good 
sense manifests itself in his preface to the 
Instituta, where he announces his intention to 
avoid legendary wonders and to regard his > 
subject on its practical side. He insists con- © 
tinually on the paramount importance of the 
intention, disclaiming the idea of what is 
called the ‘‘ opus operatum ’’—for instance, on 


p er ee eso ee τ 8 eet, ae ia ee a ee 


CASSIODORUS MAGNUS AURELIUS 


almsgiving (Inst. vii. 21), fasting (Coll. i. 7), 
and prayer (ix. 3); and he is incessant in 
denouncing the especial sins of cloister-life, 
as pride, ambition, vainglory. The life of a 
monk, as he portrays it, is no formal and 
mechanical routine; but a daily and hourly 
act of self-renunciation (xxiv. 2). On the 
other hand, he is by no means free from ex- 
aggerated reverence for mere asceticism ; and, 
while encouraging the highest aspirations after 
holiness, allows too much scope to a selfish 
desire of reward. As a casuist he is for the 
most part sensible and judicious, e.g., in dis- 
criminating between voluntary and involun- 
tary thoughts (i. 17). But he presses obedience 
so far as to make it unreasonable and fanatical 
(Inst. iv. 27, etc.), and under certain circum- 
stances he sanctions deceit (Coll. xvii.). 

On the subject of Predestination Cassian, 
without assenting to Pelagius, protested 
against what he considered the fatalistic ten- 
dency of St. Augustine. In the Collationes 
he merely professes to quote the words of the 
Egyptian “fathers’’; and in the de Incar- 
natione he distinctly attacks Pelagianism as 
closely allied with the heresy of Nestorius 
(i. 3, vi. 14). Still, it is certain from the tenor 
of his writings that Cassian felt a very strong 
repugnance to any theory which seemed to 
him to involve an arbitrary limitation of the 
possibility of being saved. It has been well 
said that St. Augustine regards man in his 
natural state as dead, Pelagius as sound and 
well, Cassian as sick. [PELAGIANISM.] 

The best critical ed. of Cassian’s works is 
in the Corp. Scr. Eccl. Lat. xiii. xvii., ed. by 
Petschenig. In Schaff and Wace’s_ Posi- 
Nicene Library there is a translation of most 
of them, with valuable prolegomena and notes 
by Dr. Gibson, Bp. of Gloucester. [1.6.5.] 

Cassiodorus (or rather, Cassiodorius) Mag- 
nus Aurelius, senator, and chief minister to 
the Ostrogothic princes of Italy, born at 
Seylacium (Squillace) in Bruttium, 469-470, of 
a noble, wealthy, and patriotic family. Cas- 
slodorus was brought up under circumstances 
highly favourable to his education, which 
included the study of grammar, rhetoric, 
dialectic, music, arithmetic, geometry, astro- 
nhomy, mechanics, anatomy, Greek, and the 
sacred Scriptures. His learning and accom- 
plishments early attracted the notice of 
Odoacer, the first barbarian ruler of Italy, by 
whom he was made “‘ comes privatarum,” and 
subsequently ‘‘ comes sacrarum largitionum ” 
(Var. i. 4). After the final defeat of Odoacer 
by Theodoric at Ravenna, 493, Cassiodorus 
retired to his patrimonial estate in Bruttium, 
and secured the wavering allegiance of the 
provincials to the cause of the new ruler; for 
this service he was appointed by Theodoric to 
the official government of Lucania and Brut- 
tium. Happy in the art of ruling to the satis- 
faction of the governed without neglecting the 
interests of his master, he was summoned, up- 
on the conclusion of his prefecture, to Raven- 
na, and advanced successively to the dignities 
of secretary, quaestor, master of the offices, 
praetorian prefect, patrician, and consul. 
Meanwhile he enjoyed an intimacy with the 
prince, which, reflected as it is in his Varieties, 
has given to that work much of the character 
and yalue of a state journal. Illiterate him- 


CASSIODORUS MAGNUS AURELIUS 151 


self, Theodoric employed the eloquent pen of 
his minister in all public communications, and 
spent his leisure time in acquiring from him 
erudition of various kinds (Var. ix. 24). It 
would seem to have been the ambition of 
Cassiodorus, whose genius for diplomacy was 
consummate, to bring about a fusion between 
the Arian conquerors and the conquered 
Catholic population of Italy, to establish 
friendly relations with the Eastern empire, and 
possibly to create at Rome a peaceful centre to 
which the several barbaric kingdoms which 
had established themselves in Gaul, Spain, and 
Africa might be attracted. The progress of 
Theodoric to the capital, where the schism 
between pope Symmachus and his rival, 
Laurentius, was then raging, A.D. 500, was 
probably planned by him in view of this result 
(Var. xii. 18, 19; cf. Gibbon, Decl. and Fall, 
c. 39) ; but the temper of Theodoric’s declin- 
ing years must have disappointed the hopes of 
Cassiodorus, and in 524 he resolved to divest 
himself of his honours, and to seek shelter in 
his Calabrian retreat from the storm which 
proved fatal to his co-senators, Boéthius and 
Symmachus. After the death of Theodoric, 
525, Cassiodorus again became conspicuous as 
the trusted adviser of his daughter Amalasun- 
tha, widow of Eutaric, who acted as regent for 
her son Athalaric (Var. ix. 25). By his influ- 
ence the Goths were kept in subjection to the 
new rule, notwithstanding the Roman pro- 
clivities of Amalasuntha as displayed in the 
education of the young prince. The threat- 
ened danger of an invasion by Justinian was 
likewise averted by the ready aid of his purse 
and pen (Procop. B. G. i. 3). Upon the en- 
forced acceptance by Amalasuntha of Theo- 
datus as co-regent, Cassiodorus again submit- 
ted to circumstances (Var. x. 6, 7), and wrote 
letters soliciting the goodwill of the senate 
and the emperor (x. I, 2, 3. He was then 
praetorian prefect and continued to serve 
under Theodatus after the untimely death of 
Athalaric and the treacherous murder of 
Amalasuntha. One is tempted to suspect the 
nobleness of a character which, no matter how 
infamous the ruler, could accommodate itself 
with such singular tact to every change of 
government ; but Cassiodorus was no mere 
time-server. His writings shew him to have 
been animated by a truly patriotic spirit ; and 
if he adapted himself skilfully to the varying 
humours of the court, it was that he might be 
able to alleviate the misfortunes of his con- 
quered countrymen. ame 

Upon the triumph of Belisarius and the 
downfall of the Ostrogoths, Cassiodorus, now 
70 years of age, withdrew to his native 
province and founded the monastery of 
Viviers at the foot of Mount Moscius, which 
he describes (xii. 15). For 50 years he 
had laboured to preserve authority from its 
own excesses, to soften the manners of the 
Goths and uphold the rights of the Romans; 
but, weary of the superhuman task, turned to 
the cloister for repose and freedom. His 
activity, however, was not satisfied with the 
ordinary occupations of monastic life. Hence 
while the summit of the mountain was set 
apart for the hermits of the community (mon- 
asterium castellense), there sprang up at its 
base, beneath his own immediate auspices, a 


152 CATHARINE 

society of coenobites, devoted to the pursuit 
of learning and science (monastertum vivart- 
ense). He endowed the monastery with his 
extensive Roman library (Div. Lit. c. 8). The 
monks were incited by his example to the study 
of classical and sacred literature, and trained 
in the careful transcription of manuscripts, in 
the purchase of which large sums were con- 
tinually disbursed. Bookbinding, gardening, 
and medicine were among the pursuits of the 
less intellectual members of the fraternity 
(ib. 28, 30, 31). Such time as he himself 
could spare from the composition of sacred 
or scientific treatises he employed in con- 
structing self-acting lamps, sundials, and 
water-clocks for the use of the monastery. 
Nor was the influence of his example confined 
to his own age, institution, or country; the 
multiplication of manuscripts became gradu- 
ally as much a recognized employment of 
monastic life as prayer or fasting ; and for this 
the statue of Cassiodorus deserves an honour- 
able niche in every library. The date of his 
death is uncertain. He composed his treatise 
on orthography in his 93rd year (de Orthogr. 
praef.). 

Of his extant writings, the twelve Books of 
Varieties, consisting principally of letters, 
edicts, and rescripts, are the only work of real 
importance; apart, however, from the study 
of these pages, it is hardly possible to obtain a 
true knowledge of the Italy of the 6th cent. 
The very style of the writer, possessing, as it 
does, a certain elegance, yet continually de- 
viating from pure idiom and good taste, is 
singularly characteristic of the age which wit- 
nessed the last flicker of Roman civilization 
under the Ostrogothic rule. It is as though 
the pen of Cicero had been dipped in barbaric 
ink. The general result is artificial and bi- 
zatre; but though his meaning is frequently 
obscured by his rhetoric, his manner is not as 
unpleasing as is often asserted. It will be 
sufficient to enumerate here the other writings 
of Cassiodorus, a more detailed account of 
which is given in Smith’s D. of G. and R. Biogr. 
(2) Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae, libri 
xii., being an epitome of the ecclesiastical his- 
tories of Sozomen, Socrates, and Theodoretus, 
as digested and translated by Epiphanius 
Scholasticus. (3) Chronicon, chiefly derived 
from Eusebius, Jerome, and Prosper. (4) Com- 
putus Paschalis. (5) Expositio in Psalmos, 
principally borrowed from St. Augustine. (6) 
Expositio in Cantica Canticorum, of doubtful 
authenticity. (7) De Institutione Divinarum 
Literarum, an interesting work as illustrating 
the enlightened spirit which animated the 
monastic life of Viviers. (8) Complextones in 
Epistolas A postolorum, in Acta, et in A pocalyp- 
sin, first brought to light by the Marquis Scipio 
Maffei at Florence, in 1721. (9) De Artibus ac 
Disctplinis Liberalium Literarum. (10) De 
Orattone et de Octo Partibus Orationts, of doubt- 
ful authenticity. (11) De Orthographia. (12) 
De Anima. Of the lost writings of Cassio- 
dorus the most important appears to have been 
de Rebus Gestis Gothorum, libri xii., of which 
we have the abridgment of J ornandes. 

The best ed., together with an appendix con- 
taining the commentaries discovered by Maffei, 
is in Migne’s Patr. vols. xix. xx. [£.M.Y.] 

Catharine (Catharina, Catherine, etc.), St., 


ἡ 


᾿ ΜΝ 


CATHARINE 


virgin and martyr of Alexandria. Tillemont 
writes, in the 17th cent., that it would be 
hard to find a saint more generally reverenced, 
or one of whom so little was known on credible 
authority, and adds that no single fact about 
her is certain (Mém. eccl. vii. pp. 447, 761; 
cf. Papebrocius, as quoted in Baron. Ann. 
Eccl. ed. Theiner, iii. ad ann. 307). 

The earliest mention of St. Catharine in the 
Eastern church (v. Menology of Basil) under 
the name of Hixa@apiva (possibly a corruption 
of ἡ καθαρίνη, dim. of καθαρός, pure), is about 
the end of 9th cent. (Tillem. u.s.; Baillet, Vies 
des Saints, tom. viii. Nov. 25); in 13th cent. 
she appears in the Latin Martyrologies 
(Baillet, 7b.), the crusaders having brought 
her fame to Europe among other marvels 
from the East. Some time in the 8th or 9th 
cent. the monks on Mount Sinai disinterred 
the body, as they were eager to believe, of one 
of those Christian martyrs whose memory they 
cherished. Eusebius relates how a lady of 
Alexandria—he omits her name—was one of 
the victims of Maximinus early in 4th cent. 
(H. E. xiii. 14). It was easy to identify the 
corpse as that of the anonymous sufferer, to 
invent a name for it, and to bridge over the 
distance between Alexandria and Mount Sinai. 
Simeon Metaphrastes, a legendist of Constan- 
tinople in roth cent., gives a long account of 
St. Catharine’s martyrdom, with horrible de- 
tails of her tortures, an exact report of her 
dispute in public with the philosophers of the 
city and of the learned oration by which she 
converted them and the empress Faustina 
and many of the court, and how her corpse 
was transported to Mount Sinai by angels 
(Martin, Vies des Saints, tom. 111. pp. 1841, 
564... But the whole story is plainly unhis- 
torical, even apart from the significant fact 
that there is no external testimony to its 
authenticity. For in Eusebius the emperor’s 
exasperation is provoked, not, as in the 
legend, by a refusal to abjure Christianity and 
to sacrifice to his gods, but by a refusal to 
gratify his guilty passion; and the punish- 
ment inflicted is merely exile, not torture and 
death. Even Baronius, who suggests emend- 
ations to make the legend more probable, 
hesitates to accept it as historical, while his 
commentator, with Tillemont and Baillet, 
abandons altogether the hopeless attempt to 
reconcile Simeon Metaphrastes with Eusebius. 

The martyrdom of St. Catharine is commem- 
orated in the Latin and Greek calendars on 
Nov. 25; the discovery (‘‘ invention ’’) of her 
body on Mount Sinai on May 13 in the French 
Martyrology (Baillet, w.s.). In England her 
festival was promoted from the 2nd class (on 
which field labour, though no other servile 
work, was permitted) to the rst class of holy- 
days in 13thcent. (Conc. Oxon. A.D. 1222, ο. ὃ; 
Conc. Vigorn. A.D. 1240, c. 54), and retained 
as a black-letter day at the Reformation. It 
was left untouched in Germany at the re- 
trenchment of holidays in a.p. 1540. In 
France it was gradually abolished as a holiday, 
although the office was retained in 17th cent. 
(Baillet, u.s.). In Europe during the middle 
ages her name was held in great reverence. 
Louis IX. of France erected in Paris a costly 
church in her name; and the famous Maid of 
Orleans claimed her special favour and tute= 


------...ς.ςς. 


— LA TS A ον 


ee a ee ὧν '΄'ὧοῖ’ὴ 


eee ke 


Le 


Pees E 


Sw = 


τ ~ 
ἂς. 
ΓΝ τον ee σὰ th ΔῈ πὸ ὦ ἔα 


τ  -μὲ-ὦς- 


ἜΝ 


Rr eR Se ἐν 


- ων 


CAULACAU 


lage (Martin, w.s.). The head of St. Catharine 
was alleged to be preserved in her church in 
the Piazza of St. Peter’s at Rome. She was 
regarded generally as the patron saint of 
schools, probably from the tradition of her 
learned controversy with the philosophers at 
Alexandria. A semi-monastic order, the 
Knights of Mount Sinai or of Jerusalem, in- 
stituted in Europe A.p. 1063 in honour of St. 
Catharine, under the rule of St. Basil, bound 
themselves by vows to chastity, though not 
to celibacy (castita conjugale), to entertain 
pilgrims, and in rotation, each for two years, 
to guard the holy relics. Their dress was a 
white tunic, and embroidered on it a broken 
wheel, armed with spikes, in memory of the 
jagged wheel on which, according to the 
legend, the saint was racked, and which was 
miraculously shattered by divine interposition. 
The order became extinct after the fall of 
Constantinople; but in the 17th cent. the 
Basilian monks at Paris gave the badge of 
the order to any candidates who would take the 
vow of chastity and of obedience to the rule of 
St. Basil (Moroni, Dizion. Eccles. Reference to 
Giustiniani, Hist. Chronol. d. Ordini Equestri, 
p. 121 ; Bonami, Catalogo d. Ord. Equest. p. 21). 

See Tillem. Mém. eccl. ; Baronius (Caesar), 
Annales Ecclesiastict (Barri Ducis, 1864, 4to, 
tom. iii.); Bollandus J oannes, Les A ctes des saints, 
etc. (Lyons, Besangon, 1865, 8vo, Nov. 25); 
Life of St. Catharine, with its Latin original 
from the Cotton MSS., ed. with Intro., etc., by 
E. Einenkel (Lond. 1884); Lifeand Martyrdom 
of St. Cath. of Alex. (Roxburghe Club, No. go, 


Lond. 1884). [1.G.S.] 
Caulacau. [BasILiDEs.] 
Celsus (1). Of the personal history of this, 


the first great polemical adversary of Chris- 
tianity, we know nothing with certainty ; and 
even Origen, from whom the whole of our 
knowledge of Celsus is derived, had received 
the work of Celsus, entitled ἀληθὴς λόγος, or 
the True Discourse, without any hint of the 
history or date of its author. 

But questions far more interesting than 
personal ones are raised by his attack on 
Christianity, of which enough has been pre- 
served by Origen in his contra Celsum to con- 
vey to us a very tolerable idea of its nature. 
We must be on our guard at once against dis- 
Paraging it too much, and against thinking 
too highly of its ability. Origen, indeed, who 
to all appearance is a very fair antagonist, 
speaks ofit with contempt. But Celsus was not 
amere polemical assailant ; he was a philo- 
sopher on his own account, and held in certain 
respects by no means unenlightened opinions. 
He had strong faith in reason. ‘‘ What evil 
is it,” he asks, ‘‘ to be learned and to have 
cultivated the intellect with the best pursuits, 
to be and to appear wise ? What obstacle are 
these things to the knowledge of God? Do 
not they rather lead and assist to the attain- 
ment of truth?’’ Nor had that similarity 
between the human and the animal frame, 
which the natural science of our own day in- 
Sists upon, escaped his notice. Hence he 
deduces that ants ‘“ converse, have reason, 
notions of general truths, speech,”’ etc. (iv. 84), 
and even that they have knowledge of God. 
It would be hard, again, to cavil at his ideas 
of the Divine Nature; he speaks of men 


CELSUS 153 


“burning with the love of it”’ (i. 8); he is 
intolerant of the association of it with any- 
thing that is mortal or perishable. He was 
not free from superstition; he believed in 
magic, and declared that serpents and eagles 
were more skilled in it than men (iv. 86). 
Baur says that ‘“‘in acuteness, in dialectical 
aptitude, in many-sided cultivation, at once 
philosophic and general, Celsus stands behind 
no opponent of Christianity.’”’ Admitting that 
this panegyric is not groundless, we must add, 
that in vital insight Celsus was deficient. As 
an opponent of Christianity, the chief charac- 
teristic of Celsus is a strong, narrow, intolerant 
common sense. To him Christianity is an 
“exitiabilis superstitio’’; he gives credence to 
every story against it on which he can lay his 
hands; he dwells with coarse jocularity on the 
Jewish tradition of Panthera and the Virgin 
Mary (i. 28, sqq.); he unearths a certain 
Diagramma, a figure symbolizing the world, 
and consisting of a circle called Leviathan en- 
closing ten other circles, apparently used in the 
rites of some sect more or less approximating 
to the Christians (vi. 22). He has no idea of 
regarding Christianity from the inside, and of 
inquiring into the reason of its influence; he 
uses jest for argument, and interprets every- 
thing in a bad sense. Treating of the flight 
of Jesus into Egypt, and afterwards (as he 
alleges) before the betrayal, he asks, ‘‘ Had 
God need to fly from His enemies? Does fear 
belong to God?” 

From such instances it is evident that Cel- 
sus wholly misapprehended the force of the 
doctrine that he was attacking. There are 
cases, indeed, in which he shews himself more 
acute. He challenges the evidence of Chris- 
tianity, and asks, ‘‘Who saw the dove lighting 
on the head of Jesus after His baptism?’’ As 
tothe Resurrection, he makes the remark which 
has been copied by Renan and others, that it 
was Mary Magdalene, ‘a fanatical woman,”’ 
who was the first witness of the resurrection, 
according to all the accounts (ii. 55); and 
remarks on the disbelief invariably given to 
such accounts as those of the resurrection of 
Zamolxis, Pythagoras, Orpheus, Protesilaus, 
Hercules, and Theseus. But the most remark- 
able portions of his attack are those directed 
against the general character of Christianity. 
He dwells on the numerous sects of Christians, 
all of whom said, ‘‘ Crede, si salvus fieri velis,”’ 
and asks how one is to judge between so many ? 
Origen does not deny the fact, but maintains 
that it is a proof of the importance of that on 
which they debated, and further that they all 
set forth Jesus alone as the means of salvation 
(vi. 11). Celsus accuses the Christians of law- 
lessness, and of keeping wholly to themselves, 
and not caring for those outside. He com- 
plains vehemently of them as discouraging 
learning, wisdom, and thought; as rejecting 
the authority of reason; as being the patrons 
of sinners, whereas to the heathen mysteries 
only ‘“‘ the holy and virtuous’’ were invited. 
He makes a great point of the opposition be- 
tween the morality of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, in respect of the earthly success which 
is the crowning happiness of the former, and 
so strongly reprobated by the latter. Finally, 
he maintains that no revelation of the Supreme 
Being can be made; but that, if it could be 


154 CERDO 


made, it must be of universal and compelling 
efficacy ; that, however, all that is possible is 
revelation by an angel or demon, and even that 
he denies to Judaism or Christianity. 

The form of Celsus’s work, the ἀληθὴς λόγος, 
is well known. He begins with a dialogue be- 
tween a Jew and a Christian, in which the Jew 
sets forth his objections to Christianity. But 
he had not any partiality for Judaism. He 
treats Moses and the Jewish Scriptures with a 
contempt which amusingly contrasts with 
the uncritical reverence which he pays to the 
Galactophagi of Homer, the Druids, and the 
Getae, whom he terms ‘‘ wise and ancient 
nations ”’ (i. 16) ; and with which he accepts 
the stories of Linus and Musaeus, though after- 
wards he rejects those of Perseus and Amphion 
(i. 64). In one of the most unpleasing pas- 
sages of his work, he compares Jews and 
Christians to a set of worms or frogs squab- 
bling in the mud, and saying, ‘‘ God is, and we 
are next to Him, and it is for our sake that the 
whole world is made; and God will come and 
take us up to heaven, except those who are 
bad, whom He will burn with fire.” 

The work of Origen against him is, as a 
whole, of much controversial merit and philo- 
sophical breadth. Origen, indeed, like Celsus, 
is not free from the superstitions of his time ; 
thus he defends the star whose appearance is 
told in the second chapter of St. Matthew by a 
reference to comets, which, he remarks, por- 
tend future events, such as wars and pestil- 
ences. But, on the whole, there are few works 
of the ancient Fathers which can be read with 
more pleasure and profit. F. C. Baur has 
written an elaborate critique on Celsus in his 
work on Christendom and the Christian Church 
in the First Three Centuries (Tiibingen, 1853). 
But especially valuable is Prof. Theodor 
Keim’s monograph (Celsus’s Wahres Wort. 
Ziirich, 1873). Dr. Keim gathers together, 
and translates, the fragments of Celsus con- 
tained in Origen ; 
much interest, both on Celsus himself and on 
two of his contemporaries, Lucian of Samosata 
and Minucius Felix. Both Baur and Keim 
rate Celsus too highly; but the general ten- 
dency of Christian writers has naturally been 
to underrate him. The date of Celsus’s treat- 
ise is fixed by Keim as a.p. 177,or 178. 
(Cf. Renan, Marc-Auréle; Pelagaud, Etude sur 
Celse (Lyons, 1828) ; Aubé, Histoire des persé- 
cutions (Paris, 1878) ; Lightfoot, A post. Fath. 
ΠῚ τ ps s5 kat) [J-R-M.] 


Cerdo (1) (Κέρδων), a Gnostic teacher of the | 


first half of the 2nd cent., principally known 
as the predecessor of MAarcron. Epiphanius 
(Haer. 41) and Philaster (Haer. 44) assert him 
to have been a native of Syria, and Irenaeus 
(i. 27 and ili. 4) states that he came to Rome in 
the episcopate of Hyginus. This episcopate 
lasted four years, and Lipsius (Chronologte der 
romischen Bischéfe) places its termination A.D. 
139-141. Bearing in mind the investigations 
of M. Waddington concerning the year of Poly- 
carp’s martyrdom, we prefer the earlier date, 
if not a still earlier one, and would put Cerdo’s 
arrival at Rome as early as A.D. 135. 
According to the account of Irenaeus, Cerdo 
had not the intention of founding a sect apart 
from the church. He describes him as more 
than once coming to the church and making 


and adds disquisitions of | 


| Marcionite successors. 
| not now determine with certainty how much 


CERINTHUS 


public confession, and so going on, now teach- 
ing his doctrine in secret, now again making 
public confession, now convicted in respect of 
his evil teaching, and removed, or, as some 
think, voluntarily withdrawing himself, from 
the communion of the brethren (ἀφιστάμενος ἢ 
THs τῶν ἀδελφῶν συνοδίας). Epiphanius seems Ὁ 
inaccurate in giving a heading to a sect of 
Cerdonians. Preceding writers speak only of 
Cerdo, not of Cerdonians; and probably his 
followers were early merged in the school of 
Marcion, who is said to have joined himself to 
Cerdo soon after his arrival in Rome. 
Apparently Cerdo left no writings, nor is 
there evidence that those who report his 
doctrine had any knowledge of it independent 
of the form it took in the teaching of his 
Consequently we can- 


of the teaching of Marcion had been antici- 
pated by Cerdo, or what points of disagree- — 
ment there were between the teaching of the 
two. Hippolytus, in his Refutation (x. 19), 
makes no attempt to discriminate between — 
their doctrines. Tertullian, in his work 
against Marcion, mentions Cerdo four times, 
but only as Marcion’s predecessor. Irenaeus 
says that Cerdo taught that the God preached 
by the law and the prophets was not the 
Father of our Lord; for that the former was 
known, the latter unknown; the former was 
just, the latter good. Pseudo-Tertullian’s 
account (Haer. 16) may be regarded as repre- 
senting that in the earlier treatise of Hippoly- 
tus, which was also used by Philaster and 
Epiphanius. Thus we learn that Cerdo intro- 
duced two first principles (ἀρχαί) and two 
gods, the one good, the other evil, the latter 
the creator of the world. It is an important 
difference that to the good god is opposed in 
the account of Irenaeus a just one; in that of 
Hippolytus, an evil one. In the later work 
of Hippolytus already cited, Cerdo is said to 
have taught three principles of the universe, | 
ἀγαθὸν, δίκαιον, ὕλην. Ps.-Tertullian goes on | 
to say that Cerdo rejected the law and the | 
prophets, and renounced the Creator, teaching 
that Christ was the son of the higher good | ~ 


| deity, and that He came not in the substance 


of flesh but in appearance only, and had not Ἢ 
really died or really been born of a virgin ; and 
that Cerdo only acknowledged a resurrection It 
of the soul, denying that of the body. He 
adds, but without support from the other 
authorities, that Cerdo received only the 
Gospel of St. Luke, and that in a mutilated H 
form ; that he rejected some of Paul’s epistles | _ 
and portions of others, and completely re- 
jected the Acts and the Apocalypse. There 
is every appearance that Ps.-Tertullian here 
transferred to Cerdo what in his authority was 
stated of Marcion. For a discussion of his _ 
other doctrines see MARCION. [α.5.] Η Φ 
Cerinthus, a traditional opponent of St. 
John. It will probably always remain an 
open question whether his fundamentally 
Ebionite sympathies inclined him to accept’ 
Jewish rather than Gnostic additions. Modern _ 
scholarship has therefore preferred to view iis | 
doctrine as a fusing together and incorporating 
in a single system tenets collected from Jewish, | 
Oriental, and Christian sources; but the 
nature of that doctrine is sufficiently clear, and 


CERINTHUS 


its opposition to the instruction of St. John as 
decided as that of the Nicolaitanes. 

Cerinthus was of Egyptian origin, and in 
religion a Jew. He received his education in 
the J udaeo-Philonic school of Alexandria. On 
leaving Egypt he visited Jerusalem, Caesarea, 
and Antioch. From Palestine he passed into 
Asia and there developed τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀπωλείας 
βάραθρον (Epiph. xxviii. 2). Galatia, accord- 
ing to the same authority, was selected as his 
headquarters, whence he circulated his errors. 
On one of his journeys he arrived at Ephesus, 
and met St. John in the public baths. The 
Apostle, hearing who was there, fled from the 
place as if for life, crying to those about him : 
* Let us flee, lest the bath fall in while Cerin- 
thus, the enemy of the truth, is there.” 

The value of this and other such traditions 
is confessedly not great—that of the meeting 
with St. John in the bath is told of ‘“ Ebion ”’ 
as well as of Cerinthus ;—but a stratum of 
fact probably underlies them, and they at 
least indicate the feeling with which the early 
“Churchmen’’ regarded him. Epiphanius, 
by whom the majority are preserved, derived 
the principal portion of his statements partly 
from Irenaeus, and partly, as Lipsius has 
shewn with high probability, from the now 
lost earlier work of Hippolytus on heresies. 

His doctrines may be collected under the 
heads of his conception of the Creation, his 
Christology, and his Eschatology. His opin- 
ions upon two of these points, as preserved in 
existing works, support the usual view, that 
Cerinthus rather than Simon Magus is to be 
regarded as the predecessor of Judaeo-Chris- 
tian Gnosticism. 

Unlike Simon Magus and Menander, Cerin- 
thus did not claim a sacred and mystic power. 
Caius the Presbyter can only assert against 
him that he pretended to angelic revelations 
(Eus., Theod.). But his mind, like theirs, 
brooded over the co-existence of good and evil, 
spirit and matter; and his scheme seems 
intended to free the ‘‘ unknown God” and 
the Christ from the bare imputation of infec- 
tion through contact with nature and man. 
Trained as he was in the philosophy of Philo, 
the Gnosis of Cerinthus did not of necessity 
compel him to start from opposition—in the 
sense of malignity—of evil to good, matter to 
spirit. He recognized opposition in the sense 
of difference between the one active perfect 
principle of life—God—and that lower imper- 
fect passive existence which was dependent 
upon God ; but this fell far short of malignity. 
He therefore conceived the material world to 
have been formed not by “the First God,” 
but by angelic Beings of an inferior grade of 
Emanation (Epiph.). More precisely still he 
described the main agent as a certain Power 
(δύναμι) separate and distinct from the 
“ Principality ” (ἡ ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντεία, ν. 
Suicer, Thes. s.v. αὖθ.) and ignorant of τὸν 
ὑπὲρ πάντα θέον. He refused in the spirit of 
a true Jew to consider the “ God of the Jews” 
identical with that author of the material 
world who was alleged by Gnostic teachers to 
be inferior and evil. He preferred to identify 
him with the Angel who delivered the Law 
(Epiph. and Philastr.). Neander and Ewald 
have pointed out that these are legitimate 
deductions from the teaching of Philo. The 


CERINTHUS 155 


conception is evidently that of an age when 
hereditary and instinctive reverence for the 
law served as a check upon the system- 
maker. Cerinthus is a long way from the 
bolder and more hostile schools of later 
Gnosticism. 

The Christology is of an Ebionite cast and 
of the same transition character. It must not 
be assumed that it is but a form of the common 
Gnostic dualism, the double-personality after- 
wards elaborated by Basilides and Valentinus. 
Epiphanius, the chief source of information, 
is to many a mere uncritical compiler, some- 
times following Hippolytus, sometimes Ire- 
naeus. Now it is Christ Who is born of Mary 
and Joseph (Epiph. xxviii. 1), now it is Jesus 
Who is born like other men, born of Joseph and 
Mary; He differs from others only in being 
more righteous, more prudent, and more wise ; 
it is not till after baptism, when Jesus has 
reached manhood, that Christ, ‘‘ that is to 
say, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove,” 
descends upon Jesus from above (ἄνωθεν ἐκ 
Tov ἄνω Θεοῦ: ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντείας, 
Iren.), revealing to Him and through Him to 
those after Him the “‘ unknown Father.’’ If, 
as Lipsius thinks (p. 119), Irenaeus has here 
been influenced by the later Gnostic systems, 
and has altered the original doctrine of Cerin- 
thus as given in Hippolytus, that doctrine 
would seem to be that he considered “ Jesus ” 
and ‘“‘ Christ ’’ titles given indifferently to that 
One Personality Which was blessed by the 
descent of the Holy Spirit, the Power on high 
(ἡ ἄνωθεν δύναμι5). This Power enables Jesus 
to perform miracles, but forsakes Him at His 
Passion, ‘“ flying heavenwards.”’ So, again, 
it is Jesus, according to one passage of Epiph- 
anius, Who dies and rises again, the Christ 
being spiritual and remaining impassible ; 
according to a second, it is Christ Who dies, 
but is not yet risen, nor shall He rise till the 
general resurrection. That passage, how- 
ever, which allows that the human body of 
Jesus had been raised from the dead separates 
its author completely from Gnostic successors. 

The Chiliastic eschatology of Cerinthus is 
very clearly stated by Theodoret, Caius, Diony- 
sius (Eus.), and Augustine, but not alluded to 
by Irenaeus. His silence need perhaps cause 
no surprise : Irenaeus was himself a Chiliast of 
the spiritual school, and in his notes upon 
Cerinthus he is only careful to mention what 
was peculiar to his system. The conception 
of Cerinthus was highly coloured. In his 
‘““dream’’ and ‘“ phantasy’’ the Lord shall 
have an earthly kingdom in which the elect are 
to enjoy pleasures, feasts, marriages, and 
sacrifices. Its capital is Jerusalem and its 
duration 1ooo years: thereafter shall ensue 
the restoration of all things. Cerinthus de- 
rived this notion from Jewish sources. His 
notions of eschatology are radically Jewish : 
they may have originated, but do not contain, 
the Valentinian notion of a spiritual marriage 
between the souls of the elect and the Angels 
of the Pleroma. 

Other peculiar features of his teaching may 
be noted. He held that if a man died unbap- 
tized, another was to be baptized in his stead 
and in his name, that at the day of resurrec- 
tion he might not suffer punishment and be 
made subject to the ἐξουσία κοσμοποίος (cf. 


156 CERINTHUS 

I. Cor. xv. 29). He had learned at Alexandria 
to distinguish between the different degrees of 
inspiration, and attributed to different Angels 
the dictation severally of the words of Moses 
and of the Prophets; in this agreeing with 
Saturninus and the Ophites. He insisted upon 
a partial observance of the “ divine” law, 
such as circumcision and the ordinances of 
the sabbath ; resembling, in this severance of 
the genuine from the spurious elements of the 
law, the school which produced the Clemen- 
tina and the Book of Baruch. He did not even 
scruple (acc. to Epiph.) to call him who gave 
the law ‘‘ not good,’”’ though the epithet may 
have been intended to express a charge of 
ethical narrowness rather than an identification 
of the Lawgiver with the πονηρός of Marcion. 
Epiphanius admits that the majority of these 
opinions rest upon report and oral communi- 
cation. This, coupled with the evident 
confusion of the statements recorded, makes 
it difficult to assign to Cerinthus any certain 
place in the history of heresy. He can only 
be regarded generally as a link connecting 
Judaism and Gnosticism. The traditionary 
relations of Cerinthus to St. John have pro- 
bably done more to rescue his name from 
oblivion than his opinions. In the course of 
time popular belief asserted that St. John had 
written his Gospel specially against the errors 
of Cerinthus, a belief curiously travestied by 
the counter-assertion that not St. John but 


Cerinthus himself was the author of both the | 


Gospel and the Apocalypse. It is not difficult 
to account on subjective grounds for this latter 
assertion. The Chiliasm of Cerinthus was an 
exaggeration of language current in the earliest 
ages of the church; and no work in N.T. 
reproduced that language so ingenuously as 
the Apocalypse. The conclusion was easy 
that Cerinthus had but ascribed the Apoca- 
lypse to the Apostle to obtain credit and cur- 
rency for his own forgery. The ‘ Alogi” 
argued upon similar grounds against the 
Fourth Gospel. It did not agree with the 
Synoptists, and though it disagreed in every 
possible way with the alleged doctrines of 
Cerinthus, yet the false-hearted author of the 
Apocalypse was, they asserted, certainly the 
writer of the Gospel. 

The Cerinthians (known also as Merinthians) 
do not appear to have long survived. If any 
are identical with the Ebionites mentioned by 
Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. 48), some gradually 
diverged from their master in a retrograde 
direction (Dorner, p. 320) ; 
were engulfed in sects of greater note. One 
last allusion to them is found in the ecclesias- 
tical rule applied to them by Gennadius Mas- 
siliensis: ‘‘ Ex istis si qui ad nos venerint, 
non requirendum ab eis utrum baptizati sint 
an non, sed hoc tantum, si credant In ecclesiae 
fidem, et baptizentur ecclesiastico baptismate”’ 
(de Eccles. Dogmatibus, 22; Oehler, i. 348). 

The following primary and secondary autho- 
rities upon Cerinthus may be mentioned: 
Irenaeus, adv. Haer.; S. Hippolytus, Refutatio 
omn. Haeres. (‘‘ Philosophumena’’) ; Theod. 
Haeret. Fab. Comp. ; Epiphanius, Epit. Panar., 
Haer.; Philastrius. de Haeret., Corp. Haeres- 
olog.; Augustine, de Haer. lib. viii. ; Pseudo- 
Tertullian, Lzb. adv. omn. Haeres. x.; Eus. 
Hist. Eccles.; Neander, Ch. Hist.; Ewald, 


but the majority | 


CHROMATIUS 


Gesch. d. Volk. Israel; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. ; ; 


Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik d. Eptphanius ; 
Dorner, Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi; Mil- 
man, Hist. of Christianity ; 


vol. i. 220-262, vol. il. 973 etc. [J.M.F.] 
Christopher, St. (Xpicropdpos), a martyr of 


universal fame, baptized by St. Babylas, the — 


martyr-bp. of Antioch, who suffered (c¢. 250) 
under Decius in Lycia. From early times 
the untrustworthy character of some of the 


popular stories of him has been acknowledged. — 
Usuard (A.p. 876) thus commemorated him 


(July 25) after St. James, according to the 
common Western use, in his Martyrologium: 
“At Samos in Licia. 
scourged with iron rods, and then delivered 
from the broiling flames by the virtue of Christ, 


his head was at last severed from his body, © 
which had fallen full of arrow-wounds, and the © 


martyr’s witness was complete.” 


For the legends respecting him (including © 


the very familiar, but quite unauthentic, one 


of his bearing the Christ-child), see D. Gala 
' and two simple works — 
written respectively by the late Archd. Allen | 


(4-vol. ed., 5.5.), 


and W. G. Pearse (S.P.C.K.). [E.B.B.] 


Robertson, Hist. — 
of Christ. Ch.; Westcott, Canon of N.T., p. Ὁ 
243 (ed. 1866) ; Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Canons, — 


td * th 


After he had been — 


Chromatius, bp. of Aquileia, one of the most | 


influential Western prelates of his day, the 
friend and correspondent of Ambrose, Jerome, 
Rufinus, and other leading ecclesiastics, and 
a warm supporter of Chrysostom against his 
Oriental assailants. He was a native of 
Aquileia, where he resided under the roof of ἡ 
his widowed mother, together with his brother 
Eusebius and his unmarried sisters. 
writing c. A.D. 374, congratulates the mother on ἡ 
her saintly offspring (Hieron. Ep. xliii. [vii.]). 


He was still a presbyter when he took part in — 


the council held at Aquileia, against the Arians | 
Palladius and Secundianus, A.p. 381 (Am- 


brose, Gest. Concil. Aquil. tom. il. pp. 834, δ 


§ 45; 835, §51; 843, ὃ 76). On the death of 
Valerian, Chromatius became bishop of his 
native city. The date is placed by Baronius | 
towards the end of A.p. 388. 

It was at his request that St. Ambrose ex- 
pounded the prophecy of Balaam in an epis- ἡ 
tolary form (Ambros. Ep. lib. i. ep. 50, § 16). 


To his importunities, together with those of | 
Heliodorus, bp. of Altino, and the liberality 


with which they both contributed to the - 
expenses, we owe several of Jerome’s transla- 
tions of and commentaries on the books of 
O.T. (e.g. Tobit, Prov., Eccl., Cant., andChron.). 


In a.p. 392 he dedicated to Chromatius his 


two books of Commentaries on Habakkuk 
(Prolog. ad Habacc.), and c. 397 yielded to his 
urgency and undertook the translation of 
Chronicles (Praef. in Paralip.). 

Chromatius was also an early friend of Rufi- — 
nus, who, whilst an inmate of the monastery at | 
Aquileia, received baptism at his hands ¢. A.D. 
371 (Rufin. Apolog. in Hieron. lib. i. p. 204). 
When, on the publication of Rufinus’s trans- 
lation of Origen’s de Principiis, the friendship > 
between Jerome and Rufinus was exchanged 
for violent animosity, 
tained his friendship with both, and did his 


best to reconcile them. Chromatius imposed 


on Rufinus the task of translating the Eccle- 
stastical History of Eusebius into Latin, 6 


Jerome, © 


ie ἢ. eye προ". ων δ; ee ee ee ee 


I 


co te ὉΣ 


Υ 
' 
ΕΥ 
Chromatius main- 


. CHRYSIPPUS 


gether with Origen’s Homilies on Joshua 
(Rufin. Hist. p. 15). 

In the persecution of Chrysostom, Chroma- 
tius warmly embraced his cause. The posi- 
tion he held in the West is shewn by Chrysos- 
tom’s uniting his name with those of Innocent 
bp. of Rome and Venerus bp. of Milan in 
the protest addressed to the Western church 
(Pallad. c. ii. ad fin.). Chromatius sent Chry- 
sostom a letter of sympathy by the hands of 
the Western deputation (ἐδ. c. iv.), and A.D. 
406 received from him a letter of grateful 
thanks (Chrys. Ep. clv.). Chromatius also 
wrote in Chrysostom’s behalf to Honorius, who 
forwarded his letter to his brother Arcadius as 
an evidence of the sentiments of the Western 
church (Pallad. c. iii. iv.). He died c. 407. 

We have under his name 18 homilies on “‘the 
Sermon on the Mount,’’ commencing with a 
Tractatus Singularis de Octo Beatitudinibus, 
followed by 17 fragments of expositions on 
Matt. iii. 15-17; v.; vi. His interpretation 
is literal, not allegorical, and his reflections 
moral rather than spiritual. Galland. Bzbl. 
Vet. Pair. viii. c. 15 ; Migne, Pair. Lat. xx. 247 
seq. ; Tillemont, Mém. eccl. xi. pp. 538 seq. ; 
Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 378. [Ε-ν. 

Chrysippus, one of four brothers, Cappa- 
docians by birth, of whom two others were 
named Cosmas and Gabriel, as recorded by 
Cyril of Scythopolis. They left their native 
country for Jerusalem, that they might be 
instructed by the celebrated abbat Euthymius. 
In 455 Chrysippus was made the superior of 
the monastery of Laura, and subsequently of 
the church of the Resurrection, by the patri- 
arch Juvenal. He was raised to the presby- 
terate, and on the elevation of his brother 
Cosmas, who had held the office, to the see of 
Seythopolis, was appointed ‘‘ guardian of the 
Holy Cross,” which he held till his death. 
Chrysippus was a copious author, and accord- 
ing to Cyril, who praises him as θαυμαστὸς 
συγγραφεύς. ‘left many works worthy of all 
acceptation,’’ very few of which are extant. 
A“ laudatio Joannis Baptistae,’’ delivered on 
the occasion of his festival, is printed in a Latin 
translation by Combefis (Bzblioth. Concionat. 
vii. 108). Fabricius mentions a Homilia in 
Deiparam, printed in the Auctarium Biblioth. 
Pair. (Paris, 1624), vol. ii. p. 424, and a Laud- 
atio Theodort Martyris, which appears to be 
lost. Photius (Cod. 171) records his having 
read in a writing of Chrysippus a statement 
relating to the baptism of Gamaliel and Nico- 
demus by SS. Peter and John, and the martyr- 
dom of the latter, which Chrysippus had 
derived from a fellow-presbyter, Lucian, to 
whom it had been revealed in a dream, to- 
gether with the localities in which their bodies 
and that of St. Stephen were to be found. 
This is a very early example of the dreams 
indicating the position of valuable relics which 
We meet with so frequently in the middle ages, 
by which the failing fortunes of a religious 
house were revived, or the rival attractions of 
another establishment emulated (Cyrill. Scy- 
thop. Vit. S. Euthym. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 444 ; 
Combefis, Bibl. Conc. i. 8.) [Ε.ν.] 

Chrysogonus (1), martyr in the persecution 
of Diocletian, whose name was inserted in the 
Canon of the Mass from a very early period, 
which shews his importance, though little is 


CHRYSOLOGUS, PETRUS 157 


now known of him. In the Menology he is 
commemorated along with Anastasia, Dec. 22. 
He was of ‘‘ great Rome,’”’ “ἃ man that feared 
God,”’ ‘‘ teacher of the Christians’’; “ and 
when persecution was set on foot he was 
arrested and cast into prison.’’ ‘‘ Diocletian, 
staying at Nice, wrote to Rome that all the 
Christians should die, and that Chrysogonus 
should be brought bound to Nice, and when 
he was brought he beheaded him.’’ For Nice 
we should probably read Nicomedia. In 
these acts it is easy to trace the effects of the 
first and second of Diocletian’s edicts. Chry- 
sogonus evidently was not one of the traditors, 
so numerous at Rome under the first edict, 
Feb. a.p. 303. Hence, when by the second 
edict, not long after, all the clergy were com- 
mitted to jail, he exercised great influence 
from his prison on the faithful, still for the 
most part unscathed and at large. The ques- 
tion is to what we are to refer the statement 
about the decree that all Christians should 
be killed, and that Chrysogonus should be 
brought to Bithynia. His passion is assigned 
to Dec. 22. By the third edict, on the great 
anniversary festival of the emperor on the 
21st, the clergy were to sacrifice if they were 
to be included in the general release of prison- 
ers; if not, torture was to be employed to 
induce them. But there were no general 
orders for the arrest of all Christians. The 
rescript of Trajan was still in force. But the 
great festival must have brought to light many 
arecusant. They might not be executed, but 
if they died under torture it was strictly legal. 
When, in the spring of a.p. 304, the fourth 
edict appears, it sets forth no new penalties ; 
it merely interprets the previous decrees in all 
the grim pregnancy of their meaning: ‘“‘ certis 
poenis intereant.”’ 

It may well be that the constancy of men 
like Chrysogonus, under their tortures, was 
among the things that drove Diocletian mad ; 
and that he left word at his hurried departure 
from Rome (Dec. 22, A.D. 303), ‘“‘ Send him 
after me.’”? The martyrdom is assigned by 
several Western authorities to Aquileia or the 
neighbouring Aquae Gradatae in Friulia. The 
day to which it is almost universally assigned 
in the West, from the Calendar of Carthage 
onwards, is Nov. 24. Anastasia’s commemo- 
ration in the West is on Dec. 25, and in some of 
the Hieronymian martyrologies her passion is 
assigned to Sirmium, which was probably the 
scene of Diocletian’s illness. But Usuard tells 
that she was transported to the little isle 
Palmaruola (about lat. 410, long. 319) in the 
Tyrrhene sea. [E.B.B.| 

Chrysologus, Petrus, archbp. of Ravenna, 
A.D. 433-454, said to have been born at Forum 
Cornelii (Imola), according to Agnellus, in the 
episcopate of Cornelius, by whom he was 
brought up (Serm. 165), ordained deacon, and 
made oeconomus of the church. The ordinary 
account of Peter’s elevation to the see of 
Ravenna, which is repeated by successive bio- 
graphers with ever-increasing definiteness of 
statement, does too much violence to the facts 
of history to be worthy of credit. The impro- 
babilities of the story are exposed by Tille 
mont, and it is stigmatized by Dupin as “a 
groundless tale related by no credible author.” 
It is, however, given so circumstantially by 


158 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
Agnellus in his Liber Pontificalis that it may 
contain some distorted elements of truth. 

In the 176 sermons of his still extant we 
look in vain for traces of the golden eloquence 
to which he owed hissurname. They are very 
short, written in brief simple sentences; his 
meaning is always clear, and his language 
natural; but there is nothing in them calcu- 
lated to touch the heart or move the affections. 
His fame as a preacher evidently depended 
more on voice and manner than on matter. 
His sermons are almost all on subjects from 
the gospels, usually the parables and miracles, 
commencing with a course of six on the pro- 
digal son. Many other works ascribed to him, 
including commentaries on Scripture, and 
letters against the Arians, have all perished by 
fire, partly in the siege of Imola, by Theodoric, 
c. A.D. 524; partly in the conflagration of the 
archbishop’s library at Ravenna, c. A.D. 700. 

Tillemont, xv. 114seq.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 432; 
Migne, Patr. Lat. 111. pp. 9-680 ; Herzog, Real- 
Encye. ii. 695. [Ε.ν.] 

Chrysostom, John (Ἰωάννης Χρυσόστομος). 
The surname “Ὃ golden-mouthed,” given to the 
great preacher of Antioch, and bp. of Constan- 
tinople, on account of the magnificent brilliancy 
of his eloquence (cf. PETRUS CHRYSOLOGUS), 
has entirely superseded , his personal name 
John, which alone is found in contemporary or 
closely subsequent writers. When the epithet 
was first applied is unknown. There is no 
trace of it in his lifetime, but it was in common 
use before the end of the 5th cent. 

Chrysostom was born at Antioch probably 
A.D. 347. He was of good family ; his father 
Secundus filling the post of ‘‘ magister mili- 
tum ”’ (στρατηλάτης), one of the eight men of 
distinguished rank—llustres viros (Veget. de Re 
Militari, ii. 9—who commanded the imperial 
armies. His mother, Anthusa, was also a lady 
of good family (Pallad. p. 40; Socr. vi. 3). 
Anthusa, while John was an infant, was left 
a widow at the age of twenty, refused all offers 
of marriage, and devoted herself to the educa- 
tion of her boy and the care of his property 
(de Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 55). Her unremitting 
devotion to her maternal duties excited ad- 
miration even from the heathen (Ep. ad Vid. 
Jun. 1. Ὁ: 2, p. 340): 

St. Chrysostom’s life may be conveniently 
divided into five epochs: (a) His life as a lay- 
man at Antioch till his baptism and admission 
as a reader, A.D. 347-370; (δ) his ascetic and 
monastic life, A.D. 370-381; (c) his career as 
deacon, presbyter, and preacher at Antioch, 
A.D. 381-398; (d) his episcopate at Constan- 
tinople, A.D. 398-404; (e) exile, A.D. 404-407. 

(a) Lifeas a Layman at Antioch.—The intel- 
lectual power manifested at a very early age 
marked him out as fitted for one of the learned 
professions. The bar was chosen, and at 
about 18 years of age he began to attend the 
lectures of the celebrated sophist Libanius, 
the intimate friend and correspondent of the 
emperor Julian, and tutor of Basil the Great, 
who had come to end his days in his native 
city of Antioch. The genius and ability of the 
pupil excited the greatest admiration in his 
master, who, being asked on his deathbed, c. 
A.D. 395, which of his pupils he thought wor- 
thiest to succeed him, replied, “‘ John, if the 
Christians had not stolen him from us” (Soz. 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN ° 


H. E. lib. viii. c. 2). When Chrysostom 
commenced practice as an advocate, his gift — 
of eloquence speedily displayed itself. His 
speeches were listened to with delight, and 
were highly praised by Libanius, no mean 
judge of rhetoric. A brilliant career was — 
opening before the young man, leading to al) — 
that men most covet, wealth, fame, high place. _ 
But a change, gradual but mighty, came over © 
his spirit, and like another young student of 
the neighbouring province of Cilicia, “ the 
things that were gain to him he counted loss 
for Christ.”’ Like Timothy at the knees of 
Eunice, ‘‘from a child’’ Chrysostom had 
learnt from his devout mother the things that 
were “‘ able to make him wise unto salvation,” 
and his soul revolted at the contrast between — 
the purity of the gospel standard and the 
baseness of the aims and viciousness of the | 
practices prevalent in the profession he had — 
chosen. To accept a fee for making the worse — 
appear the better cause seemed to his generous 
and guileless soul to be bribed to lie—to take 
Satan’s wages—to sin against his own soul. 
His disinclination to the life of a lawyer was 
much increased by the influence of the exam- 
ple of his intimate friend Basil, the companion 
of his studies and the sharer of all his thoughts 
and plans. The two friends had agreed to 
follow the same profession; but when Basil 
decided on adopting a monastic life, and to 
follow, in Chrysostom’s words, ‘‘ the true | 
philosophy,’’ Chrysostom was unable at once 
to resolve to renounce the world, to the attrac- | 
tions of which his ardent nature was by no 
means insensible, and of which he was in some 
danger of becoming a slave. He was “a 
never-failing attendant at the law courts, and 
passionately enamoured of the theatre’”’ (de 
Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 14, Ρ- 363). His friend 
Basil’s adoption of an ascetic life at first caused 
an interruption of their intercourse. But life 
was intolerable separated from his second self. 
He renewed his intimacy with Basil. The 
pleasures and pursuits of the world became 
distasteful to him, and he soon resolved to 
abandon it altogether, quitting mother and 
home, and finding some sacred retreat where 
he and his friend could devote themselves to © 
strict ascetism (7b. c. 4). This decisive change 
—Chrysostom’s conversion we should now call 
it—was greatly promoted by the acquaintance 
he formed at this period with the mild and holy 
Meletius, the orthodox and legitimate bp. οὗ 
Antioch, who had recently returned to his 5866. 
after one of his many banishments for the 
faith. Meletius quickly observed the intel- 
lectual promise of the young lawyer, and, » 
enamoured of the beauty of his disposition, 
sought frequent opportunities of intercourse, 
and in a prophetic spirit declared the greatness 
of his future career (Pallad. p. 40). Up to this 
time Chrysostom, though the child of Christ- 
ian parents, had remained unbaptized, a not 
unfrequent practice at this epoch. The time © 
for public profession of his faith was now come, 
and after a probation of three years, Meletius ᾿ 
baptized him, and ordained him reader. This 
was in A.D. 369 or 370, when Chrysostom was 
about 23 years old (Pallad. p. 41). Ν in 
(Ὁ) Ascetic and Monastic Life-—Baptism re- 
stored the balance which Chrysostom tells us 
had been so seriously disturbed by Basil’s — 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


higher religious attainments (de Sacerdot. lib. 
i. c. 3, Ρ- 363). He became in the truest sense 
“anew man” (Pallad. p. 184). His desire to 
flee from the world, with his beloved Basil, 
was established, and only frustrated by the 


_| passionate entreaties of his weeping mother 


that her only child, for whom she had given up 
all, would not desert her. The whole scene is 
narrated by Chrysostom in a passage of ex- 
quisite simplicity and tenderness (de Sacerdot. 
lib. i. c. 5, pp- 363-365). His affectionate 
nature could not resist a mother’s tears. In 
spite of Basil’s continued urgency, he yielded 
so far as to remain at home. But if out of 
filial regard he abstained from deserting his 
home for a monastery, he would make a mon- 
astery of his home. He practised the most 
rigid asceticism, ate little and seldom, and that 
of the plainest, slept on the bare ground, and 
rose frequently for prayer. He rarely left the 
house, and, to avoid his old habit of slander, 
kept almost unbroken silence. It is not sur- 
prising that his former associates called him 
morose and unsociable (7b. lib. vi. c. 12, p. 431). 
Upon some of these associates, however, his 
influence began to tell. Two of his fellow- 
pupils under Libanius, Maximus, afterwards 
bp. of Seleucia, and THEoDoRUs, bp. of Mop- 
suestia, adopted the ascetic life under the 
superintendence of Dioporus and Carterius, 
who presided over a monastery in or near 
Antioch. From Diodorus Chrysostom learnt 
the clear common-sense mode of interpreting 
Holy Scripture (repudiating the allegorizing 
principle), of which he and Theodore became 
such distinguished representatives. The in- 
ability of his friend Theodore to part definitely 
with the world, and stifle natural instincts, 
was the occasion of the composition of Chry- 
sostom’s earliest extant treatises. Theodore’s 
love for a girl named Hermione led him to 
leave the ascetic brotherhood and return to 
secular life. Chrysostom’s heart was deeply 
stirred at this. He regarded it as a sin to be 
repented of and forsaken if Theodore would 
not forfeit salvation. He addressed two 
letters to him full of impassioned eloquence, 
earnestly calling him to penitence and amend- 
ment. His fervid remonstrances succeeded. 
Theodore gave up his engagement, and finally 
abandoned the world (ad Theodorum Lapsum, 
τ τὰς Socr. H. E. vi. 3). 
_We now come to a passage in Chrysostom’s 
life which we must condemn as utterly at 
variance with truth and honour. Yet we 
must bear in mind that the moral standpoint 
of the Fathers was on this point different from 
our own. It was generally held that the cul- 
pability of an act of deception depended upon 
its purpose, and that if this was good the 
deception was laudable. Chrysostom himself 
says, ‘‘ There is a good deceit such as many 
have been deceived by, which one ought not 
even to calla deceit at all,’’ instancing that 
of Jacob, “‘ which was not a deceit, but an 
economy ” (Homil. vi. in Col. ii. 8). On this 
principle, which every healthy conscience 
now repudiates, Chrysostom proceeded to plan 
and execute a deliberate fraud to entrap his 
friend Basil into consecration to the episco- 
pate. Several sees were now vacant in Syria, 
which it was desirable to fill without delay. 
A body of prelates met at Antioch for this 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 159 


purpose. Among those suitable for the epis- 
copate, Chrysostom and Basil were pointed 
out, though they were not yet even deacons. 
Chrysostom’s awful sense of the weight and 
responsibility of the priestly office, which 
breathes in every line of his treatise de Sacer- 
dotio, and of his own unfitness, made him 
tremble at the idea of ordination. Basil, on 
the contrary, he considered to be well qualified, 
and he was fully resolved that the church 
should not lose the services of his friend. 
While, therefore, he pretended acquiescence in 
his friend’s proposition that they should decide 
alike in the matter, he secretly resolved to 
avoid the dreaded honour by concealment. 
When the time of consecration arrived, and 
Basil was carried before the bishops, and re- 
luctantly forced to accept ordination, Chry- 
sostom was nowhere to be found, and it was 
represented to Basil that he had been already 
consecrated. When too late Basil discovered 
the unfaithfulness to their compact, and 
upbraided Chrysostom; his complaints were 
received with laughter and loud expressions 
of thankfulness at the success of his plot (de 
Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 3, p. 365). [BasiLrus.] 

About a.p. 374 Chrysostom carried into 
effect his-resolution of devoting himself to an 
ascetic life, and left his home for a monastic 
community on one of the mountain ranges S. 
of Antioch. As there is no reference in any of 
his writings to any opposition from his mother, 
it is probable that her death had left him free. 
After four years spent in unremitting auster- 
ities, he left the society of his kind, and, dwel- 
ling in a mountain cavern, practised still more 
rigid self-discipline (Pallad. p. 41). At the 
end of two years his health so completely gave 
way that he was forced to return to his home 
in Antioch. To these austerities may be 
attributed that debilitated frame, weakness of 
digestion, and irritability of temperament, to 
which his constant physical sufferings and 
many of his chief difficulties and calamities are 
not remotely traceable. 

(c) A Preacher and Presbyter at Antioch.— 
Chrysostom did not return to Antioch to be 
idle. He was ordained deacon by Meletius 
A.D. 381, shortly before the latter left to pre- 
side over the oecumenical council of Constan- 
tinople (Pallad. p. 42). Meletius died during 
the session of the council, and his successor 
Flavian raised Chrysostom to the presby- 
terate early in a.p. 386 (7b.). During his 
five years’ diaconate he had gained great 
popularity by his aptness to teach, and his 
influence had made itself widely felt at 
Antioch. While deacon he composed the de 
Virginitate; the Ep. ad Viduam Juniorem, 
addressed to the young widow of Therasius 
(c. 381) ; its sequel de non Iterandv Conjugio ; 
and the orations de Martyre Babyla. After his 
ordination he preached his first sermon before 
the bishop, and a vast crowd was gathered 
by the fame of his eloquence (Sermo, cum 
Presbyt. fuit Ordinatus, de se ac de Episcopo, 
deque Populi Multitudine). The succeeding 
ten years, embracing Chrysostom’s life as a 
presbyter at Antioch, were chiefly devoted to 
the cultivation of the gift of pulpit eloquence 
on which his celebrity mainly rests. It was 
during this period that ‘‘ the great clerk and 
godly preacher,’ as our First Homily terms 


160 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


him, delivered the greater part of the dis- 
courses extant, which must be but a very small 
portion of those preached, for he preached re- 
gularly twice a week, on Saturday and Sunday, 
besides Lent and saints’ days, and, as we learn 
from his homilies on Genesis, sometimes five 
days in succession (Tillemont, tom. xi. p. 34). 
Flavian appointed him frequently to preach 
in the cathedral. Whenever he preached the 
church was densely thronged, the hearers tes- 
tifying their delight in loud and noisy applause. 
This was highly offensive to Chrysostom, who 
often rebuked their unseemly behaviour (adv. 
Arian. de Incomprehen. Det Natura, Homil. 
111. c. 7, p. 471 ; Homil. iv. ὃ 6, p. 480). The 
most remarkable series of homilies, containing 
his grandest oratorical flights, and evincing 
most strikingly his power over the minds 
and passions of men, are the Homilies on the 
Statues, delivered in March and April, A.p. 
387, while the fate of Antioch was hanging in 
awful suspense on the will of the justly of- 
fended emperor Theodosius. The demand for 
a large subsidy to pay a liberal donative to 
the army had exasperated the citizens. The 
ominous silence with which the proclamation 
of the edict was received, Feb. 26, broken only 
by the wailings of the women, was soon suc- 
ceeded by mutinous cries, and all the symp- 
toms of a popular outbreak. The passions of 
the mob were stimulated by those who had 
nothing to lose and might gain from public 
disorder. The influence of Flavian might 
have calmed the tumult, but he was from 
home. The rabble, swelling in numbers and 
fury as it rushed through the city, proceeded 
to acts of open violence. The public baths 
were ransacked ; the praetorium was attacked 
and the mob with difficulty repulsed, the 
governor saving himself by flight through a 
back door, and finally the hall of judgment was 
stormed. This was the scene of their crowning 
act of insurrection. The portraits of the 
emperors, which decorated the walls of the 
court, were pelted with stones and filth, and 
torn to shreds, the Augusti themselves were 
loaded with curses, and the statues of Theo- 
dosius and his deceased wife, the excellent 
Flaccilla, were torn from their pedestals and 
ignominiously dragged through the streets. 
Further outrages were only stopped by the 
appearance of a band of archers dispatched by 
the prefect. The mutiny quelled, calm reflec- 
tion set before them the probable consequences 
of this recent fury. Panic fear, as is usual, 
succeeded the popular madness. The out- 
bursts of unrestrained passion, to which the 
emperor was subject, were well known. The 
insult to his beloved empress would be certain 
to be keenly resented and terribly avenged. 
It was only too probable that an edict would 
be issued for the destruction of Antioch or for 
the massacre of its inhabitants, foreshadowing 
that of Thessalonica, which three years later 
struck horror into the Christian world. Their 
only hope lay in the intercession of Flavian, 
who, regardless of his age and the serious ill- 
ness of his sister, had instantly started for the 
imperial city, to lay at the emperor’s feet the 
confession of his people and to supplicate for 
pardon. Day by day, during this terrible 
suspense, lasting for three weeks, Chrysostom 
devoted his noblest gifts as a sacred orator 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


to awaken repentance among the dissolute 
crowds hanging on_his impassioned words. — 
Just before Easter Flavian returned with the — 
glad tidings that theircrimewaspardoned. The — 
homily delivered by Chrysostom on Easter — 
day (the 21st of the series) describes the inter- — 
view of Flavian with Theodosius, the prelate’s αἱ 
moving appeal for clemency, and its immedi- — 
ate effect on the impressionable mind of the | 
emperor, who granted a complete amnesty and — 
urged Flavian’s instant return to relieve the 
Antiochenes from their terrible suspense. One 
happy result of this crisis was the conversion — 
of a large number of the still heathen popula- | 
tion to Christianity (Homil. de Anna. I. c. τ, 
vol. iv. p. 812). 
These events occurred in the spring of A.p. 
387. For ten years longer Chrysostom con- 
tinued as a preacher and teacher at Antioch. 
To this period may be assigned his comment- 
aries on Gen. and Pss., St. Matt. and St. John, 
Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., and Eph. Those on 
Tim. i., ii., Tit., and on the other Epp. of 
St. Paul, are considered by Tillemont to have 
been certainly delivered at Constantinople 
(Till. Mém. eccl. tom. xi. pp. 92-97, 370-376). 
(4) Episcopate of Constantinople.—Chrysos- 
tom’s residence at Antioch ended in A.D. 397. 
In Sept. the bp. of Constantinople, the amiable | 
and indolent Nectarius, died. The vacant see 
was one of the most dignified and influential in 
the chureh. Public expectation was excited 
as to his successor. The nomination rested 
with the emperor Arcadius, but virtually with 
the prime minister Eutropius. Passing by 
numerous candidates, he determined to ele- | 
vate one who had no thought of being a | 
candidate at all, John of Antioch, whose 
eloquence had impressed him during a recent 
visit to Antioch on state business. Chrysos- 
tom’s name was received with delight by the 
electing prelates, and at once unanimously 
accepted. The difficulty lay with Chrysostom 
himself and the people of Antioch. The 
double danger of a decided ‘“‘ nolo episcopari” 
on Chrysostom’s part and of a public commo- 
tion among the Antiochenes was overcome 
by stratagem. Asterius, the ‘‘ comes orien- 
{15,᾿ in accordance with secret instructions 
from Eutropius, induced Chrysostom to ac- 
company him to a martyr’s chapel outside the 
city walls. There he was apprehended by the 
officers of the government, and hurried over 
the 800 miles under military escort from stage 
to stage, and reached his imperial see a closely 
guarded prisoner. His remonstrances were 
unheeded ; his inquiries met with obstinate 
silence. Resistance being useless, Chrysostom 
felt it more dignified to submit. He was 
consecrated Feb. 26, 398, by Theophilus, 
patriarch of Alexandria. The duty was very 
unwelcome, for Theophilus had left no stone 
unturned to secure the nomination of Isidore, | 
a presbyter of Alexandria. The ceremony 
was witnessed by a vast multitude, assembled 
to listen to the inaugural sermon of one of | 
whose eloquence they had heard so much. — 
This ‘‘sermo enthronisticus’’ is lost (Socr. 
H. E. vi. 2; Soz. H. E. viii. 2; Pallad. p. 42): 
Constantinople soon learnt the difference 
between the new bishop and his predecessor. 
Chrysostom at once disfurnished the epis- 
copal residence, and disposed of the costly 


ἢ 
; 
4 
i 
ἢ 
i 
a 
i 


ST ταῖν: οι 
- _ |. = δ τ 4 ὋΣ Ὁ 
᾿ 


| pp. 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


plate and rich equipment for the benefit of the 
poor and the hospitals (Pallad. pp. 46, 47). 
Instead of banqueting with the laity, he ate 
the simplest fare in his solitary chamber (ἰδ. 
tor, 102). He studiously avoided the 
court and association with the great, and even 
ordinary conversation, except when duty com- 
pelled (ἐδ. pp. 103, 120-123). Such behaviour 
could hardly fail to be misrepresented. To 
the populace, accustomed to the splendour of 
former bishops, Chrysostom’s simplicity ap- 
peared unworthy of his lofty station, and he 
was openly charged with parsimony, morose- 
ness, and pride (Socr. H. E. vi. 4; Soz.. H. E. 


viii. 9). Nor was the contrast more acceptable 


to most of his clergy, whose moral tone was 
far from elevated. Chrysostom, with uncom- 
promising zeal, attempted to bring them back 
to simplicity of life and to activity in their 
calling. He deposed some on charges of 
homicide and adultery, and repelled others 
from the Eucharist. He set his face resolutely 
against the perilous custom of receiving 
“spiritual sisters’ (συνείσακται), which was 
frequently the source of the grossest immorali- 
ties. To obviate the attractions of the Arians 
who at night and at early dawn gathered large 
crowds by their antiphonal hymns under por- 
ticoes and in the open air, as well as for the 
benefit of those unable to attend the church in 
the day, he revived the old custom of nocturnal 
services with responsive chanting, to the in- 
dignation of those clergy to whom ease was 
dearer than the spiritual improvement of 
their flocks (Pallad. p. 47; Soz. H. E. viii.8; 
Homil. in Acta, 26, c. 3, p. 212). His dis- 
ciplinary measures were rendered more un- 
popular by his lack of a conciliatory manner, 
coupled with irritability of temper and no 
small obstinacy (Socr. H. E. vi. 3, 21; Soz. 
H. E. viii. 3. He was also too much 
swayed by his archdeacon, Serapion, a proud, 
violent man, who is reported to have ex- 
claimed at an assembly of the clergy, ‘‘ You 
will never be able, bishop, to master these 
mutinous priests unless you drive them before 
you with a single rod” (Pallad. 18, 19; Socr. 
H. E. vi. 4; Soz. viii. 9). 

But while his relations with his clergy were 
becoming increasingly embittered, he stood 
high in favour with the people, who flocked 
to his sermons, and drank in greedily his 
vehement denunciations of the follies and 
vices of the clergy and aristocracy (Socr. 
Vi. 4, 5). He was no less popular with Arca- 
dius and his empress, the Frankish general’s 
daughter, Eudoxia, who was beginning to sup- 
plant the author of her elevation, the eunuch 
Eutropius, and to make her feeble partner 
bow to her more powerful will. For a time the 
bishop and the empress, between whom was 
afterwards so uncompromising an hostility, 
vied with one another in expressions of mutual 
admiration and esteem. Towards the latter 
Part of 398, not long after Chrysostom had 
taken possession of his see, the relics of some 
anonymous martyrs were translated by night 
with great ceremony to the martyry of St. 
Thomas, on the seashore of Drypia, about nine 
miles from the city, which the empress had 
instituted in a fit of religious excitement. So 
lengthened was the procession and so brilliant 
the torches, that Chrysostom compares it to 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 161 


a river of fire. The empress herself in royal 
diadem and purple, attended by nobles and 
ladies of distinction, walked by the side of the 
bishop, in the rear of the chest enclosing the 
sacred bones. It was dawn before the church 
was reached and Chrysostom began his sermon. 
It was fullof extravagant laudations of Euxodia 
and of ecstatic expressions of joy, which after- 
wards formed a ground of accusation against 
him (Homil. Dicta Postquam Reliquiae, etc. 
vol. xii. pp. 468-473). The next day the em- 
peror with his court visited the shrine, and, 
laying aside his diadem, reverenced the holy 
martyrs. After the departure of Arcadius Chry- 
sostom delivered a second enthusiastic homily 
in praise of his piety and humility (Homil. 
Dicta Praesente Imperatore, ib. pp. 474-480). 
At the same period the largeness of Chrysos- 
tom’s heart and the sincerity of his Christian 
love were manifested by his care for the spirit- 
ual state of the numerous Goths at Constan- 
tinople. Some were Catholics, but the major- 
ity were Arians. He had portions of the Bible 
translated into their vernacular, and read by 
a Gothic presbyter to his countrymen in the 
church of St. Paul, who afterwards addressed 
them in their own tongue (Homil. 8, vol. xii. 
pp. 512-526). Chrysostom himself frequently 
preached to them by an interpreter. He 
ordained native readers, deacons, and presby- 
ters, and dispatched missionaries to the Gothic 
tribes who still remained on the banks of the 
Danube, and consecrated a bishop from among 
themselves named Unilas (Theod. H. E. v. 
30; Ep. 14, 207). Having learnt that the 
nomad Scythian tribes on the banks of the 
Danube were desirous of being instructed in 
the faith, he at once dispatched missionaries 
to them, and corresponded with Leontius, bp. 
of Ancyra, with regard to the selection of able 
men from his diocese for this work (ib. H. E. 
v. 31). Inhis zeal for the suppression of pagan 
idolatry he obtained an imperial edict, A.p. 
399, for the destruction of the temples in 
Phoenicia, which was carried out at the cost of 
some Christian ladies of Constantinople, who 
also supplied funds for missionary exertions 
in that country (zb. v. 29). These efforts for 
the propagation of the faith were very dear to 
Chrysostom’s heart, and even during his exile 
he superintended and directed them by letter 
(Ep. 53, 54, 123, 126). He endeavoured to 
crush false doctrine wherever it was making 
head. Having learnt that the Marcionite 
heresy was infecting the diocese of Cyrus, he 
wrote to the then bishop, desiring him to 
expel it, and offering to help him in putting 
in force the imperial edicts for that purpose. 
He thus evidenced, in the words of Theodoret, 
that, like St. Paul, he bore in his heart “‘ the 
care of all the churches ”’ (H. E. v. 31). 
Eurroptus fell from power in 399. He had 
hoped for a subservient bishop; but not 
only did Chrysostom refuse to countenance 
his nefarious designs, but denounced his vices 
from the pulpit with unsparing fidelity. The 
unhappy man, hurled in a moment from the 
pinnacle of his greatness, took refuge for a 
while in the church, but was ultimately be- 
headed at Chalcedon (Socr. ἢ. E. vi. 5 ; Soz. 
H. E. viii. 7; Philost. H. E. xi. 6; Zosimus, 
v. 18; Chrys. Hom. in Eutrop. vol. iii. pp. 
454-460 ; de Capto Eutrop. ib. pp. 460-482), 


1] 


162 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


Early in a.p. 400 Gainas, the haughty Goth 
who had had a large share in the downfall of 
Eutropius,demanded thesurrender of three lead- 
ingministers, Aurelianus the consul, Saturninus, 
and count John the empress’s chief favourite. 
To relieve the emperor of embarrassment, they 
surrendered themselves. Their lives were in 
extreme danger. Chrysostom resorted to 
Gainas’s camp, pleaded the cause of the hos- 
tages, and endeavoured to persuade the Goth 
to lessen his extravagant demands to be made 
consul and commander-in-chief, which would 
have placed the emperor at his mercy. Gain- 
as had urged his claim for one of the churches 
of Constantinople for Arian worship, but 
Chrysostom’s eloquence and spiritual author- 
ity overpowered him, and he desisted for a 
time at least in pressing his demand (Soz. 
H. E. viii. 4; Socr. H. E. vi. 6; Theod. H. E. 
ν. 32, 33; Chrys. Hom. cum Saturn. et Aurel. 
etc., vol. iii. pp. 482-487). The sequel belongs 
to general history. The emperor, as a last 
resort, declared Gainas a public enemy ; the 
inhabitants of the city rose against the Goths; 
a general massacre ensued, and Gainas was 
forced to flee for safety (Zosim. v. 18-22). 

At this epoch the power and popularity of 
Chrysostom was at its culminating point. We 
have now to trace its swift and complete de- 
cline. The author of his overthrow was the 
empress Eudoxia. Her shortlived religious 
zeal had burnt itself out, and when she found 
Chrysostom too clear-sighted to be imposed 
upon by an outward show of piety, and too 
uncompromising to connive at wrong-doing 
even in the highest places, and that not even 
her rank as empress could save her and her 
associates from public censure, her former 
attachment was changed into the most im- 
placable enmity. Jealousy of Chrysostom’s 
influence over Arcadius contributed to her 
growing aversion. Chrysostom was now the 
only obstacle to her obtaining undisputed 
supremacy over her imbecile husband, and 
through him over the Eastern world. Means 
must be found to get rid of this obstacle also. 
Chrysostom himself afforded the opportunity 
inhis excess of zeal for the purity of the church 
by overstepping his episcopal jurisdiction, not 
then so strictly defined as in modern dioceses. 
Properly speaking, the bp. of Constantinople 
had no jurisdiction beyond the limits of his 
own city and diocese. For Constantinople, 
as a city whose imperial dignity was of modern 
creation, was not a metropolitan see, but sub- 
ject ecclesiastically to the metropolitan of 
Heraclea (otherwise Perinthus), who was ex- 
arch of the province of Thrace. The claims 
of Heraclea becoming antiquated, the prelates 
of Alexandria, as the first of the Eastern 
churches, gradually assumed metropolitan 
rights over Byzantium. But subjection to 
any other see was soon felt to be inconsistent 
with the dignity of animperial city, and by the 
third canon of the oecumenical council held 
within its walls, a.D. 381, its bishop was de- 
clared second to the bp. of Rome, after him 
coming the metropolitans of Alexandria and 
Antioch. But this precedence was simply 
honorary, and although Nectarius had set the 
precedent followed by Chrysostom of exer- 
cising jurisdiction in the Thracian and Asiatic 
dioceses, the claim did not receive legal 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


authority until the council of Chalcedon (can. 
28). At a conference of bishops held at Con- — 
stantinople in the spring of a.p. 400, Eusebius 
of Valentinopolis accused his brother bishop, 
Antoninus of Ephesus, of selling ordination to — 
bishoprics, melting down the church plate for 
his own benefit, and other grave offences 
(Pallad. p. 126). A delegacy was dispatched — 
to Asia to investigate these charges. Many 
dishonest and vexatious delays occurred, and — 
the accused bishop died before any decision 
could be arrived at (ἐδ. pp. 130-133). The 
Ephesian clergy and the bishops of the circuit 
appealed to Chrysostom to make peace. 
Prompt at the call of duty, Chrysostom, 
though it was the depth of winter (Jan. 401), 
and he in very feeble health, proceeded to 
Ephesus. On his arrival he exercised metro- 
political authority, deposing six bishops con- 
victed of simony, and correcting with unspar- 
ing hand the venality and licentiousness of the 
clergy (tb. pp. 134-135; Socr. H. E. vi. 10; 
502. H. E. viii. 6). His excessive severity did 
not reconcile the reluctant ecclesiastics to 
the questionable authority upon which he 
acted. The results of Chrysostom’s absence 
of three months from Constantinople were dis- 
astrous. He had entrusted his episcopal 
authority to Severian, bp. of Gabala, who 
basely abused his trust to undermine Chry- 
sostom’s influence at court. The cabal against 
Chrysostom was headed by the empress and 
her favourite ladies, of whose extravagance of 
attire and attempts to enhance their personal 
charms, the bishop had spoken with contemp- 
tuous ridicule, and among whom the wealthy 
and licentious widows Marsa, Castricia, and 
Eugraphia, ‘“‘ who used for the ruin of their 
souls the property their husbands had gained 
by extortion ”’ (Pallad. pp. 35, 66), were con- 
spicuous. This cabal received an important 
accession by the arrival of two bishops from ὦ 
Palestine, Antiochus of Ptolemais and the © 
grey-haired Acacius of Beroea (Pallad. 49). | 
{[Acacius ; ANTIOocHUS.] Serapion, Chrysos- 
tom’s archdeacon, had kept his master in- 
formed of Severian’s base proceedings, and 
had continually urged his speedy return. His 
return was the signal for the outbreak of open 
hostilities, which Chrysostom’s vehement and 
unguarded language in the pulpit exasperated. 
Soon after his return, he chose his text from > 
the history of Elijah, and exclaimed, ‘‘ Gather 
together to me those base priests that eat at — 
Jezebel’s table, that I may say to them, as 
Elijah of old, ‘ How long halt ye between two 
opinions ?’’’ (7b. 74). This allusion was only 
too clear. He had called the empress Jezebel. — 
The haughty Eudoxia could not brook the 
insult, and the doom of Chrysostom was sealed. 
But until the plot was ripe it was necessary to 
keep up the semblance of friendship, and even | 
of deference, towards one who could still make © 
ecclesiastical authority felt. Some half-heard 
words of Severian, uttered in annoyance at 
Serapion’s discourtesy, were distorted by the 
archdeacon into a blasphemous denial of © 
Christ’s Divinity (Socr. H. E. vi. 10; Soz. 
H. E. viii. 10). The charge was rashly ἢ 
credited by Chrysostom, who, without further 
inquiry, sentenced him to excommunica- 
tion and banishment from Constantinople. — 
Chrysostom was still the ido] of the common 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


eople. The news spread that Severian had 
insulted their bishop, and Severian’s life would 
have been in danger had he not speedily fled 
to Chalcedon, and put the Bosphorus be- 
tween himself and the enraged mob. All the 
authority of the emperor and the passionate 
entreaties of the empress, who even placed 
her infant son on Chrysostom’s knees in the 
church of the Apostles as an irresistible plea 
for yielding to her petition, were needed to 
extort forgiveness for Severian. Chrysostom 
interceded for him with the populace (Hom. 
de Recipiendo Severiano, vol. iil. pp. 492-494), 
and the semblance of peace was restored 
(Socr. and Soz. u.s.). 

The secret intrigues, checked for the time, 
soon broke out afresh. The allusion to Jezebel 
was not forgiven by Eudoxia, and Severian 
was equally implacable. The clergy were 
eager to rid themselves of one who, in the 
words of Palladius, ‘‘ like a lamp burning be- 
fore sore eyes,’’ was intolerable from the bril- 
liancy of his virtues. All they wanted was a 
powerful leader. 

Such a leader was found in Theophilus, bp. 
of Alexandria, who had been unwillingly com- 
pelled to consecrate Chrysostom. A pretext 
for his interference was afforded by the hos- 
pitality shewn by Chrysostom and his friends 
to some Egyptian monks, known from their 
remarkable stature as ‘‘ the Tall Brethren ”’ 
{[Ammonius], whom Theophilus had treated 
with great injustice and cruelty, nominally 
because of their Origenistic views, but really 
because they were privy to his own avarice 
and other vices (Isid. Pelusiot. Ep. i. 142). 
Chrysostom had received them kindly, and 
written in their behalf to Theophilus, who re- 
plied with an indignant remonstrance against 
protecting heretics and interfering in the affairs 
of another diocese. The monks claimed the 
right of prosecuting their defamers (Pallad. 
ΝΣ; Socr. H. E. vi. 7, 9; 502. H. E. 
Vili. 12, 13). A personal appeal to Eudoxia 
secured them this. Theophilus was summoned 
to appear before a council for the investigation 
of the whole case of these Nitrian monks, 
while their calumniators were called upon to 
substantiate their charges or suffer punishment. 
Theophilus, however, devised a scheme for 
turning the tables upon Chrysostom, and 
transforming the council into one before which 
Chrysostom himself might be arraigned (Pallad. 
p- 64). [Dioscorus.] 

To pave the way for the execution of this 
plot Theophilus induced Epiphanius, the ven- 
erable bp. of Salamis, to visit Constantinople, 
with the decrees of a council recently held in 
Cyprus, by which the tenets of Origen which 
the Nitrian monks were charged with holding 
were condemned, for Chrysostom’s signature 
(Socr. H. FE. vi. 10-14; Soz. H. E. viii. 
14). Epiphanius petulantly declined the 
honours and hospitality prepared for him 
until Chrysostom had formally condemned 
Origen and expelled ‘‘the Tall Brethren.” 
Chrysostom replied that he left both to the 
coming council, and would not prejudge the 
matter. The relations between the two pre- 
lates were further embittered by the ordination 
of a deacon by Epiphanius in violation of 
the canons of the church (Socr. H. E. vi. 11). 
No better success attended Epiphanius’s 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 163 


attempt to obtain a condemnation of Origen 
from the bishops then at Constantinople. An 
interview with the accused monks, at which 
Epiphanius was obliged to acknowledge that 
he had not read a page of their writings, and 
had condemned them on hearsay, seems to 
have opened his eyes to the real character of 
Theophilus and the nature of tbe transaction 
in which he had become an agent. He refused 
to take any further share in the designs of 
Theophilus, and set sail for Cyprus, dying on 
his voyage or soon after his return (Socr. ἢ. E. 
vi. 12-14; Soz. H. E. viii. 14, 15). 

Shortly after Epiphanius’s departure Theo- 
philus arrived at Constantinople, accompanied 
by a bodyguard of rough sailors from his own 
city of Alexandria, laden with costly presents. 
He received a vociferous welcome from the 
crews of the Egyptian corn-ships, but the 
bishops and clergy of the city kept aloof. He 
refused all communications with Chrysostom, 
rejected all his offers of hospitality, and, as- 
suming the position of an ecclesiastical supe- 
rior, not of adefendant about to take his trial, 
openly declared that he had come to depose 
Chrysostom for grave offences. The three 
weeks between his arrival and the commence- 
ment of the synod were devoted to ingratiating 
himself with influential personages and the 
disaffected clergy, by flattery, sumptuous 
banquets, and splendid gifts. Arcadius, pro- 
bably unaware of the plans of the secret cabal, 
remonstrated with Chrysostom for his delay 
in proceeding to Theophilus’s trial, which 
Chrysostom justified by his unwillingness to 
usurp a jurisdiction not legitimately his (Socr. 
ils 185 Sa στ: 805: ΞΕ. ὦ τὸ: ΒΑΠ56Η: 
65, 66; Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent. 1). Theo- 
philus had no such scruples. He assumed as 
patriarch of Alexandria the supremacy over 
all Eastern bishops, and claimed the right of 
summoning Chrysostom as a suffragan before 
his tribunal. Apprehensive of the well-known 
popularity of Chrysostom with the lower 
orders, he dared not venture to hold a synod 
in Constantinople. The place chosen was a 
suburb of Chalcedon, on the other side of the 
Bosphorus, known as “‘ the Oak,’’ where was 
a large church with contiguous buildings for 
the clergy and monks. Thirty-six bishops, of 
whom all but seven were Egyptians, Theo- 
philus’s suffragans, formed the council. The 
Asiatic bishops were mainly such as Chrysos- 
tom had made his enemies during his recent 
visitation. None was more hostile than Ger- 
ontius of Nicomedia, whom he had deposed. 
The presidential chair was occupied by the 
bp. of Heraclea, as metropolitan. To this 
packed council, the members of which were at 
the same time ‘‘ judges, accusers, and wit- 
nesses ’’ (Phot. Cod. 59, ad init.), in the middle 
of July, A.D. 403, Chrysostom was summoned 
to answer to a list of charges containing 29 
articles drawn up by the archdeacon John. 
Many of these were contemptibly frivolous, 
others grossly exaggerated, some entirely 
false (Pallad. p. 66). They had reference to 
the administration of his church and the al- 
leged malversation of its funds ; to his violent 
and tyrannical behaviour towards his clergy ; 
to his private habits—“ he had private inter- 
views with women ’’—“ he dined gluttonously 
by himself as a cyclops would eat”; toritual 


104 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


irregularities—‘‘ he robed and unrobed himself 
on his episcopal throne, and ate a lozenge after 
celebration ”’ (Pallad. p. 66), and had violated 
the rule as to fasting communion; to his 
having ordained unworthy persons; and 
heretical deductions were drawn from some 
incautious and enthusiastic expressions in his 
sermons. A second list of charges under 18 
heads was presented by Isaac the monk. In 
these the accusation of violence and inhos- 
pitality was renewed, and he was charged with 
invading the jurisdiction of other prelates 
(Phot. Cod. 59; Chrys. Ep. 125, ad Cyr.). The 
most flagrant charge was that of uttering 
treasonable words against the empress, com- 
paring her to Jezebel (Pallad. p. 74). This 
was construed into exciting the people to 
rebellion, and on this his enemies chiefly relied. 
The sessions lasted 14 days. Four times was 
Chrysostom summoned to appear before the 
self-appointed tribunal. His reply was digni- 
fied and unwavering. He refused to present 
himself before a packed synod of his enemies, 
to which he was summoned by his own clergy, 
and he appealed to a lawfully constituted 
general council. But irregular as the synod 
was, he expressed his readiness, in the interests 
of peace, to appear before it, if his avowed 
enemies, Theophilus, Severianus, Acacius, and 
Antiochus, were removed from the number 
of the judges. As this proposal met with no 
response, Chrysostom summoned a counter- 
synod of bishops attached to his cause, forty 
in number, whose letter of remonstrance to 
Theophilus was treated with contempt. At 
its twelfth sitting a message from the court 
urged the packed synod to come to a speedy 
decision. To thisit yielded prompt obedience. 
By a unanimous vote it condemned Chry- 
sostom as contumacious and deposed him 
from his bishopric. The charge of uttering 
treasonable words was left to the civil power, 
his enemies secretly hoping for a capital 
sentence (Socr. H. E. vi. 15; Soz. H. E. 
viii. 17). The imperial rescript confirming 
the sentence of deposition, however, simply 
condemned the bishop to banishment for life. 
The indignation of the people knew no bounds, 
when, as the evening wore on, the sentence on 
their beloved bishop became generally known. 
A crowd collected round Chrysostom’s resid- 
ence, and kept watch for 3 days and nights 
at its doors and those of the great church, lest 
he should be forcibly carried off. A word 
from him would have raised an insurrection. 
But the sermons he addressed to the vast 
multitudes in the cathedral advocated patience 
and resignation to the Divine Will. On the 
third day, during the noontide meal, he slipped 
out unperceived by a side door, and quietly 
surrendered himself to the imperial officers, by 
whom he was conducted after dark to the 
harbour and put on board a vessel which con- 
veyed him to Hieron at the mouth of the 
Euxine. The victory of his enemies seemed 
complete. Theophilus entered the city in 
triumphal state and wreaked vengeance on 
the bishop’s partisans. The people, who 
had crowded to the churches to pour forth 
their lamentations, were forcibly dislodged, 
not without bloodshed. Furious at the loss 
of their revered teacher, they thronged the 
approaches to the imperial palace, clamour- 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


ing for his restoration and demanding that 
his cause should be heard before a general 
council. Constantinople was almost in re- 
volt (Socr. H. E. vi. 16; Soz. H. ἘΣ wie 
18; Theod. H. E. v. c- 34; Ζοϑῖ ΤΠ 
v. 23; Pallad. p. 15). The following night 
the city was convulsed by an earthquake, 
felt with peculiar violence in the bedroom 
of Eudoxia. The empress fell at Arcadius’s 
feet, and entreated him to avert the wrath 
of Heaven by revoking Chrysostom’s sentence, 
Messengers , were dispatched to discover 
the exiled prelate, bearing letters couched 
in terms of the most abject humiliation. 
The news of Chrysostom’s recall caused uni- 
versal rejoicing. Late as it was, a whole 
fleet of barques put forth to meet him. The 
Bosphorus blazed with torches and resounded 
with songs of triumph (Theod. H. E. v. 34). 
Chrysostom at first halted outside the city, 
claiming to be acquitted by a general council — 
before resuming his see. The people sus- 
pected another plot, and loudly denounced 
the emperor and empress. Fearing a serious 
outbreak, Arcadius sent a secretary to desire 
Chrysostom to enter the walls without delay. 
As a loyal subject he obeyed. On passing the 
gates he was borne aloft by the crowd, carried 
into the church, placed on his episcopal seat, 
and forced to deliver an extemporaneous ad- 
dress. His triumph was now as complete as 
that of his enemies a few days before. Theo- 
philus, and some of the leaders of the cabal, 
lingered on in Constantinople, hoping for a 
turn in the tide. But they were now the un- 
popular party, and could hardly shew them- 
selves in the streets without being attacked 
and ill-treated. The person of Theophilus was © 
no longer safe in Constantinople ; while a more 
formidable danger was to be apprehended if 
the general council, which Chrysostom pre- 
vailed or the emperor to convoke, met and 
proceeded to inquire into his conduct. On the 
plea that his diocese could no longer put up 
with his absence, Theophilus abruptly le 
the city, and sailed by night for Alexandria 
(Socr. H. E. vi. 17; Soz. H. E. village 
Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent.). His flight was 
speedily followed by the assembling of a 
council of about 60 bishops, which annulled 


ε 


ne 


nS ee 


— 
ἡ 


ἀπ ΣΝ Δ... 


oS, a Δ δὰ δ 


om 


ἘΠ 


δ 
δι 


the proceedings at the council of the Oak, and 


declared Chrysostom still legitimate bp. of | 
Constantinople. This judicial sentence re- 
moved all Chrysostom’s scruples, and he 
resumed his episcopal duties (Soz. H. E. 
viii. 10). 


ie 
Bit 


The first result of the failure of — 


the machinations of Chrysostom’s enemies: — 
was an apparently complete reconciliation 
between him and the empress, who seemed — 


entirely to have forgotten her former resent: | 
ment. But, within two months, circumstances” 


an 
‘ 


arose which proved the unreality of the friend-, _ 


ship, and awakened a still more irreconcilable — 
feud. Eudoxia aspired to semi-divine hon- 
ours. 

the lesser forum, in front of the church of St. — 
Sophia, bearing aloft her silver statue for the — 
adoration of the people. Its dedication in — 
Sept. 403 was accompanied by boisterous, 4 
and licentious revelry. The noise of this un- — 


4 


A column of porphyry was erected in 


/ 


seemly merriment penetrated the church and, — 


disturbed the sacred services. Chrysostom’s 
holy indignation took fire, and he mounted the 


1 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


ambo and thundered forth a homily, embrac- 
ing in its fierce invective all who had any share 
in these profane amusements, above all, the 
arrogant woman whose ambition was the cause 
of them. ‘‘ Herodias,’’ he was reported to 
Eudoxia to have exclaimed, ‘‘is once more 
maddening ; Herodias is once more dancing ; 
once more Herodias demands the head of John 
on a charger.’’ All her former fury revived, 
and she demanded of the emperor signal 
redress. Sacerdotal and imperial authority 
stood confronted. One or other must yield 
(Socr. H. E. vi. 18; Soz. H. E. viii. 20; 
Theophan. p. 68; Zosim. v. 24). The enemies 
of Chrysostom were not slow in reappear- 
i Acacius, Severian, Antiochus, with 
other members of the old cabal, hastened 
from their dioceses, and were soon in close 
conference with their former confederates 
among the fashionable dames and worldly and 
frivolous clergy of the city. After repeated 
deliberations they decided their policy. For 
months past Chrysostom had been wearying 
the emperor with demands for ἃ general 
council. Let such a council be called, care 
being taken to select its members discreetly, 
and let this fresh outburst of treasonable lan- 
guage be laid before it, and theresult could not 
be doubtful. Theophilus, too wary to appear 
again on the scene of his defeat, directed the 
machinations of the plotters. He put a new 
and powerful tool in their hands, in the 12th 
canon of the council of more than doubtful 
orthodoxy held at Antioch, a.p. 341, pro- 
nouncing the tpso facto deprivation of any 
bishop who, after deposition, appealed to the 
secular arm for restoration. The council met 
towards the end of 403. On the succeed- 
ing Christmas Day the emperor refused to 
communicate, according to custom, in the 
cathedral, on the ground of the doubtful 
legality of Chrysostom’s position (Socr., Soz. 
u.s.). This was justly regarded as ominous 
of Chrysostom’s condemnation. Chrysostom, 
supported by 42 bishops, maintained his usual 
calm confidence. He continued to preach to 
his people, and his sermons were characterized 
by more than common vigour and unction 
(Pallad. p. 81). The synod determined to 
submit the decision to the emperor. An 
adroit demand was made in Chrysostom’s 
favour by Elpidius, the aged bp. of Laodicea, 
himself a confessor for the faith, that the 
chief promulgators of the canon of Antioch, 
Acacius and Antiochus, should subscribe a 
declaration that they were of the same faith 
as its original authors, who were mainly 
Arians. The emperor was amused, and at once 
agreed to the proposal. The two bishops 
caught in the trap became livid with rage 
(ἐπὶ τὸ πελιδνότερον μεταβαλόντες τὴν μορφήν, 
Pallad. p. 80), but were compelled to promise 
a compliance, which their astuteness had little 
difficulty in evading. The synod continued 
its protracted session. We have no record of 
any formal decision or sentence. None indeed 
Was necessary ; Chrysostom’s violation of the 
Antiochene canon had deposed him: he was 
no longer bp. of Constantinople. Meanwhile 
Easter was fast approaching. It would be 
intolerable if the emperor were a second time 
shut out from his cathedral on a chief festival 
of the church. Chrysostom must be at once 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 165 
removed: if possible, quietly; if not, by 
force. Assured by Antiochus and his com- 


panions that Chrysostom had been actually 
condemned and had ceased to be a bishop, 
Arcadius was persuaded to order his removal 
(ib. p. 81). An imperial officer was sent to 
desire the bishop to leave the church imme- 
diately. Chrysostom respectfully but firmly 
refused. ‘‘ He had received the church from 
God, and he would not desert it. The em- 
peror might expel him forcibly if he pleased. 
His violence would be his excuse before God 
for leaving his post.’’ When the time arrived 
for the great baptismal function on Easter 
Eve, when no fewer than 3,000 catechumens 
were expected, he calmly left his residence, 
despite the orders of the emperor, and pro- 
ceeded to the cathedral. The imperial guards, 
forbidden to use force, dared not interfere. 
The perplexed emperor summoned Acacius 
and Antiochus, and reproached them for their 
advice. They replied that ‘‘ Chrysostom, being 
no longer a bishop, was acting illegally in 
administering the sacraments, and that they 
would take his deposition on their own heads”’ 
(ib. p. 82). The emperor, overjoyed at having 
the responsibility of the bishop’s condemna- 
tion removed from himself, at once ordered 
some guards to drag Chrysostom from the 
cathedral as usurping functions no longer his, 
and reconduct him to his domestic prison. A 
vast crowd was assembled in the church of 
St. Sophia, to keep the vigil of the Resurrec- 
tion. The sacrament of baptism was being 
administered to the long files of catechumens. 
Suddenly the din of arms broke the solemn 
stillness. A body of soldiers, sword in hand, 
burst in, and rushed, some to the baptisteries, 
some up the nave to the sacred bema and 
altar. The catechumens were driven from the 
font at the point of the sword. Many were 
wounded, and, as an eye-witness records, “ the 
waters of regeneration were stained with 
blood” (ib. p. 81). The baptisteries appropri- 
ated to the females were invaded by the rude, 
licentious soldiers, who drove the women, half- 
dressed, shrieking into the streets. Other 
soldiers forced open the holy doors, and the 
sanctuary was profaned by the presence of 
pagans, some of whom, it was whispered with 
horror, had dared to gaze on and even to 
handle the Eucharistic elements. The clergy, 
clad in their sacred robes, were forcibly 
ejected, and chased along the dark streets by 
the brutal soldiery. With holy courage the 
dispersed catechumens were reassembled by 
their clergy in the baths of Constantine, 
which, hastily blessed by the priests, became 
sacred baptisteries. The candidates were again 
approaching the laver of regeneration, when 
they were once more forcibly dispersed by the 
emissaries of Antiochus. The soldiers, rude 
barbarians from Thrace, executed their com- 
mission with indiscriminating ferocity. The 
ministering priest received a wound on the 
head; a blow on the arm caused the deacon 
to drop the cruet of sacred chrism. The 
women were plundered of their robes and 
ornaments ; the clergy of their vestments, and 
the extemporized altar of its holy vessels. The 
fugitives were maltreated and beaten, and 
many dragged off to prison. The horrors of 
that night remained indelibly imprinted on 


100 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 

the minds of those who witnessed them, and 
were spoken of long afterwards with shudder- 
ing. Similar scenes were enacted wherever 
the scattered congregations endeavoured to 
reunite. For the greater part of Easter week 
Constantinople was like a city that had been 
stormed. Private dwellings were invaded to 
discover clandestine assemblies. The partisans 
of Chrysostom—the Joannites, as they began 
to be called—were thrown into prison on the 
slightest suspicion, and scourged and tortured 
to compel them to implicate others (Chrys. 
Ep. ad Innocent. ap. Pallad. pp. 17-20; Pallad. 
pp. 82-88). For two months the timid Arcadius 
could not be prevailed upon to sign the decree 
for Chrysostom’s banishment, and Chrysostom 
continued to reside in his palace, which was 
again guarded by successive detachments of 
his adherents. His life was twice attempted 
by assassins (Soz. H. E. viil. 21). 

(e) Extle-—At last, on June 5, A.D. 404, 
Arcadius was persuaded to sign the edict of 
banishment. Chrysostom, after a final prayer 
in the cathedral with some of his faithful 
bishops, prepared with calm submission to 
yield it prompt obedience. To guard against 
a popular outbreak, he directed that his horse 
should be saddled and taken to the great west 
entrance, and after a tender farewell of his 
beloved Olympias and her attendant deacon- 
esses, he passed out unobserved at a small 
postern and surrendered himself to the guard, 
who conveyed him, with two bishops who re- 
fused to desert him, to a vessel which instantly 
started under cover of night for the Asiatic 
shore (Pallad. pp. 89-90). He had scarcely 
left the city when the church he had just 
quitted took fire; the flames, which are said 
to have broken out firstin the episcopal throne, 
caught the roof, and the conflagration spread 
to the senate house and adjacent public build- 
ings (2b. pp. 91-92; Socr. H. E. vi. 18; 
Soz. H. E. viii. 22; Zosim. v. 24). The sus- 
picion, however unjustly entertained, that this 
fire was due to Chrysostom’s adherents, re- 
solved that the church of their beloved teacher 
should never be possessed by his enemies, led 
to a relentless persecution of the Joannites 
under the semblance of a judicial investiga- 
tion. Innocent persons of every age and sex 
were put to the torture, in the vain hope that 
they would inculpate leading members of their 
party. The presbyter Tigrius and the young 
reader Eutropius expired under their torturer’s 
hands. Others barely escaped with their lives, 
maimed and mutilated (Soz. H. E. viii. 22-24). 
The tender heart of Chrysostom was wrung 
upon hearing of the sufferings inflicted on his 
friends, especially upon his dearly loved Olym- 
pias. To the charge of incendiarism was added 
that of contumacious resistance to the em- 
peror’s will, in refusing to hold communion 
with Arsacius and Atticus, who in succession 
had been thrust into Chrysostom’s see. [ARSA- 
cius; AtTticus.] This was made a crime 
punishable with degradation from official rank, 
fine, and imprisonment. The clergy faithful 
to Chrysostom were deposed, and banished 
with every circumstance of brutality. Some 
did not reach their place of banishment alive. 
The most persevering endeavours were made 
to stamp out the adherents of the banished 
prelate, not only in Constantinople but in 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


Asia Minor and Syria—endeavours which only > 
deepened their attachment to him, and con- 


firmed their resolution never to yield (Theod. 
ἘΠ EVs 34). 
All other help failing, the persecuted party 


appealed to the Western church as represented — 


by its chief bishops. Letters were sent ad- 
dressed to Innocent, bp. of Rome, Venerius of 
Milan, and Chromatius of Aquileia, by Chry- 
sostom himself, by the 40 friendly bishops, and 
by the clergy of Constantinople (Pallad. p. το). 
Theophilus and his adherents sent counter- 
representations (δ. p. 9). Innocent, without 
hesitation, pronounced the synod that had 
condemned Chrysostom irregular, and an- 
nulled his deposition because pronounced in 
the absence of the accused, and wrote authori- 
tative letters to the chief parties. To Theo- 
philus he addressed sharp reproof, to the Con- 
stantinopolitan clergy fatherly sympathy, to 
Chrysostom himself sympathy and encourage- 
ment (7b. pp. 23, 24; Soz. H. E. viii. 26), and 
he persuaded Honorius to write a letter to his 
brother Arcadius, urging the convocation of 
a general synod. This letter was conveyed 
to Constantinople by a deputation of Western 
bishops. But Arcadius was not a free agent. 
The bishops were not allowed admission to his 
presence. The letters they bore were wrested 
from them, the thumb of one of the bishops 
being broken in the struggle. They were in- 
sulted, maltreated, and sent home with every 
mark of contumely (Pallad. pp. 30-33; Soz. 
H. E. viii. 28). 

Chrysostom’s place of exile, selected by 
Eudoxia’s hatred, was Cucusus, a lonely moun- 
tain village in the Tauric range, on the borders 
of Cilicia and Lesser Armenia. It had a most 
inclement climate and was exposed to per- 
petual inroads from Isaurian marauders. 
Chrysostom first learnt at Nicaea the place of 
his future abode. His disappointment was 
severe, but remonstrance was vain. Re- 
freshing breezes from lake Ascanius invigora- 
ted his worn constitution, and helped him to 
face the long and sultry journey. It was the 
season when the heat was most oppressive, 
and his conductors were instructed to push on 
with the utmost speed, without regard to his 
strength or comfort. Whatever kind con- 
sideration could do to mitigate his sufferings 
was done by the officers in charge, Anatolius 
and Theodorus, who gladly executed for him 
all the duties of personal servants. On July 5 
Chrysostom left Nicaea to traverse the scorch- 
ing plains of Galatia and Cappadocia under a 
midsummer sun. More dead than alive, he 
reached Caesarea. The bp. Pharetrius, an 
unworthy successor of the great Basil and a 
concealed enemy of Chrysostom (Pallad. p. 77), 
was greatly troubled at a halt being fixed at 
Caesarea. His clergy were Joannites almost 
to a man: if he treated Chrysostom badly, he 
would offend them; if well, he would incur 
the more terrible wrath of the empress. So, 
while sending complimentary messages, he 
carefully avoided an interview, and used all 
means to dispatch him from Caesarea as 
quickly as possible. This was not so easy, for 
a severe access of his habitual ague-fever had 
compelled Chrysostom to seek medical aid 
(Ep. 12). He was received with enthusiastic 
affection by allranks in the city. His lodging 


BR A και απααπαποι ανππεια απ τ κατα: 
— oe 5 ΕΞ - 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


was attacked by a body of fanatical monks, 
probably the tools of Pharetrius, who threat- 
ened to burn it over his head unless he in- 
stantly quitted it. Driven out by their fury, 
Chrysostom, suffering from a fresh attack of 
fever, found refuge in the country house of a 
wealthy lady near, named Seleucia. But the 
threats of Pharetrius prevailed on Seleucia to 
turn Chrysostom out of doors in the middle of 
the night, on the pretext that the barbarians 
were at hand, and that he must seek safety by 
flight. The dangers of that terrible night, 
when the fugitives’ torches were extinguished 
for fear of the Isaurians and, his mule having 
fallen under the weight of his litter, he was 
taken up for dead and had to be dragged or 
rather carried along the precipitous mountain 
tracks, are graphically described in his letters 
to Olympias (Epp. 12, 14). He reached Cucu- 
sus towards the end of August. His reception 
was of a nature to compensate for the fatigues 
of the way and to mitigate the trials of exile 
(Ep. 14, §1). He found agreeable occupation in 
writing and receiving letters, and insocial inter- 
course with congenial friends. Never even as 
bp. of Constantinople did he exert a wider and 
more powerful influence. The East was almost 
governed from a mountain village of Armenia. 
His advice was sought from all quarters. No 
important ecclesiastical measure was under- 
taken without consulting him. In the words 
of Gibbon, ‘‘ the three years spent at Cucusus 
were the most glorious of his life. From that 
solitude Chrysostom, whose active mind was 
invigorated by misfortunes, maintained a 
strict and frequent correspondence with the 
most distant provinces; exhorted the separ- 
ate congregations of his faithful adherents to 
persevere in their allegiance; urged the de- 
struction of the temples of Phoenicia, and the 
extirpation of heresy in the isle of Cyprus ; 
extended his pastoral care to the missions of 
Persia and Scythia, and negotiated by his 
ambassadors with the Roman pontiff and the 
emperor Honorius.’’ His voluminous corre- 
spondence, which all belongs to this period, 
shews how close a connexion he kept up with 
the clergy and laity of his former diocese, and 
how unremitting was his oversight of the in- 
terests of his church (Soz. H. E. viii. 27). His 
chief cause of suffering was the variable clim- 
ate and the length and severity of the winter. 
In the winter of 405 the intelligence that the 
Isaurian brigands were intending a coup de 
main on Cucusus drove nearly the whole of 
the inhabitants from the town. Chrysostom 
joined the fugitives. The feeble old man 
with a few faithful companions, including the 
presbyter Evethius and the aged deaconess 
Sabiniana, wandered from place to place, often 
passing the night in forests or ravines, pur- 
sued by the terror of the Isaurians, until they 
reached the mountain fort of Arabissus, some 
60 miles from Cucusus, in the castle of which 
place, “more a prison than a home,”’ he spent 
a winter of intense suffering, harassed by the 
fear of famine and pestilence, unable to pro- 
cure his usual medicines, and deprived of the 
comfort of his friends’ letters, the roads being 
blocked with snow and beset by the Isaurians 
who ravaged the whole district with fire and 
sword (Epp. 15, 61, 69, 70, 127, 131). Once he 
narrowly escaped falling into the hands of the 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 167 


marauders, who made a nocturnal attack, and 
all but took the town (Ep. 135). With the 
return of spring the Isaurians retired, and 
Chrysostom was able to descend to Cucusus 
early in 406. After Arabissus this desolate 
little town seemed a paradise. His greatest 
joy was in being nearer his friends and receiv- 
ing their letters more regularly (Epp. 126, 127, 
128). A third winter brought its usual hard- 
ships, but Chrysostom was now somewhat 
acclimatized and endured them without a re- 
currence of illness (Epp. 4, 142). His wonderful 
preservation from dangers hitherto, and the 
manner in which his feeble health, instead of 
sinking under the accumulated trials of his 
banishment, became invigorated, awoke san- 
guine anticipations, and he now confidently 
anticipated his return from banishment and 
his resumption of the care of his diocese (Epp. 
I, 2, 4). But this was not to be. The unhappy 
Eudoxia had preceded the victim of her hatred 
to the grave, but left other equally relentless 
enemies behind. Stung with disappointment 
that the rigours of Cucusus had failed to kill 
him, and that from his mountain banishment 
he exercised a daily growing influence, they 
obtained a rescript from Arcadius transferring 
him first to Arabissus (Pallad. p. 96), and then 
to the small town of Pityus at the roots of 
Caucasus on the bleak N.E. shores of the 
Euxine. This was chosen as the most un- 
genial and inhospitable spot in the whole 
empire, and therefore the most certain to rid 
them quickly of his hated existence, even if, 
as proved to be the case, the long and toilsome 
journey had not previously quenched the 
feeble spark of life. This murderous purpose 
was plainly evidenced by the selection of two 
specially ferocious and brutal praetorian 
guards to convey him there, with instructions 
to push forward with the most merciless haste, 
regardless of weather or the health of their 
prisoner, a hint being privately given that they 
might expect promotion if he died on the road 
(tb. p. 98). The journey was to be made on 
foot. Towns where he might enjoy any ap- 
proach to comfort and have the refreshment of 
a warm bath were to be avoided. The neces- 
sary halts, as few and brief as possible, were to 
be at squalid villages or in the unsheltered 
country. All letters were forbidden, the least 
communication with passers-by punished with 
brutal blows. In spite of some approach 
to consideration on the part of one of his 
guards, the three months’ journey between 
Cucusus and Comana must have been one long 
slow martyrdom to the fever-stricken old man. 
His body was almost calcined by the sun, and, 
to adopt Palladius’s forcible image, resembled 
a ripe apple ready to fall from the tree (δ. 
Ρ- 99). On reaching Comana it was evident 
that Chrysostom was entirely worn out. But 
his pitiless guard hurried him through the 
town without a moment’s halt. Five or six 
miles outside stood a chapel over the tomb of 
the martyred bishop, Basiliscus. Here they 
halted for the night. In the morning Chry- 
sostom begged for a brief respite in vain; but 
he had gone scarcely four miles when a violent 
attack of fever compelled them to return to 
the chapel. Chrysostom was supported to the 
altar, and, clothed in white baptismal robes, he 
distributed his own clothes to the bystanders, 


108 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


partook of the blessed Eucharist, prayed a last 
prayer “ for present needs,’’ uttered his accus- 
tomed doxology, ‘‘ Glory be to God for all 
things,”’ and having sealed it with an ‘‘ Amen,” 
yielded up his soul to his Saviour, Sept. 14, 
407, in the 6oth year of his age and roth 
of his episcopate, 3 years and a quarter 
of which he had spent in exile. He was 
buried in the martyry by the side of Basiliscus 
(ib. pp. 99-101). Thirty-one years afterwards 
(Jan. 27, 438), when Theodosius II. was 
emperor, and Proclus, formerly a disciple of 
Chrysostom, was bp. of Constantinople, Chry- 
sostom’s body was taken from its grave near 
Comana and translated with great pomp to his 
own episcopal city, and deposited hard by the 
altar in the church of the Holy Apostles, the 
place of sepulture of the imperial family and 
of the bishops of Constantinople, the young 
emperor and his sister Pulcheria assisting at 
the ceremony, and asking the pardon of Heaven 
forthe grievous wrong inflicted by their parents 
on the sainted bishop (Socr. H. E. vii. 45; 
Theod: H. E. v. 36; Evagr. 2. E. 1v. 31): 
The personal appearance of Chrysostom, as 
described by contemporary writers, though 
dignified, was not imposing. His stature was 
diminutive (σωμάτιον) ; his limbs long, and so 
emaciated by early austerities and habitual 
self-denial that he compares himself to a spider 
(ἀραχνώδης. Ep. 4). His very lofty forehead, 
furrowed with wrinkles, expanded widely at 
the summit, his head was bald “like that of 
Elisha,’’ his eyes deeply set, but keen and 
piercing ; his cheeks pallid and withered ; his 
chin pointed and covered with a short beard. 
His habits were of the simplest, his personal 
wants few and easily satisfied. The excessive 
austerities of his youth had ruined his digestive 
powers and he was unable to eat food except 
in the smallest quantities and of the plainest 
kind. Outward display in dress, equipage, or 
furniture was most distasteful to him. En- 
amoured of the cloister, the life of the bishop 
of the capital of the Eastern world, compelled 
by his position to associate with persons of 
the highest rank and magnificence of life, 
was intolerable. It is not surprising that 
he was thought morose and ungenial and 
was unpopular with the upper classes. His 
strength of will, manly independence, and 
dauntless courage were united with an inflexi- 
bility of purpose, a want of consideration for 
the weaknesses of others, and an impatience 
at their inability to accept his high standard, 
which rendered him harsh and unconciliatory. 
Intolerant of evil in himself, he had little 
tolerance for it in other men. His feebleness 
of stomach produced an irritability of temper, 
which sometimes led to violent outbursts of 
anger. He was accused of being arrogant and 
passionate. He was easily offended and too 
ready to credit evil of those whom he dis- 
liked. Not mixing with the world himself, 
he was too dependent on the reports of his 
friends, who, as in the case of Serapion, some- 
times abused his confidence to their own 
purposes. But however austere and reserved 
to the worldly and luxurious, he was ever 
loving and genial to his chosen associates. In 
their company his natural playfulness and 
amiability was shewn, and perhaps few ever 
exercised a more powerful influence over the 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


hearts and affections of the holiest and most 
exalted natures. His character is well summe 
up by Dr. Newman—‘‘a bright, cheer 
gentle soul,’”’ his unrivalled charm “ lying in 
his singleness of purpose, his fixed grasp of his © 
aim, his noble earnestness; he was indeed ἃ 
man to make both friends and enemies, to | 
inspire affection and kindle resentment ; but — 
his friends loved him with a love ‘ stronger* — 
than ‘ death,’ and his enemies hated him with © 
a hatred more burning than ‘ hell,’ and it was — 
well to be so hated, if he was so beloved.” 
Chrysostom’s extant works are more volumi- 
nous than those of any other Father, filling 13 
folios in the Benedictine ed. They may be 
roughly divided into—I. Treatises; Il. Ex- 
positions of Scripture, chiefly in the form of 
Homilies, but partly continuous Comment- 


aries; III. Homilies, (a) doctrinal, (b) occa- 
stonal, (c) panegyrical, (d) general; IV. 
Letters; V. Liturgy. 


I. Treatises—The earliest works we have 
from his pen are his letters ad Theodorum 
Lapsum, i. ii. (see supra), written while Chry- 
sostom was still resident at Antioch before 
A.D. 372. To his early monastic life we may 
assign the two books de Compunctione, ad- 
dressed respectively to Demetrius and Stele- 
chius. His three books in defence of the 
monastic life (adversus Oppugnatores Vitae 
Monasticae) were called forth by the decree 
of Valens enforcing military service and civil 
functions on monks, A.D. 373. His short 
treatise, Comparatio Regis et Monachi, belongs 
to the same period. The three books de Pro- 
videntia, written to console his friend Stagirius, 
the subject of an hysterical seizure then iden- 
tified with demoniacal possession, were prob- 
ably composed after his return to Antioch, 4.¢. 
subsequently to 381. Before ordination to 
the priesthood he composed two letters on the 
superior happiness of a single life (ad Viduam | 
Juntorem) and his treatise on celibacy (de 
Virginitate). His six books de Sacerdotio, 
justly ranked among his ablest, most instrue- 
tive, and most eloquent writings, are among his 
earliest, and placed by Socrates (H.E. vi. 3) in 
the first days of his diaconate, c. 382. Its 
maturity of thought and sobriety of tone pre- 
vent our fixing this work at a much earlier © 
period. The treatises denouncing the custom 
for the clergy to have “ spiritual sisters ’’ re- 
siding under the same roof with them (contra 
eos quit subintroductas habent; Regulares © 
foeminae viris cohabitare non debent), incorrect- — 
ly assigned by Socrates (ib.) to his diaconate, 
were written, Palladius tells us (p. 45), afterhe | 
became bp. of Constantinople, c. 398. To his 
exile belong the Nemo laeditur nisi a setpso, 
and Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt ob adversitates. 

Il. Expositions of Scripture.—It is as an ex- 
positor of Scripture that Chrysostom is’ most 
deservedly celebrated. His method of dealing 
with the divine Word is characterized by the ' 
sound grammatical and historical principles Ὁ 
and the healthy common sense, introduced by ~ 
his tutor Diodorus, which mark the exegetical 
school of Antioch. He seeks to discover not 
what the passage before him may be made to 
mean, but what it was intended to mean; not 
what recondite lessons or truths may be forced | 
from it by mystical or allegorical interpreta- — 
tions, but what it was intended to convey; © 


Ὁ Ξ᾿ 


oD. ae eS 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


not what may be introduced into it, but what 
may be legitimately elicited from it. While 
regarding Scripture in the strictest sense as the 
word of God, no sentence of which must be 
neglected, he is far from ignoring the human 
element in it, holding that though its writers 
“spoke as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost,’’ they retained their personal indi- 
viduality ; that their natural powers were 
quickened and illuminated, not superseded by 
divine inspiration. He regards the Scriptures 
as a connected whole, and avoiding the erro- 
neous plan of treating texts as isolated gnomes, 
he seeks always to view a passage in relation 
to its context, and to the general teaching of 
Scripture. His expository works, being chief- 
ly homiletic, do not give any continuous or 
systematic exegesis of the text. His primary 
object was a practical one—the conversion and 
edification of his hearers—and he frequently 
disappoints those who, looking for the meaning 
of a difficult passage, find instead a vehement 
denunciation of some reigning vice or fashion- 
able folly, or an earnest exhortation to culti- 
vate some Christian grace or virtue (cf. Phot. 
Cod. 174). : 

We are told by Suidas and Cassiodorus that 
Chrysostom wrote commentaries on the whole 
of Holy Scripture, from the beginning to the 
end. Among those extant are the 67 Homilies 
on Genesis, preached at Antioch; and 8 
shorter and slighter, but more florid and 
rhetorical, sermons on topics from Gen. i. and 
ii., delivered earlier in the same year. The 
ninth of these sermons, de Mutatione Nomi- 
num, does not belong to the series. The only 
other homilies on the historical books of 
O.T. are five on the narrative of Hannah in 
I. Samuel, and three on David and Saul, as- 
signed by Tillemont to a.p. 387. He delivered 
homilies on the whole book of Psalms, of which 
we have only those on Ps. iii.-xii., xlili.-xlix., 
eviii.-cl. (inclusive), collected at an early 
period with great critical acumen. As early 
as Photius the gaps indicated already existed. 
There is a homily on the opening verses of 
Ps. xli., which belongs to a different series. 
On Jsaiah a continuous commentary was 
composed by Chrysostom, but only the part 
on cc. i.-vili, Τὶ is extant. There is a 
series of six homilies on the opening verses 
of c. vi., in Oziam seu de Seraphinis. The 
fourth of these belongs to a different series. 
To these we may add a homily on Is. xlv. 7. 
The only extant commentary on any part of 
Jeremiah is one “on free will,’ Jer. x. 23. 
Chrysostom’s general views on prophecy are 
given in two sermons de Prophetiarum Obscur- 
tate, justly ranked by Montfaucon ‘“ inter 
nobilissimas.’’ The Synopsis Sacrae Scrip- 
turae is an imperfect work, ending with Nahum. 

His commentaries on N.T. commence with 
90 on Matthew, delivered at Antioch. St. 
Thomas Aquinas is reported to have said that 
he would rather possess these homilies than be 
the master of all Paris. There are none on 
Mark or Luke; but we have 88 on St. John’s 
Gospel, also preached at Antioch. These are 
more doctrinal than hortatory or practical, 
being chiefly against the Anomoeans. The 55 
homilies on Acts are among his feeblest works. 
The style is inelegant, the language unrefined, 
and the line of interpretation jejune (Phot. 


CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 169 


Cod. 174). The secret of their inferiority is 
that they were written at Constantinople in 
the midst of the troubles arising from Gainas 
and the Goths, when he had no time for studied 
composition ; as also were the 24 homilies on 
Eph., the 15 on Phil., the 12 on Col., the 11 on 
I. Thess., and the 5 on II. Thess., which hardly 
reach Chrysostom’s highest standard of excel- 
lence. On the other hand, the 33 on Rom., 
which were certainly delivered at Antioch, 
are among his most elaborate discourses. No- 
where does he shew more argumentative power 
or greater skill indeveloping his author’s mean- 
ing. On I. Cor. we have 44 homilies, and 30 
on II. Cor., preached at Antioch, of which the 
former series ‘‘ have ever been considered by 
devout men as among the most perfect speci- 
mens of his mind and teaching ”’ (Keble). The 
commentary on Gal. is continuous, not in the 
homiletical form, and a somewhat hasty work. 
Montfaucon correctly assigns the 18 homilies 
on I. Tim., the τὸ on II. Tim., and the 6 on 
Tit. to his ministry at Antioch. From some 
marks of negligence the three on Philemon 
have been thought to be extemporaneous 
addresses taken down by others. The 34 on 
Hebrews were delivered at Constantinople, and 
pub. from notes by Constantine, a presbyter, 
after Chrysostom’s death. 

III. Homilies, (a) Doctrinal.—The chief of 
these are the 12 delivered against the Ano- 
moean form of Arianism, in the first year of his 
presbyterate, at Antioch, a.p. 387. ‘‘ They 
are,’’ writes Stephens, ‘“‘ among the finest of 
his productions.’’ Soon after he wrote the 8 
against the Jews and Judaizing Christians 
(contra Judaeos). 

(ὁ) Occastonal.—Not a few of his grandest 
flights of Christian oratory were called forth 
by the events of the stirring times in which he 
lived. The most remarkable is the series of 
21 ‘“‘On the Statues”’ (ad Populum Antioch- 
enum de Statuis), for the circumstances of 
which see supra. Another class includes 
orations delivered at Constantinople on the 
fall of Eutropius, on the insurrection of Gainas, 
on the troubles connected with Severian, and 
the noble and pathetic series connected with 
his own deposition and exile. To these we 
may add homilies delivered on the great 
Church festivals. 

(c) Panegyrical.—These deserve careful at- 
tention as illustrating ‘‘ the passionate devo- 
tion to the memory of departed saints which 
was rapidly passing into actual adoration.’ 
The earliest is probably that commemorating 
his venerated spiritual father Meletius, a.p. 
386. The others are mostly devoted to the 
eulogy of the bishops and martyrs of the 
church of Antioch, St. Ignatius, St. Eusta- 
thius, St. Babylas, St. Pelagia, St. Domnina 
and her two daughters, and others, and were 
delivered at the martyria, or chapels erected 
over their remains. Chrysostom delivered a 
homily on the day of the commemoration of 
the emperor Theodosius, and heaped extra- 
vagant laudations on the empress Eudoxia 
and on Arcadius during his ardent but short- 
lived friendship with them at the outset of his 
episcopate. 

(4) General.—Among these we include those 
belonging to Christian life generally, e.g. the 
9 de Poenitentia, 2 Catecheses ad Illuminandos, 


170 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 


those de Continentia, de Perfecta Caritate, de 
Consolatione Mortis, and numerous ones on 
single texts or separate parables. 

On his homilies, expository and practical, 
Chrysostom’s fame chiefly rests, and that de- 
servedly. He was in truth “ the model of a 
preacher for a great capital. Clear, rather 
than profound, his dogmatic is essentially 
moulded up with his moral teaching. . . . His 
doctrines flow naturally from his subject or 
from the passage of Scripture under discus- 
sion ; his illustrations are copious and happy ; 
his style free and fluent ; while he is an un- 
rivalled master in that rapid and forcible 
application of incidental occurrences which 
gives such life and reality to eloquence. He 
is at times, in the highest sense, dramatic in 
manner ’”’ (Milman, Hist. of Christ. 111. 9). 

IV. Letters —The whole of Chrysostom’s 
extant letters belong tohis banishment, written 
on his road to Cucusus, during his residence 
there, or in the fortress of Arabissus. The most 
important are 17 addressed to the deaconess 
Olympias, who shared his hopes and fears and 
all his inmost feelings. The whole number is 
242, written to every variety of friend—men 
of rank, ladies, ecclesiastics of every grade, 
bishops, presbyters, deacons and deaconesses, 
monks and missionaries, his old friends at 
Antioch and Constantinople, and his more 
recent acquaintances at Caesarea and other 
halting-places on his journey—and including 
every variety of subject ; now addressing re- 
proof, warning, encouragement, or consola- 
tion to the members of his flock at Constanti- 
nople, or their clergy ; now vigorously helping 
forward the missionary work in Phoenicia, and 
soliciting funds for pious and beneficent works; 
now thanking his correspondents for their 
letters or their gifts; now complaining of 
their silence; now urging the prosecution of 
the appeal made in his behalf to Innocent 
and the Western bishops, and expressing his 
hope that through the prayers of his friends he 
would be speedily given to them again; and 
the whole poured forth with the undoubting 
confidence of a friend writing to friends of 
whom heis sure. We have in this correspond- 
ence an index to his inner life such as we possess 
of few great men. The letters are simply in- 
estimable in aiding us to understand and ap- 
preciate this great saint. In style, as Photius 
remarks, they are characterized by his usual 
brilliancy and clearness, and by great sweet- 
ness and persuasive power (Phot. Cod. 86). 

V. Liturgical.—It is impossible to decide 
how much in the liturgies passing under the 
name of St. Chrysostom is really of his age. 
There are very many editions of the liturgy, 
no two of which, according to Cave (Hist. Lit. 
i. 305), present the same text ; and hardly any 
that do not offer great discrepancies. It 
would be, of course, a fundamental error to 
attribute the compcsition of a liturgy de novo to 
Chrysostom or any of the old Catholic Fathers. 
When a liturgy is called by the name of any 
Father, all that is implied is that it was in use 
in the church to which that Father belonged, 
and that it may have owed some corrections 
and improvements to him. The liturgy known 
in comparatively late times by the name of 
Chrysostom has been from time immemorial 
that of the church of Constantinople. 


CLAUDIUS 


The best and most complete edition of Chr 
sostom, as of most of the Christian Fathers, 


Bernard de Montfaucon, who devoted to 
more than twenty years of incessant toil 

of journeys to consult MSS. It was pub. at 
Paris, in 13 vols. fol. in 1718. The value of 
this magnificent edition lies more in the his- 
torical and critical prefaces, and other literary 
apparatus, than in the text, which is faulty. 


It has been reprinted at Venice in 1734 and — 
The most — 


1755, and at Paris in 1834-1839. 
practically useful edition is in the Patrologia 
of the Abbé Migne, in 13 vols. 8vo. (Paris, 1863). 
It is mainlya reprint of the Benedictine ed., but 
enriched by a judicious use of the best modern 
commentators. The chief early authorities 
for the life of Chrysostom, besides his own 
works, are the Dzalogue of his contemporary 
Palladius, bp. of Hellenopolis, which, however 
valuable for its facts, deserves Gibbon’s cen- 
sure as 
tion,’ and the Ecclesiastical Histories of 
Socrates (lib. vi.), Sozomen (lib. viii.), and 
Theodoret (lib. v.), the Lexicon of Suidas (sub 
voc. Iwavyns), and the letters of Isidorus of 
Pelusium (ii. Ep. 42). The biography by 
George of Alexandria is utterly worthless, be- 
ing more an historical romance than a memoir. 
Of more modern works, it will suffice to name 
‘“‘ the moderate Erasmus ”’ (tom. 111. Ep. 1150), 
the “ὁ patient and accurate’ Tillemont (Mém. 
Eccl. tom. ix.), and the diligent and dull Mont- 
faucon. The brilliant sketch of Gibbon (Deel. 
and Fall, c. xxxii.) must not be omitted. 
Neander’s Life of St. Chrysostom is a work 
of much value, more for the account of Chry- 
sostom’s opinions and words than for the 
actual life. Amadée Thierry’s biographical 
articles in the Revue des Deux Mondes describe 
Chrysostom’s fall and exile most graphically, 
though with the licence of an artist. The 
most satisfactory biography is by Rev. 
W. R. W. Stephens (Lond. 1872), to which the 
foregoing article is largely indebted. Trans- 
lations of several of his works are contained 
in the Post-Nicene Fathers, edited by Schaff 
and Wace. S.P.C.K. publishes cheaply St. 
Chrys. On the Priesthood, by T. A. Moxon, and 
extracts from his writing in St. Chrysostom’s 
Picture of his Age and Picture of the Religion 
of his Age. 

Claudius (1), A.p. 41-54. 


which we must refer the earliest distinct traces 
of the origines of the church of Rome. Even 
before his accession, the new faith may have 
found its way there. The ‘strangers of 


Rome, Jews and proselytes’’ (Acts ii. 10), who ἡ 


were at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, or 
some of the “synagogue of the Libertines” 
(Acts vi. 9), vielding to the arguments of 
Stephen, may have brought it thither. ‘‘ An- 


dronicus and Junia or Junias,’”’ who were “in | 


Christ ’’ before the conversion of St. Paul 


(Rom. xvi. 7), and at Rome when that apostle © 


wrote to the church there, may have been 
among those earlier converts. When Herod 


Antipas and Herodias came to court the | 


favour of Caligula (Joseph. Antig. xviii. 7) 
and gain for the former the title of king, they 
must have had some in their train who had 
known—perhaps those who had reported to 


is” 
the Benedictine, prepared by the celebrated — 


7 


““a partial and passionate vindica- — 


[E.v.] 
The reign of this — 
emperor has special interest in being that to © 


CLEMENS, FLAVIUS 


him (Matt. xiv. 1, 2)—the ‘‘ mighty works ”’ 
of the prophet of Nazareth. The frequent 
visits of Herod Agrippa would make events in 
Judaea common topics at Rome. His pre- 
sence there when Claudius came to the throne 
(Joseph. Antig. xix. 4, 5) may reasonably be 
connected with the indulgence then extended 
to the Jews by that emperor (7b. xix. 5). The 
decree mentioned in Acts xviil. 2, and by 
Suetonius (Claudius, c. 25), indicates a change 
of policy, and the account of Suetonius prob- 
ably tells the cause of the change, “‘ Judaeos 
impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma 
expulit.” * He does not give the date of 
the expulsion, but it was probably between 
A.D. 43, When Agrippa left Rome, and A.p. 
51, when St. Paul arrived at Corinth, and 
when the decree is mentioned as recent. The 
explanation turns upon the interpretation of 
the words ‘‘impulsore Chresto.’? We know 
from Tertullian (Apol. c. 3) that ‘ Christi- 
anus ’’ was commonly pronounced “ Chresti- 
anus ’’ by those ignorant of its derivation ; and 
that the name of Christ was for long similarly 
mispronounced we learn from  Lactantius 
(“immutata litera Chrestum solent dicere,”’ 
Ver. Sap. iv. 7). It seems legitimate, there- 
fore, to assume that the name “ Christ’”’ had 
been heard in the disputings of Jews and 
Christians, and that the prefects and Roman 
population, ignorant of its true significance, 
conceived it to be the name of some local ring- 
leader in a seditious riot. Many indications 


in Acts and Romans imply a considerable 


growth of the Christian community before the 
accession of Nero. 

It is obvious further, (1) that the expulsion 
of Christians who had been Jews or proselytes 
would leave a certain proportion of purely 
Gentile Christians whom the edict would not 
touch ; and (2) that those who returned would 
naturally settle, not in the Jewish trans- 
Tiberine quarter of the city, but in some safer 
locality, and that thus the church at Rome, 
at or soon after the death of Claudius, would 
ard become more and more free from 

ewish or Judaizing influences. (On other 
points connected with the rise and progress of 
Christianity at Rome under Claudius see 
“Aquila and Priscilla,’ and the ‘“ Proto- 
martyr Stephen,” in the writer’s Bzblical 
Studies.) [E.H.P.] 

Clemens (1), Flavius, son of Sabinus, brother 
of the emperor Vespasian, and therefore first 
cousin to Domitian, whose niece Flavia Domi- 
tilla was his wife. Domitian regarded his 
kinsman with great favour, and placed his two 
sons, whom he caused to be named after him- 
self and his brother, Vespasianus and Domi- 
fianus, under the tuition of Quintilian as 
his destined successors. Flavius Clemens was 
consul in A.D. 95, and had only just resigned 
the office when he and his wife Domitilla were 
suddenly arrested and convicted on the charge 
of“ atheism,” by which there is no reasonable 
doubt that Christianity is intended. The 


* Dio Cassius (Ix. p. 669) speaks of Claudius as not 
expelling the Jews, but only forbidding them to as- 
semble. Probably this was an earlier measure not 
found sufficiently effective. The expulsion of the 

Mathematici ” about the same time (Tacitus, 
Ann. xii. 52) implies a general alarm as to the spread 
of “Eastern superstitions,” 


CLEMENS ROMANUS 171 


crime on which they were condemned was, 
according to Dio Cassius, that of “ Judaizing,” 
from which in the popular mind Christianity 
was hardly distinguishable. The religious 
charge was regarded by Suetonius as a most 
trivial one, the object of suspicion rather than 
of proof—‘t tenuissima ex suspicione ’’—but 
it was strengthened by a neglect of the ordi- 
nary usages of Roman social and political life, 
almost unavoidable by a Christian, which was 
regarded as a ‘‘ most contemptible indolence ”’ 
meriting severe animadversion. Clemens suf- 
fered death ; his wife Domitilla was banished 
to an island off the W. coast of Italy. [00 Μ1- 
TIANUS, (1).] Sueton. Domit. ὃ 15; Dio Cassius, 
Hist. \xvii. 14; Tillem. tom. ti. p. 124; Merivale, 
Romans under the Empire, vol. vii.c. Ixil. p. 383. 
Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 22. [E.v.] 

Clemens Romanus. According to common 
tradition, one of the first, if not the first, bp. 
of Rome after the apostles, and certainly a 
leading member of that church towards the 
end of the rst cent. 

(1) Among the most authentic proofs of the 
connexion of Clement with the Roman church 
is the mention of his name in its liturgy. The 
early Christians on the death of a bishop did 
not discontinue the mention of his name in 
their public prayers. Now the Roman Canon 
of the Mass to this day, next after the names 
of the apostles, recites the names of Linus, 
Cletus, Clemens ; and there is some evidence 
that the liturgy contained the same names 
in the same order as early as the 2nd cent; 
Probably, then, this commemoration dates 
from Clement’s own time. 

(2) An independent proof that Clement 
held high position in the church of Rome is 
afforded by the Shepherd of Hermas, a work 
not later than the episcopate of Pius (A.D. 
141-156), the writer of which claims to have 
been contemporary w th Clement. He repre- 
sents himself as commissioned to write for 
Clement the book of his Visions in order that 
Clement might send it to foreign cities, that 
being his function ; while Hermas himself was 
to read the Viston at Rome with the elders 
who presided over the church. Thus Clement 
is recognized as the organ by which the church 
of Rome communicated with foreign churches ; 
but the passage does not decide whether or 
not Clement was superior to other presbyters 
in the domestic government of the church. 

(3) Next in antiquity among the notices of 
Clement is the general ascription to him of the 
Epistle to the Church of Corinth, commonly 
known as Clement’s first epistle. This is 
written in the name of the church of Rome, 
and neither in the address nor in the body of 
the letter contains Clement’s name, yet he 
seems to have been from the first everywhere 
recognized as its author. We may not un- 
reasonably infer from the passage just cited 
from Hermas that the letter was even then 
celebrated. About a.D. 170 it is expressly 
mentioned by Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, who, 
acknowledging another letter written from the 
church of Rome to the church of Corinth by 
their then bp. Soter, states that their former 
letter written by Clement was still read from 
time to time in their Sunday assemblies. 
Eusebius (H. E. iii. 16) speaks of this public 
reading of Clement’s epistle as the ancient 


172 CLEMENS ROMANUS 


custom of very many churches down to his 
own time. In the same place (and in H. E. 
iv. 22) he reports that Hegesippus, whose 
historical work was written in the episcopate 
next after Soter’s, and who had previously 
visited both Rome and Corinth, gives parti- 
culars concerning the epistle of Clement, and 
concerning the dissensions in the Corinthian 
church which had given rise to it. The 
epistle is cited as Clement’s by Irenaeus (adv. 
Haer. iii. 3), several times by Clement of 
Alex., who in one place gives his namesake 
the title of Apostle (Strom. i. 7, iv. 17, v. 12, 
vi. 8); by Origen (de Princtp. ii. 3, in Ezech. 
8, in Joan. i. 29) ; and in fact on this subject 
the testimony of antiquity is unanimous. A 
letter which did not bear Clement’s name, and 
which merely purported to come from the 
church of Rome, could scarcely have been 
generally known as Clement’s, if Clement had 
not been known at the time as holding the 
chief position in the church of Rome. 

(4) Last among those notices of Clement 
which may be relied on as historical, we place 
the statement of Irenaeus (1...) that Clement 
was third bp. of Rome after the apostles, his 
account being that the apostles Peter and Paul, 
having founded and built up that church, 
committed the charge of it to Linus; that 
Linus was succeeded by Anencletus, and he 
by Clement. This order is adopted by Euse- 
bius, by Jerome in his Chronicle, and by 
Eastern chronologers generally. 

A different order of placing these bishops can 
also, however, lay claim to high antiquity. The 
ancient catalogue known as the Liberian, be- 
cause ending with the episcopate of Liberius, 
gives the order and duration of the first Roman 
episcopates: Peter 25 years, 1 month, 9 
days; Linus 12 years, 4 months, 12 days; 
Clemens 9 years, 11 months, 12 days; Cletus 
6 years, 2 months, τὸ days; Anacletus 12 
years, 10 months, 3 days: thus Anacletus, 
who in the earlier list comes before Clement, 
is replaced by two bishops, Cletus and Ana- 
cletus, who come after him; and this account 
is repeated in other derived catalogues. Ire- 
naeus himself is not consistent in reckoning 
the Roman bishops. [Crerpo.] The order, 
Peter, Linus, Clemens, is adopted by Augus- 
tine (Ep. 53 ad Generosum) and by Optatus of 
Milevis (de Schism. Donatist. ii. 2). Tertul- 
lian (de Praescrip. c. 32) states that the church 
of Rome held Clement to have been ordained 
by Peter; and Jerome (Cat. Scr. Ecc. 15), 
while adopting the order of Irenaeus, mentions 
that most Latins then counted Clement to 
have been second after Peter, and himself 
seems to adopt this reckoning in his commen- 
tary on Isaiah (c. 52). The Apostolic Constitu- 
tions (vii. 46) represent Linus to have been 
first ordained by Paul, and afterwards, on the 
death of Linus, Clement by Peter. Epipha- 
nius (Haer. xxvii. 6) suggests that Linus and 
Cletus held office during the lifetime of Peter 
and Paul, who, on their necessary absence from 
Rome for apostolic journeys, commended the 
charge of the church to others. This solution 
is adopted by Rufinus in the preface to his 
translation of the Recognitions. Epiphanius 
has an alternative solution, founded on a 
conjecture which he tries to support by a re- 
ference to a passage in Clement’s epistle, viz. 


CLEMENS ROMANUS 


that Clement, after having been ordained by — 
Peter, withdrew from his office and did not 
resume it until after the death of Linus and 
Cletus. A more modern attempt to reconcile 
these accounts is Cave’s hypothesis that Linus 
and after him Cletus had been appointed by 
Paul to preside over a Roman church of Gen- 
tile Christians; Clement by Peter over a 
church of Jewish believers, and that ultimately 
Clement was bishop over the whole Roman 
church. Still later it has been argued that 
the uncertainty of order may mean that during 
the 1st cent. there was no bishop in the church 
of Rome, and that the names of three of the 
leading presbyters have been handed down by 
some in one order, by others in another. The 
authorities, however, which differ from the 
account of Irenaeus, ultimately reduce them- 
selves to two. Perhaps the parent of the rest — 
is the letter of Clement to James [CLEMENTINE 
LITERATURE] giving an account of Clement’s 
ordination by Peter; for it seems to have 
been plainly the acceptance of this ordination 
as historical which inspired the desire to cor- 
rect a list of bishops which placed Clement at 
a distance of three from Peter. The other 
authority is the Chronicle of Hippolytus, 
pub. a.D. 235 (see CHRONICON CANISIANUM 
in D. C. B. 4-vol. ed.), and the memoir of 
Mommsen there cited), for it has been satis- | 
factorily shewn that the earlier part of the 
Liberian catalogue is derived from the list of 
Roman bishops in this work. The confusion 
of later writers arises from attempts to re- 
concile conflicting authorities, all of which 
seemed deserving of confidence: viz. (1) the 
list of Irenaeus, and probably of Hegesippus, 
giving merely a succession of Roman bishops ; 
(2) the list of Hippolytus giving a succession | 
in somewhat different order and also the years 
of the duration of the episcopates ; and (3) the 
letter to James relating the ordination of 
Clement by Peter. The main question, then, 
is, which is more entitled to confidence, the 
order of Irenaeus or of Hippolytus? and we 
have no hesitation in accepting the former. 
First, because it is distinctly the more an-| ὦ 
cient ; secondly, because if the earlier tradi- 
tion had not placed the undistinguished name 
Cletus before the well-known Clement, no later _ 
writer would have reversed its order ; thirdly, 
because of the testimony of the liturgy. 
Hippolytus being apparently the first scientific 
chronologer in the Roman church, his author-- 
ity there naturally ranked very high, and his 
order of the succession seems to have been’ — 
generally accepted in the West for a hereto, δε 


able time. Any commemoration, therefore, 
introduced into the liturgy after his time 
would have followed his order, Linus, Clemens, 
Cletus, or, if of very late introduction, would” 
have left out the obscure name Cletus alto-' 
gether. We conclude, then, that the commem- 
oration in the order, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, 
had been intrcduced before the time of Hip- — 

polytus, and was by then so firmly established) ji 
that even the contradictory result arrived at 
by Hippolytus (because he accepted as histor- 
ically true the ordination of Clement by Peter 
as related in the Ep. to James) could not alter 
it. The Recognitions are cited by Origen,’ >. 
the contemporary of Hippolytus; and th 


account which their preface gives of Clement’s 


CLEMENS ROMANUS 


ordination seems to have been fully believed 
by the Roman church. The death of Clement 
and the consequent accession of Evaristus is 
dated by Eusebius in his Chronicle a.p. 95, 
and in his Church History the third year of 
Trajan, a.p. 100. According to the chrono- 
logy of the Liberian Catalogue, the accession 
of Evaristus is dated a.p. 95. Now no one 
dates the death of Peter later than the per- 
secution of Nero, aA.p. 67. If, therefore, 
Clement was ordained by Peter, and if we 
retain the order of Irenaeus, Clement had an 
episcopate of about 30 years, a length far 

eater than any tradition suggests. Hippo- 
lytus, probably following the then received 
account of the length of Clement’s episcopate, 
has placed it A.p. 67-76; and, seeing the above 
difficulty, has filled the space between Clement 
and Evaristus by transposing Cletus and, as 
the gap seemed too large to be filled by one 
episcopate, by counting as distinct the Cletus 
of the liturgy and the Anacletus of the earlier 
catalogue. Apparently it was Hippolytus 
who devised the theory stated in the A postolic 
Constitutions, that Linus held the bishopric 
during the lifetime of Peter; for this seems to 
be the interpretation of the dates assigned in 
the Liberian Catalogue, Peter 30-55, Linus 
55-67. But the whole ground of these specula- 
tions is removed if we reject the tale of Clem- 
ent’s ordination by Peter; if for no other 
reason, on account of the chronological con- 
fusion which it causes. Thus we retain the 
order of Irenaeus, accounting that of Hippo- 
lytus as an arbitrary transposition to meet a 
chronological difficulty. The time that we are 
thus led to assign to the activity of Clement, 
yiz. the end of Domitian’s reign, coincides 
with that which Eusebius, apparently on the 
authority of Hegesippus, assigns to Clement’s 
epistle, and with that which an examination 
of the letter itself suggests (see below). 

The result thus arrived at casts great doubt 
on the identification of the Roman Clement 
with the Clement named Phil. iv. 3. This 
identification is unhesitatingly made by Origen 
(in Joann. i. 29) and a host of later writers. 
Irenaeus also may have had this passage in 
mind when he speaks of Clement as a hearer 
of the apostles, though probably he was 
principally influenced by the work which 
afterwards grew into the Recognitions. But 
though it is not actually impossible that the 
Clement who held a leading position in the 
church of Philippi during Paul’s imprisonment 
might thirty years afterwards have presided 
over the church of Rome, yet the difference of 
time and place deprives of all likelihood an 
identification merely based upon a very com- 
mon name. Lightfoot has remarked that 
Tacitus, for instance, mentions five Clements 
(Amn. i. 23, ii. 39, xv. 73; Hist. i. 86, iv. 68). 
Far more plausibly it has been proposed to 
identify the author of the epistle with another 
Clement, who was almost certainly at the time 
a distinguished member of the Roman church. 
We learn from Suetonius (Domit. 15) and from 
Dio Cassius, Ixvii. 14, that in 95, the very year 
fixed by some for the death of bp. Clement, 
death or banishment was inflicted by Domitian 
on several persons addicted to Jewish customs, 
and amongst them Flavius Clemens, a relation 
of his own, whose consulship had but just 


CLEMENS ROMANUS 173 


expired, was put to death on a charge of 
atheism, while his wife Domitilla, also a 
member of the emperor's family, was banished. 
The language is such as heathen writers might 
naturally use to describe a persecution of 
Christians; but Eusebius (H. E. iii. 13) ex- 
pressly claims one Domitilla, a niece of the 
consul’s, as a sufferer for Christ ; and (Chron. 
sub anno 95) cites the heathen historian Brut- 
tius as stating that several Christians suffered 
martyrdom at this time. If, then, the consul 
Clement was a Christian martyr, his rank 
would give him during his life a foremost posi- 
tion in the Roman church. It is natural to 
think that the writer of the epistle may have 
been either the consul or a member of his 
family. Yet ifso, the traditions of the Roman 
church must have been singularly defective. 
No writer before Rufinus speaks of bp. Clement 
as a martyr; nor does any ancient writer in 
any way connect him with the consul. In the 
Recognitions Clement is represented as a rela- 
tion of the emperor; not, however, of Domi- 
tian, but of Tiberius. A fabulous account 
of Clement’s martyrdom, probably of no ear- 
lier origin than the 9th cent., tells how Clement 
was first banished to the Crimea, worked there 
such miracles as converted the whole district, 
and was thereupon by Trajan’s order cast into 
the sea with an anchor round his neck, an 
event followed by new prodigies. 

The only genuine work of Clement is the 
Ep. to the Corinthians already mentioned. 
Its main object is to restore harmony to the 
Corinthian church, which had been disturbed 
by questions apparently concerning discipline 
rather than doctrine. The bulk of the letter 
is taken up in enforcing the duties of meekness, 
humility, submission to lawful authority, and 
but little attempt is made at the refutation of 
doctrinal error. Some pains, it is true, are 
taken to establish the doctrine of the Resurrec- 
tion ; but this subject is not connected by the 
writer with the disputes, and so much use is 
made of Paul’s Ep. to the Corinthians that we 
cannot lay much stress on the fact that one 
of the topics of that epistle is fully treated. 
The dissensions are said to have been caused 
by the arrogance of a few self-willed persons 
who led a revolt against the authority of the 
presbyters. Their pride probably rested on 
their possession of spiritual gifts, and perhaps 
on the chastity which they practised. Though 
pains are taken to shew the necessity of a 
distinction of orders, we cannot infer that this 
was really questioned by the revolters ; for the 
charge against them, that they had unwarrant- 
ably deposed from the office of presbyter 
certain who had filled it blamelessly, implies 
that the office continued to be recognized by 
them. But this unauthorized deposition 
naturally led to a schism, and representations 
made at Rome by some of the persons ill- 
treated may have led to the letter of Clement. 
It is just possible that we can name one of 
these persons. At the end of the letter a wish 
is expressed that the messengers of the Romap 
church, Ephebus and Bito, with Fortunatus 
also, might be sent back speedily with tidings 
of restored harmony. The form of expression 
distinguishing Fortunatus from the Roman 
delegates favours the supposition that he was 
a Corinthian, and as Clement urges on those 


174 CLEMENS ROMANUS 


who had been the cause of dissension to with- 
draw for peace’ sake, it is possible that For- 
tunatus might have so withdrawn and found 
a welcome at Rome. Another conjecture 
identifies him with the Fortunatus mentioned 
in St. Paul’s Ep. to the Corinthians. 

However precarious this identification may 
be, internal evidence shews that the epistle is 
not so far from apostolic times as to make it 
impossible. None of the apostles are spoken 
of as living, but the deaths of Peter and Paul, 
described as men of their own generation, are 
referred to as then recent, and some of the 
presbyters appointed by the apostles are 
spoken of as still surviving. The early date 
thus indicated is confirmed by the absence of 
allusion to controversial topics of the 2nd 
cent., and by the immaturity of doctrinal de- 
velopment on certain points. Thus “ bishop ”’ 
and “‘ presbyter ’’ are, as in N.T., used con- 
vertibly, and there is no trace that in the 
church of Corinth one presbyter had any very 
pronounced authority over the rest. The de- 
position of certain presbyters is not spoken of 
as usurpation of the authority of any single 
person, but of that of the whole body of 
presbyters. Again, to the writer the “ Scrip- 
tures ’’ are the books of the O.T.; these he 
cites most copiously and uses to enforce his 
arguments. He expressly mentions St. Paul’s 
Ep. to the Corinthians ; and twice reminds his 
hearers of words of our Lord. The way in 
which he uses the quotations implies the exist- 
ence of written records recognized by both 
parties. Besides these, without any formal 
citation he makes unmistakable use of other 
N.T. books, chiefly of Heb., but also of Rom. 
and other Pauline, including the Pastoral, 
epistles, Acts, James, and I. Peter. Still, 
their authority is not appealed to in the same 
manner as is that of the O.T. It may be 
mentioned here that Clement’s epistle contains 
the earliest recognition of the Book of Judith. 
He quotes also from O.T. apocryphal books or 
interpolations not now extant. 

To fix more closely the date of the epistle, 
the principal fact available is, that in the 
opening an apology is made that the church of 
Rome had not been able to give earlier atten- 
tion to the Corinthian disputes, owing to the 
sudden and repeated calamities which had 
befallen it. It is generally agreed that this 
must refer to the persecution under either 
Nero or Domitian. A date about midway 
between these is that to which the phenomena 
of the epistle would have inclined us; but 
having to choose between these two we have 
no hesitation in preferring the latter. The 
main argument in favour of the earlier date, 
that the temple service is spoken of as being 
still offered, is satisfactorily met by the occur- 
rence of a quite similar use of the present tense 
in Josephus. Indeed the passage, carefully 
considered, suggests the opposite inference ; 
for Clement would Judaize to an extent of 
which there is no sign elsewhere in the epistle, 
if, in case the temple rites were being still 
celebrated, he were to speak of them as the 
appointed and acceptable way of serving God. 
All the other notes of time are difficult to 
reconcile with a date so close to the apostles 
as the reign of Nero. 

As to whether the writer was a Jew or a 


CLEMENS ROMANUS 


Gentile, the arguments are not absolutely — 
decisive ; but it seems more conceivable that ὃ 
a Hellenistic Jew resident at Rome could have — 


acquired the knowledge of Roman history and 
heathen literature exhibited in the epistle, 
than that one not familiar from his childhood 


with the O.T. could possess so intimate an 
This consideration, of — 


acquaintance with it. 
course, bears on the question whether Flavius 
Clemens could have written the letter. 

The letter does not yield any support to the 
theory of rst cent. disputes between a Pauline 
and an anti-Pauline party in the church. 
No such disputes appear in the dissensions at 
Corinth ; and at Rome the Gentile and Jewish 
sections of the church seem in Clement’s time 
to be completely fused. The obligation on 
Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law does not 
seem a matter of concern. The whole Chris- 
tian community is regarded as the inheritor of 
the promises to the Jewish people. Clement 
holds both SS. Peter and Paul in the highest 
(and equal) honour. 

The epistle was known until 1875 only 
through a single MS., the great Alexandrian 
MS. brought to England in 1628, of which an 
account is given in all works on the criticism 
of the N.T. One leaf, containing about the 
tenth part of the whole letter, has been lost. 
In this Greek Bible of the 5th cent. the two 
letters of Clement to the Corinthians are books 
enumerated among N.T., not with the apostolic 
epistles, but after the Apocalypse. Hence the 
ecclesiastical use of Clement’s letter had prob- 
ablynot ceased when this MS. wascopied. The 
ep. was first ed. by Patrick Young (Oxf. 1633), 
and often since, among the most importantedd. 
being Cotelier’s in his Apostolic Fathers (Paris, 
1672); Jacobson’s; Hilgenfeld’s in his N.T. 
extra Canonem Receptum ; Lightfoot’s (Camb. 
1869, and in his great ed. of the Apostolic 
Fathers, 1890); Tischendorf’s (Leipz. 1873); 
and Gebhardt and Harnack’s (Leipz. 1875). A 
photograph of this portion of the MS. was 
pub. by Sir. F. Madden in 1856. An Eng. 
trans. of the ep. (and of those on Virginity) is 
in the Lib. of Ante- Nicene Fathers. 

An entirely new authority for the text of 
the epistle was gained by the discovery in the 


library of the Holy Sepulchre at Fanari, in~ 


Constantinople, of a MS. containing an unmuti- 
lated text of the two epistles ascribed to 
Clement.* The new authority was announced, 
and first used in establishing the text, in a very 
careful and able ed. of the epp. by Bryennius, 
metropolitan of Serrae, pub. in Constantinople 
at the end of 1875. The MS., which is 


cursive and dated a.pD. 1056, is contained in a © 


small octavo volume, 7} inches by 6, which 
has, besides the Epp. of Clement, Chrysos- 
tom’s synopsis of the O.T., the Ep. of 
Barnabas, the Teaching of the Twelve Apos- 
tles (occupying in the MS. less space by one- 
fourth than the second Ep. of Clement), and 
a collection of Ignatian epistles. It gives a 
very good text of the Clementine letters, in- 
dependent of the Alexandrian MS., but, on the 
whole, in tolerably close agreement with it, 


even in passages where the best critics had | 


* Stilllater a Syriac MS. purchased for the Univer- 
sity of Cambridge was found to contain a trans. of 
these two epistles, This has been ed. with notes anda 


facsimile plate by R. 1. Bensley (Camb, Univ. Press), Ὁ 


πα τ ef er eee δον, διον 


CLEMENS ROMANUS 


suspected error. Besides filling up small 
lacunae in the text of the older MS., it supplies 
the contents of the entire leaf which had been 
lost. This part contains a passage quoted by 
Basil, but not another quoted by Pseudo- 
Justin, confirmed in some degree by Irenaeus, 
which had been referred to this place (see 
Lightfoot, p. 166). Except for trifling omis- 
sions we must have the letter now as complete 
as it was originally in the Alexandrian MS. 
For Harnack, on counting the letters in the 
recovered portion, found that they amounted 
almost exactly to the average contents of a 
leaf of the older MS. Lightfoot has pointed 
out that by a small change in the text of Ps.- 
ustin, his reference is satisfied by a passage 
in the newly discovered conclusion of the 
second epistle. The new portion of the first 
rincipally consists of a prayer, possibly 
ounded on the liturgical use of the Roman 
church. What has been said in the beginning 
of the letter as to the calamities under which 
that church had suffered is illustrated by some 
of the petitions, and prayer is made for their 
earthly rulers and that they themselves might 
submit to them, recognizing the honour given 
them by God, and not opposing His will. 
Very noticeable in this new part of the letter 
is the tone of authority used in making an 
unsolicited interference with the affairs of 
another church. “If any disobey the words 
spoken by God through us, let them know that 
they will entangle themselves in transgression, 
and no small danger, but we shall be clear 
from this sin.’”’ ‘‘ You will cause us joy and 
exultation if, obeying the things written by us 
through the Holy Spirit, you cut out the law- 
less passion of your jealousy according to the 
intercession which we have made for peace and 
concord in this letter. But we have sent 
faithful and discreet men who have walked 
from youth to old age unblameably amongst us, 
who shall be witnesses between us and you. 
This have we done that you may know that 
all our care has been and is that you may 
speedily be at peace.’’ It remains open for 
controversy how far the expressions quoted 
indicate official superiority of the Roman 
church, or only the writer’s conviction of the 
goodness of their cause. We may add that 
the epithet applied by Irenaeus to the epistle 
ἱκανωτάτη proves to have been suggested by a 
phrase in the letter itself, ἱκανῶς ἐπεστείλαμεν. 

Lightfoot gives references to a succession of 
writers who have quoted the epistle. Poly- 
carp, though not formally quoting Clement’s 
epistle, gives in several passages clear proof of 
acquaintance with it. A passage in Ignatius’s 
epistle to Polycarp, c. 5, may also be set down 
as derived from Clement, but other parallels 
collected by Hilgenfeld are extremely doubt- 
ful. The epistle does not seem to have been 
translated into Latin, and was consequently 
little known in the West. 

For some of the spurious works ascribed to 
Clement see CLEMENTINE LITERATURE. 

The Second Epistle to the Corinthians.—This 
letter also formed part of the Alexandrian MS., 
but its conclusion had been lost by mutilation. 
We now have it complete in the edition of 
Bryennius. In the list of contents of the older 
MS. it is marked as Clement’s second epistle, 
but not expressly described as to the Corin- 


CLEMENS ROMANUS 175 


thians. It isso described in the later MS. It 
is not mentioned by any writer before Eusebius, 
and the language used by some of them is 
inconsistent with their having accepted it. 
Eusebius mentions it as a second letter ascribed 
to Clement, but not, like the former, used by 
the older writers, and he only speaks of one as 
the acknowledged epistle of Clement. The two 
epistles are placed among the books of the 
N.T., in the 8th book of the Apostolic Consti- 
tutions, which probably belongs to the 6th 
cent. Thesecond epistle is first expressly cited 
as to the Corinthians by Severus of Antioch 
early in the same cent. Internal evidence, 
though adverse to Clementine authorship, 
assigns to the work a date not later than the 2nd 
cent., and probably the first half of it. The - 
writer is distinctly a Gentile, and contrasts 
himself and his readers with the Jewish nation 
in a manner quite unlike the genuine Clement ; 
and his quotations are not, like Clement’s, 
almost exclusively from O.T.; the gospel 
history is largely cited, and once under the 
name of Scripture. Many of the quotations, 
however, differ from our canonical gospels, and 
since one of them agrees with a passage re- 
ferred by Clement of Alexandria to the gospel 
of the Egyptians, this was probably the source 
of other quotations also. The epistle would 
seem from this to be earlier than the close of 
the 2nd cent., at which time our four gospels 
were in a position of exclusive authority. The 
controversies with which the writer deals are 
those of the early part of the 2nd cent. In 
language suggested by the Ep. to the 
Ephesians, the spiritual church is described as 
created before the sun and moon, as the female 
of whom Christ is the male, the body of which 
he is the soul. It seems likely that a work 
using such language had gained its acceptance 
with the church before Gnostic theories con- 
cerning the Aeons Christus and Ecclesia had 
brought discredit upon such speculations. The 
doctrine of the pre-existence of the church is, 
as Harnack noted, one of several points of 
contact between this work and the Shepherd 
of Hermas, making it probable that both 
emanate from the same age and the same 
circle. We therefore refer the place of com- 
position to Rome, notwithstanding an appar- 
ent reference to the Isthmian games which 
favours a connexion with Corinth. The de- 
scription of the work as an Ep. to the 
Corinthians, never strongly supported by ex- 
ternal evidence, is disproved by the newly 
discovered conclusion, whence it clearly ap- 
pears that the work is, as Dodwell and others 
had supposed, no epistle, but a homily. It 
professes, and there seems no reason to doubt 
it, to have been composed to be publicly read 
in church, and therefore the writer’s position 
in the church was one which would secure that 
use of his work. But he does not claim any 
position of superiority, and the foremost place 
in ruling and teaching the church is attributed 
to the body of presbyters. He nowhere 
claims to be Clement. But it is not strange 
that an anonymous, but undoubtedly early 
document of the Roman church should come 
to be ascribed to the universally acknow- 
ledged author of the earliest document of that 
church ; nor that when both had come to be 
received as Clement’s, the second should come 


176 CLEMENS ROMANUS 


to be regarded as, like the first, an epistle to 
the Corinthians. 

The Two Epistles on Virginity.—These are 
extant only in Syriac, and only in a single MS. 
purchased at Aleppo ὃ. A.p. 1750, for Wetstein. 
He had commissioned a copy of the Philox- 
enian version of the N.T. to be bought, and this 
MS. proved to be only a copy of the well- 
known Peshito. But the disappointment was 
compensated by the unexpected discovery of 
these letters, till then absolutely unknown in 
the West. After the Ep. to the Hebrews, the 
last in the Peshitta canon, the scribe adds a 
doxology, and a note with personal details by 
which we can date the MS. a.p. 1470, and then 
proceeds, ‘‘ We subjoin to the epistles of Paul 
those epistles of the apostles, which are not 
found in all the copies,’’ on which follow II. 
Peter, II., III. John, and Jude, from the Phi- 
loxenian version, and then, without any break, 
these letters, with the titles: ‘‘ The first 
epistle of the blessed Clement, the disciple of 
Peter the apostle,’’ and ‘‘ The second epistle 
of the same Clement.’’ The MS. is now pre- 
served in the library of the Seminary of the 
Remonstrants at Amsterdam. The letters 
were published, as an appendix to his Greek 
Testament, by Wetstein, who also defended 
their authenticity. The last editor is Beelen 
(Louvain, 1856). The letters, though now only 
extant in Syriac, are proved by their Graecisms 
to be a translation from the Greek, and 
by the existence of a fragment containing an 
apparently different Syriac translation of one 
passage in them. This fragment is contained 
in a MS. bearing the date a.p. 562. The 
earliest writer who quotes these letters is Epi- 
phanius. In a passage, which until the dis- 
covery of the Syriac letters had been felt as 
perplexing, he describes Clement as ‘‘ in the 
encyclical letters which he wrote, and which 
are read in the holy churches,”’ having taught 
virginity, and praised Elias and David and 
Samson, and all the prophets. The letters to 
the Corinthians cannot be described as ency- 
clical ; and the topics specified are not treated 
of in them, while they are dwelt on in the 
Syriac letters. St. Jerome, though in his 
catalogue of ecclesiastical writers he follows 
Eusebius in mentioning only the two letters 
to the Corinthians as ascribed to Clement, yet 
must be understood as referring to the letters 
on virginity in his treatise against Jovinian 
where he speaks of Clement as composing 
almost his entire discourse concerning the 
purity of virginity. He may have become 
acquainted with these letters during his resi- 
dence in Palestine. The presumption against 
their genuineness, arising from the absence of 
notice of them by Eusebius and every other 
writer anterior to Epiphanius, and from the 
limited circulation which they appear ever to 
have attained in the church, is absolutely con- 
firmed by internal evidence. Their style and 
whole colouring are utterly unlike those of the 
genuine epistle; and the writer is evidently 
one whose thoughts and language have been 
moulded by long and early acquaintance with 
N.T., in the same manner as those of the real 
Clement are by his acquaintance with the Old. 
The Gospel of St. John is more than once 
cited, but not any apocryphal N.T. book. 
Competent judges have assigned these epistles 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 


to the middle of the 2nd cent., but their argu- 
ments hardly suffice to exclude a somewhat 
later date. 

The Epistles to James our Lord’s Brothery.—In 
the article CLEMENTINE LITERATURE is given 
an account of the letter to James by Clement, 
which relates how Peter, in immediate anti- 
cipation of death, ordained Clement as his 
successor, and gave him charge concerning his | 


ministry. After the trans. of this letter by 
Rufinus, some Latin writer added a second, 
giving instruction as to the administration of 
the Eucharist and church discipline. Thesetwo 
letters had considerable currency in the West. 
Inthe forged decretals both were much enlarged, 
and 3 new letters purporting to be Clement’s 
added. James is in the original Clementines 
the head of the church, but in the later epistle 
receives instruction and commands from Peter’s 
successor Clement. There must have been yet 
other letters ascribed to Clement in the East 
if there be no error in the MS. of Leontius (Mai, 
Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vii. 84), who cites a pas- 
sage not elsewhere extant as from the ninth 
letter of Clement. Discourses concerning 
Providence and the righteous judgment of 
God are cited by Anastasius of Antioch; 
and a 13th-cent. writer (Spictlegium Ache- 
rianum, viii. 382) reports having seen in a 
Saracen MS. a book of Revelations of Peter, 
compiled by Clement. The highest, and pro- | 
bably the final, authority on St. Clement of 
Rome is now the great work of Bp. Lightfoot, | 
forming, in 2 parts, pub. 1890, vol. i. of his 
ar 


ἢ 
bh 
Mi} 
te 
Ι: 


ed. of the A postolic Fathers. See also Harnack, : 
Chronol. der Altchr. Lit., 1897, pp. 251 ff, 
438 ff.; an ed. by A. Jacobson of Clement’s 
works in 2 vols. in A post. Patr. (Clar. Press); | 
an Eng. trans. of the Epzstle of Clement, 
by J. A. F. Gregg (S.P.C.K.). [c.s.] Ὁ} 
Clement of Alexandria. i. Life—His full — 
name, Titus Flavius Clemens, is given by — 
Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13) and Photius (Cod. 111) _ 
in the title of the Stromateis (Titov Pdaviou, 
Κλήμεντος [Photius adds πρεσβυτέρου ᾿Αλεξαν- 
5pelas] τῶν κατὰτὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν — 
ὑπομνημάτων στρωματεῖ5). The remarkable — 
coincidence of the name with that of the — 
nephew of Vespasian and consul in 95 cannot) i 
have been accidental, but we have no direct — 
evidence of Clement’s connexion with the 
imperial Flavian family. Perhaps he was ~ 
descended from a freedman of the consul; — 
his wide and varied learning indicates that — 
he had received a liberal education, and = Be) 
far suggests that his parents occupied a good’ 
social position. The place of his birth is ποῦ 
certainly known. Epiphanius, the earliest — 
authority on the question, observes that two) — 
opinions were held in his time, “᾿ some saying — 
that he was an Alexandrian, others that he 
was an Athenian” (ὅν φασί τινες ᾿Αλεξανδρέα — 
ἕτεροι 6¢’ AOnvatov, Haer. xxxii. 6). Alexandria — 
was the principal scene of his labours; but — 
there was no apparent reason for connecting ~ 
him with Athens by mere conjecture. The 
statement that he was an Athenian must there: — 
fore have rested upon some direct tradition’ 
Moreover, in recounting his wanderings ht — 
makes Greece the starting-point and Alex: 
andria the goal of his search (Strom. 1, § Ir 
Pp- 322); and in the znd cent. Athens was stil 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 


the centre of the literary and spiritual life of 
Greece. We may then with reasonable proba- 
bility conclude that Clement was an Athenian 
by training if not by origin, and the fact that 
he was at the head of the catechetical school 
of Alexandria towards the close of the century 
fixes the date of his birth c. A.D. 150-160. 
Nothing is recorded of his parentage; but his 
own language seems to imply that he embraced 
Christianity by a personal act, as in some sense 
a convert (Paed. i. ὃ 1, p. 97, τὰς παλαιὰς 
ἀπομνύμενοι δόξας ; cf. Paed. ii. ὃ 62, p. 206, 
δάκρυά ἐσμεν... οἱ εἰς αὐτὸν πεπιστευκότες), 
and this is directly affirmed by Eusebius 
(Praep. Ev. ii. 2 f.), though perhaps simply by 
inference from Clement’s words. Such a con- 
version would not be irreconcilable with the 
belief that Clement, like Augustine, was of 
Christian parentage at least on one side; but 
whether Clement’s parents were Christians or 
heathens it is evident that heathenism at- 
tracted him for a time; and though he soon 
overcame its attractions, his inquisitive spirit 
did not at once find rest in Christianity. He 
enumerates six illustrious teachers under 
whom he studied the “ true tradition of the 
blessed doctrine of the holy apostles.’? His 
first teacher in Greece was an Ionian (Athen- 
agoras ?); others he heard in Magna Graecia; 
others in the East; and at last he found in 
Egypt the true master for whom he had 
sought (Strom. i. § 11, p. 322). There can be 
no doubt that this master was Pantaenus, to 
whom he is said to have expressed his obliga- 
tions in his Hypotyposes (Eus. H. E. vi. 13, 
y. 11). Pantaenus was then chief of the 
eatechetical school, and though the accounts 
of Eusebius and Jerome (Eus. H. E. v. 10; 
Hieron. de Vir. 11]. 36, 38) are irreconcilable 
in their details and chronology, it is certain 
that on the death or retirement of Pantaenus, 
Clement succeeded to his office, and it is not 
unlikely that he had acted as his colleague 
before. The period during which Clement 
presided over the catechetical school (c. a.p. 
190-203) seems to have been the season of his 
greatest literary activity. He was now a 
presbyter of the church (Paed. i. § 37, p. 120) 
and had the glory of reckoning Origen among 
his scholars. On the outbreak of the perse- 
cution under Severus (A.D. 202, 203) in which 
idas, the father of Origen, perished, 
Clement retired from Alexandria (Eus. H. E. 
Vi. 3), never, as it seems, to return. Nothing 
is directly stated as to the place of his with- 
drawal. There are some indications of a visit 
to Syria (Eus. H. E. vi. 11, ὃν ἴστε); and, 
later, we find him in the company of an old 
pupil, Alexander, afterwards bp. of Jerusalem, 
and at that time a bp. of Cappadocia, who was 
in prison for the faith. If therefore Clement 
had before withdrawn from danger, it was 
through wisdom and not through fear. Alex- 
ander regarded his presence as due to “a 
5 sm providence ” (cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 14), and 
ged him, in most honourable terms, with 

a letter of congratulation to the church of 
Antioch on the appointment of Asclepiades to 
the bishopric of that city, a.p. 311 (Eus. H. E. 
Vi. 11). This is the last mention of Clement 
which has been preserved. The time and the 
place of his death are alike unknown. Popu- 
Opinion reckoned him among the saints of 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 177 


the church ; and he was commemorated in the 
early Western martyrologies on Dec. 4. His 
name, however, was omitted in the martyr- 
ology issued by Clement VIII. after the cor- 
rections of Baronius; and Benedict XIV. 
elaborately defended the omission in a letter 
to John V. of Portugal, dated 1748. Benedict 
argued that the teaching of Clement was at 
least open to suspicion, and that private usage 
would not entitle him to a place in the calen- 
dar (Benedicti XIV. Opera, vi. pp. 1109 ff. ed. 
1842, where the evidence is given in detail; 
cf. Cognat, Clément d’ Alexandrie, pp. 451 ff.). 
ii. Works.—Eusebius, whom Jerome follows 
closely with some mistakes (de Vir. 111. 38) 
has given a list of the works of Clement (H. E. 
vi. 13): (1) Στρωματεῖς, libb. viii.; (2) 
‘Trorurwces, libb. viii.; (3) Πρὸς "EA\nvas 
λόγος προτρεπτικός (adversus Gentes, Jerome) ; 
(4) Παιδαγωγός, libb. iii. ; (5) Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος 
πλούσιος; (6) epi τοῦ πάσχα ; (7) Διαλέξεις 
περὶ νηστείας; (8) Περὶ καταλαλίας ; (9) 
Πρὸτρεπτικὸς εἰς ὑπομονήν ἢ πρὸς τοὺς νεωστὶ 
βεβαπτισμένους (omitted by Jerome); (10) 
Κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἢ πρὸς τοὺς Lovdat fovras 
(de Canonibus Ecclesiasticis et adversum eos 
quit Judaeorum sequuntur errorem, Jerome). 
Photius (Bibl. Codd. 109-111) mentions that 
he read the first five works on the list, and 
knew by report 6, 7, 8 (περὶ κακολογίας) ; 
10 (περὶ κανόνων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν) ; from the 
variations in the titles and the omission of 9, 
it is evident that he derived his knowledge of 
these simply from the secondary Greek version 
of Jerome’s list. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 are still 
preserved almost entire. Of 2 considerable 
fragments remain ; and of 6, 8, 10 a few frag- 
ments are preserved in express quotations. — 
Quotations are also found from a treatise 
περὶ προνοίας, and from another περὶ ψυχῆς, 
to which Clement himself refers (Strom. iii. 13, 
p- 516; v. 88, p. 699). Elsewhere Clement 
speaks of his intention to write On First Prin- 
ciples (περὶ ἀρχῶν, Strom. iii. 13, p. 516; Τά. 21, 
Ρ- 520; cf. iv. 2, p. 564) ; On Prophecy (Strom. 
v. 88, p. 699 ; id. iv. 93, Ρ- 605) ; Against Here- 
5165 (Strom. iv. 92, Ὁ. 604) ; On the Resurrection 
(Paed. i. 6, p. 125) ; On Marriage (Paed. iii. 8, 
p- 278). But the references may be partly 
to sections of his greater works, and partly to 
designs never carried out (cf. Strom. iv. 1-3, 
pp- 563 f.). No doubt has been raised as to 
the genuineness of the Address, the Tutor, and 
the Miscellanies. Internal evidence shews 
them all the work of one writer (cf. Reinkens, 
de Clemente, cap. ii. § 4), and they have been 
quoted as Clement’s by a continuous succes- 
sion of Fathers even from the time of Origen 
(Comm. in Joh. ii. 3, Ὁ. 528 ; Strom. ; anony- 
mous). These three principal extant works 
form a connected series. The first is an 
exhortation to the heathen to embrace 
Christianity, based on an exposition of the 
comparative character of heathenism and 
Christianity ; the second offers a system of 
training for the new convert, with a view to 
the regulation of his conduct as a Christian ; 
the third is an introduction to Christian philo- 
sophy. The series wads further continued 
in the lost Outlines (ὑποτυπώσεις), in which 
Clement laid the foundation of his philosophic 
structure in an investigation of the canonical 


12 


178 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 


writings. The mutual relations of these 
writings shew that Clement intended them 
as a complete system of Christian teaching, 
corresponding with the ‘“‘ whole economy of 
the gracious Word, Who first addresses, then 
trains, and then teaches ”’ (Paed. i. 1), bringing 
to man in due succession conviction, discipline, 
wisdom. The first three books correspond 
in a remarkable degree, as has frequently been 
remarked (Potter, ad Protrept. i.), with the 
stages of the neo-Platonic course, the Purt- 
fication (ἀποκάθαρσι5), the Initiation (μύησι), 
and the Vision (ἐποπτεία). The fourth book 
was probably designed to give a solid basis to 
the truths which were fleeting and unreal in 
systems of philosophy. Though his style is 
generally deficient in terseness and elegance, 
his method desultory, his learning undigested ; 
yet we can still thankfully admire his richness 
of information, his breadth of reading, his 
largeness of sympathy, his lofty aspirations, 
his noble conception of the office and capacities 
of the Faith. 

I. The Address to the Greeks (Λόγος προτρεπ- 
τικὸς mpos"ENAynvas: cf. Strom. vii. ὃ 22, p. 421, 
ἐν τῷ προτρεπτικῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ ἡμῖν hoyw).— 
The works of Clement were composed in the 
order in which they have been mentioned. 
The Tutor contains a reference to the Address 
in the first section (ὁ λόγος ὁπηνίκα μὲν ἐπὶ 
σωτηρίαν παρεκάλει, προτρεπτικὸς ὄνομα αὐτῷ 
ἢν: cf. Strom. vii. ὃ 22; Pott. p. 841) ; and, 
if we can trust the assertion of Eusebius 
(H. E. v. 28), some of Clement’s works were 
composed before the accession of Victor (a.p. 
192). Putting these two facts together, we 
may reasonably suppose the Address written 
c. A.D. 190. It was addressed to Greeks and 
not to Gentiles generally, as Jerome under- 
stood the word (‘‘adversus gentes,”’ de Vir. IIl. 
38). It deals almost exclusively with Greek 
mythology and Greek speculation. 

Its general aim is to prove the superiority of 
Christianity to the religions and the philo- 
sophies of heathendom, while it satisfies the 
cravings of humanity to which they bore wit- 
ness. The gospel is, as Clement shews with 
consummate eloquence, the New Song more 
powerful than that of Orpheus or Arion, new 
and yet older than the creation (c. 1), pure and 
spiritual as contrasted with the sensuality and 
idolatry of the pagan rites, clear and substan- 
tial as compared with the vague hopes of poets 
and philosophers (2-9). In such a case, he 
argues, custom cannot be pleaded against the 
duty of conversion. Man is born for God, and 
is bound to obey the call of God, Who through 
the Word is waiting to make him like unto 
Himself. The choice is between judgment 
and grace, between destruction and life: can 
the issue then be doubtful (10-12) ? 

It is not difficult to point out errors in taste, 
fact, and argument throughout Clement’s 
appeal; but it would be perhaps impossible 
to shew in any earlier work passages equal to 
those in which he describes the mission of the 
Word, the Light of men (p. 88), and pictures 
the true destiny of man (pp. 92 ff.). 

II. The Tutor (ὁ ἸΤαιδαγωγός: cf. Hos. v. 2, 
quoted in Paed. i. 7, p. 129).—The Tutor was 
written before the Miscellanies, in which the 
Tutor is described generally (Strom. vi. § τῷ 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 


Ρ- 736)—i.e. c. A.D. 190-195. The writer’s de- 
sign was “‘ to prepare from early years, that i 
from the beginning of elementary instruction 
(ἐκ Kkarnxjoews), a rule of life growing with the — 
increase of faith, and fitting the souls of those — 
just on the verge of manhood with virtue so © 
as to enable them to receive the higher know- 
ledge of philosophy ”’ (els ἐπιστήμης γνωστικῆς 
mapadoxnv, Strom. l.c.). 

The main scope of the Tutor is therefore — 
practical: the aim is action and not know- 
ledge; but still action as preparatory to 
knowledge, and resting upon conviction. It © 
is divided into three books. The first gives ἃ 
general description of the Tutor, Who is the © 
Word Himself (1-3); of the ‘‘ children’’ whom 
He trains, Christian men and women alike © 
(4-6) ; and of His general method, using both 
chastisements and love (7-12). The second — 
and third books deal with special precepts de- © 
signed to meet the actual difficulties of con- © 
temporary life and not to offer a theory of 
morals. It would not be easy to find else- — 
where, even in the Roman satirists, an equally _ 
vivid and detailed picture of heathen manners. © 
The second book contains general directions as © 
to eating and drinking (1 f.), furniture (3), 
entertainments (4-8), sleep (9), the relations of | 
men and women (10), the use of jewellery ὦ 
(11 f.). The third book opens with an inquiry 
into the nature of true beauty (c. 1). This) 
leads to a condemnation of extravagance in 
dress both in men and in women (2 ff.), of © 
luxurious establishments (4 f.), of the misuse © 
of wealth (6f.). Frugality and exercise are’ 
recommended (8-10) ; and many minute di-~ 
rections are added—often curiously sugges- 


behaviour (11 f.). General instructions from) 
Holy Scripture as to the various duties and) 
offices of life lead up to the prayer tothe Tutor} 
—the Word—with which the work closes. 
Immediately after the Tutor are printed in the 
editions of Clement two short poems, which 
have been attributed to him. The first, 
written in an anapaestic measure, is 4 Hymn 
of the Saviour Christ (ὕμνος τοῦ Σωτῆρος, 
Χριστοῦ), and the second, written in trimeter) 
iambics, is addressed To the Tutor (eis τὸν 
Παιδαγωγόν). The first is said to be 
“Saint Clement’s’’ (τοῦ ἁγίου Κλήμεντος) in 
those MSS. which contain it; but it may be 
a work of primitive date, like the Morning 
Hymn which has been preserved in our Com- 
munion Office as the Gloria in Excelsis. If 
it were Clement’s, and designed to occupy its: 
present place, it is scarcely possible that it 
would have been omitted in any MS.; while 
it makes an appropriate and natural addition 
if taken from some other source. There isno 
evidence to shew that the second is Clement’ 
work ; it is doubtless an effusion of some pious 
scholar of a later date. 
Ill. The Miscellanies (Στρωματεῖς). Ἐ- ΓΒΕ 
title, patchwork (or rather bags for holding th 
bedclothes, like στρωματόδεσμοι), suggests a true 
idea of the character of the work. It is de- 
signedly unmethodical, a kind of meadow, as 
Clement describes it, or rather a woodec 


* The full title is given at the close of Books i, 1 
V.: τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὕπο, 
μνημάτων στρωματεῖς. Ϊ 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 


- mountain (vii. ὃ r11), studded irregularly with 
various growths, and so fitted to exercise the 
ingenuity and labour of those likely to profit 
by it (vi. § 2, p. 736, Pott.). But yet the book 
isinspired by one thought. Itis an endeavour 
to claim for the gospel the power of fulfilling 
all the desires of men and of raising to a 
supreme unity all the objects of knowledge, 
in the soul of the true gnostic—the perfect 
Christian philosopher. The first book, which 
is mutilated at the beginning, treats in the 
main of the office and the origin of Greek 
hilosophy in relation to Christianity and 
Fudaism. Clement shews that Greek philo- 
sophy was part of the Divine education of men, 
subordinate to the training of the law and the 
prophets, but yet really from God (§§ 1-58 ; 
gt-r00). In his anxiety to establish this 
cardinal proposition he is not content with 
| shewing that the books of O.T. are older than 
; | those of the philosophers (59-65; 101-164 ; 
_ | 180-182) ; but endeavours to prove also that 
, | the philosophers borrowed from the Jews 
"| (66-90; 165f.). After this he vindicates the 
character and explains the general scope of the 
law—‘‘ the philosophy of Moses” (167-179). 
The main object of the second book lies in the 
more detailed exposition of the originality and 
superiority of the moral teaching of revelation 
as compared with that of Greek philosophy 
which was in part derived from it (§§ 1 ff. ; 
20-24; 78-96). The argument includes an 
examination of the nature of faith (4-19; 
25-31), resting on a godly fear and perfected by 
love (32-55) ; and of repentance (56-71). He 
discusses the sense in which human affections 
are ascribed to God (72-75) ; and shews that 
the conception of the ideal Christian is that 
| of aman made like to God (97-126), in accord- 
ance with the noblest aspirations of philosophy 
(127-136). The book closes with a prelimin- 
᾿ ary discussion of marriage. The third book 
investigates the true doctrine of marriage 
(§§ 57-60) as against those who indulged in 
every license on the ground that bodily actions 
| are indifferent (1-11; 25-44); and, on the 
! other hand, those who abstained from marriage 
from hatred of the Creator (12-24; 45-46). 
| Various passages of Scripture wrongly inter- 
preted by heretics are examined (61-101) ; and 
| the two main errors are shewn to be inconsis- 
| 
} 
| 
] 
Ι 
] 
] 
Ϊ 
᾿ 
᾿ 
{ 


od: H 


πὰ 


a Christianity (102-110). The fourth 
book opens with a very interesting outline of 
the whole plan of the comprehensive apology 
for Christianity on which he had entered 
(§§ 1-3). The work evidently grew under his 
hands, and he implies that he could hardly 
expect to accomplish the complete design. 
He then adds fresh traits to his portrait of the 
true “gnostic.” Self-sacrifice, martyrdom, 
lie at the root of his nature (8-56; 72-77), 
virtues within the reach of all states and of 
both sexes (57-71), though even this required 
to guarded against fanaticism and mis- 
ating (78-96). ence virtues, as love 

Tance, are touched upon -I19Q); 
and then Clement gives a ἩδατοΝ το ἘΠ ἃ 
Woman (120-131), and of the gnostic, who 


| 
a | 
| 


Tises above fear and hope to that perfection 


which rests in th ‘ 
(132-174). e knowledge and love of God 


_ | (832 In the fifth book Clement, fol- 
sl ees the outline laid down (iv. 1), discusses 
v’ | faith and hope (§§ 1-18), and then passes to 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [79 


the principle of enigmatic teaching. This, he 
argues, was followed by heathen and Jewish 
masters alike (19-26) ; by Pythagoras (27-31); 
by Moses, in the ordinances of the tabernacle 
(32-41) ; by the Aegyptians (42-44) ; and by 
many others (45-56). The principle itself is, 
he maintains, defensible on intelligible grounds 
(57-60), and supported by the authority of the 
apostles (61-67). For in fact the knowledge of 
God can be gained only through serious effort 
and by divine help (68-89). This review of the 
character and sources of the highest knowledge 
leads Clement back to his characteristic pro- 
position that the Greeks borrowed from the 
Jews the noblest truths of their own philo- 
sophy. The sixth and seventh books are 
designed, as Clement states (vi. ὃ 1) to shew 
the character of the Christian philosopher (the 
gnostic), and so to make it clear that he alone 
is the true worshipper of God. By way of 
prelude Clement repeats and enforces (§§ 4-38) 
what he had said on Greek plagiarisms, yet 
admitting that the Greeks had some true 
knowledge of God (39-43), and affirming that 
the gospel was preached in Hades to those of 
them who had lived according to their light 
(44-53), though that was feeble compared with 
the glory of the gospel (54-70). He then 
sketches the lineaments of the Christian philo- 
sopher, who attains to a perfectly passionless 
state (71-79) and masters for the service of the 
faith all forms of knowledge, including various 
mysteries open to him only (80-114). The 
reward of this true philosopher is proportioned 
to his attainments (115-148). These are prac- 
tically unlimited in range, for Greek philo- 
sophy, though a gift of God for the training of 
the nations, is only a recreation for the Chris- 
tian philosopher in comparison with the serious 
objects of his study (149-168). In the 
seventh book Clement regards the Christian 
philosopher as the one true worshipper of God 
(§§ 1-5), striving to become like the Son of God 
(5-21), even as the heathen conversely made 
their gods like themselves (22-27). The soul 
is his temple; prayers and thanksgivings, his 
sacrifice; truth, the law of his life (28-54). 
Other traits are added to the portraiture of 
“the gnostic’? (55-88); and Clement then 
meets the general objection urged against 
Christianity from the conflict of rival sects 
(89-92). Heresy, he replies, can be detected 
by two tests. It is opposed to the testimony 
of Scripture (93-105); and it is of recent 
origin (106-108). At the close of the seventh 
book Clement remarks that he “ shall proceed 
with his argument from a fresh beginning ”’ 
(τῶν ἑξῆς ἀπ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς ποιησόμεθα τὸν 
λόγον). The phrase may mean that he pro- 
poses to enter upon a new division of the Mzs- 
cellanies, or that he will now pass to another 
portion of the great system of writings 
sketched out in Strom. iv. 1-3. In favour of 
the first opinion it may be urged that Eusebius 
(H. E. vi. 13) and Photius (Cod. 109) expressly 
mention eight books of the Muzscellanies ; 
while on the other hand the words themselves, 
taken in connexion with vii. 1, point rather 
to the commencement of a new book. The 
fragment which bears the title of the eighth 
book in the one remaining MS. is in fact a 
piece of a treatise on logic. It may naturally 
have served as an introduction to the examina- 


180 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 


tion of the opinions of Greek philosophers, 
the interpretation of Scripture, and the re- 
futation of heresies which were the general 
topics of the second principal member of 
Clement’s plan (iv. 2); but it is not easy to 
see how it could have formed the close of the 
Miscellanies. It is ‘‘ a fresh beginning ”’ and 
nothing more. In the time of Photius 
(c. A.D. 850) the present fragment was reck- 
oned as the eighth book in some copies, and 
in others the tract, On the Rich Man that ts 
Saved (Bibl. 111). Still further confusion is 
indicated by the fact that passages from the 
Extracts from the Prophetical Writings are 
quoted from “ the eighth book of the Mis- 
cellanies”” (Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. i. 288 f.), 
and also from “ the eighth book of the Out- 
lines”? (id. 285) ; while the discussioa of pro- 
phecy was postponed from the Miscellanies 
to some later opportunity (Strom. vii. 1, cf. 
Tanz). Perhaps the simplest solution is to 
suppose that at a very early date the logical 
introduction to the Outlines was separated 
from the remainder of the work, and added to 
MSS. of the Miscellanies. In this way the 
opinion would arise that there were 8 books of 
the Miscellanies, and scribes supplied the place 
of bk. viii. according to their pleasure. 

IV. The Outlines (Ὑποτυπώσεις) probably 
grew out of the Miscellantes. Several express 
quotations from the 4th, sth, 6th, and 7th 
books of the Outlines have been preserved ; 
but the fragments are too few and Clement’s 
method too desultory to allow these to furnish 
a certain plan of the arrangement of the work. 
They agree, however, fairly with the summary 
description of Photius, and probably books 
j.-iii. contained the general introduction, with 
notes on the O.T. (‘‘ Genesis, Exodus, and the 


Psalms ”’) ; books iv.-vi., notes on the Epp. of 


St. Paul; books vii. viii., on the Catholic Epp.* 
In addition to the detached quotations, 


there can be no reasonable doubt that the 


three series of extracts, (a) The summaries 
from the expositions of Theodotus and the so- 


called Western school, (b) The selections from | 
the comments on the prophets, and (c) The 
outlines on the Catholic Epistles, were taken 
But partly from the 
method of compilation, partly from the manner | 
in which they have been preserved in a single 
MS., these fragments, though of the deepest 
interest, are at present only imperfectly in- 


from the Outlines. 


telligible. 


(a) The summaries from Theodotus (ἐκ τῶν 
Θεοδότου καὶ THs ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασ- 


καλίας κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαί 


are at once the most corrupt and the most 
It 
appears as if the compiler set down hastily the 
passages which contained the interpretations 
of the school which he wished to collect, with- 
out regard to the context, and often in an 
imperfect form. Sometimes he adds the 
criticism of Clement (ἡμεῖς δέ, ὃ 8; μοὶ δέ, 
§ 17; ὁ ἡμέτερος [Adyos], ὃ 33) ; but generally 
the Valentinian comment is given without 

* Bunsen (Anal. Ante-Nic. i. pp. 163 f.) arranges 
the contents of the books very differently. The 
but it does not appear from 


intrinsically difficult of the extracts. 


evidence is slight; 
Photius that the Gospels formed the subject o 


special annotation, and Bunsen makes the third 


book Commentarius in Evangelia. 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 


remark (οἱ ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου, δὲ 2, 6, 16, 23, 255 — 
οἱ Ovadevrunavol, §§ 21, 24, 37; ὥς φησιν ὁ \ 
Θεόδοτος, §§ 22, 26, 30; φησί, δὲ 41, 67; φασί, 
§§ 33, 35; λέγουσιν, ὃ 43). It follows that in 
some cases it is uncertain whether Clement 
quotes a Valentinian author by way of ex- — 
position, or adopts the opinion which he 4 
quotes. The same ambiguity appears to have _ 
existed in the original work ; and it is easy to | 
see how Photius, rapidly perusing the treatise, | 
may have attributed to Clement doctrines — 
which he simply recited without approval and ᾿ 
without examination. Thus, in the frag-— 
ments which remain, occasion might be given — 
to charge Clement with false opinions on the ᾿ : 
nature of the Son (§ 19), on the creation of 
Eve (§ 21), on the two Words (§§ 6, 7, 19), on 
Fate (§§ 75 ff.), on the Incarnation (§ 1). | 
There is no perceptible order or connexion in — 
the series of extracts. The beginning and end» 
are equally corrupt. Some sections are quite 
detached (e.g. §§ 9, 18, 21, 28, 66, eter 
others give a more or less continuous exposi- 
tion of some mystery : 6.8. §§ 10-16 (the nature | 
| of spiritual existences) ; 39-65 (the relations — 
of wisdom, Jesus, the Christ, the demiurge ; 
the material, the animal, the spiritual) ; 67-86 
(birth, fate, baptism). 
(b) The prophetic selections (ἐκ τῶν προφητι-" 
κῶν ἐκλογαί) are for the most part scarcely less 
desultory and disconnected than the Sum- 
maries, but far simpler in style and substance. 
They commence with remarks on the symbol- 
ism of the elements, and mainly of water 
(§§ 1-8). Then follow fragmentary reflections’ 
on discipline ( 


g-11), on knowledge, faith, cre- 
ation, the new creation (12-24), 


fire (25 f.), 
writing and preaching (27), on traits of the 
true gnostic (28-37). A long and miscellane- 
ous series of observations, some of them) 
physiological, succeeds (38-50), and the collec 
tion closes with a fairly continuous exposition 
of Ps. xviii. (xix.). 

Manuscript.—The summaries from Theo 
dotus and the prophetic selections are at present 
found only in Cod. Flor.(L.). Thetext giver 
in the edd. of Clement is most corrupt. 5 
conjectural emendations and Latin trans. 0; 
J. Bernays, given by Bunsen in his ed. of the 
fragments of The Outlines (Anal. Ante-Nte. iy 
are by far our most valuable help for the 
understanding of the text. Dindorf, in his 
ed., has overlooked these. 


(c) The third important fragment of the ᾿ 
Outlines consists of a Latin version of notes ον 
detached verses of I. Peter, Jude, and I., II: 
John, with several insertions, probably due i 
some cases to transpositions in the MS. (é. 
I. John ii. τ, hae namque primitivae, virtut 
—audita est, Pott. p. 1009, stands properly i 
connexion with the line of speculation on Jud 
g); and in others to a marginal illustratio 
drawn from some other part of the work (@-£ 
Jude 24, cum dicit Daniel—confusus est 
Cassiodorus says (Inst. Div. Litt. 8) that Clem 
ent wrote some remarks on I. Peteri., II. Joht 
and James, which were generally subtle, bu 
at times rash ; and that he himself transi Σ 
them into Latin, with such revision as renc 
ered their teaching more safe. It has generall’ 
been supposed, in spite of the difference ¢ 
range (James for Jude) that these Latin note | 


) 


f 


A OE ---- 


nee teen tc EL CLE LL LE LLL LL .--- 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 


are the version of Cassiodorus. It seems, 
however, more probable that the printed notes 
are mere glosses taken from a Ca/ena, and not 
a substantial work. The Adumbrationes 
were published by de la Bigne in his Biblio- 
theca Patrum, Par. 1575 (and in later editions); 
but he gives no account of the MS. or MSS. 
from which the text was taken. Ph. Labbe, 
however, states (de Scriptt. Eccles. 1660, 1. p. 
230) that he saw an ancient parchment MS., 
“qui fuit olim Coenobii S. Mariae Montis 
Dei,” which contained these Adumbrationes, 
under that title, together with Didymus’s com- 
mentary on the Catholic Epistles. De la 
Bigne then, probably, found the notes of 
Clement in the “‘ very ancient but somewhat 
illegible MS.” from which he took his text of 
Didymus, which follows the Adumbrationes 
(Bibl. vi. p. 676 n.). 

Y. The remaining extant work of Clement, 
Who ts the Rich Man that is Saved ὃ (ris ὁ σωζό- 
μενος πλούσιος ;) is apparently a popular address 
based upon Mark x. 17-31. The teaching 
is simple, eloquent, and just; and the tract 
closes with the exquisite ‘‘ story, which is no 
story’’ of St. John and the young robber, 
which Eusebius relates in his History (ili. 23). 

iii. Clements’ Position and Influence as a 
Christian Teacher.—In order to understand 
Clement rightly, it is necessary to bear in mind 
that he laboured in a crisis of transition. This 
gives his writings their peculiar interest in all 
times of change. The transition was three- 
fold, affecting doctrine, thought, and _ life. 
Doctrine was passing frem the stage of oral 
tradition to written definition (1). Thought 
was passing from the immediate circle of the 
Christian revelation to the whole domain of 
human experience (2). Life in its fulness was 
coming to be apprehended as the object of 
Christian discipline (3). A few suggestions 
will be offered upon the first two of these 
heads. (1) Clement repeatedly affirms 
that even when he sets forth the deepest 
mysteries, he is simply reproducing an original 
unwritten tradition. This had been com- 
mitted by the Lord to the apostles Peter, 
James, John, and Paul, and handed down 
from father to son, till at length he set forth 
accurately in writing what had been delivered 
in word (Stvom. i. ὃ 11, p. 322; cf. vi. 68, 
Ῥ. 774; and fragm. ap. Eus. H. E.ii. 1). But 
this tradition was, as he held it, not an inde- 
pendent source of doctrine, but a guide to 
the apprehension of doctrine. It was not 
co-ordinate with Scripture, but interpretative 
of Scripture (Strom. vi. 124 f., pp. 802 f.; de 
Div. Sal. ὃ 5, p. 938). It was the help to the 
training of the Christian philosopher (ὁ γὙνωσ- 
mxos), and not part of the heritage of the 
simple believer. Tradition in this aspect 
preserved the clue to the right understanding 
of the hidden sense, the underlying harmonies, 
the manifold unity of revelation. More par- 
ticularly the philosopher was able to obtain 
through tradition the general principles of 
interpreting the records of revelation and 


| Significant illustrations of their application. 


In this way the true “ gnostic’’ was saved 
from the errors of the false “‘ gnostic” or 
heretic, who interpreted Scripture without re- 
gard to ‘the ecclesiastical rule’? (Strom. vi. 
125, Ρ. 803, κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός : ὁ ἐκκλ. K. 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 181 


ib. vi. 165, p. 826; vii. 41, p. 855; cf. ὁ κανὼν 
τῆς ἀληθείας, tb. vi. 124, p- 802; 131, p. 806; 
vii. 94, p. 890; ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, 2b. 1. 96, 
P- 375} Vii. 105, p. 897). The examples of 
spiritual interpretation which Clement gives 
in accordance with this traditional “‘ rule”’ 
are frequently visionary and puerile (e.g. 
Strom. vi. 133 ff. pp. 807 ff.). But none the 
less the rule itself witnessed to a vital truth, 
the continuity and permanent value of the 
books of Holy Scripture. This truth was an 
essential part of the inheritance of the Catholic 
church ; and Clement, however faulty in de- 
tail, did good service in maintaining it (7d. vil. 
96, p- 891). As yet, however, the contents 
of the Christian Bible were imperfectly de- 
fined. Clement, like the other Fathers who 
habitually used the Alexandrine O.T., quotes 
the books of the Apocrypha without distin- 
guishing them in any way from the books of 
the Hebrew canon, and he appears to regard 
the current Greek Bible as answering to the 
Hebrew Scriptures restored by Ezra (Strom. 
i. 124, p. 392; id. 148, p. 409). There is the 
same laxity of usage in Clement with regard 
to the N.T. He ascribes great weight to the 
Ep. of Barnabas (Strom. ii. 31, p. 445 ; td. 116, 
p- 489); and makes frequent use of the 
Preaching of Peter (Strom. 1. 182, p. 427, etc.) ; 
and quotes the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews 
(Strom. ii. 45, Ρ- 453). Eusebius further adds 
that he wrote notes on the Revelation of Peter, 
which is in fact quoted in the Extracts from the 
Prophets (δὲ 41, 48, 49). The text of his 
quotations is evidently given from memory 
(e.g. Matt. v. 45, vi. 26, etc.). But as the 
earliest Greek writer who largely and expressly 
quotes the N.T. (for the Greek fragments of 
Irenaeus are of comparatively small compass), 
his evidence as to the primitive form of the 
apostolic writings is of the highest value. Not 
unfrequently he is one of a very small group 
of witnesses who have preserved an original 
reading (e.g. I. Cor. ii. 13, vii. 3, 5, 35, 39, 
etc.). In other cases his readings, even when 
presumably wrong, are shewn by other evid- 
ence to have been widely spread at a very 
early date (e.g. Matt. vi. -33). 

It is impossible here to follow in detail 
Clement’s opinions on special points of doc- 
trine. The contrast which he draws between 
the gnostic (the philosophic Christian) and the 
ordinary believer is of more general interest. 
This contrast underlies the whole plan of his 
Miscellanies, and explains the different aspects 
in which doctrine, according to his view, might 
be regarded as an object of faith and as an 
object of knowledge. Faith is the foundation ; 
knowledge the superstructure (Strom. vi. 26, 
p- 660). By knowledge faith is perfected (7d. 
vii. 55, Ρ. 864), for to know is more than to 
believe (zd. vi. 109, p. 794). Faith is a sum- 
mary knowledge of urgent truths: knowledge 
a sure demonstration of what has been received 
through faith, being itself reared upon faith 
through the teaching of the Lord (7d. vii. 57, 
p- 865). Thus the gnostic grasps the complete 
truth of all revelation from the beginning of 
the world to the end, piercing to the depths 
of Scripture, of which the believer tastes the 
surface only (1d. vi. 78, p. 779; 131, p- 806; 
vii. 95, p- 891). As a consequence of this 
intelligent sympathy with the Divine Will, the 


182 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 


gnostic becomes in perfect unity in himself 
(μοναδικός), and as far as possible like God 
(1d. iv. 154, Ὁ. 6333; Vii. 13, p- 835). Definite 
outward observances cease to have any value 
for one whose whole being is brought into an 
abiding harmony with that which is eternal : 
he has no wants, no passions ; he rests in the 
contemplation of God, which is and will be 
his unfailing blessedness (7d. vii. 35, p. 851, 
84, p. 883; vi. 71, p- 776; Vil. 56, p. 865). 
In this outline it is easy to see the noblest 
traits of later mysticism; and if some of 
Clement’s statements go beyond subjects 
which lie within the powers of man, still he 
bears impressive testimony to two essential 
truths, that the aim of faith through knowledge 
perfected by love is the present recovery of the 
divine likeness; and that formulated doctrine 
is not an end in itself, but a means whereby 
we rise through fragmentary propositions to 
knowledge which is immediate and one. 

(2) The character of the gnostic, the ideal 
Christian, the perfect philosopher, represents 
the link between man, in his earthly conflict, 
and God: it represents also the link between 
manandmen. The gnostic fulfils through the 
gospel the destiny and nature of mankind, and 
gathers together the fruit of their varied ex- 
perience. This thought of the Incarnation as 
the crown and consummation of the whole 
history of the world is perhaps that which is 
most characteristic of Clement’s office as an 
interpreter of the faith. It rests upon his 
view of human nature, of the providential 
government of God, of the finality of the 
Christian dispensation. Man, according to 
Clement, is born for the service of God. His 
soul (ψυχή) is a gift sent down to him from 
heaven by God (Strom. iv. 169, p. 640), and 
strains to return thither (7d. 9, p. 567). For 
this end there is need of painful training 
(Strom. i. 33, P- 335; Vi. 78, Ρ- 779); and 
the various partial sciences are helps towards 
the attainment of the true destiny of existence 
(Strom. vi. 80 ff. pp. 780 ff.). The ‘image ”’ 
of God which man receives at his birth is 
slowly completed in the “likeness ’”’ of God 
(Strom. li. 131, p- 499; cf. Paed. i. 98, p. 156). 
The inspiration of the divine breath by which 
he is distinguished from other creatures (Gen. 
ii. 7) is fulfilled by the gift of the Holy Spirit 
to the believer, which that original constitu- 
tion makes possible (Strom. v. 87 f.; p. 698: 
cf. Strom. iv. 150, p. 632). The image of God, 
Clement says elsewhere, is the Word (Logos), 
and the true image of the Word is man, that 
is, the reason in man (Cohort. 98, p. 79). It 
follows necessarily from this view of humanity, 
as essentially related to God through the 
Word, that Clement acknowledged a provi- 
dential purpose in the development of Gentile 
life. He recognized in the bright side of 
Gentile speculation many divine elements. 
These he regarded as partly borrowed from 
Jewish revelation, and partly derived from 
reason illuminated by the Word (Λόγος), the 
final source of reason. Some truths, he says, 
the Greek philosophers stole and disfigured ; 
some they overlaid with restless and foolish 
speculations ; others they discovered, for they 
also perhaps had “a spirit of wisdom” (Ex. 
xxvili. 3) (Strom. i. 87, p. 369). He dis- 
tinctly recognized the office which Greek philo- 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


sophy fulfilled for the Greeks as a guide to 
righteousness, and a work of divine providence — 
(Strom. i. 176 ff. pp. 425 ff. ; οἵ ff. pp. 372 ff.). 
He regarded it as a preparation for justifyin \ 
faith (Strom. i. 99, Pp. 377; Vi. 44, Ρ. 762; ia 5 
47 ff. pp. 764 ff.), and in a true sense a dispen- 
sation, a covenant (Strom. vi. 42, p. 7613 14. 
67, P- 773; 1d. 159, p. 823; i. 28, p. 33x). 
The training of Jews and of the Greeks was 
thus in different ways designed to fit men for 
the final manifestation of the Christ. i 
systems were partial in their essence, and by — 
human imperfection were made still more so, 
The various schools of philosophy, Jewish and — 
heathen, are described by Clement under a 
memorable image, as rending in pieces the one 
truth like the Bacchants who rent the body οὔ 
Pentheus, and bore about the fragments in 
triumph. Each, he says, boasts that the 
morsel which it has had the good fortune to 
gain is all thetruth. Yet by the rising of the 
light all things are lightened, and he who again 
combines the divided parts and unites the ex- _ 
position (Advos) ina perfect whole will look upon 
the truth without peril (Stvom. i. 57, p. 349). 
Towards this great unity of all science and 
all life Clement himself strove; and by the © 
influence of his writings kept others alive to’ — 
the import of the magnificent promises in the 
teaching of St. Paul and St. John. He af- 
firmed, once for all, upon the threshold of the 
new age, that Christianity is the heir of al) 
past time, and the interpreter of the future. Six- _ 
teen centuries have confirmed the truth of his 
principle, and left its application still fruitful. 
Clement of Alexandria’s works are in Migne’s — 
Patr. Gk. vols. viii. ix.; and an ed. of his 
Opera ex rec. Guil. Dindorfit in 4 vols. witt 
Latin notes is pub. by the Clarendon Press 
A full enumeration of the MSS. of Clement’: — 
works will be found in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.). | 
Besides the chief Church Histories, the fol — 
lowing works are important for the study o 
Clement : Le Nourry, Appar. ad Bibliothecan Ὁ 
Patrum, 110. iii. (reprinted in Dindorf’s edi 
tion) ; Moehler, Patrologie, 1840 ; Mansel, Thy 
Gnostic Heresies, lect. xvi. ; and the historie 
of the Alexandrine School, by Guericke, Matter 
J.Simon, Vacherot. Interesting summaries o 
Clement’s teaching, besides those in the gener 
works of Lumper, Maréchal, and Schramm 
are given by bp. Kaye (Some Account of th 
Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexan 
dvia, Lond. 1835); abbé Freppel (Clémer 
@ Alexandrie, cours a la Sorbonne, Paris, 1866) 
Ch. Bigg (The Christian Platonists of Alex 
andria, Oxf. 1886); F. J. A. Hort (Six Lecture 
on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Lond. 1895). | , 
cheap popular Life is pub. by S.P.C.K. i 
their Fathers for Eng. Readers ; an Eng. trans 
of the Homily on the Rich Man by P. M. Bar — 
nard (S.P.C.K.), text by the same in Texts an 
Studies, vol. v. No. 2 (Camb. Univ. Press), whi 
has also collected Clement’s Biblical text fc 
the gospel and Acts (7b. vol. v. No. 4). A val 
able ed. of the 7th book of the Miscellanies, wi 
translation, introduction and notes, was pul 
in 1902 at Cambridge by the late Prof. Hor 
and Prof. J. B. Mayor. Translations of mo: 
of his works are contained in the Ante-Nicer — 
Lib. vol. ii. (T. & T. Clark). [B.F.W.] © 
Clementine Literature. Among thespuriot — 
writings attributed to Clement of Rome, tl — 


| 


—— 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


chief is one which purported to contain a re- 
cord made by Clement of discourses of the 
apostle Peter, together with an account of the 
circumstances under which Clement came to 
be Peter’s travelling companion, and of other 
details of Clement’s family history. This work 
assumed a variety of forms. The Ebionitism 
with which the original work had been strongly 
coloured was first softened, then removed. 
Changes were also made with a view to im- 
provement of the story; and as time went on 
far more interest was felt in the framework of 
narrative than in the discourses themselves. 
In the latest forms of the work, several of the 
discourses are omitted, and the rest greatly 
abridged. In early times, even when the 
work was rejected as heretical, it yet seems to 
have been supposed to rest on a groundwork 
of fact, and several statements passed into 
church tradition which appear primarily to rest 
onits authority. Afterwards, in its orthodox 
form, it was accepted as a genuine work of 
Clement and atrustworthyhistoricalauthority. 
On the revival of learning the disposition was 
to disregard the book as a heretical figment 
quite worthless to the student of church his- 
tory. Later it was seen that even if no more 
than a historical novel composed with a 
controversial object towards the end of the 
and cent., such a document must be most 
valuable in shewing the opinions of the school 
from which it emanated ; and accordingly the 
Clementine writings play an important part 
in all modern discussions concerning the 
history of the early ages of the church. 

The work has come down to us in three 
principal forms. I. Th. Homilies (in the MSS. 
τὰ Κλημέντια), first printed by Cotelier in his 
edition of the Apostolic Fathers 1672, from one 
of the Colbertine MSS. in the Paris Library. 
This manuscript is both corrupt and defec- 
tive, breaking off in the middle of the roth 
of the 20 homilies of which the entire work 
consists. The complete work was first pub. 
by Dressel, 1853, from a MS. which he found 
in the Ottobonian Library in the Vatican. 
Notes on the homilies by Wieseler, which were 
intended to have formed part of this publica- 
tion, only appeared in 1859 as an appendix to 
Dressel’s ed. of the Epitomes (see below). The 
two MSS. mentioned are the only ones now 
known to exist. 

Il. The Recognitions (ἀναγνώσεις, ἀναγνωρισ- 
μοί) bears in the MSS. a great variety of titles, 
the most common being [tinerartum 5. Clem- 
ἐπ δ (corresponding probably to περίοδοι 
Κλημέντος or περίοδοι Πέτρου. The ori- 
ginal is lost, but the work is preserved in a 
translation by Rufinus, of which many MSS. 
areextant. Rufinus states in his preface that 
there were then extant two forms differing in 
many respects. He adds that he had omitted 
certain passages common to both, one of 
which he specifies, as being, to say the least, 
unintelligible to him ; and elsewhere expresses 
his opinion that those passages had been inter- 
polated by heretics. He claims to have aimed 
at giving rather a literal than an elegant trans- 
lation ; and there seems reason to regard this 
translation as more faithful than some others 
by him. We can test his work in the case of 
fragments of the original preserved by quota- 
tion, and, moreover, we have a Syriac trans. 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 183 


of the first three books, which is in the 
main in fair agreement with the Latin. For 
one of the most important variations see 
Lightfoot On the Galatians, 4th ed. p. 316. The 
trans. of Rufinus was first pub. by Sichardus 
(Basle, 1526). The most important later edd. 
are by Cotelier in his Apostolic Fathers (Paris, 
1672) and by Gersdorf (Leipz. 1838). A new 
ed., founded on a better collation of MSS., is 
much to be wished for. The Syriac trans., an 
ed. of which was pub. by de Lagarde, 1861, 
is preserved in two MSS. in the British Mu- 
seum. The older of these claims to have been 
written at Edessa, A.p. 411, and exhibits errors 
of transcription, which shew that it was taken 
from a stillearlier MS. It contains the books 
i. 11. and iii. of the Recognitions and part of 
c. i. of book iv., at the end of which is marked 
‘“the end of the first discourse of Clemens.’’ 
Then follow the roth homily headed ‘‘ the 
third against the Gentiles’’; the 11th homily 
headed ‘‘the fourth’’; the 12th and 13th 
homilies, the former only as far as c. χχῖν., 
with the heading ‘‘from Tripoli in Phoe- 
nicia’’; and the r4th homily headed “Ὁ book 
xiv.,’’ after which is marked “ the end of the 
discourses of Clemens.’’ The other MS. is 
some four centuries later, and contains only 
the first three books of the Recognitions, the 
note at the end being “‘ the ninth of Clemens 
who accompanied Simon Cephas is ended.” 
Eng. trans. of both the Homilies and the Recog- 
nitions are givenin the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. ἃ 
T. Clark). 

11. The Epitome, first pub. by Turnebus, 
1555, is an abridgment of the first form (t.e. 
the Homilies), and contains also a continu- 
ation of the story, use being made therein of 
the martyrdom of Clement by Simeon Meta- 
phrastes, and of a tale by Ephraim, bp. of 
Chersonesus, of a miracle performed at the 
tomb of Clement. The Epitome is given in 
forms of varying fulness in different MSS. 
The edition by Dressel (Leipz. 1859), besides 
giving a fuller version of the Epztome as pre- 
viously pub., contains also a second form con- 
siderably different. There must have been at 
least one other form not now extant, called by 
Uhlhorn the orthodox Clementines, which re- 
tained the discourses, but completely expur- 
gated the heresy contained in them. This is 
inferred from the citations of the late Greek 
writers (Nicephorus Callisti, Cedrenus, and 
Michael Glycas); and the Clementines so 
amended were so entirely accepted by the later 
Greek church, that a Scholiast on Eusebius is 
quite unable to understand the charge of 
heresy which his author brings against them. 
In what follows we set aside the Epitomes as 
being manifestly a late form, and confine our 
attention to the other two forms, viz. the 
Homilies and Recognitions, to which, or to 
their writers, we shall refer as H. and R. Of 
these the Homilies contain all the character- 
istics of Ebionitism in much the harsher form ; 
but before discussing the doctrine, we will 
compare the narratives as told in either form. 
The following is an abstract of the Recogni- 
tions. The form is that of an autobiography 
addressed by Clement to James, bp. of Jeru- 
salem. The work divides itself into three 
portions, probably of different dates. 

I. Clement, having stated that he was born 


18 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


at Rome and from early years a lover of 
chastity, gives a lively description of the per- 
plexity caused him by his anxiety to solve the 
problems, what had been the origin and what 
would be the future of the world, and whether 
he himself might look forward to a future life. 
He seeks in vain for knowledge in the schools 
of the philosophers, finding nothing but dis- 
putings, contradiction, and uncertainty. At 
length arumour that therehad arisen in Judaea 
a preacher of truth possessed of miraculous 
power is confirmed by the arrival of Barnabas 
in Rome, who declares that the Son of God was 
even then preaching in Judaea, and promising 
eternal life to His disciples. Barnabas is 
rudely received by the Roman rabble, and 
returns to his own country in haste tobe present 
at a Jewish feast. Clement, though desirous 
to accompany him for further instruction, is 
detained by the necessity of collecting money 
due to him; but sails shortly after for Pales- 
tine, and after a fifteen days’ voyage arrives at 
Caesarea. There he finds Barnabas again and 
isintroduced by him to Peter, who had arrived 
at Caesarea on the same day, and who was on 
the next to hold a discussion with Simon the 
Samaritan. Peter forthwith frees Clement 
from his perplexities, by instructing him in the 
doctrine of the “ true prophet.” For one who 
has received the true prophet’s credentials 
there is an end of uncertainty; faith in Him 
can never be withdrawn, nor can anything 
which He teaches admit of doubt or question. 
Clement by Peter’s orders committed his 
teaching to writing, and sent the book to 
James, to whom Peter had been commanded 
annually to transmit an account of his doings. 
We are next told that Simon postponed the 
appointed discussion with Peter, who uses the 
interval thus gained to give Clement a con- 
tinuous exposition of the faith, in which God’s 
dealings are declared from the commencement 
of the world to the then present time. This 
section includes an account of a disputation 
held on the temple steps between the apostles 
and the various sects of the Jews, viz. the 
priests, the Sadducees, the Samaritans, the 
Scribes and Pharisees, and the disciples of 
John. When the apostles are on the point of 
success the disputation is broken off by a 
tumult raised by an unnamed enemy, who is 
unmistakably Saul, who flings James down 
the temple steps, leaving him for dead, and 
disperses the assembly. The disciples fly to 
Jericho, and the enemy hastens to Damascus, 
whither he supposes Peter to have fled, in 
order there to make havoc of the faithful. At 
Jericho, James hears from Zacchaeus of the 
mischief being done by Simon at Caesarea, and 
sends Peter thither to refute him, ordering him 
to report to him annually, but more particu- 
larly every seven years. In the section just 


described there are some things which do not | 


harmonize with what has gone before. The 
date of the events related is given as seven 
years after our Lord’s passion, although the 
previous story implies that Clement’s voyage 
had been made in the very year that ended our 
Lord’s ministry. Also in one place (I. 71) 
Peter is mentioned in the third person, though 
he is himself the speaker. These facts prove 
that the story of Clement has been added on 
to an older document. It has been conjec- 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


tured that this document was an Ebionite work 
᾿Αναβαθμοὶ ᾿Ιακώβου. the contents of which, as 
described by Epiphanius (xxx. 16), well cor- 
respond with those of this section, and the 
title of which might be explained as referring 
to discourses on the temple steps. But this 
conjecture encounters the difficulty that the 
author himself indicates a different source for 
this part of his work. 

We are next introduced to two disciples of 
Peter, Nicetas and Aquila, who had been dis- 
ciples of Simon. These give an account of the 
history of Simon and of his magical powers, 
stating that Simon supposed himself to per- 
form his wonders by the aid of the soul of a 
murdered boy, whose likeness was preserved 
in Simon’s bed-chamber. Prepared with this 
information, Peter enters into a public discus- 
sion with Simon which lasts for three days, the 
main subject in debate being whether the 
difficulty of reconciling the existence of evil 
with the goodness and power of the Creator 
does not force us to believe in the existence of a 
God different from the Creator of the world. 
The question of the immortality of the soul is 
also treated of, and this brings the discussion 
to a dramatic close. For Peter offers to settle 
the question by proceeding to Simon’s bed- 
chamber, and interrogating the soul of the 
murdered boy, whose likeness was there pre- 
served. On finding his secret known to Peter, 
Simon humbles himself, but retracts his re- 
pentance on Peter’s acknowledging that he had 
this knowledge, not by prophetic power, but 
from associates of Simon. The multitude, 
however, are filled with indignation, and drive 
Simon away in disgrace. Simon departs, in- 
forming his disciples that divine honours await 
him at Rome. Peter resolves to follow him 
among the Gentiles and expose his wickedness; 
and having remained three months at Caesarea 
for the establishment of the church, he ordains 
Zacchaeus as its bishop, and sets out for Tri- 
polis, now the centre of Simon’s operations. 
This brings the third book of the Recognttions 
to a close; and here we are told that Clement 
sent to James an account in ten books of 
Peter’s discourses, of which the author gives 
the contents in detail, from which we may 
conclude that they formed a work really in 
existence previous to his own composition. 
These contents can scarcely be described as an 
abstract of the three books of the Recognitions; 
for though the same topics are more or less 
touched on, the order and proportion of treat- 
ment are different. One of the books is de- 
scribed as treating of the Apostles’ disputation 
at the temple; and therefore it seems needless 
to look for the original of this part in the 
Ascents of James or elsewhere. 

II. On Peter’s arrival at Tripolis he finds 
that Simon, hearing of his coming, had fled 
by night to Syria. Peter proceeds to instruct 
the people; and his discourses, containing a 
polemic against heathenism, occupy the next 
three books of R. Bk. vi. terminates with 
the baptism of Clement and the ordination of 
a bishop, after which Peter sets out for Antioch, 
having spent 3 months at Tripolis. 

III. With bk. vii. the story of Clement’s 
recognition of his family begins. We shall 
presently discuss how an occasion is skilfully 
presented for Clement’s relating his family 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


history to Peter. That history is as follows : 
Clement’s father, Faustinianus, was a member 
of the emperor’s family, and married by him 
to a lady of noble birth, named Mattidia. By 
her he had twin sons, Faustus and Faustinus, 
and afterwards Clement. When Clement was 
five years old, Mattidia told her husband that 
she had seen a vision warning her that unless 
she and her twin sons speedily left Rome and 
remained absent for ten years, all must perish 
miserably. Thereupon the father sent his 
wife and children with suitable provision of 
money and attendance to Athens, in order to 
educate them there. But after her departure 
no tidings reached Rome, and Faustinianus, 
having in vain sent others to inquire for them, 
at length left Clement under guardianship at 
Rome, and departed himself in search of them. 
But he too disappeared, and Clement, now 
aged thirty-two, had never since heard of 
father, mother, or brothers. The story pro- 
ceeds to tell how Peter and Clement on their 
way to Antioch go over to the island of Aradus 
to see the wonders of a celebrated temple there. 
While Clement and his party are admiring 
works of Phidias preserved in the temple, 
Peter converses with a beggar woman outside, 
and the story she tells of her life is in such 
agreement with that previously told him by 
Clement, that Peter is able to unite mother 
and son. The vision which she had related 
had been feigned in order to escape from the 
incestuous addresses of her husband’s brother, 
without causing family discord by revealing 
his wickedness. On her voyage to Athens she 
had been shipwrecked, and cast on shore by 
the waves, without being able to tell what had 
become of her children. All now return to the 
main land, and on telling the story to their 
companions who had been left behind, Nicetas 
and Aquila recognize their own story and de- 
clare themselves to be the twin sons, who had 
been saved from the wreck and sold into 
slavery by their rescuers. Mattidia is bap- 
tized. After the baptism Peter and the three 
brothers, having bathed in the sea, withdraw 
to a retired place for prayer. Anold manina 
workman’s dress accosts them and undertakes 
to prove to them that prayer is useless, and 
that there is neither God nor Providence, but 
that all things are governed by astrological fate 
(genesis). A set disputation takes place and 
occupies bks. viii. ix.; the 3 brothers, being 
well trained in Grecian philosophy, successively 
argue on the side of Providence, and discuss 
the evidence for astrology. The discussion is 
closed by a dramatic surprise. When all the 
old man’s other difficulties have been solved, 
he undertakes to produce a conclusive argu- 
ment from his own experience. His own wife 
had been born under a horoscope which com- 
pelled her to commit adultery, and to end her 
days by water in foreign travel. And so it 
turned out. She had been guilty of adultery 
with a slave, as he had learned on his brother’s 
testimony, and afterwards leaving Rome with 
her twin sons on account of a pretended vision, 
had perished miserably by shipwreck. Peter 
has now the triumph of fully reuniting the 
family and gaining a victory in the discussion, 
by shewing the complete falsification of the 
astrological prediction. From the account 
given by Rufinus, it would seem that one of 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 185 


the forms of the Recognitions known to him 
closed here ; but in the tenth book as we have 
it, the story is prolonged by discourses in- 
tended to bring Faustinianus to a hearty re- 
ception of Christianity. After this Simon is 
again brought on the stage. He has been very 
successful at Antioch in shewing wonders to 
the people and stirring up their hatred against 
Peter. One of Peter’s emissaries, in order to 
drive him to flight, prevails on Cornelius the 
centurion, who had been sent on public busi- 
ness to Caesarea, to give out that he had been 
commissioned to seek out and destroy Simon, 
in accordance with an edict of the emperor for 
the destruction of sorcerers at Rome and in 
the provinces. Tidings of this are brought to 
Simon by a pretended friend, who is in reality 
a Christian spy. Simon, in alarm, flees to 
Laodicea, and there meeting Faustinianus, 
who had come to visit their common friends, 
Apion (or, as our author spells it, Appion) and 
Anubion, transforms by his magic the features 
of Faustinianus into his own, that Faustinian- 
us may be arrested in his stead. But Peter, 
not being deceived by the transformation, 
turns it to the greater discomfiture of Simon. 
For he sends Faustinianus to Antioch, who, 
pretending to be Simon, whose form he bore, 
makes a public confession of imposture, and 
testifies to the divine mission of Peter. After 
this, when Simon attempts again to get a 
hearing in Antioch, he is driven away in 
disgrace. Peter is received then with the 
greatest honour and baptizes Faustinianus, 
who has meanwhile recovered his own form. 

We turn now to the story as told in the 
Homilies. The opening is identical with that 
of the Recognitions, except for one small varia- 
tion. Clement, instead of meeting Barnabas 
in Rome, has been induced by an anonymous 
Christian teacher to sail for Palestine; but 
being driven by storms to Alexandria, there 
encounters Barnabas. It is not easy to say 
which form is the original. On the one hand, 
the account that Clement is delayed from fol- 
lowing Barnabas by the necessity of collecting 
money due to him is perfectly in place if the 
scene is laid at Rome, but not soif Clement is a 
stranger driven by stress of weather to Alex- 
andria. The author, who elsewhere shews 
Alexandrian proclivities, may have wished to 
honour that city by connecting Barnabas with 
it ; or was perhaps unwilling that Peter should 
be preceded by another apostle at Rome. On 
the other hand, the rabble which assails Bar- 
nabas is in both versions described as a mob of 
Greeks, and the fifteen days’ voyage to Pales- 
tine corresponds better with Alexandria than 
with Rome. The narrative proceeds as in R. 
as far as the end of Peter’s disputation with 
Simon at Caesarea; but both Peter's prelim- 
inary instructions to Clement and the disputa- 
tion itself are different. In H. Peter prepares 
Clement by teaching him his secret doctrine 
concerning difficulties likely to be raised by 
Simon, the true solution of which he could not 
produce before the multitude. Simon would 
bring forward texts which seemed to speak of 
a plurality of Gods, or which imputed imper- 
fection to God, or spoke of Him as changing 
His purpose or hardening men’s hearts and 
so forth; or, again, which laid crimes to the 
charge of the just men of the law, Adam and 


185 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. In public 
it would be inexpedient to question the author- 
ity of these passages of Scripture, and the 
difficulty must be met in some other way. 
But the true solution is that the Scriptures 
have been corrupted; and all those passages 
which speak against God are to be rejected as 
spurious additions. Although this doctrine is 
represented as strictly esoteric, it is reproduced 
in the public discussion with Simon which 
immediately follows. This disputation in H. 
is very short, the main conflict between Peter 
and Simon being reserved for a later stage of 
the story. It is here stated, however, that 
this disputation at Caesarea lasted three days, 
although only the subjects treated on the first 
day are mentioned. We have next a great 
variation between H.and R. According to H., 
Simon, vanquished in the disputation, flies to 
Tyre, and Nicetas, Aquila, and Clement are 
sent forward by Peter to prepare the way for 
him. There they meet Apion, and a public 
disputation on heathen mythology is held be- 
tween Clement and Apion, the debate going 
over many of the topics treated of in the tenth 
book of R. On Peter’s arrival at Tyre, Simon 
flies on to Tripolis, and thence also to Syria on 
Peter’s continuing the pursuit. We have, as 
in R., discourses delivered to the heathen at 
Tripolis, and the story of the discovery of 
Clement's family is in the main told as in R., 
with differences in detail to be noticed pre- 
sently. - In H., the main disputation between 
Peter and Simon takes place after the recog- 
nitions, and is held at Laodicea, Clement’s 
father (whose name according to H. is Faustus) 
acting as judge. The last homily contains ex- 
planations given by Peter to his company after 
the flight of Simon; and concludes with an 
account similar to that in R., of the transfor- 
mation of Clement’s father. 

To this analysis must be added an account 
of the prefatory matter. Neither the Latin 
nor Syriac version of the Recognitions trans- 
lates any preface; but Rufinus mentions 
having found in his original a letter of Clement 
to James, which he does not prefix, because, as 
he says, it is of later date and he had trans- 
lated it elsewhere. The remark about later 
date need not imply any doubt of its genuine- 
ness, but merely that the letter, which pur- 
ports to have been written after the death of 
Peter, is not rightly prefixed to discourses 
which claim to have been written some years 
previously. The letter itself is preserved in 
the MSS. of the Homilies, and gives an ac- 
count of Peter’s ordination of Clement as his 
successor at Rome, and closes with instruc- 
tions to Clement to send to James an abstract 
of Peter’s discourses. The work that follows 
purports to contain an abridgment of dis- 
courses already more fully sent to James; and 
is given the title: ‘‘ An epitome by Clement 
of Peter’s discourses during his sojournings ”’ 
(ἐπιδημιῶν κηρυγμάτων). The Homilies con- 
tain another preface in the form of a letter 
from Peter himself to James. In this no 
mention is made of Clement, but Peter himself 
sends his discourses to James, strictly for- 
bidding their indiscriminate publication, and 
charging him not to communicate them to any 
Gentile, nor even to any of the circumcised, 
except after a long probation, and the later 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


ones only after such an one had been tried 
and found faithful with regard to the earlier. 
Subjoined is an oath of secrecy to be taken by 
those to whom the writings shall be communi- 
cated. Examination shews that the letter of 
Clement cannot belong to the Homilies; for 
its account of Clement’s deprecation of the 
dignity of the episcopate, and of the charges 
given to him on his admission to it, are in great 
measure identical with what is related in the 
5th homily, in the case of the ordination of 
Zacchaeus at Caesarea. These are omitted 
from the story as told in the Recognitions. The 
inference follows that the letter of Clement is 
the preface to the Recognitions. Thus, accord- 
ing to the conclusion we form on other grounds 
as to the relative priority of the two forms, 
either R., when prefixing his account of Clem- 
ent’s ordination, transposed matter which the 
older document had contained in connexion 
with Zacchaeus, or H., when substituting for 
the letter of Clement a letter in the name of 
Peter himself, found in Clement’s letter matter 
which seemed too valuable to be wasted, and 
therefore worked it into the account of the 
first ordination related in the story, that of 
Zacchaeus. The letter of Peter thus remains 
as the preface either to the Homilies or to the 
earlier form of the work before the name of 
Clement had been introduced. On the ques- 
tion of relative priority it may be urged that 
it is more likely that a later writer would 
remove a preface written in the name of Clem- 
ent, in order to give his work the higher author- 
ity of Peter, than that the converse change 
should be made; and also that the strong 
charges to secrecy and to the communication 
of the work in successive instalments would be 
accounted for, if we suppose that at the time of 
the publication of the Homzlies another version 
of Peter’s discourses had been in circulation, 
and that the writer was anxious to offer some 
account why what he produced as the genuine 
form of the discourses should not have been 
earlier made known. Respecting this rela- 
tive priority there has been great diversity of 
opinion among critics: Baur, Schliemann, 
Schwegler, and Uhlhorn give the priority to 
H., Hilgenfeld and Ritschl to R.; Lehmann 
holds R. to be the original for the first three 
books, H. in the later part. Lipsius regards 
both as independent modifications of a com- 
mon original. Without speaking over-con- 
fidently, our own conclusion is, that while 
neither of the existing documents can claim 
to be the original form, they are not independ- 
ent ; that H. is the later and in all that relates 
to Clement’s family history has borrowed from 
R. Probably the original form contained 
little but discourses, and was probably an 
esoteric document, in use only among the 
Ebionites ; and the author of R. may have 
added to it the whole story of Clement’s re- 
covery of his parents, at the same time fitting 
the work for popular use by omitting or 
softening down the harshest parts of its Ebion- 
itism ; and finally, H., a strong Ebionite, may 
have restored some of the original discourses, 
retaining the little romance which no doubt 
had been found to add much to the popularity 
and attractiveness of the volume. The follow- 
ing are some of the arguments which prove 
that H. is not an original. 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


(1) The story of Clement's first recognition | 


of his family is told in exactly the same way 
in R. book 7, and in H. book 12. Clement, 
anxious to be permitted to join himself per- 
manently as travelling companion to Peter, 
reminds him of words used at Caesarea: how 
Peter had there invited those to travel with 
him who could do so with piety, that is, with- 
out deserting wife, parents, or other relations 
whom they could not properly leave. Clement 
states that he is himself one thus untrammelled, 
and he is thus led to tell the story of his life. 
These words of Peter, to which both R. and 
H. refer, are to be found only in R. (iii. 71), 
not in H. It has been stated that the ordin- 
ation of Zacchaeus at Caesarea is told fully in 
H., and only briefly in R. In recompense R. 
has a long section describing the grief of the 
disciples at Peter’s departure and the consola- 
tions which he addressed to them; all this 
is compressed into a line or two in H. It is 
matter which any one revising R. would most 
naturally cut out as unimportant and unin- 
teresting ; but we see that it contains words 
essential in the interests of the story, and 
can hardly doubt that these words were intro- 
duced with a view to the use subsequently 
made of them. This instance not only shews, 
as Lehmann admits, that H. is not original in 
respect of the Caesarean sections, but still 
more decisively refutes Lehmann’s own hypo- 
thesis that it was H. who ornamented an 
originally simpler story with the romance of 
the recognitions. Either the author of that 
romance, as is most probable, was also the 
author of Peter’s Caesarean speech, which has 
little use except as a preparation for what 
follows; or else, finding that speech in an 
earlier document, used it as a connecting link 
to join on his own addition. In either case he 
must have been fully alive to its importance, 
and it is quite impossible that he could have 
left it out from his version of the story. 
Moreover, of the two writers H. and R., H. is 
the one infinitely less capable of inventing a 
romance. Looking at the whole work as a 
controversial novel, it is apparent all through 
that H. feels most interest in the controversy, 
R. in the novel. 

(2) Further, in the same section in the 
passage common to H. and R., Peter sends on 
Nicetas and Aquila to prepare the way for his 
coming. He apologizes for parting company 
with them, and they express grief at the sepa- 
ration, but console themselves that is it only 
for two days. On their departure Clement 
says, “1 thank God that it was not I whom 
you sent away, as I should have died of grief.”’ 
Then follows the request that Peter would 
accept him as his inseparable companion. 
This is all consistent as told by R.; for these 
regrets are expressed on the first occasion that 
any of the three brothers is removed from 
personal attendance on Peter. But as H. 
tells the story, Peter had already sent on 
Clement, while still unbaptized, together with 
Nicetas and Aquila, to Tyre, where they hold 
a disputation with Apion. There is not a 
word of grief or remonstrance at the separation 
for more than a week, and it is therefore 
strange that subsequently there should be so 
much regret at a two days’ parting. It is 
plain that H. has interpolated the mission to 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 157 


Tyre; but failed to notice that he ought in 
consistency to have modified some of the next 
portion of R. which he retained. This dis- 
putation with Apion has been alleged as a 
proof of the priority of H., for Apion is intro- 
duced also into R., but only as a silent char- 
acter; and it is urged that the original form 
is more likely to be that in which this 
well-known adversary of Judaism conducts a 
disputation, than that in which he is but an 
insignificant companion of Simon. But this 
argument does not affect the relative priority 
of H. and R., whatever weight it may have 
in proving R. not original. Eusebius (iii. 38) 
mentions a long work ascribed to Clement, 
and then but recently composed (as he infers 
from not having seen it quoted by any earlier 
writer), containing dialogues of Peter and 
Apion. This description may be intended for 
the Homilies ; but may refer to a still earlier 
work. There are expressions in R. which 
seem to imply that the writer believed himself 
to be making an improvement in substituting 
for Peter as a disputant against heathenism, 
persons whose early training had been such as 
to give them better knowledge of heathen 
mythology and philosophy. 

(3) The story of Clement’s recognition of 
his brothers contains plain marks that H. has 
abridged R. According to R., Nicetas and 
Aquila, seeing a strange woman return with 
Peter and Clement, ask for an explanation. 
Peter then repeats fully the story of the ad- 
ventures of Clement’s mother. Nicetas and 
Aquila listen in silence until Peter describes 
the shipwrecked mother searching for her 
children and crying, ‘“‘ Where are my Faustus 
and Faustinus?”’ then, hearing their own 
names mentioned, they start up in amaze and 
say, ‘“‘ We suspected at the first that what you 
were saying might relate to us; but yet as 
many like things happen in different persons’ 
lives, we kept silence ; but when you came to 
the end and it was entirely manifest that your 
statements referred tous, then we confessed who 
we were.”’ H. avoids what seems the needless 
repetition of an already-told story, and only 
states in general terms that Peter recounted 
Mattidia’s history; but the amazed starting- 
up of the brothers, and their words, are the 
same as in R.; while, as the incident of the 
mention of their former names is omitted, it 
is in this version not apparent why the con- 
clusion of Peter’s speech brought conviction 
to their minds. Evidently H., in trying to 
shorten the narrative by clearing it of repeti- 
tion, has missed a point in the story. 

(4) As told above, in R. the recognition of 
Clement’s father crowns a disputation on 
astrological fate. In H. the whole story is 
spoiled. An old man accosts Peter, as in R., 
and promises to prove from his personal 
history that all things are ruled by the stars ; 
but nothing turns on this. The recognition 
takes place in consequence of a chance meeting 
of Faustinianus with his wife, and has no 
relation to the subject he undertakes to discuss 
with Peter. The obvious explanation is, that 
H. has copied the introduction from R.; but 
omits the disputation because he has already 
anticipated it, having put the argument for 
heathenism into the mouth of the eminent 
rhetorician Apion, who seemed a fitter char- 


188 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


acter to conduct the disputation than the 
unknown Faustinianus. Further H. (xx. 15) 
and R. (x. 57) both state that the magical 
transformation of Clement’s father takes place 
on the same day that he had been recognized 
by his family. This agrees with the story as 
told by R.; but H. had made five days’ 
disputation intervene between the recognition 
and the transformation. Thus in the account 
of each of the three sets of recognitions there 
is evidence that H. copied either from R. or 
from a writer who tells the story exactly as R. 
does ; and the former hypothesis is to be pre- 
ferred because there is no evidence whatever of 
R.’s non-originality in this part of his task. 

(5) We have seen that in H. there are two 
disputations of Simon with Peter, viz. at 
Caesarea and at Laodicea. There is decisive 
proof that in this H. has varied from the 
original form, which, as R. does, laid the scene 
of the entire disputation at Caesarea. The 
indications here, however, point to a borrowing 
not from R. but from a common original. H. 
does relate a disputation at Caesarea, but evi- 
dently reserves his materials for use further on, 
giving but a meagre sketch of part of one day’s 
dispute, while he conscientiously follows his 
authority and relates that the dispute lasted 
three days. Afterwards at Laodicea the 
topics brought forward in the earlier discussion 
are produced asif new. Simon, é.g., expresses 
the greatest surprise at Peter’s manner of 
disposing of the alleged spurious passages of 
the Pentateuch, although exactly the same line 
of argument had been used by Peter on the 
former occasion. The phenomenon again 
presents itself (H. xviii. 21) of a reference to 
former words of Peter which are not to be 
found in H. itself, but are found in R. il. 45. 
Lastly, in the disputation at Laodicea, the 
office of summoning Peter to the conflict is 
ascribed to Zacchaeus, in flagrant contradic- 
tion of the previous story, according to which 
Zacchaeus was the leading man of the church 
at Caesarea before Peter’s arrival, and had 
been left behind as its bishop on Peter’s de- 
parture. This alone is enough to shew that 
H. is copying from an original, in which the 
scene is laid at Caesarea. It may be added 
that the Apostolic Constitutions make mention 
only of a Caesarean disputation. 

(6) It has been stated that the last homily 
contains private expositions by Peter to his 
disciples, and these can clearly be proved to 
be an interpolation. In R., after the disputa- 
tien on “‘ genesis’’ in which Clement’s father is 
convinced, the party having returned home and 
being about to sit down to meat, news comes 
of the arrival of Apion and Anubion and 
Faustinianus goes to salute them. In H. the 
party have retired to rest, and Peter wakes 
them up in the middle of the night to receive 
his instructions; yet in the middle of this 
midnight discourse we have an account, almost 
verbally agreeing with R., of the news of the 
arrival of Apion coming just as they were 
about to sit down to meat, and the consequent 
departure of Clement’s father. The discourse, 
thus clearly shewn to be an interpolation, con- 
tains H.’s doctrine concerning the devil, and 
is in such close connexion with the preceding 
homily (which relates how Peter, in his Laodi- 
cean disputation, dealt with the problem of 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


the permission of evil in the universe) that this 
also must be set down as an addition made by 
H. to the original story. We can see why H. 
altered the original account of a Caesarean 
disputation—namely, that he wished to re- 
serve as the climax of his story, the solutions 
which he put into Peter’s mouth of the great 
controversy of his own day. 

(7) In section H. ii. 19-32, which contains 
the information given by Nicetas and Aquila 
concerning Simon, there are plain marks that 
H. is not original. Nicetas, in repeating a con- 
versation with Simon, speaks of himself in the 
third person: ‘‘ Nicetas answered,”’ instead of 
““T answered.’’ In the corresponding section 
of R., Aquila is the speaker, and the use of the 
third person is correct. Yet this matter, in 
which H. is clearly not original, is so different 
from R., that we conclude that both copied 
from a common original. One instance in 
this section, however, deserves to be men- 
tioned as an apparent case of direct copying 
from R. In H. ii. 22, Simon is represented as 
teaching that the dead shall not rise, and as 
rejecting Jerusalem and substituting Mount 
Gerizim for it; but nowhere else is there a 
trace of such doctrine being ascribed to Simon ; 
and no controversy on these subjects is re- 
ported in the Homilies. There is strong reason 
for suspecting that H. has here blundered in 
copying R. i. 57, where a Samaritan, whom 
there is no ground for identifying with Simon, 
is introduced as teaching these doctrines of 
the non-resurrection of the dead, and of the 
sanctity of Mount Gerizim. 

We turn to some of the reasons why R. 
must also be regarded as the retoucher of a 
previously existing story. The work itself 
recognizes former records of the things which 
it relates. In the preface it purports to be an 
account written after the death of Peter of 
discourses, some of which had by Peter’s com- 
mand been written down and sent to James 
during his own lifetime. R. iii. 75 contains 
an abstract of the contents of ten books of 
these previously-sent reports. Again, R. v. 
36, we are told of the dispatch to James of a 
further instalment. Everything confirms the 
conclusion that R. is here using the credit 
which an existing narrative had gained, in 
order to obtain acceptance for his own addi- 
tions to the story. Moreover, as we have seen, 
there are instances in the first division of the 
work where H. is clearly not original, and yet 
has not copied from R.; whence we infer the 
existence of an independent authority, at least 
for the earlier portion, employed by both 
writers. There are places where H. and R. 
seem to supplement one another, each supply- 
ing details omitted by the other ; other places 
where it would seem as if an obscure passage 
in the common original had been differently 
understood by each; and in the discourses 
common to both, there are places where the 
version presented by H. preserves so much 
better the sequence of ideas and the cogency 
of argument that it is scarcely possible to think 
the form in R. the original (cf. esp. H. ix. 9, 
1o, R. iv. 15, 16). There are places, again, 
where both seem to have abridged the common 
original. Thus R. mentions concerning an 
early conversation, that none of the women 
were present. There is no further mention of 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


women in the party until quite late in the story 
both H. and R. incidentally speak of Peter’s 
wife as being in the company. In may be 
noted in passing that they do not represent 
Peter and his wife as living together as married 
people; but Peter always sleeps in the same 
room with his disciples. We may conjecture 
that the original contained a formal account 
of the women who travelled with Peter, and 
this is confirmed by St. Jerome, who refers to 
a work called the circuits of Peter (περίοδοι) 
as mentioning not only Peter’s wife, but his 
daughter, of whom nothing is said either by 
H. or R. The work cited by Jerome contained 
a statement that Peter was bald, which is not 
found either in H. or R. In like manner we 
may infer that the original contained a formal 
account of the appointment of 12 precursors 
(πρόοδοι) who were to go before Peter to the 
different cities which he meant to visit. H. 
several times speaks of the precursors, assum- 
ing the office to be known to the reader, but 
without ever recording its appointment. R. 
does give an account of its appointment, but 
onewhich implies that Peter had come attended 
by 12 companions, of whom Clement was 
already one. We have already mentioned in- 
consistencies in this first section from which 
we infer, that though the original form of the 
story mentioned the name of Clement, the 
introduction containing the account of Clem- 
ent’s journey from Rome is a later addition. 
We conclude that the work cited by Jerome 
is the common original of H. and R.; anda 
comparison of the matter common to the two 
shews that both pretty freely modified the 
original to their own uses. From what has 
been said concerning H. under No. 7, we infer 
that the original contained mention both of 
Clement and of Nicetas and Aquila, and it is 
likely that Clement was there too represented 
as the recorder of the discourses. The original 
must have contained an account of a three 
days’ disputation with Simon held at Cae- 
sarea; it also included the polemic against 
heathenism contained in the Tripolis dis- 
courses, as may be inferred both from R. v. 36 
and also from a comparison of the two records 
of these discourses. It is likely that the same 
work contained the disputation of Peter and 
Apion referred to by Eusebius, and that H. 
followed the original in making Apion a speak- 
ing character, although he has been involved 
in confusion in trying to combine this with the 
additional matter imported by R. We may 
conjecture too (see R. x. 52) that it also con- 
tained a disputation by Anubion on the 
subject of “ genesis.’’ On the other hand, 
there is no evidence that the original contained 
anything concerning the recognitions by Clem- 
ent of the members of his family. In this part 
of the story R. makes no acknowledgment of 
previous accounts sent to James; and he 
shews every sign of originality and of having 
carefully gone over the old story, skilfully 
adapting it so as to join on his own additions. 
It appears from H. ii. 22, 26, that in quite an 
early part of the history the original intro- 
duced Nicetas and Aquila as addressing their 
fellow-disciple Clement as “‘ dearest brother,”’ 
and this probably gave R. the hint (see R. 
viii. 8) of representing them as natural broth- 
ers. R. omits these expressions in the place 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE [180 


where they are inappropriate. A question 
may be raised whether the document referred 
to in R. iii. 75, and which contained an ac- 
count of the disputation with Simon, was part 
of the same work as that referred to in v. 36, 
which contained the disputation against the 
heathen. We have marked them as probably 
different. It may be remarked that Peter's 
daily bath, carefullyrecorded in the later books, 
is not mentioned in the three earlier. A ques- 
tion may be raised whether the original did not 
contain an account of a meeting of Simon and 
Peter at Rome ; and it is not impossible that 
such an account may have been originally de- 
signed by the author; as one or two references 
to Rome as well as the choice of Clement as the 
narrator give cause to suspect. But that in 
any case the design was not executed appears 
both from the absence of any early reference 
toa Roman contest between Simon and Peter ; 
and also from the diversity of the accounts 
given as to the manner of Simon’s death, since 
we may believe that if the document we are 
considering had related the story, its version 
would have superseded all others. 

Quite a different impression as to relative 
originality is produced when we compare the 
doctrine of H. and R., and when we com- 
pare their narratives. The doctrine of H. 
is very peculiar, and, for the most part, con- 
sistently carried through the whole work ; in 
R. the deviations from ordinary church teach- 
ing are far less striking, yet there are passages 
in which the ideas of H. can be traced, and 
which present the appearance of an imperfect 
expurgation of offensive doctrine. In H., 
Judaism and Christianity are represented as 
identical, and it is taught to be enough if a 
man recognize the authority either of Christ 
or of Moses; in R. he is required to acknow- 
ledge both. On this point, however, H. is not 
consistent ; for in several places he agrees 
with R. in teaching the absolute necessity of 
baptism to salvation. H. rejects the rite of 
sacrifice altogether ; according to R. the rite 
was divinely permitted for a time until the 
true prophet should come, who was to replace 
it by baptism as a means of forgiveness of sins. 
With respect to the authority of O.T. alleged 
for the rite of sacrifice, and for certain erro- 
neous doctrines, H. rejects the alleged pas- 
sages as falsified ; R. regards them merely as 
obscure, and liable to be misunderstood by one 
who reads them without the guidance of tra- 
dition. The inspiration of the prophets later 
than Moses is denied by H. and admitted by 
R., though quotations from their writings are 
alike rare in both forms. According to H., the 
true prophet has presented himself in various 
incarnations, Adam, who is regarded as being 
identical with Christ, being the first and Jesus 
the last; and the history of Adam’s sin is 
rejected as spurious; according to R., Christ 
has but revealed Himself to and inspired 
various holy men of old. And, in general, 
concerning the dignity and work of our Lord, 
the doctrine of R., though short of orthodox 
teaching, is far higher than that of H. The 
history of the fall, as far, at least, as regards 
the temptation of Eve, is referred to by R. as 
historical; but concerning Adam there are 
intimations of an esoteric doctrine not fully 
explained. H. gives what may be called a 


1900 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


physical theory of the injury done by demons. 
They are represented as having sensual desires, 
which, being spirits, they can gratify only by 
incorporation with human bodies. They use 
therefore the permission which the divine law 
grants them, of entering into the bodies of 
men who partake of forbidden food, or who, by 
worshipping them, subject themselves to their 
power; and with these the union is so close, 
that after death, when the demons descend to 
their natural regions of fire, the souls united 
to them are forced to accompany them, though 
grievously tormented by the element in which 
the demon feels pleasure. The opposition 
between fire and light is much dwelt on; and 
again, the water of baptism and other ablu- 
tions is represented as having a kind of phy- 
sical efficacy in quenching the demonic fire. 
All this doctrine concerning demons shews 
itself comparatively faintly in R.; yet there 
seem indications that the doctrine as ex- 
pounded in H. was contained in the original 
on which R. worked. It is natural to think 
that the earlier form is that one of which the 
doctrine is most peculiar; the later, that in 
which the divergences from orthodox teaching 
are smoothed away. Yet it is not always true 
that originality implies priority; and the 
application of this principle has caused some 
of the parts of H. which can be shewn to be 
the most recent, to be accepted as belonging 
to the original. For instance, we have seen 
that the private conversation between Peter 
and his disciples in the 20th homily bears on 
the face of it marks of interpolation; yet the 
clearness and peculiarity of its doctrine have 
caused it to be set down as belonging to the 
most ancient part of the work. The same may 
be said of the section concerning philanthropy 
at the end of the 12th homily, which, however, 
is wanting in the Syriac, and may be reason- 
ably set down as one of the most modern parts. 
For it is an addition made by H. to the story 
of the recognitions as told by R.; and we 
have already shewn that in all that relates to 
the recognitions H. is more recent than R. 
We arrive at more certain results, if, examining 
the sections we have named, and for which H. 
15 most responsible, we try to discover his 
favourite thoughts and forms of expression, 
and so to recognize the hand of the latest 
reviser in other parts of the work. Space will 
not permit such an examination here; but we 
may notice the fondness of H. for discovering 
a male and female element in things, and for 
contrasting things under the names of male 
and female. The almost total absence of the 
idea from R. makes it unlikely that it could 
have had any great prominence in the original 
document. The idea, however, became very 
popular in the sect to which H. belonged ; and 
Is noticed by a writer of the roth cent. as a 
characteristic of some Ebionites then still re- 
maining (see Hilgenfeld, N. T. Extra Can. Recept. 
111. 156). The germ, however, of the distinc- 
tion between male and female prophecy, on 
which H. lays so much stress, was apparently 
in the original document, which disposed of 
the testimony borne by our Lord to John the 
Baptist by the distinction that John was the 
greatest of the prophets born of women, but 
not on the level of the Son of Man. The 
general result of an attempt to discriminate 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


what belongs to H. and R. respectively, from 
what they found in their common original, 
leads to the belief that H., far more nearly 
than R., represents the doctrinal aspect of the 
original, from which the teaching of H. differs 
only by legitimate development. 

The Clementines are unmistakably a pro- 
duction of that sect of Ebionites which held 
the book of Elkesai as sacred. For an ac- 
count of the sources whence our knowledge of 
this book is derived, and for the connexion of 
the sect with Essenism, see ELKESAI in 
D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.). Almost all the doc- 
trines ascribed to them are to be found in the 
Clementines—e.g. the doctrine of successive 
incarnations of Christ, and in particular the 
identification of Christ with Adam, the re- 
quirement of the obligations of the Mosaic 
Law, the rejection however of the rite of 
sacrifice, the rejection of certain passages both 
of O.T. and N.T., hostility to St. Paul, ab- 
stinence from flesh (H. viii. 15, xii. 6, xv. 7), 
the inculcation of repeated washing, discour- 
agement of virginity, concealment of their 
sacred books from all but approved persons, 
form of adjuration by appeal to the seven 
witnesses, ascription of gigantic stature to the 
angels (H. viii. 15), permission to dissemble 
the faith in time of persecution (R. i. 65, x. 
55); while again the supposed derivation of 
the book of Elkesai from the Seres is ex- 
plained by R. viii. 48, where the Seres are 
described as a nation by whom all the ob- 
servances on which the Ebionites laid stress 
were naturally kept, and who were con- 
sequently exempt from the penalties of sick- 
ness and premature death which attended 
their neglect. Ritschl regards the book of 
Elkesai as an exposition of these doctrines 
later than the Homilies ; but we are disposed 
to look on it as earlier than the work which 
formed the common basis of H. and R. A 
recognition of this book is not improbably 
contained in a passage which is important 
in reference to the use made by H. and R. of 
their common original. The date which the 
book of Elkesai claimed for itself was the 
third year of Trajan. Whether it actually 
were so old need not here be inquired, but the © 
fact that it was confessedly no older might 
seem to put it at a disadvantage in comparison 
with the Pauline system which it rejected. 
But its adherents defended their position by 
their doctrine of pairs—viz. that it has been 
ever God’s method to pair good and evil to- 
gether, sending forth first the evil, then the 
countervailing good. Thus Cain was followed 
by Abel, Ishmael by Isaac, Esau by Jacob, so 
now, Simon Magus by Peter; and at the end of 
the world Antichrist will be followed by Christ. 
The penultimate pair enumerated takes, in 
the translation of Rufinus, a form scarcely 
intelligible; but the Syriac shews that the 
version given by R. did not essentially differ 
from that of Η. ; and that the contrasted pairs 
predicted by Peter are a false gospel sent 
abroad by a deceiver, and a true gospel secretly 
disseminated after the destruction of the holy 
place, for the rectification of the then existing 
heresies. It seems most probable that we are 
here to understand the doctrine of Paul and 
of Elkesai; and it may be noted that the fact, 
that, in this pair, gospels, not persons, are con- 


a 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


trasted, favours the conclusion that Hippo- 
lytus was mistaken in supposing Elkesai to 
be the name of a person. Two other of the 
contrasted pairs deserve notice : H. contrasts 
Aaron and Moses, R. the magicians and 
Moses. Again, H. contrasts John the Baptist 
and our Saviour, R. the tempter and our 
Saviour. In both cases the version of H. 
seems to be the original, since in that the law 
of the pairs is strictly observed that an elder 
is followed by a better younger; and we can 
understand R.’s motive for alteration if he did 
not share that absolute horror of the rite of 
sacrifice which ranked Aaron on the side of 
evil, or that hostility to John the Baptist 
which shews itself elsewhere in H., as, for 
example, in ranking Simon Magus among his 
disciples. There are passages in R. which 
would give rise to the suspicion that he held 
the same doctrines as H., but concealed the 
expression of them in a book intended for the 
uninitiated, for though in H. the principle of 
an esoteric doctrine is strongly asserted, the 
book seems to have been written at a later 
period, when concealment had been aban- 
doned. However, the instance last considered 
is one of several, where R.’s suppression of 
the doctrinal teaching of his original seems to 
imply an actual rejection of it. 

It remains to speak of that part of the Cle- 
mentines to which attention has been most 
strongly directed by modern students of the 
early history of the church—their assault on 
St. Paul under the mask of Simon Magus. In 
the first place it may be remarked that the 
school hostile to St. Paul which found expres- 
sion in these Clementines cannot be regarded 
as the representative or continuation of the 
body of adversaries with whom he had to 
contend in his lifetime. Their connexion was 
with the Essenes, not the Pharisees ; and they 
themselves claimed no earlier origin than a 
date later than the destruction of Jerusalem, 
an event which would seem to have induced 
many of the Essenes in some sort to accept 
Christianity. We have seen that a theory 
was devised to account for the lateness of the 
period when what professed to be the true 
gospel opposed to St. Paul’s was published. It 
follows that whatever results can be obtained 
from the Clementines belong to the history of 
the 2nd cent., not the first. The name of Paul 
is mentioned neither by H. nor R. Hostility 
to him appears in R. in a milder form; R., 
plainly following his original, ignores St. 
Paul’s labours among the heathen, and makes 
St. Peter the apostle of the Gentiles; and in 
one passage common to H. and R., and there- 
fore probably belonging to the earlier docu- 
ment, a warning is given that the tempter who 
had contended in vain with our Lord would 
afterwards send apostles of deceit, and there- 
fore the converts are cautioned against receiv- 
ing any teacher who had not first compared his 
doctrine with that of James, lest the devil 
should send a preacher of error to them, even 
as he had raised up Simon as an opponent to 
Peter. It need not be disputed that in this 
Passage, as well as in that concerning the 
pairs already quoted, Paul is referred to, his 
preaching being spoken of in the future tense 
as dramatic propriety required, since the 
action of the story is laid at a time before his 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 191 


conversion. In both places Paul, if Paul be 
meant, is expressly distinguished from Simon. 
In the letter of Peter prefixed to the Homilies, 
we cannot doubt that Paul is assailed as the 
enemy who taught that the obligations of 
the Mosaic law were not perpetual, and who 
unwarrantably represented Peter himself as 
concurring in teaching which he entirely 
repudiated. There remains a single passage 
as the foundation of the Simon-Paulus theory. 
In the Laodicean disputation which H. makes 
the climax of his story, a new topic is suddenly 
introduced (xvii. 13-20), whether the evidence 
of the senses or that of supernatural vision be 
more trustworthy; and it is made to appear 
that Simon claims to have obtained, by means 
of a vision of Jesus, knowledge of Him superior 
to that which Peter had gained during his year 
of personal converse with Him. In this section 
phrases are introduced which occur in the 
notice of the dispute at Antioch, between Peter 
and Paul, contained in the Ep. to the Gala- 
tians. It need not be doubted, then, that in 
this section of the Homilies the arguments 
nominally directed against Simon are really 
intended to depreciate the claims of Paul. 
Since von Coélln and Baur first took notice of 
the concealed object of this section, specula- 
tion in Germany has run wild on the identifica- 
tion of Paul and Simon. The theory in the 
form now most approved will be found in the 
article on Simon Magus in Schenkel’s Bibel- 
Lexikon. It has been inferred that Simon was 
in Jewish circles a pseudonym for Paul, and 
that all related of him is but a parody of the 
life of Paul. Simon as a historical character 
almost entirely disappears. Even the story 
told in the Acts of the Apostles has been held 
to be but a caricature of the story of Paul’s 
bringing up to Jerusalem the collection he 
had made, and hoping by this gift of money 
to bribe the apostles to admit him to equal 
dignity. In order to account for the author 
of the Acts admitting into his narrative the 
section concerning Simon, explanations have 
been given which certainly have not the ad- 
vantage in simplicity over that suggested by 
the work itself—viz. that the author having 
spent seven days in Philip’s house had learned 
from him interesting particulars of his early 
evangelical work, which he naturally inserted 
in his history. The Simon-Paulus theory has 
been particularly misleading in speculations 
as to the literary history of the tales con- 
cerning Simon. Lipsius, for instance, has set 
himself to consider in what way the history 
of Simon could be told, so as best to serve the 
purpose of a libel on Paul; and having thus 
constructed a more ingenious parody of Paul’s 
life than any which documentary evidence 
shews to have been ever in circulation, he asks 
us to accept this as the original form of the 
story of Simon. It becomes necessary, there- 
fore, to point out on how narrow a basis of fact 
these speculations rest. To R., anti-Pauline 
though he is, the idea of identifying Simon 
with St. Paul seems never to have occurred. 
All through his book Paul is Paul, and Simon 
Simon. The same may be said of the whole 
of the Homilies, except this Laodicean dis- 
putation, which is the part in which the latest 
writer has taken the greatest liberties with his 
original. Before any inference can be drawn 


192 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


from this section as to an early identification 
ot Simon and Paul, it must be shewn that it 
belongs to the original document, and is not 
an addition of the last reviser only. The 
object of the latter may be inferred from what 
he states in the form of a prediction (xvi. 21), 
that other heretics would arise who should 
assert the same blasphemies against God as 
Simon; which we may take as implying that 
the writer has put into the mouth of Simon 
doctrines similar to those held by later heretics 
against whom he had himself to contend. In 
particular, this Laodicean section is strongly 
anti-Marcionite; and it is just possible that 
this section may have been elicited by Mar- 
cionite exaggeration cf the claims of Paul. 
But we own, it seems to us far more probable 
that H. has here preserved a fragment of an 
earlier document, the full force of which it is 
even possible he did not himself understand. 
Further, it is altogether unproved that in this 
earlier document this particular disputation 
was directed against Simon. The original work 
may well have included conflicts of St. Peter 
with other adversaries, and in another instance 
we have seen reason to think that H. has 
made a mistake in transferring to Simon words 
which in the earlier document referred to 
another. Again, even if the earlier writer 
did put Pauline features into his picture of 
Simon, it no more follows that he identified 
Simon with St. Paul than that the later writer 
identified him with Marcion. The action of 
the storv being laid at a date antecedent to 
St. Paul’s conversion, it was a literary necessity 
that if Pauline pretensions were to be refuted, 
they must be put into the mouth of another. 
At the present day history is often written 
with a view to its bearing on the controversies 
of our own time; but we do not imagine that 
a writer doubts Julius Caesar to be a historical 
character, even though in speaking of him he 
may have Napoleon Bonaparte in his mind. 
Now, though the author of the Clementines 
has put his own words into the mouth both of 
Simon and Peter, it is manifest that he no 
more doubted of the historical character of one 
than of the other. For Simon, his authorities 
were—(r) the account given in Acts vili. which 
furnished the conception of Simon as possessed 
of magical powers; (2) in all probability the 
account given by Justin Martyr of honours 
paid to Simon at Rome; and (3) since R. 
refers to the writings of Simon, it can scarcely 
be doubted that the author used the work 
ascribed to Simon called the Great Announce- 
ment, some of the language of which, quoted 
by Hippolytus, is in the Clementines put into 
the mouth of Simon. Hence has resulted some 
little confusion, for the heresy of the Great 
Announcement appears to have been akin to 
the Valentinian; but what the Clementine 
author has added of his own is Marcionite. 
Quotations from N.T. in the Clementines.— 
All the four gospels are quoted ; for since the 
publication of the conclusion of the Homilies by 
Dressel, it is impossible to deny that St. John’s 
gospel was employed. Epiphanius tells us 
that a Hebrew translation of St. John’s gospel 
was in use among the Ebionites. The quota- 
tions are principally from St. Matthew, but 
often with considerable verbal differences from 
our present text ; and there are a few passages 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


quoted which are not found in any of our 
present gospels. The deviations from the 
existing text are much smaller in R. than in 
H., and it may be asserted that R. always 
conforms to our present gospels in his own 
added matter. Since it is known that the 
Ebionites used an Aramaic gospel, which in 
the main agreed with St. Matthew but with 
considerable variations, we may conclude that 
this was the source principally employed by 
the author of the original. H. seems to have 
used the same sources as the original ; but yet 
two things must be borne in mind before we 
assert that variations in H. from our existing 
texts prove that he had a different text before 
him: one is the laxity with which he cites 
the O.T.; the other, the fact that the story 
demands that Peter should be represented as 
quoting our Lord’s discourses from memory 
and not from any written source; and the 
author would naturally feel himself entitled to 
a certain amount of licence in quotations of 
such a kind.* 

Place and Time of Composition of the Clemen- 
tine Writings.—The use made of the name of 
Clement had caused Rome to be accepted as 
the place of composition by the majority of 
critics, but the opposite arguments urged by 
Uhlhorn appear conclusive, and to, at least, 
the original document an Eastern origin must 
be assigned. Hippolytus mentions the arrival 
in Rome of an Elkesaite teacher c. A.D. 220, 
whose doctrines would seem to have been then 
quite novel at Rome, and not to have taken 
root there. The scene of the story is all 
laid in the East, and the writings shew no 
familiarity with the Roman church. The 
ranking Clement among the disciples of Peter 
may be even said to be opposed to the earliest 
traditions of the Roman church, which placed 
Clement third from the apostles; but it is 
quite intelligible that in foreign churches, where 
the epistle of Clement was habitually publicly 
read in the same manner as the apostolic 
epistles, Clement and the apostles might come 
to be regarded as contemporaries. Clement 
might naturally be chosen as a typical repre- 
sentative of the Gentile converts by an Ebion- 
ite who desired by his example to enforce on 
the Gentile churches the duty of obedience 
to the church of the circumcision. For all 
through it is James of Jerusalem, not Peter, 
who is represented as the supreme ruler of the 
churches. The author of the original docu- 
ment habitually used an Aramaic version of 
N.T.; and there are a few phenomena which 
make it seem not incredible that the original 
document itself may have been written in 
the same language. Uhlhorn’s conjecture of 
Eastern Syria as the place of composition 
seems not improbable. The Recognitions with 
the prefatory letter relating the ordination of 
Clement as bp. of Rome may, however, have 


been a version designed for Roman circulation. | 


The data for fixing the time of composition 
are but scanty. The Recognitions are quoted 
by Origen (with, however, a division of books 
differing from the present form) ὃ. A.D. 230. 


* In one place (xix. 3) H., having quoted some 
sayings of our Lord, makes the slip of referring to 
these as “‘Scripture.’’ It thus clearly appears that 
the author used written gospels to which he ascribed 
the authority of Scripture, 


a 


CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 


This gives the latest limit for the publication 
of R. We may infer that the chronicle of 
Hippolytus a.p. 235 recognizes the Ep. of 
Clement to James, since it counts Peter as 
first bp. of Rome, and places the episcopate 
of Clement at a time so early as to make his 
ordination by Peter possible. [CLEMENS Rom- 
ANusS.] It is not unreasonable to date the 
Ep. of Clement to James at least a quarter 
of a cent. earlier, in order to allow time for its 
ideas to gain such complete acceptance at 
Rome. Irenaeus is ignorant of the episcopate 
_ of Peter, but ranks Clement as a contemporary 
of the apostles. It is likely, therefore, that 
he knew the work on which the Recognitions 
were founded, but not this later version. As 
a limit in the other direction we have the use 
of the name Faustus for one represented as a 
member of the imperial family, which points 
to a date later than the reign of Antoninus, 
whose wife, and whose daughter married to 
Marcus Aurelius, both bore the name of 
Faustina. A section (R. ix. 17-29) is identical 
with a passage quoted by Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 
6, 10, as from the dialogues of Bardesanes. 
But the date of Bardesanes himself is uncer- 
tain. [BARDESANES.] The date assigned by 
Eusebius in his chronicle for his activity, A.p. 
173, seems to need to be put later, because 
an authority likely to be better informed, the 
Chronicle of Edessa, with great particularity 
assigns for the date of his birth July rr, a.p. 
154. Further, the dialogue cited by Eusebius 
and by R. has been now recovered from the 
Syriac, and has been published in Cureton’s 
Spicilegium Syriacum (1855). From this it 
appears that the dialogue does not purport 
to be written by Bardesanes himself, but by 
a scholar of his, Philippus, who addresses him 
as father and is addressed by him asson. This 
forbids us to put the dialogue at a very early 
Bod of the life of Bardesanes, and R. may 
ave been the earlier. Merx (Bardesanes von 
Edessa) tries to shew that other sections also 
in R. were later interpolations from Barde- 
-sanes; but his arguments have quite failed 
to convince us. On the whole, A.D. 200 seems 
as near an approximation as we can make to 
the probable date of R. The form H. must 
be dated later, possibly a.p. 218, the time 
when, according to Hippolytus, the Elkesaite 
Alcibiades came from Apamea to Rome. 
There is little to determine very closely the 
date of the originaldocument. If wecould lay 
stress on a passage which speaks of there being 
one Caesar (R. v. 19, H. x. 14), we should date 
it before a.p. 161, when Marcus Aurelius shared 
the empire with Verus; and though this argu- 
ment is very far from decisive, there is nothing 
that actually forbids so early a date, though 
we could not safely name one much earlier. 
The prolegomena of the earlier editors of the 
Clementines are collected in Migne’s Patro- 
logia. The most important monographs are 
von Célln’s article in Ersch and Gruber (1828), 
Schliemann, Die Clementinen (Hamburg, 1844) ; 
Hilgenfeld, Die clementinischen Recognitionen 
und Homilien (Jena, 1848); Uhlhorn, Dze 
Homilien und Recognitionen des Clemens Rom- 
anus (G6ttingen, 1854); Lehmann, Dze clement- 
tnische Schriften (Gotha, 1867). In these works 
will be found references to other sources of 
information. Baur has treated of the Clem- 


CLOVIS 193 
entines in several works: the section in Die 
christliche Gnosis, pp. 300-414, may especially 


be mentioned. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der 
altkatholischen Kirche, enters more largely into 
the subject of the Clementines in his first ed. 
See also Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanios 
and Die Quellen der Rémischen Petrussage, and 
an interesting review by Lipsius of Lehmann’s 
work in the Protestantische Kirchenzeitung 
(1869), pp. 477-482. Cf. Lightfoot’s Clement 
of Rome, part i. pp. 99 ff. and 406 ff.; and 
Harnack, Gesch. der Alt.-Ch. Lit. p. 212 ff. [G.s.] 
Cletus or Anacletus, “‘ le méme que St. Clet, 
comme les savants en conviennent”’ (L’Art de 
vérif. les dates, i. 218). Eusebius calls him 
Anencletus, and says that he was succeeded in 
the see of Rome by Clement in the twelfth 
year of Domitian, having himself sat there 
twelve years. According to this, his own con- 
secration would have fallen in the first year of 
Domitian, or A.D. 81 ; but it is variously dated 
by others (cf. Gieseler, E. H. § 32 with note 4, 
Eng. tr.). Eusebius indeed nowhere says that 
he succeeded Linus, or was the second bp. of 
Rome: yet he places him between Linus, 
whom he calls the first bishop, and Clement, 
whom he calls third. Other ancient author- 
ities make Clement the first bishop (see Clinton, 
F. R. ii. 399). Rohrbacher, on the strength 
of a list attributed to pope Liberius, places 
Clement after Linus, Cletus after Clement, and 
another pope named Anencletus after Cletus 
(Ε. H. iv. 450). This Gieseler calls ‘‘ the 
modern Roman view.’’ [But for this question 
of the succession of the Roman bishops, see 
Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, part i. pp. 2or- 
345; of which Bp. Westcott says (Preface to 
Lightfoot), ‘‘ Perhaps it is not too much tosay 
that the question of the order of the first five 
bps. of Rome is now finally settled.”’] Three 
spurious epistles have the name of Anacletus 
affixed to them in the Pseudo-Isidorian collec- 
tion (Migne, Pair. cxxx. 59 andseq.). [Ε.5.ἘῈ.} 
Clovis (in the chroniclers Chlodovechus, etc., 
modern German Ludwig, modern French 
Louts), son of Childeric, one of the kings of 
the Salian Franks, born a.p. 466, succeeded 
his father in 481 (Greg. Tur. ii. 43). As soon 
as he reached manhood (486) he attacked 
Syagrius, ‘rex Romanorum”’ (Greg. ii. 23), 
son of Aegidius, the isolated and independent 
representative of the Roman power in Gaul 
(Junghans, pp. 22, 23). Syagrius was defeated, 
and Clovis advanced his territory from the 
Somme to the Seine, and afterwards to the 
Loire (Gesta Francorum, 14), was recognized 
as king by the former subjects of Syagrius 
(Greg. 11. 27), and transferred his capital from 
Tournai to Soissons (Vita S. Remigit, ap. 
Bouquet, ili. 377 E). Waitz (11. 60.) doubts 
this (see Junghans, p. 34, m. 3). Many 
wars and conquests followed (Greg. ii. 27). 
AboutA.D. 492 Clovis married the Burgundian 
princess Clotilda, a Christian and a Catholic, 
and she is said to have made many attempts 
to convert her husband from idolatry (Greg. 
ii. 29; Riickert, Culturgeschichte, i. pp. 316, 
317; Binding, Das Burgundisch-Romanitsche 
Reich, Leipz. 1868, pp. 111-114, doubts the 
value of Clotilda’s work; Bornhak, Gesch- 
ichte der Franken unter den Merovingern, 
Greifswald, 1863, pp. 207, 208, magnifies it), 
What her entreaties could not effect the crisis 


13 


194 CLOVIS 


of war brought about. During a battle against 
the Alamanni (whether at Tolbiac or else- 
where, see Bornhak, p. 209, note 2; Waitz, 
ii. 65, note 2) the Franks were hard pressed, 
and beginning to yield. Clovis raised his eyes 
to heaven and invoked the aid of Christ. 
Forthwith the tide of battle turned, and the 
Alamanni fled. Remigius, at the instance of 
Clotilda, called on Clovis to fulfil his vow. 
“ Gladly,” replied the king, ‘‘ but I must first 
obtain the consent of my own people.’ His 
warriors signified their assent in the well- 
known words, ‘‘ Gods that die we cast away 
from us; the god that dies not, whom Remi- 
gius preaches, we are prepared to follow.” On 
Christmas Day, 496, Clovis, with his sisters 
Albofleda, a heathen, and Lantechild, an 
Arian, was baptized by Remigius at Rheims. 
‘‘ Gently, Sicambrian, bow down thy head, 
worship what thou hast hitherto destroyed, 
destroy what thou bast hitherto worshipped,” 
were the apt words of Remigius (Greg. il. 30, 
31; Vita Rem. ap. Bouquet). How important 
this conversion was ip the eyes of the Catholic 
world of the day may be seen from the letters 
of congratulation addressed to Clovis by 
Avitus, bp. of Vienne (Bouquet, iv. 49), and 
by pope Anastasius, who wrote both to the 
king and to the bishops of Gaul (Thiel, Ep. 
Rom. Pont. pp. 624 and 634). Theodoric, the 
Ostrogothic king of Italy, was an Arian, 
though a tolerant one, but Euric, the Visigoth, 
had proclaimed himself militant and prose- 
lytizing (Fauriel, ii. 28) ; the Burgundian and 
Vandal princes were also Arian. The majority 
of the population of Gaul was Catholic, and 
Clovis was the only Catholic prince. (On the 
relation of these Arian princes to their Catholic 
subjects, see Binding, pp. 125 ff.) Whatever 
may have been his motives, and every variety 
has been attributed to him, from direct inspir- 
ation of the Holy Ghost (Rettberg, Kzirchen- 
geschichte, i. pp. 274,275) to the coldest political 
calculation (Binding, pp. 111-114), Clovis must 
have been aware that by his conversion to the 
Catholic faith he would make the majority of 
his own subjects firm in their allegiance, and 
the Roman subjects of the Arian princes in the 
south ill-affected towards their rulers. (An 
instance of such disaffection may be found in 
Greg. iil. 36.) Nor can he have been ignorant 
of the political importance of the aid which 
he would get from the Catholic priesthood 
throughout Gaul. From this point, there- 
fore, dates an increase of influence among the 
Roman population, the foundations were laid 
of a Roman nobility of office and intellect 
capable of superseding the old Teutonic no 
bility of race (Bornhak, pp. 219-221). Thus, 
whilst from one point of view this was the 
“ first step towards the world-historical union 
of Teutonic civilization with the Roman 
church ”’ (Richter, p. 36, note 6), on the other 
hand, a reaction of Roman civilization against 
its Teutonic conquerors now set in, and 
modern Latin France became possible. As an 
immediate consequence of the conversion, a 
body of Frankish warriors not yet converted 
joined Rachnachar (Vita Rem. ap. Bouquet, 
11. p. 377C,D). Whether this was also a 
desertion of Clovis is doubtful (see Junghans, 
p- 59). The conversion of the nation was not 
completed till long afterwards (see Waitz, 


CLOVIS 


ii. 85, note r; and Rettberg, pp. 285-287). 
All questions connected with the conversion of 
Clovis are fully treated by Rickert, Cultur- 
geschichte des Deutschen Volkes in der Zeit des 
Uebergangs aus dem Heidenthum tn das Chris- 
tenthum (Leipz. 1853-1854). 

The next war of Clovis was with Burgundy, 
A.D. 500. Gundobald, the uncle of Clotilda 
and murderer of her parents, was defeated at 
Dijon. Clovis annexed part of the Burgun- 
dian dominion, and gave the rest to Godegisel, 
another brother. Shortly afterwards Gundo- 
bald returned, expelled Godegisel, and appar- 
ently became reconciled to Clovis, for in 507 
the Burgundians helped Clovis in his expe- 
dition against the Visigoths. (This alliance is 
not mentioned by Gregory, but see Binding, 
p- 194, note 659; and Richter, p. 41, note e.) 
Between 505 and 507 Clovis is said to have 
been inflicted with tedious illness (Vita Sever- 
int, Bouquet, 111. 392 B); on his recovery he 
immediately issued his famous declaration of 
war against the Visigoths: ‘‘ Verily it grieves 
my soul that these Arians should hold a part 
of Gaul; with God’s help let us go and con- 
quer them, and reduce their territory into our 
hands”’ (Greg. ii. 37). From Paris Clovis 
marched through Orleans to Tours, gave strict 
orders for the protection of the Catholic church 
and its property (Ep. ap. Bouquet, iv. 54), 
met and defeated the Visigoths at Voullon or 
Vouglé near Poictiers, and slew king Alaric 
with his own hand (Richter, p. 40 notes and 
reff.) The winter of 507-508 Clovis spent at 
Bordeaux, carried off the Visigothic treasure 
from Toulouse, and reduced Angouléme and 
the surrounding territory before his return to 
Paris, which city henceforward he made his 
capital (Greg. ii. 38). That the religious ele- 
ment was very powerful in this war (Ruckert, 
i. 324) is evident from the letter of Clovis to 
the bishops (Bouquet, /.c.), from the vain 
attempts which Alaric had made to confirm 
the allegiance of his Catholic and Roman sub- 
jects (Richter, p. 39, note 2), and from what 
Cassiodorus (Var. iii. Ep. 1-4) tells us of 
the negotiations before the war. Theodoric 
the Ostrogoth had proposed an alliance of the 
Arian German kings for the maintenance of 
peace ; and when the Franks began to pursue 
their victories in a fresh campaign and laid 
siege to Arles, Theodoric interfered, sent an 
army under Ibbas, which defeated the Franks 
and relieved Arles, and eventually agreed toa 
peace, by which Provence was annexed by the 
Ostrogothic power, Septimania adhered to the. 
Visigothic kingdom of Spain, and Clovis’s 
conquest of Aquitaine was acknowledged 
(Binding, p. 212 and note 731). We do not 
know whether Clovis joined personally in this 
Rhone campaign. No mention of it is made 
by Gregory. It was at Tours, on his return 
from Bordeaux in 508, that Clovis received a 
letter from the emperor Anastasius, ‘‘ confer- 
ring upon him the consular dignity, from 
which time he was habitually called consul and 
Augustus ”’ (‘‘ab Anastatio Imperatore codi- 
cillos de consulatu accepit, et in basilica beati 
Martini tunica blatea indutus est et chlamyde, 
imponens vertice diadema, . . . et ab ea die 
tanquam consul et (al. ‘aut’) Augustus est 
vocitatus,”’ Greg. ii. 38). Much discussion 
has taken place as to the exact meaning of 


CLOVIS 


this passage. The name of Clovis does not 
appear in the consular Fasti, but in the pro- 
logue to the Lex Salia he is entitled ‘‘ procon- 
sul’’ (Sybel, Jahrb. d. Alt. in Rhetnl. iv. p. 86). 
Again, the chlamys and the diadem are the 
insignia of the patriciate. Hence it has been 
assumed by many that what was conferred on 
Clovis was the proconsulate and the patriciate 
(Valesius, i. 299; Richter, pp. 40, 41; Jung- 
hans, pp. 126-128). On the contrary, Waitz 
(ii. 59-61) and others (eg. Pétigny, ii. 533; 
and Bornhak, pp. 234, 235), adhering to the 
exact words of Gregory, maintain that it was 
the title of consul that was conferred on Clovis. 
The significance of the event itself is plain. 
Anastasius saw the value to the empire of the 
Frankish power as a counterpoise to the Ostro- 
gothic. Clovis willingly accepted any title of 
honour by which he obtained a quasi-legal 
title in the eyes of his Roman subjects (cf. 
Hallam, Middle A ges, vol. i. note 3 on ¢. i.). 

The well-known story of the vase of Soissons 
(Greg. ii. 27) not only shews how ill Clovis 
brooked the liberty and equality of the other 
Frankish chiefs, but reveals the most unfavour- 
able side of his character—his deceitfulness. 
“ Dolus,’’ however, if on the right side, is 
seldom an attribute of blame with the mediae- 
val chroniclers. The most discreditable deeds 
of this character attributed to Clovis are the 
machinations by which he subjected the other 
Frankish chiefs originally his equals, and 
brought about the unification of the Frankish 
empire. Thus he suggested the murder of his 
father to Sigebert, king of the Ripuarian 
Franks, and when the deed was done, himself 
took possession of the kingdom (Greg. ii. 40). 
King Chararich was first imprisoned, and then 
put to death (7b. 41; cf. c. 27 clam feriri, of 
Syagrius), and likewise king Rachnachar of 
Cambrai and his two brothers (1b. 42). 

Early in 511 Clovis summoned a council of 
32 bishops to Orleans (see Decrees ap. Sirmondi, 
Conc. Gall. i. 177). Before the close of the 
year he died at the age of 45, and was buried 
at Paris in the church of the Apostles (after- 
wards St. Geneviéve’s) which he and Clotilda 
had built. He left four sons, Theodoric the 
eldest (illegitimate); Clodomir, Childebert, 
and Lothar, by Clotilda. 

The only first-class original authority for the 
reign of Clovis is Gregory of Tours, Historia 
Francorum, ii. 27-43, contained in the collec- 
tions of Duchesne, vol. i.; and Bouquet, 
Recueil des Historiens, etc., vol. ii. (in the 3rd 
vol. of Bouquet are extracts from the lives of 
the saints relating to this reign. On the 
authority of Gregory see Lébell, Gregor von 
Tours und seine Zeit, pp. 320 ff. ; Monod, in 
the Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des hautes Etudes, 
part viii. (1872); and Wattenbach, Deutschlands 
Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (3rd ed. 1873), 
vol. i. pp. 76-83. The best monograph on the 
subject of Clovis is Junghans, Geschichte der 
Frankischen Konige Childerich und Chlodovech 
(G6ttingen, 1857). Cf. also ἃ. Kurth, Hist. 
Poét. des Méroving. (Paris 1893); Prou, La 
Gaule Méroving. On the constitution of the 
kingdom of Clovis and its constitutional 
history, see Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungs- 
geschichte, ii. pp. 51-71; and G. Richter, An- 
nalen d. Deutschen Geschichte im Mittelalter, i. 
PP- 27-32 (1873). (T-R.B.] 


COELESTINUS 195 


Coelestinus, commonly called Celestine, 42nd 
bp. of Rome, succeeded Boniface I. on Sunday, 
Sept. 10, 422, without any delay or contest. 
He was of Roman birth, the son of Priscus. 
In early life he had visited Milan during the 
episcopate of St. Ambrose. While deacon to 
Innocent, he had written a cordial letter to 
St. Augustine, who returned a suitable reply 
(Aug. Ep. 192). Soon after his accession to 
the see of Rome, Celestine received a letter 
from Augustine (Ep. 209) on the case of one 
Antony, bp. of Fussala, 40 miles from Hippo, 
who had gravely misconducted himself in his 
office, been compelled by a synod of bishops 
to leave Fussala, and had afterwards applied 
to Boniface for restoration. Augustine en- 
treated Celestine not to impose on the people 
of Fussala, by aid of secular power, a prelate 
so unworthy. After this, the African bishops 
resolved no longer to allow appeals to Rome 
from their country; and when Celestine, 
apparently in 426, wrote to them in behalf of 
the priest Apiarius, a general council of Africa 
sent a reply begging Celestine to observe 
the Nicene rule (can. 5) and not receive to 
communion those excommunicated by them. 
The African church thus claimed its right to 
decide its own causes. They pointed out that 
the Nicene council had ordered that all causes 
should be decided where they arose ; nor could 
anyone “ believe that our God will inspire a 
single individual with justice, and deny it to 
a large number of bishops sitting in council.” 
That persons should be sent from Rome to 
decide causes in Africa had been ‘‘ ordained by 
nosynod’’; and they had proved to Celestine’s 
predecessor, by authentic copies of Nicene 
canons, that such a claim was wholly baseless 
(Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. ad. fin. ; Galland, Bibl. 
Patr. ix. 289). 

Celestine was zealous against Pelagianism, 
and constrained Coelestius, the companion of 
Pelagius, to leave Italy. 

The affairs of eastern Illyricum occupied 
the attention of Celestine, as of his predeces- 
sors. This civil ‘‘ diocese’’ was attached, 
politically, to the eastern empire; but the see 
of Rome had kept a hold over its churches by 
committing a sort of vicarial authority to the 
see of Thessalonica, which was its head. Thus 
Damasus is said to have made the bps. of 
Thessalonica his representatives. See Fleury, 
b. xXvili. c. 22. Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 9, 
thinks this an over-statement; but at any 
rate, he observes, Siricius (who succeeded 
Damasus), and afterwards Innocent, gave a 
delegated authority to Anysius of Thessa- 
lonica. In A.D. 421 a collision took place 
between the Roman bp. Boniface and Theo- 
dosius II., who ‘‘ claimed the power of trans- 
ferring to the bp. of Constantinople that 
superintendence over the bps. of Illyricum ’”’ 
which Rome had entrusted to Thessalonica 
(Fleury, xxiv. 31). But Theodosius appears 
to have yielded the point; and Celestine 
having already ‘“‘ interposed’’ in behalf of an 
Illyrian bishop named Felix, who was “‘ in 
peril of being crushed by factious accusers,’’ 
afterwards wrote (Cel. Ep. 3) to Perigenes of 
Corinth and eight other prelates of eastern 
Illyricum, asserting his right, as successor of 
St. Peter, to a general oversight (‘* necessita- 
tem de omnibus tractandi’’), and directing his 


196 COELESTINUS 


“beloved brethren’’ to refer all causes to 
his deputy, Rufus of Thessalonica, and not to 
consecrate bishops, nor hold councils, without 
the sanction of that bishop. ‘‘ Dominentur 
nobis regulae,” writes Celestine, “non regulis 
dominemur ; simus subjecti canonibus,”’ etc. 
But, says Tillemont significantly, “it is 
difficult to see how he practised this excellent 
maxim ’’; for by the sixth Nicene canon the 
Illyrian bishops would be subject to their 
several metropolitans and provincial synods 
(xiv. 150). 

Another letter from Celestine (Ep. 4) was 
addressed, July 25, 428, “ to the bishops of the 
provinces of Vienne and Narbonne, for the 
purpose of correcting several abuses ”’ (Fleury, 
Xxiv. 56). Some bishops, he had learned, 
κε surreptitiously ’’ wore the philosophic “ pal- 
lium,’ with a girdle, by way of carrying out 
Luke xii. 35. ‘‘ Why not,’ asks Celestine, 
“also hold lighted lamps and staves?’’ The 
text is to be understood spiritually. This sort 
of dress, he adds, may be retained by those 
who dwell apart (monks), but there is no pre- 
cedent for it in the case of bishops. ‘‘ We 
ought to be distinguished from the people, not 
by dress, but by teaching; not by attire, but 
by conduct.’’ On other matters he comments. 
Some refuse to give absolution to penitents 
even at the hour of death: this is a barbarous 
“killing of the soul.’? Some consecrate lay- 
men to the episcopate. Let no one be con- 
secrated until he has gone through all degrees 
of the ministry: he who would be a teacher 
must first be a disciple. In the appointment 
of bishops he said that the wishes of the 
flock must be respected: Nullus invitis detur 
episcopus. These words became the recognized 
expression of a great principle of church law. 

With this letter may be compared a short 
one (Ep. 5), written in 429, to urge the Apulian 
and Calabrian bishops to observe the canons, 
and not to gratify any popular wish for the 
consecration of a person who had not served in 
the ministry. (On this subject of per salium 
consecrations, see Bingham, li. 10, 4 seq.) 

In the same year (429) Germanus bp. of 
Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes were sent into 
Britain to repress Pelagianism. Prosper, in 
his Chronicle, says that Celestine sent German 
to guide the Britons to Catholic faith. Con- 
stantius of Lyons, the biographer of German, 
whom Bede follows (H. E. i. 17), says that 
German and Lupus were sent by a large synod 
of Gallic bishops. (Prosper was then in Gaul, 
and ere long became Celestine’s secretary : 
Constantius wrote some sixty years later, but 
with full access to local information.) The 
accounts may be reasonably harmonized. In 
German’s case there was probably a special 
commission from Celestine, in addition to that 
which emanated from the Gallican synod. In 
this way, apparently, Celestine, as Prosper 
afterwards wrote in another work (C. Colla- 
torem, 21, al. 24), “‘ took pains to keep the 
Roman island Catholic.’”? It will be natural 
to consider next Celestine’s proceedings in 
regard to Ireland, which, says Prosper, in the 
same sentence, he ‘‘ made Christian.’? Two 
years after the expedition of German he con- 
secrated Palladius, and sent him to “the 
Scots, who believed in Christ,’’ z.e. to the Irish, 
‘as their first bishop.’’ Such is Prosper’s 


COELESTINUS 


statement in his Chronicle. Palladius had but 
little success, and stayed in Ireland but a 
short time; and there is no sufficient evidence 
for associating the mission of his great succes- 
sor, St. Patrick, with Celestine or with the see 
of Rome. (See Todd’s Life of St. Patrick, pp. 
309 Seq., 352, 387, etc.) 

We now turn to the part which Celestine 
took in the great doctrinal controversy raised 
by Nestorius at Constantinople at the end of 
428. Celestine (Ep. 13) early in 429 received 
copies of controversial discourses said to be 
by Nestorius, and wrote on his own behalf, and 
on that of other Italian bishops, to Cyril of 
Alexandria, asking for information. [ΟΥ̓ ΕΠ. 
Cyril purposely kept silence for a year; and 
before he wrote, Celestine had received from 
Nestorius himself, by the hands of a man of 
high rank, named Antiochus, copies of his 
discourses, with a letter, in which Nestorius 
speaks of certain exiled Pelagians resident in 
Constantinople; and then passes on to the 
controversy about the Incarnation, and de- 
scribes his opponents as Apollinarians, etc. 
He wrote more than once again (Mansi, iv. 
1023), and another extant letter resumes the 
same topic. 

Celestine caused the Nestorian discourses to 
be rendered into Latin; and meanwhile re- 
ceived a letter from Cyril, accompanied by 
other translations of these documents, made 
at Alexandria. Thus aided, Celestine formed 
his own opinion on their theological character, 
and summoned a synod of bishops at the 
beginning of Aug. 430. We possess an inter- 
esting fragment of his speech on this occasion. 
‘““T remember that Ambrose of blessed 
memory, on the day of the Nativity of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, made the whole people sing 
to God with one voice— 


‘Veni, Redemptor gentium, 
Ostende partum Virginis ; 
Miretur omne saeculum ; 
Talis decet partus Deum’” 


(Ambros. Hymn 12; in Brev. Ambros. first 
vespers of Nativ.). ‘‘ Did he say, ‘ Talis decet 
partus hominem’? So, the meaning of our 
brother Cyril, in that he calls Mary ‘ Theoto- 
kos,’ entirely agrees with ‘ Talis decet partus 
Deum.’ It was God Whom the Virgin, by her 
child-bearing, brought forth, through His 
power Who is full of omnipotence.’”’ He pro- 
ceeded to quote a passage from Hilary, and 
two shorter ones from Damasus (Mansi, iv. 
550; Galland, ix. 304). The council’s reso- 
lutions were expressed by Celestine in letters 
to Cyril and to Nestorius. The former (Ep. 
11) commends Cyril’s zeal in a cause which is, 
in truth, that of ‘“‘ Christ our God’”’ ; and con- 
cludes by saying that unless Nestorius should, 
within ten days, condemn his own wicked doc- 
trines by a written profession of the same faith, 
as to “‘ the birth of Christ our God,’’ which is 
held by the Roman, by the Alexandrian, by 
the entire church, provision must be made for 
the see of Constantinople as if vacant, and 
Nestorius must be treated as one “ separate 
from our body.’”’ This letter was dated Aug. 
11, 430. Celestine wrote also to John, bp. of 
Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Flavian of 
Philippi, and Rufus of Thessalonica (Ep. 12). 
His meaning is evident: he is not professing 


COELESTINUS 


to act as the sole supreme judge and oracle 
of Christendom, or as the mouthpiece of the 
Catholic church ; he announces his resolution, 
in concert with the Alexandrian church, to 
break off all communion with the bp. of Con- 
stantinople, unless the latter retracted his 
heretical sentiments. Another letter was 
addressed to Nestorius himself (Ep. 13): 
its point is contained in the observation, 
“You have been warned once, twice—I now 
give you the third warning, according to the 
rule of St. Paul: if you wish to retain com- 
munion with myself and with the bp. of 
Alexandria, affirm what he affirms—confess 
our faith.’”’ Celestine also wrote (Ep. 14) to 
the clergy and laity of Constantinople, exhort- 
ing the orthodox clergy to endure manfully, 
and to take example from St. Chrysostom and 
St. Athanasius. 

For the events which followed the council of 
Rome, see Cyrit. In Nov. 430, when Theo- 
dosius had summoned an oecumenical council 
to meet at Ephesus at the coming Whitsun- 
tide, and before the Roman and Alexandrian 
resolutions had been communicated to Nes- 
torius, the latter wrote to Celestine that the 
best solution would be the adoption of the 
word ‘‘ Christotokos,’”’ although he did not 
object to ‘‘ Theotokos,”’ if it were used so as 
not to imply ‘‘a confusion of natures.’”’ In 
the spring of 431 Cyril wrote again to Celestine, 
asking what should be done if Nestorius— 
having refused to retract at the summons of 
Rome and Alexandria—were to retract at the 
coming synod. Celestine answered, May 7 
(Ep. 16), in a tone which exhibits him in a 
more favourable light than his great Alexan- 
drian colleague, ‘‘ I am anxious for the salva- 
tion of him who is perishing, provided that he 
is willing to own himself sick: if not, let our 
previous decisions stand.’”’ Next day, May 8, 
Celestine wrote instructions for the three per- 
sons whom he was sending to represent him 
at the council] (Ep. 17). The substance was, 
“When you reach Ephesus, consult Cyril in 
everything, and do what he thinks best. But 
if the council should be over when you arrive, 
and Cyril gone to Constantinople (1.6. to con- 
secrate a new bishop), you must go thither 
also, and present to the emperor the letter 
which you will be charged with for him. If 
you find matters still unsettled, you will be 
guided by circumstances as to the course 
which, in conjunction with Cyril, you should 
take.’’ On the same day Celestine wrote the 
most remarkable of his letters, that addressed 
to the council of Ephesus (Ep. 18), which was 
afterwards read, first in Latin, then in a Greek 
translation, at the second sitting of the council 
(see Mansi, iv. 1283). Celestine, citing Matt. 
Xviii. 20, adds, ‘‘ Christ was present in the 
company of apostles when they taught what 
He had taught them. This duty of preaching 
has been entrusted to all the Lord’s priests in 
common, for by right of inheritance are we 
bound to undertake this solicitude. Let us 
act now with a common exertion, that we may 

eserve what was entrusted to us and has 
/ Ἢ retained through succession from the 

apostles (per apostolicam successionem) to this 
very day.’’ Celestine then insists on those 
Tecollections of the pastoral epistles which the 
place of the council’s meeting should inspire. 


COELESTINUS 197 


““Tdem locus, eadem causa... . ** Let us 
be unanimous, let us do nothing by strife or 
vainglory.’”’ Hereminds them of the words of 
St. Paul to the “ episcopi’’ of Ephesus, Acts 
xx. 28. It was on July ro that the three 
deputies appeared in the council, Nestorius 
having been deposed on June 22; the council, 
as Firmus of Caesarea told the deputies, had 
“* followed in the track ’’ of Celestine’s previous 
decision ; but, it must be observed, after a full 
and independent examination of the evidence. 
The deputies on the next day heard the “‘ acts” 
of the first session read, and then affirmed the 
sentence passed on Nestorius in that session, 
taking care to dwell on the dignity of the see 
of St. Peter, while Cyril was not less careful to 
refer to them as representing ‘‘ the apostolic 
chair and the council of Western bishops.’’ 
The council wrote to Celestine as their ‘‘ fellow- 
minister’? (Ep. 20), giving a narrative of 
events, and saving that they had read and 
affirmed the sentences formerly pronounced 
by him against the Pelagian heretics. They 
evidently regarded him as first in dignity 
among all bishops, but not as master or ruler 
of all; they ‘“‘admire him for his far-reaching 
solicitude as to the interests of religion.” 
“ΤΕ is your habit, great as you are, to approve 
yourself in regard to all things, and to take 
a personal interest in the defence of the 
churches.”’ 

Nestorius, though sent away from Ephesus, 
had been allowed to live at his old home near 
Antioch. Celestine objected strongly to this, 
and thought that Nestorius ought to be placed 
where he could have no opportunity of spread- 
ing his opinions. The birthplace of the 
Christian name is beset by a pestilent “ di- 
sease.’”? As for Nestorius’s adherents, he 
thinks, there aremany points for consideration, 
and that a distinction should be drawn between 
heresiarchs and their followers. The latter 
“should have opportunity of recovering their 
position on repentance.’”’ The consecrators of 
Maximian appeared to him to have passed a 
too indiscriminating sentence against all Nes- 
torianizing bishops, and Celestine wished to 
moderate their zeal. He also wrote (Ep. 23) 
to Theodosius, extravagantly lauding his acts 
in behalf of orthodoxy, speaking highly of 
Maximian, and hinting that Nestorius ought 
to be sent into distant exile. 

“ One of Celestine’s last actions,”’ says Tille- 
mont, xiv. 156, “‘ was his defence of the 
memory of St. Augustine as a teacher, against 
the semi-Pelagians of Gaul. He wrote to 
Venerius, bp. of Marseilles, and five other 
Gallic prelates, urging them not to be silent. 
When presbyters spoke rashly and conten- 
tiously, it was not seemly that bishops should 
allow their subordinates ‘to claim the first 
place in teaching,’ especially when they raised 
their voices against ‘ Augustine of holy mem- 
ory’” (Ep. 21). The nine articles on the 
doctrine of grace appended to this letter are 
not by Celestine (see note to Oxf. ed. of Fleury, 
iii. p. 143). 5 

Celestine is described by Socrates (vii. 11) as 
having treated the Novatianists of Rome with 
harshness, taken away their churches, and 
obliged their bishop Rusticola to hold his 
services in private houses. Celestine died 
on or about July 26, 432 (Tillemont, xiv. 738), 


198 COELESTIUS 


and was succeeded by Sixtus III. Hefele, 
Conc. Gesch. ed. 2, pp. 164 ff. [w.B.] 
Coelestius occupies a unique position among 
the Hibernian Scots, as he taught not the faith, 
but heresy. The general belief is that he was 
a native of Ireland, of noble birth, and, in early 
years, of singular piety. About a.p. 405 he is 
found attached to Pelagius at Rome, and the 
names of these two figure largely in the history 
of the church, till they are finally condemned 
in the Ephesine council, A.D. 431. Coelestius 
had for some time studied law, and then 
become a monk, when his speculations upon 
the conditions of grace and nature attracted 
attention, as he affirmed the leading points of 
what were afterwards known as the Pelagian 
heresy upon the fall of man and the need of 
supernatural assistance, in effect denying both. 
These errors he had partly learned, as he said, 
from a holy presbyter, Rufinus, of whom 
nothing else is known. From Rome, on the 
approach of the Goths, he passed to Sicily, 
and thence to Carthage; by a council at Car- 
thage, under Aurelius the bishop, his teaching 
was condemned, A.D. 412, though St. Augus- 
tine of Hippo had not yet taken up the contro- 
versy against him. He soon after retired to 
Ephesus, where he obtained the priesthood 
which he had sought in vain at Carthage. On 
an appeal to pope Zosimus, A.D. 417, he pre- 
sented his teaching in such a light as to procure 
acquittal before the pope, who, however, in the 
following year saw good reason to condemn 
him. At Carthage he always met with a deter- 
mined opposition, and at Constantinople and 
Rome both the imperial and the ecclesiastical 
powers were finally arrayed against him. 
After the condemnation of the doctrines of 
Pelagius by the oecumenical council at Ephe- 
sus, Coelestins passed from sight. His chief 
opponents were St. Augustine and St. Jerome 
Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. i. cent. v. c. 23 seq.; 
Gennadius, de Script. Eccl. c. 44; Robertson, 
Ch. Hist. i. B. ii. ec. 8; O’Conor, Rer. Hib. 
Scrip. iv.97n.; Gieseler, i. 2; Dupin, Hzst. Ch. 
cent. v. c. 2. [PELAGIUS ; ZOSIMUS.] []J.G.] 
Coelicolae. The death of Julian (A.D. 363) 
was followed by a reaction in favour of the 
Christians and against the Jews. The fierce 
bitterness of the edicts of Constantine and 
Constantius was never perhaps renewed, but 
the decrees of Theodosius the Great (379-395) 
and his son Honorius (395-423) were suffi- 
ciently strong and cruel to make it evident 
how the Roman emperors were influenced, 
both theologically and_ politically. The 
Christians convinced themselves that a stand 
must be made more earnestly than ever against 
any heresy which would seduce their members 
in the direction of either Judaism or paganism. 
The possible confusion of Christianity with 
either was by all means to be avoided. Most 
especially should this be the case as regarded 
Judaism. The scandal at Antioch which roused 
the holy indignation of St. Chrysostom— 
Christian ladies frequenting the synagogues 
and observing the Jewish festivals, Christian 
men bringing their lawsuits by preference 
before the judges of Israel (Gratz, Gesch. d. 
Juden, iv. 315)—found its reflection in many 
of the chief centres of the Eastern and Western 
empires. Hence the effort became more and 
more strenuous to suppress not only such open 


COLLUTHUS 


approximation of the two religious bodies, but 
also such sects as indicated, by their forms and 
doctrines, the intention of presenting a com- 
promise with the truth. St. Augustine 
(Op. il. Ep. xliv. cap. vi. § 13, ed. Migne) wrote 
to the ‘‘ Elder’’ of one of these sects, the 
Coelicolae, inviting him to a _ conference. 
Edicts of Theodosius and Honorius denounced 
the ‘‘new doctrine’”’ of the sect, which was 
said to be marked by ‘‘new and unwonted 
audacity,’’ and to be nothing else than a ‘‘ new 
crime of superstition ’’ (Cod. Theod. xvi. t. v. 
viii. x. Cod. Justin. i. tit. ix.). Happily there 
is reason to believe that kinder counsels mod- 
erated the severity of such intolerance (Gratz, 
p- 386 seq. ; Levysohn, Diss. Inauguralis de 
Jud. sub Caesar Conditione, pp. 4 seq.). 

It is difficult to ascertain precisely the views 
of the Coelicolae. In one edict they are 
classed with the Jews and the Samaritans, in 
a second with the Jews only. But it would be 
a mistake to consider them simply Jews. The 
Romans, it is well known, called the Jews 
worshippers of idols through a mistaken notion 
that the Jewish use of the word ‘‘ Heaven ”’ for 
“God” (Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. s.v. Dv’, ΡΣ 
2440; Jost, Gesch. d. Judenthums, i. 303) 
indicated the worship of some created embodi- 
ment of heaven (Vitringa, de Synag. i. 229). 
The Coelicolae proper would therefore be easily 
included by the Romans under the one general 
title ‘‘ Jews.’’ From St. Augustine’s letter it 
would seem that the Coelicolae used a baptism 
which he counted sacrilege—1t.e. they probably 
combined a Christian form of baptism with the 
Jewish rite of circumcision. Such a compro- 
mise would appear most objectionable and 
dangerous to St. Augustine. If, moreover, as 
their name may indicate, the Coelicolae openly 
professed their adhesion to the Jewish worship 
of the One God and rejected the Christian 
doctrine of the Trinity, this would be an error 
for which their abhorrence of pagan forms of 
idolatry would not compensate. 

More than this it seems impossible to ascer- 
tain. The Coelicolae of Africa, like their 
congeners the Θεοσεβεῖς of Phoenicia and 
Palestine, and the Hypsistarii of Cappadocia, 
were soon stamped or died out. J. A. Schmid, 
Hist. Coelicolarum; C. G. F. Walch, Hist. 
Patriarcharum Jud. pp. 5-8; Bingham, Orig. 
Eccles. vii. 271; Niedner, K. G. p. 321 n. (1866) ; 
Hase, K.G. p. 121; Hasse- Kohler, K. G. i. 103 ; 
Herzog, R. E.s.v. “‘ Himmelsanbeter.”’ [J.M.F.] 

Colluthus (2), presbyter and founder of a sect 
at Alexandria early in the 4th cent. He claimed 
(on what grounds it is unknown) to exercise 
episcopal functions ; but the council of Alex- 
andria under Hosius (A.D. 324) decided that he 
was only a presbyter, from which it was held 
to follow necessarily that IscHyRAs and others 
ordained by him were only laymen (Ath. 
Apol. cont. Arian. 12, 75-77, 80, pp. 106, 152). 
The passages cited mention also a sect of 
Colluthians. Bp. Alexander, in a letter pre- 
served by Theodoret (Ecc. Hist. i. 4), seems to 
imply that Colluthus commenced his schis- 
matical proceedings before Arius had separated 
from the church. A phrase used by Alexander 
(Χριστεμπορεία) has been understood by Vale- 
sius to charge Colluthus with taking money 
for conferring orders. Valesius also infers 
that the cause of Colluthus’s separation was 


COLLYRIDIANS 


impatience that Alexander had not taken 
stronger measures against Arianism. The 
name Colluthus is the first among those pres- 
byters who subscribed to Alexander’s condem- 
nation of Arius (Gelas. Cyzic. ii. 3). These 
authorities accuse Colluthus of schism, not 
heresy ; as is also indicated by the mildness 
of the action of the council, which would prob- 
ably have excommunicated him had he been 
deeply tainted with erroneous doctrine. 
Epiphanius mentions in general terms (Haer. 
69, 728) that Colluthus taught some perverse 
things, and founded a sect, which was soon 
dispersed. The first to give Colluthus a 
separate heading in heretical lists is Philas- 
trius (79), followed by Augustine and later 
heresiologists. Philastrius charges him with 
contradicting Is. xlv. 7, by teaching that God 
didnot make evil. Tillemont, vi. 231; Walch, 
Hist. der Ketz. iv. 502; Harnack, Alt. Chr. Lit. 
i. 480. [α.5.] 
Collyridians. Under this name Epiphanius 
(Haer. 79) assails certain women who had 
brought from Thrace into Arabia the practice 
of performing on certain days rites in honour 
of the Blessed Virgin, the chief being the offer- 
ing of acake (κολλυρίς), and the partaking of it 
by the worshippers. Epiphanius condemns 
their conduct because (a) women ought not to 
offer sacrifice, and (b) Mary is to be honoured, 
God only to be worshipped. The name Colly- 
ris (or kindred forms) is to be found in the 
LXX translation of Lev. vii. 12, viii. 26; 2 
Sam. vi. 19, xiii. 68; and the word passed 
thence into the Latin versions. [G.s.] 
Columba (1) Columeille, June 9. The life, 
character, and work of this saint have been 
exhaustively treated by an Irish and a French 
author, Reevesand Montalembert. St. Columba 
was the son of Fedhlimidh, son of Fergus 
Cennfada, and thus descended from Niall of the 
Nine Hostages, monarch of Ireland, his great- 
great-grandfather. Born at Gartan, a wild 
district in co. Donegal, on Dec. 7, most probably 
in 521, he was baptized at Tulach-Dubhglaise 
(now Temple-Douglas, about halfway between 
Gartan and Letterkenny), under the name, first, 
of Crimthann (wolf), and then of Colum (dove), 
to which was afterwards added the suffix czlle, 
as some say, from his close attendance at the 
church of his youthful sojourn, and as others, 
from the many communities founded and 
governed by him. His chief instructor was 
bp. Finnian of Moville (by whom he was or- 
dained deacon). While at Clonard with St. 
Finnian he was ordained to the priesthood by 
bp. Etchen of Clonfad, to whom he was sent 
by St. Finnian for that purpose. Why he was 
never raised to the episcopate is a matter of 
speculation: in the Scholia on the Felire of 
St. Aengus the Culdee there is a legend relating 
how the order of the priesthood was conferred 
by mistake in place of that of the episcopate 
(Todd, St. Patrick, 70-71; Book of Obits of 
C. C. Dublin, Dubl. 1844, p. liv.; Colgan, Acta 
SS. 306 n'7).. Bp. Lloyd supposes a political 
reason, and Lanigan thinks he applied only for 
the office of chorepiscopus. But Dr. Reeves 
is of opinion that he really shrank from the 
responsibilities and many obligations of the 
highest ecclesiastical rank. In and about A.p. 
544 we have probably to place the many 
ecclesiastical and monastic foundations attri- 


COLUMBA COLUMCILLE 199 


buted to him in Ireland, his chief favourites 
being Durrow and Derry. The reasons usually 
given for his afterwards leaving Ireland are 
various. But whatever they may have been, 
he is said to have used his influence to excite 
a quarrel between the families of the north 
and south Hy Neill, and the consequence was 
the battle fought in the barony of Carberry, 
between Drumcliff and Sligo, on the borders of 
Ulster and Connaught, a.p. 561, and gained 
by the Neills of the North, the party of St. 
Columba. In consequence of St. Columba’s 
participation in this quarrel, a synod was 
assembled at Teltown in Meath to excommu- 
nicate him for his share in shedding Christian 
blood, and if the sentence of excommunication 
was not actually pronounced, it was owing to 
the exertions of St. Brendan of Birr and bp. 
Finnian of Moville on his behalf. Whether by 
the charge of the synod of Teltown, that he 
must win as many souls to Christ by his preach- 
ing as lives were lost at Cul-Dreimhne, or 
through his own feeling of remorse, or his 
great desire for the conversion of the heathen 
he left Ireland in 563, being 42 years old, and, 
traversing the sea in a currach of wickerwork 
covered with hides, landed with his 12 com- 
panions on the small island of I, Hy, I-colm- 
kille, Iova, or Iona, situated about 2 miles 
off the S.W. extremity of Mull in Argyllshire. 
There, on the border land between the Picts 
and Scots, and favoured by both, St. Columba 
founded his monastery, the centre from which 
he and his followers evangelized the Picts and 
taught more carefully the Scots, who were 
already Christians at least in name. Hy was 
henceforth his chief abode, but he frequently 
left it for Scotland, where he founded many 
churches, penetrating N. even to Inverness, and 
probably farther, and E. into Buchan, Aber- 
deenshire, sending his disciples where he him- 
self had not leisure to go. His connexion with 
Ireland was not broken; and in 575 he 
attended the synod of Drumceatt, with his 
cousin king Aidan of Dalriada, whom he had 
crowned in Jona in 574. From Iona as a 
centre he established Christianity on a firm 
basis to the N. of the Tay and Clyde. Unfor- 
tunately, valuable as St. Adamnan’s Life of 
St. Columba is, it is written rather to extol its 
subject than to present a picture of the time, 
and so gives little chronological sequence to 
the events of the thirty years and upwards of 
his sojourn in Iona. We gather, however, 
that in his monastery he was indefatigable in 
prayer, teaching, study, and transcription of 
the Scriptures ; people came to him from all 
quarters, some for bodily aid, but most for 
spiritual needs; and soon smaller societies 
had to be formed, as at Hinba (one of the 
Garveloch Islands), Tyree, etc., for the re- 
quirements of the monastery. He visited 
king Bruide at Craig-Phadrick, beside Inver- 
ness, and established the monastery of Deer 
in the N.E. corner of Aberdeenshire, where he 
left St. Drostan, so that his churches are traced 
all over the N. of Scotland (Book of Deer, pref.). 
He also frequently visited Ireland on matters 
connected with his monasteries, the superin- 
tendence of which he retained to the last. He 
manifested the greatest favour for the bards 
and national poetry of his country, being him- 
self accounted one of the poets of Ireland, and 


200 COLUMBANUS 


poems attributed to him are preserved and 
quoted by Dr. Reeves and Montalembert (see 
also Misc. Arch. Soc. 1 seq.). In A.D. 593 he 
seems to have been visited by sickness, and 
the angels sent for his soul were stayed but for 
a time. As the time approached, and the 
infirmities of age were weighing upon him, he 
made all preparations for his departure, bless- 
ing his monastery, visiting the old scenes, and 
taking his farewell of even the brute beasts 
about the monastery. Ona Sat. afternoon he 
was transcribing the 34th Psalm (Ps. xxxiii. 
E.V.), and coming to the verse, ‘“‘ They who 
seek the Lord shall want no manner of thing 
that is good,’ he said, ‘‘ Here I must stop— 
at the end of this page; what follows let 
Baithen write.’’? He then left his cell to at- 
tend vespers, and, returning at their close, lay 
down on his couch of stone, and gave his last 
injunctions to Baithen, till the bell at mid- 
night called them to the nocturnal office. St. 
Columba was the first to enter the oratory, 
and when the brethren followed with lights 
they found the saint prostrate before the altar, 
and he soon passed away, with a sweet smile 
upon his face, as though he had merely fallen 
into a gentle sleep. This, according to Dr. 
Reeves’s computation, was early in the morn- 
ing of Sun. June 9, 597. Ireland justly 
mourned for one of the best of her sons; Scot- 
land for one of her greatest benefactors. The 
Life of St. Columba, written by Adamnan, 
ninth Abbat of that Monastery, by W. Reeves, 
D.D. (Dubl. 1857) ; a more modern ed. giving 
Lat. text ed. with intro., notes, glossary, and 
trans. by Dr. J. T. Fowler (Oxf. Univ. Press) ; 
Les Moines d’Occident, par le Comte de Monta- 
lembert, vol. iii. (Paris, 1868). See also The 
Life of St. Columba, ed. by John Smith, D.D. 
(Edinb. 1798). In his preface Dr. Reeves gives 
a full bibliographical account of the Irish and 
Latin Acts and Life of St. Columba, with a 
notice of the MSS., codices, authors, and edd. 
Cf. Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii. 107.  [J.c.] 
Columba occupies in missionary history the 
entire generation preceding the arrival of 
Augustine (A.D. 597). The Celtic apostle of 
Caledonia died the very year in which the 
Roman mission set foot in the south of Britain. 
The first abbat of Iona laboured much longer, 
in a far wider sphere, and personally with 
more success, as well as prodigiously more 
romance, than the first archbp. of Canterbury. 
[ADAMNAN. ] [c.H.] 
Columbanus, abbat of Luxeuil and Bobbio, 
Nov. 21. On this day, in the Mart. Doneg. 
(by Todd and Reeves, 315), is the entry 
“ Columban, abbat, who was in Italy.’”” Thus 
simply does the Irish calendar refer to an Irish- 
man famous in France, Switzerland, and Italy, 
the great champion of public morals at a cruel 
and profligate court, the zealous preacher of 
the Gospel in lands where it had been all but 
forgotten, and the pious founder of monas- 
teries. His life, written with great care and 
minuteness by Jonas, of Susa in Piedmont, a 
monk of his monastery at Bobbio, in the time 
of Attala and Eustace, his immediate succes- 
sors, is now pub. by Mabillon (in Acta SS. 
Ord. St. Bened. tom ii. sec. ii. 2-26), and by 
Messingham (Flor. Ins. Sanct. 219-239), who 
appends the account of miracles omitted by 
Jonas, and other additions (7b. 239-254), also 


COLUMBANUS 


adding the Rule of St. Columbanus in ten 
chaps., a short Homily by the saint on the 
fallaciousness of human life, and some car- 
mina (2b. 403-414). The fullest account of his 
life, works, and writings is in Fleming’s Col- 
lectanea Sacra (fol. Lovan. 1667), which in- 
cludes Jonas’s Life and St. Columbanus’s 
writings. His writings are also in Bibl. Mag. 
Vet. Pat. vol. viii. (Paris, 1644), and Bibl. Max. 
Vet. Pat. vol. xii. (Lyons, 1677). His poems 
were first printed by Goldastus (Paraen. Vet. 
pars. i. 1604). Wright (Biog. Brit. Lit. 157 
seq.) gives useful particulars of the editions of 
his writings. 

St. Columbanus was born in Leinster in or 
about A.D. 543, the year in which Benedict, 
his great monastic predecessor, died at Monte 
Cassino. His chief training was in the monas- 
tery of Bangor, on the coast of Down, under 
the eye of St. Comgall, where he accepted the 
monastic vows and habit. At the age, most 
probably, of a little over forty, he was seized 
with a desire to preach the Gospel beyond 
the limits of Ireland, and with 12 companions 
crossed over to France, c. A.D. 585, making a 
short visit to Britain as he went. For several 
years he traversed the country, teaching the 
faith, but apparently without building any 
monastery, till, coming to Burgundy at the 
solicitations of Gontran the king, he took up 
his abode in a deserted part of the Vosges 
mountains. He first chose the ruined Roman 
fort of Anagrates, now Annegray, a hamlet of 
the commune of Faucogney (Haute-Saone) ; 
then, needing a larger foundation, removed, 
A.D. 590 or 591, to the ruins of the ancient 
Luxovium, about 8 miles from Annegray, 
and established his celebrated monastery of 
Luxeuil, on the confines of Burgundy and 
Austrasia. But soon he had to erect another 
monastic establishment at Fontaines, or Fon- 
tenay, and divide his monks among these 
houses. Over each house he placed a superior, 
who yet was subordinate to himself, and for 
their management he drew up his well-known 
Rule, derived no doubt in great measure from 
his master St. Comgall, and perhaps to some 
extent from St. Benedict of Monte Cassino. 
The great principle of this Rule was obedience, 
absolute and unreserved ; and the next was 
constant and severe labour, to subdue the 
flesh, exercise the will in daily self-denial, and 
set an example of industry in cultivation of 
the soil. The least deviation from the Rule 
entailed a definite corporal punishment, or a 
severer form of fast as laid down in the Peni- 
tential (see the Rule in Messingham, 4.s., 
Fleming, w.s., and Max Bibl. Vet. Patr. tom. 
xii. Lyons, 1677 ; and on it see Montalembert, 
Monks of the West, ii. 447 seq.; Lanigan, 
Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii. 267-269 ; Neander, Gen. Ch. 
Hist. v. 36, 37; Ussher, Eccl. Ant. c. 17, wks. 
vi. 484 seq.; Mabillon, Ann. Bened. lib. viii. 
sect. 17). For 20 years in the wooded and all 
but inaccessible defiles of the Vosges moun- 
tains St. Columbanus laboured with his 
monks, and all classes of men gathered round 
him, notwithstanding the severe discipline. 
His own inclination was always to retire into 
the wood and caves and hold unrestrained. 
communion with God ; but besides the claims 
of his monasteries, Christian zeal and charity 
drew him forth. He excited against himself 


(ee Se es Ss 


COLUMBANUS 


strong feeling among the Gallican clergy and 
in the Burgundian court. A worldly priest- 
hood felt the reproach of his exceeding earnest- 
ness and self-denial, and his pure severity was 
a constant accusation of loss of love and truth 
in them. Moreover, he carried with him the 
peculiar rites and usages of his Irish mother- 
church ; the Irish mode of computing Easter, 
the Irish tonsure, and the ‘ Cursus Scot- 
orum ’’ which he had received from St. Com- 
gall. This gave great offence to the Gallo- 
Frank clergy, and in 602 he was arraigned 
before a synod, where he defended himself 
boldly, pleading that if error there was it was 
not his, but had been received from his fathers, 
and he asked but the licence ‘‘ to live in silence, 
in peace and in charity, as I have lived for 12 
years, beside the bones of my 17 departed 
brethren.”” At the same time he wrote to 
pope Gregory the Great several letters on the 
subject, as afterwards to pope Boniface IV., 
but with what immediate result we know not, 
though the haughty bearing and generally 
independent tone, in words and letters, of 
“Columbanus the sinner’’ were little calcu- 
lated to propitiate the favour of bishops or 
popes; while Gregory’s very friendly con- 
nexion with queen Brunehault would make 
that pope give little heed to the appeals of the 
stranger whom she disliked. But he received 
great opposition from the Burgundian court. 
Thierry II., called also Theodoric, was under 
age, and his grandmother Brunehault ruled in 
violent and arbitrary fashion, and encouraged 
the young king in every form of vice, that she 
might retain the control of the kingdom. 
This open profligacy St. Columbanus reproved 
by word and writing, and thus incurred the 
bitterest enmity of the king,and specially of the 
queen-mother. Gifts and flattery proving in 
vain, he was first carried prisoner to Besancon, 
and finally banished from the kingdom, a.p. 
610. He departed from Luxeuil after 20 
years’ labour there, never to return. With 
his Irish monks he eventually arrived at the 
Lake of Constance. First he came to Arbon 
on its W. coast ; then, hearing of the ruins of 
Bregentium, now Bregenz, at its S.E. corner, 
he went thither with St. Gall and his other 
monks, and spent three years preaching to 
the people, and contending with privation and 
difficulty. When Bregenz was brought under 
the power of Burgundy, St. Columbanus had 
again to flee, and leaving St. Gall at Bregenz 
he himself, with only one disciple, passed 
S. across the Alps into Lombardy, where he 
was honourably received by king Agilulf. At 
Milan he was soon engaged in a controversy 
with the many Arians of Lombardy, and about 
this time wrote to the pope Boniface IV. at the 
suggestion of king Agilulf and his queen Theo- 
delind. Agilulf, in 613, presented Colum- 
banus with a district in the wild gorges of the 
Apennines, between Genoa and Milan, not far 
from the Trebbia, and there he built his cele- 
brated monastery of Bobbio, and there, Nov. 21, 
615, calmly resigned his spirit. 
and times, see Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii. c. 
13; Ussher, Eccl. Ant. cc. xv. xvii. ; Ind. Chron. 
A.D. 589, 614; Montalembert, Monks of the 
West, ii. bk. vii.; Butler, Lives of the SS. xi. 
435 seq. ; Neander, Gen. Ch. Hist. v. 35 seq. ; 
Milman, Hist. Lat, Christ, ii. bk. iv. c. 5. In 


For his life | 


COMGALL 201 


his writings St. Columbanus everywhere shews 
sound judgment, solid ecclesiastical learning, 
elegant taste, and deep spiritual discernment, 
which says much for the man and for the 
school in which he was educated. This is well 
pointed out by Moore in his Htst. of Ireland 
(i. p. 267). We [1-6.] 

It is the great distinction of Columbanus, as 
Neander has observed, that he set the example 
at the end of the 6th cent. of that missionary 
enterprise in remote countries of Europe 
which was afterwards so largely followed up 
from England and Ireland, as the names of 
Cilian, Wilfrid, Willebrord, Boniface, Willi- 
bald, Willehad, remind us. Colonies of pious 
monks journeyed forth under the leadership of 
able abbats, carrying the light of Christianity 
through the dangerous wilds of continental 
heathendom. It was about 12 years before 
the arrival of the Roman mission in England 
(A.D. 597), and the same length of time before 
the death of Columba the apostle of Caledonia, 
that Columbanus, fired perhaps by the example 
Es this energetic missionary, passed over into 

aul. 

Columbanus’s foundation of Luxeuil 
achieved as great a celebrity as his Rule, and 
a more enduring one. It became the parent 
of numerous streams of monastic colonies, 
which spread through both Burgundies, Raur- 
acia (the ancient bishopric of Basel), Neustria, 
Champagne, Ponthieu, and the Morini. Lux- 
euil was, in short, as Montalembert expresses 
it, the monastic capital of Gaul, as well as 
the first school in Christendom, a nursery of 
bishops and saints; while Bobbio, although 
for so brief a period under the government of 
its founder, became a stronghold of orthodoxy 
against the Arians, and long remained a school 
of learning for North Italy. 

The works of Columbanus contained in 
Fleming’s Collectanea Sacra (Lovanii, 1667) 
are as follows. Prose :—I. Regula Monastica, 
in τὸ short chaps. II. Regula Coenobtialts 
Fratrum, sive Liber de Quotidianis Poenttenttis 
Monachorum, in 15 chaps. III. Sermones sive 
Instructiones Variae, 17 discourses, the first 
being “ de Deo Uno et Trino,’’ and the last, 
“Quod per Viam Humilitatis et Obedientiae 
Deus quaerendus et sequendus sit.’’ IV. Liber 
seu Tractatus de Modo seu Mensura Poent- 
tentiarum, the second title being de Poentten- 
tiarum Mensura Taxanda. It prescribes pen- 
ances for various sins. V. Instructio de Octo 
Vitiis Principalibus, less than a column in 
length. The vitia are gula, fornicatio, cupid- 
itas, ira, tristitia, acedia, vana gloria, superbia. 
VI. Five Epistolae Aliquot ad Diversos: (1) 
‘“‘ad Bonifacium IV.’’; (2) ‘‘ad Patres 
Synodi cujusdam Gallicanae super Quaestione 
Paschae Congregatae’’; (3) ‘‘ ad Discipulos 
et Monachos suos’”’?; (4) ‘‘ad Bonifacium 
Papam”’; (5) ‘‘ad S. Gregorium Papam.”’ 
These are especially interesting for the infor- 
mation they give on the dispute between the 
Roman and Irish churches. In reference to 
(1), see Boniracius IV. The poetical works, 
Poemata Quaedam, occupy about 8 pp. fol., rang- 
ing in length from 4 lines to 164. The metres 
are both classical and medieval. [c.H.] 

Comgall, one of the most prominent leaders 
of monasticism in Ireland, said to have had 
as many as 3,000 monks under him at one 


202 COMMODIANUS 


time in Bangor and affiliated houses. He 
was a native of Mourne, now Magheramorne, 
in the co. of Antrim, and on the shore of 
Lough Larne. Hewas probably born A.D. 517 
(Reeves). After teaching for some years 
he founded in 558 his great monastery at 
Bangor, in the Ards of Ulster and co. of 
Down. Hither multitudes flocked from all 
quarters, and for it and kindred institutions 
he drew up a Rule which was considered one 
of the chief ones of Ireland. His most noted 
disciples at Bangor were Cormac, son of Diar- 
maid and king of South Leinster, who in his 
old age abdicated and became a monk, as is 
related in the Life of St. Fintan; and St. 
Columbanus, abbot of Luxeuil and Bobbio. 
[CoLtuMBANUs.] After ruling the monastery 
of Bangor and its dependencies for ‘‘ 10 days, 
3 months and 50 years,”’ as the calendars say, 
but about 44 years according to computation, 
St. Comgall died at Bangor on May το, A.p. 
602, aged 85, having received his viaticum 
from St. Fiachra (Feb. 8) of Congbail. He is 
justly reckoned among the Fathers of the Irish 
church. He was buried at Bangor. See 
further Lanigan; ‘Becl. Hust.) Ty. 11 Ὁ: τὸ: 
Reeves, Adamnan, pass. and Eccl. Ant. pass. ; 
Ussher, Eccl. Ant. cc. 13-17, wks. v. vi., Ind. 
Chr. A.D. 456, 516; Bp. Forbes, Kal. Scott. 
Saints, 108-110. His dedications in Scotland 
were at Durris, Kincardineshire, and possibly 
ercongal, or Drumcongal, now Holywood, in 
Galloway (Forbes, u.s.). [j-G.] 
Commodianus, the author of two Latin 
poems, Instructiones adversus Gentium Deos 
pro Christiana Disciplina, and Carmen A polo- 
geticum adversus Judaeos et Gentes. His In- 
structions are included “‘ inter apocrypha’”’ in 
a synodal decree of Gelasius (Concil. tom. iv.), 
probably because of certain heterodox state- 
ments respecting Antichrist, the Millennium, 
and the First Resurrection. In what age he 
lived has been much disputed. Internal evi- 
dence in the poem shews that the author lived 
in days of persecution. The style of the 
Instructions points to the age of Cyprian, with 
whose works they have more than once been 
edited. There is an allusion to the Novatian 
Schism (§ xlvii. ad fin.), and the language of 
§ 111. seems to be aimed against the ‘‘ Thurifi- 
cati’’ and “‘ Libellatici’’ of the 3rd cent. In 
§ Ixvi. 12 a ‘“‘subdola pax” is mentioned, 
which Cave refers to the temporary quiet en- 
joyed by the Christians under Gallienus, after 
the Decian and before the Aurelian persecu- 
tion. Other expressions (e.g. agonia propin- 
qua, ὃ 1111. 10) clearly point to the expectation 
of fresh suffering. But the most important 
passage as affecting the date of the poem is 
one in which the author upbraids the Gentiles 
for perseverance in unbelief, though Christian- 
ity has prevailed for 200 years (§ vi. 2), and 
this, which, singularly enough, seems to have 
escaped the notice of the earlier critics, must 
be held to fix the date of Commodian as ap- 
proximately a.p. 250. The barbarity of his 
style, and the peculiarity of certain words (e.g. 
Zabulo, Zacones), led Rigault to infer that he 
was of African extraction. He applies to him- 
self the epithet “‘ Gazaeus,”’ but this probably 
refers to his dependence upon the treasury of 
the church (gazophylacium) for support, and 
not to any connexion with Gaza. Originally 


COMMODUS 


a heathen (Instruct. Praef. 5, § xxvi. 24), he 
was converted by the perusal of the Scriptures 
(Praef. 6), and if the words “‘ Explicit tractatus 
sancti Episcopi. . .’’ discovered on the MS. 
of the Carmen A pologeticum by Pitra, may be 
taken to refer to the author of the poem, who, 
from internal evidence, is conclusively proved 
to have been Commodian, it would seem that 
he ultimately became a bishop. 

His works (a trans. of which is given in the 
Ante-Nicene Lib.), though utterly valueless as 
literature, are of considerable interest in the 
history of the Latin language as showing that 
the change had already commenced which 
resulted in the formation of the Romance lan- 
guages. 

The Instructions are in Migne’s Patr. Lat. 
vol. v.; the Apology in Pitra’s Spicilegium 
Solismense, vol. i. [E.M.Y.] 

Commodus, a.p. 180-193. The monstrous 
vices of this degenerate son of Marcus Aurelius 
brought at least one counterbalancing advan- 
tage. The persecutions of his father’s reign 
ceased for a time in his. The popular feeling 
against the Christians, though it still con- 
tinued, was no longer heightened and directed 
by the action of the Imperial government, and 
the result was a marked increase of numbers. 
Many rich and noble, with their households and 
kindred, professed themselves Christians (Eus. 
H. E. ν. 21), even in the emperor’s palace, 
but it is uncertain whether they were officers, 
freedmen, or slaves (Iren. adv. Haer. iv. 30). 
Marcia, the favourite mistress of the emperor, 
is said by Dio Cassius (Ixxii. 4) or Xiphilinus 
writing in his name, to have used her influence 
with Commodus in their favour and to have 
done them much good service. The strange 
history of CAaLiistus in the Refutation of all 
Heresies attributed to Hippolytus (ix. 6) 
throws fresh light on Marcia’s connexion with 
the Christian church at Rome. The epithet 
by which he describes her as a ‘‘ God-loving 
woman ’’ may be, as Dr. Wordsworth sug- 
gested, ironical; but it is clear that she 
was in frequent communication with the 
officers of the church. Callistus had been 
brought before Fuscianus, the city prefect, 
charged with disturbing a synagogue of the 
Jews, and was sentenced to hard labour in the 
mines of Sardinia. Marcia sent for Victor, a 
bishop of the church, asked what Christians 
were suffering for their faith in Sardinia, and 
obtained from Commodus an order of release. 
The order was given to an eunuch, Hyacinth- 
us, who carried it to Sardinia, and obtained 
the liberation of Callistus and others, alleging 
his own influence with Marcia as his warrant, 
though the name of Callistus had not been 
included in the list. The narrative clearly 
implies that Hyacinthus was a Christian. 

Thus some Christians had, as such, been 
condemned to exile; and persecutions, though 
less frequent, had not altogether ceased. One 
sufferer of the time takes his place in the list 
of martyrs. Apollonius, a Roman citizen of 
distinction, perhaps a senator, of high repute 
for philosophical culture, was accused before 
Perennius, the prefect of the city, by one of 
his own slaves. In accordance with an 
imperial edict sentencing informers, in such 
cases, to death even when the accused was 
found guilty, the slave had his legs broken. 


CONSTANS I. 


Apollonius delivered before the senate an 
elaborate Apologia for his faith. By what 
Eusebius speaks of as an ancient law (possibly 
the edict of Trajan) he was beheaded (H. E. 
Vv. 21): [E.H.P.] 
Constans I., the youngest of the three sons 
of Constantine the Great, was born c. 320 and 
made Caesar in 333; he reigned as Augustus 
337-350, when he was killed by the conspiracy 
of Magnentius. [Constantius II.] De Broglie 
(iii. pp. 58, 59) in his character of him remarks : 
“ΑΞ far as we can discriminate between the 
contradictory estimates of different historians, 
Constans was of a simple, somewhat coarse, 
nature, and one without high aims though 
without malice. As regards the inheritance of 
his father’s qualities, while Constantius seemed 
to have taken for his share his political know- 
ledge, his military skill, and his eloquence 
(thoughreproducingavery faint imageof them), 
Constans had only received great personal cour- 
age and a straightforwardness that did him 
honour. He was, besides, a lover of pleasure : 
he was suspected of the gravest moral irregu- 
larities. . . . Hehad firm, though certainly un- 
enlightened, faith, and frequently gave proofs of 
it by distributing largesses to the churches and 
favours to the Christians”’ (cf. Eutrop. Brev. x. 
9, Vict. Caes. 41, Epit. 41). Zosimus (ii. 42) 
gives him a worse character than do the others. 
Libanius in 348 delivered a panegyric on Con- 
stans and Constantius, called βασιλικὸς λόγος, 
vol. iii. ed. Reiske, pp. 272-332. St.Chrysostom 
in the difficult and probably corrupt passage of 
his 15th Homily on the Philippians, p. 363, ed. 
Gaume, speaks of him as having children and 
as committing suicide, statements elsewhere 
unsupported. The most favourable evidence 
for Constans is the praise of St. Athanasius 
(Apol. ad Constantium, 4 sqq.; cf. the letter 
of Hosius in Hist. Artan. ad Monachos, 44). His 
conduct with respect to the Arian and Donat- 
ist controversies gained him the esteem of 
Catholics. He was a baptized Christian; his 
ΠΡΈΠΕΙ isreferred toin Ap.adC.7. [1-νν.] 
onstantinus I—I. A. Ancient Authorities 
(Heathen).—Eutropius, Breviarium, Hist. Rom., 
end of 9th and beginning of roth book. This 
historian was secretary to the emperor, and 
his short account is therefore valuable. The 
Caesares and the Epitome, current under the 
name of Aurelius Victor, were doubtless the 
work of different authors. The first, who wrote 
under Constantius, was a friend of Ammianus, 
and praefectus urbt towards the close of the 
cent. ; the second, who excerpted from the first, 
lived a generation later, and continued his 
compilation down to the death of Theodosius 
the Great. They seem to have used the same 
sources as Zosimus, whom they supplement. 
The Panegyrists, as contemporary writers, 
deserve more attention than has been given 
them, allowance being made for the defects 
incident to their style of writing. Those re- 
lating to our subject—Anon. Panegyr. Maxt- 
miano et Constantino (A.D. 307), Eumenii Con- 
stantino in natalibus urb. Trevir. (310), and 
Gratiarum actio Flaviensium nomine (311), 
Anon. de Victoria adv. Maxentium (313), and 
Nazarii Paneg. Constantino (321)—are all the 
product of Gallic rhetoricians. The Scriptores 
Hist. Augustae contain several contemporary 
references to Constantine; those in Julian’s 


CONSTANTINUS 1. 203 


Caesars are, as might be expected, unfriendly 
and satirical. The first vol. of the Bonn ed. 
of the Byzantine historians contains the frag- 
ments of Eunapius, Priscus, Dexippus, etc., 
but these are of little moment, as are the 
extracts from Praxagoras in Photius, Cod. 62. 
Indirectly it is supposed that we have more of 
the matter of these earlier writers in Zosimus’s 
ἱστορία νέα, bk. ii. This historian lived 
probably c 450. He was a bitter enemy of 
Constantine, whom he accuses of various 
crimes and cruelties, and blames for the novel- 
ties of his policy, shewing a particular dislike 
of his conversion. He falls into several his- 
torical blunders. The part of Ammianus’s 
Histortes relating to this reign is unfortunately 
lost. Some remarks on it occur in the part 
preserved, from which we gather his general 
agreement with his friend and contemporary 
Victor. The text of Ammianus, pub. by 
Gardthausen (Teubner, 1874), may be recom- 
mended. He has also given a revised text 
from the MSS. of the anonymous excerpts 
generally cited as Anonymus Valestt, Excerpta 
Valesiana. They received this name from 
being first printed by H. Valois, at the end of 
his ed. of Ammianus. Some of these extracts 
may be traced word for word in Eutropius and 
Orosius ; hence their author did not live ear- 
lier than the 5th cent. Others are valuable as 
coming from sources elsewhere unrepresented. 

(Christian.) The earliest contemporary 
authority is Lactantius, de Morttbus Persecut- 
orum, a tract pub. after the defeat of Max- 
entius and before Constantine had declared 
himself the enemy of Licinius—t.e. probably 
313 or 314. His bitterness is unpleasant, and 
his language exaggerated and somewhat ob- 
scure, but his facts are generally confirmed by 
other authors, where we can test them. The 
most important is Eusebius. Three of his 
works especially treat of Constantine, Hist. 
Eccl. ix. and x., down to 324, and probably 
pub. before the death of Crispus in 326; de 
Vita Constantini, in four books, with a trans- 
lation of Constantine’s Ovatio ad Sanctorum 
Coetum as an appendix, pub. after his death ; 
and, thirdly, tpiaxovraernpixds, OF Laudes 
Constantini, a panegyric at his tricennalia, 
containing little but rhetoric. To harmonize 
Eusebius and Zosimus is difficult. Fleury’s 
dictum, ‘‘ On ne se trompera sur Constantin 
en croyant tout le mal qu’en dit Eusébe, et 
tout le bien qu’en dit Zosime,’’ may be per- 
fectly true, but Zosimus says very little good 
of him and Eusebius very little harm. Euse- 
bius has great weight as a contemporary and 
as giving documents, which have not for the 
most part been seriously challenged ; but he 
is discredited by fulsomeness and bad taste in 
his later works, and by inconsistencies of tone 
between them and his history. He announces, 
however, that he will only recount those 
actions of the emperor which belong to his 
religious life (V. C. i. 11: μόνα τὰ πρὸς τὸν 
θεοφιλῆ συντείνοντα βίον), and is open to the 
criticism of Socrates (H. E. i. 1) as τῶν ἐπαίνων 
τοῦ βασίλεως καὶ τῆς πανηγυρικῆς ὑψηγορίας 
τῶν λόγων μᾶλλον ὡς ἐν ἐγκωμίῳ φροντίσας ἢ 
περὶ τοῦ ἀκριβῶς περιλαβεῖν τὰ γενόμενα. We 
must allow for the natural exultation of Chris- 
tians over the emperor who had done so much 


204 CONSTANTINUS I. 


for them and openly professed himself an in- 
strument of Providence for the advancement 
of Christianity. Neither in the case of Euse- 


bius nor of Zosimus must we push our distrust | 
too far. The best ed. of the historical works | 


of Eusebius is by F. A. Heinichen, repub. and 
enlarged (Leipz. 1868-1870, 3 vols.).* The 
laws issued by Constantine (after 312) in the 
Theodosian and Justinian Codes are very im- 
portant contemporary documents. The first 
are in a purer state, and may be consulted in 
the excellent ed. of Hanel (Bonn. 1842-1844), 
or in the older standard folios of Godefroi, with 
their valuable historical notes. Both codes 
are arranged chronologically in Migne’s Pat- 


rologia, Opera Consiantini, which also contains 


the Panegyrists and documents relating to the 
early history of the Donatists. 

Socrates, ἢ. E. i., and Sozomen, H. E. i. and 
ii. (about a cent. later), give an account of the 
last period of his reign ; Socrates being gener- 
ally the safer guide. On his relations with 
Arianism much is found in the treatises and 
epp. of St. Athanasius, and occasional facts 
may be gleaned from other Fathers. Asa hero 
of Byzantine history and ἰσαπόστολος. Con- 
stantine has become clothed in a mist of fiction. 


Something may be gathered from Joannes| 
Lydus, de Magisirat. P. R., and among the | 
fables of Cedrenus and Zonaras may be found | 
| (V. C. i. 19). 
| cessful war of Galerius against the Persians ; 


some facts from more trustworthy sources. 
B. Modern Authorities.—It will be unneces- 
sary to enumerate the well-known writers of 
church history and the multitude of minor 
essays on separate points of Constantine’s life. 
As early as 1720 Vogt (Hist. Lit. Const. Mag. 
Hamburg) gave a list of more than 150 
authors, ancient and modern, and the number 
has since infinitely increased. The first critical 
life of importance is by J. C. F. Manso (Leben 
Constantins des Grossen, Wien, 1819, etc.), but 
it is hard and one-sided, unchristian, if not 
antichristian. Jacob Burckhardt largely fol- 
lows Manso, but is much more interesting and 
popular (Die Zeit Constantins des Gr. Basel, 
1853), though not always fair. Some mis- 
statements in it are noticed below. He views 
the emperor merely as a great politician, and 
shews much bitterness against Eusebius. 
Theodore Keim’s Der Uebertriti Const. des Gr. 
(Zurich, 1862) is in many points a good refuta- 
tion of Burckhardt, as well as being a fair 
Statement from one not disposed to be credu- 
lous. The first two volumes of L’Eglise et 
P Empire au IVe Siécle, by A. de Broglie (Paris, 


1855, etc.), give the views of a learned Roman | 


Catholic, generally based on original author- 
ities, and this is perhaps the most useful book 
upon the subject. 
Schafi’s Gesch. der Alten Kirche (Leipz. 1867, 
also trans.) is as good a short account of Con- 
Stantine as can be named. 
have a short life by a Nonconformist, Mr. 
Joseph Fletcher (Lond. 1852, 16mo), but no 
standard work of importance. The brilliant 


The section (134) in Dr. P. | 


In English we} > ; ‘ 
|He was almost immediately proclaimed 


CONSTANTINUS I. 


Fourth Cent. (1st ed. 1833; 3rd ed. 1871); 
Neale’s Eastern Church, Patriarchate of Alex- 
andria; Bright’s History of the Church, A.pD. 
313-451, 2nd ed. 1869; and Gwatkin’s Arian 
Controversy. A simple monograph on Con- 
stantine by E. L. Cutts is pub. by S.P.C.K. 
Il. Life—Period i. To 312.—Flavius Val- 
erius Aurelius Constantinus, surnamed Magnus 
or the Great, was born Feb. 27, probably in 274, 
at Naissus (Nissa), in Dardaniaor Upper Moesia, 
where his family had for some time beensettled. 
His father, Constantius Chlorus, was still 
young at the time of his son’s birth. He was 
of a good family, being nephew by the mother’s 
5146 of the emperor Claudius. A few years 
later we find him high in favour with Carus, 
who intended, it was said, to make him Caesar. 
Constantine’s mother Helena, on the other 


| hand, was of mean position, and apparently 


| father was fighting in Gaul and Britain. 


was married after herson’s birth. Constantine 
was brought up at Drepanum in Cicilia, his 
| mother’s birthplace (Procop. de Aedif. Justin. 
v. 2). His father, on becoming Caesar and 
taking another wife, sent him, when about 16 
years old, as a sort of hostage to Diocletian at 


| Nicomedia, who treated him with kindness. 
| His first military service was to accompany 


that emperor against Achillaeus in 296, and 
Eusebius saw him as a young and handsome 
man passing through Palestine into Egypt 
In 297 he took part in the suc- 


and about this time married Minervina. 
Constantine continued in the East while his 
In 
303 he was present when the edict of persecu- 


/tion against the Christians was promulgated 


sketch by Dean Stanley in his Eastern Church | 


is probably the fairest picture of Constantine 
in our language. For his relations with Arian- 


ism we may refer to Newman’s Arians of the | 


* For a careful judgment of Eusebius’s Life of 
Constantine, Heinichen’s 23rd Meletema may be con- 
sulted (vol. ii. p. 754). Cf. also de Broglie, L Eglise 
et F Empire, vol. iii. p. 39. 


at Nicomedia and the palace soon after struck 
by lightning. The concurrence of these two 
events made a strong impression upon him 
(Orat. ad Sanct. Coet. 25). He also witnessed 


| in 305 the abdication of the two Augusti, Dio- 


cletian and Maximian. 

A higher destiny awaited him in another 
part of the empire. His father insisted upon 
his return, and Galerius at length was per- 
suaded to give permission and the seal neces- 
sary for the public posts, ordering him not to 


| start before receiving his last instructions on 


the morrow. Constantine took flight in the 
night. He had probably good reasons for his 
mistrust, and to stop pursuit maimed the 
public horses at many stations on his road 
(Zos. ii. 8; Anon. Val. 4; Victor, Caes. 21), 
which lay partly through countries where 
the persecution was raging. He arrived at 
Gesoriacum (Boulogne) just in time to accom- 
pany his father to Britain on his last expedi- 
tion against the Picts (Eumen. in Nat. Urb. 
Trev. vii.). Constantius died at York, July 
306, in the presence of his sons, after declaring 
Constantine his successor (de M. P. xxiv.). 


Augustus by the soldiers (Σεβαστὸς πρὸς τῶν 


᾿στρατοπέδων ἀναγορευθείς, Eus. H. E. viii. 13). 


Almost at the same time another claimant of 
imperial power appeared at Rome in Maxen- 
tius, son of the retired Maximian, who now 
came forward again to assist his son. Con- 
stantine’s first act was to shew favour to the 
Christians (de M. P. xxiv.), who had been 
| exposed to little of the violence of persecution 
| under the mild rule of Constantius. (7. Ὁ. 1. 


CONSTANTINUS I. 


o> Bt Eusebius seems here to exaggerate. 

Episcopor. ee Majorins preces ad Con- 
eae in Op. Const. Migne, col. 747.) 
Constantine had at once to defend Gaul against 
the Franks and German tribes, who had risen 
during the absence of Constantius in Britain 
(Eumen. 1. x.). In 307 Maximian, who had 
quarrelled with his son, crossed the Alps and 
allied himself with the Caesar of the West. 
Constantine received as wife his daughter 
Fausta, and with her the title of Augustus 
(Pan. Max. εἰ Const. v.). For three years after 
marriage he found sufficient employment in 
consolidating his government in the West, and 
in wars upon the frontier of the Rhine, over 
which he began to build a bridge at Cologne. 
The seat of his court was Tréves, which he 
embellished with many buildings, including 
several temples and basilicas, and the forum. 
Meanwhile Galerius was seized with a painful 
illness, and on April 30, 311, shortly before his 
death, issued his haughty edict of toleration, 
the first of the series, to which the names of 
Constantine and Licinius were also affixed. 
Constantine remained in the West engaged in 
wars with the Alemanni and Cherusci, and in 
restoring the cities of Gaul (cf. Eumen. Grati- 
arum acito F tum Nomine, on the restor- 
ation of the schools of Autun). He is said to 
have interfered by letter on behalf of the 
Eastern Christians whom Maximinus Daza 
now began to molest, and this is in itself prob- 
able (de M. P. xxxvii.). We must remem- 
ber that there were now four Augusti, Licinius 
and Maximinus in the East; Maxentius and 
Constantine in the West. The two latter had 
for some time acknowledged one another (see 
below, § VI. Coins), and probably by tacit 
consent the four restricted themselves pretty 
nearly to the limits which afterwards bounded 
the four great prefectures. But there was 
little united action between them, and sole 
empire was perhaps the secret aim of each. 


break with Constantine, and declared war 
inst him. The latter determined to take 
the initative, and crossed the Cottian Alps, by 


smaller than that of his opponent. Later 
historians affirm that the Romans besought 
him by an embassy to free them from the 
tyrant (Zon. Ann. xiii.; Cedrenus, § 270), and 
this is probable, for "Maxentius, by folly, 
insolence, and brutality had greatly alienated 
his subjects. Constantine had allied himself 
with one of the Eastern Augusti, Licinius, 
whom he engaged in marriage with his sister 
Constantia, but had to proceed against the 
counsels and wishes of his generals and the 
advice of the augurs (Pan. de Vict. adv. Maxent. 
ii.). After taking Turin, he rested some days 
at Milan, where he was received in triumph, 
and gave audience to all who desired it (sb. 
vii.). We may assume that at the same place 
and time, the spring or summer of 312, oc- 
curred also the betrothal of Constantia with 
Licinius, and the issue of a second edict of 
toleration to the Christians, that somewhat 
hard edict to which the emperors refer in the 
more celebrated announcement of 313 (see 
below § III. B. Religious Policy, and cf. Keim, 

Uebertritt, note 11). After taking Verona, 
Constantine apparently met with little resist- 


CONSTANTINUS I. 205 


ance till within a few miles of Rome, though 
this is not quite consistent with the statement 
of Lactantius (de M. P. xliv.). He had 
turned the advanced guard of the enemy at 
Saxa Rubra, close to the Cremera, and then 
pressed forward along the Flaminian road to 
the walls of the city itself. With great rash- 
ness Maxentius had determined to give battle 
exactly in front of the Tiber, with the Milvian 


| bridge behind him, about a mile from the 


gatesof Rome. It was Oct. 26, and during the 
night, according to our earliest authority, 
Constantine was warned in a dream to draw 


the monogram of Christ, the » upon the 


shields of his soldiers, and now, if not before, 
learnt to invoke the name of Christ to help his 
arms (H. E. ix. 9, 12). For the different 
accounts of the vision see below, § V. Max- 
entius, meanwhile, spent the night in sacri- 
fices and divination (Zos. ii. 16, etc.). Next 
morning the two armies met. That of Max- 


| entius was totally routed, although the prae- 


torians vigorously resisted. The fugitives 
crowded upon the bridge, and upon the 
pontoons at its side which Maxentius had 
devised, according to an almost incredible 
statement, so as to ene way beneath his 
opponent (Eus. |: δὶ ᾿ξ τα 5,6; V.C.i. 38; 

Zos. ii. 15). He was himself precipitated into 
the river, where his body was found the next 
day. The victor entered Rome in triumph, 
and was received with great joy (Pan. de Vict. 
adv. M. xix.). He used his victory on the 
whole with moderation. Eusebius tells us 
that he set up a statue of himself with a spear 
terminating in a cross in his right hand, and 
an inscription to the effect that by this salut- 
ary sign (or standard) he had restored the 
Roman senate and people to their ancient 
glory and freedom (H. E.ix.9; cf. V. 6. 1. 40). 
He now enlarged and endowed many churches 


}in and near Rome (Κ΄. C. i. 42), and wrote 
Maxentius now felt himself strong enough to | 


the letters to Anulinus in behalf of the Catholic 
church in Africa which led to such important 
consequences (ap. Eus. H. E. x. 5, 7). From 


| these documents it is evident that Constantine 
the pass of Mont Genévre, with a force much | 


had already a strong disposition to favour the 
Christians, especially the Catholic body. The 
answers to one of them brought the case of 
Caecilian and the Donatists to his notice, and 
involved him in the affairs of the African 
church. He accepted the title and insignia of 
Pontifex Maximus, and both were borne by 
his successors till Gratian (Zos. iv. 36). 
Period ii. 312-324. Commencement of the 
cycle of Indictions, Sept. 1, 312. Constantine 
sole emperor of the West.—Constantine at 
the age of about 3% was now sole Augustus 
of the West. Having settled the affairs of 
Rome, he proceeded early in 313 to meet 
Licinius at Milan. There the marriage of the 
latter with Constantia was consummated, and 
the full edict of toleration, the Edict of Milan, 
was promulgated. The emperors then sep- 
arated, Licinius to defend himself against 
Maximinus Daza, Constantine to guard the 
Rhine. Both were victorious. Licinius soon 
after became sole master of the East by the 
death of Maximus at Tarsus (Zos. ii. 17; de 
M. P. xlix.). The latter had followed the 
edict of Milan, at the behest of the other 
emperors, by an act of toleration of his own, 


206 CONSTANTINUS I. 


but of a less full and generous nature. This 
did not prevent him from taking advantage of 
the absence of Licinius to invade his territory, 
who had in consequence to fight Maximinus 
at Adrianople with a force half as large as that 
opposed to him. The battle was in many 
details like that against Maxentius—Licinius 
was favoured with a mysterious dream, and 
solemnly put his army under the protection 
of the God of the Christians, and on the 
morning of the battle repeated aloud three 
times with his officers a prayer to the holy and 
supreme God (de M. P. xlvi.). After his 
victory he entered Nicomedia in triumph, pro- 
claimed the edict of Milan, June 13, and then 
pursued Maximinus into Cilicia, where he 
found that last of the persecutors dying a 
horrible and painful death (de M. P. xlix.; Eus. 
H. E. ix. 10, 14). The brothers-in-law were 
thus raised to an equality of power, and were 
not likely to remain long at peace. The oc- 
casion of their quarrel is obscure. Constan- 
tine accused Licinius of fomenting a conspiracy 
against him. Licinius was defeated and 
made peace by the cession of Illyricum—+z.e. 
of the whole peninsula of which Greece is the 
extremity. Constantine was not too busy 
during this campaign to attend to the arrange- 
ment of the council of Arles, and to interest 
himself vehemently in the Donatist disputes. 
Peace followed for nine years, during which 
the emperor employed himself with barbarian 
wars, and with legislation civil and religious, 
as detailed below. His Decennalia were cele- 
brated at Rome 315, 316, and the triumphal 
arch dedicated. Two years later his son 
Crispus, now a young man, and his infant son 
and nephew Constantine and Licinianus, were 
raised to the rank of Caesar at Arles (Zos. ii. 
20, etc.). His other sons by Fausta were 
born also in this period, Constantius in 
317 and Constans in 323. Licinius mean- 
while began to oppress his subjects, especially 
the Christians. He forbade the synods of 
bishops, interfered with their worship, and in 
many cases destroyed their churches (even 
Julian, Caes. p. 315, is unfavourable to 
Licinius). Constantine was engaged in de- 
fending his Danubian frontier from Goths and 
Sarmatians, and took the Sarmatian king 
Rausimodes prisoner (Zos. ii. 21). In some of 
these expeditions he had trespassed across 
the boundaries of Licinius, and this was the 
pretext for a quarrel, which was increased by 
the expostulations of Constantine against the 
treatment of the Christians, and after some 
changes of temper on the part of Licinius, an 
open rupture took place. 

The character of the former war was am- 
biguous. This one was in great measure a 
religious war or crusade (Eus. H. E. x. 9). 
Before any conflict was fought (it was 
said) the subjects of Licinius thought they 
saw the victorious legions of Constantine 
marching through their streets at midday 
(V.C.ii.6). The monogram of Christ was now 
stamped on almost all his coinage (znfra, ὃ VI.). 
The labarum became a talisman of victory 
(olovei τι νικητικὸν ἀλεξιφάρμακον, V. C. 
ii. 7). The emperor surrounded himself with 
Christian priests, and believed himself fav- 
oured with visions as he prayed in the tent 
containing the standard of the cross, and 


CONSTANTINUS I. 


leapt up as if inspired to victory (ib. 12). The 
sentiment of a divine vocation was probably 
a real one to him, and was fostered by the 
approbation of the Christians. Licinius, on 
the very scene of his conflict as a Christian 
champion with Maximinus, prepared for 
battle by sacrifice and worship of the gods, 
against whom he had then fought, and Con- 
stantine prepared by prayer and by giving 
the watchword Θεὸς σωτήρ (V. C. 11. 5 and 6; 
cf. Soz. H. E.i. 7 on the perversion of Licinius). 
The battle of Adrianople, July 3, 323, was a 
second victory for the Christian arms. Con- 
stantine pursued his opponent to Byzantium. 
Meanwhile Crispus, who had already won his 
youthful laurels against the Franks, shewed 
himself most active in command of the fleet, 
and defeated the admiral Amandus in the 
Hellespont. This caused Licinius to quit 
Byzantium for Chalcedon, where he appointed 
one of his chief officers, Martinianus, as Caesar. 
Constantine pursued him, and on Sept. 10, 
after some negotiations, achieved a final vic- 
tory at Chrysopolis. Licinius, on the entreaty 
of Constantia, was permitted to retire to 
Thessalonica; but was not allowed to live 
above a year longer. Socrates relates that 
after remaining quiet a short time, “ he col- 
lected some barbarians, and attempted to 
repair his defeat’ (H. E. i. 4; so Zonaras and 
Niceph. Call.), and Eusebius justifies his exe- 
cution by the law of war (V. C. ii. 19). Zosi- 
mus and the heathen historians make it an 
instance of the emperor’s faithlessness (Zos. 
ii. 28; Victor, Epit. l.c.; Eutrop. Brev. x. 6), 
as does also the chronicle of Jerome (ann. 2339, 
‘*Licinius Thessalonicae contra jus sacramenti 
privatus occiditur’’). Yet apparently Con- 
stantia did not resent the execution of her 
husband, nor Fausta the death of her father. 
Constantine was thus master of the whole 
empire, and his first act was to issue edicts of 
toleration and favour to the Christians of the 
East (V. C. ii. 24 seq., cited as Provincialibus 
Palestinae and 48 seq. Prov. Orientis). He 
now specially assumed the title of Victor 
(νικήτης) (V. C. ii. 19). He had won it by his 
constant successes against barbarians on the 
Rhine and Danube and rival emperors from 
the Tiber to the Bosphorus: his twenty years 
of empire had brought him from London in the 
far West to Byzantium, the centre of the 
Eastern world, and had been years of unin- 
terrupted conquest. He was not unthankful 
to the Providence which had guided him, nor 
indisposed to acknowledge that something was 
due from him in return (Prov. Pal. V. C. ii. 
28, 29). But his progress had not led him to 
a victory over himself, or rather his success 
made him forget his own liability to crime. 
Period iii. 324-337. Constantine sole em- 
peror.—The history of the last twelve years 
of Constantine’s reign is of a very different 
character from that of preceding periods. As 
sole emperor he loses rather than gains in our 
estimation. He had no longer a religious 
cause to fight for nor a dangerous rival to over- 
throw. The hardness of his character fitted him 
for a life of strong excitement, but not for the 
intrigues of an Eastern court and the subtle 
questions of Eastern theology. His immoder- 
ate profusion in building and other expensive 


operations gained him the name of “‘ spend- 


CONSTANTINUS I. 


thrift,’’ and his liberality towards the church | its climax. 


was by no means free from the evils that at- 
tend prodigal benevolence. But he had no 
less a providential part to play in the internal 
history of that church than he had had up to 
this time in the destruction of her persecutors. 
As emperor of the West he had been led to 
interfere in her councils by the African schism, 
on which his decision was desired by both 
parties. As monarch also of the East he was 
brought directly into contact with specula- 
tions on points of Christian doctrine which 
had their origin and home there. He again 
attempted to realize his idea of unity. Taking 
as precedent the great council of Western 
bishops he had summoned at Arles (Aug. 314) 
in the case of Caecilian, he determined to call 
together representatives of the whole empire 
to decide on the doctrines of Arius and the 
Paschal controversy (see below, ὃ III. 2). To 
Constantine is due in great measure the hold- 
ing of the council of Nicaea (June and July, 
325). But the success of that great meeting 
unfortunately filled him with overweening 
pride. The conclusion of their session fell at 
the beginning of the 2oth year of his reign, and 
he celebrated the condemnation of Arius as a 
second triumph (V. C. iii. 14). He enter- 
tained all the bishops at his table. ‘‘ The 
guards,’”’ says Eusebius, ‘‘ kept watch with 
drawn s‘vords round the vestibule of the 
palace ; the men of God passed through their 
midst without fear, and entered the inmost 
parts of the royal dwelling. Some of them 
reclined by his side, and others were placed 
on couches on either hand. One might have 
seemed to picture to oneself an image of 
Christ’s kingdom ; the whole thing was more 
like a dream than areality”’ (7b. 15). Thesame 
writer suggests that the church of the Anas- 
tasis, built by Constantine, fulfilled the pro- 
phecies about the New Jerusalem (V. C. iii. 
33). Constantine’s interest in the success of 
the council did not end with its dispersion. 
He wrote to those concerned in its decrees, 
strongly enforcing conformity with them. The 
same feelings led him to compose and deliver 
theological declamations, and to attempt the 
conversion of his courtiers. Large crowds 
attended to listen to the philosophizing prince, 
who did not spare their faults. But the 
matter was not one merely of philosophy. It 
may be, as Burckhardt suggests (p. 454), that 
he took such opportunities of seriously warning 
or even denouncing those of his ‘‘ companions’”’ 
and ‘‘ palatines’’ whose presumption on his 
favour had become intolerable. The passion- 
ate and almost eloquent law of this year, pro- 
mulgated at Nicomedia, calls upon any one 
who feels wronged by such officials to declare 
their grievances freely, and promises personal 
vengeance on those ‘‘ who up to this time have 
deceived us by simulated integrity’’; and 
when Constantine felt himself wronged he did 
not hesitate to strike (Cod. Th. ix. 1, 4 in 325). 

After a prolonged sojourn in the East his 
presence was now required in Rome. He 
advanced thither by slow stages, arriving 
about July 8, in time to celebrate the com- 
pletion of his 20th year of empire, July 25, 
326. He left it certainly before the end of 
Sept. ; but in that short space of time all that 
was tragical in his life seems to have reached 


CONSTANTINUS I. 207 


lin There was much in the city itself 
to irritate and disturb him. The ancient 
aristocracy, in the absence of a resident 
emperor, preserved many of its old heathen 
traditions. Though he came determined to 
be tolerant (Cod. Th. xv. 1, 3) and desirous of 
gaining the favour of the senate (id. xv. 14; 
3, 4), It soon became evident that he was out 
of harmony with Rome. He would not join 
in the solemn review of the knights held on 
July 15, and in their procession and sacrifice 
to Jupiter Capitolinus; but viewed it con- 
temptuously from the Palatine and ridiculed 
it to those around him (Zos. ii. 29). Such an 
action, joined with his Oriental dress and 
general bearing, seems to have aroused 
popular indignation against him. Though 
tempted to revenge himself by force, he was 
wise enough to refrain. (See esp. de Broglie, 
lc. il. c. 5, for the events of this year. He 
puts together Liban. Or. 12, p. 393; Or. 15, 
p- 412, and Chrys. Or. ad Pop. Antioch. 21.) 
But this outburst was followed by far heavier 
tragedies within his own household. In 
relating them we have to rely on the vague 
and inconsistent tales of later writers, those 
nearest the emperor, Eutropius and Eusebius, 
being markedly silent. They seem to have 
originated with divisions, such as easily arose 
in a family composed of so many different 
elements. The half-brothers of Constantine, 
the sons of Constantius and Theodora, natur- 
ally took part with their mother’s half-sister, 
Fausta, and her sons. On the other hand, 
Helena had reason to sympathize with her 
grandson Crispus, the son of Minervina. Prob- 
ably it was in connexion with these divisions 
that Crispus was suddenly arrested and con- 
veyed to an unknown death at Pola in Istria 
(Amm. Mare. xiv. 11). Niebuhr thought it 
probable that the accusation of treason against 
his father, reported by Gregory of Tours (Hist. 
Franc. i. 36), had some foundation of truth. 
Another, but not an early account, represents 
Fausta as playing to Crispus the part of Phae- 
dra towards Hippolytus (Zos. ii. 29), and other 
authors name her as his accuser without 
specifying the nature of the charge (Vict. 
Epit. 41, Philostorgius, ii. 4. Sozomen, ἢ. E. 
i. 5, implies that the death of Crispus was 
required of Constantine by others). The 
young and promising Caesar Licinianus was 
at the same time unjustifiably put to death 
(Eutrop. x. 6; Hieron. Chron. Ann. 2342). 
The following satirical distich, attributed to 
the city prefect Ablavius, was found on the 
palace doors after the death of Crispus (Sidon. 
Apollin. Ep. v. 8) :— 


““Saturni aurea saecla quis requirat ἢ 
Sunt haec gemmea, sed Neroniana,” 


But he was avenged much more tragically, and 
at no distant date. (Jerome puts it three 
years later, the others connect the two events.) 
Fausta herself was executed in as sudden and 
as dark a way as Crispus. The complaints of 
Helena seemed to have aroused her son to this 
dire act of retribution (Zos. ii. 29 ; Vict. Epst. 
41). Later writers represent the empress as 
guilty of adultery (Philost. ii. 4; Sidon. 
Apoll. Lc. ; Greg. Turon. H. F. i. 34), and her 
punishment is said to have been suffocation in 
the steam of a hot bath, 


208 CONSTANTINUS I. 


There cannot, we think, despite the doubts 
raised by Gibbon, be any real doubt that 
Crispus and Fausta perished, both probably in 
328, by the orders of Constantine, acting as the 
instrument of family jealousies. The death 
of Fausta was followed by the execution of 
many of her friends, presumably those who had 
taken part against Crispus (Eutrop. x. 4). 
Popular traditions represent Constantine as 
tormented by remorse after his delirium of 
cruelty had passed, and as seeking everywhere 
the means of expiation; and nothing can be 
more in harmony with the character of Con- 
stantine and of the age than to suppose this. 
Christian bishops could only urge him to re- 
pentance to be followed by baptism. But for 
reasons which we do not thoroughly know, 
Constantine put off this important step, and 
also the baptism of his sons. That he be- 
stowed some possessions on the church at this 
time, and built or handed over basilicas to it, is 
very probable. Among the many which claim 
foundation at his hand we may name the 
Vatican, which was destroyed to make room 
for the modern St. Peter’s; St. Agnes, which 
has an inscription referring to his daughter 
Constantina; and the Lateran, once the 
palace of Fausta and the seat of the first 
council about the Donatists, and still the real 
cathedral of the pope. Probably the pilgrim- 
age of Helena to Palestine in pursuance of a 
vow, and the “‘ Invention of the Cross,’”’ is to 
be assigned to the time that immediately 
follows. Constantine gave her every assist- 
ance, and authorized her to spend money 
freely both in alms and buildings (Paulinus 
of Nola, Ep. r1, ad Sulpic. Sever.; cf. V. C. 
ili. 47, 3). Possibly he delayed his own Bap- 
tism in the hope that he might soon follow her 
example and be washed in the holy waters of 
Jordan (V. C. iv. 62). He now left Rome 
never to return, but with the project of found- 
ing a new Rome in the East, which should 
equal if not surpass the old. 

The beauty and convenience of the site of 
Byzantium had long beennoticed (cf. Herod. iv. 
144) ; it was the birthplace of Fausta, and its 
immediate neighbourhood had seen the final 
defeat of Licinius. The emperor had perhaps 
already formed the idea of embellishing it and 
calling it by hisownname. He had probably 
moved a mint thither as early as 325, and used 
the name (Constantinopolis) upon his coins. 
But now his intention may have been strength- 
ened by his distaste for Rome, and by a super- 
stition that Rome’s fall from power was at 
hand (Chron. Pasch. ed. Bonn, p. 517). Other 
cities had attracted his attention; his final 
choice was Byzantium. Many stories are told 
of the ceremonies with which he laid out the 
plan of the new Rome, enclosing like its proto- 
type the tops of sevenhills. De Broglie places 
the foundation in 328 or 329 (1.6. 11. 441). The 
Christian historians assert that the absence of 
heathenism from the city was the express desire 
of the emperor (e.g. V. C. iii. 48). 

The removal of Sopater perhaps gave room 
for the power of Helena to reassert itself. She 
communicated to her son the success of her 
pilgrimage, and forwarded him certain relics, 
which he received with great joy. [HELENA.] 
The death about the same time of his sister 
Constantia had important consequences. She 


CONSTANTINUS I. 


was much under the influence of Eusebius of 
Nicomedia, and had in her household an Arian 
priest, who persuaded her that Arius had been 
most unjustly treated. She had not courage 
to speak on the subject herself to her brother, 
but on her deathbed strongly recommended 
this priest to him, and he was taken into the 
imperial family, soon gaining influence over 
the emperor. The result, it is said, was Con- 
stantine’s gradual alienation from the Catholics 
(Socr. i. 25 ; see de Broglie, c. v., at the end). 
Meanwhile the building of the new capital went 
on with great vigour, temples and cities, especi- 
ally in Greece and Asia Minor, being despoiled 
to beautify it and to fit it for the residence of 
a new nobility, some created, and others trans- 
ferred from Rome. Of the population that 
gathered intoit almost all thepagans and many 
of the Jews became Christians. The city was 
solemnly consecrated on May 11, 330, followed 
by a feast of forty days (Idatius, fastt, Chron. 
Pasch. A.D. 330), and the anniversary was 
long kept as the nativity of Constantinople. 
It is indeed a very important era, marking 
the greatest political transformation that the 
Roman empire underwent. With it were con- 
nected the great constitutional changes detailed 
below, § III. 1, under which grew up the 
Byzantine spirit with its peculiar character, 
turbulent, slavish, and unimaginative, but yet 
capable of endurance tempered with a certain 
kind of morality. 

The years that followed brought Constan- 
tine more than ever into the debates of the 
church. The emperor recalled Arius, but 
Athanasius, now bp. of Alexandria, refused to 
receive him. In the middle of his 30th year, 
335, Constantine distributed the territories 
under his dominion between his three sons and 
twonephews. The eldest, Constantine, received 
the provinces of his grandfather, Britain, 
Spain, and Gaul; Constantius, Asia, Syria, 
and Egypt; Constans, Italy and Africa. 
Dalmatius, with the title of Caesar, had the 
large province of Illyricum; and Hannibal- 
lian, Armenia and Pontus, with the extra- 
ordinary name of king. The evidence of coins 
would lead us to see in this measure a recon- 
ciliation of the two branches of the family. 
The end of Constantine’s eventful life was now 
at hand, and as some of his first military ser- 
vices had been against the Persians, so now 
he was obliged at its close to prepare for war 
against that people, though he never actually 
engaged init (Κ΄. C.iv. 57). The labarum had 
now been for many years the recognized stan- 
dard of the empire, wherever the emperor was 
present ; and as in the time of the war with 
Licinius, the monogram of Christ was in these 
last years largely stamped upon its coins (see 
§ VI.). Constantine made also other prepar- 
ations for the use of religious service in war, 
especially of a tent for his own chapel (V. C. 
iv. 56; Socr. i. 18), and he had some time 
before taught his soldiers, heathen as well as 
Christian, a common daily prayer, and ordered 
Sunday to be kept as a holy day (V. C. iv. 19 
86 20; ΕΞ @.ix. 10), ef. Cod. dir. 11 Ge rae 
321). At Easter 337 he completed and dedi- 
cated his great church of the Holy Apostles, 
in which he desired to be buried. In the week 
that followed, his health, hitherto extremely 
good, gave way, and he sought relief in the 


CONSTANTINUS I. 


warm baths at Helenopolis. 
death approaching, he confessed his sins in the 
church of the martyrs (of the martyr Lucian- 
us ?), and now first received imposition of 
hands asacatechumen. Then he moved back 
to the villa Ancyrona, a suburb of Nicomedia 
(Eutrop. x. 8; Vict. Caes. 41), and desired 
Baptism of the bishops whom he there as- 
sembled (V. C. iv. 61). He had wished once, 
he said, to be baptized in Jordan, but God 
had decided otherwise. He felt that now the 
blessing he had so long hoped for was offered 
him. ‘ Let there be no doubt about it,’’ he 
added, ‘‘ I have determined once for all, if the 
Disposer of life and death sees fit to raise me 
up again to fellowship with His people, to 
impose upon myself rules of life such as He 
would approve”’ (V. C. iv. 62, see Heinichen’s 
note). Baptism was administered to him by 
the Arian prelate Eusebius of Nicomedia 
(Hieron. Chron. ann. 2353). From that mo- 
ment he laid aside the purple robe, and wore 
only the white garment of a neophyte. He 
died on Whitsunday 337, in the 31st year of 
his reign, dating from July 25, 306. 

III. Religious Policy—The great change 
which makes the reign of Constantine an epoch 
in church history is the union between church 
and state, and the introduction of the per- 
sonal interference of the emperor. The proxi- 
mate cause of his great influence was the re- 
action of feeling which took place, when the 
civil governor, from being a persecutor or an 
instrument of persecution, became a promoter 
of Christianity. Something, no doubt, was 
owing to the teaching of Christian moralists 
as to submission to the powers that be, and 
to the general tendency towards a system of 
official subordination, of which the political 
constitution of Constantine is the great ex- 
ample. His success in establishing that con- 
stitution, without any serious opposition, 
seems to shew the temper of men’s minds at 
the time, and the absence of individual pro- 
minence or independence of thought amongst 
either followers or opponents. This was true 
as well of the church as of the state. The 
great men who have left their mark on church 
organization and policy had either passed 
away, like St. Cyprian, or had not yet attained 
their full powers. The two seeming excep- 
tions are Hosius bp. of Cordova and St. 
Athanasius. The first had great influence 
over the emperor, but probably lacked genius, 
and is but obscurelyknowntous. Athanasius, 
though he might have sympathized with some 
of the wide conceptions of Constantine, never 
came sufficiently into contact with him to 
overcome the prejudices raised against him by 
the courtiers; and the emperor could not 
really comprehend the importance of the 

oints for which Athanasius was contending. 
he period, too, of Athanassiu’s greatest 
activity was in the succeeding reign. 

Constantine, therefore, was left very much 
to make his own way, and to be guided by his 
own principles or impulses. With regard to 
his religious policy we have an expression of 


| 


which may help us in our judgment of its 


said, had guided his actions ; 


his own, in his letter to Alexander and Arius, | 


merits (Eus. V. C. ii. 65). Two principles, he | of the edict, 
the first to unify | Church” is substituted for that of ‘‘ body of 


the belief of all nations with regard to the Christians’ (Eus. H. E. xX. 5,15). 


CONSTANTINUS I. 209 


Feeling his | Divinity into one consistent form, the second 


to set in order the body of the world which was 
labouring as it were under a grievous sickness. 
Such, no doubt, were the real desires of Con- 
stantine, but he was too impulsive, too rude in 
intellect, too credulous of his own strength, to 
carry them out with patience, wisdom, and 
justice. We shall arrange the details of this 
policy under three heads : 

(1) Acts of Toleration.—During the first 
period of his reign it is probable that Constan- 
tine as well as Constantius Chlorus prevented 
any violent persecution. His first public act 
of toleration, of which we have any certain 
record, was to join together with Licinius in 
the edict issued by Galerius in 311 (given in 
de M. P. 34 and more diffusely by Eus. H. E. 
viii. 17). The edict acknowledged that per- 
secution had failed, and gave permission to 
Christians to worship their own God and re- 
build their places of meeting, provided they 
did nothing contrary to good order (contra 
disctplinam, misrendered ἐπιστήμη in Eus.). 
The death of Galerius followed almost directly, 
and in the spring or summer of 312 Constan- 
tine and Licinius promulgated another edict 
perhaps not very different from that of Galer- 
ius. The text of itis lost. It allowed liberty 
of worship, but specified certain hard condi- 
tions ; amongst others that no converts should 
be made from heathenism; that no sect out- 
side ‘‘the body of Christians, the Catholic 
Church,”’ should be tolerated ; that confiscat- 
ed property should not be restored, except, 
perhaps, the sites of churches. This edict, 
issued before the conflict with Maxentius, con- 
trasts strikingly with the much more liberal 
edict of Milan issued in the spring of 313, 
which gave free toleration to every religious 
body. The purport of this edict may be 
summed up thus: ‘‘ We have sometime per- 
ceived that liberty of worship must not be 
denied to Christians and to all other men, but 
whereas in our former edict divers conditions 
were added, which perhaps have been the 
cause of the defection of many from that 
observance, we Constantine and Licinius, 
Augusti, meeting in Milan, decree that both 
Christians and all other men soever should 
have free liberty to choose that form of wor- 
ship which they consider most suitable to 
themselves in order that the Divinity may be 
able to give us and our subjects His accus- 
tomed goodwill and favour. We abolish all 
those conditions entirely. Further for the 
body of the Christians in particular, all places 
of meeting which belonged to them, and have 
since been bought by or granted to others, are 
to be restored; and an indemnity may be 
claimed by the buyers or grantees from our 
treasury ; and the same we decree concerning 


| the other corporate property of the Christians. 


The execution of the law is committed to the 
civil magistrates, and it is everywhere to be 
made public.” The change of feeling here 
evinced was more strongly marked in other 
documents that followed, which more peculi- 
arly expressed the mind of Constantine. The 
first in order is a letter to Anulinus, proconsul 
of Africa, giving directions for the execution 
in which the term ‘ Catholic 


Then follows 
14 


210 CONSTANTINUS I. 


another addressed to the same official liber- 
ating the clergy ‘‘in the Catholic church of 
which Caecilian is president ’’ from the pres- 
sure of public burdens. This concession, at 
first apparently made to Africa alone, was 
extended to the whole church in 319 (C. Th. 
Xvi. 2, 2). The description of Christianity in 
the privilege granted to the African church is 
remarkable ‘‘as the religion in which the 
crowning reverence is observed towards the 
holiest powers of heaven’”’ (H. E. x. 7). The 
mention of Caecilian and this definition of the 
Catholic church in the same document was 
not allowed to pass unchallenged by the 
Donatists. They presented to Anulinus an 
appeal, Libellus Ecclesiae Catholicae criminum 
Caectliant, and a request for a commission of 
inquiry, both of which he forwarded to the 
emperor (Aug. Ep. 88 (68), 2; Migne, Const. 
Mag. col. 479). 

(2) The Donatist Schism.— The appeal of 
the Donatists brought Constantine directly 
into the heart of church controversies, and 
was the first occasion of his gradually growing 
interference. Though his relations with this 
schism form only an episode in its history, 
their consequences were important. [Dona- 
TIsts.]| The results were such a mixture of 
good and evil as seems inseparable from the 
union of church and state. The church profited 
by the development of her system of councils, 
anda general growthinorganizationand polity; 
the emperor gained a nearer insight into the 
feeling of the church; and the state obtained a 
most important support. On the other hand 
must be set the identification of the Catholic 
with the dominant and worldly church, and the 
precedent allowed of imperial interference in 
questions of schism. From the banishment 
of the Donatists for schism it was no great step 
to the persecutions of Arians and Catholics for 
heresy, and not much further to the execution 
of the Priscillianists by Magnus Maximus. 

(3) The Arian Controversy. —The relation 
of the emperor to this great controversy was 
the result of his last achievement of power. 
His complete victory over Licinius in 323 
brought him into contact with the controver- 
sies of his new dominions in the East, just as 
his victory over Maxentius had led to the Don- 
atist appeals in the West. The first document 
which connects him with this controversy is a 
letter to Alexander and Arius (Eus. V. C. ii. 
64-72 ; Socr. i. 7 gives only the latter half of 
it). He expresses his longing for ‘‘ calm days 
and careless nights,’ and exhorts the oppo- 
nents to reconciliation. The whole had arisen 
from an unpractical question stirred by Alex- 
ander, and from an inconsiderate opinion 
expressed by Arius. Again and again he 
insists on the insignificance of the dispute 
(ὑπὲρ μικρῶν καὶ λίαν ἐλαχίστων φιλονεικούν- 
τῶν -ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐλαχίστων τούτων ζητήσεων 
ἀκριβολογεῖσθε, etc.), shewing in a remarkable 
manner his own ignorance and self-confidence. 
This letter was sent by Hosius, but naturally 
had no effect : though we are ignorant of his 
proceedings at Alexandria, except that he 
combated Sabellianism (Socr. iii. 8, p- 394 
Migne; Hefele, ὃ 22). Arius seems to have 
now written a letter of remonstrance, to which 
Constantine, who was under other influences 
or in a different mood, replied in an extra- 


CONSTANTINUS I. 


ordinary letter of violent invective. The de- 
tailed history of this time is involved in diffi- 
culty, but the expedient of a general council 
was a natural one both to the emperor and to 
the church at large. The Meletian schism in 
Egypt and the Paschal controversy required 
settlement, and in Constantine’s mind the 
latter was equally important with Arianism. 
The idea and its execution are ascribed to Con- 
stantine without any mention of suggestions 
from others, except perhaps from Hosius 
(Sulpic. Sever. Chron. ii. 40, “5. NicaenaSynod- 
us auctoreillo confectahabebatur’’). Hesent 
complimentary letters in every direction, and 
gave the use of public carriages and litters to 
the bishops. The year of the council is al- 
lowed to be 325, but the day is much debated. 
Hefele discusses the various dates, and places 
the solemn opening on June 14 (Councils, § 26). 
The bishops were arranged round a great hall 
in the middle of the palace, when Constantine 
entered to open the proceedings, dressed mag- 
nificently, and making a great impression by 
his stately presence, lofty stature, and gentle 
and even modest demeanour. This is not the 
place to trace the course of the discussions that 
followed. [Artus.] Two points are deserving 
of note—first, the story of his burning the 
memorials and recriminations of the different 
parties addressed to him; secondly, his relation 
tothe ὁμοούσιον. As to the first, itis said that 
Constantine brought them into the synod in a 
sealed packet and threw them into the fire, say- 
ing tothe bishops: ‘‘ You cannot be judged by 
a man like myself: such things as these must 
wait till the great day of God’s judgment,”’ add- 
ing, according to Socrates, ‘‘ Christ has advised 
us to pardon our brother if we wish to obtain 
pardon ourselves ’”’ (Socr. i. 8, p. 63 Migne; Soz. 
i. 17). His relation to the ὁμοούσιον rests on the 
Ep. of Eusebius to his own church, in which he 
gives an account of the synod to his own ad- 
vantage (Socr. i. 8; Theod. i. 12; Athan. Decret. 
Synod. Nic. 4). He gives the text of the creed 
which he proposed to the council; and tells us 
that after it was read no one got up to speak 
against it, but, on the contrary, the emperor 
praised it very highly and exhorted everyone to 
embrace it with the addition only of one word 
—‘‘ consubstantial.’’ He then proceeded to 
comment on it, declaring that the word implied 
neither a corporeal substance nor a division of 
the divine substance between the Father and 
the Son, but was to be understood in a divine 
and mysterious sense. Though it is pretty 
clear that the word ὁμοούσιος was in the minds 
of the orthodox party throughout, they may 
have hesitated to propose it at first, as its 
association with Paul of Samosata was pro- 
vocative of much disputation. MHosius, it 
may be, suggested to the emperor that the 
proposition should come from his lips. He 
must have had some tuition in theological 
language from an orthodox theologian before 
he could give the interpretation with which 
Eusebius credits him. When the creed was 
finally drawn up, the emperor accepted it as 
inspired, and with his usual vehemence in the 
cause of peace proceeded to inflict penalties 
upon the few who still refused to sign it. He 
wished even to abolish the name of Arians 
and to change it into Porphyrians (Ep. ad 
Ecclesias, Migne, p. 506; Socr. i. 9). Later 


- 
. 
4 


CONSTANTINUS I. 


Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea 
were deposed and banished, as they had not 
recognized the deposition of Arius, though 
they had been brought to sign the creed. Con- 


stantine indulged particularly in invectives | 


against Eusebius of Nicomedia, accusing him 
of having stirred up persecution under Licinius, 
and of deceiving himself at Nicaea (Ep. ad 
Nicomedienses c. Eus. et Theognium, Migne, pp. 
519 f., from Gelasius, iii. 2, and the collections 
of councils). Constantine expressed an im- 
moderate joy at the success of the council, 
considering it a personal triumph. Eusebius 
has preserved the letter the emperor then wrote 
to all the churches (V. C. iii. 17-20). 

Constantine in his relations to Arianism 
was obviously the instrument for good as well 
as for evil. On the one hand, he acted with 
good intentions, and was able by the superior- 
ity of his position to take a wide view of the 
needs of the church; on the other he was 
very ignorant, self-confident, credulous, and 
violent. We know too little of the influences 
by which he was swayed: how, for instance, 
Hosius acquired and lost his ascendancy ; 
what Eusebius of Caesarea really did; how 
Eusebius of Nicomedia obtained influence 
with the emperor in the last period of his life. 
We only know that the emperor, in his anxiety 
above all things for peace, was led to do violent 
acts of an inconsistent character that made 
peace impossible; but we must remember 
that he was living in an age of violent men. 

For details of Constantine’s relations with 
heathenism see especially : A. Beugnot, Hist. de 
la destruction du Paganisme en Occident, 2 vols. 
(Paris, 1835), an important and thoughtful 
book, unfortunately scarce; and E. Chastel, 
Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme dans 
V Empire d’ Orient (Paris, 1850)—both crowned 
bythe Academy. Less important is Der Unter- 
gang des Hellenismus und die Entziehung seiner 
Tempelgiiter durch die Christlichen Katser, by 
Ernst von Lasaulx (Miinchen, 1854). 

IV. Character.—Constantine deserves the 
name of Great, whether we consider the poli- 
tical or the religious change that he effected, 
but he belongs to the second, rather than the 
first, order of great men. Notwithstanding 
his wide successes, and his tenacious grasp 
over the empire in which he worked such 
revolutions, notwithstanding his high sense of 
his own vocation and the grandeur of some of 
his conceptions, his personal character does 
not inspire us with admiration. With many 
of the impulses of greatness it remained to the 
last unformed and uncertain, and never lost 
a tinge of barbarism. He was wanting in the 
best heathen and Christian virtues; he had 
little of dignity, cultivation, depth, or tender- 
ness. Ifwe compared him with any great man 
of modern times it would rather be with Peter 
of Russia than with Napoleon. 

Ρ 


V. Vision of the » ea question of the 


reality of this vision is perhaps the most un- 
satisfactory of the many problems in the life 
of Constantine. The almost contemporary 
account of Lactantius has been already men- 
tioned; Life, period i.; from de M. P. 44: 
“Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus ut 
caeleste signum Dei notaret in scutis atque 


CONSTANTINUS 1. 


ita proelium committeret. Fecit ut jussus est 
et tranversa X littera, summo capite circum- 
flexo, Christum in scutis notat.’’ This took 
place on the night before the battle of the 
Milvian bridge. Eusebius’s narrative (V. C. 
i. 27-32) contrasts very strikingly with this. 
He represents Constantine as looking about 
for some god to whom he should appeal for 
assistance in his campaign against Maxentius, 
and as thinking of the god of his father Con- 
stantius. He besought him in prayer to re- 
veal himself, and received a sign, which the 
historian could not distrust on the word and 
oath of the emperor given to himself many 
years later. About the middle of the after- 
noon (for so the words seem to be best inter- 
preted), he saw with his own eyes the trophy 
of the cross figured in light standing above the 
sun, and with the letters τούτῳ νίκα attached 
to it. He and his army were seized with 
amazement, and he himself was in doubt as 
to the meaning of the appearance. As he was 
long considering it night came on, and in sleep 
Christ appeared to him with the sign that ap- 
peared in heaven, and ordered him to make a 
standard of the same pattern. The next day 
he gave directions to artificers how to prepare 
the labarum, which was adorned with gold 
and precious stones. Eusebius describes it 
as he afterwards himself saw it. It consisted 
of a tall spear with a bar crossing it, on the 


211 


Ρ 
highest point of which was a δ ᾧ encircled 


with acrown, while a square banner gorgeously 
embroidered hung from the cross bar, on the 
upper part of which were the busts of the 
emperor andhissons. Constantine immediate 
ly made inquiries of the priests as to the figure 
seen in his vision, and determined with good 
hope to proceed under that protection. 

Eusebius nowhere states exactly where or 
when this took place; his vague expressions 
seem to place it near the beginning of the 
campaign. The senate acknowledged an 
instinctus divinitatis and the contemporary 
panegyrist refers to divina praecepta in the 
campaign with Maxentius. 

Another sort of divine encouragement is 
recorded later by the heathen panegyrist 
Nazarius in 321, c. 14. ‘‘ All Gaul,’’ he says, 
“speaks of the heavenly armies who pro- 
claimed that they were sent to succour the 
emperor against Maxentius.’’ ‘* Flagrabant 
verendum nescio quid umbone corusci et 
caelestium armorum lux terribilis ardebat.. . 
Haec ipsorum sermocinatio, hoc inter audi- 
entes ferebant ‘ Constantinum petimus, Con- 
stantino imus auxilio.’’’ A distinct incident 
is added by the late and antagonistic Zosimus, 
but he tells us nothing of what happened to 
Constantine, only of a prodigious number of 
owls which flocked to the walls of Rome when 
Maxentius crossed the Tiber (ii. 16). 

On the Christian side the only independent 
account of later date seems to be that of Sozo- 
men, i. 3, Who afterwards gives the account of 
Eusebius. ‘‘ Having determined to make an 
expedition against Maxentius, he was natur- 
ally doubtful of the event of the conflict and 
of the assistance he should have. While he 
was in this anxiety he saw in a dream the sign 
of the cross flashing in the sky, and as he was 


212 CONSTANTINUS ‘I. 

amazed at the sight, angels of God stood by 
him and said, ‘O Constantine, in this con- 
quer!’ It is said too that Christ appeared 
to him and shewed him the symbol of the 
cross, and ordered him to make one like it, 
and to use it in his wars as a mainstay and 
pledge of victory. Eusebius Pamphili, how- 
ever,’ etc. Rufinus also gives both accounts. 
Later writers repeat one or other of these nar- 
ratives, adding details of time and place, for 
which there is no warrant. 

That something took place during the cam- 
paign with Maxentius which fixed Constan- 
tine’s mind upon Christ as his protector and 
upon the cross as his standard, no unpreju- 
diced person can deny. It is equally certain 
that he believed he had received this intima- 
tion by divine favour and as a divine call. 
Those who give him credit for inventing the 
whole story out of political considerations 
totally misapprehend his character. But two 
questions obviously remain to be discussed: 
(1) Which account is to be preferred, that of 
Eusebius or Sozomen? (2) Can we speak of 
the circumstance as a miracle ? 

(1) Eusebius’s account, being the most 
striking and resting on the authority of the 
emperor, has been most popularly received. 
It is open to obvious difficulties, arising from 
the silence of contemporaries and the lateness 
of the testimony. Dr. J. H. Newman, in his 
Essay on Ecclesiastical Miracles, has said per- 
haps all that can be said for Eusebius. He 
thinks it probable that the panegyrist of 313 
refers to this vision as the adverse omen which 
he will pass over and not raise unpleasant re- 
collections by repeating (cap. 2)—for the cross 
would be to Romans generally a sign of dis- 
may, and Constantine (says Eusebius) was at 
first much distressed in mind with regard to 
it. The panegyrist also praises Constantine 
for proceeding ‘‘ contra haruspicum monita,”’ 
and asserts ‘‘ habes profecto aliquod cum illa 
mente divina, Constantine, secretum, quae, 
delegata nostri diis minoribus cura, uni se tibi 
dignetur ostendere ἢ Optatian also, writing 
c. 326, though he does not mention the vision, 
speaks of the cross as ‘“ caeleste signum.”’ 
Those modern writers too, who think of a 
solar halo or parhelion as an explanation, pre- 
fer the account of Eusebius. J. A. Fabricius 
was perhaps the first to offer this explanation 
(Exercitatio Critica de Cruce Const. Mag. in his 
Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. vi.), which is followed 
by Manso, Milman, Stanley, Heinichen, and 
others.* The latter in his 24th Meletema gives 
a useful résumé of the literature of the subject. 
Few historians adopt the alternative, which 
Schaff accepts, of a providential dream (§ 134). 
It is difficult in fact to resist the impression 
that there was some objective sign visible in 
daylight, such as Eusebius describes, notwith- 
standing the omission of it by Lactantius. 

(2) Can this sign be considered a miracle ? 
The arguments for this conclusion are well put 
by Newman. He shews that little or nothing 
15 gained by explaining the circumstances as a 
natural phenomenon or a subjective vision, if 
once we allow it to be providential; and that 

* Mr. Whymper has given a good picture of such 
a phenomenon, observed by him after the fatal 
accident on the first ascent of the Matterhorn 
(Scrambles amongst the Alps, Tondon, 1871, p. 399). 


CONSTANTIUS I. 


a priort this seems a fitting juncture for a 
miracle to have been worked. ‘“‘ It was first 
a fitting rite of inauguration when Christianity 
was about to take its place among the powers 
to whom God has given rule over the earth; 
next it was an encouragement and direction 
to Constantine himself and to the Christians 
who marched with him; but it neither seems 
to have been intended nor to have operated 
as a display of divine power to the confusion 
of infidelity or error”? (§ 155). Newman 
seems to be right in arguing that nothing is 
gained—in regard to difficulties like this—by 
transferring the event from the category of 
miracle to that of special Providence. [J.w.] 
Constantinus Π., the eldest son of Constan- 
tine the Great by Fausta, born A.D. 312, was 
made Caesar in 316 together with Crispus, and 
his quinquennalia were celebrated by the 
panegyric of Nazariusin 321. At the death 
of his father, the empire being redivided, 
Constantine as the eldest son seems to have 
claimed Constantinople, but this was over- 
ruled, and he was placed over the West. 
Constantine thus came into contact with St. 
Athanasius in his exile at Tréves, and at once 
took him under his protection. [ATHANA- 
stus.| In 340 Constantine invaded the 
dominions of Constans and penetrated into 
Lombardy, where he was killed in a small 
engagement. His dominions then went to 
Constans, who thus ruled theentire West. Of 
his character we know little or nothing. He 
appears to have been a staunch Catholic, but 
his attack upon the dominions of his brother 
Constans does not put his character in a 
favourable light. His short reign makes him 
very unimportant. [J.w. 
Constantius I. Flavius Valerius, surnamed 
Chlorus (ὁ Χλωρός, ‘the pale’’), Roman 
emperor, A.D. 305, 306, father of Constantine 
the Great, son of Eutropius, of a noble Dar- 
danian family, by Claudia, daughter of Crisp- 
us, brother of the emperors Claudius II. and 
Quintilius. Born c. a.p. 250. Distinguished 
by ability, valour, and virtue, Constantius 
became governor of Dalmatia under the 
emperor Carus, who was prevented by death - 
from making him his successor. Diocletian 
(emperor, A.D. 284-305), to lighten the cares 
of empire, associated Maximian with himself ; 
and arranged that each emperor should 
appoint a co-regent caesar. Constantius was 
thus adopted by Maximian, and Galerius by 
Diocletian (Mar. 1, A.D. 292). Each being 
obliged to repudiate his wife and marry the 
daughter of his adopted father, Constantius 
separated from Helena, the daughter of an 
innkeeper, who was not his legal wife but was 
mother of Constantine the Great, and married 
Theodora, stepdaughter of Maximian, by 
whom he had six children. As his share of the 
empire, Constantius received the provinces 
Gaul, Spain, and Britain. In A.D. 296 he re- 
united Britain to the empire, after the rebel- 
lion of Carausius, and an independence of ten 
years. In A.D. 305, after the abdication of 
Diocletian and Maximian, Galerius and Con- 
stantius became Augusti, and ruled together. 
As the health of Constantius began to fail, he 
sent for his son Constantine, who was already 
exceedingly popular, and who was jealously 
kept by Galerius at his own court. Constan- 


CONSTANTIUS II. 


tine escaped, and arrived at his father’s camp 
at Gessoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer) before 
embarking on another expedition to Britain. 
In a.p. 306 Constantius died in the imperial 
palace at Eboracum (York). He is described 
as one of the most excellent characters among 
the later Romans. He took the keenest in- 
terest in the welfare of his people, and limited 
his personal expenses to the verge of affecta- 
tion, declaring that ‘‘ his most valued treasure 
was in the hearts of his people.’’ The Gauls 
delighted to contrast his gentleness and 
moderation with the haughty sternness of 
Galerius. His internal administration was as 
honourable as his success in war. The Chris- 
tians always praised his tolerance and impar- 
tiality. Theophanes calls him Χριστιανόφρων, 
a man of Christian principles. He had Chris- 
tians at his court. Although a pagan, he 
disapproved of the persecution of Diocletian, 
and contented himself by closing a few 
churches and overthrowing some dilapidated 
buildings, respecting (as the author of the de 
Morte Persecutorum says) the true temple of 
God. Christianity spread in Gaul under his 
peaceful rule, and at the end of the 4th cent. 
that province had more than 20 bishops. 
Eutrop. ix.; Aurel. Vict. Caes. 39, etc.; 
Theoph. pp. 4-8, ed. Paris; Eus. Vit. Const. 
i. 13-21; Lactantius, de Morte Persecutorum, 15; 
Smith, D. of G. and R. Biog.; Ceillier, iii. 48, 
140, 570. [w.M.S.] 
Constantius II., son of Constantius the 
Great, was the second of the sons of Fausta, 
born at Sirmium Aug. 6, 317, and emperor 
337-361. De Broglie remarks of him (iii. pp. 
7, 8), “ΟΥ̓ the sons of Constantine he was the 
one who seemed best to reproduce the quali- 
ties of his father. Although very small in 
stature, and rendered almost deformed by his 
short and crooked legs, he had the same ad- 
dress as his father in military exercises, the 
same patience under fatigue, the same sobriety 
in diet, the same exemplary severity in all that 
had regard to continence. He put forward 
also, with the same love for uncontrolled pre- 
eminence, the same literary and theological 
pretensions: he loved to shew off his elo- 
quence and to harangue his courtiers.’’ Victor, 
Caes. 42, speaks well of Constantius: the writer 
of the Epitome credits him with some virtues 
but speaks of the eunuchs, etc., who surrounded 
him, and of the adverse influence of his wife 
Eusebia. Ammianus (xxi. 16) gives an elab- 
orate and balanced character of Constantius 
which seems to be fair. The Christian writers 
were naturally not partial to an emperor who 
leaned so constantly towards Arianism and 
was such a bitter persecutor of the Nicene 
faith, and did not scruple to call him Ahab, 
Pilate, and Judas. St. Athanasius neverthe- 
less addressed him in very complimentary 
terms in the apology which he composed as 
late as 356. Constantius was not baptized 
till his last year, yet interfered in church 
matters with the most arrogant pretensions. 
Period i., 337-350.—Constantine II., Con- 
Stans, Constantius II., Augusti.—On the death 
of Constantine, Constantius hurried to Con- 
stantinople for the funeral of his father. The 
armies, says Eusebius, declared unanimously 
that they would have none but his sons to 
succeed him (V. C. iv. 68)—to the exclusion, 


CONSTANTIUS II. 213 


therefore, of his nephews Dalmatius and Han- 
nibalian. There followed shortly after a 
general massacre of the family of Constantius 
Chlorus and Theodora. Many writers, and 
those of such distinct views as St. Athanasius, 
Ammianus, and Zosimus as well as Julian, 
openly charge Constantius with being the 
author of this great crime, others imply only 
that he allowed it. Constantine and Constans 
are in no way implicated in it. A new divi- 
sion of empire followed; for which purpose 
the brothers met at Sirmium. Speaking 
generally, Constantine had the west, Constans 
the centre, and Constantius the East. 

From the division of empire between Con- 
stans and Constantius we must date the 
beginnings of separation of the churches. The 
Eastern church recovered indeed at length 
from Arian and semi-Arian influences, but the 
habit of division had been formed and varie- 
ties of theological conception became accen- 
tuated ; then the Roman church grew rapidly 
in power and independence, having no rival 
of any pretensions in the West, while in the 
East the older apostolic sees were gradually 
subordinated to that of Constantinople, and 
the whole church was constantly distracted by 
imperial interference. 

Constantius was especially ready to inter- 
vene. In 341, in deference to the Dedication 
Council of Antioch, he forcibly intruded one 
Gregorius into the see of Alexandria; in 342 
he sent his magister equitum, Hermogenes, to 
drive Paulus from Constantinople, but he did 
not confirm Macedonius, the rival claimant 
(Socr. ii. 13). These events took place while 
St. Athanasius was received with honour at 
the court of Constans, for whose use he had 
prepared some books of Holy Scripture 
(Athan. Apolog. ad Const. 4). Constans deter- 
mined to convoke another oecumenical coun- 
cil, and obtained his brother’s concurrence. 
The place fixed upon was Sardica, on the 
frontier of the Eastern and Western empires, 
where about 170 bishops met In 343. Then 
occurred the first great open rupture between 
East and West, the minority consisting of 
Western bishops siding with St. Athanasius, 
while the Eastern or Eusebian faction seceded 
to Philippopolis across the border. After the 
dissolution of the council Constans still at- 
tempted to enforce the decrees of Sardica, by 
requiring of his brother the restoration of 
Athanasius and Paulus, threatening force if 
it was refused (Socr. ii. 22 ; Soz. iii. 20). The 
shameful plots of the Arian bp. of Antioch, 
Stephen, against the messengers of Constans 
were happily discovered, and the faith of 
Constantius in the party was somewhat 
shaken (St. Athan. Hist. Arian. ad mon. 20 ; 
Theod. ii. 9, 10). The pressure of the war 
with Persia no doubt inclined him to avoid 
anything like a civil war, and he put a stop to 
some of the Arian persecutions. Ten months 
later—after the death of the intruded Gregory 
—he invited St. Athanasius to return to his 
see, which Athanasius did in 346, after a 
curious interview with the emperor at Antioch 
(see the letters in Socr. ii. 23 from Athan. 
Apol. c. Arianos, 541). Other exiled bishops 
were likewise restored. In the West, 
meanwhile, Constans was occupied with the 
|Donatists, whose case had been one of the 


214 CONSTANTIUS II. 


elements of division at Sardica. He sent a 
conciliatory mission to Africa, but his bounty 
was rudely refused by that Donatus who was 
now at the head of the sect—himself a secret 
Arian as well as a violent schismatic—with the 
famous phrase, ‘‘ Quid est imperatori cum 
ecclesia ?’’ The turbulence of the Circum- 
cellions provoked the so-called ‘‘ Macarian 
Persecution ’’; some of the schismatics were 
put to death, others committed suicide, others 
were exiled, and so for a time union seemed to 
be produced. (Bright, pp. 58-60; Hefele, 
§ 70, Synod of Carthage. The history is in 
Optatus Milev. 111. 1, 2.) Early in the year 
350 Constans was put to death, or rather forced 
to commit suicide, by the partisans of the 
usurper Magnentius. His death was a great 
loss to the orthodox party, whose sufferings 
during the next ten years were most intense. 

Period ii., 350-361. Constantius sole Augus- 
tus.—The usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul 
seems to have been largely a movement of 
paganism against Christianity and of the 
provincial army against the court. It was 
closely followed by another, that of Vetranio 
in Illyria. We need not follow the strange 
history of these civil wars, nor recount in 
detail how Vetranio was overcome by the 
eloquence of Constantius in 350, and Magnen- 
tius beaten in the bloody battle of Mursa, 
Sept. 351, that cost the Roman empire 50,000 
men. Between these two events Constantius 
named his cousin, Gallus, caesar and attended 
the first council of Sirmium. Some time be- 
fore the battle he must have received the letter 
from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, describing a cross 
of light which appeared ‘‘ on May 7, about the 
third hour,’’ ‘‘ above the holy Golgotha and 
stretching as far as the holy mount of Olives,”’ 
and seen by the whole city. St. Cyril praises 
Constantius and reports this marvel as an 
encouragement to him in his campaign. The 
genuineness of the letter has however been 
doubted, especially from the word ‘‘ consub- 
stantial’’ appearing in the doxology at the 
end. At the time of the battle of Mursa 
Constantius came much under the influence of 
Valens, the temporizing bishop of the place, 
who pretended that the victory was revealed 
to him by an angel, and from this time he 
appears more distinctly as a persecutor of the 
Nicene faith, which he endeavoured to crush 
inthe West. His general character also under- 
went a change for the worse after the un- 
expected suicide of Magnentius, which put 
him in sole possession of the empire. It is 
difficult to say whether he appears to least 
advantage in the pages of Ammianus or of St. 
Athanasius. It would take too long to re- 
count the disgraceful proceedings at the coun- 
cil of Arles in 353, where the legates of the new 
Pope Liberius were misled, or at Milan in 355, 
when Constantius declared that his own will 
should serve the Westerns for a canon as it 
had served the Syrian bishops, and proceeded 
to banish and imprison no less than 147 of the 
chief orthodox clergy and laity (Hist. Ar. ad 
Mon. 33, etc. ; see De Broglie, iii. p. 263). The 
most important sufferers were Eusebius of 
Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Dionysius 
of Milan. Soon after followed the exile of 
Liberius, and in 355 that of Hosius. All this 
was intended to lead up to the final overthrow 


CONSTANTIUS II. 


of Athanasius. Early in 356 Syrianus, the 
duke of Egypt, began the open persecution of 
the Catholics at Alexandria, and Constantius, 
when appealed to, confirmed his actions and 
sent Heraclius to hand over all the churches 
to the Arians, which was done with great 
violence and cruelty (Hist. Ar. 54). George 
of Cappadocia was intruded into the see, and 
Athanasius was forced to hide in the desert. 
In the same year Hilary of Poictiers was 
banished to Phrygia. 

Meanwhile Constantius had been carrying 
on a persecution of even greater rigour against 
the adherents of Magnentius, which is de- 
scribed by Ammianus (xiv. 5), whose history 
begins at this period. His suspicions were 
also aroused against his cousin Gallus, whose 
violence and misgovernment in the East, 
especially in Antioch, were notorious. The 
means by which Constantius lured him into 
his power and then beheaded him are very 
characteristic (Amm. xiv. 11). At the end of 
the same year, 355, he determined to make his 
younger brother, Julian, caesar in his place, 
putting him over the provinces of Gaul, and 
marrying him to his sister Helena. 

In the church worse things were yet to 
come: the fallof Hosius, who accepted the creed 
of the second council of Sirmium, then that 
of Liberius, the first after torture and severe 
imprisonment, the second after two years of 
melancholy exile, both in 357. Of the numer- 
ous councils and synods at this time, the most 
famous and important was that of Rimini in 
359, in conjunction with one in the East at 
Seleucia, when the political bishops succeeded 
in carrying an equivocal creed approved by 
the emperor, and omitting the homoousion. 
Constantius, tired of the long controversy, at- 
tempted to enforce unity by imposing the for- 
mula of Rimini everywhere, and a number of 
bishops of various parties were deposed (Soz. 
iv. 23, 24). In 360 Julian was proclaimed 
Augustus by his army, and proposed a division 
of the empire, which Constantius did not 
accept (Amm. xx. 8). A civil war was impend- 
ing: Constantius was at first contemptuous, 
but ere long began to be haunted with fears of 
death, and caused himself to be baptized by 
Euzoius, the Arian bp. of Antioch. He 
expired, after a painful illness, at Mopsucrene 
at the foot of mount Taurus, Nov. 4, 361 
(Socr. ii. 47; Amm. xxi. 15). He was at 
least three times married : in 352 or 353, after 
the successful issue of the civil war, to Aurelia 
Eusebia, a very beautiful, accomplished, and 
gentle lady, but an Arian, who had great in- 
fluence with him. She died some time before 
the usurpation of Julian. Besides his wives, 
on whom he was accustomed to lean, his chief 
adviser was the eunuch Eusebius, of whom 
Ammianus says so sarcastically, ‘‘ apud quem, 
si vere dici debet, multum Constantius pot- 
uit.” He also trusted much to a detestable 
man the notary Paulus, nicknamed Catena. 
Another of the same class was Mercurius, 
called Comes Somniorum. These men, with 
an army of spies (curiost), organized a reign of 
terror for three years after the overthrow of 
Magnentius, especially in Britain, acting par- 
ticularly on the laws against sacrifice and 
magic (cf. Liban. pro Aristophane, i. p. 430). 

Laws in Favour of Christianity —These will 


CORNELIUS 


be found chiefly in the second title of book xvi. 
of the Theodosian code, headed de eptscopts 
ecclestis et clericts. In 357 the emperor con- 
firmed all the privileges granted to the church 
of Rome, at that time under the emperor's 
nominee, Felix, whilst Liberius was in exile. 
Another rescript of the same year is addressed 
to Felix, more explicitly guaranteeing the im- 
munity from taxation and forced service. The 
next law (A.p. 360) refers to the synod of 
Rimini, and the opinion expressed by various 
bishops from different parts of Italy, and from 
Spain and Africa. The last law in the series 
(in 361) is remarkable, as the heading gives 
Julian the title of Augustus. 

Relations to Heathenism.—The state of things 
that we have seen in the last years of Constan- 
tine continued during his son’s reign. There 
was the same disposition on the part of the 
empire to put down paganism and the same 
elements of reaction. In the West, especially 
in Rome, real heathenism still retained much 
of its vitality and still swayed the minds of 
the aristocracy and the populace ; in the East 
the supporters of the old religion were the 
philosophers and rhetoricians, men more at- 
tached to its literary and artistic associations 
than prepared to defend polytheism as a 
creed. They were mixed up with another 
class, the theurgists, practisers of a higher kind 
of magic which was particularly attractive to 
Julian. The following laws from the tenth 
title of book xvi. of the Theodosian code 
relate distinctly to heathen sacrifice. Sec. 2, 
in 341, issued by Constantius, says: ‘* Cesset 
superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania,”’ 
and refers to the law of Constantine noticed 
above. A year or two later (the date is un- 
certain and wrongly given in the code), Con- 
stantius and Constans ordered the temples in 
Roman territory to be kept intact for the 
pleasure of the Roman people, though all 
““superstition’’ is to be eradicated; almost 
at the same time they issued a law to the prae- 
torian prefect inflicting death and confiscation 
on persons sacrificing. In 353 Constantius 
forbade the ‘‘ nocturna sacrificia’’ permitted 
by Magnentius: in 356 he and Julian made it 
capital to sacrifice or worship images. [J.w.] 

Cornelius (2), bp. of Rome, successor of 
Fabianus, said to have been son of Castinus. 
After the martyrdom of Fabianus in Jan. 250, 
in the Decian persecution, the see remained 
vacant for a year andahalf. In June, A.D. 251, 
Cornelius was elected to the vacant post; and, 
although very reluctantly, he accepted an 
election almost unanimously made by both 
orders, during the life of a tyrant who had 
declared that he would rather see a new pre- 
tender to the empire than a new bishop of 
Rome (Cyprian, Ep. lii.). Decius was at that 
time absent from Rome, prosecuting the 
Gothic war which ended in his death in the 
winter of the same year. The persecution of 
the Christians thus came to an end; but then 
arose the difficult question of how to treat the 
libellatict, Christians who had bought their life 
by the acceptance of false certificates of having 
sacrificed to heathen gods. Cornelius took a 
line at variance with that of Cyprian and the 
church of Carthage, which required rigorous 
penance as the price of readmission, while 
Rome prescribed milder terms. The differ- 


COSMAS 215 


ence was kept alive by the discontent of the 
minority within both the churches. This 
was represented at Carthage by Novatus, who 
separated from the church when unable to 
obtain less harsh terms; in Rome by a man 
of similar name, Novatian, who was in favour 
of greater rigour than the church would allow. 
Novatus crossed the sea to aid Novatian in 
designs at Rome which must have been 
directly opposed to his own at Carthage. 
Mainly by his influence Novatian was conse- 
crated a bishop, and thus constituted the head 
of a schismatic body in Rome. Eusebius 
(Hist. Eccl. vi. 43) quotes from a letter of bp. 
Cornelius to bp. Fabius of Antioch, in which 
he gives an account of his rival, with statistics 
as to the number of Roman clergy in his day. 
These were 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 
42 acolytes, 52 exorcists, 52 readers and 
ostiarii ; 1,500 widows and orphans were pro- 
vided for by the church. 

The Novatianist heresy gave rise to a cor- 
respondence between Cyprian and Cornelius. 
Persecution was revived in Rome by Gallus, 
and Cornelius, followed by almost the whole 
church (among whom were many restored 
libellatics), took refuge at Centumcellae in 
Etruria. There Cornelius died, and another 
bishop, Lucius, was at the head of the church 
when it returned. It is doubtful whether 
Cornelius died a violent death. Cyprian and 
Jerome both speak of him as a martyr. He 
died Sept. 14, 252. His name as a martyr has 
been found in the Catacombs at some little 
distance from those of other popes, and ina 
cemetery apparently devoted almost exclu- 
sively to the gens Cornelia, whence De Rossi 
argues that he probably belonged to that 
patrician gens (Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote 
and Brownlow, pp. 177-183). [G.H.M.] 

Cosmas (1) and Damianus, brothers, phy- 
sicians, ‘‘ silverless’’ martyrs. They became 
types of a class, the ἀνάργυροι, “ὁ silverless ”’ 
martyrs, t.e. physicians who took no fees, but 
went about curing people gratis, and claiming 
as their reward that those whom they bene- 
fited should believe in Christ. They were 
certainly not earlier than the last quarter of 
the 3rd cent., and the legends of martyrs of that 
time, whose fame is known only by popular 
tradition, seem in many cases to succeed natur- 
ally to the place of those heathen myths that 
were slowest to die. For Hercules, Christopher; 
for Apollo, Sebastian; for Diana, Ursula; for 
Proserpine, Agnes. Cosmas and Damian take 
the place of Aesculapius, in whose story 
heathenism made the nearest approach to 
Christianity. The Greeks distinguished three 
pairs of these brothers. (1) July 1, inthe time 
of Carinus; (2) Oct. 27, Arabs, with their 
brothers, Anthimus, Leontius, and Euprepius, 
martyred under Diocletian ; (3) Nov. 1, sons 
of Theodote. (Menol.) For the legends con- 
nected with them see D. C. B. (4-vol.ed.). The 
names were early inserted in the Canon of the 
Mass. [Ε.8.8.] 

Cosmas (3), surnamed Indicopleustes (In- 
dian navigator), a native of Egypt, probably 
of Alexandria (lib. il. 114, vi. 264), originally 
a merchant (lib. ii. 132, iii. 178, xi. 336), who 
flourished about the middle of the 6th cent. 
In pursuit of his mercantile business he navi- 
gated the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Persian 


210 COSMAS 


Gulf, also visiting India and Ceylon. His 
travels enabled Cosmas to collect a large store 
of information respecting not only the coun- 
tries he visited, but also the more remote lands 
whose merchants he met. Weary of the world 
and its gains, he resigned his occupation as a 
merchant, and, embracing a monastic life, 
devoted his leisure to authorship, enriching 
his writings with descriptions of the countries 
he had visited and with facts he had observed 
or learned from others. He was no retailer of 
travellers’ wonders, and later researches have 
proved that his descriptions are as faithful as 
his philosophy is absurd. 

His Christian Topography (12 books) is his 
only work which has survived; the last book 
is deficient in the Vatican MS. and imperfect 
in the Medicean. The work was not all pub- 
lished at one time, nor indeed originally 
planned in its present extent ; but gradually 
grew as book after book was added by him 
at the request of his friends, or to meet the 
objections of the opponents of his theory. 

The proximate date, A.D. 547, for the earlier 
books is afforded by the statement (lib. ii. 140) 
that, when he wrote, 25 years had elapsed since 
the expedition of Elesbaon, king of the Axiom- 
itae, against the Homeritae, which Pagi ad 
ann. dates A.D. 522. The later works were 
written about 13 years subsequently. Near 
the end of lib. x. he speaks of the recent death 
of Timotheus, patriarch of Alexandria, A.p. 
536, and mentions his heretical successor 
Theodosius, A.D. 537. 

The chief design of the Christian Topography 
is “το confute the impious heresy of those who 
maintain that the earth is a globe, and not a 
flat oblong table, as is represented in the 
Scriptures’? (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. 
xlvil. § i. note i.). The old objections of the 
Epicureans are revived, and the plane surface 
is not circular as with Thales, but a parallelo- 
gram twice as long as broad, surrounded by 
the ocean. Its length from E. to W. is 12,000 
miles; its breadth from N. to S. 6,000. The 
parallelogram is symmetrically divided by 
four gulfs; the Caspian (which joins the 
Ocean), the Arabian (Red Sea), the Persian, 
and that of the Romans (Mediterranean). Be- 
yond the ocean, on each side of the interior 
continent, lies another land, in which is the 
Garden of Eden. Here men lived till the 
Deluge, when Noah and his family crossed 
the intervening flood in the Ark, and peopled 
the present world. The rivers of Paradise he 
supposes to run under the sea, Alpheus-like, 
and to reappear in our earth. The Nile is the 
Gihon of Eden. The whole area is surrounded 
by lofty perpendicular walls, from the summit 
of which the sky stretches from N. to 8. ina 
cylindrical vault, meeting similar vaults at 
either extremity (lib. iv. 186,187). Ourauthor 
divides this huge vaulted chamber into lower, 
second, and third stories. The dead occupy the 
nethermost division; the middle compartment 
is the home of the living; the uppermost, that 
of the blessed. Heaven is divided from the 
lower regions by a solid firmament, through 
which Christ penetrated—and that is the 
Kingdom of Heaven (lib. iv. 186-188). The 
vicissitudes of day and night are caused by a 
mountain of enormous bulk, rising at the N. 
extremity of the oblong area. Behind this 


COSMAS 


the sun passes in the evening, and reappears 
on the other side in the morning. The 
conical shape of the mountain produces the 
variation in the length of the night; as the 
sun rises higher above, or sinks down towards 
the level of the earth. Eclipses are due to 
the same cause. The round shadow on the 
moon’s disk is cast by the domical summit of 
the mountain (lib. iv. 188). 

The views on cosmography thus propounded, 
absurd and irrational as they appear to us, 
were those generally entertained by the Fathers 
of the church. Pinning their faith on the 
literal meaning of the words of Scripture ac- 
cording to its traditional interpretation, they 
deduced a system which had for them all the 
authority of a divine revelation, any depar- 
ture from which was regarded as impious and 
heretical. The arguments by which Cosmas 
supports his theory are chiefly built on isolated 
passages of Scripture, as interpreted by the 
early Fathers. Some, however, are drawn from 
reason and the nature of the case—e.g. the 
absurdity of the supposition of the existence 
of antipodean regions, inasmuch as the beings 
on the other side of the world must drop off, 
and the rain would fall upwards instead of 
downwards; while the supposed rotatory 
motion of the universe is disproved by the 
disturbance that would be caused to the repose 
of the blessed in heaven by their being per- 
petually whirled through space. Cosmas de- 
nounces as heretics those who, following the 
false lights of science, venture to maintain 
opposite views, and speaks in terms of strong- 
est condemnation of ‘‘men who assume the 
name of Christians, and yet in contempt of 
Holy Scripture join with the pagans in assert- 
ing that the heavens are spherical. Such 
assertions are among the weapons hurled at 
the church. Inflamed by pride as if they were 
wiser than others, they profess to explain the 
movements of the heavens by geometrical and 
astronomical calculations’”’ (lib. i. Prolog.). 
One of his strongest arguments in support of 
his plan of the universe is drawn from the form 
of the Tabernacle of Witness, which the words 
ἅγιον κοσμικόν (Heb. ix. 1) warrant him in 
considering to have been like Noah’s Ark, ex- 
pressly constructed as an image of the world. 

The subjects of the 12 books are: (1) Against 
those who claim to be Christians, and assert 
with pagans that the earth is spherical. (2) 
The Christian hypothesis as to the figure and 
position of the universe proved from Scripture. 
(3) The agreement on these points of the O.T. 
and N.T. (4) A brief recapitulation, and a 
description of the figure of the universe accord- 
ing to Scripture, and a confutation of the 
sphere. (5) A description of the Tabernacle 
and the agreement of the Prophets and 
Apostles. (6) The magnitudeofthesun. (7) 
The duration of the heavens. (8) Hezekiah’s 
song, and the retrogression of the.sun. (9) 
The course of the stars. (10) Testimontes of 
the Fathers, including 11 citations from the 
Festal Epistles of Athanasius, and other im- 
portant Patristic fragments. (11) A descrip- 
tion of the animals of India, and of the island 
of Ceylon. (12) Testimonies of heathen writers 
to the antiquity of Holy Scripture. 

Setting aside the absurdities of his cosmo- 
graphical system, Cosmas is one of the most 


COSMAS 


valuable geographical writers of antiquity. 
His errors were those of his age, and rest 
chiefly on his reverence for the traditional 
interpretation of the Bible. But he was an 
acute observer and vivid describer, and his 
good faith is unquestionable. He seems well 
acquainted with the Indian peninsula, and 
names several places on its coast. He de- 
scribes it as the chief seat of the pepper trade, 
of which he gives a very rational account, and 
mentions Mali, in which Montfaucon recog- 
nizes the origin of Malabar, as much fre- 
quented by traffickers in that spice. He fur- 
nishes a detailed account of the island of Tap- 
robana (Ceylon), which he calls Stzelidiba, then 
the principal centre of trade between China 
(he calls the Chinese T{wirfa:) and the Persian 
Gulf and Red Sea, where the merchants ex- 
changed their costly wares, and the nations of 
the East obtained the advantages of commer- 
cial intercourse, which rapidly increased and 
had in his time assumed considerable import- 
ance. The connexion between Persia and 
India was at that time evidenced by the exist- 
ence of a large number of Christian churches, 
both on the coast of India and the islands of 
Socotra and Ceylon, served by priests and 
deacons ordained by the Persian archbp. of 
Seleucia and subject to his jurisdiction, which 
had produced multitudes of faithful martyrs 
and monks (lib.iil. 179). These congregations 
appear to be identical with the Malabar Chris- 
tians of St. Thomas. His 11th book contains 
a very graphic and faithful description of the 
more remarkable animal and vegetable pro- 
ductions of India and Ceylon, the rhinoceros, 
elephant, girafie, hippopotamus, etc., the 
cocoa-nut tree, pepper tree, etc. 

His remarks on Scripture manifest a not 
altogether uncommon mixture of credulity 
and good sense. He mentions that, to the 
discomfiture of unbelievers, the marks of the 
chariot wheels of the Egyptians were still 
visible at Clysma, where the Israelites crossed 
the Red Sea (v. 194); but he explains the 
supposed miraculous preservation of the gar- 
ments of the Israelites (Deut. xxix. 5) as 
meaning no more than that they lacked 
nothing, since merchants visited them from 
adjacent countries with clothing and with the 
wheat of which the shewbread was made (v. 
205). Thecatholic epistles he plainly relegates 
to the ‘“‘ Amphilegomena,”’ making the errone- 
ous statement that such was the universal 
ancient tradition and that no early expositor 
comments upon them. The Ep. to the Hebrews 
he ascribes to St. Paul, and asserts that it, as 
well as the Gospel of St. Matt., was rendered 
into Gk. by St. Luke or St. Clement. Cosmas 
eves a monument of very considerable 

istorical value, consisting of two inscriptions 
relating to Ptolemy Euergetes, B.c. 247-222, 
and an unnamed king of the Axumitae, of 
later date. These were copied by him from 
the originals at the entrance of the city of 
Adule, an Aethiopian port on the Red Sea; the 
former from a wedge-shaped block of basanite 
or touch-stone, standing behind a white marble 
chair, dedicated to Mars and ornamented with 
the figures of Hercules and Mercury, on 
which the latter inscription was engraved. 
_ Notwithstanding the different localities of the 
inscriptions and the fact that the third person 


CYPRIANUS 217 


is used in the former, the first in the latter, the 
two have been carelessly printed continuously 
and regarded as both relating to the conquests 
of Ptolemy, who has been thus accredited with 
fabulous Aethiopian conquests. (So in Fabri- 
cius, Bibl. Graec. lib. ili. 25; cf. Vincent, 
Commerce, ii. 533-589.) They were first dis- 
tinguished from each other by Mr. Salt (Voy- 
ages and Travels to India, etc., 1809, vol. iii. 
192; Travels in Abyssinia, 1814, p. 412), and 
are printed with full comments by Béckh 
(Corpus Inscript. Graec. 1848, vol. iii. fasc. 
il. 508-514). The inscription relating to 
Ptolemy describes his conquest of nearly the 
whole of the empire of the Seleucidae, in Asia, 
which, says Dean Vincent (Ancient Commerce, 
li. 531), ‘‘ was scarcely discovered in history 
till this monument prompted the inquiry, and 
was then established on proofs undeniable.” 
Cf. Chishull, Antig. Asiat. p. 76; Niebuhr, 
Vermischte Schriften, p. 401;  Letronne, 
Matériaux pour Vhist. du Christianisme en 
Egypte, etc. (1832), p. 4or; Buttmann, Mus. 
der Alterthumsw. ii. 1, p. 105. 

A full account of this work is given by 
Photius (Cod. xxxvi.), under the inappropriate 
title ᾿Ἑρμηνεία eis ᾿Οκτάτευχον, but without 
the author’sname. From this, Fabricius very 
needlessly questions whether the author was 
really named Cosmas, or whether that was an 
appellation coined to suit the subject of the 
work, like that of Joannes Climacus. Photius 
censures the homeliness of the style, which he 
considers hardly to approach mediocrity. But 
elegance or refinement of diction is not to be 
expected from a writer, who, in his own words 
(lib. ii. 124), destitute of literary training and 
entangled in business, had devoted his whole 
life to mercantile pursuits, and had to contend 
against the disadvantages of very infirm health 
and weak eyesight, incapacitating him for 
lengthened study. We learn from his own 
writings that Cosmas also wrote: 

(1) A Cosmographia Universalis, dedicated 
to a certain Constantine (lib. i. 113), the loss of 
which is lamented with tears by Montfaucon. 

(2) A work on the motions of the universe 
and the heavenly bodies, dedicated to the 
deacon Homologus (lib. i. 114, vii. 274). 

(3) Ὑπομνήματα on the Canticles, dedicated 
to Theophilus (lib. vii. 300). 

(4) Exposition of the more difficult parts of 
the Psalms (Du Cange, Gloss. Graec. s.v. ‘Iv- 
δικοπλευστής ; Bibl. Coislin. p. 244). 

(Montfaucon, Collect. Nov. Pat. Gk. (Paris, 
1706), vol. ii. 113-346; Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. 
Patr. (Ven. 1765), vol. ix. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 
515; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. 111. 25; Vincent, 
Strabo, ii. 786-797; Thevenot, Coll. des voy- 
ages, vol. i.; Gosselin, Géogr. syst. des Grecs, ill. 
274; Mannert, Einleit. in der Geogr. d. Allen, 
188-192; Charton, Voyages, vol. 11.) [Ε.ν.] 

Cyprianus (1) Thascius Caecilius. Name.— 
He is styled Thascius Cyprianus by the pro- 
consul (Vit. Pontiz), and styles himself ‘‘ Cypri- 
anus qui et Thascius’’ in the singular heading 
of Ep. 66. He took the name Caecilius, 
according to Jerome (Cat. Ill. Vir. v.), from 
the presbyter who converted him, and is 
called Caecilius Cyprianus in the proscription 
(Ep. 66). 

Cyprian was an orator, and afterwards even 


218 CYPRIANUS 


a teacher of rhetoric (‘‘in tantam gloriam 
venit eloquentiae ut oratoriam quoque doceret 
Carthagini,’’ Hieron. Comm. Jon. c. 3, and cf. 
Aug. Serm. 312, § 4). It is not quite clear 
what is meant by Jerome in speaking of 
him as a former ‘‘adsertor idololatriae,”’ 
and Augustine as “‘ having decorated the 
crumbling doctrines of demons.” His style 
is very polished, and, as Augustine points out, 
became more simple and beautiful with time, 
and (as his critic believed) with the purer taste 
of Christianity. He edited for Christians the 
phraseological dictionary of Cicero (see Har- 
tel’s praef. ad fin.). His systematic habits and 
powers of business contributed greatly to his 
success as the first of church organizers. His 
address was dignified, conciliatory, affection- 
ate; his looks attractive by their grave 
joyousness. He never assumed the philo- 
sopher’s pall, which Tertullian his ‘‘ master ”’ 
maintained to be the only dress for Christians ; 
he thought its plainness pretentious. Augus- 
tine speaks of the tradition of his gentleness, 
and he never lost the friendship of heathens of 
high rank (Pont. 14). He was wealthy, his 
landed property considerable, and his house 
and gardens beautiful (Pont. Vit. ad Don. 
i. XV. XVi.). 

His conversion was then important in the 
series of men of letters and law who were at 
this time added to the church, and who so 
markedly surpass in style and culture their 
heathen contemporaries. Pearson rightly sets 
aside the inference of Baronius (from De Dei 
gratia) that Cyprian was old at his conversion, 
but that he was so seems to be stated, however 
obscurely, by Pontius (c. 2, ‘“‘ adhuc rudis fidei 
et cui nondum forsitan crederetur supergressus 
vetustatis actatem’’). Christian doctrines, 
especially that of regeneration, had previously 
excited his wonder, but not his derision (ad 
Don. iii. iv.). He was converted by an aged 
presbyter, Caecilian. During his catechesis 
he analysed and conversed with the circle 
about him on Scripture Lives, devoted him- 
self to chastity, and sold some estates and 
distributed the proceeds to the poor. He 
composed, in his Quod Idola dit non sint, a 
Christian assault on Polytheism, freely com- 
piling the rst and 2nd sections of his tract from 
Minucius, § 20-27, § 18, § 32, and his 3rd section 
from Tertullian’s Apology, ὃ 21-23, with some 
traces of Tert. de Anima naturaltter Christiana. 
A comparison of this pamphlet with the ori- 
ginals well illustrates his ideal of style. He 
mainly retains the very language, but erases 
whatever seemed rugged, ambiguous, or 
strained. He maintains a historical kernel of 
mythology, points out the low character of 
indigenous Roman worship; illustrates the 
activity of deluding daemons from the scenes 
at exorcisms, of which, however, he scarcely 
seems (as Tertullian does) to have been an eye- 
witness. He contrasts this with the doctrine 
of Divine unity, which he describes nobly, 
but illustrates infelicitously. The history of 
Judaism, its rejection of its Messiah, and the 
effects which Christianity is producing in the 
individual and commencing on society bring 
him to his new standpoint. He is perhaps the 
first writer who uses the continuous sufferings 
of believers as evidence of their credibility. 
This restatement and co-ordination of previous 


CYPRIANUS 


arguments was probably not ineffective, but 
as yet Cyprian exhibits no conception that 
Christianity is to be a world-regenerating 
power. He deliberately excludes providence 
from history (Quod Id. v.). 

At the Easter following, the season most 
observed in Africa for this purpose, he was 
probably baptized, and to the autumn after 
we refer the ad Donatum, a monologue, a brief 
Tusculan held in his own villa, on The Grace of 
God. It already exhibits Cyprian not as a 
spiritual analyst or subtle theologian, but ir- 
refragable in his appeals to the distinctly New 
Life which has appeared in the world, amid 
the contemporary degradations—the repudia- 
tion of the responsibility of wealth, the dis- 
ruption of the client-bond, the aspect of the 
criminal classes, the pauperization of the mass, 
and the systematic corruption by theatre and 
arena. For the present, however, withdrawal 
from the world into Christian circles is the only 
remedy in which hecan hope. ‘‘ Divine Grace”’ 
is an ascertained psychological fact, and this, 
though as yet narrow in application, is the 
subject of the treatise. 

He soon after sold, for the benefit of the 
poor, his horti, which some wealthy friends 
bought up afterwards and presented to him 
again. Meantime he resided with Caecilian. 
We can only understand the expression of 
Pontius (who lived similarly as a deacon with 
Cyprian), ‘‘ erat sane illi etiam de nobis con- 
tubernium . . . Caeciliani,’’ to mean that he 
was at that time “‘ of our body,”’ the diaconate. 
We find other instances of the closeness of this 
bond. Baronius and Bp. Fell are equally in- 
excusable in understanding what is said of 
Caecilian’s family and of Job’s wife as having 
any bearing upon the question of Cyprian’s 
celibacy. There is no indication of his having 
been married. Caecilian at his death com- 
mended his family to him, although not as 
officially curator or tutor, which would have 
contradicted both Christian and Roman usage. 

His Ordination.—His activity while a mem- 
ber of the ordo or concessus of presbyters is 
noticed, but he was yet a neophyte when he 
became bishop. The step was justified on the 
ground of his exceptional character, but the 
opposition organized by five presbyters was 
now and always a serious difficulty to him. 
The Plebes would listen to no refusal, and 
frustrated an attempt to escape. He subse- 
quently rests his title (Ep. 43, Ep. 66, Vit.) on 
their suffrages, and on the ‘‘ judicium Dei,” 
with the consensus of his fellow bishops. In 
ordinary cases he treats the election by neigh- 
bour bishops as necessary to a valid episcopate 
(Ep. 57, ν. ; Ep. 59, vii.; Ep. 66). From this 
time Cyprian is usually addressed both by 
others and by the Roman clergy as Papa, 
though the title is not attributed to the bp. 
of Rome until long after. An earlier instance 
of the use of the name occurs at Alexandria, 
but probably the first application of the 
name is traceable to Carthage. Some time 
between July 248 and April 249 Cyprian be- 
came bishop, a few months before the close of 
the ‘‘ thirty years’ peace ’’ of the church. 

His Theory of the Episcopal Office seems to 
have been his own already, and as it supplies 
the key to his conception of church govern- 
ment may be stated at once. The episcopate 


CYPRIANUS 


succeeded tothe J ewish priesthood * (Epp. 8, i.; 
69, Viii. ; 65 ; 67, i.; Testim. iii. 85) ; the bishop 
was the instructor (Ep. 50, xi. ; Unit. x.) and 
the judge (Ep. 17, ii.). In this latter capacity 
he does nothing without the information and 
advice of presbyters, deacon, and laity. He 
is the apostle of his flock (Ep. 3, iii. ; 45; 66, 
iv.) by direct succession, and the diaconate is 
the creation of his predecessors. The usual 
parallel between the three orders of the Chris- 
tian and Jewish ministry differs entirely from 
that drawn by Cyprian. 

The stress laid on the responsibility of the 
laity is very great. Though the virtue of the 
office is transmitted by another channel, it is 
they who, by the “ aspiration of God,”’ ad- 
dress to each bishop his call to enter on that 
“priesthood ’’ and its grace, and it is their 
duty to withdraw from bis administration if 
heisa “‘sinner’’ (Ep. 67). The bishops do not 
co-opt into or enlarge their own college. Each 
is elected by his own Plebes. Hence he is the 
embodiment of it. ‘‘ The bishop is in the 
church and the church in the bishop.’”’ They 
have no other representatives in councils; he 
is naturally their ‘‘member.’’ These views 
appear fully developed in his first epistle, and 
in the application of texts in his early Testt- 
monta; it is incredible that they should have 
been borrowed from paganism, and unhis- 
torical to connect them with Judaizers. They 
are (although Cyprian does not dwell on this 
aspect) not incompatible with a recognition 
of the priesthood of the laity as full as that 
of Tertullian. The African episcopate had 
declined in character during the long peace ; 
many bishops were engaged in trade, agricul- 
ture, or usury, some were conspicuously 
fraudulent or immoral or too ignorant to 
instruct catechumens and avoid using here- 
tical compositions in public prayers (de Laps. 
4; Ep. 65, iii.; Auct. de Rebapt. ix.; Aug. 
δ. Don. vii. 45; Resp. ad Epp. [Sedatus]). 
Similarly among the presbyters strange occu- 
pations were possible (Tert. de Idol. cc. 7-9) 
and unmarried deacons shared their chambers 
with spiritual sisters who maintained their 
chastity to be unimpaired. The effect of the 
persecution wes salutary on this state of 
things, and was felt to beso. To the eighteen 
months of ‘“ peace’’ which remained belong 
his Epp. 1-4, and the treatise on the dress of 
virgins, which answers to his description of his 
employment as ‘‘serving discipline’’ during 
that interval. In three of the letters his 
authority is invoked beyond his diocese, and 
wears something of a metropolitan aspect. 
Otherwise it is to be noticed that the African 
bishops rank by seniority. To these letters 
Mr. Shepherd has taken objections, which, if 
valid, would be fatal to the genuineness of 
much of the Cyprianic correspondence; but a 
Tigorous investigation of those objections is 
conclusive in favour of the epistles. 

De Habitu Virginum.—Many Christian 
women lived, as a ‘‘ work of piety,’’ the self- 
dedicated life of virgins in their own homes. 
Tertullian had killed the fashion of going un- 
veiled, which some had claimed as symbolic 


* The bishop alone is called sacerdos throughout 
the Cyprianic correspondence. The presbyter also 
answers to the Levitic tribe; cach congregation 
(diocese) to ‘ the congregation of Israel.” 


CYPRIANUS 219 


of childlike innocence, yet with the avowed 
object of rendering their order attractive. 
Vanity, sentiment, and the sense of security 
were still mischievous elements, and Cyprian 
writes mainlyagainst the extravagant fashions, 
half Roman, half Tyrian, in which the wealth- 
ier sisters appeared. His book, though in 
language drawing largely from Tertullian’s 
treatise of similar title, resembles much more 
in matter and aim his Cultus Feminarwm. 
Cyprian is here so minute and fastidious in his 
reduction of the violent rhetoric of Tertullian 
that this might almost pass for a masterly 
study of writing; and Augustine regards it as 
a very perfect work, drawing from it illustra- 
tions both of the ‘“‘ grand”’ and of the “ tem- 
perate’’ style (Aug. de Doctrina Christiana, 
bk. iv. pp. 78, 86). In estimating the prob- 
able influence of this booklet on ascetic life, 
it is not satisfactory to find that the incentives 
used are partly low and partly overstrained— 
the escape from married troubles, espousals 
with Christ, higher rank in the resurrection ; 
while efficiency in works of charity, the power 
of purity, self-sacrifice and intercession, are 
not dwelt upon. 

Testimonia ad Quirinum, libb. iii—These, 
though not certainly belonging to this time, 
are more like his work now than afterwards. 
They are texts compiled for a layman (filius). 
I. in 24 heads on the succession of the Gentile 
to the Jewish church. II. 30 heads on the 
Deity, Messiahship, and salvation of Christ. 
III. 120 on Christian duty. The skill and toil 
of such a selection are admirable. The im- 
portance of the text in elucidation of the Latin 
versions then afloat is immense, and Hartel is 
quite dissatisfied with what he has been able 
to contribute to this object (Hartel, Praefat. 
Cyp. p. xxiii.). 

Decian Persecution,—Cyprian’s conviction 
of the need of external chastisements for the 
worldliness of the church was supported by 
intimations which he felt to be supernatural, 
The edict which began to fulfil them in the end 
of A.D. 249 aimed at effecting its work by the 
removal of leaders, and at first fixed capital 
penalties on the bishops only (Rettberg, p. 54; 
Ep. 66, vii.). Monotheism, even when licensed 
(like Judaism), had an anti-national aspect, 
and Christianity could not be a lictta religto, 
simply because it was not the established wor- 
ship of any locality or race. In this, and in 
the fact that torture was applied to procure 
not (as in other accusations) confession but 
denial of the charge (A pol. ii. ; Cyp. ad Demet. 
xii. 11), in the encouragement of delation as to 
private meetings (Dig. xviii. 4; Cod. ix. 8, 
iv. vi. vii.), and in the power given to magis- 
trates under standing edicts to apply the test 
of sacrifice at any moment to a neighbourhood 
or a person, lay the various unfairnesses of 
which Tertullian and Cyprian complain. Dio- 
nysius of Alexandria, and with him Origen, 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Maximus of Nola, 
Babylas of Antioch, Alexander of Jerusalem, 
Fabian of Rome, were all attacked, the last 
three martyred. There was no fanaticism of 
martyrdom as yet. It seemed wrong to ex- 
pose a successor to instant death, and no 
bishop was elected for 16 months at Rome. 
Like the former three, Cyprian placed himself 
(before the end of Jan.; Lipsius, Rom. Bisch. 


220 CYPRIANUS 


Chronol. p. 200) out of reach, and, with the 
same determination with which he afterwards 
pronounced that his time was come, refused 
concealment. The grounds for his retirement, 
consistently stated by himself, are the neces- 
sity of continuing the administration (Ep. 12, 
i. v. vi.), the danger which at Carthage he 
would have attracted to others (Epp. 7, 14), 
the riots it would have aroused (Ep. 43), and 
the insistence of Tertullus (Epp. 12, 14). The 
Cyprianic epistles of this period, passing be- 
tween the Roman presbyters, the Carthaginian 
bishop and certain imprisoned presbyters 
(Moyses, Maximus), deacons (Rufinus and 
Nicostratus), laymen, and particularly an 
imperfectly educated Carthaginian confessor 
Celerinus (whose ill-spelt letters Epp. 21 and 
22 are extant), present, when worked out, a 
tesselated coherence with each other and with 
slight notices in Eusebius (vi. 43), which is 
absolutely convincing as to the originality and 
genuineness of the documents. 

The Lapst.—Five commissioners in each 
town and the proconsul on circuit (Epp. 43, iii.; 
10; 56) administered the Decian edict. The 
sufferings by torture, stifling imprisonments, 
and even fire (14, 21) were very severe 


(Ep. 22). Women and boys were among the 
victims. Exile and confiscation were em- 
ployed. In the first terror there was a large 


voluntary abjuration of Christianity, whether 
literally by ‘‘ the majority of his flock”’ (Ep. 
Ir) may be uncertain, but Cyprian felt himself 
““ seated in the ruins of his house.’’ Scenes of 
painful vividness are touched in, but these 
must be passed by. Many of the clergy fell 
or fled, leaving scarcely enough for the daily 
duty of the city (Epp. 34, iv.; 40; 29), as 
did many provincial bishops (Epp. 11, 59). 
Different classes of those who conformed were 
the Thurificati, Sacrificati (the more heinous) 
(Ep. 59), and LIBELLATICI (q.v. in D. C. A., 
as also LiBELLI), whose self-excision was less 
palpable. Of this class there were some 
thousands (Ep. 24). 

Formation of a General Policy. — Cyprian 
from his retirement guided the policy of the 
whole West upon the tremendous questions 
of church communion which now arose. (1) 
Indifferentism offered the lapsed an easy re- 
turn by means of indulgences from, or in the 
names of, martyrs. (2) Puritanism barred all 
return. The Roman clergy first essayed to deal 
with the questionin conjunction with the clergy 
of Carthage independently of Cyprian, whose 
absence they invidiously deplore (Ep. viii.). 
Their letter was returned to them by Cyprian 
himself, with some caustic remarks on its style 
(which are singularly incorrect ; see Hartel’s 
Praefatio, xlviii.) as well as on the irregularity 
of the step. After this an altered tone, and 
Novatian’s marked style, is discernible in their 
letters (Epp. 30 and ? 36). 

The granting of indulgences (not by that 
name) to lapsed persons, by confessors and 
martyrs, which had been first questioned and 
then sharply criticised by Tertullian (ad Mart. 
1; de Pudic. 22), grew very quickly under the 
influence of some of those clergy who had 
opposed Cyprian’s election. The veneration 
for sufferers who seemed actually to be the 
saviours of Christianity was intense, and many 
heads were turned by the adulatory language 


CYPRIANUS 


of their greatest chiefs (cf. Ep. x. 24). Their 
libellt would presently have superseded all 
other terms of communion. 

A strange document (Ep. 23) is extant in the 
form of an absolution to ‘‘ all the lapsed ”’ from 
‘“all the confessors,’’ which the bishops are 
desired to promulgate. Rioters insome of the 
provincial towns extorted communion from 
their presbyters (Ep. 27, iii.). At Rome itself 
the influence of Novatian with the confessors 
created a tendency to strictness rather than 
indulgence, and there were no such disorders, 
but they prevailed elsewhere (Epp. 27, 31, 
32; Ep. 30, iv. 4; 30, vii.). Cyprian at once 
proposed by separate letters to his clergy and 
laity (to whom he writes with warmconfidence), 
to various bishops, and to the Roman con- 
fessors and clergy (Epp. 15, 16, 17, 26), one 
general course of action: to reserve all cases 
of lapsed, without regard to the confessors’ 
libelli, until episcopal councils at Rome and 
Carthage should lay down terms of readmis- 
sion for the deserving (Ep. 20; 55, iv.); then 
the bishops, with clergy and laity (Ep. 17, iv.; 
Ep. 31) assisting, to investigate each case; 
public acknowledgment to be made, readmis- 
sion to be by imposition of hands by bishop 
and clergy. Meantime the acts of the con- 
fessors to be recognized (Ep. 20, 111.) so far 
as that persons in danger, who might hold a 
libellus, should be readmitted by any presby- 
ter, or in extremis by a deacon (Epp. 18, 19). 
All others to be exhorted to repentance, and 
commended with prayer to God at their 
deaths. The grounds he urged were—(r) the 
wideness of the question, which was too large 
for individual discretion (totius orbis, Ep. 19, 
iii. cf. 30, vi.). (2) That if restored at once the 
lapsed would have fared better than those who 
had borne the loss of all for Christ. These 
principles are developed also in the de Lapsis, 
which, however, is not quite as M. Freppel de- 
scribes it, ‘‘a résumé of the letters,’ but a 
résumé of the modified views of Cyprian a little 
later. In M. Freppel’s Sorbonne Lectures (St. 
Cyprien, pp. 195-221) may be studied with 
profit the Ultramontane representation of this 
scheme as equivalent to the modern indulgence 
system, backed by assertions that the Roman 
church ‘‘indicated to Carthage the only 
course,’’ which Cyprian ‘‘fully adopted.” All, 
however, that the Roman clergy had recom- 
mended was mere readmission of sick peni- 
tents, without any conception of a policy, or 
of the method by which it could be worked. 
These are developed step by step in Epp. 17, 
18, 19, and communicated to the Roman 
church (Ep. 20). In replying through Nova- 
tian (Ep. 30, see 55 v.) the Roman presbyters 
re-state and adopt them (cf. Ep. 31, vi. 41). 

Temper in Carthage-—Through the earlier 
part of the above section of correspondence is 
perceptible areliance on thelaity. The clergy 
do not reply to his letters (Ep. 18), they defer 
to the 118 6111, or use them against him (Ep. 27). 
In Ep. 17 he entreats the aid of the laity 
against them. When the concurrence of the 
African and Italian episcopate is obtained 
(Ep. 43, iii.), and that of Novatian and the 
Roman clergy and confessors (Epp. 30, 31), 
assuming a stronger tone (Ep. 32) with his 
own clergy, he requires them to circulate the 
whole correspondence, which is done (Ep. 55. 


CYPRIANUS 


iv.), and excommunication is announced 
against any who should allow communion 
except on the agreed terms. 

About Nov. 250, persecution relaxed (pos- 
sibly owing to the Gothic advance in Thrace), 
and though it was still unsafe for Cyprian to 
return, he endeavoured to deal with the dis- 
tress of sufferers who had lost their all, and 
to recruit the ranks of the clergy and allay 
the excitement among the lapsed, by a com- 
mission (vicarii) of three bishops, Caldonius, 
Herculanus, Victor, and two presbyters, Numi- 
dicus and Rogatian (Epp. 41, 26). 

Declaration of Parties —The excitement on 
the question of the lapsed is evinced by two 
classes of stories then afloat as to judgments 
following on unreconciled offences and on pre- 
sumptuous communion (de Lapsts, 24, 25, 26). 
Cyprian employed both to urge delay, but they 
do not emanate from his party of moderation. 
At Carthage the party of laxity became promi- 
nent; at Rome, that of exclusiveness. 

(1) The party of laxity was composed of 


᾿ confessors, spoiled by flattery (de Laps. 20), 


fashionable Japsi, who declined all penance 
(Laps. 30), influential ones, who had forced 
certain clergy to receive them, but also some 
clergy who united against Cyprian’s policy 
with the five presbyters who had from the 
first resisted him. Of these, three were un- 


doubtedly Donatus, Gordius, Fortunatus 
(Maran. Vit. Cyp. §xvii.; Rettberg, pp. 
97-112). That the fourth was Gaius of Didda, 


or Augendus, is but a guess. The principal in 
position and ability was the presbyter Novatus 
(Pearson’s Jovinus and Maximus, and Pame- 
lius’s Repostus and Felix are impossible). That 
Cyprian’s five original opponents still acted 
against him is shewn by ‘‘ olim secundum 
vestra suffragia”’ (Ep. 43, v.), though in 43, ii. 
he seems only to conjecture their complicity 
with FEeLicisstmus, whom Novatus had asso- 
ciated with himself as deacon in managing a 
district called Mons (possibly the Bozra itself) 
(Epp. 52, 59, 36). Cyprian complains of not 
having been consulted in this appointment, 
which, owing to the then position of the 
deacons, gave the party control of consider- 
able funds. All the arrangements hitherto 
agreed on were disregarded by them, Cyprian’s 
missives unanswered, and his commission of 
relief treated as an invasion of the diaconal 
office of Felicissimus, who announced, while 
other lapsi were at once received into com- 
Munion, that whoever held communications 
with or accepted aid from the commission 
would be excluded from communion or relief 
from the Mons (Ep. 43, ii.; Ep. 41, where the 
conjecture in morte, or references to Monte in 
Numidia, or to the Montenses at Rome, who 
were Donatists, and were never (anciently) 
confused with the Novatianists or called Mon- 
tanistae, are absurd; though Hefele, Nova- 
tianischer Schisma, ap. Wetzer and Welte, K. 
Lexik. and Conciles, t. ii. p. 232, countenances 
these confusions). It is with the name of 
Felicissimus that the lax party is generally 
connected (Ep. 43, iii. v. vii.), and he, with a 
fellow-deacon Augendus, a renegade bishop 


᾿ς Repostus, and certain others, the five presby- 


ters not among them, was presently excom- 
municated. There is no evidence, nor any 
contemporary instance, to warrant the belief 


CYPRIANUS 


that Novatus ordained Felicissimus deacon 
(see the MSS. reading Ep. 52, “ satellitem 
suum diaconum constituit,’’ which Hartel has 
unwarrantably departed from), nor is there 
any such appearance of presbyterian principles 
in this party, as divines of anti-episcopal 
churches, Neander, Rettberg, d’Aubigné, 
Keyser, have freely assumed. The party were 
in episcopal communion, took part in the 
episcopal election at Carthage, presently 
elected a new bishop for themselves, and pro- 
cured episcopal consecration for him. When 
Novatus visited Rome, he threw himself into 
the election then proceeding, and, after op- 
posing the candidate who was chosen, pro- 
cured episcopal consecration for his nominee 
there also. Felicissimus too must have been 
a deacon already, or he could not have in- 
volved himself and Novatus in the charge of 
defrauding the church (Epp. 52, i.; 50, 1.). 

(2) The Puritan Party—The strength of 
the Puritans, on the other hand, was in Rome. 
A group of confessors there, of whom the 
presbyters Moyses and Maximus were the 
chief, united with Novatian and the clergy in 
approving Cyprian’s proposals. The modifi- 
cation of discipline by martyrs’ merits was 
never countenanced here (Ep. 28, ii.) ; never- 
theless, Moyses, before his death (which prob- 
ably happened on the last day of 250), had 
condemned the extreme tendencies of Nova- 
tian towards the non-reconcilement of peni- 
tents (see Valesius’s correct interpretation of 
Eus. vi. 43, and Routh, R. S. iii. p. 81). 
While Cornelius at Rome and Cyprian were 
moving towards greater leniency than their 
resolutions had embodied, Novatian, without 
questioning the hope of salvation for the 
lapsed, was now for making their exclusion 
perpetual, and teaching that the purity of the 
church could not otherwise be maintained. 

The earthly conditions of the invisible and 
visible church had not yet been discussed as 
the Donatists compelled them to be, and Nova- 
tian’s growing error, though in the present 
application it completely severed him from 
Cyprian and the church, was not in principle 
different from that which Cyprian (though 
without producing a schism) held in relation 
to Baptism. Early in a.p. 251 the Roman 
confessors were liberated ; they lost whatever 
influence Moyses had exercised on them ; 
they had been drawn towards Novatian, and 
when Novatus, arriving from Carthage, 
attached himself to this party, because, though 
its puritanism was alien to his own practices 
at home, it was the only opposition existing 
in the capital which threatened to overthrow 
the Cyprianic side, they were at once organized 
into a party to secure the election of a bp. 
of Rome who would break with Cyprian. 
The moment for election was given by the 
absence of Decius and his leading officers on 
the frontier or in Illyria on account of the base 
alliance of Priscus with Cniva, and the revolt 
of Valens. The party of moderation, however, 
prevailed and secured the election of Cornelius, 
and consecrated him in spite of himself by 16 
bishops * (“‘ vim ’”’ Ep. 55, vii.). 

* Lipsius has shewn conclusively that the conse- 
cration of Cornelius was about Mar. 5 (Chronol. d. 
rémischen Bischéfe, p. 18); the usual statement that 
it was in June introduces endless contradictions into 


221 


222 CYPRIANUS 


First Council—Cyprian returned to Car- 
thage after Easter (Mar. 23) from his 14 
months’ absence (biennium), which seems to 
have been prolonged by a fear of the ‘‘ faction”’ 
(Ep. 43, 1.) rekindling persecution (Ep. 55, v-) 
by some demonstration. The bishops of the 
province met in April for the first council, 
held in Carthage, for half a century [AGRIP- 
PINUS], but the discussion on the lapsed was 
postponed by letters from Rome, which 
Cyprian laid before them, viz. Cornelius’s an- 
nouncement of his election (Ep. 45, ii.) anda 
temperate protest against it from Novatian 
(45, iv.) (Maran, p. Ix. misinterprets this 
against the sense of Baluze, whom he edits). 
The protest was soon followed by a mass of 
charges, which Cyprian declined to submit to 
the council. This was excellent policy, but 
at the same time a curious exercise of personal 
authority in that earliest type of returning 
freedom—the church council. At the same 
time he made them dispatch two of their 
number, Caldonius and Fortunatus, to Rome, 
to report. Caldonius was instructed to pro- 
cure attestations of the regularity of the 
ordination of Cornelius from bishops who had 
attended it (Ep. 44 and cf. 45,i.). Meantime, 
communications with the Roman church were 
to be addressed only to the clergy and not to 
Cornelius. (Thestatement of Lipsius, p. 204, 
on Ep. 45, v., is too strong.) He was also to 
lay before the clergy and laity, so as to guard 
them against clandestine influence, the whole 
correspondence about Felicissimus (Epp. 41, 
43, 45, V-). The council, then reverting to its 
programme, was obliged to dispatch first the 
question of Felicissimus, since, if he were 
justified in his reception of the lapsed, no 
terms of communion need be discussed; but 
if the main issue went against him they could 
not on such ex post facto ground deal with 
him disciplinarily. His offence consisted not 
in his theory, which might conceivably be 
correct, but in his readmitting people whose 
cases had been by due notice reserved. Cyp- 
rian, to his honour and like a good lawyer, 
was not present during the trial of his oppon- 
ent, who was condemned. He does not em- 
ploy the first person in relating it (Ep. 45, v.), 
as he always does of councils which he at- 
tended, and from Ep. 48 we must conclude 
that he was at Hadrumetum at that verytime.* 
The programme of the council was again inter- 
rupted still more seriously. Two African 


the common account, and has obliged even Pearson 
to resort to unmanageable hypotheses of long re- 
cesses in the first council of Carthage and of several 
journeys of Novatus to Rome. 

* This absence of Cyprian from the trial of his 
Opponent solves difficulties otherwise insoluble. 
Pearson and Tillemont attribute to the council vari- 
ous adjournments, partly to dispose of the long 
period required by their false date for Cornelius’s 
election, and partly to give room for the visit to 
Hadrumetum. Frequenter acto (Ep. 59, xvi.) means 
largely attended, not, as Pearson and Tillemont, as- 
sembled again and again. Ljipsius has ingeniously 
conjectured, to meet the second difficulty, that the 
council empowered Cyprian to recognize Cornelius 
after their dissolution, if he were satisfied. But the 
council, before breaking up, were abundantly satis- 
fied, and directed him to be acknowledged (Ep. 45). 
So that it is out of the question that afterwards 
Cyprian should have gone to Hadrumetum and sus- 
pended its correspondence with Cornelius. 


CYPRIANUS 


bishops fresh from Rome, Stephanus and 
Pompeius, had brought evidence of the 
regularity of Cornelius’s ordination (Ep. 55, 
vil.) as conclusive as the commissioners could 
have obtained, and the council had expressed 
itself as formally satisfied (Ep. 45, i.) when 
four new delegates from Rome (MAxIMUs, not 
the confessor; Augendus, etc.) announced 
the consecration of Novatian to the Roman 
see. This surprise (for fuller details of 
which see NovaTIAN) was prepared by the 
party of severity, who were disappointed 
by the election of Cornelius, stimulated by 
Evaristus, whom Cyprian regarded as the 
author of the movement (Ep. 50), and directed 
in their action by Novatus, who, possibly with- 
out being a mere adventurer, nor on the other 
hand at all deserving Neander’s characteristic 
exculpations, had no doctrine of his own to 
maintain, but came to Rome simply to endeav- 
our to promote a supposed independence by 
frustrating the arrangements made by the 
bishops as to the reception or exclusion of the 
lapsed. At Carthage therefore he belonged to 
the broad party, at Rome to the narrow.* 
It is a mistake to suppose that his change of 
party was unnoted ; cf. Ep. 52, iii. (4), ‘‘ dam- 
nare nunc audet sacrificantium manus,” with 
Ep. 43, iii., ‘‘nune se ad perniciem lapsorum 
verterunt,’’ z.e. by indulgence. It is also a 
mistake (though Lipsius falls into it, and it is 
universal with the earlier writers) and intro- 
duces confusion into the history to assume 
that Novatus made several voyages to and 
fro. If his arrival be fixed soon atter Mar. 5, 
A.D. 251, it will be found to solve the various 
problems. Their embassy to Carthage, re- 
jected by the council (‘‘ expulsi,”’ Ep. 50, not 
from Africa, as Pearson), appealed to Cyprian 
(Ep. 44). They were not prepared to find 
that he had moved towards leniency as much 
as Novatian to severity from their late common 
standpoint ; and they are told plainly that 
their position must now be considered as ex- 
ternal to the church. Accepting this, they 
proceed to construct a schismatic episcopal 
body with wide alliances. Somewhere close 
to this point the treatise de Unitate, or the 
germ of it, was first delivered in the form of a 
speech, or a read pamphlet, to the council. 
We give an outline of it later. Messengers to 
Cornelius (Primitivus, Mettius, Nicephorus, 
an acolyte) then convey full accounts of the 
procedure, and inform him of his general 
recognition as_ bishop.t Simultaneously, 


* It may here clear some difficulties in Cyprian’s 
letters which Maran and others have confused, if we 
observe that Stephen and Pompey left Rome before 
Novatian’s consecration. ~It is clear from the sen- 
sation they produced that the Novatianist embassy 
brought the first news of it. The council could 
‘‘refute and repel ” its charges, because, though they 
had not received (expectavimus) their own commis- 
sioner’s report (as Maran, Κ΄. Cyp. 1xi., erroneously), 
they had been satisfied by Stephen’s. Hence super- 
venerunt, 44 i. (1), means ‘‘came on the top of our ex- 
pectancy,”’ not “‘came after the Novatianist embassy.” 
The council could not, as they did, have excommu- 
nicated the embassy at once, if up till then they had 
only received Cornelius’s letters, of which they were 
seeking ratification. bah, 

+ There is no reason to suppose with Lipsius (p. 
204,n.) that any correspondence is lost, except the 
synodic epistle about Felicissimus, for Ep. 44 says 
expressly that the details will be given vivd voce, 


Μ᾽ 
δὰ 


CYPRIANUS 


appeals, which were ultimately successful, 
were addressed by Cyprian to the Roman 
confessors to detach themselves from the 
schism in which they found themselves in- 
volved. The original work before the council, 
the restoration of the lapsed, had been facili- 
tated by the two episodes, which had cleared 
off the extreme parties on either side. They 
now listened to Cyprian’s treatise on the 
lapsed; but they inclined to a course even 
milder than he suggested, while they were less 
disposed than he to give the ‘‘ Martyres’’ any 
voice in the decisions.* Their encyclical 
is lost, but the particulars are extricable from 
his Letter to Antontan (Ep. 55), which, since 
it treats only of the restoration of the /zbel- 
latict, not of the lapsed, must be earlier than 
the second council, a.p. 252, and from the 
verbal resemblance of Ep. 54 (3) to 55 (v-) 
must be very near the event. We thence 
gather that they resolved—(1) On an indi- 
vidual examination of the lI[ibellatict; (2) 
Episcopal restoration of non-sacrificers after 
penance (Ep. 55, v-); (3) Of sacrificers if 
penitents at death (55, xiv.) ; (4) No restora- 
tion of those who deferred penance till death 
(55, Xix.). A Roman synod was held in 
June or July + by 60 bishops of Italy, who 
accepted these decisions, and excommunicated 
Novatian. Cornelius announced the facts in 
four (so Tillemont correctly) Greek (so Valois 
correctly) letters to Antioch (Eus. vi. 43), 
with two (non-extant) of Cyprian. Briefly 
tosum up the constitutional results of this first 
council of Carthage: 1. The views of the 
primate are submitted to those of the council ; 
he admits the change (Ep. 55, iii.). 2. The 
intercession and merits of the martyrs, as 
affecting the conditions of restoration, are set 
aside entirely. 3. On the other hand (as 
against Novatian), no offences are considered 
to be beyond the regular power of the church 
toremit. 4 (against Felicissimus). No power 
except that of the authentic organization can 
fix terms of communion. It will be at once 
seen that the free council of bishops had taken 
position as a Christian institution, exercising 
supreme governmental functions, and had 
laid clear lines as to where church authority 
resided. They further ruled that there could 
be no subsequent canvassing of the claims 
of a bishop once ordained. The resolutions 
were issued in the name of the bishops only. 
The Reconciliation of the Novatianist Con- 
fessors at Rome.—A second embassy of Nova- 
tianists followed the report of the first, in 
order to press Cyprian home—Primus, Diony- 
Sius, Nicostratus, Evaristus, and above all, 
Novatus; to whose leaving Rome Cyprian 
does not hesitate partly to ascribe his own 


* Ep. 54, iii. 55 v. 3. To postpone the appearance 
of the de Lapsis to Nov., as Pearson does, or to any 
moment after the council was over, is to attribute to 
Cyprian a publication quite out of date and recom- 
mendations already disposed of. Therefore, if 

‘ultio,”” c. i. is to be pressed to mean the death of 
Decius (which is not necessary, in spite of the consen- 
sus for it), it only shews that ours is a second ed. 

{ The old date, Oct., is due to the mistake as to 
Cornelius’s election. Jerome calls this synod ‘‘ Rom- 
ana Italica Africana,” as if it were one with the 
Carthaginian Synod (de Scr. Ecc. 66, Labbe, i. pp. 
865-868), and from this phrase Baronius has imagined 
three councils, 


CYPRIANUS 223 


next success (Ep. 52 (2), ii.). Cyprian's 
letters to the Novatianist confessors are 
among the most beautiful and skilful in the 
collection ; and Augustine cites no less than 
three times a passage from the letter on their 
return as embodying the absolute scriptural 
answer to puritan separations. It is the first 
exposition of the parable of the Tares, and St. 
Paul’s image of the Great House. Prevailed 
on by the arguments used to them, and 
shocked by the consequences of their action, 
the whole party, with numerous adherents, 
returned to the Catholicside, and were publicly 
and magnanimously received, like the leaders 
of the same sect at Nicaea, and the Donatists 
at Carthage, and the Arians at Alexandria, 
without forfeit of dignity (Epp. 49, 52, 53, 46, 
54, 51). To Cyprian this was more than an 
occasion of Christian joy. It was the triumph 
of his theory (Ep. 51 ad fin.). The date of 
this event may be accurately determined as 
being after the Carthaginian council (since 
Cyprian does not mention this as sitting, in 
his letters on the confessors, and he read the 
account of their recantation to the church, Ep. 
51, not to the bishops), but prior to the Roman 
council, or else they would have been excom- 
municated by it, which they evidently were 
not; and since Cyprian says they recanted 
on the departure of Novatus, it was after the 
second embassy had left Rome. 

Treatise on Unity.—The principles of this 
treatise, read in the council, and sent to the 
Roman confessors (Ep. 54), so shape all Cyp- 
rian’s policy, that it is best to notice it here. 
It indicates its date minutely by allusions to 
the severe party (Novatian’s) (iii. ministros, 
etc., viii. uno in loco, etc., ix. feritas, x. con- 
fessor, xi. episcopi nomen, xiii. aemuli), and by 
the absence of allusion to the lax party (Feli- 
cissimus), whose schism must have been 
noticed in such a paper if the question had not 
been concluded. Inc. v. its original form as 
an address to bishops is traceable. The first 
appearance of Cyprian’s characteristic error 
about baptism occurs in ¢. Xi. Its first 
problem is the existence of schism (as distinct 
from heresy), ‘‘ altar against altar,’’ with 
freedom from corrupt doctrines and lives. 
The sole security is the ascertainment of the 
seat of authority and bond of unity. This is 
indicated by Christ’s commission given once 
to Peter alone, yet again to all the apostles in 
the same terms. The oneness of the commis- 
sion and the equality of the commissioned 
were thus emphasized. The apostleship, con- 
tinued for ever in the episcopate, is thus uni- 
versal, yet one: each bishop’s authority per- 
fect and independent, yet not forming with 
the others a mere agglomerate, but being a full 
tenure on a totality, like that of a shareholder 
in a joint-stock property. ‘‘ Episcopatus 
unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars 
tenetur.” It is in the above definition, c. iv., 
that the famous interpolation has been made, 
which Roman authorities (Mgr. Freppel, ae 
Professor at the Sorbonne, 5. Cyprien et l'Egl. 
d’Afr. lect. 12; Prof, Hurter, of Innspruck, 
SS. PP. Opuscula, v. i. p. 72) even now feel 
it important to retain. The loss of it sug- 
gested the endeavour to make up for it by 
weaving together other texts from Cyprian to 
prove that this one after all represented his 


224 CYPRIANUS 


doctrine—an attempt which would certainly 
never have been dreamed of if this spurious 
passage had not seemed to make him so strong 
asupport. Such special pleading is performed 
with fullest ability by P. Ballerini (a.p. 1756, 
de Vi ac Primatu Romm. Pontiff. xiii. § iii. ed. 
Westhoff, 1845). The MS. history is to be 
found fully in Hartel’s preface, p. 1x. p. xlili. 
It was rejected by Baluze (p. xill. p. 397, Pp. 
409, and Latini, Bib. 5. p. 179 and praef.) and 
inserted by authority in the editions by Manu- 
tius and the Benedictines. The actual origin 
of the interpolation is partly in marginal 
glosses (as Latini proved) and partly in an 
Ep. of Pelagius, ii. (A.D. 854; Pelag. ii. Ep. 6; 
Labbe, vol. vi. p. 627; ed. Ven. 1729), who 
produces as “terrible testimonies of the 
Fathers’’ a passage of Augustine nowhere else 
found, as well as this one four centuries before 
it made its way into a manuscript. Its in- 
troduction of the primacy of Peter as the 
centre of unity is a clumsy interruption of the 
argument and an overthrowal of Cyprian’s 
universal principle of the ‘‘ copiosum corpus 
Episcoporum”’ (Ep. 68, iii. ; 55, xx.) as the core 
of the visible unity of the church. The rest of 
the treatise is the development in beautiful 
language, and the illustration from nature and 
scripture, of his principle. Schism is a divine 
test and prejudicial separation of unbelievers 
in principle. Lastly, unity in the visible 
church must mirror the unity of God and the 
faith, and separations are due, not so much to 
individual teachings as to a radical selfishness 
commonly sanctioned in religious, no less than 
in secular, life. 

The Working of the Legislation.—The legis- 
lation had been brought out by the clergy— 
naturally the austerer class; the one which 
had most inducements not to fall. It was too 
severe. The approach of the great plague 
evoked edicts for sacrifice and roused super- 
stitions which renewed the popular feeling 
against Christians, and led to the magisterial 
and popular outbreak of A.D. 252, which is too 
formally called the Persecution of Gallus (Ep. 
59, viil.), and which supernatural presages, 
not justified by the event, foreshewed as more 
cruel than that of Decius (Epp. 57, vi.; 58, i.). 
Of the libellatics some rigorously tried to 
follow, others openly defied the conciliar en- 
actments (Epp. 57; 65, iii.; 68, ii.). Many 
palliations appeared on examination. A 
second council of 42 bishops at Carthage, held 
on May 15, 252 (Ep. 59, xill.), determined to 
readmit without exception or postponement 
all who had continued penitent. Their 
synodic letter (Ep. 57), by Cyprian’s hand, is 
a complete answer to his former sterner 
strain. The motive cause is the necessity of 
strengthening by communion those who will 
shortly be called to suffer.* The Nova- 


* Ep. 64. ‘The synodic letter of the third council 
characterizes the ground for readmission accepted 
by the second council as necessitate cogente, and that 
of the first as infirmitate urgente, and blames bp. 
Therapius for having neglected both. Ep. 64, 
therefore, cannot, with Mr. Shepherd (Letter ii. p. ro, 
following Lombert ap. Pearson, Ann. Cyp. p. 458), be 
dated before Ep. 57, nor (as Maran) synchronize with 
it; for they could not censure the neglect of a rule 
they were in the act of making ; and why should only 
42 bishops have issued letter 57, out of 66 who issued 
Ep. 64? Add to which that 64 is written in a peace- 


CYPRIANUS 


tianists having attracted converts from 
heathenism and now given up hope of Cyprian, 
consecrated their legate Maximus to be (anti-) 
bishop of Carthage.* The lapsed of the lax 
party, not being penitents, were not admissible 
on the new conditions; the party had in- 
creased to a number reckoned scarcely smaller 
than the Catholics (Ep. 59, xxi. 17), but the 
milder terms now offered would diminish 
them. The leaders therefore needed a more 
positive basis (Ep. 59, xv. xvi. [14]), and being 
taunted as the only unepiscopal body among 
Christians (Ep. 43, v.), procured the adhesion 
of PrivaTus, a deposed bishop (Ep. 59, xiii.), 
and consecrated Fortunatus a second anti- 
bishop in Carthage + by the hands of five 
bishops.{ This fact was immensely exagger- 
ated (59, xiv. 11), and Felicissimus sailed to 
Rome as legate of his new chief, hoping that 
a recognition might be procured for numbers 
which would be useful against Novatianism. 
They reported the unpopularity of Cyprian at 
Carthage, and threatened to appeal, if rejected, 
to the Roman laity (Ep. 59, il. iii. xxv.). 
Cornelius was disconcerted. Cyprian’s ob- 
servations on this, which begin in a half sar- 
castic tone (Ep. 59, ii.), rise to glowing indig- 
nation, as he narrates the overwhelming work 
at this moment entailed on him by the ex- 
amination in presence of the plebes of the 
returning schismatics and libellatics. The 
demand for strictness in readmission comes 
(as usual after times of trial) from the mass.§ 

The leniency of the bishop and council, the 
gross mistake of a rival episcopacy, and the 
popular claim for discipline, rapidly broke up 
the party (59, xxi.) and reduced its congrega- 
tion to a handful. 

Clerical Appeals under the Same Regulations. 
—It is not safe to assert that the terms of re- 
admission for clerics were considered separ- 
ately at the second council, but immediately 
after it is accepted that lapsed bishops and 
clerks could never resume orders (Ep. 55, ix.). 


ful time, such as began with Aemilian Ap. 253. See 
fuither Pearson’s arguments, of which one is good, 
one inadequate. 

* Notearlier. Ep. 52 ii. Novatus has not yet made 
a bishop in Carthage. Ep. 59 xi. Maximus is spoken 
of as sent nuper (A.D. 251) consecrated nunc (the Ep. 
being subsequent to Id. Mai. a.D. 252). From Ep. 
55 x. we find they had bishops in many places before 
Council II. The step, then, had been delayed in 
Carthage, and this must have been because they still 
had hopes of Cyprian, which, though misplaced, seem 
to me not unnatural. 

+ Dean Milman (Lat. Chr. vol. i. p. 48) apparently 
missed the fact that there were two anti-bishops, one 
of each extreme; and also fell into the error of 
making Fortunatus a Novatianist. 

1 These were Privatus of Lambaese, condemned 
by a council of 90 bishops, under Donatus, Cyprian’s 
predecessor; Felix, a pseudo-bishop of Privatus’s 
making ; Repostus, a lapsed bishop; Maximus and 
Jovinus, Sacrificati, whom, from their having been 
condemned by nine bishops, and then by the first 
council, I conclude to have been bishops. 

§ Socrates’s (v. 19) statement that this was the 
occasion on which Poenitentiaries were first appointed 
to hear private confession, seems counter to the whole 
spirit of the time. Sozomen (vii. 6) represents the 
Roman mode of penance much later, when the bishop 
is himself the fellow penitent and the absolver. This 
contradiction of his statement thet Poenitentiaries 
were an institution in the West as well as the East 
shews how little was known of the origin or date of 
the office. 


CYPRIANUS 


In Ep. 65 Cyprian rests this on the Levitical 
institution and on his own visions. In Ep. 
67, vi., however, he speaks of all bishops being 
agreed on this. In Ep. 72, ili., four years 
later, the principle extends to presbyters and 
deacons who had taken part in a heresy or 
schism. And at first sight it presents a 
singularly contradictory appearance of laxity 
that only Novatianists and Donatists held 
the indelibility of orders to be such that their 
recanting bishops resumed their functions 
(Optatus, i. p. 27). There are three cases: 
(1) Therapius, bp. of Bulla, admits Victor, a 
lapsed presbyter, without due penance. 
Fidus, bp., reports this to the third council of 
67 bishops (A.D. 253), considering that Victor 
should be re-excommunicated. The council 
decline to rescind the boon of ‘‘ God’s priest,” 
but censure Therapius, apparently in his place 
(Ep. 64—obsurgare et instruxtsse), for neglect- 
ing the terms of the second council without 
any consultation of the laity. The same 
letter (ad Fidum, 64) contains an important 
decision as toage of baptism. [Frpus.] (2) 
Fortunatus, bp. of Assurae, lapsed, and in his 
place was elected Epictetus; but the lapsed 
party (Ep. 65, v. ili.) on their return claimed 
for him the function and emoluments. The 
ground of order would have been sufficient ; 
but Cyprian, with his characteristic error, 
urges the vitiation of any church function dis- 
charged by an unworthy minister, and recom- 
mends individual canvassing, if necessary, to 
unite the flock under Epictetus. (3) The 
most important case is that of Basilides and 
Martial, in a.p. 254, when the Spanish churches 
of Leon, Astorga, and Merida appeal to Cyp- 
rian against the negligent decision of Steph- 
anus, now bp. of Rome, in favour of the 
restoration of their lapsed bishops. The 
letter of the Carthaginian council of 37 bishops, 
A.D. 254 (Ep. 67), penned by Cyprian, declares 
the verdict of the bp. of Rome mistaken and 
to be disregarded. This letter also insists 
on the duty of a laity to withdraw from com- 
munion with a “sacrilegious”’ or ‘“‘ sinful”’ 
bishop, and marks the universal sense that 
there resided in a congregation no power to 
make valid the sacramental acts of a nominee 
who lacked the note of true orders (Ep. 67, 
iii. ; cf. Routh, vol. iii. p. 152). 

Practical Organizations and Christian Culture. 
—(a) Captivity—During the session of the 
council an extensive raid was executed by the 
Berbers, who, severely ruled as they were 
without any attempt to civilize them, were 
beginning that steady advance on Numidia 
which in a few years replaced the whole range 
of Ferratus in their possession. In 252 their 
front line reached from Thubunae on the salt- 
marsh to the terebinth forests of Tucca, and 
they deported large numbers of the Christians 
of no less than eight sees. Severalinscriptions 
relate to this invasion (see Revue Afric. vols. 
iv. vii. viii.) About £800 were subscribed 
by the 60 bishops and Carthaginian com- 
munity (Ep. 62), and sent to them. 

(Ὁ) Plague.—But the great field on which 
the expanding powers of humanity were 
gathered up and animated by the church was 
opened by the great plague which reached 
Carthage in a.p. 252, having travelled two 
years from Ethiopia through Egypt. Great 


CYPRIANUS 


physical disturbances had preceded it (ad 
Dem. ii. 1, vii. 5). The eruption and the 
brain affection which marked the plague of 
Athens are not recorded of this; nor yet the 
pulmonary symptoms, which, perhaps, were 
not developed in the African climate. The 
other symptoms seem to be identical, and the 
devastation far more awful, extensive, and 
enduring. It lasted 20 years; reduced the 
population of Alexandria by half; destroyed 
the armies of Valerian before Sapor; kept the 
Goths off the Thracian border, and for some 
time killed 5,000 persons daily in Rome 
(Eutrop. ix. v.; Hust. Aug. Galli, v. p. 177; 
Dionys. ap. Eus. vii. 22; Greg. Nys. Vit. 
Greg. Thaum. ὃ 12). The efforts of the Em- 
perors Gallus and Valerian in burying the 
dead were appreciated, otherwise their efforts 
were confined to supplications to Saturn and 
Apollo. (See three types of coins of Gallus in 
British Museum, and see Cohen, Médailles 
Impér. vol. iv. p. 270; Bandusi, vol. i. p. 58.) 
Horrible scenes of desertion and spoliation 
ensued in Carthage as in Athens (ον Vit. 
Cyp. and Cyp. ad Dem. τὸ [8], τὰ [9}), when 
universal physical terror or audacity over- 
powered all other sentiments. As in Neo- 
Caesarea and Alexandria so in Carthage, the 
Christian clergy stood out as the first cham- 
pions of life, health, and feeling. Cyprian 
addressed his community in a speech, which 
it was wished could have been delivered to 
the city from the rostrum, on the duty and 


225 


‘divineness of prayer and help to the perse- 


cutors (Respondere Natalibus was his watch- 
word), and then proposed and carried a 
scheme for the systematic care of the city. 
Filled with his motives and under his influence 
rich and poor undertook the parts he assigned, 
raised a large fund, formed a nursing staff 
and burial staff, and allowed no religious dis- 
tinction in their ministrations. But their 
abstinence from religious processions and 
sacrifices marked the Christians as enemies of 
God and man, and the “* Overseer of the Chris- 
tians ’’ was demanded by name for a contest 
with a lion (Epp. 59, viii.; 66, 44). The 
terrible work lasted on till his exile five years 
later, as we must conclude from Pontius’s 
juxtaposition of the events, with his remark 
that exile was the reward for “ withdrawing 
from human sight a horror like hell.” 

(c) Ad Demetrianum.—Their chief foe was 
an aged magistrate (sub ipso exitu Dem. 25 
[22]}, not the pro-consul (Pearson), but per- 
haps one of the five primores, formerly an 
inquirer into the truth of Christianity, in 
Cyprian’s own friendship (i.), now himself an 
inventor of accusations (c. 2) and tortures, 
xii. (10). The pamphlet in which Cyprian 
assails him is much wider in its aim than Ter- 
tullian’s ad Scapulam; both have the remon- 
strailce against the suppression of the one 
natural worship, the appeal to the demeanour 
of the now prevalent sect (pars paene major 
cujusque civitatis), to the effects of exorcism, 
and the influence through suffering of the 
Christians. But while Tertullian for once re- 
frains from denunciation, and is almost gentle 
in his examples of warning, Cyprian’s object is 
wider; he answers the question, ‘‘ Whence 
all this political and this physical misery ?”’ 
The heathen answer attributed it to the divine 


lo 


226 CYPRIANUS 


displeasure at toleration. Cyprian accepts 
also a certain theory of mundane decrepitude, 
but bases his real reply on the general disso- 
lution of the bonds of society ; an important 
passage, perhaps the very earliest on slavery 
(viii. [6]), marks the exact stage reached by 
the Christian consciousness on this subject. 
So also the theory of Resentment is exhibited in 
a certain stage of purification, though some of 
the language would be intolerable now. The 
eternal conservation of beings for eternal 
suffering is laid down (xxiv. 21). The most 
original part of the essay is the development 
for the first time of the theory of Probation 
(already struck out in his slightly earlier 
epistle 58 to Thibaris) as grouping the pheno- 
mena of humanity. Jerome hastily (Ep. 
83 ad Magn.; Lact. Inst. 5, 4) criticizes 
Cyprian for advancing scriptural proofs to a 
heathen. But (1) Demetrian already knew 
something of Christianity; (2) Cyprian does 
not quote authors’ names, as to one familiar ; 
(3) he quotes nothing but plainly fulfilled pre- 
dictions. All which (as well as the classical 
tone and quotations) fits the case exactly, and 
answers Rettberg’s incompetent conjecture 
that Demetrian is a fancy figure. 

(d) On the Mortality—This treatise, or 
epistle as Augustine calls it (he quotes it no 
less than six times), presents to the Christians 
the consolatory primitive view of the topics 
set threateningly before Demetrian. It is 
meant to elevate their view of both the per- 
secution and the plague, from which some 
expected providential exemptions, while others 
hated it only as an interference with martyr- 
dom; he explains his theory of probation and 
of predictions as evidencing a divine plan. 
He cannot reject, but he gives a Christian 
turn to the general belief in the world’s decay ; 
urges organizations for relief of suffering ; 
treats moral causes in society as affecting 
general and even physical phenomena. In 
Cc. XXvi. occurs what seems more than a coin- 
cidence with phrases in the Te Deum. In 
c. xx. he condemns the use of black for 
mourners. 

(e) On Work and Alms.—A pastoral, which 
may indeed be connected with the incidents of 
Ep. 62, but more probably has a wider refer- 
ence to the demands made by the plague and 
coincident troubles on the exertions and 
liberality of the Christians. Among circum- 
stances known to us directly it would be more 
natural to link it to the great speech which 
Pontius mentions as having been delivered at 
that time to the community. Here again we 
find Cyprian working out the new faith into 
a life-system ; philosophically (as in a kind of 
Tusculan) adjusting moral feeling and practice 
to the newly gained higher facts about God 
and Man. Seecc. ix. x. xi. practically develop- 
ing that ‘‘ loss is gain,’’ and “ gain is loss,”’ to 
those who are within the care of Christ, xvi. 
Christianity becomes a social element which up- 
lifts the poor: their claims take precedence of 
family claims; the possession of a family only 
increases the obligation to Christ’s poor.—In 
xxii. is a bold passage, almost Goethesque, 
in which Satan apostrophizes Christ on the 
superior liberality of his own school.—The 
doctrine of the first part i-vii. develops the 
unfortunate conception (roundly stated in Ep. 


CYPRIANUS 


55, xviii. [14]) of good works acting on sins 
done after baptism, as baptism acts to remit 
former sin. Neander (Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 391, 
Bohn) remarks that while this same thought 
appears in Tertullian (de Poenit.), yet no one 
person can be regarded as the author of it. 
It is a natural and popular materialistic germ 
of the doctrines of Rome on penance. 

(f) The Exhortation to Confessorship is a 
practical manual of Scripture passages, con- 
nected by brief remarks, under 13 heads of 
reflection ; compiled at the request of a lay- 
man, Fortunatus. Its existence sufficiently 
indicates the extent of suffering which a per- 
secution developed. A more sober tone as to 
the perfections of the martyrs is perceptible. 
The introduction of the seven Maccabees not 
only as examples, but as a type of unity (ad 
Fort. xi.), dates this as later than de Unitate, 
where every other possible type is accumulated 
but not this one. The teaching on probation 
also marks the stage of his thoughts. He 
computes the world to be near 6,000 years 
old (ad Fort. ii.; cf. Tert. de V. V.1.). 

(g) On the Lord’s Prayer.—To promote intel- 
ligent devotion was his next aim. This treat- 
ise is written with precision and with visible 
delight. The time is clearly shewn by his 
deductions on unity (xxiv.; cf. de Unit. xiv. 
[12]) ; on the danger of withholding commu- 
nion from penitents (de Or. xviii.), and on the 
confessor’s temptations to arrogance (xxiv.). 
Cyprian follows Tertullian freely, not tran- 
scribing as before; adopts the African ‘‘ ne nos 
patiaris induci’’ without remark (cf. Aug. de 
Dono Persev. vi. 12), and “‘ fiat in caelo’’ (7d. 
ili. 6) ; illustrates more fully from Scripture, 
and uses a different version. His silence prob- 
ably evinces Tertullian’s success in remon- 
strating against superstitious observances in 
praying (Tert. Deor. xi. xvi.), and he does not, 
like his ‘‘ master,’ hail the ‘‘ confusion of 
nations ’’ as a mark of the kingdom; but in 
his expansion of the symbolism of praying 
thrice a day we have the earliest use of Trinitas 
in Latin as a name of Deity (in Tert. adv. 
Prax. 3, it is not exactly this). In a.p. 427 
Augustine (Ep. ccxv.) used the treatise suc- 
cessfully with the monks of Adrumetum to 
prove the Pelagian errors contrary to the 
Cyprianic doctrine. He quotes this short 
treatise of ‘‘ victoriosissimus Cyprianus”’ else- 
where 13 times to the same effect. Yet not 
one term occurs in it which became technical 
in that controversy—a fact which would alone 
evince its early date. Mr. Shepherd, however 
(Fourth Letter to Dr. Maitland, 1853), has 
undertaken to prove that its writer was ac- 
quainted with the work of Chromatius (d. A.D. 
406) and is more ‘‘sacramental’’ than that 
author, Gregory Nyssen, or Chrysostom, and 
than Augustine’s doubt as to the application of 
the ‘‘ daily bread ’’ allows; he observes that 
Venantius (6th cent.) does not use it, though 
his predecessor, Hilary, refers the readers of 
his commentary to it in preference to com- 
menting himself; having thus satisfied him- 
self of the lateness of the Cyprianic treatise, 
Mr. Shepherd therefore asperses the genuine- 
ness of the great Augustinian works which 
cite it. A critical comparison with Chro- 
matius would require a minuteness and 
space here inadmissible, but the result of such 


CYPRIANUS 


investigation leaves no doubt that Cyprian is 
the middle term between Tertullian and Chro- 
matius. Briefly, Chromatius knows no argu- 
ment or illustration of Tertullian’s which 
Cyprian has not employed ; almost every one 
of these has in Chromatius (though a most 
condensed prosaic writer) some additional 
Cyprianic touch or colour adhering to it. 
Observe too Chromatius’s insertion of the 
negative, im his qui necdum crediderunt (δ iv.), 
in mistaken elucidation of Cyprian’s obscure 
in tllis credentibus (§ xvii.) precisely as later 
MSS. and editors have altered it. As to the 
Eucharistic language about daily bread, it is 
admittedly not more strong than in other 
Cyprianic treatises, nor visibly stronger than 
Chromatius. The Antiochene Fathers of course 
are not Eucharistic in this clause, because they 
followed Origen’s interpretation of ἐπιούσιος. 
Augustine will not strictly limit the petition 
to the Eucharist (though for singular reasons, 
Serm. 56, 57, 58), but his more analytical, yet 
more mystical treatment of it is distinctly in 
a later mood than the simply moral handling 
of Cyprian. That Venantius does not men- 
tion Cyprian in his unfinished treatise surely 
demands no explanation. His aim is more 
theological and his language very compressed. 
But tinges of Cyprian are perceptible in the 
passages on Sonship ; perseverance ; reigning 
with Christ ; resistance to God’s will, and our- 
selves being made heavenly to do it; but we 
may add that Ambrose’s omission to comment 
on vv. 1-5 of c. xi. is inexplicable, except for 
the existence of some standard treatise, such 
as is mentioned by Hilary (Mt. V.): ‘‘ De 
orationis sacramento necessitate nos com- 
mentandi Cyprianus liberavit.’’ 

Interval.—Cornelius’s exile, with others, to 
Civita Vecchia, his decease in June 253, as a 
martyr, in the then sense of the word, the short 
episcopate of Lucius, his exile, speedy return, 
and death, not later than Mar. 5, A.D. 254 (Cyp. 
Epp. 60, 61, 67, 68), find place in Cyprian’s 
correspondence,* not without some undue 
exaggerations, as when he compares the re- 
appearance of Lucius to that of John Baptist, 
as heralding the advent. Not later than this 
we place the epistle (63) to bp. Caecilius, re- 
proving the omission of wine in the chalice, 
and distinctly indicating the symbolical im- 
portance of a mixed cup; the necessity of a 
congregation to constitute a sacrament; the 
irregularity of evening communion. To 
Sept. 253, and its council of 66 bishops, be- 
longs the condemnation of the postponing for 
even a few days, on ritual grounds, the admin- 
istration of the other sacrament to infants. 
To it belongs the affair of Therapius, as above. 

Changed Relations with Rome, and Cyprian’s 
Error of Rebaptism.—In A.D. 254 Easter was 
on April 23; Stephanus was made bp. of 
Rome May 12; the Carthaginian council 
met towards autumn (September ?). It had 
seemed to Cyprian a token of divine displeas- 
ure with the Novatianists that they did not 
suffer with the church; and their prosperity 
might have seemed to form Stephen’s policy in 

* On the death of Cornelius and his sepulture, see 
Mommsen, Chronog. vom Jahre 354, p. 631; de 
Rossi, Roma Sott. vol. ii. pp. 66-68 ; and on the true 
date of his death, as distinct from his festival, Lip- 
sius, Chron. 4. Pap. p. 192. 


CYPRIANUS 227 


so anti-puritan a mould, except for his over- 
indulgence to Marcion, the Novatianist bp. 
of Arles (Ep. 68) ; but his was rather a policy 
of general resistance to the spiritual power 
compacted by Cyprian and Cornelius ; a policy 
of the widest comprehension on the one basis of 
submissiveness to his see. The cases of Basil- 
ides and Martial have been mentioned. Cyp- 
rian’s tone to him is one of both compassion 
and dictation (Ep. 68), and from his letter to 
Florentius Pupienus (66) it is plain that 
others besides Stephen felt, rightly or wrongly, 
more than aversion to the immense influence 
of Cyprian. And, although the whole church 
has decided that Stephen was right in the 
great controversy which arose, it was long 
before his character recovered the shock of his 
impetuous collision with Cyprian, and grew 
capable of his fictitious crown of martyrdom. 
The next group of documents belongs to a.p. 
255 and 256, and is occupied with the contro- 
versy on rebaptism (Epp. 69-75, Sentt. Epp. 
Ixxxvii.). For though Cyprian objects to that 
term (Ep. 73, 1.), catholic doctrine insists on 
the assertion it involves. Notwithstanding 
the council of Agrippinus, and the reception of 
thousands of heretics by rebaptism in the 
African church (Ep. 73, iii.), numbers had been 
readmitted without it (Ep. 73, xxiii.; Aug. 
says the practice had fallen off). On the other 
hand, though Stephen appeals to the constant 
tradition of his church against rebaptizing, 
this is simply to ignore the action of Callistus 
(Hippolytus, p. 291, a passage which is against 
the idea of that author’s Novatianism, but 
which Hefele monstrously wants to apply to 
Agrippinus [Hist. des Conciles, vol. i. p. 87, 
Paris]). An allusion to Stephen (Ep. 69, x.) 
seems to imply that Stephen stirred the ques- 
tion first. Rettberg considers, after Maran, 
that his Oriental dispute had already occurred 
(p. 170). So Hefele. But this is not neces- 
sary. Cyprian (de Un. xi.) early committed 
himself to language as strong as he ever used 
again. The original inquiry is whether the 
non-heretical Novatianists, baptized as such, 
can be received to catholic communion. It 
extended itself (73, iv.), until the cases of 
Marcionites and even Ophites were debated ; 
Stephen would include, and Cyprian exclude, 
all. At first the difficulty was only ‘‘ Is not 
the exclusive African practice itself a Nova- 
tianist mark—being otherwise used only in 
that sect ?’’ Our briefest method will be 
first to enumerate the documents, and then to 
classify their often repeated arguments. 

(1) Magnus, a layman, makes the first ap- 
plication, and is replied to by Cyprian with 
affectionate respect (Ep. 69). (2) The bishops 
of Numidia, who, though without formal vote, 
had adopted the practice, apply next; the 
reply is from 33 bishops of Africa, with the 
presbyters of Carthage (Ep. 71). This is 
Cyprian’s 5th Council and 1st on Baptism. 
Ep. 70 is their conciliar declaration of the 
necessity of (re)baptism. (3) A Mauritanian 
bishop, Quintus, is answered in Ep. 71, 
enclosing Ep. 70, now widely circulated (71, 
iv.), breathing an injured tone as towards 
Stephen, and indicating that the council had 
not been unanimous (£p. 71,1., plurimi... 
nescic qua praesumptione quidam). (4) 
The de Bono Patientiae was published about 


228 CYPRIANUS 


this time, to be, without one word upon the 
subject matter of the controversy, a calming 
voice in the rising storm. The de Zelo et 
Livore is generally (and probably) thought to 
be a very little later in date, and similar in 
purpose. It is equally reticent on passing 
events, unless (in vi. 5) there may be an allu- 
sion to Novatian. There area few close verbal 
resemblances between the two treatises, es- 
pecially in de Pat. xix. (11) and de Zelo, iv. 
and v. (5) Next year, A.D. 256, the 6th 
Council under Cyprian and 2nd on Baptism, 
* composed of 71 bishops, Numidian and Afri- 
can,* unanimously reaffirm the opinion in an 
unconciliatory synodical epistle to Stephen, 
conscious of the offence they will give, and 
enclosing Epp. 70 and 71. This epistle is 
mentioned by Jerome, adv. Lucif. But 
Augustine (Resp. ad Epp. 15) seems not to 
have seen it, which is strange. (6) Jubaian, 
a bp. of Mauritania, forwards to Cyprian a 
copy of a paper there circulating, with some 
authority, which recognizes even Marcion’s 
baptism (Ep. 73, iv.). It may have been 
issued by one of those native bishops who 
dissented (Sentt. Epp. 59, 38, and cf. Aug. 
Resp. ad Epp. 52, con. Donat. vil. 16, 6). Rett- 
berg agrees with ‘‘ Constant. Ep. Pontzf. p. 
226,” that it was Stephen’s letter to the East. 
Cyprian sent Jubaian a reply so elaborate that, 
at the final council, he read it aloud as his own 
best exposition of his views, with Jubaian’s 
convinced answer. Cyprian’s letter was 
accompanied with all the documents sent to 
Stephen, and a copy of his Patience. (7) A 
deputation of bishops waited on Stephen but 
were not received (Ep. 75, xxv.) ; the letter 
which they bore was answered (74, 1.) in terms 
appreciative of the greatness of the question 
(75, xvii.) but not arguing it, charitable to the 
separatists, affirming the tradition (75, v. ; 73, 
xili.), resting on the authority of the see (75, 
xvii.), and styling Cyprian “ἃ pseudo-Christ, 
a pseudo-apostle and treacherous worker.”’ It 
would be unfair not to recognize anxiety under 
the word ‘ treacherous,’’ while Fabian of 
Antioch, by dallying with Novatianism, was 
complicating Stephen’s position; and Cyp- 
rian’s own language as to ‘“‘favourers of 
Antichrist ’’ (69, x.) had exposed him to re- 
taliation. Stephen had circulated in the East 
a paper which awakened “‘ lites et dissensiones 
per ecclesias totius mundi’”’ (75, xxiv.), declar- 
ing he would hold no communion with bishops 
who used second baptism (Ep. 75, xxiv. ; 74, 
viii.; Dionys. Al. ap. Eus. vii. 5).+ The 
natural reply of the metropolitan of Cappa- 
docia was ‘‘ Thou hast excommunicated thy- 
self.” The general history of rebaptism 
must be read elsewhere, but it was held in 
Cappadocia, Pamphylia, and other regions of 
Asia Minor as a practice received from ‘‘ Christ 
and from the apostle’”’ (75, xix.), and it had 
been confirmed by the councils of Synnada and 
Iconium. ᾧ Dionysius the Great recom- 


* a.p. 312. The relations of Numidia with Carth- 
age seem unsettled (Hefele, Conciles, vol. i. p. 170). 

ἡ H. Valois is right, I believe, in thinking this a 
threat. Routh thinks it was actual excommunica- 
tion, and Lipsius that he excommunicated Cypr.an. 
Several bishops of the seventh council were very 
early in the Roman calendar for iv, Id. Sep. 

1 Lipsius’s reasons (pp. 219, 220) for dating Ico- 


CYPRIANUS 


mended forbearance to Stephen, and to the 
eminent Roman presbyters Dionysius and 
Philemon.* (8) Pompey, bp. of Sabrata on 
the Syrtis, was the next inquirer, asking for 
Stephen’s reply (Ep. 74). Cyprian sends it 
with the antidote, a fine letter, though not 
moderate, closing with an amendment on the 
canon of Stephen. Pompey was convinced if 
he had wavered, and his proxy at the council 
was presented by his neighbour the bp. of 
Oea. (9) The 7th council of Carthage, or 
3rd on baptism, held Sept. 1, A.D. 256. Eighty- 
seven bishops of all the three provinces, with 
presbyters and deacons, met in the presence of 
a vast laity.f The council opened with the 
reading of the Jubaian correspondence, and 
the letter to Stephen (Sent. 8), and with a brief 
speech from Cyprian, large and pacific (Aug. 
R. Epp.). Each bishop then by seniority 
delivered his opinion, of which we have a 
verbal report: from some a good argument, 
from some a text, an antithesis, an analogy, 
or a fancy: here a rhetorical sentence, there 
a solecism or an unfinished clause; a simple 
restatement, a personality, a fanaticism; two 
of the juniors vote with the majority on the 
ground of inexperience. But on the whole 
we must admire the temper and the ability of 
so large a number of speakers. The council 
had a great moral effect. It kept Roman 
influence at bay for a long time. Jerome is 
mistaken in asserting, in his youthful contra 
Luctferianos, that these Fathersrecanted. The 
custom was not specifically repealed till the 
synod of Arles, nor for Asia Minor till the first 
of Constantinople. But, from peculiar cir- 
cumstances, it was specially accepted in the 
East, and is the basis now of the rebaptism by 
the Jacobites, not only of heretics and Nestor- 
ians, but of orthodox Christians. 1 Before 


nium so late as A.D. 255 are surely quite insufficient. 
Eusebius (vii. 3) says Cyprian was πρῶτος τῶν τότε to 
hold 1ebaptism, which is a most accurate expression. 
He has already said that it had been held in very 
populous churches, and has told us of the old council 
of Agrippinus which declared it. Asia had quietly 
continued, Africa had mostly dropped the practice, 
and Cyprian was the first τῶν τότε to reviveit. Lip- 
sius is actually driven by his own special pleading to 
say there were two synods of Iconium ‘‘ which must 
not be confounded,’’ one named by Firmilian, and one 
by Dionysius—about the baptism of heretics—at 
the same place—at a very considerable interval— 
both making exactly the same declaration. 

* Jerome (Script. Ecc.) says Dionysius took the 
strict view. He himself seems (Eus. vii. 9) to say 
the opposite, and cf. vii. 7. 

+ I believe this to be a simple and sufficient 
account of the circumstances of the correspondence, 
and Mosheim’s and Rettberg’s little amusement of 
inventing lost documents is unnecessary. ‘The letter 
of Stephanus shewn to Pompeius is the same which 
Firmilian saw. The legation of course presented the 
synodal letter, which was meant to be final : accord- 
ingly Cyprian (in Sentt. Ep.) speaks of the question 
as resting henceforth with individual bishops. 

ΤΟΙ the seventh council Mr. Shepherd says, 
“Wonderful to say, it has a date.” So has the 
second (Ep. 59, xlii.). Of another event he remarks, 
“It would have been far more natural to have said 
A.D. 180, or some such date.”’ It would have been 
an excessively interesting use of the Christian era, 
and Mr. Shepherd has doubtless noted the careful 
dates of other documents, Tertullian’s historical 
allusions, Augustine’s letters. The paucity of dates 
is, however, singular. It may have some connexion 
with the African hostility, even to civil usages de- 
pendent on heathenism, The Donatists at Carthage, 


CYPRIANUS 


the winter of 256* Cyprian’s messengers to 
Firmilian returned with (ro) his reply, the 
most enthusiastic letter of the series. We 
have it in Cyprian’s translation from the 
Greek. t+ It has points of great interest ; 
compares the bp. of Rome to Judas; shews 
the antiquity of rebaptism in Asia; touches 
on their annual synods ; the fixed and extem- 
pore portions of the liturgy; the quasi-supre- 
macy of Jerusalem; the unity under wide 
divisions. For arguments to the point it relies 
on Cyprian’s letters. 

We will now briefly classify Cyprian’s argu- 
ments and the answers to them, avoiding the 
making him responsible for his partisans, 
whose judgment in council (vii.) differs much 
from his. Firmilian, on the other hand, 
summarizes sensibly. Cyprian then urges for 
rebaptism (A), Objective grounds. (a) The 
unity of the church, viz. that in the critical 
point of “church and non-church,’’ schism 
does not differ from heresy (69, iii.): the 
representation of sacred acts outside not 
equivalent to sacred acts within: ‘‘ one Lord, 
one faith,’ there may be, but not ‘one 
baptism,’’ for this implies ‘‘one church,” 
which the schismatic renounces. (b) Unity of 
Belief. In its African form the creed ran, 
“Dost thou believe the remission of sins and 
life everlasting through holy church ?’’ and was 
accordingly null at the moment of baptism 
away from the church. (c) Baptism 15. a 
function of holy orders on account of its remis- 
sory virtue in respect of sin (not Tertullian’s 
doctrine [de Bap. xvii.]), and holy orders have 
no being outside the church (73, vii.), so that 
the whole question of episcopal authority as 
the bond of unity and divine organization is 


A.D. 411, treat the fact that the Acts of the council 
of Cirta, A.D. 305, commence with the consular date 
as an evidence against their genuineness. The Cath- 
olics reply, that though the Donatists avoid dates, 
the Catholics use them. But it may be that the 
Donatists preserve the old puritanic tradition. Cf. 
Aug. Brev. Coll. c. Don. p. 569, 311. diei, cap. xv. ὃ 26, 
27. (Athanasius’s objection to the date in the creed 
of Sirmio is of another colour.) For an account of 
the Romanist assaults on it, see Rettberg, pp. 189, 
190. Augustine accepted it, when some wished to 
make it of Donatist origin, on the ground of its con- 
taining so much against Donatism. 

* Stephen died, and Cyprian was exiled before the 
winter of 257. 

+ It is impossible not to recognize Cyprian’s style 
in it; equally impossible not to see the Gk. [A] in 
some of its compound phrases and coupled epithets 
(e.g. i. magnam voluntatis caritatem in unum con- 
venire; iii. velociter currentes, iv. quoniam sermo 
... distribuatur, etc.). [B] In the literal (sometimes 
awkward) rendering of words: iv. seniores et prae- 
positi (= presbyteri et epicopi) for πρεσβύτεροι καὶ 
προεστῶτες ; Vii. praesident majores natu, where 
Cyprian could not have used presbyteri, and yet age 
is not to the point; fratribus tam longe positis 
(μακρὰν κειμένοις) ; Vv. inexcusabilem; vi. eos qui 
Romae sunt; aequaliter quae; vii. possident potes- 
tatem ; x. nec vexari in aliquo; quamvis ad imagin- 
em veritatis tamen; xxiii. volentibus vivere; xii. 
Nos etiam illos quos hi qui. 
Gk. is not thoroughly mastered: viii. nisi si his 
aes quibus nunc minor fuit Paulus (? τῶν viv) ; 

ut per eos qui cum ipsi, etc.; cum unmeaning— 
observe in ix. patrias of local persecutions in Asia 
Minor, The remarkable translation of Eph. 4, 3, in 
xxiv. is in the same words as in three other places of 
_ Cyprian, and differs from every other known render- 

; ; even the African Nemesianus in this council 
uses curantes instead of satisagentes. 


[Ὁ] Instances where the | } 
|apology for ignorance ; 


CYPRIANUS 229 


involved * (Ep. 72, i.), and if external baptism 
is true, the church has many centres; not one 
foundation rock, but several (75, xvii.). The 
separatist teacher surrenders (70, ii.) the ani- 
mating, unifying Spirit, and cannot through 
his personal earnestness convey that Spirit to 
followers by baptizing them + (Ep. 69). (d) 
The imposition of hands on the readmitted 
separatist expresses that he has not, but needs 
to receive, the Holy Ghost; Stephen’s party 
use this rite, and quote the apostles at Samaria 
as anexample. But without that Spirit how 
could the separatist consecrate even the water 
or the unction of confirmation ? (Ep. 70, i. ; 
cf. Sentt. Epp. 18; on the significance of this 
““royal’’ oil, see Bunsen; and on the Nova- 
tianist disuse of it, Routh, vol. iii. pp. 69, 70). 
Above all, how give the New Birth which, as 
the essence of the sacrament, is essentially 
the Spirit’s act (Ep. 74, v. vi. etc.) ? (e) 
Baptism in the absence of the Spirit is a Judatc, 
a carnal rite; a defilement ; more than a de- 
ceiving semblance, a material pollution (Ep. 
Taxis G20". 73, ΧΧῚ. . 80, Ἀν} Che 5665. 
tus, Sentt. Epp. 18; Victor Gordub. Sent., 
whom Augustine criticizes as going to lengths 
beyond Cyprian ; still the frightful expression 
of de Unit. xi. involves all this). The pre- 
tender can ‘neither justify nor sanctify ’”’ 
(69, x.), who but the holy can hallow (69, ii.) ? 
who but the living give life (71,i.)? (ἢ Christ 
not present to make up for the unworthiness of 
the minister. For if so His Spirit could not be 
absent (75, xil.), and that He is absent is ad- 
mitted by the necessity for imposition of 
hands (7d. xiil.). 

(B) Subjective Grounds. (a) Fatth of re- 
cipient insufficient (Epp. 73, 75, 1Χ.}): to be 
effective must be true; but is deficient in a 
cardinal point, viz. the remission of sins by the 
church; even if not false and, as often, blas- 
phemous (73, iv.v ; 74). (δ) Not secured by the 
formula. In the Roman church there was 
still such absence of rigidity that it was argued 
that without the Trinal form baptism into 
Christ’s name sufficed (Ep. 74, v-). Cyprian 
however points to the clear words of institu- 
tion, and appeals to common reason to decide 
whether one is truly baptized into the Son 
who denies§His Humanity (Ep. 73, v-),$ or 
treats the God of the O. T. as evil (74, lil.) : 
even if the genuine formula be used, still the 
rite is no question of words ; the absent Christ 
and Spirit are not bound by them as a spell. 
(c) Incapable of definition. It is not the 
church’s part to graduate departures from the 
faith. Even death in behalf of a heresy can- 
not restore to the church. If what is univer- 
sally accepted as ipso facto baptism (in blood) 
is unavailing, how can ordinary extraneous 
baptism be more (Ep. 73, xxi.; de Unit. xiv. 
(12) xix. ; or Dom. xxiv.) ὃ 

(C) The historical argument 15 handled by 
Cyprian in the most masterly way. (a) Usage 
is not worth considering as more than an 
cannot be matched 


* This view becomes “ Christus baptizandi potes- 
tatem episcopis dedit ” in the mouth of one of the 
bishops (Sentt. Ep. 17). 

+ “Qui non habet quomodo dat?” became a 
catchword of the Donatists. The reply of the Cath- 
olics was ‘‘ Deum esse datorem” (Optat. p. 103). 

1 The basis of this is Tert. de Bapt. xv. 


230 CYPRIANUS 


against reason (71, iii. 73) ; (δ) is not universal 
on side of Stephen (Ep. 71); (c) cannot be 
inferred from the non-baptism of restored 
perverts: their case differs from that of 
heathens, who had (to begin with) been made 
heretics, not Christians. (d) The practice of 
heretical bodies, which had always recognized 
any previous baptism, was no example to the 
church (74, iv.); nor could the Novatianist 
practice of rebaptism be a warning against it 
(73, ii.) ; it was either accidental coincidence 
or imitation (stmiarum more), and, if the latter, 
it was evidence. (e) Casuistic difficulties upon 
the necessity of ‘‘regeneration within the 
church ”’ as to the position of unbaptized mar- 
tyrs (73, xxii.), heretics hitherto readmitted 
and deceased (xxiv.), cases of rebaptism where 
baptism had been valid, baptism by a de- 
moniac, are met by Cyprian with a breadth of 
which St. Augustine (contra Crescon. ii. 41) 
says, in the midst of his refutation, ‘‘ such 
simplicity is enough for me.”’ 

(D) Biblical Arguments.—The familiar ones 
need no more than enumeration: the one 
loaf; one cup; the ark; the schismatic (not 
heretical) gainsaying of Korah; the apostles’ 
baptism of men who had already received the 
Spirit, a fortiori needed for those who con- 
fessedly had not. We may admire the in- 
genuity with which he treats such passages as 
Acts 1. 38, in Bp) 735, xvii. or hilt 1 1S. 101 
Ep. 74, 75, 73, Xiv.; but about many Cyprian 
might fairly be addressed in the words which 
Optatus (b. iv. p. 96) uses to Parmenian : 
“You batter the law to such purpose that 
wherever you find the word Water there you 
conjure out of it some sense to our disadvan- 
tage.’’ He probably originated the applica- 
tion of Ecclus. xxxiv. 25, ‘‘ Qui baptizatur a 
mortuo quid proficit lavatio ejus,’’ which the 
Donatists constantly quote against Augustine, 
and which Augustine answers only by referring 
mortuus to a heathen priest or vicious Chris- 
tian instead of a heretic. He quotes several 
times the LXX addition to Prov. ix. 19, 
“ Drink not of the strange font,’’ and Jer. xv. 
18, ii. 13, ‘‘ deceiving waters,’ ‘‘ broken 
cisterns.’’ In some of these applications there 
is poetical force, as of his favourite ‘‘ garden 
enclosed and fountain sealed,’ and of the 
doctrines of New Birth and Sonship (Ep. 74, 
v. vi.) ; in Heresy who was never the Spotless 
Spouse we can never find a mother (Ep. 75). 
To this Stephen finely answers that she was 
an unnatural mother indeed (75, xiv.) who ex- 
posed her children so soon as they were born, 
but that the church’s part was to seek them 
and bring them home and rear them for Christ. 
Dispersed as this system of Cyprian’s lies, 
through his correspondence and tracts, it will 
be seen that in his mind it was not fragmen- 
tary, but logical and coherent. Over the 
theory promulgated by one of his powers and 
character, backed by an army of bishops,* 
moving aS one man under him, yet indepen- 
dent enough each to find their own telling 
arguments (Conc. III.), Stephen’s triumph 
without a council, against remonstrances 
from the East, and hindered by his own pre- 


* Some required exorcism (Senit. 7, 8, 31) ; some 
declared heretics worse than heathens—a painfully 
early development. 


CYPRIANUS 


tentiousness and uncharitableness, * was great. 
It was deserved also, for Rome represented 
freedom, comprehensiveness, and safe latitude. 
She decided upon one grand principle, the 
same on which Jerome afterwards decided the 
analogous question of reordination (adv. 
Lucif.). Cyprian’s principle was the same 
which blinded Tertullian (de Bapt. xv.) ; which 
was extended by the Donatists to make moral 
defects in the minister debar grace; 7 which 
led Knox and Calvin to deny baptism to the 
infant children of ‘‘ papists,’’ and the Genevan 
divines to allow it, on the hope that ‘‘ the 
grace which had adopted”’ the great-grand- 
fathers might not yet be so ‘‘ wholly extinct 
that the infants should have lost their right 
to the common seal’’ (Hooker, ili. 1, 12). 
Augustine (Resp. ad Episcopos) developed the 
categorical answer to each separate argument 
of Cyprian and his bishops, but the true solu- 
tion was applied at once by Stephen. The 
grace of baptism is of Christ, not of the human 
baptizer.t He who baptizes does not “ give 
being or add force’”’ to the sacrament. Cyp- 
rian’s language about “‘ justifying and sanc- 
tifying ’? may well have shocked the church of 
Rome, and makes Stephen’s anger partly in- 
telligible. The child or heathen who learns 
Christ through the teaching of the heretic 
cannot be charged with “‘ defect or disorder,” 
in the reception of a sacrament, to which he 
comes with purest faith, and which it is the 
will of God to impart to all. Though excluded 
““from fellowship in holy duties with the 
visible church,”’ he is still a member of such 
visible church. (Ep. 73, xvi. We must take 
the fragmentary quotation, 75, i., ‘“‘ Si quis 
ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit’’ with the 
other, ‘‘In nomine Christi baptizatus,’’ and 
cf. Routh, R. S. vol. iii. p. 183.) The only 
real blot which Cyprian struck was the vulgar 
explanation of the laying on of hands at re- 
admission. Upon that hypothesis his own 
view was justifiable. But the act was not 
really understood by the intelligent to be the 
imparting of the Spirit for the first time to 
those who had it not ; it was the renewing by 
the Spirit, and introducing to communion ofa 
repentant and now enlightened child of God.§ 
“A son of God”’ in spite of any theological 
error, Stephen declares him in the fullest sense 


to be (Ep. 74, vi. ; 75, xvii.). The expression 
seems to have been much cavilled at in Car- 
thage, and is mentioned even in Ep. 72, after 
the second council. And now it ought to 


* Animosus, iracundus ; again, audacia, insolentia, 
inhumanitas are some of the sins charged to him. 

+ Of the use they made of Cyprian himself see Aug. 
contra Crescon. 11. xxiii. 40: “‘ Scripta Cypriani nobis 
tanquam firmamenta canonicae auctoritatis op- 
ponitis.” Cf. Ep. 93, ad Vincent.; Epp. 108, 9, 
ad Macrob. 

{ Optatus, b. v. p. 99, well expresses it: ‘‘ Has 
res unicuique non ejusdem rei operarius sed credentis 
fides et Trinitas praestat.”” By implication he an- 
swers many of the detailed difficulties, but the great 
name of Cyprian visibly 1estrains him. Again, p. 
103: ‘‘Omnes qui baptizant operarios esse non 
dominos et sacramenta per se sancta esse non per 
homines.”’ 

§ Besides its use in ordination the imposition of 
hands had three intentions: (1) Confirmation. (2) 
Reception of penitents. (3) Exorcism. The 2nd is 
what Stephen applies here. The 3rd was desired by 

| some extreme partisans. 


CYPRIANUS 


be noticed that (as the Novatianists saw) 
Cyprian had a real point of contact with Nova- 
tianism. In the instance of Lapse he dis- 
covered its fallacy. In the instance of Heresy 
he fell into it. The visible church, according 
to him, included the worst moral sinner in 
expectation of his penitence; it excluded the 
most virtuous and orthodox baptized Christian 
who had not been baptized by a catholic min- 
ister. * Nevertheless, although the Roman 
church then took a wider view than Cyprian 
as to the sonship of man to God, Cyprian was 
much greater (and this is the true church- 
moral of this part of his history) upon the 
possibility and duty of union in diversity. 
Augustine well draws out the independence of 
thought and action which Cyprian wished to 
be maintained without exclusiveness, and 
tells us (Aug. v. de Bapt. 17) how he was 
never weary of reading the conclusion of the 
Ep. to Quintus. Every bishop was free to 
judge for himself, none to be persecuted for 
his views, and therefore every one to be tender 
of the bonds of peace: ‘‘ Salvo jure commu- 
nionis diversa sentire.”’ The unanimity of 
such early councils and their erroneousness 
are aremarkable monition. Not packed, not 
pressed ; the question broad; no attack on 
an individual; only a principle sought; the 
assembly representative; each bishop the 
elect of his flock ; and all ‘‘ men of the world,” 
often christianized, generally ordained late in 
life ; converted against their interests by con- 
viction formed in an age of freest discussion ; 
their Chief one in Whom were rarely blended 
intellectual and political ability, with holiness, 
sweetness, and self-discipline. The conclu- 
sion reached by such an assembly uncharitable, 
unscriptural, uncatholic, and unanimous. 
The consolation as strange as the disappoint- 
ment. The mischief silently and perfectly 
healed by the simple working of the Christian 
society. Life corrected the error of thought. 
Augustine beautifully writes: “Τί is of no 
light moment that though the question was 
agitated among bishops of an age anterior to 
the faction of Donatus, and although opinions 
differed without the unity of the colleagues 
being marred, still this our present use has 
been settled to be observed throughout the 
whole Catholic church diffused throughout 
the world ”’ (contra Crescon. i. xxxii. 38). The 
disappearance of the Cyprianic decisions has 
its hope for us when we look on bonds seem- 
ingly inextricable, and steps as yet irre- 
trievable. It may be noted, as affording 
some clue to the one-sided decisions, that the 
laity were silent, though Cyprian seemed 
pledged to some consultation with them. 
(See esp. Ep. 31 and 19, ii.) It must have 
been among them that there were in existence 
and at work those very principles which so 
soon not only rose to the surface, but over- 
powered the voices of her bishops for the 
general good. It was a parliament of 
officials, provincial governors. That it did 
not represent church opinion (that, namely, 
which we now accept as church doctrine), may 


* Thus the extreme of sacerdotalism was a fixed 
tenet with our own Puritan divines, who held the 
minister ‘‘ to be of the substance of the sacrament.” 
Cf. Hooker, Ec. Pol. V. \xi. 5; Neander, vol. i. p. 
540, Bohn tr. 


CYPRIANUS 231 


be inferred—(r) from the absolute unanimity 
of the 87 utterances; (2) from the strange 
avowal of two, that, being incompetent to give 
an opinion, they vote with the majority; 
(3) from the very important and powerful 
contemporary work of the ‘‘ Auctor de Re- 
baptismate’’; (4) from the silent reversal of 
the decision. 

_ The Last Persecution.—Of the 31 Numidian 
bishops who sat in the great council, the next 
glimpse of church offices shews 9 as convicts * 
in the mines metallum Siguense (? Siga, where 
there were copper-mines in Mauritania, or 
Siguita in Numidia itself) and in two other 
places.t A subdeacon and four acolytes were 
commissioned by the metropolitan (already 
himself an exile) and his friend Quirinus to 
visit them, and supply them with necessaries 
(Epp. 77-79). Cyprian had been apprehended, 
as perhaps the first African prisoner (Epp. 
77-78), in Aug. A.D. 257. Valerian’s first edict 
(Acta Proconsulis, and Acta Praef. Augustalis) 
had then been issued on the suggestion of 
Macrianus, a principal patron of the Egyptian 
“Magi,” after a long administration of fairness 
to the Christians. The ‘“ eighth” persecution 
lasted the Apocalyptic 42 months until his 
death in 260. (Dion. Al. ap. Pearson, Ann. 
Cyp. p. 59; Eus. vii. το, v.ii. 70.) On Aug. 2, 
257, before the exile of Cyprian, Stephen died. 
His reputation as a martyr, dating from the 
6th cent., is due to a transference to him of 
incidents from the death of Xystus, of which 
the singular history is traced by de Rossi, 
Roma Sott. Cr. vol. ii. p. 85, etc. He was 
succeeded on Aug. 25 by Xystus,{ whom, not 
without a stroke at the dead lion, Pontius 
calls “ἃ good pacific high-priest.’’ No 
““state enemy ’’ could be treated with more 
consideration than Cyprian received. Aspasius 
Paternus, the proconsul, heard him in secre- 
tarvio, and without confiscation or personal 
restraint simply required his retirement to 
Curubis, a free town, near the sea (tn deserto 
loco), lonely, but pleasant, and well supplied 
(Pontius ; cf. Gibbon, vol. ii. 248, Smith’s ed.). 
It was at the same time that the withdrawal 
of Dionysius was ordered and performed (Eus. 
vii. rr). On Sept. 14 a dream, related at once 
to his friends, was found after his martyrdom 
to have foretold it for that day year. Attend- 
ed by his deacon, and allowed the presence of 
friends, and “‘ offering,’’ no doubt, as in his 
former banishment, “‘ his daily sacrifice,’’ he 
actively organized relief for more helpless 
sufferers and subsidized them largely himself.§ 
After 11 months spent thus, the new proconsul 
Galerius Maximus, already a dying man, re- 
called him to his home in Carthage (hortz). 
When a rumour arrived that Marcianus, 

* Morcelli, Africa Christiana, vol. i. p. 21, questions 
whether the separate Praeses Numidiae was con- 
tinued long after Septimius, apparently not noticing 
(Cyp. Ep. 77, ii.) that these confessors were tried 
before the Praeses. 

+ Pearson supposes a marble-quarry to be their 
work-place—tenebrae and teter odor fumi indicate 
mining and smelting rather. 

1 See these calculations in Lipsius, Chron. d, Rom. 
Bisch. p. 213. 

§ Gibbon strangely seems to have understood the 
words documentum professionis dedi (i.e. taught how 
to hold fast our profession) to mean ‘‘ an account of 
his behaviour was published for the edification of the 
Christian world ” (Ep. 77). 


232 CYPRIANUS 


““entrusted with the whole republic’? by 
Valerian, now on his last march to Persia, was 
determined to carry things to an extremity 
with Christians, Cyprian was probably the 
first African who procured a copy of the tre- 
mendous rescript, and of the letter which was 
about to be issued to the Praesides (Ep. 80). 
The proconsul in Cyprian’s trial mentions both 
the extension of capital penalties to presbyters, 
and the new prohibition of the use of ceme- 
teries for worship. His messenger returned 
with the full intelligence of sweeping measures 
before their publication, and with news that 
Xystus had been beheaded (Pont. Vit. Cyp. 
xil.; Leon. Sacr. Muratori, vol. i. p. 391) on 
Sunday, Aug. 5, in the cemetery of Praetex- 
tatus * when actually ‘“teaching’’ in his 
episcopal chair, and with him four of the great 
Roman deacons. ἢ It may be taken as 
historical fact that on Wed. the ζοίῃ of the 
previous June, Xystus had translated the 
supposed remains of St. Peter to the cemetery 
known as Cata Cumbas, on the Appian Way, 
and those of St. Paul to the Ostian Way. It 
is possible that this increasing reverence to 
two malefactors executed two centuries before 
both shewed the magistrates that the spirit of 
the sect was becoming more dangerous and 
determined them to withdraw from Christians 
the protection which the burial laws hitherto 
accorded to rites celebrated in connexion with 
places of sepulture; and further, that this 
occasioned a withdrawal from the better- 
known cemetery of Callistus to the more ob- 
scure one of Praetextatus (see de Rossi, Rom. 
Soll. vol. ii. p. 41; and Lips. Il.cc.), and the 
death of Xystus in that place. The news of it 
had scarcely reached Carthage when Galerius, 
now in residence at Utica, summoned Cyprian 
thither in honourable form (Ep. 81). Having 
previously refused offers of a retreat, urged on 
him even by heathens, he now said he was re- 
solved not to die, or utter the dying prophecy 
with which he apparently expected to be in- 
spired, away from his people. Accordingly, 
informed of the dispatch before it came, he 
went into hiding in Carthage, there to await 
the proconsul’s return. On his return, he 
reappeared and reoccupied his own house. ἢ 
The details of the trial are too numerous to 
repeat and too remarkable to abridge. They 
are found not only in the narrative of Pontius, 
but also in a “‘ Passion of Cyprian,’’ which we 
have in different forms, and which from its 
simplicity, provinciality, and minute topo- 
graphy, must be contemporary.§ Cyprian 


* After τὰ months and 12 (6 ?) days’ episcopate. 
Eusebius, by an error, in which he indulges in other 
instances, ascribes to him years for months both in 
chronicle and history ; and Jerome repeats it from 
him. So in vii. 15 he seems to speak of him as alive 
after the edict of restoration. See Lipsius, 1.0. 

+ Sic lege ‘‘cum eo diacones quattuor.” 

1 Nothing is more self-consistent than the lan- 
guage of Ep. 83, or more inconsistent with Gibbon’s 
“recovering that fortitude which his character re- 
quired.” 

§ They are entitled Acta Proconsularia, and so 
accepted by Pearson and Gibbon. Aug. Serm. 309 
seems to quote either this Passio or some earlier 
document which is now embedded in it. Ep. 77, ii. 
tefers to Cyprian’s confession ‘“‘ Apud Acta procon- 
51.115 just after it was made. Does Acta mean 
merely “trial before”? (Cf. Optat. B. iii. p. 68, 
apud acta locutisunt.) If it means “ official report,” 


CYPRIANUS 


was removed from his home on Aug. 13; the 
magistrate’s broken health prolonged the ex- 
amination; but the prisoner’s rank shielded 
him from suffering or indignity. Though the 
language of the judge was stern, the Christians 
confessed the reluctance with which he gave 
sentence. In them sense of triumph in the 
possession of such a martyr is dwelt on with 
almost as much force as the sense of loss. 
With a strange mingled feeling, characteristic 
of the vividness with which in intense moments 
circumstances are apprehended which would 
at other times be trivial, they marked how 
little incidents combined to do him honour. 
The seat he rested on for the last time hap- 
pened to be covered with a white cloth, the 
episcopal emblem. The trees were climbed, 
as he passed, by many a Zacchaeus. The eve 
and vigil of his martyrdom were kept by all 
his flock, watching through the night in the 
streets before his house, when as yet the only 
vigil of the Christian year was that which 
preceded the day of Christ’s own Passion. 
The idea of this parallel took such hold that 
Augustine carries it to a painful pitch (Serm. 
309). The two officers between whom Cyp- 
rian rode are compared to the two male- 
factors between whom our Lord went to His 
Passion. Pontius compares the words of the 
sentence to the prophecy of Caiaphas. Cyp- 
rian received no dying prophecy, nor uttered 
any, though his time was ample. His words 
were very few, and no exhortation could have 
been so eloquent as the ‘‘ Thanks be to God” 
with which he answered the judgment : ‘‘ Our 
pleasure is that Thascius Cyprianus be exe- 
cuted by the sword.”’ 

Personal. Theological, and Political Effective- 
ness.—To sum up the effect of Cyprian’s 13 
years’ episcopate in briefest terms. Over and 
above, (1) the social impressiveness for the time 
of a convert with such culture and such mental 
habits, and of that perfect ἐπιείκεια and πρᾳότης 
to which Augustine constantly reverts with 
delight, comes (2) his Philosophy. It is usual 
to expand the fact that he was no philosopher. 
Nevertheless his writings on Resentment, 
Patience, Probation, Envy, Self-devotion, are 
most able essays towards establishing a new 
Christian basis of Morals, and have a per- 
manent place in theseries. (3) Evidences. As 
against both contemporary Judaism and 
contemporary paganism his collections have 
a distinct worth. (4) Interpretation. He has 
a free ideal scheme before him (Ep. 64), but 
in detail falls from it, and makes mere riddles 
of texts. (5) Organization. This is the real 
epigraph of his career. The magnitude of the 
effect he produced is incomparably greater 
than that of any other person, not excepting 
Hildebrand. (a) The Church Council, a local 
and doubtful institution before, became 
through his management a necessary insti- 
tution and the imperial power of the church, 
and, with its system of representation by a 
life-aristocracy popularly elected, and its free 
discussionary scheme, exercised an important 


how could a Christian report be so styled, or how 
could a heathen one give the details with such advan- 
tage to the prisoners? Dionysius Alex. refers a 
carping adversary to the record of his own trial 
before Aemilian, then prefect of Egypt (Eus. vol. i, 
p- 384, notes on ὑπεμνηματίσθη), 


CYPRIANUS 


“function in the regeneration of liberty. (6) 
Episcopacy grew silently into an institution of 
the Roman empire, strong with the lasting 
virtues of Roman institutions, and only biding 
its time for recognition. (6) The Individual 
Independence, as he sketches it, of elected 
bishops preserved, while it remained, a grand 
democratic strength to what after a time sank 
to an oligarchic, and under the papacy to an 
administrative, magistracy. This must again 
be the key of church governments in states 
which have not that intimate union with the 
church which the ideal of a Christian nation 
requires. We here give references on the 
subject of this Independence, which to the 
policy of Cyprian’s time was so essential (Ep. 
55, Xviil.; actum suum, etc., 72, iv. ; quando 
habet, etc., 73, Xxxvi. ; nemini praescribentes, 
etc., 57, vi.; si de collegis, etc., 69, xvii. ; 
statuat. Sentt. Epp. Praef. 6). There exists 
what may be called ‘“‘resistance to Roman 
claims’’; but Cyprian is totally unconscious 
of any claims made by the see, and resists 
Stephen purely as an arrogant individual. 

Cultus.—There were two famous basilicas 
erected, one on the place of his martyrdom (in 
agro sexti), where was the Mensa Cypriant, 
from which Augustine often preached; the 
other on the shore (Aug. Conf. v.; ad Map- 
palia, Aug. vol. vii. App. p. 37; ad Piscinas, 
Victor Vitens. i. v. iv.). In this Monica spent 
the night of her son’s departure for Italy, 
praying and weeping. In Sulpicius Severus 
(Dial. 1. 3) his friend comes hither to pray on 
his way from Narbonne to Egypt. The ador- 
ation reached such a height that Gibbon is 
charmed to call him “ almost a local deity.” 
His feast and the gales which blew then were 
called Cypriani (Procop. Vand. i. 20, 21; 
Greg. Naz. Or. 18, ap. Ducange, s.v.). There 
are still on the ‘‘ brink of the shore”’ the 
massive ruins of a church which must be St. 
Cyprian’s. Davis (Carthage and her Remains, 
p- 389) describes them fully, and it is not hard 
to see how he has misled himself into not 
recognizing what they are. The relics of 
Cyprian were given (strange conjunction) by 
Haroun al Raschid to Charlemagne. The 
sequel may be seen in Ruinart, Acta Mm. 
Cypr. § 17, and in the epistle of J. de la Haye, 
prefixed to Pamelius’s Cyprian, fol. ὃ. 3. 

Texts.—Of the MSS. and their connexions, 
and also of the edd., a good account is given by 
Hartel in his preface; cf. D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.). 
Besides the ed. in Patr. Lat. may be men- 
tioned one by D. J. H. Goldhorn (Leipz. 
1838), a useful text-book, wellemended. But 
the best ed. now is by J. Hartel (3 vols. 8vo, 
1868-1871), in the Vienna Corpus Scriptt. Eccll. 
Laitt., which contains all the works attributed 
to Cyprian, with the ad Novatianum, Auctor 
de Rebaptismate, Pontii Vita, etc., and Indices. 
It is a new recension, for which above 40 MSS. 
have been studied, classified, valued, and re- 
duced to a most clear apparatus criticus, with 
keen attention to orthography, and almost 
always a judicious discrimination of the 
preferable readings; a valuable preface on 
the principles and history of the text- 
formation. [E.W.B.]} 
[The authoritative work on St. Cyprian is by 
the writer of this art. English trans. of several 
of Cyprian’s works and his Epp. are given in 


CYRIACUS 233 


the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. ἃ T. Clark). A 
simple monograph on his Life and Times is 
pub. in the cheap A. and M. Theol. Lib. 
(Griffith); and an Eng. trans. of his treatise 
On the Lord’s Prayer by T. H. Bindley is pub. 
by S.P.C.K.; the text, with trans., has been 
ed. by Rev. H. Gee (Bell).] 

Cyra. [MARANA.] 

Cyriacus (19), 30th patriarch of Constanti- 
nople, A.D. 595. He was previously presbyter 
and steward, cixovéuos, of the great church at 
Constantinople (Chronicon Paschale, p. 378). 
Gregory the Great received the legates bearing 
the synodal letters which announced his conse- 
cration, partly from a desire not to disturb the 
peace of the church, and partly from the per- 
sonal respect which he entertained for Cyriac; 
but in his reply he warned him against the 
sin of causing divisions in the church, clearly 
alluding to the use of the term oecumenical 
bishop (Gregorii Ep. lib. vii. 4, Patr. Lat. 
Ixxvil. 853). The personal feelings of Gregory 
towards Cyriac appear most friendly. 

Cyriac did not attend to the entreaties of 
Gregory that he would abstain from using the 
title, for Gregory wrote afterwards both to him 
and to the emperor Maurice, declaring that he 
could not allow his legates to remain in com- 
munion with Cyriac as long as he retained it. 
In the latter of these letters he compares the 
assumption of the title to the sin of Anti- 
christ, since both exhibit a spirit of lawless 
pride. ‘‘ Quisquis se universalem sacerdotem 
vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua 
Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se 
ceteris praeponit”’ (Greg. Ep.28,30). Inaletter 
to Anastasius of Antioch, who had written to 
him to remonstrate against disturbing the 
peace of the church, Gregory defends his con- 
duct on the ground of the injury which Cyriac 
had done to all other patriarchs by the assump- 
tion of the title, and reminds Anastasius that 
not only heretics but heresiarchs had before 
this been patriarchs of Constantinople. He 
also deprecates the use of the term on more 
general grounds (Ep. 24). In spite of all 
this Cyriac was firm in his retention of the 
title, and appears to have summoned, or to 
have meditated summoning, a council to 
authorize its use. For in A.D. 599 Gregory 
wrote to Eusebius of Thessalonica and some 
other bishops, stating that he had heard they 
were about to be summoned to a council at 
Constantinople, and most urgently entreating 
them to yield neither to force nor to persua- 
sion, but to be steadfast in their refusal to 
recognize the offensive title (7b. lib. ix. 68 in 
Patr. Lat.). Cyriac appears to have shared in 
that unpopularity of the emperor Maurice 
which caused his deposition and death (Theo- 
phan. Chron. p. 242, A.M. 6094; Niceph. 
Callis. H. E. xviii. 40; Theophylact. Hzst. 
viii. 9). He still, however, had influence 
enough to exact from Phocas at his coronation 
a confession of the orthodox faith and a pledge 
not to disturb the church (Theoph. Chron. 
Ρ- 243, A.M. 6094). He also nobly resisted the 
attempt of Phocas to drag the empress Con- 


| stantia and her daughters from their sanctuary 


in a church of Constantinople (ἐδ. p. 246, A.M. 
6098). Perhaps some resentment at this op- 
position to his will may have induced Phocas 
to accede more readily to the claims of Boni- 


234 CYRILLUS 


face III. that Rome should be considered to 
be the head of all the church, in exclusion of 
the claims of Constantinople to the oecumeni- 
cal bishopric (Vita Bonifacit III. apud Labbe, 
Acta Concil. t. v. 1615). Cyriac died in 606, and 
was interred in the church of the Holy Apostles 
(Chronicon Paschale, p. 381). He appears to 
have been a man of remarkable piety and 
earnestness, able to win the esteem of all 
parties. He built a church dedicated to the 
Θεοτόκος in a street of Constantinople called 
Diaconissa (Theoph. Chron. 233, A.M. 6090; 
Niceph. Callis. H. E. xviii. 42). [P.o.] 

Cyrillus (2), Κύριλλος, bp. of Jerusalem, was 
probably born in Jerusalem or its immediate 
neighbourhood, c. 315. His writings prove 
that his education was liberal, and embraced 
a large variety of subjects. Touttée has 
laboriously collected evidences (c. 11.) of his 
acquaintance with physics, dialectics, phy- 
siology, mythology, etc. That he was a 
diligent student of Holy Scripture is certain, 
from the intimate knowledge, at least of the 
text, shewn in his Catecheses. But he was 
only acquainted with the LXX. His know- 
ledge of Hebrew was only second-hand, and 
often incorrect. He was ordained deacon 
probably by Macarius bp. of Jerusalem, c. 335 
(Soz. H. E. iv. 20, where the text is doubtful), 
and priest by his successor Maximus, c. 345. 
Maximus, notwithstanding Cyril’s youth, en- 
trusted him with the responsible duty of 
instructing catechumens, and preparing them 
for baptism. He also allowed him the ex- 
ceptional privilege, sometimes granted by 
bishops to presbyters of eminent ability (e.g. 
to Chrysostom by Flavian of Antioch, and to 
Augustine by Valerius of Hippo), of preaching 
to the people in full church on the Lord’s 
Day. In his office of catechist, c. 347, Cyril 
delivered the catechetical lectures by which 
his name is chiefly known (Hieron. de Vir. 
Illust. ὃ 12). These lectures were preached 
without book on the evenings of the weeks of 
Lent, in the basilica of the Holy Cross, or 
Martyrium, erected on Calvary by St. Helena. 
His references to the locality are numerous and 
interesting (e.g. iv. 10-14, X. 19, Xlil. 4, 22, 39, 
XViil. 33). The five mystagogical lectures 
were addressed during Easter-week at noon to 
those baptized on Easter-eve in the Anastasis, 
or church of the Holy Sepulchre. 

The episcopate of Maximus terminated at 
the close of 350 or the beginning of 351, and 
Cyril was chosen to fill the episcopal chair of 
Jerusalem. A cloud of doubt and difficulty 
hangs over his elevation to the episcopate. 
Jerome can hardly have been mistaken as to 
the main fact, though theological prejudice 
and personal dislike may have warped his 
judgment and caused him to represent the 
case in the least favourable light. On some 
leading questions Cyril and Jerome were 
decidedly opposed. In the great controversy 
of the day Cyril belonged to the Asiatic party, 
Jerome to that of Rome. In the Meletian 
schism at Antioch also they took opposite 
sides: Cyril supporting Meletius, Jerome be- 
ing a warm adherent of Paulinus. Jerome 
asserts (Chronicon ad ann. 349) that on the 
death of Maximus the Arians invaded the 
church of Jerusalem and promised to appoint 
Cyril to the vacant throne if he would re- 


CYRILLUS 


pudiate his ordination by Maximus; that 
Cyril consented to the humiliating terms, 
served some time in the church as a deacon, 
and was then rewarded with the episcopate 
by Acacius, the semi-Arian bp. of Caesarea, 
and according to the seventh Nicene canon 
metropolitan of Palestine; that Cyril then 
dishonourably persecuted Heraclius, whom 
Maximus, on his deathbed, had nominated his 
successor, and degraded him to the presbyter- 
ate. This account is supported by Rufinus 
(H. E. i. 23, ‘‘ Sacerdotio, confusa jam or- 
dinatione, suscepto’’). Socrates and Sozo- 
men, though they say nothing of Cyril’s re- 
pudiation of his orders, are almost equally 
unfavourable to his orthodoxy, identifying 
him with the semi-Arian party of Acacius and 
Patrophilus. They also introduce a new 
element of confusion by the statement that 
the see of Jerusalem was vacant not by death, 
but by Maximus’s deposition and expulsion 
by the semi-Arians (Socr. ii. 38 ; Soz. iv. 20; 
Theophan. Chronograph. p. 34). This may 
safely be rejected. In refutation of Jerome’s 
account, Cyril’s advocates triumphantly point 
to the synodical letter to pope Damasus of the 
bishops assembled at Constantinople, the year 
after the second oecumenical synod, A.D. 
382, which speaks of Cyril in terms of high 
eulogy, as a champion of the orthodox faith 
against Arian heresy, and affirms his canonical 
election to the see of Jerusalem (Theod. H. E. 
v. 9). But this does not touch the point 
at issue. Acacius was the metropolitan of 
Cyril’s province. He and his fellow-bishops 
were, notwithstanding their heretical bias, 
the legitimate authorities for conferring the 
episcopate. Cyril’s election and consecration 
was therefore strictly canonical. Besides, the 
silence of the members of the synod as to facts 
occurring 30 years before does not disprove 
them. Whatever might have been Cyril’s 
earlier heretical failings, he was on the ortho- 
dox side then (cf. Socr. v. 8, and Soz. vii. 7). 
His adhesion was valuable, and it would have 
been as impolitic as it was needless to revive 
an almost forgotten scandal. Yet Cyril’s 
own writings quite forbid us to follow J erome’s 
authority in classing him with the Arians, or 
charging him with heretical tenets. Circum- 
stances might render his orthodoxy equivocal. 
His early patron, Maximus, was somewhat of 
a waverer. His friends and associates were 
semi-Arians, and he was chosen to the episco- 
pate by them, with the hope of his supporting 
their cause. But no error of doctrine is to be 
discovered in his writings, though he avoids 
the test word ‘‘homoousion”’ in his cate- 
cheses. He is well characterized by the Duc 
de Broglie (l’Eglise et l Empire, iil. 402) as 
“formant l’extrémité de 1᾽ 4116 droite du Semi- 
arianisme touchant ἃ l’orthodoxie, ou de l’aile 
gauche de l’orthodoxie touchant au Semi- 
arianisme,’’ and may be regarded, certainly 
in the later part of his life, as one of those of 
whom Athanasius speaks (de Synod. 41) as 
“ brothers who mean what we mean, and only 
differ about the word.” The first year of 
Cyril’s episcopate was rendered memorable by 
the appearance, May 7, 351, of a remarkable 
parhelion, or other atmospheric phenomenon, 
over Jerusalem, which was regarded as a 
miraculous manifestation of the symbol of 


CYRILLUS 


redemption intended to establish the faith and 
confute gainsayers, and produced great excite- 
mentinthecity. The churches were thronged 
with worshippers, and many Jews and Gen- 
tiles were converted to the faith. Soimportant 
did the phenomenon appear to Cyril that he 
wrote to the emperor Constantius describing 
it. This letter has been preserved. Its 
authenticity has been called in question by 
Rivet, but the internal evidence from the 
similarity of style is strong, and it is accepted 
by Blondel. The occurrence of the word 
*“homoousion ’’ at the close of the letter is, 
however, suspicious, and leads us to question 
whether the prayer for the emperor in which 
it stands is not a later addition (Soz. iv. 5; 
Philostorg. iii. 26; Chron. Alex. p. 678; 
Theophan. p. 354). If Acacius had reck- 
oned on Cyril as a faithful adherent and ready 
instrument in carrying out his plans, the fal- 
lacy of his expectations was very soon shewn. 
Scarcely had Cyril established himself in his 
see when a distressing controversy, which be- 
came the source of much evil to the church, 
arose as to the claim to priority of their re- 
spective sees (Theod. ii. 25; Soz. iv. 25). 
Cyril grounded his claim on the apostolical 
rank of his see, Acacius on the decision of the 
council of Nice (Can. vii.), which placed the 
bp. of Aelia—i.e. Jerusalem—under the bp. 
of Caesarea as metropolitan. This contest 
for pre-eminence was speedily embittered by 
mutual accusations of heterodoxy (Soz. iv. 
25). For two years Acacius continued vainly 
summoning Cyril to his tribunal, and at last 
cut the controversy short by deposing him 
from his see (Soz. u.s., 357 or 358) at a small 
packed synod of his own adherents. The 
ostensible grounds were very trivial: con- 
tumacy in refusing to appear, and the charge 
—afterwards brought against Ambrose by the 
Arians—of having sold some of the church 
ornaments during a prevailing scarcity to 
supply the wants of the poor (Socr. ii. 40 ; Soz. 
iv. 25; Theod. ii. 26; Epiphan. Haeres. |xxiii. 
§§ 23-27), and also of having held communion 
with Eustathius and Elpidius after their de- 
position by the synod of Melitina, in Lesser 
Armenia (Soz. u.s.; Basil. Ep. 253 [74]). 
Cyril was forced to yield. He left his see, not, 
however, without an appeal to a larger council, 
the justice of which was allowed by Constan- 
tius. This is noted by Socrates (ii. 40) as the 
first instance of an appeal against the decision 
of an ecclesiasticalsynod. On leaving Jeru- 
salem Cyril first retired to Antioch and 
thence to Tarsus, where he was hospitably 
received by the bp. Silvanus, one of the best 
of the semi-Arians, who availed himself of 
Cyril’s powers as a preacher. We find him 
also here in communion and friendship with 
other leading members of the same party, 
Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra, and 
George of Laodicea (Soz. iv. 25; Philost. iv. 
12). Theenmity of Acacius pursued his rival. 
Silvanus was warned against holding com- 
munion with one who had been deposed for 
contumacy and other crimes. But Cyril had 
gained great popularity at Tarsus by his 
sermons, the people would not hear of his 
leaving them, and Silvanus declined to attend 
to the admonition (Theod. s.). Nearly 
two years after his deposition, Sept. 359, Cyril 


CYRILLUS 235 


laid his appeal before the council of Seleucia, 
at which he took his place among the semi- 
Arians. Acacius vehemently protested against 
his admission to the council. ‘ If Cyril did 
not leave the synod, he must.’’ Some of the 
bishops, in the cause of peace, begged Cyril 
to yield, at least temporarily, till his appeal 
had been heard. Cyril refused, and Acacius 
quitted the council, but soon returned, and 
took a leading part in the subsequent stormy 
debates. The semi-Arians who were opposed 


to Acacius were in the ascendant. Acacius 
was himself deposed, and Cyril restored 
(Theod. ii. 26; Socr. ii. 40; Soz. iv. 22; 


Philost. iv. 12). Acacius and his friends at 
once started for the capital, where they easily 
persuaded the weak Constantius to summon a 
fresh council. Fresh accusations were added 
to those formerly adduced. The charge of 
sacrilegiously disposing of the church goods 
was revived, and the emperor’s indignation 
was excited by hearing that a baptismal robe 
of gold brocade, presented by his father Con- 
stantine to Macarius, which had been sold, had 
unfortunately found its way into the ward- 
robe of a theatre, and been recognized on the 
stage. Acacius’s arts prevailed, and Cyril was 
a second time banished (Socr. 11. 42 ; Soz. iv. 
Ae ALM 116 27): 

On the accession of Julian, 361, Cyril was 
reinstated, together with all the exiled bishops 
(Socr. iv. 1; Soz. u.s.; Theod. iii. 4; Amm. 
Marcell. xxii. 5). At Jerusalem Cyril calmly 
watched the attempts of Julian to rebuild the 
Temple, and foretold that it must fail (Socr. 
iil. 20; Rufinus, i. 37). Ἔ 

During the reign of the orthodox Jovian 
Cyril’s episcopate was undisturbed, and the 
accession of Valens and Valentinian found 
him in quiet possession of his see, 364. In 
366 Acacius died, and Cyril immediately 
claimed the nomination to the see of Caesarea, 
and appointed Philomenus. Philomenus was 
deposed by the Eutychian faction, and another 
Cyrilsubstituted. He, in return, was deposed 
by Cyril of Jerusalem, who consecrated his 
sister’s son Gelasius in his room, A.D. 367 
(Epiphan. Haer. xxiii. 37). In 367 Cyril 
was a third time deposed and exiled, with all 
the prelates recalled by Julian, by the edict of 
the Arian Valens (Socr. ii. 45; Soz. iv. 30; 
Epiph. Haer. Ixvi. 20). His banishment 
lasted till Valens died and Theodosius suc- 
ceeded, Jan. 19, 379, when he reoccupied his 
see, which he retained quietly for the 8 
remaining years of his life (Hieron. Vir. 1]. 
c. 112; Socr. v. 3; Soz. vii. 2). Onhis return 
he found Jerusalem rent with schisms, infested 
with almost every form of heresy, and polluted 
by the most flagrant crimes. To combat these 
evils he appealed to the council held at An- 
tioch, 379, which dispatched Gregory Nyssen 
to his aid. But the disease was too deeply 
seated to admit of an easy or speedy remedy. 
Gregory departed hopeless of a cure, and in 
his Warning against Pilgrimages drew a dark 
picture of the depravation of morals in the 
Holy City (de Euntibus Hieros. p. 656). In 
381 Cyril was present at the second oecument- 
|cal council held at Constantinople, when he 
took rank with the chief metropolitans, the 
bps. of Alexandria and Antioch. He there 
| declared his full adhesion to the Nicene faith, 


236 CYRILLUS 


and his acceptance of the test word ‘‘ homo- 
ousion ”’ (Socr. iv. 8; Soz. iv. 7). 

Cyril died Mar. 18, 386 (Socr. v. 15; Soz. 
vii. 14; Bolland. Mar. 18, p. 625 8). He was 
bp. of Jerusalem for 35 years, 16 of which he 
passed in exile. Σ 

His works consist of 18 ‘‘ Catechetical lec- 
tures’ addressed to catechumens (κατηχήσεις 
gurifouevwv), and 5 ‘‘Mystagogical lectures” to 
the newly baptized (μυσταγωγικαὶ κατηχήσεις 
πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστου"). These were com- 
posed in his youth (ἃς ἐν τῇ νεότητι συνέταξεν, 
Hieron. de Vir. 111. c. 112), ¢. 347, while still 
a presbyter. The ‘‘ Catechetical lectures ”’ 
possess considerable interest as the earliest 
example extant of a formal system of theo- 
logy; from their testimony to the canon of 
Scripture, the teaching of the church on the 
chief articles of the creed, and on the sacra- 
ments ; and from the light they throw on the 
ritual of the 4th cent. The perfect agreement 
of his teaching, as Dr. Newman remarks (Lib. 
of the Fathers, vol. ii. part i. pp. ix.-x.), as 
regards the Trinity, with the divines of the 
Athanasian school, is of great weight in deter- 
mining the true doctrine of the early church on 
that fundamental question, and relieves Cyril 
from all suspicion of heterodoxy. But his 
Catecheses do not rank high as argumentative 
or expository work, nor has Cyril any claim 
to a place among the masters of Christian 
thought, whose writings form the permanent 
riches of the church. 

All previous editions of his works were sur- 
passed by the Benedictine ed. of A. A. Touttée 
(Paris, 1720, fol., and Venice, 1761, fol.). The 
introduction contains very elaborate and 
exhaustive dissertations on his life, writings, 
and doctrines. These are reprinted in Migne’s 
Patrologia, vol. xxxiii. 

The chief modern authorities for Cyril’s life 
and doctrines are Touttée, u.s.; Tillem. Mé- 
motres Ecclés. vol. viii.; Cave, Historia Lit. i. 
211, 212; Schrockh, Kirchengeschtchte, xii. 
343 seq. ; Newman, preface to the Oxf. trans., 
Lib. of the Fathers, ii. τ. Newman’s trans. 
was carefully revised by Dr. E. H. Gifford in 
the Lib. of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 
(1894), and furnished with a very important 
introduction. [E.v.] 

Cyrillus (7), St., archbp. of Alexandria. He 
was a native of Alexandria, and had learned 
theology under monastic discipline in ‘‘ the 
desert.’’ During this period he had been re- 
proved by Isidore of Pelusium, who was for years 
his venerated monitor, for occupying himself, 
even in “ solitude,”’ with worldly thoughts and 
interests (Isid. Ep. i. 25); and it is evident 
from his whole career that so strong a will and 
so vehement a nature could never be thor- 
oughly satisfied with a life of contemplation. 
After five years’ abode in mount Nitria, his 
uncle, the then archbp. Theophilus, summoned 
him to Alexandria, where he was ordained, 
and expounded and preached with great 
reputation (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 226). | Theo- 
philus died Oct. 15, a.p. 412. Cyril was put 
forward for the vacant chair; and after a 
tumultuous contest was enthroned, three days 
after his uncle’s death. (See his first Paschal 
homily.) His episcopate, begun in trouble 
and discord, seemed at first to forebode 
nothing better than a course of violent and 


CYRILLUS 


untempered zeal, as if the fierce spirit cf 
Theophilus were governing his conduct. He 
shut up the chamber of the Novatianists, took 
away their “sacred treasure,’ and deprived 
their bishop, Theopemptus, of all his property 
(Socr. vii. 7). He then made an attack upon 
the large body of Jewish residents. They 
had provoked him by implacable hostility. 
One Hierax, a schoolmaster, always foremost 
in applauding Cyril’s sermons, was denounced 
by the Jews as an encourager of sedition when 
he was in the theatre at the promulgation of 
a prefectorial edict. Orestes, the prefect, who 
hated Cyril as a formidable rival potentate, 
had Hierax publicly tortured in the theatre. 
Cyril thereupon tried the effect of menaces on 
the principal Jews of Alexandria. This only 
increased their bitterness; they began to 
organize plots against the Christians; and 
one night a cry rang through the streets that 
““ Alexander’s church was on fire.’ The 
Christians rushed to save their sanctuary: 
the Jews, recognizing each other, as pre- 
arranged, by rings made from the bark of 
palm branches, slew the Christians whom they 
met. At daybreak Cyril, at the head of an 
immense crowd, took forcible possession of 
the synagogues, expelled the Jews from the 
city and abandoned their property to plunder. 
Orestes, naturally indignant, complained to 
the emperor, Theodosius II., then a boy of 
fourteen. Cyril addressed to the court an 
account of the Jewish outrages, and, at the 
suggestion of the people, endeavoured to 
pacify the prefect. Orestes would not listen. 
Cyril extended to him, as a form of solemn 
appeal, the book of the Gospels ; it might well 
have occurred to Orestes that the archbishop 
had forgotten some of its precepts when he 
in person led a multitude of Christian zealots 
to revenge one violence by another. The 
gifted female philosopher, Hypatia, the boast 
of Alexandrian paganism, was dragged from 
her carriage into the great Caesarean church, 
where her body was torn to pieces. This 
hideous crime, done in a sacred place and in 
a sacred season—it was the Lent of 415— 
brought, as Socrates expresses it (vii. 15), “no 
small reproach on Cyril and the church of the 
Alexandrians.”’ Was this foul murder 
what Gibbon calls it, an ‘‘ exploit of Cyril’s” ? 
Did he take any part in it, or approve it ex 
post facto? It has been said that “ Cyril was 
suspected, even by the orthodox, of complicity 
in the murder” (Stanley’s Lect. on East. Ch. 
293). Socrates, as sympathizing with the 
Novatianists, has been considered to do Cyril 
less than justice; but he does not suggest 
such a suspicion against him, or against the 
whole church of Alexandria. He says, fairly, 
that this church and its chief pastor were to 
some extent disgraced by such a deed of 
members of it. As for Damascius’s assertion 
that Cyril really prompted the murder (Suidas, 
p- 1059), we cannot consider as evidence the 
statement of a pagan philosopher who lived 
about 130 years after the event, and was a 
thorough hater of Christianity. We are 
justified in regarding it, with Canon Robertson 
(Hist. Ch. i. 401), as “απ unsupported 
calumny ’’; but, as he adds, ‘‘ the perpetrators 
were mostly officers of his church, and had 
unquestionably derived encouragement from 


a es ee ee Oe ee 


a 


Nl ww... aE”... 


- 


CYRILLUS 


Cyril’s earlier proceedings ; and his character 
deservedly suffered in consequence.’’ The 
turbulent and furious ‘‘ parabolani’’ and 
others, who shed Hypatia’s blood at the foot 
of the altar, were but “ bettering the instruc- 
tion’? which had let them loose upon the 
synagogues. Cyril’s name has paid dearly 
for the error, and the great doctrinal cause 
which he upheld so stoutly in after-years has 
suffered for the faults of his earlier life. 

It was but natural that the government 
should the next year restrain the clergy from 
political action, especially by restrictions on 
the number and conduct of the parabolani. 

Cyril had inherited his uncle’s animosity 
against John Chrysostom, who, in his opinion, 
had been canonically deposed; he rejected 
with bitterness the advice of Atticus of Con- 
stantinople to place ‘‘ John’s’’ name on his 
church diptychs (Ep. p. 204); and it was not 
until after the memory of that persecuted 
saint had been rehabilitated at Constantinople 
as well as at Antioch that the archbp. of 
Alexandria, urged by Isidore of Pelusium 
(Isid. i. 370), consented in 417 to follow these 
precedents. (See Tillemont, xiv. 281.) 

We pass over several uneventful years, 
during which Cyril doubtless occupied him- 
self in ordinary church affairs and in theo- 
logical literature, and come to the great con- 
troversy with which his name is pre-eminently 
associated. In the end of 428 he became 
aware of the excitement caused in Constan- 
tinople by the preaching of archbp. Nestorius. 
The line of thought which Nestorius had 
entered upon (under the influence, as it seems, 
of Theodore of Mopsuestia) led him to ex- 
plain away the mystery of the Incarnation by 
reducing it to a mere association between the 
Eternal Word and a human Christ. The 
Alexandrian see had agents at Constantinople, 
and the denial, by Nestoriusand his supporters, 
of the strict personal oneness between ‘‘ God 
the Word”’ and the Son of Mary—expressed 
by the formula, ‘‘ Let no one call Mary Theo- 
tokos ’’—was an event which was certain to 
excite the vigilant zeal of a prelate like Cyril, 
opposed, alike by temperament and ante- 
cedents, to whatever undermined the myste- 
rious majesty of the Christian faith. Very 
early in Jan. 429 Cyril dealt with the subject 
in his Paschal letter or homily, the 17th of the 
Series; in which, while affirming with great 
vividness and emphasis the reality and per- 
manence of Christ’s manhood, he enforced the 
Singleness of his Divine Personality, and 
applied to His human mother, in two distinct 
Passages, a phrase even stronger than ‘‘ Theo- 
ἴοκος "---μήτηρ Θεοῦ. About the end of Apr. 
429, when the controversial sermons of Nes- 
torius—exhibiting no little confusion of 
thought, but clearly indicating a disbelief in 
what is theologically termed the Personal 
Union—had reached Egyptian monks, Cyril 
wrote to all who within his jurisdiction were 
“practising the solitary life,’ a long letter, 
upholding the term ‘‘ Theotokos”’ in its true 
Sense, as not meaning ‘‘ mother of the God- 
head,” but mother, as regarded the manhood, 
of Him Who, being in the form of God, as- 
sumed the form of a servant, and, being the 
Lord of Glory, condescended to suffer the 
death of the cross. If it was true, Cyril 


CYRILLUS 237 


argued, that Jesus Christ was God, it was by 
consequence not less true that His mother 
was ‘‘Theotokos.’’ If she was not rightly so 
called, her Son was a human individual ex- 
ternal to the divine nature, and not in a true 
sense Emmanuel. This letter cites at length 
the Nicene Creed in its original form, ignoring 
the alterations made by the council of Con- 
stantinople, and insisting that the creed 
identified Jesus Christ with the Divine Co- 
essential Son. Nestorius was much dis- 
pleased at the reception given to this letter by 
some official persons at Constantinople. He 
ordered one Photius to answer it, and en- 
couraged some Alexandrians residing at the 
imperial city, who had been rebuked by Cyril 
for gross offences, to prefer complaints against 
him (Mansi, iv. 1003, 887). On the other 
hand, Cyril, having also been interrogated by 
Celestine of Rome as to the genuineness of 
Nestorius’s sermons, wrote his first letter to 
Nestorius (Cyr. Ep. p. 19; Mansi, iv. 883), 
the point of which was that the prevailing 
excitement had been caused, not by the letter 
to the monks of Egypt, but by Nestorius’s 
own refusal to allow to Christ’s mother a title 
which was the symbol of her Son’s real 
Divinity. Cyril also referred to a work On 
the Holy and Co-essential Trinity, which he 
himself had written in the lifetime of Nes- 
torius’s predecessor Atticus, and in which he 
had used language on the Incarnation which 
harmonized with his letter to the monks. 
Nestorius replied very briefly, and in a 
courteous tone ; although he intimated dislike 
of what he deemed harsh in Cyril’s letter (Cyr. 
Ep. p. 21; Mansi, iv. 885). He evidently did 
not wish to quarrel with the see of Alexandria, 
although he practised considerable severities 
on monks of his own city who withstood him 
to the face. Cyril, too, was not forward to 
press the controversy to extremes. During 
the latter part of 429 he was even blamed 
by some for inactivity. But he may have 
written at this period, as Garnier thinks, his 
κε Scholia,’’ or ‘‘ Notes,’’ on the Incarnation of 
the Only-begotten (Mar. Merc. ii. 216), and in 
Feb. 430 (probably after hearing how Nestor- 
ius had upheld a bishop named Dorotheus in 
his anathema against the word ‘‘Theotokos”’) 
he wrote, in synod, a second Ep. to Nes- 
torius—the letter which became a symbolic 
treatise sanctioned by general councils. (See 
1 πὶ Cyrs pop. 22 Mansi, ἵν, 8870" 6}: 
Tillemont, xiv. 338). Nothing can be more 
definite and luminous than his disclaimer of 
all Apollinarian notions, which had been 
imputed by Nestorius to those who confessed 
the ‘* Theotokos’’; his explanation of the 
idea intended by that phrase ; his peremptory 
exclusion of the theory of a mere association 
as distinct from a hypostatic or personal union, 
and his not less emphatic assertion of the dis- 
tinctness of the natures thus brought together 
in the one Christ. ‘* Not that the difference 
of the natures was annulled by the union, but 
rather that one Godhead and Manhood con- 
stituted the one Lord Jesus Christ, by their 
ineffable concurrence into unity. . . . Thus 
we confess one Christ and Lord.’’ The answer 
of Nestorius was characterized by ignoratio 
elencht, and could not be regarded as a satis- 
factory statement of belief (Cyr. Ep. p. 25; 


298 CYRILLUS 


Mansi, iv. 891). Cyril wrote another letter to 
some of his own clergy resident at Constanti- 
nople; the Nestorian argument from the im- 
passibility of the Godhead he put aside as not 
to the purpose; and charged Nestorianism 
with making two Christs and two Sons (Cyr. 
Ep. p. 32; Mansi, iv. 1003). This letter re- 
cognizes the proverbial eloquence of ‘‘ John”’ 
Chrysostom, and expresses the writer’s desire 
for peace, if peace could be had without a 
sacrifice of truth. He disapproved of a draft 
petition to the emperor, sent him by these 
clerics, as too vehement. In a similar strain 
he wrote to a common friend of Nestorius and 
himself, declaring earnestly that he cared for 
nothing so much as the faith, and desired that 
Nestorius might be preserved from the charge 
of heresy (Cyr. Ep. p. 31; Mansi, iv. 899). A 
long letter ‘‘ On the Right Faith,’’ which he 
wrote about the same time to the emperor 
Theodosius, contained an elaborate survey of 
former heresies, and of the error now spreading 
in the church (Cyr. tom. v. par. 2; Mansi, 
iv. 617). Cyril’s keen-eyed speculative ortho- 
doxy did not stand coldly apart from all care 
for practical religion. He felt the vital im- 
portance of his cherished doctrine in its 
bearings on the Christian life; he urged in 
this treatise that if the Word were not per- 
sonally incarnate, 2.6. if the human Teacher 
and Sufferer were not really one with the 
eternal Son of God, the faith of Christian men 
would be made void, the work of their salva- 
tion annihilated, and the cross lose its virtue. 
For the very principle of Christian redemption 
lay in this, that it was one and the same “ἡ Ego’’ 
Who, possessing, by virtue of His incarnation, 
at once a divine and a human sphere of exist- 
ence, could be at once the God of mankind 
and the Saviour Who died for them. In 
c. 21 he dwells, in pursuance of this idea, 
on the death of Christ as being a full 
satisfaction (δῶμον ἀληθῶς ἀντάξιον). This 
treatise contains an argument on which Cyril 
was never weary οἱ insisting: it was particu- 
larly congenial to the depth and awe, the 
richness and the tenderness, of his thoughts 
on the great mystery of incorporation into 
Christ. From the admitted truth that the 
flesh of Christ was received in the Eucharist 
as life-giving, he argued that it must be, in a 
real sense, the flesh of God. Inc. 6 of the 
treatise, he says that Nestorians would not 
have erred by dwelling simply on the differ- 
ence between the natures of “‘God”’ and 
“flesh ’’—that difference was undeniable; 
but they went on to assert an individual and 
separate being for the man Jesus as apart 
from the Divine Word, and this was the very 
point of their heresy. In c. 27 he rises to 
almost Chrysostomic eloquence when he sets 
forth the superangelic greatness involved in 
the idea of ‘‘the Lord of Glory.’ Another 
treatise, in two books, was addressed to the 
princesses, Pulcheria, the gifted sister of the 
feeble emperor, Arcadia, and Marina (Cyr. 
tom. v. par. 2; Mansi, iv. 679seq.). In bk. i. 
he argued at length from Scripture for the 
oneness and Divinity of Christ, for His position 
as the true object of faith, and for His office 
as life-giver and atoner; and among the 
texts he urged were Heb. i. 3, 6, xiii. 8; Tit. 
Ho τις 2. Cor. 11:8; 11, Cor. vii} Ὁ; Eph: iii 


CYRILLUS 


17; Gal. i. 1; Phil ἢ. 62 Matt. xij28s xvi 
16,20; Johni. 14, xvii. 3; I. John v. 5 (with- 
out the words about the ‘heavenly wit- 
nesses’’). He laid great stress on the vastness 
of the claim advanced by and for Christ in 
Scripture, and on the unreasonableness of 
demanding so absolute an obedience if He 
were not personally Divine. He asked how 
the death of a mere man could be of such 
importance for the race? Many a saint had 
lived and died, but not one by dying had 
become the saviour of his fellows. He quoted 
nine passages from earlier writers in support 
of the term ‘‘ Theotokos,”’ or of the doctrine 
which it guarded. In bk. ii. he explained 
texts relied on by Nestorians, including parts 
of Heb. ii. and Matt. xxvii. 46, Luke il. 40, 52, 
John iv. 22, Mark xii. 32; in the last text 
seeming to recognize, as he does elsewhere 
(though sometimes favouring a different view), 
a limitation of knowledge in Christ’s manhood, 
analogous to His submission, in His human 
sphere, to pain and want, and consistent with 
a perpetual omniscience in His Divine consci- 
ousness (ad Regin. ii. 17). In accordance 
with the emphatic assertion (ii. 7) of the value 
imparted to Christ’s death by His Divinity, 
the work concludes with “ for all our hope is 
in Christ, by Whom and with Whom,”’ etc. 
In these treatises, if some texts are strained 
beyond their natural meaning, there is yet a 
remarkable exhibition of acuteness and fer- 
tility of thought, pervaded and quickened by 
what Dorner calls Cyril’s ‘‘ warm interest ” 
in Christianity as a religion. Probably c. 
Apr. 430 Cyril answered the letter of the 
Roman bishop, received a year before (Ep. 
p. 26); he informed him that the main body 
of the faithful of Constantinople (acting on 
the principle fully recognized in the ancient 
church, that loyalty to the faith was a higher 
duty than ecclesiastical subordination) were 
holding off from the communion of Nestorius, 
but greatly needed support and countenance ; 
and in very deferential terms asked Celestine 
to say whether any fellowship could be 
maintained by orthodox bishops with one 
who was disseminating heresy (Mansi, iv. 
ro1r). With this letter he sent a series of 
passages illustrative of what Nestorius held 
and of what church-writers had taught, trans- 
lated into Latin ‘‘ as well as Alexandrians 
could’ perform such a task, and to be shewn 
by his messenger Posidonius to Celestine, τῇ 
the latter had received anything from Nes- 
torius. One other letter of Cyril’s belongs to 
the summer of 430: he addressed himself to 
the aged Acacius, bp. of Berrhoea, who com- 
municated the letter to John, patriarch of 
Antioch, but informed Cyril that many who 
had come to Syria, fresh from the preaching 
of Nestorius, were disposed to think him not 
committed to heresy. It is observable that 
Cyril tells Acacius that some had been led on 
by Nestorianism into an express denial that 
Christ was God (see Mansi, iv. 1053). 
We now reach a landmark in thestory. On 
Aug. 11, 430, Celestine, having held a synod 
which pronounced Nestorius heretical, gave 
Cyril a stringent commission (see this letter in 
Mansi, iv. 1017) to ‘‘ join the authority of the 
Roman see to his own ’”’ in warning Nestorius 
that unless a written retractation were exe- 


ee ee ee λ 


CYRILLUS 


cuted within ten days, giving assurance of his 
accepting the faith as to ‘ Christ our God,”’ 
which was held by the churches of Rome and 
Alexandria, he would be excluded from the 
communion of those churches, and “ provi- 
sion ’’ would be made by them for the church 
of Constantinople, 7.e. by the appointment of 
an orthodox bishop. Had Cyril been as vio- 
lent and imperious as he is often said to have 
been, he would not have deferred by a single 
day the carrying out of these instructions. 
But he took time to assemble, at Alexandria, 
a “council of all Egypt,’’ and then, probably 
on Mon. Nov. 3, 430, wrote his third Letter to 
Nestorius (Ep. p. 57; Mansi, iv. 1067 ; Routh, 
Scr. Op. ii. 17), in which he required him to 
anathematize his errors, and added a long 
dogmatic exposition of the true sense of the 
Nicene Creed, with a careful disclaimer of all 
confusion between Godhead and manhood. 
To this letter were appended 12 “‘ articles,”’ or 
‘‘chapters,’’ anathematizing the various 
points of the Nestorian theory—e.g. that 
Emmanuel is not really God, and Mary not 
Theotokos ; that the Word was not personally 
joined to flesh; that there was a ‘‘ connexion ”’ 
of two persons ; that Christ is a “ God-bearing 
man’; that He was a separate individual 
acted on by the Word, and called ‘‘ God”’ 
along with Him; that His Flesh was not the 
Word’s own; that the Word did not suffer 
death in the flesh. These propositions were 
not well calculated to reclaim Nestorius; nor 
were they, indeed, so worded throughout as to 
approve themselves to all who essentially 
agreed with Cyril as to the Personal Deity of 
Christ, and he was afterwards obliged to put 
forth explanations of their meaning. Cyril 
wrote two other letters to the clergy, laity, and 
monks of Constantinople, urging them to con- 
tend, or praising them for having already 
contended, for that faith in Christ’s true God- 
head of which ‘‘ Theotokos’’ was the recog- 
nized expression (Mansi, iv. 1094). Four 
bishops were sent from Alexandria to bear the 
synodal documents to Constantinople and 
deliver the anathemas to Nestorius in his 
palace, after the conclusion of the Eucharistic 
service, either on Sun. Nov. 30, 430, or Sun. 
Dec. 7. Nestorius met the denunciations of 
the Alexandrian synod by enlisting several 
Eastern bishops in his cause, including John 
of Antioch, and Theodoret, who accused Cyril 
of Apollinarianism ; by preaching in an ortho- 
dox strain to his own people, and by framing 
I2 anathemas of his own, some of which 
betrayed confusion of thought, while some 
tended directly to confirm the charges against 
his teaching—e.g. he would not allow Em- 
manuel to be called Very God. Theodoret, 
whose views on the subject were not as yet 
clear or consistent, composed a reply to Cyril. 
Andrew of Samosata, in the name of the 
““Eastern’’ bishops properly so called, also 
entered the lists against the great theologian 
of Egypt, who answered both his new antag- 
onists in an A pology for the 12 articles (Mansi, 
v. 19), and a Defence of them against Theo- 
doret’s objections, the latter addressed to a 
bishop named Euoptius (Mansi, v. 81). These 
treatises threw light on the state of mind to 
which Cyril’s anathemas had seemed so offen- 
sive. The Easterns, or Andrew speaking in 


CYRILLUS 239 


their name, exhibit some remarkable miscon- 
ceptions of Cyril’s meaning—e.g. they tax him 
with denying Christ's flesh to be of real human 
derivation ; but they absolutely disclaim the 
view which would make Jesus merely a pre- 
eminent saint, and they speak of worship 
being due to the One Son. Theodoret uses 
much language which is primd facie Nestorian ; 
his objections are pervaded by an ignoratio 
elencht, and his language is repeatedly illogical 
and inconsistent; but he and Cyril were 
essentially nearer in belief than, at the time, 
they would have admitted (Hooker, v. 53, 4), 
for Theodoret virtually owns the personal 
oneness, and explains the phrase ‘ God as- 
sumed man’”’ by ‘‘ He assumed manhood.” 
Both writers speak severely of each other: 
Theodoret calls Cyril a wolf, and Cyril treats 
Theodoret as a calumniator. Cyril, in his 
Reply to the Easterns and in his letter to Euop- 
tius, earnestly disclaims both forms of Apollin- 
arianism—the notion of a mindless manhood 
in Christ, and the notion of a body formed out 
of Godhead. The latter, he says, is excluded 
by John i. 14. In the reply (on art. 4) he 
admits “‘the language appropriate to each 
nature.’’ Cyril points out the confusions of 
thought which had misled Theodoret as to 
““God’”’ and ‘‘ Godhead’’; insists that the 
eternal Son, retaining His divine dignity and 
perfections, condescended to assume the limita- 
tions of manhood ; and so (ad Euopt. 4, as in 
ad Regin. ii. 17, etc.) explains Mark xii. 32, 
and says, with a touch of devotional tender- 
ness particularly refreshing amid the clash of 
polemics, ‘‘ He wept as man, that He might 
stop thee from weeping. He is said to have 
been weak as to His manhood, that He might 
put an end to thy weakness ”’ (ad Euopt. το]. 
He adhered with characteristic definiteness 
to the point really involved—the question 
whether Jesus were a human individual (to be 
viewed ἰδικῶς, as he repeatedly says), or 
whether He were the Divine Son Himself 
appearing in human form and occupying, 
without prejudice to His inalienable and pre- 
existent majesty, a human sphere of existence. 
In the former case, the Son of Mary must be 
regarded simply as a very highly favoured 
saint, and Christianity loses its distinctive 
power and preciousness; in the latter case, 
He is a Divine Redeemer, and Christianity is 
a Gospel worthy of the name. “ Let us all 
acknowledge as Saviour the Word of God, Who 
remained impassible in the nature of the God- 
head, but suffered, as Peter said, in the flesh. 
For, by a true union, that body which tasted 
death was His very own. Else, how was 
‘*Christ from the Jews according to the 
flesh,’ and ‘‘ God over all, and blessed for 
ever, amen’’ ? and into Whose death have we 
been baptized, and by confessing Whose resur- 
rection are we justified ?... The death of a 
mere man,”’ etc., ‘‘ or do we, as is indeed the 
case, proclaim the death of God Who became 
man and suffered for us in flesh, and confessing 
His resurrection, put away the burden of 
sin ?’’ (ad Euopt.) To this same period or 
the preceding year (429) may be assigned 
Cyril’s five books Against Nestorius. In 
these he comments on passages in Nestorius’s 
sermons, and by all forms of argument and 
illustration sets forth the question really at 


240 CYRILLUS 


stake—Had the Divine Son Himself become 
incarnate, or had He closely allied Himself to 
a man ? 

We must now return to the events of Nov. 
430. Before the Egyptian deputies could 
reach Constantinople, Theodosius II. issued 
letters to the metropolitans of his empire, 
summoning them to meet at Ephesus in the 
Pentecost of 431, with such bishops as each 
might select, to hold a general council. This 
resolution, taken at the instance of Nestorius, 
had the effect of suspending all hostile action 
on the part of any individual bishop or pro- 
vincial synod. Theodosius, who was _ pre- 
judiced against Cyril, wrote sharply to him, 
censuring his ‘‘ meddlesomeness’”’ and ‘“‘ rash- 
ness,’ and complaining of his having written 
separately to the princesses. In compliance 
with the imperial order, Cyril arrived at 
Ephesus with 50 bishops, about June 2, 431. 
For the details of the history of the Ephesine 
Council, or third oecumenical synod, see art. 
“Ephesus, Councils of,” in D. C. A. It is 
enough here to specify the occasions on which 
Cyril came prominently forward. A fortnight 
elapsed before the council was opened: Cyril, 
like other prelates, employed himself in 
strengthening the cause he had at heart by 
earnest addresses. After waiting long for the 
arrival of John of Antioch and his attendant 
bishops, Cyril received a cordial letter from his 
brother patriarch, announcing that he had 
been travelling incessantly for a month, and 
hoped to ‘‘ embrace Cyril’’ in five or six days 
more (Ep. p. 83). There also arrived two 
metropolitans, who bore from him a message 
to the bishops requesting them to proceed 
with business if he were delayed. The ques- 
tion at once arose—‘“‘ Should the bishops wait 
any longer?’’ It would have been clearly 
better, even as a matter of policy, to wait a 
few days for John’s arrival. The cause of 
orthodoxy could never be aided by its being 
associated with, to say the least, the appear- 
ance of unfairness or impatience. But Cyril 
and his suffragans were probably not at all 
desirous of John’s presence, for they knew he 
would be hostile to the Cyrilline articles: they 
encouraged the idea that he was purposely 
loitering from reluctance to join in measures 
against Nestorius (an idea which appears to 
have been unfounded, Evagr. i. 3), and took 
advantage of the fact that other bishops were 
weary of waiting, the rather that illness, and 
even death, had occurred among them. So 
the council was opened on June 22, 431; and 
John’s message, which evidently referred to a 
possible delay beyond the six days specified, 
was unjustifiably quoted to defend a refusal 
to wait even that period. In this it is im- 
possible to acquit Cyril of blame; and the fault 
“brought its own punishment in the confusions 
that ensued ”’ (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 259). 

Cyril presided in the assembly; not in 
virtue of the commission from Celestine to act 
in his stead—which had been already acted 
upon in the Alexandrian council of Nov. 430 
—but as the prelate of highest dignity then 
present, and as holding the proxy and repre- 
senting the mind of the Roman bishop, until 
the Roman legates should arrive (see Tillem. 
Xiv. 393). Cyril called on the council to judge 
between himself and Nestorius: the main 


CYRILLUS 


facts were stated by his secretary ; when Nes- 
torius refused to appear, Cyril’s second letter 
to him was read, and at Cyril’s request the 
bishops pronounced upon its orthodoxy, de- 
claring it in entire accordance with the faith. 
His third letter was received merely with a 
tacit assent, which might be held to extend to 
the ‘‘articles.’”” (The council professed, after- 
wards, that it had approved Cyril’s eptstles ; 
Mansi, iv. 1237.) After evidence as to Nes- 
torius’s opinions and the mind of orthodox 
Fathers had been laid before the council (great 
stress being doubtless laid on Nestorius’s re- 
cent avowal, ‘‘ I never will admit that a child 
of two or three months old was God,’’ Mansi, 
iv. 1181, 1239), his deposition and excommuni- 
cation were resolved on by the assembled 
bishops; and Cyril signed the sentence before 
his brethren in these words: “1, Cyril, bp. of 
Alexandria, sign, giving my judgment together 
with the council.” 

When the patriarch of Antioch, with a few 
bishops, arrived on June 26 or 27, in vexation 
at the course taken by the majority, they held 
a ‘“‘council’’ or their own, and ‘‘ deposed ’”’ 
Cyril, and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, imputing 
to the former not only Apollinarianism, but 
also the heresy of the ultra-Arian rationalist 
Eunomius. On the other hand, the council 
of Ephesus, now reinforced by the Roman 
legates, treated Cyril and Celestine as one in 
faith, and proceeded to summon John—Cyril 
being disposed, had not the bp. of Jeru- 
salem prevented it, to move for a sentence of 
deposition on the patriarch of Antioch, after 
the first summons (see Mansi, iv. 1311). Cyril 
repudiated and anathematized the heresies 
imputed to him, and coupled with them the 
Pelagian errors and those of Nestorius. John 
of Antioch, having disowned the council’s 
summons, was excommunicated, with his ad- 
herents. Late in July count John, the im- 
perial high treasurer, was sent by Theodosius 
to Ephesus, with a letter in which Cyril, 
Memnon, and Nestorius were treated as 
deposed. Accordingly all three were arrested, 
and guards slept at Cyril’s chamber door. His 
opponents induced Isidore of Pelusium to write 
to him, exhorting him to avoid the bad pre- 
cedents of his uncle’s violent conduct, and not 
to give occasion for the charge of personal 
animosity (Ep. i. 310). Cyril, for his part, 
spoke, in a letter to three of his suffragans then 
at Constantinople (Ep. p. 91), of infamous 
falsehoods circulated against him, but detected 
by count John. He thanked God for having 
been counted worthy to suffer, for His Name’s 
sake, not only bonds but other indignities. 
He received from a priest named Alypius a 
letter describing him in glowing terms as an 
imitator of Athanasius. While the two rival 
assemblies of bishops, the council and the 
““conciliabulum,”’ sent deputies to the court 
of Theodosius, Cyril wrote an ‘‘ Explanation ”’ 
of his ‘‘ articles,’’ vindicating them against the 
charge of a confusion between the Godhead 
and the Manhood, or of teaching inconsistent 
with the distinct existence of the latter, in the 
one Divine Person of the Incarnate Lord. 
Theodosius finally ordered Cyril and his friends 
to return home, but abstained from condemn- 
ing the ‘“‘ Eastern ’’ bishops, who on their side 
complained of his partiality to their opponents, 


CYRILLUS 


On Oct. 30, 431, Cyril returned to Alexandria ; 
and shortly afterwards Maximian, a pious and 
simple-hearted man, who by virtue of an 
imperial mandate had been consecrated to the 
see of Constantinople in the room of Nestorius, 
announced his accession to Cyril, who in his 
reply compared him to the faithful Eliakim, 
invested with the stewardship of Hezekiah’s 
household on the deprivation of the unworthy 
Shebna. This letter contained a statement of 
orthodox doctrine, and a disclaimer of all 
ideas of “ confusion ”’ or ‘‘ alteration’ in the 
divine nature of the Word (Ep. p. 94 seq. ; 
Mansi, v. 257 seq.). Cyril next began a 
vindication of his conduct to be laid before the 
emperor (Mansi, v. 225). Theodosius, hoping 
for a reconciliation, endeavoured to arrange 
a meeting between John and Cyril at Nico- 
media. Cyril was now disposed to moderation, 
and resolved to insist only upon the condem- 
nation of Nestorius and the recognition of 
Maximian. The meeting, it was found, could 
not take place; but a council at Antioch 
framed six articles, expressly rejecting those 
of Cyril, while accepting Athanasius’s letter 
to Epictetus as an exposition of Nicene 
orthodoxy. Cyril’s reply shewed that he had 
mastered his tendency to vehement and un- 
yielding self-assertion. He wrote to Acacius 
of Berrhoea, the oldest bp. in Syria, who had 
forwarded to him the six articles by the hands 
of the ‘‘tribune and notary”’ Aristolaus. 
Cyril’s letter (preserved, in a Lat. version, in 
the “᾿ Synodicon,’’ Mansi, v. 831) is worth at- 
tention: he represented the impossibility of 
withdrawing what he had written against 
Nestorius—it would be easy to come to a good 
understanding about the ‘‘articles’’ of the 
Alexandrian synod if only the Easterns would 
accept the deposition of Nestorius. ‘‘ Those 
who anathematize them will see that the 
meaning of the articles is directed solely 
against his blasphemies.’’ For himself, Cyril 
disavowed and condemned once more the 
heresies imputed to him, and asserted the 
impassibility of the divine nature in Christ, 
while insisting that He, the Only-begotten Son, 
Himself ‘‘ suffered for us in the flesh,’’ accord- 
ing to the words of St. Peter. This letter 
(referred to by Cyrilin subsequent letters, Ep. 
ῬΡ. 110, 152, 155) opened the way to his re- 
conciliation with John. The latter, although 
in his recent council he had bound himself to 
demand a recantation of the Cyrilline articles, 
now declared that Cyril had fully cleared 
himself from all heretical opinions. After a 


conference with Acacius of Berrhoea, John. 


sent to Alexandria, Paul bp. of Emesa, a man 


t _ of experience whom they both could trust, to 


_ confer with Cyril (see Cyril’s letters to Acacius 
and Donatus, Ep. pp. 111, 156). When Paul 
reached Alexandria, Cyril was laid up with ill- 
ness (Mansi, v. 987), but, when able, received 
him, as Paul himself said, kindly and pacifically 
Mansi, v. 288). They began their conference: 
aul presented to Cyril a confession of faith as 

_ exhibiting the mind of John of Antioch (Ep. 
Ἐ 103); it had been originally written at 
phesus by Theodoret (Tillem. xiv. 531). ‘‘ We 
confess,’’ so ran this formulary, ‘‘ our Lord 

_ Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, to 
6 perfect God and perfect Man, of a reason- 
able soul and a body, before the ages begotten 


CYRILLUS 


of the Father according to Godhead, but in the 
last days Himself the self-same, for us and for 
our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary accord- 
ing to Manhood; of one essence with the 
Father as to Godhead, of one essence with us 
as to Manhood. For there took place an union 
of two natures; wherefore we confess one 
Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this 
idea of an union without confusion, we confess 
the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, because God 
the Word was incarnate and made Man, and 
from His very conception united to Himself 
the temple assumed from her.’”’ The formu- 
lary, although it dwelt more than Cyril had 
been wont to do on the double aspect of the 
Incarnation, was accepted by Cyril as repre- 
senting Paul’s own faith, and he placed a 
corresponding statement in the hands of Paul. 
The latter asked whether he would stand by 
Athanasius’s letter to Epictetus. ‘* Certainly ; 
but is your copy of it free of corruption ?”’ 
Paul produced his copy; Cyril, comparing it 
with the authentic text, found that it had been 
tampered with (Mansi, v. 325). After further 
conversation the two bishops agreed to “ for- 
get’’ the troubles of Ephesus. Paul gave 
Cyril a letter from John, which, though gentle 
and dignified in tone, referred to the “ arti- 
cles’? in language which annoyed Cyril, and 
he spoke of the letter as ‘‘insulting.”’ Paul 
soothed him with courteous assurances, but 
Cyril proceeded to the point which John had 
ignored—the recognition of the deposition of 
Nestorius, and the condemnation of his heresy. 
Paul offered to make such a declaration in 
John’s name, but Cyril promptly and keenly 
insisted that John himself should make it 
(ib. 313). Just as little could Cyril give way 
as to the four Nestorianizing metropolitans 
deposed by the new archbp. of Constantinople: 
that sentence, he insisted, must stand good 
(ib. 349). Paul then, in writing, satisfied Cyril 
as to his own orthodoxy, and Cyril allowed 
him to join in the church-service of Alex- 
andria, even inviting him to preach on Christ- 
mas Day, 432, in the great church (20. 293). 
The bp. of Emesa began with the angelic 
hymn, proceeded to the prophecy of Emma- 
nuel, and then said, ‘‘ Thus Mary, Mother of 
God, brings forth Emmanuel.’’ A character- 
istic outbreak of orthodox joy interrupted the 
discourse. The people cried out, ‘‘ This is the 
faith! ’Tis God’s own gift, O orthodox Cyril! 
This is what we wanted to hear.’”’ Paul then 
went on to say that a combination of two per- 
fect natures, the Godhead and Manhood, 
constituted ‘‘ for us’’ the one Son, the one 
Christ, the one Lord. Again the cry arose, 
‘“ Welcome, orthodox bishop!’’ Paul re- 
sumed his discourse, and explained St. Peter’s 
confession as implying a duality of nature and 
an unity of person in Christ. On New Year's 
Day, 433, after alluding to Cyril as a kind- 
hearted trainer who had smiled upon his per- 
formance, he preached at greater length on the 
unity of the Person and the distinctness of the 
natures, as being co-ordinate and harmonious 
truths; and his teaching was heartily en- 
dorsed by Cyril, who sent two of his own clergy 
to accompany him and Aristolaus, the em- 
peror’s secretary, who was very zealous for the 
reunion, to Antioch, with a paper for John to 
sign, and a letter of communion to be given 


16 


241 


242 CYRILLUS 


him when he had signed it. But Cyril con- 
sidered Maximian also languid in the cause, 
and he wrote many letters to persons con- 
nected with the imperial court, including the 
“ Augusta ’’ Pulcheria, to bring their influence 
to bear upon john and separate him definitely 
and finally from Nestorius (Mansi, v. 988). 
These letters were backed up by presents 
euphemistically called “΄ blessings ”’ (eulogiae), 
which were employed by Cyril as a matter of 
course, for he knew but little of delicacy and 
scrupulosity as to the means to be used in 
gaining a court to the church’s interests. 
Cyril also assured Theognostus, Charmosynus, 
and Leontius, his ‘‘ apocrisiarii’’ or church 
agents at Constantinople (Ep. p. 152) that this 
peace with John implied no retractation of his 
old principles. In the spring of 433 John 
of Antioch wrote to Cyril, reciting the formu- 
lary of reunion, abandoning Nestorius, and 
condemning Nestorianism (Mansi, v. 290). In 
another letter John entreated Cyril in a tone 
of warm friendship to believe that he was 
“the same that he had known in former 
days”’ (Ep. p. 154). On Apr. 23 (Pharmuthi 
8) Cyril announced this reconciliation in a 
sermon (Mansi, v. 310, 289), and began his 
reply to John, “‘ Let the heavens rejoice and 
the earth be glad’’ (Ep. p. 104; Mansi, v. 
301). In this letter (afterwards approved by 
the council of Chalcedon) he cited the text, 
““One Lord, one faith, one baptism,”’ as ex- 
pressing the happiness of the restored peace ; 
and added his usual disclaimers of all opinions 
inconsistent with the reality of Christ’s man- 
hood. He commented on John iii. 13, I. Cor. 
xv. 47, I. Pet. iv. 1. He alsosent to John a 
copy of the genuine text of Athanasius’s 
letter to Epictetus. John himself became 
an object of suspicion and animosity to the 
thoroughgoing Nestorians; and even Theo- 
doret, though he admitted that Cyril’s recent 
language was orthodox, would not abandon 
Nestorius’s cause. In another direction 
doubts and anxieties were excited by the 
language now sanctioned by Cyril. Isidore, 
to whom Cyril had always allowed great free- 
dom of admonitory speech, and who had 
blamed him for unyieldingness, now expressed 
a fear that he had made too great concessions 
(Ep. i. 324). Other friends of his were scan- 
dalized by his acceptance of the phrase ‘“‘ two 
natures.” Was not this, they began to ask, 
equivalent to a sanction of Nestorianism ? 
To vindicate his orthodoxy herein, Cyril wrote 
a long letter to Acacius of Melitene (Ep. p. 
109; Mansi, v. 309), who had signified to him 
that some disquietude was felt. He narrated 
the recent transactions; and after insisting 
that the formulary was not (as some had re- 
presented it) a new creed, but simply a state- 
ment called forth by a special emergency (as 
those who signed it had been accused of 
rejecting the Nicene faith, and were therefore 
constrained to clear themselves), he proceeded 
to exhibit the essential difference between the 
formulary and the Nestorian error. Nestor- 
ius, in fact, asserted two Christs: the formu- 
lary confessed one, both divine and human. 
Then Cyril added that the two natures spoken 
of in the formulary were indeed separate in 
mental conception, 2.6. considered apart from 
Christ, but that “‘ after their union ”’ in Christ 


CYRILLUS 


““ the nature of the Son was but one, as belonging 
to one, but to One as made man and incar- 
nate.’’ Again, ‘‘ The nature of the Word is 
confessedly one, but has become incarnate,” 
for ‘‘ the Word took the form of a servant,” 
and ‘“‘in this sense only could a diversity of 
natures be recognized, for Godhead and Man- 
hood are not the same in natural quality.” 
Thus, in regard to the Incarnation, ‘‘ the mind 
sees two things united without confusion, and 
nowise regards them, when thus united, as 
separable, but confesses Him Who is from both, 
God, Son, and Christ, to be one.’’ ‘‘ Two 
natures,’’ in Nestorius’s mouth, meant two 
natures existing separately, in One Who was 
God and in One Who was Man; John of 
Antioch and his brethren, while admitting that 
Godhead and Manhood in Christ might be 
regarded as intrinsically different, yet un- 
equivocally acknowledged His Person to be 
one. The phrase ‘‘ one incarnate nature’”’ 
of God the Word, or ‘‘ one nature, but that 
incarnate,’ had been already (ad Regin. i. 9) 
quoted by Cyril as Athanasian: although it 
is very doubtful whether the short tract On 
the Incarnation of God the Word, in which it 
is found, was really written by Athanasius. 
But, as now used by Cyril in his vindication 
of the formulary from Nestorianism, it became 
in after-daysastumbling-block, and was quoted 
in support of Monophysitism (Hooker, v. 52, 
4). Did, then, Cyril in fact hold what was 
condemned in 451 by the council of Chalce- 
don? Would he have denied the distinct 
co-existence of Godhead and Manhood in the 
one incarnate Saviour? Were the Fathers of 
Chalcedon wrong when they proclaimed Cyril 
and Leo to be essentially one in faith ? What 
has been already quoted from the letter to 
Acacius of Melitene seems to warrant a nega- 
tive answer to these questions. What Cyril 
meant by ‘‘ one nature incarnate ’’ was simply, 
‘* Christ is one.’’ He was referring to ‘‘ nature”’ 
as existing in Christ’s single Divine Personality 
(cf. adv. Nest. ii. ; cf. note in Athan. Treatises, 
Lib. Fath. i. 155). When he denounced the 
idea of the separation of the natures after the 
union, he was in fact denouncing the idea of 
a mere connexion or association between a 
human individual Jesus and the Divine Word. 
Therefore, when he maintained the nature to 
be one, he was speaking in a sense quite dis- 
tinct from the Eutychian heresy, and quite 
consistent with the theology of Chalcedon. 
Other letters, written by Cyril under the same 
circumstances, throw light on his true mean- 
ing. Successus, an Isaurian bishop, had 
asked him whether the phrase ‘‘ two natures” 
were admissible (Ep. p. 135; Mansi, v. 999). 
Cyril wrote two letters to him in reply. In 
the first, after strongly asserting the unity of 
the Son both before and since the Incarnation, 
he quoted the “one nature incarnate”’ as 
a phrase of the Fathers, and employed the 
illustration from soul and body, “‘ two na- 
tures’’ being united in one man in order to 
set forth the combination of Godhead and 
Manhood in one Christ (cf. his Scholia de Inc. 
8). There was, he added, neither a conversion 
of Godhead into flesh nor a change of flesh 
into Godhead. In other words, Christ’s body, 
though glorified, and existing as God’s body, 
was not deprived ofits human reality. Inthe 


CYRILLUS 


second letter, replying to objections made by 
Successus to statements in the first, Cyril fully 
admitted that Christ ‘‘ arrayed Himself with 
our nature,’’ so that in Him both Godhead and 
Manhood, in Christ, retained their natural 
distinctness (cf. p. 143), and that the human 
nature was neither diminished nor subtracted. 
Further on he repeated the phrase “ὁ one 
nature, but that incarnate,’’ in the sense (as 
the context shews)} of ‘‘ One Who in His original 
nature was God, by incarnation becoming 
man.’’ In another letter he gave, to a priest 
named Eulogius, a similar account of the 
phrase, and obviously viewed it as guarding 
the truth of the Personal Union (Ep. p. 133). 
In another, addressed to a bishop named 
Valerian (and remarkable for the emphasis 
with which the Divinity of Christ is exhibited 
as bearing on His Atonement), the word 
“ nature,’’ in this connexion, is evidently used 
as synonymous with ὁ person ”’ or hypostasis ; 
andasif specially anxious to exclude all possible 
misconception, he wrote: ‘‘ He, being by nature 
God, became flesh, that is, perfect man. . 
As man He was partaker of our nature.’ 
This language agrees with that of his 17th 
Paschal Homily (Cyr. v. ii. 226). Cf. also his 
statement in adv. Nest. ii. t. vi. 50, that while 
the divine and the human natures are different 
things, as all right-thinking men must know, 
yet after the Incarnation they must not be 
divided, for there is but one Christ. Again 
(ib. p. 45) that Christ is not twofold is explained 
by the context to mean that Christ before and 
since the Incarnation is one and the same 
Person ; and (7b. p. 48), the reason for calling 
Christ’s Godhead the φύσις is explained by the 
consideration that He was originally God, 
while in the fifth book (ἰδ. p. 139) He is said 
to have given up His body to the laws of its 
own nature (τῆς ἰδίας gUcews). In the ninth 
book, de 5. Trinitate (dial. quod unus est 
Christus), he denies all transmutation or con- 
fusion of the natures, asserts the distinctness of 
Godhead and Manhood, adding that ‘‘the bush 
burning yet unconsumed was a type of the non- 
consumption of the Manhood of Christ in its 
contact with His Divinity ”’ (cf. Scholia, 2, 9). 
To return to the history. Maximian, dying 
in Apr. 434, was succeeded by Proclus, whose 
glowing sermon on the Incarnation had been 
among the earliest expressions of orthodox zeal 
against the Nestorian theory, and who de- 
serves to be remembered as a very signal 
example of the compatibility of orthodox zeal 
with charitable tenderness {Socr. vii. 41). 
Soon after his accession the imperial court 
resolved to enforce on all Eastern bishops 
the acceptance of the concordat which had 
reconciled John of Antioch with Cyril, upon 
pain of expulsion from their dioceses. The 
Nestorians, on their side, were indefatigable 
in circulating the works of Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, who had formed the theological mind 
of Nestorius ; and Cyril, who was informed of 
this during a visit to Jerusalem, was stirred to 
new energy by the evident vitality of the 
theory which he so earnestly abhorred. He 
wrote to the ‘“‘tribune”’ Aristolaus, and to 
John of Antioch, complaining that, as he was 
informed, some bishops were repudiating 
Nestorianism insincerely or inadequately, and 
were declaring that its author had been con- 


CYRILLUS 243 


demned merely for denying the ‘‘ Theotokos "’ 
(Mansi, v. 996, cf. ἐδ. 970). He urged that the 
bishops should anathematize Nestorianism 
in detail. John wished no new test to be 
imposed ; and Cyril found he had gone too 
far (7b. 969, 972, 996). John was much 
annoyed at Theodoret’s pertinacious refusal to 
anathematize Nestorius—a refusal in which 
Theodoret persisted until the eighth session of 
the council of Chalcedon (ἰδ. 997). As the 
Nestorianizers professed entire adhesion to the 
Nicene Creed, Cyril drew up an exposition 
of it (Ep. p. 174, Mansi, v. 383, cf. ἐδ. 975) 
addressed to certain ‘‘ fathers of monks,” in 
which he urged the incompatibility of that 
““ venerable and oecumenical symbo) of faith "’ 
with the denial of the personal unity of the 
Saviour. In this tract, a copy of which he 
sent to Theodosius, he disclaimed, as usual, 
any “fusion, commixture, or so-called con- 
substantiation’’ (συνουσίωσιν) of the Godhead 
with the flesh. He drew up a short treatise in 
three books to prove that Mary was Theotokos, 
that Christ was one and not two, and that 
while He was impassible as God, He suffered 
for us in flesh that was His own. This he 
intended as an antidote to the Nestorian argu- 
ments which, as he learned, were rife in Syria 
(Mansi, v. 995). The name of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia was at this time a watchword of 
eager controversy. Proclus of Constantinople, 
in his ‘‘ Tome’’ addressed to the Armenian 
clergy, in which he spoke of ‘‘ one incarnate 
person’’ (not ‘‘nature’’) of God the Word, 
had condemned Theodore’s opinions without 
naming him (7b. 421): the messengers who 
carried this document to John of Antioch in- 
serted Theodore’s name, without authority 
from Proclus, as the author of certain passages 
selected for censure. John and his suffragans 
accepted the Tome, but declined to condemn 
Theodore by name. Proclus rejoined that he 
had never wished them to go beyond a con- 
demnation of the extracts. Cyril, so far from 
feeling any tenderness towards Theodore, 
traced Nestorianism to his teaching and to 
that of Diodore of Tarsus (7b. 974) and wrote 
vigorously in support of this thesis (7b. 992). 
A synodal letter from John and his suffragans, 
stating their objections to Theodore’s name 
being anathematized on the score of expres- 
sions which, they urged, could be taken ina 
sense accordant with the language of eminent 
Fathers, drew forth from Cyril a somewhat in- 
dignant reply. Theodore, he said (Ep. p. 195), 
had ‘‘ borne down full sail against the glory of 
Christ’; it was intolerable that any parallel 
should be drawn between his language and 
that of Athanasius or Basil: he insisted that 
no one should be allowed to preach Theodore’s 
opinions; but he did not urge any condem- 
nation of his memory, and even dwelt on the 
duty of welcoming all converts from Nestor- 
ianism without a word of reproach as to the 
past. He saw that it would be imprudent to 
proceed publicly against the memory of a 
theologian so highly esteemed that the people 
cried out in some Eastern churches, ‘‘ We be- 
lieve as Theodore did,” and would rather be 
‘“burnt ’’ than disown him; and he wrote to 
Proclus advising that no further stepsshould be 
taken in the matter (Ep. p.199). The remain- 
ing events of Cyril’s long episcopate may be 


244 CYRILLUS 


told briefly. He wrote to Domnus, the successor 
of John in the see of Antioch (and afterwards 
unhappily conspicuous in the Eutychian con- 
troversy), in behalf of Athanasius sometime bp. 
of Perrha, who described himself, falsely it 
appears, as sorely wronged by some of his own 
clergy (Ep. p. 208). Inanother letter to Dom- 
nus, peremptory in style, he took up the cause 
of another aged bishop named Peter, who 
professed to have been expelled and plundered 
of his property on the pretext of arenunciation 
of his see, which after all had been extorted 
from him (Ep. p. 209). In both these cases 
Cyril shewed a somewhat impulsive readiness 
to believe the story of a petitioner, and a some- 
what dictatorial temper in regard to the affairs 
of another patriarchate. He wrote also a 
work against the Anthropomorphites, whose 
wild fancies about the Divine nature (as being 
limited and corporeal) had given such trouble 
in the days of his predecessor ; and in a letter 
on this subject to Calosirius, bp. of Arsinoe, 
he added a caution against the false mysticism 
which insisted on prayer to the exclusion of all 
labour, and on the “‘ senseless ’’ opinion that 
the Eucharistic consecration lost its efficacy 
if the sacrament was reserved until the follow- 
ing day. ‘‘ Christ’s holy Body,’’ wrote Cyril, 
“is not changed ; but the power of consecra- 
tion and the life-giving grace still remain in it”’ 
(Op. vi. 365). In the last year of his life he 
wrote to Leo, then bp. of Rome (to whom, as 
archdeacon of Rome, he had written in 431 
against the ambitious schemes, as he regarded 
them, of Juvenal bp. of Jerusalem [Leon. Ep. 
119, 4]) on the right calculation of Easter for 
A.D. 444, which, according to the Alexandrian 
cycle of 19 years, he fixed for April 23. In 
444, on June 9 or 27, his eventful life ended. 

Cyril’s character is not, of course, to be 
judged by the coarse and ferocious invective 
against his memory, quoted as Theodoret’s in 
the fifth general council (Theod. Ep. 180; see 
Tillem. xiv. 784). If this were indeed the 
production of Theodoret, the reputation to 
suffer would assuredly be that writer’s. What 
Cyril was, in his strength and in his weak- 
ness—in his high-souled struggle for doctrines 
which were to him, as to all thoughtful 
believers in Christ’s Divinity, the expres- 
sions of essential Christian belief; or in the 
moments when his old faults of vehemence and 
impatience reappeared in his conduct—we 
have already seen. He started in public life, 
so to speak, with dangerous tendencies to 
vehemence and imperiousness which were 
fostered by the bad traditions of his uncle’s 
episcopate and by the ample powers of his see. 
It would be impossible to maintain that these 
evils were wholly exhausted by the grave 
errors which—exaggerations and false impu- 
tations set aside—distinguished his conduct in 
the feud with the Jews and with Orestes; 
when, although guiltless of the blood of Hy- 
patia, he must have felt that his previous 
violence had been taken as an encouragement 
by her fanatical murderers. The old impa- 
tience and absolutism were all too prominent 
at certain points of the Nestorian struggle; 
although on other occasions, as must be ad- 
mitted by all fair judges, influences of asoften- 
ing and chastening character had abated the 
turbid impetus of his zeal and had taught him 


CYRILLUS 


to be moderate and patient. ‘‘ We may,” 
says Dr. Newman (Hist. Sketches, iii. 342), 
“hold St. Cyril a great servant of God, without 
considering ourselves obliged to defend certain 
passages of his ecclesiastical career. . . . Cyril’s 
faults were not inconsistent with great and 
heroic virtues, faith, firmness, intrepidity, 
fortitude, endurance, perseverance.’’ Those 
who begin by condemning dogmatic zeal as a 
fierce and misplaced chivalry for a phantom, 
will find it most difficult to be just to a man 
like Cyril. But if his point of view, which was 
indeed that of many great religious heroes, and 
eminently of Athanasius, be fully understood 
and appreciated, it ought not to be difficult to 
do justice to his memory. The issue raised 
by Nestorianism was to Cyril a very plain one, 
involving the very essence of Apostolic 
Christianity. Whatever ambiguities might be 


raised by a Nestorian use of the word πρόσωπον, 


it was clear to Cyril that the new theory 
amounted to a denial of the Word Incarnate. 
Nor was it a mere theory of the schools. Its 
promulgator held the great see of the Eastern 
capital, involving a central position and strong 
court influence, and was no mere amiable 
dreamer or scholastic pedant, whose fancies 
might die away if left to themselves. He has 
in modern times been spoken of as ‘the 
blameless Nestorius’’: he was in his own 
times spoken of as ‘‘ the incendiary ’’ on ac- 
count of a zeal against other forms of heresy 
which impelled him to take strong measures 
against opponents of his own. This was the 
enemy against whom Cyril did battle for the 
doctrine of a real Incarnation and a really 
Divine Christ. He had to reckon on opposi- 
tion, not only from Nestorius himself, but from 
large numbers—a miscellaneous company, 
including civil functionaries as well as prelates 
—who accepted the Nestorian theology, or 
who thought strong language against it un- 
called-for and offensive. He might have to 
encounter the displeasure of an absolute 
government—he certainly had for some time 
the prospect of that displeasure, and of all its 
consequences ; he had the burden of ill-health, 
of ever-present intense anxiety, of roughly 
expressed censure, of reiterated imputations 
affecting his own orthodoxy, of misconcep- 
tions and suspicions which hardly left him a 
moment’s rest. Whatever faults there were 
in his conduct of the controversy, this at least 
must be said—not only by mere eulogists of a 
canonized saint, but by those who care for the 
truth of history—that the thought as well as 
the heart of Christendom has for ages accept- 
ed, as the expression of Christian truth, the 
principle upheld by Cyril against Nestorius. 
A real and profound question divided the 
disputants ; and that stanza of Charles Wes- 
ley’s Christmas hymn which begins, 


“Christ, by highest heaven adored,” 


conveys the Cyrilline or Ephesine answer to that 
question in a form which exhibits its close con- 
nexion with the deepest exigencies of spiritual 
life. Cyril, as a theological writer, has greater 
merits than are sometimes allowed by writers 
defective in a spirit ot equity. His style, 
as Cave admits, may be deficient in elegance 
and in eloquence ; he may be often tedious, 


CYRILLUS 


and sometimes obscure, although, as Photius 
says (Cod. 136), his Thesaurus is remarkable 
for its lucidity. His comments on Scripture 
may be charged with excessive mysticism, or 
with a perpetual tendency to bring forward 
his favourite theological idea. There may be 
weak points in his argument—e.g. undue 
pressing of texts, and fallacious inferences, 
several of which might be cited from the 
treatise To the Princesses. But any one who 
consults, e.g., the Thesaurus, will acknowledge 
the ability with which Cyril follows up the 
theological line of Athanasius (see pp. 12, 23, 
27, 30, 50), and applies the Athanasian mode 
of thought to the treatment of Eunomian 
rationalism (p. 263), and the vividness with 
which, in this and in other works, he brings 
out the Catholic interpretation of cardinal 
texts in N.T. His acquaintance with Greek 
literature and philosophy is evident from 
the work against Julian ; but he speaks quite 
in the tone of Hippolytus’s ‘‘Little Laby- 
rinth” (Eus. v. 28) when he deprecates an 
undue reliance on Aristotelian dialectics and 
a priori assumption on mysteries transcend- 
ing human thought (Thesaur. 87, de recta 
fide 16, 17). 

Fragments of Cyrilline treatises not other- 
wise extant are preserved in synodal acts and 
elsewhere, and other works, as his Paschal 
Cycles and The Failure of the Synagogue, are 
mentioned by Sigebert and Gennadius. The 
Monophysites used on festivals a ‘‘ Liturgy of 
St. Cyril,’’ which is substantially identical with 
the Gk. “‘ Liturgy of St. Mark ”’ (see Palmer’s 
Orig. Liturg. i. 86, and Neale’s Introd. East. 
Ch. i. 324), and their traditionary belief, ex- 
pressed in a passage cited from Abu’lberkat 
by Renaudot, Lit. Orient. i. 171, is that Cyril 
““completed’’ St. Mark’s Liturgy. ‘It 
seems highly probable,’’ says Dr. Neale, 
quoting this, ‘‘ that the liturgy of St. Mark 
came, as we have it now, from the hands of St. 
Cyril’’; although, as Palmer says, the ortho- 
dox Alexandrians preferred to call it by the 
name of the Evangelist founder of their see. 
The Coptic Cyrilline Liturgy is of somewhat 
later date, and more diffuse in character. It 
seems not improbable that the majestic in- 
vocation of the Holy Spirit which is one of the 
distinctive ornaments of St. Mark’s Liturgy, 
if it was not composed during the Macedonian 
controversy in the 4th cent., represents to us 
the lively zeal of the great upholder of the 
Hypostatic Union for the essential Divinity 
of the Third Person in the Godhead. 

Cyril’s works were well edited by John 
Aubert (1658) in six volumes, an edition not 
yet superseded; there is no Benedictine St. 
Cyril. In 1859 Dr. Payne Smith pub. Cyril’s 
Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel, trans. from 
a Syriac version. An elaborate edition by 
P. E. Pusey, M.A., of Christ Church, of the 
Commentary on the Minor Prophets (2 vols.) 
and the Commentary on S. John’s Gospel 
(3 vols.) is pub. by the Clarendon Press, as is 
also the text and trans. with Lat. notes of 
the Comm. in Luc. ed. by R. P. Smith. An 
important work has recently been published 
by Dr. Bethune Baker, of Cambridge, entitled 
Nestorius and his Teaching, a Fresh Examina- 
tion of the Evidence, which adduces much, from 
new discoveries, in vindication of Nestorius 


DALMATIUS 


from the heresy attributed to him. See also 
CHRISTOLOGY, in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.).  [w.n.] 
Cyrillus (18) of Scythopolis (Bethshan), so 
called from his birthplace, a bagiologist, ἢ. c. 
555. His father, John, was famous for his re- 
ligious life. Cyrilcommenced an ascetic career 
at the age of 16. On leaving his monastery to 
visit Jerusalem and the holy places, his mother 
bid him put himself under the instruction of 
John the Silentiary, by whom he was com- 
mended to Leontius, abbat of the monastery of 
St. Euthymius, who admitted him as a monk 
in 522. Thence Cyril passed tothe Laura of St. 
Saba, where he commenced his sacred _ bio- 
graphies with the Lives of St. Euthymius and 
St. Saba, deriving his information from the 
elder monks who had known those saints. He 
also wrote the Life of St. John the Silentiary 
and other biographies, affording a valuable 
picture of the inner life of the Eastern church 
inthe 6thcent. They have been unfortunate- 
ly largely interpolated by Metaphrastes. The 
following biographies are attributed to Cyril 
by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 41, x. 155): 
(x) 5. Joannes Silentiarius (ap. Surium, May 
13); (2) 5. Euthymius (Cotelerius, Eccl. 
Graec. Monum. ii. 200); (3) 5. Sabas. (ib. iii. 
220); (4) Theodostus the Archimandrite (only 
found in Latin, of doubtful authenticity) ; (5) 
Cyrtacus the Anchoret; (6) 5. Theognius the 
Ascetic, bp. of Cyprus (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. 
u.s.; Cave, Hist. Lit. p.i. 529). [E.v.] 


245 


D 


Dalmatius (4), monk and abbat, near Con- 
stantinople at the time of the council of 
Ephesus (A.D. 431). His influence arose from 
his eminent piety, strength of character, and 
fiery zeal. Under Theodosius the Great he had 
served in the 2nd company of Guards, married, 
had children, and led a virtuous life. Feeling 
a call to a monastic life, he left his wife and 
children, except ason Faustus, and went to be 
instructed by abbat Isaac, who had dwelt in 
the desert sincehis infancy. Isaacat his death 
made him Hegumenus, superior of the monas- 
tery, under the patriarch Atticus. Consulted 
by councils, patriarchs, and emperors, he re- 
mained in his cell 48 years without quitting 
it. He is sometimes addressed as chief of 
the monasteries of Constantinople; but it is 
uncertain whether this was a complimentary 
or official title. He is not to be confounded 
with Dalmatius, monk at Constantinople, bp. 
of Cyzicus ; because the latter was present at 
the council of Ephesus in that capacity. 

During the supremacy of the Nestorian 
party at Ephesus, letters were conveyed by a 
beggar in the hollow of a cane from Cyril and 
the Athanasian or Catholic bishops to the 
emperor Theodosius II., the clergy and people 
at Constantinople complaining that they had 
been imprisoned three months, that the Nes- 
torians had deposed Cyril and Memnon bp. of 
Ephesus, and that they were all in the greatest 
distress. A short memorial was added to the 
letter of the bishops, probably for Dalmatius. 
Dalmatius was greatly moved, and believed 
himself summoned to go forth at length from 
his retreat in the interests of truth. Accom- 
panied by the monks of all the monasteries, 


‘ 


246 DAMASUS 


led by their abbats, he went to the palace in 
a long procession, divided into two companies, 
and singing alternately; a vast crowd of 
sympathizers followed. The abbats were 
admitted to the emperor’s presence ; and the 
monks remained outside chanting. Return- 
ing to the people, the abbats asked them to go 
to the church of St. Mocius to hear the letter 
of the council and the emperor’s reply. They 
went through the city, the monks chanting 
and carrying wax tapers. Great enthusiasm 
was excited against Nestorius. At the 
church the abbats read the letter of the 
bishops, which produced high excitement. 
Dalmatius, who was a presbyter, then mount- 
ed the pulpit, begged them to be patient, and 
in temperate and modest terms related his 
conversation with the emperor, and its satis- 
factory result. The emperor then wrote to 
Ephesus, ordering a deputation of each party 
to arrive at Constantinople. In a letter to 
Dalmatius the council acknowledged that to 
him only was owing the emperor’s knowledge 
of the truth. Cyril, Ep. 23, etc., Patr. Gk. 
Ixxvii. ; Concil. Gen.i.; Dalmatit A pol. p. 477; 
St. Procl. CP. Episc. Ep. iii.; Pair. Gk. xv. 
Ρ. 876, Ixxxv. col. 1797-1802; Ceillier, viii. 290, 
395, 396, 407, 594; Fleury, bk. xxvi. [w.m.s.] 

Damasus, pope, said to have been a Span- 
iard, the son of Antonius. On the death of 
Liberius (Sept. A.D. 366) the factions which 
had disgraced his election broke out with re- 
doubled violence. The original root of bitter- 
ness had been Arianism ; and Felix the Arian 
antipope [Fet1x II.] had been expelled by 
Liberius. Seven days after the death of 
Liberius, Felix’s partisans met and proclaimed 
Damasus pope in the Lucina [qy. the crypt of 
St. Lucina in the catacomb of Callistus ?]. 
Damasus had previously taken up a middle 
position between the contending parties, which 
may have specially recommended him to the 
electors, who could not hope to carry an ex- 
trememan. Yet, about the same time appar- 
ently the party of Liberius met in the Julian 
basilica and elected Ursicinus or Ursinus. 

It is difficult to ascertain the truth with 
regard to the strife between the rival popes. 
Our most detailed account is by personal 
enemies of Damasus, and the incidents of the 
struggle are recorded under URSINUS. 

Damasus used his success well, and the 
chair of St. Peter, even if, as his enemies 
alleged, acquired by violent means, was never 
more respected nor vigorous than during his 
bishopric. He appears as a principal oppo- 
nent of Arian and other heretics. Bp. Peter of 
Alexandria was his firm friend all along; and 
was associated with him in the condemnation 
of Apollinaris (Soz. vi. 25), and in affixing the 
stigma of Arianism to Meletius of Antioch and 
Eusebius, who were upheld by Basil (Basil, 
Ep. cclxvi. iil. 597, ed. Bened.). On Meletius’s 
death Damasus struggled hard to gain the 
chair of Antioch for Paulinus, and to exclude 
Flavianus ; nor was he reconciled to the latter 
till some time later (Socr. v. 15). 

His correspondence with Jerome, his at- 
tached friend and secretary, begins A.D. 376, 
and closes only with his death a.p. 384. Six 
of Jerome’s letters to him are preserved, two 
being expositions of difficult passages of Scrip- 
ture elicited by letters of Damasus asking the 


_ DANIEL 


aid ofhislearning. Jerome’s desire to dedicate 
to him a translation of Didymus’s work on the 
Holy Ghost was only stopped by hisdeath. In 
later letters Jerome speaks in high terms of 
Damasus; calls him ‘‘ that illustrious man, 
that virgin doctor of the virgin church,” 
““ eager to catch the first sound of the preach- 
ing of continence’’; who ‘‘ wrote both verse 
and prose in favour of virginity” (Epp. 
Hieron. 22, 48). From this Milman (Latin 
Christ. i. 69) conjectures that Damasus was 
a patron of the growing monastic party—a 
not improbable conjecture, rendered more 
likely by the ardent attachment of Jerome, 
and the veneration in which the memory of 
pope Damasus was held by later times, when 
monasticism had taken firm root in the 
Romanchurch. But the best-known record of 
Damasus will always be his labour of love in 
the catacombs of Rome. Here he searched 
ardently and devotedly for the tombs of the 
martyrs, which had been blocked up and 
hidden by the Christians during the last per- 
secution. He ‘‘ removed the earth, widened 
the passages, so as to make them more service- 
able for the crowd of pilgrims, constructed 
flights of stairs leading to the more illustrious 
shrines, and adorned the chambers with 
marbles, opening shafts to admit air and light 
where practicable, and supporting the friable 
tufa walls and galleries wherever it was neces- 
sary with arches of brick and stone work. 
Almost all the catacombs bear traces of his 
labours, and modern discovery is continually 
bringing to light fragments of the inscriptions 
which he composed in honour of the martyrs, 
and caused to be engraved on marble slabs, in 
a peculiarly beautiful character, by a very able 
artist, Furius Dionysius Filocalus. It is a 
singular fact that no original inscription of 
pope Damasus has ever yet been found exe- 
cuted by any other hand; nor have any in- 
scriptions been found, excepting those of 
Damasus, in precisely the same form of letters. 
Hence the type is well known to students of 
Christian epigraphy as the ‘ Damasine char- 
acter’ ’’ (Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote and 
Brownlow, p. 97). Damasus also laid down 
a marble pavement in the basilica of St. 
Sebastian, recording by an-inscription the 
temporary burial in that church of SS. Peter 
and Paul (ib. p. 114). He built the baptistery 
at the Vatican in honour of St. Peter, where 
de Rossi thinks, from an inscription in the 
Damasine character, was an actual chair which 
went by the name of St. Peter’s seat (δ. p. 
393), and he drained the crypts of the Vatican, 
that the bodies buried there might not be 
disturbed by the overflow of water (7b. p. 334). 
He died in Dec. 384, after a pontificate of 18 
years. Before his death he had prepared his 
own tomb above the catacomb of Callistus, 
giving his reason in an inscription in what is 
called the Papal crypt of that catacomb: 
“‘ Hic fateor Damasus volui mea condere membra, 
Sed timui sanctos cineres vexare priorum ” 


Cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 


(4b. p. 102). 
(G.H.M.] 


vols. i. and ii. 
Damianus (2), M. [Cosmas.] 
Daniel (9) the Stylite, of the 5th cent., wasa 
Mesopotamian by birth, and in his youth had 
visited Symeon the Stylite. After having 


a a a a a AN a i τ Πρ I I i τὶ τοῦδ 


DATIVUS 


lived a monastic life in convents for several 
years, at the age of 47 he received as a legacy 
the cowl of Symeon, and established his pillar 
4 miles N. of Constantinople. The patriarch 
Gennadius ordained him presbyter against his 
will, standing at the foot of his column. Then 
the patriarch, by means of a ladder, adminis- 
tered the Eucharist, and received it in turn 
from the Stylite. He lived on his pillar for 
33 years, and died at the age of 80. He was 
visited with reverence by kings and emperors 
as an oracle ; but discouraged all who brought 
complaints against their bishops. Towards 
the end of his life, solicited eagerly by both 
sides, he took part in the dispute between the 
emperor Basiliscus, a Monophysite, and Aca- 
cius patriarch of Constantinople. Descending 
from his pillar, he appeared in the city, de- 
nounced Basiliscus, and inflamed the people 
with such zeal that Basiliscus published an 
orthodox edict. The following is his prayer 
before he began his life on the pillar: ‘‘ I yield 
Thee glory, Jesus Christ my God, for all the 
blessings which Thou hast heaped upon me, 
and for the grace which Thou hast given me 
that I should embrace this manner of life. 
But Thou knowest that in ascending this 
pillar I lean on thee alone, and that to Thee 
alone I look for the happy issue of mine under- 
taking. Accept, then, my object ; strengthen 
me that I finish this painful course; give me 
grace to end it in holiness.’’ In his last will 
to his disciples, after commending them to the 
common Father of all, and to the Saviour Who 
died for them, Daniel bade them “ hold fast 
humility, practise obedience, exercise hospital- 
ity, keep the fasts, observe the vigils, love 
poverty, and above all maintain charity, 
which is the first and great commandment ; 
avoid the tares of the heretics ; separate never 
from the church your mother: if you do these 
things your righteousness shall be perfect.”’ 
Baronius places his death in a.p. 489. Vita 
S. Daniel, ap. Surium, ad diem ii. decemb. cap. 
xli. xlii. xlili.; Robertson, Ch. Hist. ii. 41-43, 
274; Ceillier, x. 344, 403, 485. Baronius, ed. 
Theiner, vol. viii. ad an. 460, § 20; 464, § 2; 
465, § 3, 12, 13; 476, § 48, 50, 51, 53; 489, 

4. [νν.Μ.5.] 

Dativus (3), celebrated senator, martyred 
under Diocletian Feb. 11, A.D. 304. In spite 
of orders to the contrary, a company of the 
faithful met in the town of Abitina, in the 
proconsulate of Africa, to celebrate Christian 
worship and communion, at the house of one 
Felix Octavius. Forty-nine men and women 
were surprised by the official and magistrates 
of the town. They marched cheerfully to 
their destination, chanting hymns and can- 
ticles, having at their head Dativus the sena- 
tor and Saturninus the presbyter. They 
confessed Jesus Christ, were chained, and sent 
to Carthage. There the proconsul Anulinus 
examined them. Dativus, refusing to say 
who was the chief of their company, was tor- 
tured. As he lay under the iron, at a second 
examination, Dativus was accused by For- 
tunatianus, advocate, brother of the martyr 
Victoria, one of the arrested, of enticing her 
and other young girls to Abitina. Victoria, 


however, indignantly denied that she had | 


gone there but of her own accord. The exe- 
cutioners continued tormenting Datiyus, till 


DAVID 247 


the interior of his breast could be seen. He 
went on praying and begging Jesus Christ for 
patience. The proconsul, stopping the tor- 
ture, asked him again if he had been present. 
“T was in the assembly,” he answered, ‘‘ and 
celebrated the Lord’s Supper with the breth- 
ren.’ They again thrust the irons into his 
side; and Dativus, repeating his prayer, 
continued to say, “Ὁ Christ, I pray Thee let 
me not be confounded.’’ And he added, 
“What have I done? Saturninus is our 
presbyter.’’ Dativus was carried to gaol. Here 
he soon afterwards died. Many of his com- 
panions were also tortured, and most of them 
were starved to death in prison.  Ruinart, 
Acta Sinc. Mart. p. 382; Ceillier, iii. 20, ete. ; 
AA. SS. Bolland. Feb. ii. p. 5613. [w.M.s.] 

David (5), St. (Degui; Welsh, Dewt), the 
most eminent Welsh saint. 

His Period.—The Annales Cambriae, our 
earliest authority for his existence, date his 
death αν. 601; and one reading, which the 
Monumenta only gives in brackets, under A.p. 
458, is: ‘‘ St. Dewi nascitur anno tricesimo 
post discessum Patricii de Menevia’’ (M. H. B. 
830, 831). Geoffrey of Monmouth dates his 
death a.p. 542, and William of Malmesbury 
A.D. 546. Ussher argues that he died A.p. 544, 
at the age of 82 (Brit. Eccl. Ant. Works, 1847 ; 
vi. 43, 44, Chron. Index, ad ann. 544); but 
Rice Rees, who has followed him in his com- 
putations, places his birth 20 years later, and 
fixes A.D. 566 as the last date possible for his 
death. The aA.p. 601 of the Ann. Camb. is the 
date adopted by Haddan and Stubbs (Coun- 
ctls, i. 121, 143, 148), who remark that David 
would thus come into view just as the history 
of Wales emerges from the darkness that 
conceals it for a century after the departure 
of the Romans. : 

A résumé of authorities for his Life is given 
by Jones and Freeman (Hist. of St. David's, 
240), and a full and careful list of all known 
materials, manuscript and printed, by Hardy 
(Descr. Catal. i. 766). 

The Story of his Life-—The asserted facts of 
St. David’s life, omitting such as are clearly 
legendary, meet with various degrees of cre- 
dence from authors of repute. Rees, in his 
Essay on Welsh Saints, while rejecting several 
circumstances as manifestly fabulous or in- 
credible, such as his going to Jerusalem to be 
consecrated, is disposed to accept enough to 
make a biographical narrative. _ 

His father was (in medieval Latin) Xantus 
or Sanctus, prince of Keretica—t.e. modern 
Cardiganshire. David is said to have been 
educated first under St. Iltutus in his college 
(afterwards called from him Llanilltyd Fawr, 
or Lanwit Major), and subsequently in the 
college of Paulinus (a pupil of Germanus and 
one of the great teachers of the age), at Ty- 
gwyn ar Daf (Rees, Welsh Saints, 178), or at 
Whitland in Carmarthenshire (Jones and 
Freeman) ; and here he spent ten years in the 
study of Holy Scripture. In course of time 
David became head of a society of his own, 
founding or restoring a monastery or college 
at a spot which Giraldus calls Vallis Rosina 
(derived, as is generally supposed, from a con- 
fusion between Rhos, a swamp, and Rhosyn, a 
rose), near Hen-Meneu, and this institution 
was subsequently named, out of respect to his 


248 DAVID 


memory, Ty Dewi, House of David, or St. 
David’s. In those days, remarks Rees, abbats 
of monasteries were looked upon in their own 
neighbourhoods as bishops, and were styled 
such, while it is probable that they also exer- 
cised chorepiscopal rights in their societies 
(Welsh Saints, 182, 266; cf. Haddan and 
Stubbs, i. 142, 143). Such dignity David 
enjoyed before his elevation to the arch- 
bishopric of the Cambrian church. It was 
the Pelagian controversy that occasioned his 
advancement. To pronounce upon the great 
heresy then troubling the church, archbp. 
Dubricius convened a synod at Brefi, and 
David, whose eloquence put the troublers to 
confusion, made such an impression that the 
synod at once elected him archbp. of Caerleon 
and primate of the Cambrian church, Du- 
bricius himself resigning in his favour. The 
locality of this synod, which holds a marked 
place in Welsh ecclesiastical traditions, was 
on the banks of the Brefi, a tributary of the 
Teifi; Llanddewi Brefi it was afterwards 
called, from the dedication of its church to St. 
David. It is 8 miles from Lampeter, and from 
recent archaeological discoveries has been 
identified with an important Roman station, 
the Loventium of the itineraries (Lewis, Top. 
Dict. of Wales; cf. Haddan and Stubbs, 
Councils, i. 117). The Pelagian heresy, how- 
ever, still survived, and the new archbishop 
convened another synod, the issue of which 
was so decided as to gain it the name of the 
Synod of Victory. It is entered in the Annales 
Cambriae, “‘ Synodus Victoriae apud Britones 
congregatur,’’ under A.D. 569, but not with full 
confidence (M. H. B. 831). It is also men- 
tioned, without a date, in the Annales Mene- 
venses (Wharton, Amgl. Sac. il. 648). After 
residing for a while at Caerleon on Usk, where 
the seat of the primate was then established, 
David, by permission of king Arthur, removed 
to Menevia, the Menapia of the Itineraries, 
one of the ports for Ireland (Wright, Celt, 
Roman, and Saxon, 138). The Roman road 
Via Julia led to it; the voyage across was 45 
miles; the Menapii, one of the tribes which 
held the E. coast of Ireland, were no doubt a 
colony from the opposite shore of Britain (16. 
43); David's baptism by the bp. of Munster 
indicates a religious connexion between Men- 
evia and Ireland. The tradition of a mission 
of the British church to Ireland to restore the 
faith there, under the auspices of David, 
Gildas, and Cadoc (Haddan and Stubbs, 
Councils, i. 115) points the same way. May 
we not, therefore, assume that the see was 
removed because the tide of Saxon conquest 
drove the British church to cultivate closer 
relations with their Celtic brethren opposite ? 

As primate, David distinguished himself by 
saintly character and apostolic zeal, a glowing, 
not to say an overcharged, description of which 
is given in Giraldus. It is generally agreed that 
Wales was divided into dioceses in his time. 
Rees, in his learned essay on the Welsh saints, 
shews that of the dedications and localities of 
the churches of the principality, a large num- 
ber terminate in David’s native name, ddewi, 
or are otherwise connected with his memory 
(Welsh Saints, p. 52). These instances, more- 
over, abound in a well-defined district ; and 
Rees has ingeniously used these circumstances 


‘then present a very lovely aspect. 


DECIUS 


as indicating the limits of the diocese of arch- 
bp. David’s immediate jurisdiction (tb. pp. 
197-199). David’s successor was Cynog. 

Jones and Freeman (St. David's, 246 seq.) 
conclude that we may safely accept as his- 
torical facts: that St. David established a see 
and monastery at Menevia early in the 7th 
cent., the site being chosen for the sake of 
retirement ; that his diocese was co-extensive 
with the Demetae; that he had no archiepis- 
copal jurisdiction ; that a synod was held at 
Brefi, in which he probably played a conspic- 
uous part, but that its objects are unknown ; 
and finally that of his immediate successors 
nothing is recorded (7b. 257). These writers 
convey a vivid impression of the “‘ strange and 
desolate scenery ’’ of the spot now named after 
St. David, and give some curious antiquarian 
details. Haddan and Stubbs (Cownetls, i. 115- 
120) give dates to the synod of Brefi and the 
synod of Victory, a little before 569 and in 
569, later than Rees’s latest possible date for 
David’s death ; and they regard the accounts 
given of the synods by Ricemarchus, and 
Giraldus after him, as purely fabulous, and 
directed to the establishment of theapocryphal 
supremacy of St. David and his see over the en- 
tire British church. They express much doubt 
as to the purpose of those assemblies being 
tocrush Pelagianism. Valuable documentary 
information and references as to the whole 
subject of the early Welsh episcopate are given 
in Appendix C (op. ctt.), and it is maintained 
that ‘‘ there is no real evidence of the existence 
of any archiepiscopate at all in Wales during 
the Welsh period, if the term is held to imply 
jurisdiction admitted or even claimed (until 
the 12th cent.) by one see over another.” 

David was canonized by pope Calixtus c. 
A.D. 1120, and commemorated on Mar. 1 
(Rees, op. cit. 201). [c.H.] 

Decius. The reign of this emperor, though 
among the shortest in the Roman annals (a.p. 
249-251), has gained a pre-eminence in eccle- 
siastical history altogether disproportioned to 
its place in general history. It was burnt in 
on the memories of men as a fiery trial, and 
occasioned many memorable controversies. 

When Cn. Messius Decius Trajanus first 
appears in history it is with a grown-up son, 
himself between fifty and sixty, as a member 
of the Roman senate, in the last year of the 
reign of Philipthe Arabian. The army elected 
him as emperor, and forced him to lead them 
into Italy. Near Verona they encountered 
Philip, who was defeated and slain (June 17, 
A.D. 249), and Decius began to reign. He 
associated his own son and Annius Maximus 
Gratus with him as Caesars. 

The edict which made his name a byword of 
reproach may have been due to a desire to 
restore the rigorous morality of the old Roman 
life, and the old religion which gave that 
morality its sanctions. If we may judge by 
the confessions of the great Christian teachers, 
who owned that the church deserved its 
sufferings, the lives of its members did not 
Christian 
men were effeminate and self-indulgent, trim- 
ming their beard and dyeing their hair; 
Christian women painted their faces, and 
brightened their eyes with cosmetics. The 
clergy were covetous and ambitious, looking 


DECIUS 


on their profession as a path to wealth and 
influence. In addition to these evils they 
presented, even more than they had done in 
the days of the Antonines, the aspect of a secret 
society with a highly compact organization. 
That the late emperor had been supposed to 
favour it or even to have been secretly a mem- 
ber of it was enough to add another element 
to the policy which Decius now adopted. 

That policy was opened early in A.D. 250 by 
an edict no longer extant,* of which we can 
form a fair estimate, partly from an account 
given by Gregory of Nyssa (Vit. Greg. Thaum.), 
and partly from the history of the persecution, 
as traced by Cyprian, in his epistles and the 
treatise de Lapsis, and by Dionysius of 
Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 40-42). It did 
not order any sharp measures of extermina- 
tion. Magistrates throughout the empire 
were ordered, under heavy penalties, to put 
pressure upon the worshippers of Christ to ab- 
jure Christianity. Fear did its work on many 
whose faith had never had any real ground- 
work in conviction. The seats of the magis- 
trates were thronged with apostates, some 
rushing eagerly to be conspicuous among the 
first to offer sacrifice and sprinkle incense on 
the altar; some pale and trembling, as if 
about to be themselves sacrificial victims. In 
that crowd of renegades were, too, not a few 
base and feeble-hearted priests of the church. 
Others found an ingenious way of satisfying 
their conscience, and securing their position 
and life. The magistrates were not above 
accepting bribes, and for a reasonable money 
payment would give a certificate (libellus) that 
sacrifice had been duly offered, without mak- 
ing the actual performance of the rite com- 
pulsory. The /zbellatici were rightly branded 
by Christian feeling with a double note of 
infamy. They added dishonesty and false- 
hood to cowardice and denial. Bad as the 
sacrificatt, the thurificatt, might be, they were 
not so contemptible as these. Next, severe 
measures were brought to bear on the faithful. 
They were dragged before the prefects and 
other magistrates, questioned as to their faith, 
required to sacrifice, exposed to insults and 
outrages if they refused, thrust into prison, 
and, in many instances, ill-treated till they 
died. The wiser and more prudent bishops, 
such as Dionysius of Alexandria and Cyprian 
of Carthage, followed the counsel of their 
Lord (Matt. x. 23), and the example of Poly- 
carp, fled from the storm themselves, and 
exhorted their followers to do the same. 
Some, who thus withdrew from the common 
life of men, never returned to it (e.g. Paul, the 
hermit of the Thebaid, and Maximus of Nice), 
and the Decian period has been commonly 
regarded, though with some exaggeration, as 
the starting-point of the anchoretic life. The 
wiser pastors continued, as far as they could, 
to watch over their flocks and keep them 
steadfast in the faith, even while exposed to 
taunts and suspicions of cowardice or deception. 
Others languished in prison, like the sufferers 
at Rome, of whom Cyprian tells, ‘‘ sine solatio 
mortis.”’ Some courted death not in vain, or 
met it bravely. 

* A document purporting to give the text of the 
edict was published at Toulouse a.p. 1664, but is 
universally acknowledged to be spurious, 


DECIUS 


The persecution of Decius (commonly 
reckoned as the seventh) may fairly be meas- 
ured as to its extent, if not its actual severity, 
by the list of martyrs under it still found in the 
calendar of the Western church. It was more 
extensive and more systematic than any that 
had preceded it. Fabian, bp. of Rome, was 
among the foremost of the victims; Babylas 
of Antioch, Pionius of Smyrna (seized, it was 
said, while celebrating the anniversary of the 
martyrdom of Polycarp), Agatha of Sicily, 
Polyeuctes of Armenia, Carpus and his deacon 
of Thyatira, Maximus (a layman) of Asia, 
Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, Acacius of the 
Phrygian Antioch, Epimachus and Nemesius 
of Alexandria, Peter and his companions of 
Lampsacus, Irenaeus of Neo-Caesarea, Martial 
of Limoges, Abdon and Sennen (Persians then 
at Rome), Cassian of Imola, Lucian a Thracian, 
Trypho and Respicius of Bithynia, the Ten 
Martyrs of Crete, have all found a place in the 
martyrologies of this period, and, after allow- 
ing uncertainty to some of the names, the list 
is enough to shew that there was hardly a 
province of the empire where the persecu- 
tion was not felt. Among “ confessors”’ (a 
title which seems to have been then, for 
the first time, used in this sense) were 
Origen, who was tortured on the rack, and 
the boy Dioscorus who, at the age of 15, 
offered himself for the crown of martyrdom, 
but was spared by the Alexandrian prefect in 
pity for his youth. To this reign belongs the 
well-known legend of the Seven Sleepers of 
Ephesus, told for the first time by Gregory of 
Tours (de Glor. Martyr. c. 95). Confessing the 
faith, like Dioscorus, in the prime of early 
manhood, they were, it was said, walled up in 
a cave, and left to die. They fell asleep, and 
the place acquired a local fame for its sanctity. 
In the reign of Theodosius (A.D. 447) the cave 
was opened, and the sleepers awoke, went 
forth, and were startled at the changes which 
they witnessed, temples destroyed and 
churches standing in their place. Their 
second life was, however, of short duration. 
They again lay down together and fell asleep, 
this time not to wake again. 

Happily, the persecution was as short as it 
was severe. The attacks of the Goths (or the 
Carpi, probably a Gothic tribe) drew Decius 
and his son into Pannonia, where they fell in 
battle. In some respects the after-effects of 
the Decian persecution were more important 
than its direct results. It cleared off the 
crowd of half-hearted Christians, and left 
behind those who were prepared by its dis- 
cipline for the severer struggles that were to 
come under Valerian and Diocletian. Ques- 
tions arose as to the treatment of those 
who had apostatized (the lapsi of Cyprian’s 
treatise). Were the Itbellatict to be dealt 
with on the same footing as the ‘hurificatt ? 
Were either capable of readmission into the 
fold of Christ ? Was that readmission to be 
conditional upon the church's normal disci- 
pline, or were the confessors to be allowed to 
give a certificate of absolution (the /tbellus 
pacis) to those whose weakness or repentance 
was sufficient reason for indulgence? Some 
of those who prided themselves, like many of 
the Roman confessors, on their constancy, 
looked down with scorn on the indulgence 


249 


250 DEMETRIAS 
shewn by Cyprian and Cornelius to the 
lapsi, and even taunted the latter with having 
been a libellaticus. The tendency to ascetic 
rigorism of discipline would doubtless have 
shewn itself sooner or later in any case, but 
historically the Novatianist schisms had 
their beginning in the Decian persecution. Cf. 
Eus. H. E. vi. 39-45; Cyprian, de Laps., and 
Epp. passim; the articles in this dict. on the 
persons named above; and an excellent paper 
on Decius by Hefele in Wetzer and Welte’s 
Kirchen Lexicon. For the general history of 
the reign, see Gibbon (c. x.), whose narrative 
is based on Zosimus and Zonaras. [E.H.P.] 
Demetrias, a Roman virgin to whom 
Jerome wrote his treatise (Ep. 130, ed. Vall.) 
on the keeping of virginity. Her family was 
illustrious at Rome, her grandmother Proba 
(who is much praised by Jerome) having had 
three sons, all consuls. Demetrias had in 
early life wished to take the vow of virginity, 
but feared her parents’ opposition. They, 
however, fully approved, and it gladdened all 
the churches of Italy. Her father having 
died just before the sack of Rome by Alaric, 
the family sold their property and set sail for 
Africa, witnessing the burning of Rome as 
they left Italy; and, arriving in Africa, fell 
into the hands of the rapacious count Herac- 
lian, who took away a large part of their 
property. Jerome exhorts Demetrias to a 
life of study and fasting ; care in the selection 
of companions; consecration of her wealth 
to Christ’s service ; and to working with her 
own hands. He warns her not to perplex 
herself with difficult questions introduced by 
the Origenists; and recommends the study 
of Scripture. He exhorts her to prefer the 
coenobitic to the hermit life, and bears testi- 
mony, as he had done 30 years before to 
Eustochium, to the excellence of the virgin- 
state, notwithstanding the attacks made 
upon it. [W.H.F.] 
Demetrius (2) succeeded Julianus a.p. 189, 
as 11th bp. of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. v. 22). 
He presided over the see for 43 years, and 
died a.D. 231-232 (tb. vi. 26). He appears to 
have been of an energetic and imperious 
nature. He took an active interest in the 
Catechetical School, and is said to have sent 
one of its early chiefs, PANTAENUS, on a 
[second ?] mission “‘ to the Indians ” on their 
own request (Hieron. de Vzr. Ill. 36). After 
Clement had left Alexandria, he placed Origen 
at its head, c. 203 (Eus. H. E. vi. 5), and 
strenuously encouraged him to continue his 
work, when his indiscreet zeal had exposed 
him to misrepresentation (7b. vi. 8). Later 
(A.D. 217), he sent Origen to the Roman 
governor of Arabia, at the governor’s earnest 
invitation (ἐδ. vi. 19). Origen fulfilled his 
mission satisfactorily, but not long afterwards 
Demetrius’s friendship for him was inter- 
rupted. [OriGEN.] According toa late, and 
not very trustworthy, authority, Demetrius is 
reported to have written letters on the keeping 
of Easter, maintaining the view adopted at 
Nicaea (Eutychius, Ann. pp. 363 ff.; Migne, 
Patrol. vol. cxi.). Other legendary stories of 
his life are given in the Chronicon Orientale 
(pp. 721. ed. 1685), and more briefly by 
Tillemont (Mémotres, Origéne, art .vii. tom. 
iii. p. 225, ed. Bruxelles). 


DIANIUS 


The statement that Demetrius first changed 
the singular ecclesiastical arrangement of 
Egypt, by appointing three bishops in ad- 
dition to the bp. of Alexandria, who had 
formerly governed the whole province, is 
probably correct, though the only direct 
authority for it is that of Eutychius, patriarch 
of Alexandria, in the roth cent. (cf. Lightfoot, 
Philippians, p. 230). Possibly this change was 
due to special views on church government, 
which may have influenced Demetrius in his 
harsh judgment on the ordination of Origen be- 
yond the limits of his jurisdiction.  [B.F.w.] 

Demophilus, bp. of Constantinople, a.p. 
370; expelled 380; died 386; formerly bp. 
of Berea; born of good family in Thessalonica 
(Philostorg. H. E. ix. 14). On the death of 
Eudoxius in 370 he was elected by the Arians 
to the bishopric of Constantinople (Socr. H. E. 
iv. 14; Soz. H. E. vi. 13). The people, how- 
ever, were much divided (Philostorg. H. E. ix. 
10). The orthodox party chose Evagrius for 
their bishop, and he was ordained by Eusta- 
thius, the deposed bp. of Antioch. This was 
the signal for an outburst of fury on the part 
of the Arians. Eustathius and Evagrius 
were banished by Valens, and their followers 
bitterly persecuted (Socr. H. E. iv. 14, 16; 
Soz. H. E. vi. 13, 14). Demophilus, soon 
after his accession, went to Cyzicus in con- 
junction with Dorotheus, or Theodorus, of 
Heraclea, to procure the election of an Arian 
bishop, that see having been vacant since the 
banishment of Eunomius. But the people of 
Cyzicus refused to acknowledge them till they 
had anathematized Aetius, Eunomius, and 
their followers. They were then permitted 
to ordain a bishop chosen by the people. The 
bishop who was ordained straightway and 
clearly taught the consubstantial faith (Philo- 
Store sie ἘΞ Ὶ κ᾿ τ) 

In 380 changed times came and made the 
reign of Theodosius I. and the patriarchate of 
Demophilus memorable. The emperor Theo- 
dosius offered to confirm him in his see, if he 
would subscribe the Nicene Creed. Demo- 
philus refused, and was immediately ordered 
to give up his churches. He then called his 
followers together, and retired, with Lucius of 
Alexandria and others, to a place of worship 
without the walls (Socr. H. E. v. 7). The 
churches of Constantinople, which had for 
forty years been in Arian hands, were now 
restored to the orthodox; and similarly in 
other cities. It was, in fact, a general dis- 
establishment of Arianism and re-establish- 
ment of Catholicism. Philostorgius (H. E. 
ix. 19) adds that Demophilus went to his own 
city, Berea. But this must have been some 
time afterwards, or he must have returned 
from exile, for he represented the Arian party 
at the synod held in Constantinople, a.p. 383 
(Socr) Ho B--v. τὸν 502. ἢ 3 vil. πὴ ἘΠῚ 
same writer says that Demophilus was wont 
to throw everything into confusion, especially 
the doctrines of the church, and quotes from 
a sermon at Constantinople, in which he 
spoke of the human nature of the Saviour as 
lost in the divine, as a glass of milk when 
poured into the sea. Philostorg. Patrol. Gk. 
Ixv.; Soz. and Socr. Patrol. Gk. Ixvii.  [P.o.] 

Dianius or Dianaeus, for more than 20 years 
bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, a saintly man 


DIDYMUS 


much venerated in the early church, notwith- 
standing his somewhat doubtful orthodoxy. 
He was almost certainly the bishop who 
baptized Basil the Great on his return from 
Athens, and ordained him lector (Basil, de 
Sp. Sancto, 29, p- 357). Basil speaks of him 
in terms of most affectionate respect, describ- 
ing him as remarkable for his virtues, frank, 
generous, and attractive from his amiability, 
venerable both in aspect and in character 
(Ep. 51 [84]). We see him, however, in 
these troubled times weak and undecided, led 
by his peaceful disposition to deprecate con- 
troversy, and by his feebleness to side with 
the strongest ; destitute of strong theological 
convictions, and wanting the clearness of 
thought to appreciate subtleties of doctrine. 
He was, therefore, too often found on the 
semi-Arian side of the church. If, as Tille- 
mont holds, he is the Danius who heads the 
list of bishops to whom pope Julius directed 
his dignified reply to the insolent letter ad- 
dressed to him from Antioch, he took a leading 
part in the synod held at that city in the 
early months of a.p. 340, by which the de- 
position of Athanasius was confirmed, and 
George of Cappadocia placed on the throne of 
Alexandria (Epistola Juli, apud Athanas. 
Apolog. li. p. 239). He also took part in 
the famous synod of Antioch, tm Encaentts, 
A.D. 341, and was present at Sardica, A.D. 347, 
where, according to Hilary (p. 29), he joined 
in the anathema against Julius and Athan- 
asius. His weakness of character was still 
more fatally shewn when, after the council 
of Constantinople, a.p. 359, the formula of 
Rimini was sought to be imposed on the 
church by the authority of the emperor. To 
the intense grief of Basil, Dianius yielded to 
pressure and signed the heretical document. 
Basil could not hold communion with one who 
had so far compromised his faith, and fled to 
Nazianzum. It was reported that he had 
anathematized his bishop, but this he indig- 
nantly denies (Basil, Ep. 51 [84]). Dianius 
keenly felt the absence of his eloquent and 
able young counsellor, especially when Julian 
endeavoured to re-establish paganism. After 
two years he recalled Basil, and declared that 
he had signed the creed of Rimini in the 
simplicity of his heart, hoping to restore peace 
to the distracted church, with no idea of im- 
pugning the faith of Nicaea. Basil, satisfied 
with Dianius’s explanations, returned to his 
former post of adviser of the bishop till his 
death, which occurred soon after, probably 
A.D. 362. [BASILIUS OF CAESAREA.] [E.V.] 
Didymus, head of the Catechetical School of 
Alexandria in the 4th cent., born A.D. 309 or 
314 (Tillemont, Mém. x. 387). When only 
four years old he lost his sight from disease ; 
and consequently was never taught, as he 
himself declared, even the usual rudiments of 
learning. But his extraordinary force of 
character and intense thirst for knowledge tri- 
umphed over all disadvantages. He prayed for 
inward light, ‘‘ but added studies to prayers”’ 
(Rufin. ii. 7). He learned the alphabet by 
touch from engraved wooden tablets, and 
words and syllables by attentive listening. 
Thus he became master of various sciences 
(Socr. iv. 25 ; Soz. iii. 15 ; Theod.iv. 26), and 
attained a truly wonderful familiarity with 


DIDYMUS 251 


the Scriptures. Athanasius made the blind 
scholar head of the Catechetical School, as a 
fitting successor to Pantaenus and Clement. 
He was the twelfth who occupied that chair. 
In his earlier manhood, Anthony, visiting 
Alexandria to support the Catholic cause 
against the Arians, entered Didymus’s cell, 
and despite his modest reluctance obliged him 
to offer up prayers (Rosweyd. Vit. Patr. 944, 
539, ed. 1617), and asked Didymus whether 
he was sad on account of his blindness. After 
the question had been twice repeated, Didy- 
mus owned that he did feel the affliction pain- 
fully. “Τὸ not be distressed,” rejoined the 
saintly hermit, ‘“‘ for the loss of a faculty 
enjoyed by gnats and flies, when you have 
that inward eyesight which is the privilege of 
none but saints.’’ Jerome (Ep. 68; cf. Socr. 
iv. 29) stayed for a month at Alexandria in 
386, mainly (see Prolog. in Eph.) to see 
Didymus and have Scripture difficulties ex- 
plained by him (50Ζ. ἰ.6.). ‘‘In many points,”’ 
wrote Jerome in A.p. 400 (Ep. 84), “1 give 
him thanks. I learned from him things which 
I had not known; what I did know, his 
teaching has helped me to retain.’’ Rufinus 
was also, for a much longer time, a pupil 
of Didymus. Palladius (Rosweyd. l.c.), who 
visited him four times, states that he had a 
dream of the emperor Julian’s death at the 
exact time it occurred in his Persianexpedition. 
Sozomen says that in arguing for the Nicene 
faith, Didymus was successful by his extreme 
persuasiveness—he seemed to make every one 
a judge of the points in dispute (iii. 15}; and 
Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. i. 331) and Libanius 
(Ep. 321) speak of his great ability. 

Our fullest information about him is derived 
from Jerome, who frequently refers to him as 
his old teacher, and affectionately describes 
him as “ my seer,”’ in allusion to the contrast 
between his physical blindness and his keen- 
ness of spiritual and intellectual perception. 
Jerome translated into Latin Didymus’s 
treatise On the Holy Spirit, and prefixed a 
preface, in which he spoke of the author as 
having ‘‘ eyes like the spouse in the Song of 
Songs,” as ‘“‘ unskilled in speech but not in 
knowledge, exhibiting in his very speech the 
character of an apostolic man, as well by 
luminous thought as by simplicity ot words.” 
Writing in 392 (de Viris Illustr. 109), Jerome 
gives a short biographical account of Didymus. 

The extent to which Didymus may be called 
an Origenizer has been discussed. See Min- 
garelli’s ‘‘Commentarius’’ prefixed to his 
edition of Didymus’s de Trinitate (Bologna, 
1769). In his extant writings there is no 
assertion of Origenian views as to the pre- 
existence of souls, and he affirms, more than 
once, the endless nature of future punishment ; 
but seems to have believed that some of the 
fallen angels occupied a midway position 
between angels and demons, and would be 
ultimately forgiven. Neither Epiphanius nor 
Theophilus, nor indeed any one before the 
6th cent. except Jerome, laid Origenism to 
his charge; and with regard to the alleged 
condemnation of his memory by the 5th 
general council, as he is never named in the 
Acts, the utmost that can be made of such a 
statement is, that the condemnation of Origen 
in that synod’s r1th anathema (Mansi, ix. 383) 


252 DIDYMUS 


was somewhat largely construed as carrying 
with it, by implication, the condemnation of 
other writers more or less identified with his 
school of thought. See Tillemont’s ‘‘ com- 
parison of Didymus with St. Gregory of Nyssa”’ 
(x. 396). Didymus’s work On the Holy 
Spirit was clearly a protest against Mace- 
donianism (see Tillemont, x. 393). 

His comments on the Catholic Epistles are 
extant, as translated by Epiphanius Scholas- 
ticus (see Galland. Bib. Vet. Patr. ii.). His 
notes on I. Peter shew a dislike of Chiliasm, as 
a carnal and frivolous theory; he asserts free 
will, opposes Manicheans, admits the possi- 
bility of faults on the part of angels being 
cleansed through Christ; and in words very 
characteristic of the indomitable student and 
teacher, rebukes Christians who neglect sacred 
studies and attend only to practical life (on 
I. Peter iii. 15). He comments briefly on II. 
Peter, but sets it aside as spurious and “ not 
in the canon,’’ although (see imfra) in the de 
Trinitate he cites it as Petrine. The chief 
features of his remarks on St. John’s three 
Epistles are, (1) the earnestness against Docet- 
ism, Valentinianism, all speculations injurious 
to the Maker of the world, (2) the assertion 
that a true knowledge of God is possible with- 
out a knowledge of His essence, (3) care to 
urge the necessity of combining orthodoxy 
with right action. In the notes on Jude, he 
says that Christ is called the only Sovereign 
because He is the only true God. He speaks 
of the doom of those who turn away absolutely 
to evil as hopeless. 

His treatise Against the Mantcheans (pub. 
by Combefis in his Auctartum Novum, 1672) 
begins with logical formulae, intended to 
disprove the existence of two unoriginated 
Principles. From the blame and punishment 
attached to evil, he infers that Satan and his 
followers are not evil by nature; he discusses 
the terms ‘“‘ by nature children of wrath”’ 
(which he understands to mean “really 
children of wrath’), ‘‘children of this 
world,’”’ ‘‘son of perdition,’” ‘‘ generation of 
vipers,’”’ with the aim of shewing that they do 
not contravene the great moral facts of free 
will and responsibility. The devil, he urges, 
was created good, and became a devil by his 
own free will. If it be objected, why then 
did God make a being who was to become so 
pestilent ? the objection really lies against the 
whole plan of God’s moral government, which 
intends His rational creatures to become good 
by choosing goodness, and therefore leaves 
them capable of choosing evil, and drawing on 
themselves the result of such a choice. He 
also asserts the transmission of original sin : 
a Saviour born by ordinary generation would 
have incurred the sin entailed on Adam’s 
whole posterity. His three books On the 
Trinity have not reached us in a perfect 
state. They are interesting as exhibiting the 
Athanasian character, so to speak, of his 
thought in presence of Anomoeans and of 
Macedonians. He admits II. Peteras genuine: 
perhaps the opinion he had formerly held as 
to its non-canonicity had been reconsidered. 
He is very earnest, almost in the style of the 
“ Athanasian Creed,’”’ on the co-equality of 
the Divine Hypostases (he uses that term in 
the sense which the younger generation of 


DINOOTH 


Catholics had adopted since the earlier days 
of the Arian strife). He enforces the per- 
petuity of Christ’s kingdom (as if in con- 
troversy with Marcellians), and speaks of the 
Virgin Mother as Theotokos (ii. 4). He be- 
stows much time and pains on the Macedonian 
controversy. Occasionally he kindles and 
glows with strong devotional fervour, and 
concludes an eloquent passage on the glory of 
the Holy Trinity with a thrice-repeated Amen. 
Shortly before this passage he invokes the 
archangels, and expresses his belief in the 
intercession of the saints (il. 7). [w.B.] 

Dimoeritae, another name for the followers 
of Apollinarius, probably to be explained by 
a passagein aletterof Gregory of Nazianzum to 
Nectarius of Constantinople (Ep. 202, al. Or. 
46). Gregory says that Apollinarius’s book 
affirmed that He Who had come down from 
above had no νοῦς, but that τὴν θεότητα Tod 
Μονογενοῦς τὴν τοῦ νοῦ φύσιν ἀναπληρώσασαν. 
Hence, as the Apollinarians maintained that 
our Lord assumed only (διμοιρία) two of the 
three parts (σῶμα, ψυχή, νοῦς) of which perfect 
humanity consists, they werecalled Dimoeritae 
by Epiphanius, who says (Haer. |xxvii.) that 
““some denied especially the perfect Incarna- 
tion of Christ; some asserted His body 
consubstantial with His divinity ; some em- 
phatically denied that He had ever taken 
a soul; others not less emphatically refused 
to Him a mind.”’ 

Among the leaders of the Dimoeritae was one 
ViraLtus. Both Gregory of Nazianzum and 
Epiphanius came in contact with him; the 
former while Vitalius was, it would seem, a 
presbyter, the latter when he had been made 
a bishop of the sect. Epiphanius at Antioch, 
in a long discussion with Vitalius, put the 
crucial question : ‘‘ You admit the Incarna- 
tion, do you also admit that Christ took a mind 
(vodv)?’’ The answer was, ‘‘No.”’ Epiphanius 
persisted: ‘‘ In what sense then do you call 
Christ τέλειος ?’’ The point was debated with- 
out results. Epiphanius urged that not only 
was nothing gained by excluding mind, as we 
understand it, from the nature of Christ ; but 
also that by such exclusion much was lost 
which made His nature, character, and actions 
intelligible. Vitalius and his followers avoided 
Epiphanius’s arguments by reverting to their 
favourite texts, e.g. ‘‘ We have the mind of 
Christ ’’ (I. Cor. ii. 16), etc. 

The Dimoeritae probably existed, as a sect, 
for a few years only, either under that name 
or as Vitalians, Synusiasts, Polemians, Valen- 
tinians, after some favourite leader or opinion. 
Then they died out, or merged themselves into 
other bodies holding similar views, or were 
brought back to the church. The books, 
psalteries, and hymns composed and issued by 
Apollinarius and his principal followers were 
met, and their effects counteracted, by books 
and hymns such as have given to Gregory of 
Nazianzum a name among ecclesiastical song- 
writers. Epiphanius, Panayvia, iil. 11; Haer. 
Ixxvii. (ed. Dindorf, iii. 1, p. 454); Oecehler, 
Corpus Haereseolog. ii. 330, etc.; and the 
usual Church histories, e.g. Neander, Niedner, 
Hase, Robertson, 5.0. ‘‘ Apollinarianism,”’ 
should be consulted. [J-M.F.] 

Dinooth, Dinothus, abbat of Bangor Iscoed, 


DINOOTH 


a Welsh saint, placed by Rees between A.D. 500 
and 542. Originally a North British chieftain, 
reverses drove him into Wales, where he found 
a protector in Cyngen, prince of Powys. Like 
many other British chieftains who lost their 
lands in the Saxon conquest (Rees, Welsh 
Saints, 207), Dinooth embraced a life of re- 
ligion, and, under Cyngen, founded, in con- 
junction with his sons, Deiniol, Cynwyl, and 
Gwarthan, the monastery of Bangor on the 
Dee, of which he was the first abbat. Bede 
mentions his name in his narrative of the 
second conference at Augustine’s Oak (H. E. 
ii. 2), but merely says, cautiously, ‘‘ Tempore 
illo Dinoot abbas praefuisse narratur.”’ Bede, 
who wrote a century and a quarter after 
Augustine’s time, shews no special acquaint- 
ance with the internal affairs of the Britons, 
and we cannot help suspecting that the pre- 
sent uncertainty as to the chronology of Welsh 
hagiology existed when Bede wrote. A later 
statement makes the founder of Bangor alive 
in A.D. 602 or 603, and brings him to the 
conference, though he must have been in ex- 
tremest old age, and would have had a moun- 
tain journey from the Dee to the lower Severn 
(see D. C. A. “‘Augustine’s Oak’’; also Haddan 
and Stubbs, iii. 40, 41, on Augustine’s journey) ; 
it even reports the speech he is said to have 
made in the name of the British church in 
answer to Augustine. For this document see 
Haddan and Stubbs (Councils, i. 122), where 
the answer is quoted in the original Welsh with 
Spelman’s Latin translation. Two copies of 
the original MS. exist in the Cottonian collec- 
tion. It is accepted as genuine by Leland 
(Tanner, Biblioth. 1748, art. ‘‘ Dinotus,’’ p. 
228), Stillingfleet (Orig. Brit. i. 536), Lappen- 
berg (Hist. of Eng. i. 135). On the other hand, 
the document does not mention the name of 
Augustine, nor allude to one subject of the con- 
ference which is markedly noted by Bede, the 
evangelization of the Anglo-Saxons. In fact 
it contains no name whatever, but is a firm 
and temperate repudiation of papal authority, 
and an assertion of the supremacy of ‘‘ the 
bp. of Caerleon upon Usk”’ over the British 
church. For any internal evidence to the con- 
trary, the ‘‘ Answer ’’ might have been penned 
in reply to some demand made upon the 
British church by the see of Canterbury 
centuries after Dinooth. It bears upon that 
subject, and that alone. 

We know less about Dinooth than about his 
famous monastery upon the right bank of the 
Dee, 10 or 12 miles from Chester. The name 
of Bangor ys y coed (Bangor under the wood) 
distinguishes it from other Bangors, especially 
that of Carnarvonshire, where Deiniol, the 
son of Dinooth, founded another monastery, 
which was soon afterwards made the seat of 
a bishopric. So numerous were the monks 
of Bangor Iscoed that, as Bede puts it, on their 
being divided into seven parts with a ruler over 
each, none of those parts consisted of less than 
300 men, who all lived by the labour of their 
hands. It thus rivalled the Irish Bangor 
(Comcatt], and, from the learned men men- 
tioned by Bede as residing there, must have 
_ been as much a college as a monastery. Au- 
gustine’s prediction was levelled, not against 
this institution in particular, but the British 
church and people at large; ‘‘ if they would 


DIOCLETIAN 253 


not preach the way of life to the English nation, 
they should at their hands undergo the ven- 
geance of death.’’ The conjunction desired 
by Augustine (‘‘ una cum nobis,’”’ Bede) in- 
volved their ecclesiastical submission. ‘* Di- 
nooth’s Answer,”’ in recognizing this, may have 
appeared to some one in after-times a sufficient 
ground to assign the document to this occa- 
sion. The judgment came about 10 years 
afterwards, A.D. 613 (Ann. Cambr. and Ann. 
Tighern., preferable to earlier dates, as 603 of 
Flor. Wig. and 606 or 607 of A. 5. C.; οἵ. Had- 
dan and Stubbs, i. 123), when Ethelfrid, the 
pagan king of Northumbria, invaded the 
Britons at Chester. Being about to give 
battle, he observed their ‘‘ priests,’’ who were 
there to pray for the soldiers, drawn up apart 
in a place of greater safety, and under the mili- 
tary protection of prince Brocmail. They had 
come chiefly from Bangor, after a three days’ 
fast. The invader, regarding them as a con- 
tingent of his enemy, attacked them first and 
slew about 1,200, only 50 escaping. Bede 
either here uses the term “‘ sacerdotes’’ and 
““monachi’’ as synonymous, or the priests 
were in charge of the monks, leading their de- 
votions. It was a disastrous blow to Bangor, 
and was naturally handed down as a fulfilment 
of Augustine’s words; but we donot hear that 
the monastery itself was attacked. Some 60 
years later the annalists record ‘‘ Combustio 
Bennchoriae Brittonum’’ (Hadd. and St. i. 
125), probably referring to this Bangor of the 
Dee. Malmesbury (G. R. ed. Hardy, i. 66) de- 
scribes the extensive ruins of the place in his 
day—‘ tot semiruti parietes ecclesiarum, tot 
anfractus porticuum, tanta turba ruderum, 
quantum vix alibi cernas’’; the credibility of 
which description has been almost destroyed 
by sometimes translating the first clause, ‘‘ the 
ruined walls of so many churches.”’ The re- 
mains had nearly disappeared in the time of 
Camden. (Camd. ed. Gough, 11. 422, 429; 
Smith, ad. Bed. E. H. ii. 2; Tanner, Nozttt. ed. 
Nasmith, Flint. ii.) The site is on the road 
between Wrexham and Whitchurch, about 
5 miles from each. Its modern state and 
surviving vestiges are described in Lewis 
(Topog. Dict. of Wales, art. ‘‘ Bangor’’). Le- 
land’s description is in his Itinerary (vol. v. 
p- 30, 2nd ed. Hearne). [c.H.] 

Diocletian (Docles, Diocles, Caius Vale- 
rius Diocletianus Jovius), A.D. 284-305. The 
acts that make the reign of this emperor 
memorable in the history of the church be- 
long to its closing years. Had he died before 
A.D. 303 he would have taken his place among 
the rulers whose general tolerance helped 
Christianity to obtain its victory. As it is, his 
name is identified with the most terrible of its 
persecutions. For three centuries men reck- 
oned from the commencement of his reign as 
from the era of martyrs; and the date is still 
recognized in the Coptic Church as the basis of 
its chronology. : 

The earlier years of Diocletian concern us 
only in connexion with the struggle which 
came to a head when his work seemed nearly 
over. Elected by the soldiers in Bithynia at 
the age of 39, after the murder of Numerian, 
he was formally installed at Nicomedia. In 
A.D. 286 he chose Maximian as his colleague, 
gave him the title first of Casar and then of 


᾽ν 


-" 


254 DIOCLETIAN 


Augustus, and sent him to command in the 
West, while he remained in the East, chiefly at 
Nicomedia, which he tried to make, by lavish 
outlay on its buildings, a new capital for the 
empire. It indicates his intention to uphold 
the religion of the state that he assumed the 
surname of Jovius, and gave to his colleague 
that of Herculius. Among the buildings with 
which he embellished the various provinces 
were temples of Zeus, Apollo, Nemesis, Hecate, 
at Antioch, of Isis and Serapis at Rome, of Isis 
at Phylae, of Mithras at Vindobona. He con- 
sulted haruspices and augurs as to the success 
of his enterprises, and in more difficult emer- 
gencies the oracle of the Milesian Apollo at 
Branchidae (Lactant. de Mort. Pers. cc. 10, 11). 

The appointment of Constantius Chlorus and 
Galerius in A.D. 293 as Caesars under the two 
Augusti introduced new elements. Each was 
called on to prove his loyalty to the system in- 
to which he was adopted by a new marriage. 
Constantius divorced Helena and married 
Theodora, the step-daughter of Maximian. 
Galerius, also repudiating his former wife, 
received the hand of Valeria, the daughter of 
Diocletian and Prisca. To Constantius was 
entrusted the government of Gaul and Britain, 
to Galerius the provinces between the Adriatic 
and the Euxine. Diocletian kept the pro- 
vinces of Asia under his own control. Maxi- 
mian had those of Africa and Italy. The edict 
of Gallienus, a.p. 259, had placed Christianity 
in the number of veligiones licitae, and there 
had been no formal persecution since. Dio- 
cletian and Maximian began by adopting the 
same policy ; and the martyrdoms which are 
referred to the earlier years of their reign, like 
those of St. Maurice and the Theban Legion at 
Martigny (Octodurum), of St. Victor at Mar- 
seilles, of SS. Cosmas and Damian and others 
in Cilicia, if more than legendary, must be re- 
ferred to special causes, and not to a general 
policy of persecution. The somewhat cloudy 
rhetoric of Eusebius in describing the condi- 
tion of the church of this time indicates that 
the last struggle with the old religion could not 
long be averted. The most trusted and in- 
fluential eunuchs of the household, Dorotheus 
and Gorgonius, were avowedly Christians and 
excused from attending at heathen sacrifices 
(Eus. viii. 1). Prisca the wife, and Valeria the 
daughter, of Diocletian were kept back from 
an open profession of faith ; but their absence 
from all sacrifices made men look on them with 
suspicion (Lactant. de Mort. Persec. c. 15). 
The church of Nicomedia was the most con- 
spicuous edifice in the city. The adherents of 
the old system had good reason for alarm. 
They saw in every part of the empire an or- 
ganized society that threatened it with de- 
struction. Symptoms of the coming conflict 
began before long to shew themselves. Mal- 
chus, the disciple of Plotinus (better known as 
Porphyry), wrote against the religion of the 
Christians while maintaining a tone of rever- 
ence towards Christ Himself, and so became 
in their eyes their most formidable opponent. 
Hierocles, first as Vicavius of Bithynia and 
afterwards, probably, as prefect of Egypt, 
fought against them with pen and sword, and 
published Words of a Truth-lover to the Chris- 
tians, in which Christ was compared with 
Apollonius of Tyana. Within the imperial 


DIOCLETIAN 


circle itself some were impatient of the toler- 
ance of Diocletian. The mother of Galerius, 
who gave sacrificial banquets almost daily, 
was annoyed because Christian officers and 
soldiers refused tocome tothem. The cases of 
Maximilian of Theveste, in proconsular Africa, 
who (A.D. 295) had refused to serve as a soldier 
and take the military oath, as incompatible 
with his allegiance to Christ, and of Marcellus 
(A.D. 298), who at Tingis in,Mauritania solemnly 
renounced his allegiance to the emperor rather 
than take part in idolatrous festivals, had 
probably alarmed Galerius himself (Ruinart, 
Acta Sincera, pp. 309, 312). 

Occasions for decisive measures were soon 
found. Diocletian, who seems to have had a 
devout belief in divination, had offered sacri- 
fice, and the haruspices were inspecting the 
entrails of the victim to see what omens were 
to be found there. The Christian officers and 
servants of the emperor were present as part 
of their duty, and satisfied their conscience by 
making the sign of the cross upon their fore- 
heads. The diviners were, or pretended to be, 
struck with amazement at the absence, despite 
repeated sacrifices, of the expected signs. At 
last they declared their work hindered by the 
presence of profane persons. The emperor’s 
rage wasroused. His personal attendants and 
the officials in his palace were ordered to sacri- 
fice under penalty of being scourged. Letters 
were sent to military officers bidding them to 
compel their soldiers to a like conformity under 
pain of dismissal. The mother of Galerius 
urged the emperor on, and found but a feeble 
resistance. He deprecated the slaughter and 
wished to confine the edict to servants of his 
household and soldiers. He would take coun- 
sel with his friends and consult the gods. One 
of the haruspices was accordingly sent to the 
oracle of the Milesian Apollo at Branchidae. 
The answer came, not from the priestess only, 
but, as it were, from the god himself speaking 
from the recesses of his cave, telling him that 
the presence of the self-styled ‘‘ just ones’’ on 
the earth made it impossible for the oracles to 
speak the truth. This turned the scale and 
the emperor gave way. All he asked for was 
that bloodshed might, if possible, be avoided. 
Galerius had wished to condemn to the flames 
all who refused to sacrifice. After many 
divinations, the Feast of the Terminalia (Feb. 
23) of A.D. 303 was chosen as the fit day for 
issuing the edict against the new society. At 
break of day the prefect, attended by officers 
and secretaries, went to the church of Nico- 
media while Diocletian and Galerius watched 
the proceedings from the palace. The doors 
were broken open. Search was made for the 
image of the Christian’s God, which they ex- 
pected to find there. The books were burned, 
the church sacked. Fear of the fire spreading 
made Diocletian shrink from burning the 
church, but a body of pioneers with axes and 
crowbars razed it in a few hours. Next morn- 
ing an edict ordained that (1) all churches were 
to be demolished ; (2) all sacred books burnt ; 
(3) all Christian officials stripped of their dig- 
nities, and deprived of civil rights, and there- 
fore rendered liable to torture and other out- 
rages; while Christian men who were not 
officials were to be reduced to slavery. A 
Christian who tore it down, with the sarcastic 


DIOCLETIAN 


exclamation, ‘‘ More triumphs of Goths and 
Sarmatians!’’ was seized, tortured, and 
burnt alive at a slow fire. Shortly after, a fire 
broke out in the palace and suspicion fell upon 
the Christians, notably upon the palace 
eunuchs. The use made of the occurrence to 
work upon Diocletian’s fears justified the im- 
pression of Christian writers that it was a de- 
vice contrived by Galerius and executed by his 
slaves. All who were suspected were examined 
by torture; within a fortnight there was 
another similar alarm, and now there was no 
limit to the old man’s fury. His wife and 
daughter were compelled to free themselves 
from suspicion by joining in sacrifice. The 
eunuchs of his household, before so trusted, 
Dorotheus, Gorgonius, Petrus, were put to 
death. The persecution raged throughout the 
province. Some were burnt, some drowned, 
some thrust into dungeons. Altars were set 
up in every court of justice, and both parties 
to suits compelled to sacrifice. A second edict 
ordered that all the clergy, without option of 
sacrifice, should be imprisoned. Anthimus 
bp. of Nicomedia was beheaded (Eus. H. E. 
viii. 6). Hierocles as author and magistrate 
silenced by torture those whom he failed to con- 
vince. Letters were sent to Maximian and 
Constantius in the West, urging them to adopt 
like measures. The former was but too will- 
ing aninstrument. The latter, more humane 
and disposed to a policy of toleration, was com- 
pelled to join in destroying the buildings of the 
Christians, and was glad if he could save their 
lives (Lactant. de Mort. Persec. cc. 12-16). 
Individual martyrdoms may be found with 
more or less fulness in the Acta Sincera of 
Ruinart, in the Annals of Baronius, in most 
Church Histories, notably in Fleury, viii. and 
ix. Here we merely note the extent, con- 
tinuance, and ferocity which distinguished 
this persecution from all others. In Syria, 
Palestine, Egypt, Western Africa, Italy, and 
Spain the passions of men were let loose, and 
raged without restraint. In Gaul and Britain 
only was there any safety. Constantius was 
said (Eus. Vit. Const. i. 16) to have shewn a 
marked preference for those who were true to 
their religion, and refused to sacrifice. Else- 
where every town in the empire witnessed acts 
of incredible cruelty. The wish to destroy all 
the sacred books of the Christians, and all the 
accessories of their worship, led men to seize 
on the deacons, readers, and others connected 
with the churches, and to torture them till 
they gave them up. In Dec. 303, Dio- 
cletian went to Rome to celebrate with Max- 
imian the 2oth anniversary of his accession. 
At the Vicennalia the licence of the people 
offended him, and he left after two weeks for 
Ravenna. There he was attacked by a severe 
illness, which detained him for some months. 
Slowly he made his way to Nicomedia, where 
he became worse. Prayers were offered for 
his recovery in all the temples. It was ru- 
moured that his death was concealed till the 
arrival of Galerius. When he appeared to con- 
tradict the rumour, he was so altered that he 
could hardly be recognized. His mind, it was 
said, was seriously affected. Galerius came, 
but it was to press on the emperor the duty and 
expediency of resigning. Maximian had been 
already persuaded todoso. After a feeble re- 


DIODORUS 


sistance Diocletian yielded. The two Caesars 
were to become Augusti. He would fain have 
named Maxentius the son of Maximian and 
Constantine the son of Constantius to take 
their place ; but Galerius coerced or persuaded 
him to appoint Maximin and Severus, in whom 
he hoped to find more submissive instruments. 
When the formal acts had been completed, the 
emperor laid aside his official names Diocle- 
tianus and Jovius, and returned to the simple 
Diocles of his youth. For the history of the 
following year see GALERIUS and CONSTAN- 
TINE. The retired emperor settled at Salona, 
on the coast of Dalmatia, and occupied him- 
self with building and gardening, and refused 
to abandon his cabbages for the cares of the 
state. In 310 Maximian, after vainly strug- 
gling against the growing power of Constan- 
tine, who had succeeded Constantius, was com- 
pelled to end his life by hisown hands. In 311 
Galerius died in the agonies of a loathsome and 
horrible disease, and before his death con- 
fessed, by an edict of toleration, that the at- 
tempt which he had made to crush Christianity 
had failed. Diocletian survived to witness 
the alliance between Constantine and Licinius, 
to receive and decline an invitation to a con- 
ference with them at Milan, to hear that Con- 
stantine had charged him with conspiring first 
with Maxentius and then with Maximian, and 
had ordered his statue and that of Maximian 
to be thrown down in every part of the empire. 
In a.p. 313 the end came, some said through 
poison (Aurel. Vict. Epist. 39), to avoid a 
worse fate at the hands of Constantine and 
Licinius. It was characteristic of his fate as 
representing the close of pagan imperialism, 
that he was the last emperor who celebrated a 
triumph at Rome, and the last to receive the 
honour of apotheosis from the Roman senate 
(Preuss, p. 169). [E.H.P.] 
Diodorus (3), presbyter of Antioch, and c. 
A.D. 379 bp. of Tarsus, of a noble family of 
Antioch, where he passed nearly the whole of 
his life until he became a bishop (Theod. H. E. 
iv. 24). He studied philosophy or secular 
learning at Athens, where he probably was 
an associate of Basil and Julian, the future 
emperor (Facund. lib. iv. c. 2, p. 59). On his 
return to his native city, Diodorus and his 
friend Flavian, also of noble birth (subse- 
quently bp. of Antioch), embraced a religious 
life. Here, while still laymen, during the 
reign of Constantius, they exerted themselves 
energetically for the defence of the orthodox 
faith against the Arians, who were covertly 
supported by bp. Leontius, c.350. They gath- 
ered the orthodox laity even by night around 
the tombs of the martyrs, to join in the anti- 
phonal chanting of the Psalms, which, Theod- 
oret tells us, was first instituted or revived by 
them, as a means of kindling religious zeal, 
after the model ascribed by tradition to the 
martyred bishop of their church, the holy 
Ignatius (Socr. H. E. vi. 8; Theod. H. E. ii. 24). 
These services strengthened the faithful to 
meet the persecutions. The weight of Dio- 
dorus and Flavian at Antioch was proved 
when in 350 their threat of withdrawal from 
communion induced Leontius to suspend 
Aetius from the diaconate (Theod. u.s.). On 
the accession of Julian, his attempt to re- 
kindle an expiring paganism provided a new 


255 


256 DIODORUS 


field for the energies of Diodorus. With pen 
and tongue he denounced the folly of a return 
to an exploded superstition, and so called 
forth the scurrilous jests of Julian. 

The persecution of the Catholic cause by the 
Arian Valens recalled Diodorus, now a pres- 
byter, to his former championship of the 
Nicene faith. During the frequent banish- 
ments of Meletius, the spiritual instruction of 
his diocese was chiefly entrusted to him and 
Flavian, and Diodorus saved the barque of 
the church from being ‘‘ submerged by the 
waves of misbelief’’ (Theod. H. E. v. 4). 
Valens having forbidden the Catholics to meet 
within the walls of cities, Diodorus gathered 
his congregation in the church in the old town 
S. of the Orontes. Immense numbers were 
there ‘‘fed by him with sound doctrine” 
(Chrys. Laus Diodort, ὃ 4, t. Iii. p. 749). 
When forcibly driven out of this church, he 
gathered his congregation in the soldiers’ 
exercising ground, or ‘‘ gymnasium,’ and ex- 
horted them from house to house. The texts 
and arguments of his discourses were chiefly 
furnished by Flavian, and clothed by Diodorus 
in arhetorical dress. His oratory is compared 
by Chrysostom to ‘‘a lyre’’ for melody, and 
to “‘a trumpet’’ for the power with which, 
like Joshua at Jericho, he broke down the 
strongholds of his heretical opponents. He 
also held private assemblies at his own house 
to expound the faith and refute heresy 
(Theod. H. E. iv. 25; Chrys. l.c.; Facund. 
lv. 22). Such dauntless championship of the 
faith failed not to provoke persecution. His 
life was more than once in danger, and he was 
forced to seek safety in flight (Chrys. l.c.). 
Once at least when driven from Antioch he 
joined his spiritual father Meletius in exile at 
Getasa in Armenia, where, in 372, he met Basil 
the Great (Basil, Ep. 187). Theintimate terms 
of Diodorus and Basil are seen from the tone 
of Basil’s correspondence. 

Even more than for his undaunted defence 
of the catholic faith Diodorus deserves the 
gratitude of the church as head of the theo- 
logical school at Antioch. He pursued a 
healthy common-sense principle of exposition 
of Holy Scripture, which, discarding alike 
allegorism and coarse literalism, sought by the 
help of criticism, philology, history, and other 
external resources, to develop the true meaning 
of the text, as intended by the authors (Socr. 
ἘΠ ἘΠ νὰ 53; 502: He Es Willa 2; Eleron-nae 
Vir. Illust. No. 119). 

Meletius, on being restored to Antioch in 378, 
appointed Diodorus bp. of Tarsus and metro- 
politan of the then undivided province of 
Cilicia (Facundus, viii. 5). His career as 
bishop, according to Jerome (l.c.), was less dis- 
tinguished thanas presbyter. He took partin 
the great council of Antioch a.p. 379, which 
failed to put an end to the Antiochene schism, 
as well as in the 2nd oecumenical council at 
Constantinople a.p. 381. By the decree of the 
emperor Theodosius, July 30, 381, Diodorus 
was named as one of the orthodox Eastern 
prelates, communion with whom was the test 
of orthodoxy (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. i. 3; 
t. vi. p. 9). Meletius having died during the 
session of the council, Diodorus, violating the 
compact made to heal the schism, united with 
Acacius of Beroea in consecrating Flavian as 


DIODORUS 


bp. of Antioch, for which both the consecrating 
prelates were excommunicated by the bishops 
of the West (Soz. H. E. vii. 11). As Phalerius 
was bp. of Tarsus at a council at Constantino- 
ple in 394, the date of Diodorus’s death is ap- 
proximately fixed. Facundus and others tell 
us that he died full of days and glory, revered 
by the whole church and honoured by its chief 
doctors, by Basil, Meletius, Theodoret, Domnus 
of Antioch, and even by the chief impugner of 
the soundness of his faith, Cyril of Alexandria. 

This high credit was disturbed by the Nes- 
torian controversies of the next cent. His 
rationalizing spirit had led him to use language 
about the Incarnation containing the principles 
of that heresy afterwards more fully devel- 
oped by his disciple Theodorus. Thus, not 
without justice, he has been deemed the virtual 
parent of Nestorianism and called ‘‘ a Nestor- 
ian before Nestorius.’’ It was his repugnance 
to the errors of Apollinarianism which led him 
to the opposite errors of Nestorianism. His 
sense of the importance of the truth of Christ’s 
manhood caused him to insist on Its distinct- 
ness from His Godhead in a manner which 
gradually led to Its being represented as a 
separate personality. He drew a distinction 
between Him Who according to His essence 
was Son of God—the eternal Logos—and Him 
Who through divine decree and adoption be- 
came Son of God. The one was Son of God 
by nature, the other by grace. The son of 
man became Son of God because chosen to be 
the receptacle or temple of God the Word. It 
followed that Mary could not be properly 
termed the ‘‘ mother of God,’’ nor God the 
Word be strictly called the Son of David, that 
designation belonging, according to human 
descent, to the temple in which the Divine Son 
tabernacled. Diodorus therefore distinguished 
two Sons, the Son of God and the son of Mary, 
combined in the person of Christ. When, 
then, the great Nestorian controversy set in, 
Cyril clearly saw that, apart from the watch- 
word Θεοτόκος, which had not arisen in the 
days of Diodorus, what men called Nestorian- 
ism was substantially the doctrine of Diodor- 
us as developed by Theodorus of Mopsuestia, 
and that Nestorianism could only be fully 
crushed by a condemnation of the doctrines of 
Diodorus as the fountain head. This con- 
demnation was most difficult to obtain. No 
name was held in so much reverence through- 
out the East. Cyril, however, was of far too 
determined a spirit to hesitate. If orthodox 
views of the Incarnation were to be established, 
the authority of Diodorus must, at any cost 
of enmity and unpopularity, be destroyed. 
Every means was therefore taken to enforce, 
by the aid of the emperor and the patriarch 
Proclus, his condemnation, together with that 
of his still more heretical pupil Theodorus. 
Cyril himself, in a letter to the emperor, de- 
scribed them in the harshest terms as the 
fathers of the blasphemies of Nestorius (Theo- 
doret, t. v. p. 854), and in a letter to John of 
Antioch denounced them as “‘ going full sail, as 
it were, against the glory of Christ.’’ It is not 
surprising that Diodorus began to be looked 
upon with suspicion by those who had been 
accustomed to regard him as a bulwark of the 
faith, insomuch that Theodoret, when himself 
accused of Nestorian leanings, did not venture 


DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO 


to quote the words of Diodorus in his defence, 
though he regarded him with reverence (σέβω), 
as “ἃ holy and blessed father ’’ (Theod. Ep. 
16). In the hope of rehabilitating his credit, 
Theodoret wrote a treatise to prove the ortho- 
doxy of Diodorus, which led Cyril to peruse 
them and to pronounce them categorically 
heretical (ib. Epp. 38, 52). All attempts, 
however, to depreciate the authority of 
Diodorus, both by Cyril and Rabbulas of 
Edessa, only exalted him in the estimation of 
the Nestorian party, and the opposition con- 
tributed to the formation of the independent 
and still existing Nestorian church, which 
looks upon Diodorus and Theodorus with 
deepest veneration as its founders. The 
presbyter Maris of WHardaschir, in Persia, 
translated the works of Diodorus into Persian, 
and they, together with those of Theodorus, 
were also translated into Armenian, Syriac, 
and other Oriental tongues (Neander, Ch. Hist. 
vol. iv. pp. 209, 284; Clark’s trans. Liberat. 
Breviar. c. 10). Diodorus was naturally 
anathematized by Eutyches and his followers. 
Flavian III., also bp. of Antioch, was com- 
pelled by the Monophysites to pass an ana- 
thema on the writings of Diodorus and Theo- 
dorusin A.D. 499. The controversy respecting 
the orthodoxy of Diodorus was revived in the 
6th cent. by the interminable disputes about 
““the Three Articles.’’ There is a full defence 
of his orthodoxy by Facundus in his Defensio 
Trium Capitulorum”’ (lib. iv. c. 2). Photius 
asserts that Diodorus was formally condemned 
by the fifth oecumenical council held at Con- 
stantinople a.p. 553, but it does not appear in 
the acts of that council. Diodorus was a very 
copious author, the titles of between 20 and 30 
distinct works being enumerated in various 
catalogues. The whole have perished, except 
_ some fragments, no less than 60 having been 
burnt, according to Ebed-Jesu, by the Arians. 
His writings were partly exegetical, mainly 
controversial. He wrote comments on all the 
books of O. and N. T., except the Ep. to the 
Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles (I. John how- 
_ ever being commented on), and the Apoca- 
lypse. In these, according to Jerome (de Vir. 
Iilust. No. 119), he imitated the line of thought 
of Eusebius of Emesa, but fell below him in 
eloquence and refinement. [E.v.] 

Diognetus, Epistle to. The Greek writing 
_ known under this name was first printed in 
1592 by Henricus Stephanus, along with a 
companion piece To Greeks, as hitherto un- 
known writings of Justin Martyr, taken by 
him from a single faded exemplar. 

In his edition, as in the transcript in his 
own handwriting extant at Leyden, the writing 
To Greeks was not prefixed, but appended to 
the writing To Diognetus; but in the MS. 
_ from which he took the pieces (identified by 
Gebhardt with that collated by Cunitz at 
Strasburg, where it perished in 1870) three 
works, each ascribed by name to Justin, were 
followed by the two pieces Of the Same to 
Greeks and Of the Same to Diognetus. The 
correctness of the ascription of each of these 
two pieces to Justin was separately called in 
question by subsequent critics; but the con- 
nexion between the two pieces, the contrast 
in style presented by both alike to the spurious 
or dubious works of Justin to which in the MS. 


DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO 257 


they were appended, and the fact that it was 
not directly to Justin Martyr, but to the 
author of the address To Greeks that the 
address To Diognetus was in the MS. ascribed, 
were forgotten. 

In the MS., again, the text given under the 
heading To Diognetus was broken into three 
fragments by two clear breaks with marginal 
notes from the old 13th-cent. scribe, saying, 
““ Thus I found a break in the copy before me 
also, it being very ancient.” Of these two 
breaks the former, occurring near the end of 
c. vul., 15 ignored by Stephanus in his division 
of the writing into chapters. Whether more 
or less be missing, the writing comprised in 
cc. vii.-x. is plainly the continuation of the 
writing commenced in cc. i.-vii. In the con- 
cluding fragment (cc. xi. xii.), appended after 
the second break, the writer calls himself 
“ἢ disciple of apostles,’ and on this ground the 
writer To Diognetus has been included among 
the apostolic Fathers. But the contrast be- 
tween cc. i.-x. and cc. xi. xii. is so great that 
critics have concluded the final appended 
fragment to be no part of the writing to 
Diognetus, but the peroration of another 
treatise by another writer. 

No other ancient copy of the Greek of any 
of the writings published in 1592 has been 
found; but the writer To Greeks, with whom 
the writer To Diognetus was in the MS. im- 
mediately identified, has been plainly distin- 
guished from Justin by the discovery and 
publication by Cureton in his Spicilegium 
Syriacum from a 6th or 7th cent. MS. of a 
Syriac version of an almost identical dis- 
course ascribed to one ‘‘ Ambrosius, a chief 
man of Greece, who became a Christian, and 
all his fellow-councillors raised a clamour 
against him.’’ We may thus say that the true 
traditional writer To Greeks and To Diognetus 
is a certain otherwise unknown Ambrosius, 
convert like Justin from Hellenism to Chris- 
tianity—the reply To Greeks, the assailants of 
the writer, being naturally followed by the 
response To Diognetus, the inquirer. 

This conclusion is confirmed by internal 
evidence. The style of the two writings is 
identical. In each there is the same Attic 
diction joined with the same Roman dignity. 
Nay, in each there is the same occurrence of 
two contrasted styles, the same passage from 
the scornful vigour of the satirist to the joyous 
sweetness of the evangelist. 

‘“Come, be taught,’’ says the writer To 
Greeks (c. v.); and it seems that Diognetus 
came. Common as the name was, the only 
Diognetus known to us after Christ was a 
painting master who c. 133 bad charge of the 
young Marcus Aurelius. Whether this was the 
Diognetus who came to the Christian teacher 
we do not know. The writing addressed to 
him is not in form an epistle, it seems 
rather to be a discourse delivered in a Christian 
Assembly into which the eminent inquirer had 
found his way. His coming implied a triple 
question: (i) ‘‘On what God relying, Christians 
despise death and neitber reckon those gods 
who are so accounted by the Greeks, nor ob- 
serve any superstition of Jews’’; (ii) ‘‘ What 
the kindly affection is that they have one for 
another’’; and (iii) ‘‘ What, in short, this new 
race or practice might be that has invaded 


17 


258 DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO 


society now and noearlier.’’ To (i) the writer 
replies in cc. i.-vii., first bidding the Greek look 
at his manufactured gods (c. ii.), and convicting 
the J ews of vain oblations (c. ili.) and ungrateful 
service (c. iv.) to the Giver of all to all, then 
(c. v.) portraying the wondrous life of Chris- 
tians, at home yet strangers everywhere, like 
the soul in the body of the world (c. vi.), and 
so (c. vii.) passing from the earthly things to the 
heavenly to tell how it was God Whoimplanted 
the Word by the mission of the Maker of all, 
sent as an imperial Son, in love, to be sent 
again as Judge. So the inquirer is answered 
that the reasons for non-compliance with 
Hellenism and Judaism are obvious, but the 
Christians’ God is the one God of the J ews, and 
their religion consists of purity and charity, and 
was founded by the mission of the Son, Whom 
God will send again. At this point something 
has dropped out. The argument may be 
surmised to have continued after this fashion : 
“An end of all things is the doctrine of your 
Greek sages; but the Jews looked for a per- 
petual earthly kingdom, and when Christ pro- 
claimed a kingdom not of this world, they 
slew Him, and yet He is not dead, and Chris- 
tian worship is not to deny Him.” For as 
resumed (c. vii.) after a break in the middle of 
a sentence, the discourse points to martyr- 
doms as “‘signs,’’ not of the return but ‘“ of 
the presence ’’ of the Lord, as though saying, 
“You see, He is still with us.’? Then pro- 
ceeding (c. viii.) to contrast the follies of 
philosophy with the assurance wrought by the 
Father’s revelation of Himself to faith, he 
explains (c. ix.) how God waited to shew forth 
what He had prepared till unrighteousness had 
been made manifest, and then, when the time 
came, Himself took our sins and gave His own 
Son for us and would have us trust Him. So 
(c. x.) he passes from expounding ‘‘ on what 
God Christians rely’’ to expound “‘ what the 
love is that they bear one to another,” the out- 
come of their love to Him Who first lovedthem. 

The first two questions of the inquirer are 
thus answered, and in answering them com- 
pletely the third question, ‘‘ What the new 
institution might be,’ would be answered 
along with them; but that answer seems not 
to be completed before the second break. It 
could not be complete till it had been carried 
further than merely saying that “it was God 
Who implanted the Word,” and that He didso 
““when the time came.’’? ‘‘ The Word that 
appeared new’’ must have been “‘ found old”’; 
and this is the answer that we find in the final 
fragment (cc. xi. xii.) after the second break. 
The style has become different. We find 
ourselves listening to the peroration of a 
homily, before the withdrawal of the cate- 
chumens and the celebration of the mysteries. 
It does not follow that the final fragment does 
not belong to the preceding discourse. If 
Diognetus had shewn his desire for instruction 
by coming into a Christian assembly, the whole 
discourse may have been delivered before 
such an audience as is addressed in the per- 
oration at the close. We are brought into a 
new region. The satirist of superstition and 
evangelist of atoning, justifying mercy is 
succeeded by a mystical believer in a Christ 
born anew in hearts of saints. The new thing 
is portrayed as “that which was from the 


DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO 


beginning,” yet ever new. ‘‘ This is He that 
is ever reckoned a Son to-day.’’ But what it 
is can be known only by taking up the cross 
and so coming to be with Christ in Paradise, 
‘“ Whose tree if thou bearest fruit and if thou 
choosest thou shalt eat those things that with 
God are desired.” 

The loss of intervening matter makes the 
transition to the new region abrupt and 
the contrast patent. ‘‘ The Lord’s Passover 
cometh forth, and, teaching saints, the Word 
is gladdened.’’ But the course is still straight- 
forward and the guide is not diverse. The 
style is different only so far as is necessitated 
by the difference of subject. It exhibits the 
same anarthrous use of nouns, the same ac- 
cumulation of clause on clause, not pursued 
too far; the same unexpected turns at the 
close of the sentences; the same union of 
dignity with sweetness, the same blending of 
Pauline with Johannine teaching; the same 
persistent subordination of doctrine to life. 
On these grounds we may venture to differ 
from the wide consent of critics in imagining 
a second nameless author. 

It is worth noting that an Ambrose, of the 
consecration of Antioch, is said in a Syriac 
tradition to have been the third primate of 
Edessa and the East (Burkitt, Early Eastern 
Christianity, p. 29). The writer To Greeks and 
To Diognetus may have been this bringer of 
Greek Pauline Christianity to the regions be- 
yond Euphrates conquered by Trajan and 
abandoned by Hadrian, and have been an- 
cestor of the friend of Origen and of the great 
Milanese archbp. and of the legendary father 
of King Arthur. 

Probably an old copy exhibited three works 
of Ambrosius—an avowal of Christianity, and 
answers To Greeks and To Diognetus, each a 
brave act as well as a solid work, the first now 
lost, the second a fine sample of a class of 
controversial works of which samples are 
numerous, the third, To Diognetus, preserved 
in fragments only, but unique, not apologetic 
merely, but catechetical, a portraiture of early 
Christianity not in its manifestation only, but 
in its springs, bringing us to the gates of the 
Paradise of God. 

In free allied states like Antioch and Athens 
avowal of Christianity may have been toler- 
ated when not suffered in Roman or subject 
regions. In the 2nd cent. the world was not 
yet all Roman. 

The date of the writings may be determined 
with great probability, not with absolute 
certainty, except that, if genuine, they cannot 
be post-Nicene. The picture of the church 
presented to Diognetus pretty plainly belongs 
to a date earlier than the accession of Com- 
modus. The chief school of Christian thought 
would seem still to be at Athens, though on 
the eve of its transference to Alexandria by 
Athenagoras. It is among the writings of 
Tatian, Melito, and Theophilus and the frag- 
ments of Apollinaris, Abercius, etc., that these 
pieces seem most at home. The writer seems 
to appear in his freshness beside J ustin in his 
ripeness, and to be the meeting-point of the 
teachings of Justin and Marcion, as he is at 
the point of departure of Irenaeus, Tertullian, 
Hippolytus, and Origen on the one hand, and 
Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius on the other, 


DIONYSIA 


Lost in the crowd of predecessors whom 
Irenaeus and Clement hardly ever name and 
merged in Justin’s shadow, convinced that 
God alone can reveal Himself, and content to 
be hidden in his Saviour’s righteousness, the 
old writer has gradually emerged by virtue of 
an inborn lustre, at once the obscurest and 
most brilliant of his contemporaries, and has 
cast a glory on the early church while remain- 
ing himself unknown. 

A uthorities.—Gallandi, ap. Migne, Pair. Gk. 
li. 1159 ff.; Bickersteth, Christian Fathers, 
(1838); Dorner, Person of Christ, i. 260 ff. ; 
Hefele, Patres Apostolict (Tiibingen, 1842) ; 
Neander, Church History, ii. 420, 425 (Bohn); 
Westcott, Canon (ed. 1875), pp. 85 ff.; Bunsen, 
Hippolytus, i. 187 ff., Analecta Antenicaena, i. 
103 ff.; Donaldson, Hist. Christ. Lit. 11. 126 
ff.; Davidson, Intro. to N. T. ii. 399; Har- 
nack, Patres A postolict, i. 205 ff. (Leipz. 1875, 
2nd ed. 1878) ; Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum 
(Lond. 1854) ; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, i. 412 (ed. 
1865) ; Bigg, Origins of Christianity ; Lightfoot 
and Harmer, .4 post. Fathers, p. 487. An Eng. 
trans. of the Ep.to Diognetus is included in 
the A nte-Nicene Lib. and another by L. B. Rad- 
ford is pub. cheaply by S.P.C.K. [E-E.B.] 

Dionysia (1), virgin martyr at Lampsacus, 
A.D. 250. Seeing Nicomachus suddenly seized 
with madness and dying in horror, after having 
denied the faith under torture, and sacrificed 
to the heathen gods, Dionysia cried out, ‘‘ Mis- 
erable and most wretched man! Why, for one 
hour’s respite, didst thou take to thyself un- 
ceasing andindescribable punishment !’’ The 
proconsul Optimus hearing her, asked if she 
wereaChristian. ‘‘ Yes,’’ she answered, ‘and 
that is why I weep for this unhappy man, who 
loses eternal rest by not being able to suffer a 
moment’s pain.’’ The proconsul dismissed 
her with a brutal order. Next day, having 
succeeded in maintaining her chastity, she 
escaped, and joined Andrew and Paul, two 
_ Christians who were being stoned to death. 
ΔΤ wish to die with you here,”’ she said, ‘‘ that 
I may live with you in heaven!’”’ Optimus 
ordered her to be taken from Andrew and 
Paul, and beheaded, May 15, 250, the 2nd year 
of Decius. Ruinart, Act. Sinc. Mart. p. 159; 
Ceillier, ii. 118. [w.M.S.] 

Dionysia (2), at Alexandria, A.D. 251, mother 
of many children, who, loving her Lord more 
than her children, died by the sword, along 
with the venerable lady Mercuria, without 
being tried by torture, as the prefect had 
succeeded so ill with Ammonarion that he was 
ashamed to go on torturing and being defeated 
by women (Dion. Alex. ad Fab. ap. Eus. H. E. 
Vi. 41). [E.B.B.] 

Dionysia (3), St., a Christian martyr in the 
_ 5thcent. According to the narrative of Victor 
Vitensis, her contemporary, she was a lady of 
rare beauty in Africa, who preferred tortures, 
shameful indignities, and death to renouncing 
her faith ; a victim of the persecution of the 


orthodox or Catholic Christians by Hunneric, 


king of the Vandals. 
her martyrdom is 484. 
See Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione A fri- 
cand, V. c. 1; ap. Migne, Patr. Lat. lvii. ; 
Tillem., Mémoires, t. xvi. (Paris, 1701, 410); 
_ Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, t. viii. p. 463 
(Lucae, 1741, fol.), [1.G.s.] 


The date assigned for 


DIONYSIUS 259 


Dionysius (1), Pseudo-Areopagita. Under 
the name of Dionysius the Areopagite there 
has passed current a body of remarkable 
writings. Before shewing that the author of 
these writings was not the Dionysius converted 
by St. Paul (Acts xvii. 34), we must dis- 
criminate both of them from a third Dionysius, 
the St. Denys of France. The identity of all 
three was popularly believed for many cen 
turies, and even yet is maintained by some. 

Was, then, the convert of St. Paul at Athens 
the first apostle of France? The answer 
would not seem doubtful from the statement 
of Sulpicius Severus, that the earliest martyrs 
in Gaul were under the reign of Aurelius (Sacr. 
Hist. ii. 46), 1.6. after A.D. 160; and from the 
circumstance that neither the old martyro- 
logies nor the old French chroniclers contain 
any hint of the identity of the two. Gregory 
of Tours (Hist. Franc. i. 30) fixes the coming 
of St. Denys into France as late as the reign of 
Decius, 7.6. after A.D. 250; while Usuardus, 
who wrote his Martyrologium for Charlemagne, 
assigned Oct. 3 to the memory of the Areopa- 
gite, and Oct. 9 to that of the patron saint of 
France. The reasons for believing St. Denys 
of France to be the author of these writings 
are equally slight. Their style and subject- 
matter all betoken a philosophic leisure, not 
the active life of a missionary in a barbarous 
country ; and a residence in the East is implied 
in the very titles of those to whom they are 
addressed. It is the opinion of Bardenhewer 
(Pairol. p. 538) that the writings of StigI- 
mayr and Koch (see under Authorities, infra) 
have proved ‘‘ that the Areopagitica were no- 
thing more than a composition written under 
an assumed name, and in reality dating from 
about the end of the fifth century.” 

We may deal with the writings under: (1) 
External History ; (2) Nature and Contents. 

(1) It is generally admitted that the first 
unequivocal mention of them is in the records 
of the conference at Constantinople in 532. 
The emperor Justinian invited Hypatius of 
Ephesus, and other bishops of the orthodox 
side, to mect in his palace the leaders of the 
Severians. During the debate, these alleged 
writings of the Areopagite were brought for- 
ward by the latter in support of their Mono- 
physite views ; and the objections of Hypatius 
have been preserved. If genuine, he asked, 
how could they have escaped the notice of 
Cyril and others ἢ (Mansi, viii. col. 821) ; and 
this question has never been satisfactorily 
answered. Supposed traces of them have 
been pointed out in Origen; and other in- 
genious reasons, explaining their concealment 
for five centuries, have been confuted again 
and again. Still, whatever their parentage, 
they are henceforward never lost sight of. 
Writers of the school which had at first ob- 
jected to them soon found how serviceable to 
their own cause they might be made. Thusa 
chain of testimony begins to be attached to 
them in unbroken continuity. 

In the Western church we first find them 
mentioned by pope Gregory the Great (ς. 590) ; 
but his manner of citing them makes it 
probable that he only knew them by report. 
In any case, they did not become generally 
known in the West till after a.p. 827, when 
Michael] the Stammerer sent a copy to Louis 


260 DIONYSIUS 


le Débonnaire, son of Charlemagne. The 
abbey of St. Denys, near Paris, was thought 
the most fitting receptacle for such a treasure ; 
and its abbat, the superstitious and unprin- 
cipled Hilduin, compiled a collection of Areo- 
pagitica in honour of the event. This work 
professes to be based on documents then ex- 
tant, but is described in equally unfavourable 
terms by Sirmond and by Cave. In the next 
reign, that of Charles the Bald, a Latin trans. 
of all the Dionysian writings was made by the 
great scholar Joannes Erigena. It is first 
publicly mentioned by pope Nicholas I., in a 
letter to Charles in 861, and is warmly praised 
by Anastasius Bibliothecarius in 865. 

(2) The Dionysian writings consist of four 
extant treatises: On the Heavenly Hierarchy ; 
On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ; On the Names 
of God; On Mystic Theology; after which 
come ten letters or fragments of letters. 

This list, from one point of view, is com- 
plete as an exposition of the Dionysian system, 
and is also in its proper order. For we may 
take as its epitome the words of St. Paul with 
which the first sentence in the volume con- 
cludes: ‘‘ For of Him and to Him are all 
things’’ (Rom. xi. 36). God, the centre to- 
wards which all tend, and at the same time 
the all-embracing circumference within which 
all are included ; the constant streaming forth 
from Him, like rays from the visible sun, of 
divine influences whereby men are purified, 
illumined, and drawn upwards to Himself; 
man’s powerlessness to know the real nature 
and being of God, while yet he may be drawn 
near to Him, in the mystic communion of a 
loving faith: such is, very briefly, the burden 
of the Dionysian strain. And if we take the 
de Divinis Nominibus as the central portion 
of the writings, and recognize the two Hver- 
archies as one consecutive whole, we have 
enough to fill up the outline sketched above. 
In the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, 
with their ninefold orders of heavenly and of 
earthly ministrations, we have the means, the 
machinery (so to speak), whereby God com- 
municates Himself to man. In the Divina 
Nomina we have disclosed to us, so far as 
can be seen through veils and shadows, the 
Fountain-head of all light and being, the object 
of all thought and desire. In the Mystic 
Theology we have the converse of the path 
marked out in the Hierarchies, the ascent of 
the human soul to mystic union with God. 
The three great sections of the Dionysian 
writings thus answer very strikingly to the 
three elements of which he makes his hierarchy 
to consist: τάξις, ἐπιστήμη, and ἐνέργεια πρὸς 
τὸ θεοειδὲς ἀφοιουμένη (Eccl. Hier. iii. § 1). 

Yet the author refers to a series of treatises, 
still more numerous than the preceding, as if 
he thought them necessary for the completion 
of his design. These are: On Divine Hymns ; 
Symbolic Theology ; On the Objects of Intellect 
and Sense; Theological Outlines ; On the Soul ; 
On the Just Judgment of God. To these are 
added by Sixtus Senensis and others: On the 
Properties and Orders of Angels; The Legal 
Hierarchy. 

The question of these missing treatises is 
most perplexing. Did they ever exist? If 
so, what has become of them? Are they mere 
inventions of the author, designed to parry 


DIONYSIUS 


attacks on his own weak points, and to suggest 
the filling up of deficiencies which in reality 
he left unsupplied? This last seems very 
probable. But, if true, while our respect for 
the intellectual completeness of the author’s 
mind is increased, our opinion of his moral 
straightforwardness must be diminished. 
However, he is certainly entitled to the credit 
of his conception of such a theological system, 
whether all the parts be duly filled in or not. 

Limits of space do not here allow a minute 
analysis of the extant works. The Heavenly 
Hierarchy opens with what sounds almost like 
the keynote of the whole, the text πᾶσα 
δόσις ἀγαθή, κιτιλ. of Jas. i. 17. The lan- 
guage, in which the simple words of these 
Apostles are expanded and paraphrased, will 
convey no bad idea of the generally turgid 
style. To bring us to Himself, God graciously 
makes use of signs and symbols, and of inter- 
vening orders of ministers, by whose means 
we may be gradually raised to nearer com- 
munion with Him. Such an organization he 
calls a Hierarchy—‘‘a sacred order, and 
science, and activity, assimilated as far as 
possible to the godlike, and elevated to the 
imitation of God proportionately to the Divine 
illuminations conceded to it’? (Cel. Hier. iii. 
§ 1, tr. by Westcott). The members of the 
Heavenly Hierarchy are the nine orders of 
Angels—the term Angel being sometimes used 
alike of all the orders, and sometimes, in a 
more proper and restricted sense, of the lowest 
of the nine. The names of the nine orders 
appear to be obtained by combining with the 
more obvious Seraphim, Cherubim, Arch- 
angels, and Angels, five deduced from two 
passages of St. Paul, Eph. i. 21 and Col. i. 16. 
In each of these passages four names are men- 
tioned, of which three (dpxat, ἐξουσίαι, Kupto- 
TnTes) are common to both, while one is pecu- 
liar to each, δυνάμεις to the former, Opsva to 
the latter. The nine are subdivided into 
triads, ranged thus in descending order : 

i. Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones. 

2. Dominations, Virtues, Powers. 

3. Principalities, Archangels, Angels. 

The long and important treatise On the 
Names of God (Περὶ θείων ὀνομάτων) has been 
shewn by Stiglmayr and Koch to contain an 
extract from Proclus’s treatise de Malorum 
Substitentia ; which has reached us in a Latin 
trans. It is an inquiry into the being and 
attributes of God as indicated by the Divine 
Names in Holy Scripture. These Names, like 
all outward channels of spiritual knowledge, 
can reveal His real nature but very imper- 
fectly; and even so, not without prayer, 
which, like the golden chain of Homer, lifts 
us up to Heaven while we seem to be drawing 
it down to earth; or like the rope thrown 
out to mariners from a rock, which enables 
them to draw their ship nearer to the rock, 
while they pull as if they would draw the 
rock to them (Div. Nom. ili. ὃ 1). The first 
thing thus revealed is God’s goodness, the 
far-reaching effulgence of His being, which 
streams forth upon all, like the rays of the sun 
(ib. iv. ὃ x). Evil is nothing real and positive, 
but a defect, a negation only: Στέρησις dpa 
ἐστὶ τὸ κακόν, καὶ ἔλλειψις, καὶ ἀσθένεια, καὶ 
ἀσυμμετρία, «.7.A, (δ. iv. § 32). As what we 


DIONYSIUS 


call cold is but a deficiency of heat; or 
darkness, of light ; so what we call evil is a 
deficiency of goodness. When the sky grows 
dark, as evening sets in, that darkness is no- 
thing positive, superadded to what existed be- 
fore: we are conscious of gloom merely from 
the disappearance of the light, which was the 
true existence (ἐδ. iv. ὃ 24). This subject is 
pursued in a very noble train of thought to 
some length, and is followed by a discussion of 
still other names and titles, adapted to the 
infirmity of human understanding, under 
which God’s attributes are made intelligible to 
us. That the author is conscious of his theory 
of evil not being logically complete appears 
from his briefly referring to another supposed 
treatise, Περὶ δικαίου καὶ θείου δικαιωτηρίου 
(ἐδ. iv. § 35), for a settlement of the question 
how far evil, being such as is described, de- 
serves punishment at the hands of God. 

Of two legends, widely known in connexion 
with the name of Dionysius, from their inser- 
tion in the Breviary of the Latin church, one 
must be noticed here, as found in the present 
work. When Dionysius was present with 
Timothy, to whom he is writing, and James, 
ὁ ἀδελφόθεος, and Peter, ἡ κορυφαία καὶ πρεσ- 
βυτάτη τῶν θεολύγων ἀκρότης, and other dis- 
ciples, ‘‘ for the spectacle of the body which 
was the beginning of life and the recipient of 
God ”’ (ἐπὶ τὴν θέαν τοῦ ζωαρχικοῦ καὶ θεοδόχου 
—al. φωτοδόχου ---σώματος (7b. iii. § 2) ), no one 
but the apostles surpassed Hierotheus, his 
preceptor, in the inspired hymns and praises 
which he uttered. This is generally consid- 
- ered to refer to a gathering of the apostles 
_ round the deathbed of the Holy Virgin. The 
language is vague, and the passage comes in 
with singular abruptness, as a sequel to one 
on the power of prayer. In the paraphrase of 
Pachymeres, the names of the apostles are 
omitted. The explanation of Barradas 
_ (quoted by Hipler, whi inf. p. 48 n.) is that the 

gathering round the θεοτόκος really repre- 
sents the assembly of believers for the recep- 
tion of the Holy Eucharist, bending (as the 
words of one liturgy express it) ‘‘ ante splen- 
dida et theodocha signa cum timore inclinati.’’ 

The short treatise on Mystic Theology in- 
dicates the means of approaching more nearly 
to God, previously set forth under the Divine 
Names, by reversing the procedure adopted in 
_ the Hierarchies. He whowould aspireto a truer 
and more intimate knowledge of God must 
_ rise above signs and symbols, above earthly 

conceptions and definitions of God, and thus 
_ advance by negation, rather than by affirma- 
tion, kat’ ἀφαίρεσιν, not κατὰ θέσιν. Even in 
the Hierarchies (Cel. Hier. ii. § 3) Dionysius 
had spoken of ἀπόφασις as a surer way of 
penetrating the divine mystery than κατάφασις, 
and now enforces the same truth by an illus- 
tration which, if not taken directly from 
_ Plotinus, presents a striking parallel to one 
_ used by him—that of the sculptor, who, 
striving to fashion a beautiful statue, chips 
away the outer marble, and removes what 
was in fact an obstruction to his own ideal 
(Myst. Theol. c. ii.; cf. Plotinus, de Pulchrt- 
_ tudine, ed. Creuzer, 1814, p. 62). 

Of the Letters, the first two are little more 
than detached notes on points of the Mystic 


DIONYSIUS 261 


Theology—on our ἀγνωσία of God, and His 
transcendent nature. The third is a short 
fragment on the meaning of the word ἐξαίῴνης 
in Mal. iii. 1, ‘‘ The Lord... shall suddenly 
come to His temple,”’ and its application to 
the Incarnation. The fourth, addressed, like 
the three previous ones, to the monk Caius, 
treats briefly of the Incarnation, and the 
nature of that human body with which Christ 
could walk upon the waters (cf. Div. Nom. ii. 
9). The fifth, to Dorotheus, is on the meaning 
of the divine darkness (ὁ θεῖος yvddos) spoken of 
in the Mystic Theology. The sixth, to Sosi- 
pater, teaches that labour is better spent in 
establishing truth than in confuting error. 
The seventh is a much longer letter, addressed 
to Polycarp, in which he bids him answer the 
taunts of the Sophist Apollophanes, by recall- 
ing the days when he and Dionysius were 
fellow-students at Hierapolis, and his own 
remark when they beheld the darkness of the 
Crucifixion : ταῦτα. ᾧ καλὲ Διονύσιε. θείων ἀμοι- 
Bal πραγμάτων. The exclamation attributed to 
Dionysius himself, as it appears in the Latin 
Breviary, Aut Deus naturae patitur, aut mundi 
machina dissolvitur, or, as it is given by Syn- 
gelusin his Life,'O ἄγνωστος ἐν σαρκὶ πάσχει Peds, 
κιτιλ., is not found in the Dionysian writings. 
The eighth letter, to a monk, Demophilus, is 
on gentleness and forbearance, and the topic 
is illustrated by a dream which St. Carpus had 
in Crete. The ninth, also a long letter, ad- 
dressed to Titus, bp. of Crete, refers to matters 
treated in the Symbolic Theology. Many 
points are discussed in what to some would 
appear a strangely neologic spirit. The 
anthropomorphism of O.T., the bold meta- 
phors of the Song of Songs (τὰς τῶν ἀσμάτων 
προσύλους Kai ἑταιρικὰς πολυπαθείας), and the 
like, can only be understood, he says, by true 
lovers of holiness, who come to the study of 
divine wisdom divested of every childish 
imagination (πᾶσαν τὴν παιδαριώδη φαντασίαν 
ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερῶν συμβόλων ἀποσκευαζομένοις). In 
this letter we seem to see before us a disciple 
of Philo. The tenth, and last, is a mere 
fragment, addressed to St. John the Divine, 
an exile in Patmos, foretelling his approaching 
release from confinement. 


Authorities—Isaac Casaubon, de Rebus 
sacris Eccl. Exercitt. xxt. (1615) ; Jean 
Launoy, Varia de duobus Dionystts (1660) ; 


J. Dallaeus, de Scriptis quae . . . circumfer- 
unter (1666); P. F. Chifflet, Opuscula quatuor 
(1679) ; Ussher, Dissertatio de Scrtptis . . . ap- 
pended to his Historia Dogmatica (1690) ; 
M. Lequien, Dissertatio Secunda, prefixed to 
tom. i. of Joannis Damasceni Op. (1712); Cave, 
Script. Eccl. Hist. Lit. (1740) ; Brucker, Htst. 
Crit. tom. iii. (1766); J. L. Mosheim, Com- 
mentatio de Turbata per Recentiores Platonicos 
Ecclesia (1767); J. A. Fabricius, Bzblioth. 
Graeca, tom. vii. (1801); J. G. Engelhardt, de 
Dionysio Areop. Plotinizante (1820) ; Milman, 
Lat. Christ. vol. vi. (1855); Dr. Franz Hipler, 
Dionysius der Areopagite (Regensburg, 1861) ; 
B. F. Westcott, Essay on Dionysius the 
Areopagite in the Contemp. Rev. May 1867 ; 
Dean Colet, On the Hierarchies of Dionysius 
(1869) ; J. Fowler, Essay on the works of St. 
Dionysius the Areopagite, in relation to Chris- 
tian art, in the Sacristy, Feb. 1872; H. Koch, 


262 DIONYSIUS 
in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1895 and 1898; 
Stiglmayr in Hist. Jahrbiicher (1895). [J.H.v.] 


Dionysius (2), St., apostle of France, and 
first bp. of Paris. Concerning his identity and 
era there are three principal opinions. 

(1) That he was Dionysius the Areopagite, 
formerly bp. of Athens, who came to Rome 
and was sent by Clement, bp. of Rome, to 
preach in Gaul. This is the tradition of the 
Greek church, and of those of Gaul, Germany, 
Spain, and Italy. The corresponding legend, 
shortly narratedin the Paris Martyrology, states 
that hiscompanions were Rusticus, a presbyter, 
and Eleutherus, a deacon, and that all three 
were put to death by the sword under Sisinnius 
Fescenninus, prefect of Gaul. This is the 
opinion of Flavius Lucius Dexter, d. 444 
(Chronicon. Patr. Lat. xxxi. 270). 

(2) That, although not the Areopagite, he 
was sent by Clement or the successors of the 
apostles. This is held in a poem in honour of 
Dionysius, attributed with some probability 
to Venantius Fortunatus of Poitiers, who had 
written a poem on the same subject commit- 
ting himself to no opinion (Patr. Lat. 1xxxviii. 
72, 98). It is also supported by Pagius in his 
notes on Baronius. 

(3) That he was sent from Rome in the 3rd 
cent., and suffered martyrdom c. A.D. 250. 
This is held by Sulpicius Severus, d. A.D. 410, 
and Gregory of Tours, d. 595. Sulpicius says, 
““ Under Aurelius, son of Antoninus, raged the 
fifth persecution. Then first were martyr- 
doms seen in Gaul, for the religion of God was 
late in coming over the Alps’”’ (Severi, Chront- 
con, ll. 32, Patr. Lat. xx. 147). Gregory (Hist. 
of the Franks, ὈΚ. 1. ο. 28), speaking of the Decian 
persecution, quotes the Hist. Passionis S. M. 
Saturnint: ‘‘ Under the consulship of Decius 
and Gratus, as is held in faithful recollection, 
the state of Toulouse began to have a bishop, 
St. Saturninus, her first and chief. These were 
the men sent : to Tours, Gatianus the bishop ; 
to Arles, Trophimus the bishop ; to Toulouse, 
Saturninus the bishop; to Paris, Dionysius 
the bishop, etc. Of these the blessed Diony- 
sius, bishop of the Parisians, afflicted with 
many pains for the name of Christ, ended this 
present life under the sword.’’ Probably, 
therefore, he died under the emperor Aurelian 
in A.D. 272 (cf. Gall. Christ. vii. 4). [w.M.s.] 

Dionysius (3), bp. of Corinth, probably the 
successor of Primus, placed by Eusebius in his 
Chronicle under A.D. 171 (see also Eus. ἢ. E. 
li. 25, 111. 4, iv. 21, 23, 35 ; Hieron. Catal. 27). 
He was the writer of certain pastoral letters, 
which gained so much authority in his own 
lifetime that heretics (probably the followers of 
Marcion) found it worth while, as he complains, 
to circulate copies falsified by interpolations 
and omissions. Eusebius mentions having 
met with 8 of these letters—viz. seven which 
he calls ‘‘ Catholic Epistles,’? addressed to 
Lacedemon, Athens, Nicomedia, Gortyna and 
other churches in Crete, Amastris and other 
churches in Pontus, Cnossus, and Rome; and 
one to “ his most faithful sister Chrysophora.”’ 
Probably the letters were already collected 
into a volume and enumerated by Eusebius in 
the order they occurred there, or he would 
probably have mentioned the two Cretan 
letters consecutively. Nothing remains of 
them, except the short account of their con- 


DIONYSIUS 


tents given by Eusebius, and a few fragments 
of the letter to the Roman church which, 
though very scanty, throw considerable light 
on the state of the church at the time. 
Eusebius praises Dionysius for having given 
a share in his “‘ inspired industry ’’ to those 
in foreign lands. A bp. of Corinth might 
consider Lacedaemon and Athens as under his 
metropolitan superintendence, but that he 
should send letters of admonition to Crete, 
Bithynia, and Paphlagonia not only proves 
the reputation of the writer, but indicates the 
unity of the Christian community. A still 
more interesting proof of this is furnished by 
the letter to the Roman church, which would 
seem to be one of thanks for a gift of money, 
and in which he speaks of it as a custom of that 
church from the earliest times to send supplies 
to churches in every city to relieve poverty, 
and to support the brethren condemned to 
work in the mines, “ἃ custom not only pre- 
served, but increased by the blessed bp. 
Soter, who administered their bounty to the 
saints, and with blessed words exhorted the 
brethren that came up as an affectionate father 
his children.’’ The epithet here applied to 
Soter is usually used of those deceased in 
Christ ; but there are instances of its applica- 
tion to living persons, and Eusebius speaks of 
him as still bishop when the letter of Diony- 
sius was written. This letter is remarkable 
also as containing the earliest testimony that 
St. Peter suffered martyrdom in Italy at the 
same time as St. Paul. The letters indicate 
the general prevalence of episcopal govern- 
ment when they were written. In most of 
them the bishop of the church addressed is 
mentioned with honour; Palmas in Pontus, 
Philip and Pinytus in Crete, Soter at Rome. 
That to the Athenians reminds them of a 
former bp. Publius, who had suffered martyr- 
dom during persecutions which reduced that 
church very low, from which condition it was 
revived by the zeal of Quadratus, the success- 
or of Publius. This form of government was 
then supposed to date from apostoiic times, 
for in the same letter Dionysius the Areopagite 
is counted as the first bp. of Athens; but the 
importance of the bishop seems to be still 
subordinate to that of hischurch. The letters, 
including that to Rome, are each addressed to 
the church, not to the bishop ; and Soter’s own 
letter, like Clement’s former one, was written 
not in his own name, but that of his church 
(ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν). The letters, indeed, of 
Dionysius himself were written in hisownname, 
and he uses the Ist pers. sing. in speaking of 
them, but adds that they were written at the 
request of brethren. Eusebius mentions two, 
Bacchylides and Elpistus, at whose instance 
that to the churches of Pontus was written. 
The letters also illustrate the value attached 
by Christians to their sacred literature. 
Dionysius informs the church of Rome that 
the day on which he wrote, being the Lord’s 
day, had been kept holy, and that they had 
then read the letter of the Roman church, and 
would continue from time to time to read it for 
their instruction, as they were in the habit of 
reading the letter formerly written from the 
same church by the hand of Clement; and 
speaking of the falsification of his own letters, 
he adds, ‘‘ No marvel, then, that some have 


DIONYSIUS 


attempted to tamper with the Scriptures of the 
Lord, since they have attempted it on writings 
not comparable to them (οὐ roa’ras).’’ Thus 
we learn that it was then customary to read 
sacred books in the Christian assemblies ; that 
this practice was not limited to our canonical 
books ; that attempts were made by men re- 
garded as heretics to corrupt these writings, 
and that such attempts were jealously guarded 
against. The value attached by Christians to 
writings was regulated rather by the character 
of their contents than by the dignity of the 
writer; for while there is no trace that the 
letter of Soter thus honoured at Corinth passed 
beyond that church, the letter of Dionysius 
himself became the property of the whole 
Christian community. But we learn the pre- 
eminent authority enjoyed by certain books, 
called the Scriptures of the Lord, which we 
cannot be wrong in identifying with some of 
the writings of our N.T. Dionysius, in the 
very brief fragments remaining, shews signs 
of acquaintance with the St. Matt., the Acts, 
I. Thess., andthe Apocalypse. There is, there- 
fore, no reason for limiting to the O.T. the 
“expositions of the divine Scriptures,’”’ which 
Eusebius tells us were contained in the letter 
of Dionysius to the churches of Pontus. In 
speaking of attempts to corrupt the Scriptures, 
Dionysius probably refers to the heresy of 
Marcion, against which, we are told, he wrote 
in his letter to the church of Nicomedia, ‘‘ de- 
fending the rule of truth.’’ We cannot lay 
much stress on a rhetorical passage where 
Jerome (Ep. ad Magnum, 83) includes Diony- 
sius among those who had applied secular 
learning to the refutation of heresy, tracing 
each heresy to its source in the writings of the 
ee oeephers: Dionysius had probably also 

arcionism in view, when he exhorted the 
church of Gortyna “ to beware of the perver- 
sion of heretics,’’ for we are told that its bp. 
Philip had found it necessary to compose a 
treatise against Marcion. We may see traces 
of the same heresy in the subjects treated of 
in the letter to the churches of Pontus (the 
home of Marcion), to which Dionysius gave 
instructions concerning marriage and chastity 
(marriage having been proscribed by Marcion), 
and which he also exhorted to receive back 
those who returned after any fall, whether into 
irregularity of living or into heretical error. 
But the rigorist tendencies here combated 
were exhibited also, not only among the then 
rising sects of the Encratites and Montan- 
ists, but by men of undoubted orthodoxy. 
Writing to the Cnossians Dionysius exhorts 
Pinytus the bp., a man highly commended 
by Eusebius for piety, orthodoxy, and learn- 
ing, not to impose on the brethren too heavy 
a burden of chastity, but to regard the weak- 
ness of the many. Eusebius reports Pinytus 
as replying with expressions of high respect 
for Dionysius, which were understood by 
Rufinus to imply an adoption of his views. 
But he apparently persevered in his own 
opinion, for he exhorts Dionysius to impart 
to his people some more advanced instruction, 
lest if he fed them always with milk instead of 
with more solid food, they should continue in 
the state of children. 

We are not told anything of the time or 
manner of the death of Dionysius. It must 


DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA 263 


have been before the Paschal disputes in a.p. 
198, when we find Palmas of Pontus still 
alive, but a new bishop (Bacchylus) at Corinth. 
The Greek church counts Dionysius among 
martyrs, and the Menaea name the sword as 
the instrument of his death; but there is no 
authority for his martyrdom earlier than 
Cedrenus, t.e. the end of the 11th cent. The 
Roman church only counts him among con- 
fessors. The abbey of St. Denis in France 
claimed to be in possession of the body of 
Dionysius of Corinth, alleged to have been 
brought from Greece to Rome, and given them 
in 1215 by Innocent III. The pope’s bull is 


given by the Bollandists under April 8. See 
Routh, Rel. Sac. (2nd ed.), i. 178-201. [G.s.] 
Dionysius (6) of Alexandria. This ‘ great 


bishop of Alexandria” (Eus. H. E. vi. Praef.) 
and ‘‘ teacher of the catholic church ”’ (Athan. 
de Sent. Dion. 6), was born, apparently, of a 
wealthy and honourable family (Eus. H. E. 
vii. 11, and Valesius ad loc.). He was an old 
man in A.D. 265 (Eus. H. E. vii. 27), and a 
presbyter in A.D. 233 (Hieron. de Vir. 111. 69). 
His parents were Gentiles, and he was led to 
examine the claims of Christianity by private 
study (Ep. Dion. ap. Eus. H. E. vii. 7). His 
conversion cost him the sacrifice of ‘‘ worldly 
glory’ (Eus. H. E. vii. 11) ; but he found in 
Origen an able teacher (7b. vi. 29); and Dionysius 
remained faithful to his master to the last. 
In the persecutions of Decius he addressed a 
letter to him On Persecution (ib. vi. 46), doubt- 
less as an expression of sympathy with his 
sufferings (c. A.D. 259), and on the death of 
Origen (A.D. 253) wrote to Theotecnus bp. of 
Caesarea in his praise (Steph. Gob. ap. Phot. 
Cod. 232). Dionysius, then a presbyter, 
succeeded Heraclas as head of the Catechetical 
School, at the time, as the words of Eusebius 
imply, when Heraclas was made bp. of Alex- 
andria, A.D. 232-233 (Eus. l.c.). He held this 
office till he was raised to the bishopric, on the 
death of Heraclas, A.D. 247-248, and perhaps 
retained it till his death, a.p. 265. His epis- 
copate was in troubled times. A popular out- 
break at Alexandria (A.D. 248-249) anticipated 
by about a year (Eus. H. E. vi. 41) the perse- 
cution under Decius (A.D. 249-251). Diony- 
sius fled from Alexandria, and, being after- 
wards taken by some soldiers, was rescued by 
a friend, escaping in an obscure retirement 
from further attacks. In the persecution of 
Valerian, A.D. 257, he was banished, but con- 
tinued to direct and animate the Alexandrian 
church from the successive places of his exile. 
His conduct on these occasions exposed him to 
ungenerous criticism, and Eusebius has pre- 
served several interesting passages of a letter 
(c. A.D. 258-259), in which he defends himself 
with great spirit against the accusations of 
a bp. Germanus (ἐδ. vi. 40, vil. 11). On the 
accession of Gallienus, A.D. 260, Dionysius was 
allowed to return to Alexandria (ἐδ. vil. 13, 21), 
where he had to face war, famine, and pestil- 
ence (ib. vii. 22). In A.D. 264-265 he was 
invited to the synod at Antioch which met to 
consider the opinions of Paul of Samosata. 
His age and infirmities did not allow him to 
go, and he died shortly afterwards (A.D. 265) 
(ib. vii. 27, 28; Hieron. de Vir. 11]. 69). 
Dionysius was active in controversy, but 
always bore himself with prudence. In this 


264 DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA 


spirit he was anxious to deal gently with 
the ‘‘lapsed”’ (Eus. H. E. vi. 42) ; he pressed 
upon Novatian the duty of self-restraint, for 
the sake of the peace of the church, A.D. 251 
(ib. vii. 45; Hieron. l.c.) ; and with better 
results counselled moderation in dealing with 
the rebaptism of heretics, in a correspondence 
with popes Stephen and Sixtus (A.D. 256-257) 
(Eus. H. E. vii. 5, 7, 9). His last letter (or 
letters) regarding Paul of Samosata seem to 
have been written in a similar strain. He 
charged the assembled bishops to do their 
duty, but did not shrink from appealing to 
Paul also, as still fairly within the reach of 
honest argument (Theod. Haer. Fab. ii. 8). In 
one instance Dionysius met with immediate 
success. Ina discussion with a party of Chili- 
asts he brought his opponents to abandon their 
error (Eus. H. E. vii.24). His own orthodoxy, 
however, did not always remain unimpeached. 
When controverting the false teaching of Sa- 
bellius, the charge of tritheism was brought 
against him by some Sabellian adversaries, 
and entertained at first by his namesake 
Dionysius of Rome. Discussion shewed that 
one ground of the misunderstanding was the 
ambiguity of the words used to describe 
““essence’’ and ‘“ person,’? which the two 
bishops took in different senses. Dionysius of 
Rome regarded ὑπόστασις as expressing the 
essence of the divine nature; Dionysius of 
Alexandria as expressing the essence of each 
divine person. The former therefore affirmed 
that to divide the ὑπόστασις was to make sep- 
arate gods; the latter affirmed with equal 
justice that there could be no Trinity unless 
each ὑπόστασις Was distinct. The Alexandrine 
bishop had, however, used other phrases, 
which were claimed by Arians at a later time 
as favouring their views. Basil, on hearsay, 
as it has been supposed (Lumper, Hist. Pat- 
rum, xiii. 86f.), admitted that Dionysius 
sowed the seeds of the Anomoean heresy (Ep. 
i. 9), but Athanasius with fuller knowledge 
vindicated his perfect orthodoxy. Dionysius 
has been represented as recognizing the supre- 
macy of Rome in the defence which he made. 
But the fragments of his answer to his name- 
sake (Athan. de Sent. Ditonysit, ἐπέστειλε 
Διονυσίῳ δηλῶσαι . - - for the use of ἐπιστέλλω 
see Eus. H. E. vi. 46, etc.) shew the most com- 
plete and resolute independence; and there 
is nothing in the narrative of Athanasius which 
implies that the Alexandrine bishop recog- 
nized, or that the Roman bishop claimed, any 
dogmatic authority as belonging to the im- 
perialsee. Tosay that asynod was held upon 
the subject at Rome is an incorrect interpreta- 
tion of the facts. 

Dionysius was a prolific writer. Jerome 
(l.c.) has preserved a long but not exhaustive 
catalogue of his books. Some important frag- 
ments remain of his treatises On Nature (Eus. 
Praep. Ev. xiv. 23 ff.), and On the Promises, in 
refutation of the Chiliastic views of Nepos 
(Eus. H. E. iii. 28, vii. 24, 25); of his Refuta- 
tion and Defence, addressed to Dionysius of 
Rome, in reply to the accusation of false teach- 
ing on the Holy Trinity (Athan. de Sent. 
Dionysti; de Synodis, c. 44; de Decr. Syn. 
Nic. c. 25); of his Commentaries on Eccle- 
stastes and on St. Luke, and of his books 
Against Sabellius (Eus. Praep. Ev. vii. 19). 


DIONYSIUS 


The fragments of his letters are, however, 
the most interesting extant memorials of his 
work and character and of his time; and 
Eusebius, with a true historical instinct, has 
made them the basis of the sixth and seventh 
books of his history. The following will 
shew the wide ground covered: 

A.D. 251.—To Domitius and Didymus. Per- 
sonal experiences during persecution (Eus. 
ἘΠ Ἢ: τοι τὴς 

A.D. 251-252.—To Novatian, to the Roman 
Confessors, to Cornelius of Rome, Fabius of 
Antioch, Conon of Hermopolis; and to 
Christians in Alexandria, Egypt, Laodicaea, 
Armenia, on discipline and repentance, with 
pictures from contemporary history (tb. vi. 
41, and vii. 45). 

A.D. 253-257-—To Stephen of Rome, the 
Roman presbyters Dionysius and Philemon, 
Sixtus II. of Rome on Rebaptism (7b. vii. 
4, 5» 7) 9). 

A.D. 258-263.—To Germanus: incidents in 
persecution. Against Sabellians. Aseries of 
festal letters, with pictures of contemporary 
history (7b. vii. 11, 22 ff., 26). 

A.D. 264.—To Paul of Samosata (vi. 40). 

To these, of some of which only the titles 
remain, must be added an important canonical 
letter to Basilides, of uncertain date, discussing 
various questions of discipline, and especially 
points connected with the Lenten fast (cf. 
Dittrich, pp. 46 ff.). All the fragments repay 
carefulstudy. They are uniformly inspired by 
sympathy and large-heartedness. His criti- 
cism on the style of the Apocalypse is perhaps 
unique among early writings for clearness and 
scholarly precision (Eus. H. E. vii. 25). 

The most accessible and complete collection 
of his remains is in Migne’s Patr. Gk. x. pp. 
1233 ff., 1575 ff., to which must be added 
Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. i. 15 ff. A full mono- 
graph on Dionysius by Dittrich (Freiburg, 
1867) supplements the arts. in Tillemont, 
Maréchal, Lumper, Moehler. An Eng. trans. 
of his works is in the A nte-Nicene L1b., and his 
Letters, etc., have been ed. by Dr. Feltoe for 
the Camb. Patristic Texts (1g04). __[B.F.W.] 

Dionysius (7), bp. of Rome; a Greek by 
birth, consecrated July 22, A.D. 259, on the 
death of Xystus, in the persecution of Vale- 
rian. His efforts against heresy are re- 
corded. When Dionysius of Alexandria (q.v.) 
was accused of holding doctrines akin to those 
of Sabellius, the Roman Dionysius wrote to 
him, and extracted so satisfactory a defence 
that he declared him purged of suspicion 
(Athan. Ep. de Sent. Dionys. Opp. i. 252; see 
an Eng. trans. of the Fragm. against Sabellius 
in Ante-Nicene Ltb.). In 264 the Alexandrian 
and Roman Dionysii acted together with the 
council of Antioch in condemning and degrad- 
ing Paul of Samosata. Dionysius of Rome 
died Dec. 26, 269. [G-H.M.] 

Dionysius (19), surnamed Exiguus because 
of his humbleness of heart, was a Scythian by 
birth, and a monk in the Western church under 
the emperors Justin and Justinian. To him 
we owe the custom of dating events from the 
birth of our Saviour, though he is now acknow- 
ledged to have placed the era four years too 
late. His collection of canons laid the foun- 
dation of canon law. He knew Latin and 
Greek fairly ; though it is obvious that neither 


ee σ᾿ Abe 


DIONYSIUS 


was his vernacular. His Latin translations 
form the bulk of his extant works. Cassio- 
dorus speaks of his moral and intellectual 
qualities with well-deserved praise. His per- 
formances were not original discoveries, but 
improvements on those of others. 

I. The period called after him was borrowed 
from Victorius of Aquitaine, who flourished 
100 years earlier, and is said to have invented 
it. It is a revolution of 532 years, produced 
by multiplying the solar cycle of 28 by the 
lunar of 19 years. It is called sometimes 
“recapitulatio Dionysii.’’ A note to ὃ 13 of 
the preliminary dissertation to l’Art de vértf. 
les dates shews how he improved on his pre- 
decessor. His cycle was published in the 
last year of the emperor Justin, a.p. 527. It 
began with March 25, now kept as the festival 
of the Annunciation ; and from this epoch all 
the dates of bulls and briefs of the court of 
Rome are supposed to run (Butler’s Lives of 
the Saints, Oct. 15: note to the Life of St. 
Teresa). His first year had for its characters 
the solar cycle ro, the lunar 2, and the Roman 
indiction 4, thereby proclaiming its identity 
with the year 4714 of the Julian period, which 
again coincided with the 4th year of the r94th 
Olympiad, and the 753rd of the building of 
Rome. It was adopted in Italy soon after its 
publication ; in France perhaps a century later. 
In England it was ordained a.p. 816, at the 
synod of Chelsea, that all bishops should date 
their acts from the Incarnation. 

II. In his letter to bp. Stephen, to whom 
he dedicates his collection of Canons, he admits 
the existence of an earlier, but defective, Latin 
translation, of which copies have been 
printed and named, after his naming of it, 
Prisca Versio by Justellus and others. His 
own was a corrected edition of that earlier 
version, so far as regards the canons of 
Nicaea, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Gangra, An- 
tioch, Laodicea, and Constantinople—165 in 
all—together with 27 of Chalcedon: ll 
originally published in Greek, and all, except 
the Laodicean, already translated in the Prisca 
Versto. The Laodicean, unlike the rest, are 
given in an abbreviated form, and the chrono- 
logical order is interrupted to place the 
Nicene canons first. He specifies as having 
been translated by himself the 50 so-called 
canons of the Apostles, which stand at the 
head of his collection, which he admits were 
not then universally received ; and, as having 
been appended by himself, the Sardican and 
African canons, which he says were published 
in Latin, and with which his collection ends. 
His collection speedily displaced that of the 
Prisca. Cassiodorus, his friend and patron, 
writes of it within a few years of his decease, 
“‘Quos hodie usu ecclesia Romana complec- 
titur’’; and adds, ‘‘ Alia quoque multa ex 
Graeco transtulit in Latinam, quae utilitati 
possunt ecclesiasticae convenire”’ (de Inst. 
Div. Litt. c. 23). It seems certain, from what 
Cassiodorus says, that Dionysius either trans- 
lated or revised an earlier translation of the 
official documents of the 3rd and 4th councils, 
as well as the canons of the 1st and 2nd. 

Ill. He published all the decretal epistles 
of the popes he could discover from Siricius, 
who succeeded Damasus, A.D. 384, to Anas- 
tasius II., who succeeded Gelasius, A.D. 496. 


DIOSCORUS 265 


Gelasius, he says himself, he had never seen in 
life; in other words, he had never been at 
Rome up to Gelasius’s death. By this pub- 
lication a death-blow was given to the false 
decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore, centuries 
before their appearance. His attestation 
of the true text and consequent rendering of 
the 6th Nicene canon, his translating the 9th 
of Chalcedon into plain Latin, after suppress- 
ing the 28th, which, as it was not passed in 
full council he could omit with perfect honesty, 
and, most of all, the publicity which he first 
gave to the canons against transmarine ap- 
peals in the African code and to the stand 
made by the African bishops against the en- 
croachments of pope Zosimus and his succes- 
sors in the matter of Apiarius, are historical 
stumbling-blocks which are fatal to the papal 
claims. Misquotations of the Sardican canons, 
by which those claims were supported, are, 
moreover, exposed by his preservation of them 
in the language in which he avers they were 
published. Aloisius Vincenzi, writing on 
papal infallibility (de Sacra Monarchid, etc. 
1875), is quite willing to abandon the Sardican 
canons in order to get rid also of the African 
code, which is a thorn in his side. [r.S.FF.] 
Dioscorus (1), patriarch of Alexandria, suc- 
ceeded Cyril about midsummer 444, receiving 
consecration, according to one report (Mansi, 
vii. 603), from two bishops only. He had served 
as Cyril’s archdeacon. Liberatus says that he 
had never been married. Τί is difficult to har- 
monizethe accounts ofhischaracter. Theodoret, 
whose testimony in his favour cannot be sus- 
pected, declared in a letter to Dioscorus, soon 
after his consecration, that the fame of his 
virtues, and particularly of his modesty and 
humility, was widely spread (Ep. 60) ; on the 
other hand, after he had involved himself in 
the.Monophysite heresy, he was accused of 
having gravely misconducted himself in the 
first years of his episcopate (Mansi, vi. 1008). 
According toadeacon, Ischyrion, Dioscorus had 
laid waste property, inflicted fines and exile, 
bought up and sold at a high price the wheat 
sent by the government to Libya, appropriated 
and grossly misspent money left by a lady 
named Peristeria for religious and charitable 
purposes, received women of notorious char- 
acter into his house, persecuted Ischyrion as 
a favourite of Cyril’s, ruined the little estate 
which was his only support, sent a ‘‘ phalanx 
of ecclesiastics, or rather of ruffians,”’ to put 
him to death, and, after his escape, again 
sought to murder him in a hospital ; in proof, 
Ischyrion appealed to six persons, one of 
whom was bath-keeper to Dioscorus (1b. 1012). 
According to a priest named Athanasius, 
Cyril’s nephew, Dioscorus, from the outset of 
his episcopate (‘‘ which he obtained one knows 
not how,” says the petitioner), harassed him 
and his brother by using influence with the 
court, so that the brother died of distress, and 
Athanasius, with his aunts, sister-in-law, and 
nephews, were bereft of their homes by the 
patriarch’s malignity. He himself was de- 
posed, without any trial, from the priesthood, 
and became, perforce, a wanderer for years. 
According to a layman named Sophronius, 
Dioscorus hindered the execution of an im- 
perial order which Sophronius had obtained 
for the redress of a grievous wrong. ‘ The 


206 DIOSCORUS 


country,’’ he said, ‘‘ belonged to him rather 
than to the sovereigns”? (τῶν κρατούντων). 
Sophronius averred that legal evidence was 
forthcoming to prove that Dioscorus had 
usurped, in Egypt, the authority belonging to 
the emperor. He added that Dioscorus had 
taken away his clothes and property, and 
compelled him to flee for his life; and he 
charged him, further, with adultery and blas- 
phemy (zb. 1029). Such accusations were then 
so readily made—as the life of St. Athanasius 
himself shews—that some deduction must be 
made from charges brought against Dioscorus 
in the hour of his adversity ; and wrongs done 
by his agents may have been in some cases 
unfairly called his acts. Still, it is but too 
likely that there was sufficient truth in them 
to demonstrate the evil effects on his character 
of elevation to a post of almost absolute 
power ; for such, in those days, was the great 
“evangelical throne.’? We find him, before 
the end of his first year, in correspondence 
with pope Leo theGreat, who gave directions, as 
from the see of St. Peter, to the new successor 
of St. Mark; writing, on June 21, 445, that 
“it would be shocking (nefas) to believe that 
St. Mark formed his rules for Alexandria 
otherwise than on the Petrine model” (Ep. 
II). In 447 Dioscorus appears among those 
who expressed suspicion of the theological 
character of Theodoret, who had been much 
mixed up with the party of Nestorius. It was 
rumoured that, preaching at Antioch, he 
had practically taught Nestorianism; and 
Dioscorus, hearing this, wrote to Domnus, bp. 
of Antioch, Theodoret’s patriarch; whereupon 
Theodoret wrote a denial (Ep. 83) ending with 
an anathema against all who should deny the 
holy Virgin to be Theotokos, call Jesus a mere 
man, or divide the one Son into two. Dios- 
corus still assumed the truth of the charge 
(Theod. Ep. 86), allowed Theodoret to be 
anathematized in church, and even rose from 
his throne to echo the malediction, and sent 
some bishops to Constantinople to support 
him against Theodoret. 

Then, in Nov. 448, the aged EuTycHEs, 
archimandrite of Constantinople and a ve- 
hement enemy of Nestorianizers, was accused 
by Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum, before a 
council of which Flavian was president, with 
an opposite error. He clung tenaciously to 
the phrase, ‘‘ one incarnate nature of God the 
Word,” which Cyril had used on the authority 
of St. Athanasius ; but neglected the qualifica- 
tions and explanations by which Cyril had 
guarded his meaning. Thus, by refusing to 
admit that Christ, as incarnate, had ‘‘ two 
natures,’’ Eutyches appeared to his judges to 
have revived, in effect, the Apollinarian heresy 
—to have denied the distinctness and verity 
of Christ’s manhood; and he was deprived 
of his priestly office, and excommunicated. 
His patron, the chamberlain Chrysaphius, 
applied to Dioscorus for aid, promising to 
support him in all his designs if he would 
take up the cause of Eutyches against Flavian 
(Niceph. xiv. 47). Eutyches himself wrote 
to Dioscorus, asking him ‘‘ to examine his 
cause’’ (Liberat. c. 12), and Dioscorus, 
zealous against all anti-Cyrilline tendencies in 
theology, wrote to the emperor, urging him 
to call a general council to review Flavian’s 


DIOSCORUS 


judgment. Theodosius, influenced by his wife 
and his chamberlain, issued letters (Mar. 30, 
449), ordering the chief prelates (patriarchs, 
as we may call them, and exarchs) to repair, 
with some of their bishops, to Ephesus by 
Aug. 1, 449 (Mansi, vi. 587). 

This council of evil memory—on which Leo 
afterwards fastened the name of ‘‘ Latrocin- 
ium,”’ or gang of robbers—met on Aug. 8, 449, 
in St. Mary’s church at Ephesus, the scene of 
the third general council’s meeting in 431; 
150 bishops being present. Dioscorus pre- 
sided, and next to him Julian, or Julius, the 
representative of the ‘‘ most holy bishop of the 
Roman church,’”’ then Juvenal of Jerusalem, 
Domnus of Antioch, and—his lowered position 
indicating what was to come—Flavian of Con- 
stantinople (ib. 607). The archbp. of Alex- 
andria shewed himself a partisan throughout. 
He did indeed propose the acceptance of Leo’s 
letter to the council, a letter written at the 
same time as, and expressly referring to, the 
famous ‘“‘ Tome’’; but it was only handed in, 
not read, Juvenal moving that another im- 
perial letter should be read and recorded. 
The president then intimated that the council’s 
business was not to frame a new doctrinal 
formulary, but to inquire whether what had 
lately appeared—meaning, the statements of 
Flavian and bp. Eusebius on the one hand, 
those of Eutyches on the other—were accord- 
ant with the decisions of the councils of Nicaea 
and Ephesus—“ two councils in name,”’ said 
he, “‘ but one in faith”’’ (7b. 628). Eutyches 
was then introduced, and made his statement, 
beginning, ‘‘ I commend myself to the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and the true 
verdict of your justice.’’ After he had finished 
his address, Flavian desired that Eusebius, 
who had been his accuser, should be called in 
and heard. Elpidius, the imperial commis- 
sioner, vetoed this proposal on the ground that 
the judges of Eutyches were now to be judged, 
and that his accuser had already fulfilled his 
task, ‘‘ and, as he thought, successfully ’’: to 
let him speak now would be a cause of mere 
disturbance (7b. 645). This unjudicial view 
of the case was supported by Dioscorus. 
Flavian was baffled, and the council resolved 
to hear the acts of the synod of Constantinople 
which had condemned Eutyches. The epis- 
copal deputy of Leo, with his companion the 
deacon Hilarus, urged that ‘‘the pope’s 
letter’ (probably including the ‘‘ Tome” in 
this proposal) should be read first, but this 
was overruled; Dioscorus moved that the 
““acts’’ should be first read, and then the 
letter of the bp. of Rome. The reading 
began (7b. 649). When the passage was 
reached in which Basil of Seleucia and Seleucus 
of Amasia had said that the one Christ was in 
two natures after the incarnation, a storm of 
wrath broke out. ‘‘ Let no one call the Lord 


‘two’ after the union! Do not divide 
the undivided! Seleucus was not bp. of 
Amasia! This is Nestorianism.’’ ‘‘ Be quiet 


for a little,’’ said Dioscorus; ‘‘ let us hear some 
more blasphemies. Why are we to blame 
Nestorius only ? There are many Nestorius- 
es”’ (7b. 685). The reading proceeded as far 
as Eusebius’s question to Eutyches, ‘‘ Do you 
own two natures after the incarnation ?”’ 
Then arose another storm: ‘‘ The holy synod 


DIOSCORUS 


exclaimed, ‘ Away with Eusebius, burn him, 
let him be burnt alive! Let him be cut in 
two—be divided, even as he divided!’” 
“Can you endure,’’ asked Dioscorus, ‘‘ to hear 
of two natures after the incarnation ?”’ 
“ Anathema to him that says it!’’ was the 
reply. ‘‘ I have need of your voices and your 
hands too,’ rejoined Dioscorus ; ‘‘ if any one 
cannot shout, let him stretch out his hand.” 
Another anathema rang out (ib. 737). An- 
other passage, containing a statement of belief 
by Eutyches, was heard with applause. ‘‘ We 
accept this statement,’’ said Dioscorus. ‘‘ This 
is the faith of the Fathers,’’ exclaimed the 
bishops. “Οὐ what faith do you say this ?”’ 
asked Dioscorus. ‘‘ Of Eutyches’s: for Euse- 
bius is impious ”’ (ἀσεβής. 7b. 740). Similar 
approbation was given to another passage 
containing the characteristic formula of Euty- 
chianism: ‘‘I confess that our Lord was of 
two natures before the incarnation ; but after 
the incarnation [7.e. in Him as incarnate] I 
confess one nature.’’ ‘‘ We all agree to this,”’ 
said Dioscorus. ‘‘ We agree,’’ said the coun- 
cil (1b. 744). Presently came a sentence in 
which Basil of Seleucia had denounced the 
denial of two natures after the incarnation as 
equivalent to the assertion of a commixture 
and a fusion. This aroused once more the 
zealots of the Alexandrian party ; one bishop 
sprang forward, shouting, ‘‘ This upsets the 
whole church!’’ The Egyptians and the 
monks, led by Barsumas, cried out, ‘‘ Cut him 
in two, who says two natures! He is a Nes- 
torian!’’ Basil’s nerves gave way; he lost, 
as he afterwards said, his perceptions, bodily 
and mental (ἐδ. 636). He began to say that 
he did not remember whether he had uttered 
the obnoxious words, but that he had meant 
to say, ‘‘ If you do not add the word ‘ incar- 
nate’ to‘ nature,’ as Cyril did, the phrase ‘ one 
nature’ implies a fusion.’’ Juvenal asked 
whether his words had been wrongly reported ; 
he answered helplessly, ‘‘ I do not recollect ”’ 
(1b. 748). Heseems to have been coerced into 
a formal retractation of the phrase ‘‘ two 
natures’’; but he added ‘‘ hypostases’”’ as 
explanatory of ‘‘ natures,’’ and professed to 
“ adore the one nature of the Godhead of the 
Only-begotten, who was made man and in- 
carnate’”’ (7b. 828). Eutyches declared that 
the acts of the Constantinopolitan synod had 
been tampered with. ‘‘It is false,’ said 
Flavian. “16 Flavian,’’ said Dioscorus, 
“knows anything which supports his opinion, 
let him put it in writing . . . No one hinders 
you, and the council knows it.’’ Flavian then 
said that the acts had been scrutinized, and 
no falsification had been found in them ; that, 
for himself, he had always glorified God by 
holding what he then held. Dioscorus called 
on the bishops to give their verdict as to the 
theological statements of Eutyches. They 
acquitted him of all unsoundness, as faithful 
to Nicene and Ephesian teaching. Domnus 
expressed regret for having mistakenly con- 
demned him (7b. 836). Basil of Seleucia spoke 
like the rest. Flavian, of course, was silent. 
Dioscorus spoke last, affirming the judgments 
of the council, and ‘‘ adding his own opinion.” 
Eutyches was ‘‘ restored’”’ to his presbyterial 
rank and his abbatial dignity (δ. 861). His 
monks were then released from the excom- 


DIOSCORUS 267 


munication incurred at Constantinople. The 
doctrinal decisions of the Ephesian council of 
431, in its first and sixth sessions, were then 
read. Dioscorus proposed that these de- 
cisions, with those of Nicaea, should be re- 
cognized as an unalterable standard of ortho- 
doxy; that whoever should say or think 
otherwise, or should unsettle them, should be 
put under censure. ‘‘ Let each one of you 
speak his mind on this.’’ Several bishops 
assented. Hilarus, the Roman deacon, testi- 
fied that the apostolic see reverenced those 
decisions, and that its letter, if read, would 
prove this. Dioscorus called in some secre- 
taries, who brought forward a draft sentence 
of deposition against Flavian and Eusebius, 
on the ground that the Ephesian council had 
enacted severe penalties against any who 
should frame or propose any other creed than 
the Nicene. Flavian and Eusebius were de- 
clared to have constructively committed this 
offence by ‘‘ unsettling almost everytbing, and 
causing scandal and confusion throughout the 
churches.”” Their deposition was decided up- 
on (1b. 907). Onesiphorus, bp. of Iconium, 
with some others, went up to Dioscorus, 
clasped his feet and knees, and passionately 
entreated him not to go to such extremities. 
““He has done nothing worthy of deposition 
εν if he deserves condemnation, Jet him be 
condemned.’ “Τί must be,’’ said Dioscorus 
in answer; ‘‘ if my tongue were to be cut out 
for it, 1 would still say so.’’ They persisted, 
and he, starting from his throne, stood up on 
the footstool and exclaimed, ‘‘ Are you get- 
ting up a sedition ? Where are the counts?”’ 
Military officers, soldiers with swords and 
sticks, even the proconsul with chains, entered 
at his call. He peremptorily commanded the 
bishops to sign the sentence, and with a fierce 
gesture of the hand exclaimed, ‘‘ He that does 
not choose to sign must reckon with me.” A 
scene of terrorism followed. Those prelates 
who were reluctant to take part in the de- 
position were threatened with exile, beaten 
by the soldiers, denounced as heretics by the 
partisans of Dioscorus, and by the crowd of 
fanatical monks (7b. vii. 68) who accompanied 
Barsumas, until they put their names to a 
blank paper on which the sentence was to be 
written (ἐδ. vi. 601 seq. 625, 637, 988). They 
afterwards protested that they had signed 
under compulsion. Basil of Seleucia declared 
that he had given way because he was “‘ given 
over to the judgment of 120 or 130 bishops ; 
had he been dealing with magistrates, he would 
have suffered martyrdom.” ‘‘ The Egyp- 
tians,” says Tillemont, ‘“ who signed willingly 
enough, did so after the others had been made 
to sign ’’ (xv. 571; cf. Mansi, vi. 601). 
Flavian’s own fate was the special tragedy 
of the Latrocinium. He had lodged in the 
hands of the Roman delegates a formal appeal 
to the pope and the Western bishops (not to 
the pope alone; see Leo, Ep. 43, Tillemont, 
xv. 374). It was nearly his last act. He was 
brutally treated, kicked, and beaten by the 
agents of Dioscorus, and even, we are told, by 
Dioscorus himself (see Evagr. i. 1; Niceph. 
xiv. 47). He was then imprisoned, and soon 
exiled, but died in the hands of his guards, 
from the effect of his injuries, three days after 
his deposition (Liberatus, Brev. 19), Aug. 11, 


208 DIOSCORUS 


449. He was regarded as a martyr for the 
doctrine of ‘‘the two natures in the one 
person ”’ of Christ. Anatolius, who had been 
the agent (apocrisiarius) of Dioscorus at Con- 
stantinople, was appointed his successor. 

Dioscorus and his council—as we may well 
call it—proceeded to depose Theodoret and 
several other bishops; ‘‘ many,’’ says Leo, 
‘“ were expelled from their sees, and banished, 
because they would not accept heresy’”’ (Ep. 
93). Theodoret was put under a special ban. 
“* They ordered me,’’ he writes (Ep. 140), “το 
be excluded from shelter, from water, from 
everything.” 

Confusion now pervaded the Eastern 
churches. It was impossible to acquiesce in 
the proceedings of the ‘‘ Latrocinium.’’ Leo 
bestirred himself to get a new oecumenical 
council held in Italy: the imperial family in 
the West supported this, but Theodosius II. 
persisted in upholding the late council. In 
the spring of 450 Dioscorus took a new and 
exceptionally audacious step. At Nicaea, on 
his way to the court, he caused ten bishops 
whom he had brought from Egypt to sign a 
document excommunicating pope Leo (Mansi, 
vi. 1009, 1148; vii. 104), doubtless on the 
ground that Leo was endeavouring to quash 
the canonical decisions of a legitimate council. 
His cause, however, was ruined when the 
orthodox Pulcheria succeeded to the empire, 
and gave her hand to Marcian, this event 
leading to a new council at Chalcedon on 
Oct. 8, 451, which Dioscorus attended. The 
deputies of Leo come first, then Anatolius, 
Dioscorus, Maximus, Juvenal. At first Dios- 
corus sat among those bishops who were on 
the right of the chancel (18. vi. 580). The 
Roman deputies on the opposite side desired, 
in the name of Leo, that Dioscorus should 
not sit in the council. The magistrates, who 
acted as imperial commissioners (and were 
the effective presidents), asked what was 
charged against him? Paschasinus, the chief 
Roman delegate, answered, ‘‘ When he comes 
in” (t.e. after having first gone out) “it will 
be necessary to state objections against him.”’ 
The magistrates desired again to hear the 
charge. Lucentius, another delegate, said, 
““He has presumed to hold a synod without 
leave of the apostolic see, which has never 
been done.’’ (Rome did not recognize the 
““second general council’’ of 381; which, in 
fact, was not then owned as general.) ‘‘ We 
cannot,” said Paschasinus, ‘‘ transgress the 
apostolic pope’s orders.’ ‘‘ We cannot,”’ 
added Lucentius, ‘‘ allow such a wrong as that 
this man should sit in the council, who is come 
to be judged.” “If you claim to judge,” 
replied the magistrates sharply, ‘‘ do not be 
accuser too.’’ They bade Dioscorus sit in the 
middle by himself, and the Roman deputies 
sat down and said no more. Eusebius of 
Dorylaeum asked to be heard against Dios- 
corus. “1 have been injured by him; the 
faith has been injured; Flavian was killed, 
after he and I had been unjustly deposed by 
Dioscorus. Command my petition to the 
emperors to be read.’”’ It was read by Bero- 
nicianus, the secretary of the imperial con- 
sistory, and stated that “αὐ the recent council 
at Ephesus. this good (χρηστός) Dioscorus, dis- 
regarding justice, and supporting Eutyches in 


DIOSCORUS 


heresy—having also gained power by bribes, 
and assembled a disorderly multitude—did all 
he could to ruin the Catholic faith, and to 
establish the heresy of Eutyches, and con- 
demned us: I desire, therefore, that he be 
called to account, and that the records of his 
proceedings against us be examined.”’ Dios- 
corus, preserving his self-possession, answered, 
““ The synod was held by the emperor’s order ; 
I too desire that its acts against Flavian may 
be read’’; but added, “1 beg that the 
doctrinal question be first considered.” 
‘““No,”? said the magistrates, ‘‘ the charge 
against you must first be met ; wait until the 
acts have been read, as vou yourself desired.” 
The letter of Theodosius, convoking the late 
council, was read. The magistrates then or- 
dered that THEODORET should be brought in, 
because Leo had “restored to him his epis- 
copate,’’ and the emperor had ordered him to 
attend the council. He entered accordingly. 
The Egyptians and some other bishops shout- 
ed, ‘‘ Turn out the teacher of Nestorius! ”’ 
Others rejoined, ‘‘ We signed a blank paper ; 
we were beaten, and so made to sign. Turn 
out the enemies of Flavian and of the faith ! ”’ 
““Why,’’ asked Dioscorus, ‘‘ should Cyril be 
ejected ?”’ (1.6. virtually, by the admission of 
Theodoret). His adversaries turned fiercely 
upon him: ‘‘ Turn out Dioscorus the homi- 
cide!’’ Ultimately the magistrates ruled 
that Theodoret should sit down, but in the 
middle of the assembly, and that his admission 
should not prejudice any charge against him 
(tb. 592). The reading went on; at the letter 
giving Dioscorus the presidency, he remarked 
that Juvenal, and Thalassius of Caesarea, were 
associated with him, that the synod had gone 
with him, and that Theodosius had confirmed 
its decrees. Forthwith, a cry arose from the 
bishops whom he had intimidated at Ephesus. 
““ Not one of us signed voluntarily. We were 
overawed by soldiers.’’ Dioscorus coolly said 
that if the bishops had not understood the 
merits of the case, they ought not to have 
signed. The reading was resumed. Flavian 
being named, his friends asked why he had 
been degraded to the fifth place? The next 
interruption was in reference to the sup- 
pression, at the Latrocinium, of Leo’s letter. 
Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, said it 
had not even been ‘‘ received.”’ ‘‘ But,’ said 
Dioscorus, ‘‘ the acts shew that I proposed 
that it should be read. Let others say why it 
was not read.”’ ‘‘ What others?’ ‘‘ Juvenal 
and Thalassius.’”’ Juvenal, on being ques- 
tioned, said, ‘‘ The chief notary told us that 
he had an imperial letter; I answered that it 
ought to come first; no one afterwards said 
that he had in his hands a letter from Leo.” 
Thalassius (evidently a weak man, though 
holding the great see of St. Basil) said that he 
had not power, of himself, to order the reading 
of the letter (Ὁ. 617). At another point the 
“ Orientals,’’ the opponents of Dioscorus, ob- 
jected that the acts of Ephesus misrepresented 
their words. Dioscorus replied, ‘‘ Each bishop 
had his own secretaries . . . taking down the 
speeches.’’ Stephen of Ephesus then narrated 
the violence done to his secretaries: Acacias 
of Arianathia described the coercion scene. 
When the reader came to Dioscorus’s words, 
“1 examine the decrees of the Fathers” 


DIOSCORUS 


(councils), Eusebius said, “‘ See, he said, “1 
examine’; and J do the same.’’ Dioscorus 
caught him up: “I said ‘ examine,’ not ‘ in- 
novate.’ Our Saviour bade us examine the 
Scriptures; that is not innovating.” ‘‘ He 
said, Seek, and ye shall find,’’ retorted Euse- 
bius (1b. 629). One bishop objected to the 
record of ‘‘ Guardian of the faith’’ as an 
acclamation in honour of Dioscorus, ‘‘ No one 
said that.’’ ‘‘ They want to deny all that is 
confessed to be the fact,’’ said Dioscorus ; 
“let them next say they were not there.’’ At 
the words of Eutyches, ‘‘ I have observed the 
definitions of the council,”’ 1.6. the Ephesian 
decree against adding to the Nicene faith, 
Eusebius broke in, ‘‘ He lied! There is no 
such definition, no canon prescribing this.”’ 
‘* There are four copies,’’ said Dioscorus calm- 
ly, ‘‘ which contain it. What bishops have 
defined, is it not a definition? It is not a 
canon: a Canon is a different thing.’’ The 
bp. of Cyzicus referred to the additions made 
in the council of 381 to the original Nicene 
creed (e.g. ‘‘ of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin 
Mary’’). The Egyptians disclaimed all such 
additions. (Cyril, in fact, had never acknow- 
ledged that revised version of the Nicene 
formulary:) There was some further criticism 
of the profession of faith made by Eutyches ; 
whereupon Dioscorus said, ‘‘ If Eutyches has 
any heterodox opinion, he deserves not only 
to be punished, but to be burnt! My only 
object is to preserve the Catholic faith, not 
that of any man. I look to God, and not to 
any individual; I care for nothing but my 
own soul and the right faith ”’ (7b. 633). Basil 
of Seleucia described what had taken place as 
regarded his own statements. “ If you taught 
in such a Catholic tone,”’ said the magistrates, 
“* why did you sign the deposition of Flavian?”’ 
Basil pleaded the compulsory authority of a 
council of bishops. ‘‘ On your own shewing,”’ 
said Dioscorus, ‘‘ you betrayed the faith for 
fear of men.’”? Others who had given way with 
Basil cried, ‘‘ We all sinned; we all ask par- 
don.” ‘‘ But,’ said the magistrates, ‘‘ you 
said at first that you had been forced to sign 
a blank paper.’”’ The ‘“ peccavimus’’ was 
reiterated (7b. 639). When the reader came 
to the failure of Flavian’s attempt to get 
Eusebius a hearing, Dioscorus threw the 
responsibility on Elpidius; so did Juvenal. 
Thalassius only said, ‘‘ It was not my doing.” 
‘* Such a defence,’’ said the magistrates, ‘‘is 
no defence when the faith is concerned.” 
ΚΙ, said Dioscorus, ‘“‘ you blame me for 
obeying Elpidius, were no rules broken when 
Theodoret was brought in?’’ ‘* He came in 
as accuser.’’ ‘‘ Why then does he now sit in 
the rank of a bishop?’”’ ‘‘ He and Eusebius 
sit as accusers,’’ was the answer; ‘‘ and you 
sit as accused”’ (tb. 649). Afterwards the 
magistrates recurred to this topic: ‘* Euse- 
bius, at Constantinople, when accusing Euty- 
ches, himself asked that Eutyches should be 

resent. Why was not a like course taken at 

phesus?’’ No one answered (7b. 656). 
Cyril’s letter to John of Antioch, ‘ Lae- 
tentur coeli,’’ was read as part of the acts of 
Ephesus. Theodoret, by way of clearing 
himself, anathematized the assertion of ‘‘ two 
Sons.” All the bishops—so the acts of Chal- 
cedon say expressly—cried out, ‘‘ We believe 


DIOSCORUS 269 


as did Cyril; we did so believe, and we do. 
Anathema to whoever does not so believe.’’ 
The opponents of Dioscorus then claimed 
Flavian as in fact of one mind with Cyril, 
as clear of Nestorianism. The ‘“ Easterns" 
added, ‘‘ Leo believes so, Anatolius believes 
so.’? There was universal protestation of 
agreement with Cyril, including even the 
magistrates, who answered, as it were, for 
Marcian and Pulcheria. Then came a fierce 
outcry against Dioscorus. ‘‘ Out with the 
murderer of Flavian—the parricide!’’ The 
magistrates asked, ‘‘ Why did you receive to 
communion Eutyches, who holds the opposite 
to this belief? Why condemn Flavian and 
Eusebius who agree with it?” ‘The re- 
cords,’’ answered Dioscorus, ‘‘ will shew the 
truth.’”’ Presently, in regard to some words 
of Eustathius of Berytus, adopting Cyril's 
phrase, ‘‘one incarnate nature,” as Atha- 
nasian, the Easterns cried, ‘‘ Eutyches thinks 
thus, so does Dioscorus.’’ Dioscorus shewed 
that he was careful to disclaim, even with 
anathema, all notions of a ‘‘ confusion, or 
commixture,’”’ of Godhead and manhood in 
Christ. The magistrates asked whether the 
canonical letters of Cyril, recently read (i.e. 
his second letter to Nestorius, Mansi, vi. 660, 
and his letter to John, 7b. 665, not including 
the third letter to Nestorius, to which the 12 
anathemas were annexed) bore out the lan- 
guage as cited from Eustathius. Eustathius 
held up the book from which he had taken 
Cyril’s language. ‘‘ If I spoke amiss, here is 
the manuscript: let τ be anathematized with 
me!’ He repeated Cyril’s letter to Acacius 
by heart, and then explained: ‘‘ One nature ’’ 
did not exclude the flesh of Christ, which was 
co-essential with us; and ‘‘ two natures”’ 
was a heterodox phrase if (1.6. only if) it was 
used for a ‘‘ division”’ of His person. ‘‘ Why 
then did you depose Flavian?”’ ‘I erred’”’ 
(tb. v. 677). Flavian’s own statement, that 
Christ was of two natures after the incarna- 
tion, in one hypostasis and one person, etc., 
was then considered ; several bishops, in turn, 
approved of it, including Paschasinus, Ana- 
tolius, Maximus, Thalassius, Eustathius. The 
Easterns called ‘‘ archbp. Flavian’’ a martyr. 
“* Let his next words be read,’’ said Dioscorus ; 
““you will find that he is inconsistent with 
himself.’”’ Juvenal, who had been sitting on 
the right, now went over to the left, and the 
Easterns welcomed him. Peter of Corinth, 
a young bishop, did the same, owning that 
Flavian held with Cyril; the Easterns ex- 
claimed, ‘‘ Peter thinks as does” (St.) ‘* Peter.”’ 
Other bishops spoke similarly. Dioscorus, 
still undaunted, said, ‘‘ The reason’ why 
Flavian was condemned was plainly this, that 
he asserted two natures after the incarnation. 
I have passages from the Fathers, Athanasius, 
Gregory, Cyril, to the effect that after the 
incarnation there were not two natures, but 
one incarnate nature of the Word. If lam to 
be expelled, the Fathers will be expelled with 
me. Iam defending their doctrine; I do not 
deviate from them at all; I have not got these 
extracts carelessly, I have verified them”? (1b. 
vi. 684; see note in Oxf. ed. of Fleury, vol. 
iii. p. 348). After more reading, he said, “ I 
accept the phrase ‘ of two natures,’ but I do 
not accept ‘two’” (1.6. he would not say, 


270 DIOSCORUS 

“‘Christ has now two natures’). “I am 
obliged to speak boldly (ἀναισχυντεῖν) ; 1 am 
speaking for my own soul.”’ ‘‘ Was Flavian,” 
asked Paschasinus, ‘‘ allowed such freedom of 
speech as this man takes?”’ ‘‘ No,”’ said the 
magistrates significantly; ‘‘but then this 
council is being carried on with justice’’ (2b. 
692). Some time later the Easterns denied 
that the whole council at Ephesus had assented 
to Eutyches’s language; it was the language 
of ‘‘that Pharaoh, Dioscorus the homicide.”’ 
Eustathius, wishing, he said, to promote a good 
understanding, asked whether “‘ two natures ”’ 
meant ‘‘two divided natures.’’ ‘‘ No,’’ said 
Basil, ‘‘ neither divided nor confused ”’ (7b. 
744). Basil afterwards, with Onesiphorus, 
described the coercion used as to the signa- 
tures (ἐδ. 827). The reading went on until it 
was necessary to light the candles (7b. gor). At 
last they came to the signatures; then the 
magistrates proposed that as the deposition 
had been proved unjust, Dioscorus, Juvenal, 
Thalassius, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius, 
and Basil, as leaders in the late synod, should 
be deposed; but this, it appears (7b. 976, 
I041I), was a provisional sentence, to be 
further considered by the council. It was 
received with applause, ‘‘ A just sentence! 
Christ has deposed Dioscorus! God has 
vindicated the martyrs!’’ The magistrates 
desired that each bishop should give in a 
carefully framed statement of belief con- 
formable to the Nicene “ exposition,” to that 
of the 150 Fathers (of Constantinople, in 381), 
to the canonical epistles and expositions of the 
Fathers, Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, 
Ambrose, and Cyril’s two canonical epistles 
published and confirmed in the first Ephesian 
council, adding that Leo had written.a letter 
to Flavian against Eutyches. So ended the 
first session (7b. 935). 

The second session was held Oct. τὸ (2b. 
937) ; Dioscorus was absent. After some dis- 
cussion as to making an exposition of faith, 
which led to the reading of the creed in its two 
forms—both of which were accepted—and of 
Cyril’s ‘‘ two canonical epistles,” and of Leo’s 
letter to Flavian (the Tome), which was 
greeted with ‘“‘ Peter has spoken by Leo; 
Cyril taught thus; Leo and Cyril have taught 
alike,’’ but to parts of which some objection 
was taken by one bishop, and time given for 
consideration, the usual exclamations were 
made, among which we find that of the 
Illyrians, ‘‘ Restore Dioscorus to the synod, to 
the churches! We have all offended, let all 
be forgiven !’’ while the enemies of Dioscorus 
called for his banishment, and the clerics of 
Constantinople said that he who communicat- 
ed with him was a Jew (7b. 976). Inthe third 
session, Sat. Oct. 13, the magistrates not being 
present, a memorial to the council from Euse- 
bius of Dorylaeum, setting forth charges 
against Dioscorus, was read (7b. 985). It then 
appeared that Dioscorus had been summoned, 
like other bishops, to the session, and in- 
timated his willingness to come; but his 
guards prevented him. Two priests, sent to 
search for him, could not find him in the pre- 
cincts ofthe church. Three bishops, sent with 
a notary, found him, and said, ‘‘ The holy 
council begs your Holiness to attend its 
meeting.” ‘‘I am under guard,” said he; 


DIOSCORUS 


“‘T am hindered by the officers”’ (magistriant, 
the subordinates of the ‘‘ master of the offices,”’ 
or ‘‘supreme magistrate of the palace,’ see 
Gibbon, ii. 326); and, after two other sum- 
monses, positively and finally refused to come. 
He had nothing more to say than he had said 
to formerenvoys. They begged him to recon- 
sider it. ‘‘ If your Holiness knows that you 
are falsely accused, the council is not far off ; 
do take the trouble to come and refute the 
falsehood.’ ‘‘ What I have said, I have said ; 
it is enough.’”’ They desisted, and reported 
their failure. ‘‘ Do you order that we proceed 
to ecclesiastical penalties against him?” 
asked Paschasinus, addressing the council. 
““Yes, we agree.’’ One bishop said bittterly, 
““ When he murdered holy Flavian, he did not 
adduce canons, nor proceed by church forms.”’ 
The Roman delegates proposed a sentence, to 
this effect: ‘‘ Dioscorus has received Euty- 
ches, though duly condemned by Flavian, 
into communion. The apostolic see excuses 
those who were coerced by Dioscorus at 
Ephesus, but who are obedient to archbp. 
Leo” (as president) ‘‘ and the council; but 
this man glories in his crime. He prevented 
Leo’s letter to Flavian’”’ (the acts of Ephesus 
say the letter to the council, v. supra) ‘‘ from 
being read. He has presumed to excom- 
municate Leo. He has thrice refused to come 
and answer to charges. Therefore Leo, by us 
and the council, together with St. Peter, the 
rock of the church, deprives him of episcopal 
and sacerdotal dignity’ (7b. 1045). A letter 
was written to Dioscorus, announcing that he 
was deposed for disregarding the canons and 
disobeying the council. Dioscorus at first 
made light of the sentence, and said that he 
should soon be restored ; the council wrote to 
the two emperors, reciting his misdeeds, as 
before, and adding that he had restored the 
heterodox and justly-deposed Eutyches to his 
office, in contempt of Leo’s letter, had done 
injury to Eusebius, and had received to com- 
munion persons lawfully condemned (1b. 1097). 
The deposition of Dioscorus was confirmed by 
the emperor; he was banished to Gangra in 
Paphlagonia, and died there in 454. Pro- 
terius, archpriest of Alexandria, who adhered 
to the council of Chalcedon, was placed in the 
see of St. Mark, but never gained the goodwill 
of his people as a body; {δον regarded Dios- 
corus, though de facto deposed, as their legiti- 
mate patriarch; and his deposition inaugur- 
ated the schism which to this day has divided 
the Christians of Egypt, the majority of whom, 
bearing the name of Jacobites, have always 
disowned the council of Chalcedon, and ven- 
erated Dioscorus as ‘‘ their teacher”’ (Lit. 
Copt. St. Basil), and as a persecuted saint (see 
Neale, Hist. Alex. ii. 6). As to his theological 
position, there is, perhaps, little or nothing in 
his own words which might not be interpreted 
consistently with orthodoxy. Even as to his 
conduct, the charges brought by the Alex- 
andrian petitioners at Chalcedon are too deep- 
ly coloured by passion to command our full 
belief ; and a mere profligate oppressor would 
not have secured so largely the loyalty of 
Alexandrian churchmen. But his public acts 
in 449 exhibit the perversion of considerable 
abilities—of courage, resolution, clear-headed- 
ness—under the temptations of excessive 


DIOSCORUS 


power and the promptings of a tyrannous 
self-will. The brutal treatment of Flavian, 
which he practically sanctioned, in which 
perhaps he personally took part, has made 
his memory specially odious; and his name 
is conspicuous among the “‘ violent men” of 
church history. [{MonopnysiTisM.] [w.B.] 
Dioscorus (4), the eldest of four Nitrian 
monks, Dioscorus, AMMONIUS, Eusebius, and 
Euthymius, known from their stature as the 
“Tall Brethren,’’ who became conspicuous in 
Chrysostom’s early troubles. They were re- 
luctantly induced by Theophilus, patriarch of 
Alexandria, to leave the desert and to submit 
to ordination. Eusebius and Euthymius be- 
came presbyters, and Dioscorus was consecrat- 
ed bp. of Hermopolis. Weary of city life and 
uncongenial duties, and shocked by the avarice 
and other vices of Theophilus, Dioscorus and 
his brethren returned to their solitudes, though 
the indignant patriarch tried to deter them by 
violent menaces (Socr. H. E. viii. 12). As de- 
positaries of dangerous secrets, they had be- 
come formidable to Theophilus, who resolved 
to wreak vengeance upon them. On the pre- 
text of their adherence to the mystic views of 
Origen on the Person of the Deity, and their 
decided opposition to Anthropomorphism, 
which Theophilus had originally shared with 
them, Theophilus had them ejected from their 
monasteries and treated them with the utmost 
contumely and violence when they went to 
Alexandria to appeal (Pallad. p. 54). Having 
procured their condemnation at a packed 
synod at Alexandria, a.p. 401, Theophilus 
personally headed a night attack on their 
monastery, which was burnt and pillaged, and 
Dioscorus himself treated with violence and 
indignity (7b. p. 57). Driven from Egypt, 
the ** Tall Brethren ”’ took refuge in Palestine, 
but later resolved to appeal for protection to 
the emperor and to Chrysostom in person. 
Chrysostom manifested much sympathy, but 
contented himself with writing to Theophilus, 
urging his reconciliation with them. Theo- 
philus’s only reply was an angry remonstrance 
against his harbouring heretics and interfering 
with another see. He sent emissaries to 
Constantinople to denounce the brethren as 
magicians, heretics, and rebels. The monks 
then announced their intention of appealing 
to the secular power for a judicial investiga- 
tion of the charges against them, and demand- 
ed that Theophilus should be summoned to 
answer for his conduct before a council. The 
superstitious reverence of the empress Eudoxia, 
all-powerful with the feeble Arcadius, secured 
them their desire, and Theophilus was ordered 
to appear at Constantinople. This appeal to 
the civil authority displeased Chrysostom, 
who declined to interfere further in the con- 
troversy. For the manner in which Theophilus 
turned the tables on Chrysostom, becoming 
the accuser instead of the accused, and secur- 
ing his deposition, see CHurysostom; THEO- 
PHILUS (8). His main object having been 
accomplished in the overthrow of his great 
rival, Theophilus now made no difficulty about 
reconciliation with the Nitrian monks, whom 
he publicly restored to communion on their 
simplepetition. Dioscorusand Ammonius had, 
however, died not long before. Soer. ἢ. FE. vi. 
16; Soz. H. E. viii. 17; Pallad. p.157. [k.v.] 


DOCETISM 271 


Docetism, the very early heresy that our 
blessed Lord had a body like ours, only in 
appearance, not inreality. St. Jerome scarce- 
ly exaggerates when he says (adv. Lucif. 23) : 
“ While the apostles were still surviving, while 
Christ’s blood was still fresh in Judea, the 
Lord’s body was asserted to be but a phan- 
tasm.”” Apart from N.T. passages, e.g. Eph. 
il. 9, Heb. ii. 14, which confute this assertion, 
but do not bear clear marks of having been 
written with a controversial purpose, it ap- 
pears from I. John iv. 2, II. John 7, that when 
these epistles were written there were teachers, 
stigmatised by the writer as prompted by the 
spirit of Antichrist, who denied that Jesus 
Christ had come in the flesh, a form of expres- 
sion implying a Docetic theory. Those who 
held that evil resulted from the inherent fault 
of matter found it impossible to believe that 
the Saviour could be Himself under the do- 
minion of that evil from which He came to 
deliver men, and they therefore rejected the 
Church’s doctrine of a real union of the divine 
and human natures in the person of our Lord, 
but our Lord’s pre-existence and superhuman 
nature was regarded as so essential a part of 
Christianity that with two exceptions, or per- 
haps even only one (1.6. JUSTINUS and perhaps 
CARPOCRATES), all the sects known as Gnostic 
ascribed to the Saviour a superhuman nature, 
some however separating the personality of 
that nature from His human personality, others 
reducing our Lord’s earthly part to mere 
appearance. It is even doubtful whether we 
are not to understand in a technical sense the 
statement that he taught that ‘‘ power”’ from 
the Father had descended on our Lord; that 
is to say, whether it was not his doctrine that 
one of the heavenly powers had united itself 
to the man Jesus. Teaching of this kind is 
unequivocally attributed to CERINTHUS, whose 
other doctrines, as reported by Irenaeus, have 
great resemblance to those of Carpocrates. It 
is in opposition to the theory which makes our 
Loerd’s claim to be Christ date, not from his 
birth, but from some later period, that Iren- 
aeus (111. 16) uses the argument, shewing his 
belief in the inspiration of the gospels, that 
Matthew might have said, “ the birth of Jesus 
was in this wise,’ but that the Holy Spirit, 
foresecing and guarding against the deprava- 
tion of the truth, said by Matthew “ the birth 
of Christ was on this wise.’”’ Baur (Christliche 
Gnosis, p. 258) makes Docetism common to all 
the Gnostics, holding that the theory which 
has just been described is in a certain sense 
Docetic ; inasmuch as while holding Jesus to 
be a real man, visibly active in the work of 
redemption, it teaches that this is but decep- 
tive appearance, the work being actually per- 
formed by a distinct personality, Christ. But 
it is more usual and more natural to use the 
word Docetism only with reference to those 
other theories which refuse to acknowledge 
the true manhood of the Redeemer. For ex- 
ample, we are told (Iren. i. 23) that, according 
to the system of Simon, the Redeemer (who, 
however, is not Jesus,* but Simon himself) 


* Perhaps it is not correct to say ‘‘ not Jesus,”’ for 
Simon held a theory of the transmigration of souls, 
and may have claimed to be identical with Jesus. If 
this were so, however, he must have been later than 
the Simon of the Acts, 


272 DOCETISM 


“had appeared among men as man, though 
he was not a man, and was thought to have 
suffered in Judea, though he did nct suffer.”’ 
According to the system of SATURNINUS (Iren. 
i. 24), the Saviour was without birth, without 
body, and without figure, and appeared a man 
in phantasm, not in truth. According to 
BASILIDES, as reported by Irenaeus (i. 24), 
Christ or Nous is not distinguished from Jesus, 
but is said to be an incorporeal power, who 
transfigured Himself as He willed; that He 
appeared on earth as man and worked mir- 
acles, but that He did not suffer; that it was 
Simon of Cyrene, who, being transfigured into 
the form of Jesus, was crucified, while Jesus 
Himself, in the form of Simon standing by, 
laughed at His persecutors, and then, incapable 
of being held by them, ascended up to Him 
Who hadsent Him, invisible tothemall. The 
Docetism here described is strenuously com- 
bated in the Ignatian Epistles in their Greek 
form, esp. in ad Trail. 9, 10, and ad Smyrn. 2. 
In these the writer emphasises the statements 
that our Lord was truly born, did eat and 
drink, was truly persecuted under Pontius 
Pilate, was truly crucified, and truly rose from 
the dead ; and he expressly declares that these 
statements were made in contradiction of the 
doctrine of certain unbelievers, or rafher 
atheists, who asserted His sufferings to be but 
seeming. This polemic is absent from the 
Syriac Ignatius, and an argument has hence 
been derived against the genuineness of the 
Greek form. But in order to make the argu- 
ment valid, there ought to be proof that the 
rise of Docetism was probably later than the 
age of Ignatius, whereas the probability seems 
to be quite the other way. Saturninus holds 
such a place in all heretical lists, that he must 
be referred to the very beginning of the 2nd 
cent., and, as he taught in Antioch, may very 
possibly have been encountered by Ignatius. 
Polycarp also (Ep. 7) uses the words of I. John 
iv. 3 in such a way as to shew that Docetism 
was in his time troublesome. 

In the forms of Docetism thus far described 
there is no evidence that there was involved 
any more subtle theory than that the senses 
of the spectators of our Lord’s earthly life 
were deceived. The Docetism of VALENTINUS 
was exhibited in a more artificial theory, which 
is fully set forth in our art. s.v. It appears 
that Valentinus was only partly docetic. He 
conceded to Jesus the possession of a real body 
capable of really affecting the senses, but held 
that that body was made of a different sub- 
stance from ours and was peculiar as regards 
its sustenance by earthly nutrimeni (Letter to 
Agathopus, ap. Clem. Alex. Stvom. iil. 7, 451). 
Irenaeus, however (v. I, 2, and more fully iii. 
22), insists that the Valentinian doctrine did 
not practically differ from pure Docetism ; for 
that if our Lord had not taken substance of 
flesh in the womb of the Virgin He could nct 
have been the real man Who suffered hunger 
and thirst and weariness, Who wept at the 
grave of Lazarus, Who sweat drops of blood, 
from Whose wounded side came forth blood 
and water. 

The Docetism of Marcon differed from that 
of preceding Gnostics. With them the great 
stumbling-block had been the sufferings of 
Christ, and accordingly it is the reality of 


DOCETISM 


Christ’s passion and death that their antagon- 
ists sought to establish. Marcion, on the 
contrary, was quite willing to acknowledge 
the proof of our Lord’s love exhibited in His 
sufferings and death, but it was repulsive to 
him to own His human birth, which according 
to his view would have made our Lord the 
debtor and the subject of the Creator of the 
world. Accordingly, while Basilides had ad- 
mitted a real birth of the man Jesus, Valen- 
tinus at least a seeming birth in which the 
body elsewhere prepared was ushered into the 
world, Marcion would own no birth at all, and 
began his gospel with the sudden announce- 
ment that in the 15th year of Tiberius Christ * 
came down (by which we are to understand 
came down from heaven) to Capernaum, a city 
of Galilee (Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 7). Marcion’s 
disciple Apelles so far modified his master’s 
doctrine that he was willing to own that Jesus 
had a solid body, but denied that there had 
been a birth in which He had assumed it (Tert. 
de C. C. 6); and he held that of this body our 
Lord made only a temporary use, and that 
when He had shewn it to His disciples after His 
resurrection He gave it back to the elements 
from which He had received it (Hipp. Ref. vii. 
38, 260). Something of this kind seems to 
have been also the view of the sect known as 
Docetae. 

The fourth book of the dialogue against the 
Marcionites (Origen, i. 853) contains a polemic 
against Docetism which is represented as de- 
fended by Marinus the disciple of Bardesanes, 
who adopts the Valentinian notion that our 
Lord had come διὰ Μαρίας, not ἐκ Mapias, 
and who maintains that His earthly body was 
only such as the angels had temporarily as- 
sumed who ate and drank with Abraham. 
One argument on the orthodox side is used by 
several Fathers, and the form of words in 
which each has expressed himself has been 
much discussed in modern controversy. It 
occurs here in the form ‘‘ If Christ were with- 
out flesh and blood, of what sort of flesh and 
blood are the bread and wine, the images 
(εἰκόνας) With which He commanded that the 
memorial of Him should be made ?”’ (cf. Ign. 
ad. Smyrn. 7 ; Iren.iv. 18, v. 2; Tert. adv. Mar- 
cton.iv. 40). Of later heretics, the most con- 
siderable who maintained a Docetic theory 
are the Manicheans. In the controversy with 
them the orthodox had exactly thesame points 
to establish as in the controversy with Mar- 
cion, viz. that Christ had come into the world, 
not merely as sent by the Father, but as really 
born of the Virgin; that He was truly incar- 
nate, and did not assume the form of a body 
merely as did the angels whose appearances 
have been recorded; that He was circumcised, 
baptized, tempted; that His death was a real 
one, as was necessary in order that His resur- 
rection also should be real (see in particular 
the disputation between Augustine and 
Faustus). With regard to the disputes in the 
6th cent. concerning our Lord’s body, see 
JuLianus (47) of Halicarnassus, and D. C. B. 
(4-vol. ed.) under CoRRUPTICOLAE and PHAN- 
TASIASTAE. It is well known that Mahommed 

* There is a well-recommended various reading, 
‘© Deum ”’ instead of ‘‘ eum ᾿᾿ ; but Epiphanius (Haer. 
42, Ῥ. 312) would scarcely have passed this over in 
silence had he found it in his Marcion, 


Ἃ 


DOMITIANUS 


also adopted the Docetic account of our Lord’s 
crucifixion. 

Besides formal heresies which have been 
tainted with Docetism, the same imputation 
has been cast on more than one of the Fathers. 
It is very strongly brought by Photius (B20l. 
109) agalust the hypotyposes of CLEMENT OF 
ALEXANDRIA. This book has not survived, 
but there is no doubt from his extant writings 
that Clement ascribed to our Lord a real boay. 
In a fragment probably from the lost Hypo- 
typoses preserved in a Latin trans. (p. 1009), 
he quotes irom ‘‘ the traditions’’ that when 
St. John handled the body of our Lord the 
flesh offered no resistance, but yielded place 
to the disciple’s hand. Kedepenning’s con- 
clusion (Ovigenes, ii. 391) is that Clement’s 
doctrine deviated from that subsequently 
recognised as orthodox, not in respect of our 
Lord’s body, the reality of which he acknow- 
ledged, but in holding that His body was 
directly united to the Divine Logos without the 
intervention of a human soul capable of feeling 
pain or suflering. Redepenning (ἰ.6.) also 
discusses how far ORIGEN is chargeable with 
Docetism, on which also consult Huet’s 
Origeniana, ii. Qu. 111. 10, 11. 

The traditions referred to by Clement have 
been identified with the contents of a work of 
Leucius Charinus, purporting to relate travels 
of the apostles, of which an account is given 
by Photius (Βιδὶ. 114), and from which ex- 
tracts are also quoted in the Acts of the second 
council of Nicaea (Actio v.). In this work, 
which Grabe seems to have correctly regarded 
as Marcionite, it was taught that the Son was 
not man, but only seemed to be so; that He 
shewed Himself to His disciples sometimes 
young, sometimes old; sometimes a child, 
sometimes an old man; sometimes great, 
sometimes small; sometimes so great as to 
touch the heavens with His head; that His 
footsteps left no trace; and that He was not 
really crucified, but, according to Photius, 
another person in His place. The account 
given in the Nicene extracts of a vision seen 
by St. John on the mount of Olives, at the 
time of the crucifixion, teaches that the form 
crucified was not really our Lord, but does 
not suggest that it was any other person. [6.5.] 

Domitianus (1), a.p. 81-96. This emperor, 
though placed by Lactantius (de Mort. Perse- 
cut. Cc. 3) and others among the persecutors of 
the church, can hardly be considered as having 
made any systematic effort to crush Christi- 
anity assuch. Through the greater part of the 
empire the Christians seem to have been un- 
molested. The traces of persecution, such as 
they are, seem rather to belong to his general 
policy of suspicion and cruelty. Indirectly 
they are of interest in shewing how the new 
religion was attracting notice and spreading. 

(1) Vespasian, before his death, had given 
orders (Eus. H. E. iii. 12) that inquiry should 
be made for all who claimed to be descendants 
of the house of David, seeking thus to cut off 
all who might incite the J ews to a fresh revolt. 
The fears of Domitian led him to continue the 


_ Search, and Hegesippus (in Eus. H. E. iii. 19, 


20) records one striking incident connected 
With it. The grandchildren of Judas, the 


brother of the Lord, were taken to Rome 
7. 


and brought into the emperor’s presence. 


DOMITIANUS 273 


They acknowledged that they were of the 
kingly line, but stated that the only kingdom 
they looked for was one spiritual and angelic, 
to be manifested at the end of the world. The 
emperor, Hegesippus tells us, thought them 
beneath his notice, released them, and allowed 
them to go back to Judea, and put a stop to 
the persecution against the church which he had 
begun. ‘This persecution was probably the in- 
quiry itself. 16} udeantollowers ot the Christ, 
whom they habitually spoke οἱ as the seed of 
David, would inevitably be suspected ot being 
likely to appeal to the hopes ot the conquered 
population. 

(2) Towards the close of Domitian’s reign a 
domestic tragedy occurred which there is good 
reason for connecting with the progress of 
Christianity. The emperor had a cousin 
named Flavius Clemens, whom at one time he 
held in high favour. He gave him his niece 
Flavia Domitilla in marriage, changed the 
names of his sons to Vespasian and Domitian 
and designated them as heirs to the empire, 
and nominated Clemens as his colleague in the 
consulship. Suddenly, almost within the year 
of his consulship, he put Clemens to death, 
banished his wite to Pandataria, and his 
daughter (or niece), who was also called Domi- 
tilla, to Pontia. skevenge tor these acts had 
apparently no small share in the emperor’s 
assassination. One of the most prominent 
conspirators concerned was Stephanus, an 
agent and freedman of the banished widow ot 
Clemens. ‘Thus the story is told by Suetonius 
(Domit. cc. 15, 17). it remains to see on 
what grounds church writers like Eusebius 
(H. E. iii. 18) claim the three members of the 
Flavian house as among the first illustrious 
martyrs of royal rank. (i) Flavius Clemens 
is described by Suetonius (/.c.) as ** contemp- 
tissimae inertiae.’’ . A Christian would natur- 
ally be so described by men of his own rank 
and by the outer world, just as Tertullian 
complains that the Christians of his time were 
stigmatized, when other charges failed, as 
‘‘infructuosi negotiis’’ (Apol. c. 42). (11) 
The specific charge against Clemens and the 
two Domitillae is reported by Dio Cassius 
(xvii. 14) and Xiphilinus (p. 706) to have been 
atheism. ‘he same accusation, the latter 
adds, was brought against many others who 
shewed a bias towards Jewish customs. This 
again agrees with the general feeling of the 
Roman world towards the Christians at a later 
period, and may be regarded as the first in- 
stance of that feeling. (ili) Later tradition 
confirms these inferences. Jerome tells us 
(Ep. 27) how Paula visited Pontia on her way 
to Jerusalem, as already an object of rever- 
ence, and saw the three cells in which Domi- 
tilla and her two eunuchs Achilleus and Ne- 
reus had lived during their exile. They were 
said to have returned to Rome and suffered 
martyrdom under Trajan. A church on the 
Coelian Hill at Rome dedicated to S. Clement, 
in which a tablet was discovered in 1725 to the 
memory of Flavius Clemens, martyr, and de- 
scribed by Cardinal Albiani (7. Flavia Clemen- 
tis Viri Consularis et Martyris Tumulus Jllus- 
tratus, 1727), seems therefore to have com- 
memorated the consul and not the writer of 
that name. The name of Clement of Alex- 
andria, Titus Flavius Clemens, may be τὸν 


18 


274 DOMITILLA FLAVIA 


garded as an indication of the honour in which 
the martyr’s memory was held. On the whole, 
everything seems to indicate that the received 
tradition is true, and that the Christian church 
was almost on the point, even before the close 
of the 1st cent., of furnishing a successor to 
the imperial throne. 

(3) With the reign of Domitian is also con- 
nected the legend of St. John’s presence at 
Rome, and of his being thrown, before the 
Porta Latina, at the command of the emperor, 
into a cauldron of boiling oil, and then ban- 
ished to Patmos. Tertullian (de Praescript. 
c. 36) is the first writer who mentions it. The 
apostle, as the chosen friend of the Son of 
David, may have been pointed out by the 
delatores of Ephesus as the descendants of 
Judas were in Judea. Tertullian, in speaking 
elsewhere (A pol. c. 5) of Domitian’s conduct 
towards the church, describes him as only 
attempting a persecution, and then, thinking 
better of it, recalling those whom he had 
condemned to exile. In other accounts (Eus. 
H. E. iii. 20) the decree of recall was connected 
with the accession of Nerva. [E.H.P.] 

Domitilla Flavia. [DomitraNnus (1).] 

Domnus I. (2), bp. of Antioch, appointed 
A.D. 269 on the deposition of Paul of Samosata, 
by the sole authority of the council, without 
any reference to the clergy and people, the 
bishops evidently fearing they might re-elect 
Paul (Eus. H. Ε. vii. 30). Paul, relying on 
the support of Zenobia, retained for two years 
the episcopal residence and its church. The 
orthodox section appealed to Aurelian after 
he had conquered Zenobia and taken Antioch, 
A.D. 272. The emperor decided that the right 
of occupation should belong to the party in 
communion with the bishops of Italy and the 
see of Rome. This decision was enforced by 
the civil power, and Paul was compelled to 
leave the palace in disgrace (Eus. w.s.). 
Domnus died a.p. 274, and was succeeded by 
Timaeus (Till. Mém. eccl. t. iv. p. 302; 
Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 193, Clark’s trans. ; 
Neale, Patr. of Antioch, pp. 52-57). [E.v-] 

Domnus II. (4), bp. of Antioch, a friend of 
Theodoret. He was nephew of John, bp. of 
Antioch, brought up under Euthymius the 
famous anchoret of Palestine. He was ordained 
deacon by Juvenal of Jerusalem on his visit 
to the Laura of Euthymus in a.p. 429. Two 
years afterwards, learning that his uncle the 
bp. of Antioch had become entangled in the 
Nestorian heresy, he besought Euthymius to 
allow him to go and extricate him. Euthy- 
mius counselled him to remain where he was, 
telling him that God could take care of his 
uncle without him; that solitude was safer 
for him than the world; that his design would 
not turn out to his ultimate advantage; that 
he might not improbably succeed to his uncle’s 
dignity, but would become the victim of clever 
and unprincipled men, who would avail them- 
selves of his simplicity, and then accomplish 
his ruin; but the old man’s counsels were 
thrown away. Domnus left the Laura with- 
out even saying farewell to Euthymius (Vita 
S. Euthymit, cc. 42, 56, 57). He obtained 
such popularity at Antioch that on the death 
of his uncle, a.p. 441, he was appointed his 
successor, and at once ranked as the chief 
bishop of the Eastern world. In 445 he sum- 


DONATUS and DONATISM 


moned a synod of Syrian bishops which con- 
firmed the deposition of Athanasius of Perrha. 
In 447 he consecrated Irenaeus to the see of 
Tyre (Theod. Ep. 110; Labbe, Concil. t. iii. 
col. 1275); but Theodosius II., having com- 
manded that the appointment should be 
annulled, Irenaeus being both a digamus and 
a favourer of the Nestorian heresy, Domnus, 
despite Theodoret’s remonstrances, yielded to 
the imperial will (Theod. u.s.; Ep. 80). Ibas, 
bp. of Edessa, being charged with promulgating 
Nestorian doctrines (Labbe, ἐδ. t. iv. col. 658), 
Domnus summoned a council at Antioch (a.pD. 
448), which decided in favour of Ibas and 
deposed his accusers (7b. 639 seq.). Domnus’s 
sentence, though revoked by Flavian, bp. 
of Constantinople, was confirmed by three 
episcopal commissioners to whom he and 
the emperor Theodosius had committed the 
matter. Domnus was one of the earliest im- 
peachers of the orthodoxy of Eutyches, in 
a synodical letter to Theodosius, c. 447 
(Facundus, viii. 5 ; xii. 5). At the Latrocinium, 
held at Ephesus, Aug. 8, 449, on this matter, 
Domnus, in virtue of animperial rescript, found 
himself deprived of his presidential seat, which 
was occupied by Dioscorus, while precedence 
over the patriarch of Antioch was given to 
Juvenal of Jerusalem (Labbe, 7b. 115, p. 251). 
Cowed by the dictatorial spirit of Dioscorus, 
and unnerved by the violence of Barsumas and 
his monks, Domnus revoked his former con- 
demnation of Eutyches, and voted for his 
restoration (7b. col. 258) and for the con- 
demnation of Flavian (δ. col. 306). Domnus 
was, nevertheless, deposed and banished by 
Dioscorus. The charges against him were, 
approval of a Nestorian sermon preached 
before him at Antioch by Theodoret on the 
death of Cyril (Mercator, t. i. p. 276), and 
some expressions in letters written by him to 
Dioscorus condemning the perplexed and 
obscure character of Cyril’s anathemas 
(Liberatus, c. 11, p. 74). He was the only 
bishop then deposed and banished who was 
not reinstated after the council of Chalcedon. 
At that council Maximus, his successor in the 
see of Antioch, obtained permission to assign 
Domnus a pension from the revenues of the 
church (Labbe, 7b. col. 681 ; append. col. 770). 
Finally, on his recall from exile Domnus re- 
turned to the monastic home of his youth, and 
ended his days in the Laura of St. Euthymius, 
where in 452, according to Theophanes, he 
afforded arefuge to Juvenal of Jerusalem when 
driven from his see (Theoph. p. 92). [E.v.] 

Donatus and Donatism. The Donatists 
were the first Christians who separated from 
the church on the ground of discipline, though 
the church had already been torn by heresies, 
such as Gnosticism and Manicheism, which 
had affected doctrines. It is important to 
remember that Donatism was not heresy, as 
the word is ordinarily understood. All here- 
tics are, in one sense, schismatics, but all 
schismatics are not heretics; and the Dona- 
tists themselves protested, with justice, 
against being considered heretics. 

Mensurius was bp. of Carthage during and 
after Diocletian’s persecution (A.D. 303). 
Having been required by consul Anulinus to 
give up any copies of Holy Scripture in his 
possession, he had hid them, and passed off 


DONATUS and DONATISM 


heretical works in their stead. The consul, 
learning the ‘‘ pious fraud,” declined to take 
further action. Mensurius felt it his duty to 
check the growing and inordinate reverence 
for martyrdom. He saw that there were too 
many would-be martyrs whose character 
would not bear close scrutiny, and, together 
with his archdeacon Caecilian, did his best to 
discountenance the reverence of good but 
mistaken Christians for these undeserving 
men. This naturally brought him into odium 
with those to whom martyrdom was the be- 
coming conclusion of the Christian life. 

During his lifetime the storm was brewing, 
and it fairly broke out when Caecilian suc- 
ceeded him (A.D. 311). That appointment 
was felt to be a blow to all who magnified 
martyrdom. His opponents rested their 
principal objection on the fact that he had 
been ordained by a traditor, Felix of Aptunga ; 
and proceeded to elect Majorinus as successor 
to Mensurius. The charge was a strange one 
to be made by Caecilian’s chief opponent, 
Srecunpbus, bp. of Tigisis, for documents exist 
which prove Secundus himself a traditor, in 
spite of his boast to Mensurius. From that 
date Donatism, as it was afterwards called, 
had a separate and schismatical existence. 
Both sides appealed to Constantine, and the 
emperor at once subjected the alleged traditor- 
ship of Felix to a thorough examination by a 
council at Rome (A.p. 313), which decided in 
favour of Felix, cleared his character, and 
consequently declared the ordination of Cae- 
cilian valid. The subject was again exhaus- 
tively discussed before the consul Aelianus, 
who, at the bidding of Constantine, gave the 
Donatists another opportunity (A.D. 314), at 
Carthage, of proving their charge against 
Felix. The finding of the tribunal was un- 
animous: ‘‘ Nemo in eum (Felicem) aliquid 
probare potuerit quod religiosissimas scrip- 
turas tradiderit vel exusserit.”’ 

Bp. Majorinus died a.p. 315, but had been 
a leader of little consequence. His followers 
had called themselves, for convenience’ sake, 
the party of Majorinus; but after his death, 
if not before, they took the name—Donatists 
—by which they are best known. There were 
perhaps 2 bishops named Donatus; (1) of 
Casae Nigrae, who, before Caecilian’s eleva- 
tion, had shewn his schismatical tendencies ; 
(2) the successor of Majorinus and surnamed 
“the Great.’’ But this distinction has lately 
been questioned ; see Sparrow Simpson, St. 
Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), Ρ. 31; 
Monceaux, Revue del’ Hist. de Religion (1909). 

In Donatus the Great personal hostility to 
Mensurius and Caecilian, and _ irritation 
against the decisions of Rome and Arles 
(CarciLian], of Aelianus and Constantine, led 
to adefiant attitude against both Church and 
State. The dissentients to Caecilian had, 
consistently enough, refused to his church the 
title of the Church of God, and appropriated 
that distinction to themselves. The Caecil- 
ianist clergy were condemned for their league 
with a traditor and their acts repudiated as 
invalid ; hence those who followed Majorinus 
were rebaptized. But Constantine’s edict 
(A.D. 316) took away from them their churches, 
and the heavy hand of Ursacius deprived them 
oftheirlives. Thesectarians found in Donatus 


DONATUS and DONATISM 275 


a man bold enough to denounce the imperial 
power and to infuse vigour into their strife 
against the Caecilianists. He was neither 
“the angel ’’ his followers called him nor “‘ the 
fiend ’’ his opponents described him. He was 
a man of unquestionable ability, eloquence, 
and thoroughness—the Cyprian of his party, 
as St. Augustine called him; but also hard 
and unloving to foe, proud and overbearing 
to friend. Optatus and St. Augustine were 
justified in comparing with the proud “ prince 
of Tyre ’’ (Ezek. xxviii. 2) the man who in his 
lifetime permitted his followers to swear by 
his name and by his grey hairs, and could ask 
of the menial bishops, ‘‘ What do you say to 
my party ?’’ and who, after his death, was 
described by Donatists at the conference of 
Carthage as the miracle-worker, ‘‘ the pride 
of the church of Carthage, the man with the 
reputation of a martyr.”’ 

When the soldiers of Ursacius appeared in 
N. Africa, Donatus was ready to resist them, 
and his courage infected the timid people and 
prelates. His name became the rallying-point 
for every man who had real or imaginary 
grievances against existing ecclesiastical, civil, 
and social powers, amongst others the Circum- 
cellions. ‘‘ They were a class of men,’’ says 
St. Augustine, ‘‘ who followed no kind of 
useful occupation, held their own lives in 
fanatical contempt, and thought no death too 
cruel for those who differed from them; they 
wandered about from place to place, chiefly in 
the country districts, and haunted the cells 
of the peasants for the purpose of obtaining 
food. Hence they were called ‘ Cireumcel- 
liones.’’? The better class of Donatists 
turned away in horror from fanatics who 
imbrued their hands with the blood of the 
innocent as well as of the guilty ; but the offer 
of partisanship having been once accepted, it 
was impossible to withdraw it altogether. 
Donatus, Parmenian, Petilian, and Cresconius 
in turn were forced to palliate as much as they 
could the actions of these allies, who preferred 
to be called Agonistici, Champions of Christ, 
and who rushed into the battle with ‘* Deo 
laudes”’ as their war-cry, and with a weapon 
dubbed “ Israelite’”’ as their war-club. 

Constantine soon found that Donatism was 
not to be put down by the sword. In A.D. 317 
Ursacius was bidden hold his hand, and Cae- 
cilian was exhorted to treat his opponents 
kindly, and leave vengeance to God. The 
emperor’s letter was a mixture of truth and 
sarcasm: ‘‘ All schisms,” he wrote, ‘‘ are from 
the devil ; and these Separatists proceed from 
him. What good can you expect from those 
who are the adversaries of God and the enemies 
of the holy church? Such men must split off 
from the church, and attach themselves to the 
devil. Surely we act most wisely, if we leave 
to them what they have wrenched from us. 
By patience and kindness we may hope to gain 
them. Let us leave vengeance to God. I re- 
joice to think that you meet their brutality 
with gentleness and good temper. As I under- 
stand that these men have destroyed a church 
in Constantinople, I have ordered my finance- 
minister to build you a new one. God grant 
that these mistaken Separatists may at last 
see their error and turn to the one true God !"’ 
It was not a letter calculated to soothe the 


10 DONATUS and DONATISM 


Donatists. They presently replied to the 
emperor that he must distinctly understand 
that they would have nothing to do with his 
“* fool of a bishop ”’ (1.6. Caecilian), and that he 
might do his worst. With this mutual con- 
tempt and recrimination matters ended for 
the time. Constantine during the remainder 
of his life ignored the Donatists; but they 
increased largely in numbers in their own 
districts—in A.D. 330 they held a synod at- 
tended by 270 bishops—and established a few 
insignificant stations elsewhere. 

Constans, son of Constantine, succeeded to 
his father’s N. African possessions; and, at 
first, endeavoured to conciliate the Donatists 
by kindness. He published (A.D. 340) an 
edict requiring the Donatists to return to the 
church, urging that ‘‘ unity must now exist, 
because Christ was a lover of unity,” and in- 
structed his commissioners Ursacius (probably 
not the Ursacius already mentioned) and 
Leontius to distribute money, as alms, in 
Donatist as well asin Catholic churches. The 
Donatists spurned it as gold offered by the 
devil to seduce men from their faith. The 
sword of persecution was then unsheathed to 
deprive the Donatists of their churches; and 
the survivors regarded the victims as martyrs 
and their graves as platforms for preaching 
resistance. In a.p. 345 Gregorius travelled 
through the province, offeringnot onlyalms but 
valuable church plate toall who would accept 
the imperial invitation to submit. Donatus 
sent circular letters through all the provinces, 
forbidding the acceptance of any presents; 
and wrote to Gregorius in a scurrilous style. 
In A.D. 347 a third commission, composed of 
Paul, Macarius, and Taurinus, came to Donatus 
himself, with gold in their hands. The bishop 
listened impatiently, and at length broke out, 
“What has the emperor to do with the 
church?’? They were words which meant 
much at the time, but have meant more since. 

The language of Donatus was repeated from 
every Donatistic pulpit by preachers pro- 
claiming the duty of separation from a church 
“which committed fornication with the 
princes of this world,’”’ and whose prelates were 
mere tools of an emperor. Such obloquy 
served to madden the fanatics, even though 
it brought upon them furious persecution. 
The Circumcellions rose, and frightful blood- 
shed followed. These ‘‘ Christian champions”’ 
traversed the country, subverting everything. 
Slaves and debtors were deemed brothers ; 
masters and creditors tyrants. The excesses 
of the Circumcellions were so great that 
Donatus and his brother-bishops were forced 
to appeal to Taurinus to check them. The 
Circumcellions kissed the hands which be- 
trayed them, and turned their fury upon 
themselves. They longed for martyrdom. 
They invaded pagan temples that death might 
be found from the sword of some infuriated 
idolator ; they entered courts of justice and 
frightened judges ordered their instant exe- 
cution ; travellers were stopped and threat- 
ened with instant death if they did not slay 
the suppliants. Days, hours, and places were 
named that an admiring crowd might witness 
them cast themselves headlong from some rock 
into the graves which their posterity would 
reverence as those of the martyrs. Mac- 


DONATUS and DONATISM 


arius did not discriminate between moderate 
Donatist and extreme Circumcellionist. With 
an iron hand he crushed both. Donatus was 
banished, and died in exile. The church 
was triumphant. Optatus saluted Constans 
as the servant of God who had been privileged 
to restore unity; but many regretted that 
unity had been won at such a price. When 
Donatists afterwards called Christians ‘‘ Mac- 
arians,’’ in scornful allusion to the persecutor 
of their sect, St. Augustine replied: ‘ Yes, 
we are Macarians, for that name means 
‘blessed,’ and who is more blessed than Christ 
to Whom we belong ?’’ but it was natural to 
him and worthy of him to add, ‘‘ Don’t let us 
call one another names. Don’t cast at me 
the times of Macarius, and I won’t remind you 
of the madness of the Circumcellions. Let 
us, as far as possible, work together, because 
we are all orphans.”’ 

It was probably soon after the cessation of 
the persecution that Gratus, Caecilian’s suc- 
cessor, summoned a synod at Carthage, which 
established (x) the non-iteration of baptism, 
when duly administered in the name of the 
Trinity; (2) the necessary restrictions on 
reverence for martyrs, and on the assignment 
of that title. 

In a.D. 361 Julian became emperor. His 
edict “‘recalled all the bishops and clergy 
banished in the reign of Constantius, and 
granted equal freedom to all parties of the 
Christian church.’’ The Donatists were not 
included in this. Two of their bishops, 
Rogatian and Pontus, waited on the emperor ; 
and left with full permission to return to 
their country. The return was marked by 
violence and murder. The Donatists treated 
the churches as places which had been pro- 
faned, washed the walls and altars, tore the 
vestments to pieces, threw the holy vessels 
outside and the sacred elements to the dogs. 
Then they reintroduced their rigorous dis- 
cipline. Apostates were received only after 
most humiliating penance, laymen were re- 
baptized, and clerics reordained. For two 
years Donatism was in the ascendant and 
basked in the imperial sunshine. But the 
cry which went up from the dying Julian’s 
lips (A.D. 363), ‘‘ Galilean, Thou hast con- 
quered,”’ was also the cry which told the 
Donatist that his day of triumph had ended. 

Donatus had been succeeded by Parmenian, 
perhaps the ablest and least prejudiced of the 
Donatist episcopacy. A foreigner by birth, 
and actually ignorant of many of the saddest 
and cruellest episodes of Donatist history, he 
entered upon his duties at Carthage free from 
the passionate views which marked so many 
of his followers, and disposed to rate lightly 
much that to them was of great importance. 
His literary merit was great and excited the 
admiration of Optatus, bp. of Milevi, and of St. 
Augustine, each of whom has left a statement 
of the current Donatist opinions. The theo- 
logical disputations between Optatus and 
Parmenian are preserved in the great work of 
the former, and evidently Parmenian’s opin- 
ions are honestly given. Optatus was a man 
of unquestioned piety, dialectical skill, and 
orthodoxy; perfectly indifferent to Circum- 
cellion threats, bribery, or corruption ; earn- 
estly desirous for unity, if it could be obtained 


DONATUS and DONATISM 


without sacrifice of principle; and he sought 
as much common ground as possible, before 
stating unhesitatingly where he and _ his 
opponent must part. If the usual tone of 
kindliness and courtesy is occasionally for- 
gotten, if the title ‘“‘ brother’? given to Par- 
menian is replaced by ‘ Antichrist’? when 
Donatus is mentioned, if cool, argumentative 
reasoning is sometimes dropped for defiant 
passionate utterance, the difference is intel- 
ligible in a character so full of both charity 
and zeal that St. Augustine called him ‘‘a 
second Ambrose of Milan.” 

There were two points about which, theor- 
etically, both men were agreed : (1) That there 
was only one church; and (2) that in that 
one church there was only one baptism, and 
this not to be repeated. But disagreement 
soon began. ‘‘ A church,”’ said the Donatist, 
“in which traditors both existed and dis- 
pensed the sacraments was no church, and 
baptism administered, by traditors was no 
baptism.’’ Where, then, was the pure church? 
with the Catholic or Donatist ? How far was 
the validity of the sacraments dependent upon 
the purity of the church and the personal char- 
acter of those who dispensed them? These 
were old questions, but discussed between 
Optatus and Parmenian as they had never 
been before. [Opratus (6); PARMENIANUS.] 
The existence of Donatism was next threat- 
ened by divisions within. ‘‘ As Donatus,” 
says St. Augustine, ‘‘ sought to divide Christ, 
so was Donatus divided by the divisions which 
arose daily amongst his own followers.’”’ Rog- 
atists and Maximianists, or individuals like 
Tichonius, arose to contest or moderate the 
views of the founders of the sect. [TicHontvs.] 
The fiercest blow to Donatism was, however, 
given by the Maximianist schism. [MAximI- 
ANUS (2).] Parmenian died a.p. 392, and was 
succeeded by Primian. Primian imposed a 
penance on one of his deacons, Maximian ; the 
deacon protested, was excommunicated, and 
appealed to some neighbouring bishops, who 
took up his cause and respectfully solicited 
Primian to give them a hearing or to meet 
them. Primian declined. In a.p. 393 more 
than 100 malcontent bishops assembled in 
synod at Cabarsussis, summoned Primian 
before them, and, on his again refusing to 
notice them, recited his misdeeds in an 
elaborate document, excommunicated him, 
and elected Maximian, procuring his consecra- 
tion at Carthage. The Donatists of Carthage, 
now divided into Primianists and Maximian- 
ists, had, in their turn, to experience the 
misery of altar set up against altar. ‘‘ God,” 
says St. Augustine, ‘‘ was repaying to them 
the measure they had paid to Caecilian.”’ 
_ Primian and his party were, however, much 
the stronger. The bps. of Numidia and 
Mauritania to the number of 310 sided with 
him; and at the council of Bagai (A.D. 394), 
_ presided over by Primian himself, Maximian 
was excommunicated, and his ordainers and 
coadjutors commanded to repent and return 
to the Primianist party before a certain date. 
The Maximianists shewed little disposition to 


began. 
the ground and his house handed over to a 


acquiesce in this decision, and persecution | 


DONATUS and DONATISM 277 


asked to assist in carrying out the judgment 
of the council on the refractory. The Maxim- 
lanists were hunted from place to place, and 
the treatment of the aged and beloved bp. of 
Membresa, Salvius, was scandalous and cruel 
beyond measure. But few Maximianists, 
however, returned to the main body; the 
majority struggled on as martyrs, rebaptizing 
and reordaining those who joined them. 
Donatism had received a mortal wound. 

The action of the Catholic church and the 
state during this period further helped to 
check the extension of Donatism. Many 
Donatists, priests as well as laymen, disgusted 
with party squabbles and cruel excesses, 
turned their eyes to the church. They were 
met with kindness. In A.p. 393 a council met 
at Hippo under the presidency of Aurelius, 
bp. of Carthage. The measures passed were 
liberal in spirit and intention. They allowed 
returning Donatist clergy to retain their 
clerical position and functions, if they had not 
rebaptized, and if they brought their congre- 
gations with them ; and decided that children 
of Donatists, even if they had received Donatist 
baptism, should not be excluded from the 
service of the altar. 

The action of the state had varied according 
as political events had directed imperial atten- 
tion to Donatists or removed it from them. 
Valentinian’s edict (A.p. 373) deposing any 
clerical person who rebaptized, and Gratian’s 
successive decrees—the first (A.D. 375) com- 
manding the surrender of their churches; the 
second (A.D. 377) issued to the Donatist, 
Flavian, the imperial representative in Africa, 
enjoining further the confiscation of houses 
used by them ; the third (a.p. 378) command- 
ing the expulsion from Rome of one Claudian, 
who had gone there to propagate Donatist 
opinions—produced a good deal of misery ; 
but the political disquiet connected with the 
murder of Gratian (A.D. 383), the wars between 
Maximus and Theodosius, the deposition of 
Maximus and restoration of Valentinian (A.p. 
388), made it impossible to enforce these or 
similar injunctions, and for the time the 
Donatists enjoyed a comparative freedom from 
interference. In A.D. 392 Theodosius issued 
his laws against heretics generally, fining all 
such who perfcrmed priestly functions. This 
was not directed against the Donatists par- 
ticularly, and was probably not enforced 
against them previous to the death of Theo- 
dosius (A.D. 395). That event was followed 
by Gildo’s usurpation of power in Africa, and 
his alliance with one of the cruellest Donatist 
bishops, Optatus of Thamugas. The ravages 
committed were only stayed by Honorius'’s 
victory over Gildo (A.p. 398); and Theo- 
dosius’s penalty was enforced by Seranus 
against Optatus and his followers. An edict 
of Honorius (A.D. 398) decreeing the punish- 
ment of death to all who dared to violate 
churches and maltreat the clergy was evident- 
ly directed against the Circumcellions. 

Yet the position of the Donatist body was 
better than that of the Catholic church. The 
greater part of Africa was Donatist, the 
church lay crushed and oppressed. Towards 


Maximian’s church was levelled to | the end of the 4th cent. it seemed almost as if 
|the place of the ancient, Catholic, and Apos- 
heathen priest. The proconsul Seranus was tolic church would be taken by the new usurp- 


278 DONATUS and DONATISM 


ing sect. Then the good providence of God 
raised up St. AUGUSTINE, whose piety andability 
shielded then and since the true church of 
Christ. In a.p. 391 he came to Hippo, and the 
popular vote at once pointed him out as the 
future successor of the aged Valerius. In a.p. 
395 he was consecrated coadjutor-bishop. 
Hippo was a hot-bed of Donatism. Ina letter 
(Ep. 33) to Proculeianus the Donatist bp. of 
Hippo, St. Augustine pathetically asks, ‘‘What 
has Christ done to us, that we rend His mem- 
bers asunder ? Consider how sad a division 
reigns in Christian households and families. 
Husband and wife, who—in their married life 
—know no division, separate themselves at 
the altar of Christ! Children live with their 
parents in the same dwelling, but that dwelling 
is not also God’s dwelling.” Full of zeal, St. 
Augustine threw himself into the thick of the 
fight. His sermons attracted Donatists as 
well as Catholics, and the sectarians threat- 
ened his life; but his works had great effect. 
Men like Petilian were silenced ; priests, lay- 


men, and even whole communities came back | 


to the church. Twice in 401 a council met at 
Carthage to deal with the supply of Catholic 
clergy; Donatist enticement or persecution 
having so reduced their number that many 
churches had no deacons and therefore no 
future means for supplying the higher offices. 
The council at Hippo had imposed restrictions 
upon Donatist clergy, who returned to the 
church, exercising their office. An appeal to 
pope Anastasius to remove these restrictions 
was allowed. St. Augustine set the example 
of receiving Donatist-ordained deacons, though 
apparently he declined to receive again—in 
an official capacity—those who had previously 
passed from the church to the sectarians. 
These measures, though accompanied by 
loving words of greeting, roused the Donatists. 
They were still a majority, powerful and per- 
sistent. They called to their aid the brutal 
fanaticism of the Circumcellions, especially 
against apostate Donatists and the Catholic 
clergy. Once again fire and sword levelled 
churches and destroyed altars. St. Augustine 
was threatened, tracked, and surrounded ; 
Catholic priests were stopped in the road, and 
the choice offered them: ‘‘ Promise to preach 
no more, or prepare for ill-treatment.’’ Moder- 
ate-minded men among the Donatists looked 
on in horror, but were powerless to check the 
barbarities. The Catholics, before appealing 
to the state, desired (A.D. 403) a conference. 
The Donatist bishop, Primian, repelled their 
advances with insult, saying, ‘‘ The sons of 
the martyrs and the brood of traditors can 
never meet.’’ Equally umsuccessful were 
attempts of St. Augustine and Possidius to 
confer with leading Donatist bishops. At last 
a council at Carthage (A.D. 404) determined to 
appeal to Honorius to enforce the laws of 
Theodosius against the Donatists and restrict 
the excesses of the Circumcellions. But before 
the deputation reached the emperor, his anger 
was kindled by accounts from his own officers. 
The cruelty of the Donatists to two Catholic 
bishops, Servus and Maximinian of Bagai, 
made him little disposed to accept the gentler 
measures proposed by the council of Carth- 
age; and in 405 he issued an edict, fining 
those who had inflicted ill-usage, and 


DONATUS and DONATISM 


threatening the Donatist bishops and clergy 
with banishment. In the same year imperial 
laws forbade rebaptism, condemned the Don- 
atists as heretics, confiscated their meeting- 
houses and the goods of those who rebaptized, 
excluded them from testamentary inheritance, 
and proclaimed to all ‘‘ that the one and true 
Catholic faith of Almighty God was to be 
received.” These and similar imperial 
edicts brought to the church many who had 
been wavering. The Catholics received them 
with love and forgiveness ; and in some cities, 
as in Carthage, union between Catholics and 
Donatists was openly asserted and celebrated. 
But these edicts exasperated still further the 
more extreme Donatists. St. Augustine’s own 
city, Hippo, and its neighbourhood suffered 
fearfully from the Circumeellions. In a.p. 
409 St. Augustine complained bitterly (Ep. 
111) of their plundering and ravages, their 
revengeful acts and cruelties to the Catholic 
bishops and laity. Letters to Donatist 
bishops or to imperial commissioners were of 
little use when the men to whom they referred 
would slay themselves if balked of their prey, 
or cast themselves into the fires they them- 
selves had kindled. They heard of Stilicho’s 
death (a.p. 408). Rightly or wrongly they 
had considered him the originator of the stern 


| decrees lately issued, and hailed the news by 


joining with heathen in slaying, ill-using, or 
putting to flight the hated Catholic bishops. 
Fresh deputations went to Rome; St. Augus- 
tine wrote letters tothe chief minister Olympius; 
and fresh edicts, enforcing previous laws, fines, 
and punishments, were sent to Africa. 
About this time St. Augustine issued other 
works which throw much light on the Donatist 
controversy : (a) On the One Baptism, written 
between A.D. 406 and 411, an answer to a 
tract of Petilian’s bearing the same title. 
(b) Against Cresconius, written A.D. 409. 
Cresconius objected to his party being called 
Donatists: ‘‘ Not Donatus, but Christ was 
their founder. It was not heresy but schism 
which separated them and the Catholic 
church’’; and Cresconius claimed that it was 
not they who were in schism, but the Catholics, 
who thereby had lost church and baptism. 
The invasion of Rome by Alaric king of the 
Goths took place A.p. 408, and it was rumoured 
that the Donatists of Africa were ready to 
support the invacer. The emperor Honorius 
rescinded his extreme decrees against heathen 
and schismatic ; but in 410 a deputation of 4 
bishops from Carthage again brought com- 
plaints against the Donatists to him. The 
deputation was charged to petition for a con- 
ference of Catholics and Donatists under im- 
perial presidency. In Oct. 410 Honorius 
instructed the proconsul of Africa, Marcellinus, 
to make all necessary preparations and act as 
president at the debates. He issued an edict 
(Jan. 411) inviting Catholic and Donatist 
bishops to meet in June at Carthage and elect 
representatives, promising safe-conduct and 
suspending meanwhile all processes against 
Donatists. Both parties entered eagerly into 
the scheme: 286 Catholic and 279 Donatist 
bishops came to Carthage in May ; and, after 
great difficulty in bringing the Donatists to 
the point, the president pronounced sentence. 
The official Acts and the testimony of Holy 


DONATUS and DONATISM 


Scripture were taken to have proved the un- 
soundness of the accusations against Caecilian, 
and of the view that one man, through the 
sinfulness of another, became therefore a par- 
taker in that other’s guilt. ‘‘I therefore,’ 
said Marcellinus, ‘‘warnallmen.. . tohinder 
the assembling of Donatists in towns and 
villages, and to restore the churches to the 
Catholics. Every bishop of the community 
of Donatus must, on his return to his home, 
return to the one true church, or at least not 
impede the faithful execution of the law. If 
they have Circumcellions about them, and do 
not restrain and repress the excesses of these 
men, they shall be deprived of their places in 
the state.” 

The condemned Donatists, among whom 
were the principal bishops, smarting at their 
defeat, reviled Marcellinus and appealed to the 
emperor. Thereply came (A.D. 412), terse and 
stern, and classed them as heretics. It bade 
them return to the church, fined them accord- 
ing to their rank and station, and in the event 
of contumacy confiscated their houses and 
goods. Many Donatists obeyed the edict, 
others scorned it. Whole communities, as at 
Cirta, bishops and laymen everywhere, re- 
turned to the church; some from conviction, 
others for reasons of expediency and comfort. 
The Circumcellions broke out afresh, fired 
churches, destroyed houses, cast into the 
flames those Scriptures which had been found 
to tell against them, and cruelly maltreated 
and even murdered ecclesiastics who expound- 
ed them. The less violent proclaimed with a 
sneer that the church chests and imperial 
coffers were enriched with the gold of the 
Separatists, and pointed to the death of 
Marcellinus (A.D. 413) as a divine judgment 
upon their unrighteous judge. In A.p. 414 a 
yet sterner decree announced that all Donatist 
church-buildings were to become the property 
of the Catholic church, and all Donatist clergy 
to be suspended and banished. Fines were 
doubled ; confiscation and banishment stared 
the Separatists in the face; their testimony in 
courts of law was disallowed; their social 
condition was degraded to the lowest; that 
the penalties stopped short of death was owing 
chiefly to St. Augustine, who strove success- 
fully to prevent others from imbruing their 
hands with the blood of mistaken fanatics. 
The church, to its credit be it recorded, by 
kindness and gentleness made the pain of 
defeat less bitter to its foes, while it did not 
neglect to avail itself of the advantages result- 
ing from victory. As the Catholic bishops 
returned to their homes they spread every- 
where the news of the victory, and in the 
following Lent publicly proclaimed it in their 
churches. Short summaries of the acts and 
judgment of the conference were circulated, 
one being by St. Augustine himself. These 
were intended principally for Catholics; 
others, as St. Augustine’s ‘‘ ad Donatistas post 
collectionem,’’ were addressed to the sectarians 
who might be swayed by one-sided reports 
circulated by Donatist bishops, or by their 
slanderous abuse of Marcellinus and the 
Catholics. In 418 acouncil at Carthage passed 
resolutions regulating the proceedings, when 
Donatist bishops, clergy, and congregations 
came back to the church. Nothing could 


DONATUS and DONATISM 279 


prove more clearly to what a large extent this 
had taken place. The church was no longer 
suppliant, but triumphant; and the change 
is observable also in some letters and acts 
of St. Augustine at this period, which may 
be said to be his last words on the great 
Donatist controversy. His work de Correc- 
tione Donatistarum is addressed to a soldier, 
Bonifacius, and is written in a style and lan- 
guage almost military in its stern enforcement 
of discipline. Bonifacius had asked the 
difference between the Arians and Donatists. 
St. Augustine, after answering the question, 
went on to speak of Donatists as “ rebels 
against the unity of the church of Christ.” 
The conference at Carthage and the emperor 
had laid down laws which they disobeyed, 
and thus deserved punishment (Dan. iii. 29). 
The Lord had commanded His disciples to 
compel the resisting to come to the marriage- 
feast, and that marriage-feast was the unity 
of the Body of Christ. The church was that 
Body; so long as a man lived, God in His 
goodness would bring him to repentance, and 
lead him to that church, which was the temple 
of the Holy Ghost ; but outside that Body, the 
Church, the Holy Ghost gave no man life. 
The same strong statement recurs in his 
exhortation to Emeritus, the Donatist bp. of 
Caesarea. The majority of Emeritus’s con- 
gregation had returned to the church. St. 
Augustine pleaded with the bishop : ‘‘ Outside 
the church you may have everything except 
salvation. You may have offices, Sacraments, 
Liturgy, Gospel, belief, and preaching, in the 
name of the Trinity; but you can only find 
salvation in the Catholic Church.” 

The last letters of St. Augustine were ad- 
dressed to a Donatist bishop Gaudentius. 
Marcellinus had been succeeded by Dulcitius, 
who endeavoured to carry out the strong laws 
against the Donatists with all possible mild- 
ness, and specially interested himself in re- 
straining the fanaticism of the Circumcellions. 
Unfortunately, some words of his were taken 
to mean that he would punish them with death 
unless they returned to the church. Gaud- 
entius and his congregation assembled in their 
church, determined to set fire to it and perish 
in the flames. Dulcitius contrived to stop 
this by a letter to Gaudentius, who in two 
letters defended his proposed action and the 
views of his party. Dulcitius appealed to St. 
Augustine, who answered Gaudentius’s argu- 
ments. His work, contra Gaudentitum, in two 
books, goes over the old ground, also exposing 
the folly and crime of suicide. _ ] 

Donatism had now lived its life. No new 
champions appeared to defend it, and once 
again only did the schism lift up its head. 
Towards the end of the 6th cent. there was a 
momentary revival of energy and proselytism ; 
but popes such as Leo and Gregory the Great 
and imperial laws were irresistible. The 
movement died out. The Donatists lingered 
on till the invasion of Africa by the Mahom- 
medans swept them away or merged them into 
some other schismatical body. 

See Optatus, ed. Alba Spinaeus (Par. 1631), 
or ed. Dupin (Antw. 1702); 5. Augustini, Opera, 
vol. vii. (Par. ed. 1635) ; Vogel, ** Donatisten 
in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop.; Hefele, do. in 
Wetzer’s Kirchenlexicon and Concil-Geschichte ; 


280 DOROTHEA 


Neander, Church History, iii. 258, etc. ed. 
Bohn; Niedner, Lehrbuch d. Christlichen Kirch- 
engeschichte, 324; Robertson, Hist. of the 
Christian Church, i. 175, etc. ; Hagenbach, 
Kirchengeschichte, i. 547; Ribbeck, Donatus 
und Augustinus (1858); M. Deutsch, Drei 
Actenstiicke zur Geschichte der Donatismus (Ber- 
lin, 1875); Harnack, Dog. Gesch. (3rd. ed.) iil. 
36 ff.; Thomasius, Dog. Gesch. (2nd ed.) i. 606 
ff. OMe] 
Dorothea, virgin, martyred with Theo- 
philus the Advocate, and two other women, 
Christa and Callista, at Caesarea, in Cappa- 
docia. Some doubt is entertained about these 
names, as they occur in no Greek menology or 
martyrology ; but they are found in ancient 
Roman accounts; and details are given by 
the monk Usuard, bp. Ado, and Rabanus. 
They are celebrated on Feb. 6. Baronius, 
Bollandus, and Tillemont all place the death 
of Dorothea in the persecution of Diocletian. 
She was a young girl of Caesarea in Cappa- 
docia, famed so widely for Christian piety that 
when the governor Fabricius, Sapricius, or 
Apricius arrived he had her brought before 
him and tortured. Unable to persuade her 
to marry, he sent her to Christa and Callista 
that they might induce her to give up her faith. 
She converted them ; whereupon the governor 
put them to death in a boiling cauldron. 
Dorothea was again tortured, and shewed 
her joy for the martyrdom of Christa and 
Callista and for her own sufferings. The 
governor, insulted and enraged, ordered her 
head to be cut off. On her way to execution 
an advocate named Theophilus Jaughingly 
asked her to send him some apples and roses 
from the paradise of her heavenly bridegroom. 
The legend states that these were miracu- 
lously conveyed to him, although Cappadocia 
was then covered with snow. Theophilus was 
converted, tortured, and decapitated. 
Dorothea’s body is said to have been taken 
to Rome, and preserved in the church across 
the Tiber which bears her name. On her 
festival there is a ceremony of blessing roses 
and apples. Migne, Dict. Hagiograph. i. 779 ; 
Bollandus, Acta Sanct. Feb. i. p. 771 ; Tillem. 
Hist. eccl. p. 497 (Paris, 1702). [w.M.s.] 
Dorotheus (3), a presbyter of Antioch, or- 
dained by Cyril of Antioch (Hieron. Chron.) 
c. A.D. 290, who with his contemporary Lucian 
may be regarded as the progenitor of the 
sound and healthy school of scriptural her- 
meneutics which distinguished the interpre- 
ters of Antioch from those of Alexandria. 
Eusebius speaks of him with high commenda- 
tion, as distinguished by a pure taste and 
sound learning, of a wide and liberal education, 
well acquainted not only with the Hebrew 
Scriptures, which Eusebius says he had heard 
him expounding in the church at Antioch, 
with moderation (μετρίως), but also with 
classical literature. He was a congenital 
eunuch, which commended him to the notice 
of the emperor Constantine, who placed him 
at the head of the purple-dye-house at Tyre 
Eus. H. E. vii. 32; Neander, Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. 
p- 528, Clark’s trans.; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. 
vol. i. p. 247, Clark’s trans. [E.v.] 
Dorotheus (7), bp. of Martianopolis in Moesia 
Secunda, and metropolitan; azealoussupporter 
of the doctrines of Nesturios, and a determined 


DOROTHEUS 


enemy of the title θεοτόκος.Ό Preaching in 
Constantinople not long before the council of 
Ephesus, he declared that “‘ if any one asserted 
that Mary was the mother of God he was 
anathema ”’ (Ep. Cyrill. ap. Baluz. Concil. col. 
402). He attended that council, A.D. 431, 
signing the appeal to the emperor against the 
dominant party (Baluz. 701), and joining in 
the documents warning the clergy and people 
of Hierapolis and Constantinople against the 
errors of Cyril, and announcing Cyril’s excom- 
munication (7b. 706, 725). He was deposed 
and excommunicated by Cyril and his friends. 
This deposition being confirmed by the im- 
perial power, he was ordered by Maximinian’s 
synod at Constantinople to be ejected from 
his city and throne. His influence, however, 
with his people was so great that they refused 
to receive his successor Secundianus, and drove 
him from the city (Ep. Doroth. ad Cyrill. 
Baluz. 750), whereupon Dorotheus was ban- 
ished by the emperor to Caesarea in Cappa- 
docia. Two letters of his to John of Antioch 
are preserved in the Svnodicon (Nos. 78, 115 ; 
Baluz. 781, 816), expressing his anxiety at 
Paul’s setting out to Egypt and his distress 
at hearing that terms had been come to with 
Cyril, and a third (No. 137; Baluz. 840) to 
Alexander of Hierapolis and Theodoret, pro- 
posing a joint appeal to the emperor. [E.v.] 
Dorotheus (10), bp. of Thessalonica 515- 
520. He wrote on April 28, 515, to pope 
Hormisdas, urging him to labour for the peace 
of the church. He testifies respect for the see 
of Rome, and wishes to see the heresies of Nes- 
torius and Eutyches everywhere condemned. 
But in the spring of 517 we find him a 
Eutychian schismatic, seeking to exercise over 
the province of Thessalonica the rights which 
belonged to its metropolis when in com- 
munion with the Catholic church. He per- 
secuted John bp. of Nicopolis, employing the 
secular arm and persuading the emperor 
Anastasius to support his faction. Com- 
plaints were brought to pope Hormisdas, who 
pointed out that he might regain his rights if 
he rejoined the Catholic church ; but the papal 
legates Ennodius and Peregrinus were to bring 
the affair before the emperor, if bp. Dorotheus 
should persist. The emperor Anastasius re- 
fused the message of the legates, tried to 
corrupt them, and wrote to the pope saying 
that he could suffer insults, but not commands 
(July rz, 517). The death of the emperor 
almost exactly a year afterwards altered the 
balance against the Eutychians. Justin I., 
the Thracian, wrote, on his accession, to the 
pope, expressing his own wish and that of the 
principal Eastern bishops for the restoration 
of peace between East and West. Hormisdas, 
with the advice of king Theodoric, sent a third 
legation to Constantinople, Germanus bp. of 
Capua, John a bishop, Blandus a presbyter, 
and others. To these men at Constantinople 
Hormisdas wrote to inquire personally into 
the doings of the Eutychians at Thessalonica, 
and to cite bp. Dorotheus and his abettor 
Aristides the presbyter to Rome, that they 
might give account of their faith and receive 
resolution of their doubts. Two days before 
the arrival of the legates, Dorotheus baptized 
more than 2,000 people, and distributed the 
Eucharistic bread im large baskets, so that 


DOSITHEUS 


multitudes could keep it by them. On their 
arrival, the populace of Thessalonica, excited, 
as the legates thought, by Dorotheus, fell 
upon them, and killed John, a Catholic, who 
had received them in his house. News of 
these outrages arriving at Constantinople, the 
emperor Justin promised to summon Doro- 
theus before him. The pope wrote to his 
legates, saying that they must see Dorotheus 
deposed, and take care that Aristides should 
not be his successor. Dorotheus was cited 
before the emperor at Heraclea; he appealed 
to Rome, but the emperor thought it unad- 
visable to send him there, as his accusers 
would not be present. He was suddenly sent 
away from Heraclea, and the pope’s legates, 
bp. John and the presbyter Epiphanius, who 
had remained at Thessalonica in his absence, 
wrote in alarm to the remaining legates at 
Constantinople lest Dorotheus and others 
should re-establish themselves in their sees by 
liberal use of money. 

Dorotheus was now obliged by the emperor 
to send deputies to Rome to satisfy the pope. 
He accordingly wrote an agreeable letter, say- 
ing that he had exposed his life in defence of 
bp. John, when the populace had fallen upon 
him. Pope Hormisdas wrote back, saying 
that the crime was known to all the world, and 
required clearer defence; he remitted its ex- 
amination to the patriarch of Constantinople. 
Hormisd. Epp., Patr. Lat. |xiil. pp. 371, 372, 
408, 445, 446, 452, 468, 473, 481, 499, etc. ; 
Ceillier, x. 616, 618, 619, 625 626, 628, 632, 
633- [νν.Μ.5.7 

Dositheus (1). The earliest ecclesiastical 
writers speak of a sect of Dositheans, which, 
though it never spread far outside Samaria, 
seems to have had some considerable duration 
in that quarter. It was rather a Jewish sect 
than a Christian heresy, for Dositheus was re- 
garded rather as a rival than as a disciple of 
our Lord, but trustworthy information as to 
his history and his doctrines is very scanty. 
Only the name of himself and his sect occurs 
in Hegesippus’s list of heresies, preserved by 
Eusebius (H. E. iv. 22). He is there placed 
next after Simon and Cleobius. The earliest 
detailed account of him is given in the Clem- 
entine writings, and it is not unlikely that 
their account was derived from the treatise on 
heresies of Justin Martyr. The Recognitions 
(ii. 8) and Homilies (ii. 24) agree in making 
Simon Magus a disciple of Dositheus, and the 
Recognitions would lead us to suppose that 
Dositheus was clearly the elder. They repre- 
sent him as already recognised as the prophet 
like unto Moses, whom Jehovah was to raise 
up; when Simon with difficulty and entreaty 
obtained election among his 30 disciples. The 
Homilies make Simon and Dositheus fellow- 
disciples of John the Baptist, to whom in 
several places the author shews hostility. As 
our Lord, the Sun, had 12 apostles, so John, 
the Moon, had 30 disciples, or even more 
accurately answering to the days of a lunation, 
293, for one of them wasa woman. On John’s 
death Simon was absent studying magic in 
Egypt, and so Dositheus was put over his head 
into the chief place, an arrangement in which 
Simon on his return thought it prudent to 
acquiesce. Origen, who was acquainted with 
the Recognitions, probably had in his mind the 


DOSITHEUS 281 


story of the 30 disciples of Dositheus, when he 
says (contra Celsum, vi. 11) that he doubts 
whether there were then 30 Dositheans in the 
world (7b. i. 57) or 30 Simonians. Recognt- 
tions and Homilies agree that Simon after his 
enrolment among the disciples of Dositheus, 
by his disparagement among his fellow-dis- 
ciples of their master’s pretensions, provoked 
Dositheus to smite him with a staff, which 
through Simon’s magical art passed through 
his body as if it had been smoke. Dositheus 
in amazement thereat, and conscious that he 
himself was not the Standing one as he pre- 
tended to be, inquired if Simon claimed that 
dignity for himself, and, being answered in the 
affirmative, resigned his chief place to him and 
became his worshipper. Soon after he died. 
Elsewhere (i. 54) the Recognitions represent 
Dositheus as the founder of the sect of the 
Sadducees, a sect which, according to their 
account, had its commencement only in the 
days of John the Baptist. 

Next in order of the early witnesses to the 
activity of Dositheus is Hippolytus, who, as we 
learn from Photius (Cod. 121), commenced his 
shorter treatise on heresies with a section on 
the Dositheans. We gather the contents of 
this treatise from Epiphanius (Haer. 13), 
Philaster (4), and Pseudo-Tertullian, and the 
opening sentence of the latter, which relates 
to the Dositheans, is almost exactly repro- 
duced by St. Jerome (adv. Luciferianos, iv. 
304). The first section of the work of Hip- 
polytus apparently contained a brief notice 
of pre-Christian sects, the foremost place being 
given to the Dositheans. Hippolytus seems 
to have adopted the account of the Recognt- 
tions as to the origin of the sect of the Sad- 
ducees, and to have also charged Dositheus 
with rejecting the inspiration of the prophets. 
A statement that Dositheus was a Jew by 
birth was understood by Epiphanius to mean 
that he had deserted from the Jews to the 
Samaritans, a change which Epiphanius attri- 
butes to disappointed ambition. Origen men- 
tions Dositheus in several places (cont. Celsum 
u.s., tract 27 in Matt. vol. iii. 851 ; in Luce. iii. 
962 ; in Johann. iv. vol. iv. p. 237; de Prince. 
iv. I-17); but only in the last two passages 
makes any statement which clearly shews that 
he had sources of information independent 
of the Clementine Recognitions; viz. in the 
commentary on John he speaks of books 
ascribed to Dositheus as being then current 
among his disciples, and of their belief that 
their master had not really died; and in de 
Princ. he asserts that Dositheus expounded 
Exod. xvi. 29 so as to teach that persons were 
bound to remain to the end of the sabbath as 
they found themselves at the beginning of it ; 
if sitting, sitting to the end; if lying, lying, 
Epiphanius, who may have read Dosithean 
books, adds, from his personal investigations. 
to the details which he found in Hippolytus. 
He describes the sect as still existing, observ- 
ing the Sabbath, circumcision, and other 
Jewish ordinances, abstaining from animal 
food, and many of them from sexual inter- 
course either altogether, or at least after 
having had children ; but the reading here is 
uncertain. They are said to have admitted 
the resurrection of the body, the denial of 
which is represented as an addition made by 


282 DOSITHEUS 


the Sadducees to the original teaching of 
Dositheus. Epiphanius adds a story that 
Dositheus retired to a cave, and there, under 
a show of piety, practised such abstinence 
from food and drink as to bring his life to a 
voluntary end. This story appears, in a 
slightly different shape, in a Samaritan 
chronicle, of which an account is given by 
Abraham Ecchellensis ad Hebed Jesu, Catal. 
lib. Chald. p. 162, Rom. 1653, the story there 
being that it was the measures taken by the 
Samaritan high-priest against the new sect, 
especially because of their use of a book of the 
law falsified by Dositheus (there called Dou- 
sis), which compelled Dositheus to flee to a 
mountain, where he died from want of food in 
a cave. The notes of Ecchellensis are not 
given in Assemani’s republication of Hebed 
Jesu (Bibl. Or. 111.).. This account is taken 
from Mosheim (v. infra), and from De Sacy’s 
Chrestomathie Arabe, i. 337. 

It appears that the sect of Dositheans long 
maintained a local existence. In Hebed Jesu’s 
catalogue of Chaldee books (Assemani, Bzbl. 
Or. iii. 42) we read that Theophilus of Persia, 
who was later than the council of Ephesus, 
wrote against Dositheus. And Photius (Cod. 
230) reports that he read among the works of 
Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria (d. A.D. 608), 
one entitled Definition against the Samaritans, 
the argument of which is that the people of 
Samaria being divided in opinion as to 
whether the ‘‘ prophet like unto Moses ’”’ was 
Joshua or Dositheus, Eulogius held a synod 
there (in the 7th year of Marcianus according 
to the MSS. ; if we correct this to the 7th year 
of Maurice, it gives A.D. 588) and taught them 
the divinity of our Lord. The independent 
notices of the continued existence of the sect 
make it not incredible that Eulogius may have 
encountered it. He appears to have really 
used Dosithean books, and reports that Dosi- 
theus exhibited particular hostility to the 
patriarch Judah, and if he claimed to be 
himself the prophet who was to come, he 
would naturally be anxious to exclude the 
belief that that prophet must be of the tribe 
of Judah. The form (Dosthes) given by 
Eulogius for his name is a closer approach 
than Dositheus to the Hebrew Dosthai, which 
it probably really represents. Drusius (de 
Sectis Hebraeorum, iii. 4, 6) and Lightfoot 
(Disquis. Chorograph. in Johann. iv.) shew that 
this was, according to Jewish tradition, the 
name of one of the priests who was sent (II. 
Kings xvii. 27) to teach the manner of the God 
of the land, and that the same name was borne 
by other Samaritans. 

There seems no ground for Reland’s con- 
jecture (de Samaritanis, v.) that Dositheus 
was the author of the Samaritan book of 
Joshua, since published by Juynboll (Leyden, 
1848). Juynboll, p. 113, quotes the testimony 
of an Arabic writer, Aboulfatah (given more 
fully, De Sacy, p. 335), that the sect still 
existed in the 14th cent. This writer places 
Dositheus in the time of John Hyrcanus, 1.6. 
more than a hundred years before Christ. 
Jost (Gesch. des Judenthums, i. 66) refers to 
Beer (Buch der Jubilden) as giving evidence 
that the sect left traces in Abyssinia. Sev- 
eral critics who have wished to accept all the 
statements of the above-mentioned authorities, 


DUBRICIUS, DUBRIC 


and who have felt the difficulty of making the 
founder of the sect of the Sadducees contem- 
porary with John the Baptist, have adopted 
the solution that there must have been two 
Dosithei, both founders of Samaritan sects. 
But we may safely say that there was but one 
sect of Dositheans, and that there is no evid- 
ence that any ancient writer believed that it 
had at different times two heads bearing the 
same name. Considering that the sect 
claimed to have been more than a century old 
when our earliest informants tried to get in- 
formation about its founder, we need not be 
surprised if the stories which they collected 
contain many things legendary, and which 
do not harmonise. Probably the Dositheans 
were a Jewish or Samaritan ascetic sect, 
something akin to the Essenes, existing from 
before our Lord’s time, and the stories con- 
necting their founder with Simon Magus and 
with John the Baptist may be dismissed as 
merely mythical. The fullest and ablest dis- 
sertation on the Dositheans is that by Mosheim 
(Institutiones Huistoriae Christianae majores, 
1739, 1. 376). Cf. Harnack, Gesch. der Alt.- 
Chr. Lit. Theol. pp. 152 f. [G.s.] 
Dubhthach (Duach) (3), Mac Ui Lugair. 
When St. Patrick had come to Tara and was 
preaching before king Leogaire, we are told 
that the only one who rose on the saint’s 
approach and respectfully saluted him was 
Dubhthach, the king’s poet, who was the first 
to embrace the Christian faith in that place; 
and as Joceline says, ‘‘ being baptized and 
confirmed in the faith, he turned his poetry, 
which in the flower and prime of his studies 
he employed in praise of false gods, to a much 
better use; changing his mind and style, he 
composed more elegant poems in praise of the 
Almighty Creator and His holy preachers.” 
This was Dubhthach Mac Ui Lugair, descended 
from Cormach Caech, son of Cucorb, in Lein- 
ster. His name occupies a large space in 
ancient Irish hagiology as a famous poet and 
the ancestor of many well-known saints. He 
was the teacher of St. Fiacc (Oct. 12) of Sletty, 
and recommended him to St. Patrick for the 
episcopate. [Fracc.] In the compilation of 
the Seanchus Mor, said to have been carried 
on under the auspices of St. Patrick, St. Dubh- 
thach was one of the nine appointed to revise 
the ancient laws. Colgan says he had in his 
possession some of the poems of St. Dubhthach 
(Tr. Thaum. 8 n5.): the Poems of St. Dubhthach 
are given in O’Donovan’s Book of Rights, and 
with translations and notes in Shearman’s 
Loca Patriciana. His dates are uncertain, 
but his birth is placed after 370, his conversion 
in 433, and his death perhaps after 479. See 
Loca Patriciana, by the Rev. J. F. Shearman, 
in Journ. Roy. Hist. and Arch. Assoc. Ir. 4 ser. 
the same Journal, traversing several of Shear- 
man’s assertions; Ware, Ivish Writers, 1; 
Ussher, Eccl. Ant. c. 17, wks. vi. 409-412, and 
Ind. Chron. A.D. 433; Todd, St. Patrick, 130, 
424, 446. 1 φῶ J 16. 
Dubricius, Dubrie (Dibric, Dyfrig), arch-bp. 
of Caerleon, one of the most distinguished 
names in the story of king Arthur as related 
by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Arthur makes 
him archbp. of the city of Legions (Galf. Mon. 
Hist. viii. 12) ; he crowns king Arthur (ix. 1) ; 


DUBRICIUS, DUBRIC 


makes an oration to the British army prior 
to the battle of Badon (ix. 4); and is the 
director of all the ecclesiastical pomp of the 
court. He was grandson of Brychan king of 
Brecknockshire, and two localities, vaguely 
described as the banks of the Gwain near 
Fishguard and the banks of the Wye in Here- 
fordshire, are claimed for his birthplace. 
Rees decides in favour of the latter for the 
following reasons. In the district of Erchen- 
field, in the county of Hereford, are a church 
(Whitchurch) and two chapels (Ballingham 
and Hentland, subject to Lugwardine) dedi- 
cated to Dubricius, and all of them near the 
Wye. At Henllan (1.6. Old-church, now Hent- 
land) he is said to have founded a college, and 
to have remained seven years before removing 
to Mochros much farther up the Wye, sup- 
posed to be the present Moccas. In corrobo- 
ration of this tradition there were lately re- 
maining, says Rees, ona farm called Lanfrother 
in Hentland, traces of former importance. 
This author further suggests that St. Devereux, 
seven miles to the west of Hereford, might 
be a Norman rendering of Dubricius. Rees 
grants, in support of Ussher, that he may have 
been appointed bp. of Llandaff about a.p. 470, 
and that he was raised by Ambrosius Aurelius, 
the brother of Uther and uncle of Arthur, to 
the archbishopric of Caerleon on the death of 
Tremounos or Tremorius, A.D. 490. It does 
not appear that Wales was then divided into 
dioceses, or that there were any established 
bishops’ sees except Caerleon. The jurisdic- 
tion of its archbishop, according to the rule 
observable elsewhere in the empire, would be 
co-extensive with the Roman province of 
Britannia Secunda, and his suffragans were 
so many chorepiscopi, without any settled 
places of residence. The influence of Dub- 
ricius and the liberality of Meurig ab Tewdrig 
king of Glamorgan made the see of Llandaff 
permanent ; whence Dubricius is said to have 
been its first bishop. It appears, however, 
that after promotion to the archbishopric of 
Caerleon he still retained the bishopric of 
Llandaff, where he mostly resided, and from 
which he is called archbishop of Llandaff; 
but that the title belonged rather to Caerleon 
is clear since upon his resignation David 
became archbp. of Caerleon and Teilo bp. of 
Llandaff. Dubricius is distinguished as the 
founder of colleges ; and besides those on the 
banks of the Wye already mentioned he 
founded, or concurred in founding, the col- 
legiate monasteries of Llancarvan, Caergor- 
worn, and Caerleon. In his time the Pelagian 
heresy, which had been once suppressed by 
St. Germanus, had increased again to such a 
degree as to require extraordinary efforts for 
its eradication, and a synod of the whole 
clergy of Wales was convened at Brefi in 
Cardiganshire. The distinction earned by 
David on that occasion gave Dubricius an 
excuse for laying down his office, and, worn 
with years and longing for retirement, he 
withdrew to a monastery in the island of 
Enlli or Bardsey, where he died. Rees, who 
puts the chronology of Dubricius and David 
early, gives A.D. 522 for the date. He was 
buried in the island, where his remains lay 
undisturbed till a.p. 1120, when they were 
removed by Urban bp. of Llandaff and in- 


EBIONISM and EBIONITES 283 


terred with great pomp in the new cathedral 
which had been rebuilt a short time before. 
His death was commemorated on Nov. 4, and 
his translation on May 29. The bones of the 
saint were with great difficulty discovered at 
Bardsey, the oldest writings having to be 
searched, as recorded in the Liber Landavensts 
(ed. Rees, 1840, p. 329). Such in the main is 
Rees’s account of Dubricius (Essay on the 
Welsh Saints, 171-193). Of ancient materials 
an anonymous Vita in Wharton (Angl. Sac. ii. 
667) is important as having been evidently 
compiled from earlier sources before the fables 
of Geoffrey of Monmouth appeared. Bene- 
dict of Gloucester wrote his Vita (Angl. Sac. ii. 
656) after Geoffrey. Capgrave has also a Life 
(N. L. A. f. 87). For others see Hardy, Des. 
Cat. i. 40-44. Haddan and Stubbs, Countctls, 
i. 146, 147, should be consulted on Dubricius’s 
Llandaff bishopric, and on his connexion with 
Archenfield or Erchenfield; likewise Stubbs 
(Registrum, 154, 155) for the early and legend- 
ary successions to Llandaff and Caerleon. See 
also Ussher, Brit. Eccl. Antig. Works, t. v. 
510; Chron. Index, sub ann. 490, 512, 520- 
522. In regard to the period of Dubricius, 
authorities differ within limits similar to those 
assigned to St. David. The Annales Cambriae 
under A.D. 612 give the obit of Conthigirnus 
and bp. Dibric, whom the editors of the Monu- 
menta, with an ‘ut videtur,’? name bps. 
Kentigern and Dubricius (M. H. B. 831). The 
Liber Landavensis also (80) gives this date, 
and it is adopted in Haddan and Stubbs (i. 
146). Hardy (Des. Cat. i. 41) refers to Alford’s 
Annales, A.D. 436, 55. 2, 3, 4, for some critical 
remarks on the probable chronology of the 
life of Dubricius. [c.H.] 


E 


Ebionism and Ebionites. The name Ebion- 
ite first occurs in Irenaeus (c. 180-190). It 
was repeated, probably from him, by Hippo- 
lvtus (c. 225-235) and Origen (+ A.D. 254), who 
first introduced an explanation of the name. 
Others offered different explanations (e.g. Eus. 
tc. 340); while other writers fabricated a 
leader, ‘‘ Ebion,’’ after whom the sect was 
called (cf. Philastrius, Pseudo-Tertullian, 
Pseudo-Jerome, Isidore of Spain, etc.). 

These explanations owe their origin to the 
tendency to carry back Ebionism, or the date 
of its founder, as far as possible. Thus the 
“ Ebionite ’’ was (according to his own state- 
ment) the ‘ poor” man (Ἰ) 3), he who 
voluntarily strove to practise the Master's 
precept (Matt. x. 9) in Apostolic times (Acts 
iv. 34-37; cf. Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. 17) ; 
and the correctness of the etymology is not 
shaken by the Patristic scorn which derived 
the name from “‘ poverty of intellect,’’ or from 
“low and mean opinions of Christ ’’ (see Eus. 
H. E. iii. 27 ; Origen, de Princ., and contr. Cel. 
ii.c. 4; Ignat., Ep. ad Philadelph. c. 6, longer 
recension). ‘‘ Ebion,’’ first personified by Ter- 
tullian, was said to have been a pupil of 
Cerinthus, and the Gospel of St. John to have 
been directed against them both. St. Paul 
and St. Luke were asserted to have spoken 
and written against Ebionites. The ‘‘ Apos- 


284 EBIONISM and EBIONITES 


tolical Constitutions’’ (vi. c. 6) traced them 
back to Apostolic times; Theodoret (Haer. 
Fab. ii. c. 2) assigned them to the reign of 
Domitian (A.D. 81-96). The existence of an 
‘““Ebion’”’ is, however, now surrendered. 
Ebionism, like Gnosticism, had no special 
founder ; but that its birthplace was the Holy 
Land, and its existence contemporary with the 
beginning of the Christian Church, is, with 
certain reservations, probably correct. A ten- 
dency to Ebionism existed from the first ; 
gradually it assumed shape, and as gradually 
developed into the two special forms presently 
to be noticed. 

The records of the church of Jerusalem con- 
tained in Acts prove how strong was the zeal 
for the Law of Moses among the Jewish con- 
verts to Christianity. After the fall of Jeru- 
salem (A.D. 70), the church was formed at Pella 
under Symeon, and the Jewish Christians were 
brought face to face with two leading facts: 
firstly, that the temple being destroyed, and 
the observance of the Law and its ordinances 
possible only in part, there was valid reason 
for doubting the necessity of retaining the 
rest; secondly, that if they adopted this 
view, they must expect to find in the Jews 
their most uncompromising enemies. As 
Christians they had expected a judgment 
predicted by Christ, and, following His advice, 
had fled from the city. Both prediction and 
act were resented by the Jews, as is shewn not 
only by the contemptuous term (Minim) they 
applied to the Jewish Christians (Gratz, 
Gesch. d. Juden. iv. p. 89, etc.), but by the 
share they took in the death of the aged bp. 
Symeon (A.D. 106). The breach was further 
widened by the refusal of the Jewish Christians 
to take part in the national struggles—notably 
that of Bar-Cocheba (A.p. 132)—against the 
Romans, by the tortures they suffered for 
their refusal, and lastly, by the erection of 
Aelia Capitolina (A.D. 138) on the ruins of 
Jerusalem. The Jews were forbidden to enter 
it, while the Jewish and Gentile Christians who 
crowded there read in Hadrian’s imperial de- 
cree the abolition of the most distinctively 
Jewish rites, and practically signified their 
assent by electing as their bishop a Gentile 
and uncircumcised man—Mark (Eus. H. E. 
iv. 6). Changes hitherto working gradually 
now rapidly developed. Jewish Christians, 
with predilections fcr Gentile Christianity and 
its comparative freedom, found the way made 
clear to them ; others, attempting to be both 
Jews and Christians, ended in being neither, 
and exposed themselves to the contempt of 
Rabbin as well as Christian (Gratz, p. 433); 
others receded farther from Christianity, and 
approximated more and more closely to pure 
Judaism. The Ebionites are to be ranked 
among the last. By the time of Trajan (096- 
117) political events had given them a definite 
organization, and their position as a sect op- 
posed to Gentile Christianity became fixed by 
the acts which culminated in the erection of 
Aelia Capitolina. 

The Ebionites were known by other names, 
such as ‘‘ Homuncionites’’ (Gk. ‘‘ Anthro- 
pians’’ or “‘ Anthropolatrians’’) from their 
Christological views, ‘‘ Peratici’’ from their 
settlement at Peraea, and ‘‘ Symmachians’’ 
from the one able literary man among them 


EBIONISM and EBIONITES 


whose name has reached us. [SyMMACHUS (2).] 
Acquaintance with Hebrew was then confined 
to a few, and his Greek version of O.T. was 
produced for the benefit of those who declined 
the LXX adopted by the orthodox Christians, 
or the Greek versions of Aquila and Theodo- 
tion accepted by the Jews. Many, if not 
most, of the improvements made by the Vul- 
gate on the LXX are due to the Ebionite 
version (Field, Ovigenis Hexaplarum quae 
supersunt, Preface). 

Ebionism presents itself under two principal 
types, an earlier and a later, the former usually 
designated Ebionism proper or Pharisaic 
Ebionism, the latter, Essene or Gnostic Ebion- 
ism. The earlier type is to be traced in the 
writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippo- 
lytus, Tertullian, etc. ; the latter in those of 
Epiphanius especially. 

(a) Ebionism Proper.—The term expresses 
conveniently the opinions and practices of the 
descendants of the Judaizers of the Apostolic 
age, and is very little removed from Judaism. 
Judaism was to them not so much a prepara- 
tion for Christianity as an institution eternally 
good in itself, and but slightly modified in 
Christianity. Whatever merit Christianity 
had, it possessed as the continuation and 
supplement of Judaism. The divinity of the 
Old Covenant was the only valid guarantee 
for the truth of the New. Hence such Ebion- 
ites tended to exalt the Old at the expense of 
the New, to magnify Moses and the Prophets, 
and to allow Jesus Christ to be “‘ nothing more 
than a Solomon or a Jonas ”’ (Tertull. de Carne 
Christt, c. 18). Legal righteousness was to 
them the highest type of perfection; the 
earthly Jerusalem, in spite of its destruction, 
was an object of adoration “‘ as if it were the 
house of God ”’ (Iren. adv. Haer. i. c. 22 [al. 
c. 26])}; its restoration would take place in the 
millennial kingdom of Messiah, and the Jews 
would return there as the manifestly chosen 
people of God. The Ebionites divided the 
life of Jesus Christ into two parts—one 
preceding, the other following, His Baptism. 
In common with Cerinthus and Carpocrates, 
they represented Him to have been “ the 
Son of Joseph and Mary according to the 
ordinary course of human generation ”’ (Iren. 
l.c.). They denied His birth of a Virgin, 
translating the original word in Isa. vii. 14 not 
παρθένος, but νεᾶνις. He was “a mere man, 
nothing more than a descendant of David, and 
not also the Son of God ”’ (Tert. c. 14). But 
at His Baptism a great change took place. The 
event is described in the ‘“‘ Gospel according to 
the Hebrews ”’ current among them, and the 
description is an altered expansion of the 
record of St. Matthew (iii. 13, 14). The Voice 
from heaven spake not only the words recorded 
by the Evangelist, but also the words, ‘‘ This 
day have I begotten Thee”’ (Ps. ii. 7). A 
great light suddenly filled the place. John 
the Baptist asked, ‘‘ Who art Thou, Lord?” 
and the Voice answered as before. John 
prostrated himself at the feet of Jesus, “I 
pray Thee, Lord, baptize me,’’ but Jesus for- 
bade him, saying, ‘‘ Suffer it to be so,”’ etc., etc. 
(Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13). The day of Baptism 
was thus the day of His “‘ anointing by election 
and then becoming Christ ”’ (cf. Justin Martyr. 
Dial. c. Tryph. c. xlix.), it was the turning- 


ΟΝ 


τὰς 


EBIONISM and EBIONITES 


point in the life of Jesus: from that moment 
He was endued with power necessary to fill 
His mission as Messiah; but He was still 
man. The Ebionites knew nothing of either 
pre-existence or divinity in connexion with 
Him. They are said to have freed themselves 
from the common Jewish notion that the 
Messiah was to be an earthly king; they were 
not shocked, as were so many of the Jews, at 
the humbleness of the birth, the sufferings, and 
crucifixion of Jesus; but they agreed with 
them in looking upon the advent of Messiah 
as future, and in deferring the restitution of 
all things to the millennium. The Ebionites 
proper insisted that the Law should be strictly 
observed not only by themselves but by all. 
They quoted the words of Jesus (Matt. v. 17), 
and pointed to His practice (cf. Matt. xxvi. 
55; John vii. 14, etc.). It was the natural 
tendency of this view to diminish the value of 
faith in Christ and a corresponding life. Of 
far greater moment to them, and as necessary 
to salvation, was the due observance of cir- 
cumcision, the sabbath, the distinction be- 
tween clean and unclean food, the sacrificial 
offerings—probably with the later Pharisaic 
additions (cf. Eus. H.E. vi. 17)—and the 
refusal of fellowship or hospitality to the 
Gentiles (cf. Justin, c. xlvii.). They even 
quoted the words of Jesus (Matt. x. 24, 25) 
as their warrant, and affirmed their motto to 
be: ‘‘ We also would be imitators of Christ ”’ 
(Origen, quoted by Schliemann). Jesus, they 
asserted, ‘‘ was justified by fulfilling the Law. 
He was the Christ of God, since not one of the 
rest of mankind had observed the Law com- 
pletely. Had any one else fulfilled the com- 
mandments of the Law, he would have been 
the Christ.’”” Hence ‘‘ when Ebionites thus 
fulfil the law, they are able to become Christs ”’ 
(Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Haer. vii. 34). 

As might be expected, the Apostle Paul was 
especially hateful to them. They repudiated 
his official character, they reviled him person- 
ally. In language which recalls that of the 
Judaizers alluded to in Corinthians and Gala- 
tians, they represented him as ἃ teacher 
directly opposed to SS. Peter, James, and 
John ; they repudiated his Apostolical author- 
ity because (as they affirmed) he had not been 
“called of Jesus Christ Himself,” nor trained 
in the Church of Jerusalem. Thev twisted 
into a defamatory application to himself his 
employment of the term ‘‘ deceiver’’ (II. Cor. 
vi. 8); he was himself one of the ‘‘ many 
which corrupted the word of God”? (ii. 17) ; 
he proclaimed ‘“‘ deliverance from the Law”’ 
only ‘‘to please men”’ (Gal. i. 10) and ‘‘ com- 
mend himself’ (II. Cor. iii. 1). His personal 
character was held up to reproach as that of 
one who ‘‘ walked according to the flesh”’ 
(x. 2), puffed up with pride, marked by levity 
of purpose (iii. 1) and even by dishonesty (vii. 
2). They rejected his epistles, not on the 
ground of authenticity, but as the work of an 
“apostate from the Law” (Eus. iii. c. 27; 
Iren. /.c.). They even asserted that by birth 
he was not a Jew, but a Gentile (wresting his 
words in Acts xxi. 39) who had become a 
proselyte in the hope of marrying the High 
Priest’s daughter, but that having failed in 
this he had severed himself from the Jews and 
occupied himself in writing against circum- 


EBIONISM and EBIONITES 285 
cision and the observance of the sabbath 
(Epiph. adv. Haer. 1. xxx. 16, 25). 

In common with the Nazarenes and the 
Gnostic-Ebionites, the Pharisaic Ebionites 
used a recension of the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
which they termed the ‘‘ gospel according to 
the Hebrews.’ It was a Chaldee version 
written in Hebrew letters, afterwards trans- 
lated into Greek and Latin by Jerome, who 
declared it identical with the ὁ gospel of the 
Twelve Apostles’’ and the ‘ gospel of the 
Nazarenes’’ (see Herzog, Real-Encyklopadie, 
“* Apokryphen ἃ. N. Test.’’ p. 520, ed. 1877). 
In the Ebionite ‘‘ gospel’’ the section corre- 
sponding to the first two chapters of St. Matt. 
was omitted, the supernatural character of 
the narrative being contradictory to their 
views about the person of Jesus Christ. It is 
difficult to say with certainty what other 
books of the N.T. were known to them; but 
there is reason to believe that they (as also 
the Gnostic-Ebionites) were familiar with the 
Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke. The exist- 
ence among them of the ‘“ Protevangelium 
Jacobi’ and the Περιοδοὶ τοῦ Ἰ]έτρου indicates 
their respect for those Apostles. 

(b) Essene or Gnostic Ebionism.—This, as the 
name indicates, was a type of Ebionism affect- 
ed by external influences. The characteristic 
features of the ascetic Essenes were reproduced 
in its practices, and the traces of influences 
more directly mystical and oriental were 
evident in its doctrines. The different phases 
through which Ebionism passed at different 
times render it, however, difficult to distin- 
guish clearly in every case between Gnostic 
and Pharisaic Ebionism. Epiphanius (adv. 
Haer. xxx.) is the chief authority on the 
Gnostic Ebionites. He met them in Cyprus, 
and personally obtained information about 
them (cf. R. A. Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Krittk 
d. Epiphanios, pp. 138, 143, 150 etc.). 

Their principal tenets were as follows: 
Christianity they identified with primitive re- 
ligion or genuine Mosaism, as distinguished 
from what they termed accretions to Mosaism, 
or the post-Mosaic developments described in 
the later books of O.T. To carry out this 
distinction they fabricated two classes of 
“‘ prophets,”’ προφῆται ἀληθείας, and προφῆται 
συνέσεως οὐκ ἀληθείας. In the former class 
they placed Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, 
Jacob, Aaron, Moses, and Jesus; in the latter 
David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. In 
the same spirit they accepted the Pentateuch 
alone among the O.T. writings, and emascu- 
lated it; rejecting whatever reflected ques- 
tionably upon their favourites. They held 
that there were two antagonistic powers ap- 
pointed by God—Christ and devil; to the 
former was allotted the world to come, to 
the latter the present world. The conception 
of Christ was variously entertained. Some 
affirmed that He was created (not born) of the 
Father, a Spirit, and higher than the angels ; 
that He had the power of coming to this earth 
when He-would, and in various modes of 
manifestation; that He had been incarnate 
in Adam, and had appeared to the patriarchs 
in bodily shape; others identified Adam and 
Christ. In these last days He had come in 
the person of Jesus. Jesus was therefore to 
them a successor of Moses, and not of higher 


280 EBIONISM and EBIONITES 


authority. They quoted from their gospel a 
saying attributed to Him, ‘‘ I am He concern- 
ing Whom Moses prophesied, saying, A pro- 
phet shall the Lord God raise unto you like 
unto me,” etc. (Clem. Homi. iii. c. 53), and this 
was enough to identify His teaching with that 
of genuine Mosaism. But by declining to fix 
the precise moment of the union of the Christ 
with the man Jesus—a union assigned by 
Pharisaic Ebionites to the hour of Baptism— 
they admitted His miraculous origin. 

In pursuance of their conception that the 
devil was the “ prince of this world”’ they 
were strict ascetics. They abjured flesh-meat, 
repudiating passages (e.g. Gen. xviii. 8) which 
contradicted their view ; they refused to taste 
wine, and communicated with unleavened 
bread and water. Water was to them “in 
the place of a god’”’; ablutions and lustra- 
tions were imperative and frequent. But they 
held the married life in honour, and recom- 
mended early marriages. To the observance 
of the Jewish sabbath they added that of 
the Christian Lord’s day. Circumcision was 
sacred to them from the practice of the patri- 
archs and of Jesus Christ ; and they declined 
all fellowship with the uncircumcised, but 
repudiated the sacrifices of the altar and the 
reverence of the Jew for the Temple. In 
common with the Ebionites proper, they 
detested St. Paul, rejected his epistles, and 
circulated stories discreditable to him. The 
other Apostles were known to them by their 
writings, which they regarded as inferior to 
their own gospel. 

The conjecture appears not improbable that 
as the siege of Jerusalem under Titus gave an 
impetus to Ebionism proper, so the ruin under 
Hadrian developed Gnostic Ebionism. Not 
that Gnosticism began then to affect it for the 
first time, but that Gnostic ideas hitherto held 
in solution were precipitated and found a 
congenial home among men who through 
contact with oriental systems in Syria were 
already predisposed to accept them (cf. 
Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, lect. viii.). 
This is further evident from the book of ΕἸ- 
chasai and the Clementine literature. These 
works are the production of the Essene Ebion- 
ites; and where they speak of Jesus Christ 
and His Apostles, His sayings and their lives, 
they do so, not in the words of the canonical 
Gospels and Epistles, but with additions or 
omissions, and a colouring which transforms 
(e.g.) St. Peter, St. Matthew, and St. James 
the Just into Essenes, and yet with that 
Gnostic tendency of thought which makes 
them lineal descendants of the Judaizers who 
imperilled the church at Colossae. (See 
Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 73, etc., and Essenism 
and Christianity, p. 397, etc.) 

The Essene or Gnostic-Ebionites differed 
from the Pharisaic Ebionites in another re- 
spect. By missionary zeal, as well as by 
literary activity, they sought to obtain con- 
verts to their views. In the earlier part 
of the 3rd cent. the Ebionite Alcibiades of 
Apamea (Syria) repaired to Rome. He 
brought with him the book of Elchasai, and 
<< preached unto men a new remission of sins 
(proclaimed) in the third year of Trajan’s 
reign ’”’ (A.D. τοι). Hippolytus, who gives an 
account of the matter (Haer. ix. c. viii. etc., 


EBIONISM and EBIONITES 


ed. Clark), exposed the decided antinomianism 
which penetrated the teaching of the mythical 
teacher and of the pupil, but it is evident that 
many ‘‘ became victims of the delusion.’’ The 
immorality which the book—in imitation of 
the teaching of Callistus—indirectly encour- 
aged probably attracted some, but would dis- 
credit the dogmatic views of the missionary. 
Ebionite Christianity did not, however, last 
very long, neither did it exercise much influ- 
ence west of Syria while it lasted. In Pales- 
tine the discomfiture accorded to “ἃ certain 
one’’ (probably Alcibiades) who came to 
Caesarea c. A.D. 247 maintaining the ‘“‘ ungodly 
and wicked error of the Elkesaites”’ (Eus. 
vi. 38; cf. Redepenning, Origines, ii. p. 72) 
was in keeping with the reception accorded to 
less extreme Ebionite views from the time of 
the reconstitution of the mother-church at 
Aelia Capitolina. Judaism of every kind 
gradually passed out of favour. The attitude 
of the bishops of Palestine in the Paschal con- 
troversy of the 2nd cent. was that of men who 
wished to stand clear of any sympathy with 
Jewish customs; the language of Justin 
Martyr and of Hegesippus was the language 
of the representatives of the Samaritan and 
the Hebrew Christianity of the day, not of the 
Ebionite. Outside of Palestine Ebionism had 
even less chance of survival. From the very 
first, the instructions and memories of St. Paul 
and St. John excluded it from Asia Minor ; in 
Antioch the names of Ignatius, Theophilus, 
and Serapion were vouchers for Catholic doc- 
trine and practice ; and the daughter-churches 
of Gaul and Alexandria naturally preferred 
doctrine supplied to them by teachers trained 
in the school of these Apostles. Even in the 
church of Rome, whatever tendency existed 
in Apostolic times towards Ebionism, the 
separation—also in Apostolic times—of the 
Judaizers was the beginning of the end which 
no after-amalgamation under Clement could 
retard. The tone of the Shepherd of Hermas 
—a work which emanated from the Roman 
church during the first half of the 2nd cent. 
(see Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 99, n. 3)—however 
different from the tone of Clement and St. Paul, 
is not Ebionite, as a comparison with another 
so-called Roman and certainly later Ebionite 
work—the Clementine writings—shews. The 
end of Ebionism had actually come in the 
Roman church when in the 2nd cent. Jewish 
practices—notably as regards the observance 
of Easter—were unhesitatingly rejected. The 
creed of the Christian in Rome was the creed 
which he held from Irenaeus in Gaul and 
Polycarp in Asia Minor, and not from the 
Ebionite. When the above-named Alcibiades 
appeared in Rome (A.D. 219), Hippolytus de- 
nounced his teaching (that of Elchasai) as that 
of “ἃ wolf risen up against many wandering 
sheep, whom Callistus had scattered abroad ”’ : 
it came upon him as a novelty ; it had “ risen 
up,” he says, ‘‘in our own day” (Haer. ix. 
cc. 8, 12). This language is a proof of the 
oblivion which had certainly befallen any 
previous propagation of Ebionism in Rome. 
For 200 years more Ebionism—especially 
of the Essene form—lingered on. A few 
Ebionites were left in the time of Theodoret, 
about the middle of 5th cent. ; the rest had 
returned to strict Judaism and the utter re- 


‘ 


i SR 


EDESIUS 


jection of Christianity, or to a purer Cbris- 
tianity than that which Ebionism favoured. 
The Patristic notices on the Ebionites will 
be found in the works referred to (cf. on their 
value, R. A. Lipsius, Die Quellen d. dllesten 
Ketzergeschichte, 1875). The literature on the 
subject is further collected by (int. al.) Schlie- 
mann, Dte Clementinen (1844); Ritschl, Die 
Entstehung d. alt-katholischen Kirche (1857) ; 
Lightfoot, Galatians, Dissertation III. St. Paul 
and the Three (1876). [j.M.F.] 
Edesius (3) shared the romantic fortunes of 
his brother Frumentius, the first bp. of Aux- 
umis (Axum), in the 4th cent. The bio- 
graphical details at our disposal consist of a 
lengthy narrative, introduced, on the authority 
of Edesius, by Rufinus into his Ecclesiastical 
History (lib. i. 9). This narrative has been 
copied, with slight deviations, by Socrates 
(H. E. i. 19), Sozomen (ii. 24), and Theodoret 
(i. 23, 24). Cf. also Baronius (Ann. 327, 
viii. ix. x.). Frumentius and Edesius, the 
young relatives of Meropius, a Syrian philo- 
sopher (merchant), accompanied him on a 
voyage of adventure to India. On their re- 
turn to Phoenicia by way of the Red Sea, they 
landed ‘‘ at a certain port,’’ where there was 
““a safe haven,’’ and there suffered from the 
barbarous assault of the ‘‘ Indians,’’ who 
murdered all the ship’s company except the 
two youths, who were conveyed as prizes to 
the king. He appointed Frumentius and 
Edesius as his treasurer and cup-bearer re- 
spectively. By their means Christianity was 
introduced among ‘‘the Indians.’ Their 
names in Ethiopian documents given by Lu- 
dolf (Hist. Eth. iii. 2) are Fremonatos and Syd- 
vacus (cf. Gesenius, Aethiop. Kirche in Ersch 
and Gruber, and Hoffmann in Herzog’s 
Encyc.). The word “ India’”’ is used with the 
same indefiniteness as are Ethiopia and Libya 
elsewhere. From the times of Aristotle to 
those of Eratosthenes and of Hipparchus, 
India and Africa were believed to unite at 
some unknown point S. of the Indian Ocean 
(Dict. Anc. Geogr. vol. ii. p. 45, art. ‘‘India”’; 
Pliny, vi. 22-24). These ‘‘Indians’’ were 
Abyssinians, as we see from the subsequent 
career of Frumentius. The king, according 
to Ludolf’s Ethiopian Codex, was called 
Abreha, and on drawing near his end, offered 
their liberty to the two youths. The queen- 
mother earnestly besought them to remain, to 
undertake the education of the young prince 
Erazanes, and to assist her in the regency 
during his minority. They consented, and 
lost no opportunity of diffusing a knowledge 
of Christ. They sought out Christian mer- 
chants trading in the country, gathered 
Christian disciples, and built houses of prayer, 
“that worship might be offered, and the 
Roman ecclesiastical routine observed ”’ (Soz. 
l.c.). They were not in orders, and Frumen- 
tius went to Alexandria and asked for a bishop 
to be sent to Abyssinia. Athanasius conse- 
crated Frumentius himself. Edesius remained 
at Tyre and became a presbyter of the church 
there, where Rufinus met him. [H.R.R.] 
Elagabalus. The short reign of this feeble 
and profligate emperor, though not coming 
into direct contact with the history of the 
Christian church, is not without interest as a 
phase of the religious condition of the empire. 


ELESBAAN 287 


Varius Avitus Bassianus, as he was named 
at his birth, was of Phoenician descent, and 
born at Emesa, in Syria, c. A.D. 205. His 
mother, Julia Soémia, and aunt, Julia Mam- 
maea, were devoted to the worship of El-gabal 
(=God the Creator, or, according to less 
probable etymology, God of the Mountains), 
and he and his cousin Alexander Severus were 
in early childhood consecrated as priests of 
that deity, and the young Bassianus took the 
name of the god to whom he ministered. 

Julia Mammaea had eclectic tendencies, and 
by her invitation the great Origen came to 
Antioch (probably, however, after the death 
of Elagabalus), and was received with many 
marks of honour. Eusebius, who relates the 
fact (H. E. vi. 21), speaks of her as a woman 
of exceptional piety (γυνὴ θεοσεβεστάτη εἰ καί 
τις ἄλλη γεγονυία), and we may trace her 
influence in the character of her son Alexander 
Severus. [SEVERUS (2).] After spending 
some time at Nicomedia, where he entered on 
his second consulship, Elagabalus proceeded 
in A.D. 219 (the year in which Callistus suc- 
ceeded Zephyrinus as bp. of Rome) to the 
capital. His short reign there was a frenzy 
of idolatrous impurity. His jealousy and 
suspicion led him to imprison Alexander 
Severus, whose virtue attracted the admira- 
tion both of soldiers and people, and whom, 
at his mother’s advice, he had adopted and 
proclaimed as Caesar soon after arriving in 
Rome. The troops rose and rescued their 
favourite. The two sisters, each with her 
son, appeared at the head of their supporters, 
and the followers of Severus were victorious. 
Soémia and the boy-emperor were thrown into 
the Tiber (hence the epithet Tiberinus after- 
wards attached to him in derision), and the 
senate branded his name with eternal infamy. 


Dio. Cass. Ixxvil. 30-41, Ixxix.; Herodian, 
v. 4-23;  Lamprid. Elagab.; Capitolin. 
Macrinus; Eutrop. viii. 13; Aurel. Victor, 


de Caes. xxiii., Epit. xxiii.) [E-H.P.] 

Elesbaan, a king, hermit, and saint of 
Ethiopia during the 6th cent. (Rome, Oct. 27 ; 
Ethiopia, Ginbot, xx. May 15; cf. Ludolphus, 
p- 415), whose exact story is difficult to trace. 
(Cf. Ludolphus, History of Ethiopia, ed. 1684, 
p- 167; Lebeau, Histoire du Bas Empire, ed. 
1827. viii. 47, note 4; Walch, in Novt Com- 
mentarit Soc. Reg. Gottingen. t. iv.; Historia 
Rerum in Homeritide Saec. vi. Gestarum, p. 4-) 
The importance of the crusades on which his 
fame rests is attested by Gibbon, who asserts 
that, had their purpose been attained, ‘* Ma- 
homet must have been crushed in his cradle, 
and Abyssinia would have prevented a re- 
volution which has changed the civil and re- 
ligious state of the world” (Decline and Fall, 
c. xlii. sub fin.). The details of the saint's 
wars and character are drawn from the Acta 
S. Arethae, extant in two forms: the earlier 
and more authentic, found by Lequien in the 
Colbert Library (Oriens Christianus, ii. 428), 
is referred by the Jesuit author of the Acta 
Sanctorum to the 7th cent. at latest; the 
later is, at best, but the recension of Simeon 
Metaphrastes, in the roth cent. 

It was probably during the later years of 
Anastasius’s reign that Elesbaan succeeded 
his father Tazena on the throne of Ethiopia. 
His kingdom was greatly dependent for its 


ELESBAAN 


welfare upon the goodwill and good order of 
the people of Yemen, the Homeritae, from 
whom it was separated by the narrow strait 
of Bab-el-Mandeb: for though the territory 
of the Homeritae the merchants of Syria and 
of Rome came to the great port of Adulis (cf. 
Assemani Bibl. Orientalis, i. p. 360), near 
whose ruins in Annesley Bay the Arabian 
traders still unlade their ships (cf. Henry Salt, 
A Voyage to Abyssinia, c. ix. p. 451). When 
Elesbaan succeeded, the Homeritae had great- 
ly obscured the Christianity which they had 
received in the reign of Constantius, but the 
language of Cosmas Indicopleustes (Migne, 
Patr. Gk. vol. 1xxxviii. p. 170) shews that it 
was not wholly extinct. The name of their 
king is variously written Dunaan and Dhu 
Nowas; by John of Asia as Dimion; by 
Theophanes as Damian. He had been made 
king c. 490, by the people whom he had freed 
from their gross tyrant Laknia Dhu Sjenatir ; 
and having shortly after his accession forsworn 
idolatry and embraced Judaism, determined 
to enforce his new creed with the sword (cf. 
Acta Sanctorum, Oct. vol. x. p. 693). In 
retaliation for the sufferings of the Jews 
throughout the Christian empire, he exacted 
heavy tolls from all Christian merchants who 
came through his territory to the port of Aden 
and the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, and, 
according to John of Asia (cf. Assemani, Bzbl. 
Orientalits, i. 360), put many Christians to death. 
Such action was injurious to the commerce 
of all the neighbouring peoples, but especially 
of Ethiopia; and Elesbaan soon after his 
accession sent a useless remonstrance, and then 
prepared for war. About A.D. 519 he crossed 
the straits, utterly defeated the Arabian 
forces, and driving the Jew to refuge in the 
hills, left a viceroy to bear Christian rule over 
the Homeritae and returned to Ethiopia 
(1b. p. 362). The time of this expedition is 
incidentally and approximately marked by 
Cosmas Indicopleustes, who tells us that he 
was at Adulis “ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ τῆς βασιλείας ᾿Ιουσ- 
τίνου τοῦ Ῥωμαίων Bacihews” (A.D. 518-527), 
when the king of the people of Axum, being 
about to war against the Homeritae, sent to 
ask the governor of Adulis for a copy of a 
certain inscription; which copy Cosmas and 
another monk were charged to make (Migne, 
Patr. Gk. vol. \xxxviii. p. 102). 

The death of the viceroy, probably in a.p. 
522 or 523, whom Elesbaan had left in Yemen, 
encouraged Dhu Nowas to come down from 
his hiding-place in the hills (‘* tanquam 
daemon carne indutus,’’ Acta Sanctorum, Oct. 
xii. 316), and reassert himself as king of the 
Homeritae and champion of Judaism. Choos- 
ing a season when the Arabian Gulf would be 
an impassable barrier to the intervention of 
Elesbaan, he gathered a force which presently 
numbered 120,000 men and, having put to 
death all Christians whom he could find and 
turned their church into a synagogue, pressed 
on to Negran, the head-quarters of the 
Ethiopian vice-royalty, then held by Arethas 
the phylarch. He found the garrison fore- 
warned and the gates closed; nor were they 
opened at his threats, when coming to the 
wall and holding up a wooden cross he swore 
that all who would not blaspheme the Crucified 


288 


and insult the sign of His suffering should die. | 


ELESBAAN 


At last by treachery Dhu Nowas won an 
entrance, promising to hurt none of the 
citizens and only demanding an exorbitant 
tribute; but having entered, he began at once 
the reckless massacre which has left its mark 
even in the Koran (cf. Walch’s paper in the 
Géttingen Commentari, p. 25). Arethas and 
Ruma his wife died with a defiant confession 
on their lips; more than 4,000 Christian men, 
women, and children were killed (commem- 
orated in the Roman calendar on Oct. 24) ; 
and from the fiery dyke into which the victims 
were thrown, Dhu Nowas received the name 
Saheb-el-Okhdud (‘‘LordoftheTrench’’). At 
this time, probably in Jan. 524, Simeon, bp. 
of Beth-Arsam, had been sent by the emperor 
Justin, together with Abraham, a priest of 
Constantinople, to gain the alliance of Mund- 
hir III., king of the Arabians of Hira, a friend 
valuable alike for reasons of commerce and in 
regard to the war with Persia. As the ambas- 
sadors drew near the king (the story is told by 
Simeon in a letter to the abbat of Gabula), 
they were met bya crowd of Arabs crying that 
Christ was driven out of Rome and Persia and 
Homeritis; and they learnt that messengers 
were present from Dhu Nowas with letters to 
king Mundhir, in which they heard the long 
recital of the treachery by which Negran had 
been taken, of the insult to the bishop’s tomb, 
of the slaughter of the Christians and the 
triumph of Judaism, the confession of the 
martyr Arethas, and the speech of Ruma 
urging the women of Negran to follow her to 
the abiding city of the divine Bridegroom, 
praying that the blood of the martyrs might 
be the wall of Negran while it continued in the 
faith, and that she might be forgiven for that 
Arethas had died first. They heard of her 
brutal murder, and the appeal of Dhu Nowas 
that Mundhir should at once enact a like 
massacre throughout his kingdom. Their 
own end must have seemed very near; but 
the courage of a soldier who stood forth as 
spokesman of the many Christians in Mund- 
hir’s army decided the hesitation of the king, 
and the ambassadors went away unhurt (but 
apparently unanswered) to Naaman, a port in 
the Arabian Gulf. There they heard more 
fully the story of the massacre, and especially 
of the constancy of a boy, who was afterwards 
known to the bp. of Asia at Justinian’s 
court. Simeon of Beth-Arsam thus closes his 
letter, praying that the news may be spread 
throughout the church and the martyrs re- 
ceive the honour of commemoration, and that 
the king of Ethiopia may be urged to help 
the Homeritae against the oppression of the 
Jew (cf. Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. 364-379). 
When this message reached Elesbaan, it was 
reinforced by a letter from Justin, elicited by 
the entreaties of Dous Ibn Dzi Thaleban, one 
of the few Christians who had escaped Dhu 
Nowas (cf. Wright, Early Christianity in 
Arabia, p. 56). This letter is given in the 
Acta 5. Arethae; where also it is told how the 
patriarch of Alexandria, at the request of 
Justin, urged Elesbaan to invade Yemen, 
offering up a litany and appointing a vigil on 
his behalf, and sending to him the Eucharist 
in a silver vessel. Without delay Elesbaan 
collected a great army, which he divided into 
two parts; 15,000 men he sent southwards 


, 
᾿ 


ELESBAAN 


to cross at Bab-el-Mandeb and, marching 
through Yemen, divert the strength of Dhu 
Nowas’s forces from the main body of the 
Ethiopians, which Elesbaan intended to send 
by sea to some place on the S. coast of Arabia. 
For the transport of these latter he appro- 
priated 60 merchant vessels then anchored in 
his ports, adding ten more, built after the 
native fashion, the planks being held together 
by ropes. On the eve of the enterprise he 
went in procession to the great church of 
Axum, and there, laying aside his royalty, 
sued in forma pauperis for the favour of Him 
Whose war he dared to wage; praying that 
his sins might be visited on himself, and not 
on his people. Then he sought the blessing, 
counsel, and prayers of St. Pantaleon; and 
received from within the doorless and window- 
less tower, where the hermit had lived for 45 
years, the answer: ““Eorw σὺν σοι ὁ συμ- 
βασιλεύων σοι. Thus the army was sent on 
its twofold route. 

For the 15,000 Bab-el-Mandeb was indeed 
a gate of tears: they died of hunger, wander- 
ing in the desert. The main body was safely 
embarked, and sailed S. down the Gulf of 
Arabia towards the straits ; which Dhu Nowas 
had barred by a huge chain, stretched across 
the space of two furlongs from side to side. 
Over this, however, first ten ships and then 
seven more, including that of the Ethiopian 
admiral, were lifted by the waves; the rest 
were driven back by stress of weather, but 
presently, the chain being, according to one 
account, broken, forced the passage, and 
passing the other seventeen, cast anchor 
farther along the coast. Meanwhile Dhu 
Nowas, having first encamped on the W. shore, 
where he thought his chain would force the 
Ethiopians to land, hurried from his position, 
and leaving but a few men to resist the 
smaller fleet, watched with his main army 
the movements of the rest. Those on the 
17 ships under the Ethiopian admiral easily 
effected a landing near Aden, and defeating the 
troops opposed to them, pressed on to the 
chief city, Taphar, or Taphran, which sur- 
rendered immediately (cf. Wright, op. cit. 
58-60). Discouraged by this disaster, the 
main body of the Arabians offered a feeble 
resistance; and Dhu Nowas saw that his 
downfall was very near. According to the 
Arabian historians, he threw himself from the 
cliff and died in the waves; according to the 
Acta S. Arethae, he bound his seven kinsmen 
in chains, and fastened them to his throne, 
lest they should fail to share his fate; and so 
awaited death at Elesbaan’s own hand. The 
Arabic writers are unsupported in their story 
of the useless resistance of a successor Dhu 
Giadan ; it was probably at the death of Dhu 
Nowas that the kingdom of the Homeritae 
ended, and Yemen became a province of 
Ethiopia. At Taphar Elesbaan is said to have 
built a church, digging the foundations for 
seven days with his own hands; and from 
Taphar he wrote of his victory to the patriarch 
of Alexandria. A bishop was sent from 
Alexandria and appointed to the see of Ne- 
gran, but there are doubts as to both the 
orthodoxy and identity of this bishop. The 
king restored Negran, entrusting it to Are- 
thas’s son, rebuilding and endowing the 


ELESBAAN 280 


great church, and granting perpetual right of 
asylum to the place where the bodies of the 
martyrs had lain, and then returned to Ethiopia 
(Boll. Acta SS. Oct. xii. 322), leaving a Christian 
Arab named Esimiphaeus or Ariathus, to be 
his viceroy over the conquered people. A part 
of Elesbaan’s army, however, refused to leave 
the luxury of Arabia Felix, and not long 
after set up as rival to Esimiphaeus one 
Abrahah or Abraham, the Christian slave of a 
Roman merchant, who was strong enough to 
shut up the viceroy in a fort and seize the 
throne of Yemen. A force of 3,000 men was 
sent by Elesbaan, under a prince of his house, 
whom some call Aryates or Arethas, to depose 
the usurper; and it seems that Abrahah, like 
Dhu Nowas, sought safety among the moun- 
tains. But he soon (c. 540) came down and 
confronted the representative of Elesbaan ; 
and at the critical moment the Ethiopian 
troops deserted and murdered their general. 
To maintain his supremacy and avenge his 
kinsman, Elesbaan sent a second army; but 
this, loyally fighting with Abrahah, was 
utterly defeated, and only a handful of men 
returned to Ethiopia. The Arabic historians 
record that Elesbaan swore to yet lay hold of 
the land of the Homeritae, both mountain 
and plain, pluck the forelock from the rebel’s 
head, and take his blood as the price of Ary- 
ates’s death; and they tell of the mixed 
cunning and cowardice by which Abrahah 
satisfied the Ethiopian’s oath, and evaded his 
anger, winning at last a recognition of his 
dignity. Procopius adds that Abrahah paid 
tribute to Elesbaan’s successor; and the 
Homeritae remained in free subjection to 
Ethiopia almost to the end of the century. 
Records are extant, almost in the very words 
of the ambassadors, of two embassies from 
Justinian to Elesbaan. Joannes Malala, in 
writing of the first, had the autograph of the 
envoy whom Procopius (de Bello Persico, i. 20) 
calls Julian; Photius has preserved, in the 
third codex of his Bibliotheca, Nonnosus’s story 
of his experience in the second mission. Julian 
must have been sent before 531, for Cabades 
was still living, and, according to Procopius, 
Esimiphaeus was viceroy of Homeritis. He 
was received by Elesbaan, according to his 
own account, with the silence of an intense 
joy; for the alliance of Rome had long been 
the great desire of the Ethiopians. The king 
was seated on a high chariot, drawn by four 
elephants caparisoned with gold; he wore a 
loose robe studded with pearls, and round his 
loins a covering of linen embroidered with 
gold. He received Justinian’s letter with 
every sign of respect, and began to prepare his 
forces to take part in the Persian war even 
before Julian was dismissed from his court 
with the kiss of peace (Johannis Malalae, 
Chronographia, xviil. Bonn. ed. pp. 457, 458). 
Malala records no sequel of these preparations ; 
Procopius complains that none occurred. 
The second embassy was sent primarily to 
Kaisus or Imrulcays, the prince of the Chindini 
and Maaddeni, and only secondarily to the 
Homeritae and Ethiopians, probably in the last 
years of Elesbaan’sreign. Nonnosus the envoy 
belonged to a family of diplomatists. But 
Photius does not state the purpose or result 
of this journey ; only telling of the great herd 


19 


200 ELEUSIUS 


of 5,000 elephants which Nonnosus saw be- 
tween Adulis and Axum, and the pigmy 
negroes who met him on an island as he sailed 
away from Pharsan (Photii, Bzbliotheca, 
Bekker’s ed. pp. 2, 3). 

The story of Elesbaan’s abdication and se- 
clusion is told in the Acta 5. Arethae. Having 
accepted the fealty and recognized the royalty 
of Abrahah, and having confirmed the faith 
of Christ in Homeritis, he laid aside his crown 
and assumed the garb of a solitary. His cell 
is still shewn to the traveller; it was visited 
in 1805 by Henry Salt, and has been elaborate- 
ly described by Mendez and Lefevre. There 
the king remained in solitude and great 
asceticism ; and the year of his death is un- 
known. His crown he sent to Jerusalem, 
praying that it might be hung “ in conspectu 
januae vivifici sepulchri.” [F.P.] 

Eleusius (2), bp. of Cyzicus, a prominent 
semi-Arian in the 2nd half of the 4th cent., 
intimately connected with Basil of Ancyra, 
Eustathius of Sebaste, Sophronius of Pom- 
peiopolis, and other leaders of the Macedonian 
party. He is uniformly described as of high 
personal character, holy in life, rigid in self- 
discipline, untiring in his exertions for what 
he deemed truth, and, according to St. Hilary, 
more nearly orthodox than most of his 
associates (Hilar. de Synod. p. 133). The 
people of his diocese are described by Theo- 
doret as zealous for the orthodox faith, and 
well instructed in the Holy Scriptures and in 
church doctrines, and he himself as a man 
worthy of all praise (Theod. H. E. li. 25; 
Haer. Fab. iv. 3). Though usually found 
acting with the tyrannical! and unscrupulous 
party, of which Macedonius was the original 
leader, and sharing in the discredit of their 
measures against the holders of the Homo- 
ousian faith, Eleusius was uncompromising 
in opposing the pronounced Arians, by whom 
he was persecuted and deposed. He held 
office in the Imperial household when sud- 
denly elevated to the see of Cyzicus by 
Macedonius, bp. of Constantinople, c. 356 (Soz. 
H. E. iv. 20; Suidas, s.v. ’"EXevowos). He 
signalized his entrance on his office by a vehe- 
ment outburst of zeal against the relics of 
paganism at Cyzicus. He shewed no less de- 
cision in dealing with the Novatianists, with 
whom a community of persecution had caused 
the Catholics to unite. He destroyed their 
church, and forbade their assemblies for wor- 
ship (Socr. H. E. 11: 38; Soz. H. EF. iv. 21; v. 
15). He soon acquired great influence over 
his people by hisreligious zeal and the gravity 
of hismanners. Heestablished in his diocese 
a large number of monasteries, both for males 
and females (Suidas, w.s.). He took part in 
the semi-Arian council at Ancyra 358 a.p. 
(Hilar. de Synod. p. 127), and was one of the 
members deputed to lay before Constantius at 
Sirmium the decrees they had passed, con- 
demnatory of the Anomoeans (Hilar. w.s.; 
Soz. H. E. iv. 13; Labbe, Concil. ii. 790). 
At the council of Seleucia, a.p. 359, he replied 
to the proposition of the Acacians to draw 
up a new confession of faith, by asserting 
that they had not met to receive a new faith, 
but to pledge themselves for death to that 
of the fathers (Socr. H. E. ii. 39, 40). Being 
commissioned with Eustathius of Sebaste, 


ELEUTHERUS 


Basil of Ancyra, and others, to communicate 
the result of the synod to Constantius, Eleusius 
denounced the blasphemies attributed to 
Eudoxius so vigorously that the latter was 
compelled by tbe emperor’s threats to re- 
tract (Theod. H. E. ii. 23). [Eupoxtius; 
EUSTATHIUS OFSEBASTE.| The wily Acacians, 
however, speedily gained the ear of Constan- 
tius, and secured the deposition of their semi- 
Arian rivals, including Eleusius, a.p. 360. 
The nominal charge against him was that he 
had baptized and ordained one Heraclius of 
Tyre, who, being accused of magic, had fled 
to Cyzicus, and whom, when the facts came 
to his knowledge, he had refused to depose. 
He was also charged with having admitted to 
holy orders persons condemned by his neigh- 
bour, Maris of Chalcedon (Soz. H. E. iv. 24; 
Socr. H. E. ii. 42). His old patron, Mace- 
donius of Constantinople, who had been got 
rid of at the same time, wrote to encourage 
him and the other deposed prelates in their 
adherence to the Antiochene formula and to 
the ‘‘ Homoiousian’’ as the watchword of 
their party (Socr. H. E. ii. 45; Soz. H. E. iv. 
27). The subtle Anomoean Eunomius was 
intruded into the see of Cyzicus by Eudoxius, 
who had succeeded Macedonius (Socr. H. E. 
iv. 7; Philost. H. E. v. 3). Eunomius failed 
to secure the goodwill of the people who re- 
fused to attend where he officiated, and built 
a church for themselves outside the town. 
On the accession of Julian, a.p. 361, Eleusius, 
with the other deposed prelates, returned to 
his see, but was soon expelled a second time 
by Julian, on the representation of the heathen 
inhabitants of Cyzicus, for his zeal against 
paganism (Soz. H. Ε. ν. 15). At Julian’s death 
Eleusius regained possession. He took the 
lead at the Macedonian council of Lampsacus, 
A.D. 365 (Socr. H. E. iv. 4). At Nicomedia, 
A.D. 366, he weakly succumbed to Valens’s 
threats of banishment and confiscation, and 
accepted the Arian creed. Full of remorse, he 
assembled his people on his return to Cyzicus, 
confessed and deplored his crime, and desired, 
since he had denied his faith, to resign his 
charge to a worthier. The people, devotedly 
attached to him, refused to accept his re- 
signation (7b. 6; Philost. H. E. ix. 13). In 
381 Eleusius was the chief of 36 bishops of 
Macedonian tenets summoned by Theodosius 
to the oecumenical council of Constantinople 
in the hope of bringing them back to Catholic 
doctrine. This anticipation proved nugatory ; 
Eleusius and his adherents obstinately refused 
all reconciliation, maintaining their heretical 
views on the Divinity of the Holy Ghost (Socr. 
H. E. v. 8; Soz. Hy E. vil. 7). \Siumilanlygat 
the conference of bishops of all parties in 383, 
to which Eleusius was also invited as chief of 
the Macedonians, the differences proved irre- 
concilable, and the emperor manifested his 
disappointment by severe edicts directed 
against the Macedonians, Eunomians, Arians, 
and other heretics (Tillem. Mém. Eccl. vol. vi. 
passim). [E.v.] 
Eleutherus (1), bp. of Rome in the reigns 
of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, during 
15 years, 6 months, and 5 days, according to 
the Liberian catalogue. Eusebius (H. E. v. 
prooem.) places his accession in the 17th year 
of Antoninus Verus (i.e. Marcus Aurelius), viz, 


ELEUTHERUS 


A.D. 177; Which would make 192 the date 
of his death. But the consuls given in the 
Liberian catalogue as contemporary with bis 
election and death are those of 171 and 185. 

Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 
22), states that when he himself arrived in 
Rome, Eleutherus was deacon of Anicetus, who 
was then bishop, and became bishop on the 
death of Soter, the successor of Anicetus (cf. 
Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 3, and Jerome, de Vir. 
Illustr. c. 22). 

Eleutherus was contemporary with the 
Aurelian persecution ; and after the death of 
Aurelius the Christians had peace, in conse- 
quence, it is said, of the favour of Marcia, the 
concubine of Commodus; the only recorded 
exception in Rome being the martyrdom of 
Apollonius in the reign of Commodus (Eus. 
H. E.v. 21; Jerome, Catal. c. 42). The chief 
sufferers under Aurelius were the churches of 
Asia Minor and those of Lyons and Vienne 
in Southern Gaul, a.p. 177. In letters to 
Eleutherus by the hand of Irenaeus the latter 
churches made known, “ for the sake of the 
peace of the churches”’ (H. E. v. 3), their 
own judgment, with that of their martyrs 
while in prison, respecting the claims of 
Montanus to inspiration. 

The fact of the bp. of Rome having been 
especially addressed on this occasion has been 
adduced as an acknowledgment in that early 
age of his supreme authority. But the letters 
of the martyrs to Eleutherus do not appear, 
from Eusebius, to have had any different 
purport from those sent also to the churches 
of Asia and Phrygia, nor does their object 
seem to have been to seek a judgment, but 
rather to express one, in virtue, we may 
suppose, of the weight carried in those days 
by the utterances of martyrs. Their having 
addressed Eleutherus, as well as the churches 
where Montanus himself was teaching, is suffi- 
ciently accounted for by the prominence of the 
Roman bishop’s position in the West, about 
which thereisnodispute. Ofthe course taken 
by Eleutherus with respect to Montanus no- 
thing can be alleged with certainty. 

Besides the heresy of Montanus, those of 
Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdo, and Marcion 
were then at their height, and gained many 
adherents in Rome. Valentinus and Cerdo 
had come there between 138 and 142; Mar- 
cion a little later. There is, however, some 
difficulty in placing the sojourn in Rome of 
these heresiarchs in the episcopate of Eleu- 
therus; Valentinus, according to other ac- 
counts, having died previously (see Tillem. On 
Eleutherus). Florinus and Blastus also, 
two degraded presbyters of Rome, broached 
during the episcopate of Eleutherus certain 
heresies, of which nothing is known except 
what may be gathered from the titles of certain 
lost treatises written against them by Ire- 
naeus (Eus. H. E. v. 14, 15, 20, Pacian, Ep. i.). 
The visit of Irenaeus to Eleutherus gave the 
latter opportunity to become acquainted with 
the prevalent heresies, against which he be- 
came the most distinguished champion. 

Especially interesting to Englishmen is the 
story connecting Eleutherus with the origin 
of British Christianity (Bede, H. E. c. iv.). 
{Lucius (16)]. This account, written some 
500 years after the event, is the earliest men- 


ELIAS 291 


tion of it in any historian. It seems pretty 
certain that it was from a Roman catalogue 
that Bede got his information, Gildas, his 
usual authority, being silent on the subject. 
In the hands of chroniclers after Bede the 
story receives several and growing additions. 
The story is first found in its simplest form 
in the Pontifical annals at Rome, in the 6th 
cent. ; is introduced into Britain by Bede in 
the 8th; grows into the conversion of the 
whole of Britain in the 9th; and appears 
full-fledged, enriched with details, and con- 
nected with both Llandaff and Glastonbury, 
in the 12th. There is, however, nothing 
improbable in the original story itself, and it 
is more likely to have had some fact than pure 
invention for its origin, and the Welsh tradi- 
tions about Lleirwg, though unnoticed by 
Gildas, may have been ancient and genuine 
ones, independent of Bede’s account. Lin- 
gard takes this view, laying stress on the 
dedication of churches in the diocese of Llan- 
daff to Lleirwg and the saints associated with 
him, and supposing him to have been an 
independent British prince outside the 
Roman pale. In confirmation of the story 
is alleged further the fact that, shortly after 
the time of Eleutherus writers first begin to 
speak of British Christianity. For Tertullian, 
Origen, and Arnobius are the first to allude 
to the triumphs of the Gospel, though partial, 
in this remote island. What they say, how- 
ever, is quite consistent with the earlier, and 
other than Roman, origin of the British 
church ; and it may be tbat it was the very 
fact of their having borne this testimony that 
suggested Eleutherus, a pope shortly anterior 
to their date, as one to whom the mission 
might be assigned. {J-B—yY.] 
Elias (1) I., bp. of Jerusalem, A.D. 494-513 ; 
an Arab by birth who was educated with 
Martyrius, in one of the Nitrian monasteries. 
Driven from Egypt by Timothy Aelurus, 
the two friends took refuge, A.D. 457, in 
the laura of St. Euthymius, who received 
them with great favour, and predicted that 
they would both be bishops of Jerusalem. 
After a time they quitted the laura, and Elias 
constructed a cell at Jericho. In 478 Martyr- 
ius succeeded Anastasius as bp. of Jerusalem, 
and was followed by Sallustius in 486, and in 
494 by Elias. Moschus records that Elias 
practised total abstinence from wine both as 
monk and bishop (Prat. Spiritual. c. 25). His 
residence became the nucleus of a collection 
of cells of ascetics, which developed into a 
monastery adjacent to the church of the 
Anastasis (Cyril. Scythop. Vit. S. Sabae, c. 31). 
When Elias succeeded to the patriarchate, the 
Christian world exhibited a melancholy spec- 
tacle of discord. There were at least four 
great parties anathematizing one another. 
When the Monophysites (Acephali) in Syria, 
under the leadership of Xenaias of Hierapolis, 
broke into open insurrection, treating as 
heretics all who acknowledged the two natures, 
Elias was one of the chief objects of their 
attack. In 509 they demanded a confession 
of his faith, and Anastasius required him to 
convene a council to repudiate the decrees of 
Chalcedon. Elias declined, but drew up a 
letter to the emperor, containing a statement 
of his belief, accompanied by anathemas of 


202 ELKESAI, ELKESAITES 


Nestorius, Eutyches, Diodorus, and Theodore 
of Mopsuestia. This was entrusted to 
members of the Acephali to convey to Con- 
stantinople. When opened, it was found to 
contain an anathema against the two natures. 
Elias reproached the bearers with having 
falsified the document and thus laid him open 
to the charge, which he found it very hard to 
refute, of having condemned the council of 
Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. iii. 31; Theod. Lect. 
p- 561; Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 129, 130). 
Macedonius having been deposed A.D. 511, and 
Timotheus, an unscrupulous Monophysite 
monk, appointed to the see of Constantinople, 
Elias, whose principle appears to have been 
to accept the inevitable and to go the ut- 
most possible length in obedience to the ruling 
powers, seized on the fact that he had ab- 
stained at first from anathematizing the coun- 
cil of Chalcedon, as a warrant for joining com- 
munion with him and receiving his synodical 
letter. Elias could not contend against his 
many unscrupulous enemies, and in 513 was 
driven from his see, dying in 518 in banish- 
ment at Aila on the Red Sea shore, aet. 88. 
Tillem. Mém. Eccl. xvi.; Cyril. Scythop. Vita 
S. Euthymiit; and other authorities cited 
above. _ [Ἑ.5.]} 
Elkesai, Elkesaites (Ἡλχασαί, Hippolytus ; 
Ἡλξαί, ᾿Βλκεσσαῖοι, Epiphanius; ᾿Ἑλκεσαιταί, 
Origen). A book bearing the name of Elkesat 
and. purporting to contain angelic revelations, 
was, at the end of the 2nd cent., in high repute 
among certain Ebionite sectaries, who were 
most numerous in the district E. of the lower 
Jordan and the Dead Sea. This book first 
became known to orthodox writers in the 3rd 
cent., and we have accounts of it from three 
independent primary sources, Hippolytus, 
Origen, and Epiphanius. Hippolytus (ef. ix. 
12, p. 292) givesseveralextracts, and statesthat 
it was brought to Rome bya certain Alcibiades, 
a native of Apameia in Syria, and indicates 
that the time was during, or immediately after, 
the episcopate of Callistus—t.e. δ. A.D. 222. 
The great controversy then agitating the 
church of Rome was whether, and with what 
limitations, forgiveness might be bestowed on 
grievous post-baptismalsin. Hippolytus took 
the side of rigour and Callistus of leniency. 
This book of Elkesai announced a new method 
of forgiveness of sin, asserted to have been 
revealed in the third year of Trajan, by which 
any person, no matter of what sins he might 
have been guilty (some of the very grossest 
are expressly mentioned), might obtain for- 
giveness by submitting to a new baptism with 
the use of a certain formula of which we shall 
speak presently. A similar baptism was 
prescribed as a remedy for the bite of a mad 
dog or a serpent or for disease. Hippolytus 
takes credit for resisting the teaching of Alci- 
biades, and blames Callistus for having, by 
the laxity of his doctrine and practice con- 
cerning church discipline, pre-disposed men’s 
minds to the easy methods of forgiveness 
expounded in this book. Origen, in a frag- 
ment of a homily on the 82nd Psalm, pre- 
served by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 38) and assigned 
by Redepenning to a.D. 247, speaks of the 
teaching of the Helcesaites, some specimens 
of which he gives, as having then but lately 
troubled the churches. Epiphanius, though 


ELKESAI, ELKESAITES 


a later witness, professes to speak from per- 
sonal acquaintance with the book, and this 
is confirmed by his coincidence in a number of 
details with the other authorities. We may 
count the Pseudo-Clementine writings as a 
fourth source of information concerning the 
books of Elkesai. Hippolytus states that the 
book, according to its own account, had been 
obtained from Seres, in Parthia, by a righteous 
man named Elkesai; that its contents had 
been revealed by an angel 96 miles high, 
accompanied by a female of corresponding 
size ; that the male was Son of God, and the 
female was called Holy Spirit. Epiphanius 
speaks of Elkesai as a false prophet. Pro- 
bably this Elkesai was an imaginary person- 
age, and we must reject the account of 
Epiphanius who assigns to him a certain part 
in the history of the Ebionite sects. 

The book is evidently of Jewish origin. 
Jerusalem is made the centre of the world’s 
devotion, and the right rule of prayer is to 
turn not necessarily to the East, but towards 
Jerusalem. The names of the book are formed 
from Hebrew roots. A further mark of 
Aramaic origin is the representation of the 
Holy Spirit as a female. The book ordered 
compliance with ordinances of the Jewish 
law, but condemned the rite of sacrifice, so 
involving the rejection of parts of O.T., and 
of the eating of flesh. The superiority of the 
forgiveness of sins by the washing of water over 
that by the fire of sacrifice is based on the 
superiority of water to fire (Hipp.ix.14; Epiph. 
Haer. 19, p- 42; Clem. Rec. i. 48; Hom. xi. 
26). It is taught that Christ is but a created 
being, but the greatest of creatures, being 
Lord over angels as well as over every other 
created thing. The name Great King is 
applied to Him (Epiph. Haer. 19, p. 41; Hipp. 
ἴχ. τὸ; Hom. vil. 22). ὙΠ 6 formulagot 
baptism runs, In the name of the Most High 
God and of His Son, the Great King; but this 
Great King is not exclusively identified with 
Jesus of Nazareth, for He appeared in the world 
in successive incarnations, Adam being the 
first. The book agreed with the Clementines 
in complete rejection of St. Paul. It taught 
the lawfulness of denying the faith under per- 
secution (Eus. vi. 38; Epiph. 19), thus getting 
rid of the class of offences as to the forgiveness 
of which there was then most controversy. 

The statement of the book that the revela- 
tion was made in the 3rd year of Trajan is of 
no historic value. The work, however, which 
was the common groundwork of the Clement- 
ine Recognitions and Homilies [CLEMENTINE 
LITERATURE] asserts that a new gospel was 
published (the Homilies add “secretly ’’) after 
the destruction of the Holy Place; and it 
seems on other grounds probable that a number 
of Essenes, who had always held the Temple 
sacrifices in abomination, were brought to 
recognize Jesus as the true Prophet when the 
destruction of the Temple and the abolition 
of its sacrifices fulfilled His prediction. At 
this time, then, probably arose those Ebionite 
sects which combined a certain reverence for 
our Lord’s utterances, and an acknowledgment 
of Him as a divine prophet, with the retention 
of a host of Essene usages and doctrines. 
Hence the book of Elkesai may have been, as 
it professed to be, a considerable time in secret 


Ἄψ.:: 
«eee 


ELPIDIUS 


circulation among the Ebionite sects before 
Alcibiades brought it to Rome, though it is 
also possible that it may have been then of 
quite recent manufacture. 

It would seem to be long before the sect of 
Elkesaites disappeared. En-hedim, an Arabic 
author (c. A.D. 987) quoted by Chwolson (Die 
Sabiter, i. 112, ii. 543), tells of a sect of Sabeans 
of the Desert who practised frequent religious 
washings, and who counted one El-Chasaiach 
as their founder. See Ritschl, Zettschrift fur 
histor. Theol. (1853), ΡΡ. 573 544., Entstehung der 
altkatholischen Kirche, pp. 234Sqq-; Hilgenfeld, 
Nov. Test. extra Canonem Receptum, ili. 153, 
where all the fragments of the book are col- 
lected; Uhlhorn, Hom. u. Recog. des Clem. Rom. 
p- 392; and Lightfoot’s Dissertation on the 
Essenes, ‘“‘Ep.to Colossians,”’ pp-118sqq. [G.s.] 

Elpidius (8), bp. of Laodicea in Syria at the 
close of the 4th cent. and opening of the 5th. 
He was originally a priest of Antioch under 
Meletius, whose confidence he enjoyed and 
with whom he resided (ctexnvos) (Theod. 
H. E. v.27). Heshared in his master’s suffer- 
ings under Valens, and accompanied by Fla- 
vian, attended him at the council of Con- 
stantinople a.p. 381 (Labbe, ii. 955). We 
next find him as bishop at a council at Con- 
stantinople a.p. 394 (Labbe, ii. 1151), and 
again at Constantinople at the close of A.D. 
403, as a member of the council summoned 
by Chrysostom’s enemies, and issuing in his 
deposition. Elpidius had been an intimate 
friend of Chrysostom at Antioch, and now 
lent the weight of his age and well-deserved 
reputation to the defence of his old associate. 
When the validity of the canons of the council 
of Antioch, of suspected orthodoxy, used by 
Chrysostom’s enemies as an instrument to 
secure their object, came into question before 
the emperor, Elpidius adroitly turned the 
tables on Acacius and his party by proposing 
that the advocates of the canons should de- 
clare themselves of the same faith with those 
who had promulgated them (Pallad. Dial. c. 9, 
p- 80). After Chrysostom’s deposition and 
exile, Elpidius exerted himself strenuously in 
his behalf, dispatching letters to bishops and 
faithful laity in all parts of the world, exhort- 
ing them to remain true to Chrysostom, and 
encouraging them to bear up against perse- 
cution. Chrysostom wrote to Elpidius shortly 
after his arrival at Cucusus in 404, thanking 
him most warmly, and giving him information 
concerning the place of his banishment, his 
companions, and his health (Chrys. Fp. 114). 
Four other letters from Chrysostom to El- 
pidius are extant, all written from Cucusus 
(Epp. 25, 138, A-D. 405; Ep. 131, A.D. 406; 
Ep. 142, A.D. 407). 

Elpidius suffered for his fidelity to his friend 
in the persecution against the Joannite party 
under Atticus and Porphyry. In 406 he was 
deposed from his see, and was closely im- 
prisoned in his house for three years (Pallad. 
Dial. p. 195). In 414 Alexander, succeeding 
Porphyry as bp. of Antioch, restored Elpidius 
to his see in a manner which testified deep 
reverence for his character, and pope Innocent 
heard of it with extreme satisfaction (Baron. 
408, §§ 35, 37; Tillem. xi. 274). [E.v.] 

Emilianus (8) (Aemilianus, San Millan), 
solitary ; claimed by the Spanish Benedictines 


ENCRATITES 293 


as joint patron of Spain with St. James (San- 
doval, Fundaciones de San Benito en Espafia, 
Madrid, 1601). The only original source of 
information about him is his Life by St. Braulio 
bp. of Saragossa, written about 50 years after 
his death, on the testimony of four of his 
disciples. St. Braulio gives no dates and 
no names of parents, but the common tradi- 
tion is that St. Emilianus was born δ. 473, and 
died c. 572. His birthplace and the site of 
his oratory have caused much controversy, 
Castile claiming him as born at Berceo, close 
to the existing monastery of San Millan, while 
Aragon urges Verdeyo, near Calatayud. 

He began life as a shepherd, and while 
following his flock over the mountains had 
the dream which caused his conversion. He 
betook himself to St. Felix, a neighbouring 
hermit, for instruction in Catholic belief and 
practice. He soon left Verdejo for the 
mountains, wandering N.W. into the remotest 
parts between Burgos and Logrono. For 40 
years he lived a hermit’s life there, mostly on 
or near the peak of La Cogolla (according to 
the tradition of the monastery; there is no 
mention of the Cogolla of St. Braulio’s life), 
whence the after-name of the monastery which 
commemorated him—San Millan de la Co- 
golla. Didymus, bp. of Tarrazona (Turiasso), 
much against the saint’s will, ordained him 
presbyter, and gave him the cure of Vergegium. 
Here his entire unworldliness drew upon him 
the hatred of his brother clergy. He was 
accused before Didymus of wasting the goods 
of the church, and deprived of his cure. Thus 
released from an unwelcome office, Emilianus 
passed the rest of his life at an oratory near 
Vergegium. During this second retirement, 
although his personal asceticism increased 
rather than diminished, he allowed himself to 
be surrounded by a small circle of disciples, 
and became widely famed for charity and 
tenderness towards the poor. St. Braulio no- 
where speaks of him as monachus, but only 
as presbyter. Tamayo de Salazar, Martyr. 
Hisp. vi. 109; Esp. Sagrada, \. 2; Mabillon, 
saec. i.; Yepes, Chron. Benedictin. i. ann. 
572; Sanchez, Poesias Cast. ant. al Siglo XV. 
vol. il. [M.A.W.] 

Encratites ('Eyxpareis, Irenaeus ; "Byxpatn- 
ral, Clem. Alex. ; ᾿Βγκρατῖται, Hippol.), heretics 
who abstained from flesh, wine, and the mar- 
tiage bed, believing them essentially impure. 
Persons who so abstained called themselves 
continent (ἐγκρατεῖς, Iren. i. 28, p- 107) ; and 
the slightly modified form, Encratites, soon 
became a technical name to denote those 
whose asceticism was regarded as of a heretical 
character (Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 2, p. 182; 
Strom. i. 15, Ῥ- 359, Vii. 17, P- 900; Hippol. 
Ref. viii. 20, p. 276). We are not bound to 
suppose that all who were known by the name 
formed a single united sect. Irenaeus, ¢.g. 
(l.c.), says that some of the earliest of them 
were followers of Saturninus and Marcion ; 
and it is reasonable to understand by this, not 
that they united in a single heretical body, but 
that, independently using the same mode of life 
and making the same boast of continence, they 
were known to the orthodox by the same name. 
The practice of such abstinence was older than 
Christianity. Not to speak of the Indian 
ascetics (to whom Clement of Alexandria refers 


204 ENCRATITES 

as predecessors of the Encratites), the ab- 
stinence of the Essenes, both in respect of food 
and of marriage, is notorious. Josephus’s 
account of the Essenes is referred to by Por- 
phyry, who, like them, objected both to the 
use of animal food and to animal sacrifices. 
An interesting specimen of Pythagorean 
doctrine on this subject is his work περὶ ἀποχής 
τῶν ἐμψύχων, addressed to a friend who after 
trial of abstinence had wickedly relapsed into 
the use of flesh diet. He insists on the im- 
portance of keeping the soul, as far as possible, 
free from the bonds of matter, to which 
animal food tends to enslave it; on the 
wisdom of avoiding everything over which 
evil demons have power, viz. all material 
things, and especially animal food; and 
on the injustice of depriving of life for our 
pleasure animals akin to ourselves, having 
reason, emotions, sentiments, completely like 
ours. 

The account given by Hegesippus of James 
the Just (Eus. H. E. ii. 23) shews that right- 
eousness of the Essene type was clearly held 
in admiration in the Christian church; and 
I. Tim. iv. 3-6 shews that teachers had already 
arisen who inculcated such abstinence as a 
duty. But it does not appear that they held 
the Gnostic doctrine, that matter is essentially 
evil, and its creation the work of a being in- 
ferior or hostile to the Supreme; for the 
apostle’s argument assumes as common ground 
that the things they rejected were creatures 
of the good God. We find from the Clemen- 
tines that the Ebionite sects which arose out 
of Essenism permitted marriage, but dis- 
allowed flesh meat and wine; and that their 
doctrine respecting God’s work of creation 
was quite orthodox. Hippolytus, too, who 
takes his account of the Encratites from his 
own acquaintance with them as a then existing 
sect, describes them as orthodox in doctrine 
concerning God and Christ; and differing from 
the church only in their manner of life. But 
the Gnostic teachers named by Irenaeus (l.c.) 
undoubtedly based their asceticism on the 
doctrine of the evil of matter, denying it to 
be the work of God, and consequently deemed 
it wrong, by generation, to bring new souls 
under the dominion of death, and expose them 
to the miseries of this life. A full discussion 
of their arguments occurs in the third book 
of Clement’s Stromateis (though the name 
Encratites does not occur here), the principal 
writers whom he combats being Marcion, 
TATIAN, already mentioned by Irenaeus as a 
leader of that sect, and Julius CAssrANus. 
The Gospel according to the Egyptians con- 
tained alleged sayings of our Lord, which they 
used in support of their doctrines. Epipha- 
nius mentions that they used other apocryphal 
writings, such as the Acts of Andrew, John, 
and Thomas. This controversy seems to have 
been actively carried on in the last quarter 
of the 2nd cent. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 28) 
relates that Musanus, a writer early in that 
period, addressed a very effective dissuasive 
argument to certain brethren who had turned 
aside to that sect, then newly come into exist- 
ence ; and Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 21) men- 
tions that another writer of the same date, 
Apollinaris, wrote against the Severian En- 
cratites. Eusebius (iv. 29) derives this name 


ENCRATITES 


Severians from a certain Severus, who became 
an Encratite leader shortly after Tatian. He 
adds that these Severians received the O.T. 
and the Gospels, only putting their peculiar 
interpretations on them, but reviled Paul, 
rejecting his epistles and also Acts. This 
shews Ebionite features, and these Severians 
may have been of Ebionite origin, for great 
diversity probably existed between the teach- 
ing of persons classed together as Encratites. 
The Severians are described by Epiphanius 
(Haer. 45) with all the features of an Ophite 
sect; but evidently from hearsay only, as 
he speaks of the sect as having almost died 
out ; and Lipsius (Q.-K. des Epiph. 215) gives 
good reason for thinking that he found no 
article on them in previous heretical treatises. 
Epiphanius describes (Haer. 48) the Encratites 
as widely spread, enumerating seven different 
countries where they were then to be found. 
Evidently, therefore, there were in these 
countries heretics leading an ascetic life, 
though it would be unsafe to assert an absolute 
identity in their teaching. We may con- 
clude Epiphanius mistaken in placing the 
Encratites after the Tatianites, as if they 
were a branch of the latter sect, the true 
relation being just the opposite. Some 
additional information about the Encratites 
is in the work of Macarius Magnes, pub. in 
Paris, 1876. He wrote c. 400, and enumerates 
(11. 43, Pp. 151) some countries where the 
Encratites (whom he also called Apotactites 
and Eremites) were to be found. He was 
thus, probably, acquainted with the work of 
Epiphanius. But he adds that a defence of 
their doctrines in eight books had been pub- 
lished by a leader of theirs, Dositheus, a Cili- 
cian, in which he inveighed against marriage 
and the tasting of wine or partaking of flesh 
meat. In his account of the Samaritan 
DosITHEUS, Epiphaniusintroducessome Encra- 
tite features not attested by other authorities, 
and may have allowed his knowledge of the 
doctrine of the one Dositheus to affect his 
account of the other. We cannot give much 
weight to the account of Philaster, who (72) 
assigns the name and doctrine of the Encra- 
tites to the followers of AERIUS ; and we may 
wholly disregard the inventive ‘‘ Praedestin- 
atus’’ (who represents the Encratites as 
refuted by an Epiphanius, bp. of Ancyra), 
except to repeat his distinction between 
Encratite and Catholic abstainers—viz. the 
former asserted the food they rejected to be 
evil; the latter owned it to be good, too 
good for them. Canons of St. Basil on En- 
cratite baptism (clxxxvill. can. I ; cxcix. can. 
47) have given rise to some dispute, but it 
seems clear that St. Basil wished to reject the 
baptism of these Encratites, not because the 
orthodox formula of baptism was lacking, but 
because, regarding them as tainted with 
Marcionite error, he could not accept the 
verbal acknowledgment of the Father in the 
baptismal formula as atonement for the insult 
offered to the Creator, Whose work they looked 
on as evil. For a reference to these canons, 
as well as to the law of the Theodosian code 
(A.D. 381) against the Manicheans, who 
sheltered themselves under the name of 
Encratites, see Apostoricr. Not many years 
earlier the Encratites were an existing sect in 


ENNODIUS MAGNUS FELIX 


Galatia; for Sozomen (v. 11) records the 
sufferings of Busiris, at that time one of them, 
in the persecution under Julian. [G.s.] 

Ennodius (1) Magnus Felix, bp. of Pavia, 
born at Arles (Ennod. Ep. lib. vii. 8) c. 473; 
connected with Romans of distinction (7b. iv. 
25). The invasion of the Visigoths, and the 
consequent loss of his patrimony, caused him 
to migrate at an early age to Milan, where he 
was educated in the house of an aunt. In 
489, the year in which Theodoric invaded 
Italy, his aunt died, and he was saved from 
beggary by marriage (Eucharist. de Vit.). A 
dangerous sickness (Ep. viii. 24) led him to 
serious thought and suggested the composition 
of his Eucharisticon, in which he reviews with 
penitence his past life. He was subsequently 
ordained deacon by Epiphanius bp. of Pavia, 
whose exhortations determined him to re- 
nounce his marriage, with the consent of his 
wife, who retired into a convent. In 494 he 
accompanied Epiphanius (Ennod. Vit. Ept- 
phan. 234 A) on a mission to Gundebaud, king 
of the Burgundians, to procure the ransom of 
certain Ligurian prisoners. Upon the death 
of Epiphanius two years later he visited Rome, 
and gained reputation by composing an 
apology for pope Symmachus and the synod 
which acquitted him, as well as by a public 
panegyric in honour of Theodoric. The 
former of these was inserted in the Acta Con- 
ciliorum; the latter is generally included in 
collections of the Panegyrici Veteres. Under 
the next pope, Hormisdas, he succeeded Maxi- 
mus II. in the see of Pavia, and was sent in 
515, and again in 517, on an embassy to the 
emperor Anastasius to oppose the spread of 
the Eutychian heresy. Both embassies were 
unsuccessful. Anastasius, failing to corrupt 
or bend the bishop, had him placed on 
board an wunseaworthy vessel. Ennodius, 
however, arrived safely in his diocese, which 
he continued to administer for four years. 
He died at the age of 48, and was buried in 
the church of St. Michael at Pavia, July 17, 
521. 

His writings exemplify throughout a pro- 
fane tendency of thought and expression 
which Christian writers in Gaul were slow to 
abandon. Many of his letters suit the pen of 
a heathen rhetorician rather than of a Chris- 
tian bishop. His illustrations are commonly 
drawn from Greek mythology. He speaks of 
divine grace as descending ‘‘ de Superis,’’ and 
sets the Fates side by side with Jesus Christ. 
His style is turgid, involved, and affected. He 
seems to shrink from making himself intel- 
ligible lest he should be thought commonplace, 
and the result is unattractive. His works 
are reprinted with notes in Migne’s Pair. 
vol. lxiii. For his Life see Sirmond’s ed.; 
Ceillier, Auteurs sacr. et ecclés. x. 569; fora 
just estimate of his literary merits, Ampére, 
Hist. lit. de la France, t. ii. c. vii. [E.M.yY-] 

Ephraim (4) the Syrian, usually called 
Ephrem Syrus, from the Syriac form of his 
name Aphrem, was born in Mesopotamia, for 
he describes his home as lying between the 
Tigris and the Euphrates (Opp. Syr. i. 23), 
probably at Nisibis. As Edessa became the 
chief scene of his labours, he is generally 
styled the Edessene. It is comparatively 
certain that he died, as stated by St. Jerome, 


EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 295 


“in extreme old age,”’ δ. A.p. 373, and there- 
fore was probably born δ. A.p. 308.* 

_The story of his parents seeking to train 
him in idolatry is at variance with his own 
statements. In his Confession (Opp. Gr. i. 
129) he says, ‘* When I sinned, I was already 
a partaker of grace: I had been early taught 
about Christ by my parents; they who had 
begotten me after the flesh had trained me in 
the fear of the Lord. I had seen my neigh- 
bours living piously; I had heard of many 
suffering for Christ. My own parents were 
confessors before the Judge: yea, I am the 
kindred of martyrs.’’ Or again, in his Syriac 
works (Opp. Svr. li. 499): “1 was born in the 
way of truth ; and though my boyhood under- 
stood not the greatness of the benefit, I knew 
it when trial came.” 

In 337 Constantine the Great died, and Sa- 
por, king of Persia, seized the opportunity of 
invading Mesopotamia. He commenced the 
siege of Nisibis in 338, and in 7o days had 
brought it to the verge of surrender. But 
Ephrem induced the aged bishop James to 
mount the walls and pray for the Divine suc- 
cour. Shortly afterwards swarms of mos- 
quitoes and horse-flies made the horses and 
elephants unmanageable, and Sapor withdrew 
his forces lest he should bring upon himself 
heavier chastisement. Before the end of 338 
St. James died, when Ephrem probably left 
Nisibis, and after a short stay at Amid, to 
which city his mother is said to have belonged, 
travelled towards Edessa, the chief seat both 
of Christianity and of learning in Mesopotamia. 

Knowing no handicraft and having no 
means of living, Ephrem there entered the 
service of a bath-keeper, but devoted his spare 
time to teaching and reasoning with the 
natives. While so engaged one day his words 
were overheard by an aged monk who had 
descended from his hermitage into the city, 
and being rebuked by him for still mingling 
with the world, Ephrem withdrew into a 
cavern among the mountains, adopted the 
monastic dress, and commenced a life of ex- 
treme asceticism, giving himself up to study 
and to writing. His works were widely 
diffused, and disciples gathered round him, of 
whom many rose to eminence as teachers, and 
several of whom he commemorates in his 
Testament. The growing fame of Basil, 
bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, inspired 
Ephrem with a strong desire to visit one who 
had been shewn him in a dream as a column 
of fire reaching from earth to heaven. 

His journey to Caesarea is vouched for by 
Basil’s brother Gregory, and by Ephrem him- 
self in his Encomium on Basil.t Accompanied 
by an interpreter, he arrived on the eve of the 
Epiphany, and spent the night in the streets. 
The next morning they took their place in an 
obscure corner of the church, and Ephrem 
groaned in spirit as he saw Basil seated in a 
magnificent pulpit, arrayed in shining gar- 
ments, with a mitre sparkling with jewels on 
his head, and surrounded by a multitude of 
clergy adorned with almost equal splendour. 
“ Alas!’ he said to his interpreter, “ 1 fear 


* St. Jerome’s expression must not be forced too 
much. ‘ 

+ On the authenticity of this piece, which exists 
only in Greek, see Proleg. to Ephr. Opp. Gr. Il. li. 


290 EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 


our labour is in vain. For if we, who have 
given up the world, have advanced so little 
in holiness, what spiritual gifts can we expect 
to find in one surrounded by so great pomp 
and glory?’’ But when Basil began to 
preach, it seemed to Ephrem as though the 
Holy Ghost, in shape like a dove, sat upon his 
shoulder, and suggested to him the words. 
From time to time the people murmured their 
applause, and Ephrem twice repeated sent- 
ences which had fallen from the preacher’s 
lips. Upon this Basil sent his archdeacon to 
invite him into his presence, which, offended 
at the saint’s ragged attire, he did reluctantly, 
and only after he had been twice bidden to 
summon him. After embracing one another, 
with many florid compliments, Basil asked 
him how it was that, knowing no Greek, he 
had twice cheered the sermon, and repeated 
sentences of it to the multitude? And 
Ephrem answered, “Τί was not I who praised 
and repeated, but the Holy Ghost by my 
mouth.”’ Under pressure from St. Basil, 
Ephrem consented to be ordained deacon. 
When Basil had laid his hands upon him, 
being suddenly endowed with the knowledge 
of Syriac, he said to Ephrem in that tongue, 
“Ὁ Lord, bid him arise,’’ upon which Ephrem 
answered in Greek, ‘‘ Save me, and raise me 
up, O God, by Thy grace.”’ Doubtless 
Ephrem, travelling about with an educated 
companion, and having been an eminent 
teacher at Edessa, a place famous for its 
schools, had picked up some knowledge of 
Greek and Hebrew, some evidence of which 
we shall later gather from his own writings. 
Two instances are given in the Acta of the 
influence of Ephrem’s teaching on St. Basil. 
It had been usual at Caesarea in the Doxology 
to say, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, 
to the Holy Ghost; but after Ephrem’s visit 
Basil inserted and before the third clause. 
Whereat the people in church murmured, and 
Basil defended himself by saying that his 
Syrian visitor had taught him that the inser- 
tion of the conjunction was necessary for the 
more clear manifestation of the doctrine of 
the Holy Trinity. The other instance is as 
follows: In Gen. i. 2 the LXX _ renders 
“ΤῊ Spirit of God was borne upon the surface 
of the water.’’ So St. Basil had understood 
it, but the Peshitta-Syriac version renders it, 
‘“ The Spirit of God brooded upon the face of 
the waters,’’? which Ephrem explained of the 
Spirit resting upon them with a warm and 
fostering influence as of a hen sitting upon her 
nest, and so endowing them with the power 
of bringing forth the moving creature that 
hath life. St. Basil gives two reasons for 
trusting his Syrian friend. First, that 
Ephrem led a very ascetic life; ‘‘ for in pro- 
portion as a man abandons the love of the 
world, so does he excel in that perfection 
which rises above the world.’”’ Secondly, that 
“Ephrem is an acute thinker, and has a 
thorough knowledge of the divine philosophy,” 
1.6. of the general sense of Holy Scripture. 
There is nothing to suggest that any appeal 
was made to the Hebrew, as Benedict sug- 
gests, though, in fact, the Syriac and Hebrew 
words are the same; and, curiously enough, 
in his own exposition (Opp. Syr. i. 8), Ephrem 
says that the words simply mean that a wind 


EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 


was in motion; for the waters were instinct, 
he argues, with no creative energy till the 
fourth day. From Caesarea, Ephrem 
was recalled to Edessa by the news that the 
city was assailed by numerous heresies. On 
his journey he rescued the people of Samosata 
from the influence of false teaching by a 
miracle, and on reaching home sought to 
counteract heresy by teaching orthodoxy in 
hymns. The fatalistic tenets of Bardesan, a 
Gnostic who flourished at the end of the 2nd 
cent., had been embodied in 150 psalms, a 
number fixed upon in irreverent imitation of 
the Psalter of David. His son Honorius had 
set these hymns to music, and so sweet were 
both the words and tunes that they were 
known by heart even by children and sung 
to the guitar. To combat their influence 
Ephrem composed numerous hymns himself, 
and trained young women, who were aspir- 
ants after the conventual life, to sing them 
in chorus. These hymns have no rhyme, nor 
do they scan, but are simply arranged in 
parallel lines, containing each, as a rule, seven 
syllables. Their poetry consists in their ele- 
vated sentiments and richness of metaphor, 
but their regular form was an aid to the 
memory, and rendered them capable of being 
set to music. The subjects of these hymns 
were the Life of our Lord, including His 
Nativity, Baptism, Fasting, and chief incidents 
of his ministry, His Passion, Resurrection, 
and Ascension. He wrote also on Repent- 
ance, on the Dead, and on Martyrs. Upon 
the Festivals of our Lord, we read, on the first 
days of the week, and on the days of martyrs, 
Ephrem gathered round him his choirs, and 
the whole city flocked to hear them, and the 
poems of Bardesan lost their influence. While 
thus occupied Basil endeavoured to persuade 
him to visit Caesarea again, intending to make 
him a bishop, but the saint even feigned 
madness rather than consent. Meanwhile he 
wrote upon the devastation committed by the 
Persians, the Maccabean martyrs, the Life of 
Constantine, and so on, until the accession of 
Julian rudely disturbed his studies. On his 
expedition against the Persians Julian had 
advanced as far as Haran, a town so famous 
for obstinate adherence to heathenism that 
Haranite in Syriac is equivalent to pagan, and 
there determined to hold a great sacrifice, to 
which he commanded the Edessenes to send 
chosen citizens to do him homage, and to 
grace by their presence his restoration of the 
old cult. But this met with such fierce 
opposition on the part of the people, and such 
an eager desire for martyrdom, that the 
embassy withdrew in haste, and Julian 
threatened Edessa with bitter vengeance upon 
his return. Ephrem, who had exerted him- 
self to the utmost in this crisis, resumed his 
hermit life, quitting the mountains only for 
controversy with heretics or for charitable 
services. As a controversialist, Gregory of 
Nyssa relates of him with great approbation 
an act contrary to modern views of morality : 
The ‘“‘ insane and irrational Apollinaris”’ had 
written a treatise in two volumes containing 
much that was contrary to Scripture. These 
he had given in charge of a lady at Edessa, 
from whom Ephrem borrowed them, pretend- 
ing that he was a disciple of Apollinaris and 


EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 


was preparing to defend his views. Before 
returning them he glued the leaves together, 
and then challenged the heretic to a public 
disputation. Apollinaris accepted the chal- 
lenge so far as to consent to read from these 
books what he had written, declining more 
on account of his great age; but he found the 
leaves so firmly fastened together that he 
could not open them, and withdrew, deeply 
mortified by his opponent’s unworthy victory. 

Far more creditable is the last act recorded 
of Ephrem. While withdrawn in his rocky 
cavern he heard that Edessa had been visited 
by a severe famine. He came down to the 
city, and induced the richer citizens. to 
bring out their secret stores of food, on con- 
dition, however, that Ephrem should himself 
take charge of them. He managed them with 
such skill, prudence, and honesty that they 
sufficed for the Edessenes and for numerous 
strangers also. The next year was one of 
great plenty, and Ephrem resumed his solitary 
life amidst the prayers and gratitude of all 
classes. : 

His death followed shortly afterwards, fully 
foreseen by himself, as his Testament proves. 
In this hymn, written in heptasyllabic metre, 
after playing upon his own name and pro- 
fessing his faith, he commands his disciples not 
to bury him beneath the altar, nor in a church, 
nor amongst the martyrs, but in the common 
burying-ground of strangers, in his gown and 
cowl, with no spices nor waxlights, but with 
their prayers. It ends with an account of 
Lamprotata, daughter of the prefect of 
Edessa, who earnestly sought permission to 
be buried in due time at Ephrem’s feet. 

The works of Ephrem were most volumin- 
ous. Sozomen (Eccl. Hist. iii. 16) says that 
he wrote three million lines, but a large pro- 
portion has perished. What remains is said 
by Bellarmine to be “pious rather than 
learned.’’ The great edition of his works is 
that in six vols. fol., pub. at Rome in 1732-1743, 
under the editorship of the Maronite Peter 
Mobarek, better known by the Latin transla- 
tion of his surname Benedict, and completed 
after his death by J. S. E. Asseman, titular 
bp. of Apamaea, who is answerable, however, 
for the translation of only vol. vi. pp. 425-687. 
The first three vols. consist of sermons and 
discourses in Greek with a Latin translation. 
Many of these are probably genuine, for Sozo- 
men says that already in his lifetime works of 
Ephrem were translated into Greek, and as 
both Chrysostom and Jerome were acquainted 
with them, and Gregory of Nyssa quotes his 
Testament, it is certain that several of his 
writings were very soon thus made available 
for general use. But some pieces must be re- 
ceived with caution, and one (Opp. Gr. ii. 356 
seq.) is almost certainly not genuine. 

The other three vols. contain his Syriac 
works, the most important being his Exposi- 
tion of O.T. Of the commentary upon the 
Gospels few traces remain, but Dionysius 
Barsalibi, bp. of Amid, says that Ephrem had 
followed the order of the Diatessaron of 
Tatian. As copies of Dionysius’s own com- 
mentary exist in the British Museum, the 
Bodleian Library, and elsewhere, some por- 
tions of Ephrem’s work, as well as some idea 
of Tatian’s arrangement, might be obtained 


EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 207 


from it. A collection of Armenian trans- 
lations of Ephrem’s works, pub. in 4 vols. 
8vo by the Mechitarists at Venice in 1836, 
includes one (in vol. iii.) of his commentary 
on St. Paul’s epistles. 

Following upon the commentary are 12 
metrical expositions of portions of Scripture, 
such as the creation of man in God's image, 
the temptation of Eve, the translation of 
Enoch, etc., occupying pp. 316-319. Some 
of these, especially that upon the mission of 
Jonah and the repentance of the Ninevites, 
have been translated into English by the Rev. 
H. Burgess (Lond. 1856), the author also 
of Select Metrical Hymns and Homilies of 
Ephraem Syrus (two vols. Lond. 1853). These 
expositions are followed by 13 metrical homi- 
lies upon the Nativity, pp. 396-436. Next 
come 56 homilies against false doctrines (pp. 
437-560) ; chiefly against Bardesan, Marcion, 
and Manes. 

In vol. iii., after the Acta 5. Ephraemt 
(i.-lxiii.), the first place is held by 87 homilies 
on the Faith, in answer to freethinkers. The 
last seven of these are called sermons upon the 
Pearl, which Ephrem takes as an emblem of 
the Christian faith, working out the idea with 
great beauty, though with that diffuseness 
which is the common fault of his writings. 
Three very long controversial homilies (pp. 
164-208) follow, repeating many of the same 
thoughts. 

A sermon against the Jews, preached on 
Palm Sunday (pp. 209-224), has been trans- 
lated by the Rev. J. B. Morris into English.* 
Then follow 85 hymns (pp. 225-359) to be 
used at the burial of bishops, presbyters, 
deacons, monks, princes, rich men, strangers, 
matrons, women, youths, children, in time of 
plague, and for general use. These are trans. 
into Eng. in Burgess’s Select Metrical Hymns. 

Next come four short homilies on Free-will 
(pp. 359-366), partly following the order of the 
Syriac alphabet ; then 76 homilies on Repent- 
ance (pp. 367-561). Next, 12 sermons on the 
Paradise of Eden (pp. 562-598) ; and finally, 
18 sermons on miscellaneous subjects (pp- 
599-687). Considerable activity has been 
displayed in editing other Syriac works of 
Ephrem—e.g. by Dr. J. J. Overbeck, in S. 
Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae, Balaet, aliorumque 
Opera Selecta (Oxf., Clarendon Press, 1865). 
Almost more important is ‘‘ S. Ephraemt Syrt 
Carmina Nisibena, ed. by Dr. G. Bickell, 
Lipsiae, 1866.” Of these hymns, the first 
21 treat of the long struggle between Sapor 
and the Romans for the possession of Nisibis, 
from its siege in 350 to just before its miserable 
surrender by Jovian in 363. The next 5 
hymns have perished ; in Nos. 26-30 the scene 
is Edessa, and the subject the schism there in 
the bishopric of Barses, A.D. 361-370. Bickell 
thinks these were written c. 370, towards the 
close of Ephrem’s life. Hymns 31-34 treat of 
Haran and the many troubles its bishop, Vitus, 
endured from the pagans there. The other 
hymns (35-77) treat of the Overthrow of Death 
and Satan by our Lord, of the Resurrection of 
the Body in refutation of Bardesan and Manes, 


* Morris (Select Works of Ephr. Syrus, Oxf. 1547) 
translated 13 rhythms on the Nativity, this against 
the Jews, the 80 rhythms on the Faith, 7 on the 
Pearl, and 3 long controversial homilies, 


298 EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 

of Dialogues between Death, Satan, and 
Man, and of Hymns upon the Resurrection, 
not of a controversial but of a consolatory 
character. From the directions for singing 
given with each hymn, and the existence in 
most of them of a response or refrain noted 
in the MS. in red, the collection was evidently 
for liturgical use. 

Bertheau edited a Syriac homily of St. 
Ephrem froma MS. at Rome (Gottingen, 1837), 
and another from the Museum Borghianum was 
pub. by Zingerle and Mésinger in Monumenta 
Syrtaca (Innsbruck, 1869), vol. i. pp. 4-12; 
in vol. ii. (pub. 1878) numerous fragments from 
MSS. at Rome are found, pp. 33-51. In most 
Chrestomathies specimens of Ephrem’s writ- 
ings are given, and that by Hahn and Sieffert 
consists entirely of them. 

As a commentator Ephrem holds a middle 
place between the literal interpretation of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia and the allegorical 
method of Origen. As Basil and Gregory 
were both strongly influenced by Origen, 
Ephrem’s independence is the more remark- 
able. In commenting on Is. xxv. 7 (vol. ii. 
61), he gives a statement of his method as 
follows: ‘‘ Though the prophet is speaking 
of Sennacherib he has a covert reference to 
Satan. For the spiritual sense is usually the 
same as the ecclesiastical. The words there- 
fore of the prophets concerning those things 
which have happened or were about to happen 
to the Jews are mystically to be referred to 
the future propagation of the church, and the 
providence of God and His judgments upon 
the just and upon evil-doers.’’ Benedict, 
followed by Lengerke, instead of ecclesiastical 
translates historical; what Ephrem really 
says is that there is first the literal interpre- 
tation, and secondly a spiritual one, which 
generally refers to the church. 

The question has often been asked whether 
he really possessed any competent acquaint- 
ance with Hebrew and Greek. He had not 
had a learned education, but nevertheless 
displays considerable knowledge, including 
some of physical science, and in his discourses 
on fate, freewill, etc., he manifests, without 
parade, a sufficient mastery of Greek philo- 
sophy to refute the Gnostic errors prevalent 
in the East. We need not be surprised, 
therefore, that Sozomen says (H. E. iii. 16) 
that Basil wondered at his learning. 

The chief places which suggest some know- 
ledge of Hebrew are as follow. Commenting 
on the creation of whales in Gen. i. 21 (Opp. 
Syr. i. 18), he says that they and leviathan 
inhabit the waters, behemoth the land; 
quoting not only Job xl. 15, but Ps. 1. ro, 
which he translates, ‘‘ And behemoth upon a 
thousand hills.” Ephrem’s rendering is 
perfectly possible, and must have been ob- 
tained from some Jewish source. 

On I. Sam. iii. 11 he rightly says that both 
the Syr. and Heb. names for cymbal resemble 
the verb so translated. Ἐπὶ 1 95 τη. xxi 
he correctly explains the word “‘ detained ” by 
noting that the Heb. word neasar signifies 
pressed or hidden away. In II. Kings iii. 4 
he rightly says that the Syr. nokdo is really 
a Heb. word, and means “‘ head shepherd.” 

These points might have been picked up 
from conversation with others, and there is a 


EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 


marked absence of acquaintance with the 
language in his commentary as a whole. 

Of Greek he also shews but a very moderate 
knowledge, though a more real acquaintance 
with it than with Hebrew. His own words 
in Opp. Syr. ii. 317 are to the point: ‘‘ Not 
from the rivulet of my own thought have I 
opened these things for thy drinking, for I am 
poor and destitute alike of meat and drink; 
but, like a bottle from the sea or drops from 
a caldron, I have begged these things from 
just men, who were lords of the fountain.” 

An example will shew him much more at 
home in Greek than in Hebrew. In I. Kings 
xiv. 3 (Opp. Syr. i. 480) the Syriac version has, 
instead of cracknels, a rare word signifying 
sweetmeats. Ephrem notices that the Greek 
has grapes, and gives this as an explanation of 
the Syriac; but makes no reference to the 
Hebrew word, which certainly signifies some 
kind of cakes, such as might rightly be called 
sweetmeats, but certainly is no kind of fruit. 

From his intense devotion and piety, his 
hymns were largely adopted into the services 
of the church, and prayers also composed by 
him are found in most Oriental liturgies. His 
personal character deserves high praise. He 
was an extreme ascetic, passing his whole life 
in poverty, raggedness, humility, and gentle- 
ness. His gentleness has been denied on 
account of the fierce language sometimes used 
in controversial writings. We may, however, 
take his words in his Testament as literally 
true (Opp. Gr. li. 396): ‘‘ Throughout my 
whole life, neither by night nor day, have I 
reviled any one, nor striven with any one; 
but in their assemblies I have disputed with 
those who deny the faith. For if a wolf is 
entering the fold, and the dog goes not out 
and barks, the master beats the dog. Buta 
wise man hates no one, or if he hates at all, 
he hates only a fool.” 

‘‘His words reach the heart, for they treat 
powerfully of human joys and cares; they 
depict the struggles and storms of life, and 
sometimes its calm rest. He knows how to 
awaken terror and alarm, as he sets forth be- 
fore the sinner his punishment, God’s right- 
eous judgment, his destined condemnation ; 
he knows, too, how to build up and comfort, 
where he proclaims the hopes of the faithful 
and the bliss of eternal happiness. His words 
ring in mild, soft tones when he paints the 
happy rest of the pious, the peace of soul 
enjoyed by those who cleave to the Christian 
faith ; they thunder and rage like a storm 
wind when he scourges heretics, or chastises 
pride and folly. Ephraim was an orator 
possessed of spirit and taste, and his poetical 
gifts were exactly those calculated to give 
weight and influence to his authority as a 
teacher among his countrymen’’ (Roediger). 
As such they venerated him, giving him 
especially the title of Malphono, the teacher; 
but one of his greatest services to the church 
was the marvellous variety and richness which 
he gave to its public worship. Ephraim’s 
quotations from the Gospels have been col- 
lected by F. C. Burkitt (Texts and Studies, vol. 
vii. No. 2, Camb. Univ. Press). His Com- 
mentary on the Diatessaron was _ trams. 
into Latin by J. B. Aucher, and pub. in this 
form by G. Mésinger (Venice, 1876). See 


aut 


EPHRAIM 


also J. H. Hill, A Dissertation on the Gospel|\ a native of Cephallenia. 


EPIPHANES 299 


He died at the age 


Commentary of S. Ephraim (Edinburgh, 1896). | of 17, and at Same, a city of Cephallenia, 


The Fragments of S. Ephraim have been ed. 
by J. R. Harris for the (Camb. Univ. 
Press). [R.P.S.] 

Ephraim (6) (Ephrem, Ephraemius, or, as 
Theophanes gives the name, Euphratmtus), 
bp. of Antioch and patriarch, a.p. 527-545. 
The title, ὁ ᾿Αμίδιος, given him by Theophanes, 
indicates that he was a native of Amida in 
Armenia. He devoted the early part of his 
life to civil employments, and became Count 
of the East in the reign of Justin I. The city 
of Antioch having been nearly destroyed in 
A.D. 525 and 526 by earthquake and conflag- 
ration, Ephraim was sent by Justin as com- 
missioner to relieve the sufferers and restore 
the city. The high qualities manifested in 
the fulfilment of these duties gained the 
affection and respect of the people of Antioch, 
who unanimously chose him bishop on the 
death of Euphrasius (Evagr. H. EF. iv. 5, 6). 
His consecration is placed in A.D. 357. As 
bishop he exhibited an unwavering firmness 
against the heretical tendencies of his day. 
Theophanes says that he shewed “a divine 
zeal against schismatics’’ (Chronogr. p. 118). 
Moschus tells a story of his encounter near 
Hierapolis with one of the pillar ascetics, 
a follower of Severus and the Acephali (Prat. 
Spiritual. c. 36). Ephraim examined synod- 
ically the tenets of Syncleticus, metropolitan 
of Tarsus, who was suspected of Eutychian 
leanings but was acquitted (Phot. Cod. 228). 
In 537, at the bidding of Justinian, he repaired 
with Hypatius of Ephesus and Peter of Jeru- 
salem to Gaza to hold a council in the matter 
of Paul the patriarch of Alexandria, who had 
been banished to that city and there deposed. 
In obedience to the emperor Justinian, 
Ephraim held a synod at Antioch, which re- 
pudiated the doctrines of Origen as heretical 
(Liberat. c. 23, apud Labbe, Concil. v. 777 
seq.; Baronius, Annal. 537, 538). He was 
the author of a large number of theological 
treatises directed against Nestorius, Eutyches, 
Severus, and the Acephali, and in defence of 
the decrees of Chalcedon. In 546, yielding to 
severe pressure, he subscribed the edict Jus- 
tinian had put forth condemning “ the three 
chapters’’ (Facund. Pro Defens. Trium Capit. 
iv. 4). Hedid not survive the disgrace of this 
concession, and died in 547. 

His copious theological works have almost 
entirely perished, and we have little know- 
ledge of them save through Photius (Biblioth. 
Cod. 228, 229), who speaks of having read 
three of the volumes, but gives particulars of 
two only. Some few fragments of his defence 
of the council of Chalcedon, and of the third 
book against Severus, and other works, are 
given by Mai (Bibl. Nov. iv. 63, vii. 204) and 
are printed by Migne (Patr. Gk. 1xxxvi. par. 2, 
pp- 2099 seq.). Theophanes, Chronogr. ad 
ann. 519, Ρ- 118 Dp; Moschus, Prat. Spiritual. 


cc. 36, 37; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 507; Fabric. 
Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 38; Le Quien, Oriens 
Christ. ii. 733). [Ε.ν.] 


Epiphanes, a Gnostic writer about the 
middle of the 2nd cent., or earlier. Clement 
of Alexandria (Strom. iii. p. 511) gives the 
following account of him. He was the son of 
CARPOCRATES, by a mother named Alexandria, 


a handsome temple and other buildings 
were raised in his memory; and at the new 
moon the Cephallenians were wont to cele- 
brate his apotheosis as a god by sacrifices, 
libations, banquets, and the singing of hymns. 
He had been instructed by his father in the 
ordinary circle of arts and sciences, and in the 
Platonic philosophy. He was the founder of 
the “᾿ Monadic Gnosis,’’ and from him flowed 
the heresy of those afterwards known as Car- 
pocratians. He was the author of a work on 
Justice, which he made to consist in equality. 
He taught that, God having given His benefits 
to all alike and in common, human laws are 
censurable which instituted the distinction of 
meum and tuum, and which secure to one as 
his peculiar possession that to which all have 
an equal right. This communistic doctrine 
he extended to the sexual relations. What- 
ever may have been the origin of the phrase 
“ Monadic Gnosis,’’ the doctrine here described 
seems the direct opposite of Dualism. In- 
stead of accounting for the existence of evil 
as the work of a hostile principle, this theory 
would represent moral evil as a mere fiction 
of human laws, perversely instituted in op- 
position to the will of the Creator. 

There is a passage in Irenaeus (I. xi. 3, p. 54) 
which, it has been contended, gives us another 
specimen of the teaching of Epiphanes. In 
giving an account of the doctrines of some 
followers of Valentinus, after stating the 
theory of Secundus, he goes on to mention the 
description which another “‘ illustrious teacher 
of theirs ᾿ (clarus magister) gives of the origin 
of the primary Tetrad. In this the first prin- 
ciple is stated to be one existing before all 
things, surpassing all thought and speech, 
which the author calls Oneliness (ovdrns). 
With this Monotes co-existed a power which 
he calls Unity (évérns). This Monotes and 
Henotes constituting absolute unity (τὸ ἕν 
οὖσαι) emitted (though not in any proper 
sense of that word) a principle the object of 
thought only, which reason calls Monad. And 
with this Monad co-existed a power consubstan- 
tial with it, which the author calls Unit (τὸ ὅν). 
From this Tetrad came all the rest of the 
Aeons. Pearson conjectured (see Dodwell, 
Dissert. in Iren. iv. §§ 25) that the ‘‘ clarus 
magister ’’ of the old Latin translation repre- 
sented ἐπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος, and that this 
Epiphanes was a proper name, or at least that 
there was a play upon words referring to that 
name. The doctrine of the extract, then, 
which seems an attempt to reconcile the theory 
of a Tetrad with strong belief in the unity of 
the First Principle, might well be a part of the 
Monadic Gnosis, of which Epiphanes was said 
to be the author. Pearson’s restoration of 
the Greek has since been pretty nearly verified 
by the recovery of the passage as reproduced 
by Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 38), where it runs 
ἄλλος δέ τις ἐπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος αὐτῶν. 
Here the word in question is plainly an ad- 
jective, and Tertullian so understood it, who 
translates (adv. Valent. 37) ‘* insignioris apud 
eos magistri.’’ On the other hand, Epiphanius 
understood the passage of Epiphanes. On 


examining what he tells of that heretic (Haer. 


300 EPIPHANIUS 


32), itis plain that Epiphanius has been follow- 
ing Irenaeus until, on coming to the words 
ἐπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος, he goes off to Clement of 
Alexandria, and puts in what he there found 
about Epiphanes. But Neander has made it 
almost certain that the person to whom Iren- 
aeus really refers is Marcus (17). He points 
out that these four names for the members of 
the primary Tetrad, Monotes, Henotes, Monas, 
and Hen, which the ‘illustrious teacher ’”’ 
(c. 11) speaks of as names of his own giving, 
occur again with a καθ᾽ ἃ προείρηται in a pas- 
sage cited from Marcus by name (Iren. i. 15, 
Ρ- 74). [6.5.] 
Epiphanius (1), bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, 
zealous champion of orthodox faith and 
monastic piety, was born at Besanduke, a 
village near Eleutheropolis in Palestine. As 
in 392, twelve years before his death, he was 
an aged man, we may conjecturally date his 
birth between 310 and 320. Much of his early 
lifetime was spent with the monks of Egypt, 
among whom he not only acquired a burning 
zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy and the forms 
of ascetic life then coming into favour, but 
also first came in contact with various kinds 
of heretics. When twenty years old he re- 
turned home and built a monastery near 
Besanduke, of which he undertook the direc- 
tion. He was ordained presbyter by Euty- 
chius, then bp. of Eleutheropolis. With St. 
Hilarion, the founder of Palestinian mon- 
asticism, Epiphanius early stood in intimate 
relation, and at a time when the great majority 
of Oriental bishops favoured Arian or semi- 
Arian views, he adhered with unshaken 
fidelity to the Nicene faith, and its persecuted 
champions, Eusebius of Vercelli and Paulinus 
of Antioch, whom Constantius had banished 
from their sees. In 367 he was elected bp. of 
Constantia, the ancient Salamis, in Cyprus, 
where for 36 years he discharged the episcopal 
office with the zeal he had shewn in his monas- 
tery. The whole island was soon covered with 
monastic institutions. With the monks of 
Palestine, and especially of his own monastery 
at Eleutheropolis, he continued as bishop to 
hold uninterrupted communication. People 
consulted him on every important question. 
Some years after his elevation to the episco- 
pate, he addressed a letter to the faithful in 
Arabia, in defence of the perpetual virginity 
of Mary, afterwards incorporated in his great 
work, Against all Heresies (Haer. 1xxviii.). 
Soon after, several presbyters of Suedra in 
Pamphylia invoked his assistance in their 
controversy with Arians and Macedonians. 
Similar applications came from other quarters; 
e.g. by an Egyptian Christian named Hypa- 
tius, and by a presbyter, Conops, apparently 
a Pisidian, who, with his co-presbyters, sought 
instruction in a long series of disputed doc- 
trines. This was the origin of his Ayxupwrés 
(Ancoratus) in 374, an exposition of the faith, 
which, anchor-like, might fix the mind when 
tossed by the waves of heresy. A similar 
occasion produced his great heresiological work, 
written in the years 374-377, the so-called 
Πανάριον, on which his fame chiefly rests. He 
wrote this at the request of Acacius and 
Paulus, two presbyters and heads of monas- 
teries In Coele-Syria, and in it attacks the 
Gnostic sects of the znd and 3rd cents., 


EPIPHANIUS 


and the Arians, semi-Arians, Macedonians, 
Apollinarians, Origenists, of his own time. 
About 376 he was taking an active part in the 
Apollinarian controversies. Vitalis, a pres- 
byter of Antioch, had been consecrated bishop 
by Apollinaris himself; whereupon Epipha- 
nius undertook a journey to Antioch to recall 
Vitalis from his error and reconcile him to 
the orthodox bp. Paulinus. His efforts, how- 
ever, proved unsuccessful. Though not him- 
self present at the oecumenical council of 
Constantinople, 381, which ensured the 
triumph of the Nicene doctrine in the Oriental 
churches, his shorter confession of faith, which 
is found at the end of his Ancoratus (c. 120) 
and seems to have been the baptismal creed of 
the church of Salamis, agrees almost word for 
word with the Constantinopolitan formula. 
He took no part in the synod held at Con- 
stantinople in 382; but towards the end of 
that year we find him associated with St. 
Jerome, Paulinus of Antioch, and the three 
legates of that synod, at a council held under 
bp. Damasus at Rome, which appears to have 
dealt with the Meletian and Apollinarian con- 
troversies. At Rome he was domiciled in the 
house of the elder Paula, who, under the 
spiritual guidance of St. Jerome, had dedicated 
her ample fortune to the poor and sick, and 
Epiphanius seems to have strengthened her 
in a resolution to forsake home and children 
for an ascetic life at a great distance from 
Rome. Early in 383, when the bishops were 
returning to their sees, Paula went on pilgrim- 
age to the Holy Land. She stayed with 
Epiphanius in Salamis about 10 days. Some- 
what later St. Jerome also visited Epiphanius, 
on his way to Bethlehem, bringing a train of 
monks to Cyprus, to. salute ‘‘ the father of 
almost the whole episcopate, the last relic 
of ancient piety.’’ Thenceforward we find 
Epiphanius in almost unbroken intercourse 
with Jerome, in alliance with whom he began 
his Origenistic controversies. He had indeed 
already, in his Ancoratus (c. 54) and still more 
in his Panarion, attacked Origen as the 
ancestor of the Arian heresy. 

On hearing that Origenism had appeared in 
Palestine, he hastened thither, in old age (A.D. 
394), to crush it. His appearance sufficed to 
drive the ci-devant Origenist Jerome into the 
bitterest enmity with his former friends, who 
refused to repudiate their old attachment. 
Epiphanius, received with all honours by the 
bp. of Jerusalem, preached in the most violent 
manner in the church of the Resurrection. 
Bp. John, after expressing his disapproval by 
gestures only for a time, sent his archdeacon 
to beg him to abstain from speaking further 
on these topics. The sermon being over, 
Epiphanius, as he walked by the side of John 
to the church of the Holy Cross, was pressed 
upon by the people, as Jerome tells us, from all 
sides with tokens of veneration. Bp. John, 
irritated by the sermon, evidently preached 
against himself, took the next opportunity to 
preach against certain simple and uneducated 
persons who represented God to themselves 
in human form and corporeity. Whereupon 
Epiphanius rose, and expressing his full con- 
currence with this, declared that it was quite 
as necessary to repudiate the heresies of 
Origen as of the Anthropomorphists. He then 


ane: 


nated 


RA EES GATE AIREY κέ 


“ναι δα ee ee 


ne | 


EPIPHANIUS 


hastened to join Jerome at Bethlehem, and 
required the monks there to renounce at once 
all church fellowship with the bp. of Jeru- 
salem; but they entreated him to return to 
John. Epiphanius went back to Jerusalem 
the same evening, but immediately regretting 
the step, and without so much as speaking to 
the bishop, left Jerusalem again at midnight 
for his old monastery of Eleutheropolis. From 
there he continued to press the monks of 
Bethlehem to renounce church fellowship with 
the Origenist bp. John, and finally availed 
himself of the occasion provided by a depu- 
tation from Bethlehem, to ordain as presbyter 
Jerome’s brother Paulinianus, and impose 
him on the community, as one who should 
administer the sacraments among them. This 
intrusion into the rights of another bishop 
Epiphanius endeavoured subsequently to 
excuse in a letter to John. His excuses were 
far from satisfying the bishop, who reported 
to other bishops this violation of the canons, 
and threatened the monks of Bethlehem with 
ecclesiastical penalties so long as they should 
recognize Paulinianus or persist in separation. 
Epiphanius and Jerome, continuing to insist 
on John publicly purging himself of Origenistic 
heresy, proceeded to invoke the mediation of 
Theophilus bp. of Alexandria. Theophilus’s 
legate, a presbyter named Isidore, openly sided 
with John, and Theophilus himself, who at 
that time was reckoned an Origenist, desig- 
nated Epiphanius, in a letter to the bp. of 
Rome, a heretic and schismatic. 

According to another account, Theophilus 
accused him, as well as John, of Anthropo- 
morphism. Epiphanius certainly received in 
this controversy little or no support from other 
bisbops. He returned to his diocese, followed 
by Paulinianus. In this way the chief source 
of dispute between John and the monks of 
Jerusalem was removed, and Jerome pro- 
visionally renewed communion with the bp. 
of Jerusalem, as well as with his old friend 
Rufinus. A few years after the close of this 
first Origenist controversy, Epiphanius found 
himself involved in much more unpleasant 
transactions. Among the monks of Egypt 
the controversy between Anthropomorphists 
and Origenists continued torage. Theophilus 
of Alexandria having in 398 directed a paschal 
epistle against the Anthropomorphists, a wild 
army of monks from the wilderness of Scete 
rushed into Alexandria, and so frightened 
the bishop that he thought his life depended 
on immediate concession. From that time 
Theophilus appears as a strong opponent of 
Origenism. In his paschal epistle of 399 he 
opposes the heresies of Origen in the most 
violent manner. [THEOPHILUS (9).] 

Great joy was expressed by Epiphanius. 
“Know, my beloved son,’’ he writes to Jer- 
ome, “ that Amalek is destroyed to the very 
root ; on the hill of Rephidim has been erected 
the banner of the cross. God has strength- 
ened the hands of His servant Theophilus as 
once He did those of Moses.’’ Epiphanius 
was soon drawn yet more deeply into these 
transactions. The bishops began on all sides 
to speak against the heresies of Origen. 

Theophilus having involved himself in a 
separate conflict of his own with Chrysostom | 
at Constantinople and finding his cause there 


EPIPHANIUS 301 


opposed by the ‘‘Long Brothers" from 
Egypt (CHRYSOSTOM], made strenuous efforts 
to gain the assistance of Epiphanius against 
the action of those Origenistic monks, calling 
upon him to pass judgment upon Origen and 
his heresy by means of a Cypriote synod. 
Epiphanius assembled a synod, prohibited the 
works of Origen, and called on Chrysostom to 
do the same. He was then moved by Theo- 
philus to appear personally, as an ancient 
combatant of heresy, at Constantinople. In 
the winter of 402 Epiphanius set sail, con- 
vinced that only his appearance was required 
to destroy the last remains of the Origenistic 
poison. Accompanied by several of his clergy, 
he landed near Constantinople. Chrysostom 
sent his clergy to give him honourable recep- 
tion at the gates of the city, with a friendly 
invitation to take up his abode in the episcopal 
residence. This was rudely refused by the 
passionate old man, who declared himself 
unable to hold church communion with Chry- 
sostom until he had expelled the ‘ Long 
Brothers,’’ and had subscribed a condemna- 
tion of the writings of Origen. This Chrysos- 
tom gently declined, with a reference to the 
synod about to be holden; whereupon 
Epiphanius at once assembled the many 
bishops already gathered at Constantinople, 
and required them all to subscribe the decrees 
of his own provincial council against the 
writings of Origen. Some consented willingly, 
others refused. Whereupon the opponents of 
Chrysostom urged Epiphanius to come forward 
at the service in the church of the Apostles, 
and openly preach against the Origenists 
and their protector Chrysostom. Chrysostom 
warned Epiphanius to abstain, and the latter 
may by this time have begun to suspect that 
he was but a tool in the hands of others. On 
his way to the church he turned back, and soon 
after, at a meeting with the ‘“‘ Long Brothers,” 
confessed that he had passed judgment upon 
them on hearsay only, and, growing weary of the 
miserable business, determined toreturn home, 
but died on board ship in the spring of 403. 
His story shews him as an honest, but credu- 
lous and narrow-minded, zealot for church 
orthodoxy. Hisfrequent journeysandextensive 
reading enabled him to collect a large store of 
historical information, and this he used with 
much ingenuity in defending the church 
orthodoxy of his time. But he exercised 
really very small influence on dogmatic theo- 
logy, and his theological polemics were more 
distinguished by pious zeal than by penetrat- 
ing intelligence. His refutation of the doc- 
trine of Origen is astoundingly superficial, a 


|few meagre utterances detached from their 


context being all he gives us, and yet he 
boasted of having read 6,000 of Origen’s works, 
a much larger number, as Rufinus remarks, 
than Origen had written. 

Those of his time regarded Epiphanius as 
a saint; wherever he appeared, he was sur- 
rounded by admiring disciples, and crowds 
waited for hours to hear him preach, His 
biography, written in the name of Polybius, 
an alleged companion of the saint (printed in 
the edd. of Petavius and Dindorf), is little 
more than a collection of legends. 

Among his writings the most important are 
the Ancoratus and Panarion. The Ancoratus 


902 EPIPHANIUS 


comprises in 121 sections a prolix exposition, 
fullof repetitions, of thedoctrines ofthe Trinity, 
the true humanity of Christ and the resurrec- 
tion of the body, with a constant polemic 
against Origen and the heresiarchs of his own 
time, especially Arians, Sabellians, Pneuma- 
tomachi, and Dimoirites (Apollinarians). The 
whole concludes with the Nicene creed in a 
twofold form with various additions. This 
work is chiefly of interest as a witness to the 
orthodoxy of its time. The Panarion is of 
much greater importance. It deals in three 
books with 8o heresies. The catalogue is 
essentially that already given in his Ancoratus 
(cc. 11 and 12). He begins with heresies 
existing at the time of our Lord’s birth— 
Barbarism, Scythianism, Hellenism, Judaism, 
Samaritanism. The last three are sub- 
divided; Hellenism and Samaritanism into 
four each, Judaism into seven. Then follow 
60 heresies after the birth of Christ, from the 
Simonians to the Massalians, including some 
which, as Epiphanius acknowledges, were 
rather acts ofschism than heresies. The extra- 
ordinary division of pre-Christian heresies is 
founded on a passage he often quotes (Col. 
iii. 11). Barbarism lasted from Adam to 
Noah, Scythianism from Noah to the migra- 
tion of Peleg and Reu to Scythia. Hellenism, 
he thinks, sprang up under Serug, understand- 
ing thereby idolatry proper. Of the various 
Greek schools of philosophy, which he regards 
as particular heresies belonging to Hellenism 
and offers a complete list of them in the con- 
clusion of his work, he shews himself but 
poorly informed. His communications con- 
cerning the various Jewish sects are for the 
most part worthless ; and what he says of the 
Nasarenes and Ossenes (Haer. xviii. and xix.) 
is derived purely from respectable but mis- 
understood narratives concerning the Ebion- 
ites and Elkesaites. His accounts of the 
Jewish-Christian and Gnostic sects of the 2nd 
and 3rd cents. mingle valuable traditions 
with misunderstandings and fancies of his 
own. His pious zeal to excel all previous 
heresiologers by completing the list of heretics 
led him into strange misunderstandings, 
adventurous combinations, and arbitrary 
assertions. He often frames long narratives 
out of very meagre hints. The strangest 
phenomena are combined with a total absence 
of criticism, and cognate matters are arbitrar- 
ily separated. Yet he often copies his author- 
ities with slavish dependence, and so enables 
critical commentators to collect a rich abund- 
ance of genuine traditions from his works. 
For the section from Dositheus to Noetus 
(Haer. xili.-lvii.) he used a writing now lost, 
but of very great importance, which is also 
used by a contemporary writer, Philastrius of 
Brixia—viz. the work of Hippolytus, Against 
all Heresies. Besides this he used the well- 
known work of Irenaeus of Lyons. These 
narratives are often pieced together in very 
mechanical fashion, resulting in frequent re- 
petitions and contradictory statements. 
Besides these two, he had access to many 
original works of heretics themselves and 
numerous trustworthy oral traditions. Very 
valuable are his extracts (Haer. xxxi.) from an 
old Valentinian work, the Ep. of Ptolemaeus to 
Flora, which is quoted entire (xxxiii.), and the 


EPIPHANIUS 


copious extracts from Marcion’s gospel (xlii.). 
Against the Montanists (xlviii.) he uses an 
anonymous controversial work of great anti- 
quity, from which Eusebius also (H. E. v. 17) 
gives large extracts; in his article on the Alogi 
(Haer. li.) he probably uses the work of 
Porphyry against the Christians. In the sec- 
tion against Origen (xliv.) copious extracts are 
introduced from Methodius, περὶ ἀναστάσεως. 
Several notices of heresies existing in Epi- 
phanius’s own time are derived from his 
own observation. The last main division 
of the Panarion (Haer. \xv.-1xxx.), where 
he carefully notes the different opinions of 
Arians, semi-Arians, Photinians, Marcellians, 
Pneumatomachi, Aerians, Aetians, Apollinar- 
ists, or Dimoirites, is one of the most important 
contemporary authorities for the Trinitarian 
and Christological controversies since the 
beginning of the 4th cent. Although a fana- 
tical partisan, and therefore not always to be 
relied on, Epiphanius speaks almost every- 
where from his own knowledge and enhances 
the value of his work by the literal transcrip- 
tion of important documents. Of far inferior 
value are his attempted refutations, which 
are further marred by fanatical abuse, mis- 
representation of opinions, and attacks on 
character. He takes particular pleasure in 
describing real or alleged licentious excesses 
on the part of heretics ; his refutations proper 
contain sometimes really successful argument, 
but are generally weak and unhappy. The 
work concludes with the section περὶ πίστεως, 
a glorifying description of the Holy Catholic 
Church, its faith, its manners, and its ordin- 
ances, of great and manifold significance for 
the history of the church at that time. Each 
section is preceded by a short summary. An 
᾿Ανακεφαλαίωσις, probably the work of Epi- 
phanius himself (preceded by a short extract 
from an epistle of Epiphanius to Acacius and 
Paulus, and followed by an extract from the 
section setting forth the Catholic faith), almost 
literally repeats the contents of these sum- 
maries. This ’Avaxedadalwois, a work used 
by St. Augustine and St. John Damascene, 
apparently circulated as an independent 
writing, as did bk. x. of the Phitlosophumena 
and the summary added to Hippolytus’s 
σύνταγμα against all heresies and preserved 
in a Latin translation in the Praescriptiones of 
Tertullian. Of another more copious epitome- 
midway between the brevity of the ’Avaxega, 
λαίωσις and the details of the Panarion, a large 
fragment was pub. by Dindorf from a Paris 
MS., No. 854, in his ed. of Epiphanius, vol. 1. 
Pp. 339-369, from a transcript made by Fr. 
Duebners (cf. also the various readings given 
by Dindorf from a Cod. Cryptoferrar. vol. iil. 
p. 2, praef. pp. iv.-xii.). 

The best ed., that of W. Dindorf (Leipz. 
1859-1862, 5 vols. sm. 8vo), contains all the 
genuine writings (the Ancoratus, Anacepha- 
laeosis, Panarion, and de M ensurts et Pondertbus 
in the Gk. text, de Gemmis in all three text 
forms, and the two epistles in Jerome’s 
trans.), and also the spurious homilies, the 
epitome, and the Vita Eptphantt of Polybius. 
Of works and treatises concerning Epipha- 
nius may be mentioned the book attributed to 
the abbé Gervais, L’Hisiloire et la υἱὲ de St. 


EPIPHANIUS 


Epiphane (Paris, 1738) ; Tillemont, Mémoires, 
t. x. pp. 484 seq., 822 seq. ; Fabricius, Brdl. 
Graec. ed. Harl. viii. pp. 261 seq.; Schréckh, 


Eberhard, Die Bethetligung des Epiphanius an 
dem Strette tiber Origenes (Trier, 1859); Lip- 
sius, Zur Quellenkrittk des Epiphanios (Wien, 
1865). [R-A.L.] 

Epiphanius (17), 16th bp., 5th patriarch 
of Constantinople, A.D. 520-535, succeeding 
John II. 

The eastern empire was now rising to great 
splendour through the victories of its generals, 
Belisarius and Narses. Idolatry was univer- 
sally suppressed, heathen books were burnt, 
pagan images destroyed, the professors of the 
old religion imprisoned and flogged. At 
Constantinople the zeal of Justinian for a 
church policy was shewn during the patri- 
archate of Epiphanius by laws (e.g. in 528 and 
529) regulating episcopal elections and duties. 
These enactments, and the passivity of Epi- 
phanius and his clergy, are remarkable proofs 
of the entire absence as yet of any claims such 
as the clergy later asserted for exclusively 
clerical legislation for the spirituality. 

The first conspicuous office of Epiphanius 
was the charge of the catechumens at Con- 
stantinople. In 519, the year before his 
election, he was sent with bp. John and count 
Licinius to Macedonia to receive the docu- 
ments ‘“‘libellos,’’ or subscriptions of those 
who wished reunion with the Catholic church, 
at the request of the apocrisiarius of Dorotheus 
bp. of Thessalonica. On Feb. 25, 520, he 
was elected bishop by the emperor Justin, 
with the consent of bishops, monks, and 
people. He is described in the letter of the 
synod of Constantinople to pope Hormisdas 
as ‘“‘holding the right faith, and maintaining 
a fatherly care for orphans” (Patr. Lat. xiii. 
483). He accepted the conditions of peace 
between East and West concluded by his 
predecessor, the patriarch John, with pope 
Hormisdas; ratifying them at a council at 
Constantinople, where he accepted also the 
decrees of Chalcedon. Dioscorus, agent of 
Hormisdas at Constantinople, writes of his 
fair promises, but adds, ‘‘ What he can fulfil 
we don’t know. He has not yet asked us to 
communion ”’ (1b. 482). Four letters remain 
of Epiphanius to Hormisdas, telling him of 
his election, sending him his creed, and de- 
claring that he condemned all those whose 
name the pope had forbidden to be recited in 
the diptychs. Epiphanius adopts the symbol 
of Nicaea, the decrees of Ephesus, Constanti- 
nople, and Chalcedon, and the letters of pope 
Leo in defence of the faith. His second letter 
was accompanied by a chalice of gold sur- 
rounded with precious stones, a patina of gold, 
a chalice of silver, and two veils of silk, which 
he presented to the Romanchurch. In order 
to make the peace general, he advises the pope 
not to be too rigorous in exacting the extrusion 
of the names of former bishops from diptychs. 
His excuse for the bishops of Pontus, Asia, 
and the East is composed in very beautiful 
language. ‘The answers of Hormisdas are 
given in the Acts of the Council of Constanti- 
nople held under Mennas. He trusts to the 
prudence and experience of Epiphanius, and 
recommends lenity towards the returning, 


| 


| iv. 
Christliche Kirchengeschichte, t. x. pp. 3 ff.; | 


EPIPHANIUS SCHOLASTICUS 303 


severity to the obdurate. 
complete the reunion himself. (Labbe, Conedi. 
1534, (537, 1545, 1546, 1555, ed. 16713; 
Patr. Lat. xiii. 497, 507, 523.) The severe 
measures by which J ustin was establishing the 
supremacy of the Catholics in the East were 
arousing Theodoric, the Arian master of Italy, 
to retaliation in the West. Pope John I., the 
successor of Hormisdas, became thoroughly 
alarmed; and in 525, at the demand of 
Theodoric, proceeded to Constantinople to 
obtain the revocation of the edict against the 
Arians and get their churches restored to them 
(Marcellin. Chron. ann. 525; Labbe, Conceal. 
iv. 1600). Great honour was paid to pope 
John in the eastern capital. The people went 
out twelve miles to receive him, bearing 
ceremonial tapers and crosses. The emperor 
Justin prostrated himself before him, and 
wished to be crowned by his hand. The patri- 
arch Epiphanius invited him to perform Mass; 
but the pope, mindful of the traditional policy 
of encroachment, refused to do so until they 
had offered him the first seat. With high 
solemnity he said the office in Latin on 
Easter Day, communicating with all the 
bishops of the East except Timothy of Alex- 
andria, the declared enemy of Chalcedon 
(Baron. 525, 8,10; Pagi, ix. 349, 351: AA; 
SS. May 27; Schréckh, xvi. 102, xviii. 214- 
216; Gibbon, 111. 473; Milman, Lat. Christ. 
i. 302). In 531 the dispute between Rome 
and Constantinople was revived by the appeal 
of Stephen, metropolitan of Larissa, to pope 
Boniface, against the sentence of Epiphanius. 
Stephen was eventually deposed, notwith- 
standing his appeal. On June 5, 535, Epi- 
phanius died, after an episcopate of 14 years 
and 3 months (Theoph. a.p. 529 in Patr. 
Gk. evili. 477). All that is known of him is to 
his advantage. 

Besides his letters to Hormisdas, we have 
the sentence of his council against Severus and 
Peter (Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 783-786). Forty-five 
canons are attributed to him (Assemani, 810i. 
Orient. 619). [W.M.S. ] 

Epiphanius (39) Scholasticus, an ecclesiastic 
c. A.D. 510, of whom we know scarcely any- 
thing except that he was the friend of Cassio- 
porus, the celebrated head of the Monasterium 
Vivariense. He apparently bore the name 
Scholasticus, not so much because of any 
devotion to literature or theology, but in the 
sense that word frequently had in the middle 
ages, meaning a chaplain, amanuensis, or 
general assistant of any dignitary of the 
church (Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v.). In this 
relationship, in all probability, Epiphanius 
stood to his distinguished master, by whom 
he was summoned to take a part in urging his 
monks to classical and sacred studies, and 
especially to the transcription of manuscripts. 
To Epiphanius was assigned the translation 
into Latin of the histories of Socrates, Sozo- 
men, and Theodoret. Cassiodorus revised the 
work, corrected faults of style, abridged it, 
and arranged it into one continuous history 
of the church. He then published it for the 
use of the clergy. The book attained a high 
reputation. It was known as the Tripartite 
History; and, along with the translation of 
Eusebius by Rufinus, it became the manual of 
church history for the clergy of the West for 


Epiphanius is to 


904 ERACLIUS 


many centuries. The book is generally pub. 
as if Cassiodorus were its author, under the title 
of Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae Epitome. 

Epiphanius translated several additional 
works, such as the commentaries of Didymus 
upon the Proverbs of Solomon and the seven 
Catholic Epistles, those of Epiphanius bp. of 
Cyprus upon the Canticles, and perhaps others, 
of which one survives, and may be found in 
Labbe(Conc.t.v.),namely, his Codex Encyclicus, 
a work to which he was also urged by Cassio- 
dorus. It is a collection of letters addressed 
by different synods to the emperor Leo in de- 
fence of the decrees of the council of Chalcedon 
against TIMOTHEUS AELURUS. [w.M.] 

Eraciius (1) (Heraclius, in the older edi- 
tions Evadius), deacon of the church of Hippo 
A.D. 425, had inherited considerable property, 
part of which he spent in raising a “‘ memoria ”’ 
of the martyr [STEPHEN] ; the rest he offered 
asagifttothechurch. St. Augustine, fearing 
that the absolute acceptance of such a gift 
from so young a man might be the subject of 
future reproval or regret, caused Eraclius first 
to invest the money in land, which might be 
given back to him should any unforeseen 
reason for restitution arise. On becoming one 
of Augustine’s clergy, Eraclius made his 
poverty complete by setting free a few slaves 
whom he had retained (Aug. Serm. 356, vol. 
v. 1387). In 426 Augustine was summoned 
to Milevis, to obviate some threatened dis- 
sensions. Severus, the late bishop, had 
designated his successor in his lifetime, but 
had made his choice known to his clergy only. 
This caused discontent, and the interference 
of Augustine was judged necessary to secure 
the unanimous acceptance of the bishop so 
chosen. Augustine, then in his 72nd year, 
was thus reminded of the expedience of 
securing his own church from similar trouble 
at his death, and he made choice of Eraclius, 
then apparently the junior presbyter of the 
church, to be his coadjutor and designate 
successor (D. C. A. i. 228). Only, though he 
had himself been ordained bishop in the life- 
time of his predecessor, Valerius, he now held 
that this had been an unconscious violation 
of the Nicene canon against having two 
bishops in the same church, and therefore 
resolved that Eraclius, while discharging all 
the secular duties of the see, should remain a 
presbyter until his own death. To obviate 
future dispute, he assembled his people (Sept. 
26, 426) to obtain their consent to the arrange- 
ment, having the notaries of the church in 
attendance to draw up regular “‘ gesta’”’ of the 
proceedings, which those present were asked 
to subscribe (Ep. 213, vol. ii. p. 788). 

The capture of Hippo by the Vandals pre- 
vented the arrangements from taking effect, 
and Augustine does not appear to have had 
any successor in his see. Eraclius, in 427, 
held a private discussion with Maximinus, the 
Arian bishop, which led to a public disputation 
between Maximinus and Augustine (Coll. cum 
Max. viii. 650). Two sermons by Eraclius 
are preserved, the first of which, preached in 
Augustine’s presence, is almost all taken up 
with compliments and apologies (v. 1523 and 
72, Append. p. 131). (G.s.] 

Ethelbert (1) I. (properly Aethelberht or 
Aethelbriht; Bede, Aedilberct), king of Kent, 


ETHELBERT [I. 


son of Irminric, and great-grandson of Oeric, 
surnamed Oisc, the son of Hengist, suc- 
ceeded gto the kingdom of the Kentishmen 
as the heir of the ‘‘ Aescingas’’ in 560 (the 
date, 565, in the Chronicle is inconsistent with 
Bede’s reckoning given below). Some years 
after his accession he provoked a conflict with 
Ceawlin, the West Saxon king, and Cutha, 
his brother, was defeated at Wimbledon with 
the loss of two ealdormen and driven back 
into Kent (Sax. Chron. a.658). Ethelbert had 
already married Bertha or Berhte, daughter of 
Charibert, king of Paris, on the understanding 
that she should be free to practise ‘‘ the rites 
of her own Christian religion,’’ under a bishop 
named Liudhard, chosen by her parents (Bede, 
i. 25). Ethelbert faithfully observed this 
compact, but shewed no curiosity about his 
wife’s creed. She and her episcopal chaplain 
worshipped undisturbed in the old Roman- 
British church of St. Martin, on a hill E. of 
Ethelbert’s city of Canterbury (Bede, i. 26). 
Ethelbert succeeded, on the death of Ceawlin 
in 593, to that pre-eminence among the Saxon 
and Anglican kings usually described as the 
Bretwaldadom (see Freeman, Norm. Cong. i. 
542). Four years later, in the spring of 597, 
he was brought face to face with a band of 
Christian missionaries, headed by Augustine, 
whom pope Gregory the Great had sent to 
“bring him the best of all messages, which 
would ensure to all who received it eternal life 
and an endless kingdom with the true and 
living God ”’ (Bede, i. 29). Ethelbert had sent 
word to the foreigners to remain in the Isle of 
Thanet, where they had landed, and “‘ supplied 
them with all necessaries until he should see 
what to do with them.’’ He soon came into 
the isle, and sitting down with his “ gesiths ”’ 
or attendant thanes in the open air (for he 
feared the effect of spells under a roof) listened 
attentively to the speech of Augustine. [Auc- 
GUSTINUS.] Then he spoke in some such 
words as Bede has rendered immortal. ‘‘ Your 
words and your promises are fair; but seeing 
they are new and uncertain, I cannot give in 
to them, and leave the rites which I, with the 
wholerace of the Angles, haveso long observed. 
But since you are strangers who have come 
from afar, and, as I think I have observed, 
have desired to make us share in what you 
believe to be true and thoroughly good, we 
do not mean to hurt you, but rather shall take 
care to receive you with kindly hospitality, 
and to afford you what you need for your 
support ; nor do we forbid you to win over 
to your faith, by preaching, as many as you 
can.”’ He gave them a dwelling in Canter- 
bury, N.W. of the present cathedral precinct. 
They began to make converts, as Bede tells 
us, through the charm of their preaching, and 
the still more powerful influence of consistent 
lives. Shortly afterwards Ethelbert expressed 
his belief in the truth of those promises which 
he had described as unheard-of, and was 
baptized ; the time, according to Canterbury 
tradition, was June 1, the Whitsun-eve of 
597, the place, undoubtedly, was St. Martin’s. 
The king proved one of the truest and noblest 
of royal converts. He built a new palace at 
Regulbium or Reculver, abandoning his old 
abode to Augustine, now consecrated as 
archbishop, and adding the gift of various 


. 


ETHERIA 


“needful possessions’? (Bede, i. 26). He 
assisted Augustinein converting an old Roman- 
built church into ‘‘ the cathedral church of 
the Holy Saviour,’’ and also built, “ after 
exhortation,’’ a monastery outside the E. wall 
of the city, dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul, 
but afterwards known as ‘‘ St Augustine’s.’’ 
He received by the hands of Mellitus, who, 
with others, joined the mission in 601, a letter 
of congratulation and exhortation from pope 
Gregory; and lent his aid as Bretwalda to 
arrangements for a conference, near the Bristol 
Channel, between his archbishop and some 
bishops of the ancient British church. Among 
the many ‘“ good services which he rendered 
to his people,’’ Bede reckons those ‘‘ dooms ”’ 
or decrees which, ‘‘ after the example of the 
Romans, he framed with the consent of his 
wise men,’’ and among which he first of all 
set down what satisfaction (bd?) was to be 
made by any one who robbed the church, the 
bishop, or the clergy. For he was ‘‘ minded 
to afford his protection to those whose doc- 
trine he had received’’ (Bede, ii. 5). For 
these dooms, 90 in number, extant in the 
Textus Roffensis, see Thorpe’s Anctent Laws 
and Institutes of England, p. τ. Ethelbert’s 
nephew Sabert, the son of his sister Ricula, 
held the dependent kingship of the East 
Saxons, and embraced the faith under the 
persuasion of his uncle and overlord, who 
built a church of St. Paul in London for 
Mellitus as bishop of that kingdom. He also 
built at ‘‘ Hrof’s Castle,’’ 1.6. Rochester, a 
church of St. Andrew for a bishop named 
Justus; ‘‘ gave many gifts to both prelates, 
and added lands and possessions for the use 
of those who were with them.’’ It was doubt- 
less in Ethelbert’s reign and under his influence 
that Redwald, king of the East Angles, while 
visiting Kent, received baptism, although, as 
his after-conduct shewed, his convictions were 
not deep (Bede, ii. 19). After Bertha’s death, 
Ethelbert married a young wife whose name 
is unknown. His last days must have been 
saddened by anxiety as to the future reign of 
his son Eadbald, who refused to receive the 
faith of Christ. Ethelbert died, after what 
Bede describes as a most glorious reign of 56 
years, on Feb. 24, A.D. 616, and was buried 
beside his first wife in the ‘ porticus’’ or 
transept of St. Martin, within the church of 
SS. Peter and Paul, leaving behind a memory 
held in grateful reverence as that of the first 
English Christian king (Hardy, Cat. Mat. i. 
176, 214-216, 259). Cf. The Misston of St. 
Augustine, according to the Original Documents, 
by A. J. Mason, D.D. (Camb. 1897). [w.B.] 

Etheria. [Syrvia.] 

Eucherius (1), St., bp. of Lyons, prob. born 
late in 4th cent. ; except perhaps St. Irenaeus 
the most distinguished occupant of that see. 

Authorities.—Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. lib. 
111. 8.; St. Isidorus, de Ecclesiasticis Scriptori- 
bus, cap. xv.; Gennadius, de Illustribus Eccle- 
δίας Scriptoribus, cap. Ixiii.; Cassianus, some 
of whose Collationes (xi.-xvii.) are addressed to 
Eucherius and Honoratus. [CAssIANUS (11).] 

Born in a high social position, he married 
Galla, a lady of his own station. Their two 
sons, Salonius and Veranius, received an 
ecclesiastical education in the monastery of 
Lerinum under St. Honoratus and Salvanius ; 


EUCHERIUS 


and both appear, from the title of the com- 
mentary on Kings, falsely ascribed to Eucher- 
ius, to have become bishops during the lifetime 
of their father. 

The civic duties of Eucherius (whatever they 
were) appear to have been discharged con- 
scientiously and vigorously. Sidonius Apol- 
linaris is loud in the praise of his friend as a 
layman, and compares him (ΕΡ. viii.) to the 
Bruti and Torquati of old. But the world, 
then in a very turbulent and unsettled con- 
dition, palled upon Eucherius, and while still 
in the vigour of life he sought a retreat from 
its cares and temptations on the island of 
Lerinum, the smaller of the two isles now 
known as the Lérins, off Antibes; and sub- 
sequently on the larger one of Lero, now 
called Sainte Marguerite. Here he pursued 
an ascetic life of study and worship, devoting 
himself also to the education of his children. 
During this period he composed the two un- 
doubtedly genuine works which we possess. 

Intercourse, both personal and by corre- 
spondence, with eminent ecclesiastics tended 
to make widely known his deserved reputation 
for sanctity and for a varied and considerable 
learning, and c. 434 the church of Lyons 
unanimously, unsought, elected him bishop. 
He brought to the discharge of this office the 
influence and experience acquired in lay 
government, as well as the spiritual training 
and erudition won in hisretirement. He was 
bishop some 16 years, the remainder of his life, 
and Claudianus Mamertus speaks of him as 
‘““magnorum sui saeculi pontificum longe 
maximus.”’ He was succeeded by his son 
Veranius, while Geneva became the see of his 
other son Salonius. 

Works.—1. Epistola, seu Libellus, de laude 
Eremt. This short treatise, addressed to 
St. Hilary of Arles, is assigned, with proba- 
bility, to a.p. 428. The Collationes of Cassian, 
composed at the request of Eucherius, had 
given so vivid a picture of the hermits of the 
Thebaid as to call forth this epistle. The 
author calls attention to the blessings recorded 
in Holy Scripture as connected with lonely 
spots (e.g. the law was given in the wilderness 
and the chosen race fed with bread from 
heaven) and to the sanction given to retire- 
ment by the examples of Moses, Elijah, St. 
John Baptist, and our Lord Himself. In re- 
ference to this last he exclaims, “Ὁ laus 
magna deserti, ut diabolus, qui vicerat in 
Paradiso, in Eremo vinceretur '’; and notices 
the withdrawal of Christ to solitude for 
prayer, and the fact of the Transfiguration 
taking place on a mountain. ' 

2. Epistola Paraenetica ad Valerianum cog- 
natum. ‘‘ De contemptu mundi et saecularss 
philosophiae.”’ Its date is probably ¢. A.D. 
432. Eucherius evidently desires his highly- 
placed and wealthy kinsman to follow him in 
retirement from the world. Valerian 15 re- 
minded of the many saintly doctors of the 
church who had once occupied an exalted 
secular position; e.g. Clement of Rome, 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory Nazianzen, 
Basil, Paulinus of Nola, Ambrose, etc. The 
Latin of this epistle won the approbation of 
Erasmus, who published an edition, accom- 
panied by scholia, at Basle, A.D. 1520. ; 

3. Liber sormularum spiritalis intelligentiae 


20 


305 


900 EUCHITES 

[4]. de forma spiritalis intellects] ad V eranium 
filitum. This is a defence of the lawfulness of 
the allegorical sense of Scripture, pleading the 
testimony of Scripture itself; e.g. Ps. Ixxvii. 
{Ixxviii. A.V.] 2, and the use of such phrases 
as “‘ the hand of God,”’ “‘ the eyes of the Lord,” 
etc., which cannot be taken ad literam. It 
displays a very extensive acquaintance with 
the Bible and anticipates many favourite 
usages of mediaeval mystics and hymn- 
writers ; such as the term anagoge (ἀναγωγὴ) 
for the applicaticn of Scripture to the heavenly 
Jerusalem, identification of the digitus Dei 
with the Holy Spirit (St. Luke xi. 20, with 
St. Matt. xii. 28) and the like. 

4. Instructionum Librt Duo ad Salonium 
filium. Of this treatise, the former book dis- 
cusses difficulties in the O. and N.T., such as 
the scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the 
Holy Trinity ; the permission of polygamy to 
the patriarchs; the existence of evil, which 
(with many other divines) he makes simply 
the privation of good, etc. The second book 
deals with Hebrew names, but does not 
display a very profound acquaintance with 
Hebrew. Eucherius quotes with much re- 
spect the version of the O.T. by Aquila. 

There are also Homilies by him, and some 
other works are ascribed to him of doubtful 
authenticity. 

Editions.—There is no complete edition of 
the writings of Eucherius. For this art. the 
Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (Lugduni), a.p. 
1677 (t. vi. p. 822), has been used. Cf. A. 
Gouillond, St. Eucher. Lévins et VEglise de 
Lyon au Ve Siécle (Lyons, 1881). [J-G.c.] 

Euchites. Doctrines and Practices.—At the 
beginning of the last quarter of the 4th cent. 
or a little earlier, fanatics made their appear- 
ance in Syria, whose manner of life was said 
to have been introduced from Mesopotamia, 
and who were known by the Syriac name of 


Messalians or Massalians (wos), praying 


people. xby oravit is found in the Chaldee 


(Dan. vi. rr; Ezra vi. 10). Epiphanius, 
whose account of them is the last article (80) 
of his work on heresies, translates the name 
(εὐχόμενοι), but in the next generation the 
Messalians had obtained a technical name in 
Greek also, and were known as Euchites 
(εὐχήται Or εὐχῖται). They professed to give 
themselves entirely to prayer, refusing to 
work and living by begging; thus differing 
from the Christian monks, who supported 
themselves by their labour. They were of 
both sexes, went about together, and in 
summer weather slept in the streets pro- 
miscuously, as persons who had renounced the 
world and had no possession or habitation of 
their own. Epiphanius dates the commence- 
ment of this sect from the reign of Constantius 
(4. A.D. 361). Theodoret (H. E. iv. 11; Haer. 
Fab. iv. 10; Rel. Hist. iii., Vit. Marcian. vol. 
111. 1146) dates its beginning a few years later 
under Valentinian. There seems no founda- 
tion for the charge that the Euchites were 
derived from the Manichees. Epiphanius con- 
nects them with heathen devotees whom he 
calls Euphemites, and who it seems had also 
been known as Messalians. The Euchites 
appear never to have made any entrance into 


EUCHITES 


the West, but in the East, though probably 
at no time very numerous, they are heard of 
for centuries ; and when the Bogomiles of the 
12th cent. appeared, the name Messalian still 
survived, and the new heretics were accounted 
descendants of the ancient sect. 

In the time of Epiphanius the Messalians 
scarcely were a sect, having no settled system 
nor recognized leader; and Epiphanius im- 
putes to them no error of doctrine, but only 
criticizes their manner of life. 

Two accounts of Euchite doctrine are 
apparently of greater antiquity than the 
authors who preserve them. One is given by 
Timotheus (de Receptione Haer. in Cotelier’s 
Mon. Ecc. Gr. iii. 400). This writer was a 
presbyter of Constantinople in the 6th cent. 
His coincidences with Theodoret are too 
numerous to be well explained except on the 
supposition of common _ sources. These 
sources probably were the Acts of the councils 
of Antioch and Side, which contained sum- 
maries of Messalian doctrine. Theodoret may 
possibly also have used a Messalian book 
called Asceticus, the doctrines of which, 
Photius tells us, had been exposed and 
anathematized at the council of Ephesus in 
431. Probably that book furnished the 
“heads of the impious doctrine of the Mes- 
salians taken from their own book”’ given by 
Joannes Damascenus (de Haer. ap. Cotelier, 
Mon. Ecc. Gr. i. 302, and Opp. Le Quien, i. 95), 
but which would seem also (see Wolf, Hist. 
Bogomil. p. 11) to have been separately pre- 
served in two MSS. at Leipzig (Acta Erudit- 
orum, 1696, p. 299; 1699, Ρ. 157; and in the 
Bodleian, Cod. Barocc. 185). 

They held that in consequence of Adam’s 
sin every one had from his birth a demon, 
substantially united to his soul, which incited 
him tosin, and which baptism wasineffectual to 
expel. Dealing only with past sin, baptism did 
but shear off the surface growth, and did not 
touch the root of the evil. The true remedy 
was intense, concentrated prayer, continued 
till it produced a state from which all affections 
and volitions were banished (ἀπάθεια). Inthis 
the soul felt as sensible a consciousness of 
union with its heavenly bridegroom as an 
earthly bride in the embraces of her husband. 
Then the demon went out in the spittle or in 
the mucus of the nose, or was seen to depart 
in smoke or in the form of a serpent, and there 
was in like manner sensible evidence of the 
entrance of the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine 
(Haer. 57), who had some source of information 
independent of Epiphanius, ascribes to them a 
fancy that the Holy Spirit might be seen to 
enter in the appearance of innocuous fire, and 
the demon to pass out of the man’s mouth in 
the form of a sow with her farrow. Possibly 
language intended by them metaphorically 
was misunderstood; for they described the 
soul of him who had not Christ in him as the 
abode of serpents and venomous beasts. They 
further thought that he who had arrived at 
the passionless state could see the Holy Trinity 
with his bodily eyes; that the three hypos- 
tases of the Trinity coalesced into one, which 
united itself with worthy souls. This doctrine 
no doubt furnishes the key to the account 
given by Epiphanius of the effacement of the 
sense of distinct personality in members of this 


EUCHITES 


sect. Theyheld the possibility in the passionless 
state of a perfection in which sin was impossible; 
such a man needed neither instruction for his 
soul nor fasting to discipline his body, for 
delicate food and luxurious living could stir 
no evil desire in him. It is probably a mis- 
conception to suppose that they claimed that 
he could be guilty of licentious conduct with- 
out falling from perfection. The soul of him 
who was “ spiritual,’’ as they boasted them- 
selves to be, was changed into the divine 
nature; he could see things invisible to 
ordinary men; and so some of them used to 
dance by way of trampling on the demons 
which they saw, a practice from which they 
were called Choreutae. The things they saw 
in their dreams they took for realities, and 
boasted that they then acquired a knowledge 
of future events, could see the condition of 
departed souls, and could read men’s hearts. 
Both sexes might partake of this divine il- 
lumination, and they had female teachers, 
whom they honoured more than the clergy. 
The use of the Lord’s Supper they regarded 
as a thing indifferent: it could neither benefit 
the worthy nor harm the unworthy receiver ; 
but there was no reason for separating from 
the church by refusing it. They disparaged 
all the ordinary forms of Christian charity as 
compared with the merit of bestowing alms 
on one of their members. They had specula- 
tions about our Lord’s humanity, of which the 
most intelligible is that the body which He 
assumed had been full of demons whjch it 
was necessary for Him to expel. 
History.—The first whom we read of as a 
leader of the sect is Adelphius ; hence ‘‘ Adel- 
phians”’ was one of their many names. He 
was a layman of Mesopotamia. Epiphanius 
speaks of them in his time as having no recog- 
nized leader. Theodoret tells that Flavian 
bp. of Antioch sent monks to bring the 
Messalian teachers at Edessa to Antioch. 
They denied their doctrines, and charged their 
accusers with calumny. Flavian then used 
an artifice afterwards repeated by Alexius 
Comnenus in the case of the Bogomiles. He 
affected to take their part, treated the aged 
Adelphius with great respect, and led him to 
believe that he would find in an aged bishop 
one able to understand and sympathize with 
views which younger men rejected only from 
want of experience. Adelphius, having been 
thus enticed into a full disclosure of his senti- 
ments, was rebuked in the words addressed by 
Daniel to the wicked elder (Susanna, 52) and 
punished as convicted out of his own mouth. 
He and his party were beaten, excommunicat- 
ed, and banished, and were not allowed, as 
they wished, the alternative of recantation, 
no confidence being felt in their sincerity, 
especially as they were found communicating 
in friendly terms with Messalians whom they 
bad anathematized. Probably it was on this 
occasion that Flavian held a synod against 
them (Photius, 52), attended by three other 
bishops (Bizus of Seleucia, a Mesopotamian 
bishop, Maruthas, described by Photius as 
bp. of the Supharenians, and Samus) and by 
about 30 clergy. With Adelphius there were 
condemned two persons named Sabas, one of 
them a monk and a eunuch, Eustathius of 
Edessa, Dadoes, Hermas, Symeon, and others. 


EUCHITES 307 


Flavian informed the bishops of Edessa and 
neighbourhood what had been done, and 
received an approving reply. The Messalians 
banished from Syria went to Pamphylia, and 
there met new antagonists. They were also 
condemned by a council of 25 bishops held at 
Side and presided over by AMpuiLocuius of 
Iconium, which sent a synodical letter to 
Flavian, informing him of their proceedings. 
In their Acts Amphilochius gave a full state- 
ment of the Messalian tenets expressed in their 
own words. Photius represents the synod at 
Antioch just mentioned as having been called 
in consequence of the synodical letter from 
Side, but this is more than doubtful, though 
Theodoret also, in his Eccl. Hist., mentions the 
proceedings in Pamphylia before mentioning 
those which resulted in the banishment of the 
Messalians to Pamphylia. We cannot fix the 
year of these proceedings, but c. 390 will 
probably not be far wrong. Measures were 
taken against the Messalians in Armenia also. 
Letoius bp. of Melitene obtained information 
from Flavian as to the proceedings in Antioch. 
Finding some monasteries in his diocese in- 
fected by this heresy, he set fire to them, and 
hunted the wolves from his sheepfold. A less 
zealous Armenian bishop was rebuked by 
Flavian for favour shewn to these heretics. 
In Pamphylia the contest lasted for several 
years. The orthodox leaders were another 
Amphilochius, bp. of Side, and Verinianus bp. 
of Perga, who were stimulated by energetic 
letters from Atticus bp. of Constantinople, and 
later, in A.D. 426, from the synod held for the 
consecration of Sisinnius, the successor of 
Atticus, in which Theodotus of Antioch anda 
bishop named Neon are mentioned by Photius 
as taking active parts. Messalianism had 
probably at that time given some trouble in 
Constantinople itself. Nilus (de Vol. Paup. 
ad Magnam, 21) couples with Adelphius of 
Mesopotamia, Alexander, who polluted Con- 
stantinople with like teaching, and against 
whom he contends that their idleness, instead 
of aiding devotion, gave scope to evil thoughts 
and passions and was inimical to the true 
spirit of prayer. Tillemont has conjectured 
that this was the Alexander who about this 
time founded tbe order of the Acoimetae (see 
D.C. A. s.v.), but the identification is far from 
certain. There is no evidence that the latter 
was a heretic save that his name has not 
been honoured with the prefix of saint; and 
his institution would scarcely have met with 
the success it did if it could have been repre- 
sented as devised by a notorious Messalian 
to carry out the notions of his sect as to the 
duty of incessant prayer. <= 

Between the accession of Sisinnius and the 
council of Ephesus in 431, John of Antioc h 
wrote to Nestorius about the Messalians, and 
Theodosius legislated against them (xvi. Cod. 
Theod. de Haer. vol. vi. p. 187). At Ephesus 
Valerian of Iconium, and Amphilochius of 
Side, in the name of the bps. of Lycaonia 
and Pamphylia, obtained from the council a 
confirmation of the decrees made against the 
Euchites at Constantinople in 426 and the 
anathematization of the Messalian book, 
Asceticus, passages from which Valerian laid 
before the synod (Mansi, iv. 1477). Fabricius 
names Agapius, and Walch Adelphius, as the 


308 EUCHITES 


author of this book, but the writer is really 
unknown. These proceedings at Ephesus 
were unknown to Gregory the Great (Ep. vi. 
14, ad Narsem, vol. vil. p. 361), but are men- 
tioned by Photius, and the decree was read at 
the second council of Nicaea (Mansi, xii. 1025). 
The cause of Gregory’s oversight may have 
been that his correspondent cited to him as 
Ephesine the Acts of the council of Antioch. 
We learn from the Ephesine decree that Mes- 
salianism had also been condemned at Alex- 
andria, and Timotheus mentions Cyril as an 
antagonist of these heretics. In the Ep. ad 
Calosyrium (prefixed to the tract adv. Anthro- 
pomorph. vii. 363) Cyril rebukes certain monks 
who made piety a cloak for laziness, but there 
is no evidence that they were Euchites. The 
articles of the Asceticus were the subject of 
24 anathemas by Archelaus (bp. of Cae- 
sarea in Cappadocia some time between the 
two Ephesine synods of 431 and 449), and of 
two letters by Heracleidas of Nyssa (c. 440). 
The next Euchite leader of whom we read is 
Lampetius, after whom his followers were 
called Lampetians, and who is said to have 
been the first of the sect to attain the dignity 
of priesthood. He had been ordained by 
Alypius, bp. of Caesarea (Cappadocia) in 458. 
He was accused to Alypius by the presbyter 
Gerontius, superior of the monks at Glitis, 
of undue familiarity with women, unseemly 
language, scoffing at those who took part in 
the musical services of the church as being 
still under the law when they ought to make 
melody only in their hearts, and of other 
Euchite doctrines and practices. The exam- 
ination of the charges was delegated by Aly- 
pius to Hormisdas bp. of Comana, and Lam- 
petius was degraded from the priesthood. He 
wrote a work called the Testament, answered 
by the Monophysite Severus, afterwards bp. 
of Antioch. A fragment of this answer is 
preserved in a catena belonging to New Col- 
lege, Oxford (Wolf, Anecdota Graeca, iii. 182). 
It insists on the duty of praising God both 
with heart and voice. The same catena con- 
tains an extract from another work of Severus 
against the Euchites, an epistle to a bp. Solon. 
Photius tells that in Rhinocorura two persons 
named Alpheus, one of them a bishop, de- 
fended the orthodoxy of Lampetius, and were 
in consequence deposed. He learned this from 
a letter written by Ptolemy, another bishop of 
the same district, to Timotheus of Alexandria. 
There have been at Alexandria several bishops 
of that name, but probably the Timotheus in- 
tended is the one contemporary with Lam- 
petius (460-482). 

_ The next Messalian leader of whom we read 
(in Timotheus) is Marcian, a money-changer, 
who lived in the middle of the 6th cent., and 
from whom these sectaries came to be called 
Marcianists. The correspondence of Gregory 
the Great, already referred to, arose out of the 
condemnation under this name, unknown in 
the West, in 595, of one John, a presbyter of 
Chalcedon. He appealed to the pope, who 
pronounced him orthodox, complaining that 
he had not even been able to make out from 
his accusers what the heresy of Marcianism 
was. In the 7th cent. Maximus, in his 
scholia on the Pseudo-Dionysius (II. 88), 
charges those whom he calls indifferently 


EUDOXIUS 


Lampetians, Messalians, Adelphians, or Mar- 
cianists, with giving but three years to ascetic 
life and the rest of their life to all manner of 
debauchery. 

We hear no more of the Messalians till the 
Bogomile heresy arose in the 12th cent. 

Of modern writers, the most useful are 
Tillemont, viii. 530; Walch, Hist. der Ketz. 
111. 418 ; and Neander, Ch. Hist. iii. 323. [G.s.] 

Eudoxius (2), 8th bp. of Constantinople 
(360-370), previously bp. of Germanicia and 
of Antioch, one of the most influential Arians. 
Between 324 and 331 St. Eustathius was bp. 
of Antioch. Eudoxius came to him seeking 
holy orders. Eustathius found his doctrine 
unsound and refused him. But when Eusta- 
thius was deposed, the Arians or Eusebians 
had everything their own way, and admitted 
Eudoxius to orders and made him bp. of 
Germanicia, on the confines of Syria, Cilicia, 
and Cappadocia. This bishopric he held at 
least 17 years, the dark period of the principal 
intrigues against Athanasius, and of the reigns 
of the sons of Constantine. In 341 was held, 
at Antioch, the council of the Dedication or 
Encaenia, under Placillus. Eudoxius of Ger- 
manicia attended. He was an Arian pure 
and simple, a disciple of Aetius, a friend of 
Eunomius. The council produced four creeds, 
in which the Eusebian party succeeded in 
making their doctrine as plausible as might 
be, and the second of these became known as 
the ‘‘ Creed of the Dedication.”” Athanasius 
says that Eudoxius was sent with Martyrius 
and Macedonius to take the new creed of 
Antioch to Italy. This new creed may, how- 
ever, have been the Macrostich, or Long 
Formula, drawn up at a later council of 
Antioch. In 343 or 347 the rival councils 
of Sardica and Philippopolis were held. At 
the latter was drawn up a creed more Arian 
than those of Antioch, and it was signed by 
Eudoxius. At the end of 347 Eudoxius was 
in attendance on the emperor in the West, 
when news came of the death of Leontius of 
Antioch. Excusing himself on the plea that 
the affairs of Germanicia required his presence, 
he hastened to Antioch, and, representing 
himself as nominated by the emperor, got 
himself made bishop, and sent Asphalus, a 
presbyter of Antioch, to make the best of the 
case at court. Constantius wrote to the 
church of Antioch: ‘* Eudoxius went to seek 
you without my sending him. . . . To what 
restraint will men be amenable, who impu- 
dently pass from city to city, seeking with a 
most unlawful appetite every occasion to 
enrich themselves ? ’’ Meanwhile the new 
prelate was preaching open Arianism and 
persecuting the orthodox. Im the first year 
of his episcopate at Antioch he held a council, 
which received the creed of Sirmium. An 
idea may be formed of his sermons from three 
different sources. Hilary of Poictiers, then 
in the East, heard Eudoxius in his cathedral, 
and wished his ears had been deaf, so horribly 
blasphemous was the language. Theodoret 
and Epiphanius report him as boasting that 
he had the same knowledge about God as 
God had about Himself. 

A council was held at Seleucia in Sept. 359, 
the orthodox forming a very small minority. 
The majority signed the ‘‘ Creed of the Dedi- 


ee 


717" eE~ ee 


‘ 
| 
; 
᾿ 
Ε 
| 
f 
! 
Ι 
ΕἾ 
b 
{ 
Ι 


EULALIUS 


cation’’; Eudoxius, who was present, was 
deposed by the less heretical party, and ap- 
pears to have sought the shelter of the court 
at Constantinople. Here, by the aid of the 
Acacians, he secured his appointment as patri- 
arch on the deposition of Macedonius, and on 
Jan. 27, 360, took possession of his throne in 
the presence of 72 bishops. On Feb. 15 
the great church of Constantinople, St. Sophia, 
begun in 342 by the emperor Constantius, was 
dedicated. Eudoxius, mounting his episcopal 


throne before the expectant multitude οὗ. 


courtiers, ecclesiastics, and citizens, began 
with the words: ‘‘ The Father is ἀσεβής, the 
Son is εὐσεβής." A great tumult of indigna- 
tion arose on all sides in St. Sophia. The 
orator, unabashed, explained: ‘‘ The Father 
is ἀσεβής because He honours nobody; the 
Son is εὐσεβής because He honours the 
Father.’?’ The new cathedral echoed with 
peals of uncontrollable laughter. Thus, says 
Socrates (ii. 43), these heresiarchs tore the 
church to pieces by their captious subtilties. 
Eudoxius consecrated his friend Eunomius 
to the see of Cyzicus; but such complaints 
were brought to the emperor that he ordered 
Eudoxius to depose him. Eudoxius, terrified 
by menaces, persuaded him quietly to retire. 
In 365 an attack was made on Eudoxius by 
the semi-Arians, now called Macedonians. 
Holding a meeting at Lampsacus, thev signed 
the “ Creed of the Dedication,’ cited Eudoxius 
and his party before them, and, as they did not 
come, sentenced them to deprivation; but 
Valens refused to confirm the proceedings. 
In 367 Valens, as he was setting out for the 
Gothic war, was induced by his wife to receive 
baptism from Eudoxius. In the same year 
he issued, doubtless under the advice of 
Eudoxius, an order that such bishops as had 
been banished by Constantius and had re- 
turned under Julian should again be exiled. 
The years during which Eudoxius and 
Valens acted together were troubled by por- 
tents, which many attributed to the anger of 
Heaven at the cruelty of Valens in banishing 
bishops who would not admit Eudoxius to 
theircommunion. Eudoxiusdiedin 370. He 
well deserves the character given him by 
Baronius, ‘‘ the worst of all the Arians.’’ Soz. 
Week. iV. 26: Soct. H. δ. 11: 10, 37; 40, 43; 
Theoph. Chronogr. § 38; Niceph. Callist. 
fe ΡΠ xt. 4: heod. Ἡ: EF. i. 25; Haer. 
Fab. iv. 3 ; Epiph. de Haeres. \xxiii. 2 ; Athan. 
ad Solit. in Patr. Gk. xxvi. 572, 219, 589, 274, 
580, 713, 601; Hilarius, de Synod., Patr. Lat. 
xX. 471, etc.; Liber contr. Const. Imp. §§ 665, 
680, 573, etc. [w.M.S.] 
Eulalius (1), an antipope, elected and or- 
dained as bp. of Rome after the death of 
Zosimus at the close of 418, in opposition to 
Boniface I., who was finally established in the 
see, Eulalius being expelled from Rome by 
the emperor Honorius in April 419. The 
official letters which passed have been pre- 
served in the Vatican, and are quoted at length 
by Baronius (A. Ε. ann. 418, 1xxix. 419, 11.- 
xxxii.). They throw light on the conflicts 


attending the election of bishops, and on the | 


| 


EULALIUS 309 


had warned the people to proceed to a new 
election without disturbance, Eulalius the 
archdeacon had been taken to the Lateran 
church by the clergy and people, duly elected, 
and ordained; while certain presbyters, ac- 
companied by a crowd, had gone with Boni- 
facius, a presbyter, to the church of Theodora, 
and, though warned to do nothing rashly, had 
ordained him in the church of St. Marcellus, 
and thence took him to St. Peter's basilica. 
He requests the instructions of the emperor, 
with whom, he says, it rests to give judgment 
in such acase. Honorius replies (Jan. 3, 419) 
by ordering Boniface to be expelled from the 
city, and the authors of the sedition in his 
favour punished, Eulalius having been duly 
appointed according to the rule of Catholic 
discipline (competens numerus ordinantium, 
solemnitas temporis, locique qualitas) and the 
rival election being deficient in these respects. 
Symmachus replies (Jan. 8) that he has carried 
out the emperor’s order, not without resistance 
on the part of Boniface, who had caused a 
messenger sent to forbid a procession to be 
beaten by the people; had held the proces- 
sion; and had forcibly entered the city, but 
had been expelled by an opposing mob; while 
Eulalius had celebrated service in the basilica 
of St. Peter amid the acclamations of almost 
the whole city. 

Meantime the presbyters who supported 
Boniface had sent a different account. They 
had been unable, they say, to assemble in the 
customary place, the Lateran church, because 
of its being occupied by Eulalius with a very 
small number of presbyters and an excited 
mob; they were the great majority of the 
clergy, supported by the better part of the 
laity; amid general acclamation they had 
elected Boniface, in whose ordination 70 
priests and g bishops of divers provinces had 
concurred ; whereas the bp. of Ostia, a sick 
old man almost at the point of death, had been 
brought against his will to assist in the ordina- 
tion of Boniface’s rival. 

Having received this counter-statement, 
Honorius writes to Symmachus (Jan. 15), 
revoking his former edict ; commanding the 
attendance at Ravenna (Feb. 8) of Boniface 
and Eulalius, with their respective supporters, 
before a synod. 

The documents shew that the members of 
this synod were divided, and unable to come 
to a decision before Easter (Mar. 30), when 
custom required a bishop to celebrate in Rome. 
Honorius therefore decided to refer the case 
after Easter to a fuller synod, and commis- 
sioned Achilleus bp. of Spoleto to celebrate 
Easter in Rome, forbidding both claimants to 
be present there. He exacts obedience in a 
high tone of authority, and threatens with 
summary punishment all disturbers of the 
peace. The synod was to be held at Spoletum 
on June 13. Honorius sent private letters to 
several of the more important prelates, e.g. 
Paulinus of Nola, Augustine, and Aurelius of 
Carthage, and circular letters to the bishops 
of Africa and Gaul. The proposed assembly, 
however, never took place. Eulalius and his 


powers exercised by the emperors in connexion |party, disregarding the imperial orders, en- 


therewith. First we have a letter (Dec. 29, 
418) to Honorius at Ravenna from Symmachus 
the Praefectus Urbis, stating that, after he 


tered Rome at mid-day, Mar. 18, and came 
into violent collision with Achilleus and his 
supporters, Symmachus and the Vicarius 


910 EULOGIUS 


Urbis narrowly escaping with their lives. 
Thereupon the emperor ordered (Mar. 25) 
Eulalius to be immediately expelled from the 
city. Eulalius refused to comply, and took 
violent possession of the Lateran church, but 
was eventually dislodged thence and expelled 
from Rome, an imperial edict (Apr. 3) exclud- 
ing him from the see and confirming Boniface 
as bp. of Rome. The latter was welcomed as 
bishop by the whole population with joy and 
gratitude to the emperor. 

Eulalius retired to Antium, near Rome, 
expecting the death of Boniface, who fell sick 
after his accession, but this hope failing, he 
made no further attempt to recover the see, 
though invited to do so by his partisans in 
Rome on the death of Boniface in 423. Ac- 
cording to the Liber Pontificalis, he afterwards 
became bp. of Nepete. 

From this account, extracted from contem- 
porary documents, the following facts are 
evident. First, that with the ancient custom 
of election of a new bishop by the clergy, with 
the assent of the laity, and confirmation by 
provincial bishops, there was no desire on the 
part of the civil power tointerfere. Secondly, 
that elections had come to be conducted in an 
irregular and tumultuous manner, giving rise 
[Damasus] to violent conflicts, with blood- 
shed even in the churches. Thirdly, that it 
was the necessity of restoring order, and 
adjudicating between rival claims, that led to 
the interposition of the emperor. Fourthly, 
that in this case the emperor did not insist 
on aright to decide on the validity of either 
election without first submitting the question 
to an episcopal synod. Fifthly, eventually, 
serious provocation being given, he settled the 
question on his own authority, without the 
sanction of a synod or regard to the canoni- 
city of the original election. A statement in 
the Liber Pontificalis that Eulalius was de- 
posed by asynod of 252 bishops is inconsistent 
with the contemporary evidence given above, 
and, as such, Baroniusrejectsit. [J.B—y.] 

Eulogius (4), bp. of Edessa. When a pres- 
byter there he suffered in the persecution by 
Valens. Barses the bishop having been 
deposed and exiled, the orthodox refused to 
communicate with an Arian prelate, intruded 
into the see. Modestus the prefect com- 
manded the leading ecclesiastics to obey the 
emperor and communicate with the new 
prelate. The whole body, led by Eulogius, 
offered so firm a resistance that Modestus 
sentenced them, 80 in number, to transporta- 
tion to Thrace. The confessors received so 
much honour there that Valens relegated 
them, two and two, to distant localities, 
Eulogius with a presbyter Protogenes being 
sent to Antinous in the Thebaid. Though 
there was a Catholic bishop here the popu- 
lation was almost entirely pagan, and the 
two presbyters commenced missionary work 
among them. On the cessation of the perse- 
cution Eulogius and Protogenes returned to 
Edessa, where, Barses being dead, Eulogius 
was consecrated bishop by Eusebius of Samo- 
sata (Theod. H. Ε. ἵν. 18, v. 4). Heattended 
the councils held at Rome in 369 (Labbe, ii. 
894), Antioch in 379, and Constantinople in 
381 (7b. 955). 4566 Soz. vi. 34; and Migne’s 
note 61, Patr. GR. Ixvii. 1394. [Ε.ν.] 


EUNOMIUS 


Eunomius (3) of Cappadocia, bp. of Cyzicus 
(360-364) after the expulsion of Eleusius. As 
the pupil and secretary of Aetius, he formu- 
lated his master’s system with a preciseness 
which stamped the name of Eunomians instead 
of that of Aetians on the Anomoean heretics. 
He was distinguished by “a faculty of subtle 
disputation and hard mechanical reasoning ”’ 
(Newman, Avrzans, c. iv. ὃ 4), which subjected 
the Christian verities to strict logical pro- 
cesses, and rejected every doctrine that could 
not be shewn to be consistent with human 
reason. Neander further describes him as 
the decided enemy of asceticism, and of the 
growing disposition to worship saints and 
relics—in fact, the ‘‘ Rationalist’’ of the 4th 
cent. (Ch. Hist. iv. p. 78, Clark’s trans.). 

The name of his birthplace is given as 
Dacora by Sozomen and Philostorgius, and as 
Oltiseris by Gregory Nyssen, who correctly 
places it on the confines of Cappadocia and 
Galatia (Soz. H. E. vii. 17; Philost. H. E. x. 
6, xi. 5). Eunomius came of an honest, in- 
dustrious stock. His father, an unpretending, 
hard-working man, supported his family by 
the produce of his land and by teaching a few 
neighbours’ children in the winter evenings 
(Greg. Nys. in Eunom. i. p. 291). Eunomius 
inherited his father’s independent spirit. He 
learnt shorthand, and became amanuensis to 
a kinsman and tutor to his children. The 
country becoming distasteful to him, he went 
to Constantinople, hoping to study rhetoric. 
Gregory Nyssen, who endeavours to blacken 
his character as much as possible, hints 
that his life there was not very reputable, but 
specifies no charges. It was reported that he 
worked as a tailor, making clothes and girdles. 
Before very long he returned to Cappadocia. 

The fame of Aetius, then teaching at Alex- 
andria, reaching Eunomius, he proceeded 
thither c. 356, and placed himself under his in- 
struction, acting also as his amanuensis (Socr. 
HE. ii. 3551v.7 5 S02. Η-Β- νἱ 27 Philoste 
H. E. iii. 20; Greg. Nys. in Eunom. 1. p. 290). 
He accompanied Aetius to Antioch at the 
beginning of 358, to attend the Arian council 
summoned by Eudoxius, who had through 
court favour succeeded to the see of Antioch. 

The bold front displayed by the Arians at 
this council, and the favour shewn to the 
flagrant blasphemies of Aetius and Eunomius, 
who did not scruple to assert the absolute 
unlikeness (ἀνόμοιον) of the Son to the 
Father, excited the strong opposition of the 
semi-Arian party, of which George of Laodi- 
cea, Basil of Ancyra, and Macedonius of 
Constantinople, were the highly respectable 
leaders. Under colour of the dedication of a 
church, a council was speedily held by them at 
Ancyra at which the Anomoean doctrines and 
their authors were condemned. A synodical 
letter was sent to the emperor denouncing the 
teaching of Eunomius and his master and 
charging the latter with being privy to the 
conspiracy of Gallus (Philost. H. E. iv. 8). 
These proceedings struck dismay into the 
Arian clique at Antioch, and Eunomius, now 
a deacon, was sent to Constantinople as their 
advocate. But, apprehended in Asia Minor 
by some imperial officers, he was banished by 
the emperor’s orders to Midaeus or Migde in 
Phrygia; Aetius to Pepuza. Eudoxius found 


EUNOMIUS 


it prudent to retire to his native Armenia till 
the storm had blown over (Greg. Nys. 1b. p. 
291), but found means to reinstate himself in 


the emperor’s favour, and at the close of 359 | 


was chosen successor of Macedonius in the 
imperial see. Constantius had the utmost 
abhorrence of the Anomoeans and their teach- 
ing. Aetius was therefore sacrificed by the 
Arians as a scapegoat, while Eunomius was 
persuaded to separate himself reluctantly from 
his old teacher and conceal his heterodoxy, 
that he might secure a position of influence 
from which to secretly disseminate his views. 
Eudoxius procured for him from the emperor 
the bishopric of Cyzicus, vacant by the de- 
position of the semi-Arian ELrusius; but after 
a while, weary of dissimulation, he began to 
propound his doctrines, at first privately, and 
then in public assemblies. Complaints of his 
heterodoxy were laid before Eudoxius, who, 
forced by Constantius, summoned Eunomius 
before a council of bishops at Constantinople, 
but sent him a secret message counselling 
flight. Eunomius, not appearing, was con- 
demned in his absence, deposed, and banished 
(Theod. Haer. Fab. iv. 3; H. E. ii. 29; Phil- 
ost. H. E. vi. 1). On this he broke altogether 
with his former associates, and headed a party 
of his own, called after him Eunomians, pro- 
fessing the extreme Anomoean doctrines of 
the general comprehensibleness of the Divine 
Essence, and the absolute unlikeness of the 
Son to the Father. The accession of Julian 
in 361 recalled Eunomius and Aetius among 
the other bishops banished by Constantius. 
They both settled in Constantinople during 
the reigns of Julian and his successor Jovian 
(Philost. H. E. vi. 7, vii. 6). The growing 
popularity of Eunomianism at Constantinople 
caused jealousy in Eudoxius, who took advan- 
tage of the commotions caused by the rebel- 
lion of Procopius on the accession of Valens 
in 364 to expel Eunomius and Aetius from the 
city. Eunomius retired to his country house 
near Chalcedon. Procopius having also taken 
refuge there in Eunomius’s absence, Euno- 
mius was accused of favouring his designs, and 
was in danger of being capitally condemned. 
Sentence of banishment to Mauritania was 
actually passed upon him, a.p. 367. But on 
his way thither, passing through Mursa, the 
Arian bishop Valens, by personal applica- 
tion to the emperor Valens, obtained the repeal 
of his sentence (δ. iv. 4-8). He was, the 
same year, again sentenced to banishment by 
Modestus, the prefect of the Praetorian 
guards, as a disturber of the public peace (1b. 
ix. 11). But he was again at Constantinople, 
or at least at Chalcedon, early in the reign of 
Theodosius, A.D. 379, to whom in 383 he, with 
other bishops, presented a confession of faith 
whichisstillextant. The next year Theodosius, 
finding some officers of the court infected with 
Eunomian views, expelled them from the 
palace, and having seized Eunomius at Chalce- 


don, banished him to Halmyris in Moesia, on | 


the Danube. MHalmyris being captured by 
the Goths, who had crossed the frozen river, 
Eunomius was transported to Caesarea in 
Cappadocia. 
their late venerated bishop, Basil the Great, 


in his writings, made him so unpopular there | 
He was there- | 


that his life was hardly safe. 


The fact that he had attacked | 


EUNOMIUS 411 


fore permitted to retire to his paternal estate 
at Dacora, where he died in extreme old age 
soon after A.D. 392, when, according to Jerome 
(Vir. Illust. c. 120), he was still living, and 
writing much against the church. His body 
was buried there, but transferred to Tyana, 
by order of Eutropius, c. 396, and there care- 
fully guarded by the monks—to prevent its 
being carried by his adherents to Constanti- 
nople and buried beside his master Aetius, to 
whom he had himself given a splendid funeral 
(Soz. H. E. vii. 17; Philost. H. E. ix. 6, xi. 5). 

Eunomianism, a cold, logical system, lacked 
elements of vitality, and notwithstanding its 
popularity at first, did not long survive its 
authors. In the following century, when 
Theodoret wrote, the body had dwindled to 
a scanty remnant, compelled to conceal them- 
selves and hold their meetings in such obscure 
corners that they had gained the name of 
““Troglodytes’’ (Theod. Haer. Fab. iv. 3). 
St. Augustine remarked that in his time the 
few Anomoeans existing were all in the East 
and that there were none in Africa (Aug. de 
Past. Cur. c. 8, p. 278). 

Eunomius endeavoured to develop Arianism 
as a formal doctrinal system; starting with 
the conception of God as the absolute simple 
Being, of Whom neither self-communication 
nor generation can be predicated. His es- 
sence is in this, that He is what He is of Him- 
self alone, underived, unbegotten—and as 
being the only unbegotten One, the Father, 
in the strict sense of Deity, is alone God; and 
as He is unbegotten, inasmuch as begetting 
necessarily involves the division and impar- 
tation of being, so it is impossible for Him to 
beget. If that which was begotten shared in 
the Θεότης of the Deity, God would not be 
the absolute unbegotten One, but would be 
divided into a begotten and an unbegotten 
God. A communication of the essence of 
God, such as that involved in the idea of 
generation, would transfer to the Absolute 
Deity the notions of time and sense. An 
eternal generation was to Eunomius a thing 
absolutely inconceivable. A begetting, a 
bringing forth, could not be imagined as with- 
out beginning and end. The generation of 
the Son of God must therefore have had its 
beginning, as it must have had its termination, 
at a definite point of time. It Is, therefore, 
incompatible with the predicate of eternity. 
If that can be rightly asserted of the Son, He 
must equally, with the Father, be unbegotten. 
This denial of the eternal generation of the 
Son involved also the denial of the likeness 
of His essence to that of the Father, from 
which the designation of the party, ‘‘ Ano- 
moean,”’ was derived. That which is be- 
gotten, he asserted, cannot possibly resemble 
the essence of that which is unbegotten ; 
hence, equality of essence, “ Homoousian,”’ 
or even similarity of essence, ‘‘ Homoiousian, 
is untenable. Were the begotten to resemble 
the unbegotten in its essence, it must cease 
to be unbegotten. Were the Father and the 
Son equal, the Son must also be unbegotten, 
a consequence utterly destructive of the fun- 
damental doctrine of generation and subordin- 
ation. Such generation, moreover, Eunomius 
held to be essentially impossible. If then, 
according to the teaching of the church, the 


812 EUNOMIUS 


Son, Who is begotten, were of the same essence 
as the Father Who begets, there must be both 
an unbegotten and a begotten element in 
God. The essence of the Father and of the 
Son must therefore be absolutely dissimilar. 
And as Their essence, so also is Their knowledge 
of Themselves different. Each knows Himself 
as Heis, and not asthe other. The one knows 
Himself as unbegotten, the other as begotten. 
Since, therefore, the Son did not share in any 
way the essence of the Father, what is His 
relation to God, and to what does He owe His 
origin? Eunomius’s answer lay in a dis- 
tinction between the essence (οὐσία) and the 
energy (ἐνεργεία) of God. Neither movement 
nor self-communication being predicable of 
the Divine Essence, it is tothe Divine Energy, 
conceived as separable from the Θεότης, that 
we must ascribe the calling into existence out 
of nothing of all that is. In virtue of this 
évepyela only can God be called Father, as it 
is by this that all that is, besides Himself, has 
come into being. Of these creations of the 
Divine Energy the Son or Logos holds the first 
place, as the instrumental creator of the world. 
In this relation likeness to the Father is pre- 
dicable of the Son. The Son may in this sense 
be regarded as the express image and likeness 
of the évepyela of the Father, as He conferred 
on Him divine dignity in the power of creation. 
This made the immeasurable difference between 
the Son and all other created beings. He was 
produced by the Father, as an alone Being, 
the first or most perfect of all Beings, to be, 
by His will, His instrument in the creation of 
all other existences. God called Him into 
being immediately, but all other creatures 
mediately through Him. This teaching in- 
troduced a dualism into the essence of God 
Himself, when it drew a distinction between 
His essence and His will—the one being in- 
finite and absolute, and the other relative and 
limited to finite objects. On the ground of 
this dualism Eunomius is charged by Gregory 
Nyssen with Manicheism. Eunomiusregarded 
the Paraclete as sharing in the Divine nature in 
a still more secondary and derived sense, as 
no more than the highest and noblest produc- 
tion of the Only-begotten Son, given to be 
the source of all light and sanctification. 
The entire want of spiritual depth and life 
in Eunomius is shewn by his maintaining that 
the Divine nature is perfectly comprehensible 
by the human intellect, and charging those 
who denied this with an utter ignorance of the 
first principles of Christianity. He accused 
them of preaching an unknown God, and even 
denied their right to be called Christians at all, 
since without knowledge of God there could 
be no Christianity ; while he denied to those 
who did not hold his views as to the nature of 
God and the generation of the Son the pos- 
session of any true knowledge of the Divine 
Being. He held that Christ had been sent to 
lead other creatures up to God, the primal 
source of all existence, as a Being external to 
Himself, and that believers should not stop at 
the generation of the Son, but having followed 
Him as far as He was able to lead them, should 
soar above Him, as above all created beings, 
whether material or spiritual, to God Himself, 
the One Absolute Being, as their final aim, 
that in the knowledge of Him they might 


EUNOMIUS 


obtain eternal life. Eunomius’s poor and low 
idea of the knowledge of God placed it merely 
in a formal illumination of the understanding 
and a theoretical knowledge of God and 
spiritual truth, instead of in that fellowship 
with God as made known to us in Christ and 
that knowledge which comes from love, which 
the church has ever held to be the true life 
of the soul. In harmony with this formal, 
intellectual idea of knowledge, as the source 
of Christian life, Eunomius assigned a lower 
place to the sacraments than to the teaching 
of the word, depreciating the liturgical, as 
compared with the doctrinal, element of 
Christianity. As quoted by Gregory Nyssen, 
he asserted that ‘‘the essence of Christianity 
did not depend for its ratification on sacred 
terms, on the special virtue of customs and 
mystic symbols, but on accuracy of doctrine ”’ 
(Greg. Nys. in Eunom. p. 704). For fuller 
statements of the doctrinal system of Euno- 
mius, see Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of 
Christ, div. i. vol. 11. pp. 264 ff., Clark’s trans. ; 
Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 77 ff., Clark’s 
trans. ; Herzog, Real-Encycl. ‘‘ Eunomius und 
Eunomianer ’’ (from which works the fore- 
going account has been derived); Klose, 
Geschichte und Lehre des Eunomtus (1833) ; 
Bauer, Dreieinigkeit, i. pp. 365-387; Meyer, 
Trimitatslehre, pp. 175 ff.; Lange, Arianismus 
in seiner weiteren Entwickelung. 

Eunomius, as a writer, was more copious 
than elegant. Photius speaks very depre- 
ciatingly of his studied obscurity, the weakness 
of his arguments, and his logical power. Soc- 
rates estimates his style no less unfavourably 
(H. E. iv. 7). Notwithstanding these alleged 
defects, his writings, which Rufinus states 
were very numerous and directed against the 
Christian faith (H. E. i. 25), were much es- 
teemed by his followers, who, according to 
Jerome, valued their authority more highly 
than that of the Gospels (Hieron. adv. Vigil. 
t. 11. p. 123). The bold blasphemies in these 
books caused their destruction. Successive 
imperial edicts, one of Arcadius, dated not 
more than four years after his death a.p. 398 
(Cod. Theod. t. vi. p. 152; lib. xvi. 34), com- 
manded that his books should be burnt, and 
made the possession of any of his writings a 
capital crime. Little of his writing remains, 
save some few fragments preserved in the 
works of his theological adversaries. His 
Exposition of Faith and his A pologeticus are 
the only pieces extant of any length. 

(1) ἔκθεσις πίστεως, Fidet libellus. A con- 
fession of faith presented to Theodosius, A.D. 
383 (Socr. H. E. vii. 12), first printed by 
Valesius in his notes to Socrates, afterwards 
by Baluze in Conciliorum Nov. Collect. i. ἕο, 
and in Fabricius, Biblioth. Graeca, v. 23. 

(2) Apologeticus, in 28 sections. This is his, 
most famous work, in which, with much 
subtlety, he seeks to refute the Nicene doc- 
trine of the Trinity, especially the co-eternal 
and consubstantial divinity of Christ. Basil 
the Great thought the book worth an 
elaborate refutation, in five books, adversus 
Eunomium (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxx. 835). 
An English trans. was pub. by Whiston in 
his ΌΤΙ Redivivus (Lond. 1711, 
8vo). 

Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 219; Fab. Bibl. Graeca, 


eens Ἀγ τ Ὡραν ἀχλὺν 


ee ee 


« «1... 


EUPHEMITAE 


viii. p. 261; Phot. Cod. 137. 138; Tillem. 
Mém. Eccl. vi. 501 ff. [E.v.] 

Euphemitae, also known as Messalians, 
“* praying people,’’ and therefore reckoned by 
Epiphanius (Haer. 80) as predecessors of the 
Christian sect so called. Epiphanius, our sole 
informant, tells us that they were neither 
Christians, Jews, nor Samaritans, but heathen, 
believing in a plurality of gods, but offering 
worship only to one whom they called the 
Almighty. They built oratories, some of 
which exactly resembled Christian churches ; 
in these they met at evening and early morn, 
with many lights, to join in hymns and prayer. 
We learn from Epiphanius with some surprise 
that some of the magistrates put several of 
these people to death for perversion of the 
truth and unwarranted imitation of church 
customs, and that in particular Lupicianus, 
having thus punished some of them, gave 
occasion to a new error, for they buried the 
bodies, held services at the spot, and called 
themselves martyriant. Epiphanius also 
charges a section of the Euphemites with 
calling themselves Satantant and worshipping 
Satan, thinking that by such service they 
might disarm his hostility. It does not ap- 
pear that Epiphanius means to assert that 
the Christian Euchites were historically de- 
rived from these heathen Euphemites, but 
merely that there was a general resemblance 
of practices between them. Tillemont conjec- 
tured (viii. 529) that the Euphemites of Epi- 
phaniusmight be identical with the Hypsistarit 
of Greg. Naz., or less probably with the 
CoE LicoraeE of Africa. [EucuitTes.] [6G.s.] 

Euphemius (4), 3rd patriarch of Constanti- 
nople, succeeding Fravitta and followed by 
Macedonius II. He ruled six years and three 
months, A.D. 489-496, and died in 515. Theo- 
phanes calls him Euthymius. He was a pres- 
byter of Constantinople, administrator of a 
hospital for the poor at Neapolis, untinged 
with any suspicion of Eutychian leanings, and 
is described as learned and very virtuous. 
Finding that Peter Mongus, the patriarch of 
Alexandria, anathematized the council of 
Chalcedon, he was so indignant that before he 
took his seat on the patriarchal throne he 
solemnly separated from all communion with 
him, and with his own hands effaced his name 
from the diptychs, placing in its stead that of 
Felix III. of Rome. For a year the strife 
between Mongus and Euphemius was bitter. 
Each summoned councils against the other ; 
Euphemius even thought of persuading a 
council to depose Mongus; but at the end of 
Oct. 490 Mongus died. 

To pope Felix the patriarch sent letters, as 
was usual, to announce his election, but re- 
ceived the reply that he might be admitted 
as a private member of the church Catholic, 
but could not be received in communion as a 
bishop, because he had not removed from 
the diptychs the names of his predecessors, 
Acacius and Fravitta. 

At the death (probably in 489) of Daniel the 
Stylite on the pillar where he had lived for 
33 years, Euphemius came with others to the 
foot of the pillar to attend his last moments. 


| you are helping others out. 


Anastasius, the future emperor, then an aged | 


officer of the emperor Zeno, held Eutychian 


views, and, according to Suidas, formed a sect | dained by Acacius. 


EUPHEMIUS 313 


which met in some church of Constantinople. 
The patriarch appeared before the conventicle 
with menacing gestures and drove them from 
thespot. ‘ If you must frequent the church,” 
he exclaimed, ‘“‘ agree with her! or else no 
more enter into her gates to pervert men more 
simple than yourself.” Henceforth, says the 
annalist, Anastasius kept quiet, for the sake 
of the glory that he coveted. As the emperor 
Zeno died in 491, this must have occurred 
within two years after the consecration of 
Euphemius, and it witnesses alike to his 
intrepidity and his influence. After the 
death of Zeno, the empress Ariadne procured 
the election of Anastasius, on the understand- 
ing that he was to marry her. The patriarch 
openly called him a heretic, unworthy of reign- 
ing over Christians, and refused to crown him, 
despite the entreaties of the empress and the 
senate, until Anastasius would give a written 
profession of his creed, promise under his hand 
to keep the Catholic faith intact, make no 
innovation in the church, and follow as his 
rule of belief the decrees of Chalcedon. Anas- 
tasius gave the writing under most solemn 
oaths, and Euphemius put it in charge of the 
saintly Macedonius, chancellor and treasurer 
of the church of Constantinople, to be stored 
in the archives of the cathedral (Evagr. iii. 32). 

At the end of 491, or on Feb. 25, 492, pope 
Felix died. His successor Gelasius immediate- 
ly announced his elevation to the emperor 
Anastasius, but took no notice of Euphemius, 
who had written at once to express his con- 
gratulations, and his desire for peace and for 
the reunion of the churches. Not obtaining 
an answer, he wrote a second time. Neither 
letter remains, but the reply of Gelasius shews 
that Euphemius, in congratulating the Roman 
church on its pontiff, added that he himself 
was not sufficiently his own master to do what 
he wished; that the people of Constantinople 
would never agree to disgrace the memory of 
their late patriarch Acacius ; that if that were 
necessary, the pope had better write to the 
people about it himself, and send someone 
to try and persuade them; that Acacius had 
never said anything against the faith, and that 
if he was in communion with Mongus, it was 
when Mongus had given a satisfactory account 
of his creed. Euphemius subjoined his own 
confession, rejecting Eutyches and accepting 
Chalcedon. It seems also that Euphemius 
spoke of those who had been baptized and 
ordained by Acacius since the sentence pro- 
nounced against him at Rome, and pointed 
out how embarrassing it would be if the 
memory of Acacius must be condemned 
(Ceillier, x. 486). Replying to these tem- 
perate counsels, Gelasius allows that in other 
circumstances he would have written to an- 
nounce his election, but sourly observes that 
the custom existed only among those bishops 
who were united in communion, and was not 
to be extended to those who, like Euphemius, 
preferred a strange alliance to that of St. 
Peter. He allows the necessity of gentleness 
and tenderness, but remarks that there is no 
need to throw yourself into the ditch when 
As a mark of 
condescension he willingly grants the canonical 
remedy to all who had been baptized and or- 
Can Euphemius possibly 


914 EUPHEMIUS 

wish him to allow the names of condemned 
heretics and their successors to be recited in 
the sacred diptychs? Euphemius professed 
to reject Eutyches; let him reject also those 
who have communicated with the successors 
of Eutyches. Was it not even worse for 
Acacius to know the truth and yet communi- 
cate with its enemies ? The condemnation of 
Acacius was tpso facto according to the decrees 
of ancient councils. If Peter Mongus did 
purge himself, why did not Euphemius send 
proofs of it? He is much vexed with Euphe- 
mius for saying that he is constrained to do 
things which he does not wish; no bishop 
should talk so about that truth for which 
he ought to lay down his life. He refuses 
to send a mission to Constantinople, for it 
is the pastor’s duty to convince his own 


flock. At the tribunal of Jesus Christ it will | 


be seen which of the two is bitter and hard. 


The high spirit of the orthodox patriarch was | 


fired by this dictatorialinterference. Heeven 
thought of summoning the pope himself to 
account; and as Gelasius was certainly even 
more suspicious of the emperor Anastasius, 
who was, despite the recantation which 
Euphemius had enforced, a real Eutychian 
at heart, it is very likely that, as Baronius 
asserts, the patriarch did not attempt to 
conceal the pope’s antipathy to the emperor. 
Nothing cooled the zeal of Euphemius for 
the council of Chalcedon. Anastasius har- 
boured designs against its supporters; the 
patriarch gathered together the bishops who 
were at Constantinople, and invited them to 
confirm its decrees. According to Theophanes 
and Victor of Tunis, this occurredin 492 (Vict. 
Tun. Chron. p. 5); but in Mansi (vii. 1180) 
the event is placed at the beginning of the 


patriarchate of Euphemius, and the decrees | 


are said to have been sent by the bishops to 
pope Felix III. Various jars shewed the 
continued rupture with Rome. Theodoric 
had become master of Italy, and in 493 sent 
Faustus and Irenaeus to the emperor Anas- 
tasius to ask to peace. During their sojourn 
at Constantinople the envoys received com- 
plaints from the Greeks against the Roman 
church, which they reported to the pope. 
Euphemius urged that the condemnation of 
Acacius by one prelate only was invalid; 
to excommunicate a metropolitan of Con- 
stantinople a general council was necessary 
(7b. viil. 16). Now occurred that imprudence 
which unhappily cost Euphemius his throne. 
Anastasius, tired of war against the Isaurians, 
was seeking an honourable way of stopping 
it. He asked Euphemius in confidence to beg 
the bishops at Constantinople (there were 


always bishops coming and going to and from | 


the metropolis) to pray for peace and thus 
furnish him with an opportunity of entering 
on negotiations. Euphemius betrayed the 
secret to Jobn the patrician, father-in-law of 
Athenodorus, one of the chiefs of the Isaurians. 
John hurried to the emperor to inform him 
of the patriarch’s indiscretion. Anastasius 


was deeply offended, and thenceforth never | 


ceased to persecute his old opponent. 
accused him of helping the Isaurians against 
him, and of corresponding with them (Theoph. 
Chronog. A.D. 488). An assassin, either by 
Anastasius’s own order or to gain his favour, 


He | 


EUPREPIUS 


drew his sword on Euphemius at the door of the 
sacristy, but was struck down by an attendant. 
Anastasius sought other means to get rid of 
Euphemius. Theodorus speaks of the vio- 
lence with which he demanded back the pro- 
fession of faith on which his coronation had 
depended (Theod. Lect. ii. 8, 572 seq. in Patr. 
Gk. |xxxvi.). He assembled the bishops who 
were in the capital and preferred charges 
against their metropolitan, whom they ob- 
sequiously declared excommunicated and de- 
posed. The people loyally refused to surrender 
him, but had soon to yield to the emperor. 
Meanwhile Euphemius, fearing for his life, 
retired to the baptistery, and refused to go out 
until Macedonius had promised on the word 
of the emperor that no violence should be done 
him when they conducted him to exile. With 
a proper feeling of respect for the fallen great- 


|ness and unconquerable dignity of his prede- 


cessor, Macedonius, on coming to find him in 
the baptistery, made the attendant deacon 
take off the newly-given pallium and clothed 
himself in the dress of a simple presbyter, 
““not daring to wear ”’ his insignia before their 
canonical owner. After some conversation, 
Macedonius (himself to follow Euphemius to 
the very same place of exile under the same 
emperor) handed to him the proceeds of a loan 
he had raised for his expenses. Euphemius 
was taken to Eucaites in 495, the fifth year of 
Anastasius. His death occurred 20 years 
later at Ancyra, whither, it is thought, the 
Hunnish invasion had made him retire. 
Elias, metropolitan of Jerusalem, himself 
afterwards expelled from his see by Anasta- 
sius, stood stoutly by Euphemius at the time 
of his exile, declaring against the legality of 
his sentence (Cyrillus, Vita S. Sabae, c. 69, 
apud Sur. t. vi.). In the East Euphemius 
was always honoured as the defender of the 
Catholic faith and of Chalcedon, and as a man 
of the highest holiness and orthodoxy. Great 
efforts were made at the fifth general council 
to get his name put solemnly back in the 
diptychs (Mansi, viii. 1061 £). The authori- 
ties for his Life are, Marcel. Chron. A.D. 491- 
495 in Patr. Lat. li. p. 933; Theod. Lect. 
Eccl. Hist. ii. 6-15 in Patr. Gk. 1xxxvi. pt. 1. 
185-189; Theoph. Chronog. a.p. 481-489 in 
Patr. Gk. cviil. 324-337 ; St. Niceph. Constant. 
Chronog. Brev. 45 in Patr. Gk. c. p. 1046; 
Baronius, A.D. 489-495; Gelas. Pap. Ep. et 
Decret. i. in Patr. Lat. lix. 13. [w.M.S.] 
Euprepius (4), bp. of Bizya in Thrace ; one 
of 68 bishops who demanded that the opening 
of the council of Ephesus should be postponed 
until the arrival of John of Antioch. He 
signed on this occasion also for Fritilas bp. 
of Heraclea (Synod. adv. Tragoed. cap. 7, in 
Theod. Opp. t. v. in Patr. Gk. 1xxxiv. 591). 
He nevertheless attended the council when it 
opened, signed the sentence against Nestorius 
and the ‘‘decretum de fide’’ (Mansi, iv. 
1225 Ὁ, 13648). Euprepius is chiefly of 
interest from the memorial termed ‘‘ Supplex 
libellus,’”’ which he and Cyril, bp. of Coele in 
the same province, jointly addressed to the 
fathers of the council (ἐδ. 1478), stating that 
by an ancient custom in the European pro- 
vinces a bishop sometimes had more bishoprics 
than one under his charge; that Euprepius 
was then administering the see of Arcadiopolis 


EURIC 


in addition to that of Bizya, while Cyril was 
acting similarly. The council was requested 
to rule that this custom might not be dis- 
turbed, and that Fritilas, bp. of Heraclea, 
might be forbidden to appoint bishops in those 
cities of Thrace which were then without 
bishops of theirown. The prayer was granted, 
and it was decreed that the custom of the 
cities in question should be respected (Le 
Quien, Or. Chr. i. 1136, 1145). [E.v.] 
Euric (1) (Evarich, Evorich, Euthorik, 
Evarix), king of the Visigothic kingdom of 
Toulouse from 466 to 484, and from 477 on- 
wards master of almost the whole of Spain. 
Under him the Visigoth power reached its 
highest point. In the reign of his successor it 
was curtailed by the Franks, while in that of 
his father, Theodoric or Theodored I. (d. 451) 
and his brothers, Thorismund and Theodoric 
II., the country occupied by the Goths had 
still been reckoned as an integral part of the 
empire (‘“‘ auxiliaminireipublicae,”’ says Aetius 
to the Goths before the battle of Chalons, 
““cujus membrum tenetis,’’ Jord. c. 36), while 
the Gothic state had found it necessary to 
submit again and again to the foedus with 
Rome. ‘ Euric, therefore, king of the Visi- 
goths,’’ says Jord. c. 45, ‘‘ seeing the frequent 
changes of the Roman princes’’ (and the 
weakness of the Roman kingdom, ‘‘ Romani 
regni vacillationem,’’ as he savs in c. 46), 
“attempted to occupy the Gauls in his own 
right, suo jure.’’ And again, ‘‘ Totas His- 
panias Galliasque 510] jam proprio jure tenens.”’ 
Thus the pretence of the foedus was finally set 
aside, and in the interval between the fall of 
the western empire and the rise of the Ostro- 
goths and Franks, Euric appears as the most 
powerful sovereign of the West (Dahn, v. 100). 
In 466, the year of his accession, Euric sent 
legates to the Eastern emperor Leo, perhaps 
with a last thought of renewing the foedus. 
The negotiations came to nothing, and in 467 
the Goths and Vandals made a defensive 
league against Leo, Anthemius, and Rikimir, 
who were about to attack Genseric. Beside 
his Vandalic auxiliaries in Gaul, Euric also had 
the support of a certain party among the 
provincials themselves, as is shewn by the 
evidence given at the trial of Arvandus, pre- 
fect of the Gauls, for treasonable correspond- 
ence with the Goths (Sidon. Apoll. i. 7), and 
in 468 he attacked the newly made Western 
emperor Anthemius simultaneously in Gaul 
and Spain, with the result that by 474 the 
Gothic dominion in Gaul would have extended 
from the Atlantic to the Rhone and Mediter- 
ranean, and from the Pyrenees to the Loire, 
but for one obstacle—the vigorous defence of 
Auvergne by Ecdicius, son of the emperor 
Avitus, and the famous bp. of Clermont, 
Sidonius Apollinaris (Sid. Apoll. vii. 1). The 
history of this dramatic struggle, preserved in 
the letters of Sidonius, throws valuable light 
on the politics of the 5th cent. It is the last 
desperate effort of the provincial nobility to 
avoid barbarian masters, and it is a fight, too, 
of Catholicism against Arianism. But it was 
unsuccessful. After besieging Clermont in 
474, Euric withdrew into winter quarters, 
while Sidonius and Ecdicius, in the midst of a 
devastated country, organized fresh resistance. 
But with the spring diplomacy intervened. 


EURIC 315 


Glycerius, fearful for Italy, and hoping to 
| purchase a renewal of the foedus, had in 473 
formally ceded the country to Euric, a com- 
pact rejected by Ecdicius and Sidonius; and 
now Nepos, for the same reasons, sent legates 
to Euric, amongst them the famous Epipha- 
nius of Pavia (Ennod. Vita S. Epiph. AA. SS. 
Jan. ii. p. 369), to treat for peace. Euric 
persisted in the demand for Auvergne, and 
accordingly, in return for a renewal of the 
foedus (‘‘fidelibus animis foederabuntur,”’ 
Sid. Apoll. ix. 5), Ecdicius and Sidonius were 
ordered to submit, and the district was given 
over to the revenge of the Goths. Ecdicius 
fled to the Burgundians, while Sidonius (see 
Ep. vii. 7, for his invectives against the peace 
—‘ Pudeat vos hujus foederis, nec utilis nec 
decori!’’), having vainly attempted to make 
favourable terms for the Catholics with Euric, 
was banished to Livia, near Narbonne (Sid. 
Apoll. viii. 3). By the influence of Euric’s 
minister, Leo, he was released after a year's 
imprisonment, and appeared at the Gothic 
court at Bordeaux, where, during a stay of 
two months, he succeeded in obtaining only 
one audience of the king, so great was the 
crowd of ambassadors, and the pressure of 
important business awaiting the decision of 
Euric and his minister. In Epp. viii. 9, Sidon- 
ius has left us a brilliant picture of the Gothic 
king, surrounded by barbarian envoys, Roman 
legates, and even Persian ambassadors. The 
Gothic territory in Gaul was now bounded by 
the Loire, the Rhone, and the two seas, while 
in Spain a great many towns were already 
held by Gothic garrisons. Euric’s troops 
easily overran the whole country at their next 
great advance. In 475 came the fall of Nepos 
and Augustulus, and the suspension of the 
empire of the West. The news aroused all 
the barbarian races in Gaul and Spain. 
Euric, with an Ostrogothic reinforcement 
under Widimer, crossed the Pyrenees in 
477, took Pampelona and Saragossa, and 
annihilated the resistance of the Roman 
nobility in Tarraconensis. By 478 the 
whole peninsula had fallen to the Goths, 
except a mountainous strip in the N.W., 
relinquished probably by treaty to the Suevi. 
By this complete conquest of the peninsula, 
“ἃ place of refuge was provided for the Goths 
. .. destined in the following generation to 
fall back before the young and all-subduing 
power of the Franks, called to a greater work 
than they’ (Dahn, Konige der Germanen, v. 
98). Fresh successes in Gaul followed close 
upon the Spanish campaign. Arles was taken, 
480, Marseilles, 481, and ultimately the whole 
of Provence up to the Maritime Alps (Proc. 
b. G. i. 1, quoted by Dahn, l.c.), and the exiled 
Nepos, indeed, seems to have formally sur- 
rendered almost the whole of southern Roman 
Gaul to Euric. Euric was now sovereign from 
the Loire to the Straits of Gibraltar, and 
appears as the protector of the neighbouring 
barbarian races against the encroaching 
Franks (Cass. Var. iii. 3), taking the same 
position towards them as Theodoric the Great 
took later in the reign of Euric’s son Alaric, 
Theodoric’s son-in-law. Euric survived the 
accession of Chlodwig (Clovis) three years, 
dying before Sept. 485. 

Eurtc’s Personal Character, and his Persecu- 


316 EURIC 


tions of the Catholics.—His commanding gifts 
and personality cannot be doubted. Even his 
bitterest enemy, Sidonius, speaks of his cour- 
age and capacity with unwilling admiration. 
“ Pre-eminent in war, of fiery courage and 
vigorous youth,” says Sidonius (‘‘ armis po- 
tens, acer animis, alacer annis,’’ Ep. vii. 6), 
““he makes but one mistake—that of suppos- 
ing that his successes are due to the correctness 
of his religion, when he owes them rather toa 
stroke of earthly good fortune.’’ Euric was 
much interested in religious matters and a 
passionate Arian, not merely apparently from 
political motives, though his persecution of the 
Catholic bishops was dictated by sufficient 
political reasons. The letter of Sidonius quoted 
above throws great light upon Euric’s relation 


to the Catholic church, and upon the state of | 


the church under his government. ‘‘ It must 
be confessed,’’ he says, ‘‘ that although this 
king of the Goths is terrible because of his 
power, I fear his attacks upon the Christian 
laws more than I dread his blows for the 
Roman walls. The mere name of Catholic, 


they say, curdles his countenance and heart. 


like vinegar, so that you might almost doubt 


whether he was more the king of his people | 


or of his sect. Lose no time,’’ he adds, ad- 
dressing his correspondent Basilius, bp. of Aix, 


“in ascertaining the hidden weakness of the | 


Catholic state, that you may be able to apply 
prompt and public remedy. 
gueux, Rodez, Limoges, Gabale, Eause, Bazas, 
Comminges, Auch, and many other towns, 
where death has cut off the bishops [‘‘ summis 
sacerdotibus ipsorum morte truncatis,’’ a 
passage misunderstood later by Gregory of 
Tours, who speaks of the execution of bishops, 
Hist. Franc. ii. 25], and no new bishops have 
been appointed in their places . . . mark the 
wide boundary of spiritual ruin. The evil 
grows every day with the successive deaths of 
the bishops, and the heretics, both of the 
present and the past, might be moved by the 
suffering of congregations deprived of their 
bishops, and in despair for their lost faith.’’ 
The churches were crumbling; thorns filled 
the open doorways; cattle browsed in the 
porches and on the grass round the altar. 
Even in town churches services were rare, and 
‘‘ when a priest dies, and no episcopal bene- 
diction gives him a successor in that church, 


not only the priest but the priest’s office dies ’’ | 


(‘‘sacerdotium moritur, non sacerdos’’). Not 
only are vacancies caused by death: two 
bishops, Crocus and Simplicius, are mentioned 
as deposed and exiled by Euric. Finally, 
Sidonius implores the aid of Basilius, the 
position of whose bishopric made him dip- 
lomatically important (‘‘ per vos mala foed- 
erum currunt, per vos regni utriusque pacta 
conditionesque portantur’’) towards obtain- 
ing for the Catholics from the Gothic govern- 
ment the right of ordaining bishops, that ‘‘ so 
we may keep our hold upon the people of 
the Gauls, if not ex foedere, at least ex fide.”’ 
Gregory of Tours in the next cent. echoed 
and exaggerated the account of Sidonius, and 
all succeeding Catholic writers have accused 
Euric of the same intolerant persecution of 
the church. The persecution must be looked 
upon, to a great extent, as political. The 
Catholic bishops and the provincial nobility 


Bordeaux, Péri- | 


EUSEBIUS 


| were the natural leaders of the Romanized 
populations. The ecclesiastical organization 
|made the bishops specially formidable (see 
Dahn’s remarks on the Vandal king Huneric’s 
persecutions, op. cit. i. 250). Their opposition 
threatened the work of Euric’s life, and did, 
in fact, with the aid of the orthodox Franks, 
destroy it in the reign of his successor. But 
the persecution has a special interest as one 
of the earliest instances of that oppression in 
the name of religion, of which the later history 
of the Goths in conquered Spain is every- 
where full (Dahn, v. ror). Euric, however, 
did not oppress the Romans as such. His 
minister Leo (Sid. Apoll. viii. 3), and count 
Victorius, to whom was entrusted the govern- 
ment of Auvergne after its surrender (1b. vii. 
17; Greg. Tur. 11. 35), were ofillustrious Roman 
families. It was probably by Leo’s help that 
Euric drew up the code of laws of which Isidore 
and others speak (Hist. Goth. apud Esp. Sagr. 
vi. 486); Dahn, Konige der Germanen, Vte A bth. 
pp- 88-ror, see list of sources and literature 
| prefixed. For the ultra-Catholic view of the 
persecution, see Gams’s Kuirchengesch. von 
Spanien, ii. τ, 484. [M.A.W.] 

Eusebius (1), succeeded Marcellus as bp. of 
| Rome, A.D. 309 or 310. He was banished by 
| Maxentius to Sicily, where he died after a 
pontificate of four months (Apr. 18 to Aug. 
.17). His body was brought back to Rome, 
and buried in the cemetery of Callistus on the 
Appian Way. Hardly anything was known 
with certainty about this bishop till the dis- 
coveries of de Rossiin the catacombs. That 
|he was buried in the cemetery of Callistus 
rested on the authority of the Liberian De- 
posit. Episc. and the Felician catalogue. But 
ancient itineraries, written by persons who 
had visited these tombs, described his resting- 
place as not being the papal crypt in that 
cemetery, where all the popes (with two excep- 
tions) since Pontianus had been laid, but in 
a separate one some distance from it. De 
Rossi found this crypt, and therein discovered, 
in 1852 and 1856, fragments of the inscription 
placed by pope Damasus over the grave, and 
known from copies taken before the closing of 
the catacombs. But it was previously uncer- 
tain whether it referred to Eusebius the pope 
or to some other Eusebius. All such doubt 
was now set at rest by the discovery, in the 
crypt referred to, of 46 fragments of a slab 
bearing a copy of the original inscription, and 
of the original slab, identified by the peculiar 
characters of Damasine inscriptions. The 
inscription is as follows :— 


““ Damasus Episcopus feci. 
Heraclius vetuit lapsos peccata dolere 
Eusebius miseros docuit sua crimina flere 
Scinditur in partes populus gliscente furore 
Seditio caedes bellum discordia lites 
Extemplo pariter pulsi feritate tyranni 
Integra cum rector servaret foedera pacis 
Pertulit exilium domino sub judice laetus 
Litore Trinacrio mundum vitamque reliquit. 

Eusebio Episcopo et martyri.” 


We thus have revealed a state of things at 
Rome of which no other record has been pre- 
served. It would seem that, on the cessation 
|of Diocletian’s persecution, the church there 
was rent into two parties on the subject of 
the terms of readmission of the lapsed to 


77 ae ar ae 


4 


PTR GS Ya ee ee ἄν αι 


EUSEBIUS 


communion: that one Heraclius headed a 
party who were for readmission without the 
penitential discipline insisted on by Eusebius ; 
that the consequent tumults and bloodshed 
caused ‘‘ the tyrant ’’ Maxentius to interpose 
and banish the leaders of both factions; and 
that Eusebius, dying during his exile in Sicily, 
thus obtained the name of martyr. It ap- 
pears further, from the similar Damasine 
inscription on Marcellus, that the contest had 
begun before the accession of Eusebius, who, 
like Marcellus, had required penance from the 
lapst. [MARcELLUs (8).] The way in which 
the name of Heraclius occurs in the inscription 
on Eusebius suggests that he may have been 
elected as an antipope (so Lipsius, Chronologte 
der rémischen Bischéfe). At any rate, the 
subject of dispute was the same as had led to 
the first election of an antipope, viz. Novatian, 
after the Decian persecution, some 50 years 
before; though on the earlier occasion the 
question was whether the Japs were to be re- 
admitted to communion at all or not, the 
schismatics being on the side of severity ; on 
the later occasion the question was only about 
the conditions of their readmission, the dis- 
sentients being on the side of laxity. In both 
instances the church of Rome, as represented 
by her lawful bishops, seems to have held a 
consistent and judicious course. [J.B—y.] 
Eusebius (5), of Alexandria, a writer of 
sermons, about whom Galland says ‘‘all is 
uncertain; nothing can be affirmed on good 
grounds as to his age or as to his bishopric ’”’ 
(Bibl. Patr. viii. p.xxiii.). It isuncertainwhether 
he belongs to the 5th orthe6thcent. A com- 
plete list of sermons is given by Mai, as follows: 
1. On Fasting. 2. On Love. 3. On the Incar- 
nation and its Causes. 4. On Thankfulness in 
Sickness. 5. On Imparting Grace to him that 
Lacks tt. 6. On Sudden Death, or, Those that 
Die by Snares. 7. On New Moon, Sabbath, 
and on not Observing the Voices of Birds. 8. 
On Commemoration of Saints. 9. On Meals, 
at such festivals. 10. On the Nativity. τι. 
On the Baptism of Christ. 12. On ‘‘ Art thou 
He that should come?”’ 13. On the Coming of 
John into Hades, and on the Devil. 14. On 
the Treason of Judas. 15. On the Devil and 
Hades. 16. On the Lord’s Day. 17. On the 
Passion, for the Preparation Day. ° 18. On the 
Resurrection. 19. On the Ascension. 20. On 
the Second Advent. 21. On ‘‘ Astronomers.” 
22. On Almsgiving, and on the Rich Man and 
Lazarus. He adheres to the Catholic doc- 
trines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. He 
uses the ordinary Eastern phrase, “ἢ Christ our 
God,”’ speaks of Him as Maker of the world, 
as Master of the creation, as present from the 
beginning with the prophets, and as the Lord 
of Isaiah’s vision. He calls the Holy Spirit 
consubstantial with the Father and the Son; 
in the sermon on Almsgiving he calls the 
Virgin Mother ‘‘ Ever-Virgin,’’ ‘‘ Theotokos,”’ 
and ‘‘our undefiled Lady.’’ He insists on 
free will and responsibility. ‘‘ God... saith, 
“If you do not choose to hear Me, I do not 
compel you.’ God could make thee good 
against thy will, but what is involuntary is 
unrewarded. . . . If He wrote it down that I 
was to commit sin, and I do commit it, why 
does He judge me?” If a man means to 
please God, ‘‘ God holds out a hand to him 


| break rise and cause 


EUSEBIUS 317 


straightway,”’ etc. Before a man renounces 
the world (by a monastic vow), let him try 
himself, know his own soul. He who fasts 
must fast with ‘‘ tongue, eyes, hands, feet" ; 
his whole ‘ body, soul, and spirit’ must be 
restrained from all sinful indulgence. ‘ Fast, 
as the Lord said, in cheerfulness, with sincere 
love to allmen. But when you have done all 
this, do not think you are better than A. or B. 
Say you are unprofitable servants.’’ People 
are not to blame wine, but those who drink 
it to excess; nor riches, but the man who 
administers them ill. Abraham had riches, 
but they harmed him not, ete. Some sen- 
tences shew a true spiritual insight: ‘* What 
sort of righteousness exceeds the rest ? Love, 
for without it no good comes of any other. 
What sin is worst ? All sin is dreadful, but 
none is worse than covetousness and remem- 
brance of injuries ’’ (Serm. On Love). He has 
humour, too, which must have told: ‘ On 
Sundays the herald calls people to church ; 
everybody says he is sleepy, or unwell. Hark! 
a sound of harp or pipe, a noise of dancing : 
all hasten that way as if on wings ’’ (Hom. on 
the Lord’s Day, Galland. viii. 253). He depicts 
vividly the extravagance of Alexandrian 
wealth; the splendid houses glistening with 
marble, beds and carpets wrought with gold 
and pearls, horses with golden bridles and 
saddles, the crowds of servants of various 
classes—some to attend the great man when 
he rides out, some to manage his lands or his 
house, building, or his kitchen, some to fan 
him at his meals, to keep the house quiet 
during his slumber:—the varieties of white 
bread, the pheasants, geese, peacocks, hares, 
etc., served up at his table. The Christian 
should look forward to Sunday, not simply as 
a day of rest from labour, but as a day of 
prayer and Communion. Let him come in 
early morning to church for the Eucharistic 
service (the features of it are enumerated : the 
psalmody, the reading of Prophets, of St. Paul, 
of the Gospels, the Angelic and Seraphic 
hymns, the ceaseless Alleluia, the exhortations 
of bishops and presbyters, the presence of 
Christ ‘‘ on the sacred table,”’ the ‘* coming 

of the Spirit). ‘‘ If thy conscience Is clear, 
approach, and receive the Body and Blood of 
the Lord. If it condemns thee in regard to 
wicked deeds, decline the Communion until 
thou hast corrected it by repentance, but 
stay through the prayers [t.e. the communion 
service], and do not go out of the church unless 
thou art dismissed’’; or again, ‘‘ before the 
dismissal.’”’ Heseverely blames alayman who 
tastes food before the Liturgy is over, whether 
he communicates or not ; but denounces those 
who communicate after eating (as many do 
on Easter Day itself) as if guilty of a heinous 
sin. (In this case, as in regard to premature 
departure from church, he does not scruple to 
refer to Judas.) He blames those who do not 
communicate when a priest, known to be of 
bad life, is the celebrant ; for ὁ" God turneth 
not away, and the bread becomes the Body. 

He reproves those who are disorderly at the 
vigil services of a saint’s festival, and at day- 
great disturbances. 
“Inside the church, the priest is presenting the 
supplication . . . having set forth (wporeGexws) 
the Body and the Blood . . . for the salvation 


3818 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


of the world: while, outside, amusements go 
on.” He refers to the different functions of 
priest, deacon, reader, chanter, and sub- 
deacon (ὑπηρέτης). He encourages invoca- 
tion of saints. 

Mai calls him a writer delightful from his 
““ingenuitas,’”’ his ‘‘ Christian ac pastoralis 
simplicitas,’’ and his ‘‘nativum  dicendi 
genus ”’ (Patrum Nov. Biblioth. ii. 499). [w.B.] 

Eusebius (23) of Caesarea, also known as 
Eusebius Pamphili. Of extant sources of our 
knowledge of Eusebius the most important are 
the scattered notices in writers of the same or 
immediately succeeding ages, e.g. Athanasius, 
Jerome, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. At 
a later date some valuable information is con- 
tained in the proceedings of the second council 
of Nicaea (Labbe, Conc. viii. 1144 seq. ed. 
Colet.), and in the Antirrhetica of the patriarch 
Nicephorus (Spicil. Solesm.i. pp. 371 seq.) like- 
wise connected with the Iconoclastic contro- 
versy. The primary sources of information, 
however, for the career of one who was above 
all a literary man must be sought in his own 
works. The only edition of them which aims 
at completeness is in Migne’s Patr. Gk. vols. 
ΧΙΧΟ-ΧΧΙν. 566 also the standard works of Cave 
(Hist. Lit. i. pp. 175 seq.), Tillemont (Hist. Eccl. 
Vil. pp. 39 Seq., 659 seq., together with scattered 
notices in his account of the Arians and of the 
Nicene council in vol. vi.), and Fabricius (Bibl. 
Graec. vii. pp. 335 seq. ed. Harles). The 
most complete monograph is Stein’s Eusebius 
Bischof von Casarea (Wiirzburg, 1852). There 
15. a useful English trans. of the History in 
the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, by Mr. 
Giffert ; cf. A. C. Headlam, The Editions or 
MSS. of Eusebius, in Journal of Theol. 
Studies, 1902, iii. 93-102. 

The references in his own works will hardly 
allow us to place his birth much later than 
A.D. 260, so that he would be nearly 80 at his 
death. All notices of his early life are con- 
nected with Caesarea; and as it was then usual 
to prefer a native as bishop, everything 
favours this as the city of his birth. 

Of his parentage and relationships absolute- 
ly nothing is known, but here, as a child, he 
was catechized in that declaration of belief 
which years afterwards was laid by him before 
the great council of Nicaea, and adopted by 
the assembled Fathers as a basis for the 
creed of the universal church. Here he 
listened to the Biblical expositions of the 
learned Dorotheus, thoroughly versed in 
the Hebrew Scriptures and not unacquainted 
with Greek literature and philosophy, once 
the superintendent of the emperor’s purple 
factory at Tyre, but now a presbyter in the 
church of Caesarea (H. E. vii. 32). 
due time, he was himself ordained a presbyter, 
probably by that bp. Agapius whose wise fore- 
thought and untiring assiduity and open- 
handed benevolence he himself has recorded 
(tb.). Here, above all, he contracted with 
the saintly student Pampuitus that friend- 
ship which was the crown and glory of his life, 
and which martyrdom itself could not sever. 
Eusebius owed far more to Pamphilus than 
the impulse and direction given to his studies. 
Pamphilus, no mere student recluse, was a 
man of large heart and bountiful hand, above 
all things helpful to his friends (Mart. Pal. 11), 


Here, in | 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


giving freely to all in want; he multiplied 
copies of the Scriptures, which he distributed 
gratuitously (Eus. in Hieron. c. Rufin. i. 9, 
Op. ii. 465); and to the sympathy of the 
friend he united the courage of the hero. He 
had also the power of impressing his own 
strong convictions on others. Hence, when 
the great trial of faith came, his house was 
found to be not only the home of students but 
the nursery of martyrs. To one like Eusebius, 
who owed his strength and his weakness alike 
to a ready susceptibility of impression from 
those about him, such a friendship was an 
inestimable blessing. He expressed the 
strength of his devotion to this friend by 
adopting his name, being known as ‘‘ Eusebius 
of Pamphilus.”’ 

Eusebius was in middle life when the last 
and fiercest persecution broke out. For 
nearly half a century—a longer period than 
at any other time since its foundation—the 
church had enjoyed uninterrupted peace as 
regards attacks from without. Suddenly and 
unexpectedly all was changed. The city of 
Caesarea became a chief centre of persecution. 
Eusebius tells how he saw the houses of prayer 
razed to the ground, the holy Scriptures com- 
mitted to the flames in the market-places, the 
pastors hiding themselves, and shamefully 
jeered at when caught by their persecutors 
(H. E. viii. 2). For seven years the attacks 
continued. At Tyre also Eusebius saw several 
Christians torn by wild beasts in the amphi- 
theatre (7b. 7,8). Leaving Palestine, he visited 
Egypt. In no country did the persecution 
rage more fiercely. Here, in the Thebaid, they 
perished, ten, twenty, even sixty or a hundred 
at a time. Eusebius tells how he in these 
parts witnessed numerous martyrdoms in a 
single day, some by beheading, others by fire ; 
the executioners relieving each other by relays 
and the victims eagerly pressing forward to 
be tortured, clamouring for the honour of 
martyrdom, and receiving their sentence with 
joy and laughter (1b. 9). This visit to Egypt 
was apparently after the imprisonment and 
martyrdom of Pamphilus, in the latest and 
fiercest days of the persecution. It was prob- 
ably now that Eusebius was imprisoned for 
his faith. If so, we have the less difficulty 
in explaining his release, without any stain 
left on his integrity or his courage. 

Not long after the restoration of peace (A.D. 
313) Eusebius was unanimously elected to the 
vacant see of Caesarea. Among the earliest 
results of the peace was the erection of a 
magnificent basilica at Tyre under the direc- 
tion of his friend Paulinus, the bishop. Euse- 
bius was invited to deliver the inaugural 
address. This address he has preserved and 
‘inserted in his History, where, though not 
mentioned, the orator’s name is but thinly 
concealed (H.E. ix. 4). This oration is a 
paean of thanksgiving over the restitution of 
the Church, of which the splendid building 
at Tyre was at once the firstfruit and the 
type. The incident must have taken place 
not later than a.pD. 315. For more than 25 
| years he presided over the church of Caesarea, 
winning the respect and affection of all. He 
| died bp. of Caesarea. 
| When the Arian controversy broke out, the 
sympathies of Eusebius were early enlisted on 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


the side of Arius. If his namesake of Nico- 
media may be trusted, he was especially 
zealous on behalf of the Arian doctrine at this 
time (Eus. Nicom. in Theod. H. E. i. 5, ἡ τοῦ 
δεσπότου μου Εὐσεβίου σπουδὴ ἡ ὑπὲρ ἀληθοῦς 
λόγου. But the testimony of this strong 
partisan may well be suspected; and the 
attitude of Eusebius of Caesarea throughout 
suggests that he was influenced rather by 
personal associations and the desire to secure 
liberal treatment for the heresiarch than by 
any real accordance with his views. What- 
ever his motives, he wrote to Alexander, 
bp. of Alexandria, remonstrating with him for 
deposing Arius and urging that he had mis- 
represented the opinions of the latter (Labbe, 
Cone. viii. 1148, ed. Colet). The cause of Arius 
was taken up also by two neighbouring 
bishops, Theodotus of Laodicea and Paulinus 
of Tyre. In a letter addressed to his name- 
sake of Constantinople, Alexander complains 
of three Syrian bishops, ‘‘ appointed he knows 
not how,”’ as having fanned the flame of sedi- 
tion (Theod. H. EF. i. 3); while Arius himself 
claims ‘“‘all the bishopsin the East,”’ mentioning 
by name Eusebius of Caesarea with others, as 
on his side (7b. i. 4). Accordingly, when he was 
deposed by a synod convened at Alexandria 
by Alexander, Arius appealed to Eusebius 
and others to interpose. A meeting of Syrian 
bishops decided for his restoration, though 
wording the decision cautiously. The synod 
thought that Arius should be allowed to gather 
his congregation about him as_ heretofore, 
but added that he must render obedience 
to Alexander and entreat to be admitted to 
communion with him (Soz. H. E. i. 15). 

At the council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) Eusebius 
took aleading part. This prominencehe cannot 
have owed to his bishopric, which, though 
important, did not rank with the great sees, 
“the apostolic thrones”? (7b. 17) of Rome, 
Antioch, and Alexandria. But that he was 
beyond question the most learned man and 
most famous living writer in the church at this 
time would suffice to secure him a hearing. 
Probably, however, his importance was due 
even more to his close relations with the great 
emperor, whose entire confidence he enjoyed. 
He occupied the first seat to the emperor’s 
right (V. C. iii. 11), and delivered the opening 
address to Constantine when he took his seat 
in the council-chamber (2b. i. prooem., iii. 11 ; 
Soz. H. E.i. 19). Thespeech is unfortunately 
not preserved. 

Eusebius himself has left us an account of 
his doings with regard to the main object of 
the council in a letter of explanation to his 
church at Caesarea. He laid before the 
council the creed in use in the Caesarean 
church, which had been handed down from 
the bishops who preceded him, which he him- 
self had been taught at his baptism, and in 
which, both as a presbyter and bishop, he had 
instructed others. The emperor was satisfied 
with the orthodoxy of this creed, inserting 
however the single word ὁμοούσιον, and giving 
explanations as to its meaning which set the 
scruples of Eusebius at rest. The assembled 
Fathers, taking this as their starting-point, 
made other important insertions and altera- 
tions. Moreover, an anathema was appended 
directly condemning Arian doctrines. Euse- 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 319 


bius took time to consider before subscribing 
to this revised formula. The three expres- 
sions which caused difficulty were: (1) “" of 
the substance of the Father "’ (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ 
mwarpds) ; (2) ἔν begotten, not made" (yerrn- 
θέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα) ; (3) “of the same sub- 
stance "’ (ὁμοούσιον); and of these he de- 
manded explanations. The explanations were 
so far satisfactory that for the sake of peace he 
subscribed to the creed. He had the less 
scruple in assenting to the final anathema, 
because the Arian expressions which it con- 
demned were not scriptural, and he considered 
that ‘‘ almost all the confusion and disturb- 
ance of the churches’”’ had arisen from the 
use of unscriptural phrases. This letter, he 
concludes, is written to the Caesareans to ex- 
plain that he would resist to the last any vital 
change in the traditional creed of his church, 
but had subscribed to these alterations, when 
assured of their innocence, to avoid appearing 
contentious (ἀφιλονείκω). See Hort’s Two 
Dissertations, pp. 55 seq. 

The settlement of the dispute respecting the 
time of observing Easter was another import- 
ant work undertaken by the council. In this 
also a leading part has been assigned to Euse- 
bius by some modern writers (e.g. Stanley, 
Eastern Church, p. 182, following Tillemont, 
Hr: sE. vi. p: 668). 

The hopes which Eusebius with others had 
built upon the decisions of the Nicene council 
were soon dashed. The final peace of the 
church seemed as far distant as ever. In three 
controversies with three distinguished antago- 
nists, Eusebius took a more or less prominent 
part; and his reputation, whether justly or not, 
has suffered greatly in consequence. 

(i) Synod of Antioch.—Eustathius, bp. of 
Antioch, was a staunch advocate of the Nicene 
doctrine and a determined foe of the Arians. 
He had assailed the tenets of Origen (Socr. 
H. E. vi. 13), of whom Eusebius was an ardent 
champion, and had charged Eusebius himself 
with faithlessness to the doctrines of Nicaea. 
He wasaccused in turn of Sabellianism by Euse- 
bius (ib. i. 23; Soz. H. E. ii. 19). Tothehistorian 
Socrates the doctrines of the two antagonists 
seemed practically identical. Nevertheless 
they were regarded as the two principals in the 
quarrel (Soz. H. E. ii. 18). A synod, mainly 
composed of bishops with Arian or semi-Arian 
sympathies, was assembled at Antioch, A.D. 
330, to consider the charge of Sabellianism 
brought against Eustathius, who was deposed. 
The see of Antioch thus became vacant. The 
assembled bishops proposed Eusebius of 
Caesarea as his successor, and wrote to the 
emperor on his behalf, but Eusebius declined 
the honour, alleging the rule of the Church, 
regarded as an “ apostolic tradition,”” which 
forbade translations from one see to another ; 
and Euphronius was elected. 

(ii) Synods of Caesarea, Tyre, and J erusalem.— 
The next stage of the Arian controversy ex- 
hibits Eusebius in conflict with a greater than 
Eustathius. The disgraceful intrigues of the 
Arians and Meletians against Athanasius, 
which led to his first exile, are related in our 
art. ATHANASIUS. It is sufficient to say here 
that the emperor summoned Athanasius to 
appear before a gathering of bishops at 
Caesarea, to meet the charges brought against 


320 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


him. It is stated by Theodoret (H. E. i. 26) 
that Constantine was induced to name 
Caesarea by the Arian party, who selected it 
because the enemies of Athanasius were in a 
majority there (ἔν θα δὴ πλείους ἦσαν οἱ δυσμενεῖς), 
but the emperor may have given the prefer- 
ence to Caesarea because he reposed the 
greatest confidence in the moderation (ἐπιείκεια) 
of its bishop. Athanasius excused himself 
from attending, believing that there was a 
conspiracy against him, and that he would not 
have fair play there (Festal Letters, p. xvii, 
Oxf. trans.; Theod. H. E. i. 26; Soz. H. E. 
11. 25). This wasin334. Athanasius does not 
mention this synod in his A pology. 

The next year (A.D. 335) Athanasius re- 
ceived a peremptory and angry summons from 
Constantine to appear before a synod of 
bishops at Tyre. Theodoret (1...) conjectures 
(ws οἶμαι) that the place of meeting was 
changed by the emperor out of deference to 
the fears of Athanasius, who ‘ looked with 
suspicion on Caesarea on account of its ruler.’’ 
Athanasius, or his friends, may indeed have 
objected to Eusebius as a partisan; for the 
Egyptian bishops who espoused the cause of 
Athanasius, addressing the synod of Tyre, 
allege ‘‘ the law of God”’ as forbidding “ an 
enemy to be witness or judge,’ and shortly 
afterwards add mysteriously, ‘‘ ye know why 
Eusebius of Caesarea has become an enemy 
since last year” (Athan. Ap. c. Arian. 77, 
Op. i. p. 153). The scenes at the synod of 
Tyre form the most picturesque and the most 
shameful chapter in the Arian controversy. 
After all allowance for the exaggerations of 
the Athanasian party, from whom our know- 
ledge is chiefly derived, the proceedings will 
still remain an undying shame to Eusebius of 
Nicomedia and his fellow-intriguers. But 
there is no reason for supposing that Eusebius 
of Caesarea took any active part in these 
plots. Athanasius mentions him rarely, and 
then without any special bitterness. The 
“ Eusebians”’ (οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον) are always the 
adherents of his Nicomedian namesake. But, 
though probably not participating in, and 
possibly ignorant of their plots, Eusebius of 
Caesarea was certainly used as a tool by the 
more unscrupulous and violent partisans of 
Arius, and must bear the reproach of a 
too easy compliance with their actions. The 
proceedings were cut short by the withdrawal 
of Athanasius, who suddenly sailed to Con- 
stantinople, and appealed in person to the 
emperor. The synod condemned him by 
default. 

While the bishops at Tyre were in the midst 
of their session, an urgent summons from the 
emperor called them to take part in the ap- 
proaching festival at Jerusalem (Eus. V. C. 
lv. 41 seq. ; Socr. H. E. i. 33 seq. ; Soz. H. E. 
11. 26; Theod. H. E. i. 29). It was the tricen- 
nalia of Constantine. No previous sovereign 
after Augustus, the founder of the empire, had 
reigned for thirty years. Constantine had a 
fondness for magnificent ceremonial, and here 
was a noble opportunity (V. C. iv. 40, καιρὸς 
eUxaipos). The occasion was marked by the 
dedication of Constantine’s new and splendid 
basilica, built on the site of Calvary. The 
festival was graced by a series of orations from 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


the principal persons present. In these Euse- 
bius bore a conspicuous part, finding in this 
dedication festival a far more congenial at- 
mosphere than in the intrigues of the synod 
at Tyre. Hespeaks of the assemblage at Tyre 
as a mere episode of the festival at Jerusalem 
(ὁδοῦ δὴ πάρεργον). The emperor, he says, 
preparing for the celebration of this festival, 
was anxious to end the quarrels which rent the 
church. In doing so he was obeying the 
Lord’s injunction, ‘‘ Be reconciled to thy 
brother, and then go and offer thy gift ”’ (cf. 
Soz. i. 26). This view of the emperor’s motive 
is entirely borne out by Constantine’s own 
letter to the synod at Tyre. Eusebius was 
greatly impressed by the celebration; but 
Tillemont, who shews strong prejudice against 
Eusebius throughout, altogether misstates 
the case in saying that he ‘‘ compares or 
even prefers this assembly to the council of 
Nicaea, striving to exalt it as much as he can, 
for the sake of effacing the glory of that great 
council,’’ etc. (vi. p. 284). But Eusebius says 
distinctly that “ after that first council ’’ this 
was the greatest synod assembled by Con- 
stantine (V.C.iv. 47) ; and so far from shewing 
any desire to depreciate the council of Nicaea, 
he cannot find language magnificent enough to 
sing its glories (iii. 6 seq.). 

Arius and Euzoius had presented aconfession 
of faith to the emperor, seeking readmission to 
the church. The emperor was satisfied that 
this document was in harmony with the faith 
of Nicaea, and sent Arius and Euzoius to 
Jerusalem, requesting the synod to consider 
their confession of faith and restore them 
to communion. Arius and his followers were 
accordingly readmitted at Jerusalem. Of 
the bishops responsible for this act, some were 
hostile to Athanasius, others would regard it 
as an act of pacification. The stress which 
Eusebius lays on Constantine’s desire to secure 
peace on this, as on all other occasions, 
suggests that that was a predominant idea in 
the writer’s own mind, though perhaps not 
unmixed with other influences. 

(iii) Synod of Constantinople-—Athanasius 
had not fled to Constantinople in vain. Con- 
stantine desired pacification but was not 
insensible to justice; and the personal plead- 
ings of Athanasius convinced him that justice 
had been outraged (Ap. c. Arian. 86). The 
bishops at the dedication festival had scarcely 
executed the request, or command, of the 
emperor’s first letter, when they received 
another written in a very different temper 
(1b.; Socr. H. E. i. 34; Soz. H. E. ii. 27). It was 
addressed ‘‘ to the bishops that had assembled 
at Tyre’’; described their proceedings as 
“tumultuous and stormy’’; and summoned 
them without delay to Constantinople. The 
leaders of the Eusebian party alone obeyed; the 
rest retired to their homes. Among those who 
obeyed was Eusebius of Caesarea. Of the 
principal events which occurred at Constanti- 
nople, the banishment of Athanasius and the 
death of Arius, we need not speak here. But 
the proceedings of the synod then held there 
(A.D. 336) have an important bearing on the 
literary history of Eusebius. The chief work of 
thesynod was thecondemnation of MARCELLUS, 
bp. of Ancyra, an uncompromising opponent of 
the Arians. He had written a book in reply to 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


the Arian Asterius ‘‘ the sophist,’’ in which his | 


zeal against Arian tenets goaded him into ex- 
ressionsthat had aranksavour of Sabellianism. 
he proceedings against him had commenced 
at Jerusalem and were continued at Constanti- 
nople, where he was condemned of Sabellianism, 
and deposed from his bishopric (Socr. H. E. i. 
36; Soz. H. E. ii. 33). Eusebius is especially 
mentioned as taking part in this synod (Athan. 
Ap. c. Arian. 87; cf. Eus. c. Mare. ii. 4, p. 
115). Not satisfied with this, the dominant 
party urged Eusebius to undertake a refuta- 
tion of the heretic. Two works against Mar- 
cellus were his response. Eusebius found 
also more congenial employment during his 
sojourn at Constantinople. The celebration 
of the emperor's tricennalia had not yet ended, 
and Eusebius delivered a panegyric which he 
afterwards appended to his Life of Constantine. 
The delivery of this oration may have been the 
chief motive which induced Eusebius to ac- 
company the Arian bishops to Constantinople. 
It must have been during this same visit, 
though on an earlier day, that he delivered 
before the emperor his discourse on the church 
of the Holy Sepulchre, probably previously 
spoken also at the dedication itself. This ora- 
tion has unfortunately not survived. It does 
not appear that Eusebius had any personal 
interview with Constantine before the council 
of Nicaea. Here, however, he stood high in the 
emperor’s favour, as the prominent position 
assigned to him shews; and there seems 
thenceforward no interruption in their cordial 
relations. The emperor used to enter into 
familiar conversation with him, relating the 
most remarkable incidents in his career, such 
as the miraculous appearance of the cross in the 
skies (V. C. i. 28), and the protection afforded 
by that emblem in battle (ii. 9). He corre- 
sponded with him on various subjects, on one 
occasion asking him to see to the execution of 
fifty copies of the Scriptures for his new capital, 
and supplying him with the necessary means 
(iv. 36); and he listened with patience, and 
even with delight, to the lengthy and elaborate 
orations which Eusebius delivered from time to 
time in his presence. Constantine praises his 
eulogist’s gentleness or moderation (iii. 60). 
Nor was Constantine the only member of the im- 
perial family with whom Eusebius had friendly 
relations. The empress Constantia, the sister 
of Constantine and wife of Licinius, wrote to 
him on a matter of religious interest. In his 
reply we are especially struck with the frank- 
ness of expostulation, almost of rebuke, with 
which he addresses her (Spicil. Solesm. i. 383). 
The great emperor breathed his last on May 
22, A.D. 337; and Eusebius died not later than 
the close of 339 or the beginning of 340. In 
Wright’s Ancient Syrian Martyrology, which 
cannot date later than half a century after 
the event, ‘‘ the commemoration of Eusebius 
bp. of Palestine ’’ is placed on May 30. If this 
represents the day of his death, as probably it 
does, he must have died in 339, for the notices 
will hardly allow so late a date in the following 
year. His literary activity was unabated to 
theend. Four years at most can have elapsed 
between his last visit to Constantinople and 
hisdeath. Hemust have been nearly 80 years 
oldwhen the end came. Yet at this advanced 
age, and within this short period, he composed 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 321 


the Panegyric, the Life of Constantine, the 
treatise Against Marcellus, and the companion 
treatise On the Theology of the Church: prob- 
ably he had in hand at the same time other 
unfinished works, such as the Theophania. 
There are no signs of failing mental vigour in 
these works. The two doctrinal treatises are 
perhaps his most forcible and lucid writings. 
The Panegyric and the Life of Constantine are 
disfigured by a too luxuriant rhetoric, but in 
vigour equal any of his earlier works. Of his 
death itself no record is left. Acacius, his 
successor, had been his pupil. Though more 
decidedly Arian in bias, he was a devoted 
admirer of his master (Soz. H. EF. iii. 2). He 
wrote a Life of Eusebius, and apparently edited 
some of his works. ; 

Literary Works.—The literary remains of 
Eusebius are a rich and, excepting the Chronicle 
and the Ecclestastical History, a comparatively 
unexplored mine of study. They may be classed 
as: A. Historical; B. A bologettc ; C. Criticaland 
Exegetical; D. Doctrinal; E. Orations; F. Letters. 

A. HistoricaLt.—(1) Life of Pamphilus.— 
Eusebius (Mart. Pal. 11), speaking of his 
friend’s martyrdom, refers to this work as 
follows: ‘‘ The rest of the triumphs of his 
virtue, requiring a longer narration, we have 
already before this given to the world in a 
separate work in three books, of which his life 
is the subject.’’ He also refers to it 3 times 
in his History (H. E. vi. 32, vii. 32, viii. 13). 
The Life of Pamphilus was thus written before 
the History, and before the shorter ed. of— 

(2) The Martyrs of Palestine.—This work is 
extant in two forms, a shorter and a longer. 
The shorter is attached to the History, com- 
monly between the 8th and gth books. 

The longer form is not extant entire in the 
original Greek. In the Bollandist Acta 
Sanctorum (Jun. t. i. p. 64) Papebroch pub. 
for the first time in Greek, from a Paris 
MS. of the Metaphrast, an account of the 
martyrdom of Pamphilus and others, pro- 
fessedly ‘‘ composed by Eusebius Pamphili.”’ 
It had appeared in a Latin version before. 
The Greek was reprinted by Fabricius, Hippo- 
lytus, li. p. 217. This isa fuller account of the 
incidents related in the Mart. Pal. 11 attached 
to the History. Their common matter is ex- 
pressed in the same words, ornearlyso. Hence 
one must have been an enlargement or an 
abridgment of the other. 

Nor can it reasonably be doubted that the 
shorter form of the Palestinian Martyrs is 
Eusebius’s own. It retains those notices of 
the longer form in which Eusebius speaks in 
his own person; and, moreover, in the pas- 
sages peculiar to this shorter form, Eusebius 
is evidently the speaker. Thus (c. 11) he 
mentions having already written a special 
work in three books on the life of Pamphilus ; 
and when recording the death of Silvanus, who 
had had his eyes put out (c. 13), mentions his 
own astonishment when he once heard him 
reading the Scriptures, as he supposed, from 
a book in church, but was told that he was 
blind and was repeating them by heart. 
Moreover, Other incidental notices, inserted 
from time to time and having no place in the 
longer form, shew the knowledge of a contem- 
porary and eyewitness. > 

The longer edition seems to be the origina] 


21 


322 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


form. It is an independent work, apparently 
written not very long after the events. It 
betrays no other motive than to inform and 
edify the readers, more especially the Chris- 
tians of Caesarea and Palestine, to whom it is 
immediately addressed. ‘‘ Our city of Cae- 
sarea’’ is an expression occurring several 
times (pp. 4 twice, 25, 30). ‘‘ This our 
country,’ “‘this our city,’’ are analogous 
phrases (pp. 8, 13). 

In the shorter form the case is different. 
The writer does not localize himself in the 
same way. It is always “ the city,’’ never 
“this city,’’ of Caesarea. The appeal to the 
Caesareans in recounting the miracle is left 
out (c. 4). The hortatory beginning and 
ending are omitted, and the didactic portions 
abridged or excised. The shorter form thus 
appears to be part of a larger work, in which 
the sufferings of the martyrs were set off against 
the deaths of the persecutors. The object 
would thus be the vindication of God’s right- 
eousness. This idea appears several times 
elsewhere in Eusebius, and he may have desired 
to embody it in a separate treatise. 

(3) Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms.—Of 
this work Eusebius was not the author, but 
merely, as the title suggests and as the notices 
require, the compiler and editor. The nar- 
ratives of martyrdoms were, in the eyes of 
Eusebius, not only valuable as history but 
instructive as lessons (H. E. v. praef.). Hence 
he took pains to preserve authentic records of 
them, himself undertaking to record those of 
his own country, Palestine, at this time; while 
he left to others in different parts of the world 
to relate those ‘‘ quae ipsi miserrima vider- 
unt,’ declaring that only thus could strict 
accuracy be attained (ΗΠ. Ε. viii. 13, with the 
whole context). But he was anxious also to 
preserve the records of past persecutions. 
Hence this collection of Martyrologies. The 
epithet ‘‘ ancient ”’ (ἀρχαῖα) must be regarded 
as relative, applying to all prior to the “ per- 
secution of his own time ”’ (ὁ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς διωγμός, 
according to his favourite expression). He 
himself refers to this collection for the martyr- 
dom of Polycarp and others at Smyrna under 
Antoninus Pius a.p. 155 or 156 (iv. 15), for the 
documents relating to the sufferers in Gaul 
under M. Aurelius a.p. 177 (v. 1, seq.), and for 
the defence of Apollonius under Commodus 
A.D. 180-185 (v. 21). But it would probably 
comprise any martyrdoms which occurred 
before the long peace that preceded the out- 
break of the last persecution under Diocletian. 
_ (4) Chronicle. —This work may be described 
in words suggested by the author’s own ac- 
count of it at the beginning of his Eclogae 
Propheticae, as ‘‘ chronological tables, to which 
is prefixed an epitome of universal history 
drawn from various sources.”” The epitome 
occupies the first book, the tables the second. 
The tables exhibit in parallel columns the 
successions of the rulers of different nations, 
so that contemporary’ monarchs can be seen 
at a glance. Notes mark the years of the 
more remarkable historical events, these notes 
constituting an epitome of history. The in- 
terest which Christians felt in the study of 
comparative chronology arose from heathen 
opponents contrasting the antiquity of their 
rites with the novelty of the Christian religion. 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


Christian apologists retorted by proving that 
the Grecian legislators and philosophers were 
very much later than the Hebrew legislator and 
later than the prophets who had testified of 
Christ and taught a religion of which Christi- 
anity was the legitimate continuation. Inthe 
Praeparatio Evangelica (x. 9) Eusebius urges 
this, quoting largely from preceding writers 
who had proved the antiquity of the Jews, e.g. 
Josephus, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and 
especially Africanus. This last writer had 
made the synchronisms between sacred and 
profane history his special study, and his 
chronological work, now lost, gave Eusebius 
the model and, to a great extent, the materials 
for his own Chronicle. 

The Greek of Eusebius’s own work has been 
lost, and until recent times it was only known 
through the use made of it by successors, par- 
ticularly Jerome, who translated it into Latin, 
enlarging the notices of Roman history and 
continuing it tohisowntime. In 1606 Scaliger 
published an edition of the Chronicle, in which 
he attempted to restore the Greek of Eusebius, 
collecting from Syncellus, Cedrenus, and other 
Greek chronologers, notices which he believed 
himself able, mainly by the help of Jerome’s 
translation, to identify as copied from Euse- 
bius; but his restoration of the first book, 
where he had but little guidance from Jerome, 
did not inspire confidence, and has been 
proved untrustworthy. An Armenian trans. 
of the Chronicle, pub. in 1818, enables us now 
to state the contents of bk. i. 

After pleading that early Greek and even 
Hebrew chronology present many difficulties, 
Eusebius, in the first section, gives a sketch of 
Chaldee and Assyrian history, subjoining a 
table of Assyrian, Median, Lydian, and Per- 
sian kings, ending with the Darius conquered 
by Alexander. The authors he uses are 
Alexander Polyhistor, and, as known through 
him, Berosus; Abydenus, Josephus, Castor, 
Diodorus, and Cephalion. He notes the coin- 
cidences of these writers with Hebrew history 
and suggests that the incredible lengths as- 
signed to reigns in the early Chaldee history 
may be reduced if the ‘‘sari,’’ said to be 
periods of 3,600 years, were in reality far 
shorter periods, and in like manner, following 
Africanus, that the Egyptian years may be 
in reality but months. An alternative sug- 
gestion in this first book is that some Egyptian 
dynasties may have been, not consecutive, 
but synchronous. The second section treats 
of Hebrew chronology, the secular authorities 
used being Josephus and Africanus. Eusebius 
notices the chronological difference between 
the Heb., LXX., and Samaritan texts, and 
conjectures that the Hebrews, to justify by 
patriarchal example their love of early mar- 
riages, systematically shortened the intervals 
between the birth of each patriarch and that 
of his first son. He gives other arguments 
which decide him in favour of the LXX, 
especially as it was the version used by our 
Lord and the apostles. In the period from 
the Deluge to the birth of Abraham, which 
Eusebius makes the initial point of his own 
tables, he follows the LXX, except that he 
omits the second Cainan, making 942 years ; 
and thus placing the birth of Abraham in the 
year from the Creation 3184. Hereckons 480 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 323 


years between the Exodus and Solomon’s | tion which had befallen the Jewish race; (6) 


temple, as in I. Kings. 
second book, he states that his predecessors 
had made Moses contemporary with Inachus, 
and 7oo years earlier than the Trojan War. 
His own computation made Inachus contem- 
porary with Jacob, and Moses with Cecrops, 
but he contends that this leaves Moses still 
nearly 400 years older than the capture of 
Troy, and older than Deucalion’s Deluge, 
Phaethon’s Conflagration, Bacchus, Aescu- 
lapius, Castor and Pollux, Hercules, Homer 
and the Seven Wise Men of Greece, and Pytha- 
goras the first philosopher. | Eusebius counts 
442 years from the foundation of Solomon’s 
temple to its destruction under Zedekiah. 
He reckons two prophetic periods of 70 years 
of captivity. One begins with the destruction 
of the temple, and ends with the 2nd year of 
Darius Hystaspis and the rebuilding of the 
temple under Zerubbabel. The other is from 
the first prophesying of Jeremiah in the 15th 
year of Josiah to the 1st year of Cyrus, when 
an altar was set up at Jerusalem and the 
foundations of the temple laid. In the tables 
Eusebius gives an alternative for this period, 
viz. from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim to the roth 
of Cyrus. From the 2nd year of Darius, which 
he counts as the 1st year of the 65th olympiad, 
Eusebius counts 548 years to the preaching 
of our Lord and the r5th year of Tiberius, 
which he reckons as the 4th year of the 2or1st 
olympiad, and as the year 5228 from the 
creation of the world. There is every reason 
for thinking that more editions of the Chronicle 
than one were published by Eusebius in his 
lifetime. Inits latest form it terminates with 
the Vicennalia of Constantine. Jerome says 
in his preface that as far as the taking of Troy 
his work was a mere translation of that of 
Eusebius; that from that date to the point 
at which the work of Eusebius closes, he added 
notices, from Suetonius and others, relating 
to Roman history; and that the conclusion 
from where Eusebius breaks off to his own 
time was entirely his own. G.S.] 

(5) Ecclestastical History—From many 
considerations it seems clear that the History 
was finished some time in A.D. 324 or 325— 
before midsummer in the latter year, and 
probably some months earlier; and the earlier 
books even some years before this. 

The work contains no indications that it was 
due to any suggestion from without, as some 
have supposed. If the author had _ been 
prompted to it by Constantine, he would hardly 
have been silent about the fact, for he is only 
too ready elsewhere to parade the flatteries of 
his imperial patron. Moreover, it was pro- 
bably written in great measure, or at least the 
materials for it collected, before his relations 
with Constantine began. His own language 
rather suggests that it grew out of a previous 
work, the Chronicle. 

He begins by enumerating the topics with 
which it is intended to deal: (1) the succes- 
sions of the apostles with continuous chrono- 
logical data from the Christian era to his own 
time ; (2) the events of ecclesiastical history ; 
(3) the most distinguished rulers, preachers, 
and writers in the church ; (4) the teachers of 
heresy who, like ‘‘ grievous wolves,’ have 
ravaged the flock of Christ; (5) the retribu- 


In the preface to his | 


the persecutions of the church and the vic- 
tories of the martyrs and confessors, con- 
cluding with the great and final deliverance 
wrought by the Saviour in the author's own 
day. He prays for guidance, since he is 
entering upon an untrodden way, where he 
will find no footprints, though the works of 
predecessors may serve as beacon-lights here 
and there through the waste. He considers 
it absolutely necessary (ἀναγκαιότατα) to 
undertake the task, because no one else before 
him had done so. The work, he concludes, 
must of necessity commence with the Incar- 
nation and Divinity (οἰκονομίας re καὶ θεολογίας) 
of Christ, because from Him we all derive our 
name. Accordingly he proceeds to shew that 
Christianity is no new thing, but has its roots 
in the eternal past. The Word was with God 
before the beginning of creation. He was 
recognized and known by righteous men in all 
ages, especially among the Hebrews; His 
advent, even His very names, were foretold 
and glorified; His society—the Christian 
church—was the subject of prophecy, while 
the Christian type of life was never without 
examples since the race began (i. 4, cf. ii. 1). 
** After this necessary preparation ᾿᾿ (μετὰ τὴν 
δέουσαν προκατασκευήν, i. 5), he proceeds to 
speak of the Incarnation, its chronology and 
synchronisms in external history, the Herodian 
kingdom, the Roman empire, the Jewish 
priesthood, including a discussion of the 
Saviour’s genealogy; thus shewing that it 
came in the fulness of time as a realization of 
prophecy (cc. 5-10). A chapter is devoted to 
the Baptist as the first herald (c. rr), another 
to the appointment of the Twelve and the 
Seventy (c. 12); a third to the mission sent 
by Christ Himself to Edessa, as recorded in 
the archives of that city (c. 13). We are thus 
brought to the time of the Ascension, and the 
first book ends. The second comprises the 
preaching of the apostles to the destruction of 
Jerusalem, the writer’s aim being not to repeat 
the accounts in the N.T., but to supplement 
them from external sources. The third book 
extends to the reign of Trajan, and covers the 
sub-apostolic age, ending with notices of 
Ignatius, Clement, and Papias. The fourth 
and fifth carry us to the close of the 2nd cent., 
including the Montanist, Quartodeciman, and 
Monarchian disputes. The sixth contains the 
period from the persecution of Severus (A.D. 
203) to that of Decius (A.p. 250), the central 
figure being Origen, of whom a full account is 
given. The seventh continues the narrative 
to the outbreak of the great persecution under 
Diocletian, and is largely composed of quota- 
tions from Dionysius of Alexandria, as the 
preface states. It is significant that the last 
forty years of this period, though contem- 
porary with the historian, are dismissed in a 
single long chapter. It was a period of very 
rapid but silent progress, when the church for 
the first time was in the happy condition of 
having no history. The eighth book gives the 
history of the persecution of Diocletian till the 
κε nalinode,”’ the edict of Galerius (A.D. 311). 
The ninth relates the sufferings of the Eastern 
Christians until the victory over Maxentius at 
the Milvian bridge in the West, and the death 
of Maximin in the East, left Constantine and 


$24 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


Licinius sole emperors. The tenth and last 
book, dedicated to Paulinus, gives an account 
of the rebuilding of the churches, the imperial 
decrees favourable to the Christians, the sub- 
sequent rebellion of Licinius, and the victory 
of Constantine by which he was left sole 
master of the Roman world. A panegyric of 
Constantine closes the whole. 

Eusebius thus had a truly noble conception 
of the work which he had undertaken. It was 
nothing less than the history of a society 
which stood in an intimate relation to the 
Divine Logos Himself, a society whose roots 
struck down into the remotest past and whose 
destinies soared into the eternal future. He 
felt, moreover, that he himself lived at the 
great crisis in its history. Now at length it 
seemed to have conquered the powers of this 
world. This was the very time, therefore, to 
place on record the incidents of its past career. 
Moreover, he had great opportunities, such as 
were not likely to fall to another. In his own 
episcopal city, perhaps in his own official 
residence, Pamphilus had got together the 
largest Christian library yet collected. Not 
far off, at Jerusalem, was another valuable 
library, collected a century earlier by the 
bp. Alexander, and especially rich in the 
correspondence of men of letters and rulers 
in the church, “ from which library,’’ writes 
Eusebius, ‘‘ we too have been able to collect 
together the materials for this undertaking 
which we have in hand’ (H. E. vi. 20). 
Moreover, he had been trained in a highly 
efficient school of literary industry under 
Pamphilus, while his passion for learning has 
rarely been equalled, perhaps never surpassed. 

The execution of his work, however, falls 
far short of the conception. The faults indeed 
are so patent as to have unjustly obscured the 
merits, for it is withal a noble monument of 
literary labour. We must remember his plea 
for indulgence, as one setting foot upon new 
ground, ‘‘ nullius ante trita solo”’; and as he 
had no predecessor, so he had no successor. 
Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, all 
commenced where he ended. The most bitter 
of his theological adversaries were forced to 
confess their obligations to him, and to speak 
of his work with respect. If we reflect what 
a blank would be left in our knowledge of this 
important chapter in history if the narrative 
of Eusebius were blotted out, we shall appreci- 
ate our enormous debt of gratitude to him. 

Two points require consideration: (1) the 
range and adequacy of his materials, and (2) 
the use made of them. 

(1) The range of materials is astonishing 
when we consider that Eusebius was a pioneer. 
Some hundred works, several of them very 
lengthy, are either directly cited or referred 
to as read. In many instances he would read 
an entire treatise for the sake of one or two 
historical notices, and must have searched 
many others without finding anything to serve 
his purpose, thus involving enormous labour. 
This then is his strongest point. Yet even 
here deficiencies may be noted. He very 
rarely quotes the works of heresiarchs them- 
selves, being content to give their opinions 
through the medium of their opponents’ 
refutations. A _ still greater defect is his 
considerable ignorance of Latin literature and 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


of Latin Christendom generally. Thus he 
knows nothing of Tertullian’s works, except 
the Apologeticum, which he quotes (ii. 2, 25, 
iii. 20, 33, v- 5) from a bad Greek translation 
(e.g. ii. 25, where the translator, being ignorant 
of the Latin idiom cum maxtme, destroys the 
sense). Of Tertullian himself he gives no 
account, but calls him ἃ ‘‘ Roman.” Pliny’s 
letter he only knows through Tertullian (iii. 
33) and he is unacquainted with the name 
of the province which Pliny governed. Of 
Hippolytus again he has very little informa- 
tion to communicate, and cannot even tell the 
name of his see (vi. 20, 22). His account of 
Cyprian, too, is extremely meagre (vi. 43, vil. 
3), though Cyprian was for some years the most 
conspicuous figure in Western Christendom, 
and died (A.D. 258) not very long before his 
own birth. He betrays the same ignorance 
with regard to the bps. of Rome. His dates 
here, strangely enough, are widest of the mark 
when close upon his own time. Thus he 
assigns to Xystus II. (7 A.D. 258) eleven years 
(vii. 27) instead of months; to Eutychianus 
(1 A.D. 283) ten months (vii. 32) instead of 
nearly nine years; to Gaius, whom he calls 
his own contemporary, and who died long 
after he had arrived at manhood (A.D. 296), 
“about fifteen years’’ (vil. 32) instead of 
twelve. He seems to have had a corrupt list 
and did not possess the knowledge necessary 
to correct it. With the Latin language he 
appears to have had no thorough acquaintance, 
though he sometimes ventured to translate 
Latin documents (iv. 8, 9; cf. viii. 17). But 
he must not be held responsible for the 
blunders in the versions of others, e.g. of 
Tertullian’s Apologeticum. The translations 
of state documents in the later books may be 
the semi-official Greek versions such as Con- 
stantine was in the habit of employing persons 
to make (V. C. iv. 32). See on this subject 
Heinichen’s note on H. E. iv. 8. 

(2) Under the second head the most vital 
question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he 
tamper with his materials or not ? The sar- 
casm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi.) is 
well known: ‘‘ The gravest of the ecclesias- 
tical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly 
confesses that he has related whatever might 
redound to the glory, and that he has sup- 
pressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of 
religion.’’ The passages to which he refers 
(H. E. viii. 2; Mart. Pal. 12) do not bear out 
this imputation. There is no indirectness 
about them, but on the contrary they deplore, 
in the most emphatic terms, the evils which 
disgraced the church, and they represent the 
persecution under Diocletian as a just retri- 
bution for these wrongdoings. The ambi- 
tions, intriguing for office, factious quarrels, 
cowardly denials and shipwrecks of the faith 
—‘‘evil piled upon evil’? (κακὰ κακοῖς 
émire.xifovTes)—are denounced in no meas- 
ured language. Eusebius contents himself 
with condemning these sins and shortcomings 
in general terms, without entering into de- 
tails; declaring his intention of confining 
himself to topics profitable (πρὸς ὠφελείας) to 
his own and future generations. This treat- 
ment may be regarded as too great a sacrifice 
to edification; but it leaves no imputation 
on his honesty. Nor again can the special 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


charges against his honour as a narrator be 
sustained. There is no ground whatever for 
the surmise that Eusebius forged or inter- 
polated the passage from Josephus relating to 
our Lord, quoted in H. E. i. 11, though Heini- 
chen (iii. pp. 623 seq., Melet. ii.) is disposed to 
entertain the charge. The passage is con- 
tained in all our extant MSS., and there is 
sufficient evidence that other interpolations 
(though not this) were introduced into the 
text of Josephus long before this time (see 
Orig. c. Cels. i. 47, Delarue’s note). Another 
interpolation in Josephus which Eusebius 
quotes (il. 23) was certainly known to Origen 
(l.c.). Doubtless also the omission of the owl 
in the account of Herod Agrippa’s death (H. E. 
ii. 10) was already in some texts of Josephus 
(Ant. xix. 8, 2). The manner in which Euse- 
bius deals with his very numerous quotations 
elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, suffi- 
ciently vindicates him from this unjust charge. 

Moreover, Eusebius is generally careful to 
collect the best evidence accessible, and also 
to distinguish between different kinds of 
evidence. ‘‘ Almost every page witnesses to 
the zeal with which he collected testimonies 


from writers who lived at the time of the 
events which he describes. For the sixth and 
seventh books he evidently rejoices to be able 
to use for the foundation of his narrative the 
contemporary letters of Dionysius; ‘ Diony- 
sius, our great bp. of Alexandria,’ he writes, 
“will again help me by his own words in 
the composition of my seventh book of the 


history, since he relates in order the events of 
his own time in the letters which he has left’ 
(vii. praef.). . . . In accordance with this in- 
stinctive desire for original testimony, Euse- 
bius scrupulously distinguishes facts which 
rest on documentary from those which rest 
on oral evidence. Some things he relates on 
the authority of a ‘ general’ (iii. 11, 36) or 
“old report’ (iii. 19, 20) or from tradition 
(i. 7, 11. 9, vi.2, etc.). Inthe lists of successions 
he is careful to notice where written records 
failed him. ‘I could not,’ he says, ‘ by any 
means find the chronology of the bps. of 
Jerusalem preserved in writing; thus much 
only I received from written sources, that 
there were fifteen bishops in succession up to 
the date of the siege under Hadrian, etc.’ (iv. 
5).”’ [w.]  ‘‘ There is nothing like hearing the 
actual words’’ of the writer, he says again 
and again (i. 23, ili. 32, vii. 23; cf. iv. 23), 
when introducing a quotation. His general 
sincerity and good faith seem, therefore, clear. 
But his intellectual qualifications were in 
many respects defective. His credulity, in- 
deed, has frequently been much exaggerated. 
“Undoubtedly he relates many incidents 
which may seem to us incredible, but, when 
he does so, he gives the evidence on which 
they are recommended to him. At one time 
it is the express testimony of some well-known 
writer, at another a general belief, at another 
an old tradition, at another his own observa- 
tion (v. 7, vi. 9, vii. 17, 18)." [w.] In the 
most remarkable passage bearing on the 
eons he recounts his own experience 

uring the last persecution in Palestine (Mart. | 
Pal. 9). ‘‘ There can be no doubt about the 
occurrence which Eusebius here describes, and 


it does not appear that he can be reproached | 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


for adding the interpretation 
countrymen placed upon it. What he 
vouches for we can accept as truth; what he 
records as apopular comment leaves his histori- 
cal veracity and judgment unimpaired." [w.] 
Even Gibbon (c. xvi.) describes the character 
of Eusebius as “‘ less tinctured with credulity, 
and more practised in the arts of courts, than 
that of almost any of his contemporaries.” 
A far more serious drawback is the loose and 
uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals 
with his materials. This shews itself in 
diverse ways. (a) He is not always to be 
trusted in his discrimination of genuine and 
spurious documents. As regards the canon 
of Scripture indeed he takes special pains; 
lays down certain principles which shall guide 
him in the production of testimonies ; and on 
the whole adheres to these principles with 
fidelity (see Contemp. Rev. Jan. 1875, pp. 169 
seq.). Yet elsewhere he adduces as genuine 
the correspondence of Christ and Abgarus 
(1. 13), though never treating it as canonical 
Scripture. The unworthy suspicion that 
Eusebius forged this correspondence which he 
asserted to be a translation of a Syriac original 
found in the archives of Edessa has been re- 
futed by the discovery and publication of the 
original Syriac (The Doctrine of Addai the 
Apostle with an English Translation and Notes 
by G. Phillips, Lond. 1876; see Zahn, Gotting. 
Gel. Anz. Feb. 6, 1877, pp. 161 seq. ; Contemp. 
Rev. May 1877, p- 1137; a portion of this 
work had been published some time before in 
Cureton’s Ancient Syriac Documents, pp. 6 seq., 
Lond. 1864). Not his honesty, but his critical 
discernment was at fault. Yet we cannot be 
severe upon him for maintaining a position 
which, however untenable, has commended 
itself to Cave (H. L. i. p. 2), Grabe (Spire. Patr. 
i. pp. 1 seq.), and other writers of this stamp, 
as defensible. This, moreover, is the most 
flagrant instance of misappreciation. On the 
whole, considering the great mass of spurious 
documents current in his age, we may well 
admire his discrimination, as e.g. in the case 
of the numerous Clementine writings (iii. 16, 
38), alleging the presence or absence of ex- 
ternal testimony for his decisions. Pearson's 
eulogy (Vind. Ign. i. 8) on Eusebius, though 
exaggerated, is not undeserved. He is gener- 
ally a safe guide in discriminating between the 
genuine and the spurious. (b) He is often 
careless in his manner of quoting. His quo- 
tations from Irenaeus, for instance, lose much 
of their significance, even for his own purpose, 
by abstraction from their context (v. 8). His 
quotations from Papias (iii. 39) and from 
Hegesippus (iii. 32, iv. 22) are tantalizing by 
their brevity, for the exact bearing of the 
words could only have been learnt from their 
context. But, except in the passages from 
Josephus (where the blame, as we have seen, 
belongs elsewhere), the quotations themselves 
are given with fair accuracy. (c) He draws 
hasty and unwarranted inferences from his 
authorities, and is loose in interpreting their 
bearing. This is his weakest point as a 
critical historian. Thus he quotes Josephus 
respecting the census of Quirinus and the 
insurrections of Theudas and of Judas the 
Galilean, as if he agreed in all respects with 
the accounts in St. Luke, and does not notice 


325 


which his 


822 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


the chronological difficulties (i. 5, 9; ii. 11). 
He adduces the Jewish historian as a witness 
to the assignment of a tetrarchy to Lysanias 
(i. 9), though in fact Josephus says nothing 
about this Lysanias in the passage in question, 
but elsewhere mentions an earlier person 
bearing the name as ruler of Abilene (Ant. xx. 
7-1; B.J.ii. 11.5). Herepresents this same 
writer as stating that Herod Antipas was 
banished to Vienne (i. 11), whereas Josephus 
sends Archelaus to Vienne (ΒΒ. J. ii. 7. 3) and 
Herod Antipas to Lyons (Ant. xviii. 7. 2) or 
Spain (B. J. ii. 9. 6). He quotes Philo’s 
description of the Jewish Therapeutae, as if 
it related to Christian ascetics (ii. 17). He 
gives, side by side, the contradictory accounts 
of the death of James the Just in Josephus 
and Hegesippus, as if they tallied (ii. 23). 
He hopelessly confuses the brothers M. Aure- 
lius and L. Verus (v. prooem., 4, 5) from a 
misunderstanding of his documents, though 
in the Chronicle (ii. p. 170) he is substantially 
correct with regard to these emperors. Many 
other examples of such carelessness might be 
produced. (d) He is very desultory in his 
treatment, placing in different parts of his 
work notices bearing on the same subject. He 
relates a fact, or quotes an authority bearing 
upon it, in season or out of season, according 
as it is recalled to his memory by some 
accidental connexion. ‘‘ Nothing can illus- 
trate this characteristic better than the 
manner in which he deals with the canon of 
the N.T. After mentioning the martyrdom 
of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome, he proceeds 
at once (iii. 3) without any further preface to 
enumerate the writings attributed to them 
respectively, distinguishing those which were 
generally received by ancient tradition from 
those which were disputed. At the same time 
he adds a notice of the Shepherd, because it 
had been attributed by some to the Hermas 
mentioned by St. Paul. After this he resumes 
his narrative, and then having related the last 
labours of St. John, he gives an account of the 
writings attributed to him (iii. 24), promising 
a further discussion of the Apocalypse, which, 
however, does not appear. This catalogue is 
followed by some fragmentary discussions on 
the Gospels, to which a general classification 
of all the books claiming to have apostolic 
authority is added. When this is ended, the 
history suddenly goes back to a point in the 
middle of the former bock (ii. 15). Elsewhere 
he repeats the notice of an incident for the 
sake of adding some new detail, yet so as to 
mar the symmetry of his work.” [w.] Ex- 
amples of this fault occur in the accounts of 
the first preaching at Edessa (i. 13, ii. 1), of the 
writings of Clement of Rome (111. 16, 38; iv. 
22, 23, etc.), of the daughters of Philip (iii. 
30; 30.) (Clever τ΄, 24), etc 

(6) Life of Constantine, in four books.—The 
date of this work is fixed within narrow limits. 
It was written after the death of the great 
emperor (May 337) and after his three sons had 
been declared Augusti (Sept. 337)—see iv. 68; 
and Eusebius himself died not later than A.D. 
340. Though not professing to be such, it is 
to some extent a continuation of the Eccle- 
stastical History. As such it is mentioned by 
Socrates (H. E. i. 1), to whom, as to other 
historians, it furnishes important materials 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


for the period. For the council of Nicaea 
especially, and for some portions of the Arian 
controversy, it is a primary source of infor- 
mation of the highest value. As regards the 
emperor himself, it is notoriously one-sided. 
The verdict of Socrates will not be disputed. 
The author, he says, ‘‘has devoted more 
thought to the praises of the emperor and to 
the grandiloquence of language befitting a 
panegyric, as if he were pronouncing an 
encomium, than to the accurate narrative of 
the events which took place.’’ But there is 
no ground for suspecting him of misrepresent- 
ing the facts given, and with the qualification 
stated above, his biography has the highest 
value. Itisa vivid picture of certain aspects 
of a great personality, painted by one familiar- 
ly acquainted with him, who had access to 
important documents. It may even be set 
down to the credit of Eusebius that his praises 
of Constantine are much louder after his death 
than during his lifetime. In this respect he 
contrasts favourably with Seneca. Nor shall 
we do justice to Eusebius unless we bear in 
mind the extravagant praises which even 
heathen panegyrists lavished on the great 
Christian emperor before his face, as an in- 
dication of the spirit of the age. But after 
all excuses made, this indiscriminate praise of 
Constantine is a reproach from which we 
should gladly have held Eusebius free. 

B. APoLoGEtic.—(7) Against Hterocles. — 
Hierocles was governcr in Bithynia, and used 
his powerruthlessly to embitter the persecution 
which he is thought to have instigated(Lactant. 
Div. Inst. v. 2; Mort. Pers. 16; see Mason, 
Persecution of Diocletian, pp. 58, 108). Not 
satisfied with assailing the Christians from 
the tribunal, he attacked them also with his 
pen. The title of his work seems to have been 
ὁ Φιλαλήθης, The Lover of Truth. It was a 
ruthless assault on Christianity, written in 
a biting style. Its main object was to expose 
the contradictions of the Christian records. 
Eusebius, however, confines himself to one 
point—the comparison of Apollonius, as de- 
scribed in his Life by Philostratus, with our 
Saviour, to the disparagement of the latter. 
There is much difference of opinion whether 
Philostratus himself intended to set up Apol- 
lonius as a rival to the Christ of the Gospels 
[APOLLONIUS OF TyYANA], but Hierocles at all 
events turned his romance to this use. 

Eusebius refutes his opponent with great 
moderation, and generally with good effect. 
He allows that Apollonius was a wise and 
virtuous man, but refuses to concede the 
higher claims advanced on his behalf. He 
shews that the work of Philostratus was not 
based on satisfactory evidence; that the 
narrative is full of absurdities and contra- 
dictions; and that the moral character of 
Apollonius as therein portrayed is far from 
perfect. He maintains that the supernatural 
incidents, if they actually occurred, might 
have been the work of demons. In conclu- 
sion (§§ 46-48) he refutes and denounces the 
fatalism of Apollonius, as alone sufficient to 
discredit his wisdom. ; 

(8) Against Porphyry, an elaborate work in 
25 books: Hieron. Ep. 70 ad Magn. § 3 (i. 
p- 427, Vallarsi); Vir. Ill. 81—No part of 
this elaborate tefutation has survived. Yet 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


we may form some notion of its contents 
from the Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evan- 
gelica, in considerable portions of which 
Eusebius obviously has Porphyry in view, 
even where he does not name him. To 
Jerome and Socrates the refutation seemed 
satisfactory. Philostorgius (H. E. viii. 14) 
preferred the similar work of Apollinaris to 
it, as also to the earlier refutation of Method- 
ius, but himself added another reply to 
Porphyry (H. E. x. 10). All the four refuta- 
tions have alike perished, with the work which 
gave rise to them. 

(9) Praeparatio Evangelica.—So Eusebius 
himself calls a treatise, which more strictly 
ought to have been called Praeparatio Demon- 
strationts Evangelicae, for it is an introductory 
treatise leading up to— 

(10) The Demonstratio Evangelica.—These 
two treatises, in fact, are parts of one great 
work. They are both dedicated to Theodotus, 
an adherent of the Arian party, who was bp. 
of Laodicea for some thirty years. 

In the absence of more direct testimony, 
we may infer that these works were begun 
during the persecution, but not concluded till 
some time after. The Preparation is extant 
entire, and comprises15 books. The Demonstra- 
tion, on the other hand, is incomplete. It con- 
sisted of 20 books, of which only the first ten are 
extant in the MSS. The Preparation sketches 
briefly what the Gospel is, and then adverts 
to the common taunt that the Christians 
accept their religion by faith without investi- 
gation. The whole work is an answer to this 
taunt. The object of the Preparation is to 
justify the Christians in transferring their 
allegiance from the religion and philosophy of 
the Greeks to the sacred books of the Hebrews. 
The object of the Demonstration is to shew 
from those sacred books themselves that 
Christians did right in not stopping short at 
the religious practices and beliefs of the Jews, 
but in adopting a different mode of life. Thus 
the Preparation is an apology for Christianity 
as against the Gentiles, while the Demonstra- 
tion defends it as against the Jews, and “ yet 
not,” he adds, ‘‘ against the Jews, nay, far 
from it, but rather for the Jews, if they would 
learn wisdom.”’ 

In the first three books of the Preparation 
he attacks the mythology of the heathen, 
exposing its absurdity, and refutes the physio- 
logical interpretations put upon the myths ; 
in the next three he discusses the oracles, 
and as connected therewith the sacrifices 
to demons and the doctrine of fate; in the 
third three explains the bearing of ‘‘ the 
Hebrew Oracles,’’ and adduces the testimony 
of heathen writers in their favour; in bks. 
X. xi. xii. and xiii. he remarks on the plagiar- 
isms of the Greek philosophers from the 
Hebrews, dwelling on the priority of the 
Hebrew Scriptures, and shews how all that is 
best in Greek teaching and speculation agrees 
with them; in bk. xiv. he points to the con- 
tradictions among Greek philosophers, shewing 
how the systems opposed to Christian belief 
have been condemned by the wisest Gentile 
philosophers themselves; and lastly, in bk. 
xv., he exposes the falsehoods and errors of 
the Greek systems of philosophy, more 
especially of the Peripatetics, Stoics, and 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 327 


materialists of all schools. He claims to have 
thus given a complete answer to those who 
charge Christians with transferring their 
allegiance from Hellenism to Hebraism blindly 
and without knowledge. In the Demon- 
stration, bks. i. and ii. are introductory (iii. 1. 
I, τῶν προλεγομένων). In bk. i. a sketch is 
given of the Gospel teaching and reasons 
alleged why Christians, while adopting the 
Hebrew Oracles, should depart from the Jew- 
ish mode of life; a distinction being drawn 
between Hebraism, the religion of all godly 
men from the beginning, and Judaism, the 
temporary and special system of the Jews, so 
that Christianity is a continuation of the 
former, but a departure from the latter. In 
bk. ii. testimonies from the prophets shew that 
the two great phenomena of the Christian 
Church had been long foretold—-the general 
ingathering of the Gentiles and the general 
falling away of the Jews—so that the Chris- 
tians ‘‘ were only laying claim to their own” 
(111. xr. 1). Bk. ili. begins the main subject of 
the treatise. He promises to speak of the 
humanity of Christ, as corresponding to the 
predictions of the prophets; but the topics 
are introduced in a desultory way (e.g. that 
Christ was not a sorcerer, that the Apostles 
were not deceivers, etc.) without any very 
obvious connexion with the main theme. 
Bks. iv. and v. pass on to the dtvinity of 
Christ, both as the Son and as the Logos (see 
v. prooem. 1. 2), this likewise having been 
announced by the prophets. From bk. vi. 
onward to the end he treats of the Incarnation 
and life (ἐπιδημία) of our Lord as a fulfilment of 
prophecy, and of the manner of Christ’s appear- 
ing, the place of His birth, His parentage and 
genealogy, the time of His advent and His 
works as in like manner foretold. In bk. x., 
the last which is extant, he reaches the Pas- 
sion, treating of the traitor Judas and the 
incidents of the Crucifixion. What were the 
topics of the remaining ten books we have no 
data for determining, but may conjecture with 
Stein (p. 102) that they dealt with the burial, 
resurrection, and ascension, and perhaps also 
with the foundation of the Christian church 
and the Second Advent. The extant fragment 
of bk. xv. relates to the four kingdoms of 
Danielii. Jerome (Comm. in Hos. Praef. Op. 
vi. p. 18) speaks of Eusebius as “‘ discussing 
some matters respecting the prophet Hosea”’ 
in bk. xviii. This great apologetic work ex- 
hibits the merits and defects which we find 
elsewhere in Eusebius ; the same greatness of 
conception marred by inadequacy of execu- 
tion, the same profusion of learning combined 
with inability to control his materials, which 
we have seen in his History. The topics are 
not kept distinct ; yet this is probably the most 
important apologetic work of the early church. 
Its frequent, forcible, and true conceptions, 
more especially on the theme of “ God in 
history,’”’ arrest our attention now, and must 
have impressed his contemporaries still more 
strongly ; while in learning and comprehen- 
siveness it is without arival. It exhibits the 
same wide acquaintance with Greek profane 
writers which the History exhibits with Cbris- 
tian literature. The number of writers quoted 
or referred to is astonishing (see Fabric. Brbl. 
Graec. vii. p. 346), the names of some being 


828. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


only known to us through Eusebius, while of 
several others he has preserved large portions 
not otherwise extant. He quotes not less 
than 21 works of Plato, and gives more 
than 50 quotations from the Laws alone. The 
impression produced by this mass of learning 
led Scaliger to call the work ‘‘ divini com- 
mentarii,’’ and Cave ‘‘ opus profecto nobilis- 
simum”’ (H. L. i. p. 178). An admirable ed. 
of the Preparatio was pub. in 1903 at the Oxford 
Press under the learned and accurate editorship 
of the late Dr. Gifford, with trans. and notes. 

(11) The Praeparatio Ecclesiastica (᾿ κκλη- 
σιαστικὴ Ilporapacxevyn) is not extant, nor 
is (12) the Demonstratio Ecclesiastica (Ἐκκλη- 
σιαστικὴ ᾿Απόδειξι), but both are mentioned 
by Photius (Bibl. 11,12.) The names suggest 
that these two works aimed at doing for the 
society what the Praeparatio and Demonstratio 
Evangelica do for the doctrines of which the 
society is the depositary. 

(13) Two Books of Objection and Defence, only 
known from Photius (Bibl. 13). 

(14) The Divine Manifestation (Θεοφάνεια). 
in five books, was long supposed to be lost, 
but fragments of the Greek original were 
published by Mai from Vatican MSS. in his 
Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. i. (1831), viii. (1833), 
and in 1842 the work was printed entire in a 
Syriac version by Dr. S. Lee, who in 1843 
pub.an Eng. trans. with intro. and notes (Euse- 
bius, bp. of Caesarea, on the Theophania, etc., 
Camb. 1843). By the aid of this version Mai 
(A.D. 1847) in his Bibl. Nov. Patr. iv. p. 310 
(cf. p. 110) rearranged his Greek fragments. 

The subject is, as the name Theophanta 
suggests, the manifestation of God in the 
Incarnation of the Divine Word. The con- 
tents are: (i) An account of the subject and 
the recipients of the revelation. The doctrine 
of the Word of God is insisted upon, His 
person and working set forth. Polytheist 
and pantheist are alike at fault. The Word 
is essentially one. His relation to creation, 
and especially to man, and the pre-eminence, 
characteristics, destiny, and fall of man are 
dealt with. (ii) The necessity of the revelation. 
The human race was degraded by gross 
idolatry with its accompanying immoralities. 
The philosophers could not rescue it. Plato 
had the clearest sense of the truth, yet even 
he was greatly at fault. Meanwhile the 
demons of polytheism had maddened man- 
kind, as shewn by human sacrifices and the 
prevalence of wars. The demons, too, had 
shewn their powerlessness; they could not 
defend their temples or foresee their over- 
throw. (iii) The proof of the revelation. Its 
excellency and power is seen in its effects. 
For this it was necessary that the Word should 
be incarnate, put to death, and rise again. 
The change which has come over mankind in 
consequence is set forth. (iv) The proof of the 
revelation, from the fulfilment of Christ’s words 
—His prophecies respecting the extension of 
His kingdom, the trials of His church, the 
destinies of His servants, and the fate of 
the Jews. (v) The common heathen objection 
that Christ was a sorcerer and a deceiver, 
achieving His results by magic, is answered. 

The place of writing of the Theophania is 
Caesarea (iv. 6), and it was plainly written 
after the triumph of Constantine and the 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


restoration of peace to the church. The 
persecution is over, and the persecutors have 
met with their punishment (iii. 20, v. 52). 
Polytheism is fast waning, and Christianity is 
spreading everywhere (ii. 76, iii. 79). 

(15) On the Numerous Progeny of the An- 
ctents.—This lost treatiseis mentionedin Praep. 
Ev. vii. 8. 29. It is doubtless the same work 
to which St. Basil refers (de Spir. Sanct. 29, 
Op. iii. p. 61) as Difficulties respecting the 
Polygamy of the Ancients. It would seem to 
have been an apologetic work, as it seems to 
have aimed at accounting for the polygamy 
of the patriarchs and the Jews generally, and 
reconciling it with the ascetic life, which in 
his own time was regarded as the true ideal 
of Christian teaching. This problem occurs 
again and again in his extant apologetic 
writings. In the reference in the Praeparatio 
Eusebius speaks of having discussed in this 
work the notices of the lives of the patriarchs 
and ‘their philosophic endurance and self- 
discipline,’’ whether by way of direct narrative 
or of allegorical suggestion. 

C. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL—1.¢. all works 
directed primarily to the criticism and eluci- 
dation of the Scriptures. 

(16) Biblical Texts—In his earlier years 
Eusebius was occupied in conjunction with 
Pamphilus in the production of correct Greek 
texts of the O.T. A notice of his later years 
shews him engaged in a similar work (V. C. 
iv. 36, 37). The emperor writes to Eusebius, 
asking him to provide 50 copies of the Scrip- 
tures for use in the churches of Constantinople, 
where the Christian population had largely 
multiplied. The manuscripts must be easily 
legible and handy for use, written on carefully 
prepared parchment, and transcribed by skil- 
ful caligraphers. He has already written, he 
adds, to the procurator-general (καθολικός) of 
the district (τῆς διοικήσεως), charging him to 
furnish Eusebius with the necessary appli- 
ances and has placed at his disposal two 
public waggons to convey the manuscripts, 
when complete, to the new metropolis. Euse- 
bius executes the commission. The manu- 
scripts were arranged, he tells us, in ternions 
and quaternions (τρισσὰ kai τετρασσά) and care- 
fully prepared at great cost. The emperor 
wrote expressing his satisfaction with them. 

(17) Sections and Canons, with the Letter to 
Carpianus prefixed.mEusebius explains the 
origin and method of these sections and 
canons in the prefatory letter. Ammonius of 
Alexandria (c. 220) had constructed a Har- 
mony or Diatessaron of the Gospels. He 
took St. Matthew as his standard, and placed 
side by side with it the parallel passages from 
the other three. The work of Ammonius 
suggested to Eusebius the plan which he 
adopted, but Eusebius desired to preserve the. 
continuity of all the narratives. He therefore 
divided each gospel separately into sections, 
which he numbered continuously, and con- 
structed a table of ten canons, containing lists 
of passages: canon i, common to all the 
four evangelists ; canon ii, common to Mat- 
thew, Mark, Luke; canon iii, common to 
Matthew, Luke, John; canon iv, common to 
Matthew, Mark, John; canon v, common 
to Matthew and Luke; canon vi, common to 
Matthew and Mark; canon vii, common to 


tts pry 


Se a ae 


a 


o creer 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


Matthew and John; canon viii, common to 
Luke and Mark; canon ix, common to Luke 
and John; canon x, passages peculiar to a 
single evangelist, so that this last canon con- 
tains four separate lists. The sections of the 
several gospels were numbered in black, and 
beneath eachsuchnumber was a secondnumber 
in vermilion, specifying the canon to which the 
section belonged. By turning to the canon 
so specified, the reader would see the numbers 
of the parallel sections in the other evangelists. 
For the history of the sections and canons 
in the MSS. see Scrivener’s Introd. to the 
Criticism of the N.T., pp. 54 seq. and passim. 
The sections and canons are marked in many 
editions of fhe Gk. Test., e.g. those of Tischen- 
dorf and Tregelles. 

(x8) Under the head of Biblical exegesis 
may be ranged several togographical works 
undertaken at the instance of Paulinus, bp. 
of Tyre.—(a) Interpretation of the Ethno- 
logical Terms in the Hebrew Scriptures ; (b) 
Chorography of Ancient Judaea, with the 
Inherttances of the Ten Tribes; (c) A Plan 
of Jerusalem and of the Temple. This was 
accompanied with memoirs relating to the 
different localities. (ὦ On the Names of 
Places in Holy Scripture, entitled in the head 
of Jerome’s version de Situ et Nominibus 
Locorum Hebraicorum, but elsewhere (Vir. 
Ill. 81) Topica. The first three, which perhaps 
should be regarded as parts of the same work, 
are mentioned in the preface to the fourth, 
which aloneis extant. All were written at the 
instance of Paulinus, to whom (d) is dedicated. 
This last professes to give alphabetically ‘‘ the 
designations of the cities and villagesmentioned 
in Holy Scripture in their original language,”’ 
with a description of thelocality andthe modern 
names. The names are transliterated with 
various success from the Hebrew. The value of 
this treatise arises from the close acquaintance 
which Eusebius had with the geography of 
Palestine in his own day. The work had 
already been translated into Latin by some 
unskilful hand before Jerome’s time, but so 
unsatisfactorily that he undertook a new ver- 
sion. He omitted some important notices and 
made several changes, justified by his personal 
knowledge of Palestine. 

(19) On the Nomenclature of the Book of the 
Prophets.—This work contains a brief account 
of the several prophets and the subjects of 
their prophecies, beginning with the minor 
prophets and following the order of the LXX. 

(20) In Psalmos, a continuous commentary 
on the Psalms, which stands in antiquity and 
intrinsic merit in the first rank of patristic 
commentaries. The historical bearing of the 
several psalms is generally treated sensibly ; 
the theological and mystical interpretations 
betray the extravagance common to patristic 
exegesis. The value of the work is largely 
increased by frequent extracts from the 
Hexaplaric versions and by notices respecting 
the text and history of the Psalter. The 
author possessed some acquaintance with 
Hebrew, though not always sufficient to 
prevent mistakes. This commentary had a 
great reputation, and was translated into 
Latin within a very few years of its publication 
by Eusebius of Vercellae. 

(21) Commentary on Isatah—This work 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 329 


exhibits the same characteristics as the Com- 
mentary on the Psalms. Jerome is largely 
indebted to Eusebius, whom he sometimes 
translates almost word for word without 
acknowledgment. Eusebius occasionally in- 
serts interesting traditions on the authority 
of a Hebrew teacher: e.g. that Shebna be- 
came high-priest and betrayed the people to 
Sennacherib ; that Hezekiah was seized with 
sickness for not singing God’s praises, like 
Moses and Deborah, after his victory. 
Sometimes he gives Christian traditions: e.g. 
that Judas Iscariot was of the tribe of 
Ephraim. This commentary is mentioned by 
Procopius in his preface, and is freely used by 
him and by later Greek commentators. 

(22) Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel.—Not 
mentioned by Jerome or Photius. Some 
extracts remain. 

(23) Commentary on I. Corinthtans.—Such 
a work seems to be implied by Jerome's 
language, Ep. xlix., though he does not men- 
tion it in his Catalogue. 

(24) Commentaries on other Books of Scrip- 
ture.—Extracts are given from, or mention is 
made of, commentaries on Proverbs, Song of 
Songs, Dantel, Hebrews, and several other books 
(see Fabric. op. cit. p. 399). It is doubtful, 
however, whether such extracts (even when 
genuine) are from continuous commentaries 
or from exegetical or dogmatical works. 

(25) On the Discrepancies of the Gospels.— 
This work consists of two parts, really separate 
works, and quoted as such: (i) Questions 
and Solutions on the Genealogy of the Saviour, 
addressed to Stephanus ; (ii) Questions and 
Solutions concerning the Passion and Resur- 
rection of the Saviour, addressed to Marinus. 
The difficulties do not always turn upon 
discrepancies—e.g. he discusses the question 
why Thamar is mentioned, and difficulties 
with respect to Bathsheba and Ruth. But 
the discrepancies occupy a sufficiently large 
space to give the name to the whole. The 
work exhibits the characteristic hesitation of 
Eusebius in a somewhat aggravated form. 
Alternative solutions are frequently offered, 
and he does not decide between them. But it 
is suggestive and full ofinterest. Itis valuable 
also as preserving large fragments of Africanus, 
besides some important notices, such as the 
absence of Mark xvi. 9-16 from the most 
numerous and best MSS. From this storehouse 
of information later harmonists plundered 
freely, often without acknowledgment. 

D. DocrrinaL.—(26) General Elementary 
Introduction.—Five fragments of this work 
have been published by Mai. All deal with 
analogous topics, having reference to general 
principles of ethics, etc. It seems to have 
been a general introduction to theology, and 
its contents were very miscellaneous, as the 
extant remains shew. ἊΨ 

(27) Prophetical Extracts—This work con- 
tains prophetical passages from O.T. relating 
to our Lord’s person and work, with explan- 
atory comments, and comprises four books, 
of which the first is devoted to the historical 
books, the second to the Psalms, the third 
to the remaining poetical books and the other 
prophets, the fourth to Isaiah. The author 
explains that his main object is to shew that 
the prophets spoke of Jesus Christ as the pre- 


330 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


existent Word, Who is ‘‘asecond cause of the 
universe and God and Lord,” and that they 
predicted His two advents. Thus the per- 
sonality of the Logos is here the leading idea 
in his treatment of the prophecies. 

(28) Defence of Origen.—This was the joint 
work of Pamphilus and Eusebius. The original 
has perished, but the first book survives in 
the translation of Rufinus (printed in Origen, 
Op. iv. App. pp. 17 seq. Delarue). Eusebius 
(H. E. vi. 3)says that the work was undertaken 
to refute “‘captious detractors’’; probably 
referring especially to Methodius, who had 
written two works against Origen (Hieron. Vir. 
Til. 93 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 13) and was attacked by 
name in thesixth book (Hieron. c. Rufin. i. 11). 
It was dedicated to the confessors of Palestine, 
especially Patermuthius (Phot. Bzbl. 118), who 
was martyred the year after Pamphilus (Eus. 
Mart. Pal. 13). The first book contains an 
exposition of Origen’s principles, especially 
of his doctrines respecting the Trinity and the 
Incarnation ; then nine special charges against 
him are refuted, relating to the nature of 
Christ, the resurrection of the dead, metem- 
psychosis, etc. In one of the later books the 
doctrine of fatalism was discussed (Rufin. 
Apol. i. 11, in Hieron. Op. ii. p. 582). Else- 
where also it was shewn that Origen in his 
mystical explanation of Adam and Eve, as 
referring to Christ and the church, only fol- 
lowed the traditional interpretation (Socr. H. 
E. iii. 7). In the same spirit precedents were 
quoted for his doctrines of the pre-existence 
of the soul and the restitution of all things 
(Anon. Synod. Ep. 198). The Apology also 
contained a full account of the life of Origen 
(Phot. Bibl. 118). Eusebius himself refers to 
bk. ii. for accounts of the controversy about 
Origen’s ordination to the priesthood and his 
contributions to sacred letters (H. E. vi. 23), 
and to bk. vi. for the letters which Origen 
wrote to Fabianus and others in defence of his 
orthodoxy (7b. 36), and to the work generally 
for the part taken by Origen in theological 
controversy (1b. 33). Socrates (H. E. iv. 27) 
states that the panegyric of Gregory Thauma- 
turgus on Origen was given in this A pology. 

(29) Against Marcellus, bp. of Ancyra, in 
two books.—The occasion of writing is ex- 
plained by Eusebius himself (c. Mare. ii. 4, 
ΡΡ. 55 seq.). Marcellus had been condemned 
for Sabellianism, and deposed by a synod of 
Constantinople (A.D. 336), composed chiefly 
of the Arian friends of Eusebius. This work 
was undertaken at the wish of these friends to 
justify the decision. Certain persons con- 
sidered that Marcellus had been unfairly 
treated, and Eusebius, being partly respon- 
sible for the decision, felt bound to uphold its 
justice. The work aims simply at exposing 
the views of Marcellus. [MARcELLUS (4).] 

(30) On the Theology of the Church, a Refu- 
tation of Marcellus, in three books.—Eusebius 
hadat first thoughtitsufficient merely to expose 
the opinions of Marcellus, leaving them to con- 
demn themselves. But on reflection, fearing 
lest some might be drawn away ‘“‘ from the 
theology of the church”’ by their very length 
and pretentiousness, he undertook to refute 
them, and to shew that no single Scripture 
favours the view of Marcellus, but that, | 
according to the approved interpretations, all | 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


Scripture is against him. Having done this, 
he will expound the true theology respecting 
our Saviour, as it has been handed down in 
the church from the beginning. Thus, as ex- 
plained by its author, the aim of this second 
treatise is refutation, as that of the first was 
exposure. The first was mainly personal, the 
second is chiefly dogmatical. 

The two treatises were first edited by bp. 
R. Montague (Montacutius) with trans. and 
notes (Paris, 1628) at the end of the Demon- 
straito, and this ed. was reprinted(Lips. 1688). 
The best ed. is that of Gaisford (Oxf. 1852), 
where they are in the same vol. with the work 
Against Hierocles. He revised the text and 
reprinted the trans. and notes of Montague. 
The fragments of Marcellus are collected by 
Rettberg (Marcelliana, Gotting. 1794). The 
monographs on Marcellus, especially Zahn’s 
M. von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867), are useful aids. 

(31) On the Paschal Festival.E usebius (Vit. 
Const. iv. 35, 36) states that he addressed to 
Constantine ‘‘a mystical explanation of the 
significance of the festival,’’ upon which the 
emperor wrote (c. 335), expressing himself 
greatly delighted, and saying that it was a 
difficult undertaking ‘‘ to expound in a be- 
coming way the reason and origin of the 
Paschal festival, as well as its profitable and 
painful consummation.’ A long fragment of 
this treatise was discovered and published by 
Mai. The recovered fragment contains: (1) 
A declaration of the figurative character of the 
Jewish Passover. (2) An account of its in- 
stitution and of the ceremonial itself. (3) An 
explanation of the typical significance of the 
different parts of the ceremonial, with refer- 
ence to their Christian counterparts. (4) A 
brief statement of the settlement of the ques- 
tion at Nicaea. (5) An argument that Chris- 
tians are not bound to observe the time of the 
Jewish festival, mainly because it was not the 
Jewish Passover which our Lord Himself kept. 

E. ORATIONS AND SERMONS.—(32) Aft the 


Dedication of the Church in Tyre.—This oration 


is inserted by Eusebius in his History (x. 4.) 
The new basilica at Tyre was a splendid 
building, and Eusebius addresses Paulinus, the 
bishop, as a Bezaleel, a Solomon, a Zerubbabel, 
a new Aaron or Melchizedek. He applies to 
the occasion the predictions of the Jewish 
prophets foretelling the rebuilding of the 
temple and the restoration of the polity. He 
gives thanks for the triumph of Christ, the 
Word of God, Who has proved mightier than 
the mightiest of kings. This magnificent 
temple, which has arisen from the ruins of its 
predecessor, is a token of His power. Then 
follows an elaborate description of the building, 
which, continues the orator, is a symbol of the 
spiritual church of Tyre, of the spiritual 
church throughout the world, in its history, 
its overthrow, its desolation, its re-erection 
on a more splendid scale, and in the arrange- 
ment of its several parts. But the spiritual 
church on earth is itself only a faint image of 
the heavenly Zion, where adoring hosts un- 
ceasingly sing the praises of their King. 

(33) At the Vicennalia of Constantine, A.D. 
325.—This oration, which is not extant, is 
mentioned Vit. Const. prooem. ili. 11. It 
seems to have been the opening address at the 
council of Nicaea, see supra, 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


(34) On the Sepulchre of the Saviour, a.v. 
335-—This is mentioned Vit. Const. iv. 33, 
46seq. The circumstances ofits delivery have 
been already described. It has been lost. 

(35) At the Tricennalia of Constantine, a.v. 
335 or 336.—This oration is commonly called 
de Laudibus Constantini. The orator, taking 
occasion from the festival, speaks of the 
Almighty Sovereign, and the Divine Word 
through Whom He administers the universe 
(§ 1). The emperor is a sort of reflection of 
the Supreme Word. The monarchy on earth 
is the counterpart of that in heaven (§§ 2, 3). 
The Word is the interpreter of the Invisible 
God in all things (ὃ 4. An emperor who, 
like Constantine, is sensible of his depend- 
ence on God, is alone fit torule (ὃ 5). Periods 
and divisions of time are from God, as 
is all order throughout the universe. The 
number thirty (3 x 10) has a special symbolic 
significance, reminding us of the kingdom of 
glory (§6). The powers of wickedness and the 
sufferings of the saints were ended by Con- 
stantine, the champion-and representative of 
God (ὃ 7). He waged war against idolatry, 
profligacy, and superstition (ὃ 8). What a 
change has been suddenly wrought! The 
false gods did not foresee their fate. The 
emperor, armed with piety, overthrew them. 
Churches rise from the ground everywhere 
(§ 8). The truth is proclaimed far and wide 
(§ 9). “Come now, most mighty victor 
Constantine,’’ says the orator, ‘‘ let me lay 
before thee the mysteries of sacred doctrines 
in this royal discourse concerning the Supreme 
King of the Universe.’”’ Accordingly he speaks 
of the person and working of the Divine Word, 
as mediator in the creation and government of 
the universe. Polytheism is condemned. As 
God is one, so His Word is one (§§ 11, 12). 
Humanity, led astray by demons and steeped 
in ignorance and sin, needed the advent of the 
Word (ὃ 13). It was necessary too that He 
should come clothed in a body (ὃ 14). His 
death and resurrection also were indispensable 
for the redemption of men (ὃ 15). The power 
of the Divine Word was evinced by the 
establishment of the church and the spread of 
the gospel (§ 16). It was manifested in our 
own time by the faith of the martyrs, by the 
triumph of the church over oppression, and 
by the punishment of the persecutors (§ 17). 
We have evidence of the divine origin of our 
faith in the prophetic announcements of 
Christ’s coming, and in the fulfilment of His 
own predictions; more especially in the 
coincidence in time between the establishment 
of the Roman empire and the publication of 
the Gospel (§ 18). 

(36) In Praise of the Martyrs.—This discourse 
is short and of little value; but the orator 
mentions, among those whom he invites his 
hearers to commemorate, almost every bishop 
of Antioch from the end of the 2nd cent. to 
his own time, so that it would seem to have 
been delivered at Antioch. 

(37) On the Failure of Rain, mentioned by 
Ebedjesu, but apparently not elsewhere. 

F. Letrers.—(38) To Alexander, bp. of 
Alexandria, on behalf of Arius and_ his 
friends, complaining that they have been 
misrepresented. , 

(39) To Euphration (sometimes written in- 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 331 


correctly Euphrasion), bp. of Balanea in Syria, 
a strong opponent of the Arians (Athan. de 
Fug. 3, Op. i. p. 254; Hist. Ar. ad Mon. 5, tb. 
p- 274), who was present at the council of 
Nicaea. Athanasius refers to this letter as 
declaring plainly that Christ is not true God 
(de Synod. 17, Op. i. p. 584). An extract (con- 
taining the passage to which doubtless Athan- 
asius refers) is quoted at the second council 
of Nicaea (l.c.). It insists strongly on the 
subordination of the Son. 

(40) To Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), 
the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, 
who was closely allied with the Arians. Con- 
stantia had asked Eusebius to send her a 


|certain likeness of Christ, of which she had 


heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying 
that such representations are inadequate in 
themselves and tend to idolatry. He states 
that a foolish woman had brought him two 
likenesses, which might be philosophers, but 
were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and 
the Saviour. He had detained them lest they 
should prove a stumbling-block to her or to 
others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul 
declares his intention of ‘‘ knowing Christ no 
longer after the flesh.’’ This letter was 
quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their 
opponents to rake up all the questionable 
expressions in his writings, that they might 
blacken his character for orthodoxy. 

(41) To the Church of Caesarea, written from 
Nicaea (A.D. 325) during or immediately after 
the council to vindicate his conduct. This 
letter is preserved by Athanasius as an 
appendix to the de Decret. Syn. Nic. (Op. i. 
DearS 7 Che 8.5, δι: Ὁ». LOG) 4) In SOCK keene 
1.8; in Theod. H. E. i. 11; in Gelasius Cyz. 
Hist. Conc. Nic. ii. 34 seq. (Labbe, Cone. ii. 
264 seq. ed. Colet.); in the Historia Tripar- 
tita, ii. 11; and in Niceph. H. E. viii. 22. A 
passage towards the end (§§ 9, 10) which 
savours strongly of Arianism is wanting in 
Socrates and in the Historia Tripartita, but 
appears in the other authorities, and seems 
certainly to be referred to by Athanasius in 
two places (de Decr. Syn. Nic. 3, l.c.; de 
Synod. 13, Op. i. p. 581). It is condemned, 
however, by Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 9. 3) and 
Cave (Diss. Tert. in Joh. Cleric. p. 58, printed 
at the end of his Hzst. Lit. vol. ii.) as a spurious 
addition, probably inserted by some Arian. 
The letter is translated and annotated by 
Newman in Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, 
pp- 59 seq. (Oxf. 1853). 

In reviewing the literary history of Euse- 
bius, we are struck first of all with the range 
and extent of his labours. His extant works, 
voluminous as they are, must have formed 
somewhat less than half his actual writings. 
No field of theological learning is untouched. 
He is historian, apologist, topographer, exe- 
gete, critic, preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn, 
and, if permanent utility may be taken as a 
test of literary excellence, Eusebius will hold 
a very high place indeed. The Ecclestastical 
History is absolutely unique and indispens- 
able. The Chronicle is a vast storehouse of 
information as to ancient monarchies. The 
Preparation and Demonstration are the most 
important contributions to theology in their 
own province. Even minor works, such as 
the Martyrs of Palestine, the Life of Constan- 


332 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


tine, the Questions addressed to Stephanus and 
to Marinus, and others, would leave an ir- 
reparable blank if they were obliterated. 
His more technical treatises have the same 
permanent value. The Canons and Sections 
have not been superseded for their particular 
purpose. The Topography of Palestine is the 
most important contribution to our knowledge 
in its own department. In short, no ancient 
ecclesiastical writer has laid posterity under 
heavier obligations than has Eusebius by his 
great erudition. In the History, Chronicle, 
and Preparation, he has preserved a vast 
amount of early literature in three several 
spheres, which would otherwise have been 
irrecoverably lost. Moreover, he deserves the 
highest credit for his keen insight as to what 
would have permanent interest. He, and he 
only, has preserved the past in all its phases, 
in history, in doctrine, in criticism, even in 
topography, for the instruction of the future. 

This is his real title to greatness. As an 
expositor of facts, an abstract thinker, or a 
master of style, it would be absurd to compare 
him with the great names of classical anti- 
quity. His merits and his faults have been 
already indicated. His gigantic learning was 
his master rather than his slave. He had 
great conceptions, which he was unable 
adequately to carry out. He had valuable 
detached thoughts, but fails in continuity of 
argument. He was most laborious, yet most 
desultory. He accumulated materials with 
great diligence; but was loose, perfunctory, 
and uncritical in their use. His style is 
especially vicious. When his theme seems to 


him to demand a lofty flight of rhetoric, as in- 


his Life of Constantine, his language becomes 
turgid and unnatural. 

He is before all things an apologist. His 
great services in this respect are emphasized 
by Evagrius (H. E. i. 1, πείθειν οἷός τε εἶναι 
τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας θρησκεύειν τὰ ἡμέτερα) ; 
and doubtless his directly apologetic writings 
were much more effective than at this distance 
of time we can realize. Whatever subject he 
touches, his thoughts seem to pour instinctive- 
ly into this same channel. If he treats of 
chronology, a main purpose is to shew the 
superior antiquity of the Hebrew oracles to 
the wisdom of the Greeks. If he writes a 
history of the church, it is because he sees in 
the course of events a vindication of the 
Divine Word. Even in an encomium of a 
sovereign, he soars aloft at once into the region 
of theology, for he sees in the subject of his 
panegyric the instrument of a higher power 
for the fulfilment of a divine economy. In 
so essentially technical a task as the division 
of the Gospels into sections, his underlying 
desire is to vindicate the essential unity of the 
evangelical narratives against gainsayers. 
This character as an apologist was due partly 
to the epoch in which he lived, and partly to 
his individual temper and _ circumstances. 
He stood, as it were, on the frontier line 
between two ages, with one foot in the Hel- 
lenism of the past and the other in the 
Christianity of the future, and by his very 
position was constrained to discuss their 
mutual relations. He was equally learned in 
the wisdom of the Greeks and in the Scrip- 
tures, while his breadth of sympathy and 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


moderation of temper fitted him beyond most 
of his contemporaries for tracing their con- 
flicts and coincidences. Like St. Paul on 
Mars’ Hill, he sought the elements of truth in 
pre-existing philosophical systems or popular 
religions; and thus obtaining a foothold, 
worked onward in his assault upon paganism. 
The Greek apologists of the 2nd and 3rd 
cents. all, without exception, took up this 
position. Eusebius, through his illustrious 
spiritual ancestors, Origen and Pamphilus, 
had inherited this tradition from Alexandria. 
It was the only method which could achieve 
success in apologetics while Christianity stood 
face to face with still powerful forms of 
heathen worship. It is the only method which 
can hope for victory now, when once again 
the Gospel is confronted with the widespread 
religions of India and the farther East. 

If we may judge from the silence of his 
contemporaries—and silence in this case is 
an important witness—Eusebius commanded 
general respect by his personal character. 
With the single exception of the taunt of 
Potammon, mentioned already, not a word of 
accusation is levelled against him in an age 
when theological controversy was peculiarly 
reckless and acrimonious. His relations to 
Pamphilusshew a strongly affectionate disposi- 
tion ; and it is more than probable that he was 
drawn into those public acts from which his re- 
putation has suffered most by the loyalty of 
private friendship. Hismoderationisespecially 
praised by the emperor Constantine ; and his 
speculative opinions, as well as his personal 
acts, bear out this commendation. His wasa 
life which was before all things laborious and 
self-denying. He was not onlythe most learned 
and prolific writer of his age; but he adminis- 
tered the affairs of an important diocese, and 
took an active part in all great questions which 
agitated the church. 

His admiration for Constantine may be 
excessive, but is not difficult to understand. 
Constantine was unquestionably one of the 
very greatest emperors of Rome. His com- 
manding personality must have been irresist- 
ible; and is enhanced by his deference to- 
wards the leading Christian bishops. He 
carried out a change in the relations between 
the church and the state incomparably great- 
er than any before or after. Eusebius de- 
lighted to place Augustus and Constantine in 
juxtaposition. During the onereign the Word 
had appeared in the flesh; during the other 
He had triumphed over the world. The one 
reign was the counterpart and complement of 
the other. 

A discussion of the theological opinions of 
Eusebius is impossible within our limits. 
Readers are referred to Baronius (ad ann. 340, 
c. 38 seq.), Petavius (Dogm. Theol. de Trin. 
lib. i. cap. xi. seq.), Montfaucon (Praelim. in 
Comm. ad Psalm. c. vi.), and Tillemont (H. E. 
vii. pp. 67 seq.) among those who have assailed, 
and Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 9. 20, iii. 9. 3, 11), 
Cave (Hist. Lit. ii. app. pp. 42 seq.), and Lee 
(Theophania, pp. xxiv. seq.) among those who 
have defended his opinions, from the orthodox 
point of view. A convenient summary of the 
controversy will be found in Stein, pp. 117 seq. 
His orthodoxy cannot be hastily denied. Dr. 
Newman, who cannot be accused of unduly 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 


favouring Eusebius, says that ‘‘in his own 
writings, numerous as they are, there is very 
little which fixes on Eusebius any charge, 
beyond that of attachment to the Platonic 
phraseology. Had he not connected himself 
with the Arian party, it would have been un- 
just to have suspected him of heresy ”’ (Arians, 
Ῥ. 262). Ifwe except the works written before 
the council of Nicaea, in which there is oc- 
casionally much looseness of expression, his 
language is for the most part strictly orthodox, 
or at least capable of explanation in an 
orthodox sense. Against the two main theses 
of Arius, (1) that the Word was a creature 
(xricua) like other creatures, and (2) that there 
was a time when He was not, Eusebius is 
explicit on the orthodox side (e.g. c. Marc. i. 4, 
p- 22, de Eccl. Theol. i. 2, 3, pp. ΟΣ seq., ἐδ. 1. 
8, 9, 10, pp. 66seq.). Hestatesin direct lan- 
guage that the Word had no beginning 
(Theoph. ii. 3, cf. de Laud. Const. 2). If 
elsewhere he represents the Father as prior to 
the Son (e.g. Dem. Ev. iv. 3. 5, ὁ δὲ πατὴρ 
προὐπάρχει Tov υἱοῦ καὶ τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ 
προὐφέστηκεν), this priority is not necessarily 
intended to be temporal, and his meaning 
must be interpreted by his language in other 
passages. Nor, again, do such expressions as 
“second existence,’’ ‘‘ second cause,’’ neces- 
sarily bear an Arian sense; for they may be 
taken to imply that subordination which has 
ever been recognized by the orthodox. But 
though his language might pass muster, ‘‘ his 
acts,’’ it is said, ‘‘ are his confession.’’ This 
is the strongest point in the indictment. His 
alliance with the Arian party is indisputable ; 
but the inference drawn from it may be 
questioned. He may have made too great 
concessions to friendship. His natural temper 
suggested toleration, and the cause of the 
Arians was, or seemed to be, the cause of 
comprehension, and he had a profound and 
rooted aversion to the Sabellianism of Marcellus 
and others, who were acting with Athanasius. 
Where we have no certain information as to 
motives, it seems only fair to accept his own 
statements with respect to his opinions.* 


.* “The remark has been made,” writes Dr. New- 
man (Arians, p. 263), ‘‘that throughout his Eccle- 
siastical History, no instance occurs of his expressing 
abhorrence of the superstitions of Paganism,’’ and 
that his custom is either to praise, or not to blame, 
such heretical writers as fall under his notice. 

Nothing could be more erroneous as a statement 
of facts than Dr. Newman’s language here. Even if 
it had been true, that there is no abhorrence of 
paganism expressed in the History, great parts of the 
Praeparatio and Theophania, the Tricennial Oration 
and the Life of Constantine, are an elaborate indict- 
ment of the superstitions and horrors of heathendom ; 
so that the comparative silence in the History must 
be explained by the fact that this was not, except 
incidentally, histheme. On the attitude of Eusebius 
towards heresies, Newman’s statement is still wider 
of the mark. It is difficult to see how language could 
surpass such expressions as, ¢.g.,i. 1; ii. 1,13; iii. 
26, 27, 28, 29, 32; iv. 7, 29, 30; V. 13, 14, 16-20, 
etc., ‘‘ grievous wolves,”’ ‘‘ most abominable heresy,”’ 
“like a pestilent and scabby disease,’’ ‘‘ incurable 
and dangerous poison,” ‘‘most foul heresy, over- 
shooting anything that could exist or be conceived, 
more abominable than all shame,”’ ‘‘ double-mouthed 
and two-headed serpent,” ‘‘like venomous reptiles,” 
“ loathsome evil-deeds ’’: these and similar expres- 
sions form the staple of his language when he comes 
athwart a heresy. 


EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 333 


While the Arian controversy was still fresh, 
the part taken by Eusebius was remembered 
against him in the Greek church, and the 
orthodox Fathers are generally depreciatory. 
But as the direct interest of the dispute wore 
out, the tide turned and set in his favour. 
Hence from the 5th cent. onwards we find a 
disposition to clear him of any complicity in 
Arian doctrine. Thus Socrates (H. E. ii. 21) 
is at some pains to prove him orthodox; and 
Gelasius of Cyzicus (H. S. N. ii. 1) stoutly 
defends this ‘‘ most noble tiller of ecclesiastical 
husbandry,” this “strict lover of truth” 6 
φΦιλαληθέστατοΞς), and says that if there be any 
suggestion, however faint, of Arian heresy 
(μικρόν τι τὰ ᾿Αρείου ὑπονούμενα) in his sayings 
or writings, it was due to “ the inadvertence of 
simplicity,’’ and that Eusebius himself pleaded 
this excuse in self-defence. Accordingly he 
represents him as a champion of orthodoxy 
against Arian opponents. The tide turned 
again at the second council of Nicaea. As 
the Iconoclasts alleged his authority for their 
views, the opposite party sought to disparage 
him. ‘‘ His own books,’ says Photius, “ὁ ery 
aloud that he is convicted of Arianism ’”’ (Ep. 
73). A lasting injury was inflicted on his 
reputation by dragging him into the Icono- 
clastic dispute. In the Latin church he 
fared somewhat better. Jerome indeed 
stigmatizes the teacher to whom he was more 
largely indebted than perhaps to any other 
as ‘‘ the chief of the Arians,”’ ‘‘ the standard- 
bearer of the Arian faction,’’ ‘“‘the most 
flagrant champion of the impiety of Arius.” 
But the eminent services of Eusebius to 
Christian literature carried the day in the 
western church. Two popes successively 
vindicated his reputation. Gelasius declined 
to place his History and Chronicle on the list 
of proscribed works (Decret. de Libr. A pocr. 4). 
Pelagius II., when defending him, says: 
““Holy Church weigheth the hearts of her 
faithful ones with kindliness rather than their 
words with rigour” (Ep. 5. 921). Neither 
Gelasius nor Pelagius refers directly to the 
charge of Arianism. The offence which 
seemed to them to require apology was his 
defence of the heretic Origen. 

A more remarkable fact still is the canon- 
ization of Eusebius, notwithstanding his real 
or supposed Arian opinions. In an ancient 
Syrian Martyrology, translated from the 
Greek, and already referred to, he takes his 
rank among the honoured martyrs and con- 
fessors of the church. Nor was it only in the 
East that this honour awaited him. In the 
Martyrologium Hieronymianum for xi. Kal. 
Jul. we find the entry ‘‘ In Caesarea Cappa- 
dociae depositio sancti Eusebii’’ (Hieron. Op. 
xi. 578). The person intended was Eusebius, 
the predecessor of St. Basil [Evsepius (24)], 
as the addition ‘‘ Cappadociae’’ shews, but 
the transcendent fame of the Eusebius of the 
other Caesarea eclipsed this comparatively 
obscure person and finally obliterated his 
name from the Latin calendars. The word 
“ Cappadociae””’ disappeared. In Usuard the 
notice becomes “‘ In Caesarea Palestinae sancti 
Eusebii historiographi’’ (with a v. J.) ; and in 
old Latin martyrologies, where he is not dis- 
tinctly specified, the historian Eusebius is 
doubtless understood. Accordingly, in several 


394 EUSEBIUS 


Gallican service-books the historian is com- 
memorated as a saint (see Valois, Testimonia 
pro Eusebio); and in the Martvrologium 
Romanum itself he held his place for many 
centuries. In the revision of this Martyrology 
under Gregory XIII. his name was struck out, 
and Eusebius of Samosata substituted, under 
the mistaken idea that Caesarea had been 
substituted for Samosata by a mistake. The 
Martyrologium Hieronymianum, which con- 
tained the true key to the error, had not then 
been discovered. The Eccl. Hist., according 
to the text of Burton, with intro. by Dr. 
Bright, is pub. by Oxf. Univ. Press, and a 
valuable Eng. trans. both of the History and of 
the Life of Constantine by Dr. McGiffert is in 
the Post-Nicene Lib. of the Fathers. A cheap 
trans. with life, notes, chronol. table, etc., is in 
Bohn’s Library (Bell). The works of Eusebius 
have been ed. by T. Gaisford (Clar. Press, 
9 vols.); and a revised text of the Evang. 
Prep. with notes and Eng. trans. by E. H. 
Gifford (Clar. Press, 4 vols.). The Bodleian MS. 
of Jerome’s version of the Chronicle of Eusebius 
has been reproduced in collotype with intro. by 
J. K. Fotheringham (Clar. Press) [1..] 

Eusebius (24), bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
by whom Basil the Great was ordained to the 
presbyterate. Eusebius was a layman, and 
unbaptized at the time of his elevation to the 
episcopate, A.D. 362. On the death of Dianius, 
the church of Caesarea was divided into two 
nearly equal factions, and the choice of a lay- 
man universally known and respected was the 
readiest way out of the dilemma. Military 
force had to be employed to overcome his 
reluctance and to compel the prelates to 
consecrate. No sooner were they free than 
the bishops endeavoured to declare their 
consecration of Eusebius void. But the 
counsels of the elder Gregory of Nazianzus 
prevailed (Greg. Naz. Orat. xix. 36, pp. 308, 
309). Eusebius proved a very respectable 
prelate, but quite unequal to the circumstances 
of severe trial in which he soon found himself. 
One of the earliest acts of his episcopate was 
to ordain Basil priest. A coldness grew up 
between Eusebius and Basil, leading to Basil’s 
three years’ retirement to Pontus. [BasILius 
OF CAESAREA.] (Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. §§ 51-53; 
Ep. 19, 20, 169, 170.) In 366 Basil returned 
to Caesarea. Each had learnt wisdom from 
the past (Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. §§ 57-59), and 
harmonious relations existed unbroken to the 
death of Eusebius, a.p. 370. 

Fleury states that Eusebius is reckoned by 
some as a martyr (Fleury, xv. 13,14; xvi. 9, 
14, 17), but Usuard probably confounds Euse- 
bius of Cappadocia with Eusebius thehistorian. 
See Papebrochius in AA. SS. Boll. Jun. iv. 
75; and on the other side, Tillem. Mém. vii. 39. 
[EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA.] [E.v.] 

Eusebius (34), bp. of Dorylaeum in Phrygia 
Salutaris, the constant supporter of orthodoxy 
against Nestorius and Eutyches alike. About 
Christmas A.p. 428, when Nestorius was assert- 
ing his heresy in a sermon at Constantinople, 
there stood up in church a layman of excellent 
character, distinguished for erudition and 
orthodox zeal, who asserted in opposition to 
Nestorius that the ‘‘ eternal Word begotten 
before the ages had submitted also to be born 
a second time’”’ (1.6. according to the flesh of 


EUSEBIUS 


the Virgin). This bold assertion of the faith 
caused great excitement in the church. 
(Cyril. Alex. adv. Nestor. i. 20 in Migne, vol. 
ix. p. 41D; Marius Mercator, pars ii. lib. i.; 
Patr. Lat. xlviii. p. 769 B.) This was certainly, 
as Theophanes (Chron. p. 76) expressly says, 
our Eusebius, who thus was the first to oppose 
the Nestorian heresy (Evagr. Hust. i. 9 in 
Patr. GR. |\xxxvi. 2445). He was also the first 
to protest against the heretical utterances of 
Anastasius, the syncellus of Nestorius (Theo- 
phan. Chron. p. 76). He was a “ rhetor”’ 
(Evagr. l.c.) distinguished in lega! practice 
(Leont. Byzant. cont. Nestor. et Eutych. lib. 
iii. in Paty. Gk. |xxxvi. 1389) and an “ agens 
in rebus”’ to the court (Gesta de Nom. Acacitt, 
cap. i.in Galland. Biblioth. x. 667 : cf. Tillem. 
xiv. ἢ. xi. on Cyril of Alex.). Theophanes (l.c.) 
calls him a σχολαστικὸς of the empress. 

After the sermon of St. Proclus against 
Nestorius, and before the orthodox had 
separated from the communion of Nestorius, 
in consequence of the council of Ephesus, 
there appeared, fixed in a public place, a 
document exposing the identity of Nestorius’s 
doctrine with that of Paul of Samosata. This 
document common opinion attributed to 
Eusebius (Leont. Byzant. u.s.). It begins by 
conjuring its readers to make its contents 
known or give a copy of it to all bishops, 
clergy, and laity in Constantinople. It draws 
out the parallel between the doctrines of 
Nestorius and Paul of Samosata, who both 
deny that the child born of Mary was the 
Eternal Word; and ends with an anathema 
on him who denies the identity of the Only- 
begotten of the Father and the child of Mary. 
Eusebius must have been a priest at the time 
when St. Cyril wrote his five books against 
Nestorius (Cyril. Alex. “.s.—so much is implied 
in the τελῶν ἔτι ἐν λαικοῖς), i.e. ὁ. 430. He 
was certainly bp. of Dorylaeum in 448. He 
himself states that he was poor (Labbe, Cone. iv. 
221 D.). Common hostility to Nestorius had 
hitherto united Eusebius and Eutyches; but 
about this time Eusebius, perceiving the hereti- 
cal tendencies of his friend, frequently visited 
him, and exhorted him to reconsider his ways 
(¢b.154D). Finding himimmovable, Eusebius 
presented a ‘‘ libellus’’ against Eutyches ata 
council at» Constantinople under Flavian, 
Nov. 8, 448 (7b. 151). He deplores the persist- 
ency of Eutyches in error, and demands that 
he should be summoned before the council 
to answer charges of heresy. His petition 
was granted, though with unwillingness. At 
the second session of the council (Nov. 12), 
Eusebius requested that the second letter of 
St. Cyril to Nestorius and his letter to John of 
Antioch should be read as representing the 
standard of orthodoxy. This led to a pro- 
fession of the orthodox faith from Flavian, 
assented to by the other bishops. At the 
third session (Nov. 15) Eusebius found that 
Eutyches had refused to come, alleging a 
determination never to quit his monastery, 
and saying that Eusebius had been for some 
time (πάλαι) his enemy. [Eurycues (4).] 
Only on the third summons was he induced 
to appear. Meanwhile Eusebius pressed his 
point persistently and even harshly, behaving 
with such warmth that, as Flavian said, “‘ fire 
itself seemed cold to him, in his zeal for 


EUSEBIUS 


orthodoxy.’ Finding that Eutyches had 
attempted to secure the adhesion of the other 
archimandrites to his views [Faustus (28)], 
Eusebius urged that he should be immediately 
treated with the rigour he deserved (Labbe, 
iv. 211). Flavian still urged patience and 
moderation. At last, on Nov. 22, Eutyches 
appeared with a large monastic and imperial 
escort, and was examined. Eusebius said of 
Eutyches: ‘‘ I am poor, he threatens me with 
exile ; he has wealth, he is already depicting 
(ἀναζωγραφεῖ) the oasis for me.’’ He feared also 
lest Eutyches should turn round and assent to 
the orthodox faitbh—thus causing him to be sus- 
pected of making calumnious charges (7b. 221, 
Cc, D, ΕἸ). The crucial question he put to 
Eutyches was: ‘“‘ My lord archimandrite, do 
you confess two natures after the Incarnation, 
and do you say that Christ is consubstantial 
with us according to the flesh or not?”’ To 
the first part Eutyches would not assent; he 
was condemned by all the bishops, and 
sentence of deposition was passed. He at 
once wrote to pope Leo I. in his own defence 
(Leo Mag. Ep. xxi. 739), complaining of the 
“machinations ’’’ of Eusebius. 

We next hear of Eusebius in Apr. 449 at 
the examination of the Acts of the council of 
Constantinople, which Eutyches had declared 
to have been falsified. With him were 14 of 
the 34 bishops who had condemned Eutyches 
(Labbe, iv. 235). Eutyches was represented 
by three delegates; Eusebius and others 
remonstrated against his absence, but the 
emperor’s orders overruled them. Eusebius 
insisted that all examination into the case of 
Eutyches, and into any question other than 
the authenticity of the Acts, should be referred 
to a general council (7b. 268). The examina- 
tion of the Acts does not seem to have brought 
to light any inaccuracy of importance. When 
Eusebius arrived in Ephesus early in Aug. 449, 
toattend the council, he apparentlylodged with 
Stephen of Ephesus (7b. 111 D, E), but was 
not permitted to attend the meetings of the 
council, on the ground that the emperor had 
forbidden it (7b. 145 A, B). Flavian urged 
that he should be admitted and heard, but 
Elpidius, one of the imperial commissioners, 
opposed it (Hefele, Concil. ii. 355), and 
the same wish or command of the emperor 
was urged by Dioscorus at the council of 
Chalcedon also. When the passage in the 
acts of Constantinople was read where Euse- 
bius pressed Eutyches to acknowledge the 
two natures after the Incarnation, the council 
burst forth, ‘‘ Off with Eusebius! burn him !”’ 
(Labbe, iv. 2244). Sentence of deposition 
was pronounced against Flavian and Eusebius, 
and they were imprisoned (I.iberat. cap. xii. ; 
Galland, xii. p. 140) and then sent into exile 
(Gest. de Nom. Acac. Galland, x. 668). Euse- 
bius escaped to Rome, where Leo welcomed 
him and granted him communion. He was 
there till Apr. 481 (Leo Mag. Ep. Ixxix. Ixxx. 
1037, 1041). Leo commends him to the care 
of Anatolius of Constantinople, the successor 
of Flavian, as one who had suffered much for 
the faith. Eusebius left Rome to attend the 
council of Chalcedon. He had addressed a 


Dioscorus, and appears in the council as his 
accuser. 


He complains more than once of the | 


EUSEBIUS EMESENUS 335 


conduct of Dioscorus in excluding him from 
the council of Ephesus (Labbe, iv. 145, 156). 
His innocence, with that of St. Flavian, was 
fully recognized at the close of the rst session 
of the council of Chalcedon (ἐδ. 322, 323); but 
at the 3rd session, on Oct. 13, he presented a 
further petition against Dioscorus, on behalf 
of himself, of Flavian (rod ἐν ἁγίοις), and of the 
orthodox faith. He urges the iniquities of 
Dioscorus at Ephesus, and begs for complete 
exculpation for himself and condemnation for 
Dioscorus (ἐδ. 381). In the 4th session Eusebius 
took partin the case of certain Egyptian bishops 
who declined to condemn Eutyches, alleging 
that they were bound to follow their patriarch 
(t.e. Dioscorus), in accordance with the council 
of Nicaea. Eusebius has but one word to 
say, “ ψεύδονται ᾿᾿ (ἰδ. 513 A). We find him 
later (5th session, Oct. 22) siding at first 
against the imperial officers, and the wishes 
of the Roman legates for making no addition 
to the council’s definition of faith (ἐδ. 558 ἢ; 
cf. Bright, Hist. of the Church, p. 409). After- 
wards, however, he assisted at the revision 
which made that definition a completer ex- 
pression of the doctrine of Leo’s tome. Inthe 
11th session he (Labbe, iv. 699 A) voted for 
the deposition of both claimants to the see 
of Ephesus, Bassian and Stephen, as being 
both alikeirregularly consecrated. Inthe 15th 
session (Oct. 23) he signed the much-contested 
28th canon of the council on the position to be 
held by the see of Constantinople. [Leo 1.]} 
The last time his name appears is in the 
rescript of the emperor Marcian, June 452, 
which had for its special object to rehabilitate 
the memory of Flavian, but which secured also 
that the condemnation of the robber council 
should in no way injure the reputation of 
Eusebius and Theodoret (δ. 866). His name 
appears in the list of bishops signing the decrees 
of the council at Rome in 503, but this 
list certainly belongs to some earlier council 
(cf. Baron. ann. 503, ix.). Comparing him with 
Flavian, we cannot but feel his want of gener- 
osity in his treatment of Eutyches, whose 
supericr in logical power and theological per- 
ception he undoubtedly was. But none can 
deny him the credit of having been a watchful 
guardian of the doctrine of the Incarnation 
all through his life, and a keen-sighted and 
persistent antagonist of error, whether on the 
one side or the other, who by his sufferings 
for the orthodox faith merits the title of con- 
fessor. [c.G.] 
Eusebius (35) Emesenus, bp. of Emesa, now 
Hems, in Syria, c. 341-359. He was born at 
Edessa, of a noble family, of Christian parents, 
and from his earliest years was taught the 
Holy Scriptures. His education was contin- 
ued in Palestine and subsequently at Alex- 
andria. In Palestine he studied theology 
under Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus 
of Scythopolis, from whom he contracted the 
Arian leanings which distinguished him to the 
end of his life. Jerome terms him “ signifer 
Arianae factionis "’ (Chron. sub. ann. x. Con- 
stantii), and his Arian tenets are spoken of by 
Theodoret as too well known to admit question 


| (Theod. Eranist. Dial. iii. p. 257, ed. Schulze). 
formal petition to the emperor Marcian against | 


About a.p. 331 he visited Antioch. Eusta- 
thius had been recently banished, and the see 
was occupied by one of the short-lived Arian 


990 EUSEBIUS 


intruders, Euphronius, with whom Eusebius 
lived on terms of intimacy. Eusebius’s high 
personal character and reputation for learning 
marked him out for the episcopate, and to 
avoid the office he repaired to Alexandria, 
where he devoted himself to philosophy. 
Returning to Antioch, Flaccillus (otherwise 
Placillus), the Arian bishop, received him into 
his episcopal residence and admitted him to 
his confidence. The Arian synod which met 
at Antioch A.D. 340, under the predominant 
influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to nomin- 
ate a successor to the newly deposed Athan- 
asius, offered the vacant throne to Eusebius, 
who ” well knowing how Athanasius was be- 
loved by the Alexandrians, resolutely declined, 
and Gregory was chosen in his stead. Euse- 
bius, however, allowed himself to be created 
bp. of Emesa. This city, on the Orontes to 


the N.E. of the Libanus range, some distance | 


N. of Laodicea, was famous for its magnificent 
temple of Elagabalus, the Syrophoenician 
sun-god. A _ report, based on Eusebius’s 
astronomical studies, had reached the excit- 
able inhabitants that their new bishop was a 
sorcerer, addicted to judicial astrology. His 
approach aroused a violent popular commo- 
tion, before which he fled to his friend and 
future panegyrist, George, bp. of Laodicea. 
By George’s exertions, and the influence of 
Flaccillus of Antioch and Narcissus of Nero- 
nias, the Emesenes were convinced of the 
groundlessness of their suspicions, and Euse- 
bius obtained quiet possession. He was a 
great favourite with Constantius, who took 
him on several expeditions, especially those 
against Sapor II., king of Persia. It is 
singular that the charge, which Sozomen 
attributes to mere malevolence, of Sabellian- 
ism was brought against one whose Arian 
leanings were so pronounced. Eusebius died 
before the end of a.p. 359. He was buried at 
Antioch (Hieron. de Vi. 111. 101), and his 
funeral oration by George of Laodicea ascribed 
to him miraculous powers. ; 

He was a very copious writer. Jerome, 
who speaks somewhat contemptuously of his 
productions, particularizes treatises against the 
Jews, the Gentiles, and the Novatianists, an 
exposition of Galatians in ten books, anda large 
number of very brief homilies on the Gospels. 
The greater part of his works is lost. Theo- 
doret quotes with high commendation in his 
Eranistes (Dial. iii. Ὁ. 258, ed. Schulze) two pas- 
sages on the impassibility of the Son of God,a 
truth for which he says Eusebius endured many 
and severestruggles. Theodoret also speaks of 
works of his against Apelles (Haer. Fab. i. 25) 
and Manes (ib. 26). All the extant remains 
of Eusebius are printed by Migne, Pair. 1. 
Ixxxvi. i. pp. 461 ff. Socr. H. E. il. 9; Soz. 
H. E. iii. 6; Niceph. H. E. ix. 5; Tillem. Mém. 
Eccl. t. vi. p. 313; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. 1. p. 
207; Oudin, t. i. p. 389.) ᾿ {Ἑ.ν.]. 

Eusebius (48), bp. of Laodicea, in Syria 
Prima; a native and deacon of Alexandria. In 
the persecution under Valerian, A.D. 257, when 
the venerable bp. Dionysius had been banished 
from Alexandria, Eusebius remained, minister- 
ing to those in prison and burying the martyrs, 
a faithful service gratefully commemorated 
in a letter of Dionysius (apud Eus. H. E. vii. 
11). During the civil strife at the death of 


EUSEBIUS 


Valerian, when Alexandria was in revolt, A.D. 
262, Aemilianus, who had assumed the purple, 
was driven into the strong quarter of the city 
called Bruchium, and besieged. Eusebius 
without, and his friend Anatolius withir, the 
besieged quarter secured escape for all useless 
hands, including a large number of Christians, 
whom Eusebius received kindly, supplying 
them with food and medicine, and carefully 
tending thesick. Tothesynod of Antioch, A.p. 
264, summoned to deal with Paul of Samo- 
sata, Dionysius bp. of Alexandria, being 
unable to be present through age, sent Euse- 
bius as his representative. The see of 
Laodicea was then vacant, and the Laodiceans 
demanded Eusebius for their bishop, taking 
no refusal. As bp. of Laodicea he sat at the 
synod when Paul of Samosata was deposed, 
A.D. 270. He was succeeded by his old friend 
Anatolius. Eus. H. E. vii. 11, 32; Tillem. 
Mém. Eccl. iv. 304; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 
792; Neale, Patriarchate of Alex.i.77. [E.v.] 

Eusebius (60), bp. of Nicomedia. Our 
knowledge of his character is derived almost 
exclusively from the bitter language of his theo- 
logical antagonists. He wielded an extraordin- 
ary influence over the fortunes of some of the 
great partyleaders of the4th cent. The fascina- 
tion he exercised over the minds of Constantine 
and Constantius, his dexterity in utilizing both 
secular andecclesiastical law to punish his theo- 
logical enemies, his ingenuity in blinding the 
judgment of those not alive to the magnitude of 
the problem, and in persuading the unwary of 
the practical identity of his own views with 
those of the Catholic church, together with the 
political and personal ascendancy he achieved, 
reveal mental capacity and diplomatic skill 
worthy of abettercause. During 20 years his 
shadow haunts the pages of the ecclesiastical 
historians, though they seldom bring us face to 
face with the man or preserve his words. Even 
thechronology of hislife is singularly uncertain. 

It is difficult to understand the pertinacity 
and even ferocity with which Eusebius and 
his party pursued the Homoousian leaders, 
and to reconcile this with their well-accredited 
compromises, shiftings of front, and theo- 
logical evasions. Dr. Newman (Arians of 
Fourth Cent. p. 272) admits their consistency 
in one thing, ‘‘ their hatred of the sacred 
mystery.”’ He thinks that this mystery, 
“like a spectre, was haunting the field and 
disturbing the complacency of their intellec- 
tual investigations.’’ Their consciences did 
not scruple to “‘ find evasions ofa test.’”” They 
undoubtedly compromised themselves by 
signature; yet they did not treat as unim- 
portant that which they were wont to declare 
such but set all the machinery of church and 
empirein motiontoenforce their latitudinarian 
view on the conscience of the church. 

The Arian and the orthodox agreed as to 
the unique and exalted dignity of the Son of 
God; both alike described the relation between 
the first and second hypostasisin the Godhead 
as that which is imaged to us in the paternal 
and filial relation. They even agreed that the 
Son was “ begotten of His Father before all 
worlds ’’—before the commencement of time, 
in an ineffable manner—that the Son was the 
originator of the categories of time and place, 
that ‘‘ by His own will and counsel He has 


=~ Te 


EUSEBIUS 


subsisted before time and before ages, as 
perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable” 
(Letter of Arius to Eus. of Nic. preserved by 
Theodoret, i. 5). They agreed that He was 
“ God of God,” “‘ Light of Light,’’ and worthy 
of all honour and worship. The orthodox 
went further, and in order to affirm that the 
Deity of the Son of God was absolute and not 
relative, infinite and not finite, asserted that 
He was of the same οὐσία with the Father. 
There Arius and Eusebius stopped, and, press- 
ing the significance of the image of Father and 
Son by materialistic analogies into logical 
conclusions, argued that ‘‘ generation”’ im- 
plied that ‘‘ there was [a period, rather than 
a ‘time’] when He was not,’”’ that ‘‘ He was 
not before He was begotten.’”’ The one 
element, said they, which the Son did not 
possess by His generation was the eternal, 
absolute οὐσία of the Father. ‘‘ We affirm,” 
said Eusebius, in his one extant authentic 
letter, addressed to Paulinus of Tyre (Theod. 
i. 6), that ‘‘ there is One Who is unbegotten, 
and that there also exists Another, Who did 
in truth proceed from Him, yet Who was not 
made out of His substance, and Who does not 
at all participate in the nature or substance 
of Him Who is unbegotten.”’ * 

If we follow out the logical conclusions 
involved in the denial of the orthodox state- 
ment on this transcendental theme, it is 
more easy to understand the abhorrence with 
which the dogmatic negations of the Arians 
were regarded by the Catholic church. The 
position of Arius and Eusebius involved a 
virtual Ditheism, and opened the door to a 
novel Polytheism. After Christianity had 
triumphed over the gods of heathendom, 
Arius seemed to be reintroducing them under 
other names. The numerical unity of God 
was at stake; and a schism, or at least a 
divarication of interests in the Godhead, 
shewn to be possible. Moreover, the ‘‘ Div- 
inity’’ of the Incarnate Word was on this 
hypothesis less than God; and so behind the 
Deity which He claimed there loomed another 
Godhead, between Whom and Himself anta- 
gonism might easily be predicated. The 
Gnosticism of Marcion had already drawn such 
antagonism into sharp outline, and the entire 
view of the person of the Lord, thus suggested, 
rapidly degenerated into a cold and un- 
christian humanitarianism. 

The exigencies of historic criticism and of 
the exegesis of the N.T. compelled the Arian 
party to discriminate between the Word, the 
power, the wisdom of God, and the Son. They 
could not deny, since God could never have 
been without His ‘*‘ Logos,”’ that the Logos was 
in some sense eternal. So they took advan- 
tage of the distinction drawn in the Greek 
schools between λίγος ἐνδιάθετος, identifiable 
with the wisdom, reason, and self-conscious- 
ness of God, and λόγος προφορικός, the 
setting forth and going out at a particular 
epoch of the divine energy. The latter they 
regarded as the λόγος which was made flesh 
and might be equated with the Son. ‘‘ The 
external (prophoric) word was a created Being 
made in the beginning of all things as the 


* This phrase seems to class him with Heter- 
Ousians or even Anomoeans, at that early period. 


EUSEBIUS 337 


visible emblem of the internal (endiathetic) 
word, and (used as) the instrument of God's 
purposes towards His creation’’ (Newman, 
le. 199; cf. Athan. Hist. Conc. Arim. εἰ 
Seleuc. cap. ii. § 18). 

The orthodox party admitted the double use 
of the word λόγος, allowed that it answered 
to the eternal wisdom and also to the eternal 
manifestation of God, and discarding the 
trammels of the figurative expression by which 
the internal relations of the Godhead can alone 
be represented to us, declared that they could 
not carry the materialistic or temporal accom- 
paniments of our idea of Father and Son into 
this ‘‘ generation,’’ and boldly accepted the 
sublime paradox with which Origen had refu- 
ted Sabellianism—viz. the “‘ eternal generation 
of the Son.’’ To suppose the relation between 
the Father and Son other than eternal was to 
be involved in the toils of a polytheistic ema- 
nation and Gnostic speculation. Compelled 
to formulate expressions about the infinite and 
eternal God, they concluded that any formula 
which divided the essence of God left infinity 
on the one side, and the finite on the other, 
1.6. that there would be, on this hypothesis, an 
infinite difference even in majesty and glory 
between the Father and the Son. This was 
blasphemy in the eyes of those who held the 
Divinity of the Son of God. 

The controversy was embittered by the 
method in which Arius and Eusebius appealed 
to Holy Scripture. They urged that Godhead 
and participation in the divine nature were 
attributed to Christ in the same terms in which 
similar distinctions are yielded by God to other 
creatures, angelic, human, or physical (Theod. 
H. E. i. 6, 8). Thus Christ’s rank in the 
universe might be indefinitely reduced, and 
all confidence in Him ultimately proved an 
illusion. The argument had a tone of gross 
irreverence, even if the leaders can be quite 
acquitted of blasphemous levity or intentional 
abuse. 

One of the tactics of the Arian or Eusebian 
party was to accuse of Sabellianism those, like 
Athanasius, Eustathius, and Marcellus of 
Ancyra, who refused their interpretation of 
the relation between the Father and the Son. 
Doubtless many not versed in philosophical 
discussion were incapable of discriminating 
between the views of Sabellius and an 
orthodoxy which vehemently or unguardedly 
condemned the Arian position. Eusebius re- 
pudiated violently the Pantheistic tendency of 
the Sabellian doctrine. He is the most prom1- 
nent and most distinguished man of the entire 
movement, and it has been plausibly argued 
that he was the teacher rather than the dis- 
ciple of Arius. Athanasius himself made the 
suggestion. We learn on good authority, that 
of Arius himself, that they were fellow-disciples 
of Lucian of Antioch (ἐδ. 5). Lucian after- 
wards modified his views and became a martyr 
for the faith, but his rationalizing spirit had 
had a great effect on the schools of Antioch. 
According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Eusebius 
was a distant relative of the emperor Julian, 
and therefore possibly of Constantine. 

It may have been through the wife of 
Licinius and sister of Constantine that he 
received his first ecclesiastical appointment. 
This was the bishopric of Berytus (Beirout) in 


9. 
~~ 


338 EUSEBIUS 


Syria. We cannot say under what pretext 
he was translated to the see of Nicomedia, a 
city which was still the principal seat of the 
imperial court. In Nicomedia his ambitious 
spirit and personal relations with the imperial 
family gave him much influence. ‘‘ He was,”’ 
says Sozomen (H. E. i. 15), ‘‘a man of con- 
siderable learning, and held in high repute at 
the palace.’”’ Here were spun the webs by 
which the Arian conspiracy for a while pre- 
vailed over the faith and discipline of the 
church. One of the most authoritative docu- 
ments of Arianism is a letter sent by Arius to 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, after his first suspen- 
sion from presbyteral functions at Baukalis, 
Alexandria, in which he reminds Eusebius 
of their ancient friendship and_ briefly 
states his own views. [Artus.] Arius boasts 
that Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodotus of 
Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of 
Anazarbus, Gregory of Berytus, Aetius of 
Lydda, and all the bishops of the East, if he is 
condemned, must be condemned with him 
(Theod. H. E.i. 5). The alarm created by the 
conduct of Arius and his numerous friends in 
high quarters induced Alexander of Alexandria 
to indite his famous letter to Alexander of 
Constantinople, which is of an encyclical 
character and was sent in some form to 
Eusebius of Nicomedia and other prelates. 
Exasperated by its tone, Eusebius called a 
council in Bithynia (probably at Nicomedia 
itself) of the friends of Arius, who addressed 
numerous bishops, desiring them to grant 
communion to the Arians and requiring, 
Alexander to do the like (Soz. i. 15). These 
proceedings drew from Eusebius a written 
expression of his views, in a letter to Paulinus 
of Tyre, preserved by Theodoret (i. 6). Euse- 
bius believed Alexander of Alexandria to be 
in doctrinal error, but not yet so far gone but 
that Paulinus might put him right. He 
tacitly assumed that the party of Alexandria 
asserted “‘two unbegotten beings,’’ a position 
utterly denied by themselves. He repudiated 
strongly the idea that the Son was made in any 
sense out of the substance of God; declaring 
the Son “ to be entirely distinct in nature and 
power,’’ the method of His origination being 
known only to God, not even to the Son 
Himself. The verb “ created,’”’ in Prov. viii. 
22-26, could not, Eusebius said, have been 
used if the ‘‘ wisdom ”’ of which the prophet 
was speaking was ἐξ ἀποῤῥοίας τῆς οὐσίας: 
“For that which proceeds from Him Who is 
unbegotten cannot be said to have been 
created or founded either by Him or by 
another.”” The effect of the word ‘“‘ begotten ” 
is reduced to a minimum by saying that the 
term is used of ‘‘ things’? and of persons 
entirely different in nature from God. ‘‘ Men,” 
“ Israel,”’ and “* drops of dew ’’ are in different 
scriptures said to be ‘‘ begotten”? of God. 
Therefore, Eusebius argued, the term cannot 
and does not carry similarity, still less identity 
of nature. At first the emperor Constantine 
treated the conflict as if capable of easy 
adjustment by a wise exercise of Christian 
temper. In 324 he wrote a joint letter, which 
he entrusted to Hosius of Cordova (Soz. H. E. 
i. 16), in which he called upon Alexander and 
Arius, for the sake of peace, to terminate their 
controversy. The dispute was a “‘ trifling and 


EUSEBIUS 


foolish verbal dispute,” and difference of judg- 
ment was, he urged, compatible with union and 
communion. Constantinehad probably beenled 
to this step by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the 
strong pressure put upon Alexander to receive 
Arius into communion corresponds with the 
subsequent persistent demand of the Euse- 
bians. The effort at mediation failed, al- 
though conducted with skilful diplomacy and 
tact by the venerable Hosius. As the dispute 
was no mere verbal quibble, but did in reality 
touch the very object of divine worship, the 
ground of religious hope, and the unity of 
the Godhead, the well-meant interference of 
the emperor merely augmented the acrimony 
ofthedisputants. Arius was again condemned 
by a council at Alexandria, and the entire 
East was disturbed. The angry letter of 
Constantine to Arius, which must have been 
written after his condemnation by the Alex- 
andrian council and before the council of 
Nicaea, shews that the influence of Eusebius 
must now have been in abeyance.* Constan- 
tine was no theologian, but hated a recalcitrant 
subordinate in church or state, and hence the 
undoubted vacillation of his mind towards 
Alexander, Arius, Eusebius, and Athanasius. 
At the oecumenical council of Nicaea in 325, 
Eusebius defended the excommunicated pres- 
byter and was the advocate and interpreter of 
his opinions before the council. We must give 
him credit for moral courage in risking his 
position as bishop and as court favourite for 
the sake of his theological views, and opposing 
himself almost single-handed to the nearly 
unanimous judgment of the first representative 
assembly of the Christian episcopate—a judg- 
ment fanned into enthusiasm by martyrs and 
monks from the African monasteries and 
accepted hurriedly but passionately by the 
emperor. The courage was of short duration, 
and made way for disingenuous wiles. Euse- 
bius soon displayed an inconsistent and 
temporizing spirit. Whether or no they still 
held that the difference was merely verbal, 
when the Arian bishops in the council found 
that the Godhead of the Redeemer was de- 
clared by the vast majority to be of the very 
essence of Christian doctrine, they made every 
effort to accept the terms in which that God- 
head was being expressed by the council, 
making signs to each other that term after 
term, such as ‘‘ Power of God,’’ ‘‘ Wisdom of 
God,” ‘‘ Image of God,”’ ‘‘ Very God of very 
God,”’ might be accepted because they could 
use them of such divinity as was ‘‘ made’”’ or 
constituted as such by the divine appoint- 
ment. Thus they were becoming parties to 
a test, which they were intending to evade. 
The term Homoousion, as applied to the Son 
of God, rallied for a while their conscience, and 
Eusebius declared it to be untenable. Ac- 
cording to Theodoret (i. 8), the ‘‘ formulary 
propounded by Eusebius contained undis- 
guised evidence of his blasphemy ; the reading 
of it occasioned great grief to the audience on 
account of the depravity of the doctrines ; 
the writer was covered with shame, and the 
impious writing was torn to pieces.’”’ The 


* Tillemont, Les Ariens,note 5. ‘The letter is pre- 
served by Gelasius of Cyzicus (iii. 1) in Greek, and 
given by Baroniusin Latin from a MS. in the Vatican. 
Bar. Ann. 319, vi. 


EUSEBIUS 


inconsistency of the Arian party is exaggerated 
by Theodoret, for he adds, ‘‘the Arians 
unanimously signed the confession of faith 
adopted by the council.’’ This is not precisely 
the case. There were 17 bishops (Soz. i. 20) * 
who at first refused their signatures, among 
them both the Eusebii, Theognis of Nicaea, 
Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of 
Ptolemais, Theonas, Patrophilus, Narcissus, 
Maris, and others. Eusebius of Caesarea, 
after long discussion, signed the symbol, which 
was in fact an enlargement of a formal creed 
that he had himself presented to the council, 
on the ground that the negative dogmata of 
the Arian party which were anathematized by 
the council could not be found in Scripture. 
Others of his party followed. According to 
Theodoret (i. 9), all, except Secundus and 
Theonas, joined in the condemnation of Arius ; 
and Sozomen (i. 21) declares explicitly that 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, with others, ‘‘ sanc- 
tioned’ the decision of the synod as to the 
consubstantiality of the Son, and the excom- 
munication of those who held the Arian 
formulae; but Sozomen goes on to say that 
“it ought to be known that Eusebius and 
Theognis, although they assented to the 
exposition of faith set forth by the council, 
neither agreed nor subscribed to the deposition 
of Arius.’’ Sozomen, apparently, makes this 
refusal to sign, on the part of Eusebius and 
Theognis, to have been the reason or occasion 
of their own exile, and of the filling up by 
Constantine of their respective sees with 
Amphion and Chrestus. Philostorgius admits 
that the whole Arian party, except Secundus 
and Theonas, signed the symbol, but that they 
did it deceitfully (ἐν δόλῳ), with the mental 
reservation of ὁμοιούσιον (of similar substance) 
for ὁμοούσιον (of the same substance). He 
adds, according to his editor, that they did 
this under the direction of Constantina, the 
sister of Constantine ; and further he relates 
that ‘‘Secundus, when sent into exile, re- 
proached Eusebius for having signed, saying 
that he did so in order to avoid going into 
exile, and that Secundus expressed a confident 
hope that Eusebius would shortly be exiled, an 
event which took place three months after the 
council.’’ Moreover, Athanasius (de Decretis 
Syn. Nic. cc. 3, 18) expressly says that Euse- 
bius signed the formulary. 

Notwithstanding their signature, for some 
reason Eusebius and Theognis were banished 
for nearly three years from their respective 
sees. Theodoret (ΗΠ. E. i. 20) preserves a 
portion of a letter written by Constantine 
against Eusebius and Theognis, and addressed 
to the Nicomedians. The document displays 
bitter animosity, and, for so astute a prince, 
a curious simplicity. Constantine reveals a 
private grudge against Eusebius for his con- 
duct when Licinius was contending with him, 
and professes to have seized the accomplices 
of Eusebius and to have possessed himself of 
damaging papers and trustworthy evidence 
against him. He reproaches Eusebius with 
having been the first defender of Arius and 
with having deceived him in hope of retaining 
his benefice. He refers angrily to the conduct 
of Eusebius in urging Alexandrians and others 

* Philostorgius mentions 22 names, but Hefele, 
following Socrates and Sozomen, limits them to 17. 


EUSEBIUS $39 


to communicate with the Arians. This per- 
tinacity is suggested by Constantine as the 
actuating cause and occasion of his exile. 

Epiphanius (Haer. Ixviii.) details the cir- 
cumstances of the union of the Meletian 
schismatics with the Arians, and the disin- 
genuous part taken by Eusebius in promising 
his good offices with the emperor, if they in 
their turn would promote the return of Arius 
to Alexandria, and would promise inter-com- 
munion with him and his party. 

The terms of hatred and disgust with which 
Constantine speaks of Eusebius render his 
early return to Nicomedia very puzzling. 
Sozomen (ii. 16) and Socrates (i. 14) both 
record a letter (A.D. 328) from Eusebius and 
Theognis to ‘‘ the Bishops,’ explaining their 
views, in which they say, ‘* We hold the same 
faith that you do, and after a diligent exam- 
ination of the word ὁμοούσιος, are wholly intent 
upon preserving peace, and are seduced by no 
heresy. Having proposed for the safety of the 
church such suggestions as occurred to us, and 
having certified what we deemed requisite, we 
signed the confession of faith. We did not 
certainly sign the anathemas—not because we 
impugned the confession of faith, but because 
we did not believe the accused to be what he 
was represented to us. ... So far from opposing 
any of the decrees enacted in your holy synod, 
we assent to all of them—not because we are 
wearied of exile, but because we wish to avert 
all suspicion of heresy. .. . The accused having 
justified himself and having been recalled from 
extle, . we beseech you to make our 
supplications known to our most godly em- 
peror, and that you immediately direct us to 
act according to your will.” If this letter is 
genuine, it demonstrates the fact of their 
partial and incomplete signature of the symbol 
of Nicaea, and that the incompleteness turned 
on personal and not on doctrinal grounds. 
Other statements of Sozomen (il. 27) are in 
harmony with it, but there are reasons for 
hesitating to receive these statements, and 
the letter itself is in obvious contradiction 
with the evidence of Philostorgius (i. 9) and 
Epiphanius (Ixviii. 5) that Eusebius and 
Theognis signed the symbol, anathemas and 
all. Are we to believe these writers against 
the testimony of Sozomen and Socrates, who 
expressly give a consistent representation 
undoubtedly more favourable to Eusebius ἢ 

The most powerful argument of De Broglie 
and others against the genuineness of the 
letter, as being written from the exile of 
Eusebius, is the silence of Athanasius, who 
never uses it to shew the identity of the 
position and sentiments of Arius and Euse- 
bius. Philostorgius recounts a rumour that 
after the council Eusebius desired to have his 
name expunged from the list of signatures, and 
a similar statement is repeated by Sozomen 
(ii. 21) as the possible cause of the banishment 
of Eusebius. The fact may, notwithstanding 
the adverse judgment of many historians, have 
been that Eusebius signed the formulary, ex- 
pressing the view he took of its meaning, and 
| discriminating between an anathema of certain 
positions and the persecution of an individual. 
᾿Α signature, thus qualified, may have saved him 
‘from immediate banishment. In the course of 
| three months his sympathy with Arius and his 


340 EUSEBIUS 


underhand proceeding with the Meletians may 
have roused the emperor’s indignation and 
led to his banishment. The probability that 
Arius was recalled first, as positively stated in 
what purports to be a contemporary docu- 
ment, is certainly greater than that merely ὦ 
priort probability on which De Broglie insists. 
Moreover, if Arius had been restored to 
favour, the vacillating mind of Constantine 
may have been moved to recall the two 
bishops. At all events, c. 329, we find Euse- 
bius once more in high favour with Constantine 
(Socr. H. E. i. 23), discharging his episcopal 
functions and persuadigg Constantine that 
he and Arius held substantially the creed of 
Nicaea. Thenceforward Eusebius used his 
great power at court and his ascendancy over 
the mind of Constantine to blast the character 
and quench the influence of the most distin- 
guished advocates of anti-Arian views. He 
put all the machinery of church and state into 
operation to unseat Athanasius, Eustathius, 
Marcellus, and others; and, by means open 
to the severest reprehension, steadily and un- 
scrupulously strove to enforce his latitudin- 
arian compromise on the Catholic church. It 
is not difficult to trace his hand in the letter of 
Constantine threatening Athanasius, now 
archbp. of Alexandria, with deposition if he 
did not admit those anxious for communion. 
Moreover, Athanasius assures us that Eusebius 
wrote to him personally with the same object. 
The answers Athanasius gave to Eusebius and 
the emperor madeit clearthat the project could 
never succeed so long as Athanasius remained 
at Alexandria. 

Meanwhile, considerable controversy had 
occurred between Eusebius of Caesarea and 
Eustathius of Antioch on the true meaning 
of the term Homoousios. Eustathius [Eus- 
TATHIUS (3)], in his zeal for the Nicene faith, 
had strenuously refused to admit Arians into 
communion, and laid himself open, in the 
opinion of Eusebius of Caesarea, to the charge 
of Sabellianism (Soz. ii. 18). This provided 
the opportunity for Eusebius of Nicomedia to 
strike a blow at Eustathius, and nothing can 
exceed the treachery shewn by Eusebius on 
this occasion. His apparently friendly visit 
to Eustathius on his way to Jerusalem (Soz. 
ul. 19 ; Theod. i. 21), the gathering of his Arian 
supporters on his return to Antioch, shew the 
scheme to have been deeply laid. Here, a.p. 
330 or beginning of 331, the council of his 
friends was held, at which the charge of 
Sabellianism was, according to Theodoret 
(i. 21) and Philostorgius (1i. 7), aggravated by 
the accusation brought by a woman, that 
Eustathius was the father of her child—a not 
uncommon device of the enemies of eccle- 
Slastics. The upshot was that through this, 
and other vamped-up charges of disrespect to 
the emperor’s mother, Eustathius was deposed 
and exiled by the Eusebians. The letter of 
Constantine upon the affair, and against 


heretics generally, brought the controversy to | 


a lull, until the first attack upon Athanasius. 
The career of Eusebius of Nicomedia during 
the remaining ten years of his life is so closely 


intertwined with the romantic sufferings of | 


Athanasius that it is difficult to indicate the 
part he took in the persecution of Athanasius 
without reproducing the story of this great 


| not restored till the council of Sardica. 


EUSEBIUS 


hero of the Catholic faith. The first charge 
which Eusebius encouraged the Meletians to 
bring against Athanasius concerned his taxing 
the people of Egypt for linen vestments, 
and turned upon the supposed violence of 
Macarius, the representative of Athanasius, 
in overthrowing the altar and the chalice, 
when reproving (for uncanonical proceedings) 
Ischyras, a priest of the Colluthian sect. These 
charges were all absolutely disproved by 
Athanasius before Constantine at Nicomedia. 
On his return to Alexandria, Athanasius had 
to encounter fresh opposition. The prepos- 
terous story of the murder of Arsenius, with 
its grotesque accompaniments, was gravely 
laid at his door. [ATHANAsIus.] To this, at 
first, he disdained to reply. Eusebius de- 
clared even this to be a serious charge, and 
made much capital out of the refusal of 
Athanasius to attend the council at Caesarea, 
which was summoned, among other causes, 
to investigate it (Theod. i. 28). In 335, the 
partisan council of Tyre passed a sentence of 
deposition upon Athanasius, who had fled to 
Constantinople to appeal to the emperor, who 
summoned the whole synod of Tyre before 
him. Eusebius and a few of his party, Theog- 
nis, Patrophilus, Valens, and Ursacius, obeyed 


|the summons, and confronted Athanasius; 


but abandoning the disproved charges upon 
which the sentence of deposition rested, they 
met him with new accusations likely to 
damage him in the view of the emperor. 
Constantine yielded to the malicious inven- 
tions of Eusebius, and banished Athanasius to 
Tréves, in Feb. 336. The cause of banishment 
is obscure, but twice over (Ap. § 87, Hist. Ar. 
§ 50) Athanasius declares that Constantine 
sent him to Gaul to deliver him from the fury 
of his enemies. While Athanasius was in 
exile, Eusebius and his party impeached Mar- 
cellus of Ancyra for refusing to appear at the 
council of Dedication at Jerusalem, A.D. 335, 
and for Sabellianism, an implication of heresy 
to which he exposed himself while zealously 
vindicating his refusal to hold communion 
with Arians. [ASTERIUS (1); MARCELLUS.] 
Marcellus was deposed by the Eusebians, and 
At 
the council of Dedication at Jerusalem, Arius 
propounded a view of his faith which was 
satisfactory to the council, was received into 
communion there, and sent by Eusebius to 
Alexandria, whence, as his presence created 
great disturbance, he was summoned to Con- 
stantinople. There Arius died tragically on the 
eve of the public reception which Eusebius 
had planned. The death of Alexander of Con- 
stantinople followed very shortly, and the 
effort to elect Paul [PauLus (18)] in his place 
(without the consent of the bp. of Nicomedia) 
roused the ire of Eusebius, who intrigued to 
secure his first deposition. Eusebius must 
still have retained the favour of Constantine, 
as he appears to have administered baptism 
to the dying emperor, May 337. Jerome says 
that by this act Constantine avowed himself 
an Arian. ‘‘ But all history protests against 
the severity of this sentence’’ (de Broglie). 
Hefele supposes that Constantine regarded 
Eusebius as the great advocate of Christian 
unity. Moreover, in the eyes of Constantine, 
Eusebius was one who had signed the Nicene 


EUSEBIUS 


symbol, and had renounced the negations of 
Arius. The ecclesiastical historians give 
divergent statements as to when Eusebius 
was raised to the episcopate of Constantinople. 
Theodoret (i. 19) accuses Eusebius of unlawful 
translation from Nicomedia to Constantinople, 
“in direct violation of that canon which pro- 
hibits bishops and presbyters from going from 
one city to another,’’ and asserts that this 
took place on the death of Alexander. There 
is, however, proof that Paul, who was twice 
banished through the influence of Eusebius, 
was the immediate successor of Alexander. 
Paul was nominated by Alexander, but the 
Eusebian party put forward Macedonius (Soz. 
iii. 4), and were defeated. The dispute roused 
the indignation of Constantius, and ‘‘ through 
the machination of the enemies of Paul a 
synod was convened, and be was expelled from 
the church, and Eusebius, bp. of Nicomedia, 
was installed in the bishopric of Constanti- 
nople”’; with this statement Socrates (ii. 7) 
agrees. For a while the education of Julian 
was entrusted to Eusebius, who had unbounded 
influence over Constantius. 

In 340 the Eusebians held a synod at An- 
tioch, at which Athanasius was once more 
condemned. In 341 (May) the council 
developed into the celebrated council in 
Encaentis, held also at Antioch, at which, 
under the presidency of Eusebius or Placetus 
of Antioch, and with the assent and presence 
of Constantius, divers canons were passed, 
which are esteemed of authority by later 
oecumenical councils. These two councils are 
confounded and identified by Socrates (ii. 2) 
and Sozomen. 

The cruel injustice to which Athanasius was 
subjected by long exile is freely attributed to 
Eusebius, as its mainspring and constant 
instigator. Nevertheless the last thing we 
are told about Eusebius by Socrates (ii. 13) is 
that he appealed from the council of Antioch 
to Julius, bp. of Rome, to give definite sen- 
tence as to Athanasius, but that before the 
sentence of Julius reached him, ‘‘ immediately 
after the council broke up, breath went out 
of his body, and so he died,” a.p. 342. 

In addition to authors already cited, the 
following may be consulted: The Orations of 
St. Athanasius against the Arians, according to 
the Benedictine Text, with an Account of his 
Life, by William Bright, D.D.; Hefele, His- 
tory of the Christian Councils, translated by 
Prebendary Clark and Mr. Oxenham, vols. i. 
and ii.; Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse und 
die Kirche seiner Zeit (1844) ; William Bright, 
D.D., History of the Church from 313 to 451 
(1869) ; Albert de Broglie, L’Eglise et l’ Empire 
(1856), t. ii.; The Arians of the Fourth Century, 
by J. H. Newman (4th ed. 1876). [ἢ.κ.κ.] 

usebius (71), bp. of Pelusium, between 
Ammonius and Georgius. Hewas present at the 
council of Ephesus in 431 (Mansi, iv. 1127 A, 
1219 B, 1366D; v. 615 ο). His contemporary 
Isidore, abbat of Pelusium, depicts him in the 
darkest colours, as a man of some taste and 
some ability, an ‘‘ agreeable ’’ preacher (Ep. i. 
112; cf. v. 301), but hot-tempered (v. 196; cf. 
iii. 44) and easily swayed by men worse than 
himself (ii. 127; v. 451); his hands were 
not clear of simoniacal gain, which he em- 
ployed in building a splendid church (i. 37; 


EUSEBIUS 341 


ii. 246); he “entrusted the flock to dogs, 
wolves, foxes’? (v. 147), ‘‘ the monasteries to 
herdsmen and runaway slaves" (i. 262); he 
was forgetful of the poor, and inaccessible to 
remonstrance (iil. 260). His confidants were 
Lucius the archdeacon, who was said to take 
money for ordinations (i. 29); Zosimus a 
priest, who disgraced his grey hairs by vices 
(i. 140; ii. 75, 205, etc.) and retained contri- 
butions meant for the poor (v. 210); and three 
deacons, Eustathius, Anatolius, and Maron 
(i. 223; il. 28, 29, etc.), with whom Gotthius (ii. 
10), Simon, and Chaeremon (v. 48, 373) are 
associated. The greediness of those who ad- 
ministered the church property was insatiable 
(v. 79). The offences of these men, or of some 
of them, were so grossthat mencried out against 
them as effective advocates of Epicureanism (ii, 
153, 230), and Isidore had to tell his corre- 
spondents that he had done his best (as, 
indeed, many of his letters shew, e.g. i. 140, 
436; il. 28, 39, etc.) to reclaim the offenders, 
but that the physician could not compel the 
patient to follow his advice, that ‘‘ God the 
Word Himself’’ could not save J udas (iv. 205.) 
that a good man should not soil his lips by de- 
nouncing their conduct (iii. 229; v. 116), and 
that nothing remained but to pray for their 
conversion (v. 2, 105, etc.), and in the mean- 
time to distinguish between the man and the 
office (ii.52), andtorememberthat the unworthi- 
ness of the minister hindered not the effect of 
the sacraments (ii. 32). But the fullest account 
of the misgovernment of thechurch of Pelusium 
is given in the story of Martinianus (ii. 127), 
whom Eusebius had ordained, and made 
““oeconomus’”’ or church steward. Heplayed 
the knave and tyrant, treated the bishops as his 
tool, was more than once in peril of his life from 
the indignation of the citizens, went to Alex- 
andria, was menaced by archbp. Cyril with ex- 
communication, but returned and imputed to 
Cyril himself a participationinsimony. Such 
things induced many to leave Pelusium in 
disgust ; “ the altar lacked ministers”’ (1. 38); a 
pious deacon, such as Eutonius, was oppressed 
by Zosimus (ii. 131) and attacked by the 
whole clergy, to some extent out of sub- 
serviency to the bishop (v. 564). Eusebius 
is not mentioned among the Fathers of the 
council of Chalcedon in 451. In 457 he and 
Peter, bp. of Majuma, assisted at the ordination 
of Timotheus Aelurus to the see of Alexandria 
(Evagr. H. E. ii. 8), and those who were parties 
to that proceeding are stated by Theodorus 
Lector (H. E. i. 9) to have been deposed 
bishops. The epistle of the Egyptian bishops 
to Anatolius (Cod. Encyc. in Mansi, vil. 533 A) 
represents the two bishops (here unnamed) 
who ordained Timotheus as having no com- 
munion with the Catholic church. Le Quien, 
Or. Chr. ii. 533; Tillem. Mém. xv. 747, 748, 
782-788. [W.R. AND C.H.] 
Eusebius (77), bp. of Samosata (360-373), the 
friend alike of Basil the Great, Meletius, and 
Gregory Nazianzen. Allthatisdefinitely known 
of Eusebiusis gathered from the epistles of Basil 
and of Gregory, and from some incidents in 
the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret. The 
fervent and laudatory phrases applied to him 
might suggest hyperbole if they were not so 
constant (Epp. xxviii. xxix. Greg. Naz. Opp. 
ed. Prunaeus, Colon. vol. i. 792; Ep. xxxiv. 


942 EUSEBIUS 


Basilii opera, ed. Par. t.iii.). As bp. of Samo- 
sata in 361, he took part in the consecration 
of Meletius to the see of Antioch. Meletius 
was then in communion with the Arians, and 
a coalition of bishops of both parties placed 
the document affirming the consecration in 
the hands of Eusebius. Meletius soon pro- 
claimed explicitly his Nicene Trinitarianism, 
and was banished by Constantius on the 
charge of Sabellianism. Meanwhile Eusebius 
had returned to Samosata with the written 
record of the appointment of Meletius to 
Antioch. The Arians, anxious to destroy this 
proof of their complicity, persuaded Constan- 
tius to demand, by a public functionary, the 
reddition of the document. Eusebius replied, 
““T cannot consent to restore the public de- 
posit, except at the command of the whole 
assembly of bishops by whom it was com- 
mitted to my care.’”’ This reply incensed the 
emperor, who wrote to Eusebius ordering him 
to deliver the decree on pain of amputation of 
hisright hand. Theodoret says the threat was 
only meant to intimidate the bishop ; if so, 
it failed, for Eusebius stretched out both hands, 
exclaiming, ‘‘I am willing to suffer the loss 
of both hands rather than resign a document 
which contains so manifest a demonstration 
of the impiety of the Arians.” 

Tillemont hesitates to claim for Eusebius, as 
many writers have done, the honour of being 
the Christian confessor in the persecutions 
under Julian. According, to Greg. Naz. 
(Orat. c. Julianum, i. p. 133 B.c.), when suffer- 
ing on the rack and finding one part of his 
body not as yet tortured, Eusebius complained 
to the executioners for not conferring equal 
honour on his entire frame. The death of 
Julian and the accession of Jovian gave 
liberty to the church. 

During and after this temporary lull in the 
imperial patronage of the Arian party, the 
great exertions of Eusebius probably took 
place. He is represented as travelling in the 
guise of a soldier (Theod. iv. 13) through 
Phoenicia and Palestine, ordaining presbyters 
and deacons, and must thus have become 
known to Basil, who on the death of Eusebius 
of Caesarea wrote to Gregory (Bas. Ep. xlvii. 
Paris ed.), the father of Gregory of Nazianzus, 
advising the selection of Eusebius of Samosata 
for the vacant bishopric. The Paris editors of 
Basil plausibly suggest that the letter thus 
numbered was written by Gregory to Eusebius 
concerning Basil, rather than by Basil concern- 
ing Eusebius. The part which Eusebius did 
take in the election of Basil is well known. 
Basil’s appointment gave Gregory extreme 
satisfaction (Greg. Naz. Ep. xxix.). He dilates 
on the delight which the visit of Eusebius to 
Caesarea had given the community. The bed- 
ridden had sprung from their couches, and all 
kinds of moral miracles had been wrought by 
his presence. Thereafter the correspondence 
between Basil and Eusebius reveals the pro- 
gress of their joint lives, and throws some light 
upon the history of the church. The two 
ecclesiastics were passionately eager for one 
another’s society, and appear to have formed 
numerous designs, all falling through, for an 
interchange of visits. 

In 372 Eusebius signed, with Meletius. Basil, 
and 29 others, a letter to the Western bishops, 


EUSEBIUS 


in view of their common troubles from Arian 
opponents. The letter (Basil, Ep. xcii. Paris 
ed.), a melancholy Jeremiad, recounts disaster 
and disorder, uncanonical proceedings and 
Arian heresy. The Eastern bishops look to 
their brethren in Italy and Gaul for sympathy 
and advice, paying a tribute to the pristine 
purity which the Western churches had pre- 
served intact while the Eastern churches had 
been lacerated, undermined, and divided by 
heretics and unconstitutional acts. Later in 
372 Basil entreats Eusebius to meet him at 
Phargamon in Armenia, at an assembly of 
bishops (Ep. xcv.). If Eusebius will not or 
cannot attend the conference, neither will 
Basil; and (xcviii.) he passionately urges him 
to visit him at Caesarea. Letters from Eusebius 
appear to have been received by Basil, who once 
more (c.) begs a visit at the time of the festival 
of the martyr Eupsychius, since many things 
demanded mutual consideration. At the end 
of 372 Basil (cv.) managed the laborious 
journey to Samosata, and secured from his 
friend the promise of a return visit. This 
promise, said he, had ravished the church with 
joy. In 373 Basil urged Eusebius to fulfil 
his promise, and (cxxvii.) assured him that 
Jovinus had answered his expectations as bp. 
of Nicopolis. Jovinus was a worthy pupil of 
Eusebius, and gratified Basil by his canonical 
proprieties. Everywhere the θρέμματα of 
Eusebius exhibit the image of his sanctity. 
Other authorities (Tillem. Art. iii.) record that 
Jovinus relapsed afterwards into Arianism. 
The good offices of Eusebius were solicited by 
Eustathius of Sebaste, who had quarrelled 
with Basil. Basil’s principle of ‘‘ purity be- 
fore reconciliation ’’ convinced Eusebius of his 
wisdom and moderation. At the council of 
Gangra, probably in 372 or 373, Eustathius of 
Sebaste was condemned for Arian tendencies 
and hyperascetic practices. There isa difficulty 
in deciding who was the Eusebius mentioned 
primo loco without a see in the synodal letter. 
It may have been the bp. of Samosata, and as 
Basil entreated his advice as to Eustathius, he 
may have joined him, Hypatius, Gregory, and 
other friends whose names occur in this pro- 
nunciamiento. His age and moral eminence 
would givehim this prominent position. The2o 
canons of Gangra are detailed with interesting 
comment by Hefele, who thinks the chronology 
entirely uncertain. We venture the above sug- 
gestion, which would throw considerable light 
on thepractical characterofthebp. of Samosata. 
In 373 aletter of Basil (Ep. cxxxvi.) shews that 
Eusebius had successfullysecured theelection of 
aCatholic bishop at Tarsus. In consequence, he 
was eagerlyentreated to visit Basil at Caesarea. 
He may have done so, and presided at the 
council of Gangra. An _ encyclical which 
Eusebius proposed to send to Italy was not 
prepared, but Dorotheus and Gregory of 
Nyssa were induced to visit Rome in 374. The 
Paris editors assign to 368 or 369 Basil’s 
letters (xxvii. xxxi.) descriptive of his illness, 
and the famine that arrested his movements, 
but whensoever written, they reveal the extra- 
ordinary confidence put by Basil in his brother 
bishop. Hehad been healed by theintercessions 
of Eusebius, and now, all medical aid having 
failed Hypatius his brother, he sends him to 
Samosata to be under the care and prayers of 


EUSEBIUS 


Eusebius and his brethren. It is remarkable 
that Eusebius was left undisturbed during the 
bitter persecutions of the orthodox by the 
emperor Valens. At length his hour came, 
and few pages in the history of the time are 
more vivid than those which portray the cir- 
cumstances of his exile. Valens promised 
the Arian bp. Eudoxius, who had baptized 
him, that he would banish all who held con- 
trary opinions. Thus Eusebius was expelled 
from Samosata (Theod. iv. 13). The imperial 
sentence ordered his instant departure to 
Thrace (tb. 14). Ceillier (v. 3) places this 
in 374. The officer who served the sum- 
mons was bidden by Eusebius to conceal the 
cause of his journey. ‘‘ For if the multitude 
(said Eusebius), who are all imbued with 
divine zeal, should learn your design, they 
would drown you, and I should have to answer 
for your death.” After conducting worship, 
he took one domestic servant, a “‘ pillow, and 
a book,’”’ and departed in the dead of night. 
The effect of his departure upon his flock 
is graphically described by Theodoret. The 
clamour, the weeping, the pursuit, the entreat- 
ies toreturn to Samosata and brave the wrath 
of the emperor, the humble submission of the 
bishop to the will of the prince on the ground 
of the authority of St. Paul, the refusal of 
costly gifts, the parting of the old man from 
his people, and the disappearance of the ven- 
erable confessor on his long and _ perilous 
journey to the Danube, are all told in a few 
striking sentences. Eusebius had excited a 
persistent and intense antagonism to the views 
of the Arians which assumed very practical 
forms. The Arian bp. Eunomius was avoided 
as if smitten with deadly and contagious pest. 
The very water he used in the public bath was 
wasted by the populaceascontaminated. The 
repugnance being invincible, the poor man, 
inoffensive and gentle in spirit, retired from 
the unequal contest. His successor, Lucius, 
“a wolf and a deceiver of the flock,’’ was 
received with scant courtesy. The children 
spontaneously burned a ball upon which the 
ass on which the Arian bishop rode had acci- 
dentally trodden. Lucius was not conquered 
by such manifestations, and took counsel with 
the Roman magistracy to banish all the 
Catholic clergy. Meanwhile Eusebius by 
slow stages reached the Danube when “ the 
Goths were ravaging Thrace and besieging 
many cities.’’ The most vigorous eulogium is 
passed upon his power to console others. At 
this dark time his faithfulness was a joy to 
the Eastern bishops. Basil congratulated 
Antiochus, a nephew of Eusebius, on the privi- 
lege of having seen and talked with such a 
man (Ep. clxviii.), and Gregory thought his 
prayers for their welfare must be as efficacious 
asthose of amartyr. For Eusebius, concealed 
in exile, Basil contrived means of communica- 
tion with his old flock. Numerous letters passed 
between the two, more in the tone of young 
lovers than of old bishops, and some interesting 
hints are given as to difficulty of communica- 
tion. Eusebius was eagerly longing for letters, 


while Basil protested that he had written no | 


fewer than four, which never reached their 
destination. 
complains bitterly of the lack of fair dealing 
on the part of the Western church, and myste- 


EUSEBIUS 343 


rious hints are not unfrequently dropped as to 
the sentiment entertained at Rome with refer- 
ence to himself, Eusebius, and Meletius. In 
377 Dorotheus found that the two latter were, 
to the horror of Basil, reckoned at Rome as 
Arians. Eusebius suffered less from the bar- 
barian ravages of the Goths than from this 
momentary assault on his honour. In 378 
the persecuting policy of Valens was closed 
by his death. Gratian recalled the banished 
prelates, and gave peace to the Eastern church. 
Theodoret (H. E. v. 4, 5) expressly mentions 
the permission to Eusebius to return. Not- 
withstanding the apparently non-canonical 
character of the proceeding, Eusebius ordained 
numerous bishops on his way from Thrace to 
the Euphrates, including Acacius at Beroea, 
Theodotus at Hierapolis, Isidore at Cyrus, and 
Eulogius at Edessa. All these names were 
appended to the creed of Constantinople. 
When taking part in the ordination of Maris 
at the little town of Dolica (Theod. H. E. v. 4), 
a woman charged with Arian passion hurled 
at Eusebius a brick, which fell upon his head, 
and wounded him fatally. Theodoret records 
that the aged bishop, in the spirit of the proto- 
martyr and his Divine Lord, extorted promises 
from his attendants that they would make no 
search for his murderess. On June 22 the 


'Seythopolis in Syria. 


| two 


To Eusebius (ccxxxix.) Basil | 


Eastern churches commemorate his so-called 
martyrdom. His nephew Antiochus probably 
succeeded to the bishopric of Samosata. 
Tillem. viii. 326; Ceillier, v. 5. [H.R.R.] 
Eusebius (93), St., bp. of Vercellae (Vercelli), 
known for his zeal and sufferings in the cause 
of orthodoxy. He was born in Sardinia, or- 
dained a ‘‘ reader’’ at Rome, and in 340 con- 
secrated bp. of Vercelli. St. Ambrose, in a 
letter to the church there (Ep. 63), especially 
commends him as the first Western bishop 
who joined monastic discipline with the dis- 
charge of episcopal duties. He took several of 
his clergy to live with him, and adopted a kind 
of monastic rule for their daily life. In 354 
(Jaffé, Reg. Pontif. p. 15) he was asked by 
Liberius, bp. of Rome, to go with Lucifer of 
Cagliari and others to Constantius, to suggest 
the summoning of a council on the disputes 
between the Arians and the orthodox. The 
council was held in the next year at Milan. 
At first Eusebius absented himself, but ulti- 
mately yielded to the united solicitations of 
the Arian party, of Lucifer and Pancratius, the 
orthodox delegates of Liberius, and of the 
emperor. The proceedings were somewhat 
disorderly, and the action of the bp. of Milan 
was undecided. The practical question was 
whether the bishops present should sign a 
condemnation of Athanasius. Eusebius was 
so peremptory in refusing as to excite the anger 
of the Arianizing emperor, who banished him, 
together with some priests and deacons, to 
Patrophilus, a leading 
Arian, was bp. there, and Eusebius calls him 
his ‘jailer.’ During his confinement here, 
messengers arrived with money and 
assurances of goodwill from the churches of 
Vercelli and neighbourhood. In his reply 
Eusebius gave full particulars of his annoying 
treatment at Scythopolis. He was a trouble- 
some prisoner, having twice all but starved 
| himself to death because he would not accept 


provisions from Arian hands. After a while he 


944 EUSEBIUS 


was removed to Cappadocia, and thence to 
Egypt. From the Thebaid in Egypt he wrote 
to Gregory, bp. of Elvira in Spain, praising his 
anti-Arian constancy. Julian, succeeding 
Constantius in 361, permitted all banished 
bishops to return. Eusebius went to Alex- 
andria to consult with Athanasius. The two 
bishops convoked a council in 362 at Alexand- 
ria. One of its objects was to end a schism 
at Antioch, and after it was over Eusebius 
went thither to bear a synodal letter or 
“*tome’’ from the council to the Antiochenes. 
But Lucifer of Cagliari had preceded him and 
aggravated the schism by the hasty consecra- 
tion of Paulinus as a rival bishop; and 
Eusebius immediately withdrew from Antioch. 
[MeLeTIus: PaAvuLinus (6).] Lucifer re- 
nounced communion with Eusebius and with 
all who, in accordance with the decree of the 
Alexandrian council, were willing to receive 
back bishops who repented their connexion 
with Arian heresy. Leaving Antioch, 
Eusebius visited Eastern churches to confirm 
them in the orthodox faith. Thence he 
passed into Illyria, and so to Italy, which, in 
the words of Jerome, ‘“‘ put off its mourning 
on Eusebius’s return.” He now joined the 
zealous Hilary of Poictiers in endeavours to 
re-establish orthodoxy in the West. With 
this view they stirred up opposition to the 
Arianizing Auxentius, bp. of Milan, but were 
foiled by his profession of orthodoxy. This 
was in 364; nothing more is recorded of Euse- 
bius until his death, placed by Jerome in 371. 

His extant writings are three letters: one 
a brief reply to Constantius, that he would 
attend the council at Milan, but would do 
there whatever should seem to him right and 
according to the will of God; and the two 
to the church at Vercelli and to Gregory of 
Elvira. They are in Galland, Bibl. Patrum, 
and Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xii. Jerome says that 
Eusebius translated, omitting what was hetero- 
dox, the commentaries on the Psalms by his 
namesake of Caesarea; and also names him, 
with Hilary of Poictiers, as atranslator of Origen 
and the same Eusebius; but nothing further is 
known of these translations. A famous Codex 
Vercellensis is thus described by Tregelles: 
“Α MS. of the 4th cent., said to have been 
written by the hand of Eusebius bp. of 
Vercelli, where the codex is now preserved. 
The text is defective in several places, as 
might be supposed from its very great age. 
It was transcribed and pub. by Irici, at 
Milan, in 1748. . . . This MS. is probably the 
most valuable exemplar of the old Latin in its 
unaltered state.” The chief authority for 
his Lifeis St. Jerome, who places him amongst 
his Viri Illustres, and alludes to him in his 
letters and elsewhere. There are several 
letters addressed to him by Liberius, and 
allusions to him in Athanasius. He is men- 
tioned also by Rufinus, Theodoret, Sozomen, 
and Socrates. The Sermones relating to him 
among the works of Ambrose are admittedly 
spurious. Inthe Journ. of Theol. Studies, vol. 
i. p. 126, Mr. C. H. Turner raised the two 
questions whether Eusebius of Vercelli was 
the author of the Seven Books on the Trinity 
by the Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, and 
whether he could have been the author of Qut- 
cunque Vult; and subsequently in the same 


EUSEBIUS 


vol. the Rev. A. E. Burn offered proof that 
Eusebius was the author of the work of Pseudo- 
Vigilius, but that there are strong reasons 
against supposing that he could have written 
Quicunque, although he says the latter theory 
throws new light on the history of the theo- 
logical terms used in the creed. [1.11,..}.} 
Eusebius (96), Aug. 14, presbyter, confessor 
at Rome a.p. 358, and by some styled martyr. 
Frorn the earliest times his fame has been every- 
where celebrated. A church dedicated to him 
is mentioned in the first council held at Rome 
under pope Symmachus, A.D. 498 (Mansi, viii. 
236, 237). It was rebuilt by pope Zacharias, 
c. 742 (Anastas. Lib. Pontif. art. ‘‘ Zacharias,” 
No. 226). The facts of his history are very ob- 
scure. His Acts (Baluz. Miscell. t. ii. p. 141) 
relate that upon the recall of pope Liberius 
by Constantius, Eusebius preached against 
them both as Arians; and since the orthodox 
party, who now supported Felix, were ex- 
cluded from all the churches, he continued 
to hold divine service in his own house. For 
this he was brought before Constantius and 
Liberius, when he boldly reproved the pope 
for falling away from Catholic truth. Con- 
stantius thereupon consigned him to a dungeon 
four feet wide, where he continued to languish 
for seven months and then died. He was 
buried by his friends and co-presbyters Orosius 
and Gregory, in the cemetery of Callistus, with 
the simple inscription ‘‘ Eusebio Homini Dei.” 
Constantius arrested Gregory for this, and 
consigned him to the same dungeon, where he 
also died, and was in turn buried by Orosius, 
by whom the Acts of Eusebius profess to have 
been written. The Bollandist and Tillemont 
point out grave historical difficulties in this 
narration, especially that Constantius, Libe- 
rius, and Eusebius never could have been in 
the city together. The whole matter is a 
source of trouble to Roman Catholic writers, 
because the saintly character of St. Eusebius, 
guaranteed by the Roman martyrology as 
revised by pope Gregory XIII., seems neces- 
sarily to involve the condemnation of Liberius. 
The Bollandists at great length vindicate the 
catholicity of Felix II., and are equally zealous 
champions of St. Eusebius. Tillemont and 
Hefele (Hist. of Councils, ii. § 81, ‘‘ Pope Libe- 
rius and the Third Sirmian Formula’’) are 
equally decided opponents of Felix. [G.r.s.] 
Eusebius (99), of Cremona, presbyter, a friend 
of St. Jerome, through whose writings he is 
known. He was with Jerome at Bethlehem in 
393, and became the unconscious means of ex- 
tending into Italy the strife concerning Origen- 
ism which had begun at Jerusalem. Epiphanius. 
had written to John, bp. of Jerusalem, in vindi- 
cation of his conduct on his recent visit to- 
Palestine, A.D. 394. Eusebius, not knowing 
Greek, begged Jerome to translate it. This. 
Jerome did in a cursory manner (ad Pammach- ἢ 
tum, Ep. 57, ὃ 2, ed. Vall.), and the document 
was stolen from the cell of Eusebius by one 
whom Jerome believed to be in the service of 
Rufinus (cont. Ruf. iii. 4). Rufinus apparently 
sent the translated letter to Rome, accusing 
Jerome of having falsified the original. Euse- 
bius remained at Bethlehem till Easter, 398, 
when he was obliged to return hastily to Italy. 
On arriving in Rome, he became an agent of 
Jerome’s party in the Origenistic controversy, 


EUSEBIUS 


He lived at first on good terms with Rufinus, 
who, however, afterwards accused him of 
having come to Rome “ to bark against him.”’ 
Rufinus was then engaged in translating the 
περὶ ἀρχῶν of Origen for the use of his friends, 
leaving out some of the most objectionable 
passages. Eusebius sent a copy of this to 
Bethlehem, where Jerome denounced it as a 
mistranslation. Rufinusreplied that Eusebius 
had obtained an imperfect copy, either by 
bribing the copyist or by other wrong means, 
and had also tampered with the MS. _ St. 
Jerome, however, vehemently defends his 
friend from these accusations (cont. Ruf. iii. 5). 
Pope Anastasius being entirely ignorant of 
Origen and his teaching, Eusebius, together 
with Marcella and Pammachius, brought be- 
fore him certain passages from Origen’s 
writings (Anastasius ad Simplicianum in 
Jerome, Ep. 95, ed. Vall.), which so moved 
him that he at once condemned Origen and all 
his works. Eusebius being about to return to 
Cremona in 400, the pope charged him in 
the letter just quoted to Simplicianus, bp. of 
Milan, and he there set forth the same passages 
of Origen which he had laid before the pope. 
He was confronted, however, by Rufinus, who 
declared these passages to be false; and 
Eusebius continued his journey without 
having induced Simplicianus to condemn 
Origen. After this we hear nothing of 
Eusebius for some 20 years. He appears to 
have remained in Italy supporting Jerome’s 
interests and corresponding with him. At the 
extreme end of Jerome’s life we still find Euse- 
bius writing to him and sending him books 
relating to the Pelagian heresy (ad Alyp. et 
Aug. Ep. 143), and receiving from Jerome the 
last of his Commentaries, that on Jeremiah 
(Prol. to Comm. on Jer. in vol. iv. 833). [W.H.F.1 

Eusebius (128), eunuch, and grand chamber- 
lain under Constantius II. Socrates (ii. 2, 16) 
relates that, after the death of Constantine in 
337, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of 
Nicaea, bestirring themselves on behalf of the 
Arians, made use of a certain presbyter in high 
favour with Constantius, who had before been 
instrumental in recalling Arius from exile. 
He persuaded Eusebius the head chamberlain 
to adopt Arian opinions, and the rest of the 
chamberlains followed, and prevailed on the 
empress also. In 359 Eusebius was the 
mainspring of the plan of Eudoxius and others 
for dividing the council to be held on the sub- 
ject of Arianism, making the Western bishops 
sit at Rimini, the Eastern at Seleucia; part 
of those in the secret were to sit at each 
council, and try to gain over their opponents 
to Arian views. Laymen of influence favoured 
the plan in order to please the chamberlain 
(Soz. H. E.iv. 16). On the death of Constantius 
in 361 Eusebius tried to curry favour with 
Julian by assuring him of the loyalty of the 
East (Amm. xxi. 15, § 4); but was unable to 
avert what Ammianus and Philostorgius re- 
present as the just reward of his deeds. One 


of the first acts of Julian was to condemn) 
Ammianus | 


him to death (ἐδ. xxii. 3, § 12). 
describes him as the prime mover of all the 
court intrigues of his day, and sarcastically 
calls the emperor one of his favourites (1b. 
Xviii. 4, § 33). [W.M.S. AND M.F.A.] 
Eustathius (3), bp. of Berrhoea in Syria, 


EUSTATHIUS 345 


then of Antioch, c. A.p. 324-331, designated by 
Theodoret (H. E. i. 7) ‘ the Great,” a of the 
earliest and most vigorous opponents of Arian- 
ism, venerated for his learning, virtues, and 
eloquence (Soz. H. E. i. 2, ii. 19; Theod. 
H. E. i. 20), recognized by Athanasius as a 
worthy fellow-labourer for the orthodox faith 
(Athan. Hist. Arian. ὃ 5). He was a native of 
Side in Pamphylia (Hieron. de Vir. Illus. c. 
85). The title of ‘ confessor” given him by 
Athanasius more than once (t. i. pp. 702, 812) 
indicates that he suffered in the persecution of 
Diocletian. As bp. of Berrhoea he was one of 
the orthodox prelates to whom Alexander of 
Alexandria sent a copy of his letter to Alex- 
ander of Constantinople, concerning Arius and 
his errors (Theod. ἢ. E.i. 4). His translation 
from Berrhoea is placed by Sozomen after the 
council of Nicaea (Soz. H. Ε. 1. 2). Theodoret 
states more correctly that he sat at that 
council as bp. of Antioch, and that his election 
to that see was the unanimous act of the 
bishops, presbyters, and faithful laity of the 
city and province (Theod. H.E. i. 7). “Accord- 
ing to Theodoret he was the immediate suc- 
cessor of Philogonius ; but, according to the 
Chronicle of Jerome, Theophanes, and others, a 
certain Paulinus, not the Paulinus of Tyre, in- 
tervened fora short time (Tillem. vol. vii. p. 22, 
n.i. p. 646). At the councilof Nicaea Eustathius 
occupied one of the first, if not the very first 
place among the assembled prelates (Facund. 
viii. 4). That he occupied the seat of honour 
at the emperor’s right hand and pronounced 
the panegyrical address to Constantine ‘is 
asserted by Theodoret (H. E. i. 7), but contra- 
dicted by Sozomen (H. E. i. 19), who assigns 
the dignity to Eusebius of Caesarea. Euse- 
bius himself maintains a discreet silence, but 
he evidently wishes it to be inferred that the 
place of honour was his own (Eus. de Vit. 
Const. iii. 11). On his return to Antioch 
Eustathius banished those of his clergy sus- 
pected of Arian tenets and resolutely rejected 
all ambiguous submissions. Among those 
whom he refused to receive were Stephen, 
Leontius, ὁ ἀπὸόκοπος, and Eudoxius (who 
successively occupied his episcopal seat after 
his deposition), George of Laodicea, Theo- 
dosius of Tripolis, and Eustathius of Sebaste 
(Athan. Hist. Artan.§5). In his writings and 
sermons he lost no opportunity of declaring 
the Nicene faith, and shewing its agreement 
with Holy Scripture. Theodoret (H. E. i. 8) 
specially mentions one of his sermons on Prov. 
viii. 22, and gives a long extract. The 
troubled relations of Eustathius with the two 
Eusebii may be dated from the council of 
Nicaea. At this synod Eusebius of Caesarea 
and Eustathius were rivals both in theological 
views and for favour with the emperor. To 
one of Eustathius’s uncompromising ortho- 
doxy, Eusebius appeared a foe to the truth, 
| the more dangerous on account of his ability 
}and the subtlety which veiled his heretical 
proclivities. Eustathius denounced him as 
departing from the Nicene faith. Eusebius 
retorted with the charge of Sabellianism. 
accusing Eustathius of holding one only per, 
sonality in the Deity (Socr. H. FE. i. 23; Soz- 
|H. E. ii. 18; Theod. H. E. i. 21). Eusebius 
of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, in their 
progress of almost royal magnificence to 


346 EUSTATHIUS 


Jerusalem, passed through Antioch, and had 
a fraternal reception from Eustathius, and 
left with every appearance of friendship. 
Their inspection of the sacred buildings over, 
Eusebius returned to Antioch with a large 
cortége of partisan bishops—Aetius of Lydda, 
Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theodotus οὗ 
Laodicea, and Eusebius of Caesarea. The 
cabal entered Antioch with the air of masters. 
The plot had been maturing in their absence. 
Witnesses were prepared with charges against 
the bishop of incontinency and other gross 
crimes. Eustathius was summoned before 
this self-constituted tribunal, and, despite the 
opposition of the better-minded bishops and 
the absence of trustworthy evidence, was 
condemned for heresy, profligacy, and tyran- 
nical conduct, and deposed from his bishopric. 
This aroused the indignation of the people of 
Antioch, who took up arms in defence of their 
beloved bishop. Some of the magistrates and 
other officials headed the movement. An 
artfully coloured account of these disturbances 
and Eustathius’s complicity in them was 
transmitted to Constantine. A count was 
dispatched to quell the sedition and to put the 
sentence of the council into execution. Eus- 
tathius submitted to constituted authority. 
Accompanied by many of his clergy, he left 
Antioch without resistance or manifesting any 
resentment (Socr. H. FE. i. 24; Soz. H. E. ii. 
τὸ: Lheod. H. E. 1.21; Philost. A. Boiu.7; 
Eus. Vit. Const. iii. 59). He appears to have 
spent the larger part of his exile at Philippi, 
where he died, c. 337. The date of his de- 
position was probably at the end of 330 or 
beginning of 331 (Tillem. Mém. eccl. vol. vii. 
note 3, sur Saint Eustathe; Wetter, Restt- 
tutio verae Chronolog. rerum contra Arian. Gest. ; 
de Broglie, L’Eglise et ! Empire,c. vii.). The 
deposition of Eustathius led to a lamentable 
schism in the church of Antioch, which lasted 
nearly a century, not being completely healed 
till the episcopate of Alexander, A.D. 413-420. 
Eustathius was a copious writer, and is 
much praised by early authorities (Soz. H. E. 
ii. 19; Hieron. Ep. 70 [84], ad Magnum). 
We possess only scattered fragments and one 
entire work, named by Jerome de Engas- 
trimytho adv. Origenem. In this he attacks 
Origen with great vehemence, ridicules him as 
a πολυΐστωρ, and controverts his idea that the 
prophet Samuel was actually called up by the 
witch of Endor (Gall. Vet. Patr. Bibl. vol. iv., 
and Migne, Patr. vol. xviii. pp. 614 ff.). In 
Texte und Untersuchungen (1886), 11. 4, anew ed. 
of this treatise was edited by A. Zahn. Fabr. 
Bibl. Graec. vol.ix. pp. 131 ff. ed. Harles; Cave, 
Hist. Lit. i. 187; Migne, Patr.t. ix. pp. 131 ff.; 
Tillem. u.s. pp. 21 ff. ; De Broglie, op. cit. t. ii. 
pp- 294 ff. [E.v-] 
Eustathius (4), bp. of Sebaste (the modern 
Siwas) in Pontus, on the N. bank of the Halys, 
the capital of Armenia Minor (c. A.D. 357-380). 
Eustathius occupies a place more conspicuous 
than honourable in the unhappy dissensions 
between the adherents of the orthodox faith 
and the various shades of Arian, semi-Arian, 
and Anomoean heresy during the middle of 
the 4th cent. Originally a disciple of Arius, 
after repeated approaches to the Nicene faith, 
with occasional professions of accepting it, he 
probaby ended his days as a Eunomian 


EUSTATHIUS 


heretic (Basil. Ep. 244 [82], §9). Fewin that 
epoch of conflicting creeds and formularies 
ever signed more various documents. Basil 
enumerates his signature of the formularies of 
Ancyra, Seleucia, Constantinople, Lampsacus, 
Nice in Thrace, and Cyzicus, which are 
sufficiently diverse to indicate the vagueness 
of his theology (Basil. l.c.). Eustathius thus 
naturally forfeited the confidence of all schools 
of theology. His personal character appears 
to have been high. There must have been 
something more than common in a man who 
could secure the affection and respect for many 
years of Basil the Great, as, in Basil’s own 
strong language, ‘“‘ exhibiting something more 
than man” (Ep. 212 [370], ὃ 2). As bishop 
he manifested his care for the sick and needy, 
and was unwearied in the fulfilment of duty. 
The system of coenobitic monasticism intro- 
duced by him into Asia Basil took as his model 
(Soz. H. E. iii. 14 ; Basil. Ep. 223 [79], § 3). 
Eustathius was born in the Cappodocian 
Caesarea towards the beginning of the 4th 
cent. He studied at Alexandria under the 
heresiarch Arius (c. A.D. 320) (Basil. Ep. 223 
[79], § 3; 244 [82], §9; 263 [74], ὃ 3). On 
leaving Alexandria he repaired to Antioch, 
where he was refused ordination on account 
of his Arian tenets by his orthodox namesake 
(Athan. Solit. p. 812). He was afterwards 
ordained by Eulalius (c. 331), but very speed- 
ily degraded by him for refusing to wear the 
clerical dress (Socr. H. E. ii. 43, Soz. H. E. 
iv. 24). From Antioch Eustathius returned 
to Caesarea, where he obtained ordination 
from the orthodox bp. Hermogenes, on de- 
claring his unqualified adhesion to the Nicene 
faith (Basil. Ep. 244 [82], § 9; 263 [74], § 3). 
On the death of Hermogenes, Eustathius 
repaired to Constantinople and attached him- 
self to Eusebius, the bishop there, ‘‘ the Cory- 
phaeus of the Arian party’”’ (Basil. ll.cc.). 
By him he was a second time deposed (c. a.p. 
342) on the ground of some unspecified act of 
unfaithfulness to duty (Soz. H. E. iv. 24). 
He retired again to Caesarea, where, carefully 
concealing his Arian proclivities, he sought 
to commend himself to the bishop, Dianius. 
His subsequent history till he became bp. of 
Sebaste is almost a blank. We must, how- 
ever, assign to it the theological argument held 
by him and Basil of Ancyra with the audacious 
Anomoean, Aetius, who is regarded by Basil 
as in some sense Eustathius’s pupil (Basil. 
Ep. 123, ὃ 5). It was certainly during this 
period that Eustathius and his early friend 
the presbyter ArERIus founded coenobitic 
monachism in Armenia and the adjacent 
provinces (Epiphan. Haer. 75, § 2). The rule 
laid down by him for the government of his 
religious communities of both sexes contained 
extravagances alluded to by Socrates and 
Sozomen, which are not unlikely to have been 
the cause, otherwise unknown, of his excom- 
munication by the council of Neo-Caesarea 
(Socr. H. E. 11. 43; Soz. H. E.iv. 24). While 
Eustathius was regulating his coenobitic foun- 
dations (c. 358) he was visited by Basil, who 
records the delight with which he saw the 
coarse garments, the girdle, the sandals of 
undressed hide, and witnessed the self-denying 
and laborious lives of Eustathius and his fol- 
lowers. His admiration for such a victory 


EUSTATHIUS 


over the world and the flesh dispelled all 
suspicions of Arian sentiments, and the desire 
to spread them secretly, which had been 
rumoured (Basil. Ep. 223 [79], ὃ 3). After 
Basil had retired to the banks of the Iris and 
commenced his own monastic life, he and his 
brother Gregory received frequent visits from 
Eustathius, who, with them, would visit An- 
nesi, the residence of their mother Macrina, and 
spend there whole days and nights in friendly 
theological discussion (ἐδ. § 5). 

Eustathius’s episcopate must have begun 
before 357, when Athanasius speaks of him 
as a bishop (Athan. Orat. in Arian. i. p. 290; 
Solit. p. 812). He was made bp. of Sebaste, 
according to the same authority, by the Arian 
party, who hoped to find him an able and 
facileinstrument. His early companion Aerius 
was a candidate for the bishopric, and felt very 
mortified by his failure. Eustathius shewed 
him the utmost consideration, ordained him 
presbyter, and appointed him manager of a 
refuge for the poor, the foundation of which 
was one of the first acts of his episcopate. 
The final rupture between them is detailed 
under AERIUS. Somewhere about this time 
we may place Eustathius’s conviction of 
perjury in the council of Antioch (see Socr. 
H. E. iv. 24), and his deposition by the 
obscure council of Melitene in Armenia c. A.D. 
357 (Basil. Ep. 263 [74]). Neither of these 
events appears to have entailed any lasting 
consequences. Eustathius was one of the 
prelates at the semi-Arian synod summoned 
at Ancyra by George of Laodicea, before 
Easter A.D. 358, to check the alarming spread 
of Anomoean doctrines, and he, with Basil of 
Ancyra and Eleusius of Cyzicus, conveyed the 
synodal letter, equally repudiating the Ano- 
moean and Homoousian doctrines, and de- 
claring for the Homoiousion, to Constantius 
at Sirmium (Soz. H. E. iv. 13, 14; Basil. Ep. 
263 [74], § 3). When the council met at 
Seleucia on Sept. 27, 359, Eustathius occupied 
a prominent place in its tumultuous and in- 
decisive proceedings, and was the head of the 
ten episcopal deputies, Basil of Ancyra, Sil- 
vanus of Tarsus, and Eleusius of Cyzicus being 
other chief members, sent to Constantinople 
to lay their report before Constantius. Stormy 
discussions followed, in which Eustathius led 
the semi-Arians as against the pure Arians. 
He vehemently denounced the blasphemies of 
the bold Anomoean, Eudoxius, bp. of Antioch, 
and produced a formulary of faith declaring the 
dissimilarity of the Father and the Son, which 
he asserted to be by Eudoxius. All seemed 
to augur the triumph of orthodoxy when the 
arrival of Valens and Ursacius from Ariminum 
announcing the subjugation of the Western 
bishops and the general proscription of the 
Homoousion suddenly changed the scene. 
Constantius was overjoyed at the unexpected 
success, and after a protracted discussion, 


compelled Eustathius and the other Seleucian | 


deputies to sign the fatal formulary. It was 
then, in Jerome’s words, “‘ingemuit totus 
orbis et se esse Arianum miratus est ’’ (Hieron. 
in Lucif. 19). This base concession profited 
the recreants little. e 
asynod, of which Acacius was the ruling spirit, 
at Constantinoplein Jan. 360. Eustathius was 
deposed in a tyrannical manner, with Cyril of 


The emperor summoned | 


EUSTATHIUS 347 


Jerusalem, Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius of Cyzicus, 
and otherimportant prelates. Eustathius was 
not even allowed to defend himself. His former 
deposition by Eulalius was held sufficient (Sver. 
H. E. ii. 41-43; Soz. H. E. iv. 24). Constan- 
tius confirmed the sentence, exiled the bishops, 
and gave their sees to others. The death of 
Constantius in 361 and the accession of Julian 
witnessed therecallof Eustathius with the other 
banished bishops. He immediately repudiated 
his signature to the creed of Ariminum, and did 
all he could to shew his horror of pure Arianism. 
Sozomen tells usthat, with Eleusius, Sophronius, 
and others of like mind, he held several synods, 
condemning the partisans of Acacius, denounc- 
ing the creed of Ariminum, and asserting the 
Homoiousion as the true mean between the 
Homoousion of the West and the Anomoeon of 
Aetius and his followers (H. E. v.14). With the 
accession of Valens in 364, Arianism once more 
assumed ascendancy in the East. The semi- 
Arian party, or Macedonians as they now began 
tobecalled, met by imperial permission in coun- 
cilat Lampsacus A.D. 365, under the presidency 
of Eleusius and repudiated the Acacian council 
of Constantinople (360) and the creed of Ari- 
minum, renewed the confession of Antioch (J 
Encaentis), and pronounced sentence of de- 
position on Eudoxius and Acacius (Socr. H. FE. 
iv. 2-4; Soz. H. E. vi. 7). These proceedings 
irritated Valens, who required them to hold 
communion with Eudoxius, and, on their 
refusal, sentenced them to fine and banish- 
ment, giving their sees to others. To escape 
annihilation, the Macedonians sent deputies, 
Eustathius being one, to the Western emperor 
Valentinian and Liberius, bp. of Rome, who 
had repented his lapse in A.p. 357, offering to 
unite with them in faith. Before they ar- 
rived, Valentinian had left for Gaul, and 
Liberius, at first looking coldly on them as 
Arians, refusedtoreceivethem. On theirgiving 
a written adhesion to the Nicene Creed and the 
Homoousion, hereceivedthemintocommunion, 
and gave them letters in his name and that of 
the Western church to the prelates of the East, 
expressing his satisfaction at the proof he had 
received of the identity of doctrine between East 
and West (Socr. H. E. iv. 12; Soz. H. E. vi. 11). 
No mention was made of the new Macedonian 
heresy concerning the Holy Spirit, now in- 
fecting the Eastern church, of which Eustathius 
and the other deputies were among the chief 
promulgators. Eustathius and hiscompanions 
at once repaired to Sicily, where a synod of 
bishops, on their profession of orthodoxy, gave 
themlettersof communion. Theythenreturned 
to their own country. A synod of orthodox 
bishops was assembled in 367 at Tyana, to re- 
ceive the letters of communion from the West 
and other documents (Soz. |.c. ; Basil. Ep. 244 
[82], ὃ 5). Eustathius and his fellow-delegates, 
now recognized as true Catholics, were ac- 
| knowledged as the rightful bishops of their 
sees. A council summoned at Tarsus to con- 
solidate this happy reunion was prohibited by 
Valens, who, having committed himself to the 
Arian party, issued an edict expelling all bishops 
restored by Julian. Eustathius, tosave himself, 
signed a formula at Cyzicus of Homoiousian 
character, which also denied the divinity of the 
| Holy Spirit. Basil says tersely of Eustathius 
| and his party, “ΠΟΥ saw Cyzicus and returned 


948 EUSTATHIUS 
with a different creed” (Basil. u.s. and § 9; 
226 [73])- 


On Basil’s elevation to the episcopate in 
370 Eustathius exhibited great joy, and pro- 
fessed an earnest desire to be of service to his 
friend. He recommended persons as fellow- 
helpers who, as Basil bitterly complains, turned 
out to be spies of his actions and words, inter- 
preting all in a malevolent sense and reporting 
to their chief (ib. 223 [79], ὃ 3). For their 
subsequent bitter relations, see BAsILIus 
oF CAESAREA. Eustathius heaped calumnies 
on the head of his former associate, openly 
charging him with Apollinarian and other 
heretical views, and encouraged the clergy 
of his diocese and province to form a rival 
communion. Demosthenes, the Vicar of the 
Prefect, an old enemy of Basil, strenuously 
forwarded this object. In 376 he visited 
Sebaste and other chief places in the province, 
oppressing Basil’s adherents, whom he com- 
pelled to undertake onerous and costly public 
duties, and loading the followers of Eustathius 
with the highest honours (ib. 237 [264], § 2). 
Eustathius, seeing Arianism in the ascendant, 
openly sought communion with those whom he 
had repeatedly denounced. His deposition at 
Constantinoplewas not forgottenby the Arians, 
who hadnot hitherto recognized him as a canon- 
ical bishop. He now sought their goodwill by 
humiliating concessions. He had overthrown 
thealtars of Basilides, bp. of Gangra,asan Arian, 
but now begged admission to his communion. 
He hadtreated the people of Amasea as heretics, 
excommunicating Elpidius for holding inter- 
course with them, and now earnestly sought 
their recognition. At Ancyra, the Arians 
refusing him public recognition, he submitted 
to communicate with them in private houses. 
When the Arian bishops met insynod at Nyssa 
he sent a deputation of his clergy toinvite them 
to Sebaste, conducted them through the pro- 
vince with every mark of honour, allowed them 
to preach and celebrate the Eucharist in his 
churches, and withheld no mark of the most 
intimate communion (7b. 257 [72], ὃ 3). These 
humiliations had but tardy and partial success 
in obtaining his public acknowledgment by the 
dominant ecclesiastics. His efforts to secure 
Arian favour and his effrontery in trading upon 
his former recognition by Liberius extorted 
from Basil a vehement letter of remonstrance, 
addressed to the bp. of Rome and the other 
Western bishops, depicting the evils inflicted 
on the Eastern church by the wolves in sheep’s 
clothing, and requesting Liberius to declare 
publicly the terms on which Eustathiushad been 
admitted to communion (1b. 263 [74], ὃ 3). All 
Basil’s efforts to obtain this mark of sympathy 
and brotherly recognition from the West were 
fruitless. He continued to be harassed by the 
unscrupulous attacks of Eustathius till his 
death in 379. If the see was vacated by his 
death, and not, as Hefele holds, with much 
probability, by his deposition at Gangra, Eusta- 
thius diedsoonafter. In 380 Peter became bp. 
of Sebaste, and thus Basil’s brother replaced 
Basil’s most dangerous enemy. 

The synod of Gangra, of uncertain date 
[D. C. A., s.v.], is intimately connected with 
the name of Eustathius. The identity of the 
Eustathius there condemned with the bp. of 
Sebaste, though affirmed by every ancient 


EUSTATHIUS 


authority, has been denied by Blondel (De la 
primauté, p. 138), Baronius (Amnal. iii. ann. 
361, n. 53), Du Pin (Nowvelle bibliothéque, ii. 
339), and called in question by Tillemont 
(Μόνη. eccl. ix. note 28, 5. Basile); but on 
carefulinvestigation Hefele (Hist. of the Church 
Councils, ii. 325 ff. Engl. trans.) scouts the 
idea that another Eustathius is intended. C. 
F. Loofs, Eust. of Seb., Halle, 1898. [Ἑ.ν.] 
Eustathius (22), bp. of Berytus (Beyrout), a 
time-serving prelate attached to the court, who 
kept steadily in view the aggrandizement and 
independence of his see of Berytus, then 
suffragan to Tyre. As a bishop of some 
consideration for theological knowledge, he 
was appointed commissioner, with Photius of 
Tyre and Uranius of Himera, by Theodosius 
II., A.D. 448, to examine the tenets of Ibas of 
Edessa, charged by the monastic party with 
favouring the Nestorian heresy. This com- 
mission, dated Oct. 26, 448, and addressed to 
Damasus, the secretary of state (Labbe, Conc. 
iv. 638), was opened at Berytus, Feb. 1, A.p. 
449, in the residence of Eustathius, recently 
erected by him near his magnificent new 
church. Ibas indignantly disclaimed the 
blasphemies attributed to him, and produced 
a protest, signed by a large number of his 
clergy, that they had never heard him utter 
words contrary to the faith (7b. p. 637). The 
accusation broke down. But the investiga- 
tion was revived a week or two afterwards at 
Tyre (7b. 635). Eustathius and his brother 
commissioners drew up a concordat, which 
was signed, Feb. 25, by Ibas and his accusers, 
and countersigned by Eustathius and Photius 
(tb. 632). At the second council of Ephesus, 
the disgraceful ‘‘ Robbers’ Synod,’’ Aug. 8, 
449, Eustathius, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Basil 
of Seleucia were the imperial commissioners 
(tb. 1079). Eustathius lent all his influence to 
Dioscorus and the dominant party against the 
venerable Flavian, voting for the rehabilita- 
tion of Eutyches and declaring that he had 
stated the true faith in perfect conformity to 
the doctrine of godliness (1b. 262). In 450, 
through the influence of pope Leo and his 
legates at Constantinople, Eustathius’s name 
was erased from the diptychs of the church as 
an accomplice in Flavian’s violent death. He 
and his associates, however, were allowed to re- 
tain their sees, in the hope that this leniency 
might lead them to repent (Leo Magn. Ep. 60). 
The feeble Theodosius II. being nowreplaced by 
the orthodox and vigorous Marcian, Eustathius 
found it politic to change his camp, and at the 
council of Chalcedon promptly abandoned Dios- 
corus, declaring his agreement in faith with 
Flavian, and with exaggerated expressions of 
penitence asking pardon for his share in the acts 
of the recent synod (Labbe, iv. 141, 176, 177). 
The abject humiliation of Eustathius and his 
party prevailed with the orthodox bishops, who 
acquitted them as mere tools of Dioscorus and 
received them as brothers (7b. 508-509). At 
a later session of the council, Oct. 20, the issue 
between Eustathius and Photius of Tyre was 
discussed (7b. 539). As a reward for his sup- 
port of the court party at the ‘‘ Latrocinium,”’ 
Eustathius had obtained from Theodosius a 
decree giving metropolitical rank to Berytus 
(Lupus, 12 Canon. 950). Flavian’s successor 
Anatolius, together with Maximus of Antioch 


β 


' 
ἶ 
Ε 
j 


~~ CRORE An 


τῷ 


FTA ONS S24 


eershey 


ὯΝ νὰ δι — _— ." ΗΝ 


» 
a 


EUSTOCHIUM 


and other court bishops, had consequently, at 
the close of 449, dismembered the diocese of 
Tyre and assigned five churches to the for- 
merly suffragan see of Berytus (Labbe, iv. 
542-546). Photius, disregarding this, and 
continuing to consecrate bishops for these 
churches, was excommunicated by Anatolius, 
and the prelates he had consecrated were 
deposed and degraded by Eustathius (ἐδ. 530). 
Photius submitted to this interference on the 
threat of deposition, protesting that he did so 
by constraint. The council supported him, 
maintained the ancient prerogatives of the 
metropolitical see of Tyre, and pronounced the 
acts of Eustathius void. 

When in 457 the emperor Leo, anxious to 
give peace to the church of Alexandria, dealt 
with the intrusion of Timothy Aelurus, 
Eustathius was consulted, and joined in the 
condemnation of that intruding patriarch (7b. 
890). The church built by Eustathius at 
Berytus is described by Zacharias Scholasticus 
as de mundi opificio. Tillem. Mém. eccl.xv.; Le 
Quien, Oriens Christ. ii. 818 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. 
i. 440. [Ε.ν.] 

Eustochium, 3rd daughter of Paura, the 
friend of Jerome, from whose writings all that 
is known of her is gathered. Born probably 
δ. 370, she had shared from her earliest days the 
ascetic views of her mother, and was confirmed 
in them by frequenting the house of Marcella 
(Hieron. i. 952, ed. Vallarsi). Her uncle Hymet- 
tius, with his wife Praetextata (see Thierry’s 
St. Jéréme, i. 161), endeavoured to wean her 
from these by inviting her to their house, 
changing her attire, and placing her among the 
mirrors and the flattery of a patrician recep- 
tion-room (Hieron. i. 394, 683); but she re- 
sisted their seductions and took the vow of per- 
petual virginity, being the first Roman lady of 
noble birth to doso (i. 394). Jerome addressed 
to her his celebrated treatise de Virginitate Ser- 
vanda (i. 88), in which vivid pictures of Roman 
society enforce the superior sanctity of the 
state of virginity. This treatise excited great 
animosity against Jerome, and was one cause 
of his leaving Rome and returning to Pales- 
tine. Paula and Eustochium resolving to go 
there also, embarked in 385 at Portus. At 
Bethlehem they built and managed the hospice 
and convent, and from her mother’s death in 
404 Eustochium was its head till her own death 
in 418, two years before that of Jerome. Many 
passages in Jerome’s writings give a picture of 
her character and manner of life. Small in 
stature (i. 290), she had great courage and de- 
cision of character (i. 394), and followed the 
ascetic teaching of Jerome and her mother with 
unwavering confidence and enthusiasm (i. 402, 
403). She spoke Greek and Latin with equal 
facility, and learnt Hebrew to sing the Psalms 
in the original (i. 720). Jerome praises her 
skill in the training of virgins, whom she led 
in all acts of devotion (i. 290) and to whom she 
set an example by undertaking all menial 
offices (i. 403). She was eager to increase her 
knowledge of the Scriptures, and to her im- 
portunity Jerome ascribes the writing of many 
of his commentaries, which were dedicated to 
her and her mother, and afterwards to her and 
her niece the younger Paula, who, with the 
younger Melania, was her coadjutor in her 
convent work and her study of Scripture. She 


EUTHALIUS 349 


is reckoned a saint in the Roman chureh, her 
festival being Sept. 28. (W.HLP. | 
Eustochius (6), patriarch of Jerusalem, in 
succession to Peter, and, according to Pape- 
broch, from a.p. 544 to 556. On the death of 
Peter, Eustochius, oeconomus of the church 
of Alexandria but residing at Constantinople, 
was favoured by the emperor Justinian in 
preference to Macarius, an Origenist, who 
had been first elected. At the synod of Con- 
stantinople, 553, Eustochius was represented 
by three legates, Stephanus bp. of Raphia, 
Georgius bp. of Tiberias, Damasus bp. of 
Sozusa or Sozytana (Mansi, ix. 173 0.) ; and 
when the acts in condemnation of Origenism 
were sent by the emperor to Jerusalem, all the 
bishops of Palestine except Alexander of Abila 
confirmed them. But in the monasteries of 
that province, and especially in that named 
the New Laura, the partisans of the proscribed 
opinions grew daily more powerful, notwith- 
standing the resolute efforts of the patriarch 
against them. In 555, after eight months of 
persistent admonition, Eustochius went in 
person, with the dux Anastasius, to the New 
Laura, and forcibly expelled the whole body, 
replacing them by 60 monks from the prin- 
cipal laura and 60 from other orthodox mon- 
asteries of the desert, under the prior J oannes. 
Origenism was thus rooted out of Palestine. 
According to Victor Tununensis, Eustochius 
was removed from the patriarchate, and 
Macarius restored. Cyrillus Scythopol. in 
Coteler. Monum. Eccles. Graec. iii. 373 ; Evagr. 
H. E. iv. 37, 38; Victor Tunun. in Pair. Lat. 
Ixvili. 962 A; Theoph. Chronog. A.M. 6060; 
Papebroch, Patriarch. Hierosol. in Boll. Acta 
SS. Intro. to vol. iii. of May, p. xxvii.; Le 
Quien, Or. Chr. iii. 210. Pagi (ann. 561 iii.) 
discusses the chronology. See also Clinton, 
F. R. 537, 557- [c.H.] 
Euthalius (5), a deacon of Alexandria, after- 
wards bp. of Sulca; fl. a.p. 459. This date is 
confirmed by the fact that his works are 
dedicated to Athanasius the Younger, who was 
bp. of Alexandria about that time. Euthalius 
appears to have been then a deacon, devoted 
to the study of the N.T. text. He is now best 
known as the author of the Euthalian Sections. 
The books of N.T. were written without any 
division into chapters, verses, or words. The 
first steps towards such a convenient division 
seem to have proceeded from the wish for easy 
reference to parallel passages. This was done 
by what are known as the Ammonian Sections, 
together with the EusebianCanons. [EUSEBIUS 
oF CAESAREA.] Ammonius of Alexandria, in 
the 3rd cent., is generally credited with divid- 
ing the gospels into sections, but the principle 
had not been applied to other books of N.T. 
Euthalius introduced a system of division 
into all those not yet divided, except the 
Apocalypse, whichspread rapidly over the whole 
Greek church and has become, by its presence 
or absence, a valuable test of the antiquity of a 
MS. Inthe Epp. of St. Paul, Euthalius tells us, 
he adopted the scheme of a certain “‘ father,” 
whose name is nowhere given. But by his 
other labours, and the further critical appar- 
atus which he supplied, Euthalius procured 
for it the acceptance it soon obtained. In 
Romans there were 19 capitula; in Galatians, 
12; in Ephesians, 10; in I. Thessalonians, 7 ; 


350 EUTHALIUS 


in II. Thessalonians, 6; in Hebrews, 22; in 
Philemon, 2; and so on. 

Three points in connexion with the text 
especially occupied Euthalius. 

(1) The Larger Sections or Lessons. Fixed 
lessons for public worship no doubt passed 
from the synagogue into the Christian church, 
at least as soon as the canon was settled. But 
there seems to have been little or no uniformity 
in them. Individual churches had divisions 
of their own. The scheme proposed by 
Euthalius, however, speedily became general 
in all Greek-speaking churches. The whole 
N.T., except the Gospels and Apocalypse, was 
divided into 57 portions of very varying length 
(in Acts there were 16; in the Pauline Epp. 31; 
5 in Rom.; 5 in J. Cor.; 4 in IJ. Cor. ; in the 
Catholic Epp. 10; 2 in James; 2 in J. Pe.; 1in 
11. Pe., etc.) Of these, 53 were for Sundays, 
which seem alone to have been provided for in 
the Alexandrian Synaxes, and Millsupposesthat 
the other 4 were for Christmas, Good Friday, 
Easter, and Epiphany (Proleg. in N.T. p. go). 

(2) The smaller divisions were the well- 
known στίχοι---ἶ. 6. “ lines’’ (Lat. versus), each 
containing either a few words complete in 
themselves, or as much as it was possible to 
read without effort at one breath. Like that 
of the capitula formerly spoken of, the plan of 
these ‘‘ verses’’ was not introduced by Eutha- 
lius. It had already been adopted in some of 
the poetical books, and in poetical parts of the 
prose: books of the O.T. . The LXX had 
occasionally employed it. It had been sanc- 
tioned by Origen. The Vulgate had used it, 
and it is found in the psalms of the Vatican 
and Sinaitic MSS. It had been partially 
applied to N.T., for Origen speaks of the 100 
στίχοι of 11. and 111. John, of a few in St. 
Paul’s Epistles, and very few in J. John; while 
Eustathius of Antioch, in the 4th cent., is said 
to reckon 135 from John viii. 59 to x. 31 
(Scrivener, Intro. to Codex D, p. 17). But 
these figures shew that many of these divisions 
cannot have been στίχοι in the strict sense, but 
of very unequal length, and generally much 
larger. What was before partially and im- 
perfectly done Euthalius extended upon better 
principles and with greater care. In Rom. he 
made 920 such στίχοι ; in Gal. 293; in Eph. 
312; in I. Thess. 193; in II. Thess. 106; in 
Heb. 703; in Philemon, 37; and so on. 

(3) The third part of his labour was an 
enumeration of all the quotations from O.T., 
and even from profane writers, found in those 
books of N.T. of which he treated. These 
he numbered in one catalogue; assigned to the 
various books whence they were taken in a 
second ; and quoted at length inathird. If 
we may look upon the Argumenta as really 
the work of Euthalius, and not, as Zacagnius 
argues (Praef. p. 60), as the production of a 
later hand, he went alsointothe substance and 
meaning of the bookseditedbyhim, asthe Argu- 
menta contain short and excellent summaries of 
them. Euthaliusalso wroteashort Life of St. 
Paul, prefixed to his work on the 14 epistles of 
that apostle, but itisbald and meagre. It has 
been said that he also wrote comments on 
Acts and Luke; and that in an ancient catena 
on Romans there were fragments of his 
writings; but these statements seem to be 
ncorrect (7b. p. 71). 


EUTHERIUS 

In later life he became a bishop, and was 
known as Episcopus Sulcensis. Scrivener sug- 
gests Sulci in Sardinia as the only see of that 
name (Intr. p. 53, n. 1), but so distant a place 
is unlikely. Zacagnius thinks that Sulca may 
represent Psilca, a city of the Thebaid near 
Syene ; but Galland throws doubt on this, and 
the point must be left unsolved. 

His works remained long unknown, but in 
1698 they were ed. andpub. at Rome by Lauren- 
tius Alexander Zacagnius, praefect of the 
Vatican Library, in vol. i. of his Collectanea 
Monumentorum Veterum Ecclesiae Graecae ac 
Latinae, in the long preface of which different 
questions relating to Euthalius are discussed 
with much care. This ed. has been printed in 
Galland (Bziblioth. Pat. x. 197) and in Migne 
(Patr. Gk.1xxxv.621). NoticesofEuthaliusmay 
be found inthe Prolegomena of N.T. of Wetstein 
and Mill,andinScrivener’s /ntro.to the Criticism 
of N.T. But much light has recently been 
thrown on Euthalius by Dean Armitage Rob- 
inson in his “ἡ Euthaliana”’ (Texts and Stud. 
iii. 3), andin anarticle ‘‘Recent Work on Eutha- 
lius’’ in the Journ. of Theol. Stud. vol. vi. p. 
87, Oct. 1904. Inthe latter art. the recent work 
on the subject by Von Soden and Zahn is 
noticed. [w.M.] 

Eutherius (2), bp. of Tyana, a leader of the 
Nestorians at the council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, 
and for some time afterwards. Before the 
council he was in active correspondence with 
John of Antioch, about the alleged Apollin- 
arianism of Cyril of Alexandria and his 
adherents (Theod. Ep. 112; Migne, Patr. Gk. 
Ixxxiii. 1310). Hisname occurs in the various 
documents addressed to, and issued by, the 
members of his party collectively at this 
council. On July 18 John and his adherents 
were deposed and excommunicated, and 
Eutherius among them (Act. Co. Eph. acta 
v. 654); his sentence being confirmed at 
Constantinople before the end of the year. 
After his return home we find him in friendly 
correspondence with Firmus of Caesarea, 
notwithstanding the part Firmus had taken 
in his excommunication (Firm. Fp. 23; Patr. 
Gk. \xxvii. 1498). Firmus was sent to Tyana 
to ordain a successor to Eutherius, and 
met with great opposition from the citizens, 
who were much attached to their bishop. 
Longras also, the imperial officer in command 
of the Isaurian troops there, interfered ; 
and both Firmus and the person whom he 
had ordained were compelled to flee. The 
newly ordained bishop renounced his orders, 
and seems to have returned to lay life (Theod. 
Ep. Hypomnesticon Alex. Hierapolis Synodt- 
CONS NCA) After the reconciliation of 
Cyril and John of Antioch, Eutherius wrote to 
John to remonstrate with him on his incon- 
sistency and want of loyalty to what he once 
contended for (ib. c. 73, u.s. 681); to Alexander 
of Hierapolis, who was opposed to the recon- 
ciliation, a long letter ably defending the posi- 
tion which they and others were stilldetermined 
to maintain (7b. c. 201, u.s. 815); and to 
Helladius bp. of Tarsus, who had also written 
to Alexander, to encourage him in his oppo- 
sition, expressing great joy at what he had done 
(ib.c. 74, u.s. 684). Eutherius was ultimately 
banished to Scythopolis, and from thence to 
Tyre, where he died (7b. c. 190, 4.5.) 


EUTHYMIUS 


He is the author of a treatise in 17 chapters, 
with a prefatory letter addressed to Eusta- 
thius bp. of Parnassus, which Photius ascribed 
to Theodoret (Phot. Biblioth. c. xlvi. Migne, 
Patr. Gk. ciii. 79), and which has since been 
attributed by some to Maximus the Martyr, 
and by others to Athanasius (Garner’s notes 
on Marius Mercator in Pair. Lat. xlviii. 759, 
1086, 1087; Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec. ed. 
Harles, viii. 304), in which he subjects the 
““Scholia’’ of Cyril of Alexandria, ‘‘ de Incar- 
natione Unigeniti’’ (Mar. Merc. u.s. 1066) to 
elaborate and searching criticism. [t.w.D.] 

Euthymius (4), abbat in Palestine, born in 
377, at Melitene in Armenia, and placed at an 
early age under the direction of its bishop, 
Otreius. After his ordination as priest he was 
placed in charge of all the monasteries in and 
near the place. Finding this too great an 
interruption to his meditations, in his 29th 
year he escaped to Jerusalem to visit the holy 
places, and found a home with a community 
of separate monks at Pharan, 6 miles from 
Jerusalem. With another hermit, Theoc- 
tistus, he used to take long walks into the 
desert of Cutila at sacred seasons. On one of 
these occasions, in the 5th year of his stay at 
Pharan, they came to a tremendous torrent 
with a cavern on one of its banks. Here they 
determined to live, lost to the world. They 
were, however, discovered by some shepherds, 
who sent them gifts. The fathers of Pharan 
also found them out, and came at times to 
see them. About 411 Euthymius began to 
receive disciples. They turned the cavern 
into a church, and built a monastery on the 
side of the ravine. Theoctistus had charge 
of it. In 420 Euthymius erected a laura, like 
that of Pharan, on the road from Jerusalem to 
Jericho, where he would see inquirers on 
Saturdays and Sundays, and his advice was 
always given with captivating sweetness and 
humility. In 428 the church of his laura was 
consecrated by Juvenal, the first patriarch of 
Jerusalem, accompanied by the presbyter 
Hesychius and the celebrated Passarion, 
governor of a monastery in Jerusalem. 

A new turn was given to thelife of Euthymius 
by a cure which he effected for Terebon, son of 
Aspebetus, prince of the Saracens, who, hear- 
ing of his fame, brought the afflicted boy to his 
gloomy retreat with a large train of followers. 
The prayers of Euthymius are said to have 


restored health to the patient, and the whole | 


company believed on the Lord Jesus. Euthy- 
mius ordered a little recess for water to be 
hollowed out in the side of the cave, and bap- 
tized them on the spot, the father taking the 
name of Peter. His brother-in-law Maris 
joined the community of anchorets, bestowing 
all his wealth for the enlargement of the build- 
ings. Thestoryspread over Palestine and the 
neighbouring countries, and Euthymius was 
besieged with applications for medical assist- 
ance and prayer. 

Peter, bp. of the Saracens, on his way to 
the council at Ephesus, a.p. 431, visited 
Euthymius, who exhorted him to unite with 
Cyril of Alexandria and Acacius of Melitene, 
and to do in regard to the creed whatever 
seemed right to those prelates. When the 
council of Chalcedon issued its decrees (451), 
two of his disciples, Stephen and John, who 


EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 351 


had been present, brought them to their 
master. The report of his approval spread 
through the desert, and all the recluses would 
have shared it but for the influence of the 
monk Theodosius, whose life and doctrine 
appear to have been equally unsatisfactory, 
who even tried hard to persuade Euthymius 
to reject Chalcedon, but without success. 
The empress Eudoxia, an energetic Euty- 
chian, after the death of her husband in 450, 
went to Jerusalem, and being urged by her 
brother Valerius to become reconciled to the 
Catholic church, determined to consult 
Euthymius. She built a tower about 4 miles 
S. of his laura, and sent to him Cosmas, 
guardian of the so-called True Cross at Con- 
stantinople, and Anastasius, abishop. Euthy- 
mius came; and after giving his blessing to 
the empress, advised her that the violent 
death of her son-in-law, Valentinian, the 
irruption of the Vandals, the captivity of her 
daughter Eudoxia and of her grandchildren, 
might all be attributed to her Eutychian 
opinions. She should abjure her schism, and 
embrace the communion of J uvenal, patriarch 
of Jerusalem. The empress obeyed, and her 
example was followed by a multitude of monks 
and laymen. A celebrated anchoret also, 
Gerasimus, owed his separation from Euty- 
chianism to Euthymius. Euthymius died 
in 473; his obsequies were celebrated by the 
patriarch Anastatius and a large number of 
clergy, among whom are mentioned Chrysip- 
pus, guardian of the Cross, and a deacon named 
Fidus. See Cotelier’s ed. of the Vita Euthymit 
by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus (Cot. Eccl. Graec. 
Monum. iv. τ, Paris, 1692). [w.M.S.] 
Eutyches (4) and Eutyechianism. Eutyches 
was archimandrite of a monastery near Con- 
stantinople. For 70 years (as he told pope 
Leo) he had lived a monastic life, and during 
30 out of them had presided over his 300 
monks. He was a staunch upholder of the 
views and conduct of Cyril of Alexandria, 
who had even sent him, as a special mark 
of favour, a copy of the Acts of the council of 
Ephesus, A.D. 431. By whom he was first 
accused, whether by Theodoret in his Eran- 
istes, or by his former friend, Eusebius of 
Dorylaeum, or by Domnus of Antioch, it 
seems difficult to decide (cf. Hefele, ii. 319; 
Martin, 75-78) ; but itis clear that to Eusebius 
are due the definite charges first brought 
against him at Constantinople in 448. 
Flavian, who succeeded Proclus in 447 as 
archbishop, convened a synod in Constanti- 
|nople on Nov. 8, 448, to consider some ques- 
| tions between the metropolitan of Sardis and 
| two of his suffragan bishops. Eusebius of 
Dorylaeum was present, and at its conclusion 
| complained that Eutyches defamed “ the holy 
| Fathers and himself, a man who had never 
been suspected of heresy,”’ alleging himself 
prepared to convict Eutyches of being untrue 
to the orthodox faith. Flavian listened in 
astonishment, and suggested that Eusebius 
‘should first privately discuss with Eutyches 
the points in dispute. Eusebius retorted that 
he had already done this unsuccessfully ; he, 
|therefore, implored the synod to summon 
Eutyches before them, not only to induce him 
to give up his views, but to prevent infection 
spreading further. Two deputies, a priest 


352 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 

and a deacon, were instructed to read to 
Eutyches the complaint, and to invite him to 
attend the synod, which met again on Nov. 12. 
Eusebius asked first for the recital of (a) 
Cyril’s first letter to Nestorius, (b) the appro- 
bation of that letter by the council of Ephesus, 
and (c) Cyril’s letter to John of Antioch; 
secondly, that all present should express 
acceptance of these documents as true exposi- 
tions of the Nicene Creed. Flavian and the 
bishops present accepted these propositions, 


and a resolution to the same effect was sent to | 


the absentees for their approval and signature. 
The synod professed its belief in ‘‘ Jesus Christ 
the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God 
and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and body 
subsisting, begotten before all ages, without 
beginning; of the Father according to the 
Godhead, but in these last days for our sake 
and for our salvation born of the Virgin Mary, 
according to the manhood; consubstantial 
with the Father, as touching His Godhead, and 
consubstantial with the mother, as touching 
His manhood.” ‘‘ Weconfess that Jesus Christ, 
after the Incarnation, was of two natures in 
one Hypostasis and in one Person; one Christ, 
one Son, one Lord. Whosoever asserts other- 
wise, him we exclude from the clergy and 
the church” (Mansi, vi. 679). At the third 
session, Nov. 15, the deputies announced that 
Eutyches refused to appear before the synod, 
alleging that Eusebius had long been his 
enemy, and had grossly slandered him, for he 


the statements of the holy Fathers at Nicaea 
and Ephesus. Certain expressions used by them 
were, in his opinion, mistakes; in such cases 
he turned to Holy Scripture, as a safer guide 
than the Fathers. He worshipped onenature, 
and that the nature of God incarnate. Read- 
ing from a little book which he fetched, 
Eutyches then, according to the deputies, 


ascribed to him—viz. that the Logos had 
brought His body from heaven—and next 
asserted his inability to find in the writings of 
the Fathers their belief that our Lord Jesus 
Christ subsisted of two Persons united in one 
Hypostasis; adding, that even if he did find 
such a statement, he must decline to accept 
it, as not being in Holy Scripture. In his 
belief, He Who was born of the Virgin Mary 
was very God and very man, but His body 
was not of like substance with ours. Eusebius 
struck in, ‘‘ This is quite enough to enable us 
to take action against Eutyches; but let him 
be summoned a second time.” 
were now sent to tell Eutyches that his replies 
had given great offence; he must come and 
explain them, as well as meet the charges 
originally brought against him. They took 
with them a note saying that if he still refused 
to appear, it might be necessary to deal with 


him according to canonical law, and that his | 


determination not to leave his cell was simply 
an evasion. During their absence, Eusebius 
brought forward a further charge. Eutyches, 
he asserted, had written and circulated among 
the monks a little book on the faith, to which 
he had requested their signatures. The state- 
ment was evidently an exaggeration, but was 
of sufficient importance for priests and deacons 
to be at once sent to the neighbouring mon- 


Two priests | 


|rather gather you together ἢ 


EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 


asteries to make inquiries. Meanwhile Mamas 
and Theophilus returned. They reported that 
they had encountered many obstacles. The 
monks round the door of the monastery had 
affirmed the archimandrite to be ill; one 
Eleusinius had presented himself as represent- 
ing Eutyches; and it was only on the assur- 
ance that the letter, of which they were the 
bearers, contained neither hard nor secret 
messages that they at last procured an 
audience. To the letter Eutyches replied that 
nothing but death should make him leave his 
monastery, and that the archbishop and the 
synod might do what they pleased. In his 
turn, he wished them to take a letter; and 
on their refusal announced his intention of 
sending it to the synod. Eusebius at once 
broke out, ‘‘ Guilty men have always some 
excuse ready; we must bring Eutyches here 
against hiswill.’”? But at the desire of Flavian, 
two priests (Memnon and Epiphanius) and a 
deacon (Germanus) were sent to make another 
effort. They took a letter exhorting Eutyches 
not to compel the synod to put in force 
canonical censure, and summoning him before 
them two days later (Nov. 17). The synod 
met on Nov. 16. During the session, infor- 
mation was brought to Flavian that certain 
monks and deacons, friends of Eutyches, and 
Abraham, archimandrite of a neighbouring 
monastery, requested an audience. They 
were at once admitted. Abraham informed 


| the archbishop that Eutyches was ill, and had 
(Eutyches) was ready to assent to and subscribe | 


deputed him to speak for him. Flavian’s 


| reply was paternal and conciliatory. He re- 


gretted the illness of Eutyches, and, on behalf 
of those present, expressed their willingness to 
wait till he was restored. ‘‘ Let him remem- 
ber,’’ he continued, ‘‘ that he is not coming 
among strangers, but among men who would 
receive him with fatherly and _ brotherly 


| affection, and many of whom have hitherto 
first protested against a statement falsely | 


been his friends. He has pained many, and 
must defend himself. Surely if he could leave 
his retirement when the error of Nestorius 


‘imperilled the faith, he should do as much 


when his own orthodoxy is in question. He 


has but to acknowledge and anathematize his 
|error, and the past shall be forgiven. 


As 
regards the future, he must give assurance to 
us that he will only teach conformably to the 
doctrines of the Fathers.’’ The archbishop 
closed with significant words: ‘‘ You (monks) 
know the zeal of the accuser of Eutyches. 
Fire itself seems to him cold in comparison 
with his burning zeal for religion. God knows 
I have besought him to desist; but, as he 
persisted, what could I do? Do you suppose 
that I have any wish to destroy you, and not 
It is the act of 
an enemy to scatter, but the act of a father 
to gather.” 

The fifth session opened on Wed. Nov. 17, 
and as the result of its deliberations, Eutyches 
was informed that he would be expected on 
Nov. 22, and, if he failed to appear, would be 
deprived of his clerical functions and monastic 
dignity. A sixth session met on Sat. Nov. 
20, and agreed that Eutyches might be 
accompanied on the Monday following by 
four friends. Eusebiussaid that when Mamas 
and Theophilus had visited Eutyches, the 
archimandrite used expressions not reported 


ory 


᾿ 


one Christ, one Son, one Lord. 


EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 


to the synod, but which threw great light on; ance with the perception of the 


his opinions. At the request of the bishops, 
Theophilus narrated what had _ occurred. 


Eutyches, he said, had wished to argue with | 


them, and in the presence of several of his 
monks had put these questions: ‘‘ Where, in 
Holy Scripture, is there any mention of two 
natures? Which of the Fathers has declared 
that God the Word has two natures?” 
Mamas had replied that the argument from 
silence was insufficient. ‘‘ The word ὁμοούσιος 
does not occur in Holy Scripture; we owe it 
to the definitions of the Fathers. And simi- 
larly we owe to them the affirmation of the two 
natures.’’ Theophilus had then askedif Euty- 
ches believed that God the Word was “‘ perfect 
(τέλειος) in Christ,’ and ‘* Do you believe that 
the man made flesh was also perfect (in Him) ?”’ 
He answered “‘ Yes”’ to both questions, where- 
upon Theophilus urged, ‘‘ If in Christ be perfect 
God and perfect man, then do these perfect 
(natures) form the one Son. Why will you 
not allow that the one Son consists of two 
natures?’’ Eutyches replied: ‘‘ God forbid 
that I should say that Christ consists of two 
natures, or dispute about the nature of God. 
Let the synod depose me, or do what they 
please. I will hold fast by the faith which I 
have received.’’? Mamas substantiated the 
truth of this report, adding that what led to 
the discussion was a remark of Eutyches: 
“God the Word became flesh to restore fallen 
human nature,’’ and the question which he 
(Mamas) had put: ‘“ By what nature, then, 
is this human nature taken up and restored ? ”’ 
Flavian naturally asked why this conversation 
had not been reported before: it was a lame 
but thoroughly Oriental answer to reply: 
““ Because we had been sent, not to question 
Eutyches about his faith, but to summon him 
tothesynod. We gave you his answer to the 
latter point. No one asked us about the 
former, and therefore we held our peace.” 
The seventh, last, and weightiest session 
met on Mon. Nov. 22. Eutyches at last pre- 
sented himself, accompanied by a multitude 
of soldiers, monks, and others, who refused to 
allow him to enter till assured that he should 
depart as free as heentered. A letter from the 
emperor (Theodosius II.) was presented. ‘‘ I 
wish,”’ it said, ‘‘ for the peace of the church, 
and steadfast adherence to the orthodox 
doctrines of the Fathers at Nicaea and Ephesus. 
And because I know that Florentius the 
patrician is a man approved in the faith, I 
desire that he should be present at the sessions 
of a synod which has to deal with matters of 
faith.” The synod received the letter with 
shouts, ‘‘ Long live the emperor! His faith 
is great! Long live our pious, orthodox, high- 
priest and emperor (τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ PBacidei).”’ 
Florentius was conducted to his seat, the 
accuser (Eusebius) and the accused (Eutyches) 
took their places, and the session began by the 
recital of all the papers bearing on the point 
at issue. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch 
was again read, in which occurred the follow- 
ing: ‘‘ We confess our Lord Jesus Christ... 
consubstantial with the Father, according to 
the Godhead, and consubstantial with us 
according to the manhood ; for a union of the 


two natures was made; wherefore we confess | 


And in accord- | 


EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 353 
C c , unconfused 
union (τὴν τῆς ἀσυγχύτου ἐνώσεως ἔννοιαν), 
we confess the Holy Virgin ϑεοτόκος, because 
God the Word was made flesh, and became 


| man and united to Himself by conception the 
| temple taken from ποτ." 


r t Eusebius exclaimed, 
“ Certainly Eutyches does not acknowledge 
this; he has never believed it, but taught the 
very opposite to every one who came to him.” 
Florentius desired that Eutyches should be 
asked if he assented to these documents or 
not. Eutyches was interrogated; and when 
the archbishop put the plain question : ‘* Do 
you confess that Christ is of two natures?” 
Eutyches answered, “I have never vet pre- 
sumed to dispute about the nature of my God ; 
that He is consubstantial with us have I never 
said. I readily admit that the Holy Virgin is 
consubstantial with us, and that our God was 
born of her flesh.’’ Flavian, Florentius, Basil 
of Seleucia, and others, pressed upon him : 
“If you admit that Mary is consubstantial 
with us, and that Christ took His manhood 
from her, it naturally follows that He, accord- 
ing to His manhood, is consubstantial with us.”’ 
Eutyches answered: “1 do not say that 
the body of man has become the body of God ; 
but in speaking of a human body of God I say 
that the Lord became flesh of the Virgin. If 
you wish me to add that His body is consub- 
stantial with ours, I will do so; but I cannot 
use the word consubstantial in such a manner 
as to deny that He is the Son of God.”” Fla- 
vian’s retort was just: ‘‘ You will then admit 
this from compulsion, and not because it is 
your belief.” Finally, the synod desired 
Eutyches to make a full explanation, and to 
pronounce an anathema on opinions opposed 
to the documents which had been recited. 
Eutyches replied that he would, if the synod 
desired it, make use of language (viz. consub- 
stantial with us, and of two natures) which, 
in his opinion, was very much open to ques- 
tion; ‘‘ but,’ he added, ‘“‘inasmuch as I do 
not find such language either in Holy Scripture 
or in the writings of the Fathers, I must decline 
to pronounce an anathema on those who do 
not accept it, lest—in so doing—I should be 
anathematizing the Fathers.’’ Florentius 
asked: ‘‘ Do you acknowledge two natures in 
Christ, and His consubstantiality with us?" 
“* Cyril and Athanasius,’’ answered Eutyches, 
‘“ speak of two natures before the union, but 
of one nature after the union.”” “If you do 
not acknowledge two natures after the union,”’ 
said Florentius, ‘‘ you will be condemned. 
Whosoever refuses the formula ‘of two 
natures’ and the expression ὁ two natures’ is 
unorthodox ;”’ to which the synod responded 
with the cry, ‘‘ And to receive this under com- 
pulsion (as would Eutyches) is not to believe 
in- it. Long live the emperor!" The sen- 


| tence was pronounced: ‘* Eutyches, formerly 


priest and archimandrite, hath proved himself 
affected by the heresy of Valentinus and 
Apollinaris, and hath refused—in spite of our 
admonition—to accept the true faith. There- 
fore we, lamenting his perverseness, have 
decreed, through our Lord Jesus Christ, blas- 
phemed by him, that he be excluded from all 
priestly functions, from our communion, and 
from his primacy in his monastery.’ Ex- 
communication was pronounced upon all whe 


23 


354 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 


should consort with and abet him, and the 
sentence was signed by 32 (? 28) bishops, and 
23 archimandrites. Eutyches left the council- 
chamber muttering an appeal to Rome. 

The monks rallied round Eutyches, and 
the influence of the minister Chrysaphius, his 
godson, was exerted in his behalf. Eutyches 
himself wrote to the emperor and to many of 
the bishops, and placarded notices about Con- 
stantinople, protesting against his sentence 
and justifying his teaching. Of his letters the 
most important is to pope Leo. In it he ac- 
cuses Eusebius of acting at Satan’s bidding, 
not in the interests of orthodoxy, but with the 
intention of destroying him. He repeats that 
he could not accede to the demands of the 
synod, acknowledge two natures in Christ, and 
anathematize all who opposed this doctrine, 
because Athanasius, Gregory, Julius, and 
Felix had rejected the expression ‘‘ two 
natures,’’ he himself having no wish to add 
to the creed of Nicaea and Ephesus, nor to 
define too particularly the nature of God the 
Word. He adds that he had desired the synod 
to lay the matter before the pope, promising 
to abide by his decision ; but this not having 
been granted, he, being in great danger, now 
implored the pope to give an unprejudiced 
judgment, and to protect him. 

Flavian, on his part, circulated the decree 
of excommunication. He charged the monks 
to obey it, and communicated it to the em- 
peror, the pope, and provincial bishops. His 
interviews with the emperor were marked by 
great suspicion on the part of the latter; 
and his letter to Leo was forestalled by that 
of Eutyches and a second was required before 
the pope was satisfied. Leo eventually gave 
Eutyches his answer in the celebrated Epistola 
Dogmatica ad Flavianum. 

Court favour inclined to Eutyches; and 
early in 449 the emperor appointed a commis- 
sion to examine a charge of falsification of the 
acts of the late synod of Constantinople, 
proffered by Eutyches against Flavian. No 
such falsification was proved, and the com- 
mission had no choice but to confirm the sen- 
tence pronounced by the synod; but an 
agitation was thereby advanced, which was 
productive of the greatest misery. 

A council had already been summoned by 
the emperor to meet at Ephesus. Eutyches 
and Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, had 
demanded it, and their position had been 
supported by Chrysaphius. Theimperialsum- 
mons was in the names of Theodosius 11. and 
Valentinian III., and was dated May 30, 449. 
It stated the cause of the summons to be the 
doubts and disputes which had arisen concern- 
ing the faith ; it invited Dioscorus to present 
himself with ten metropolitans and ten bishops 
at Ephesus on Aug. 1; and it extended the 
invitation to other bishops, Theodoret of Cyrus 
(Kars) being exempted unless specially sum- 
moned by the council. 

The synod—the “ Latrocinium,”’ or ‘‘ Rob- 
ber Synod,” as posterity was taught to call it 
by Leo—first met on Aug. 8, 449. ‘‘ Flavian 
was presented as an oppressor and Eutyches 
as a victim, and terrible was the day on which 
it opened. The true faith received in the East 
a shock from which it has never completely 
recovered since. The church witnessed the 


EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 


separation from herself of nations which have 
never returned to her, and perhaps never will ”’ 
(Martin). Leo was not present except by 
his legates, who brought the famous tome, or 
doctrinal letter, to Flavian, and letters to the 
emperor, the archimandrites, the council, and 
others. In his letter to Theodosius (June 13, 
449) Leo expresses his regret that “‘ the foolish 
old man’’ (Eutyches) had not given up 
opinions condemned by the synod of Con- 
stantinople, and intimates his wish that the 
archimandrite should be received again if he 
would keep his promise to the pope, and amend 
what was erroneous in his views. In the 
letter to Pulcheria (same date), the pope con- 
siders Eutyches to have fallen into his error 
‘“through want of knowledge rather than 
through wickedness ’”’; to the archimandrites 
of Constantinople he states his conviction that 
they do not share the views of Eutyches, and 
exhorts them to deal tenderly with him should 
he renounce his error; and to the synod he 
quotes the confession of St. Peter, ‘‘ Thou art 
the Christ, the Son of the living God” 
(Matt. xvi. 16) as embodying belief in the two 
natures, and argues that if Eutyches had 
rightly understood these words, he would 
not have swerved from the path of truth. 
In most of these Leo refers to the tome as 
containing the true teaching of the church. 

A synod stigmatized as “‘ a gang of robbers ”’ 
was not likely to permit the recital of a 
document condemnatory of Eutyches, the 
man they were pledged to acquit. It was 
presented, but shelved. 

For the history of the synod, in its relation 
to Eutyches, see Dioscorus. The Christian 
world was rent in pieces by its proceedings. 
Egypt, Thrace, and Palestine ranged them- 
selves with Dioscorus and the emperor ; Syria, 
Pontus, Asia, Rome, protested against the 
treatment of Flavian and the acquittal of 
Eutyches. Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, 
Leo Dioscorus. Theodosius applauded and 
confirmed the decisions of the synod in a 
decree which denounced Flavian, Eusebius, 
and others as Nestorians, forbad the elevation 
of their followers to episcopal rank, deposed 
them if already bishops, and expelled them 
from the country. Leo wrote to the emperor 
Theodosius, to the church at Constantinople, 
and to the anti-Eutychian archimandrites. 
He asked for a general council. 

The wrangle was suddenly silenced by the 
death of Theodosius (July 450). Under Mar- 
cian orthodoxy triumphed again: ‘ Euty- 
chianism, as well as Nestorianism, was 
conquered ’’ (Leo). Marcian assented at once 
and cordially to the pope’s request for a 
council. Anatolius convened a synod of such 
bishops, archimandrites, priests, and deacons 
as were at Constantinople, and in the presence 
of the Roman legates subscribed the tome, 
and, together with the whole assembly, 
anathematized Eutyches, Nestorius, and their 
followers. Leo’s wish for a council was not 
now sourgent. The danger had passed away. 
Eutychianism and Nestorianism had been 
anathematized; his own tome had been 
everywhere accepted; of more immediate 
importance, in his opinion, was the practical 
question, how best and most speedily to 
reconcile the penitent and to punish the 


EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 


obstinate. The war in the West, the invasion 
of Gaul by Attila, would prevent the bishops 
of the West from attending a council in Italy, 
where he wished it to be. Nestorianism was 
still powerful among the bishops of Syria, and 
would unquestionably bias the views of many, 
should a council be called in the East, as the 
emperor desired. He feared that the men 
who would unite for the condemnation of 
Eutychianism would find means for a triumph 
of Nestorianism over orthodoxy. But, in 
deference to the emperor’s convictions, he 
consented to send representatives to the future 
council, while he urged that no fresh discus- 
sion should be allowed whether Eutyches was 
heretical or not, or whether Dioscorus had 
judged rightly or not, but that debate should 
turn upon the best means of reconciling and 
dealing mercifully with those who had gone 
wrong. For a similar reason he urged the 
emperor's wife, Pulcheria, to cause the remo- 
val of Eutyches from the neighbourhood of 
Constantinople, and to place an orthodox 
abbat at the head of his monastery. 

The fourth great council of the church met 
at Chalcedon on Oct. 8, 451. For its general 
history see Dioscorus. During the first session 
the secretaries read the documents descriptive 
of the introduction of Eutyches at the synod of 
Ephesus (the Latrocinium) and the reading of 
his paper. At words attributing to Eutychesthe 
statement, ‘‘ The third general council (that 
of Ephesus, 431) hath directly forbidden any 
addition to the Nicene Creed,’’ Eusebius of 
Dorylaeum exclaimed, ‘ That is untrue.” 
“You will find it in four copies,’ retorted 
Dioscorus. Diogenes of Cyzicus urged that 
Eutyches had not repeated the Nicene Creed 
as it then stood; for the second general 
council (Constantinople, 381) had certainly 
appended (against Apollinaris and Macedo- 
nius) to the words ‘‘ He was incarnate,’’ the 
words ‘‘by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin 
Mary,”’ though he considered this an explan- 
ation rather than an addition; but the 
Egyptian bishops present disclaimed (as Cyril 
had previously done) any such revised version 
of the Nicene confession and greeted the words 
of Diogenes with loud disapproval. Angry 
words were again interchanged when the 
reader continued: “1 (Eutyches) anathema- 
tize all who say that the flesh of our Lord 
Jesus Christ came down from  heaven.”’ 
**True,’”’ interrupted Eusebius, ‘‘ but Euty- 
ches has never told us whence Christ did take 
His manhood ;”’ and Diogenes and Basil of 
Seleucia affirmed that Eutyches, though 
pressed upon this point at Constantinople, had 
refused to speak out. Dioscorus now, and to 
his honour, protested: ‘‘ Let Eutyches be not 
only punished, but burnt, if he holds heterodox 
opinions. I only care to preserve the Catholic 
faith, not that of any individual man ’”’; and 
then he turned upon Basil for having said one 
thing at Constantinople and another at Ephe- 
sus. ‘‘I did so,’’ pleaded Basil, ‘* out of fear 
of the majority. Before a tribunal of magis- 
trates I would have remained firm even to 
martyrdom; but I did not dare oppose (a 
tribunal of) the Fathers (or bishops).’’ This 
plea for pardon was adopted by the others. 
“Yes, we all sinned (at Ephesus); we all 
implore forgiveness.”’ 


EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 355 


At the 4th session (Oct. 17) 18 anti-Euty- 
chian priests and archimandrites, headed by 
Faustus, were admitted. They were ques- 
tioned about a petition addressed to Marcian 
previous to the opening of the council, by 
Carosus and other Eutychians, who styled 
themselves archimandrites. Faustus replied 
that only two of the petitioners (Carosus and 
Dorotheus) were archimandrites, the rest were 
men who lived in martyries or were unknown 
to them. The imperial commissioners com- 
manded that Carosus and the others should be 
summoned. Twenty came, and then the 
petition was read. It was an impassioned 
appeal to the emperor to prevent an outbreak 
of schism, to summon a council, and mean- 
while forbid the expulsion of any man from 
his church, monastery, or martyry. In a 
second document the Eutychians excused 
themselves for not having previously attended, 
on the ground that the emperor had forbidden 
it. ‘‘The emperor,” it proceeded, ‘ had 
assured them that at the council the creed of 
Nicaea only should be established, and that 
nothing should be undertaken previous to 
this.” It urged that the condemnation of 
Dioscorus was inconsistent with the imperial 
promise ; he and his bishops should therefore 
be again called to the council, and the present 
schism would be removed. If not, they de- 
clared that they would hold no communion 
with men who opposed the creed of the 318 
Fathers at Nicaea. To prove their own ortho- 
doxy they appended their signatures to that 
creed and to the Ephesian canon which con- 
firmed it. Aetius, archdeacon of Constanti- 
nople, reminded these petitioners that church 
discipline required monks to accept from the 
bishops instructions in matters of faith. In 
the name of the council he demanded, *‘ Do 
you assent to their decision or not?” “I 
abide by the creed of Nicaea,’’ answered 
Carosus; ‘‘condemn me and send me into 
exile. . . . If Eutyches doth not believe what 
the Catholic church believes, let him be 
anathema.”’ The appeal of Faustus and 
other anti-Eutychian archimandrites to the 
emperor was now ordered to be read. The 
Eutychian archimandrite Dorotheus imme- 
diately asserted the orthodoxy of Eutyches. 
The commissioners retorted, ‘‘ Eutyches 
teaches that the body of the Redeemer is not 
of like substance to ours. What say you to 
that ?’’ Dorotheus avoided a direct answer 
by quoting the language of the Constantino- 
politan creed in this form, ‘* Incarnate of the 
Virgin and made man,"’ and interpreting it in 
an anti-Nestorian sense; but he declined to 
attest the language used on this point by Leo 
in histome. The commissioners were now on 
the point of passing judgment, when the 
Eutychians asserted that the emperor had 
promised them an opportunity of fair debate 
with their opponents in his presence. It was 
necessary to ascertain the truth of this, and 
the sitting of Oct. 17 ended. On Oct. 20 
the council met again. Alexander, the priest 
and periodeutes (** visitor,’ see Suicer, The- 
saur. i. n.), who had been deputed to see the 
emperor, informed the council that he and the 
decurion John had been sent by the emperor 
to the monks, with a message to the effect that 
had he (the emperor) considered hims: lf able 


856 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 


to decide the point in dispute, he would not 
have convened a council. ‘‘I now charge 
you,’’ continued the emperor, ‘‘ to attend the 
council and learn from them what you do not 
yet know. For what the holy general council 
determines, that I follow, that I rest in, and 
that I believe.’’ The imperial language was 
greeted with loud acclamations. The Euty- 
chians were granted 30 days’ consideration, 
after which, should they remain contumacious, 
they would be deprived of ecclesiastical rank 
and office. From Leo’s correspondence (Epp. 
136, 141, 142) it would seem that Carosus and 
Dorotheus persisted in their views and were 
ejected by Marcian from their monastery. 
On Oct. 22, in the 5th session, the memorable 
“ Definition of faith agreed upon at the council 
of Chalcedon ’’ was recited and received with 
the unanimous cry, “‘ This is the faith of the 
Fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles. 
We all assent to it. We all think thus.” It 
was signed by the metropolitan and by the 
imperial commissioners. After declaring 
“the sufficiency of the wise and saving 
creed’’ of Nicaea and Constantinople, inas- 
much as that creed taught ‘‘ completely the 
perfect doctrine concerning the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Spirit, and fully explained 
the Incarnation of the Lord to those who 
received it faithfully,’’ it goes on to admit that 
some ‘‘ dare to corrupt the mystery of the 
Lord’s Incarnation, others (1.5. the Euty- 
chians) bring in a confusion and mixture 
(σύγχυσιν καὶ κρᾶσιν), and absurdly imagine 
the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead to 
be one, and teach the monstrous doctrine that 
the Divine nature of the Only-begotten was a 
commixture capable of suffering . . . Therefore 
the present holy, great, and oecumenical 
council... has added for the confirmation of 
the orthodox doctrines, the letter of Leo 
written to Flavian for the removal of the evil 
opinions (kaxovola) of Eutyches. For it is 
directed against those who attempt to rend 
the mystery of the Incarnation into a duad of 
Sons; it repels from the sacred congregation 
those who dare to say that the Divinity of the 
Only-begotten is capable of suffering ; it is 
opposed to those who imagine a mixture or 
confusion of the two natures of Christ; it 
drives away those who fancy that the form of 
a servant which was taken by Him of us is 
of an heavenly or any other substance; and 
it condemns those who speak of two natures 
of the Lord before the union, and feign one 
after the union. . . . We then,’’ was the con- 
clusion, ‘‘ following the holy Fathers, all with 
one consent teach men to confess one and the 
same Son, one Lord Jesus Christ ; the same 
perfect in Godhead and also perfect in man- 
hood: truly God and truly man, of a reason- 
able soul and body ; consubstantial with the 
Father according to the Godhead, and con- 
substantial with us according to the manhood ; 
in all things like unto us without sin ; begotten 
before all ages of the Father according to the 
Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and 
for our salvation, born of Mary, the Virgin 
Mother of God, according to the Manhood ; 
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only- 
begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, 
inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, in- 
separably (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, 


EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 


ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον), the dis- 
tinction of natures being by no means taken 
away by the union, but rather the property 
of each nature being preserved, and concurring 
in one person and one hypostasis, not parted 
or divided into two persons, but one and the 
same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, 
the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from 
the beginning have declared concerning Him, 
and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught 
us, and the creed of the holy Fathers has 
delivered to us.” “Writing, composing, 
devising, or teaching any other creed’’ was 
declared unlawful, with penalties: ‘‘ bishops 
and clergy were to be deposed, monks and 
laymen anathematized.”’ 

On Oct. 25 Marcian, accompanied by Pul- 
cheria and the court, opened and closed the 
sixth session. In his address he explained 
that he appeared in person, as Constantine 
had done before him, not to overawe and co- 
erce any, but to strengthen and confirm the 
faith: his efforts and prayers were alike 
directed to one end, that all might be one in 
true doctrine, hold the same religion, and 
honour the true Catholic faith. The arch- 
deacon Aetius recited in his presence the 
confession of faith approved at the previous 
session, and when the emperor asked if it 
expressed the opinion of all, shouts arose from 
all sides, ‘‘ This is the belief of us all! Weare 
unanimous, and have signed it unanimously ! 
We are all orthodox! This is the belief of the 
Fathers; this is the belief of the Apostles ; 
this is the belief of the orthodox ; this belief 
hath saved the world! Long live Marcian, 
the new Constantine, the new Paul, the new 
David! Long live Pulcheria, the new 
Helena! ”’ 

Imperial edicts speedily followed the close 
of the council (Nov. 1). One, dated Mar. 13, 
452, was especially directed against the Euty- 
chians. They had persisted in disseminating 
their ‘‘ foolishness ”’ in spite of the council and 
the emperor. Marcian warned them that 
their contumacy would be sharply punished ; 
and on July 28, Eutychians and Apollinarians 
were deprived of their priests and forbidden 
to hold meetings or live together in monas- 
teries; they were to be considered incapable 
of inheriting property under a will or devising 
property to their co-sympathizers ; and were 
to be reckoned unfit for military service. 
Eutychian priests who had seceded from their 
post in the church and the monks from Euty- 
ches’s own monastery were banished from 
Roman territory. Their writings were to be 
burnt, and the composer and circulator of such 
works was to be punished with confiscation of 
goods and withexile. Dioscorusand Eutyches 
were exiled, but the latter died probably be- 
fore the sentence was carried into effect. 

‘“With none of those who have been the 
authors of heresies among Christians was blas- 
phemy the first intention; nor did they fall 
from the truth in a desire to dishonour the 
Deity, but rather from an idea which each 
entertained, that he should improve upon his 
predecessors by upholding such and such 
doctrines.’’ These words of the church his- 
torian Evagrius (i. rr) follow his account of 
the second (i.e. the Robber) synod of Ephesus, 
which restored Eutyches. They express the 


EUTYCHIANUS 


EUTYCHIUS 357 


belief of a judicially-trained mind within little | Eutychius to the Acts of this synod, which sat 
more than roo years after the events in ques- | from May 5 to June 2, 551, is a summary of 


tion, and are in substance reproduce 
“ judicious’? Hooker (Eccl. Pol. v. c. 52). 


by | the decrees against the Three Chapters. 


Eutychius came into violent collision with 


Cyril ‘‘ had given instance in the body and | Justinian in 564, when the emperor adopted 


soul of man no farther than only to enforce | the tenets of the Aphthartodocetae. 


Euty- 


by example against Nestorius, that a visible|chius, in a long address, demonstrated the 


and invisible, a mortal and an immortal | incompatibility of that theory with Scripture ; 
substance, may united make one person.’’| but Justinian insisted on his subscribing to 


Eutyches and his followers took those words it, and finding him uncompromising, ordered 


of Cyril ‘‘as though it had been his drift to his arrest. 
teach, that even as in us the body and the | 


soul, so in Christ God and man make but one 
nature. ... He became unsound (in belief) by 
denying the difference which still continueth 
between the one and the other nature.’’ It 
was ‘real, though erring reverence’’ which 


led him, in the first instance, to broach his | 


opinions. His ‘‘ narrow mind, stiffened by 
seclusion, and bewildered by harassing excite- 
ment ’’ (Bright) was in no state in the day of 
his trial before the synod of Constantinople 
to perceive to what his teaching logically 
conducted, nor to accept the qualifications or 
paraphrases kindly offered. He passed away, 
but Eutychianism exists still (Pusey, Councils 
of the Church, p. 25). It never has and never 
will yield to edicts like those of Marcian. The 
right faith has been defined by the great 
council which opposed both it and Nestorian- 
ism. ‘‘ We must keep warily a middle course, 
shunning both that distraction of Persons, 
wherein Nestorius went away, and also this 
latter confusion of natures, which deceived 
Eutyches ’’ (Hooker). [MONOPHYSITISM.] 

Consult Mansi, Sacr. Conc. Collectio, vi. vii.; 
Tillem. Mémoires, etc. xv.; Bright, History of 
the Church (313-451); and other works men- 
tioned above. [J-M.F.] 

Eutychianus (3), bp. of Rome from Jan. 
275 to Dec. 283, during a period of 8 years, 
Ir months and 3 days, and buried in the 
cemetery of Callistus. The truth of the record 
in the Liberian Catalogue has been confirmed 
by the discovery by De Rossi (Rom. Sot. ii. 
70), in the papal crypt of the cemetery, of 
fragments of a slab inscribed EYTYXIANOC 
ΕΠῚΙΟ (Eutychianus episcopus). Ten decreta 
appear as his in the collections of Gratian, 
Ivo, and others. [J-B—y.] 

Eutyechius (18), St., patriarch of Constan- 
tinople. His biography, composed by his 
chaplain Eustathius, has been preserved entire. 
Eutychius was born at Theium in Phrygia 
δ. 512. 
under Belisarius. Eutychius took the monastic 
habit at Amasea at the age of 30, c. 542. 

As an archimandrite at Constantinople he 
stood high in favour with the patriarch Men- 
nas, at whose death in 552 he was nominated 
by Justinian to the vacant chair. 

At the beginning of 553 Eutychius wrote to 
pope Vigilius, making his profession of the 


Catholic faith, declaring his acceptance of the | 


His father Alexander was a general 


four councils and the letters of St. Leo, and. 


requesting Vigilius to preside over the council 
that was to be held on the question of the 
Three Chapters. 
chius shared the first place in the assembly 
with the patriarchs Apollinarius of Alexandria 


and Domninus of Antioch. At the second | of his hand, saying, “I confe 
session the pope excused himself again, on the | flesh we shall rise again"’ (Paul. 
ground of ill-health. The subscription οὐ Greg. Mag. lib. i. capp. 9, 27-30; 


Vigilius refused, and Euty- | 


22 
ae, 


On Jan. 565, Eutychius 
was at the holy table celebrating the feast-day 
of St. Timotheus in the church adjoining the 
Hormisdas palace (cf. du Cange, Cpolis. Chr. 


|lib. ii. p. 96, lib. iv. p. 93, ed. 1729), when 


soldiers broke into the patriarchal residence, 
entered the church, and carried the patriarch 
away, first toamonastery called Choracudis, and 
the next dayto that of St. Osias near Chalcedon. 
The 8th day after this outrage Justinian called 
an assembly of princes and prelates, to which 
he summoned Eutychius. The charges against 
him were trifling and absurd: that he used oint- 
ments, ate delicate meats, and prayed long. 
Cited thrice, Eutychius replied that he would 
only come if he were to be judged canonically, 
in his own dignity, and in command of his 
clergy. Condemned by default, he was sent 
to an island in the Propontis named Principus, 
and afterwards to his old monastery at 
Amasea, where he spent 12 years and 5 
months. On the death of Joannes Scho- 
lasticus, whom Justinian had put in the pat- 
riarchal chair, the people of Constantinople 
loudly demanded the return of Eutychius. 
Justin II. had succeeded Justinian, and had 
associated with himself the young Tiberius. 
The emperors immediately sent an honourable 
deputation to Amasea to bring back Euty- 
chius, who returned with great joy to Con- 
stantinople in Oct. 577. An immense con- 
course met him, shouting aloud, ‘* Blessed is 
he that cometh in the name of the Lord,"’ and 
“* Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace.”’ 
In questionable imitation of our Lord he 
entered on an ass’s colt, over garments spread 
on the ground, the crowd carrying palms, 
dancing, and singing. The whole city was 
illuminated, public banquets were held, new 
buildings inaugurated. Next day he was met 
by the two emperors with conspicuous honour 
at the church of the Virgin in Blachernae. He 
then proceeded to the great church, which 
was filled from end to end, mounted the 
pulpit, and blessed the multitude. He was 
six hours distributing the communion, as all 
wished to receive from his own hands. ᾿ 
Towards the end of his life Eutychius main- 
tained that after the resurrection the body 


| will be more subtle than air, and no longer 


palpable. Gregory the Great, then residing 
at Constantinople as delegate of the Roman 
church, felt himself bound to oppose this 
opinion. The emperor Tiberius talked to the 
disputants separately, and tried to reconcile 
them; but the breach was persistent. Euty- 
chius breathed his last quietly on Sunday 
after Easter Day, Apr. 5, 582, aged 70 years. 
Some of his friends told Gregory that, a few 


| minutes before his end, he touched the skin 


‘*T confess that in this 
Diac. Vet. 
Vit. Greg. 


358 EUZOIUS 


ex ejus Script. lib. i. cap. 5, §§ 6-8; 
Mag. Moral. xiv. §§ 72-74). 

The chronology of his life here followed is 
that fixed by Henschen in his introductory 
argument to the Life by Eustathius (Boll. Acta 
SS. 6 Ap. i. 550). His literary remains are 
his letter to pope Vigilius already mentioned, 
printed in Greek and Latin by Mansi (ix. 186), 
and by Migne (Patr. Lat. |xix. 63; Patr. Gk. 
Ixxxvi. 2401), and some fragments of a Dis- 
course on Easter and the Holy Eucharist (Migne, 
Patr. Gk. \xxxvi. 2391). In this treatise 
Eutychius argues against the Quartodeci- 
mans, against the Hydroparastatae who used 
water instead of wine at communion (he says 
that the only apostolic tradition is the mixture 
of both), against certain schismatic Arme- 
nians who used only wine, and against some 
Greeks and Armenians who adored the 
elements as soon as they were offered and 
before consecration. The lost work of Euty- 
chius was a discourse on the manner of exist- 
ence of reasonable natures in space, a sort of 
physical theory of the future life. Patr. Gk. 
Ixxxix. §§ 2270-2389; Bolland. AA. SS. Ap. 
i. 548; 1b. App. p. lix. in Greek; Surius, de 
Prob. Hist. SS. Apr. p. 82; Evagr. iv. 37; 
Theoph. Chronogr. 193, 201, 202, 203, 210, 
ΤᾺ 212, 213); (Gave; 1.527: [w.M.S.] 

Euzoius (1), Arian bp. of Antioch, the com- 
panion and intimate friend of Arius from an 
early age. He was one of 11 presbyters and 
deacons of that church, deposed together with 
Arius by Alexander bp. of Alexandria, c. 320 
(Soci EO 90. Ἧς: Edens) neod. 
Ho E-jic 4, 11. 31105 Athan. de/Syn- p. 907). 
He was again condemned and banished, with 
Arius, by the council of Nicaea, A.D. 325. 
When Arius was recalled from banishment, 
and summoned to the emperor’s side in 330, 
he was accompanied by Euzoius, by this time 
a priest. Both regained the emperor’s con- 
fidence by an evasive declaration of their faith 
and a professed acceptance of the creed of 
Nicaea (Socr. H. E. i. 25, 26; Soz. H. E. ii. 
27). He accompanied Arius to Jerusalem at 
the great gathering of Eusebian bishops for 
the dedication of the church of the Anastasis, 
Sept. 13, 335, and with him was received into 
communion by the council then held (Soz. l.c. ; 
Athan. de Synod. p.8g91). In 361 Constantius, 
having banished Meletius, bp. of Antioch, 
summoned Euzoius from Alexandria, and com- 
manded the bishops of the province to conse- 
crate him. A few months later Constantius, 
being seized with a fatal fever, summoned the 
newly appointed bishop, Euzoius, to his bedside 
on Nov. 3, 361, and received from him the 
sacrament of baptism. Whether this was at 
Antioch or Mopsucrene in Cilicia is uncertain 
(Athan. ἐδ. 907 ; Philost. H. E. vi. 5). On the 
accession of Valens, Euzoius was urged by 
Eudoxius to convene a synod of bishops at 
Antioch to take off Aetius’s sentence, and this 
he ultimately did, c. 364 (ἰδ. vii. 5). On the 
death of Athanasius in 373, Euzoius was, at 
his own petition, dispatched by Valens, with 
Magnus the imperial treasurer and troops, to 
instal the imperial nominee, the Arian Lucius 
of Samosata, instead of Peter the dulv elected 
and enthroned bishop. This commission was 
carried out with shameless brutality and per- 
secution of the orthodox (Socr. H. E. iv. 21; 


Greg. 


EVAGRIUS 


Theod. iv. 21, 22). Euzoius’s death is placed 
by Socrates in 376 at Constantinople (H. E. 
iv. 35). Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 713 ; Baron. 
Ann. ad ann. 325, Ixxix. ; 335, xlix. [E.v.] 
Evagrius (5), known as Evagrius of Antioch, 
was consecrated bishop over one of the parties 
in Antioch in 388 or 389, and must have lived 
until at least 392. Socr. H. E. v. 15; Soz. 
H. E. vii. 15 ; Theod. H. E. v. 23; Hieron. 
de Vir. Ill. cap. 25 ; Ambrose, Ep. lvi. 
Evagrius belonged to the Eustathian divi- 
sion of the orthodox church at Antioch, of 
which he became a presbyter. After the 
schism at Antioch caused by Lucifer’s con- 
secration of Paulinus, Evagrius left Antioch, 
and accompanied Eusebius of Vercelli to 
Italy in 363 or 364. Here he zealously 
co-operated with Eusebius in restoring peace 
to the churches distracted by the results of 
the council of Ariminum, and re-establishing 
orthodoxy on the terms laid down by the 
synod of Alexandria in 362. He also afforded 
pope Damasus important aid against Ursicius 
and his faction, A.p. 367. At Milan he re- 
solutely withstood the Arian bp. Auxentius. 
After nine or ten years he returned to the 
East, with Jerome, with the view of healing 
the schism that still divided the church of 
Antioch. He called at Caesarea to visit Basil 
in the autumn of 373, and found him suffering 
from ague. He was commissioned by the 
Western bishops to return to Basil the letters 
he had sent them, probably relating to the 
Meletian schism, as unsatisfactory, and to 
convey terms dictated by them, which he was 
to embody in a fresh letter to be sent into 
the West by some duly authorized commis- 
sioners. Only thus would the Western pre- 
lates feel warranted in interfering in the 
Eastern church, and making a personal visit 
(Basil, Ep. 138 [8]). On his return to Antioch, 
Evagrius wrote in harsh terms to Basil, 
accusing him of a love of controversy and of 
being unduly swayed by personal partialities. 
If he really desired peace, let him come himself 
to Antioch and endeavour to re-unite the 
Catholics, or at least write to them and use 
his influence with Meletius to put an end to 
the dissensions. Basil’s reply is a model of 
courteous sarcasm. If Evagrius was so great 
a lover of peace, why had he not fulfilled his 
promise of communicating with Dorotheus, 
the head of the Meletian party? It would 
be far better for Evagrius to depute some one 
from Antioch, who would know the parties to 
be approached and the form the letters should 
take (7b. 156 [342]). On the death of Paulinus, 
A.D. 388, Evagrius manifested the hollowness 
of his professed desire for peace by becoming 
himself the instrument of prolonging the 
schism. He was ordained by the dying bp. 
Paulinus, in his sick-chamber. without the 


in direct violation of thecanons. Flavian had 
been consecrated by the other party on the 
death of Meletius, a.p. 381. Thus the hope of 
healing the schism was again frustrated (Socr. 
H. E. v.15; Theod. H. E. v. 23). A council 
was summoned at Capua, A.D. 390, to deter- 
mine whether Flavian or Evagrius was lawful 
bp. of Antioch, but found the question too 
| knotty, and relegated the decision to Theo- 
| philus of Alexandria and the Egyptian bishops. 


presence or consent of any assisting bishops, ἢ 


a 


9.ὺ- 


EVAGRIUS PONTICUS 


The death of Evagrius deprived Flavian of his 
rival. This was not before 392, in which year 
Jerome speaks of him as still alive (de Vir. 11]. 
c. 125). Jerome praises treatises on various 
subjects which he heard Evagrius read while 
still a presbyter, but which he had not yet 
published. He translated into Latin the Life 
of St. Anthony by St. Athanasius (Migne, Patr. 
Gk. xxvi. 835-976). Its genuineness has been 
much disputed, but the balance of critical judg- 
ment seems in its favour.  [J.C.G. AND E.v.] 
Evagrius (12) Pontious, anchoret and 
writer, born at Ibora in Pontus Galaticus, 
according to Tillemont, in 345. He was 
ordained reader by Basil, and deacon by Gre- 
gory Nyssen, who took him to the council 
of Constantinople, A.p. 381, teste his pupil 
Palladius (Hist. Laustac. c. 86, p. ror0). 
Gregory Nyssen thought so highly of Evagrius 
as a theologian and dialectician that he left 
him behind in Constantinople to aid the newly 
appointed bishop, Nectarius (who, before his 
consecration, was a layman destitute of theo- 
logical training) in dealing with heretics. 
The imperial city proved a dangerous home 
for the young deacon. The wife of an ex- 
prefect conceived a guilty passion for him, 
which he returned. The husband’s jealousy 
was awakened, and Evagrius only escaped 
assassination by a timely flight, being warned 
of his peril by a dream (Soz. ἢ. E. vi. 30). 
Jerusalem was the place of his retreat. Here 
he was hospitably received by Melania the 
elder, by whom he was nursed during a severe 
attack of fever, and who, perceiving the 
weakness of his disposition, led him to embrace 
an ascetic life as the only safeguard against 
the temptations of the flesh. Evagrius went 
to Egypt, where, after two years spent in 
great austerities in the Nitrian desert, he 
plunged still deeper into the solitude, and 
practised severer mortifications in the cells of 
Scetis. Here the two Macarii were bis in- 
structors and models in the ascetic life. After 
enduring many terrible temptations, recorded 
by Palladius, and having obtained mastery 
over his bodily passions, he became qualified 
to instruct others in asceticism. Palladius 
became his companion and disciple in 391. 
Among his other disciples were Rufinus, and 
Heraclides of Cyprus, afterwards bp. of 
Ephesus (ἐν. viii. 6). Palladius gives several 
anecdotes illustrative of the height of ascetic 
virtue attained by Evagrius and his fellow- 
hermits. On one occasion he threw into the 
fire a packet of letters from his parents and 
other near friends lest their perusal should 
re-entangle him in worldly thoughts (Cassian, 
v. 32; Tillem. x. 376). Theophilus, the 
metropolitan of Alexandria, desired to make 
him a bishop, and Evagrius fled to resist his 
importunities (Socr. H. E. iv. 23). Evagrius 
remained in the cells of Scetis until he died, 
worn out with austerities, in the 17th year of 
his recluse life, a.p. 398, at the age of 54, 
“signis et prodigiis pollens’’ (Gennad. J/lust. 
Vir. c. xi.). He was a zealous champion of 
the doctrines of Origen, for which he fell under 
the lash of Jerome, whose enmity had also 
been aroused by his having been the instructor 
of Rufinus during his sojourn in Egypt and 
having enjoyed the patronage of Melania. 
Jerome speaks in contemptuous terms of his 


EVAGRIUS 


writings (ad Ctesiph.), especially of his book 
περὶ ἀπαθείας, when combating the tenet 
ascribed to the Origenists that a man could 
raise himself to a superiority to temptation (t.¢. 
as Jerome says, ‘‘ becoming either a stone or 
god ’’) and live without sin. He also charges 
him with being a precursor of Pelagius (in 
Pelag. p. 260), and including in his book de 
Monachis many who never were monks at all, 
and also Origenists who had been condemned 
by their bishops. The existing remains of 
his writings are printed by Galland, Β δὶ. 
Patr. vii. 551-581, and Migne, Patr. vol. 86. 
Socrates, Gennadius, Palladius, and Suidas, 
sub voc. ‘‘ Macarius,’’ mention as by him: 
(1) Monachus, on “ active virtue,’’ in roo 
chapters. (2) Gnosticus. (3) Antirrheticus, a 
collection of passages of Scripture against the 
eight divisions of evilthoughts. (4) A Century 
of Prayers. (5) 600 Gnostic Problems. (6) A 
Letter to Melania. (7) A book, περὶ ἀπαθείας. 
(8) 100 Sentences for the Use of Anchorets living 
simply. (9) Short Sentences. (το) Στιχηρά, 
in two books, one addressed to monks, and the 
other to a virgin dedicated to God. (11) Lther 
de rerum monachalium rationtbus. (12) Scho- 
lion de tetragrammato Det nomine. Oudin, i. 
883; Tillem. Mém. eccl. x. pp. 368 ff.; Fabr. 
Bibl. Graec. ix. 284, ed. Harles; Dupin, Hist. 
Eccl. .π Cave; Hist TAt. in 498 3° οἷς 
O. Zickler, Evagrius Ponticus (Munich, 1893); 
J. Draseke, ‘‘Zu Evag.-Pont.”’ in Zettschrift ftir 
wissensch Theol. 1894, XXxvii. 125 ff. [Ἑ.ν.} 

Evagrius (17), an ecclesiastical historian, 
who wrote six books, embracing a period of 
163 years, from the council of Ephesus a.p. 
431 to the r2th year of the emperor Mauricius 
Tiberius, A.D. 594. He was born at Epiphania 
in Coelesyria A.D. 536 or 537, but accompa- 
nied his parents to Apamea for his education, 
and from Apamea seems to have gone to 
Antioch, the capital of Syria, and entered the 
profession of the law. He received the sur- 
name of Scholasticus, a term then applied to 
lawyers (Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v.), gained 
great favour with Gregory bp. of Antioch, and 
was chosen by him to assist in his judgments. 
He seems to have won general esteem and 
goodwill, for on his second marriage the city 
was filled with rejoicing, and great honours 
were paid him by the citizens. He accom- 
panied Gregory to Constantinople, and suc- 
cessfully advocated his cause when he was 
summoned to answer there for heinous crimes. 
He also wrote for him a book containing 
“reports, epistles, decrees, orations, disputa- 
tions, with sundry other matters,’’ which led 
to his appointment as quaestor by Tiberius 
Constantinus and by Mauricius Tiberius as 
master of the rolls, ‘‘ where the lieutenants 
and magistrates with their monuments are 
registered ’’ (Evagr. vi. 23). This is his own 
account of his promotion. 

His death must have occurred after 594, in 
which year he wrote his history at the age of 
58 (iv. 28). His other works have perished. 
The history was intended as a continuation of 
those of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and 
Theodoret. He sought all sources of informa- 
tion at his command—the writings of Eusta- 
thius the Syrian, Zosimus, Priscus, Joannes 
Rhetor, Procopius of Caesarea, Agathus, and 
other good authors—and resolved to bring 


900 EVARISTUS 


their scattered information together ‘“ that 
the famous deeds which slumbered in the dust 
of forgetfulness might be revived ; that they 
might be stirred with his pen, and presented 
for immortal memory” (Pref. to his Hist.). 
Despite his unnecessarily inflated style, he 
largely attained his end. He is a warm, often 
an enthusiastic writer, orthodox in his 
sentiments, and eager in his denunciations 
of prevailing heresies. Jortin indeed has 
condemned him as ‘‘in points of theological 
controversy an injudicious prejudiced zealot ”’ 
(Remarks on Eccl. Hist. ii. p. 120); but 
Evagrius was a lawyer, not a theologian, and 
we must look to him for the popular rather 
than the learned estimate of the theological 
controversies of his time. His credulous 
enthusiasm led him to accept too easily the 
legends of the saints, but in other respects he 
shews many of the best qualities of an historian. 
Not a few original documents, decrees of 
councils, supplications to emperors, letters of 
emperors and bishops, etc., are preserved in 
his pages, forming most important authorities 
for the events to which they relate. Goss (in 
Herzog) especially praises his defence of Con- 
stantine against the slanders of Zosimus. In 
his general arrangement he follows the reigns 
of the emperors of the East from Theodosius 
the Younger to Maurice ; but the arrangement 
of detailsis faulty. There is often great spirit 
in the narrative, an excellent specimen of 
which is his account of the council of Chalce- 
don (ii. 18). The work is chiefly valuable in 
relation to the Nestorian and Eutychian 
heresies, and the councils of Ephesus and 
Chalcedon. The first ed. of the History is 
that of Valesius, with notes (Paris, 1673) re- 
printed at Camb. in Hist. Eccl. Scriptores cum 
notis Valesit et Reading, and repub. by the 
Clar. Press. Thelatest and best ed.is by Bidez 
and Parmentier (Lond. 1849) in Byzantine 
Texts edited by J. B. Bury. See also Krum- 
bacher’s Gesch. der Byz. Lit. 2nd ed. p. 246. 
There is a fair Eng. trans. by Meredith 
Hanmer (Lond. 1619) along with a trans. of 
Eusebius and Socrates, and more recent ones 
pub. by Bagster in 1847 and in Bohn’s Lib. 
(Bell). [w.M.] 
Evaristus (called Avistus in the Liberian 
Catalogue), bp. of Rome at the beginning of 
the 2nd cent. With respect to the exact date 
and duration of his episcopate, as well as the 
names and order of succession of his prede- 
cessors [LINUS; CLETUS; CLEMENT], ancient 
accounts are greatly at variance. Eusebius 
(H. E. iii. 34, iv. 1) gives Clemens as his 
immediate predecessor, the third year of 
Trajan (ror) as the date of his accession, and 
9 years as the duration of his episcopate ; but 
in his Chronicle he makes the latter 7 years 
(Chron. iv. 1). Irenaeus, an older authority, 
who probably got his information when at 
Rome in the time of Eleutherus towards the 
end of the cent., also makes Clemens his 
predecessor, but gives no dates (adv. Haeres. 
iii. 3, 3). The Liberian (A.D 354) and sub- 
sequent Roman Catalogues, as well as 
Augustin and Optatus, represent him as 
succeeding Anacletus, and the former author- 
ities give A.D. 96 as the commencement of his 
episcopate, and between 13 and 14 years as 
its duration. The best and probably final 


EZNIK 


authority on the order and dates of the early 
era of Rome is Bp. Lightfoot’s Apostolical 
Fathers, part i. [j.B—yY.] 
Evodius (1), according to early tradition, 
first bp. of Antioch (Eus. Chron. ann. Abr. 
2058; H. E. iii. 22). His episcopate has 
indirectly the older testimony of Origen, who 
speaks of Ignatius as the second bishop after 
Peter (in Luc. Hom. 6, vol. ili. p. 938 ; see also 
Eus. Quaest. ad Steph. ap Mai, Scr. Vet. i. p. 2). 
This tradition has all the appearance of being 
historical. Ignatius early acquired such 
celebrity that it is not likely the name of an 
undistinguished person would have been 
placed before his, if the facts did not require 
this arrangement. The language used about 
episcopacy in the Ignatian epistles agrees with 
the conclusion that Ignatius was not the first 
at Antioch to hold the office. As time went 
on, the fitness of things seemed to demand 
that Ignatius should not be separated from 
the Apostles. Athanasius (Ep. de Synodts, i. 
607) speaks of Ignatius as coming after the 
Apostles without mention of any one inter- 
vening ; Chrysostom makes him contemporary 
with the Apostles (Hom. in Ignat. vol. ii. p. 
593); the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) 
haverecourse to the expedient adopted in the 
parallel case of Clement of Rome, the hypo- 
thesis of a double ordination, Evodius being 
said to have been ordained by Peter; Ignatius 
by Paul. Theodoret (Dial. I. Immutab. iv. 
82, Migne) and others represent Ignatius as 
ordained by Peter. The authorities are given 
at length by Zahn (Patres Apostol. ii. 327). 
There is reason to believe that the earliest 
tradition did not include an ordination even 
of Evodius by Peter; for the chronicle of 
Eusebius places the departure of Peter from 
Antioch three years, or, according to St. 
Jerome’s version, two years before the ordi- 
nation of Evodius. The chronology of the 
early bishops of Antioch has been investigated 
by Harnack (Die Zeit des Ignatius). He in- 
fers that the earliest list must have contained 
only names of bishops of Antioch without any 
note of lengths of episcopates, but still that 
Eusebius must have had the work of some 
preceding chronologer to guide him. We may 
well believe, as Harnack suggests, that Euse- 
bius got his chronology of early bishops of 
Antioch from Africanus, to whom he acknow- 
ledges his obligation, and whose chronicle has 
generally been believed to be the basis of that 
of Eusebius. If the belief had been enter- 
tained at the beginning of the 3rd cent. that 
Evodius had been ordained by Peter, it is 
incredible that Africanus would have assigned 
a date which absolutely excludes an ordina- 
tion by Peter. The date assigned by the 
chronicle of Eusebius to the accession of 
Evodius appears to have no historic value, 
and thus, while we accept the episcopate of 
Evodius as an historic fact, we have no data 
for fixing his accession, but may safely place 
it considerably later than A.D. 42. [6.5.7 
Eznik (Eznig, Esnig), an Armenian doctor 
of the church in the 5th cent. His native 
place was Koghb or Kolp (whence he was 
called the Kolpensian), and he was a disciple 
of the patriarch Sahak (Isaac) and Mjesrop, 
the praecepior Armentae. Besides his mother 
tongue he understood Persian, Greek, and 


a a oe 


FABIANUS 


Syriac. During long journeys through Syria, 
Mesopotamia, and Greece he added to his 
theological learning, becoming thoroughly 
acquainted with ecclesiastical literature. 
Later he was made a bishop, and as such took 
part in the synod of Artashast, A.D. 450, 
which repelled the demands of the Persian 
viceroy, Mihr-Nersh, that the Armenians 
should adopt Zoroastrianism, in an epistle 
marked with dignity, courage, and faith. 

He died an aged man, as bp. of Bagrewand 
(Pakrewand) in the province of Airerat (cf. 
Neumann, Geschichte der Armenischen Lite- 
ratur, pp. 42 seq.). His main work is The 
Destruction of False Doctrines, still preserved 
in the Armenian original (pub. by the Mechit- 
arists of St. Lazarus in the collection of 
Armenian classics, Venice, 1826). There is a 
good German trans. by J. M. Schmid (Leipz. 
1900), Brtblioth. der alten armen. Lit. i. 
The whole is divided into 4 books—the rst 
combats the Gentile doctrine of the eternity 
of matter, the 2nd the Zoroastrian religion, 
the 3rd Greek philosophy, the 4th the Gnostic 
sect of the Marcionites. The immediate 
occasion of the work was the conflict between 
Armenian Christianity and Parsism. The 4th 
book is of value for the history of heresy. 
The representation given of the Marcionite 
doctrine of Principias, and the various myths 
concerning the origin of the human race, its 
corruption by matter, the mission of Christ, 
His crucifixion, descent into hell, and victory 
over the Demiurge, contain much peculiar and 
characteristic, but much also belonging to 
the later developments, not theoriginal forms, 
of Marcionitism. [R-A.L.] 


F 


Fabianus (1) (called by the Greeks and in 
the Liberian Catalogue Fabius, by Eutychius 
and in the Alexandrian Chronicle Flavianus), 
bp. of Rome from early in Feb. 236 to Jan. 20, 
250, and a martyr. Eusebius relates that, 
the brethren being assembled in the church to 
choose a successor to Anteros, Fabianus, a 
layman lately come from the country, being 
indicated as the chosen of Heaven by a dove 
settling on his head, the people acclaimed him 
as worthy and placed him on the episcopal 
throne (H. E. vi.29). That the choice proveda 
good one is witnessed by Cyprian, who rejoices 
that ‘‘his honourable consummation had 
corresponded to the integrity of his adminis- 
tration’ (Ep. 39, cf. 30). 

In the Liberian Catalogue (A.D. 354) he is 
said to have divided the regions of the city 
among the deacons, and to have been mar- 
tyred Jan. 20, 250. Inthe Felician Catalogue 
(A.D. 530) and in later editions of the Liber 
Pontificalis it is added that he made also 
seven subdeacons to superintend the seven 
notaries appointed to record faithfully the 
acts of the martyrs; also that he caused to 
be brought to Rome by sea the body of Pon- 
tianus (the predecessor of his predecessor 
Anteros), martyred in Sardinia, and buried it 
in the cemetery of Callixtus on the Appian 
Way ; in which cemetery he too was buried. 
It is remarkable that, though the Roman 


| good of the poor. 


FABIOLA 361 


calendar designates all the first 30 bishops of 
Rome except two as saints and martyrs, 
Fabianus is the first, except Telesphorus and 
Pontianus, whose martyrdom rests on any 
good authority (cf. also Eus. H. E. vi. 39; 
Hieron. de Jil. Vir. c. 54; Cypr. Epp. 30, 
30). Fabianus was among the earliest victims 
of the Decian persecution. Fragments of a 
slab bearing the inscription @ABlIANOC 4 
EM1+ ΝΡ (Fabianus episcopus martyr), to- 
gether with others inscribed with the names 
of Anteros, Lucius, and Eutychianus, Roman 
bishops of the same period, have been found in 
what is called the papal crypt of the cemetery 
of Callixtus, thus attesting the accounts given 
of the place of his burial (Roma Sotterranea, 
by Northcote and Brownlow). 

Fabianus is specially named by Eusebius 
(H. E. vi. 36) as one among many bishops to 
whom Origen wrote in defence of his own 
orthodoxy. Cyprian mentions him (Ep. 50) 
as having, with Donatus bp. of Carthage, 
written a letter severely censuring one Pri- 
vatus, an heretical bp. of Lambaesa in 
Numidia, who had been condemned by a synod 
of 90 bishops at Lambaesa for ὁ many and 
grievous faults.’’ Nothing more is known 
about Fabianus with certainty. Great doubt 
rests on the story (accepted by Andreas du 
Chesne, in Vit. Pontif., and in the main by 
the Bollandists) of his having been the founder 
of the seven Gallic churches of Toulouse, Arles, 
Tours, Paris, Narbonne, Clermont, Limoges ; 
to which he is said to have sent respectively 
Saturninus, Trophimus, Gratianus, Dionysius, 
Paulus, Astremonius, and Martialis as mis- 
sionary bishops. The story is absent from 
early records, and is disputable also on other 
grounds. Still more improbable is the story, 
accepted by the Bollandists and Baronius, and 
resting mainly on the authority of the Acts of 
St. Pontius, that the emperor Philip and his 
son became Christians, and were baptized by 
Fabianus. [PuHiLippus (5).] Three spurious 
decretals are attributed to Fabianus. There 
are also ten decreta assigned to him by Gratian 
and others, on matters of discipline. [J.B—y.] 

Fabiola (1), a noble Roman lady, a friend 
of St. Jerome, who wrote for her two disser- 
tations (Ep. Ixiv. and Ixxviii. ed. Vall.) on the 
dress of the high priest, and on the stations of 
the Israelites in the desert ; and also ἃ memoir 
of her in his touching letter to Oceanus (Fp. 
Ixxvii. ed. Vall.) in the year of her death, 399. 
Thierry (St. Jerome, ii. 11) has worked up the 
intimations about her into an interesting and 
dramatic story. She was descended from 
Julius Maximus and extremely wealthy; a 
woman of a lively and passionate nature, 
married to a man whose vices compelled her 
to divorce him. She then accepted a second 
husband, the first being still alive. Itis prob- 
able that this step separated her from Paula 
and the other friends of Jerome, and from 
church communion, and may account for the 
fact that we hear nothing of her during 
Jerome’s stay at Rome. After the death of 
her second husband she voluntarily went 
through a public penance. Having publicly 
renewed her communion with the church, she 
sold all her possessions, and determined to 
administer the vast sums thus acquired for the 
She supported monasteries 


362 FAUSTUS 


in various parts of Italy and the adjacent 
islands, and joined Pammachius in the insti- 
tution of a hospital (νοσοκομεῖον), where she 
gathered in the sick and outcasts, and tended 
them with her own hands. In 395 she 
suddenly appeared at Bethlehem, making the 
journey with her kinsman Oceanus. Several 
causes prevented Bethlehem from becoming 
her home. The Origenistic strife divided 
Jerome and his friends from Rufinus and 
Melania, and the new-comers did not escape 
the discord. Oceanus warmly espoused the 
side of Jerome; Fabiola seems to have stood 
aloof. But efforts were made, if we may 
believe Jerome (cont. Ruf. iii. 14), to draw 
them into the camp of the adversary. Letters 
in which Rufinus was praised, fraudulently 
taken from the cell of Jerome’s friend Euse- 
bius, were found in the rooms of Fabiola and 
Oceanus. But this proceeding failed to cause 
a breach between Fabiola and Jerome. 
Jerome bears witness to the earnestness with 
which she attached herself to his teaching. 
The two treatises above mentioned are the 
results of her importunity (Ep. xiv. ed. Vall.). 

Jerome was seeking a suitable dwelling-place 
for her, and engaged in writing his treatise on 
the mystical meaning of the high priest’s 
garments, when the inroad of the Huns caused 
a panic in Palestine. Jerome and his friends 
hurried to the sea-coast at Joppa, and had 
hired vessels for flight, when the Huns aban- 
doned their purpose and turned back. Jer- 
ome, with Paula and Eustochium, returned 
to Bethlehem; but Fabiola went on to Rome. 

The last three years of her life were occupied 
with incessant activity in good works. In 
conjunction with Pammachius she instituted 
at Portus a hospice (xenodochium), perhaps 
taking her model from that established by 
Jerome at Bethlehem ; and it was so success- 
ful that, as Jerome says, in one year it become 
known from Parthia to Britain. But to the 
last her disposition was restless. She found 
Rome and Italy too small for her charities, 
and was purposing some long journey or 
change of habitation when death overtook her 
A.D. 399. Her funeral was celebrated as a 
Christian triumph. The streets were crowded, 
the hallelujahs reached the golden roof of the 
temples. Jerome’s book on the 42 stations 
(mansiones) of the Israelites in the desert was 
dedicated to her memory. [W.H.F. ] 

Faustus (11), sometimes called ‘“ the 
Breton,”’ from having been born in Brittany, 
or (as Tillemont thinks) in Britain, but more 
generally known as Faustus of Riez from the 
name of his see. Born towards the close of 
the 4th cent., he may have lost his father while 
he was young, for we only hear of his mother, 
whose fervid piety made a great impression 
on all who saw her. Faustus studied Greek 
philosophy, but in a Christian spirit; mas- 
tered the principles of rhetoric, and may have 
pleaded for a time at the bar. 

While still youthful (probably c. 426 or 
a little later) he entered the famous mon- 
astery of Lerins, then presided over by St. 
Maximus. Here he became ἃ thorough 
ascetic and a great student of Holy Scripture, 
without, however, giving up his philosophic 
pursuits. Here he probably acquired the 
reputation, assigned to him by Gennadius, of 


FAUSTUS 


an illustrious extempore preacher. He be- 
came a presbyter, and c. 432 or 433 succeeded 
Maximus as abbat of Lerins. His tenure 
was marked by a dispute with his diocesan 
Theodore, bp. of Fréjus, concerning their 
respective rights. The third council of Arles 
was convened by Ravennius, bp. of Arles, for 
the sole purpose of settling this controversy. 
The decision left considerable ecclesiastical 
power in the hands of the abbat. The epistle 
of Faustus to a deacon named Gratus (al. 
Gratius or Gregorius), who was heretical on the 
union of the two natures in the Person of 
Christ, belongs also to this period. 

Faustus next succeeded St. Maximus in the 
episcopate of Riez in Provence. Baronius 
places this as late as 472, but Tillemont 
(Mém. vi. p. 775) as early as 462 or even 456. 
Faustus continued as bishop the stern self- 
discipline which he had practised as monk and 
abbat. He often retired to Lerins, becoming 
known throughout and beyond his diocese as 
one who gave succour to those sick whether 
in body or mind. He seems to have taken a 
stern view of late repentances, like those so 
prevalent at an earlier period in the church 
of N. Africa. In the councils of Arles and of 
Lyons a presbyter named Lucidus, accused 
of having taught fatalism through misunder- 
standing Augustine, was induced to retract ; 
and Leontius, bp. of Arles, invited Faustus to 
compose a treatise on grace and free choice. 

Faustus appears from Sidonius to have had 
some share in the treaty of 475 between the 
emperor Nepos and Euric king of the Visi- 
goths, which Tillemont and Gibbon agree in 
regarding as discreditable to the Roman 
empire. It wrested Auvergne and _ subse- 
quently Provence from an orthodox sovereign, 
and gave them to an Arian. This was 
unfortunate for Faustus, who c. 481 was 
banished, probably because of his writings 
against Arianism. His banishment is natur- 
ally attributed to king Euric, on whose death 
in 483 he returned to Riez. His life was 
prolonged until at least A.D. 492, possibly for 
some years later. 

His writings have not come down to us in 
a complete and satisfactory condition. The 
following are still accessible :— 

(1) Professio Fidei.m—He opens with a severe 
attack on the teaching of Pelagius as heretical, 
but expresses a fear of the opposite extreme, 
of such a denial of man’s power as a free agent 
as would virtually amount to fatalism. 

(2) Epistolaad Lucidum Presbyterum.—Here, 
too, he anathematizes the error of Pelagius ; 
but also any who shall have declared that 
Christ did not die for all men, or willeth not 
that all should be saved. 

(3) De Gratid Dei et Humanae Mentis libero 
Arbitrio.—After again censuring Pelagius, the 
writer argues strongly on behalf of the need of 
human endeavour and co-operation with the 
Divine aid. In his interpretation of passages 
of Holy Scripture (e.g. Exod. iv. 21, vil. 13 ; 
Rom. ix. 11-26) which favour most Augus- 
tinianism, he is most extreme and least success- 
ful. Many passages might almost have come 
from the pen of some Arminian controversial- 
ist at the synod of Dort. In cap. x. of bk. ii., 
which is entitled Gentes Deum Naturaliter 
Sapuisse, Faustus calls attention to the lan- 


i 


FELICISSIMUS 


guage of Daniel towards Nebuchadnezzar and 
his censure of Belshazzar, as a heathen recogni- 
tion of God (Dan. iv. and ν.). He also appeals 
for the same purpose to the first chapter of 
Jonah, the repentance of the Ninevites (Jon. 
lii.) and the language of Jeremiah (xviii. 7-10). 
Perhaps the famous expression in the apology 
of Tertullian, O testimontum animae naturaliter 
Christianae, might be considered to favour the 
view of heathendom here taken by Faustus. 

(4) Ad Monachos Sermo.—The tone of this 
short letter resembles that of his other 
writings. He refers to excommunication as 
a terrible weapon only to be used in the last 
resort. It is sad to see monks go back to the 
world, especially if, after doing so, they retain 
their monastic dress. As usual, he is energetic 
in his appeals to the human element in religion. 
“Use your will. Resist the devil. Cherish all 
graces, especially obedience and humility.” 

(5) De Ratione Fidet Catholicae.—The former 
part is a brief statement of the case against 
Arianism. It explains the distinction between 
Persona and Natura in reference to our Lord's 
Incarnation, and appears to be addressed to 
an orthodox but perplexed friend, whom the 
author treats as a superior. The second 
portion is metaphysical, and discusses the 
nature of the soul, which Faustus seems to 
pronounce material. Claudius Mamertus, in 
his de Statu Animae, wrote against Faustus 
on this point. Faustus may, however, not 
have meant to do more than draw a marked 
distinction between the Creator and the 
creature ; arguing, as he does, nihil credendum 
incorporeum praeter Deum. 

(6) Homilia de 5. Maximt Laudibus.—A 
eulogy of his predecessor. 

(7) Epistolae—Two have already been 
described. The other 17 epistles touch upon 
problems of metaphysics and theology. 

Faustus was of unimpeachably good char- 
acter; of an earnest, active, ascetic life; 
orthodox on the central doctrine of the 
Christian faith and suffering exile for it as a 
confessor ; but stigmatized as a semi-Pelagian, 
and consequently by many authorities, both 
ancient and modern, denied the title of saint. 
But his own flock at Riez, deeply moved by 
his life and preaching, and warmly attached 
to his memory, insisted on giving him a local] 
canonization as Sanctus Faustus Retensts ; 
they erected a basilica, dedicated in his name. 
and kept Jan. 18 as his festival. The first 
complete ed. of his works was pub. by A. 
Engelbrecht in Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. vol. 
xxi. ; cf. other publications of Engelbrecht on 
the same subject. [J.G-c.] 

Felicissimus (1), deacon of Carthage, whom 
Novatus associated with himself in the man- 
agement of a district called Mons (Cyp. Ep. 
41). He was the chief agent (signifer sedt- 
tionis, Ep. 59) of the anti-Cyprianic party, 
which combined the five presbyters originally 
opposed to Cyprian’s election with the later- 
formed party for the easy readmission of the 
lapsed (Epp. 43, 45). Cyprian (Ep. 52) de- 
finitely states that Felicissimus had been, when 
the persecution arose, on the point of being 
tried before the presbytery on charges of 
homicidal cruelty to his father and wife. Like 
other African and Spanish deacons (Neander, 


vol. i. p. 324, ed. Bohn), he acquired influence | 


FELICITAS 


through his administration of church property 
and was able to threaten with excommunica- 
tion any who accepted relief or office from 
Cyprian’s commissioners. The latter excom- 
municated him (Ep. 42) with Cyprian’s consent. 
The mild resolution of the council of 252, 
making easy the readmission of the lapsed on 
earnest repentance [CyprRIANus], destroyed his 
locus standt. The party then coalesced with 
that of Privatus (2), who consecrated Fortu- 
natus anti-bishop; and Felicissimus sailed for 
Rome to conciliate or intimidate Cornelius into 
recognizing him (Ep. 59). Failing here, the 
party melted quietly away. fe.w.B. 
Felicitas (1), commemorated on Nov. 23; 
martyr at Rome with her seven sons, under 
Antoninus Pius, and, according to their Acts, 
at his personal command, Publius being pre- 
fect of the city, c. A.D. 150. It is almost 
certain that there was no authorized persecu- 
tion under Antoninus Pius, but public 
calamities stirred up the mob to seek for the 
favour of the gods by shedding Christian 
blood (Julii Capitolini, Vita Antontnt Pit, c.9). 
Doubtless, in some such way, Felicitas and her 
children suffered. In her Acts Publius the 
Prefect is represented as commanded by 
Antoninus to compel her to sacrifice, but in 
vain, though he appeals to her maternal 
affection as well as her fears. He then calls 
upon each of her sons, Januarius, Felix, 
Philippus, Sylvanus, Alexander, Vitalis, Mar- 
tialis, with a similar want of success, the 
mother exhorting them, ‘‘ Behold, my sons, 
heaven, and look upwards, whence you expect 
Christ with His saints.’’ The prefect, having 
tortured some of them, reported to the 
emperor, at whose command they were be- 
headed. Their martyrdom is commemorated 
by Gregory the Great, in Hom. 3 super Evang. 
where, preaching in a church dedicated to her, 
he lauds Felicitas as “ Plus quam martyr quae 
septem pignoribus ad regnum praemissis, 
toties ante se mortua est. Ad poenas prima 
venit sed pervenit octava’”’ (Mart. Vet. Rom. 
Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). [G.T-S.] 
Felicitas (2), Mar. 7; martyr at Carthage 
with Perpetua, Revocatus, Saturninus, and 
Secundinus, all catechumens, and baptized 
after their arrest. Felicitas and her com- 
panions having been interrogated by Hila- 
rianus, the proconsul, and remaining steadfast, 
were condemned to be thrown to the beasts 
on the anniversary of the young Geta’s 
accession. Felicitas, being in the eighth 
month of her pregnancy, and the law not 
permitting women in her condition to be 
executed, was greatly distressed at the delay 
of her martyrdom. Prayer was therefore 
made that God might grant her an earlier 
delivery, and this accordingly took place a 
few days after. While the pangs of labour 
were upon her, the jailer, hearing some ex- 
clamations of pain, said, ‘If thy present 
sufferings are so great, what wilt thou do when 
thou art thrown to the wild beasts? This 
thou didst not consider when thou refusedst 
to sacrifice.” Whereupon she answered, 
‘What I now suffer I suffer myself, but then 
there will be another Who will suffer for me 
because I also shall suffer for Him.” They 
were all put to death together in A.D. 202 or 
203, during the reign of Severus, whose latter 


363 


364 FELIX I. 

years were marked by a very rigorous perse- 
cution (Ael. Spart. Sever. Imp. § 27 in Hist. 
August. Scripit.)}. Few martyrdoms are 
better attested than this. The ancient 
Roman calendar, pub. by Bucherius, and 
dating from c. 360, mentions only three 
African martyrs, viz. Felicitas, Perpetua, and 
Cyprian. Their names are in the canon of the 
Roman Mass, which mentions none but really 
primitive martyrs. Their martyrdom is 
mentioned by Tertullian in de Anima, lv., and 
treated at length in three sermons (280, 281, 
282) by St. Augustine, while their burial at 
Carthage, in the Basilica Major, is asserted by 
Victor Vitensis, lib. i. de Pers. Vandal. There 
are three texts of these Acts—the original Lat. 
text, an ancient Gk. version, and a shorter Lat. 
text, probably an excerpt from the Gk. version. 
For all three texts see the ed. of Dean J. A. 
Robinson in Texts and Studies, i. 2; cf. also 
von Gebhardt’s Acta. [G.T.S.] 

Felix (1) I., bp. of Rome, probably from 
Jan. 5, 269, to Dec. 30, 274, in the reigns of 
Claudius and Aurelian. The Liberian Cata- 
logue (354) names the consuls of the years 
above mentioned as those contemporary with 
his accession and death, and gives 5 years, 11 
months, and 25 days as the duration of his 
episcopate; while the Liberian Depositio 
Episcoporum gives Dec. 30 as the date of his 
death. Later and less trustworthy author- 
ities, including the Liber Ponttficalis, differ as 
to the date and duration of his episcopate. 
He appears in the Roman Calendar as a saint 
and martyr, his day being May 30. His 
martyrdom is asserted, not only in the later 
editions of the Liber Pontificalis, but also in 
the early recension of 530, known as the 
Felician Catalogue. Notwithstanding this 
testimony, his martyrdom seems inconsistent 
with the silence of the Liberian Catalogue, and 
with his name appearing in the Deposttio 
Episcoporum, not the Depositio Martyrum of 
the same date. 

Nothing is known with certainty of his acts, 
except the part he took in the deposition of 
Paul of Samosata from the see of Antioch. 
A synod at Antioch (A.D. 290) having deposed 
this heretical bishop and appointed Domnus 
in his place, announced these facts in letters 
addressed to Maximus and Dionysius, bps. of 
Alexandria and Rome, and to other Catholic 
bishops. Felix, who had in the meantime 
succeeded Dionysius, addressed a letter on the 
subject to Maximus and to the clergy of An- 
tioch, fragments of which are preserved in the 
A pologeticus of Cyril of Alexandria, and in the 
Acts of the council of Ephesus, and which is 
also alluded to by Marius Mercator, and by 
Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium; cf. 
Harnack, Gesch. der alt. Ch. Lit. i. 659. Three 
decretals, undoubtedly spurious, are assigned 
to him (Harduin, Concil.). [J-B.] 

Felix (2) II., bp. of Rome after the mas of 
pope Liberius (a.p. 355). He has a place in 
the Roman calendar as a saint and martyr, 
and in the Pontifical and in the Acts of 
St. Felix and St. Eusebius as a legitimately 
elected and orthodox pope, persecuted by the 
emperor and the Arian faction. Contem- 
porary and other ancient writers (Faustus and 
Marcellinus, Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome, Ru- 
finus, Sozomen, and Theodoret) unanimously 


FELIX II. 


represent him, on the contrary, as an inter- 
loper placed in "the see violently and irregularly 
by the emperor and the Arians, and do not 
allude to his martyrdom. The following is the 
account given by Marcellinus and Faustus, 
two contemporary Luciferian presbyters of 
Rome, who must have had good opportunity 
of knowing the truth. It occurs in the preface 
to their Libellus Precum addressed to the 
emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arca- 
dius during the pontificate of Damasus, who 
succeeded Liberius, and by whom the writers 
complain of being persecuted. Immediately 
on the banishment of Liberius all the clergy, 
including the archdeacon Felix, swore to ac- 
cept no other bishop during the life of the 
exiled pope. Notwithstanding, the clergy 
afterwards ordained this Felix, though the 
people were displeased and abstained from 
taking part. Damasus, pope after Liberius, 
was among his perjured supporters. In 357 
the emperor visited Rome, and, being solicited 
by the people for the return of Liberius, 
consented on condition of his complying with 
the imperial requirements, but with the 
intention of his ruling the church jointly with 
Felix. In the third year Liberius returned, 
and the people met him with joy. Felix was 
driven from the city, but soon after, at the 
instigation of the clergy who had perjured 
themselves in his election, burst into it again, 
taking his position in the basilica of Julius 
beyond the Tiber. The faithful and the 
nobles again expelled him with great ignominy. 
After 8 years, during the consulship of Valen- 
tinianus and Valens (1.6. A.D. 365), on the roth 
of the Calends of Dec. (Nov. 22), Felix died, 
leaving Liberius without a rival as bp. of 
Rome till his own death on the 8th of the 
Calends of Oct. (Sept. 24), 366. The other 
writers mentioned tell us that the election 
and consecration of Felix took place in the 
imperial palace, since the people debarred 
the Arians from their churches ; that three of 
the emperor’s eunuchs represented the people, 
the consecrators being three heretical bishops, 
Epictetus of Centumellae, Acacius of Caesarea, 
and Basil of Ancyra; and it was only the 
Arian section of the clergy, though apparently 
a large one, that supported Felix. 

A very different account is given in the 
Pontifical and in the Acts of St. Felix and 
of St. Eusebius ; the former account is un- 
doubtedly to be preferred. But though Felix, 
as well as Liberius, has obtained a place in 
the list of lawful popes, and has even been 
canonized, it is thus evident that his claim 
is more than doubtful. Accordingly, Augus- 
tine, Optatus, and Eutychius (as did 
Athanasius, Jerome, and Rufinus) exclude 
him from their lists of popes. In the Roman 
church, however, his claim to the position 
appears to have remained unquestioned till the 
14th cent., when, an emendation of the Roman 
Martyrology having been undertaken in 1582, 
under pope Gregory XIII., the question was 
raised and discussed. Baronius at first op- 
posed the claims of Felix; a cardinal, Sanc- 
torius, defended them. The question was 
decided by the accidental discovery, in the 
church of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the 
forum, of a coffin bearing the inscription, 
‘‘Corpus 5. Felicis papae et martyris, qui 


ον, 
45 


FELIX ΠῚ. 


damnavit Constantium.”’ In the face of this, 
Baronius was convinced, and retracted all he 
had written (Baron. ad Liberium, c. Ixii.). 
Accordingly Felix retained his place in the 
Martyrology, though the title of pope was 
afterwards expunged from the oratio for his 
day in the breviary. What became of the 
inscribed slab is not known, and in the ab- 
sence of any knowledge of its date, its 
testimony is valueless. {j-B—yY.] 

Felix (3) III. (otherwise II.), bp. of Rome 
from Mar. 483 to Feb. 492. The clergy having 
met in St. Peter’s church to elect a successor to 
Simplicius, Basilius (Praefectus Praetorio and 
Patrician) interposed in the name of his master 
Odoacer the Herulian, who since 476 had ruled 
the West as king of Italy, alleging, as a fact 
known to his hearers, that Simplicius before 
his death had conjured the king to allow no 
election of a successor without his consent ; 
and this to avoid the turmoil and detriment 
to the church that was likely to ensue. Basilius 
expressing surprise that the clergy, knowing 
this, had taken independent action, proceeded 
in the king’s name to propound a law pro- 
hibiting the pope then to be elected and all 
future popes from alienating any farms or 
other church possessions; declaring invalid 
the titles of any who might thus receive 
ecclesiastical property; requiring the resti- 
tution of alienated farms with their proceeds, 
or the sale for religious uses of gold, silver, 
jewels, and clothes unfitted for church pur- 
poses; and subjecting all donors and recip- 
ients of church property to anathema. The 
assembled clergy seem to have assented to 
this, and to have been then allowed to proceed 
with their election, their choice falling on 
Caelius Felix, the son of a presbyter also 
called Felix. The Roman synod under pope 
Symmachus (498-514) protested against this 
interference of laymen with the election of a 
pope, and Symmachus consented to declare it 
void, but required the re-enaction of the law 
against the alienation of farms, etc. 

The pontificate of this Felix was chiefly 
remarkable for the commencement of the 
schism of 35 years between Rome and the 
Eastern patriarchates. In 451 the council 
of Chalcedon had condemned the Monophy- 
site or Eutychian heresy, adopting the de- 
finition of faith contained in the famous 
letter of pope Leo I. to Flavian, patriarch 
of Constantinople. The council had also 
enacted canons of discipline, the 9th and 
the 17th giving to the patriarchal throne of 
Constantinople the final determination of 
causes against metropolitans in the East ; and 
the 28th assigning to the most holy throne of 
Constantinople, or new Rome, equal privileges 
with the elder Rome in ecclesiastical matters, 
as being the second after her, with the right 
of ordaining metropolitans in the Pontic and 
Asian and Thracian dioceses, and bishops 
among the barbarians therein. This last canon 
the legates of pope Leo had protested against 
at the council, and Leo himself had afterwards 
‘repudiated it, as contrary (so he expressed 
himself) to the Nicene canons, and an undue 
usurpation on the part of Constantinople. In 
connexion with the heresy condemned by the 
council of Chalcedon and with the privileges 
assigned by its canons to Constantinople, the 


FELIX III. 365 


|schism between the East and West ensued 
during the pontificate of Felix. 

The condemnation of Monophysitism at 
Chalcedon by no means silenced its abettors, 
who in the church of Alexandria were especi- 
ally strong and resolute. They supported 
Peter Mongus as patriarch; the orthodox 
supporting first Timotheus Solofacialus, and 
on his death John Talaia. [Acacius (7); 
JOANNES (11).) Felix, in a synod at Rome, 
renewed his predecessor's excommunication of 
Peter Mongus, addressed letters to the emperor 
Zeno and Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople. 
Acacius is urged to renounce Peter Mongus, 
and induce the emperor to do the same. Felix 
sent also a formal summons for Acacius to 
appear at Rome and answer the charge of 
having disregarded the injunctions of Sim- 
plicius. The letter to Zeno implored the 
emperor to refrain from rending the seamless 
garment of Christ, and to renew his support of 
the one faith which had raised him to the 
imperial dignity, the faith of the Roman 
church, against which the Lord had said that 
the gates of hell should not prevail; but both 
the emperor and Acacius continued to support 
Peter. The papal legates having returned to 
Rome, Felix convened a synod of 67 Italian 
bishops, in which he renewed the excommu- 
nication of Peter Mongus, and published an 
irrevocable sentence of deposition and ex- 
communication against Acacius himself. The 
sentence of excommunication was served on 
Acacius by one of those zealous champions of 
Felix, the Sleepless Monks (‘‘ Acoemetae’’), 
who fastened it to the robe of the patriarch 
when about to officiate in church. The 
patriarch discovered it, but proceeded with the 
service, and then, in a calm, clear voice, 
ordered the name of Felix, bp. of Rome, to 
be erased from the diptychs of the church. 
This was on Aug. 1, 484. Thus the two chief 
bishops of Christendom stood mutually 
excommunicated, and the first great schism 
between the East and West began. The 
emperor and the great majority of the prelates 
of the East supported Acacius; and thus the 
patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and 
Jerusalem, as well as Constantinople, remained 
out of communion with Rome. 

Another noted Monophysite, called Peter 
Fullo (1.6. the Fuller), had excited the orthodox 
zeal of Felix, patriarch of Antioch. He had 
added to the Tersanctus the clause, *‘ Who wast 
crucified for us,’? and was charged with thus 
attributing passibility to the Godhead. To 
him, therefore, from a Roman synod, Felix 
addressed a synodical letter in which, in the 
name of Peter, the chief of the apostles and 
the head of all sees, he pronounced his de- 
position and excommunication. 

In 489 Acacius died, and was succeeded by 
Flavitas, or Fravitas. Felix, on hearing of 
the vacancy of the see, wrote to Thalasius, an 
archimandrite of Constantinople, warning him 
and his monks (who appear throughout to 
have espoused the cause of Rome) to commu- 
nicate with no successor till Rome had been 
fully apprised of all proceedings and had 
declared the church of Constantinople restored 
to its communion. Flavitas having died 
within four months after his accession, the 
| popes’ letter to him was received by his 


366 FELIX IV. 


successor Euphemius, Felix, though satisfied 
as to the faith of Euphemius, insisted on the 
erasure of the name of Acacius, which condi- 
tion being demurred to, the breach continued. 
After his rupture with the East, Felix helped 
to reconstitute the African church, which had 
cruelly suffered at the hands of the Arian 
Vandals. This persecution, which had raged 
under king Hunneric, who died in 484, ceased 
under his successor Gundamund, when a 
number of apostates sought readmission to 
catholic communion. A synod of 38 bishops 
held at Rome under Felix in 488 issued a 
synodical letter dated Mar. 15, laying down 
terms of readmission. Felix died Feb. 24, 492. 
His extant works are 15 letters (Migne, 
Patr. Lat. lviii. 893 ff.). Gratian gives also a 
decretum as his, to the effect that the royal 
will should yield to priests in ecclesiastical 
causes. The ancient authorities for his Life 
are his letters and those of his successor 
Gelasius, the Breviarium of Liberatus Diaconus, 
and the Histories of Evagrius and Nicephorus 
Callistus. [j-B—Y.] 
Felix (4) IV. (otherwise III. ; see Fexrx II.), 
bp. of Rome (July 526—Oct. 530) during 4 
years, 2 months, and 14 or 18 days (Anastas. 
Biblioth.). The same authority states that he 
built the basilica of SS. Cosmas and Damian, 
restored that of the martyr St. Saturninus, and 
was buried, on Oct. 12, in the basilica of St. 
Peter. Thereis little to be told of him, except 
the circumstances of his appointment. His 
predecessor, John I.,-had died in prison at 
Ravenna, into which he had been thrown by 
Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who then ruled the 
West as king of Italy. Theodoric took the 
unprecedented step of appointing his successor 
on his own authority, without waiting for the 
customary election by clergy and people. 
This high-handed proceeding seems to have 
been at length acquiesced in. No subsequent 
king or emperor laid claim to a like power of 
interference in the appointment of popes, 
though the confirmation of elections by the 
civil power was insisted on, and continued till 
the election of Zachary in 752, when the con- 
firmation of the exarch of Ravenna, as repre- 
senting the Eastern emperor, was first dis- 
pensed with under the Carlovingian empire. 
The same freedom of election by clergy and 
people continued to be the theory till the 
appointment was given to the College of 
Cardinals during the pontificate of Nicholas IT., 
A.D. 1059. For previous interventions of the 
civil power see Boniractus II., EULALIus (1), 
Feiix III., SymmMacuus, LAURENTIUS (10). 
The only further event known as marking the 
pontificate of Felix is the issue of an edict by 
Athalaric, the successor of Theodoric, requir- 
ing all civil suits against ecclesiastics to be 
preferred before the bishop and not the secular 
judge. The edict was called forth by Felix, 
with the Roman clergy, having complained to 
the king that the Goths had invaded the rights 
of churches and dragged the clergy before lay 
tribunals. It extended only to the Roman 
clergy, ‘‘in honour of the Apostolic see”’ 
(Cassiodor. lib. 8, c. 24). Justinian I. after- 
wards extended it, though with an appeal to 
the civil tribunal, to all ecclesiastics (Justin. 
Novel. 83, 123). 
For this pope’s letter, esp. letter to Caesarius 


FELIX. 


of Arles, requiring probation from candidates 
for the priesthood before their ordination, 
see Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixv., An important 
decretum of this pope was made known by 
Amelli in 1882, and edited by Mommsen in 
Neuer Archiv fur dlter deutsch. Gesch. Kunde, 
1886. See Duchesne, La Succession du pape 
Félix IV. (Rome, 1883). [1-Β--ἶ.] 
Felix (26) I., bp. οἵ Aptunga, in proconsular 
Africa. Felix was one of those who laid 
hands on Caecilian as bp. of Carthage, if not 
the sole officiating bishop, a.pD. 311 (Aug. 
Brevie. Coll. iii. 14, 26; 16, 29). The Donatist 
party, having failed in the Court of Inquiry 
at Rome, under Melchiades, Oct. 2, 313, to 
establish their case against Caecilian, turned 
their attack on Felix, whom they sought to 
convict of the infamous crime of ‘ tradition ’”’ 
in the persecution of Maximus, A.D. 303. The 
emperor gave orders to Aelianus, the procon- 
sul of Africa, to hold an inquiry on the spot, 
which took place on Feb. 15, 314 (Aug. Post. 
Coll. 38, 56; Ep. 43, 3-14; 88; δ: Cresc. in. 
61) at Carthage, in the presence of many who 
had held municipal offices at the time of the 
persecution. In vain the prosecution relied 
on a chain of fraudulent evidence elaborately 
concocted. The proconsul pronounced the 
complete acquittal of Felix, which was con- 
firmed by the emperor, and repeated in a 
letter to Verinus, or Valerius, the vicar of 
Africa, A.D. 321. The whole case was brought 
up again at Carth. Conf., a.p. 411, when 
Augustine argued that there was no doubt of 
the completeness of the imperial decision. 
Aug. c. Cresc. iii. 81, iv. 79; de Unic. Bapt. 
28; Brev. Coll. 41, 42; Post. Coll. 56; Mon. 
Vet. Don. iii. pp. 160-167 and 341-343, ed. 
Oberthiir; Bruns. Concil. i. 108 ; Routh, Rel. 
Sacr. iv. 92. [H.W.P.] 
Felix (174), bp. of Tubzoca (perhaps Thibaris 
in Numidia). His story illustrates the first 
edict of persecution issued by Diocletian in 
Feb. 303, and the special severity with which 
it was worked in the West under the emperor 
Maximian. This edict did not authorize death 
as a punishment, but simply prohibited the 
assembly of Christians for religious worship ; 
ordered the destruction of churches and sacred 
documents, and authorized torture. Official 
notice of its publication arrived at Tubzoca on 
June 5, and the overseer of the city, Magnel- 
lianus, summoned first the clergy and then 
the bishop, and demanded the sacred writings. 
Felix replied, ‘‘ It is better that I should be 
burned rather than the Holy Scriptures, since 
it is better to obey God rather than man.” 
Three days were given him for reconsidera- 
tion, during which time he was committed to 
the private custody of Vincentius Celsinus, a 
leading citizen. Upon his continued refusal 
he was sent to the proconsul Anulinus at 
Carthage, June 24. By him the bishop was 
twice examined. With the edict there seems 
to have been sent by Maximian the praetorian 
prefect or commander of the emperor’s guard, 
to secure its due execution. To him, upon his 
final refusal, Felix and his companions were 
delivered for transporation into Italy, arriving 
after four days’ sailin Sicily. At Agrigentum, 
Catana, Messana, and Taurominium they were 
received with great honour by the Christians. 
Thence they were carried by the prefect to 


FELIX OF NOLA 


FLAVIANUS I. 367 


Venusia, in Apulia, where, having again called | bishop he continued to occupy the family 


upon Felix to surrender the sacred writings, 
he condemned him to death for disobedience. 
Felix suffered by beheading, Aug. 30, on which 
day he is commemorated by Bede. There is 
considerable confusion as to details in different 
versions of the Acts, which d’Achery and 
Baluze have in vain endeavoured to remedy. 
Martyr. Vet. Roman. Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi ; 
Baronius, Annal. A.D. 302, CXvil.-cxxiii. ; 
Ruinart, Acta Sincera; Surius; d’Acherii 
Spicileg. τ. xii.634 ; Baluz. Miscell.t. ii. p. 77; 
Tillem. v. 202. (G.T.s.] 
Felix (186) of Nola. [PAu.tnus (8).] 
Felix (212). [Scrttiran Marryrs.] 
Firmilianus (1), St., bp. of Caesarea in Cappa- 
docia, one of the greatest prelates of his time. 
In 232 he already occupied his see (Eus. vi. 
26, 27), though Cave (Hist. i. p. 123) speaks 
of 233 as the year of his elevation. When 
Origen soon after left Egypt, Firmilian induced 
him to visit Cappadocia; subsequently he 
paid Origen long visits in Judaea to advance 
his own knowledge of theology (Eus. l.c.). 
He urged Dionysius of Alexandria to attend 
the councilof Antioch, held torepudiate Nova- 
tianism (ἐδ. vi. 46; cf. Routh, R. 5. ili. 51). 
In 256 he is addressed by Cyprian in a 
letter now lost as to the Asiatic practice of 
rebaptizing those baptized by heretics. In 
his long reply (Cyp. Ep. 75) Firmilian describes 
it as impossible to add much to the strength 
of Cyprian’s arguments. He is clear as to the 
antiquity of the practice in Asia, which he 
regards as ratified by the action of the council 
of Iconium in the case of the Montanists. He 
speaks of several meetings of the Cappadocian 
bishops, one immediately before his writing. 
Baronius, Labbe, and other Roman writers 
have been anxious to prove that the baptismal 
dispute originated with Firmilian and the 
East, but the attempt is against the whole 
tenor of Cyprianic correspondence as well as 
the express statement of Eusebius (vii. 3). 
To Firmilian the see of Jerusalem appears to 
be the central see, so far as such an idea arises. 
He presided at Antioch, a.p. 266, in the first 
synod held to try Paul of Samosata, and visit- 
ed Antioch twice on this business (Concil. 
Antioch. contr. Paul. Samos. in Routh, R. S. 
iii. 304; Eus. vii. 30). Imposed upon by 
Paul’s promises, he procured the postponement 
of a decision against him. But when it was 
necessary to convene another synod in 272, 
Firmilian, who was to have again presided, 
died on his journey, at Tarsus. To his 
contemporaries his 40 years of influential 
episcopate, his friendship with Origen and 
Dionysius, the appeal to him of Cyprian, and 
his censure of Stephanus might well make him 
seem the most conspicuous figure of his time. 
Routh (vol. iii. p. 149) points to him as one 
of the oldest authorities who states with pre- 
cision the anti-Pelagian doctrine. Basil (de 
Spiritu Sancto, xxix.) speaks of his discourses 
as early testimonies to the exactness of his 
own doctrine, and quotes his agreement with 
Cyprian on baptism in the epistle to Amphi- 
lochius (Ep. 188). [E.W.B.] 
Flavianus (4) I., bp. of Antioch, 381-404. 
Born at Antioch, of a distinguished family, he 
was still very young when his father’s death 


mansion at Antioch, which he devoted to the 
reception of the sick and distressed of his flock. 
Chrysostom, in his highly coloured eulogium 
pronounced on receiving priest's orders at his 


| hands, records that he was remarkable from 


his earliest years for temperance and contempt 
of luxury, although early deprived of parental 


| control and exposed to temptations incident 


to youth, wealth, and good birth. Theodoret 
(H. EB. ii. 24) relates that, when a half-concealed 
Arianism was triumphing, Flavian, with his 
friend Diodorus (afterwards bp. of Tarsus), 
left his home and adopted the life of a solitary. 
The necessities of the times soon recalled them 
to Antioch, where as laymen they kept alive 
an orthodox remnant. Leontius was then the 
intruding bp. of Antioch, and, while a Euse- 
bian at heart, sought by temporizing to pre- 
serve a hollow peace in his church. The 
counsel of the orthodox bp. Eustathius, before 
he was expelled from Antioch (c. 328), was that 
his adherents should maintain the unity of the 
church and continue in communion with his 
successors in the see; but there was no small 
risk of their being thus gradually absorbed by 
the Eusebians and losing hold of the Catholic 
faith. This danger was strenuously met by 
Flavian and Diodorus. They rallied the faith- 
ful about them, accustomed them to assemble 
round the tombs of the martyrs, and exhorted 
them to adhere steadfastly to the faith. They 
are said by Theodoret to have revived the anti- 
phonal chanting of the Psalms, which tradition 
ascribed to Ignatius (7b. il. 24; Socr. ἢ. E. 
vi. 8). Leontius endeavoured to check the 
growing influence of these gatherings by 
causing them to be transferred from the 
martyries without the walls to the churches of 
the city, but this only increased their popu- 
larity and strengthened the cause of ortho- 
doxy. Flavian and Diodorus became all- 
powerful at Antioch ; Leontius, being unable 
to resist them, was compelled to retrace his 
steps (Theod. ii. 24). 

Leontius was succeeded by Eudoxius, then 
by the excellent Meletius, who was deposed, 
and in 361 by Euzoius, the old comrade of 
Arius. Euzoius was repudiated with horror 
by all the orthodox. Those who had till now 
remained in communion with the bishops re- 
cognized by the state, separated themselves 
and recognized Meletius as their bishop. The 
old Catholic body, however, who bore the 
name of Eustathians, would not submit to a 
bishop, however orthodox, consecrated by 
Arians, and continued to worship apart from 
their Meletian brethren, as well as from Euzo- 
ius, having as leader Paulinus, a presbyter 
highly esteemed by all parties. This schism 
between two orthodox bodies caused much 
pain to Athanasius and others. A council at 
Alexandria, early in 362, wisely advised that 
Paulinus and his flock should unite with 
Meletius, who had now returned from exile ; 
but the precipitancy of Lucifer of Cagliari per- 
petuated the schism by ordaining Paulinus 
bishop. The Arian emperor Valens came to 
reside at Antioch in June 370; and this was 
the signal for a violent persecution of the 
orthodox. Meletius was banished ἃ third 
time, and the duty of ministering to the 


left him heir of his considerable property. As faithful under their prolonged trials devolved 


908 FLAVIANUS I. 


on Flavian and Diodorus. The Catholics, 
having been deprived of their churches, took 
refuge among ravines and caverns in the 
abrupt mountain ranges overhanging the city. 
Here they worshipped, exposed to the assaults 
of a rude soldiery, by whom they were re- 
peatedly dislodged. The persecution ceased 
with the death of Valens in 378. The exiles 
were recalled, and Meletius resumed charge of 
his flock. His official recognition as the 
Catholic bp. of Antioch was more tardy. 
Gratian had commanded that the churches 
should be given up to prelates in communion 
with Damasus, bp. of Rome, and that Arian 
intruders should be expelled. But here were 
two bishops with equal claims to orthodoxy, 
Paulinus and Meletius, and a third, Vitalian, 
who held Apollinarian views. Sapor, a high 
military officer, to whom Gratian had com- 
mitted the execution of the edict, was much 
perplexed. Flavian convinced him that the 
right lay with Meletius. The separation, 
however, still continued. Paulinus declined 
the proposal of Meletius that they should be 
recognized as of equal authority and that the 
survivor should be sole bishop. The Oriental 
churches recognized Meletius, the West and 
Egypt Paulinus (δ. v. 1-3). In 381 Flavian 
accompanied Meletius to the council of 
Constantinople, during the session of which 
Meletius died. Gregory of Nazianzus entreat- 
ed his brother-bishops to heal the schism by 
recognizing Paulinus as orthodox bp. of 
Antioch (Greg. Naz. de Vita Sac. v. 1572 seq. 
Pp- 757). But this, however right in itself, 
would have been a triumph for the Westerns. 
The council was composed of Oriental bishops, 
and, in spite of the remonstrances of Gregory, 
Flavian was elected to succeed Meletius. 
Flavian cannot be altogether excused for this 
continuance of the schism ; and the less so if, 
as Socrates (v. 5) and Sozomen (vii. 3, 11) 
state, he was one of the six leading clergy of 
Antioch who had sworn not to seek the 
bishopric themselves at the death of Meletius 
or Paulinus, but to acknowledge the survivor. 
This charge, however, is rendered very doubt- 
ful by the absence of reference to it in the 
letters of Ambrose or any contemporary 
documents published by adherents of Paulinus 
during the controversy. Flavian was con- 
secrated by Diodorus of Tarsus and Acacius 
of Beroea with the ratification of the council. 
Paulinus remonstrated in vain (Theod. v. 23), 
but his cause was maintained by Damasus and 
the Western bishops and those of Egypt; 
while even at Antioch, though most of the 
Meletians welcomed Flavian with joy (Chrys. 
Hom. cum Presbyt. fuit ordinatus, § 4), some, 
indignant at his breaking an engagement, real 
or implied, separated from his communion 
and joined Paulinus (Soz. vii. 11). The West 
refused all intercourse with Flavian, and the 
council at Aquileia in Sept. 381 wrote to 
Theodosius in favour of Paulinus, and re- 
quested him to summon a council at Alex- 
andria to decide that and other questions. 
Theodosius acquiesced, but selected Rome. 
The Eastern prelates declined to attend, and 
held a synod of their own at Constantinople 
in 382. Even here the bishops of Egypt, 
Cyprus, and Arabia recognized Paulinus, and 
demanded the banishment of Flavian, who was 


FLAVIANUS I. 


supported by the bishops of Palestine, Phoe- 
nicia, and Syria (Socr. v.10). A synodal letter 
was, however, dispatched to Damasus and the 
Western bishops, recognizing Flavian’s con- 
secration as legitimate (Theod. v. 9). Paulinus 
himself attended the council at Rome, accom- 
panied by Epiphanius and his ardent supporter 
Jerome. At this council the West refused to 
acknowledge Flavian as canonically elected. 
It is said that they even excommunicated him 
and his two consecrators (Soz. vii. 11). The 
two rivals continued to exercise episcopal 
functions for their respective flocks. Conse- 
quently church discipline became impossible. 
Early in his episcopate Flavian exercised his 
authority against the Syrian sect of perfec- 
tionists known as Euchites or Messalians, andto 
make himself acquainted with their doctrines, 
which it was their habit to conceal, he con- 
descended to an unworthy act of deception. 
In 386 Flavian ordained Chrysostom pres- 
byter, and Chrysostom preached a eulogistic 
inaugural discourse (Chrys. w.s. §§ 3, 4). The 
sedition at Antioch and the destruction of 
the Imperial Statues, 387, shewed Flavian at 
his best. When the brief fit of popular mad- 
ness was over and the Antiochenes awoke to 
their danger, Flavian at their entreaty became 
their advocate with the emperor, starting 
immediately on his errand of mercy (Chrys. 
de Statuis, iii. 1, xxi. 3). The success of his 
mission was complete. Though Paulinus died 
in 388, the schism continued; for on his death- 
bed he had consecrated Evagrius, a presbyter 
of his church, as his successor (Socr. v. 15; 
Soz. vii. 15 ; Theod. v.23). Theodosius sum- 
moned Flavian to meet him at a synod at 
Capua. Flavian excused himself as winter was 
setting in, but promised to obey the emperor’s 
bidding in the spring (Theod. v.23). Ambrose 
and the other leading Western prelates urged 
Theodosius to compel Flavian to come to Rome 
and submit to the judgment of the church. 
Flavian replied to the emperor that if his 
episcopal seat only was the object of attack, 
he would prefer to resign it altogether. The 
knot was before long cut by the death of 
Evagrius. Flavian’s influence prevented the 
election of a successor. The Eustathians, 
however, still refused to acknowledge Flavian, 
and continued to hold their assemblies apart 
(Soz. vil. 15, Vili. 1; Seer. v- 15) ὙΠ 
separation lasted till the episcopate of 
Alexander, 414 or 415. The division between 
Flavian and Egypt and the West was finally 
healed by Chrysostom, who took the oppor- 
tunity of the presence of Theophilus, patriarch 
of Alexandria, at Constantinople for his con- 
secration in 398, to induce him to become 
reconciled with Flavian, and to join in 
dispatching an embassy to Rome to supplicate 
Siricius to recognize Flavian as canonical 
bishop of Antioch. Their mission was entirely 
successful (Socr. v. 15 ; Soz. viii. 3; Théod. 
v. 23). To shew that all angry feeling had 
ceased, and toconciliate his opponents, Flavian 
put the names of Paulinus and Evagrius on 
the diptychs (Cyril. Alex. Ep. 56, p. 203). 
Flavian lived long enough to see the deposition 
and exile of Chrysostom, against which he 
protested with his last breath. His death 
probably occurred in 404 (Pallad. Dial. p. 144 ; 
Soz. viii. 24 ; Theophan. p, 68). He governed 


OL EOE SS eo Fee 


FLAVIANUS 


the church of Antioch for 23 years; and 
Tillemont thinks it probable that he lived 
to the age of 95. The Greek church com- 
memorates him on Sept. 26. 

He left behind certain homilies, of which a 
few fragments are preserved. Theodoret, in 
his Eranistes, quotes one on Johni. 14 (Dial. i. 
p- 46), another on St. John the Baptist (ἐδ. 
p- 66), on Easter, and the treachery of Judas 
(Dial. iii. p. 250) or the Theophania, and a 
passage from his commentary on St. Luke 
(Dial. ii. p. 160). {E.v.] 

Flavianus (8), 18th bp. of Constantinople, 
between Proclus and Anatolius, for about two 
or three years. He is described by Niceph- 
orus as being at his election guardian of the 
sacred vessels of the great church of Constan- 
tinople, with a reputation for a heavenly life. 
At the time of his consecration Theodosius II. 
was staying at Chalcedon. Chrysaphius his 
minister immediately plotted against the new 
patriarch. Foiled in an attempt to extort a 
present of gold to the emperor for acknow- 
ledging his elevation, Chrysaphius, with the 
empress Eudocia for an ally, planned two 
methods of attack against Flavian—the direct 
subversion of the authority of the emperor’s 
sister Pulcheria; and the support of Eutyches, 
to whom the archbishop was opposed. Pul- 
cheria had devoted herself to a religious life ; 
let the emperor order the prelate to ordain 
her a deaconess. Flavian, receiving the 
emperor’s command to this effect, and beyond 
measure grieved, sent a private message to 
Pulcheria, who divined the scheme, and to 
avoid a struggle retired to Hebdomum, where 
for a time she led a private life (Theoph. 
u. infr.). 

Flavian having assembled a council of 40 
bishops at Constantinople Nov. 8, 448, to 
compose a difference between the metropolitan 
bp. of Sardis and two bishops of his province, 
Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum, appeared and 
presented his indictment against Eutyches. 
The speech of Flavian remains, concluding 
with this appeal to the bp. of Dorylaeum: 
““Let your reverence condescend to visit him 
and argue with him about the true faith, and 
if he shall be found in very truth to err, then 
he shall be called to our holy assembly, and 
shall answer for himself.’’ For the particulars 
of this great controversy see Dioscorus and 
Eutycues. When, on Aug. 8, 449, the Latro- 
cinium assembled at Ephesus, Eutyches 
violently attacked the archbishop. 

On Aug. 11, 449, Flavian expired at Hypepe 
in Lydia from the effects of the barbarous 
ill-usage which resulted from this attack. 
When Pulcheria returned to power, after her 
brother’s death, she had Flavian’s remains, 
which had been buried obscurely, brought with 
great pomp to Constantinople. It was more 
like a triumph, says the chronicler, than a 
funeral procession. 

Among the documents which touch on the 
career of Flavian are the reply of Petrus 
Chrysologus, archbp. of Ravenna, to a circular 
appeal of Eutyches, and various letters of 
Theodoret. Leo wrote Flavian a beautiful 
letter before hearing that he was dead. 

Leo. Mag. Epp. 23, 26, 27, 28, 44; Facund, 
Pro Trib. Capit. viii. 5; xii. 5; Evagr. ii. 2. 


etc.; Liberatus Diac. Breviar. xi. xii.; Soz. | and 


FLAVIANUS IL. 369 


H. E. ix. 1; Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 84-88, 
etc.; Niceph. Constant. xiv. 47. [w.M.S.] 
Flavianus (16) II., bp. of Antioch, 4o8-sr2, 
previously a monk in the monastery of Til- 
mognon, in Coelesyria (Evagr. H. E. iii. 42), 
and at the time of his consecration “* apocrisi- 
arius ’’ or nuncio of the church of Antioch at 
the court of Constantinople (Vict. Tunun. 
Chron. ; Theophan. Chronogr. Ὁ. 122). Be- 
fore his consecration Flavian passed for an 
opponent of the decrees of Chalcedon, and on 
his appointment he sent to announce the fact 
to John Haemula, bp. of Alexandria, with 
letters of communion, and a request for the 
same in return (Evagr. iii. 23). He speedily, 
however, withdrew from intercourse with the 
patriarchs of Alexandria, and joined the 
opposite party, uniting with Elias of Jeru- 
salem and Macedonius of Constantinople 
(Liberat. c. 18, p. 128). Flavian soon found 
a bitter enemy in the turbulent Monophysite 
Xenaias or Philoxenus, bp. of Hierapolis. On 
Flavian’s declaring for the council of Chalce- 
don, Xenaias denounced his patriarch as a 
concealed Nestorian. Flavian made no difh- 
culty in anathematizing Nestorius and his 
doctrines. Xenaias demanded that he should 
anathematize Diodorus, Theodore, Theodoret, 
and others, as necessary to completely prove 
that he was not a Nestorian. On his refusing, 
Xenaias stirred up against him the party of 
Dioscorus in Egypt, and charged Flavian 
before Anastasius with being a Nestorian 
(Evagr. iii. 31; Theophan. p. 128). Anastasius 
used pressure, to which Flavian yielded par- 
tially, trusting by concessions to satisfy his 
enemies. He convened a synod of the pre- 
lates of his patriarchate which drew up a 
letter to Anastasius confirming the first three 
councils, passing over that of Chalcedon in 
silence, and anathematizing Diodorus, Theo- 
dore, and the others. Xenaias, seeking 
Flavian’s overthrow, required of him further 
a formal anathema of the council of Chalcedon 
and of all who admitted the two natures. On 
his refusal, Xenaias again denounced him to 
theemperor. Flavian declared his acceptance 
of the decrees of Chalcedon in condemning 
Nestorius and Eutyches, but not as a rule of 
faith. Xenaias having gathered the bishops 
of Isauria and others, induced them to draw up 
a formula anathematizing Chalcedon and the 
two natures, and Flavian and Macedontus, 
refusing to sign this, were declared excom- 
municate, A.D. 509 (Evagr. «.s.; Theophan. 
Ρ. 131). Thenext year the vacillating Flavian 
received letters from Severus, the uncompro- 
mising antagonist of Macedonius, on the sub- 
ject of anathematizing Chalcedon, and the 
reunion of the Acephali with the church 
(Liberat. c. 19, p- 135). This so irritated 
Macedonius that he anathematized his former 
friend, and drove with indignation from his 
presence the apocrisiarii of Antioch (Theophan. 
p- 131). On the expulsion of Macedonius, 
A.D. 511, Flavian obeyed the emperor in re- 
cognizing his successor Timotheus, on being 
convinced of his orthodoxy, but without dis- 
guising his displeasure at the violent and un- 
canonical measures by which Macedonius had 
been deposed. This exasperated Anastasius, 
who readily acceded to the request of Xenaias 
Soterichus that a council should be con- 


24 


370 FLORENTIUS 


vened, ostensibly for the more precise declara- 
tion of thefaith on the points at issue, but really 
to depose Flavian and Elias of Jerusalem ; but 
it was broken up by the emperor’s mandate, to 
theextreme vexation of Soterichus and Xenaias, 
without pronouncing anysentence (Labbe, Con- 
ctl. iv. 1414, vii. 88 ; Theophan. u.s. ; Coteler. 
Monum. Eccl. Graec. iii. 298). Flavian’s per- 
plexities were increased by the inroad of a 
tumultuous body of monks from Syria Prima, 
clamouring for the anathematization of 
Nestorius and all supposed favourers of his 
doctrines. The citizens rose against them, 
slew many, and threw their bodies into 
the Orontes. A rival body of monks poured 
down from the mountain ranges of Coele- 
syria, eager to do battle in defence of their 
metropolitan and former associate. Flavian 
was completely unnerved, and, yielding to the 
stronger party, pronounced a public anathema 
in his cathedral on the decrees of Chalcedon 
and the four so-called heretical doctors. His 
enemies, determined to obtain his patriarchate 
for one of their own party, accused him to the 
emperor of condemning with his lips what he 
still held in his heart. The recent disturb- 
ances at Antioch were attributed to him, and 
afforded the civil authorities a pretext for 
desiring him to leave Antioch foratime. His 
quitting Antioch was seized on by the emperor 
as an acknowledgment of guilt. Anastasus 
declared the see vacant, sent Severus to 
occupy it, and banished Flavian to Petra in 
Arabia, where he died in 518. Eutych. Alex. 
Anmnal. Eccl. p. 140; Marcell. Chron.; Theo- 
phan. p. 134; Evagr. H. E. iii. 32. [E.v.] 
Florentius (50), a chief minister of state at 
Constantinople under Theodosius II. and 
Marcian, a man of the highest reputation for 
soundness of faith, purity of life, and states- 
manlike wisdom (Labbe, Concil. iv. 220). He 
was consul in A.D. 429, patrician in 448, pre- 
fect of the praetorian guards, and the high 
dignity of prefect of the East was bestowed 
on him a seventh time by Marcian in 450. 
In 448, when Flavian had resolved to put 
Eutyches on his trial for heretical doctrine, 
Theodosius demanded that Florentius should 
have a seat at the synod as his representative. 
Hitherto the ostensible reason for the presence 
of imperial officers at ecclesiastical synods was 
the preservation of order. The ground ex- 
pressly assigned by the emperor for requiring 
the admission of Florentius, viz. that the 
matters under discussion concerned the faith, 
was a Startling innovation which Flavian 
withstood as long as he dared (Acac. Hist. 
Brevicul. p. 112; Liberat. Breviar. c. xi.; 
Labbe, Concil. iv. 247). On the opening of 
the trial Florentius took his seat among the 
metropolitans, next to Seleucus, bp. of Amasea 
(Labbe, 238; Liberat. p. 60), and disclaimed 
all desire to dogmatize, or to forget his posi- 
tion as a layman; but he took a very leading 
and authoritative part in the discussion, and 
manifested a strong leaning towards the 
acquittal of Eutyches. But his efforts to 
induce Eutyches to acknowledge the two 
natures in Christ or to adopt language which 
might satisfy the council were fruitless, and 
the interests of orthodoxy compelled him to 
assent to his condemnation (Labbe, 507, 517). 
As Eutyches left the hall he lodged with 


FORTUNATUS 


Florentius an appeal against his condemnation 
to the churches of Rome, Alexandria, and 
Jerusalem. The bishop availed himself of 
the plea that the trial was closed to exclude 
the registration of the appeal (ἐδ. 244). When 
the council of Chalcedon met, Florentius was 
present with other high civil dignitaries ; but 
there is no record of the part he took. We 
have letters to Florentius from Theodoret 
(Ep. 89), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. lib. i. 486), 
and Firmus of Caesarea (Ep. 29). [E.v.] 
Florinus (1), for some time in the latter half 
of the 2nd cent. a presbyter at Rome, deprived 
for falling into heresy. Heis known from two 


notices (v. 15, 20) in Eusebius, taken from - 


writings of Irenaeus against Florinus. One is 
an interesting fragment of a letter to Florinus, 
in which Irenaeus records his youthful recol- 
lections of Polycarp, representing how that 
bishop, whose good opinion Florinus had once 
been anxious to gain, would have been shocked 
at his present opinions. The fragment con- 
tains unmistakable internal evidence of 
genuineness. The title of the letter to Flor- 
inus was On Monarchy, or that God ts not the 
Author of Evil, and Eusebius remarks that 
Florinus seems to have maintained the op- 
posite opinion. Later writers have naturally 
followed the report of Eusebius. Philaster 
(79) refers to an unnamed heretic, who taught 
that things which God made were in their own 
nature evil. Augustine (66) calls the anony- 
mous heretic Florinus and, with little prob- 
ability, makes him the founder of a sect of 
Floriniani. He probably arrived at this re- 
sult by combining the notice in Eusebius with 
Philaster’s mention in another place of 
Floriani. The work of Irenaeus which we 
possess does not mention Florinus, and has no 
trace of the letter, nor does Tertullian, in 
dealing with the same subject, employ the 
letter to Florinus. If Florinus ever in a 
heretical sense made God the author of evil, 
his errors afterwards took the opposite direc- 
tion, and he became a Valentinian. In reply 
to him Irenaeus composed his work On the 
Ogdoad. If the controversy of Irenaeus with 
Florinus was earlier than the publication of the 
treatise on heresies, we should expect some 
trace of it therein; and the fact that, after 
the publication of a treatise dealing so fully 
with Valentinianism, a separate treatise on 
the Ogdoad was necessary, may point to the 
controversy having arisen later. In favour 
of the later date is also the fact that there 
is extant a Syriac fragment (Harvey, li. 457), 
purporting to be an extract from a letter 
of Irenaeus to Victor of Rome concerning 
Florinus, a presbyter, who was a partisan of 
the error of Valentinus, and had published an 
abominable book. Florinus is not named 
by Epiphanius, Philaster, or Pseudo-Tertullian 
who has so many notices of Roman heretics ; 
and it is likely, therefore, that he was not 
named in the earlier work of Hippolytus, nor 
in the lectures of Irenaeus, on which that 
work was founded ; he is not named in the 
later work of Hippolytus, nor by Tertullian. 
This silence is not easily explained if either 
Florinus or any school of Floriniani were any 
source of danger after his exposure by IRENAEUS 
(cf. Zahn, Forschungen, iv. 283-308). (c.s.] 
Fortunatus (17), Venantius Honorius Cle- 


Ἢ 
ἊΣ 

ἢ 
' 


a eee 


FORTUNATUS 


mentianus, bp. of Poictiers, and the last repre- 
sentative of Latin poetry in Gaul, was born 
c. 530 at Ceneta, the modern Ceneda, near 
Tarvisium (Treviso) (Vit. Sanct. Martin. lib. 
iv. 668). He seems to have resided at an 
early age at Aquileia, where he came under the 
influence of one Paulus, who was instrumental 
in his conversion. Paulus Diaconus (Hist. 
Langobard. lib. ii. 23) relates that he studied 
grammar, rhetoric, and poetry at Ravenna. 
In gratitude for his recovery from blindness, 
he set out on a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. 
Martin of Tours c. 565. Crossing the Alps and 
passing into Austrasia, he visited king Sieg- 
- bert, for whom he composed an epithalamium 
on his marriage with Brunehault, couched in 
terms of extravagant flattery. Euphronius bp. 
of Tours and Fortunatus became close friends 
(Miscell. iii. 1-3). After completing his pil- 
grimage, he continued to travel in Gaul, 
because of the disturbed state of Italy, due to 
the incursions of the Lombards, but finding 
an additional inducement in the society of 
Rhadegund of Poictiers, for whom he conceived 
a Platonicattachment. She was the daughter 
of Bertharius, king of the Thuringians, and 
had been espoused against her will to Lothair I., 
king of Neustria, but had separated from 
him, and retired in 550 to Poictiers, where she 
founded the convent of St. Croix, more for 
literary than for religious seclusion, appointing 
her own domestic Agnes the first abbess. At 
what date Fortunatus visited Poictiers is 
uncertain, but he was induced to become 
chaplain and almoner to the convent. Rha- 
degund employed her poet-chaplain in corre- 
spondence with the prelates of Gaul, and 
despatched him from time to time on delicate 
missions. He thus became intimate with 
Gregory of Tours, Syagrius of Autun, Felix of 
Nantes, Germanus of Paris, Avitus of Cler- 
mont, and many others, to whom his poems 
are addressed. He also composed Lives of 
the saints, theological treatises, and hymns, 
including the famous Vexilla Regis, composed 
for a religious ceremony at Poictiers. The 
Pange Lingua, though generally ascribed to 
his pen, was more probably composed, as 
Sirmond has shewn (in Notis ad Epist. Sidon. 
A pollin. lib. iii. Ep. 4), by Claudianus Mamer- 
tus. Fortunatus was ordained priest, and, 
subsequently to the death of Rhadegund in 
597, succeeded Plato in the bishopric of 
Poictiers ; but died early in the 7th cent. 

His works comprise: (1) Eleven Books of 
Miscellanies, chiefly in elegiac verse, interest- 
ing for the light they throw upon the manners 
of the time and the history of art (Miscell. i. 
12 ; iii. 13), but as literature all but worthless. 

(2) The Life of St. Martin of Tours in four 
books, consisting of 2,245 hexameter lines, 
hastily composed, and little more than a 
metrical version of Severus Sulpicius’s incom- 
parably better prose. 

(3) An elegiac poem in three cantos, written 
in the character, and evidently under the 
inspiration, of Rhadegund. The first, de 
Excidio Thuringiae, is dedicated to her cousin 
Amalfred (or Hermanfred) ; the second is a 
panegyric of Justin II. and his empress Sophia, 
who had presented Rhadegund with a piece 
of the true cross. 

(4) A collection of 150 elegiac verses ad- 


FORTY MARTYRS, THE 371 


dressed to Rhadegund and Agnes, and a short 
epigram ad Theuchildem. 

(5) The Lives of eleven saints—Hilary of 
Poitiers, Germain of Paris, Aubin of Angers, 
Paternus of Avranches, Rhadegund of Poictiers, 
Amant of Rodez, Médard of Noyon, Remy of 
Rheims, Lubin of Chartres, Mauril of Angers, 
and Marcel of Paris—but the first book of the 
Life of Hilary and the Lives of the three last- 
named saints ought probably to be attributed 
to another Fortunatus. To these must be 
added an account of the martyrdom at Paris 
of St. Denys, St. Rusticus, and St. Eleutherius. 

His style is pedantic, his taste bad, his 
grammar and prosody seldom correct for many 
lines together, but two of his longer poems 
display a simplicity and pathos foreign to his 
usual style—viz. that on the marriage of 
Galesuintha, sister of Brunehaut, with Chil- 
peric, and his Elegy upon the Fall of Thuringia. 

The latest and best ed. of his works is by 
Leo and Krusch (Berlin, 1881-1885). A good 
earlier ed. by Luchi is reprinted in Migne’s 
Patr. Lat. \xxxviii. Augustin Thierry, Récits 
mérovingiens, t. ii. Recit. vi.; and Ampére, 
Hist. lit. de la France, t. ii. c. 13. [Ε.Μ.Υ.} 

Fortunatus (18), a bp. who has been con- 
founded with Venantius Fortunatus, bp. of 
Poictiers. Bornat Vercellae, he migrated into 
Gaul, and became intimate with St. Germanus, 
who induced him to write the Life of St. 
Marcellus. He was probably the author of 
bk. i. of the Life of St. Hilary of Poictiers, 
and of three other Lives of saints ascribed to 
his more distinguished namesake. He died at 
Celles, in the diocese of Sens, c. 569. Rivet, 
Hist. lit. de la France, t. iii. p.298. [E£.M.Y.] 

Forty Martyrs, The. Three groups occur 
as such :— 

(1) Forty soldiers, who suffered under 
Licinius, 320, at Sebaste in Armenia. A list 
of their names is given in the martyrology of 
Ado under March 11. [See SEBASTE, Forty 
Martyrs ΟΕ, in D. C. A.] They were young, 
brave, and noted for their services. The 
emperor having ordained that the military 
police of the cities should offer sacrifices, the 
governor called upon these forty to comply. 
They refused, and withstood both bribes and 
threats. Thereupon a new punishment was 
devised. They were immersed for a whole 
night in a frozen pond, a hot bath being placed 
within sight for any who might choose to avail 
themselves of it, their doing so, however, being 
the sign of apostasy. The trial was too great 
for one. He left the pond and flung himself 
into the bath, but as soon as he touched the hot 
water he died. The number of forty was not, 
however, broken. The sentinel who watched 
the bath saw in a vision angels descend and 
distribute rewards to all in the pond. The 
guard at once stripped off his clothing and 
took the vacant place in the pond. Next 
morning they were all flung into fires. There 
was one Melito, younger and more vigorous 
than the rest, whose resolution they thought 
they might shake. His mother, however, who 
was present, herself placed him in the execu- 
tioner’s cart, saying : ‘‘ Go, my son, finish this 
happy voyage with thy comrades, that thou 
mayst not be the last presented to God. 
Their relics were carefully preserved and 
carried to various cities, where many churches 


372 FRAVITTA 


were built in their honour. The mother 
Emmelia, and the sister Macrina, of St. Basil 
obtained some for their monastery near the 
village of Annesi in Pontus, where already a 
church had been built in their honour (Greg. 
Nys. Vit. 5. Macrin.). Sozomen (H. E. ix. 2) 
tells a strange story about another set of their 
relics. In addition to the authorities quoted, 
consult Pitra, Analect. Sacr. t. i. p. 599, in 
Spicil. Solesmense. Their popularity through- 
out the entire East has ever been very great 
(cf. Dr. Zirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren). In 
Burton’s Unexplored Syria, App. ii., a church 
in their honour is noted at Huns, near Dam- 
ascus; cf. also Melchior de Vogiié, Les 
Eglises de la terre sainte, p. 367. 

(2) Another set of Forty Martyrs in Persia, 
375, is commemorated on May 20 (Assemani, 
Mart. Orient. i. 141). Among them were the 
bishops Abdas and Ebed-Jesu. Ceillier, iii. 82, 
336; Bas. Menol. 

(3) Under Dec. 24 Forty Virgin Martyrs 
under Decius at Antioch in Syria are noted in 
Mart. Hieron., Adon., Usuard. [ᾳ(.1.5.] 

Fravitta, 23rd bp. of Constantinople a.p. 
489. Our chief authority is Nicephorus Callis- 
tus, who relates that on the death of Acacius, 
the emperor Zeno placed on the altar of the 
great church of Constantinople two sheets of 
paper. On one was written a prayer that 
God would send an angel to inscribe on the 
blank sheet the name of him whom He wished 
to be the patriarch. A fast of 40 days with 
prayer was ordered. The church was given 
into the custody of a confidential eunuch, the 
imperial chamberlain, and the imperial seal set 
on the casket containing the papers. A pres- 
byter named Fravitta was in charge of the 
suburban church of St. Thecla. Fired with 
ambition, he paid the eunuch large sums, and 
promised him more, to write his name on the 
blank sheet. At the end of the 40 days the 
casket was opened ; the name of Fravitta was 
found, and he was enthroned amid universal 
acclamations. Within 4 months he died, and 
the powerful eunuch was pressing his executors 
for the promised gold. They revealed the 
odious tale to the emperor. The forger was 
turned out of all his employments and driven 
from the city. Zeno, ashamed of his failure, 
entrusted the election of the new patriarch to 
the clergy. 

Such is the account of Nicephorus Callistus. 
In the correspondence between Zeno, Fravitta, 
and pope Felix on the appointment there is no 
trace of this story. 

Fravitta at one and the same time wrote let- 
ters to Peter Mongus asking for hiscommunion, 
and a synodal to pope Felix begging his sanc- 
tion and co-operation. This document was 
carried to Rome by Catholic monks of Constan- 
tinople who had always kept separate from 
Acacius and his friend Mongus. An accom- 
panying letter of Zeno showed great affection 
for Fravitta; Zeno had only laboured for his 
appointment because he thought him worthy 
and to restore peace and unity to the churches. 
Pope Felix, delighted with the letters, had 
Zeno’s read aloud to the deputation and all 
the clergy of Rome, who expressed loud ap- 
proval. When the pope, however, wished the 
monks from Constantinople to undertake that 
the names of Acacius and Mongus should be 


FRUCTUOSUS 


rejected from the diptychs, they replied that 
they had no instructions on that point. The 
joy of the pope was finally destroyed by the 
arrival at Rome of a copy of the letter which 
Fravitta had sent to Mongus. Directly con- 
trary to that which Felix had received, it actu- 
ally denied all communion with Rome. The 
pope would not hear a word more from the 
monks. Whether the story of Nicephorus 
Callistus be true or not, Fravitta stands dis- 
graced by this duplicity. Niceph. Callist. 
xvi. 19, Patr. Gk. cxlvii. § 684, p. 152; Joann. 
Zonar. Annal. xiv. iii. Patr. Gk. cxxxiv. § 53, 
p- 12145 Liberat. Diac. Brev. xviii. Patr. Lat. 
lxvili. ; 'Felicis Pap. Ep. xii. and xiii. Patr. Lat. 


1ν111. p. Evagr. ili. 23, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 
part il. Theoph. Chronogr. 114, Patr. Gk. 
Cvlil. p. "324 [W.M.S. ] 


Fructuosus (1), M., bp. of Tarragona in the 
3rd cent. The Acta of his martyrdom and of 
his two deacons and fellow-sufferers, Eulogius 
and Augurius, are the most ancient Spanish 
Acta, and marked by a realistic simplicity 
which contrasts very favourably with many 
of the Acta of Diocletian’s persecution. Pru- 
dentius made use of them in his hymn to the 
martyrs (Felix Tarraco Fructuose vestris, etc., 
Peristeph. vi.), and they are largely quoted 
by St. Augustine (Serm. 273, Migne, Patr. 
Lat. xxxviii.). Under Valerian and Gallienus 
in the consulate of Aemilianus and Bassus 
(A.D. 259), Aemilianus Praeses of Tarragona 
issued an edict against the Christians, com- 
pelling all to sacrifice to the gods. Hearing 
this, bp. Fructuosus and the whole church 
of Tarragona gave themselves to unceasing 
prayer. One night, after Fructuosus had 
retired, four apparitores appeared at his gate 
and summoned him and his deacons before the 
Praeses. This was Sunday, and they remained 
in prison till Friday, enjoying, however, some 
intercourse with the brethren outside. Fruc- 
tuosus even baptized a catechumen within the 
prison. Appearing before the Praeses, all 
three simply and steadfastly avowed their 
faith. Finally the Praeses asked Fructuosus, 
“Art thou the bishop of the Christians? ” 
He answered, ‘‘I am.’’ The Praeses retorted, 
“ Thou wast,’’ and gave orders for them to be 
scourged and burnt alive. On their way to 
the amphitheatre Christians and heathens 
alike crowded around in sympathy. Some 
offered Fructuosus a cup of aromatic strength- 
ening drink. He refused, saying, ‘‘ It is not 
yet time to break the fast’ (it being Friday, 
and ten o’clock; the Friday fast lasting till 
three). At the gate of the amphitheatre 
Fructuosus addressed the people. ‘‘ Be of 
good cheer ; a pastor shall not be wanting to 
you, nor shall the love and promise of God 
fail you, either here or hereafter. For this 
which you behold is but the infirmity of an 
hour.’”’ After the flames were kindled, the 
ligatures binding their hands were quickly 
burnt ; then Fructuosus, consuetudinis memor, 
fell on his knees and so passed away. 

This is the account of the Acta printed by 
Tamayo in the Martyr. Hisp. (vol. i. Jan. 21) 
from a 14th-cent. calendar in the library of the 
cathedral of Astorga. It omitsimportant points 
contained in the Bollandist Acta (A.A. S.S. 
Jan. ii.), which are the same as those printed 
by Florez (Esp. Sag. xxv.). [M.A.W.] 


FRUMENTIUS 
Frumentius. [EpEs1 


us, 8.] 
ntius (3), Fabius Claudius Gordianus, 


bp. of Ruspe, Ὁ. 468, ἃ. 533. His life was 
mostly spent in the provinces of N.W. Africa 
ruled by the Vandal kings, Genseric, Hunneric, 


and: Thrasimund, and he suffered from their 


persecutions. The writings of Fulgentius 
himself, a biographical memoir prefixed to his 
works and addressed to bp. Felicianus, his 
successor, supposed to be by Ferrandus, a 
deacon of Carthage, and a treatise de Perse- 
cuttone Vandalica, by Victor Vitensis in 487 
(Migne, Patr. Lat. t. lviii.), are the principal 
sources of information for the Vandal perse- 
cution in Africa. Every refinement of cruelty 
seems to have been visited upon the presby- 
ters, bishops, and virgins of the N. African 
church during the reigns of Genseric and 
Hunneric. At the first incursion of the 
Vandals the whole country was desolated, 
houses of prayer and basilicas razed, neither 
age nor sex spared, the tombs of the martyrs 
rifled for treasure, bishops banished from their 
sees, virgins basely used, and every effort made 
to alienate the people from the Catholic faith. 
At the commencement of Hunneric’s reign 
(Victor, lib. ii.) a gleam of sunshine cheered 
the church, during which the vacant see of 
Carthage was filled by Eugenius, whose 
extraordinary virtues are duly recorded by 
his biographers. His popularity excited the 
rage and animosity of the conquerors, who 
forbade their own people to enter his church. 
Those who disobeyed were submitted to 
torture; some were blinded, and many died 
of the inhuman treatment. Women were 
scalped, stripped, and paraded through the 
streets. Victor says, ‘‘We knew many of 
these.’’ Nor did the orthodox alone suffer. 
Jocundus, the Arian patriarch, was burned 
alive, and Manicheans were hunted down like 
wild beasts. At the end of his 2nd year 
Hunneric refused all position in the court or 
executive to any but Arians, and banished to 
Sardinia all who refused to conform; heavy 
pecuniary fines were imposed whenever a 
bishop was ordained ; many Christian women 
died under inhuman cruelties, and many were 
crippled for life. In 486 the bishops and priests 
were exiled into the desert, and in his 8th year 
Hunneric issued an edict, still preserved (7b. 
iii.), summoning the Homoousians to renounce 
their faith, fixing a date for their submission 
and for their churches to be destroyed, books 
burned, and pastors banished. The conse- 
quences of this edict are detailed with hor- 
rible circumstantiality by Victor, and even 
Gibbon considers them inhumanly severe. The 
cruelties of the Diocletian persecution were 
equalled, if not surpassed, by these efforts to 
extirpate the Homoousian faith. Gordian, 
the grandfather of Fulgentius, a senator of 
Carthage, was exiled by Genseric. His two 
sons returned home during an interval of 
grace to find their property in the hands of 
Arian priests. Not being allowed to remain 
at Carthage, they settled at Telepte in the 
province of Byzacene. One of them, Claudius, 
married Maria Anna, a Christian lady, who 
gave birth in 468 to Fulgentius. His mother 
was careful that he should study the Greek 
language, and would not allow him to read 


Roman literature until he had committed 


with manual 


return to his monastery. 


FULGENTIUS 373 


to memory the greater part of the poems of 
Homer and of the plays of Menander. He 
displayed great talent for business and much 
versatility. His fine character recommended 
him to the court, and he was appointed fiscal 
procurator of the province. But after perus- 
ing Augustine’s comment on Ps. xxxvi. 
(xxxvii. Heb.), he was attracted by the “ plea- 
sures of a mind at peace with God, which 
fears nothing but sin.’’ Hunneric having ban- 
ished the bishops to the neighbouring deserts, 
young Fulgentius began to retire from society 
and devote himself to prayer and various 
austerities. One of these exiled bishops, 
Faustus, had formed a little monastery not 
far from Telepte, to which Fulgentius betook 
himself. Owing to the persecution, and at 
the advice of Faustus, Fulgentius removed to 
another small monastery, under abbat Felix, 
between whom and Fulgentius sprang up an 
enduring friendship. They divided the super- 
intendence of the monastery between them, 
Fulgentius undertaking the duties of teacher. 
Troubles from an incursion of the Numidians 
compelled them to settle at Sicca Veneria or 
Siccensis (Vita, c. ix.). An Arian presbyter 
in the neighbourhood, alarmed at the influence 
exercised by the saintly Felix and Fulgentius, 
laid a plot to rob and torture them. The 
little company again migrated to Ididi in 
Mauritania, and here Fulgentius, reading the 
Institutiones Cassiant, resolved to go to Egypt 
and the Thebaid to follow a more severe rule 
of mortification. At Syracuse he was kindly 
received by bp. Eulalius, who discouraged his 
going to the Thebaid, as it was separated bya 
“ perfidious heresy and schism from the com- 
munion of St. Peter,’’ t.e. the Monophysite 
doctrine and the schism to which that led 
in the Egyptian church after the council of 
Chalcedon, A.D. 451. The advice was followed, 
and for some months he resided near Syracuse. 
In 500 he visited Rome, was present at the 
gorgeous reception given to Theodoric, and 
that year returned to Africa. He received 
from Sylvester, primarius of Byzacene, a site 
for a spacious monastery which was at once 
crowded; thence he retired to a lonely island, 
which lacked wood, drinkable water, and access 
to the mainland. Here he occupied himself 
toil and spiritual exercises. 
Felix, having discovered his retreat, persuaded 
Faustus to ordain Fulgentius a presbyter, and, 
under pain of excommunication, to compel a 
This was shortly 
after the death of Hunneric and accession 
of Thrasimund, who, though an Arian, was 
more liberal than his predecessors (Gibbon, 
Smith’s ed. vol. iv. c. 37). The little seaport of 
Ruspe, on a projecting spur of the coast near 
the Syrtis Parva, had remained without a 
bishop, and desired Fulgentius, who was taken 
by force from his cell to Victor the primate 
of Byzacene and consecrated as its bishop in 
508, when 40 years old. He made no change 
in his costume or daily regimen. His first 
demand from his people was a site for a monas- 
tery, and his old friend Felix was summoned 
to preside over it. But Thrasimund dismissed 
Fulgentius and other newly elected bishops 
to Sardinia. Here, in the name of the 60 
exiles, he wrote important letters on questions 
of theological and ecclesiastical importance. 


374 FULGENTIUS 


His literary faculty, knowledge of Scripture, 
and repute as a theologian, probably induced 
Thrasimund to summon him to Carthage, and 
ten objections to the Catholic faith were pre- 
sented to him. His reply was his earliest 
treatise. viz. One Book against the Arians, Ten 
Answers to Ten Chjections. The third objection 
resembles a common argument of the earlier 
Arians, viz. that Prov. viii. 22, John xvi. 29, 
Ps. ii. 7, and other passages imply that the 
Son is ‘‘ created,’ ‘‘ generated in time,’’ and 
therefore not of the same substance with the 
Father, to which Fulgentius replied that 
they all refer to the Incarnation, and not to 
the essence of the Son of God. He used the 
argument of Athanasius, which makes the 
customary worship of the Son of God verge 
either on Polytheism or Sabellianism if we do 
not at the same time recognize the consub- 
stantiality of the Son. To deny, said Fulgen- 
tius, the Catholic position, produces the 
dilemma that the Son of God was either from 
something or from nothing. To suppose that 
He was made “‘ out of nothing ’’ reduces Him 
to the rank of a creature; while to suppose 
that He was made ‘‘ from something,’’ in 
essence different from God, involves a co- 
eternal Being, and some form of Manichean 
dualism. Fulgentius laid the greatest empha- 
sis on the unity of God’s essence, and assumed, 
as a point not in dispute, that Christ was the 
object of Divine worship. This throws some 
light upon the later Arianism. The reply was 
not considered satisfactory by Thrasimund, 
who sent another group of objections, which 
were to be read to Fulgentius. No copy was 
to be left with him, but he was expected 
to return categorical answers: a statement 
vouched for by the opening chapters of the 
ad Trasimundum Regem Vandalorum Libri 
tres (cf. Schroeckh, Christliche Kuirchenge- 
schichte, xviii. 108). Bk. i. treats ‘‘ of the 
Mystery of the Mediator, Christ, having two 
natures in one person’’; bk. ii. ‘‘ of the 
Immensity of the Divinity of the Son of God”’ ; 
bk. iii. ‘‘of the Sacrament of the Lord’s 
Passion.’’ In bk. i. Fulgentius displays great 
familiarity with Scripture, and endeavours to 
establish the eternal generation of the Logos, 
and the birth in time of the Christ, when the 
Logos took flesh, and endeavours to shew that 
by “‘ flesh ’’ is meant the whole of humanity, 
body and reasonable soul, just as occasionally 
by “‘soul’”’ is denoted not only reasonable soul 
but body as well. In bk. 1. he shews that the 
whole of humanity needed redemption, and 
was taken into union with the Eternal Word ; 
in bk. ii. that nothing less than Deity in His 
supreme wisdom and power could effect the 
redemption. In many ways he argues the 
immensity of the Son and of the Spirit of God. 
In bk. iii. he opposes strongly not only 
Patripasstanism, but all theopathia, Θεοπασχι- 
τισμός and the supposition that the Deity of 
Christ felt substantialiter the sorrows of the 
Cross. The dyophysite position is urged with 
remarkable earnestness, and held to be com- 
pletely compatible with the unity of the person 
of Christ. The personality of the Christ the 
Son of God is distinguished from the person- 
ality of the Father, with an almost semi-Arian 
force, while he holds that the nature and sub- 
stance of the Father and the Son are one and 


FULGENTIUS 


the same. ‘‘ Sicut inseparabilis est unitate 
naturae sic inconfusibilis permanet proprietate 
personae”’ (lib. iii. c. 3). (Cf. ‘‘ unus omnino; 
non confusione substantiae ; sed unitate per- 
sonae,”’ of the Athanasian Creed.) Yet though 
Christ emptied Himself of His glory, He was 
full of grace and truth. The two natures were 
united, not confused, in Christ. But as there 
was taken up into His one personality the 
reasonable soul and flesh of man, not a human 
personality, but human nature, He could weep 
at the grave of Lazarus and die upon the 
Cross. Chap. 20 shews conclusively that Ful- 
gentius must have read as the text of Heb. 
il. 9, χωρὶς Θεοῦ rather than χάριτι Θεοῦ, as he 
lays repeated emphasis on the sine Deo. The 
author of the Vita assures us that Thrasimund 
secured the assistance of an Arian bishop, Pinta, 
to reply to these three books, and that Ful- 
gentius rejoined. The existing work entitled 
Pro Fide Catholica adv. Pintam Episcopum 
Arianum, liber unus (Opp. Migne’s ed. pp. 
708-720) cannot be the work of Fulgentius. 
The indignation of the Arian party at Carthage 
led to what is called his second exile. In the 
dead of night Fulgentius was hurried on board 
a vessel bound for Sardinia. On reaching 
Calaris (Cagliari) in Sardinia, he was received 
by the exiles with great enthusiasm and rever- 
ence. Here he remained until the king died 
in 523, and displayed extraordinary energy in 
literary, polemical, and monastic work. With 
the assistance of Brumasius, the “ antistes”’ 
of the city, he built another monastery, where 
more than 40 monks lived under a strict 
rule of community of property. The equity, 
benevolence, and self-abnegation of these 
coenobites are extolled in high terms, and 
Fulgentius is especially commended for his 
sweetness and gentleness to the youngest and 
weakest, which was never disturbed except 
when bound by his office and vows to act with 
severity towards insubordination or sin. 
Symmachus, bp. of Rome, wrote a letter of 
congratulation to these valiant champions of 
Christ (Anast. in Symmacho, Baron. ann. 504). 
During this period the majority of his extant 
letters were penned, for the most part in 
answer to difficult theological questions, and 
then also Fulgentius revealed his strong agree- 
ment with Augustine on predestination, grace, 
and remission of sin, at a time when these 
doctrines were being called in question by the 
semi-Pelagians of S. Gaul and N. Africa. Cf. 
Neander, General Church History, Clark’s 
trans.) vol.; iv. 417 ff. ; Shedd!) ΘΕ ΠΣ 
Christian Doctrine, vol. ii. 104 ff.; Wiggers, 
Augustinismus und Pelagianismus, 11. Theil, 
369-393; Schroeckh, xviii. 

The most extended of these dissertations is 
ad Monimum, libri tres. I. De duplice prae- 
destinatione Det. II. Complectens tres quaes- 
tiones. III. De vera expositione illius dicti: 
et verbum erat apud Deum. Monimus was an 
intimate friend of Fulgentius, and, on perusing 
Augustine’s de Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, 
had thought that that Father taught pre- 
destination to sin as well as to virtue. 
Fulgentius assured Monimus that God does 
not predestinate men to sin, but only to the 
punishment merited by sin, quoting Ezk. xviii. 
30. ‘‘Sin,’’ said he, “15 not in Him, so sin is 
not from Him. That which is not His work 


FULGENTIUS 


cannot be His predestination.’’ Noconstraint 
of the will is meant by predestination, but the 
disposition of Divine grace by which God 
pardons one, though He may punish another, 
gives grace to one who is unworthy of it, even 
if He find another worthy of His anger. Bk. 
ii. is occupied with Arian questions as to the 
Trinity, and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
The rigidity of his ecclesiastical theory is here 
conspicuous. The charity, the sacrifices, the 
services of heretics are of no avail, since they 
are separated from the Catholic Church. Bk. 
iii. replies to the Arian interpretation of 
“apud Deum” in Johni. 1; to their theory 
that if it had been said “ὁ verbum est in Deo,” 
we might have thence deduced the identity 
of the two natures, that ‘“‘apud’”’ implies 
separation and dissimilarity. His argument- 
tum ad hominem is very ingenious; the exe- 
getical argument which follows is feeble. 

During this period Fulgentius wrote the 
Liber ad Donatum de Fide Orthodoxa et Diversis 
Erroribus Haereticorum (Ep. viii. Migne), else- 
where described as a letter to the Cartha- 
ginians. His object was succinctly to char- 
acterize Sabellian, Arian, Macedonian, and 
Manichean heresy; he condemns Photinus, 
and the errors of Eutyches and Nestorius by 
name, declaring that the true doctrine of the 
church was to assert the two natures, as 
against Eutyches, and to repudiate the two 
persons, against Nestorius. During his resi- 
dence in Sardinia an important letter was 
written to Euthymius, de Remissione Pecca- 
torum (§ xiv. Ceillier, p. 527, Migne). The 
question was asked by Euthymius, a devout 
laic, whether remission of sins was possible 
after death. After a broad description of 
what remission of sin is, Fulgentius declares 
the human conditions to be “ὁ faith,’’ ‘‘ good 
works,’’ and ‘‘time,’’ but it can only be 
secured in the Catholic church, which has 
power to remit all sin except the sin against 
the Holy Ghost, which he declares to be “‘ final 
impenitence.’’ The utmost stress is laid upon 
the irreversible condition of the soul at death. 
All merits are attributed to Divine grace 
(Wiggers, op. cit. p. 382). 

The 3 books, de Verttate Praedestinationts 
et Gratia Dei (Migne, p. 604), are addressed to 
John and Venerius, to whom other letters were 
also sent during the 2nd exile (Ep. xv. Ceillier, 
§ x.) on the doctrines of Faustus of Rhegium 
(de Riez, Riji, sometimes Galliarum). 

Fulgentius lays down, in opposition to 
Faustus, that grace can neither be known nor 
appreciated until given; that so long as man 
is without it, he resists it by word or deed. 
Faustus had spoken of an imperishable grain 
of good in every man which is nourished by 
grace. Free will is this spark of heavenly fire, 
not obliterated by the fall. Fulgentius urged 
that there may be free will, but not free will 
to that which is good. 

In 523 Thrasimund died, and his successor, 


Hilderic, allowed the return of the Catholic. 


bishops, and the election of new ones in the 
churches still vacant. The bishops were 
received at Carthage with transports of joy, 
and none with greater enthusiasm than Ful- 


gentius, who was welcomed with triumphal | consists of 67 chapters. 


arches, lamps, torches, and banners. On 
arriving at Ruspe, he yielded in the monastery 


FULGENTIUS 375 


entire deference to Felix, took the position of 
the humblest neophyte, and only suggested 
| more vigorous work for the clerics, more fre- 
quent fasting for the monks. In 524 a council 
was held at Juncensis, apparently to enforce 
a more rigid attention to the canons. Fulgen- 
tius was called to preside. His precedence 
was disputed by a bishop called Quodvultdeus, 
but confirmed by his brethren. After the 
council, Fulgentius besought out of charity 
that his brethren would transfer this nominal 
precedence to his rival, thus heaping on his 
head coals of fire. The primate of Carthage, 
Boniface, sought the presence of Fulgentius at 
the dedication of a new church, and wept tears 
of joy under his powerful discourse. During 
this period Fulgentius wrote his great work 
against Fabianus, fragments only of which 


remain. They discuss a variety of interesting 
problems bearing on the Divinity of the 
Holy Spirit and other elements of Trini- 


tarian doctrine. The Sermones which remain, 
by their flowing eloquence, antithetic style 
and tender sensibility, attest the power of 
Fulgentius. He powerfully discriminates be- 
tween the Son and the Trinity, and clearly 
implies the double procession of the Holy 
Spirit. He claims that the Father had created 
everything by the Son. Men are only wound- 
ed by the poison and malice of creatures by 
reason of their sins. The mightiest beings are 
submitted toman. There is no evil in nature. 
He draws weighty distinctions between the 
sins of the just and the wicked. 

Ferrandus the deacon asked whether he 
might count upon the salvation of an Ethio- 
pian, who had come as a catechumen eagerly 
desiring baptism, but had died at the moment 
of baptism. Fulgentius starts with the thesis 
that faith is the indispensable condition of 
salvation, baptism or no baptism. Heretics 
and enemies of the church will not be saved 
by baptism. The Ethiopian had given evid- 
ence of faith, and was baptized, though then 
unconscious, both conditions being indispens- 
able to salvation. He is therefore saved. 
But he reprobates baptism of the really dead, 


for baptism removes the stain and curse of 
original sin, the seat of which is the soul. If 
the soul is severed from the body, baptism is 
worthless. He decides that the benefits of 
the Eucharist are contained in baptism, and 
hence, he says, for many centuries past, 
infants are not fed with the Eucharist after 
their baptism. ἢ ᾿ 

In another correspondence Fulgentius 
argues that the passion was Christ's quad His 
whole person, but qua nature it was the 
experience of His flesh only. His soul and 
body were separated at death. His soul went 
to Hades, His body to the grave, but His 
Divine nature at that very moment filled all 
space and time, together with the Father and 
the Holy Spirit. 

Many of the same arguments are repeated 
in the Letter Addressed to the Monks of Scythia, 
who accepted all the decisions of Chalcedon, 
anathematized Pelagius, Julian, and even 
|Faustus, and asked for further light. The 
lreply of Fulgentius and 15 other bishops 
‘ The points of chief 
linterest are that Fulgentius denied that the 
| Virgin was conceived immaculate, and that 


376 FULGENTIUS FERRANDUS 


when speaking of the eternal generation of the 
Son, he used the bold expression, ‘‘ex utero 
Patris.’’ He laid the strongest emphasis on 
the Monergistic hypothesis of regeneration, 
and weakened the universalism of God’s love 
by declaring that ‘‘ all’’ does not mean “ all 
men,” but ‘‘all kinds of men.” 

While pursuing his literary work with such 
industry, Fulgentius retired from his monas- 
tery at Ruspe to another on the island of 
Circina, and redoubled his self-mortifications. 
Here his health gave way. When told that a 
bath was absolutely necessary to prolong his 
life, he obstinately refused to break his rule. 
He died in Jan. 533, in his 65th year and the 
25th of his episcopate, and Felicianus was 
elected his successor the same day. 

The most complete ed. of his works wasissued 
in Paris (1684) by L. Mangeant. The whole, 
with many letters to which he replied, is in 
Migne, Patr. Lat. t. lxv.; Schroeckh, Kirchen- 
geschichte, xvii. xviil. 108 ff. TH.R.R.] 

Fulgentius (4) Ferrandus, a disciple and 
companion of Fulgentius of Ruspe (8) ; shar- 
ing his exile to Sardinia during the persecution 
by the Arian kings of the Vandals. Ferrandus 
received the hospitality of St. Saturninus at 
Cagliari, and on the death of Thrasimund, 
A.D. 523, returned to Carthage, where he be- 
camea deacon. In all probability he was the 
author of the Vita prefixed to the works of 
Fulgentius of Ruspe, and dedicated to Felici- 
anus. Hoffmann, Lex. s.n.; Herzog, Encycl. 
art. by Wagenmann; Petrus Pithaeus, in 
preface Lectori, prefixed to Breviatio Canonum 
Ferrandt, Cod. Canonum, p. 303. 

Two letters of Ferrandus to Fulgentius are 
extant (Migne, Patr. Ixv. pp. 378-435), with 
the lengthy and careful replies of the latter. 
For the former see FuLGEentTIus (8). The 
second asked concerning :—1. The Separa- 
bility of the Persons of the Trinity. 2. 
Whether the Divinity of the Christ suffered 
on the cross, or the Divine Person suffered 
only in the flesh. The fifth question con- 
cerned the double gift of the cup to the 
apostles, as mentioned in St. Luke’s gospel. 
Ferrandus was often appealed to for his own 
theological judgment. His collected writings 
(Biblioth. Patr. Chiffletius, 1649) preserve one 
entitled de Duabus in Christo naturis, and an 
Epistola Anatolio de quaestione an aliquis ex 
Trimitate passus est. He is also the author of 
a Breviatio canonum ecclestasticorum (Codex 
Canonum, F. Pithaeus, and Miscellanea Eccle- 
stastica, Petrus Pithaeus, pp. 303 ff.), a collec- 
tion and digest of 232 canons of the earliest 
councils, Nicaea, Laodicea, Sardica, Constanti- 
nople, Carthage, etc., chiefly appertaining to 
the election, ordination, and character of 
bishops, presbyters, and deacons; the feasts 
of the church; the duties of virgins, cate- 
chumens, etc. It is thought to have been 
compiled during the reign of Anastasius 
(d. 518). Ferrandus appears to have had his 
knowledge of the Greek councils through a 
translation and digest of such canons as had 
been previously in use in Spain. The mention 
of later synods and writings has led others 
to believe that the Breviatio was compiled δ. 
547. [Canon Law, D.C. A.] Ferrandus took 
a not unimportant part in the violent dis- 
cussions produced by the edict of Justinian I. 


GALERIUS 


(the Capitula Tria), which condemned cer- 
tain passages from Theodoret, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, and Ibas of Edessa. Ferrandus 
was backed by the vehemently orthodox and 
dyophysite spirit of the N. African church, and 
in a letter (546) to Anatolius and Pelagius, two 
deacons of the Roman church, whom Vigilius 
instructed to communicate with him, declared 
against the reception of the edict of Justinian. 
The most complete ed. of his works is by 
Chiffletius (Dijon, 1649). The two letters to 
Fulgentius of Ruspe are in Sirmond’s and 
Migne’s edd. of Fulgentit Opp. [H.R.R.] 
Fundanus (1) Minucius, proconsul of Asia 
in the reign of Hadrian. He received the 
imperial instructions applied for by his pre- 
decessor Granianus as to how Christians were 
to be dealt with (Justin. Mart. Apol. i. ὃ 69; 
Eus. H. E. iv. 9). [HAprr1aNnus (1).] This 
rescript seems to shew that a Christian was 
not to be tried merely for being a Christian, 
but only for some definite breach of the law. 
As this might be due to principles, Christianity 
would remain still punishable, but only in 
overt act. [c.H.] 


G 


Galenus, Claudius, physician, born a.p. 130 
at Pergamus, flourished chiefly at Rome under 
the Antonines, and died in 200 or 201. Fora 
full account see D. of G. and R. Biogr. He 
belongs to church history only because of a 
few incidental words referring to Christianity 
that occur in his voluminous writings. Thus 
in his de Pulsuum Differentits (lib. iii. cap. 3, 
sub. fin. in Opp. t. viii. p. 657, ed. Kiihn) he 
writes: ‘‘ It is easier to convince the disciples 
of Moses and Christ than physicians and 
philosophers who are addicted to particular 
sects’’ ; and (lib. ii. cap. 4, p. 579) he condemns 
the method of Archigenes, who requires his 
dicta to be received absolutely and without 
demonstration, ‘‘ as though we were come to 
the school of Moses and of Christ.’’ In the 
de Renum Affectuum Dignotione (Kithn, t. 
xix.) there are other references, but that 
treatise is spurious. An Arabic writer has 
preserved a fragment of Galen’s lost work, 
de Republicd Platonis, which reads: ‘‘ We 
know that the people called Christians have 
founded a religion in parables and miracles. 
In moral training we see them in nowise in- 
ferior to philosophers ; they practise celibacy, 
as do many of their women; in diet they are 
abstemious, in fastings and prayers assiduous ; 
they injure no one. In the practice of virtue 
they surpass philosophers; in probity, in 
continence, in the genuine performance of 
miracles (vera miraculorum patratione—does 
he mean the Scripture miracles, on which their 
religion was based?) they infinitely excel 
them ”’ (Casiri, Biblioth. Arabico-Hispana, vol. 
i. p. 253). For apologetic remarks on Galen’s 
testimony see Lardner’s Credibility (Works, 
vol. vii. p. 300, ed. 1838). (c.H.] 

Galerius, emperor. (Gaius Galerius Valerius 
Maximianus on his coinage ; called Maximus 
in some Acts of martyrs, that having appar- 
ently been his name until Diocletian changed 
it; see Lact. Mort. 18; nicknamed Armen- 
tarius from his original occupation.) He was 
a native of New Dacia, on the S, of the 


GALERIUS 


Danube. His mother Romula had fled thither 
for refuge from the predatory Carpi, who 
_ her own country on the N. side (Lact. 

ort.g; Aur. Vict. Epit. xl. 17). Asa youth 
he was a neatherd, but soon joined the army 
under Aurelian and _ Probus. Without 
education or virtues, he raised himself by 
undoubted military gifts, until he was selected 
(together with Constantius) by Diocletian to 
fill the office of Caesar of the East in Diocle- 
tian’s famous scheme for the reorganization 
of the empire, A.D. 292. He married Valeria, 
the Christian daughter of Diocletian. There 
were no children of the marriage, which was 
anything but happy, but the gentle Valeria 
adopted her husband’s bastard son Candidian. | 
Galerius had none of the gifts of a ruler, nor) 
any appreciation of his father-in-law’s policy, 
but his authority with the army made him a) 
useful coadjutor. Five years after his call to 
the Caesarship (A.D. 297) he was sent to con- 
duct the chief war of the reign of Diocletian, 
the last which ever gave the Capitol a triumph, 
against Narses, king of Persia. After an un- 
successful first campaign, he utterly routed 
Narses, and forced him to purchase peace at 
the cost of five provinces near the source of 
the Tigris. 

The year 303 brought Galerius prominently 
into contact with the church. He had con- 
ceived a hatred for the Christians, originating 
(so far as we can see) almost wholly in his 
fanatical superstition and aversion to Chris- 
tian morality. His mother was a noted 
votaress of the Phrygian orgies, and plied her 
son continually with entreaties to demolish 
Christianity. She was supported by the 
magician and so-called Platonist THEOo- 
TecNus (Cedr. vol. i. p. 47, ed. Bonn), who had 
also acquired an ascendancy over Galerius. 
The winter of 302-303 was spent by Galerius 
at Nicomedia, where he used every effort to 
compel the reluctant Diocletian to annul the 
legislation of GALLIENUS, to break the forty 
years’ amity between the empire and the 
church, and to crush Christianity. Step by 
step he gained his points, until Diocletian 
consented to proscribe the open profession of 
Christianity and to take all measures to sup- 
press it, short of bloodshed (Lact. Mort. 11, 
“rem sine sanguine transigi’’). The first 
edict of Diocletian, however, was not strong 
enough to content Galerius. The demolition 
of buildings which proclaimed the power of the 
church, the prohibition of synaxis, the burning 
of the books used in the Christian ritual, the 
civic, social, and military degradation of 
Christians, were too slow ways of abolishing 
it. His one desire was to remove Diocletian's 
expressive clause, that ‘‘no blood was to be 
shed in the transaction.” A fire broke out 
in the part of the palace where Diocletian 
lived. Lactantius, then resident at Nico- 
media, asserts that it was set alight by 
Galerius, whose object was to persuade the 
Augustus that his trusty Christian chamber- 
lains were conspiring against him; but on 
application of torture to the whole household, 
they were acquitted. A fortnight later an- 
other occurred, and Galerius (who, ostensibly 
to escape assassination, perhaps really to avoid 


GALERIUS 377 


and the emperor signed his second edict, 
ordering the incarceration of the entire clergy, 
though even now there was to be no bloodshed. 

In putting these edicts into execution 


| Galerius shews occasional signs of a reluctant 


intention to adhere to the principles of Dio- 
cletian’s legislation. His return to his own 
province in 304 was marked by a sudden crowd 
of martyrdoms where the edicts had before 
not even been published, but his conduct in 
the case of St. Romanus shews that, when 
directly appealed to, he felt bound to forbid 
the capital punishment of even obstreperous 
Christians (Eus. Mart. Pal. ii.). The time 
was coming, however, when Galerius was to 
have more liberty of action. In 304, probably 
during a total collapse of Diocletian's health, 
the so-called Fourth Edict was issued by 
Maximian, no doubt in conjunction with 
Galerius, making death the penalty of Chris- 
tianity. Diocletian began to recover in March 
305, and abandoned his long-held intention 
of abdicating on May στ in that year, not 
improbably because of the commotion which 
had been caused by the Fourth Edict. Gal- 
erius, who had long coveted the promised 
diadem, would brook no more delay, and 
with much violence compelled the enfeebled 
Augustus to retire, leaving himself nominally 
second to Constantius, whose death in July 
306 left Galerius supreme. 

Political troubles which followed did not 
divert Galerius from persecution. On Mar. 
31, 308, he issued, in conjunction with his 
nephew Maximin, a bloody edict against the 
Manicheans (Cod. Greg. ed. Hanel, lib. xiv. 
p- 44*). For the date see the present writer's 
essay on The Persecution of Dtocletian, p. 270. 
The same year saw an order to substitute 
mutilation for death in cases of Christianity ; 
as Eusebius says (Mart. Pal. ix ), ‘‘ The con- 
flagration subsided, as if quenched with the 
streams of sacred blood.’’ But the relaxation 
was only for a few months. The autumn of 
308 saw a new edict issued, which began a 
perfect reign of terror for two full years, the 
most prolific in bloodshed of any in the history 
of Roman persecutions; and the vast major- 
ity of persons who in the East (for the perse- 
cution in the West had ceased with the 
accession of Constantine and usurpation of 
Maxentius) are celebrated as ‘‘ martyrs under 
Diocletian ’’ really suffered between 308 and 
311. This part of the persecution bears 
marks, however, of the influence of Maximin 
Daza rather than of Galerius. Towards the 
close of 310 Galerius was seized with an incur 
able malady, partially caused by his vicious 
life. This gradually developed into the 
frightful disease vulgarly known as being 
‘‘ eaten of worms.’’ The fact rests not only 
on the authority of the church historians (Eus. 
H. E. viii., xvi. 3 ff.; Lact. Mort. 33), but 
also upon that of the pagan Aurelius Victor 
(Epit. xl. 4) and the fragment known as 
Anonymous Valesii. Galerius, face to face 
with so awful a death, thought (apparently) 
that a compromise might be effected with the 
God of the Christians, whom he undoubtedly 
recognized as an active and hostile power. 
From his dying-bed was issued his famous 


discovery, immediately departed) convinced | Edict of Toleration, bearing the signatures also 
Diocletian of the existence of a Christian plot,| of Constantine and of Licinius, which virtually 


378 GALLA PLACIDIA 


put an end to the “‘ Persecution of Diocletian.” 
This most extraordinary document may be 
read in full in Eus. H. E. viii. 17, and Lact. 
Mort. 34. The origin of the persecution is 
ascribed to the fact that the Christians had 
wilfully departed from the ‘‘ institutions of the 
ancients which had peradventure been first set 
on foot by their own forefathers,’’ and had 
formed schismatical assemblies on their own 
private judgment. Primitive Christianity is 
here meant by the phrase instituta veterum, and 
the edicts were asserted to have had no object 
but to bring the Christians back to it. But 
Galerius was now determined, under certain 
unspecified conditions, to allow Christianity 
once more and to permit the building of 
churches. In return, the Christians are told to 
pray to their God for the recovery of Galerius. 
Thus did the dying persecutor try to pose 
as a kind reformer, and to lead the God of the 
Christians to remit his temporal punishment. 
“The Unknown God to Whom he had at last 
betaken himself gave no answer to his insolent 
and tardy invocation’’ (De Broglie, i. 207). 
The edict was posted at Nicomedia on April 30; 
he died on May 5 or 13,311. [A.J.M.] 
Galla (5) Placidia, daughter of Theodosius 
I., by his second wife Galla. When in 410 
Rome was captured by Alaric, Placidia was 
taken prisoner, but was treated with great 
respect (Olympiod. ap. Phot. Biblioth. 1xxx. ; 
Zos. Hist. vi. 12), and in Jan. 414, at Narbona 
in Gaul, married Ataulphus, who had suc- 
ceeded his uncle Alaric. After the death of 
Ataulphus, Placidiareturned to Italy, a.p. 416, 
and dwelt with her paternal uncle Honorius, 
at Ravenna. In Jan. 417 she married Constan- 
tius. By him she had twochildren, Valentinian 
and Honoria (Olympiod. u.s.) Her influence 
over Constantius was soon shewn in his active 
persecution of the Pelagians (Prosp. Chron. s.a. 
418), when, in Feb. 421, Honorius admitted 
Constantius to a share of the empire. On 
Sept. 11, 421, Constantius died. Placidia again 
took up her abode with Honorius at Ravenna, 
but their mutual affection being replaced by 
bitter hate, which occasioned serious disturb- 
ances in the city, she and her children were 
sent to Theodosius II. at Constantinople 
(Olympiod. u.s.). On the death of Honorius in 
Aug. 423, Theodosius declared for Valentinian. 
Valentinian being but a child, the author- 
ity of Placidia was now supreme, and among 
her first acts was the issue of three edicts in 
rapid succession for the banishment of all 
“ Manicheans, heretics, and schismatics, and 
every sect opposed to the Catholic faith”’ (Cod. 
Theod. XVI. v. 62, July 17; 1b. 63, Aug. 4; 
tb. 64, Aug. 6, 425, all dated from Aquileia), 
meaning especially the adherents of the anti- 
pope Eulalius, who were still numerous in 
Rome. These edicts were soon followed by an- 
other of great severity, directed against apos- 
tates (Cod. Theod. XVI. vii. 8, Apr. 7, 426). 
In 427 the machinations of Aetius put 
Placidia in conflict with her tried friend Boni- 
face, count of Africa, who, in despair, ap- 
pealed for help to the Vandals, and Africa 
was overrun by their forces. Placidia ex- 
plained matters to Boniface, and urged him 
to do his best to repair the injury which the 
empire had sustained. But it was too late; 
the Vandals were masters of the country, and 


GALLIENUS 


Africa was lost (Procop. Bell. Vandal. i 
Augustine, Ep. 220; Gibbon, c. xxxiii.). 

In 449 Placidia was at Rome with Valen- 
tinian. The legates of Leo had just returned 
from the Robber Council of Ephesus. Leo 
bitterly bewailed the doings of that assembly 
to Placidia, who immediately wrote to Theo- 
dosius and his sister Pulcheria, intreating them 
to interfere in defence of the faith of their 
ancestors and to procure the restoration of 
Flavian, the deposed bp. of Constantinople 
(Conc. Chalced. pt. i. Ep. 26, 28, 30; Labbe, 
iv. 53, 55, 58). She died soon afterwards at 
Rome, and was buried at Ravenna (Idatius, 
Chr. s.a.; Gibbon, u.s.). [T.w.D.] 

Gallienus, P. Licinius, emperor, son of 
Valerian, appointed by the senate coadjutor 
to his father very shortly after Valerian’s suc- 
cession in Aug. 253. In 260 his father’s 
captivity in Persia left him politically irre- 
sponsible. 

One great act brings him into church history. 
On his father’s fall, he was legally bound to 
put every clergyman to death wherever found, 
and to deal in almost as summary a fashion 
with all other Christians. [VALERIAN.] Gal- 
lienus had had three years’ experience of the 
difficulty and wearisomeness of this task. 
The ‘“‘ Thirty Tyrants,’’ moreover, were foes 
formidable enough to attract what little 
attention could be spared from _ pleasure. 
Accordingly, in 261 he issued a public edict, 
by which Christianity was for the first time 
put on a clearly legal footing as a religio lictta. 
This edict is the most marked epoch in the 
history of the church’s relation to the state 
since the rescript of Trajan to Pliny, which had 
made Christianity distinctly a religto illictta. 
The words in which Eusebius describes the 
edict (the text of which is lost) imply no more 
than that actual persecution was stopped 
(H. E. vii. 13), which might have been done 
without a legal recognition of Christianity ; 
but Eusebius has preserved a copy of the 
encyclical rescript which the emperor ad- 
dressed to the Christian bishops of the Egyp- 
tian province, which shews that the position of 
“the bishops ”’ is perfectly recognized by the 
pagan government. The rescript informs the 
bishops that orders have been issued to the 
pagan officials to evacuate the consecrated 
places; the bishops’ copies of the rescript 
will serve as a warrant against all interference 
in reoccupying. Thus formally, universally, 
and deliberately was done what Alexander 
Severus had done in an isolated case in a freak 
of generosity—t.e. the right of the Corpus 
Christianorum to hold property was fully 
recognized. If Christianity had not been 
explicitly made a religio licita, this would have 
been impossible. The great proof, however, 
of the footing gained by the church through 
Gallienus’s edict lies in the action of his suc- 
cessor Aurelian in the matter of Paul of 
Samosata. Though Aurelian’s bigoted sun- 
worship and hatred of the church were well 
known, and his death alone prevented a great 
rupture, the Catholics were so secure of their 
legal position as actually to appeal to the 
emperor in person to decide their dispute ; 
and Aurelian, as the law then stood, not only 
recognized the right of the church to hold 
property, but also to decide internal disputes 


GALLUS CAESAR 


(though they concerned property) according | 


to her own methods. [A.J-M.] 

Gallus (1) Caesar, son of Julius Constantius 
(youngest brother of Constantine the Great) 
and his first wife Galla; born a.p. 325 at 
Massa Veternensis near Siena in Tuscany 
(Amm. xiv. 11, 27). In the general massacre 
of the younger branches of the imperial family 
on the death of Constantine in 337, two young 
brothers were alone preserved—Gallus who 
was ill of a sickness which seemed likely to be 
mortal, and Julian a child of seven. 

Both were brought up as Christians, and 
entered with apparent zeal into the externals 
of the Christian life. In 350 Gallus received 
the dignity of Caesar, which the childless 


Constantius bestowed upon him on succeed- | 
ing to the sole government of the empire by | 
In the) 
the | 


the death of his brother Constans. 
West Constantius was distracted by 
usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul, while in 


the East the Persians were a perpetual source | 


of alarm. Gallus had to make a solemn 
oath upon the Gospels not to undertake any- 
thing against the rights of his cousin, who 
similarly pledged himself to Gallus. He 
received at the same time the strong-minded 
and unfeminine Constantina as his wife, and 
Lucilianus, the count of the East, as his 
general (Zos. 2, 45. Philost. iv. 1 refers to 
the oath between Constantius and Gallus; cf. 
Chron. Pasch. p. 540; Zonaras, xiii. 8). 

The records of his short reign at Antioch 
come to us chiefly from Ammianus (lib. xiv.). 
They are almost entirely unfavourable to him. 
His defence of the frontier against the Per- 
sians was indeed successful (Zos. 3, 1 ; Philost. 
iii. 28, speaks strongly on this point), but 
his internal policy was disastrous. 

Besides the report of his harsh and open 
misgovernment, accounts of secret treason 
meditated by him were conveyed to Constan- 
tius. The emperor, with his usual craft, sent 
an affectionate letter and desired his presence, 
as he wished to consult him on urgent public 
business (Amm. xiv. 11, 1). When he arrived 
at Petovio in Noricum, he was seized by the 
count Barbatio, deprived of his imperial 
insignia, and conveyed, with many protesta- 
tions that his life was safe, to Flanon in Dal- 
matia, where he was closely guarded. The 
all-powerful eunuch Eusebius was then sent 
to interrogate him upon his various crimes. 
Gallus did not deny them, but blamed his 
wife. Constantius ordered his execution, 
which took place towards the close of 354. 

His instruction had been Arian under the 


direction of Constantius, and he seems to have | 


been influenced not a little by the Anomoean 
Aetius. This notorious man had been sent 
to him to be put to death asa heretic. Gallus 
spared him on the intercession of Leontius, 
bp. of Antioch, and became very friendly with 
him. According to Philostorgius, he made 
him his religious instructor, and attempted 
by his means to recall Julian to the faith, when 


he heard that he was wavering (Philost. H. E. | 


iii. 27). There is no reason to doubt that the 
young Caesar was a zealous Christian after 


a sort, and that he was distressed by his | 


brother’s danger of apostasy. [y-w.] 
Gallus (11), abbat, the apostle of Switzer- 
land. One primary authority is the Vita S. 


GAUDENTIUS 379 


Galli, compiled by Walafrid Strabo, abbat of 
Reichenau (A.D. 842-849), and pub. by Surius 
(Vitae Sanct. Oct. 16, t. iv. 252 seq., Colon. 
1617), by Mabillon (Acta SS. O.S.B. ii. 215 
seq.), and Migne (Patr. Lat. exiii. 975 seq.). 
| Another Vita S. Galli, ex MS. St. Gall. 553, 
jis published by Portz (Mon. Germ. Hist. ii. 
| 189). The original documents are to be found 
jin Wartmann'’s Nerkundenbuch der Abltet St. 
| Gallen, vols. i.-iii. 1865-1882. 

He undoubtedly was of Irish birth, and his 
original name was Cellach, Calech, or Caillech. 
| Trained at Bangor, in the famous school of St. 
| Comgall, he accompanied Columbanus into 
Gaul, A.p. 585, and in his exile from Luxeuil 
| along the Rhine into Switzerland, and, ap- 
parently from his aptness at learning the 
languages, proved a most useful assistant 
in preaching to the Suevi, Helvetii, and 
neighbouring tribes. [CoLumMBANUs.] When 
Columbanus in 612 left Switzerland to escape 
the persecution of the Burgundian court, 
Gallus was detained at Bregenz by a fever, but 
as soon as he could, returned to his friend the 
priest Willimar, at Arbona on the S. shore of 
the Lake of Constance, and devoted his re- 
maining years to the conversion of the wild 
tribes inhabiting this eastern frontier of 
Austrasia. On the banks of the Steinaha or 
Steinach he built his cell and oratory, in the 
midst of a thick forest. Twelve others 
accompanied him. His collection of rude 
huts determined the site of the town and 
monastery of St. Gall. When the see of 
Constance became vacant in 616, the epis- 
copate was urgently pressed upon him, and 
again in 625, but he declined, and was allowed 
to nominate his deacon John, a native of the 
place. The sermon he preached at John's 
consecration is extant in Latin—a wonderful 
specimen of Irish erudition, simple yet full of 
vigour, learned and devout, giving an abstract 
of the history of God’s dealings from the 
creation, of the fall and redemption, of the 
mission of the apostles and calling of the Gen- 
tiles, and ending with a powerful appeal to 
Christian faith and life, which gives some 
idea of the state of the corrupt and barbarous 
society he was seeking to leaven. Beyond 
these few incidents we know little. He died 
Oct. 16, 645 or 646, at Arbona, aged 95, but 
some propose an earlier date. 

The oratory of St. Gall gave rise to one of 
the most celebrated monasteries of the middle 
ages, and its library to this day stands un- 
rivalled in the wealth and variety of its ancient 
manuscripts. (For an account of the school 
of St. Gall and its cultivation of the fine arts, 
see Hist. lit. de la France, iv. 243-246.) [1.0.} 

Gaudentius, bp. of Brescia (Brixia), suc- 
cessor of PHILASTER (Philastrius) ας. A.D. 387. 
Of the early life of Gaudentius nothing is 
known for certain. He was probably a native 
of Brescia; at any rate, he was well known 
there in his youth. From the language which 
he uses in reference to his predecessor he 
appears to have been intimately acquainted 
with him (though Tillemont is wrong in his 
interpretation of the words ‘‘ego... minima 
ejus pars"). He had a brother Paul, in dea- 
|con’s orders (‘‘frater carnis et spiritus ger- 
manitate carissime’’—though his metaphorical 
use of similar language in speaking of St. 


380 GAUDENTIUS 


Peter and St. Paul as ‘“‘ vere consanguinei 
fratres, ... Sanguinis communione germanos”’ 
makes the point somewhat doubtful). While 
still a young man he went on pilgrimage to 
the Holy Land, as many of his contempor- 
aries did (cf. Hieron. Epp. 44, 48). His way 
lay through Cappadocia. At Caesarea he 
made the acquaintance of two nieces of St. 
Basil, ‘‘mothers’’ of a convent there, who 
gave him some ashes of the famous Forty of 
Sebastia, which had been given to them by 
their uncle. These ashes, or rather the Forty 
themselves, he says, were his ‘‘ faithful com- 
panions’”’ on the rest of the journey ; and at a 
later time he deposited them, with other relics 
which he had collected, in a basilica which he 
built at Brescia. and called the Concilium 
Sanctorum. At Antioch, probably, he became 
acquainted with St. John Chrysostom, who 
never forgot the warmth of affection which 


he then shewed. Gaudentius was in the East. 


when Philaster of Brescia died. The people 
of Brescia elected him to be their bishop. 
They were rash enough to bind themselves 
with an oath, so Gaudentius says, that they 
would have him and no other. A deputation 
of them was sent out to him, reinforced by 
urgent letters from St. Ambrose and other 
bishops of the province. Gaudentius resisted, 
but the Eastern bishops among whom he was 
sojourning went so far as to threaten to ex- 
communicate him if he wouldnot comply. At 
last his resistance broke down. He returned, 
and was consecrated to the vacant see, pre- 
sumably by St. Ambrose himself. The address 
which was delivered on that day, according to 
custom, by the newly consecrated bishop has 
been preserved (Serm. xvi.). St. Ambrose was 
present at the delivery of it, and was expected 
to follow it up with an address of his own. 

The episcopate of Gaudentius was not, so 
far as we know, eventful. But there was one 
remarkable adventure in the course of it. In 
the year 404 or 405 he was chosen, along with 
two other bishops and two Roman priests, to 
bear to the Eastern emperor Arcadius an 
epistle from his Western colleague Honorius, 
and from Innocent I. of Rome and the Italian 
bishops, urging that an oecumenical council 
should be convened, to examine the case of 
St. John Chrysostom, who had been deposed 
and banished from Constantinople. Palla- 
dius (Dial. c. 4), who accompanied the envoys 
and who gives us this information, does not, 
indeed, mention the see of the envoy Gaud- 
entius ; but no other bearer of the name is so 
likely to have been chosen as the bp. of 
Brescia. The mission was ineffectual, and 
such sufferings were inflicted upon the envoys 
as might well earn for Gaudentius his title of 
““Confessor.”” He received a warm letter of 
thanks from St. Chrysostom (Ep. 184) for his 
exertions on his behalf. The letter probably 
refers to exertions preparatory to the mission, 
or the reference to the fate of the mission 
would have been more explicit. 

How long Gaudentius held his see is not 
certain. In his sermon on Philaster he men- 
tions that it is the fourteenth time that he 
has pronounced his yearly panegyric; but as 
the date of his consecration to the episcopate 
is conjectural, this indication is not decisive. 
That he was still bishop in 410 appears from 


GAUDENTIUS 


the fact that the learned Rufinus dedicated to 
him, in or about that year, his trans. of the 
Clementine Recognitions, in which he describes 
him as “‘ nostrorum decus insigne doctorum,”’ 
and says that every word that fell from him 
deserved to be taken down for the benefit of 
posterity. Rufinus refers particularly to his 
knowledge of Greek ; and though he does not 
directly name the see which he held, the 
identification is aided by his statement that 
the Gaudentius to whom his work was dedi- 
cated was heir to the virgin Silvia—probably 
the Silvia, sister-in-law of Rufinus the well- 
known praefectus orientis, to whom Gamur- 
rini attributes, though probably without 
good reason, the Peregrinatio he discovered 
in 1884. This Silvia is known to have been 
buried at Brescia (Gamurrini, Peregrinatio, 
p. xxxvi; Butler, Lausiac Hist. i. p. 296, ii. 
pp- 148, 229). Gaudentius was buried in a 
church at Brescia, which is thought to be the 
same as his own Concilium Sanctorum. 

Gaudentius was not a writer. The most 
modest of men, he thought it enough if he 
might instruct the flock committed to him 
by word of mouth (Praefatio ad Benivolum). 
But there was a leading magistrate of Brescia 
named Benivolus, who had formerly (in 386) 
thrown up his situation in the imperial service 
rather than abet the attacks of Justina upon 
St. Ambrose. This man, one year, was 
hindered by sickness from attending the 
Easter services. He begged Gaudentius to 
write down for him the addresses which he 
had failed to hear. Gaudentius complied. 
In addition to the eight discourses on the 
directions in Exodus concerning the Passover 
and two on the Marriage at Cana, which had 
been delivered during that Eastertide, he sent 
also four on various Gospel texts, and a fifth 
on the Maccabean martyrs. Besides these 
fifteen sermons sent to Benivolus, four occa- 
sional sermons of his are in existence, taken 
down in shorthand and published (apparently) 
without his consent. They were delivered re- 
spectively on the day of his own consecration, 
at the dedication of his new basilica, at Milan 
by desire of St. Ambrose on the feast of St. 
Peter and St. Paul, and on the anniversary 
of his predecessor’s death. To these sermons 
are added two expository letters, one to aman 
named Serminius on the Unjust Steward, 
the other to his brother Paul on the text “‘My 
Father is greater than I.” 

Gaudentius felt himself bound, like others 
of his time, to give “‘spiritual,”’ 1.6. allegorical, 
interpretations of his texts. These are often 
in the highest degree fantastic, and have 
drawn upon their author the severe criticism 
of Du Pin (Bibl. eccl. siécle v. pt. i.). But 
Gaudentius generally prepares for them by a 
literal interpretation, and when he does so, 
the exegesis is usually marked by good sense. 
Gaudentius is interested in textual criticism, 
and more than once remarks on the corre- 
spondence or conflict between the Latin text, 
as he knows it, and the Greek. He is an 
independent interpreter himself (Serm. xix., 
“* Ego tamen pro libertate fidei opportunitatem 
dictorum secretus traxi ad,’’ etc.), and vin- 
dicates the like freedom for others (Serm. 
xviii. “‘ Nulli praejudicaturus, qualiter inter- 
pretari voluerit ’). When dealing with moral 


Ι 


GAUDENTIUS 


subjects there is a fine elevation in his utter- 
ance. As a theologian he has a firm grasp on 
the Nicene doctrine as taught by St. Ambrose. 
Arianism is a defeated foe (Serm. xxi. ‘‘ Fur- 
entem eo tempore Arianam perfidiam’’), but 
one that still needs vigorous refutation. In 
regard to other doctrinal points, it may be 
observed that, however strongly Gaudentius 
expresses himself about the Holy Eucharist 
in the terms of his age (Serm. ii. 244), he insists 
characteristically that the Flesh and Blood of 
Christ are to be spiritually understood (1b. 
241, ‘‘Agni carnes, id est, doctrinae ejus 
viscera’). He puts much faith in the inter- 
cessions of the saints, though he does not 
directly speak of invoking them (Serm. xvii. 
XX. xxi. ad fin.). He dwells with emphasis 
on the supernatural character of our Lord’s 
birth, not only of His conception (e.g. Serm. 
viii. 270, ix. 281). His style is easy ; his sen- 
tences often admirably terse and pointed (e.g. 
Praef. 227, ‘“‘Siautem justus es, nomen quidem 
justi praesumere non audebis ; Serm. vii. 265, 
“Quod Deus majorem causam tune ulcis- 
cendi habeat, si in exiguis rebus, ubi nulla 
difficultas est observandi, pervicaci tantum 
spiritu contemnatur’’). His sermons pre- 
serve a good many interesting notes of the 
life of the time (e.g. Serm. xiii., the beggars at 
the church door, the dread of the barbarian 
invasions, the landowner who leaves his 
labourers to be supported by the church, the 
horses and mules adorned with gold and silver, 
the heathen altar allowed to remain on a 
Christian man’s estate). His vocabulary is 
rather interesting; he uses popular words 
(e.g. brodium) on the one hand, and recherché 
words (e.g. peccamen, victorialis) on the other. 
It has been made the subject of a special 
study by Paucker (Zettschr. f. d. Osterreich. 
Gymnasien, xxxii. pp. 481 ff.). 

The chief ed. of his works is that of Paolo 
Gagliardi (Galeardus), canon of Brescia, pub. 
at Padua in 1720, or rather the second and 
improved ed. of 1738, printed at Brescia. 
This is reprinted in Migne’s Patr. Lat. vol. xx. 
Accounts of Gaudentius and his works will 
be found in Tillemont, t. x. pt. 2; in Nirschl, 
Lehrbuch d. Patrologie (Mainz, 1883), ii. pp. 
488 ff.; in Hauck-Herzog Realencycl. vi. (by 
Leimbach); and in Wetzer and Welte, Kirchen- 
lex. v. (by Hefele). [A.J.M.] 

Gaudentius (7), Donatist bp. of Thamugada 
(Temugadi), a town of Numidia, about 14 
Roman miles N.E. of Lambesa (Ant. [tin. 34, 
2), one of the seven managers on the Donatist 
side in Carth. Conf., a.p. 411 (Mon. Vet. Don. 
pp. 288, 408, ed. Oberthiir). His name 
is chiefly known by his controversy with 
St. Augustine, c. 420. Dulcitius had informed 
him what was the course intended by the 


imperial government towards the Donatists. | 
Gaudentius replied in two letters, which Dul- | 


citius sent to Augustine, whose reply to them 


in two books entitled contra Gaudentium (Aug. | 


Opp. vol. ix. 707-751, ed. Migne) may be 
regarded as representing the close of the 
Donatist controversy (vol. i. p. 895). 


time fell into a decay, to which these trea- 
tises of St. Augustine materially contributed. 
Sparrow Simpson, S. Aug. and African Ch. 
Divisions (1910), pp- 133-137+ [H.W.P.] 


The | 
Donatist cause, already languishing, from this | 


GELASIUS 381 


Gelasius (1) I., bp. of Rome after Felix III. 
(or II.) from Mar. 492 to Nov. 496, during 
about 44 years. At the time of his accession 
the schism between the Western and Eastern 
churches, which had begun under his prede- 
cessor, had lasted more than 7 years. Its 
occasion had been the excommunication, by 
pope Felix, of Acacius, patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, for supporting and communicating 
with Peter Mongus, the once Monophysite 
patriarch of Alexandria, who had, however, 
satisfied Acacius by subscribing the Henoticon, 
and afterwards the Nicene creed. There had 
been other grounds of complaint against 
Acacius, notably his disregard of the authority 
of the Roman see; but the above had been 
the original cause of quarrel. [Fevix III. ; 
Acacius (7).] 

Acacius being now dead, the dispute con- 
cerned only the retention of his name in the 
diptychs of the Eastern church. Felix had 
demanded its erasure as a condition of inter- 
communion with his successors, but they had 
refused to comply. The patriarch of Con- 
stantinople was now Euphemius ; the emperor 
Anastasius. On his accession Gelasius wrote 
a respectful letter to the emperor, who did not 
reply. To Euphemius the new pope did not 
write, as was usual, to inform him of his 
accession. Euphemius, however, wrote twice 
to Gelasius, expressing a strong desire for 
reconciliation between the churches, and a 
hope that Gelasius would, through condescen- 
sion and a spirit of charity, be able to restore 
concord. He insisted that Acacius himself 
had been no heretic, and that before he 
communicated with Peter Mongus the latter 
had been purged of heresy. He asked by 
what synodical authority Acacius had been 
condemned ; and alleged that the people of 
Constantinople would never allow his name to 
be erased ; but suggested that the pope might 
send an embassy to Constantinople to treat 
on the subject. Gelasius, in his reply, 
couched in a tone of imperious humility, 
utterly refuses any compromise. He speaks 
of the custom of the bishops of the apostolic 
see notifying their elevation to inferior bishops 
as a condescension rather than an obligation, 
and one certainly not due to such as chose to 
cast in their lot with heretics. He treats with 
contempt the plea of the determined attitude 
of the people of Constantinople. The shep- 
herd ought, he says, to lead the flock, not the 
flock control the shepherd. The letter thus 
asserts in no measured terms the supremacy 
of the see of Rome, and the necessity of sub- 
mitting to it. ‘‘ We shall come,” he con- 
cludes, ‘‘ brother Euphemius, without doubt 
to that tremendous tribunal of Christ, with 
| those standing round by whom the faith has 
|been defended. There it will be proved 
| whether the glorious confession of St. Peter 
| has left anything short for the salvation of 
those given to him to rule, or whether there 
has been rebellious and pernicious obstinacy 
|in those who were unwilling to obey him.” 

In- 493 Gelasius wrote a long letter to the 
Eastern bishops. Its main drift was to justify 
the excommunication of Acacius by asserting 
that he had exceeded his powers in absolving 
| Peter Mongus without the authority of the 


Roman see, and plainly asserts the supremacy 


382 GELASIUS 


of the apostolic see over the whole church as 
due to the original commission of Christ to 
St. Peter, and as having always existed prior 
to, and independent of, all synods and canons. 
He speaks of ‘‘the apostolical judgment, 
which the voice of Christ, the tradition of 
the elders, and the authority of canons had 
supported, that it should itself always deter- 
mine questions throughout the church.’”’ As 
to the possibility of Acacius being absolved 
now, having died excommunicate, he says that 
Christ Himself, Who raised the dead, is never 
said to have absolved those who died in error, 
and that even to St. Peter it was on earth only 
that the power of binding and loosing had 
been given. Such a tone was not calculated 
to conciliate. The name of Gelasius himself 
was therefore removed from the diptychs of 
the Constantinopolitan church. Gelasius 
wrote a long letter to the emperor in a similar 
vein, and exhorted him to use his temporal 
power to control his people in spiritual as well 
as mundane matters. This letter is note- 
worthy as containing a distinct expression of 
the view taken by Gelasius of the relations 
between the ecclesiastical and civil jurisdic- 
tions. Each he regards as separate and 
supreme in its own sphere. As in secular 
things priests are bound to obey princes, so 
in spiritual things all the faithful, including 
princes, ought to submit their hearts to 
priests; and, if to priests generally, much 
more to the prelate of that see which even 
supreme Divinity has willed should be over all 
priests, and to which the subsequent piety of 
the general church has perpetually accorded 
such pre-eminence. Gelasius also wrote on 
the same subjects to the bishops of various 
provinces, including those of East Illyricum 
and Dardania. In his address to the last he 
enlarges on its being the function of the 
Roman see, not only to carry out the decisions 
of synods, but even to give to such decisions 
their whole authority. Nay, the purpose of 
synods is spoken of as being simply to express 
the assent of the church at large to what the 
pope had already decreed and what was 
therefore already binding. This, he says, had 
been the case in the instance of the council of 
Chalcedon. Further, instances are alleged of 
popes having on their own mere authority 
reversed the decisions of synods, absolved 
those whom synods had condemned, and 
condemned those whom synods had absolved. 
The cases of Athanasius and Chrysostom are 
cited as examples. Lastly, any claim of 
Constantinople (contemptuously spoken of as 
in the diocese of Heraclea) to be exempt from 
the judgment of ‘‘ the first see’”’ is put aside 
as absurd, since ‘‘the power of a secular 
kingdom is one thing, the distribution of 
ecclesiastical dignities another.” 

In 495 Gelasius convened a synod of 46 
bishops at Rome to absolve and restore to his 
see Misenus of Cumae, one of the bishops sent 
by pope Felix to Constantinople in the affair 
of Acacius, who had been then won over, and 
in consequence excommunicated. Before re- 
ceiving absolution this prelate was required 
to declare that he ‘‘ condemned, anathema- 
tized, abhorred, and for ever execrated Dios- 
corus, Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Peter Fullo, 
Acacius, and all their successors, accomplices, 


GELASIUS 


abettors, and all who communicated with 
them.’’ Gelasius died in Nov. 496. 

A curious treatise of his called Tomus de 
Anathematis Vinculo refers to those canons of 
the council of Chalcedon, giving independent 
authority to the see of Constantinople, of 
which pope Leo had disapproved, setting forth 
that the fact of this council having done some- 
thing wrongly did not impair the validity of 
what it had rightly done, and that the ap- 
proval of the see of Rome was the sole test of 
what was right. The tract contains further 
arguments as to Rome alone having been 
competent to reconcile Peter Mongus or to 
absolve Acacius, and in reference to the idea 
of the emperor having had power in the latter 
case without the leave of Rome, the same 
distinction between the spheres of the ecclesi- 
astical and civil jurisdictions is drawn as in the 
letter tothe emperor. Melchizedek is referred 
to as having in old times been both priest and 
king ; the devil, it is said, in imitation of him, 
had induced the emperors to assume the 
supreme pontificate; but since Christianity 
had revealed the truth to the world, the union 
of the two powers had ceased to be lawful: 
Christ, in consideration of human frailty, had 
now for ever separated them, leaving the 
emperors dependent on the pontiffs for their 
everlasting salvation, the pontiffs on the 
emperors for the administration of all tem- 
poral affairs. Milman (Lat. Christ.) remarks 
on the contrast between the interpretation of 
the type of Melchizedek and that given in the 
13th cent. by pope Innocent IV., who takes 
Melchizedek as prefiguring the union in the 
pope of the sacerdotal and royal powers. 

Two other works are attributed to Gelasius 
in which views are expressed not easily recon- 
ciled with those of his successors. One is a 
tract, the authenticity of which has not been 
questioned, against the Manicheans at Rome, 
in which the practice, adopted by that sect, of 
communion in one kind is strongly condemned. 
His words are, ‘‘ We find that some, taking 
only the portion of the sacred body, abstain 
from the cup of the sacred blood. Let these 
(since I know not by what superstition they 
are actuated) either receive the entire sacra- 
ments or be debarred from them altogether ; 
because a division of one and the same 
mystery cannot take place without great 
sacrilege.’”’ Baronius evades the obviously 
general application of these words by saying 
that they refer only to the Manicheans. | 

The treatise de Duabus Naturis, arguing 
against the Eutychian position that the union 
of the human and divine natures in Christ 
implies the absorption of the human into the 
divine, adduces the Eucharist as the image, 
similitude, and representation of the same 
mystery, the point being that as, after conse- 
cration, the natural substance of the bread and 
wine remains unchanged, so the human nature 
of Christ remained unchanged notwithstand- 
ing its union with divinity. His words are: 
‘‘The sacraments of the body and blood of 
Christ which we take are a divine thing, inas- 
much as through them we are made partakers 
of the divine nature ; and yet the substance or 
nature of bread and wine ceases not to be.” 
This language being inconsistent with the 
doctrine of transubstantiation, Baronius first 


GELASIUS 


disputes the authorship of the treatise, and 
secondly, seeks to explain the words away. 
But if the authoritatively enunciated views of 
Gelasius on the relations between civil and 
ecclesiastical authority, on communion in one 
kind and on transubstantiation, are incon- 
sistent with those subsequently endorsed by 
Rome, yet, on the other hand, few, if any, of 
his successors have gone beyond him in their 
claims of supreme and universal authority be- 
longing by divine institution to the Roman see. 
Among his works is a treatise Decretum de 
Libris Recipiendis, fixing the canonical books 
of Scripture, and distinguishing between 
ancient ecclesiastical writers to be received or 
rejected. It bears signs of a later date, 
having been first assigned to Gelasius by 
Hincemar of Rheims in the 7th cent. The 
most memorable of the works attributed to 
him is the Gelastan Sacramentary, which was 
that in use till Gregory the Great revised and 
abbreviated it. A new ed. was edited by H. 
A. Wilson (Oxf. 1894). See also C. H. Turner, 
in the Jl. of Theol. Studies (1900-1901), i. 
550 ff. [SACRAMENTARY in ἢ. C. 4] A 
Sacramentary in several books found in the 
queen of Sweden’s library, and published by 
Thomasius in 1680, is supposed to be the 
Gelasian one. The main authorities for his 
Life, besides the Liber Pontificalis, are the 
letters of himself and his contemporaries, and 
his other extant writings. [j-B—yY.] 
Gelasius (13) of Cyzicus, in 2nd half of the 
5th cent., author of a work on the history of 
the council of Nicaea, entitled by Photius 
The Acts of the First Council in Three Books. 
Our only knowledge of the author is derived 
from himself. Photius acknowledges 
inability to determine who he was. We learn 
from Gelasius’s own words that he was the 
son of a presbyter of Cyzicus, and, while still 
residing in his father’s house, fell in with an 
old parchment volume which had belonged to 
Dalmatius, bp. of Cyzicus, containing a long 
account of the proceedings of the council of 
Nicaea. This document not supplying all the 
information he desired, Gelasius examined the 
works of other writers, from which he filled 
up the gaps. He mentions the work of an 
ancient writer named John, a presbyter other- 
wise unknown, the works of Eusebius of 
Caesarea and Rufinus (whom he calls a Roman 
presbyter), who were both eye-witnesses, and 
many others. From these and other sources 
Gelasius compiled his history of the Nicene 
council. It is sometimes taken for granted 
that it contains a complete collection of the 
synodal acts of the council. There is, how- 
ever, no evidence of the existence of such a 
collection, or of any one having seen or used 
it. Athanasius had none such to refer to (cf. 
Athan. de Decret. Syn. Nic. 1. 2), and cer- 
tainly we do not possess it in Gelasius (cf. 
Hefele, Hist. cf Councils, Eng. trans. 263, 264). 
From the work itself we learn that it was 
composed in Bithynia. As δὴ historical 
authority it is almost worthless. Its prolix 
disputations and lengthy orations are, as Cave 
has justly remarked, evidently the writer’s own 
composition. Dupin’s verdict is still more 
severe. ‘‘ There is neither order in his narra- 
tive, nor exactness in his observations, nor 


elegance in his language, nor judgment in his | ceremonies there. 


his | 


GENNADIUS $83 


selection of facts, nor good sense in his judg- 
ments.’”’ Instances of his untrustworthiness 
are seen in his statements that the council was 
summoned by pope Sylvester, and that Hosius 
of Cordova presided as his delegate; and he 
devotes many chapters (ii. 11-24) to disputa- 
tions on the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which 
had not then come into controversy at all. 
The work is in vol. ii. of Labbe's collection 
(col. 103-286) and in those of Harduin and 


Mansi. Phot. Biblioth. Codd. 15, 88, 89; 
Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. ν. 24, vi. 4; Cave, 
Hist. Lit. i. 454; Dupin, iv. 187; Le Quien, 


Or. Christ. iii. 568. [E.v.] 

Gennadius (10), 21st bp. of Constantino le, 
458-471, between Anatolius and Acacius. His 
first public appearance was in an attack on 
Cyril, in two works, c. 431 or 432, Against the 
Anathemas of Cyril, and Two Books to Parthe- 
nius. Inthe latter he exclaims, ‘‘ How many 
times have I heard blasphemies from Cyril of 
Egypt? Woe to the scourge of Alexandria ! "’ 
In 433 Gennadius was probably one of those 
who became reconciled with Cyril. 

In 458 he was a presbyter at Constantinople 
and designated by Leo to fill the see as a man 
of spotless reputation, on whom no suspicion 
had ever breathed, and of holy life and con- 
spicuous learning. From the beginning of his 
episcopate Gennadius proved his zeal for the 
Catholic faith and the maintenance of dis- 
cipline. His discretion was before long tested. 
Timothy Aelurus, chased from the see of 
Alexandria by order of the emperor, had 
obtained leave to come to Constantinople, 
intending, by a pretence of Catholicism, to 
re-establish himself on histhrone. Gennadius, 
urged by Leo, bp. of Rome, June 17, 460, did 
his utmost to prevent the voyage of Timothy, 
and to secure the immediate consecration 
of an orthodox prelate for Alexandria. All 
happened as Leo desired; Timothy Aelurus 
was banished to the Chersonese, and Timothy 
Solofaciolus was chosen bp. of Alexandria in 
his stead. An appointment which Gennadius 
made about this time, that of Marcian, who 
had been a Novatianist, but had come over 
to the orthodox church, to the important post 
of chancellor of the goods of the church of 
Constantinople, shewed his liberality, pene- 
tration, and desire for order. Two Egyptian 
solitaries told John Moschus a story which is 
also told by Theodorus Lector. The church of 
St. Eleutherius at Constantinople was served 
by areader named Carisius, who leda disorderly 
life. Gennadius severely reprimanded him in 
vain. According to the rules of the church, 
the patriarch had him flogged, which was also 
ineffectual. The patriarch sent one of his 
officers to the church of St. Eleutherus to beg 
that holy martyr either to correct the un- 
worthy reader or to take him from the world. 
Next day Carisius was found dead, to the 
terror of the whole town. Theodorus also 
relates how a painter, presuming to rag nan the 
Saviour under the form of Jupiter, had his 
hand withered, but was healed by the prayers 
of Gennadius. 

Gennadius ordained Daniel the Stylite 
presbyter, as related in that saint’s life, at 
the request of the emperor Leo, standing at 
the foot of the Pharos and performing the 
The buying and selling of 


384 GENNADIUS MASSILIENSIS 

holy orders was a crying scandal of the age. 
Measures had been taken against simony by 
the council of Chalcedon. In 459 or 460 
Gennadius, finding the evil practice unabated, 
held a council at Constantinople to consider 
it. An encyclical was issued, adding ana- 
thema to the former sentence. 

Gennadius died in 471, and stands out as 
an able and successful administrator, for 
whom no historian has anything but praise, if 
we except the criticism naturally aroused by 
his attack in his younger days against Cyril 
of Alexandria, an attack which the un- 
measured language of Cyril perhaps excuses. 

Gennadius wrote a commentary on Daniel 
and many other parts of O.T. and on all the 
epistles of St. Paul, and a great number of 
homilies. Of these only a few fragments 
remain. The principal are on Gen., Ex., Ps., 
Rom., I. and II. Cor., Gal., and Heb., and are 
interesting specimens of 5th-cent. exegesis. 
That on Romans, a series of explanatory re- 
marks on isolated texts, is the most important. 
He fails to grasp the great central doctrine of 
the epistle, but shews thought and spiritual 
life. Gennadius, CP. Patr., Patr. Gk. Ιχχχν. 
p- 1611, etc.; Bolland. AA. SS. Aug. 25, 
p- 148; Ceillier, x. 343. [W.M.S.] 

Gennadius (11) Massiliensis, presbyter of 
Marseilles, who died in 496. 

If we accept his de Viris Illustribus as it is 
commonly published, we are warranted in 
classing Gennadius of Marseilles with the 
semi-Pelagians, as he censures Augustine and 
Prosper and praises Faustus. Moreover, the 
very laudatory account of St. Jerome at the 
commencement of the book seems inconsistent 
with the hostile reference to that father under 
the art. Rufinus in the same catalogue. 

The de Viris Illustribus in its most common- 
ly accepted form was probably published c. 
495, and contains, in some ten folio pages, 
short biographies of ecclesiastics between 392 
and 495. Although lacking the lively touches 
of his great predecessor, Jerome, the catalogue 
of Gennadius exhibits a real sense of propor- 
tion. The greater men stand out in its pages, 
and it conveys much real and valuable infor- 
mation. With due allowance for the bias 
referred to, it may be regarded as a trust- 
worthy compilation. 

His other treatise, entitled Epistola de Fide 
med, or de Ecclestasticis Dogmatibus Liber, 
begins with a profession of faith in the three 
creeds, interwoven with the names of those 
who are considered by the writer (with 
occasionally questionable accuracy) to have 
impugned this or that article of belief. Gen- 
madius considers (like later writers, e.g. 
Aquinas) that all men, even those alive at the 
second Advent, will have to die (7). But this 
conviction, though derived from a widespread 
patristic tradition, is, he admits, rejected by 
equally catholic and learned Fathers. Of the 
theories concerning the soul of man subse- 
quently known as the creationist and the 
traducianist views, he espouses the creationist. 
He will not allow the existence of the spirit 
as a third element in man besides the body 
and the soul, but regards it as only another 
name for the soul (19). Heretical baptism is 
not to be repeated, unless it has been admin- 
istered by heretics who would have declined 


GENOVEFA 


to employ the invocation of the Holy Trinity 
(52). Herecommends weekly reception of the 
Eucharist by all not under the burden of 
mortal sin. Such as are should have recourse 
to public penitence. He will not deny that 
private penance may suffice; but even here 
outward manifestation, such as change of 
dress, is desirable. Daily reception of holy 
communion he will neither praise nor blame 
(53). Evil was invented by Satan (57). 
Though celibacy is rated above matrimony, 
to condemn marriage is Manichean (67). A 
twice-married Christian should not be or- 
dained (72). Churches should be called after 
martyrs, and the relics of martyrs honoured 
(73). None but the baptized attain eternal 
life ; not even catechumens, unless they suffer 
martyrdom (74). Penitence thoroughly avails 
to Christians even at their latest breath (80). 
The Creator alone knows our secret thoughts. 
Satan can learn them only by our motions and 
manifestations (81). Marvels may be wrought 
in the Lord’s name even by bad men (84). 
Men can become holy without such marks (85). 
The freedom of man’s will is strongly asserted 
in this short treatise, but the commencement 
of all goodness is assigned to divine grace. 
The language of Gennadius is here not quite 
Augustinian; but neither is it Pelagian, and 
the work was long included among those of 
St. Augustine. 

The de Viris Illustribus is given in most good 
edd. of the works of St. Jerome, and is ed. by 
Dr. Richardson in the Lib. of Nicene and Post- 
Nicene Fathers; the Liber de Ecclesiastictis 
Dogmatibus is in the Appendix to t. viii. of 
the Benedictine ed. of St. Augustine (p. 75). 
Cf. C. H. Turnerin J. of Theol. Studies (1905), 
vii. 78-99, who prints a new text of the Liber 
de Eccl. Dogm. [J-G.c.] 

Genovefa (Geneviéve), patron saint of Paris 
and of France. The most ancient records 
tell the story of her life as follows: About 
A.D. 430 St. Germanus of Auxerre and St. 
Lupus of Troyes, proceeding to England to 
combat the Pelagian heresy, stayed one 
evening at Nanterre, then a village, about 7 
miles from Paris. The villagers assembled to 
see the two renowned prelates, and a little girl 
attracted the notice of St. Germanus. He 
learnt that her name was Genovefa, her 
parents’ names Severus and Gerontia. The 
parents were summoned, and bidden rejoice 
in the sanctity of their daughter, who would 
be the means of saving many. Addressing 
himself to the child, he dwelt on the high state 
of virginity, and engaged her to consecrate 
herself. Before departing St. Germanus 
reminded her of her promise, and gave her a 
brazen coin marked with the cross, to wear as 
her only ornament. Henceforth miracles 
marked her out as the spouse of Christ. When 
St. Germanus arrived in Paris on a second 
journey to Britain, he asked tidings of St. 
Genovefa, and was met with the murmurs of 
her detractors. Disregarding their tales, he 
sought her dwelling, humbly saluted her, 
shewed the people the floor of her chamber 
wet with her secret tears, and commended her 
to their love. When the rumour of Attila’s 
merciless and irresistible progress reached 
Paris, the terrified citizens were for fleeing 
with their families and goods. But Genovefa 


eo 


_ * 


ee ee ἐρ 


GENSERIC 

assembled the matrons and bade them seek 
deliverance by prayer and fasting rather than 
by flight. The Huns were diverted through 
the efficacy of her prayers, as after-ages be- 
lieved (ec. 448). Her abstinence and self-in- 
flicted privations were notable. From her 15th 
to her 50th year she ate but twice a week, and 
then only bread of barley or beans. Thereafter, 
by command of her bishops, she added a little 
fish and milk. Every Saturday she kept a 
vigil in her church of St. Denys, and from 
Epiphany till Easter remained immured in her 
cell. Before her death Clovis, of whose con- 
version a later legend has made her the joint 
author with Clotilda, began to build for her 
the church which later bore her name. Un- 
finished at his death, it was completed by 
Clotilda, and dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul. 
Upon Genovefa’s death (Jan. 3, 512) she was 
buried in it. 

The chief authority for her history is an 
anonymous author, who asserts that he wrote 
18 years after her death, therefore c. A.p. 530. 
This life was first published by Jean Ravisi, 
of Nevers, in his Des Femmes tllustres (Paris, 
1521), and then by Surius, with corrections in 
the style (Jan. 3); again, by the Bollandists, 
in 1643, from better MSS., together with an- 
other Life differing only in unimportant par- 
ticulars (Acta SS. Jan. 1, 138 seq.). The Life 
of St. Germanus of Auxerre by Constantius 
(c. 5, Boll. Acta SS. Jul. vii. 211), and that part 
of St. Genovefa’s which relates to him, almost 
certainly have a common source, or else one is 
taken from the other, with slight alterations. 
That episode being subtracted, there is nothing 
in the remainder which might not be the work 
of a later age. The history, therefore, must 
be accepted with great doubt. Innumerable 
Lives of St. Genovefa have appeared in France 
in modern times, mostly of a devotional 
character, and useless for critical or historical 
purposes. Saintyves, Vie de Ste. Genevieve ; 
Baillet, Vies des saints, Jan. 3, t. ii. 417; 
Bédouet, Hist. et culte de Ste. G. (Paris, 1866) ; 
Lefeuve, Hist. de Ste. G. c. xiii. (Paris, 1842) ; 
Fleury, Hist. ecclés. 1xix. 22, lxxiv. 30; Dulaure, 
Hist. de Paris, i. 240-241. [S.A.B.] 

Genseric, king of the Vandals, the illegiti- 
mate son of king Godigiselus, reigned in Spain 
jointly with his legitimate brother GUNDERIC, 
and on the death of the latter, a.p. 428, became 
sole sovereign. He is said to have been 
originally a Catholic, but early in life em- 
braced the Arian heresy. 

Before the death of Gunderic, Boniface, 
count of Africa, forced to seek safety in revolt, 
invited the Vandals to invade Africa. Gen- 
seric readily accepted, and in May 429, 
according to Idatius (in 427 according to 
Prosper), crossed into Africa with 50,000 
warriors, who poured over the fertile and 
defenceless provinces. Carthage, Cirta, and 
Hippo Regius alone withstood the tide of 
invasion. The Vandals especially ravaged 
the churches, basilicas, cemeteries, and mon- 
asteries. Bishops and priests were tortured 
to compel them to disclose the church trea- 
sures. Victor mentions two who were burnt 
alive—the venerable Papinian, one of his 
predecessors in the see of Vita, and Man- 
Suetus, bp. of Urci. Hippo was besieged, but 
through the efforts of count Boniface, who had 


GENSERIC 385 


returned to his allegiance, supported by an 
army of allied Goths, the Vandals were obliged 
by famine, after a siege of 14 months, to 
abandon the attempt. St. Augustine died in 
Aug. A.D. 430, in the 3rd month of the siege 
(Possidius, Life of St. Aug. in Migne, Pagér. 
Lat. χχχὶϊ. 59). Soon afterwards Boniface, 
defeated with great loss, returned to Italy. 
Genseric concluded at Hippo, on Feb. 10, 435, 
a peace with Valentinian, undertaking to pay 
a tribute for the territories he had conquered, 
and to leave unmolested those still held by 
Valentinian, sending his son Hunneric as a 
hostage. In 437 Genseric began to perse- 
cute the Catholic bishops in the ceded terri- 
tories, of whom Possidius Novatus and 
Severianus were the most illustrious, and not 
only took their churches from them, but 
banished them from their sees. Four Span- 
iards, Arcadius, Probus, Paschasius, and 
Eutychius, who were faithful servants of 
Genseric, but who refused at his command to 
embrace Arianism, were tortured and put to 
death. Paulillus, a younger brother of 
Paschasius and Eutychius, was cruelly 
scourged and reduced to slavery. 

Genseric, after procuring the restoration of 
his son, took Carthage by surprise, Oct. το, 
439. The bishops and noble laity were 
stripped of their possessions and offered the 
alternative of slavery orexile. Quodvultdeus, 
bp. of Carthage, and a number of his clergy 
were compelled to embark in unseaworthy 
ships, but reached Naples in safety. All the 
churches within the walls of Carthage were 
handed over from the Catholics to the Arians, 
and also many of those outside, especially two 
dedicated to St. Cyprian. The Arians in this 
were, however, only meting out to the Cath- 
olics treatment such as they received where 
the latter party was the stronger. Genseric 
ordered funeral processions of the Catholics to 
be conducted in silence and sent the remainder 
of the clergy into exile. Some of the most 
distinguished clergy and laity of these pro- 
vinces petitioned the king to be allowed to live 
in peace under the Vandals. He replied, “1 
have resolved to let none of your race and 
name escape. How then do you dare to 
make such a demand ?’”’ and was with diffi- 
culty restrained by the entreaties of his 
attendants from drowning the petitioners in 
the adjoining sea. The Catholics, deprived 
of their churches, were obliged to celebrate the 
divine mysteries where and as best they could. 
In 440 Genseric equipped a fleet, with which 
he ravaged Sicily and besieged Palermo. At 
the instigation of Maximus, the leader of the 
Arians in Sicily, he persecuted the Catholics, 
some of whom suffered martyrdom. Accord- 
ing to Prosper, he was recalled by news of the 
arrival in Africa of count Sebastian, son-in-law 
of count Boniface, but Idatius places his 
arrival ten years later. Sebastian had come 
as a friend to take refuge at his court, but 
Genseric, who feared his renown as a statesman 
and general, tried to convert him to Arianism, 
that his refusal might supply a pretext for 
putting him to death. Sebastian evaded his 
demands by a dexterous reply, which Gen- 
seric was unable to answer, but some other 
excuse for his execution was shortly found. 
In A.D. 441 a new peace was concluded, by 


25 


386 GENSERIC 


which Valentinian retained the three Mauri- 
tanias and part of Numidia, and ceded the 
remainder of his African dominions to Gen- 
seric, who divided the Zeugitane or procon- 


sular province, in which was Carthage, among | 
the Vandals and kept the rest in his own | 


possession. Universal oppression of the 
natives followed. Then Genseric discovered 
a plot among his nobles against himself, and 
tortured and executed many of them. Prob- 
ably from alarm at this conspiracy, he began 
a new and severer persecution. The Cath- 
olics were allowed no place for prayer or the 
ministration of the sacraments. Every allu- 
sion in a sermon to Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, 
or Holofernes was regarded as aimed at the 
king, and the preacher punished with exile. 
Among the bishops now banished, Victor 
mentions Urbanus of Girba, Crescius, a metro- 
politan who presided over 120 bishops, Habet- 
deus of Teudela, and Eustratius of Suffectum. 
Felix of Adrumetum was banished for receiv- 
ing a foreign monk. Genseric prohibited the 
consecration of new bishops in place of those 
banished. In 454, however, he yielded to 
Valentinian’s requests so far as to allow Deo- 
gratias to be consecrated for Carthage. The 
see had remained vacant since the banishment 
of Quodvultdeus 15 years before. In 455 
Genseric, at the invitation of Eudoxia, 
Valentinian’s widow, sailed to Italy, and took 
Rome without a blow. At the intercession 
of Leo the Great, he abstained from torturing 
or massacring the inhabitants and burning 
the city, but gave it up to systematic 
plunder. For 14 days and nights the work of 
pillage continued, the city was ransacked of 
its remaining treasures, and Genseric then 
returned unmolested to Africa, carrying much 
booty and many thousand captives, including 
the empress Eudoxia and her two daughters. 
The elder became the wife of his son Hun- 
neric; the younger, with her mother, was 
eventually surrendered to the emperor Leo. 

The whole of Africa now fell into the hands 
of Genseric, and also Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, 
and the Balearic Islands. His fleets yearly 
sailed from Carthage in the early spring, and 
ravaged all the Mediterranean coasts. When 
leaving Carthage on one of these expeditions, 
the helmsman asked Genseric whither he 
should steer. ‘*‘ Against those,”’ he replied, 
“who have incurred the wrath of God.”’ His 
object was not only to plunder, but to per- 
secute. Spain, Italy, Dalmatia, Campania, 
Calabria, Apulia, Bruttium, Venetia, Lucania, 
Epirus, and the Peloponnese all suffered from 
his ravages. After the death of Deogratias, 
A.D. 457, Genseric did not allow any more 
bishops to be consecrated in the proconsular 
province, the peculiar domain of the Vandals, 
so that of the original number of 164 only 
three were left in Victor’s time. One Pro- 
culus was sent to compel the bishops to give 
up all their books and the sacramental vessels. 
When they refused, they were seized by force 
and the altar-cloths made into shirts for 
the soldiers. St. Valerian, bp. of Abbenza, 
was expelled from that town. No one was 
allowed to receive him into their house or 
permit him to remain on their land, and he 
was long obliged to lie by the roadside. At 
Regia the Catholics had ventured at Easter 


GENSERIC 


to take possession of their church. The 
Arians, headed by a priest named Adduit, 
attacked the church, part forcing an entrance 
with drawn swords and part shooting arrows 
through the windows. The reader was killed 
in the pulpit by an arrow, and many wor- 
shippers slain on the altar-steps. Most of the 
survivors were executed by Genseric’s orders. 
Genseric, by the advice of the Arian bishops, 
commanded all officials of his court to embrace 
Arianism. According to Victor’s account, 
Armogast, one of the number, refused, and was 
tightly bound with cords, but they broke like 
a spider’s web; and when he was hung head 
downwards by one foot, he seemed to sleep 
as peacefully asifin his bed. His persecutors, 
unable to overcome his resolution, were about 
to kill him, but were dissuaded by an Arian 
priest, lest he should be reverenced as a 
martyr. He was accordingly compelled to 
labour in the fields and afterwards to tend 
cattle near Carthage. 

The emperor Majorian in 460 assembled a 
fleet of 300 vessels at Carthagena to recover 
Africa. His plans were betrayed to the 
Vandals, who surprised and carried off the 
greater part of his ships. Genseric, however, 
in alarm, concluded peace with Majorian. In 
468 Leo collected a mighty armament of 1,113 
ships, each containing too men (Cedrenus, 
350, ed. Dindorf.), under the command of his 
brother-in-law Basiliscus. The main arma- 
ment landed at the Hermaean promontory 
(Cape Bon), about 40 miles from Carthage. 
Genseric, by means, it was generally believed, 
of a large bride, induced Basiliscus to grant a 
truce for five days. He used this time to 
man all the ships he could, and, the wind 
becoming favourable, attacked the Romans 
and sent fire-ships among their crowded 
vessels. Panic and confusion spread through 
the vast multitude, most of whom tried to fly, 
but a few fell fighting gallantly to the last. 
After this victory Genseric regained Sardinia 
and Tripoli, where the Roman arms had met 
with success, and ravaged the Mediterranean 
coasts more cruelly than before, till a peace 
was concluded between him and the emperor 
Zeno. Genseric, at the request of the em- 
peror’s ambassador Severus, released those 
prisoners who had fallen to his own or his 
sons’ lot, and allowed him to ransom as many 
others as he could (Malchus, de Legationtbus, 3, 
ed. Dindorf), and, at Leo’s entreaty, allowed 
the churches of Carthage to be reopened and 
the exiled bishops and clergy toreturn. Soon 
afterwards he died, on Jan. 24, 477. 

According to the description of Jornandes 
(de Gothorum Origine, c. 33, in Cassiodorus, 1. 
412, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxix. 1274), Genseric 
was of moderate stature and lame from a fall 
from his horse. He was a man of few words, 
and thus better able to conceal the deep 
designs he had conceived. He _ scorned 
luxury, was greedy of empire, passionate, 
skilful in intrigue, and cruel; but it must be 
remembered that all our informants are writers 
who hated and dreaded himself and his nation 
both as heretics and enemies. With every 
allowance for Salvian’s rhetoric (de Guber- 
natione Dei, vii. in Migne, Patr. Lat. liii.), it 
must be admitted that his description of 
the morals of the Vandals and those of the 


GEORGIUS 


dissolute Carthaginians show the former in a 


more favourable light than the latter. 
Genseric’s name is variously spelt Gizericus, 
Gaisericus, Geisericus, and Zinzirichus. 
sources for the above account are the Chron- 
tcles of Prosper and Idatius (in Migne, Patr. 
Lat. li.) ; Procopius, de Bello Vandalico, i. 3-7 ; 


Isidorus, de Regibus Gothorum (Isid. Opp. vii. 


130-133, in Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixxxiii. 1076) ; 


and Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione Vandalica, 
Gibbon, ce. 
XXXlii. xxxvi. and xxxvii., may also be con- 
in his 
appendix to Victor Vitensis, and Ceillier, 


i. (in Migne, Pair. Lat. lviii.). 
sulted; and Ruinart’s dissertation 


Histotre des auteurs sacrés, x. c. 28. [F.D.] 


Georgius (3), bp. of Laodicea ad mare in 
Syria Prima (335-347), who took part in the 
At 
first an ardent admirer of the teaching of 


Trinitarian controversies of the 4th cent. 


Arius and associated with Eusebius of Nico- 
media, he subsequently became a semi-Arian, 
but seems ultimately to have united with the 
Anomoeans, whose uncompromising opponent 
he had once been, and to have died professing 
their tenets (Newman, Arians, pt. 11. p. 275). 
He was a native of Alexandria. In earlv life 
he devoted himself with considerable distinc- 
tion to the study of philosophy (Philost. H. E. 
viii. 17). He was ordained presbyter by 
Alexander, bp. of Alexandria (7b.; Eus. Vit. 
Const. 111. 62). 
endeavoured to mediate between Arius and 


the Catholic body. To the Arians he shewed 


how, by a sophistical evasion based on I. Cor. 
xi. 12 (τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ Θευῦ), they might 
accept the orthodox test Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ 
(Socr. H. E. ii. 45 ; Athan. de Synod. p. 887}. 
The attempt at reconciliation completely 
failed, and resulted in his deposition and ex- 
communication by Alexander, on the ground 


of false doctrine and of the open and habitual 


irregularities of his life (Athan. 7b. p. 886; 
Apol. ii. p. 728; de Fug. p. 718; Theod. H. E. 
li. g). Athanasius styles him ‘‘the most 
wicked of all the Arians,’’ reprobated even 
by his own party (de Fug. 718). After his 
excommunication at Alexandria, he sought 
admission among the clergy of Antioch, but 
was steadily rejected by Eustathius (Athan. 
Hist. Arian. p. 812). On this he retired to 
Arethusa, where he acted as presbyter, and, 
on the expulsion of Eustathius, was wel- 
comed back to Antioch by the dominant 
Arian faction. He was appointed bp. of 
Laodicea on the death of the Arian Theo- 
dotus (Athan. de Synod. p. 886; Or. i. p. 290; 
Soz. H. E. vi. 25. As bishop he took a 
leading part in the successive synods sum- 
moned by the Arian faction against Athan- 
asius. He was at the councils of Tyre and 
Jerusalem in 335 (Athan. Apol. ii. p. 728; 
Eus. Vit. Const. iv. 43), and that of the 
Dedication at Antioch in 341 (Soz. H. E. iii. 
5). Fear kept him from the council of Sardica 
in 347, where the bishops unanimously de- 
posed him and many others as having been 
eee culy condemned by Alexander, and as 
olding Arian opinions (Theod. H. E. iii. 9; 
Labbe, Conctl. ii. 678; Athan. Apol. il. p. 
765; de Fug. p. 718). Of this deposition 
George took no heed, and in 358, when Eudox- 
ius, the newly appointed bp. of Antioch, 
openly sided with Aetius and the Anomoeans, 


The 


Having gone to Antioch, he 


GEORGIUS 387 


George earnestly appealed to Macedonius of 
Constantinople and other bishops, who were 
visiting Basil at Ancyra to consecrate a 
newly erected church, to lose no time in sum- 
moning a council to condemn the Anomoean 
heresy and eject Aetius. His letter is pre- 
served by Sozomen (H. E. iv. 13; Labbe, 
Concil. ii. 790). At Seleucia, in 359, when the 
semi-Arian party was split into two, George 
headed the more numerous faction opposed to 
that of Acacius and Eudoxius, whom, with 
their adherents, they deposed (Socr. H. E. ii. 
40). On the expulsion of Anianus from the 
see of Antioch, George was mainly responsible 
for the election of Meletius, believing him to 
hold the same opinions as himself. He was 
speedily undeceived, for on his first entry into 
Antioch Meletius startled his hearers by an 
unequivocal declaration of the truth as laid 
down at Nicaea. Indignant at being thus 
entrapped, George and his fellows lost no time 
in securing the deposition and expulsion of a 
bishop of such uncompromising orthodoxy 
(Theod. H. E. ii. 31; Philost. H. E. v. 1; 
Socr. H. E. ii. 44; Soz. H. E. iv. 28). Greg- 
ory Nyssen mentions a letter by George 
relating to Arius (in Eunom. i. 28), and Soc- 
rates quotes a panegyric composed by him 
on the Arian Eusebius of Emesa, who was his 
intimate friend and resided with him at 
Laodicea after his expulsion from Emesa and 
by whose intervention at Antioch he was 
restored to his see (Socr. H. E. i. 24, ii. 9). 
He was also the author of some treatises 
against heresy, especially that of the Mani- 
cheans (Theod. Haer. Fab. i. 28; Phot. Bibl. 
c. 85; Niceph. H. E. vi. 32). [E.v.] 

Georgius (4), commonly called of Cappa- 
docia (Athan. Ep. ad Epise. 7); Arian 
intruding bp. of Alexandria (356-361). He 
was born, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, 
at Epiphania in Cilicia (xxii. 11, 3), and, if so, 
must have been Cappadocian only by descent. 
Gregory Nazianzen describes him as not purely 
free-born (Orat. xxi. 16), and as ** unlearned,” 
but he undoubtedly collected a library which 
Julian, no bad judge, describes as “ very large 
and ample,’’ richly stored with philosophical, 
rhetorical, and historical authors, and with 
various works of ‘ Galilean’’ or Christian 
theology (Epp. 9, 36). In Feb. 356, after 
Athanasius had retired from Alexandria in 
consequence of the attack on his church, which 
all but ended in his seizure, he heard that 
George was to be intruded into his throne, as 
Gregory had been 16 years previously. George 
arrived in Alexandria, escorted by soldiers, 
during Lent 356 (de Fug. 6). His installation 
was a signal for new inflictions on Alexandrian 
church-people. ‘‘ After Easter week,’’ says 
Athanasius (ib.), “‘ virgins were imprisoned, 
bishops led away in chains'’ (some 26 are 
named in Hist. Arian. 72); ‘‘ attacks made 
on houses’; and on the first Sunday 
evening after Pentecost a number of people 
who had met for prayer in a secluded place 
were cruelly maltreated by the commander, 
Sebastian, a“ pitiless Manichean,”’ for refusing 
to communicate with George. 

The intruding bishop was a man of resolu- 
tion and action (Soz. iii. 7). Gregory of 
Nazianzus, who disparages his abilities, admits 
that he was like a‘ hand ”’ to the Arians, while 


388 GEORGIUS 


he employed an eloquent prelate—probably 
Acacius—as a ‘‘ tongue.’’ He belonged to the 
Acacian section of the party, and was con- 
sequently obnoxious to the semi-Arians, who 
“ει deposed him ”’ in the council of Seleucia. He 
allowed the notorious adventurer Aetius, 
founder of the Anomoeans or ultra-Arians, to 
officiate as deacon at Alexandria, after having 
been ordained, as Athanasius tells us (de 
Synod. 38), by Leontius of Antioch, although 
he afterwards ‘‘ compelled ’’ the Arian bishops 
of Egypt to sign the decree of the Acacian 
synod of Constantinople of 360 against Aetius 
(Philost. iii. 2). He induced Theodore, bp. 
of Oxyrynchus, to submit to degradation from 
the ministry and to be reordained by him as 
an Arian bishop (Lib. Marcell. et Faustint, 
Sirmond. i. 135). He managed to keep the 
confidence of Constantius, who congratulated 
the Alexandrians on having abandoned such 
κε srovelling teachers’? as Athanasius and 
entrusted their ‘‘ heavenward aspirations’ to 
the guidance of ‘‘ the most venerable George ”’ 
(Athan. A pol. to Const. 30, 31). But George 
was far from recommending his form of 
Christianity either to the orthodox or to the 
pagans of Alexandria. “‘ He was severe,”’ 
says Sozomen, “to the adherents of Athan- 
asius,”’ not only forbidding the exercise of their 
worship, but “inflicting imprisonment and 
scourges on men and women after the fashion 
of a tyrant’’; while, towards all alike, ‘‘ he 
wielded his authority with more violence than 
belonged to the episcopal rank and character.” 
He was “hated by the magistrates for his 
supercilious demeanour, by the people for his 
tyranny’’ (Soz. iv. 10, 30). He stood well 
with Constantius, who was guided theologic- 
ally by the Acacians; and it was easy for 
the ‘“‘ pope”? of Alexandria to embitter his 
sovereign (as Julian says he did, Ep. 10) 
against the Alexandrian community, to name 
several of its members as disobedient subjects, 
and to suggest that its grand public buildings 
ought by rights to pay tax to the treasury 
(Ammian. etc.). He shewed himself a keen 
man of business, ‘‘ buying up the nitre-works, 
the marshes of papyrus and reed, and the salt 
lakes? (Epiph. Haer. lxxvi.). He manifested 
his anti-pagan zeal by arbitrary acts and 
insulting speeches, procured the banishment 
of Zeno, a prominent pagan physician (Julian, 
Ep. 45), prevented the pagans from offering 
sacrifices and celebrating their national feasts 
(Soz. iv. 30), brought Artemius, “‘ duke”’ of 
Egypt, much given to the destruction of idols 
(Theod. iii. 18), with an armed force into the 
superb temple of Serapis at Alexandria, which 
was forthwith stripped of images, votive 
offerings, and ornaments (Julian, l.c.; Soz. 
l.c.). On Aug. 29, 358, the people broke into 
the church of St. Dionysius, where George was 
then residing, and the soldiers rescued him 
from their hands with difficulty and after 
hard fighting. On Oct. 2 he was obliged to 
leave the city; and the ‘“ Athanasians”’ 
occupied the churches from Oct. 11 to 
Dec. 24, when they were again ejected by 
Sebastian. Probably George returned soon 
after he had quitted the Seleucian council, 7.e. 
in Nov. 359. The news of Julian’s accession 
arrived at Alexandria Noy. 30, 361. George 
was in the height of his pride and power: 


GEORGIUS 


he had persecuted and mocked the pagans 
(Socr. iil. 2; Maff. Frag.; Ammian.), who 
now, being officially informed that there was 
an emperor who worshipped the gods, felt that 
the gods could at last be avenged. The shout 
arose, ‘‘ Away with George!”’ and ‘in a 
moment,” says the Fragmentist, they threw 
him into prison, with Diodorus and Dracon- 
tius, the master of the mint, who had over- 
thrown a pagan altar which he found standing 
there (Ammian.). The captives were kept 
in irons until the morning of Dec. 24. Then 
the pagan mob again assembled, dragged them 
forth with ‘‘ horrible shouts’ of triumph, and 
kicked them to death. They flung the 
mangled body of George on a camel, which 
they led through every part of the city, 
dragging the two other corpses along with 
ropes, and eventually burned the remains on 
the shore, casting the ashes into the sea. 

The Arians, of course, regarded George as 
a martyr; and Gibbon took an evident 
pleasure in representing ‘“‘ the renowned St. 
George of England’’ as the Alexandrian 
usurper “ transformed ”’ into a heroic soldier- 
saint; but bp. Milner (Hist. Inquiry into the 
Existence and Character of St. George, 1792) 
and others have shewn that this assumption 
of identity is manifestly false, the St. George 
who is patron saint of England being of an 
earlier date, though of that saint’s life, 
country, or date we have no certain informa- 
tion, such traditions as we possess being given 
in the next art. [w.B.] 

Georgius (43), M., Apr. 23 (Meyadoudprus, 
Bas. Men.); traditionally the patron saint of 
England, a military tribune and martyr under 
Diocletian at Nicomedia, A.D. 303. He wasa 
native of Cappadocia and of good birth. Some 
time before the outbreak of the great perse- 
cution he accompanied his mother to Lydda, 
in Palestine, where she possessed property. 
As soon, however, as he heard of the publica- 
tion of the first edict (Feb. 23, 303), he re- 
turned to Nicomedia, where, as some think, 
he was the celebrated person who tore down 
the imperial proclamation, and then suffered 
death by roasting over a slow fire (Eus. H. E. 
viii.5).. [DrocLETIAN.] The earliest historical 
testimony to the existence and martyrdom 
of St. George is an inscription in a church at 
Ezr’a or Edhr’a, in S. Syria, copied by Burck- 
hardt and Porter, and discussed by Mr. Hogg 
in two papers before the Royal Society of 
Literature (Transactions, vi. 292, vii. 106). 
This inscription states that the building had 
been a heathen temple, but was dedicated as 
a church in honour of the great martyr St. 
George, in a year which Hogg, by an acute 
argument, fixes as 346. (For another view, 
however, which assigns the inscription to 499, 
see Béckh’s Corp. Inscript. Graec. ed. Kirch- 
hoff, t. iv. No. 8627.) His name occurs again 
in another inscription in the church of Shaka, 
zo miles E. of Ezr’a, which Hogg dates 
A.D. 367. (Béckh, l.c. No. 8609, cf. 8630; for 
other instances of transformations of heathen 
temples into churches and hospitals in the 
4th and 5th cent., see Bdockh, 1.6. 8645, 
8647.) The council assembled at Rome by 
pope Gelasius, A.D. 494 or 496 (Hefele, 
Concil. i. 610, iii. 219, ed. Paris, 1869), con- 
demned the Acts of St. George, together with 


παν νοι 


GEORGIUS 


those of Cyricus and Julitta, as corrupted 
by heretics, but expressly asserted that the 
saints themselves were real martyrs and 
worthy of all reverence (cf. Pitra, Spicil. 
Solesmen. iv. 391, for a repetition, three cen- 
turies later in the East, of this condemnation 
by the patriarch Nicephorus, in his Constit. 
Eccl.). Thenceforward the testimonies to his 
existence rapidly thicken, but decrease in 
value. Gregory of Tours in the 6th cent. 
mentions him as highly celebrated in France, 
while in the East his cultus became universally 
established (cf. Fleury, H. E. xxxiv. 46) and 
churches were erected in all directions in his 
honour, one of the most celebrated being that 
built, probably by Justinian, over his tomb at 
Lydda, whither his relics had been transferred 
after his martyrdom. This church still 
exists. (For an engraving of it, see Thom- 
son’s Land and Book, ii. 292; cf. Robinson's 
Biblical Researches, iii. 51-55, with Le Quien, 
Oriens Christian. iii. 1271, for full particulars 
of St. George’s connexion with Lydda.) 
Another is at Thessalonica; described in 
Texier and Pullan, Byzantine Architecture, 
pp. 132-142, where strong reasons are given | 
for assigning its erection to Constantine (cf. 
Procopius, de Aedtf. iii. 4, ed. Bonn). 

The Medieval Legends.—The Arians of 
the sth cent. seem to have corrupted his 
acts for their own purposes. Their story is 
that he was arrested by Datianus, emperor 
of Rome, or, according to others, of Persia, 
by whom he was in vain ordered to sacrifice 
to Apollo. The magician Athanasius under- 
took to confound the saint. After various 
attempts the magician was converted and 
baptized, as well as the queen Alexandra. 
After many miracles and various tortures, St. 
George was beheaded. It is strange that, 
notwithstanding the decrees of Rome and 
Constantinople, this Arian corruption became 
the basis of all subsequent legends, and even 
found its way into the hymns of St. John 
Damascene in honour of St. George (Mai. 
Spicil. Rom. t. ix. p. 729; Ceillier, xii. 89). 
The addition of a horse and a dragon to the 
story arose out of the imaginations of medie- 
val writers. The dragon represents the devil, 
suggested by St. George’s triumph over him 
at his martyrdom (cf. Eus. Vita Constant. 111. 
3). When the race of the Bagratides as- 
cended the throne of Georgia at the end of 


the 6th cent., they adopted St. George slaying | 


the Dragon as part of their arms (Malan, 
Hist. of Georgian Ch. pp. 15, 29). The 
horse was added during the Frankish occupa- 


tion of Constantinople as suitable, according | 


to medieval ideas, to his rank and character 


as a military martyr. St. George was de- | 


picted on a horse as early as 1227, according 


to Nicephorus Gregoras (Hist. Byzant. viil. 5), | 
where will be found a curious story concerning | 


a picture in the imperial palace at Constan- 
tinople, of St. George mounted upon a horse, 
which neighed in the most violent style when- | 
ever an enemy was about to make a successful | 
assault upon the city. The earliest trace we 
can now find of the full-grown legend of St. | 
George and the dragon, and the king’s daugh- | 
ter Sabra, whom he delivered, is in the 
Historia Lombardica, popularly called the | 
Golden Legend, of Jacobus de Voragine, arch- | 


GEORGIUS 389 


bp. of Genoa, a.p. 1280, and in the breviary 
service for St. George's Day, till revised by 
pope Clement VIII. Thence it became the 
foundation of the story as told in Johnson's 
Historte of the Seven Champions of Christendom, 
and the old ballad of St. George and the Dragon, 
reprinted in the third volume of Percy's 
Reliques, many features of which Spenser 
reproduces in his Faéry Queen. Busbecq in 
the 16th cent. found in the heart of Asia Minor 
a legend of the Turkish hero Chederles, to 
whom were ascribed exploits similar to those 
of St. George (Ep. 1, pp. 93, 95, ed. 1633), and 
he found Georgian Christians venerating above 
every image that of St. George on horseback, 
regarding him as having conquered the evil 
one (Ep. 3, p. 209). 

Connexion with England.—St. George's story 
was well known in England from the 7th cent., 
most probably through the Roman mission- 
aries sent by Gregory. Arculf, the early 
traveller, when returning to his bishopric in 
France, was carried northward to Iona, c. 699, 
where he told the monks the story of St. 
George, whence, through Adamnan and Bede, 
it became widely known in Britain. St. George 
has a place in the Anglo-Saxon ritual of Dur- 
ham assigned to the early part of the 9th cent., 
pub. by the Surtees Society a.p. 1840, and 
among the publications of the Percy Society 
we have an Anglo-Saxon Passton of St. George, 
the work of Aelfric, archbp. of York a.p. 1020- 
to51, ed. by Hardwick a.p. 1850, in whose 
preface is much interesting information on 
this point. His special fame, however, in this 
country arose immediately out of the early 
Crusades. William of Malmesbury (( δία 
Reg. Angl. ed. Sir T. D. Hardy, ii. 559) tells us 
that, when the Crusaders were hard pressed 
by the Saracens at the battle of Antioch, June 
28, 1089, the soldiers were encouraged by 
seeing ‘‘ the martyrs George and Demetrius 
hastily approaching from the mountainous 
districts, hurling darts against the enemy, but 
assisting the Franks ’”’ (cf. Gibbon, cap. Iviil. ; 
Michaud’s Hist. of Crusades, i. 173, ed. Lond. ; 
on the military fame of St. Demetrius see 
Boéckh, Corp. Inscrip. iv. 8642; Du Cange, 
Gloss. i. 974; Texier, of. cit. pp. 123-132). 
This timely apparition at the very crisis of 
the campaign led the Crusaders, among whom 
were a large contingent of Normans under 
Robert, son of William the Conqueror, to 
adopt St. George as their patron. During 
the campaigns of Richard I. in Palestine, St. 
George appeared to him and so became a 


special favourite with the Normans and 
English (Itin. of Richard I. in Chron. of 
Crusades, ed. Bohn, p. 239). Im 1222 a 


national council at Oxford ordered his feast 
to be kept as a lesser holiday throughout 
England. He was not, however, formally 
adopted as patron saint of England till the 
time of Edward III., who founded St. George's 
chapel at Windsor in 1348. In 1349 Edward 
joined battle with the French near Calais, 
when, ‘‘ moved by a sudden impulse,"’ says 
Thomas of Walsingham, “ he drew his sword 
with the exclamation, Ha! St. Edward, Ha! 
St. George, and routed the French " (cf. Smith's 
Student’s Hume, cap. x. ὃ 8). From that time 
St. George replaced St. Edward the Confessor 
as patron of England. In 1350, according to 


390 GERMANUS 


some authorities, the order of the Garter was 
instituted under his patronage, and in 1415, 
according to the Constitutions of archbp. 
Chichely, St. George’s Day was made a major 
double feast, and ordered to be observed like 
Christmas Day. Inthe first Prayer Book of 
Edward VI. St. George’s feast was a red-letter 
day, and had a special epistle and gospel. 
This was changed in the next revision (Ash- 
mole, Order of the Garter; Anstis, Register; 
Pott, Antiquities of Windsor and History of 
Order of Garter, A.D. 1749). The influence of 
the Crusades also led to St. George becoming 
the patron of the republic of Genoa, the king- 
doms of Aragon and Valencia, and to the 
institutions of orders of knighthood under his 
name all over Europe (cf. AA. SS. Boll. Apr. 
lii. 160). In N. Syria his day is still observed 
as a great festival (Lyde, Secret Sects of N. 
Syria, Lond. 1853, p. 19). 

Controversy.—The consentient testimony of 
all Christendom till the Reformation attested 
the existence of St. George. Calvin first 
questioned it. In his Institutes, lib. iii. cap. 
20, § 27, when arguing against invocation of 
saints, he ridiculed those who esteem Christ’s 
intercession as of no value unless ‘‘ accedant 
Georgius aut Hippolytus aut similes larvae,” 
where, unfortunately for himself, he places 
Hippolytus in the class of ghosts or phantoms 
together with St. George. Dr. Reynolds, 
early in the 17th cent., was the first to confuse 
the orthodox martyr of Lydda with the Arian 
bp. of Alexandria. [GrorGrus (4).] Against 
him Dr. Heylin argued in an exhaustive 
treatise (Hist. of St. George of Cappadocia), 
giving (pp. 164-166) a very full list of all 
earlier authors who had referred to St. George, 
including a quotation from a reputed treatise 
by St. Ambrose, Liber Praefationum, which is 
not now extant. The controversy was con- 
tinued during the 18th cent. Dr. Milner wrote 
in defence of the historical reality of St. 
George, provoked doubtless by Gibbon’s well- 
known sneer in c. xxiii. of his history. See 
further Mart. Vet. Rom., Mart. Adon., Mart. 
Usuard., which all fix his martyrdom at Dios- 
polis in Persia (cf. Herod. ed. Rawlinson, i. 72, 
v. 49, vii. 72) ; Hogg, however, well suggests 
the Bithynian town of that name, which was 
in the Persian empire under Cyrus (Pasch. 
Chron. ed. Bonn, p. 510; Sym. Metaphrast. ; 
Magdeburg. Centur. cent. iv. cap. xii.; Ceillier, 
xi. 404, xii. 58, 89, 297; Alban-Butler, Lives 
of Saints ; Malan, Hist. of the Georgian Church, 
pp- 28, 51, 54, 72; E. A. Wallis Budge, The 
Martyrdom and Miracles of St. George of Cap- 
padocia: the Coptic texts ed. with an Eng. 
trans., Lond. 1888). [G.T.s.] 

Germanus (8), St., bp. of Auxerre, born 
probably c. 378, at Auxerre, near the S. border 
of what was afterwards Champagne. The 
parents of German caused him to be baptized 
and well educated. He went to Rome, 
studied for the bar, practised as an advocate 
before the tribunal of the prefect, on his return 
married a lady named Eustachia, and rose to 
be one of the six dukes of Gaul, each of whom 
governed a number of provinces (Gibbon, ii. 
320), Auxerre being included in German’s 
district. German, having been ordained and 
nominated as his successor by Amatcr, bp. of 
Auxerre, was, on the latter’s death, unan- 


GERMANUS 


imously elected, and consecrated on Sun. July 
7, 418. His wife became to him as a sister ; 
he distributed his property to the poor; he 
became a severe ascetic, and, as his biographer 
Constantius says, a ‘‘ persecutor of his body,” 
abstaining from salt, oil, and even from 
vegetables, from wine, excepting a small 
quantity much diluted on Christmas Day or 
Easter Day, and from wheat bread, instead 
of which he ate barley bread with a prelimin- 
ary taste of ashes (cinerem praelibavit). He 
wore the same hood and tunic in all seasons, 
and slept on ashes in a framework of boards. 
““ Let any one speak his mind,”’ says Constan- 
tius, to whom some details of German’s life 
must have come down not free from exag- 
geration, ‘“‘ but I positively assert that the 
blessed German endured a long martyrdom.” 
Withal he was hospitable, and gave his guests 
a good meal, though he would not share it. 
He founded a monastery outside Auxerre, on 
the opposite bank of the Yonne, often crossing 
in a boat to visit the abbat and brethren. 

Pelagianism had been rife in its founder’s 
native island of Britain; and the British 
clergy, unable to refute the heretics, requested 
help from the church, we may say from their 
mother church, of Gaul. Accordingly a 
numerous synod unanimously sent to Britain 
German and Lupus, bp. of Troyes, both going 
the more readily because of thelabour involved. 
So says Constantius, who is followed closely by 
Bede (i. 17). But Prosper of Aquitaine, a con- 
temporary, in his Chronicle for A.p. 429, says 
that pope Celestine, ‘‘ at the suggestion of the 
deacon Palladius, sent German as his repre- 
sentative ’’ (vice sua) into Britain; and in his 
contra Collatorem, written c. 432, speaks of 
Celestine as ‘‘ taking pains to keep the Roman 
island ”’ (Britain) ‘‘ Catholic” (c. 21 or 24). 
The truth probably lies in a combination of 
the pope’s action with the councils, at any 
rate as regards German. Lupus is not in- 
cluded by Prosper—of him evidently Celes- 
tine took no thought, but, we may reasonably 
believe, gave some special commission to 
German either before (so Tillemont, Mémoires, 
xiv. 154) or at the time of the Gallic synod: 
it is not probable that, as Lingard supposes, 
the synod’s commission was only to Lupus 
and German “‘sent’’ by the popealone (Angl. 
Sax. Ch. i. 8). 

When the two prelates reached Nanterre 
near Paris, German saw in the crowd which 
met them the girl GENOvEFA, whom he bade 
live as one espoused to Christ, and who became 
““ St. Genevieve of Paris.’’ Arrived in Britain, 
the bishops preached the doctrines of grace in 
churches and on the country roads with great 
effect ; till the Pelagian leaders challenged 
them to a discussion, apparently near Veru- 
lam. A great multitude assembled: the two 


bishops, appealing to Scripture in support οἵ: 


the Catholic position, silenced their opponents, 
and the shouts of the audience hailed their 
victory. German and Lupus then visited the 
teputed tomb of the British protomartyr 
Alban; and Constantius adds the famous tale 
of the Alleluia Victory. The Britons were 
menaced by Picts and Saxons; German and 
Lupus encouraged them to resist, catechized 
and baptized the still heathen majority in their 
army, and then, shortly after Easter 430, 


GERMANUS 


stationing them in a narrow glen, bade them at 
the invaders’ approach repeat thrice the 
Paschal Alleluia. The Britons sent the shout 
ringing through the defile; the enemy was 
seized with panic, and “ faith without the 
sword won a bloodless victory.” 

In 447 German was again entreated by 
British churchmen to aid them against 
Pelagianism. He took with him Severus, bp. 
of Tréves, a disciple of Lupus, and having on 


over the Pelagians, and procured their 
banishment from the island. Welsh tradi- 
tions record his many activities on behalf of 
the British church. They lay the scene of the 
Alleluia victory at Maes-garmon near Mold; 
they speak of colleges founded by German, of 
national customs traced to his authority ; and 
although much of this is legendary and the 
stories in Nennius about his relations with 
king Vortigern apocryphal, he probably did 
more for British Christianity than Constantius 
records. He had no sooner returned home 
than another occasion for his humane inter- 
vention arose. The Armoricans, whose 
country had not yet acquired (through British 
immigration) the name of Brittany, were in 
chronic revolt against the empire, hoping to 
obtain favourable terms for Armorica. Ger- 
man set forth at once for Italy, and on June 
19, 448, reached Milan; proceeding to 
Ravenna, he obtained pardon for the Armori- 
cans, but unfortunately news came that they 
had again revolted, and his mission proved in 
vain. German was soon afterwards taken ill. 
His lodging overflowed with visitors ; a choir 
kept up ceaseless psalmody by his bedside. 
He died July 31, 448, having been bishop 30 
years and 25 days. His body was embalmed, 
and a magnificent funeral journey to Gaul 
attested the reverence of the court. He was 
buried in a chapel near Auxerre on Oct. 1. 
Constantius’s Life is in Surius, de Probatis 
Sanctorum Histortis, vol. iv. A metrical Life 
and a prose account of his ‘‘ miracles,’’ both 
by a monk named Hereric, are in Acta Sanc- 
torum, July 31. [w.B.] 
Germanus (18) (Germain), St., 20th bp. of 
Paris, born at Autun of parents of rank named 
Eleutherius and Eusebia (c. 496), and educated 
at Avalon and Luzy (Lausia). In due time 
he was ordained deacon, and three years later 
priest. He was next made abbat of the 
monastery of St. Symphorian at Autun, by 
bp. Nectarius. In 555, being present at Paris 
on some mission to Childebert, when that see 
was vacant by the death of Eusebius, he was 
raised to the archbishopric. His great object 
seems to have been to check the unbridled 
licence of the Frank kings, and to ameliorate 
the misery produced by constant civil war. 
In 557 he was present at the third council of 
Paris, and appears to have exercised consider- 
able influence over Childebert, whose edict 
against pagan revelry on holy days may have 
been due to St. Germanus (Migne, Patr. Lat. 
Ixxii. 1121), and likewise the building by 
Childebert of the church of St. Vincent to 
receive the stole of that martyr which he had 
brought from Spain. (See the charter given 
by Aimoin, de Gest. Franc. ii. 20, ed. Jac. du 
Brevi, Paris, 1602, and cf. Hist. Litt. de la 


GERVASIUS 301 


France, iii.270). This church τνᾶς said to have 
been consecrated by St. Germanus on the day 
Childebert died (Dec. 23, 558). Childebert's 
successor Clotaire was, according to Venantius 
Fortunatus, at first not equally amenable, but 
a sickness changed his disposition. Ger- 
manus’s death is variously dated 575, 576, and 
577. He was buried in an oratorium near the 
vestibule of the church of St. Vincent: and 


ad 1 jin 754 his body was removed with great 
his way vindicated Genovefa against calum- | 


niators, landed in Britain, triumphed again | 


ceremony into the church itself, in the 
presence of Pippin and his son Charles the 
Great, then a child. The church henceforth 
was called St. Germain des Prés. 

There is extant by St. Germanus a treatise 
on the Mass, or exposition of the old Gallic 
Liturgy (Patr. Lat. Ixxii. 89; cf. Ceillier, xi. 
308 seq., for the reasons for ascribing it to 
him). Among his writings is also generally 
counted the privilege which he granted to his 
monastery exempting it from all episcopal 
jurisdiction (c. 565). Its authenticity has 
been vehemently attacked and defended (see 
Migne, Patr. Lat. xxii. 81 n. and the authorities 
there referred to). St. Germanus’s Life was 
written by Venantius Fortunatus, his con- 
temporary and friend, but the work is little 
else than a string of miracles. It may be 
found in Mabillon’s Acta SS. Ord. S. Bened. 
i. 234-245 (Paris, 1668-1701). See also Boll. 
Acta SS. Mai. vi. 774 sqq.; Gall. Christ. vii. 
18-21 ; Mansi, ix. 747, 805, 867, 869; and, for 
the monastery, the Ditssertatio of Ruinartius, 
in Bouquet, ii. 722. [S.A.B.] 

Gervasius (1), June τὸ (Us.); Oct. 14 (Bas. 
Menol.). Martyr with Protasius at Milan, 
under Nero. These two brothers were sons 
of Vitalis, whose martyrdom at Rayenna and 
mythical acts are recorded in Mart. Adon. 
Apr. 28. After 300 years, and when their 
memory had entirely faded, God is said to have 
revealed their place of burial to St. Ambrose 
in a dream. [AmsBrosius.] The empress 
Justina was striving to obtain one of the 
churches of Milan for Arian worship, and help 
was needed to sustain the orthodox in their 
opposition to the imperial authority. Just at 
this time a new and splendid basilica was 
awaiting consecration. The people, as a kind 
of orthodox demonstration, wished it conse- 
crated with the same pomp and ceremonial as 
had been used for another new church near 
the Roman Gate. Ambrose consented, if he 
should have some new relics to place therein. 
He therefore ordered excavations to be made 
in the church of St. Nabor and St. Felix, near 
the rails which enclosed their tomb. The 
search was rewarded by the discovery of the 
bodies of ‘‘ two men of wondrous size, such as 
ancient times produced”’ (Amb. Ep. xxii. § 2), 
with all their bones entire and very much 
blood. They were removed to the church of 
St. Fausta, and the next day to the new 
Ambrosian church, where they were duly 
enshrined. At each different stage St. Am- 
brose delivered impassioned and _ fanciful 
harangues. In that on their enshrinement he 
claims that they had already expelled demons, 
and restored to sight a blind butcher, one 
Severus, who was cured by touching the pall 
that covered the relics. The Arians ridiculed 
the matter, asserting that Ambrose had hired 
persons to feign themselves demoniacs. The 


392 GILDAS 

whole story has afforded copious matter for 
criticism. Mosheim (cent. iv. pt. li. c. 3, § 8), 
Gibbon (c. xxvii.), Isaac Taylor (Ancient 
Christianity, vol. ii. 242-272), consider the 
thing a trick got up by the contrivance and 
at the expense of St. Ambrose himself. Two 
distinct points demand attention: rst, the 
finding of the bodies; 2nd, the reputed 
miracles. The discovery of the bodies may 
have been neither a miracle nor a trick. 
Churches were frequently built in cemeteries, 
and excavation might easily chance upon 
bodies. Some, moreover, have fixed Diocle- 
tian’s persecution as the time of their martyr- 
dom, and St. Ambrose, as the official custodian 
of the church records, might therefore have 
some knowledge of their resting-place, and in 
times of intense theological excitement men 
have often imputed to dreams or supernatural 
assistance that for which, under calmer cir- 
cumstances, they would account in a more 
commonplace way. It is hardly possible to 
read through the epistle of St. Ambrose to his 
sister Marcellina (Ep. xxii.), in which he gives 
an account of the discovery, and still imagine 
that such genuine enthusiasm could go hand 
in hand with conscious knavery and deceit. 
There remains the question of the miracles to 
which St. Ambrose and St. Augustine testify | 
(de Crvit. Det, xxii. 8; Confess. ix. 7; Ser. 286 
and 318). These were of two kinds: the 
restoration of demoniacs and the healing of a 
blind man. As to the demoniacs, we cannot | 
decide. At times of religious excitement such | 
cases have occurred, and can be accounted for | 
on purely natural grounds. They belong to 
an obscure region of psychological phenomena. | 
The case of the blind man, whose cure is! 
reported by St. Augustine, then resident at | 
Milan, as well as by St. Ambrose, stands on a | 
different footing, and is the one really import- | 
ant point of the narrative with which Taylor 
fails effectively to grapple. We must observe, | 
also, in favour of the miracle that St. Ambrose | 
called immediate attention to it, and that no | 
one seems to have challenged the fact of the 
blindness or the reality of restoration to 
sight; and further Severus devoted himself) 
in consequence as a servant of the church 
wherein the relics were placed, and continued 
such for more than 20 years. On the other | 
hand, we have no means of judging as to the 
nature of the disease in the man’s eyes. He 
was not born blind, but had contracted the 
disease, being a butcher by trade. He might 
therefore have only been affected in some such | 
way as powerful nervous excitement might 
cure, but for which he and St. Ambrose would 
naturally account by the miraculous power of 
the martyrs. In the Criterion of Miracles, by 
bp. Douglas (pp. 130-160, ed. 1803), there are 
many acute observations on similar reputed 
miracles in the 18th cent. Mart. Rom. Vet., 
Adon., Bedae, Usuard.; Kal. Carthag.; Kal. 
Front.; Tillem. Mém. ii. 78, 498; Fleury, 
H. E. viii. 49, xviii. 47; Ceill. v. 386, 490, ix. 


340. : [G.T.S.] 
Gildas (Gildasius, Gildus, Gillas), com- 
memorated Jan. 29. 


In medieval Lives 
Gildas appears in a well-defined individuality, 
but a more critical view detects so many 
anachronisms and historical defects that it 
has been questioned, first, whether he ever 


| that is irreconcilable. 


GILDAS 


lived, and secondly, whether there were more 
Gildases than one. Though he is mentioned 
by name, and his writings quoted from by 
Bede, Alcuin, William of Newburgh, Geoffrey 
of Monmouth, and Giraldus Cambrensis, there 
is no memoir of him written within several 
centuries of his supposed date, and the two 
oldest, on which the others are based, are 
ordinary specimens of the unhistorical tone of 
mind ofthe 11thand12thcents. Tosurmount 
the chronological and historical difficulties, 
Ussher, Ware, Bale, Pitseus, Golgan, and 
O’Conor have imagined at least two of the 
name, perhaps even four or six, about the 5th 
and 6th cents. These have received distin- 
guishing designations, and thus have obtained 
a recognized position in history. But the 
more probable and more generally received 
opinion is that there is but one Gildas, who 
could not have lived earlier than about the 
end of the 5th cent. or later than that of the 
6th. The oldest authority is Vita Gildae, 
auctore monacho Ruyensi anonymo, ed. by the 
Bollandists (Acta SS. Jan. 29, iii. 573 seq.), 
and attributed to the 11th cent. or earlier. 
The other was written by Caradoc of Llan- 
carvan in the 12th cent. (Engl. Hist. Soc. 
1838). (For pub. and MS. Lives see Hardy’s 
Descript. Cat. i. pt. i. 151-156, pt. ii. 799.) 
With what seems more or less a common 
groundwork of fact, these Lives have much 
“Nor need this seem 
so very strange,’’ says O’Hanlon (Irish Saints, 
i. 473-474), ‘‘ when both accounts had been 
drawn up several centuries after the life- 
time of Gildas, and when they had been 
written in different centuries and in separate 
countries. The diversities of chronological 
events, and of persons hardly contempora- 
neous, will only enable us to infer that the 
sources of information were occasionally 
doubtful, while the various coincidences of 
narrative seem to warrant a conclusion that 
both tracts were intended to chronicle the life 
of one and the same person. It deserves 
remark, however, that’’ (quoting from Mon. 


| Hist. Brit. i. pt. i. 59, n.) ‘‘ both are said to 


have been born in Scotland. One was the 
son of Nau, the other of Cau: the eldest son 
[ἢ brother] of one was Huel, of the other Cuil. 
Both lives have stories of a bell, both Gildases 
go to Ireland, both go to Rome, and both 
build churches. The monk of Ruys quotes 
several passages from Gildas’s de Excidio, and 
assigns it to him: and Caradoc calls him 
‘ Historiographus Britonum,’ and say that he 
wrote Historiae de Regibus Britonum.” Bp. 
Nicolson (Eng. Hist. Libr. 32, 3rd ed.) con- 
cludes that Gildas ‘‘ was monk of Bangor 
about the middle of the 6th cent. ; a sorrowful 
spectator of the miseries and almost utter ruin 
of his countrymen by a people under whose 
banner they had hoped for peace.”’ Those 
who believe there was only one Gildas do not 
entirely agree as to his dates, one for his birth 
being sought between a.p. 484 and 520, and 
one for his death between A.D. 565 and 602. 
In his de Excidio Britanniae he says he was 
born in the year of ‘‘ obsessionis Badonici 
montis’’ (c. 26). The Annales Cambriae place 
the ‘‘ bellum Badonis”’ in 516, and the An- 
nales Tigernachi Gildas’s death in 570: these 
dates are probably nearest the truth. By 


ὼς. = 


σα 


a 
a 


GLYCERIUS 


those who suppose there were two or more 
bearing the same name, ‘“‘ Albanius”’ is placed 
in the 5th cent. (425-512, Ussher), and ‘‘ Ba- 
donicus ”’ in the 6th (520-570, Ussher). 

The writing ascribed to Gildas was long 
regarded as one treatise, de Excidio Britan- 
niae; but is now usually divided into the 
Historia Gildae and Epistola Gildae. The 
former is a bare recital of the events of British 
history under the Romans, and between their 
withdrawal and his own time; the latter a 
querulous, confused, and lengthy series of 
bitter invectives in the form of a declamatory 
epistle addressed to the Britons, and relating 
specially to five kings, ‘“‘ reges sed tyrannos,”’ 
named Constantinus, Aurelius, Conan, Vorti- 
porus, Cuneglasus and Maglocunus.* Many, 
though probably without quite sufficient 
reason, regard the latter as the work of a later 
writer, and as intended in the ecclesiastical 
differences of the 7th and 8th cents. for purely 

olemical purposes, while others would place 
it even later still. See useful notes on both 
sides in Notes and Quertes, 4th ser. i. 171, 271, 
11, and on the side of genuineness and 
authenticity, Hist. lit. de la France, t. iii. 
280 seq. Bolland. Acta SS. Jan. 29, iii. 566- 
582; Colgan, Acta SS. 176-203, 226-228; 
Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. i. c. 9; Ussher, Brit. 
Eccl. Ant. cc. 13-17, and Ind. Chron. ; Wright, 
Biog. Brit. Lit. Ang.-Sax. per. 115-135. See 
Haddon and Stubbs, Councils, etc. vol. i. pp. 
44-107 ; Th. Mommsen (Mon. Ger.) ; Dict. of 
Nat. Biog. vol. xxi. An Eng. trans. of Gildas’s 
workisin Bohn’s Lib. (O. E. Chronicles). [1.6.1 

Glycerius (5), a deacon in Cappadocia, who 
caused Basil much annoyance by his extra- 
vagant and disorderly proceedings c. 374. 
Being a vigorous young man, well fitted for the 
humbler offices of the church, and having 
adopted the ascetic life, he was ordained 
deacon by Basil, though to what church is 
doubtful. It is variously given as Venesa, 
Veésa, Venata, and Synnasa. His elevation 
turned the young man’s head. He at once 
began to neglect the duties of his office, and 
gathered about him a number of young women, 
partly by persuasion, partly by force, of whom 
he took the direction, styling himself their 
patriarch, and adopting a dress in keeping 
with his pretensions. He was supported by 
the offerings of his female followers, and Basil 
charges him with adopting this spiritual 
directorship in order to get his living without 
work. The wild and disorderly proceedings 
of Glycerius and his deluded adherents created 
great scandal and caused him to be gravely 
admonished by his own presbyter, his chorepi- 
scopus, and finally by Basil himself. Gly- 
cerius turned a deaf ear, and having swelled 
his fanatical band by a number of young men, 
he one night hastily left the city with his whole 
troop against the will of many of the girls. 
The scandal of such a band wandering about 
under pretence of religion, singing hymns, and 
leaping and dancing in a disorderly fashion, 
was increased by the fact that a fair was going 
on, and the young women were exposed to the 
rude jests of the rabble. Fathers who came 

* Skene (Four Anc. Books of Wales, i. 63, 64) re- 
gards them as contemporary rulers, living, one in 
Devon and Cornwall, two in Wales, and two probably 


jn the N, of Ireland, 


GLYCERIUS 393 


to rescue their daughters from such disgrace 
were driven away by Glycerius with contume- 
ly, and he carried off his whole band to a 
neighbouring town, of which an unidentified 
Gregory was bishop. Several of Basil's letters 
turned on this matter, the further issue of 
which is not known. [z.v.] 
Glycerius (8), emperor of the West, after- 
wards bp. of Salona. In Mar. 473, being then 
comes domesticorum, he assumed the imperial 
title at Ravenna in succession to Olybrius ; 
but the emperor of the East, Leo I. the 
Thracian, set up Julius Nepos, who was pro- 
claimed at Ravenna late in 473 or early in 
474, and marched against Glycerius and took 
him prisoner at Portus. (See art. GLyceRiUS 
in D. of G. and R. Biogr.) Glycerius has been 
reckoned bp. of Portus, of Milan, and of 
Salona. The Chronicon of Marcellinus Comes 
under A.D. 474 states that Glycerius ‘' imperio 
expulsus, in portu urbis Romae ex Caesare 
episcopus ordinatus est, et obiit "ἢ (Pair. Lat. 
li. 931) ; on the strength of which he has been 
named bp. of Portus, as by Paulus Diaconus, 
who writes: ‘‘ Portuensis episcopus ordina- 
tur’’ (Hist. Misc. lib. xv. in Patr. Lat. χον. 
973 B). Cappelletti and Ughelli (who calls 
him Gulcerius) assign him to that see between 
Petrus and Herennius (Ug. Jtal. Sac. i. 111; 
Capp. Le Chiese d’ Ital. i. 407). Evagrius, on 
the other hand, relates (H. E. ii. 16) that 
Nepos appointed Glycerius bp. of the Romans 
és Σάλωνας, scarcely, however, intending to 
say, as Canisius understands him, that Gly- 
cerius was made bp. of Rome. He must mean 
(writing as a Greek) that Glycerius was or- 
dained bp. for Salona by the Roman eccle- 
siastical authorities, and that his see belonged 
to the Roman or western part of the empire 
and to that patriarchate rather than the 
Byzantine. Jornandes likewise states that 
Nepos ‘‘ Glycerium ab imperio expellens, in 
Salona Dalmatiae episcopum fecit '’ (Jorn. de 
Reg. Succ. in Muratori, Rer. Ital. Script. τι i. p. 
239 B). It is therefore best to understand 
with Canisius (note on the passage in Evag- 
rius, vid. Patr. Gk. 1xxxvi. pt. 2, p. 2546) that 
the deposition of Glycerius took place at 
Portus, where at the same time he was ap- 
pointed to Salona. Thus also Farlati (/iyr. 
Sac. ii. 117-120). The principality of Dal- 
matia belonged to Nepos independently of the 
imperial title. Thither he retired before his 
successful competitor Orestes, and was 
brought into contact once more with Glyce- 
rius. Photius (Biblioth. Cod. 78) mentions the 
now lost Byzantine History of Malchus the 
Sophist as stating that Nepos, having divested 
Glycerius of his Caesarian authority and 
invaded ‘‘the empire of the Romans,” or- 
dained him, made him a bishop, and finally 
perished by his machinations (tmstdtts petitus), 
not ‘‘ was assassinated,”’ as stated by Gibbon. 
Farlati assigns six years to his episcopate, 
placing his death in 480. ; 
The supposition that he was bp. of Milan 
rests on very slender ground. Ennodius, bp. 
of Pavia, who dedicates short poems to several 
successive bishops of Milan, inscribes one to 
Glycerius, whom he places between Mar- 
tinianus and Lazarus (carm. 82, in Patr. Lat, 
Ixiii. 349) ; but there is nothing in the verses 
to identify him with the ex-emperor. Enno- 


394 GNOSTICISM 


dius, in his Life of Epiphanius, bp. of Pavia, 
mentions the emperor Glycerius as shewing so 
much veneration for that saint as to accept his 
intercession for some people in the diocese of 
Pavia, who had incurred the imperial dis- 
pleasure (Ennod. Vit. Epiphan. in Patr. Lat. 
Ixiii. 219 A). These are the sole grounds on 
which Gibbon hazards, doubtfully, the state- 
ment (Decl. and Fall, vol. iv. p. 295, ed. Smith) 
that Glycerius was promoted by Orestes from 
Salona to the archbishopric of Milan in reward 
for his assassination of Nepos. [c.H.] 
Gnosticism. The zeal with which a learner 
commences the study of ecclesiastical history 
is not unfrequently damped at an early stage, 
when he finds that, in order to know the 
history of religious thought in the 2nd cent., 
he must make himself acquainted with specu- 
lations so wild and so baseless that it is irksome 
to read them and difficult to believe that time 
was when acquaintance with them was count- 
ed as what alone deserved the name of ‘“‘ know- 
ledge.’’ But it would be a mistake to think 
too disdainfully of those early heretics who go 
by the common name of Gnostics. In the 
first place, it may be said in their excuse that 
the problems which they undertook to solve 
were among the most difficult with which the 
human intellect has ever grappled—namely, to 
explain the origin of evil, and to make it con- 
ceivable how the multiplicity of finite existence 
can all have been derived from a single abso- 
lute unconditioned principle. And _ besides, 
these speculators only did what learned 
theologians have constantly since endeavoured 
to do—namely, combine the doctrines which 
they learned from revelation with the results 
of what they regarded as the best philosophy 
of their own day, so as to obtain what seemed 
to them the most satisfactory account and 
explanation of the facts of the universe. 
Every union of philosophy and religion is the 
marriage of a mortal with an immortal: the 
religion lives; the philosophy grows old and 
dies. When the philosophic element of a 
theological system becomes antiquated, its 
explanations which contented one age become 
unsatisfactory to the next, and there ensues 
what is spoken of as a conflict between religion 
and science ; whereas, in reality, it is a conflict 
between the science of one generation and that 
of a succeeding one. If the religious specula- 
tions of the 2nd cent. appear to us peculiarly 
unreasonable, it is because the philosophy 
incorporated with them is completely alien 
to modern thought. That philosophy gave 
unlimited licence to the framing of hypotheses, 
and provided that the results were in tolerable 
accordance with the facts, no other proof was 
required that the causes which these hypo- 
theses assumed were really in operation. The 
Timaeus of Plato is a favourable specimen 
of the philosophic writings which moulded the 
Gnostic speculations; and the interval be- 
tween that and a modern treatise on physics 
is fully as wide as between Gnosticism and 
modern scientific theology. So it has hap- 
pened that modern thought has less sympathy 
with heretical theories deeply coloured by the 
philosophy of their own time than with the 
plain common sense of a church writer such 
as Irenaeus, which led him to proceed by the 
positive historical method, and reject what 


GNOSTICISM 


was merely fanciful and speculative. And it 
may be said that deeply important as were 
some of the particular questions discussed in 
the conflict between the church and Gnos- 
ticism, an even more important issue of that 
conflict was the decision of the method by 
which religious knowledge was to be arrived 
at. The Gnostics generally held that the 
Saviour effected redemption by making a 
revelation of knowledge, yet they but feebly 
attempted to connect historically their teach- 
ing with his; what was derived from Him was 
buried under elements taken freely from 
heathen mythologies and philosophies, or 
springing from the mere fancy of the specula- 
tor, so that, if Gnosticism had triumphed, all 
that is distinctively Christian would have 
disappeared. In opposition to them, church 
writers were led to emphasize the principle 
that that alone is to be accounted true know- 
ledge of things divine which can be shewn by 
historical tradition, written or oral, to have 
been derived from the teaching of Christ and 
His apostles, a principle the philosophic 
justice of which must be admitted if Christ be 
owned as having filled the part in the enlight- 
enment of the world which orthodox and 
Gnostics alike attributed to Him. Thus, by 
the conflict with Gnosticism reverence in the 
church was deepened for the authority of 
revelation as restraining the licence of human 
speculation, and so the channel was marked 
out within the bounds of which religious 
thought continued for centuries to flow. 

We deal here with some general aspects of 
the subject, referring to the articles on the 
chief Gnostic teachers for details as to the 
special tenets of the different Gnostic sects. 

Use of the Word Gnosticism.—In logical 
order we ought to begin by defining Gnostic- 
ism, and so fixing what extension is to be 
given to the application of the term, a point 
on which writers are not agreed. Baur, for 
instance, reckons among Gnostics the sectaries 
from whom the Clementine writings emanated, 
although on some of the most fundamental 
points their doctrines are diametrically op- 
posed to those commonly reckoned as Gnostic. 
We conform to more ordinary usage in giving 
to the word a narrower sense, but this is a 
matter on which controversy would be only 
verbal, Gnosticism not being a word which has 
in its own nature a definite meaning. There 
is no difficulty in naming common character- 
istics of the sects commonly called Gnostic, 
though perhaps none of them is distinctive 
enough to be made the basis of a logical 
definition. They professed to be able to 
trace their doctrine to the apostles. Basilides 
was said to have learned from a companion of 
St. Peter; gospels were in circulation among 
them which purported to have been written 
by Philip, Thomas, and other apostles; and 
they professed to be able to find their doctrines 
in the canonical scriptures by methods of 
allegorical interpretation which, however 
forced, could easily be paralleled in the pro- 
cedure of orthodox writers. If we made our 
definition turn on the claim to the possession 
of such a Gnosis and to the title of Gnostic, we 
should have to count Clement of Alexandria 
among Gnostics and J. Timothy among Gnostic 
writings ; for the church writers refused to 


fe hag 


(AEE να. ae a Si Ie ae 9" 


“ 


= 


GNOSTICISM 


surrender these titles to the heretics and, 
claiming to be the true Gnostics, branded the 
heretical Gnosis as ‘‘ falsely so called.”” If we 
fix our attention on the predominance of the 
speculative over the practical in Gnosticism, 
which, as Baur truly remarks, led men to 
regard Christianity less as a means of salvation 
than as furnishing the principles of a philo- 
sophy of the universe, we must allow that since 
their time very many orthodox writings have 
been open to the same criticism. We come 
very close to a definition if we make the 
criterion of Gnosticism to be the establishment 
of a dualism between spirit and matter; and, 
springing out of this, the doctrine that the 
world was created by some power different 
from the supreme God, yet we might not be 
able to establish that this characteristic be- 
longs to every sect which we count as Gnostic ; 
and if we are asked why we do not count such 
sects as the Manicheans among the Gnostics, 
the best answer is that usage confines the word 
to those sects which arose in the ferment of 
thought when Christianity first came into 
contact with heathen philosophy, excluding 
those which clearly began later. A title of 
honour claimed by these sectaries for them- 
selves, and at first refused them by their 
opponents, was afterwards adopted as the 
most convenient way of designating them. 
We have noreason to think that the earliest 
Gnostics intended to found sects separated 
from the church and called after their own 
names. Their disciples were to be Christians, 
only elevated above the rest as acquainted 
with deeper mysteries, and called γνωστικοί, 
because possessed of a Gnosis superior to the 
simple faith of the multitude. Probably the 
earliest instance of the use of the word is by 
Celsus, quoted by Origen, v. 61, where, speak- 
ing of the multiplicity of Christian sects, he 
says that there were some who professed to 
be Gnostics. Irenaeus (i. xxv. 5, p- 104), 
speaking of the Carpocratians and in particular 
of that school of them which Marcellina 
established at Rome, says that they called 
themselves Gnostics. It is doubtless on the 
strength of this passage that Eusebius (H. E. 
iv. 7), quoting Irenaeus in the same context, 
calls Carpocrates the father of the sect called 
that of the Gnostics. In the habitual use of 
the word by Irenaeus himself it does not occur 
as limited to Carpocratians. Irenaeus, in his 
first book, when he has gone through the sects 
called after the names of heretical teachers, 
gives in a kind of appendix an account of a 
number of sects in their general characteris- 
tics Ophite, but he does not himself use that 
name. He calls them ‘‘ multitudo Gnostic- 
orum,”’ tracing their origin to Simon Magus, 
and counting them as progenitors of the 
Valentinians. And constantly we have the 
expression Basilidians, Valentinians, etc., “ et 
reliqui Gnostici,’’ where, by the latter appella- 
tion, the Ophite sects are specially intended. 
The form of expression does not exclude from 
the title of Gnostic the sects named after their 
founders; and the doctrine of the Valentin- 
ians is all through the work of Irenaeus a 
branch of ‘‘ Gnosis falsely so called”’; yet it 
is usually spoken of less as Gnosticism than 
as a development of Gnosticism, and the 
Valentinians are described as more Gnostic 


GNOSTICISM 395 


than the Gnostics, meaning by the latter word 
the Ophite sects already mentioned. In the 
work of Hippolytus against heresies, the name 
is almost exclusively found in connexion with 
the sect of the Naassenes or Ophites, and three 
or four times it is repeated (v. 2, p. 91; 4, 
P- 94; II, p. 123) that these people call them- 
selves Gnostics, claiming that they alone 
“knew the depths.’”” The common source of 
Epiphanius and Philaster had an article on 
the Nicolaitanes, tracing the origin of the 
Gnostics to Nicolas the Deacon (see also 
Hippolytus, vii. 36, p. 258, and the statement 
of Irenaeus [II. ii. p. 188] that Nicolaitanism 
was a branch of Gnosis). Epiphanius divides 
this article into two, making the Gnostics a 
separate heresy (Haer. 26). Hence ancient 
usage leaves a good deal of latitude to modern 
writers in deciding which of the 2nd-cent. sects 
they will count as Gnostic. 

Classification of Gnostic Sects. —Some general 
principles of philosophic classification may be 
easily agreed on, but when they come to be 
applied, it is found that there are some sects 
to which it is not obvious where to assign a 
place, and that some sects are separated whose 
affinities are closer than those of others which 
are classed together. A very important, 
though not a complete, division is that made 
by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 5) into 
the ascetic and licentious sects: both parties 
agreeing in holding the essential evil of matter ; 
the one endeavouring by rigorous abstinence 
to free as much as possible man's soul from the 
bondage to which it is subjected by union with 
his material part, and refusing to marry and 
so enthral new souls in the prisons of bodies ; 
the other abandoning as desperate any 
attempt to purify the hopelessly corrupt body, 
and teaching that the instructed soul ought 
to hold itself unaffected by the deeds of the 
body. All actions were to it indifferent. The 
division of Neander is intended to embrace a 
wider range than that just described. Taking 
the common doctrine of the Gnostic sects that 
the world was made by a Being different from 
the supreme God, he distinguishes whether 
that Being was held to have acted in subor- 
dination to the Supreme, and on the whole to 
have carried out his intentions, or to have been 
absolutely hostile to the supreme God. Tak- 
ing into account the generally acknowledged 
principle that the Creator of the world was the 
same as the God worshipped by the Jews, we 
see that Gnostics of the second class would be 
absolutely hostile to Judaism, which those of 
the former class might accept as one of the 
stages ordained by the Supreme in the enlight- 
enment of the world. Thus Neander’s divi- 
sion classifies sects as not unfriendly to 
Judaism or as hostile to it; the former class 
taking its origin in those Alexandrian schools 
where the authority of such teachers as Philo 
had weight, the latter among Christian con- 
verts from Oriental philosophy whose early 
education had given them no prejudices in 
favour of Judaism. Gieseler divides into 
Alexandrian Gnostics, whose teaching was 
mainly influenced by the Platonic philosophy, 
and Syrian strongly affected by Parsism. In 
the former the emanation doctrine was pre- 
dominant, in the latter dualism. Undoubted- 
ly the most satisfactory classification would 


396 GNOSTICISM 


be if it were possible, as Matter suggested, to 
have one founded on the history of the genera- 
tion of the sects, distinguishing the school 
where Gnosticism had its beginning, and 
naming the schools which successively in | 
different places altered in different directions 
the originalscheme. But a good classification 
of this kind is rendered impossible by the 
scantiness of our materials for the history of 
Gnosticism. Irenaeus is the first to give any 
full details, and he may be counted two 
generations later than Valentinus; for Mar- 
cus, the disciple of Valentinus, was resisted by 
one whom Irenaeus looked up to with respect 
as belonging to the generation above his own. 
The interval between Valentinus and the 
beginning of Gnosticism was, moreover, prob- 
ably quite as great as that between Valen- 
tinus and Irenaeus. The phrase used by 
Hippolytus in telling us that the Naassenes 
boasted that they alone ‘‘ knew the depths ”’ 
was also a watchword of the false teachers 
reprobated in the Apocalypse (Rev. ii. 24). 
We can hardly avoid the inference that these 
Naassenes inherited a phrase continuously in 
use among heretical teachers since before the 
publication of the Revelation. Of the writers 
who would deny the pastoral epistles to be | 
St. Paul’s, a large proportion date the Revela- | 
tion only 2 or 3 years after St. Paul’s death; 
therefore, whether or not it was St. Paul who 
wrote of the ‘‘ falsely called knowledge,”’ it 
remains probable that heretical pretenders to 
Gnosis had arisen in his lifetime. If the 
beginnings of Gnosticism were thus in apos- 
tolic times, we need not be surprised that the 
notices of its origin given by Irenaeus more 
than a century afterwards are soscanty; and 
that the teachers to whom its origin has been 
ascribed, Simon, Menander, Nicolas, Cerin- 
thus, remain shadowy or legendary characters. 
It follows that conclusions as to the order of 
succession of the early Gnostic sects and their 
obligations one to another are very insecure. | 
Still, some general facts in the history of the| 
evolution of Gnosticism may be considered | 
fairly certain; and we are disposed to accept 
the classification of Lipsius and count three) 
stages in the progress of Gnosticism, even | 
though there may be doubt to what place a | 
particular sect is to be assigned. The birtbh- | 
place of Gnosticism may be said to be Syria, 
if we include in that Palestine and Samaria, 
where church tradition places the activity of | 
those whom it regards as its founders, Simon | 
and Menander. It may also be inferred from | | 
the use made of O.T. and of Hebrew words | 
that Gnosticism sprang out of Judaism. The| 
false teaching combated in Colossians, which | 
has several Gnostic features, is also distinctly 
Jewish, insisting on the observance of sabbaths 
and new moons. The Epp. to Timothy and 
Titus, dealing with a somewhat later develop- | 
ment of Gnosticism, describe the false teachers 

as “οὗ the circumcision,” ‘‘ professing to be 

teachers of the law”? and propounders of | 

“* Jewish fables.”’ It is not unlikely that what | 

these epistles characterize as “‘ profane and | 
old wives’ fables’? may be some of the Jewish 

Haggadah of which the early stages of Gnos- 

ticism are full. The story of Ialdabaoth, e.g., 

told by Irenaeus (i. 30), we hold to date from | 
the very beginning of Gnosticism, if not in its 


GNOSTICISM 


present shape, at least in some rudimentary 
form, as fragments of it appear in different 
Gnostic systems, especially the representation 
of the work of Creation as performed by an 
inferior being, who still fully believed him- 
self to be the Supreme, saying, “1 am God, 
and there is none beside me,”’ until, after this 
boast, his ignorance was enlightened. The 
Jewish Cabbala has been asserted to be the 
parent of Gnosticism; but the records of 
Cabbalistic doctrine are quite modern, and 
any attempt to pick out the really ancient 
parts must be attended with uncertainty. 
Lipsius (p. 270, and Gratz, referred to by him) 
shews that the Cabbala is certainly not older 
than Gnosticism, its relation to it being not 
that of a parent, but of a younger brother. 
If there be direct obligation, the Cabbala is the 
borrower, but many common features are to 


| be explained by regarding both as branches 


from the same root, and as alike springing from 
the contact of Judaism with the religious 
beliefs of the farther East. Jewish Essenism 
especially furnished a soil favourable to the 
growth of Gnosticism, with which it seems to 
have had in common the doctrine of the 


| essential evil of matter, as appears from the 


denial by the Essenes of the resurrection of 
the body and from their inculcation of a 
disciplining of man’s material part by very 
severe asceticism. (See Lightfoot, Colossians, 
119 seq.) Further, the Ebionite sects which 
sprang out of Essenism, while they professed 
the strongest attachment to the Mosaic law, 
not only rejected the authority of the pro- 
phetical writings, but dealt in a very arbitrary 
manner with those parts of the Pentateuch 
which conflicted with their peculiar doctrines. 
We have parallels to this in theories of some 
of the early Gnostic sects which referred the 
Jewish prophetical books to the inspiration of 
beings inferior to Him by Whom the law was 
given, as well as in the arbitrary modes of 
criticism applied by some of the later sects to 
the books of Scripture. A form of Gnosticism 
thus developed from Judaism when the latter 
was brought into contact with the mystic 
| speculations of the East, whether we suppose 


| Essenism to have been a stage in the process 


of growth or both to have been independent 
growths under similar circumstances of 
development. Lipsius notes as the char- 
acteristics of those sects which he counts as 
belonging to the first stage of Gnosticism that 
| they still move almost or altogether within the 
circle of the Jewish religious history, and that 
the chief problem they set themselves is the 


defining the relation between Christianity and 


| Judaism. The solutions at which they arrive 
are very various. Those Jewish sects whose 
Essenism passed into the Ebionitism of the 
Clementines regarded Christianity as essen- 
tially identical with Judaism, either religion - 
being sufficient for salvation. These sects are 
quite orthodox as to the Creation, their utmost 
deviation (if it can be called 50) from the 
received belief being the ascription of Creation 
to the immanent wisdom of God. Other 
Jewish speculators came to think of the form- 
ation of matter as accomplished by a sub- 
ordinate being, carrying out, it may be, the 
will of the Supreme, but owing to his finiteness 
and ignorance doing the work with many 


GNOSTICISM 


imperfections. Then came the theory that 


GNOSTICISM 397 


| system of Valentinus, the Pythagorean Pla- 


this subordinate being was the God of the) tonic philosophy predominates, the Stoic in 


Jews, to which nation he had issued many 
commandments that were not good, though 
overruled by the Supreme so as to carry out 
His ends. Lastly came the theory of the 
Cainites and other extreme Ophite sects, which 
represented the God of the Jews as the deter- 
mined enemy of the Supreme, and as one 
whose commands it was the duty of every 
enlightened Gnostic to disobey. With all their 
variety of results, these sects agreed in the 
importance attached to the problem of the 
true relations of Judaism to Christianity. 
They do make use of certain heathen prin- 
ciples of cosmogony, but these such as already 
had become familiar to Syriac Judaism, and 
introduced not so much to effect a reconcilia- 
tion between Christianity and heathenism as 
to give an explanation of the service rendered 
to the world by the publication of Christianity, 
the absolute religion. This is made mainly 
to consist in the aid given to the soul in its 
struggles to escape the bonds of finiteness and 
darkness, by making known to it the super- 
sensual world and awaking it to the conscious- 
ness of its spiritual origin. Regarding this 
knowledge as the common privilege of Chris- 
tians, the first speculators would count their 
own possession of it as differing rather in 
degree than in kind; and so it is not easy to 
draw a sharp line of distinction between their 
doctrine on the subject of Gnosis and that 
admitted as orthodox. Our Lord had de- 
scribed it as the privilege of His disciples to 
know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven ; 
later when His followers learned of a suffering 
Messiah, and of the fulfilment in Jesus of the 
types of the Mosaic law, they felt that the veil 
had been removed for them, and that they 
enjoyed a knowledge of the meaning of the 
O.T. Scriptures to which their unconverted 
brethren were strangers. This feeling per- 
vades the Ep. to the Hebrews, and still more 
that of Barnabas. Another doctrine which 
St. Paul describes as a mystery formerly kept 
secret, but now revealed through his gospel, is 
the admission of the Gentiles on equal terms 
with the Jews to the inheritance of the king- 
dom of Christ. It was no part of orthodox 
Christian doctrine that all Christians possessed 
the true Gnosis in equal degree. Some re- 
quired to be fed with milk, not with strong 
meat, and had not their senses exercised by 
reason of use to discern between good and 
evil. Clement of Alexandria distinguished 
between faith and knowledge. The difference, 
therefore, between the Gnostic doctrine and 
that of the church mainly depends on the 
character of what was accounted knowledge, 
much of the Gnostic so-called knowledge 
consisting in acquaintance with the names of 
a host of invisible beings and with the for- 
mulae which could gain their favour. 
Gnosticism, in its first stage, did not 
proceed far outside the limits of Syria. What 
Lipsius counts as the second stage dates from 
the migration of Gnostic systems to Alex- 
andria, where the myths of Syriac Gnosis came 
to be united to principles of Grecian philo- 
sophy. Different Gnostic systems resulted 
according as the principles of this or that 
Grecian school were adopted. Thus, in the 


that of the Basilidians as presented by Hip- 
polytus. In these systems, tinged with 
Hellenism, the Jewish religion is not so much 
controverted or disparaged as ignored. The 
mythological personages among whom in the 
older Gnosis the work of creation was distri- 
buted are in these Hellenic systems replaced 
by a kind of abstract beings (of whom the 
Valentinian aeons are an example) which 
personify the different stages of the process 
by which the One Infinite Spirit communicates 
and reveals itself to derived existences. The 
distinction between faith and knowledge 
becomes sharpened, the persons to whom 
faith and knowledge respectively are to serve 
as guides being represented as essentially 
different in nature. The most obvious divi- 
sion of men is into a kingdom of light and a 
kingdom of darkness. The need of a third 
class may have first made itself felt from the 
necessity of finding a place for members of the 
Jewish religion, who stood so far above 
heathenism, so far below Christianity. The 
Platonic trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit 
afforded a principle of threefold classification, 
and men are divided into earthly (ὑλικοί or 
χοϊκοί), animal {ψυχικοί), and spiritual (wyev- 
ματικοί). In these Hellenic Gnostic systems 
the second class represents not Jews but 
ordinary Christians, and the distinction be- 
tween them and the Gnostics themselves (who 
are the spiritual) rests on an assumed differ- 
ence of nature which leaves little room for 
human free will. Salvation by faith and 
corresponding works is disparaged as suitable 
only for the psychical, the better sort of whom 
may, by this means, be brought to as high a 
position in the order of the universe as their 
nature is capable of; but the really spiritual 
need not these lower methods of salvation. It 
suffices for them to have the knowledge of 
their true nature revealed for them to become 
certain of shaking off all imprisoning bonds 
and soaring to the highest region of all. Thus 
ordinary historical Christianity runs the risk 
of meeting the same fate in the later Gnostic 
systems that befell Judaism in the earlier. The 
doctrines and facts of the religion are only 
valued so far as they can be made subservient 
to the peculiar notions of Gnosticism; and 
the method of allegorical interpretation was 
so freely applied to both Testaments that all 
the solid parts of the religion were in danger 
of being volatilized away. 

The natural consequence of this weakening 
of the historic side of Christianity was the 
removal of all sufficient barrier against the 
intrusion of heathen elements into the sys- 
tems; while their moral teaching was in- 
juriously affected by the doctrine that the 
spiritual were secure of salvation by necessity 
of their nature and irrespectively of their 
conduct. Gnosticism, in its third stage, 
struggles in various ways to avoid these faults, 
and so again draws nearer to the teaching 
of the Catholic church. Thus the Docetar 
of Hippolytus allow of immense variety of 
classes, corresponding to the diversity of 
ideas derived from the world of aeons, which 
each has received; while again they deny to 
none a share in our Lord's redemption, but 


398 GNOSTICISM 


own that members of different sects are en- 
titled, each in his degree, to claim kinship with 
Jesus and to obtain forgiveness of sins through 
Him. So again in one of the latest of the 
Gnostic systems, that of Pistis Sopra, there 
is no assertion of an essential diversity of 
nature among men, but the immense develop- 
ment of ranks and degrees in the spiritual 
world, which that work professes to reveal, is 
used so as to provide for every man a place 
according to his works. In the system of 
Marcion, too, the theory of essentially different 
classes is abandoned; the great boast of 
Christianity is its universality; and the 
redemption of the Gospel is represented, not 
as the mere rousing of the pneumatic soul to 
consciousness Of privileges all along possessed, 
but as the introduction of a real principle of 
moral life through the revelation of a God of 
love forgiving sins through Christ. 

We add brief notes on a few main points 
of the Gnostic systems. 

Creation and Cosmogony.—Philo (de Op. 
Mund.) had inferred from the expression, ‘‘ Let 
us make man,” of Genesis that God had used 
other beings as assistants in the creation of 
man, and he explains in this way why man is 
capable of vice as well as virtue, ascribing the 
origin of the latter to God, of the former to 
His helpers in the work of creation. The 
earliest Gnostic sects ascribe the work of 
creation to angels, some of them using the 
same passage in Genesis (Justin. Dial. cum 
Tryph. c. 67). 

Doctrine with respect to Judaism.—The doc- 
trine that the Creator of the world is not the 
supreme God leads at once to the question, 
What then is to be thought of the God of the 
Jews, who certainly claimed to have created 
the world? This question is most distinctly 
answered in the doctrine of the Ophite system 
(Iren. i. 30). According to it he who claimed 
to be a jealous God, acknowledging none other, 
was led by sheer ignorance to make a false 
pretension. He was in truth none other than 
the chief of the creative angels, holding but a 
subordinate place in the constitution of the 
universe. It was he who forbad to Adam and 
Eve that knowledge by which they might be 
informed that he had superiors, and who on 
their disobedience cast them out of Paradise. 

Doctrine concerning the Nature of Man.— 
With the myth, told by Saturninus, of the 
animation of a previously lifeless man by a 
spark of light from above, he connected the 
doctrine, in which he was followed by almost 
all Gnostic sects, that there would be no 
resurrection of the body, the spark of light 
being taken back on death to the place whence 
it had come, and man’s material part being 
resolved into its elements. Saturninus is said 
to have taught the doctrine, antagonistic to 
that of man’s free will, that there were classes 
of men by nature essentially different, and of 
these he counted two—the good and the 
wicked. The doctrine became common to 
many Gnostic systems that the human frame 
contained a heavenly element struggling to 
return to its native place. 

Redemption and Christology.—The Gnostic 
systems generally represent man’s spirit as 
imprisoned in matter, and needing release. 
The majority recognize the coming of Christ 


GORDIANUS 


as a turning-point in human affairs, but almost 
all reduce the Redeemer’s work to the impar- 
tation of knowledge and the disclosure of 
mysteries. With regard to the nature of 
Christ, the lowest view is held by Justinus, 
who describes Jesus but as a shepherd boy 
commissioned by an angel to be the bearer of 
a divine revelation, and who attributes to Him 
at no time any higher character. Carpo- 
crates makes Jesus a man like others, only of 
more than ordinary steadfastness and purity 
of soul, possessing no prerogatives which other 
men may not attain in the same or even higher 
degree if they follow, or surpass, His example. 
Besides furnishing an example, He was also 
supposed to have made arevelation of truth, 
to secret traditions of which the followers of 
Carpocrates appealed. At the opposite pole 
from those who see in the Saviour a mere man 
are those who deny His humanity altogether. 
We know from St. John’s epistle that the 
doctrine that our Lord had not really come in 
the flesh was one which at an early time 
troubled the church. 

Authorities.—The great work of Irenaeus 
against heresies is the chief storehouse whence 
writers, both ancient and modern, have drawn 
their accounts of the Gnostic sects. It was 
primarily directed against the then most 
popular form of the heresy of Valentinus, and 
hence this form of Gnosticism has thrown all 
others intothe shade, andmany modern writers 
when professing to describe Gnosticism really 
describe Valentinianism. Irenaeus was largely 
copied by Tertullian, who, however, was an 
independent authority on Marcionism; by 
Hippolytus, who in his work against heresies 
adds, however, large extracts from his in- 
dependent reading of Gnostic works; and by 
Epiphanius, who also gives a few valuable 
additions from other sources. The Stromateis 
of Clement of Alexandria, though provokingly 
desultory and unsystematic, furnish much 
valuable information about Gnosticism, which 
was still a living foe of the church. The 
writings of Origen also yield much important 
information. The matter, not borrowed from 
Irenaeus, to be gleaned from later heresiolo- 
gists is scanty and of doubtful value. 

Modern works which have made valuable 
contributions to the knowledge of Gnosticism 
include Neander, Genetische Entwickelung 
(1818), and Church Hist. vol. ii. (1825 and 2nd 
ed. 1843, trans. in Clarke’s series); Burton, 
Bampton Lectures (1829); Baur, Christliche 
Gnosis (1835); Die christliche Kirche der dret 
ersten J ahrhunderte (1853, 2nd ed. 1860); and 
Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies (1875).  ([G.S.] 

Gordianus (7), father of pope Gregory the 
Great, was a noble Roman of senatorial rank, 
and descended from a pope Felix (Joann. 
Diac. in Vit. S. Gregorit; Greg. Dialog. 1. 4, 
c. 16). John the Deacon says that Felix IV. | 
(acc. 523) was his ancestor; but this pope 
being described as a Samnite, whereas Gregory 
is always spoken of as of Roman descent, 
Felix III. (acc. 467) is more probable. A 
large property accrued to Gregory on his 
father’s death. Gordianus is described as a 
religious man, and thus contributing to the 
eminently religious training of his son, though 
not canonized after death, as were his wife 
Silvia, and his two sisters, Tarsilla and 


GRATIANUS 


Aemiliana. John the deacon (op. cit. 1. 4, 
c. 83) describes two pictures of him and his 
wife Silvia remaining to the writer’s time (gth 
cent.) in the Atrium of St. Andrew's monas- 
tery, where they had been placed by St. 
Gregory himself, the founder of the monastery. 
Gordianus is represented as standing before a 
seated figure of St. Peter (who holds his right 
hand) and as clothed in a chestnut-coloured 
planeta over a dalmatic, and with caligae on 
his feet. Gordianus is designated ‘* Region- 
arius,’’ from which, as well as from his dress, 
Baronius supposes that he was one of the 
seven cardinal deacons of Rome, it having 
been not uncommon, he says, for married men, 
with the consent of their wives, to embrace 
clerical or monastic life. As to the dress, he 
adduces two of St. Gregory’s epistles (Ep. 113, 
]. i. ind. 2, and Ep. 28, 1. 7, ind. 1) to shew that 
the dalmatic and caligae were then part of the 
costume of Roman deacons. But the meaning 
of the title ‘‘regionarius’’ is uncertain. It 
occurs in St. Gregory’s Ep. 5, 1. 7, ind. 1, in 
Ep. 2 of pope Honorius I. (regionarius nostrae 
sedis) ; in Aimoinus, de Gestis Francorum, pt. 
2, p- 247 (regionarius primae sedis) ; in Vit. 
Ludovict Pit, ann. 835 (regionarius Romanae 
urbis); and in Anastasius, On Constantine 
(Theophanes regionarius). In two of these 
instances, those from Honorius and Aimoinus, 
the persons so designated are expressly said to 
be subdeacons. It seems to have denoted an 
office connected with the city of Rome and 
the apostolic see, but certainly not one con- 
fined to deacons. As to the dress, it is merely 
originally ordinary lay costume, the planeta, 
rather than the casula, having been worn by 
persons of rank. St. Gregory himself, in his 
portrait in the same monastery described by 
John the deacon, wears precisely the same 
dress, even to the colour of the planeta, only 
having the pallium over it, to mark his 
ecclesiastical rank. [J-B—Y.] 

Gratianus (5) (Flavius Gratianus Augustus), 
emperor 375-383, son of Valentinian, was 
born at Sirmium in 359, while his father 
was still an officer in the army. When 
Valentinian was chosen emperor by the 
soldiers in 364, Gratian was not five years old. 
On Aug. 24, 367, Valentinian, at Amiens, 
declared him ‘‘ Augustus.” 

When Valentinian died in 375, the infant 
child of his second wife Justina (Valentinian 
11.) was proclaimed Augustus by his principal 
officers (Amm. xxx. 10), in reliance upon the 
youth and good nature of Gratian, who was at 
Treves, and who recognized his young brother 
almost immediately. Justina fixed her court 
at Sirmium; and the Western empire was 
ie nominally divided between the two 

rothers, Gratian having Gaul, Spain, and 
Britain, and Valentinian, Italy, Illyricum, and 
Africa (Zos. iv. 19). But this division must 
have been simply nominal, as Gratian con- 
stantly acted in the latter provinces (see 


Tillem. Emp. v. p. 140, and cf. the laws quoted | 


infra). For the first years of his reign, till 
the death of his uncle Valens, Gratian resided 
chiefly at Tréves, whence most of his laws 
are dated. His first acts were to punish with 
death some of the prominent instruments of the 
cruelties committed in the name of justice and 
discipline, which had disgraced his father’s 


| finem). 


GRATIANUS 399 


later years, especially the hated Maximinus. 
Another act, doubtless at the beginning of 
his reign, shewed his determination to break 
with paganism more effectually than his pre- 
decessors had done. This was his refusal of 
the robe of pontifex maximus, when it was 
brought to him according to custom by the 
pontifices ; thinking (as the heathen historian 
tells us) that it was unlawful for a Christian 
(Zos. iv. 36). The title appears indeed to some 
extent on coins and inscriptions, but it is not 
easy to fix their date. 

The Eastern empire was, meanwhile, in 
the hands of the incompetent Valens, in great 
danger from Goths. In 378 the Alamanni 
Lentienses passed the Rhine in great force and 
threatened the Western empire, but were 
heavily defeated by Gratian at Argentaria, 
near Colmar (Amm. xxxi. 10). This set him 
free to move towards the East; and at 
Sirmium he heard of the defeat of his uncle 
at Adrianople, Aug. 7, and of his ignoble death 
(1b. 11,6; 12,10). Thesituation was extremely 
critical for an emperor not 20 years of age. The 
barbarians were in motion on all the frontiers. 
The internal condition of the West was in- 
secure, from the tacit antagonism between the 
two courts, and the East was now suddenly 
thrown upon his hands, as Valens had left no 
children. Gratian shewed his judgment by 
sending for the younger Theodosius, son of the 
late count Theodosius and about 13 years 
older than himself, who after his father's 
execution was living in retirement upon his 
estates in Spain (Victor, Ep. 72, 74, etc. ; 
cf. Themist. Orat. 14, p. 183 a). Theodosius, 
loyal and fearless like his father, was at once 
entrusted with command of the troops as 
magister militum. His successes over the 
barbarians (probably Sarmatians) encouraged 
Gratian to appoint him emperor of the East 
with general applause (Theod. v. 5, 6). 

Gratian returned from Sirmium by way of 
Aquileia and Milan, at which places he passed 
some parts of July and Aug. 379. He had 
previously been brought into contact with 
St. Ambrose, and had received from him the 
two first books of his treatise de Fide, intended 
specially to preserve him against Arianism. 
This teaching had its due effect ; and he now 
addressed a letter to the bp. of Milan (see 
infra). St. Ambrose sent him two more 
books of his treatise, and probably had per- 
sonal intercourse with him. Gratian then 
went on to his usual residence at Treves, but 
during the following years resided much more 
frequently at and near Milan, espec ially in 
winter; his intercourse with St. Ambrose 
resulting in his confirmation in the Catholic 
faith. There was, however, another side to 
this practical neglect of the Gallic provinces. 
The Western provincials—never very con- 
tented—felt the absence of the imperial court. 
If Gratian had continued to reside at Treves, 
the rebellion of Magnus Maximus might never 
have taken place, and certainly would not 
have grown so formidable. : 

The influence of St. Ambrose is shewn by 
the ecclesiastical laws (see tm/ra), and in 
the removal of the altar of Victory from the 
senate-house at Rome in Α.Ὁ. 381 (St. Ambr. 
Ep. 17, 5; Symm. Ep. 61, ad init. et ad 
The heathen senators, though in the 


400 GRATIANUS 


minority, were accustomed to offer incense on 
this altar, and to touch it in taking solemn 
oaths (Ambr. Ep. 17,9). It had been removed 
or covered up during the visit of Constantius, 
but was again restored under Julian, and 
Valentinian’s policy had been against inter- 
ference with such matters (Symm. l.c.). Its 
removal now caused great distress to the 
heathen party, who met in the senate-house 
and petitioned Gratian for its restoration. 
But the Christians, who had absented them- 
selves from the curia, met privately, and sent 
a counter-petition through pope Damasus to 
Ambrose, who presented it to the emperor 
(Ambr. l.c.). The weight of this document 
enabled the advisers of Gratian to prevent his 
giving the heathen party a hearing. This blow 
was soon followed by another even more telling 
—the confiscation of the revenues of the temple 
of Victory, and the abolition of the privileges 


of the pontiffs and vestals, a measure ex- | 


tended to other heathen institutions (7b. 3-5; 
18, τι f.; Cod. Theod. xv. 10, 20). 

These laws were followed by a famine in 
Italy, especially in Rome, which the pagans 
naturally ascribed to sacrilege (Symm. /.c.). 

A much more serious danger was the revolt 
of Magnus Maximus, a former comrade of 
Theodosius in Britain, who was probably 
jealous of his honours, and was now put for- 
ward as emperor by thesoldiers. [Maximus (2).] 
This rising took place a.p. 383 in Britain, 
whence the usurper passed over to the mouth 
of the Rhine, gathering large bodies of men as 
he went. Gratian set out to meet him, with 
his two generals Balio and Merobaudes, the 
latter a Frank by birth. The two armies 
met near Paris, and Gratian was deserted by 
nearly all his troops (Zos. iv. 35 ; Ambr. in 
Ps. 61,17). Only 300 horse remained faithful. 
With these he fled at fullspeed to Lyons. The 
governor received him with protestations of 
loyalty, and took asolemn oath on the Gospels 
not to hurt him. Gratian, deceived by his 
assurances, took his place in his imperial robes 
at a feast, during or soon after which he was 
basely assassinated (Aug. 25) at the age of 24, 
leaving no children. The traitor even denied 
his body burial (Ambr. l.c., and 23 f.; Marcell. 
sub anno). 

Gratian was amiable and modest—in fact, 
too modest to be a good governor in these 
rough times. He was generous and kind- 
hearted, of an attractive disposition and 
beautiful person. His tutor Ausonius had 
taken pains to inspire him with tastes for 
rhetoric and versification. He was chaste and 
temperate, careful in religious conduct, and 
zealous for the faith. His great fault was a 
neglect of public business through devotion 
to sport, especially to shooting wild beasts 
with bow and arrows in his parks and preserves 
(Amm. l.c.; Victor, Ep. 73). He once killed 
a lion with a single arrow (Aus. Epig. 6) ; and 
St. Ambrose alludes to his prowess in the 
chase, adopting the language of David’s elegy 
over Jonathan—‘‘ Gratiani sagitta non est 
reversa retro”’ (de Obitu Valent. 73; cf. the 
old Latin of 11. Sam. i. 22). 

The ecclesiastical policy of Gratian was 
more important than his civil or military 
government. His reign, coinciding with that 
of Theodosius, saw orthodox Christianity for 


GRATIANUS 


the first time dominant throughout the 
empire. His measures in behalf of the church 
were often tainted with injustice towards the 
sects. But it is probable that the laws were 
very imperfectly carried out (see Richter, p. 
327). His first general law against heretical 
sects is dated from Tréves, May 1, 376, and 
| speaks of a previous law of the same kind (Cod. 
Theod. xvi. 5, 4), which may, however, be one 
of Valens (and Valentinian). 
In 377, shortly before the death of Valens, 
'he condemned rebaptism, and ordered the 
| Donatist churches to be restored to the 
'Catholics and their private meeting-houses 
|confiscated (Cod. Theod. xvi. 6, 2). The 
| death of Valens was naturally the signal for 
the disciple of St. Ambrose to restore the 
Catholics of the East to their possessions. He 
recalled all those whom his uncle had ban- 
/ished, and further issued an edict of toleration 
for all Christian sects, except the Eunomians 
(extreme Arians, see Soz. vi. 26), Photinians, 
and Manicheans (Socr. v. 2; Soz. vii. 1). 
| Theodoret (v. 2) appears to confuse this with 
|the later edict of Gratian and Theodosius. 
|On the strong representations of Idacius of 
Merida, the Priscillianists, an enthusiastic sect 
of Gnostics numerous in Spain (Sulpicius 
| Severus, Chron. ii. 47, 6), were also excepted. 
On his return from Sirmium, Gratian wrote 
| the following affectionate and interesting auto- 
graph (Ambr. Ep. 1, 3) letter to St. Ambrose: 
|‘ T desire much to enjoy the bodily presence 
| of him whose recollection I carry with me, and 
| with whom I am present in spirit. Therefore, 
| hasten to me, religious priest of God, to teach 
me the doctrine of the true faith. Not that 
[1 am anxious for argument, or wish to know 
| God in words rather than in spirit; but that 
/my heart may be opened more fully to receive 
'the abiding revelation of the divinity. For 
| He will teach me, Whom I do not deny, Whom 
|I confess to be my God and my Lord, not 
raising as an objection against His divinity 
‘that He took upon Himself a created nature 
|like my own [non ei obiciens, quam in me 
| video, creaturam]. I confess that I can add 
nothing to the glory of Christ; but I should 
| wish to commend myself to the Father in 
| glorifying the Son. I will not fear a grudging 
| spirit on the part of God. I shall not suppose 
/myself such an encomiast as to increase His 
| divinity by my praises. In my weakness and 
frailty I utter what I can, not what is adequate 
to His divinity. I desire you to send me a 
copy of the same treatise, which you sent 
before [de Fide, i. ii.], enlarging it by a faithful 
| dissertation on the Holy Spirit: prove that 
He is God by arguments of Scripture and 
‘reason. May the Deity keep you for many 
| years, my father, and worshipper of the 
| eternal God, Jesus Christ, Whom we worship.” 
/St. Ambrose replies, excusing his non-attend- 
ance upon the emperor, praising the expres- 
sions of his faith, and sending two fresh books 
|of his treatise. For the new book, de Spiritu 
Sancto, he asks time, knowing (as he says) 
| what acritic willread them. The subject was 
at this moment being largely discussed in the 
Eastern church. 
It is assumed by De Broglie that the bishop 
and the emperor did not meet at this time, but 
St. Ambrose writes in the letter just quoted, 


GRATIANUS 


§ 7, “ veniam plane et festinabo ut jubes,”’ and 
two laws of Gratian’s are dated from Milan in 
July and Aug. 379 (Cod. Just. vi. 32, 4, July 
29, and Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 5, Aug. 3, to 
Hesperius Pf. Praet. de haereticis), the 
second of which may shew the influence of 
St. Ambrose. It forbids the heresies against 
which former imperial edicts had been di- 
rected, and especially that of rebaptism (the 
Donatists), and revokes the recent tolerant 
edict of Sirmium. 

About this time must be dated the occur- 
rences mentioned by St. Ambrose in de Spiritu 
Sancto, i. §§ 19-21. The empress Justina, an 
Arian, had obtained from Gratian a basilica 
for the worship of her sect, to the great dis- 
tress of the Catholics. He restored it, how- 
ever, apparently of his own motion, to their 
equal surprise and delight, perhaps a.p. 380 
(cf. Richter, n. 30, p. 692; de Spiritu Sancto, 
§ 20, neque enim aliud possumus dicere, nisi 
sancti Spiritus hance priore gratiam, quod 
ignorantibus omnibus subito Basilicam red- 
didisti). St. Ambrose also obtained another 
victory over the Arians in 380 in his journey 
to Sirmium, where Justina apparently also 
went. In spite of her vehement opposition, 
he succeeded in consecrating an orthodox 
bishop to the metropolitan see of Illyria, and 
thus laid the foundation for the suppression 
of heresy in that quarter of the empire (Paul- 
inus, Vita Ambrostt, 11). 

Gratian evidently agreed in the important 
edict issued by his colleague Theodosius on 
Feb. 27, 380, from Thessalonica to the people 
of Constantinople. This remarkable docu- 
ment declared the desire of the emperors that 
all their subjects should profess the religion 
given by St. Peter to the Romans and now 
held by the pontiff Damasus, and Peter, bp. 
of Alexandria—that is to say, should confess 
the one deity and equal majesty of the three 
persons of the Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit ; and further, that they alone 
who hold this faith are to be called Catholics, 
and their places of meeting churches ; while the 
rest are branded as heretics, and are threat- 
ened with an indefinite punishment (Cod. 
Theod. xvi. 1, 2; cf. the law of the next year, 
which mentions various Catholic bishops of 
the East, whose communion was to be the test 
of orthodoxy, including Nectarius of Con- 
stantinople—perhaps the reference to Dam- 
asus had given offence). De Broglie says of 
these laws, ‘‘ It was impossible to abjure more 
decidedly the pretension of dogmatizing from 
the elevation of the throne, which had been 
since Constantine the mania of all the em- 
perors and the scourge of the empire ”’ (vol. v. 
Pp. 365). But correct dogmatism is still 
dogmatism, and the definition of truth by 
good emperors kept up the delusion that the 
Tight of perpetual interference with religion 
was inherent in their office. 

In May 383, at Padua, Gratian issued a penal 
law against apostates, and those who try to 
make others apostatize from Christianity. 

In 381 hesummoned the council of Aquileia 
(which met on Sept. 5) to decide the cases 
of the Illyrian bishops Palladius and Secun- 
dianus, who were accused of Arianism. Their 
condemnation put an end to the official 
life of Arianism in that important district 


GREGORIUS 


(Ambr. Ep. 9). The records of this council 
are preserved by St. Ambrose, (following his 
8th epistle in the Benedictine ed.), who took 
the chief part in it, though he did not 
technically preside. The same council took up 
the case of pope Damasus and besought the 
emperor to interfere against the partisans of 
the antipope Ursinus (ἐδ. rr). The relations 
of Gratian with the see of Rome are somewhat 
obscure, but some extension of its privileges 
and pretensions dates from this reign. Ac- 
cording to the documents first published by 
Sirmond, a synod held in Rome soon after 
Gratian’s accession made large demands for 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction and _ particularly 
asked that the bp. of Rome should only 
be judged by a council of bishops or by the 
emperor in person. Gratian in his rescript 
to Aquilinus the vicar (of Rome?) grants and 
confirms several privileges, but says nothing 
of the latter request. Some doubt hangs over 
the whole of these documents. (See Godefroy, 
Cod. Theod. vol. vi. appendix, pp. 17, 18; 
Baron. Annals, sub anno 381, §§ 1, 2; Tillem. 
Damase, arts. τὸ and 11. Greenwood, Cathe- 
dra Petri, vol. i. pp. 239-242; Hefele, Councils, 
§ 91, does not even hint at their existence.) 

In consequence of the success of the council 
of Aquileia St. Ambrose was anxious to call 
together an oecumenical assembly at Rome to 
settle the dispute between Nectarius and 
Maximus, who both claimed the see of Con- 
stantinople, and pressed the emperor Theo- 
dosius on the point (Epp. 13 and 14), who, 
however, naturally viewed this interference 
with coldness (Theod. v. 8, 9). A council, 
nevertheless, met at Rome, but without doing 
much beyond condemning the Apollinarians. 

Returning to Milan, St. Ambrose took leave 
of the young emperor for the last time. Their 
intercourse had always been tender and 
affectionate, and was the last thought of the 
emperor before his death. 

We may here mention an instance of their 
relations, which may have been at this or at 
any other period of their friendship (de 
Broglie, to make a point, puts it here, vol. vi. 
p- 45, but neither Paulinus, § 37, nor Sozomen, 
vii. 25, gives any hint of date). A heathen of 
quality was condemned to death for abusing 
Gratian and calling him an unworthy son of 
Valentinian. As he was being led to execu- 
tion, Ambrose hurried to the palace to inter- 
cede for him. One Macedonius, master of the 
offices, it would seem, ordered the servants to 
refuse him admittance, as Gratian was engaged 
in his favourite sport. Ambrose went round 
to the park gates, entered unperceived by the 
huntsmen, and never left Gratian till he had 
overcome his arguments and those of his 
courtiers and obtained remission of the sen- 
tence. ‘‘ The time will come,"’ he said to 
Macedonius, ‘‘ when you will fly for asylum to 
the church, but the church doors will be shut 
against νου." The anecdote of the criminal is 
told by Sozomen, I.c.; the words to Mace- 


401 


donius are given by Paulinus, ws. [}.5.} 
Gregorius (3), surnamed Thaumaturgus, 
bp. of Neocaesarea in Pontus, ¢. 233-270; 


born c. 210 at Neocaesarea on the Lycus, the 
modern Niksar; the son of wealthy and noble 
heathen parents. Christianity had as yet 
made little progress in that neighbourhood, 


26 


402 GREGORIUS 


there being only 17 Christians in the whole 
region (Greg. Nys. Vita Thaum.; Migne, Patr. 
Gk. xlvi. 954). The extraordinary success of 
the episcopal labours of the young missionary 
and the romantic details with which later 
hands embellished them secured for him the 
well-known title of Thaumaturgus. This re- 
pute cannot be set down as exclusively due to 
the credulousness of the age, for as Lardner 
(Cred. ii. 42, § 5) remarked, besides Gregory of 
Nyssa, such writers as Basil, Jerome, and 
Theodoret distinguished him, as above others, 
‘a man of apostolic signs and wonders ’’ (cf. 
Dr. J. H. Newman, Essays on Miracles, p. 
263). No light is thrown upon his thauma- 
turgic renown by his extant writings, which 
are conspicuous for their philosophic tone, 
humility, self-distrust, and practical sense. 
He must have been a man of singular force of 
character and weighty judgment. Heretics 
claimed the sanction of his name for their 
speculations, thus indirectly revealing the 
confidence in which he was held by all parties. 

Gregory (originally Theodorus) stated that 
his father died and he himself passed through 
a remarkable spiritual crisis in his 14th year. 
He attributed the change of sentiment to “‘ the 
Divine Logos, the Angel of the counsel of God, 
and the common Saviour of all.’’ He left it, 
however, doubtful in what precisely the change 
consisted. His mother having suggested the 
pursuit of rhetoric, he was advised to study 
specially Roman law and become an alumnus 
of the celebrated school of jurisprudence at 
Berytus in Syria. His sister needed an escort 
to Palestine to join her husband in his high 
position under the Roman governor at 
Caesarea. The young Gregory and his brother 
Athenodorus took this opportunity to travel. 
“My guardian angel”? (says he) ‘‘on our 
arrival at Caesarea handed us over to the care 
and tuition of Origen,’’ and the brothers, 
abandoning their journey, remained there 
under the personal spell of the teacher for five 
years. The mental processes by which Gregory 
was led to Christ throw considerable light on 
the mind of Origen and the methods of Chris- 
tian education in the 3rd cent. These details 
are preserved in a panegyric on Origen, which 
before leaving Caesarea the young student 
pronounced to a great assembly in the presence 
of his master. They differ in several particu- 
lars from the account of Gregory of Nyssa 
(Greg. Nys. Vita Thaum. ; Migne, Patr. GR. 
vol. xlvi. pp. 893-958). According to Gre- 
gory’s own statements (Orat. de Orig. c. vi.), 
Origen enticed his pupils first to the study of 
philosophy, which he recommended as a duty 
to the Lord of all, ‘‘ since man alone of all 
creatures is deemed by his Creator as worthy 
to pursue 11. ‘‘ A thoughtful man, if pious, 
must philosophize,” says he, so ‘‘ at length, 
like some spark lighting on our soul, love was 
_ kindled and burst into flame within us, a love 
to the Holy Logos, the most lovely object of 
all, Who attracts all to Himself by His unutter- 
able beauty.” ‘‘ Only one object seemed 
worthy of pursuit, philosophy and the master 
of philosophy, this divine (θεῖος) man.” His 
love to Origen was like that of Jonathan for 
David. Gregory praises Origen for his 
Socratic discipline, and for the way in which 
his teacher probed his inmost soul with 


GREGORIUS 


questions, pruned his native wildness and 
repressed his exuberance. He was taught to 
interrogate his consciousness, and critically 
to investigate reasonings and the meanings of 
words. Origen accustomed his pupils first to 
the dialectic method of inquiry, and then, in 
Aristotelian fashion, fed them to contemplate 
the ‘‘ magnitude, the wondrousness, the mag- 
nificent, and absolutely wise construction of 
the world.’’? He seems to have followed 
(strangely enough) the order of the sciences 
in Comte’s classification of the branches of 
human knowledge. Thus, he began with 
“the immutable foundation of all, geometry, 
and then’”’ (says Gregory) ‘‘ by astronomy he 
lifted us up to the things highest above us.” 
He reduced things to their “ pristine ele- 
ments,” ‘‘ going over the nature of the whole 
and of each several section,’”’ “‘ he filled our 
minds with a rational, instead of an irrational, 
wonder at the sacred oeconomy of the universe 
and the irreprovable constitution of all 
things.’”’ These words and much more that 
might be quoted from the Panegyric are a 
strange comment on the thaumaturgic actions 
freely attributed to Gregory. Morals followed 
physics, and emphasis is laid by Gregory on 
the practical experience by which Origen 
desired his pupils to verify all theories, ‘‘ stim- 
ulating us by the deeds he did more than by 
the doctrines he taught.’ He urged the study 
of Grecian philosophy for the direct culture of 
their moral nature. The end of the entire 
discipline was “nothing but this: By the 
pure mind make thyself like to God, that thou 
mayest draw near to Him and abide in Him.” 
Origen advised Gregory to study all the 
writings of the philosophers and poets of old, 
except the Atheists, and gave reasons for a 
catholic and liberal eclecticism, and, with a 
modern spirit, disclaimed the force of pre- 
judice and the misery of half-truths and of 
fixed ideas, and the advantage of “ selecting 
all that was useful and true in all the various 
philosophers, and putting aside all that was 
false.” Gregory says of his master: ‘‘ That 
leader of all (ἀρχηγὸς πάντων) who speaks in 
undertones (ὑπηχῶν) to God’s dear prophets 
and suggests to them all their prophecy and 
their mystic and divine word, has so honoured 
this man Origen as a friend as to appoint him 
to be their interpreter.’’ Evidently to Gre- 
gory the gift of interpretation was as much a 
divine charisma as prophecy itself. So great 
were the joys thus placed within his reach that 
he adds with rapture, ‘‘He was truly a 
paradise to us, after the similitude of the 
Paradise of God.’’ He regrets his departure 
from Caesarea, as Adam might bewail his 
expulsion from Eden, having to eat of the soil, 
to contend with thorns and thistles, and dwell 
in darkness, weeping and mourning. He says, 
“1 go away of my own will, and not by con- 
straint, and by my own act I am dispossessed, . 
when it is in my option to remain.” 

The influence of Origen’s teaching upon 
Gregory and Athenodorus is confirmed by 
Eusebius (H. E. vi. 30), who adds that “* they 
made such improvement that both, though 
very young, were honoured with the episco- 
pate in the churches of Pontus.” 

Gregory of Nyssa describes Gregory of Neo- 
caesarea as spending much time in Alexandria, 


ek ιν)» ὁ.. 


γι Cap apanads 


GREGORIUS 


and says that before his baptism, while resi- 
dent there, he displayed a high tone of moral 
propriety. A residence in Alexandria may 
have occurred in the five years that Gregory 
and his brother were under the direction of 
Origen. These years were probably inter- 
rupted by the persecution under Maximinus 
Thrax (reigned July 235 to May 238), which 
was aimed especially at the leaders of the 
church. Origen may then have gone into 
retirement and left his pupils at liberty to 
travel into Egypt. If Gregory’s baptism was 
deferred until Origen could return to Caesarea, 
it must have taken place at the close of their 
intercourse after the death of Maximin and 
the accession of Gordian in 238. Reckoning 
backwards the five years, Gregory did not 
reach Caesarea before 233, and probably later; 
and did not leave the *‘ Paradise’’ until 238 
at the earliest, when he pronounced his Pane- 
gyric. This document is of interest from the 
testimony it bears to the doctrine of the 
Trinity and the light it throws upon the faith 
of Gregory. Bp. Bull has laid great emphasis 
upon the passage (Orat. de Origine, cap. iv.) 
in which Gregory offers his praise to the 
Father, and then to ‘‘the Champion and 
Saviour of our souls, His first-born Word, the 
Creator and Governor of all things, . . . being 
the truth, the wisdom, the power of the 
Father Himself of all things, and besides being 
both in Him and absolutely united to Him 
(ἀτεχνῶς ἡνώμενος), the most perfect and 
living and animate word of the primal mind.”’ 
Bp. Bull rightly calls attention to the prae- 
Nicene character of these phrases, which yet 
substantially agree with the deliverance of the 
Nicene Fathers (Def. Nic. Creed, vol. i. p. 331). 
They are of importance in estimating the authen- 
ticity and significance of other documents. 
Immediately on his return to Neocaesarea 
Gregory received a letter from Origen (Philo- 
calia, c. 13), revealing the teacher’s extra- 
ordinary regard for his pupil, whom he de- 
scribes as ‘‘my most excellent lord and 
venerable son.’’ Gregory is exhorted to study 
all philosophies, as a preparation for Christian- 
ity and to aid the interpretation of Holy 
Scripture. He is thus to spoil the Egyptians 
of their fine gold, in order to make vessels for 
the sanctuary, and not idols of his own. He 
is then urged with some passion to study the 
Scriptures, and to seek from God by prayer 
the light he needs (see Ante-Nic. Library, 
Origen’s works, vol. i. 388-390, for a transla- 
tion of this letter). Shortly after his return 
Gregory became bishop of his native city, and 
one of the most celebrated (διαβόητος) bishops 
of the age (Eus. H. E. vi. 30, and vii. 14). 
The curious details of his ordination are 
referred to in Basil’s Menol. Graec. (Nov. 17), 
where it is stated that he was ordained by 
Phaedimus, bp. of Amasea, when the two 
were at a distance from each other. Our only 
guide for the subsequent details of his life is 
Gregory of Nyssa. Some of that writer’s 
most extraordinary statements are in a 
measure vouched for by his brother Basil the 
Great, and by Rufinus in his expansion of the 
history of Eusebius. As the later father tells 
the story, the young and saintly student, on 
reaching home, was entreated by the entire 
population to remain as their magistrate and 


GREGORIUS 


legislator. Like Moses, he took counsel of 
God, and retired into the wilderness, but, 
unlike Moses, he married no wife, and had 
virtue only for his spouse. Then we are told 
that Phaedimus, bp. of Amasea, sought to 
consecrate him by guile, but failed, and 
adopted the expedient of electing and ordain- 
ing him by prayer when he was distant a 
journey of three days. We are assured that 
this induced Gregory to yield to the summons, 
and to submit afterwards to the customary 
rites. Gregory only demanded time for 
meditation on the truths of the Christian faith 
before accepting the commission. This medi- 
tation issued in the supposed divine revelation 
to him in the dead of the night of one of the 
most explicit formularies of the creed of the 
church of the 3rd cent., ‘‘ after he had been 
deeply considering the reason of the faith, and 
sifting disputations of all sorts.’’ Gregory 
saw a vision of St. John and the mother of the 
Lord, and the latter commanded the former 
to lay before Gregory the true faith. Apart 
| from this romance, the formulary attributed 
to Gregory is undoubtedly of high antiquity, 
and Lardner (Credibility, vol. ii. p. 29) does 
not argue with his wonted candour in his 
endeavour to fasten upon it signs of later 
origin.* It issingularly free from the peculiar 
phrases which acquired technical significance 
in the 4th cent., and yet maintains a most 
uncompromising antagonism to Sabellian and 
Unitarian heresy. Moreover, Gregory of 
Nyssa asserts that when he uttered his 
encomium, the autograph MS. of this creed was 
in possession of the church at Neocaesarea. 
He adds that the church had been continually 
initiated (μυσταγωγεῖται) by means of this 
confession of Gregory’s faith. This statement 
Basil confirmed (Ep. 204, Bas. Opp. Paris ed. 
t. ili. p. 303), saying that in his tender age, 
when residing in Neocaesarea, he had been 
taught the words of Gregory by his sainted 
grandmother Macrina, and (de Spir. Sancto, 
c. 29, tb. p. 62) he declared the tenacity with 
which the ways and words of Gregory had 
been preserved by that church, even to the 
mode of reciting the doxology. Moreover, 
Basil attributed to his influence the orthodoxy 
of a whole succession of bishops from Gregory 
to the Musonius of his own day (Ep. 204). In 
addressing the Neocaesareans (Ep. 207, “Ὁ. 
p- 311), he warns them against twisting the 
words of Gregory. The formulary must be 

* The Creed is as follows in Bull's trans, :— 
“ There is one God, Father of Him Who is the living 
Word, subsisting Wisdom and Power and Eternal Im- 
press (yapaxrnpos aidiov), Perfect Begetter of the 
Perfect, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is 
one Lord, Alone of the alone, God of God, Impress 
and Image of the Godhead, the operative Word ; 
Wisdom comprehensive of the system of the universe, 
and Power productive of the whole creation; true 
Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incor- 
ruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal, 
and Eternal of Eternal. And there is one Holy Ghost, 
| Who hath His being of God, Who hath appeared 
| (that is to mankind, δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἃ Clause 
| which Greg. of Nyssa gives, but which is not found 
in some of the codices) through the Son, Image of the 
| Son, Perfect of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of all 
| them that live; Holy Fountain, Holiness, the Be- 
stower of sanctification, in Whom is manifested God 
'the Father Who is over all and in all, and God the 
Son, Who is through all. A perfect Trinity, not 
| divided nor alien in glory and eternity and dominion.” 


403 


404 GREGORIUS 


distinguished from the ἔκθεσις τῆς κατὰ μέρος 
πίστεως, which is now found among the dubious 
writings of Gregory, and which even Labbe 
confounded with it. A very important sen- 
tence which has been variously attributed to 
the saint and his biographer follows the 
formula as given in the Life. Dr. Burton 
referred it to Gregory of Nyssa. Modern 
editors call attention to the fact that Gregory 
of Nazianzus (Ovat. 10) refers to the closing 
sentences as the substance of the formula it- 
self. It runs as follows: ‘‘ There is therefore 
nothing created or servile in the Trinity ; nor 


anything superinduced, as though previously | 


non-existing and introduced afterwards. 
Never therefore was the Son wanting to the 
Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but there 
is ever the same Trinity, unchangeable and 
unalterable’’ (cf. Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. x. 
p- 988). Great difference of opinion has 
prevailed as to the genuineness of this docu- 
ment; thus Bingham, Bull, Cave, Tillemont 
(iv. 327), Ceillier, Hahn (cf. Dorner’s Person 
of Christ, A. ii. 482), Mohler (Athan. i. 105), 
have defended it, and Lardner, Whiston, 
Miinscher, Gieseler, Herzog (Abriss der Kir- 
chengesch. i. 122), contest it. Neander divided 
it into two parts, the one genuine revealing its 


Origenistic source, and the other of later | 
Dr. Caspari has, in an appendix to | 


growth. 
his great work, Alte und neue Quellen zur 
Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubens- 
regel (1879), defended it with great erudition, 
and concludes that there is nothing in the 
formula incompatible with its being the 
production of a pupil of Origen. He shews, 
moreover, that it must have been produced 
between A.D. 260 and 265. 

There can be little doubt that the missionary 
labour of Gregory was great and successful, and 
that his personal influence was extraordinary. 


A few of the marvellous occurrences detailed by | 


Gregory of Nyssa are referred to by Basil and 
Rufinus. Basil tells us (de Spir. Sancto, l.c.) 
“that Gregory was a great and conspicuous 
lamp, illuminating the church of God, and 
that he possessed, from the co-operation of the 
Spirit, a formidable power against the demons; 


that he turned the course of rivers by giving | 


them orders in the name of Christ ; that he 


to two brothers; and that his predictions of 


the future made him the equal of the other | 


prophets; . - - that by friends and enemies of 
the truth he was regarded, in virtue of his 
signs and prodigies, as another Moses.”’ But 
Gregory of Nyssa expands into voluminous 
legend the record of these deeds. With the 
exception of a reference to the river Lycus, 
the Panegyric of Gregory of Nyssa contains 
no verifying element, giving neither names, 
dates, nor places for these astounding por- 
tents. They were, as Dr. Newman observes, 
wrought at such times and seasons as to lead 
to numerous conversions. They were de- 
scribed as well-known facts in a hortatory 
address and in ecclesiastical style. But they 
contrast very forcibly with the philosophical 
bias of Gregory’s mind, and they are not re- 
ferred to until a century after their occurrence. 

One of the most interesting facts introduced 
by his panegyrist refers to Gregory’s selection 
of an obscure person, Alexander the charcoal 


GREGORIUS 


burner, as bishop over the neighbouring city 
of Comana. He was preferred to men of 
eloquence and station by reason of his humble 
self-consecration to God, and justified the 
choice by reason of his excellent discourse, 
holy living, and martyr death. 

The great missionary success of Gregory and 
the rapid growth of the Church must have 
preceded the persecution under Decius, which 
began in 250 and 251. The edict was fero- 
cious, and, in the hands of sympathetic 
governors, cruelly carried out. [DEcIus.] 
Gregory advised those who could do so to save 
themselves and their faith by flight and 
concealment. His enemies pursued him into 
hisretreat, but Gregory of Nyssa says that they 
found in place of the bishop and his deacon two 
trees. This ‘‘ prodigy ”’ differs so profoundly 
(as do others in the same writer) from the N.T. 
miracles, both in character and motive, that 
they form an instructive hint as to the ethnic 
and imaginative source of the whole cycle. 

In 257 Gregory returned to Neocaesarea, 
and when, in 258, peace was restored to the 
church, he ordered annual feasts in commem- 
oration of the martyrs. He is credited by his 
biographer with the doubtful wisdom of hoping 
to secure the allegiance of those who had been 
in the habit of worshipping idols, by arranging 
ceremonials in honour of the martyrs re- 
sembling that to which they had been accus- 
tomed. This time-serving is an unfavourable 
indication of character, and does something 
to explain the melancholy defection from 
moral uprightness and honour of many of his 
supposed converts. The conversion of the 
heathen is said to have been greatly quickened 
by a fearful plague which was partly, at least, 
due to Gregory’s miraculous powers. 

At his death the number of heathen who 
now remained in his diocese is said to have 
dwindled to 17, the exact number of Christians 
found there when Phaedimus consecrated him 
(Vit. Thaum. l.c. p.954). But the Christianity 
of the Neocaesareans must have been in many 
cases of a very imperfect kind, if we may 


| judge from one of the most authentic docu- 
| ments referred to his pen, and entitled Epzs- 


tola Canonica 5. Gregorit ... de tis qui in 


| barbarorum incursione tdolothyta comederant, et 
dried up a lake, which was the cause of strife | 


alia quaedam peccata commiserant. Numerous 
authorities, Dodwell (Dissertationes in Cypri- 
anum), Ceillier (vol. ii. p. 444), question the 
genuineness of the last, the eleventh, of 
canons, but the conviction widely prevails that 
the previous ten are genuine. They refer to 
the circumstances which followed the ravages 
of the Goths and Boradi in Pontus, and Asia 
Minor generally, during the reign of Gallienus. 
The prevailing disorder tempted numerous 
Christians in Pontus to flagrant acts of impiety 
and disloyalty. Some took possession of the 
goods of those who had been dragged into 
bondage. Others identified themselves with. 
the barbarians, actually helping the heathen 
in their uttermost cruelty towards their 
brethren. These facts are gathered from 
the ‘‘canons’’ in which Gregory denounced 
strenuously the commission of such crimes, 


|and assigned to them their ecclesiastical 


penalty. The bishop does not linger over the 
mere ceremonial uncleanness that might 
follow from enforced consumption of meat 


GREGORIUS 


offered to idols, and exonerates from blame 
or any ecclesiastical anathema women who 
had, against their will, lost their chastity ; 
but he lays great emphasis on the vices and 
greed of those who had violated Christian 


morality for gain and personal advantage. | 


Different degrees of penalty and exclusion 
from church privilege were assigned, and those 
were argued on ground of Scripture alone. 
The epistle containing these canons was ad- 
dressed to an anonymous bp. of Pontus, who 
had asked his advice, c. 258, towards the end 
of his episcopate. It reveals the imperfect 
character of the wholesale conversions that 
had followed his remarkable ministry. 

Other works have been wrongly attributed 
to Gregory; e.g. 
πίστεως, which Vossius published in Latin in 
1662, among the works of Gregory, and which 
Cardinal Mai (Scrip. Vet. vii. p. 170) has pre- 
sented in Greek from the Codex Vaticanus. 
It is given by Migne (l.c. pp. 1103-1123). The 
best interpretation of the title is, ‘‘ A creed 
not of all the dogmas of the church, but only 


of some, in opposition to the heretics who deny | 


them ”’ (Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xx. p. 81). 
It differs from the former confession in its 
obvious and technical repudiation of Arianism, 
and its distinct references to the later Nestor- 
ian,and Eutychianheresies. Othertreatises and 


fragments given in edd. of his works, and also. 
trans. in A.-N.L., are: Capitula duodecim de | 


Fide, with interpretation, attributed by Gretser 
to Gregory (ed. Ratisbon, 1741). Ad Tatianum 
Disputatio de Anima, which must have been 
written by a medieval philosopher when the 
philosophy of Aristotle was beginning to exert 
a new influence (Ceillier). Four Hom*liae, pre- 
served by Vossius, on ‘‘ the Annunciation to the 
Holy Virgin Mary,’ and on ‘‘Christ’s Baptism,” 
are totally unlike the genuine writing of Gre- 


gory; they are surcharged with the peculiar. 


reverence paid to the Mother of our Lord after 
the controversy between Nestorius and Cyril, 
and they adopt thetest-wordsof orthodoxy cur- 
rent in the Arian disputes. Two brief fragments 
remain to be added, one acomment on Matt. vi. 
22-23, from a Catena, Cod. MS. and pub. by 
Galland, Vet. Patr. Bibl. xiv. 119, and a dis- 
course, in Omnes Sanctos, preserved with a long 
Eptistola praevia by Mingarelli. f 
Gregory was present at the first council at 
Antioch (264) to try Paul of Samosata. His 
brother Athenodorus accompanied him, and 
they are named among the most eminent 
members of the council (Eus. H. E. vii. 28). 
Gregory was buried in the church he had 
built in Neocaesarea, and commemorated on 
Nov. 17 (Cal. Ethtop.) and Nov. 23 (Cal. Arm.). 
Editions of his Works.—The most noted 


have been those of Gerard Vossius, 1640, in | 


4to, and in 1622, in folio. They had been 
published in Bibl. Patr. Colognein 1618. The 
Panegyric on Origen by Sirmond, 1605, 4to. 
Dela Rueincludedit in hised. of Origensis Opera, 
vol. iv. The various fragments attributed to 
Gregory are all pub. by Migne (Pair. Gk. vol. 
x.). See esp. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus 
(Leipz. 1880). His Address to Origen and Ori- 


gen’s Letter to Gregory have been trans. with | 


intro. and notes by W. Metcalfe (S.P.C.K.). 
There are also translations of his works in the 
Ante-Nic. Lib. vol. vi. [H-R.R.] 


ἔκθεσις τῆς κατὰ μέρος 


GREGORIUS 


Gregorius (7), St., ‘the Illuminator" (Gregor 
Lusavoritch), “thesunof Armenia," theapostle, 
first patriarch and patron saint of Armenia, 
| €. 302-331. Of his life and times the best 
Π not the only authorities are Agathangelos, 
who was secretary to Tiridates king of Armenia, 
|the persecutor and afterwards the convert of 
| Gregory, and Simeon Metaphrastes. A French 
| trans. of the former was printed in vol. i. of the 
Historiens del’ Arménie (1867), by Victor Lang- 
lois. The Life of St. Gregory by Metaphrastes 
(Migne, Patr. Gk. cxv. 941-996) is evidently 
| drawn from Agathangelos. The silence of all 
Greek writers about Gregoryisremarkable. The 

Rev. S. C. Malan trans. the Life and Times of 
| St. Gregory the Illuminator from the Armenian 
work of the Vartabed Matthew, which is the 
main source of the following sketch. 

Gregory was born c. 257 in Valarshabad, the 
capital of the province of Ararat in Armenia. 
His father Anak, or Anag, a Parthian Arsacid, 
of the province of Balkh, murdered, ς. 258, 
Chosroes I. of Armenia. The dying king com- 
manded the whole family of Anak to be slain, 
but an infant was saved, carried to the Cappa- 
docian Caesarea, there brought up in the 
Christian faith, and baptized Gregorius. 

Tiridates III., son of Chosroes, recovered 
the kingdom c. 284 by the help of Diocletian, 
whose favour he had gained and whose hatred 
of Christianity he had imbibed. Gregory 
became his servant, and was raised to the rank 
|of a noble. In the first year of his reign 
Tiridates went to the town of Erez (Erzenga) 
in Higher Armenia, to make offerings to Ana- 
hid, the patron-goddess of Armenia; but 
Gregory, refusing to take any part in this 
idolatry, endeavoured to turn the king from 
his idols, and spoke to him of Christ as the 
judge of quick and dead. Then followed what 
are known as ‘‘the twelve tortures of St. 
Gregory,’’ borne with unsurpassed fortitude 
(but see Dowling’s Armentan Church, S.P.C.K. 
1910). After two years Tiridates ordered the 
saint to be thrown into a muddy pit infested 
with creeping creatures, into which malefactors 
were wont to be hurled, in the city of Ardashat, 
and there he lived for 14 years, being fed by 
a Christian woman named Anna. This is one 
of several traces in the story of an already- 
existing Christianity in Armenia. 

The king’s barbarous treatment of a com- 
munity of religious women, who c. 300 took 
refuge within his domains and built a convent 
outside the city of Valarshabad, brought a 
| plague upon him and his people, which was 
| only relieved when Gregory was fetched from 
|the pit. Gregory instructed the people, and 
|at his order they built three churches where 
the King’s crimes had been perpetrated, and he 
called the place Etchmiadzin (the descent of the 
Only-begotten), its Turkish name being Uteh- 
Kilise (Three Churches). Gregory was conse- 
crated bp. for Armenia c. 302, by Leontius, bp. 
of CaesareainCappadocia. Hiscathedral was in 
Valarshabad. He destroyed the idol temples, 
“conquering the devils who inhabited them "'— 
i.e. the priests and supporters of the old reli- 
gion—and baptized the king and his court 
in the Euphrates. This national conversion 
|occurred before Constantine had established 
| the church in the Roman empire, and Armenia 
was thus the first kingdom to adopt Christian- 


405 


406 GREGORIUS 


ity as the religion of the state. Gregory 
encouraged the reading of the Holy Scriptures, 
both of the O. and N. T. He wrote letters to 
St. James of Nisibis, requesting him to com- 
pose homilies on faith, love, and other virtues. 
In 325 Gregory is said to have been summoned 
to the council of Nicaea, but, being himself 
unable to go, sent his son, who brought back 
the decrees for the Armenian church. The 
venerable patriarch greatly rejoiced on reading 
them, and exclaimed, ‘‘ Now let us praise Him 
Who was before the worlds, worshipping the 
most Holy Trinity and the Godhead of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now and ever, 
world without end, Amen,’’ which words are 
said after the Nicene Creed in the Armenian 
church (Malan. p. 327, n.). After filling the 
country with churches and ministers, schools 
and convents, he retired in 331 to lead asolitary 
life among the caves of Manyea in the province 
of Taran, having previously consecrated his son 
Arisdages bishop in his stead. Gregory died in 
the wilderness A.D. 332, and the shepherds, 
finding his dead body without knowing whose 
it was, erected over it a cairn of stones. 

The Bollandists have printed Agathangelos 
and other Lives of Gregory. ActaSS. viii. Sept. 
pp: 295-413; Basil. Men. Sept. 30, in Migne, 
Patr. Gk. exvii.; Le Quien, Or. Chr. 1. 1355, 
1371. In honour of her founder the Arme- 
nian church has been called the Armeno- 
Gregorian. Saint-Martin (Mém. surlA yMENtE, 
i. 436) and Langlois (Historiens, 11. 387) date 
his consecration A.D. 276. [L.pD.] 

Gregorius (8), the Cappadocian, appointed 
by Arianizing bishops at Antioch in the 
beginning of 340—not, apparently, of 339, as 
the Festal Index says, and clearly not at the 
Dedication Festival in 341 as Socrates says 
(ii. 20)—to supersede Athanasius in the see of 
Alexandria. As a student in the schools of 
Alexandria he had received kindness from 
Athanasius (Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. 15). He 
arrived on Mar. 23 (cf. Fest. Ind.), Athanasius 
having retired into concealment. That Gre- 
gory was an Arian may be inferred from his 
appointment. Athanasius says, in an en- 
cyclical letter of the time, that his sympathy 
with the heresy was proved by the fact that 
only its supporters had demanded him, and 
that he employed as secretary one Ammon, 
who had been long before excommunicated by 
bp. Alexander for his impiety (Encycl. c. 7). 
Athanasius tells us that on Good Friday, 
Gregory having entered a church, the people 
shewed their abhorrence, whereupon he 
caused the prefect Philagrius publicly to 
scourge 34 virgins and married women and 
men of rank, and to imprison them. After 
Athanasius fled to Rome, Gregory became 
still more bitter (Athan. Hist. Av. 13). We 
hear of him as ‘‘ oppressing the city”’ in 341 
(Fest. Ind.). Auxentius, afterwards Arian bp. 
of Milan, was ordained priest by him (Hilar. 
in Aux. 8). The council of Sardica, at the 
end of A.D. 343, pronounced him never to have 
been, in the church’s eyes, a bishop (Hist. 
Ar. 17). He died, not by murder, as Theo- 
doret says (ii. 4) through a confusion with 
George, but after a long illness (Fest. Ind.), 
about ten months after the exposure of the 
Arian plot against bp. Euphrates—+z.e. c. Feb. 
A.D.345- This date, gathered from Athanasius 


GREGORIUS 


(Hist. Ar. 21) is preferable to that of the 
Index, Epiphi 2=June 26, 346. [w.B.] 
Gregorius (12) Baeticus, St., bp. of Eliberi, 
Elvira, or Granada, c. 357-384; first men- 
tioned as resisting the famous Hosius of Cor- 
dova, when under the persecution of Constan- 
tius Hosius gave way so far as to admit Arian 
bishops to communion with him. This must 
have been in or before A.D. 357, the year of 
Hosius’s death. At the council of Ariminum 
Gregorius was one of the few bishops who 
adhered to the creed of Nicaea, and refused 
to hold communion with the Arian Valens, 
Ursacius, and their followers. Our authority 
for this is a letter to Gregorius by Eusebius of 
Vercellae from his exile in the Thebaid 
(printed among the works of St. Hilary of 
Poitiers, ii. 700, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 713). 
Eusebius there acknowledges letters he had 
received from Gregorius, giving an account 
of his conduct, and commends him highly for 
having acted as became a bishop. Gams, 
however (Kirchengesch. 11. 256-259, 279-282), 
maintains that Gregorius was one of the 
bishops who fell into heresy at Ariminum, 
and further identifies him with the Gregorius 
in the deputation sent by the council to Con- 
stantius and headed by Restitutus of Carthage, 
who assented to and subscribed an Arian 
formula of belief at Nice, in Thrace, Oct. 10, 
359, and held communion with the Arian 
leaders, Valens, Ursacius, and others (St. 
Hilary of Poitiers, ex Opere Historico Frag- 
mentum 8, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 702). 
Gregorius is generally supposed to have 
been one of the leaders of the schism origin- 
ated by Lucifer of Cagliari. This theory is 
supported by the terms of praise applied to 
him by the Luciferians Faustinus and Mar- 
cellus in their Libellus Precum ad Imperatores 
(c. 9, 10, 20, 25, 27, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. 
89, 90, 97, 100, 102) ; and also by the way St. 
Jerome, in his Chronicle under the date 374= 
A.D. 370 (in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxvii. 695), 
couples him with Lucifer of Cagliari, saying 
that the latter with Gregorius a Spanish, and 
Philo a Libyan, bishop, ‘‘ nunquam se Arianae 
miscuit pravitati.’’ Florez, however (Esp. 
Sagr. xii. 121), maintains that no certain proof 
of this theory exists. Gams, on the other 
hand (op. cit. li. 310-314), maintains that even 
before the death of Lucifer, Gregorius was the 
recognized head of the sect. On the authority 
of the Libellus Precum, c. 25, he considers that 
Gregorius, after Lucifer’s return from exile in 
362, visited him in Sardinia ; and he identifies 
with Gregorius the bishop mentioned in c. 63 as 
at Rome under the assumed name of Taorgius, 
and as having consecrated one Ephesius as 
bp. of the Luciferians there, an event which 
he dates between 366 and 371. From the 
Libellus Precum and the Rescript of Theodosius 
in reply addressed to Cynegius, Gregorius was 
apparently alive in 384. Innoneoftheabove | 
passages is his see mentioned, as he is called 
only episcopus Hispaniarum or Hispaniensis, 
but it is supplied by St. Jerome, de Vir. Illust. 
c. 105 (Hieron. Op. ii. 937, in Migne, Patr. Lat. 
xxiii. 703). Opinions have been much divided 
as to the book de Fide, attributed to him by 
Jerome. The Bollandists (Acta SS. Ap. iil. 
270) say “‘etiamnum latet.”” It was formerly 
supposed to be the de Trinttate now ascribed 


GREGORIUS 


to Faustinus. Gams (p. 314) thinks that this, 
though really written by Faustinus, is the work 
to which St. Jerome alludes. 

The materials for a Life of Gregorius are thus 
scanty, the Libellus Precum being of very doubt- 
ful authority, and widely different estimates 
have been formed of him. But the twocharges 
of Arianism and Luciferianism seem mutually 
destructive. [F.D.] 

Gregorius (13) I., bp. of Nazianzus in Cap- 
padocia, father of Gregorius Nazianzenus. 
(GreGoRIuS (14).] Originally a member of the 
Hypsistarii, a sect numerous in Cappadocia, 
he was converted to the Catholic faith, married 
a lady named Nonna, and was soon afterwards 
consecrated bp. of Nazianzus, c. 329. He 
was a pillar of the orthodox party, though 
weak enough to sign the creed of Ariminum in 
deference to Constantius, A.p. 360. He took 
part in the ordination of Basil to the see of 
Caesarea [BAsILius] ; he opposed the attempts 
of the emperor Valens, A.p. 371, to overthrow 
the Catholic faith; yet he, as well as Basil, 
was spared the banishment inflicted on many 
bishops (Socr. iv. 11). After an episcopate of 
45 years, he died a.p. 374. Hisson frequently 
mentions his good father, both in his sermons 
and his verses, and pronounced a funeral 
oration over him. Greg. Naz. Oratio xviii. 
in Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxv. 330; Le Quien, 
Oriens Christ. i. 411. [L.p.] 

Gregorius (14) Nazianzenus, bp. (370-390) of 
Sasima and of Constantinople, has been 
fortunate in his biographers. He left them 
abundant materials in his works, especially in 
a large collection of letters and a long auto- 
biographical poem. 

St. Gregory takes his distinctive title from 
Nazianzus, a small town in S.W. Cappadocia, 
near which, in a district known as the Tiberine 
(Ep. ii. Op. ii. 2; Basil, Ep. iv.), at a village 
called Arianzus, where his father had an estate, 
he was born. Both his parents are known to 
us. His father bore the same name [GRE- 
Gortus (13)] and belonged in early life to the 
sect of the Hypsisrarit (Orvat. xviii. 5; Op. i. 
333). His mother’s name was Nonna, a child of 
Christian parents (Philtatius and Gorgonia), 
and is praised by her son as a model of Chris- 
tian virtues. To her life and prayers he attri- 
butes his father’s conversion. 

The date of his birth we may reasonably 
fix from his own words in 325-320. 

Nonna, in fulfilment of a vow, dedicated 
him to the Lord, but not by baptism. She 
taught him to read the Scriptures, and led 
him to regard himself as an Isaac offered in 
sacrifice to God, Who had given him to another 
Abraham and Sarah. He, as another Isaac, 
dedicated himself. He rejoices to tell of the 
examples set him at home and of the bent 
given to his studies by companionship with 
good men. The tutor to whose care the 
brothers were committed was Carterius, 
perhaps the same who was afterwards head of 
the monasteries of Antioch and instructor of 
Chrysostom (Tillem. Mémoires, ix. 370). 

At Caesarea in Cappadocia probably was 
commenced Gregory’s friendship with Basil, 
which, tried by many a shock, survived them 
all, and was the chief influence which 
moulded not only the life of both friends, but 
also the theology of the Christian church. 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 407 


Gregory and his brother went to Caesarea in 
Palestine to pursue the study of oratory (Orat. 
vii. 6, Op. ii. 201) ; Caesarius departing thence 
to Alexandria, and Gregory remaining to study 
in the school made famous by Origen, Par- 
philus, and Eusebius. Thespesius was then the 
master of greatest renown, and Euzolus was a 
fellow-pupil with Gregory (Hieron. de Fecles. 
Script. c. 113). From Palestine Gregory went 
to Alexandria (Orat. l.c.). Here Didymus filled 
the chair of Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, 
and Athanasius the episcopal throne, though 


probably an exile at the time. Gregory pressed 
on to Athens. A ship of Aegina offered him 
passage (Orat. xviii. 31, Op. i. 351). Off 
Cyprus a fierce storm struck her. The thunder, 
lightning, darkness, creaking of the yards, 
shaking of the masts, cries of the crew, appeals 
for help to Christ, even by those who before 
had not known Him, all added to the terror 
of the scene. The storm continued 22 days, 
during which theysaw nochance of deliverance. 
Gregory’s chief fear was lest he should die with- 
out baptism. In prayer he dedicated himself 
again to God, and sought for help. The prayer 
was answered, and the rescued crew were so 
affected that they all accepted Gregory's God. 

Among the Athenian sophists of the day, 


none were more famous than Himerius and 
Proaeresius, with whom Gregory continued 
the study of oratory. At Athens Gregory and 
Basil were together again (Orat. xliii. 15 ; Op. 
i. 781); Gregory rendering the freshman Basil 
various friendly offices, such as exempting 
him from the rough practical joking which 
all who joined the Athenian classes had to 
pass through. [BasiLrus.] The Armenians, 
jealous of the newcomer, whose fame had pre- 
ceded him, and with some of the old feeling 
of antagonism against Cappadocia, tried to 
entrap him in sophistical debates. When they 
were being defeated, Gregory, feeling the 
honour of Athens at stake, came to the rescue, 
but soon saw their real object, and left them 
to join his friend (Orat. xlili. 16, 17; 1b. 782, 
783). These things are trifles, but had impor- 
tant effects. The two friends, rendered 
obnoxious to their companions, were bound 
the more closely to each other. Their fellow- 
students, for various reasons, bore various 
names and surnames. The two friends were, 
and desired to be called, Christians ; they had 
all things in common, and “ became as one 
mind possessing two bodies" (Orat. xlill. 20, 
21; 1b. 785, 786; Carm. xi. 221-235; OP. 
ii. 687). Among other students then at the 
university was Julian the Apostate. Gregory 
claims that he had even then discerned his 
character in his very looks; and that he used 
to warn their fellow-students that Rome was 
cherishing a serpent (Orat. v. 24, Op. 1. 162). 
Gregory must have spent at Athens prob- 
ably not less than ten years. He went there 
a beardless youth ; he left about his 30th year. 
To the effect of those years the matter and 
form alike of his work bear witness. _ 
Leaving probably about the beginning of 
356, Gregory went first to Constantinople, 
wishing to see the new Rome before his return 
to Asia. Here he unexpectedly met his 
| brother Caesarius, journeying to Nazianzus 


from Alexandria. The mother had longed 
to see both her sons return together, and 


405 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


Gregory has left a touching account of their 
meeting; and at this point some of the 
biographers fix his baptism. Gregory himself 
tells us that he now laid down the plan of his 
life. Every power he possessed was to be 
devoted to God; but the way seemed divided 
into two, and he knew not which to take. 
Elias, the sons of Jonadab, the Baptist, were 
types of the life that attracted him; but on 
the other hand was the study of the Scriptures, 
for which the desert offered no opportunities ; 
and the advanced age of his parents presented 
claims which seemed to be imperative duties. 
He resolved to live the strict life of an 
ascetic and yet perform the duties of society 
(Carm. i. de Rebus suts, 1. 65 seq. ; Op. ii. 635), 
but denying himself even the pleasure of 
music (7b. 1. 69). 

But in the midst of various trifling irrita- 
tions of domestic duty, which went far to mar 
the life he had marked out for himself, Gregory 
heard from Basil, who had resolved to found 
a coenobitic system in Pontus, and asked his 
friend to join him. Gregory answered by 


proposing to Basil to join them at the Tiberine, | 


where the ascetic life in common could be 
followed and the duties of home performed 
(Ep. 1. Op. ii. τ). Basil did visit Arianzus, 
but remained only a short time. From 
Caesarea he again wrote to Gregory, after 
which Gregory set out for Pontus. One sub- 
stantial result of their joint labours is pre- 
served in the Philocalia, a series of extracts 
from the exegetical works of Origen. Gregory 
himself speaks of this work, which he sent as 
a present to his friend Theodosius of Tyana 
(Ep. cxv. Op. ii. 103). We know from 
Gregory’s own words also that he took part in 
composing the famous “ Rules”’ of Basil. It is 


not clear how long he remained in Pontus. | 
the Trinity, lest he fall into the Atheism of 
|Sabellius, or the Judaism of Arius, or the 


Clemencet thinks two or three years, and the 
supposition agrees with Gregory’s regret that 
he had but tasted enough of the life there to 
excite his longing for more (Orat. ii. 6, Op. 
i. 14). The silence of Gregory with regard to 
his return may be due to another cause. 
Constantius had required the bishops through- 


out the empire to accept the creed of Rimini) 
(A.D. 359-360), and the bp. of Nazianzus, | 


though hitherto faithful to the Nicene doc- 
trine, did so. 
devoted to Athanasius, and there followed a 
division in the church, which Gregory alone 
could heal. He induced the bishop to make 


a public confession of orthodoxy, and deliv- | 
ered a sermon on the occasion (Orat. vi. Op. | 


i. 179 seq.). If this division at Nazianzus 


occurred in 360, we have the reason οὗ 
345 5 | 


Gregory’s return (Tillem. Mém. ix. 
Schroéckh, Kirchengesch. xiii. 287; Ullmann, 
Gregorius von Nazianz. s. 41). If with 
Clemencet and others (Op. i. pp. xciv. seq.) 
it is assigned to 363-364, we must suppose that 
ἐν return was due to the general claim of filial 

uty. 


The aged bishop felt the need of support and 
help, and resolved to overrule the scruples 


which made Gregory shrink from the respon- | 
sibilities of the priesthood. The ordination | sufficient ? 


occurred on one of the high festivals, probably 
at Christmas, A.D. 361 (Nicetas, ii. ro2r 


The monks of his diocese were | 


In any case he came to Nazianzus, and | 
received letters from Basil asking him ἕο. 
return to Pontus (Ep. vi. ad fin., Op. ii. p. 6). | 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


Tillem. Mém. ix. 352). Nicetas assumes that 
the congregation compelled Gregory to accept 
ordination (cf. Carm. xi. de Vitd sud, 345-348, 
Op. ii.) Such forced ordinations were not 
unknown (Bingham, Orig. Eccles. iv. 2-5 and ix. 
7,1). Basil was in the same way made priest. 

Gregory preached in the church at Nazian- 
zus on the Easter Day following his ordination, 
and had expected that a crowded church 
would have welcomed his return and have 
applauded his first sermon; but the church 
was almost deserted. Gregory could not be 
ignorant of the cause of this estrangement. 
His flight from the work of the priesthood 
demanded an explanation, and Gregory deter- 
mined to give an answer worthy of the 
question and of himself. It is contained in 
the second oration (Op. i. ii. 65). In no 
part of his writings do we find proof of greater 
study. It is practically a treatise on the 
pastoral office, and forms the foundation of 
Chrysostom’s de Sacerdotio and of the Cura 
Pastoralis of Gregory the Great, while writers 
in all ages have directly or indirectly drawn 
largely fromit. The earlier part treats of the 
reasons for his flight: (1) he was wholly un- 
prepared for the ordination; (2) he had 
always been attracted by the monastic life ; 
(3) he was ashamed of the life and character 
of the mass of the clergy; (4) he did not at 
that time, he did not now—and this reason 
weighed with him most of all—think himself 
fit to rule the flock of Christ and govern the 
minds of men ”’ (Ovat. 11. 9). He then discusses 
for 40 sections the duties and difficulties of 
the true pastor (7b. 10-49). ‘‘ His first dutyis 
to preach the word, and this is so difficult that 
to fulfil it ideally would require universal 
knowledge. Theological knowledge is abso- 
lutely necessary, especially of the doctrine of 


Polytheism too common among the orthodox. 


| It is necessary to hold to the truth that there 


is one God, and to confess that there are three 
persons, and attributes proper to each; but 
for this there is need of the Spirit’s help. 
Much more is it difficult to expound it to a 
popular audience, both from the preacher’s 
imperfection and the people’s want of pre- 
paration. Zeal not according to knowledge 
leads men away from the truth. Then, there 
is the desire of vainglory, with inexperience, 
and her constant attendant, rashness, incon- 
stancy, based on ignorance of the Scripture; 
and a subjective eclecticism which ends in an 
uncertain creed, and leads men to doubt of 
truth, as if a blind or deaf man were to place 
the evil not in himself but in the light of the 
sun or the voice of his friend. It is more easy 
to instruct minds wholly ignorant than those 


| which have received false teaching; but the 


work of weeding, as well as that of sowing, 
must be done. The work of a spiritual ruler - 
is like that of a man trying to manage a herd 
of beasts, old and young, wild and tame. He 
must, therefore, be single in will to rule the 
whole body, manifold to govern each member 
of it. Some must be fed with milk; some 
with more solid food. For all this who is 
There are spiritual hucksters who 
adulterate the word of truth; but it is better 


; | to be led than to lead others, and to learn than 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


Men are foolish if they do not know their own 
ignorance; rash, if they know it, and yet 
lightly undertake this work. The Jews did not 
allow young men to read all parts of the 
Scriptures ; but in the church there is no such | 
bound placed between teaching and learning. 
A mere boy, who does not know the very 
names of the sacred writings, if he can babble 
a few pious words, and these caught by hear- | 
ing, not by reading, becomes a teacher. Men 
spend more time and pains in learning to 
dance or play the flute than teachers of things 
divine and human spend in studying them. 
The love of vainglory is at the root of this evil. 
The true ideal is to be found in the lives of 
disciples like Peter or Paul, who became all 
things to all men that they might gain some. 
The false teachers incur great danger, and the 
pastor’s sin causes the public woe. The 
prophets dwelt on the fearful position of the 
shepherds who feed themselves; the apostles 
and Christ Himself taught what the true 
shepherds should be; and His condemnation 
of Scribes and Pharisees includes all false) 
teachers.’’ Day and night did these thoughts 
possess Gregory. He was aware of the objec- 
tions of priests that the candle should be 
placed on the candlestick, and the talent not 
hidden; but no time of preparation for the 
priesthood can be too long, and haste is full | 
of danger. He dreaded both its duties and 
its dignity. ‘‘ He who has not learned to 
speak the hidden wisdom of God, and to bear 
the cross of Christ, should not enter upon the | 
priesthood. For himself, he would prefer a} 
private life. A great man ought to undertake | 
great things; asmallmansmall things. Only. 
that man can build the tower who has where- 
with to build it.’’ Such are the reasons 
Gregory gives for his flight. He adds those 
which led to his return. ‘‘ (1) The longing 
he had for them and which he saw they 
had for him; (2) the white hairs and feeble. 
limbs of his holy parents—the father who was 
to him as an angel, and the mother to whom | 
he owed also his spiritual birth. There is a 
time for yielding as for everything else; (3) 
the example of the prophet Jonah—and this 
| weighed most with him, for every letter of 
| 


a ὍὉᾧ.0 


Scripture is inspired for our use—who deserved 
pardon, but he himself would not if he still 
refused. The denunciations of disobedience 
in Holy Scripture are no less severe than those 
against the unworthy pastor. On either side 
is danger. The middle is the only safe course | 
—not to seek the priesthood, nor yet to refuse 
it. There is a merit in obedience; but for 
disobedience there is hardly any remedy. 
Some holy men are more, others less, forward 
toundertakerule. Neither are to be blamed.” | 
Such is the general character of the famous | 
Τοῦ Αὐτοῦ ᾿Απολογητικός. Didit alone remain | 
to us, Gregory must still have been thought 
of as one of the four pillars of the Greek 
church, and we should still read the chief 
traits of his personal character. It was writ- | 
ten in 362. Julian the Apostate had entered 
Constantinople on Dec. 11, 361, and persuaded 
Gregory’s brother Caesarius to remain αἱ. 
court. Gregory was then with Basil, who had 
indignantly rejected like advances, and he 
blushes that the son of a bishop should accept | 


attempt to teach what one does not know. | 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 400 


them. It made their father weary of life, and 
had to be hidden from their mother (Ep. vii. 
Op. ii. 7). The effect of this letter upon Cac- 
Sarlus we may judge from his declaration 
before Julian: ‘In a word, Iam a ¢ hristian, 
and I mean to be one,” and from the exela- 
mation of the emperor: ‘ O happy father of 


such unhappy children!" (Orat. vii. 14, 
Op. i. 206; cf. De Broglie, Constance, ii. 
207). Gregory esteemed the victory of 


Caesarius as a more precious gift than the half 
of the empire (Orat. vii. 14, ad ἐπ). But 
Julian had bitter revenge in store. He 
ordered that no Christian should teach profane 
literature. This caused Gregory to compose 
many of the poems now extant, prob- 
ably as reading-books for Christian schools. 
Towards the end of 363 or the beginning of 
364 he wrote two Invectives against Julian 
(Orat. iv. Op. i. 78-147; Orat. v. tb. 147-175). 
The emperor had fallen, pierced by an arrow, 
in the previous June. The orator in these 
philippics held him up as the sum of all that 
was vile. In the first sentence he is called 
“‘the dragon, the apostate, the Assvrian, the 
common enemy, the great mind”’ (Is. x. 12, 
LXX); and this sentence is typical. These 
orations, looked at dispassionately, remind us 
rather of Demosthenes or Cicero than of a 
Christian bishop. The admirers of the saint 
find it still more difficult to explain the 
panegyric on the Arian Constantius, which 
these discourses contain. He is ‘‘ the most 
divine and Christ-loving of emperors, and his 
great soul is summoned from heaven. The 
sin of his life was the inhuman humanity 
which spared Julian ’’ (Orat. iv. 34 seq., Op. 
i. 93 Seq.). Gregory, indeed, speaks elsewhere 
of three things of which Constantius repented 
when dving: (1) the murder of his relations ; 
(2) that he had named Julian Caesar ; (3) that 
he had given himself to the dogma of the 
newer creed (Orat. xxi. 26, Op. i. 403 A). 
Yet he knew that the emperor gave his 
support to impiety, and framed laws against 
the orthodox doctrine (Orat. xxv. 9, Op. i. 
461 A); nor could he have been ignorant that 


\it was by Euzoius that baptism was admin- 


istered to the penitent. The character of 
Constantius is clearly used as an oratorical 
contrast to that of Julian. 
While Gregory was thus 
Nazianzus, Basi] returned from Pontus to 
Caesarea, where Eusebius had been made 
bishop, and was ordained against his will. 
He informed his friend of this, and Gregory 
replied in a letter which is important as shew- 
ing his thoughts about the position in which 
both he and Basil had been placed. ‘* Now 
the thing is done it is necessary to fulfil one’s 
duty—such at least is the way in which I look 
at it—especially in the present distress, when 
many tongues of heretics are raised against us, 
and not to disappoint the hopes of those who 
have put their faith in us and in our past 
life’”’ (Ep. viii. Op. ii. 8). A difference arose 
ere long between Eusebius and Basil. Its 
origin is not known, and Gregory thought it 
better that it should not be (Orat. ΧΙ, 28, 
Op. i. 792). It shews Gregory in the character 
of peacemaker. The warm friend of Basil, he 
was no less an admirer of the bishop, and an 
advocate for the rights of authority. Invited 


employed at 


410 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 

by the bishop to fill the place vacated by 
Basil’s retirement to Pontus, he does not 
hesitate to assert that the treatment of Basil 
was unjust and to demand reconciliation with 
his friend as the price of his own influence 
(Epp. xvi.-xx. Op.ii. 16). An indignant reply 
from Eusebius only called forth stronger 
letters from the same standpoint (Epp. xvii. 
and xviii. Op. ii. 17, 18), and an equally plain 
letter to Basil, telling him that Eusebius was 
disposed to be reconciled to him, and urging 
him to be first in the victory of submission 
(Ep. xix. ib.). Hereupon Basil returned to 
Caesarea, and gave his powerful aid to the 
bishop in the dangers threatening the church, 
or rather became bishop in reality, while 
Eusebius was still so in name—‘ the keeper 
of the lion, the leader of the leader’ (Orat. 
ΧΙ]. 33, Op. i. 796). When peace was thus 
established, Gregory returned again to Nazian- 
zus. Here new troubles awaited him. Cae- 
sarius had been chosen by Valens to be 
treasurer of Bithynia, and once more his 
brother was distressed at seeing him among 
the servants of an adversary of the true faith. 
On Oct. 11, 368, Nicaea was almost destroyed 
by an earthquake. Gregory made this the 
ground of an earnest appeal to Caesarius to 
abandon his office (Ep. xx. Op. ii. p. 19). He 
was on the point of yielding when he suddenly 
died. The funeral oration delivered by 
Gregory is placed by Jerome first in the list of 
the orator’s celebrated works (Catal. Scrip. 
Eccles. 117). It narrates, in the language of 
fraternal love, the deeds of a noble life, and 
seeks in that of Christian submission to con- 
sole his parents and his friends (Orat. vii. Op. 
198, et seq.). Sixteen epitaphs remain to 
shew how often Gregory mourned his loss 
(Ep. vi.-xxi. Op. ii. 1111-1115). The death 
of Caesarius brought trouble to Gregory from 
the administration of his estate which had been 
left to the poor. Against extortioners who 
tried to seize it he appealed to his friend 
Sophronius, prefect of Constantinople (Ep. 
xxix. Op.ii. 24) ; and his troubles called forth 
the kind offices of Basil. He himself tells us 
plaintively how he would gladly have fled 
these business worries, but felt it his duty to 
share the burden with his father (Carm. xi. 
375-380, Op. ii. 695). About the same time 
another loss befell the house of Nazianzus in 
the death of Gorgonia, and once again Gregory 
delivered a funeral discourse of most touching 
gracefulness (Orat. vili. Op. i. 218 et seq.). 
These sorrows weighed heavily on Gregory’s 
spirit; and while in public discourses he 
sought to console others, his private poems 
shew how hard he found it to console himself. 
‘* Already his whitening hairs shew his grief, 
and his stiffening limbs are inclining to the 
evening of a sad day’”’ (Carm. de Rebus suts, 
i. 177-306, Op. ii. 641 sqq.). In 370 Eusebius 
died in the arms of Basil, who at once invited 
Gregory to Caesarea on the plea that he was 
himself tn extremts. The latter regarded this 
as a pretext, and in a tone of mingled affection 
and reproach declined to go until after the 
election of the archbishop (Ep. xl. Op. ii. 34). 
The invitation to the bp. of Nazianzus to be 
present at the election was answered, as all the 
editors with almost certainty judge, by the 
hands of theson. He dwells upon the import- 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


ance of the position and the special qualifica- 
tions for it possessed by Basil, and promises 
his assistance if they propose to elect him 
(Ep. xli. Op. ii. 35). He wrote also to 
Eusebius of Samosata by the hands of the 
deacon Eustathius, urging him to go to 
Caesarea and promote Basil’s election (Ep. 
xlii. Op. ii. 37). . Eusebius yielded to this 
request, but the vote of the aged bp. of 
Nazianzus was also needed. An illness he had 
disappeared as soon as he started. The son 
thought it prudent to remain at home, but 
sent by his father’s hands a letter to Eusebius, 
expressing his esteem and excusing his ab- 
sence, and referring to the miracle of his 
father’s restored health (Ep. xliv. Op. ii. 39). 
He did not go even after the election, but 
contented himself at first with writing letters 
which witness to his wisdom and affection 
(Epp. xlv. and xlvi. Op. ii. 40, 41). When the 
storm had subsided he went in person, but 
declined the position of first among the 
presbyters, or probably that of coadjutor 
bishop (τήνδε τῆς καθέδρας τιμήν, Orat. xliii. 
39, Op. i. 801), which Basil offered him. But 
in the opposition caused by the bishops 
defeated in the election, and in the persecution 
organized by the prefect Modestius at the 
command of Valens, Gregory was foremost 
as a personal friend and as a defender of the 
faith (Socr. iv. 11). 

In 370 Valens made a civil division of 
Cappadocia into two provinces, and in 372 
Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, claimed.equal rights 
with the bp. of Caesarea—t.e. the rights of 
metropolitan of Cappadocia Secunda, of which 
Tyana was the capital. Basil resisted this 
claim, and Gregory, who had returned to 
Nazianzus, offered, in a letter full of affection- 
ate admiration (Ep. xlviii. Op. ii. 40), to visit 
and support his friend and went to Caesarea. 
Thence they proceeded together to the foot of 
Mount Taurus in Cappadocia Secunda, where 
was a chapel dedicated to St. Orestes, and 
where the people were accustomed to pay 
their tithes in kind. On their return they 
found the mountain-passes at Sasima guarded 
by followers of Anthimus. A struggle took 
place, and Gregory implies that he was 
personally injured (Carm. xi. 453, Op. ii. 699). 
He seems soon afterwards to have returned to 
Nazianzus, whither he was followed by Basil, 
who had resolved (by way of securing his own 
rights) to make Sasima a bishopric, and 
Gregory the first bishop. In this he was 
aided by the elder Gregory, and the son yielded 
against his own will (Orat. ix. Op. i. 234-238). 
At the last moment he fled, but was pursued 
by Basil, and at length consecrated (Orat. x. 
Op. i. 239-241). But he still put off the duties 
of his see, until Basil sent Gregory of Nyssa 
to remonstrate. But Anthimus was again 
prepared to resist by armed force, and Gregory 
finally abandoned duties which he had never 
willingly accepted. Basil wrote reproaching 
him, and he replied in the same tone. “ He 
would not fight with the warlike Anthimus, 
for he was himself little experienced in war, 
and liable to be wounded, and one, moreover, 
who preferred repose. Why should he fight 
for sucking-pigs and chickens, which after all 
were not his own, as if it were a question of 
souls and of canons? And why should he rob 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


_ the metropolis of the illustrious Sasima?” 
Ep. xlviii. Op. ii. 44. The ‘illustrious | 
asima ’’ must be described in the words of the | 

poem, de Vita sud: ‘*On a much frequented 

road of Cappadocia, at a point where it is 
divided into three, is a halting-place, where is 
neither water nor grass, nor any mark of 
civilization. It is a frightful and detestable 
little village. Everywhere you meet nothing 
but dust, noises, waggons, howls, groans, petty 
officials, instruments of torture, chains. The 
whole population consists of foreigners and 
travellers. Such was my church of Sasima’”’ 
(Carm. xi. 439-446, Op. ii. 696). Other letters 
were exchanged, but nothing could change his 
determination. He was at length prevailed 
upon by his father to leave the mountains, 
whither he had fled for refuge, and to become 
coadjutor at Nazianzus. This did not deliver 
him from the quarrel between Basil and 
Anthimus, for Nazianzus was in the new 
province of Cappadocia Secunda, and the bp. 
of Tyana soon visited the Gregories and 
sought to gain them to his cause. They held 
firm to Basil, but Anthimus then asked the | 
son to interfere between Basil and himself, and 
to seek a conference. The option of having 
one at all, its time and place if resolved upon, 
all was left to Basil’s will, and yet he felt 
injured and expressed his dissatisfaction at 

Gregory’s conduct. The latter felt and said, 

in plain terms, ‘‘ that his friend was puffed 

up by his new dignity, and unmindful of what 
was due to others. He had himself offended 

Anthimus by his firm Basilism (βασιλισμόν). 

Was it just that Basil should be offended for 

the same reason?” (Ep. 1. Op. ii. 44). He 

soon gave further proof of affection by taking 
an active part in the election of Eulalius as 
bp. of Doaris, and by a remonstrance on the 
subject of Basil’s teaching, which he felt was 
due from his friendship. He had heard men 
cavil at Basil’s orthodoxy, and assert that he 

did not hold the Divinity of the Third Person 

in the Trinity; and humbly asked him, for 

the sake of silencing his detractors—he him- 
self had no doubt—to express in definite words 

what he held as the true doctrine (Ep. lviii. 

Op. ii. 50). Basil did not accept the friendly 

letter in the same spirit. Gregory saw from 

his reply that it had given pain, in spite of his 
care. Yet he submits, and will place himself 

entirely in Basil’s hands (Ep. lix. Op. ii. 53). 

The year 373 was an “ annus mirabilis ’’ for 
Nazianzus, and called forth two remarkable | 
discourses from Gregory. An epidemic among 
their cattle, a season of drought, and a de- 
structive tempest in harvest reduced the 
people to absolute poverty. They turned in 
their need to the church, and compelled Gre- | 
gory to address them. The discourse seems 
to have been impromptu. Gregory “‘ regrets 
that he is the constrained speaker rather than 
his father—that the stream is made to flow 
while the fountain is dry—and then urges that | 
divine punishments are all in mercy, and that | 
human sins are the ordinary causes of public 
woes’; then plainly puts before his hearers | 
the special sins of their city and invites them | 
to penitence and change of life (Orat. xvi. Op. 

i. 299). The inability of the inhabitants to) 

pay the imperial taxes led to an insurrection. 


At the approach of the prefect with a body of 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 411] 


troops they took refuge in the church, and he 
consented to hear Gregory's plea. While the 
Invective against Julian reminds us of the 
Philippics or the de Corond, we have here an 


| oration which has borne without injury com- 


parison with the pro Ligarto or pro Marcello, 
or Chrysostom’s plea for Eutropius or Flavian 
(Benoit, p. 355). The first part points the af- 
flicted people to the true source of comfort; the 
second is addressed to princes and magistrates. 
“The prefect was subject to the authority of 
the teacher, which was higher than his own. 
Did he wield the sword? it was for Christ. 
Was he God's image? so were the poor 
suffering people. The most divine thing was 
to do good ; let him not lose the opportunity. 
Did he see the white hair of the aged bishop, 
and think of his long, unblemished priesthood, 
whom, it may be, the very angels found worthy 
of homage (λατρείας), and did not that move 
him?” ‘I adjure you by the name of 
Christ, by Christ’s emptying Himself for us, 
by the sufferings of Him Who cannot suffer, 
by His cross, by the nails which have delivered 
me from sin, by His death and burial, resur- 
rection and ascension; and lastly, by this 
common table where we sit together, and by 
these symbols of my salvation, which I con- 
secrate with the same mouth that addresses 
to you this prayer—in the name, I say, of this 
sacred mystery which lifts us up to heaven!’ 
He concluded by praying ‘‘ that the prefect 
may find for himself such a judge as he should 
be for them, and that all meet with merciful 
judgment here and hereafter” (Orat. xvii. Op. 
i. 317 et seq.) Early in 374 the elder Gregory 
died, and the son delivered a discourse, at 
which his mother Nonna and his friend Basil 
were present, and which was an eulogy of both 
his parents and of his friend (Orat. xviii. Op. 
i. 327). Nonna survived her husband only a 
few months, and died as she knelt at the Holy 
Table (Epil. Ixv.-c. Op. ii. 1133-1149). The 
brother and sister were already dead. Gre- 
gory was left alone. His first care was to 
devote his large fortune wholly to the poor, 
reserving only asmall plot of land at Arianzus; 
and then to invite the bishops to elect a suc- 
cessor tothe see. Fear lest the church should 
be rent by heresy induced him to exercise the 
office temporarily. Two reasons determined 
him not to preach at Nazianzus again—/(r1) 
that he may cause them to elect a bishop to 
succeed his father; (2) that his silence may 
check the mania for theological discussion 
which was spreading through the Eastern 
church and leading everybody to teach the 
things of the Spirit without the Spirit. 

For two vears after the bishop's death 
Gregory in vain pressed for the election of a 
successor. His love of retirement was now, 
as all through life, a powerful influence, and 
towards the end of 375 he disappeared sud- 
denly, and found refuge for 3 years at Seleucia 
in Isauria, at a monastery devoted to the 
virgin Thecla (Carm. xi. 549, Op. ii. 701). 

In the beginning of 370 Basil died, and 
Gregory wrote to comfort his brother Gregory 
of Nyssa. He could neither visit Basil in 
illness nor be present at his funeral, for he 
was himself then dangerously ill (Ep. Ixxvi. 
Op. ii. 65), but he expressed his love in 12 
epitaphs. A letter from Gregory to Eudocius 


412 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


the rhetorician, written soon after, speaks of 
the loss which made him regard death as “ the 
only deliverance from the ills which weighed 
upon him ” (Ep. lxxx. Op. il. 72). 

But the chief work of his life yet lay before 
him. At the Nicaean council, Alexander, 
then bp. of Constantinople, signed the decrees 
which condemned Arius. He was succeeded 
by Paul, who was devoted to the true faith, 
and suffered martyrdom in A.D. 351. For 
30 years after the death of Paul, Constanti- 
nople was the battle-ground of a constant war 
with heresy. The followers of Manes and 
Novatus, Photinus and Marcellus, Sabellius 
and Apollinaris, were numerous there; and 
the adherents of the Nicene faith, few in 
number, humiliated, crushed, having neither 
church nor pastor, were obliged to conceal 
themselves in remote quarters of the city 
(Benoit, Grég. de Naz. p. 397). They applied 
to Gregory to help them, and many bishops 
urged their plea. For a long time he was 
unwilling to leave his retirement, but then 
came the conviction that he dared not refuse 
this summons. The date of his arrival at 
Constantinople is not certain, but was pro- 
bably before Easter, 379 (Tillem. Mém. ix. 
799). A prayer, in the form of a poem, 
indicates the spirit with which he entered upon 
his new work (Carm. iii. Op. il. 667), and 
another poem shews what that work involved. 
New Rome “ had passed through the death of 
infidelity ; there was left but one last breath 
of life. He had come to this city to defend 
the faith. What they needed was solid 
teaching to deliver them from the spider-webs 
of subtleties in which they had been taken ”’ 
(Carm. xi. 562-611, Op. ii. 705, 6). In a pri- 
vate house, where he himself was lodged by 
relations, his work was begun. It was to him 
“an Anastasia, the scene of the resurrection 
of the faith’’ (Ovat. xlii. 26, Carm. xi. 1079, 
Op. ii. 731); the house was too small for the 
multitudes that flocked to it, and a church 
was built in its place. His fame, as a theo- 
logian, rests chiefly on the discourses delivered 
at the Anastasia. His first work was to gather 
the scattered members of the flock and 
instruct them in the practical duties of 
Christianity and the danger of empty theo- 
logical discussions (Carm. xi. 1210-1231, Op. 
ii. 737-739). Again and again in the early 
discourses does he dwell on the truth that only 
through personal holiness can a man grasp any 
idea of the Holy One (Orvat. xx. and Orat. xxii. 
Op. i. 376-384 and 597-603). Gregory was 
exposed to the attacks of all parties. His 
origin, person, clothing, were made objects 
of ridicule. They would have welcomed a 
polished orator with external graces; but his 
manner of life had made him prematurely old, 
and his gifts to the poor had made him in 
appearance and reality a poor man. One 
night, a mob, led by monks, broke into the 
place of meeting and profaned the altar and 
sacred elements. Gregory escaped, but was 
taken before the judges as a homicide; “‘ but 
He Who knew how to save from the lions was 
present to deliver him ”’ (Carm. xi. 665-678, 
Op. ii. 709). “‘He cared not that they 
attacked him—the stones were his delight ; 
he cared only for the flock who were thus 
injured”’ (1b. 725 et seq.). His chief sorrow 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


was to come from a division in the flock itself. 
This started from the schism of Antioch, which 
had spread through the whole church; but 
the immediate question was one of competi- 
tion for the bishopric. Gregory had kept 
aloof from this quarrel, but some of his 
followers took an active part in it, and endea- 
voured to draw from him a decision for one or 
other of the rivals. Some seem to have 
favoured Paulinus, some Meletius. Gregory 
preached a sermon on Peace (Ovat. xxii. Op. 
i. 414-425), dwelling “‘ on its blessings, and the 
inconsistency of their faith, servants of the 
God of peace as they claimed to be, and their 
practice. Their duty was to remain united 
when the faith was not in question ; to weaken 
the present struggle by keeping out of it, and 
thus to do the rivals a greater service than 
by fighting for them ”’ (7b. 14, p. 423). Soon 
afterwards the news of the establishment of 
peace reached Constantinople, and was fol- 
lowed by peace in the little church of the 
Anastasia. Gregory, though ill, preached 
almost certainly on this occasion another 
sermon on Peace (Orvat. xxill. Op. 1. 425-434), 
thankfully celebrating its return, and urging 
those present who were divided from them by 
heresy ‘‘ to be at peace with them by accept- 
ance of the true faith. It was the work of the 
sacred Trinity to give the faithful peace among 
themselves. The sacred Trinity would heal 
also this wider breach.’’ At the close of this 
sermon he promises to deal more fully with the 
questions at issue between the followers of the 
Nicene faith and their opponents. This he did 
in the five theological discourses which soon 
followed (Ovat. xxvii.-xxxi. Op. 1. 487-577; 
vide infra). Other important discourses be- 
long to the same period, of which the most 
remarkable are a second on the Divinity of 
the Holy Spirit, preached at Whitsuntide 
381 (Ὁ) (Orat. xli. Op. 11. 731-744), and one on 
Moderation in Discussions—a frequent subject 
with Gregory—in which heresy is traced to its 
absence (Ovat. xxxli. Op. 11. 579-601). He 
delivered also three (?) panegyrics, the subjects 
of which were Cyprian, whose name was held 
in deserved honour in Constantinople (Orat. 
xxiv. Op. 1. 437-450); Athanasius, whose 
memory was specially dear to Gregory as the 
champion of Nicene orthodoxy, and who had 
died but a few years before (A.D. 373) (Orat. 
xxi. Op. i. 386-411) ; and the Maccabees (?), 
whose heroism might well have been specially 
intended for an example in the present struggle 
(Orat. xv. Op. i. 287-298). The last two, 
especially that on Athanasius, are counted by 
all judges, from Jerome downwards, among 
Gregory’s noblest works (Script. Eccles. 117). 

Jerome became about this time a disciple 
of Gregory and loved to tell how much he 
had learned from his teacher. 

Another stranger who came to Constanti- 


nople professed himself a disciple of the πον. 


famous theologian. He bore the name of 
Maximus, and represented himself as descend- 
ed from a line of martyrs, and as having 
suffered much through his adherence to the 
Nicene faith. Professing himself an ardent 
admirer of Gregory’s sermons, this man was 
planning the overthrow of his teacher, and 
hoped even to establish himself in the epis- 
copal chair. He had an important ally in 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


Peter, bp. of Alexandria, who had recognized 
Gregory as practically bp. of the orthodox in 
Constantinople (Carm. xi. 858-931), but now 
joined in the plot against him. Gregory was 
ill in bed, when one night Maximus with his 
followers went to the church to be consecrated 
by 5 suffragans sent from Alexandria for the 
purpose. While they were preparing for the 
ceremony, day began to dawn, and a mob, 
excited by the sudden news, rushed in, drove 
them from the church, and compelled Maximus 
to flee from Constantinople. Retiring to Alex- 
andria, he demanded that Peter should find him 
another bishopric or relinquish his own. He 
was silenced by the prefect and banished. 

In connexion with the story of Maximus, 
Gregory tells us that he one day uttered the 
words, “ My beloved children, keep intact this 
Trinity which I, your most happy father, have 
delivered to you, and preserve some memorial 
of my labours.’’ One of the hearers saw the 
hint, and people of all ages, conditions, and 
ranks vied with each other in cries of affection 
for him and hatred for his foes (Carm. xi. 1057- 
1113, Op. ii. 729-731), and one cried, ‘‘ If you 
go, you will banish the doctrine of the Trinity 
as well as yourself’’ (7b. r1oo). At this 
Gregory promised to remain until the arrival 
of some bishops who were expected at the 
council, but retired for a while to the country 
to recruit his shattered health. 

On Nov. 24, 380, Theodosius made his 
formal entry into Constantinople. One of his 
first cares was to restore to the orthodox the 
churches of which they had been deprived by 
the Arians. Gregory was summoned, and 
early on the morning of Nov. 26, in the pre- 
sence of an immense crowd, Theodosius and 
Gregory entered the church of the Holy 
Apostles. A thick fog enveloped the building, 
but at the first accents of the chants the rays 
of the sun fell upon the vestments of the 
priests and the swords of the soldiers, and 
brought to Gregory’s mind the glory of the 
Tabernacle of old. At the same time there 
arose a cry like thunder demanding that he 
should be bishop. ‘‘ Silence !—silence!’’ he 
cried. ‘‘ This is the time to give thanks to 
God. It will be time enough, hereafter, to 
settle other things.’’ The service was con- 
tinued without further interruption. Only 
one sword was drawn, and that was put back 
unstained intoits sheath (Carm. xi. 1325-1390). 
In no part of Gregory’s life is his true excellence 
of character more clearly seen than here ; to 
his spirit of moderation and forgiveness is 
it to be attributed that this great religious 
revolution was effected without shedding one 
drop of blood. He tells one incident which 
reveals his spirit towards his foes. While he 
was ill in bed an assassin who had attempted 
his life entered his room, and, stung by con- 
science, fell weeping and speechless at his feet. 
Gregory said to him, ‘‘ May God _ preserve 
you! It is nothing wonderful that I whom 
He hath saved should be merciful to you. 
Your bold deed has made you mine. Take 
care to walk, henceforth, worthy of God and 
of me.’’ Gregory adds that this deed softened 
the feeling of the citizens towards him. 

Not long after the entry into the metro- 
political church—perhaps the very next day 
—the enthusiasm of the multitude led them 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS {411 


to attempt to place Gregory by force in the 
episcopal chair. Yet there were traces of 
jealousy, and false motives were freely attri- 
buted to him. Always sensitive, he delivered 
in the presence of Theodosius a sermon 
“concerning himself, and to those who said 
that he wished to be bp. of Constantinople, 
and concerning the favours which the people 
had shewn towards him" (Orat. xxxvi. Op. 
i. 633-643). It is a forcible Apologia pro Vitd 
sud. ‘* He would have been ashamed to seek 
that bishopric, bowed down as he was by old 
age and physical weakness. They said that 
he had sought another’s bride (Constantino- 
ple) : he had really refused his own (Sasima) " 
(1b. vi. 638, 639). The emperor and the 
court were present; questions greater than 
personal ones arose to Gregory's mind, and 
the discourse became an eloquent appeal to 
princes, sages, philosophers, professors, philo- 
logists, orators, to weigh their responsibilities 
and fulfil their duties. 

Another discourse preached before Theo- 
dosius is the only one of Gregory's extant 
discourses which is a homily in the narrower 
sense of a definite exposition and application 
of a passage of Scripture (Orat. xxxvii. Op. 
i. 644-660). The text was Matt. xix. 1-12. 
Gregory first shews that “the reason why 
Christ moved from place to place was that He 
might heal the more persons. For the salva- 
tion of the world He had moved from heaven 
toearth. This was the cause of His voluntary 
humiliation, which men who understood it not 
had dwelt upon as contradicting His divinity, 
though divine names and attributes are 
applied to Him. Christ answered some ques- 
tions (Matt. xix. 3, 4); others He did not 
answer (L.uke xx. 2, 4). The preacher would 
follow Christ’s example’? (ib. v. 648, 649). 
‘*Christ answered fully their question about 
divorce. The preacher applying the teaching 
of Christ protests against the injustice of the 
Roman law, which distinguished between the 
adultery of the woman and that of the man. 
Men made it, and therefore it was directed 
against women (tb. vi. 649). Marriage for the 
first time is lawful, the second time an indul- 
gence; more than the second, sinful; but 
virginity is a higher state (ἐδ. v. ili.-x. 650-652). 
Husbands, wives, virgins, eunuchs, priests, 
laymen, all have their duties.’’ He exhorts 
them to fulfil these, and, as in almost every 
discourse, passes on to the duty of believing 
in the doctrine of the Trinity. ᾿ 

Three other important discourses of Gregory, 
which belong also to the ministry at Constan- 
tinople, can only be mentioned. (1) On the 
Nativity [Dec. 25, 380 ?] (Orat. xxxvili. ΟΡ. i. 
661-675 ; (2) On the Epiphany [Jan. 6, 381 ?) 
(Orat. xxxiv. ἐδ. 676-691) ; (3) On Holy Bap- 
tism (Orat. xl. 1b. 691-729). 

Theodosius had long intended to summon a 
general council, and in May, A.D. 381, the synod 
of the 150 bishops who formed the second 
oecumenical council was held in the capital 
of the East. Socrates tells us that the object 
of the council was to confirm the Nicene 
faith and to appoint a bishop for Constanti- 
nople (Hist. Eccl. v. 8 ; cf. Soz. vil. 7; Theod. 
v. 7; Mansi, Collect. Concul. iil. 523). No 
Western bishop is mentioned as present, and 
the attempt to shew that Damasus of Rome 


414 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


was either consulted or represented is futile ; 
but 36 bishops who were followers of Mace- 
donius were present, and every effort was 
made to induce them to accept the Nicene 
faith. Meletius, the venerable bp. of Antioch, 
was at first president. The consecration of 
Maximus was at once pronounced void. The 
wish of Theodosius that Gregory should be 
chosen for the vacant see was well known; 
and the only bishop who opposed it was 
Gregory himself. He was by force placed in 
the episcopal chair. But he had this hope— 
alas! a vain one—that, “85 position gives 
influence, he should be able, like a choragus 
who leads two choirs, to produce harmony 
between opposing parties’? (Carm. xi. 1525- 
1545, Op. li. 755). Meletius dying, the new 
archbishop naturally succeeded him as pre- 
sident of the council, but who should succeed 
him as bp. of Antioch? It is said that the 
two bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, had 
agreed that the survivor should be the sole 
bishop, and that to this agreement the chief 
clergy and laity of both parties were sworn. 
Meletius himself expressed an earnest wish for 
it from his death-bed, but a strong party, both 
within and without the council, was soon 
organized against it. Gregory has given us, 
in the poem de Vitd sud, a résumé of his own 
speech on the question (Carm. xi. 1591-1679, 
Op. ii. 759-763). ‘‘ Now God had given the 
means of peace, let them confirm Paulinus in 
the episcopal office, and when the two should 
pass away, let them elect a new bishop. ... For 
himself, he sought their permission to resign 
the office which they had conferred upon him, 
and he would gladly retire to some desert far 
away from evilmen.’’ He could scarcely have 
expected that this address would be received 
with favour, for the Meletian party was over- 
poweringly strong in the synod, and Paulinus 
had not been invited; but he was not pre- 
pared for the storm which followed. ‘‘ There 
arose a cry like that of a number of jackdaws, 
and the younger members attacked him like 
a swarm of wasps’”’ (7b. 1680-1690). He left 
the synod never to return toit. For a while 
illness was opportunely (καλῶς) the reason of 
his absence (7b. 1745), but the council pro- 
ceeded to name Flavian as successor of 
Meletius; and Gregory, finding that his 
opinion had little weight, withdrew altogether 
and left the official residence, which was close 
to the church of the Holy Apostles (Carm. xi. 
1778, Op. ii. 769). This led to earnest en- 
treaties from the people that he would not 
desert his flock (7b. 1785-1795). Moved for a 
while by these prayers, he yet persisted in his 
determination, which was strengthened by the 
arrival of bishops from Egypt and Macedonia. 
The East and the West were now opposed to 
each other, and “ prepared for the battle like 
wild boars, sharpening their terrible tusks ”’ 
(1b. 1804). The new members of the synod 
did not object to Gregory personally ; but his 
election was probably in itself obnoxious as 
an act of Meletius. It was clearly opposed, 
they urged, to the 15th canon of the Nicene 
council, which forbad any bishop, presbyter, 
or deacon to pass from one city to another. 
By that canon he ought to be sent back to 
Sasima. Gregory’s party urged that he was 
released from that obligation by an equal 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


authority, as another general council had 


elected him bp. of Constantinople; but it 
could not be expected that this plea would be 
accepted by bishops who were not a party to 
that act, nor was Gregory himself justified in 
speaking of the Nicene canons as obsolete. 
Gregory exhorted the council to think of 
higher things and mutual harmony. ‘“ He 
would be another Jonah to pacify the angry 
waves. Gladly would he find retirement and 
rest. He had but one anxiety, and that was 
for his beloved doctrine of the Trinity (7b. 
1828-1855). He left the synod, glad at the 
thought of rest from his labours; sorrowful 
as one who is robbed of his children.’”’ The 
synod received his resignation with satisfac- 
tion, as removing a chief ground of dissension, 
and probably of jealousy also (7b. 1869; 
Carm. xii. 145-148, Op. ii. 787). Gregory 
went from the assembly to the emperor, who 
unwillingly consented. Gregory’s only remain- 
ing care was to reconcile those who had been 
opposed to him and to bid farewell to his 
friends. He delivered a public statement of 
his position and a public farewell to the council 
and his church towards the end of June, 381 
(Orat. xlii. Op. i. 748-768), before the synod 
and in the presence of a congregation which 
filled every corner of the church, and among 
whom no eye was dry. ‘‘ Was there needed 
proof of hisright to the bishopric ? He would 
render his accounts. Let his work answer. 
He found them a rude flock, without a pastor, 
scattered, persecuted, robbed. Let them look 
round and see the wreath which had been 
woven—priests, deacons, readers, holy men 
and women. That wreath he had helped to 
weave. Was it a great thing to have estab- 
lished sound doctrine in a city which was the 
centre of the world? In that, too, he had 
done his part. Had he ever sought to promote 
his own interests? He could appeal like 
another Samuel. No; he had lived for God 
and the church, and kept the vows of his 
priesthood. All this he had done through the 
Holy Trinity and by the help of the Spirit. 
He would present to the synod his church as 
the most precious offering. The reward he 
asked was that they would appoint some one 
with pure hands and prudent tongue to watch 
over it; and that to the white hairs and 
worn-out frame of an old man, who could 
hardly then preach to them, they would allow 
the longed-for rest. Let them learn to prove 
these his last words—bishops to see the evil 
of the contentions which were among them; 
people to disregard externals and love priests 
rather than orators, men who cared for their 
souls rather than rich men.’”’ He then pro- 
nounced his lengthened farewell ‘‘to the 
beloved Anastasia, to the large temple, to the 
churches throughout the city, to the apostles 
who inhabited the temple, to the episcopal 


throne, to the clergy of all degrees, to all who. 


helped at the holy table, to the choruses of 
Nazareans, to the virgins, wives, widows, 
orphans, poor; to the hospitable houses, to 
the crowds of hearers; to prince and palace 
and their inhabitants; to the Christ-loving 
city, to Eastern and Western lands; above 
all, to angels, protectors of the church and of 
himself; to the Holy Trinity, his only thought 
and treasure.’’ With this pathetic climax, 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


unsurpassed elsewhere even by Gregory him- 
self, he concluded his last discourse in Con- 
stantinople. He left the city and retired to 
Nazianzus. Here he received a letter from 
Philagrius, an old friend of Caesarius and 
himself, animadverting upon his retirement. 
His answer breathes the same spirit as the 
poem de Vita sud and the farewell sermon. 
“He was tired of fighting against envy and 


against venerable bishops, who destroyed the | 
peace and put their personal squabbles before | 


questions of faith’ (Ep. Ixxxvii. Op. ii. 76). 
Among the letters belonging to this period, 
two addressed to Nectarius, who was chosen 
to succeed Gregory at Constantinople, deserve 
special note, as shewing that he cherished for 
him and the church nothing but the most 
entire goodwill (Epp. Ixxxvili. and xci. Op. 
ii. 77, 78). Gregory’s difficulties were not 
yet atanend. On his return to Nazianzus he 
found that church in confusion, chiefly through 
the teaching of the Apollinarians (Carm. xxxi. 
Op. ii. 870-877). He tried to find a bishop 
who would stem the evil, but was thwarted 
by the presbyters and by the desertion of 
seven bishops who had promised to support 
him. His candidate had _ been 
engaged in secular affairs, but he thought him 
the most promising. He seems to have suc- 
ceeded in naming another as bishop, and then 
to have retired to Arianzus. But very shortly 
he was again urged to take the governance of 
the church at Nazianzus and check the 
rapidly spreading Apollinarianism, and, in 
spite of his own strong disinclination, he 
agreed to do so. During this second admin- 
istration the prefect Olympius threatened to 
destroy the city in consequence of a seditious 
attack, and it was saved only by a pacific 
letter from the bishop (Ep. cxli. Op. 11. 118- 
120). Other letters of the same kind shew 
Gregory as the father of the city, watching 
over all its interests with loving care. 

But he felt that his constant illness unfitted 
him for his duties, and we find him writing to 
the archbp. of Tyana earnestly beseeching him 
to take steps to appoint another bishop. “ If 
this letter did not affect its purpose, he would 
publicly proclaim the bishopric vacant rather 
than that the church should longer suffer from 
his own infirmity’’ (Ep. clii. Op. ii. 128). 
Eulalius, Gregory’s colleague and relation, 
and the man of his choice, was elected in his 


stead. Gregory’s satisfaction is expressed in | 


a letter to Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. clxxxii. Op. 
li. 149). Gregory withdrew to Arianzus, and 
eet in retirement the six remaining years of 
ife. 
number of poems and letters; and probably 
two discourses, one on the Festival of St. 
Mamas, which was kept with special honour 
around Nazianzus on the first Sun. after Easter 
(καινὴ κυριακή), and one on the Holy Pass- 
over (Orat. xliv. and xlv. Op. i. 834-868). 
Gregory at first retired to the little plot at 
Arianzus which he had retained when all his 
other property was given to the poor. Here 
a shady walk with a fountain was his favourite 
resort (Carm. xliv. 1-24, Op.ii. 915-917). But 
even this peaceful spot was denied him, and 


he was “ driven forth without city, throne, or | 


children, but always full of cares for them, 
as a wanderer upon the earth’’ (Carm. xliii. 


hitherto | 


To this period belong certainly a large | 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


I-12, Op. 913-915). He found a temporary 
resting-place at a tomb consecrated to martyrs 
at Carbala, a place of which nothing is known, 
and which the Bollandists suppose (Mai. ii 
424 F) to be another name for the plot at 
Arianzus. He was driven thence by a rela- 
| tive named Valentinian, who settled near with 
the female members of his family, as from 
another Paradise by another Eve. Olxapylacs 
δὴ γυναικῶν οὕτως ὑποχωρήσομεν, ὥσπερ 
ἐχιδναίοις ἐπιδρομαῖς (Ep. eciii. Op. ii. 169). 
The poems and letters of this period speak of 
constant illness and suffering, with but short 
intervals of relief. A frame never strong had 
given way under the severe asceticism of the 
earlier and the burden of the later life. ‘1 
suffer,” he says in one of the letters, “ and 
|}am content, not because I suffer, but because 
I am for others an example of patience. If I 
have no means to overcome any pain, I gain 
from it at least the power to bear it, and to be 
thankful as well in sorrowful circumstances as 
in joyous; for I am convinced that, although 
it seems to us the contrary, there is in the eyes 
of the Sovereign Reason nothing opposed to 
reason, in all which happens to us" (Ep. 
Xxxvi. Op. ii. 32). Besides physical suffer- 
ings he had to bear intense spiritual agony, 
which at times took from him all hope either 
in this world or the next. In the thick of the 
spiritual combat he, like other great souls, 
learnt the lessons he was to teach to the world. 
His death must be assigned to about the 11th 
year of Theodosius, #.e. A.D. 389 or 390. 
Gregory’s extant works are contained in two 
fol. vols. of the Benedictine edition. Vol. i. 
consists of 45 sermons, of which some have 
been noticed in this article. Vol. ii. includes 
243 letters—theological, pastoral, political, 
domestic ; the will of Gregory, taken from the 
archives of the church of Nazianzus, and the 
poems arranged in two books. The dogmatic 
poems are 38 in number. No. 10(74 iambics) 
is on the Incarnation, against Apollinaris. 
No. 11 (16 hexameters and pentameters) is 
also on the Incarnation. Nos. 12-29 are 
mnemonic verses on the facts of Holy Serip- 
ture, apparently meant for school use. Nos. 
29-38 are prayers or hymns addressed to God. 
The moral poems are 40 in number. No. 
1 (732 hexameters) is a eulogy of virginity. 
Nos. 2-7 in various metres, deal with kindred 
| subjects, exhortations and counsels to virgins 
and monks, and the superiority of the single 
‘life. Nos. 8-11 areon the secular and religious 
life, and exhortations to virtue; Nos. 12 and 13 
on the frailty of the human nature. No. 14 
is a meditation on human nature in 132 hexa- 
| meters and pentameters. It ranks with No. 1 
|among the most beautiful of Gregory's poems. 
| The remainder of the poems in this section are 
|on such subjects as the baseness of the outer 
man; the blessedness of the Christian life ; 
|the sin of frequent oaths and of anger; the 
loss of dear friends ; the misery of false friends. 
|Four are satires against a bad-mannered 
| nobleman (26 and 27); misers (28); feminine 
|luxury (29). There are 99 poems re- 
lating to his own life. One of them (No. 11, 
de Vitd sud) is an autobiography extending 
to 1,949 lines, to which another (No. 12, de 
| Seipso et de Episcopis) adds 836 lines more. 
Among the historical poems is an epistle to 


415 


416 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


Nemesius, an eminent public man, shewing 
him the errors of paganism, and urging him to 
accept Christianity. These poetic epistles are 
of considerable length, and shew the varied 
interests and practical wisdom of the writer. 
There are 129 epitaphs and 94 epigrams, 
most of which are short poems, with little in 
them of the modern epigram, though some 
shew (e.g. 10-14, Eis ᾿Αγαπητούς) that the pen 
of Gregory could, when occasion required, be 
pointed with adamant. No less than 64 (31- 
94), belonging probably to the writer’s youth, 
are upon the spoilers of tombs. If the state- 
ment of Jerome and Suidas, that Gregory wrote 
30,000 verses, is to be understood literally, 
more than a third of them are now unknown. 

In forming an estimate of Gregory’s 
literary position, we have to consider (1) his 
poems, (2) his letters, and (3) his orations. 
Of each kind of writing there are abundant 
materials to form a judgment. (1) Two 
criticisms of the poems from very different 
standpoints may help us to arrive at the true 
mean. To Dr. Ullmann (Gregorius, ss. 200- 
202) they are “inferior to the letters, the 
product of old age, whereas the true vein of 
poetry must have shewn itself in earlier life ; 


cramped by their subject-matters, which did | 
prosaic thoughts | 
|“ to discourse about God is a task of the 


not admit of originality ; 


wrapped in poetic forms; involved and 


diffusive ’’ ; though he admits that some of the | 


short pieces are poetry of a high order, and 


that the didactic aim of Gregory is to be taken | 
jought first to practise virtue. 


into account. ‘‘ Still they could never be 
more than a poor substitute for the older 
poetry of Greece.”’ 
poems the finest of all Gregory’s works. He 
instances one especially (de Humand natura), 
““the severe charm of which seems to have 
anticipated the finest inspirations of our 
melancholy age, while it preserves the impress 
of a faith still fresh and honest, even in its 
trouble. . . . His funeral eulogies are hymns ; 


his invectives against Julian have something | 
He has | 
been called the ‘ Theologian of the East.’ He 


of the malediction of the prophets. 


ought to have been called rather ‘ the Poet of 


Eastern Christendom’ ”’ (Tableau de V éloquence | 
(2) Gregory’s | 


chrétienne au 4m stécle, Ὁ. 133). 
extant letters, though upon very various sub- 
jects, and often written under the pressure of 
immediate necessity, are almost invariably 
finished compositions. (3) A higher place has 
been claimed in this article for Gregory’s ora- 
tions than forhis poems. He is now held to be 
greater than Basil, or even Chrysostom, and 
to have combined ‘‘ the invincible logic of 
Bourdaloue; the unction, colour, and harmony 


of Massillon; the flexibility, poetic grace, and | 
| subject. 


vivacity of Fénelon; the force, grandeur, and 
sublimity of Bossuet. . Lhe Eagle of 
Meaux has been especially inspired by him 
in his funeral orations ; the Swan of Cambrai 
has followed him in his treatise on The 
Existence of God”’ (Benoit, p. 721). 
an orator by training and profession. For 
this he studied at Caesarea, Alexandria, and 
Athens, and was the acknowledged chief in the 
schools of therhetoricians. The oratory of the 
Christian pulpit was the creation of Gregory 
and Basil. It was based on the ancient 
models, and was akin, therefore, to the 
speeches of Demosthenes and Cicero, rather 


Villemain considers the | 


He was | 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


than to the modern sermon. It has been 
charged against the sermons of Gregory that 
they are not expositions of Scripture. As 
compared with the homilies of Chrysostom, 
for example, they certainly are not (except 
one: Orat. xxxvil. Op. i. 644-660); the 
nature of the case made it impossible that they 
should be. But the margin of every page 
abounds with references to Scripture, and no 
reader can fail to see with Bossuet that 
‘““Gregory’s whole discourse is nothing but a 
judicious weaving of Scripture, and that he 
manifests everywhere a profound acquaint- 
ance with it’’ (Défense de la tradition, etc., 
iv. 2; Benoit, p. 723). 

Great as was the position of Gregory as a 
writer, he left his chief mark upon history as 
a theologian. He alone beyond the apostolic 
circle has been thought worthy to bear the 
name ‘‘ Theologus’’ which had been appro- 
priated to St. John. Ullmann (Gregorius, 
etc. ss. 209-352), following Clemencet (Op. i. 
xlix.-Ixxviii.), has arranged under their 
separate headings his views on the articles of 
faith. Within our present limits we can only 
refer to them as contained in the five famous 
theological discourses at Constantinople ( Orat. 
XXvVli.-xxxi. Op. i. 487-579). 

(1) The first, Κατὰ Εὐνομιάνων, urges that 


greatest difficulty, not fitted for all times or 
all persons, nor to be undertaken in the pre- 
sence of all persons. ... The teacher of theology 
There is 
abundant scope for work to refute the older 
teaching of the pagan philosophers, or to 
discuss simpler questions of science and theo- 
logy; but as to the nature of God our words 
should be few, for we can know but little in 
this life.’ 

(2) Περὶ θεολογίας. Gregory reasserts here 
his favourite position, that “‘it is the pure 
mind only that can know God..... The 
theologian beholds part of God, but the divine 
nature he can neither express in words nor 
comprehend in thought. The higher intelli- 
gence of angels even cannot know Him as He 
is. That there is a creating and preserving 
cause, we can know, as the sound of an instru- 
ment bears witness to its maker and player; 
that God is, we know, but what He is, and of 
what nature He is, and where He is, and where 
He was before the foundation of the world, we 
cannot know. The Infinite cannot be defined. 
We can only predicate negative attributes, for 
the nature of the divine essence is beyond all 
human conception.” 

(3) Περὶ Tiod. The two previous discourses 
wereintroductory. Henow passes to the next 
““The three earliest opinions con- 
cerning God were anarchia, polyarchia, and 
monarchia. The two former could not stand, 
as leading to confusion rather than the order 
of the universe. We hold that there is a 
monarchia, but that God is not limited to one’ 
person. If unity is divided, it becomes 
plurality. But if there is equal dignity of 
nature, and agreement of will, and identity of 
movement, and convergence to unity of those 
things which are of unity (and this cannot be 
the case in created things), there may be dis- 
tinction in number without by any means 
involving distinction in essence and nature. 


GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 


Unity, therefore (uovds), from the beginning 
going forth to duality (εἰς δυάδα), constituted a 
Trinity (μέχρι τριάδος). Human words fail to 
express the generation and procession, and it 
is better to keep to scriptural terms; but the 
writer has in his thoughts an overflowing of 
goodness, and the Platonic simile of an over- 
flowing cup applied to first and second causes. 
The generation and procession are eternal, and 
all questions as to time are inapplicable.” 
Gregory then proceeds to state and answer the 
common objections of his adversaries. 

(4) Περὶ Tiod. Another discourse on the 
same subject. Gregory has already answered 
the objection, that some passages of Scripture 
speak of the Son as human. He here exhaus- 
tively examines, under ten objections, the 
scriptural language applied to our Lord, and 
then passes to an exposition of the names (a) 
common to the Deity, (b) peculiar to the Son, 
(c) peculiar to the Son as man. 

(5) Περὶ τοῦ ‘Ayiov πνεύματος. Gregory 
commences this oration by referring to the 
difficulties arising because many who admitted 
the divinity of the Son regarded that of the 
Holy Ghost as a new doctrine not found in 
Holy Scripture. He expresses, in the strong- 
est terms, his own belief in the divinity of 
the Third Person. ‘‘The Holy Spirit is holi- 
ness. Had the Spirit been wanting to the 
divine Trinity, the Father and the Son would 
have been imperfect.” The most eminent 
pagan philosophers had had a glimpse of the 
truth, for they spoke of the ‘“‘ Mind of the 
Universe,”’ the ‘‘ Mind without,”’ etc. 

No conception of the subtlety of thought or 
beauty of expression in these discourses of 
Gregory can be given in an outline. Critics 
have rivalled each other in their praise, and 
many theologians have found in them their 
own best thoughts. A critic who cannot be 
accused of partiality towards Gregory has 
given perhaps the truest estimate of them. 
“ A substance of thought, the concentration of 
all that is spread through the writings of 
Hilary, Basil, and Athanasius; a flow of 
softened eloquence which does not halt or lose 
itself for a moment; an argument nervous 
without dryness on the one hand, and without 
useless ornament on the other, gives these five 
discourses a place to themselves among the 
monuments of this fine genius, who was not 


_ always in the same degree free from grandilo- 


quence and affectation. In a few pages and 
in a few hours Gregory has summed up and 
closed the controversy of a whole century.”’ 
De Broglie, L’Eglise et l’'empire, v. 385; 
Benoit, Grégoire, etc. 435, 436. 

Little is needed for the study of Gregory’s 
life and works beyond the admirable Bene- 
dictine ed. referred to above (Migne, Patr. Gk. 
XXXV.-xxxviii.), and the Lives by Ullmann 
(Greg. von Naz. der Theologe, 2. Aufl., Gotha, 
1867; pt. i. of earlier ed. trans. by Cox, Oxf. 
1855) and Benoit (51. Grég. de Naz., Paris, 
1876). For a well-known comparison of 
Gregory and Basil see Newman’s Church 
of the Fathers, Pp- 116-145, 551. Gregory's 
Five Theol. Orations have been ed. by A. J. 
Mason (Camb. Univ. Press, 1899). See also 
Duchesne, Histoire de I’Egl. vol. ii. ch. xii. 
Some of his works are trans. into Eng. in the 
Post-Nic. Fathers. (a. W.W.] 


GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 


Gregorius (15) Nyssenus, bp. of Nyssa in 
Cappadocia (372-395), younger brother of 
Basil the Great, and a leading theologian of 
the Eastern church. He and his brother and 
their common friend Gregory Nazianzen were 
the chief champions of the orthodox Nicene 
faith in the struggle against Arianism and 
Apollinarianism, and by their discreet zeal, 
independency of spirit, and moderation of 
temper, contributed chiefly to its victory in 
the East. He was one of ten children of Basil, 
an advocate and rhetorician of eminence, and 
his wife Emmelia (Greg. Nys. de Vit. S. Mac re 
Opp. ed. Morel. t. ii. pp. 182-186). We may 
place Gregory’s birth c. 335 or 336, probably 
at Caesarea. He did not share his eldest 
brother's advantage of a university training, 
but was probably brought up in the schools of 
his native city. That no very special pains 
had been devoted to his education we may 
gather from the words of his sister Macidora 
on her deathbed, in which she ascribed the 
high reputation he had gained to the prayers 
of his parents, since ‘he had little or no 
assistance towards it from home”’ (1b. iii. 192). 
A feeble constitution and natural shyness 
disposed him to a literary retirement. His 
considerable intellectual powers had been im- 
proved by diligent private study; but he 
shrank from a public career, and appears after 
|his father’s death to have lived upon his in- 
heritance, without any profession. That his 
religious instincts did not develop early 
appears from his account of his reluctant at- 
tendance at the ceremonial held by his mother 
Emmelia in honour of the “ Forty Martyrs.” 
A terrifying dream, which seemed to reproach 
him with neglect, led him to become a 
“lector ’’’ and as such read the Bible lections 
in the congregation (Greg. Naz. Ep. 43, t. i. 
p- 804). He would seem, however, to have 
soon deserted this vocation for that of a 
professor of rhetoric. This backsliding caused 
great pain to his friends and gave occasion to 
the enemies of religion to suspect his motives 
and bring unfounded accusations against him. 
Gregory Nazianzen, whose affection for him 
was warm and sincere, strongly remonstrated 
with him, expressing the grief felt by himself 
and others at his falling away from his first 
love. The date of this temporary desertion 
must be placed either before 361 or after 363, 
about the same time as his marriage. His 
wife was named Theosebeia, and her character 
answered to her name. She died some time 
after Gregory had become a bishop, and, 
according to Tillemont, subsequently to the 
council of Constantinople, a.p. 381. Ex- 
pressions in Gregory Nazianzen's letter would 
lead us to believe that both himself and his 
friend were then somewhat advanced in life; 
and from Theosebeia being styled Gregory 
Nyssen’s ‘‘ sister’’ we may gather that they 
| had ceased to cohabit, probably on his becom- 
ing a bishop (Greg. Naz. Ep. 95, t. i. p. 846; 
Niceph. H. E. xi. 19). 

Gregory soon abandoned his profession of 
a teacher of rhetoric. The urgent remon- 
strances of his friend Gregory Nazianzen would 
have an earnest supporter in his elder sister, 
the holy recluse Macrina, who doubtless used 
| the same powerful arguments which had in- 
duced Basil to give up all prospect of worldly 


27 


417 


418 GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 


fame for the service of Christ. Probably also 
the profession he had undertaken proved 
increasingly distasteful to one of Gregory’s 
sensitive and retiring disposition, and he may 
have been further discouraged by the small 
results of his exertions to inspire a literary 
taste among youths who, as he complains in 
letters to his brother Basil’s tutor Libanius, 
written while practising as a rhetorician (Greg. 
Nys. Ep. 13, 14), were much more ready to 
enter the army than to follow rhetorical 
studies. Heretired to a monastery in Pontus, 
almost certainly that on the river Iris presided 
over by his brother Basil, and in close vicinity 
to Annesi, where was the female convent of 
which his sister Macrina was the superior. In 
this congenial retreat he passed several years, 
devoting himself to the study of the Scriptures 
and the works of Christian commentators. 
Among these it is certain that Origen had a 
high place, the influence of that writer being 
evident in Gregory’s own theological works. 
At Pontus, c. 371, he composed his work de 
Virginitate, in which, while extolling virginity 
as the highest perfection of Christian life, he 
laments that he had separated himself from 
that state (de Virg. lib. iii. t. 111. pp. 116 seq.). 
Towards the close of his residence in Pontus, 
A.D. 371, circumstances occurred displaying 
Gregory’s want of judgment in a striking 
manner. An estrangement had arisen be- 
tween Basil and his aged uncle, the bp. 
Gregory, whom the family deservedly re- 
garded as their second father. The younger 
Gregory took on himself the office of mediator. 
Straightforward methods having failed, he 
adopted crooked ones, and forged letters to his 
brother in their uncle’s name desiring recon- 
ciliation. The letters were indignantly re- 
pudiated by the justly offended bishop, and 
reconciliation became increasingly hopeless. 
Basil addressed a letter to his brother, which 
is a model of dignified rebuke. He first 
ridicules him with his simplicity, unworthy of 
a Christian, reproaches him for endeavouring 
to serve the cause of truth by deception, and 
charges him with unbrotherly conduct in 
adding affliction to one already pressed out of 
measure (Basil. Ep. 58 [44]). 

In 372 (the year Gregory Nazianzen was 
consecrated to the see of Sasima) Gregory was 
forced by his brother Basil to accept reluctantly 
thesee of Nyssa,an obscuretown of Cappadocia 
Prima, about ten miles from the capital, 
Caesarea. Their common friend, Eusebius of 
Samosata, wrote to Basil to remonstrate on 
his burying so distinguished a man in so 
unworthy a see. Basil replied that his 
brother’s merits made him worthy to govern 
the whole church gathered into one, but he 
desired that the see should be made famous by 
its bishop, not the bishop by his see (7b. 98 
[259]). These words have proved prophetic. 

Gregory’s episcopate fell in troublous times. 
Valens, a zealous Arian, being on the throne, 
lost no opportunity of forwarding his own 
tenets and vexing the orthodox. The miser- 
able Demosthenes (Basit1us] had been re- 
cently appointed vicar of Pontus to do all in 
his power to crush the adherents of the Nicene 
faith. After petty acts of persecution, in 
which the semi-Arian prelates joined with 
high satisfaction, as a means of retaliating on 


GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 


Basil, a synod was summoned at Ancyra at 
the close of 375, to examine some alleged 
canonical irregularities in Gregory’s consecra- 
tion, and to investigate a frivolous charge 
brought against him by a certain Philocharis 
of having made away with church funds left 
by his predecessor. A band of soldiers was 
sent to arrest Gregory and conduct him to the 
place of hearing. A chill on his journey 
brought on a pleuritic seizure and aggravated 
a painful malady to which he was subject. 
His entreaties to be allowed to halt for medical 
treatment were disregarded, but he managed 
to elude the vigilance of the soldiers and to 
escape to some place of concealment where his 
maladies could be cared for. Basil collected 
a synod of orthodox Cappadocian bishops, in 
whose name he addressed a dignified but 
courteous letter to Demosthenes, apologizing 
for his brother’s non-appearance at Ancyra, 
and stating that the charge of embezzlement 
could be shewn to be false by the books of 
the treasurers of the church; while, if any 
canonical defect in his ordination could be 
proved, the ordainers were those who should 
be called to account, an account which they 
were ready to render (ib. 225 [385]). Basil 
wrote also to a man of distinction named 
Aburgius, begging him to use his influence to 
save Gregory from the misery of being dragged 
into court and implicated in judicial business 
from which his peaceful disposition shrank 
(tb. 33 [358]). Another synod was summoned 
at Nyssa by Demosthenes a.D. 376, through 
the instrumentality of Eustathius of Sebaste. 
Still Gregory refused to appear. He was 
pronounced contumacious and deposed by the 
assembled bishops, of whom Anysius and 
Ecdicius of Parnasse were the leaders, and they 
consecrated a successor, whom Basil spoke of 
with scorn as a miserable slave who could be 
bought for a few oboli (7b. 237 [264], 239 [10]). 
Gregory’s deposition was followed by his 
banishment by Valens (Greg. Nys. de Vit. 
Macr. t. ii. p. 192). These accumulated 
troubles utterly crushed his gentle spirit. In 
his letters he bewails the cruel necessity which 
had compelled him to desert his spiritual 
children, and driven him from his home and 
friends to dwell among malicious enemies 
who scrutinized every look and gesture, nay 
his very dress, and made them grounds of 
accusation. He dwells with tender recollec- 
tion on the home he had lost—his fireside, his 
table, his pantry, his bed, his bench, his 
sackcloth—and contrasts it with the stifling 
hole in which he was forced to dwell, of which 
the only furniture was straitness, darkness, 
and cold. His only consolation is in the 
assurance that his brethren would remember 
him in their prayers (Greg. Nys. Epp. 18, 22). 
His letters to Gregory Nazianzen have unfor- 
tunately perished, but his deep despondency 
is shewn by the replies. After his expulsion " 
from his see his namesake wrote that, though 
denied his wish to accompany him in his 
banishment, he went with him in spirit, and 
trusted in God that the storm would soon blow 
over, and he get the better of all his enemies, 
as a recompense for his strict orthodoxy 
(Greg. Naz. Ep. 142, 1. i. p. 866). Driven from 
place to place to avoid his enemies, he had 
compared himself to a stick carried aimlessly 


GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 


hither and thither on the surface of a stream ; | 
his friend replies that his movements were 
rather like those of the sun, which brings life | 
to all things, or of the planets, whose apparent | 
irregularities are subject to a fixed law(#b. 34 | 
[32], p- 798). Out of heart at the apparent | 
triumph of Arianism, Gregory bids him be of | 
good cheer, for the enemies of the truth were | 
like serpents, creeping from their holes in the 
sunshine of imperial favour, who, however 
alarming their hissing, would be driven back 
into the earth by time and truth. All would 
come right if they left all to God (ἐδ. 35 [33], 
- 799). This trust in God proved well 
nara. On the death of Valens in 378 the 
youthful Gratian recalled the banished bishops, 
and, to the joy of the faithful, Gregory was 
restored to Nyssa. In one of his letters he 
describes with graphic power hisreturn. The 
latter half of his journey was a triumphal 
progress, the inhabitants pouring out to meet 
him, and escorting him with acclamations and 
tears of joy (Greg. Nys. Ep. 3, Zacagni; 
No. 6, Migne). On Jan. 1, 379, Basil, whom he 


loved as a brother and revered as a spiritual | 


father, died. Gregory certainly attended his | 
funeral, delivering his funeral oration, to 
which we are indebted for many particulars 
of Basil’s life. In common with Gregory’s 
compositions generally, it offends by the 
extravagance of its language and turgid 
oratory (Greg. Nys. in Laud. Patr. Bas. t. iii. 
ΡΡ. 479 seq-). Gregory Nazianzen, who was 
prevented from being present by illness, wrote 
a consolatory letter, praising his namesake 
very highly, and saying that his chief comfort 
now was to see all Basil’s virtues reflected in 
him, as in a mirror (Greg. Naz. Ep. 37 [35], 
P- 799). One sorrow followed close upon 
another in Gregory’s life. The confusion in 
the churches after the long Arian supremacy 
entailed severe labours and anxieties upon 
him for the defence of the truth and the 
reformation of the erring (de Vit. Macr. t. ii. 
p- 192). In Sept. 379 he took part in the 
council held at Antioch for the double purpose 
of healing the Antiochene schism (which it 
failed to effect) and of taking measures for 
securing the church’s victory over the lately | 
dominant Arianism (Labbe, Concil. ii. 910; | 
Baluz. Nov. Concil. Coll. p. 78). On his way 
back to his diocese, Gregory visited the 
monastery at Annesi, over which his sister 
Macrina presided. He found her dying, and 
she expired the next evening. A full account | 
of her last hours, with a detailed biography, 
is given by him in a letter to the monk Olym- 
pius (de Vit. S. Macrinae Virg. t. ii. pp. 177 | 
seq.). In his treatise de Anima et Resurrec- 
tione (entitled, in honour of his sister, 7a 
Μακρίνια) we have another account of her 
deathbed, in which he puts long speeches into 
her mouth, as part of a dialogue held with 
him on the proofs of the immortality of the 
soul and the resurrection of the body, the 


object of which was to mitigate his grief for 
Basil’s death (t. iii. pp. 181 seq.). [MACRINA| 
THE YOUNGER.] After celebrating his sister’s 
funeral, Gregory continued his journey to his | 
diocese, where an unbroken series of calamities 
awaited him. The Galatians had been sowing 
their heresies. The people at Ibora on the. 
borders of Pontus, having lost their bishop | 


GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 419 


by death, elected Gregory to the vacant see. 
This, in some unexplained way, caused 
troubles calling for the intervention of the 
military. These difficulties being settled, he 
Set out on a long and toilsome journey, in 
fulfilment of a commission from the council 
of Antioch “ to visit and reform the church 
of Arabia" (t. iii. p. 653)—t.e. of Babylon. 


| He found the state of the church there even 


worse than had been represented. The people 
had grown hardened in heresy, and were as 
brutish and barbarous in their lives as in their 
tongue. From his despairing tone we judge 
that the mission met with but little success. 
At its termination, being near the Holy Land, 
he visited the spots consecrated by the life 
and death of Christ. The emperor put a 
public chariot at his disposal, which served 
him and his retinue ‘“* both for a monastery and 
a church,”’ fasting, psalmody, and the hours 
of prayer being regularly observed all through 
the journey (t. iii. p. 658). He visited 
Bethlehem, Golgotha, the Mount of Olives, and 
the Anastasis. But the result of this pil- 
grimage was disappointment. His faith 
received no confirmation, and his religious 
sense was scandalized by the gross immorality 
prevailing in the Holy City, which he describes 
as a sink of all iniquity. The church there 


| was in an almost equally unsatisfactory state. 


Cyril, after his repeated depositions by Arian 
influence, had finally returned, but had failed 
to heal the dissensions of the Christians or 
bring them back to unity of faith. Gregory's 
efforts were equally ineffectual, and he re- 
turned to Cappadocia depressed and saddened. 
In two letters, one to three ladies resident at 
Jerusalem, Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa 
(t. ill. pp. 659 seq.), the other the celebrated 
one de Euntibus Hterosolyma, he declares his 
conviction not of the uselessness only but of 
the evil of pilgrimages. ‘‘ He urges... the 
dangers of robbery and violence in the Holy 
Landitself, of the moralstate of which he draws 
a fearfulpicture. Heasserts the religious superi- 
ority of Cappadocia, which had more churches 
than any part of the world, and inquires in plain 
terms whether a man will believe the virgin 
birth of Christ the more by seeing Bethlehem, 
or His resurrection by visiting His tomb, or 
His ascension by standing on the Mount of 
Olives "’ (Milman, /itst. of Christsansty, bk. iii. 
c. 11, vol. ili. p. 192, note). There is no 
sufficient reason for questioning the genuine- 
ness of this letter. We next hear of Gregory 
at the second general council, that of Con- 
stantinople, a.p. 381 (Labbe, Concsl. ii. 955), 
accompanied by his deacon Evagrius. There 
he held a principal place as a recognized 
theological leader, τῆς ἐκκλυσίας τὸ κοινὸν 
ἔρεισμα. as his friend Gregory Nazianzen had 
at an earlier period termed him. That he was 
the author of the clauses then added to the 
Nicene symbol is an unverified assertion of 
Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. xii. 13). It was 
probably on this occasion that he read to 


|Gregory Nazianzen and to Jerome his work 


against Eunomius, or the more important 
parts of it (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c. 128). Greg- 
ory Nazianzen having been reluctantly com- 
pelled to ascend the ———_ throne of 
Constantinople, Gregory Nyssen delivered an 
inaugural oration now lost, and, soon after, 


420 GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 


a funeral oration on the venerable Meletius of 
Antioch, which has been preserved (Socr. H. E. 
iv. 26; Ovatio in funere Magni Meletit, τ. iii. 
PP. 587 seq.). Before the close of the council 
the emperor Theodosius issued a decree from 
Heraclea, July 30, 381, containing the names 
of the bishops who were to be regarded as 
centres of orthodox communion in their 
respective districts. Among these Gregory 
Nyssen appears, together with his metro- 


politan Helladius of Caesarea and Otreius of | 
|(vol. i. p. 45; Socr. ἢ. E. iv. 26), the funda- 


Melitene, for the diocese of Pontus (Cod. 
Theod. 1. iii. de Fide Catholica, t. vi. p. 9; 
Socr. H. E. v. 8). Gregory, however, was not 
made for the delicate and difficult business of 
restoring the unity of the faith. He was more 
a student than a man of action. His sim- 
plicity was easily imposed upon. Open to 
flattery, he became the dupe of designing men. 
His colleague Helladius was in every way his 
inferior, and if Gregory took as little pains to 
conceal his sense of this in his personal inter- 
course as in his correspondence with Flavian, 


we cannot be surprised at the metropolitan’s | 


dignity being severely wounded. Helladius 
revenged himself by gross rudeness to Gregory. 
Having turned out of his way to pay his 
respects to his metropolitan, Gregory was kept 
standing at the door under the midday sun, 


and when at last admitted to Helladius’s | 


presence, his complimentary speeches were 
received with chilling silence. When he mild- 
ly remonstrated, Helladius broke into cutting 
reproaches, and rudely drove him from his 
presence (Ep. ad Flaviam. t. 111. pp. 645 seq.). 


Gregory was present at the synod at Constan- | 


tinople in 383, when he delivered his discourse 
on the Godhead of the Second and Third 


Persons of the Trinity (de Abraham, t. iii. | 
'A short treatise on the witch of Endor, 
᾿᾿Εγγαστρίμυθος, to prove that the apparition 


pp: 464 seq.; cf. Tillem. Mém. ecclés. ix. p. 
586, S. Grég. de Nysse, art. x.), and again at 
Constantinople in a.p. 385, when he pronounced 


the funeral oration over the little princess | 


Pulcheria, and shortly afterwards over her 
mother the empress Flaccilla. 
are extant (t. 


celebrated deaconess and correspondent of 
Chrysostom, at whose instance he undertook 


an exposition of the Canticles, a portion of | 
which, containing 15 homilies, he completed | 


and sent her (7 Cant. Cantic. t. i. pp. 468 seq.). 


Gregory was present at the synod at Constan- | 
tinople a.D. 394, under the presidency of | 
| Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarem. These 


Nectarius, to decide between the claims of 


Bagadius and Agapius to the see of Bostra in 
At the | 


Arabia (Labbe, Concil. ii. 1151). 
request of Nectarius Gregory delivered the 
homily bearing the erroneous title, de Ordina- 


ttone, which is evidently a production of his | 


old age (t. 11. pp. 40 seq.). His architectural 
taste appears in this homily. It is probable 
that he did not long survive this synod. The 
date of his death was perhaps A.D. 395. 
Gregory Nyssen was a very copious writer, 
and the greater part of his recorded works 


have been preserved. They may be divided | 


into five classes: (1) Exegetical; (2) Dog- 
matical; (3) Ascetic; (4) Funeral Ovations 
and Panegyrical Discourses ; (5) Letters. 

(1) Exegetical—What exegesis of Holy 
Scripture he has left is of no high value, his 


Both orations | 
iii. pp. 514 seq., 527 seq.). | 
During these visits to Constantinople, Gregory | 
obtained the friendship of Olympias, the | 


|more natural ’’ (Dupin). 


GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 


system of interpretation being almost entirely 
allegorical. To this class belong his works on 
the Creation, written chiefly to supplement and 
defend the great work of his brother Basil on 
the Hexaemeron. These include (i) περὶ τῆς 
efanuépou, dedicated to his youngest brother 
Peter, bp. of Sebaste. It is also called 
Apologeticus, as it contains a defence of the 
actions of Moses and of some points in Basil’s 
work. (ii) A treatise on the creation of man, 
written as a supplement to Basil’s treatise 


mental idea of which is the unity of the human 
race—that humanity before God is to be 
considered as one man. It is called by Suidas 
τεῦχος θαυμάσιον. (ili) Also two homilies 
on the same subject (Gen. i. 26), frequently 
appended to Basil’s Hexaemeron, and erro- 
neously assigned to him by Combefis and 
others. There is also a discourse (t. ii. pp. 
22-34) on the meaning of the image and 
likeness of God in which man was created. 
(iv) A treatise on the Life of Moses as exhib- 
iting a pattern of a perfect Christian life; 
dedicated to Caesarius. (v) Two books on the 
Superscriptions of the Psalms, in which he 
endeavours to shew that the five books of the 
Psalter are intended to lead men upward, as 
by five steps, to moral perfection. (vi) Eight 
homilies expository of Ecclestastes, ending 
with c. vii. 13, ‘‘ less forced, more useful, and 
(vii) Fifteen hom- 
ilies on the Canticles, ending with c. vi. 9; 
dedicated to Olympias. (viii) Five homilies 
on the Lord’s Prayer, “‘lectu dignissimae”’ 
(Fabric.). (ix) Eight homilies on the Beati- 
tudes. (x) A discourse on 1 Cor. xv. 28, in 
which he combats the Arian perversion of the 
passage as to the subjection of the Son. (xi) 


was a demon in the shape of Samuel; ad- 
dressed to a bishop named Theodosius. 

(2) Dogmatical.—These are deservedly re- 
garded as among the most important patristic 
contributions towards a true view of the 
mystery of the Trinity, hardly, if at all, 
inferior to the writings of Basil. (i) Chief, 
both in size and importance, is his great work 
Against Eunomius, written after Basil’s death, 
to refute the reply of Eunomius to Basil’s 
attack upon his teaching, and to vindicate his 
brother from the calumnious charges of his 
adversary. (ii) Almost equally important 
are the replies to Apollinaris, especially the 


are not only valuable as giving the most 
weighty answer on the orthodox side to this 
heresy, but their numerous extracts from 
Apollinarian writings are really the chief 
sources of our acquaintance with those doc- 
trines. The same subjects are treated with 
great accuracy of thought and spiritual in- 
sight in (iii) Sermo Catecheticus Magnus, a 
work in 40 chapters, containing a systematized 
course of theological teaching for catechists, 
proving, for the benefit of those who did not 
accept the authority of Holy Scripture, the 
harmony of the chief doctrines of the faith 
with the instincts of the human heart. This 
work contains passages asserting the annihila- 
tion of evil, the restitution of all things, and 


‘the final restoration of evil men and evil 


GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 


GREGORIUS 421 


spirits to the blessedness of union with God, | mounted by a conical spire, rising from a 
so that He may be “all in all,” embracing all | clerestory supported on eight columns, proves 


things endued with sense and reason— 
doctrines derived by Gregory from Origen. It 
has been asserted from the time of Germanus 
of Constantinople that these passages were 
foisted in by heretical writers (Phot. Cod. 233, 


him to have possessed considerable technical 


knowledge. It is perhaps the clearest and 
| most detailed description of an ecclesiastical 
| building of the 4th cent. remaining tous. His 
jletter to Adelphius (Ep. 20) furnishes a 


Pp- 904 544.) ; but there is no foundation for | charming description of a country villa, and 


this hypothesis. The concluding section of 
the work, which speaks of the errors of 
Severus, a century posterior to Gregory, is 
evidently an addition of some _ blundering 
copyist. It must be acknowledged that in his 
desire to exalt the divine nature Gregory came 
dangerously near the doctrines afterwards 
developed by Eutyches and the Monothelites, 
if he did not actually enunciate them. While 
he rightly held that the infinite Logos was not 
imprisoned in Christ’s human soul and body, 
he does not assign the proper independence to 
this human soul and will. 
some words of his as to the entire extinction 
of all distinction between the two natures of 


Christ, as a drop of vinegar is lost’in the) 
ocean (Eccl. Pol. t. ii. 697), which he deems so | 


plain and direct for Eutyches that he ‘‘ stands 
in doubt they are not his whose name they 


carry’ (tb. bk. v. c. iii. ὃ 2; cf. Neander, | 


Ch. Hist. vol. iv. p. 115, Clark’s trans.). 


Hooker quotes | 


its groves and ornamental buildings. Cave, 
| Hist. Lit. vol. i. pp. 244 sqq.; Ceillier, Auteurs 
| ecclés. t. vii. pp. 320 sqq. ; Oudin, I. diss. iv. ; 
| Schréckh, Kirchengesch. Bd. xiv. 1-147; Tillem. 
| Mém. ecclés. t. ix.; Dupin, cent. iv.; Fabric. 
| Bibl. Graec. t. ix. pp. 98 sqq. [π.ν.] 
Gregorius (16), bp. of Merida from c¢. 402; 
| known to us only from the decretal of Innocent 
I. addressed ad universos episcopos in Tolosa 
|(should be gut im Toleto congregati sunt) 
|Innocent’s letter (which Jaffé dates 404) is 
|concerned partly with the schism of those 
bishops of Baetica and Carthaginensis who 
refused to acknowledge the authority of the 
council held at Toledo a.p. 400, which re- 
admitted to communion the once Priscillianist 
bishops, Symphosius and Dictinius, and 
partly with certain irregularities in the 
manner of ordination then prevalent in Spain. 
The pope lays down that although, strictly 
speaking, the illegal ordinations already made 


(3) The class of his Ascetical Writings is| ought to be cancelled, yet, for the sake of 
small. Toit belong his early work de Virgini- | peace and to avoid tumults, what is past is 


tate; his Canonical Epistles to Letoius, bp. of | to be condoned. 


The number of canonically 


Melitene, classifying sins, and the penances | invalid ordinations recently made is, he says, 


due to each; etc. 
(4) The chief Funeral Orations are those on 


his brother Basil, on Meletius, on the empress | 
Flaccilla, and on the young princess Pulcheria. | 


We have also several panegyrical discourses 
and some homilies. 

(5) The extant Epistles are not numerous. 
The chief are that to Flavian, complaining of 


contumelious treatment by Helladius, and the | 


two on Pilgrimages to Jerusalem. 
All previous edd. of his collected works 
trans. into Latin were greatly surpassed in 


elegance and accuracy by that of Paris, 
1603, under the superintendence of Front du | 


Duc. The first ed. of the Greek text with 
a Latin trans. appeared from Morel’s press at 
Paris in 1615 in two vols. fol., also ed. by 
Du Duc. Other complete reprints, including 


| so great that otherwise the existing confusion 
| would be made worse instead of better. 
“How many have been admitted to the 
priesthood who, like Rufinus and Gregory, 
|have after baptism practised in the law 
courts ? How many soldiers who, in obedi- 
ence to authority, have been obliged to execute 
harsh orders (severa praecepta) ? How many 
curiales who, in obedience also, have done 
| whatever was commanded them? How 
many who have given amusements and spec- 


| tacles to the people (voluptates et editiones 


populo celebrarunt) have become bishops ? " 
(See Gams’s comments on Can. 2 of council of 


his epistles and other additamenta, are by. 


Galland (Bibl. Vet. Patr. t. vi.) and Migne 
(Patr. Gk. xliv.-xlvi.). A good critical ed. of 
his works is, however, much wanted. Suchan 
ed. was commenced by Forbes and Oehler in 
1855, but very little has appeared. In the 
Journ. of Theol. Stud., 1902, is an art. by J. H. 
Srawley on the text of the Ovat. Cat., and in 
1903 the same writer ed. it for the Camb. Univ. 

exts. Another useful ed. of it was pub. in 


1909 in Gk. and French by Meridier in | 


Textes et Documents of Hemmer and Lejay. 
An Eng. trans. is in the Post-Nic. Fathers. 
The familiar letters published by Zacagni and 
Caraccioli are very helpful towards forming 
an estimate of Gregory’s character. 
shew us a man of great refinement, with a love 
for natural beauty and a lively appreciation of 
the picturesque in scenery and of elegance in 
architecture. 
description given in his letter to Amphilochius 


(Ep. 25) of an octagonal ‘‘ martyrium”’ sur- | ap. Esp. Sagr. iv. 


They | 


Of the latter art the detailed | 


Eliberi. ii. 1, 53-) ‘‘ Quorum omnium neminem 
ne ad societatem quidem ordinis clericorum, 


| oportuerat pervenire’’ (see Decret. cap. iv. 


Tejada y Ramiro; Col. de Can. ii.). In cap. 
v. we have the second mention of Gregory. 
‘Let the complaint, if any, of Gregory, bp. 
of Merida, ordained in place of Patruinus [who 
presided at C. Tol. I.) be heard, and if he has 
suffered injury conira meritum suum, let those 
who are envious of another's office be pun- 
ished, lest in future the spirit of faction should 
again inconvenience good men.” 

From these notices it appears that Gregory 
succeeded Patruinus in the metropolitan see 
of Merida shortly after the council of Toledo 
in 400, that in his youth and after baptism he 
had practised as an advocate; that his 
election to the bishopric was therefore, strictly 
speaking, illegal, and that his appointment 
had met with great opposition. Innocent’'s 
letter would naturally confirm him in his see 
and discredit the party of opposition. It was 

robably during Gregory's pontificate that the 
irruption of Vandals, Alani, and Suevi into 
| Spain took place (in the autumn of 409, Idat. 
353), and those scenes of 


422 GREGORIUS THEOPOLITANUS 
horror and cruelty took place of which Idatius 
has left us a vivid, though possibly exagger- 
ated, picture. After a first period of indiscri- 
minate devastation and plunder, the invaders, 
settling down, divided the provinces among 
themselves by lot (Idat.].c. ann. 411). In this 
division Lusitania and Carthaginensis fell to 
the Alani, themselves to be shortly destroyed 
by the Goths under Walga (418), and Merida 
with its splendid buildings and Roman 
prestige, with all the other great cities of 
S. Spain, ‘‘ submitted to the rule of the bar- 
barians who lorded it over the Roman prov- 
inces.’”” Innocent’s letter concerning Gregory 
is extremely valuable for Spanish church 
history at the time. Esp. Sagr. xiii. 163; 
Gams, Ktrchengesch. ii. 1, 420. [M.a.w.] 
Gregorius (81) Theopolitanus, bp. of Antioch 
A.D. 569-594. Inhis earliest youth he devoted 
himself to a monastic life, and became so 
celebrated for his austerities that when scarce- 
ly past boyhood he was chosen superior of the 
Syrian laura of Pharon or Pharan (Moschus), 
called by Evagrius the monastery of the 
Byzantines. Sergius the Armenian in the 
monastery of the Eunuchs near the Jordan 
was earnestly importuned by Gregory to 
conduct him to his venerable master, another 
Sergius, dwelling by the Dead Sea. When the 
latter saw Gregory approach, he cordially 
saluted him, brought water, washed his feet, 
and conversed with him upon spiritual 
subjects the whole day. Sergius the disciple 
afterwards reminded his: master that he had 
never treated other visitors, although some 
had been bishops and presbyters, as he had 
treated father Gregory. ‘‘ Who father Gre- 
gory may be,” the old man replied, ‘‘ I know 
not; but this I know, I have entertained a 
patriarch in my cave, and I have seen him 
carry the sacred pallium and the Gospels ’”’ 
(Joann. Mosch. Prat. Spirit. c. 139, 140, in 
Patr. Lat. xxiv. 189). From Pharan Gregory 
was summoned by Justin II. to preside over 
the monastery of Mount Sinai (Evagr. H. E. 
v. 6). On the expulsion of Anastasius, bp. 
of Antioch, by Justin in 569, Gregory was 
appointed his successor. Theophanes (Chron. 
A.D. 562, p. 206) makes his promotion take 
place from the Syrian monastery. His 
administration is highly praised by Evagrius, 
who ascribes to him almost every possible 
excellence. When Chosroes I. invaded the 
Roman territory, A.D. 572, Gregory, who was 
kept informed of the real state of affairs by his 
friend the bp. of Nisibis, then besieged by the 
Roman forces, vainly endeavoured to rouse 
the feeble emperor by representations of the 
successes of the Persian forces and the incom- 
petence of the imperial commanders. An 
earthquake compelled Gregory to flee with the 
treasures of the church, and he had the 
mortification of seeing Antioch oecupied by 
the troops of Adaormanes, the general of 
Chosroes (Evagr. H. E. ν. 9). The latter years 
of his episcopate were clouded by extreme 
unpopularity and embittered by grave 
accusations (7b. c. 18). In the reign of 
Maurice, A.D. 588, a quarrel with Asterius, the 
popular Count of the East, again aroused the 
passions of the excitable Antiochenes against 
their bishop. He was openly reviled by the 
mob, and turned into ridicule on the stage. 


GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 


On the removal of Asterius, his successor, J ohn, 
was commissioned by the emperor to inquire 
into the charges against Gregory, who pro- 
ceeded to Constantinople, accompanied by 
Evagrius as his legal adviser, c. 589, and 
received a triumphal acquittal (7b. vi. 7). He 
returned to Antioch to witness its almost total 
destruction by earthquake, A.D. 589, barely 
escaping with his life (7b. c. 8). In the wide- 
spread discontent of the imperial forces, the 
troops in Syria on the Persian frontier broke 
out into open mutiny. Gregory, who by his 
largesses had made himself very popular with 
the troops, was dispatched to bring them back 
to their allegiance. He was suffering severely 
from gout, and had to be conveyed in a litter, 
from which he addressed the army so eloquent- 
ly that they at once consented to accept the 
emperor’s nominee, Philippicus, as their com- 
mander. His harangue is preserved by his 
grateful friend Evagrius (δ. c. 11-13). Soon 
after, his diplomatic skill caused him to be 
selected by Maurice as an ambassador to the 
younger Chosroes, when compelled by his 
disasters to take refuge in the imperial 
territory, A.D. 590 or 591, and Gregory’s advice 
was instrumental in the recovery of his throne, 
for which the grateful monarch sent him some 
gold and jewelled crosses and other valuable 
presents (7b. c. 18-21). In spite of his age 
and infirmities, Gregory conducted a visitation 
of the remoter portions of his patriarchate, 
which were much infected with the doctrines 
of Severus, and succeeded in bringing back 
whole tribes, as well as many separate villages 
and monasteries, into union with the catholic 
church (1b. c. 22). After this he paid a visit 
to Simeon Stylites the vounger, who was 
suffering from a mortal disease (δ. c. 23). 
Soon after he appears to have resigned his see 
into the hands of the deposed patriarch Anas- 
tasius, who resumed his patriarchal authority 
in 594, in which year Gregory died (1b. c. 24). 
His extant works consist of a homily im 
Multeres unguentiferas found in Galland and 
Migne (Patr. Gk. lxxxviii. p. 1847), and two 
sermons on the Baptism of Christ, which have 
been erroneously ascribed to Chrysostom. - 
Evagrius (vi. 24) also attributes to Gregory a 
volume of historical collections, now lost. 
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. xi. 102 ; Cave, Hist. Lat. 
i. 534. Cf. Huidacher in Zeitschr. fiir Kathol. 
Theol. 1901, xxv. 367. [E.v.] 
Gregorius (32) Turonensis, bp. of Tours (c. 
573-594). His life we know chiefly from his 
own writings. The Vita per Odonem A bbatem, 
generally pub. with his works, is almost en- 
tirely based upon what he says of himself. 
Gregory himself gives a list of his works. 
At the end of his History he says, ‘‘ Decem 
libros historiarum, septem miraculorum, unum 
de vitis Patrum scripsi: in Psalterii tractatum 
librum unum commentatus sum: de cursibus” 
etiam ecclesiasticis unum librum condidi”’ 
(bk. x. 31, sub fin.). Of these all are extant 
except the commentary on the Psalms, of 
which only fragments exist, collected in vol. 
iii. of Bordier’s ed. pp. 401 sqq. His History 
is in vol. ii. of Bouquet, and in the collections 
of La Bigne, Duchesne, and Migne. There are 
valuable edd. bv the Société de |’Histoire de 
France, with French trans. and notes, viz. 
the Hist. eccl. des Francs, edited by MM. 


GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 


Guadet et Taranne (4 vols. 1836-1838), and | 
Les Livres des miracles et autres opuscules, in- 
cluding the Vita, extracts from Fortunatus, | 
etc., by M. H. L. Bordier (4 vols. 1857-1864). 
But the best and most recent ed. is that of. 
W. Arndt and Br. Krusch in Mon. Germ. Hist. 
Script Res. Merov.i. This contains an /ndex, | 
Orthographica, Lexica et Grammatica. Of | 
the commentaries and works bearing on _ his 
life and writings, the most important and 
thorough are Lobell’s Gregor von Tours und - 
seine Zeit (2nd ed. 1869), and Gabriel Monod’s 
Etudes critiques sur l’époque mérovingtenne, 
pt. i. 1872, being fasc. No. 9 of the Brbliothéque 
de l’école des hautes études. 

Georgius Florentius (subsequently called 
Gregorius, after his great-grandfather) was 
born Nov. 30, 538. Previous authorities have. 
generally given the year 543, from the passage 
in the Vita which states that he was 30 years 
old at the time of his consecration, #.e. in 573. 

Members of both parents’ families had held 
high office in church and state. His paternal | 
grandfather Georgius and his maternal great- | 
grandfather Florentius (V. P. 8, 1) had been 
senators at Clermont. Gallus, son of Geor- 
gius and uncle of Gregory, was bp. of. 
Auvergne; another uncle, Nicetius or Nizier, 
bp. of Lyons (H. v. 5; V. P. 8); another, 
Gundulf, had risen to ducal rank (H. vi. 11). 
Gregory, bp. of Langres, and originally count | 
of Autun, was his great-grandfather, and all | 
the previous bishops of Tours, except five, had | 
been of his family (v. 50). It is with justifi- | 
able pride, therefore, that he asserts (V. P. 6) | 
that none in Gaul could boast of purer and | 
nobler blood than himself. His father appears 
to have died early, and Gregory received most 
of his education from his uncle Gallus, bp. of 
Auvergne. Being sick of a fever in his youth, 
he found relief by visiting the shrine of St. 
Illidius, the patron saint of Clermont. The 
fever returned, and Gregory’s life was despaired | 
of. Being again carried to St. Illidius’s shrine, | 
he vowed to dedicate himself to the ministry | 
if he recovered, nor would he quit the shrine. 
till his prayer was granted (V. P. 2, 2). 

Armentaria, Gregory’s mother, returned to. 
Burgundy, her native country, and Gregory | 
apparently lived with Avitus, at first arch- | 
deacon, afterwards bp. of Auvergne, who} 
carried on his education, directing his pupil 
rather to the study of ecclesiastical than of | 
secular works. Gregory looked upon Avitus 
as in the fullest sense his spiritual father. 
“It was his teaching and preaching that, next 
to the Psalms of David, led me to recognize | 
that Jesus Christ the Son of God had come 
into the world to save sinners, and caused me 
to reverence and honour those as the friends | 
and disciples of Christ who take up His cross | 
and follow in His steps”’ (Κ΄. P. 2, Intro.). | 
By Avitus he was ordained deacon, probably 
c. 563 (Monod. 20). 

Of Gregory’s life before he became bp. of | 
Tours few details are known. He appears to | 
have been well known at Tours (Mir. Mart. 
i. 32, Vita, c. ii.), for it was in consequence 
of the expressed wish of the whole people 
of Tours, clergy and laity, that Sigebert 
appointed him, in 573, to the see. He was 
consecrated by Egidius of Rheims. He was 
known to and favoured by Radegund the 


| 
| 


| 


GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 423 


widow of Clotaire I., foundress of St. Cross at 
Poictiers, who, according to Fortunatus, helped 
to procure his election (Carm. ν. 4). 

The elevation of Gregory was contemporary 
with the renewed outbreak of civil war between 
Sigebert and Chilperic, the former of whom 
had inherited the Austrasian, the latter the 
Neustrian, possessions of their father Clotaire 
I. (d. 561). The possession of Touraine and 
Poitou was in some sort the occasion of the war, 
and these countries suffered from the ravages of 
both parties. Gregory's sympathies were natu- 
rally with Sigebert (Vita S. Greg. § 11), and the 
people of Tours weregenerally (H.iv.50), though 
not unanimously (iv. 46), on the same side. 
Chilperic, according to Gregory, was even more 
cruel and regardless of human life than the 
other Merovingian princes ; he was the “ Nero 
and Herod of his age"’ (vi. 46); he not only 
plundered and burned throughout the country, 


| but specially destroyed churches and mon- 
| asteries, slew priests and monks, and paid no 


regard to the possessions of St. Martin (iv. 48). 
Tours remained under Chilperie till his death 
in 584, and some of the best traits in Gregory's 
character appear in his resistance to the 
murderous violence of the king and the 
truculent treachery of Fredegund. Thus he 
braved their wrath, and refused to surrender 
their rebellious son Meroveus (v. 14), and 
their enemy Guntram Boso who had defeated 
and killed Theodebert (v. 4), both of whom 
had taken sanctuary at the shrine of St. 
Martin; and Gregory alone of the bishops 
dared to rebuke Chilperic for his unjust 
conduct towards Praetextatus, and to protect 
Praetextatus from the vengeance of Frede- 
gund (v. 19); and when Chilperic wanted to 


| force on his people his views of the doctrine 


of the Trinity, Gregory withstood him. Chil- 


| peric recited to Gregory what he had written 
| on the subject, saying, ‘‘ I will that such shall 


be your belief and that of all the other doctors 
of the church.”’ ‘‘ Do not deceive yourself, 
my lord king,’’ Gregory replied; ‘‘ you must 
follow in this matter the teaching of the 
apostles and doctors of the church, the teach- 
ing of Hilary and Eusebius, the confession 
that you made at baptism.’’ ‘‘It appears 
then,’’ angrily exclaimed the king, “ that 
Hilary and Eusebius are my declared enemies 
in this matter.’’ “Νο, said Gregory; 
“neither God nor His saints are yourenemies,”’ 
and he proceeded to expound the orthodox doc- 
trine ofthe Trinity. Chilperic was very angry. 
“Τ shall set forth my ideas to those who are 
wiser than you, and they will approve of 
them.” ‘ Never,’’ was the answer, “it would 
be no wise man, but a lunatic, that would 
adopt such views as yours’ (v. 45). 
Gregory had a persistent enemy in Leud- 
astes, count of Tours (v. 49). When remoy ed 
from office because of his misdeeds, he endeav- 
oured to take revenge on Gregory by maligning 
him to the king, that he was going to deliver 
over the city to Childebert, Sigebert’s son, and 
finally that Gregory had spread a report of 
Fredegund’s adultery. Chilperic summoned 
a council of the bishops of the kingdom at 
Braine, near Soissons, to investigate the 
charge, and it was found that the accusation 
rested solely on the evidence of Leudastes and 
Riculfus. All agreed that the witness of an 


424 GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 
inferior was not to be believed against a priest 
and his superior, and Gregory was acquitted 
on condition of solemnly disclaiming on oath 
all cognizance of the charge. Leudastes fled; 
Riculfus was condemned to death: at Gre- 
gory’s intercession he was spared death, but 
not horrible torture (v. 48-50; Grégotre de 
Tours au concile de Braine, par S. Prioux, 
Paris, 1847, is a mere réchauffé of Gregory’s 
own account of these proceedings, and of no 
independent critical value). The subsequent 
fate of Leudastes illustrates the best side of 
Gregory’s character. After being a fugitive 
in different parts of Gaul, Leudastes presented 
himself at Tours to have his excommunication 
removed with a view to marrying and settling 
there. He brought letters from _ several 
bishops, but none from queen Fredegund, his 
principal enemy, and when Gregory wrote to 
her, she asked Gregory to postpone receiving 
back Leudastes into communion till further in- 
quiry had been made. Gregory, suspicious of 
Fredegund’s design, warned Leudastes’s father- 
in-law, and besought him to induce Leudastes 
to keep quiet till Fredegund’ 5 anger was ap- 
peased. ‘‘This advice,’ says Gregory, “1 gave 
sincerely, and for the love of God, but Leud- 
astes suspected treachery, and refused to take 
it: so the proverb was fulfilled which I once 
heard an old man tell, ‘Always give good 
counsel to friend and foe; the friend will take 
it, the foe will despise it. a Leudastes went 
to the king to get his pardon; Chilperic was 
willing, but warned him to be careful till the 
queen’s wrath was appeased. Leudastes rashlv 
tried to force forgiveness from the queen. 
Fredegund was implacable and furious, and 
Leudastes was put to death with great cruelty. 
“Ἢ deserved his death,’’ says Gregory, “‘ for 
he had ever led a wicked life’ (H. vi. 32). 

During the wars that followed the death of 
Chilperic in 584, Touraine and Poitou desired 
to be subject to Childebert, Sigebert’s son, 
2.6. to resume their allegiance to the Austra- 
sian king, but were compelled to submit 
to Guntram, king of Orleans and Burgundy 
(vii. 12, 13), and under his power they re- 
mained till restored to Childebert by the treaty 
of Andelot in 587, in concluding which Gregory 
was one of Childebert’s commissioners (iv. 20). 
Guntram died in 593. Childebert succeeded 
him as the treaty had provided, and the latest 
notice in Gregory’s writings is the visit of 
Childebert to Orleans after Guntram’s death 
(Mir. S. Martin, iv. 37). Gregory himself 
died Nov. 17, 594. 

His activity was not confined to the general 
affairs of the kingdom. He was even more 
zealous for the welfare of his own and neigh- 
bouring dioceses. His later years were much 
occupied with the disturbances caused by 
Chrodieldis in the nunnery at Poictiers which 
had been founded by Gregory’s friend St. 
Radegund. His first interference was in- 
effectual (ix. 39 sqq.), but the disturbance 
having increased, Guntram and Childebert 
appointed a joint commission of bishops to 
inquire into the matter. Gregory was one of 
Childebert’s commissioners, but refused to 
enter upon the work until the civil disturbance 
had been actually repressed (x. 15, 16). He 
had a great deal of trouble also with another 
rebellious nun, Berthegunda (ix. 33, x. 12). 


GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 


Gregory magnifies the sanctity and power 
of Tours’s great patron St. Martin. He main- 
tained the rights of sanctuary of the shrine in 
favour of the most powerful offenders, and in 
spite of the wrath of Chilperic and Fredegund 
(e.g. Meroveus, Guntram Boso, Ebrulfus, vii. 
22, 29). He was a builder of churches in the 
city and see, and especially a rebuilder of the 
great church of St. Martin (x. 31). He did 
his best to arbitrate in and appease the bloody 
feuds of private or political partisanship (vii. 
47) and was a rigorous and effectual defender 
of the exemption of the city from increased 
taxation (ix. 20). Evidently a man of 
unselfish earnestness and energy, he was 
popular with all in the city. 

Gregory began to write first as bishop, his 
subject being the Miracles of St. Martin. 
Venantius Fortunatus in 576 alludes to the 
work, probably to the first two books, which, 
however, were not completed till 583, the 
third book not before 587, and the fourth was 
still incomplete at Gregory’s death. The 
Gloria Martyrum was composed c. 585. Gre- 
gory wrote also the Gloria Confessorum (com- 
pleted 588) and the Vitae Patrum, the latter 
being continued till the time of his death. 

The History appears to have been written 
contemporaneously with the Muracles of the 
Saints, most probably in several divisions 
and at different times. Giesebrecht, who has 
carefully investigated the internal evidence, 
comes to the following conclusions. The 
History was originally written at three separ- 
ate periods, and falls into three separate 
divisions. Bks. i.-iv. and the first half of bk. 
v. were probably composed c. 577; from the 
middle of bk. v. to the end of the 37th chapter 
of bk. viii. in 584 and 585; the remainder in 
590 and 591. The last chapter of the last 
book is an epilogue, separately composed ; for 
the history as a history is unfinished. Gre- 
gory would probably have carried it on at 
least to the death of Guntram in Mar. 593. 
As in the case of the books of the Miracles, 
Gregory appears to have revised his History, 
and we find in the earlier books insertions and 
references to Gregory’s other works and to 
events of later date. This revision does not 
appear to have reached further than the end 
of bk. vi. ; hence several MSS., and these the 
most ancient, contain only the first six books, 
and the authors of the Hist. Epit. and of the 
Gesta Reg. Franc. appear to have known only 
these. Monod substantially agrees with 
Giesebrecht as to the dates. 

Gregory begins his History with the Crea- 
tion, and his first book consists largely of 
extracts from Eusebius, Jerome, and Orosius 
(Hist. i. Prol. sub fin. cc. 34, 37). In bk. τὸ 
which treats of the Frankish conquests, he 


still owes much to Orosius and to the Lives of _ 


the Saints, and quotes from Renatus Frigide- 
rius and Sulpicius Alexander (ii. 9), two 5th- 
cent. writers, whose works are not extant. 
Thereafter he writes directly from oral tradi- 
tion and authorities. Bks. iii. and iv., dealing 
with events down to 575, are, compared with 
those which follow, meagre and unchrono- 
logically arranged, giving prominence to 
events in Auvergne and Burgundy (Monod, 
Ῥ. 102). From 575 the narrative becomes 
fuller and more systematic, the intervals of 


GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 


time being regularly marked. (Giesebrecht, 
pp- 32-34. Monod, in his 4th chap., investi- 
gates the comparative value in different parts 
of the work of the documentary and oral 
sources of the History.) 


Gregory apologizes more than once for the 


rudeness of his style. But rough though this 
might be, he was far from lacking learning or 
culture such as his age could afford. Though 
ignorant of Greek, he had a fair acquaintance 
with Latin authors, quoting or referring to 
Livy, Pliny, Cicero, Aulus Gellius, etc. (Monod, 
112). He does not attempt to make his 
History a consistent and well-balanced whole, 
nor to subordinate local to general interests. 
The fullness of his recital of particular events 


depends not upon intrinsic importance but | 


upon the amount of information he has at 
command. So too he follows the dramatic 
method, putting speeches into the mouths of 
individuals which are the composition of the 
author. Even where he depends upon 
written authorities he is, in detail, untrust- 
worthy. Where he can be compared with 
writers now extant, as in the first two books 


of the History, his inaccuracy is seen to be. 


considerable. He transcribes carelessly, and 
often cites from memory, giving the substance 
of that which he has read, and that not cor- 
rectly (see instances ap. Monod, pp. 80 sqq.). 
Little confidence can be placed in his narrative 
of events outside of Gaul, and the less the 
farther the scene of action is removed from 
Gaul. His sincerity and impartiality have 
been attacked on various grounds: that he 
unduly favours the church, or that he traduces 
the church in his accounts of the wickedness 
of the bishops of the time, or that he traduces 


the character of the Franks (Kries, de Gregorit 


Turonensis episcopi vita et scriptis, Breslau, 
1859), whether from motives of race-jealousy 
or any other. Gregory looks upon history 


as a struggle of the church against unbelief) cessor Pelagius II. 


in heathen and heretics and worldly-minded- 
ness in professing Christians. Hence he begins 
his History with a confession of the orthodox 
faith. The epithet ecclesiastica applied to the 
History from Ruinart’s time is a misnomer in 
the modern sense, for Gregory specially 
defends his method of mixing things secular 
and religious. i 
impressionable as Gregory, the fact of his 
being a priest and the bishop of the see of St. 
Martin, the ecclesiastical and religious centre 
of Gaul, does influence his feelings and actions 
towards individuals. But ecclesiastical pre- 
judices did not prevent him recording events 
as related to him. He shews no rancour in 
treating of the Frankish conquerors, such as 
would be natural in the victim of an op- 
pressed nationality. After the first days of 
the conquest there was no political subjection 
of Roman to Teuton as such; Romans were 
not excluded from offices and dignities because 
of their birth (pp. 101-118). 


Gregory’s work remains, despite all, as the | 


great and in many respects the only authority 
for the history of the 6th cent., and his fresh 
and simple, though not unbiassed, narrative 
is of the greatest value. He tells us exactly 
what the Franks were like, and what life in 
Gaul was like; and he gives us the evidence 
upon which his judgment is founded. [1.Κ.8.} 


With a man so passionate and | 


GREGORIUS I. 4 


| Gregorius (51) I. (The Great), bp. of Rome 
from Sept. 3, 590, to Mar. 12, 604; born at 
Rome probably c. §40, of a wealthy senatorial 
family. The family was a religious one: his 
| mother Silvia, and Tarsilla and Aemiliana, the 
two sisters of his father Gordianus, have been 
canonized. Under such influences his educa- 
tion is spoken of by his biographer, John the 
deacon, as having been that of a saint among 
saints. Gregory of Tours, his contemporary, 
says that in grammar, rhetoric, and logic he 
| was accounted second to none in Rome (ἢ ἐπί, 
x. 1). He studied law, distinguished himself 
in the senate, and at an early age (certainly 
before 573) was recommended by the emperor 
Justin IT. for the post of praetor urbis. After 
a public career of credit, his deep religious 
|ideas suggested a higher vocation; and on his 
father’s death he kept but a small share of the 
great wealth that came to him, employing the 
rest in charitable uses, and especially in 
| founding monasteries, of which he endowed 
| six in Sicily, and one, dedicated to St. Andrew, 
| on the site of his own house near the church 
of SS. John and Paul at Rome. 
| himself became a monk. The date of his first 
|retirement from the world, and its duration, 
| are uncertain, as are also the exact dates of 
| subsequent events previous to his accession 
to his see; but the most probable order of 
events is here followed. During his seclusion 
his asceticism is said to have been such as to 
endanger his life had he not been prevailed on 
by friends to abate its rigour; and it may have 
| partly laid the foundation of his bad health in 
| later life. Gregory Turonensis speaks of his 
stomach at this time being so enfeebled by fast 
}and vigil that he could hardly stand. Bene- 
| dict I., having ordained him one of the seven 
| deacons (regtonartt) of Rome, sent him as his 
| apocrisiarius to Constantinople, and he was 
| . . . . 
| similarly employed in 579 by Benedict's suc- 
After this Gregory resided 
three years in Constantinople, where two 
| noteworthy events occurred : his controversy 
|with Eutychius, the patriarch, about the 
|nature of the resurrection body; and the 
commencement of his famous work Magna 
Moralia. Recalled by Pelagius to Rome, he 
was allowed to return to his monastery, but 
was still employed as the pope's secretary. 
During his renewed monastic life and in his 
capacity of abbat he was distinguished for the 
strictness of his own life and the rigour of his 
| discipline. One story which he tells leaves 
an impression of zeal carried to almost in- 
human harshness. A monk, Julius, who had 
been a physician and had attended Gregory 
himself, night and day, during a long illness, 
being himself dangerously ill, confided to a 
brother that, in violation of monastic rule, he 
had three pieces of gold concealed in his cell. 
This confession was overheard, the cell 
searched, and the pieces found. Gregory 
| forbade all to approach the offender, even in 
the agonies of death, and after death caused 
his body to be thrown ona dunghill with the 
pieces of gold, the monks crying aloud, ** Thy 
money perish with thee "’ (Greg. Dial. iv. $5). 
On Feb. 8, 590, Pelagius II. died, Rome 
being then in great straits. The Lombards 
were ravaging the country and threatening 
the city, aid being craved in vain from the 


Here 


he 


420 GREGORIUS I. 

distant emperor; within famine and plague 
wereraging. Gregory was at once unanimous- 
ly chosen by senate, clergy, and people to 
succeed Pelagius ; but to him his election was 
distressing, and he wrote to the emperor 
Mauricius imploring him not to confirm it. 
His letter was intercepted by the prefect of 
Rome, and another sent, in the name of 
senate, clergy, and people, earnestly request- 
ing confirmation. Before the reply of the 
emperor reached Rome, Gregory aroused the 
people to repentance by his sermons, and 
instituted the famous processional litany, 
called Litania septiformis. The emperor con- 
firmed the election of Gregory, who fled in 
disguise, was brought back in triumph, con- 
ducted to the church of St. Peter, and im- 
mediately ordained on Sept. 3, 590 (Anastas. 
Bibliothec. and Mortyrol. Roman.). 

After his accession he continued in heart a 
monk, surrounding himself with ecclesiastics 
instead of laymen, and living with them 
according to monastic rule. In accordance 
with this plan a synodal decree was made 
under him in 595, substituting clergy or monks 
for the boys and secular persons who had 
formerly waited on the pope in his chamber 
(Ep. iv. 44). Yet he rose at once to his new 
position. The church shared in the distress 
and disorganization of the time. The fires of 
controversy of the last two centuries still 
raged in the East. In Istria and Gaul the 
schism on the question of the Three Chapters 
continued ; in Africa the Donatists once more 
became aggressive against the Catholics. 
Spain had but just, and as yet imperfectly, 
recovered from Arianism. In Gaul the church 
was oppressed under its barbarian rulers; in 
Italy, under the Arian Lombards, the clergy 
were infected with the demoralization of the 
day. The monastic system was suffering 
declension and was now notoriously corrupt. 
Literature and learning had almost died with 
Boéthius; and all these causes combined 
with temporal calamities led to a prevalent 
belief, which Gregory shared, that the end of 
all things was at hand. Nor was the position 
of the papacy encouraging to one who, like 
Gregory, took a high view of the prerogatives 
of St. Peter’s chair. Since the recovery of 
Italy by Justinian (after the capture of Rome 
by Belisarius in 536) the popes had been far 
less independent than even under the Gothic 
kings. Justinian regarded the bishops of 
Rome as his creatures, to be appointed, 
summoned to court, and deposed at his pleas- 
ure, and subject to the commands of his exarch 
at Ravenna. No reigns of popes had been so 
inglorious as those of Gregory’s immediate 
predecessors, Vigilius, Pelagius I., Benedict, 
and Pelagius II. He himself describes the 
Roman church as “ like an old and violently 
shattered ship, admitting the waters on all 
sides, its timbers rotten, shaken by daily 
storms, and sounding of wreck’’ (Ep. i.). 

Gregory may be regarded, first, as a spiritual 
ruler; secondly, as a temporal administrator 
and potentate; lastly, as to his personal 
character and as a doctor of the church. 

Immediately after his accession he sent, 
according to custom, a confession of his faith 
to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexan- 
dria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in which he 


GREGORIUS I. 


declared his reception of the first four general 
councils, as of the four gospels, and his 
condemnation of the Three Chapters—z.e. the 
writings of three deceased prelates, Theodorus, 
Theodoret, and Ibas, supposed to savour of 
heresy, and already condemned by Justinian 
and by the fifth council called oecumenical. 
The strong language in which he exalts the 
authority of the four councils as ‘‘ the square 
stone on which rests the structure of the faith, 
the rule of every man’s actions and life, which 
foundation whoever does not hold is out of the 
building,”’ is significant of his views on the 
authority of the church at large, while his 
recognition of the four patriarchs as co- 
ordinate potentates, to whom he sends an 
account of his own faith, expresses one aspect 
of the relation to the Eastern churches which 
then satisfied the Roman pontiffs. He lost 
no time in taking measures for the restoration 
of discipline, the reform of abuses, the repres- 
sion of heresy, and the establishment of the 
authority of the Roman see, both in his own 
metropolitan province and wherever his 
influence extended. That jurisdiction was 
threefold—episcopal, metropolitan, and patri- 
archal. As bishop he had the oversight of the 
city; as metropolitan of the seven suffragan, 
afterwards called cardinal, bishops of the 
Roman territory, 1.6. of Ostia, Portus, Silva 
Candida, Sabina, Praeneste, Tusculum, and 


Albanum; while his patriarchate seems to 
have originally extended (according to 
Rufinus, H. E. i. [x.] 6) over the suburban 


provinces under the civil jurisdiction of the 
vicarius urbis, including Upper Italy, Sicily, 
Sardinia, and Corsica. But being the only 
patriarch in the West, he had in fact claimed 
and exercised jurisdiction beyond these original 
limits, including the three other vicariates 
into which the prefecture of Italy was 
politically divided: N. Italy, with its centre 
at Milan, W. Illyricum, with its capital at 
Sirmium, and W. Africa, with its capital at 
Carthage. Before his accession a still wider 
authority had been claimed and in part 
acknowledged. As bishops of the old im- 
perial city, with an acknowledged primacy of 
honour among the patriarchs, still more as 
occupants of St. Peter’s chair and conservators 
of his doctrine, and as such consulted and 
appealed to by various Western churches, the 
popes had come to exercise a more or less 
defined jurisdiction over them all. The power 
of sending judges to hear the appeals of con- 
demned bishops, which had been accorded to 
pope Julius by the Western council of Sardica 
in 343, had been claimed by his successors as 
perpetually belonging to the Roman see and 
extended so as to involve the summoning of 
cases to be heard at Rome; and a law had 
been obtained by Leo I. from Valentinian 
(445) by which the pope was made supreme 
head of the whole Western church, with the 
power of summoning prelates from all pro- 
vinces to abide his judgment. On the as- 
sumption of such authority Gregory acted, 
being determined to abate none of the rights 
claimed by his predecessors. 

In the year of his accession (590) he endea- 
voured, though without result, to bring over 


| the Istrian bishops, who still refused to con- 


demn the Three Chapters. With this view 


GREGORIUS I. 


he appointed a council to meet at Rome, and 
obtained an order from the emperor for the 
attendance of these bishops. They petitioned 
for exemption, saying that their faith was that 
formerly taught them by pope Vigilius, and 
pasting against submission to the bp. of 
ome as their judge. The emperor counter- 
manded the order, and Gregory acquiesced. 
In 591 his orthodox zeal was directed with 
more success against the African Donatists. 
It was the custom in Numidia for the senior 
bishop, whether Donatist or Catholic, to 
exercise metropolitan authority over the other 
bishops. Such senior now happened to be a 
Donatist, and he assumed the customary 
authority. Gregory wrote to the Catholic 
bishops of Numidia, and to Gennadius, exarch 
of Africa, urging them to resist such a claim 
(Ep. i. 74, 75), and the Donatist bishop was de- 
posed, but the sect continued in Africa as long 
as Christianity did. This is not the only in- 
stance of Gregory, like others of his age, not 
being averse to persecution as a means of con- 
version. In Sicily he enjoinedrigorous measures 
(summopere persequt) for the recovery of the 
Manicheans to the church (Ep. iv. 6) ; there, 
and in Corsica, Sardinia, and Campania, the 
heathen peasants and slaves on the papal 
estates were by his order compelled to con- 
_ form, not only by exactions on such as refused, 
but also by the imprisonment of freemen, and 
the corporal castigation (verberibus et cruct- 
atibus) of slaves (Ep. iii. 26; vii. ind. ii. 67), 
and in France he exhorted queen Brunichild 
to similar measures of coercion (Ep. vii. 5). 
On the other hand, there are three letters of 
his, written in the same year as those about 
the African Donatists, which evince a spirit of 
unusual toleration towards Jews. They are 
addressed to three bishops, Peter of Tarracina, 
Virgilius of Arles, and Theodorus of Marseilles. 
The first had driven the Jews from their 
Synagogues, and the last two had converted a 
number by offering them the choice of baptism 
or exile. Gregory strongly condemns such 
proceedings, ‘‘ because conversions wrought 
by force are never sincere, and those thus 
converted seldom fail to return to their vomit 
when the force is removed.” (Ep. i. 34, 1-45; 
ef. Ep. vii. ind. i. 26, vii. ind. ii. 5, vii. 2, 59.) 
Yet he had no objection to luring them into 
the fold by the prospect of advantage, for 
in a letter to a deacon Cyprian, who was 
steward of the papal patrimony in Sicily, he 
directs him to offer the Jews a remission of 
one-third of the taxes due to the Roman 
church if they became Christians, saying, in 
justification, that though such conversions 
might be insincere, their children would be 
brought up in the bosom of the church (Ep. 
iv. 6, cf. Ep. xii. 30). In such apparent in- 
consistencies we may see his good sense and 
Christian benevolence in conflict with the 
impulses of zeal and the notions of his age. 
Gregory was no less active in reforming the 
church itself. Great laxity was prevalent 
among the monks, of which the life of Bene- 
dict, the founder of the Benedictine order, 
affords ample evidence. Several of Gregory's 


letters are addressed to monks who had left | 


their monasteries for the world and marriage. 
He issued the following regulations for the 
restoration of monastic discipline: no monk 


GREGORIUS 1. 427 


should be received under 18 years of age, nor 
any husband without his wife's consent (in 
one case he orders a husband who had entered 
ἃ monastery to be restored to his wife (Ep. ix. 
44]); two years of probation should always 
be required, and three in the case of soldiers ; 
a professed monk leaving his order should be 
immured for life; no monk, though an abbat, 
should leave the precincts of his monastery, 
except on urgent occasions; under no pretext 
should any monk leave his monastery alone, 
on the ground that “ Qui sine teste ambulat 
non recté vivit.’’ He provided for the more 
complete separation of the monastic and 
clerical orders, forbidding any monk to remain 
in his monastery after ordination, and any 
priest to enter a monastery except to exercise 
clerical functions, or to become a monk with- 
out giving up his clerical office; and further 
exempting some monasteries from the juris- 
diction of bishops. This last important 
provision was extended to all monasteries by 
the Lateran synod, held under him in 601. 

He was no less zealous in his correction of 
the clergy. Several bishops under his imme- 
diate metropolitan jurisdiction and elsewhere 
he rebuked or deposed for incontinency and 
other crimes. His own nuncio at Constanti- 
nople, Laurentius the archdeacon, he recalled 
and deposed. From the clergy generally he 
required strict chastity, forbidding them to 
retain in their houses any women but their 
mothers, sisters, or wives married before 
ordination, and with these last prohibiting 
conjugal intercourse (Ep. i. 50, ix. 64). 
Bishops he recommends to imitate St. Augus- 
tine in banishing from their houses even such 
female relatives as the canons allow (Ep. vii. 
ind. ii. 39; Xi. 42, 43). In Sicily the obliga- 
tion to celibacy had, in 588, been extended to 
subdeacons. This rule he upheld by directing 
the bishops to require a vow of celibacy from 
all who should in future be ordained sub- 
deacons, but acknowledging its hardship on 
such as had made no such vow on their 
ordination, he contented himself with for- 
bidding the advancement to the diaconate of 
existing subdeacons who had continued con- 
jugal intercourse after the introduction of the 
rule (Ep. i. ind. ix. 42). 

He also set himself resolutely against the 
prevalent simony, forbidding all bishops and 
clergy to exact or accept fee or reward for 
the functions of their office; and he set the 
example himself by refusing the annual pre- 
sents which it had been customary for the 
bishops of Rome to receive from their suffra- 
gans, or payment for the pallium sent to 
metropolitans, which payment was forbidden 
to all future popes by a Roman synod in $95. 

In 592 began a struggle in reference to 
discipline with certain bishops of Thessaly and 
Dalmatia, in the province of Illyricum. 
Hadrianus of Thebes had been deposed by a 
provincial synod under his metropolitan the 
bp. of Larissa, and the sentence had been 
confirmed by John of Justiniana Prima, the 
primate of Illyricum. The deposed prelate 
appealed to Gregory, who, after examining the 
whole case, ordered the primate to reinstate 
Hadrianus (Ep. ii. ind. xi. 6, 7). He also 
ordered Natalis, bp. of Salona in Dalmatia and 
| metropolitan, under pain of excommunication, 


428 GREGORIUS I. 

to reinstate his archdeacon Honoratus whom 
he had deposed (EP. ii. ind. x. 14, 15, 16). In 
both instances he appears to have been 
obeyed. Not so, however, in the case of 
Maximus, who succeeded Natalis as bp. of 
Salona and metropolitan in the same year. 
Maximus having been elected in opposition to 
Honoratus, whom Gregory had recommended, 
the latter disallowed the election, and wrote to 
the clergy of Salona forbidding them to choose 
a bishop without the consent of the apostolic 
see. Meanwhile the emperor had confirmed 
the election. After protracted negotiations, 
lasting 7 years, during which 17 letters were 
written by Gregory, the emperor committed 
the settlement of the dispute to Maximianus, 
bp. of Ravenna, with the result that Maximus, 
having publicly begged pardon of the pope and 
cleared himself from the charge of simony by 
an oath of purgation at the tomb of St. Apol- 
linaris, was at last acknowledged as lawful bp. 
of Salona (Ep. iii. ind. xii. 15, 20; iv. ind. xiii. 
34; v.ind. xiv. 3; vi. ind. xv. 17; vii. ind. i. 
I; vii. ind. ii. 81, 82,- 83). In the West 
beyond the limits of the empire Gregory also 
lost no opportunity of extending the influence 
of his see and of advancing and consolidating 
the church. Reccared, the Visigothic king of 
Spain, renounced Arianism for Catholicism at 
the council of Toledo in 589, and Gregory 
heard of this from Leander, bp. of Seville, 
whom he exhorted to watch over the royal 
convert. He sent Leander a pallium to be 
used at mass only. He wrote to Reccared 
in warm congratulation, exhorting him to 
humility, chastity, and mercy; thanking him 
for presents received, and sending in return a 
key from the body of St. Peter, in which was 
some iron from the chain that had bound him, 
and across containing a piece of the true cross, 
and some hairs of John the Baptist (Canones 
Eccles. Hispan.). There is no distinct as- 
sumption, in these letters, of jurisdiction over 
the Spanish church, and this is the only known 
instance of a pallium having been sent to Spain 
previously to the Saracen invasion. The 
ancient Spanish church does not seem to have 
been noted for its dependence on the Roman 
see (see Geddes, Tracts, vol. ii. pp. 25, 49; 
Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 188). With 
the Frank rulers of Gaul Gregory carefully 
cultivated friendly relations. In 595, at the 
request of king Childeric, he conferred the 
pallium on Virgilius of Arles, the ancient 
metropolitan see, whose bishop pope Zosimus 
had confirmed in his metropolitan right, and 
made vicar as early as 417. Not long after 
Gregory began a correspondence with queen 
Brunichild, in which he exhorts her to use 
her power for the correction of the vices of 
the clergy and the conversion of the heathen. 
Another royal female correspondent, culti- 
vated and flattered with a similar purpose, and 
one more worthy of the praise conferred, was 
Theodelinda the Lombard queen. To 599 
is assigned the extensive conversion of the 
Lombards to Catholicism, brought about after 
the death of king Antharis through the mar- 
riage of this Theodelinda, his widow, with 
Agilulph duke of Turin, who consequently 
succeeded to the throne. With this pious 
lady, a zealous Catholic, Gregory kept up 
a highly complimentary correspondence, 


GREGORIUS I. 


sending her also a copy of his four books of 
dialogues. 

Over the church in Ireland, then bound by 
no close tie of allegiance to the see of Rome, 
he endeavoured to extend his influence, 
writing in 592 a long letter to the bishops. 

Not content with thus influencing, con- 
solidating, and reforming the existing churches 
throughout the West, he was also a zealous 
missionary, and as such the founder of our 
English, as distinct from the more ancient 
British, Christianity. [AUGUSTINE.] 

Of his relations with Constantinople and the 
Eastern church, the year 593 affords the first 
example. Having heard of two presbyters, 
John of Chalcedon and Anastasius of Isauria, 
being beaten with cudgels, after conviction on 
a charge of heresy, under John the Faster, then 
patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory wrote 
twice to the patriarch, remonstrating with him 
for introducing a new and_uncanonical 
punishment, exhorting him to restore the two 
presbyters or to judge them canonically, and 
expressing his own readiness to receive them 
at Rome. Notwithstanding the patriarch’s 
protest, the presbyters thereupon withdrew 
to Rome and were received and absolved by 
Gregory after examination (Ep. ii. 52, v. 64). 
In other letters we find him saying, ‘‘ With 
respect to the Constantinopolitan church, who 
doubts that it is subject to the apostolical 
see ?’’ and “1 know not what bishop is not 
subject to it, if fault is found in him ”’ (Ep. vii. 
ind. ii. 64, 65). But the most memorable 
incidents in this connexion are his remon- 
strances against the assumption by John the 
Faster of the title of oecumenical or universal 
bishop. They began in 595, being provoked 
by the repeated occurrence of the title in a 
judgment against an heretical presbyter which 
had been sent to Rome. The title was not 
new. Patriarchs had been so styled by the 
emperors Leo and Justinian, and it had been 
confirmed to John the Faster and his succes- 
sors by a general Eastern synod at Constan- 
tinople in 588, pope Pelagius protesting against 
it. Gregory now wrote to Sabinianus, his 
apocrisiarius at Constantinople, desiring him 
to use his utmost endeavours with the patri- 
arch, the emperor, and the empress, to procure 
the renunciation of the title; and when this 
failed, he himself wrote to all these in peculiar- 
ly stronglanguage. The title he called foolish, 
proud, pestiferous, profane, wicked, a diaboli- 
cal usurpation; the ambition of any who 
assumed it was like that of Lucifer, and its 
assumption a sign of the approach of the king 
of pride, z.e. Antichrist. His arguments are 
such as to preclude himself as well as others 
from assuming the title, though he implies 
that if any could claim it it would be St. 
Peter’s successors. Peter, he says, was the 
first of the apostles, yet neither he nor any of 
the others would assume the title universal, 
being all members of the church under one 
head, Christ. He also states (probably in 
error) that the title had been offered to the 
bp. of Rome at the council of Chalcedon, and 
refused. Failing entirely to make an impres- 
sion at Constantinople, he addressed himself 
to the Eastern patriarchs. He wrote to 
Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of 
Antioch, representing the purpose of their 


GREGORIUS I. 


brother of Constantinople as being that of! 


degrading them, and usurping to himself all 
ecclesiastical power. They, however, were 


not thus moved to action; they seem to have | 


regarded the title as one of honour only, 
suitable to the patriarch of the imperial city ; 
and one of them, Anastasius, wrote in reply 


that the matter seemed to him of little mo- | 
The controversy continued after the | 
Gregory instructed | 
his apocrisiarius at Constantinople to demand | 


ment. 
death of John the Faster. 


from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a con- 
dition of intercommunion, the renunciation 
of the proud and impious title which his 
predecessor had wickedly assumed. In vain 
did Cyriacus send a nuncio to Rome in the 
hope of arranging matters: 
resolute, and wrote, ‘I confidently say that 


whosoever calls himself universal priest, or 


desires to be so called in his elation, is the fore- 
runner of Antichrist.” 
to have gained a supporter, if not to his 
protest, at any rate to the paramount dignity 
of his own see, in Eulogius of Alexandria, 
whom he had before addressed without result. 
For in answering a letter from that patriarch, 
he acknowledges with approval the dignity 
assigned by him to the see of St. Peter, and 
expresses adroitly a curious view of his cor- 
respondent, as wellas the patriarch of Antioch, 
being asharerinit. ‘* Who does not know,” 
he says, ‘‘that the church was built and 


Gregory was | 


| 


GREGORIUS I. 420 


see was regarded as an appanage of a city's 
civil importance, on which ground alone could 
any pre-eminence be claimed for Constanti- 
nople. In the West it was the apostolical 
origin of the see, and the purely ecclesiastical 


| pre-eminence belonging to it from ancient 


times, to which especial regard was paid. 
Thus viewed, the struggle of Gregory for the 
dignity of his own see against that of Con- 
stantinople assumes importance as a protest 
against the Erastianism of the East. It 
certainly would not have been well for the 


/church had the spiritual authority of the 


bps. of Rome accrued to the subservient 
patriarchs of the Eastern capital. 

As a temporal administrator and potentate 
Gregory evinced equally great vigour, ability, 
and zeal, guided by address and judgment. 
The see of Rome had large possessions, con- 


tir |stituting what was called the patrimony of 
At this time he seems | 


St. Peter, in Italy, Sardinia, and Corsica, and 
also in more remote parts, ¢.g. Dalmatia, 
Illyricum, Gaul, and even Africa and the East. 
Over these estates Gregory exercised a 
vigilant superintendence by means of officers 
called ‘‘rectores patrimonii"’ and “ defen- 
sores,’’ to whom his letters remain, prescribing 
minute regulations for the management of the 
lands, and guarding especially against any 
oppression of the peasants. The revenues 
accruing to the see, thus carefully secured, 
though with every possible regard to humanity 


established on the firmness of the prince of | and justice, were expended according to the 
the apostles, by whose very name is implied | fourfold division then prevalent in the West— 


a rock ? 


Hence, though there were several | viz. in equal parts for the bishop, the clergy, 


apostles, there is but one apostolic see, that of | the fabric and services of the church, and the 


the prince of the apostles, which has acquired 
great authority; and that see is in three 
places, in Rome where he died, in Alexandria 
where it was founded by his disciple St. Mark, 
and in Antioch where he himself lived seven 
years. These three, therefore, are but one 
see, and on that one see sit three bishops, who 
are but one in Him Who said, Iam in My 
Father, and you in Me, and I in νοι." But 


when Eulogius in a second letter styled the | 


bp. of Rome universal pope, Gregory warmly 
rejected such a title, saying, ‘“‘If you give 


more to me than is due to me, you rob yourself bs 
letters and homilies 


of what is due to you. Nothing can redound 
to my honour that redounds to the dishonour 
of my brethren. If you call me universal 
pope, you thereby own yourself to be no pope. 

t no such titles be mentioned or ever heard 
among us.’’ Gregory was obliged at last to 
acquiesce in the assumption of the obnoxious 
title by the Constantinopolitan patriarch ; and 


it may have been by way of contrast that he 


usually styled himself in his own letters by the 
title since borne by the bps. of Rome, *‘Servus 
servorum Dei.’’ Evidently Gregory and his 


opponents took different views of the import of | 


the title contended for. They represented it 
as one simply of honour and dignity, while he 
regarded it as involving the assumption of 
supreme authority over the church at large, 
and especially over the see of St. Peter, whence 
probably in a great measure the vehemence 
of his remonstrance. In the different views 
taken appears the difference of principle on 
which pre-eminence was in that age thought 
assignable’ to sees in the East and West 
Tespectively. In the East the dignity of a 


poor. This distribution, publicly made four 
times a year, Gregory personally superin- 
tended. His own charities were immense, a 
large portion of the population of Rome being 
dependent on them: every day, before his 
own meal, a portion was sent to the poor at 
his door; the sick and infirm in every street 
were sought out; and a large volume was 
kept containing the names, ages, and dwell- 
ings of the objects of his bounty. 

A field for the exercise of his political 
abilities was afforded by his position as virtual 
ruler of Rome at that critical time. His 
gave a lamentable 
account of the miseries of the country, and he 
endeavoured to conclude a peace between 
Agilulph, the Lombard king, who was himself 
disposed to come to terms, and the exarch 
Romanus. These endeavours were frustrated 
by the opposition of Romanus, who represent- 


|ed Gregory to the emperor as having been 


overreached by the crafty enemy. The 


/emperor believed his exarch, and wrote to 


Gregory in condemnation of his conduct. In 
vain did Gregory remonstrate in letters both 
to the emperor and to the empress Constan- 
tina, complaining to the latter not so much 
of the ravages of the Lombards as of the 
cruelty and exactions of the imperial officers ; 
but though small success crowned his efforts, 
whatever mitigation of distress was accom- 
plished was due to him. 

In 601 an event occurred which shews 
Gregory in a less favourable light, with respect 
to his relations to the powers of the world than 
anything else during his career. Phocas, a 
centurion, was made emperor by the army. 


480 GREGORIUS I. 


He secured his throne by the murder of 
Mauricius, whose six sons had been first 
cruelly executed before their father’s eyes. 
He afterwards put to death the empress 
Constantina and her three daughters, who 
had been lured out of the asylum of a church 
under a promise of safety. Numerous persons 
of allranks and in various parts of the empire 
are also said to have been put to death with 
unusual cruelty. To Phocas and his consort 
Leontia, who is spoken of as little better than 
her husband, Gregory wrote congratulatory 
letters in a style of flattery beyond even what 
was usual with him in addressing great poten- 
tates (Ep. xi. ind. vi. 38, 45, 46). His motive 
was doubtless largely the hope of obtaining 
from the new powers the support which 
Mauricius had not accorded him in his dispute 
with the Eastern patriarch. This motive 
appears plainly in one of his letters to Leontia, 
to whom, rather than to the emperor, with 
characteristic tact, he intimates his hopes of 
support to the church of St. Peter, endeavour- 
ing to work upon her religious fears. 

Gregory lived only 16 months after the 
accession of Phocas, dying after protracted 
suffering from gout on Mar. 12, 604. He was 
buried in the basilica of St. Peter. 

Immediately after his death a famine 
occurred, which the starving multitude attri- 
buted to his prodigal expenditure, and his 
library was only saved from destruction by the 
interposition of the archdeacon Peter. 

The pontificate of Gregory the Great is 
rightly regarded as second to none in its 
influence on the future form of Western 
Christianity. He lived in the period of tran- 
sition from Christendom under imperial rule 
to the medieval papacy, and he laid or 
consolidated the foundation of the latter. He 
advanced, indeed, no claims to authority 
beyond what had been asserted by his pre- 
decessors; yet the consistency, firmness, 
conscientious zeal, as well as address and 
judgment, with which he maintained it, and 
the waning of the power of the Eastern empire, 
left him virtual ruler of Rome and the sole 
power to whom the Western church turned 
for support, and whom the Christianized 
barbarians, founders of the new kingdom of 
Europe, regarded with reverence. Thus he 
paved the way for the system of papal abso- 
lutism that culminated under Gregory VII. 
and Innocent III. 

As a writer he was intellectually eminent ; 
and deserves his place among the doctors of 
the church, though his learning and mental 
attitude were those of his age. As acritic, an 
expositor, an original thinker, he may not 
stand high; he knew neither Greek nor 
Hebrew, and had no deep acquaintance with 
the Christian Fathers; literature for its own 
sake he set little store by ; classical literature, 
as being heathen, he repudiated. Yet as a 
clear and powerful exponent of the received 
orthodox doctrine, especially in its practical 
aspect, as well as of the system of hagiology, 
demonology, and monastic asceticism, which 
then formed part of the religion of Christen- 
dom, he spoke with a loud and influential voice 
to many ages after his own, and contributed 
more than any one person to fix the form 
and tone of medieval religious thought. 


GREGORIUS I. 


He was also influential as a preacher, and 
no less famous for his influence on the music 
and liturgy of the church; whence he is 
called ‘‘ magister caeremoniarum.”’ To cul- 
tivate church singing he instituted a song- 
school in Rome, called Orphanotrophium, the 
name of which implies also a charitable pur- 
pose. Of it, John the deacon, after speaking 
of the cento of antiphons which Gregory had 
carefully compiled, says: ‘‘ He founded a 
school of singers, endowed it with some farms, 
and built for it two habitations, one under the 
steps of the basilica of St. Peter the Apostle, 
the other under the houses of the Lateran 
Palace. There to the present day his couch 
on which he used to recline when singing, and 
his whip with which he menaced the boys, 
together with his original antiphonary, are 
preserved with fitting reverence’’ (Vit. Greg. 
li. 6). It is generally alleged that, whereas 
St. Ambrose had in the latter part of the 4th 
cent. introduced at Milan the four authentic 
modes or scales, called, after those of the 
ancient Greek music, Dorian, Phrygian, Lyd- 
ian, Mixo-Lydian, St. Gregory added to them 
the four plagal, or subsidiary, modes called 
Hypo-Dorian, Hypo-Phrygian, Hypo-Lydian, 
and Hypo-Mixo-Lydian, thus enlarging the 
allowed range of ecclesiastical melody. 

His Septiform litany was so called from being 
appointed by him to be sung by the inhabitants 
of Rome divided into seven companies, viz. 
of clergy, laymen, monks, virgins, matrons, 
widows, and of poor people and children. 
These, starting from 7 different churches, were 
to chant through the streets of Rome, and 
meet for common supplication in the church of 
the Blessed Virgin. He also appointed “ the 
stations ’’—churches at which were to be held 
solemn services in Lent and at the four great 
festivals ; visiting the churches in person, and 
being received with stately ceremonial. 

His extant works of undoubted genuineness 
are: (1) Expositio in beatum Job, seu Moralium 
lib. xxxv. In this celebrated work (begun at 
Constantinople before he was pope and 
finished afterwards) ‘‘the book of Job is 
expounded in a threefold manner, according 
to its historic, its moral, and its allegorical 
meaning. The moral interpretation may still 
be read with profit, though rather for the 
loftiness and purity of its tone than for the 
justness of the exposition.’”’ As to the alle- 
gorical interpretation, ‘‘ names of persons, 
numbers, words, even syllables, are made 
pregnant with all kinds of mysterious mean- 
ings’’ (Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity). 
(2) Libri duo in Ezechielem: viz. 22 homilies 
on Ezekiel, delivered at Rome during its siege 
by Agilulph. (3) Libri duo in Evangelia: viz. 
40 homilies on the gospels for the day, 
preached at various times. (4) Liber Regulae 
Pastoralis, in 4 parts; a treatise on the 
pastoral office, addressed to a bp. John to 
explain and justify the writer’s former reluct- 
ance to undertake the burden of the popedom. 
This work was long held in the highest esteem. 
Leander of Seville circulated it in Spain; the 
emperor Mauricius had it translated into 
Greek; Alfred the Great translated it into 
English ; a succession of synods in Gaul en- 
joined a knowledge of it on all bishops; and 
Hincmar, archbp. of Rheims in the oth cent., 


GREGORIUS I. 


says that a copy of it was delivered, to- 
gether with the book of canons, to bishops 
at their ordination, with a charge to them to 
frame their lives according to its precepts 


in Praefatione Opusculi 55 Capitulorum). 


5) Dialogorum librt IV. de vita et miracults 
atrum Italicorum, et de aeternitate animae. 
he authenticity of this work has been doubt- 
ed; apparently without adequate grounds. 
It is written in the form of dialogues with the 
archdeacon Peter, and contains accounts of 
saintly persons, prominent among whom is 
Benedict of Nursia, the contemporary founder 
of the Benedictine order. It abounds in 
marvels, and relates visions of the state of 
departed souls, which have been a main 
support, if not a principal foundation, of the 
medieval doctrine about purgatory. The 
Dialogues were translated into Anglo-Saxon 
by order of Alfred (Asser. Gest. Alf. in Mon. 
Hist. Brit. 486 ΕἸ). (6) Registrum Epistolarum, 
in 14 books, of which the 13th is wanting; 
a very varied collection of 838 letters to 
ersons of all ranks, which gives a vivid 
idea of his unwearied activity, the multi- 


fariousness of his engagements and inter- | 


ests, his address, judgment, and versatility. 
(7) Liber Sacramentorum. This, the famous 
Gregorian Sacramentary, was an abbreviated 
arrangement in one vol., with some alterations 
and additions, of the sacramentary of pope 


Gelasius, which again had been founded on an | 


older one attributed to pope Leo 1. John the 
deacon says of Gregory's work, ‘‘ Sed et 
Gelasianum codicem, de Missarum solemniis 
multa subtrahens, pauca convertens, nonnulla 
superadjiciens, in unius libelli volumine 
coarctavit ’’ (Joann. Diac. in Vit. Greg. ii. 17; 
ef. Bede, H. Ε. ii. 1). The changes made by 
Gregory were principally in the Missae, or 
variable offices for particular days; in the 
Ordo Missae itself only two alterations are 
spoken of as made by him, viz. to the part 
of the canon beginning, ‘‘ Hanc igitur obla- 
tionem,’’ he added the words, ‘* Diesque 
nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna 


damnatione eripi et in electorum tuorum | 


jubeas grege numerari’’; and the _ trans- 


ference of the Lord’s Prayer from after the 


breaking of bread to its present place in 
the canon (Ep. ad Joann. Syrac. lib. ix. Ep. 
12). Whatever uncertainty there may be as 


to the original text of Gregory’s sacramentary | 


as a whole, it is considered certain that the 
present Roman canon and, except for certain 


subsequent additions, the ordinarium are the 


same as what he left. [SACRAMENTARY in 
D.C. A.) (8) Liber Antiphonarius, a collec- 
tion of antiphons for mass. To what extent 
this was original, or how far it may have been 
altered since Gregory’s time, is uncertain. 

Of the following works attributed to Greg- 
ory, the genuineness is doubtful: (1) Ltber 
Benedictionum ; (2) Liber Responsalis seu 
Antiphonarius ; (3) Expositiones in librum I. 
Regum; (4) Expositiones super Canticum 
Canticorum ; (5) Expositio in vii. Pss. Paent- 
tentiales ; (6) Concordia quorundam testimont- 
orum sacrae Scripturae. There are also 9 
hymns attributed to him with probability. 

Of his personal appearance an idea may be 
formed from a description given by John the 
deacon of a portrait preserved to his own day 


GREGORIUS I. 431 


|(9th cent.) in St. Andrew's monastery, “ in 
absidicula post fratrum cellarium"’; which 
he concludes to have been painted during the 
| pope’s life and by his order. That this was 
the case is inferred from the head being sur- 
;mounted, not by a corona, but by a tabula 
(‘‘tabulae similitudinem "'), which John says 
}is the mark of a living person, and by the 
| appended inscription : 


“ Christe potens Domine, nostri largitor honoris 
Indultum officium solita pictate guberna.”’ 


The figure is of ordinary size, and well formed ; 
the face ‘‘ most becomingly prolonged with a 
certain rotundity’’; the beard of moderate 
| size and somewhat tawny; in the middle of 
his otherwise bald forehead are two neat little 
curls twisting towards the right; the crown 
of the head is round and large; dark hair, 
decently curled, hangs under the middle of the 
ear; he has a fine forehead ; his evebrows are 
long and elevated, but slender; the pupils of 
| the eyes are of a yellow tinge, not large, but 
open, and the under-eyelids are full; the nose 
| is slender as it curves down from the eyebrows, 
broader about the middle, then slightly curved, 
and expanding at the nostrils; the mouth is 
|ruddy; the lips thick and subdivided; the 
cheeks regular (‘‘ compositae"’); the chin 
rather prominent from the confines of the 
jaws; the complexion was “ aquilinus et 
lividus "’ (al. ‘‘ vividus"’), not ‘* cardiacus,"’ 
as it became afterwards, {.ς. he had in the 

icture a dark but fresh complexion, though 
in later life it acquired an unhealthy hue. 
(See Du Cange for the probable meaning of 
the words.) His countenance is mild; his 
hands good, with taper fingers, well adapted 
for writing. The dress he wears is of in- 
terest—a chestnut-coloured planefa over a 
dalmatica, which is precisely the same dress 
as that in which his father is depicted, and 
therefore not then a peculiarly sacerdotal 
costume. [GorRDIANUS.] He is distinguished 
| from his father by the palliwm, the then form 
|and mode of wearing which are intimated by 
the description. It is brought from the left 
shoulder so as to hang carelessly under the 
breast, and, passing over the right shoulder, 
is deposited behind the back, the other end 
being carried straight behind the neck also 
to the right shoulder, from which it hangs 
down the side. In the left hand is a book of 
the Gospels; the right is in the attitude of 
making the sign of the cross (Joann. Diac. tn 
Vit. Greg. 1. 4, c. 83). John describes also his 
pallium, woven of white linen and with no 
marks of the needle in it; his phylactery ( or 
case for relics), of thin silver, and hung from 
the neck by crimson cloth, and his belt 
(‘* baltheus ’’), only a thumb’s breadth wide— 
which, he says, were preserved and venerated 
on the saint’s anniversary, and which he 
refers to as shewing the monastic simplicity 
of Gregory’s attire (1b. c. 8). 

Our chief authorities for the Life of Gregory 
are his own writings, especially his letters, 
of which a trans. (Selecta Epp.) is in Lib. of 
Post.-Nic. Fathers. Among ancient writers 
Gregory of Tours (his contemporary), Bede, 
Paul Warnefried (730), Ado Trevirensis 
(1070), Simeon Metaphrastes (1300), Isidorus 
| Hispalensis, have detailed notices of him, 


432 GUNDOBALD 


Paul the deacon in the 8th cent., and John 
the deacon, a monk of Cassino, in the 9th cent., 
wrote Lives of him (Greg. Op. ed. Benedict). 
The Benedictine ed. of his works has a fuller 
Life, using additional sources. An important 
work on Gregory the Great, his Place in 
Thought and History, was pub. by the Rev. 
F. H. Dudden, in two vols. 4to, 1905 
(Lond., Longmans). A cheap popular Life by 
the author of this art. is pub. by S.P.C.K. 
in their Fathers for Eng. Readers ; see also a 
monograph on Pope Gregory the Great and 
his Relation with Gaul, by F. W. Kellett 
(Camb. Univ. Press). [J-B—yY-] 

Gundobald, 4th king of the Burgundians 
(Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii. 28). The kingdom 
of the Burgundians, which extended from the 
Vosges to the Durance and from the Alps to 
the Loire, was divided between Gundobald and 
his surviving brother Godegiselus, the former 
having Lyons for his capital, the latter Geneva 
(Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii. 32; Ennodius, 
Vita 5. Eptiphanti, 50-54; Boll. Jan. ii. 
374-375; cf. Mascou, Hist. of the Anctent 
Germans, xi. 10, 31, and Annotation iv.). In 
500 Clovis, who had married Gundobald’s 
niece, defeated Gundobald at Dijon, with the 
aid of Godegiselus who fought against his 
brother, and imposed a tribute. But on 
Clovis’s departure he renounced his allegiance, 
and besieged and killed his brother, who had 
triumphantly entered Vienne. Henceforth 
till his death he ruled the whole Burgundian 
territory (Marius Avent. Chron., Migne, Patr. 
Eat. lexi. 705, 796 ;-Grez.. bur. 15 72; 31: 
Epitomata, xxii.-xxiv.; Richter, Annalen, 
37, 38). About this time was held under his 
presidency at Lyons a conference between the 
Catholics, led by Avitus, and the Arians, led by 
Boniface. According to the Catholic account 
of it which survives, the heretics were utterly 
confounded. The narrative is in the Spicile- 
gium, iii. 304 (Paris, 1723), Mansi, vill. 242, 
and excerpta from it in Patr. Lat. Ixxi. 1154. 
Gundobald died in 516, leaving his son, the 
Catholic Sigismund, as his successor. 

In spite of the unfavourable testimony of 
Catholic writers, there are many indications 
that Gundobald was for his time an enlight- 
ened and humane king. The wisdom and 
equity of his government are evidenced by the 
Loi Gombette, the Burgundian code, called 
after him, which, though probably not taking 
its present shape entirely till his son’s reign, 
was enacted by him. Its provisions in favour 
of the Roman, or old Gallicinhabitants, whom 
in most respects it put on an equality with 
the conquerors, entitles it to be called the 
best barbarian code which had yet appeared 
(Greg. Tur. ii. 33; Hist. lit. de la France, iii. 
83 sqq.; L’Art de vérifier les dates, x. 365, 
Paris, 1818). For the code see Bouquet, iv. 
257 seq., and Pertz, Leges, 111. 497 seq. 

Though he professed Arianism, Gundobald 
did not persecute, but secured the Catholics 
in the possession of their endowments, as 
Avitus testifies (Ep. xxxix. Patr. Lat. lix. 
256). The circumstances relied on by 
Revillout (De l’Arianisme des peuples ger- 
maniques, 180, 181), who takes the opposite 
view, are trivial, compared with the testimony 
of Avitus and the silence of Gregory. Gun- 
dobald’s whole correspondence with Avitus 


GUNTRAMNUS 


and the conference of Lyons demonstrate the 
interest he took in religious subjects and his 
tolerance of orthodoxy. Several of the 
bishop’s letters survive, answering inquiries 
on various points of doctrine, e.g. the Euty- 
chian heresy (Epp. 3 and 4), repentance m 
articulo mortis, and justification by faith or 
works (Ep. 5). One only of Gundobald’s 
remains (Ep. 19), asking an explanation of 
Is. ii. 3-5, and Mic. iv. 4. These letters are 
in Migne, Patr. Lat. lix. 199, 202, 210, 219, 
223, 236, 244, 255, and commented on in 
Ceillier’s Hist. générale des auteurs sacrés, x. 
554 5864. He probably died an Arian. Ac- 
cording to Gregory, he was convinced and 
begged Avitus to baptize him in secret, fearing 
his subjects; but Avitus refused, and he 
perished in his heresy (Hist. Franc. ii. 34, cf. 
lii. prologue). But there are two passages in 
Avitus’s letters (Ep. v. sub fin. Patr. Lat. lix. 
224, ‘‘ Unde cum laetitiam—orbitatem,”’ and 
Ep. ii. sub init. Patr. Lat. lix. 202, ‘‘ Unicum 
simul—principaliter de tuenda catholicae 
partis veritate curetis’’) which seem almost 
to imply that he was then a Catholic. See 
too Gregory’s story of the piety of his queen 
(de Mirac. 5. Julian, ii. 8). [s.A.B.] 

Guntramnus (2) (Guntchramnus, Gunthran- 
nus, Gontran), St., king of Burgundy, son of 
Clotaire I. and Ingundis (Greg. Tur. Hist. 
Franc. iv. 3). Upon his father’s death in 
561, the kingdom was divided by lot between 
the three sons. Guntram had the kingdom 
of Burgundy, which then extended from the 
Vosges to the Durance, and from the Alps to 
the Loire. Orleans was his nominal capital, 
but his ordinary residence was at Chalon-sur- 
Sadne (iv. 21, 22). His pacific and unenter- 
prising disposition made his reign uneventful. 
He died in 593, in the 33rd year of his reign, 
on Mar. 28, on which day the martyrologies 
commemorate him as a saint, and was buried 
in the monastery church of St. Marcellus, 
his own foundation at Chalons. 

Though the church has canonized Guntram, 
it is perhaps doubtful whether his virtues 
would stand out brightly on any other back- 
ground than the utter darkness of Merovingian 
times. His chief merit seems to have been the 
avoidance of the terrible excesses which 
characterized some of his family, and this was 
perhaps as much due to the feebleness of his 
nature as to any positive inclination towards 
well-doing. Even his clerical eulogists admit 
that as regards women his morals were by no 
means scrupulous (Aimoin, iii. 3, Patr. Lat. 
cxxxix. 693). When provocation or panic was 
absent he was mild, and even merciful, but on 
occasion he readily committed the barbarities 
of his age. The merest suspicion or accusation 
connected with his personal safety sufficed 
to throw him into a panic, when torture was 
freely applied to obtain confessions. Assas- 
sination was the haunting fear of his life, and 
he always wore arms and continually strength- 
ened the escort which attended him every- 
where, except in church (vii. 8, 18, viii. 11, 
44). His apprehension at times was almost 
comic. Gregory tells us that one Sunday at 
church in Paris, when the deacon had enjoined 
silence for the mass, Guntram turned to the 
people and said, ‘‘I beseech you, men and 
women who are present, do not break your 


τὸ τε ee κῶν ὦ ae 


HABIBUS 
faith to me, but forbear to kill me as you 


ave adopted, lest mayhap, which God for- 
bid, you perish together with those little ones 
when I am dead, and there is no strong man 
of our race to defend you ”’ (vii. 8, cf. Michelet, 


semble chargé de la partie comique dans le 
τς drame terrible de l'histoire mérovingienne’’). 

On the other hand, mere abstinence from 
wanton wrong-doing and aggression must be 
counted for a virtue in his family and age. 
For the crowning evil of the time, the incessant 
civil wars which devastated France, he was 
in no way responsible. Though frequently in 
combat, it was always to repel the aggression 
of others, except in his Gothic wars, which he 
Εν regarded as crusades against heretics. 

he profuse almsgiving which he practised 
(e.g. vii. 40) shewed a real, if mistaken, desire 
for the good of his subjects. 

But it was his warm friendship to the 
church and clergy which procured him the 
rank of a saint. St. Benignus of Dijon, St. 
Symphorian of Autun, and St. Marcellus of 
ChAalon-sur-Saéne were founded or enriched 
by him, and in the last he established and 
provided for perpetual psalmody after the 
model of St. Sigismund’s foundation at St. 
Maurice (Fredegar. Chron. xv.; Aimoin, Hist. 
France. iii. 81, Pair. Lat. cxxxix. 751). Bishops 
were his constant advisers, and his favourite 
solution of all complications was an episcopal 
council (Greg. Tur. v. 28; vii. 16; viii. 13, 20, 
27). He commended himself to them also by 
-his respect for church ceremonies and his 
frequent and regular attendance at religious 
services, and especially by his freedom and 
condescension in eating, drinking, and con- 
versing with them (vii. 29; viii. 1-7, 9, 10; 
ix. 3, 20, 21; x. 28). Gregory says, ‘‘ You 
wowld have thought him a priest as well as a 
king "’ (ix. 21). ‘‘ With priests he was like a 
priest,’”’ says Fredegarius (Chron. i.), and ‘‘ he 
shewed himself humble to the priests of 
_ Christ,”” says Aimoin (z.s.). 
intercepted the letter of a bishop, in which it 


to hell (Greg. Tur. vi. 22). In estimating 
Guntram’s character, therefore, we must 
always remember that our information 
comes from this favoured class. Especially 
does this apply to Gregory of Tours, who was 
on very friendly terms with him (viii. 2-7, 13 ; 
ix. 20, 21), and who ascribes miracles to his 
sanctity 


a 
ν 


Migne, Patr. Lat. xcv. 535, and Aimoin. iii. 3, 
Patr. Lat. cxxxix. 693). There is extant an 
edict of Guntram addressed to the bishops and 
judges commanding tbe observance of the 
Sabbath and holy days, in conformity with 
the canon of the 2nd council of Macon. It is 
dated Nov. ro, 585, and is in Mansi, ix. 962, 
and Boll. Acta SS. Mar. iii. 720; cf. Hist. 
lit. de la France, iii. 369 seq.). [5...8.] 


Η 
Habibus (2) (Abibus), deacon, martyr αἱ 


killed my brothers. At least let me live three | 
a that I may rear up the nephews whom | 


Hist. de France, i. 231, ‘‘Ce bon homme | 


| 


HABIBUS 


the Basilian Menologium, Nov. 15, with the 
martyrs Gurias and Samonas, in whose tomb 
he was laid ; at Dec. 2 he has a separate notice, 
Simeon Metaphrastes in his lengthened ac- 
count of those two martyrs (the Lat. in Surius, 
de Prob. Hist. SS. Nov. 15, p. 342, the Lat. and 
Gk. in Patr. Gk. cxvi. 141) similarly embodies 
the history of Habib. Assemani notices bim 
in his Bibl. Orient. (i. 330, 331) from Meta- 
phrastes, but not in his Acta Martyrum. The 
original Syriac account of Habib which Meta- 
phrastes abridged has been discovered, and 


433 


| was ed. in 1864 by Dr. Wright with a trans. 


by Dr. Cureton (Ancient Syriac Documents, 
|p. 72, notes p. 187). The Syrian author, 
| whose name was Theophilus, professes to 


| governor’s household. 


| have been an eyewitness of the martyrdom 
| (which he places on Sept. 2) and a convert. 
|The ancient Syrian Martyrology, another 
| discovery trans. by Dr. Wright (Journ. Sac. 
Lit. 1866, p- 429), likewise commemorates 
| Habib on Sept. Theophilus says that 
}in the month Ab (#.¢. Aug.) in the year 620 
| of the kingdom of Alexander of Macedon, in 
the consulate of Licinius and Constantine, 
in the days of Conon, bp. of Edessa, the 
|}emperor commanded the altars of the gods 
|}to be everywhere repaired, sacrifices and 
| libations offered and incense burnt to Jupiter. 
| Habib, a deacon of the village of Telzeha, 
|went privately among the churches and 
villages encouraging the Christians not to 
{comply. The Christians were more numerous 
}than their persecutors, and word reached 
Edessa that even Constantine ‘in Gaul and 
Spain’’ had become Christian and did not 
sacrifice. Habib’s proceedings were reported 
to Licinius, who sentenced him to die by fire. 
When this news reached Edessa, Habib was 
some 50 miles off at Zeugma, secretly encourag- 


2 
a. 


|ing the Christians there, and his family and 


friends at Telzeha were arrested. Hereupon, 
Habib went to Edessa and presented him- 
self privately to Theotecnus, the head of the 
This official desired 


Chilperic once | 


__was written that the transition from Guntram’s | 
sway to his was like passing from paradise | 


|exposed the sin and folly of idolatry. 


uring his lifetime (ix. 21; cf. too. 
Paulus Diaconus, de Gest. Langob. iii. 33, 


|to save Habib and pressed him to depart 


secretly, assuring him that his friends would 
soon be released. Habib, believing that 
cowardice would endanger his eternal salva- 
tion, persisted in surrender, and was led before 
the governor. On refusing to sacrifice, he was 
imprisoned, tortured, and then burned, after 
he had at great length uncompromisingly 
The 
day of his imprisonment was the emperor's 
festival, and on the 2nd of Ilul (Sept.) he 
suffered. His dying prayer was, “Ὁ king 
Christ, for Thine is this world and Thine is the 
world to come, behold and see that while I 
might have been able to flee from these 
afflictions I did not flee, in order that I might 
not fall into the hands of Thy justice. Let 


| therefore this fire in which I am to be burned 


Edessa in the reign of Licinius; mentioned in 


be for a recompense before Thee, so that I may 
be delivered from that fire which is not 
quenched; and receive Thou my spirit into 
Thy presence through the Spirit of Thy God- 
head, O glorious Son of the adorable Father.”’ 

The year is given by Baronius, who had only 
Metaphrastes to guide him, as a.p. 316 (A. E. 
ann. 316, xlviii.). Assemani (Bibl. Or. 1. 334) 
with the same materials decides for 323. The 
details of Theophilus might seem to settle the 


28 


484 HADRIANUS, PUBLIUS AELIUS 


point ; but if his era is that of the Seleucidae, 
Ilul 2, 620 was Sept. 2, 309, and Licinius 
only became master of the East in 313. The 
date therefore is still a difficulty. [{c.H.] 
Hadrianus (1), Publius Aelius, emperor 
117-137. Born in 76, and placed, at the age 
of ten, on his father’s death, under the guar- 
dianship of his cousin, Ulpius Trajanus, after- 
wards emperor, Hadrian was in his youth a 
diligent student of Greek literature, and 
entered on his career as military tribune in 
Lower Moesia in 95. On the death of Nerva 
in 97, Trajan became emperor, and Hadrian, 
on whom he bestowed such favours that men 
looked for a formal adoption, served in the 
wars with the Dacians, Pannonians, Sarma- 
tians, and Parthians. During the campaign 
against the last-named, Trajan, leaving 
Hadrian in command of the army and of the 
province of Syria, started for Rome, but died 
at Selinus in Cilicia in 117. Hadrian had 
himself proclaimed emperor by the army, 
communicated the election to the senate, and 
received their formal sanction. His external 
policy was marked by the abandonment of 
any idea of extending the eastern frontier of 
the empire beyond the Euphrates. Having 
gained popular favour by gladiatorial games, 
large donations, and the remission of arrears 
of taxes, Hadrian devoted himself for several 
years from 120 to a personal inspection of the 
provinces. In 120-121 he visited Gaul, Ger- 
many, and Britain, erecting fortresses and 
strengthening the frontier defences, of which 
an example is his Roman wall from the Solway 
to the mouth of the Tyne. We may find traces, 
perhaps, of the eclectic tendency of his mind 
in the altars dedicated to Mithras and to an 
otherwise unknown goddess named Coventina 
or Conventina, found near the wall not far from 
Hexham.* In 122 he came to Athens, which 
became his favourite residence, and the same 
eclectic tendency led him to seek initiation in 
the Eleusinian mysteries (A.D. 125). On the 
death, probably self-sought, of his favourite 
Antinous, a Bithynian page of great beauty 
and genius, Hadrian paid his memory the 
divine honours given toemperors. Constella- 
tions were named after him, cities dedicated 
to him, incense burnt in his honour, and the 
art market flooded with statues and busts 
representing his exceeding beauty. The 
apotheosis of Antinous was the reductio at once 
ad absurdum and ad horribile of the decayed 
polytheism of the empire (Eus. H. E. iv. 8; 
Justin, Apol. i. 39). In 131 the emperor 
began to execute the plan, conceived earlier 
in his reign, of making Jerusalem a Roman 
colonia, and rebuilding it as Aelia Capitolina, 
thus commemorating both the gens to which 
the emperor belonged and its consecration to 
the Capitolian Jupiter. At first the proposal 
was received tranquilly. The work of rebuild- 
ing was placed in the hands of a Jew, Aquila 
of Pontus, and the Jews petitioned for per- 
mission to rebuild their temple. They were 
* See a paper by Mr. Clayton in the Transactions 
of the Newcastle Archaeological Society for 1875. 
Some archaeologists consider Conventina a Latinized 
form of the name of some British goddess. The fact 
that Hadrian when in Spain summoned a conventus 
of all Romans resident there suggests that the 


goddess was perhaps the personified guardian of 
such a conventus held in Britain. 


HADRIANUS, PUBLIUS AELIUS 


met with studied indignity, and a plough was 
drawn over the site of the sacred place in token 
of its desecration. The city was filled with 
Roman emigrants, the Jews were forbidden to 
enter the city, but allowed, as if in bitter 
irony, on the anniversary of its capture by 
Titus to bewail their fate within its gates. 
On one of the gates a marble statue of the 
unclean beast was a direct insult to Jewish 
feeling, while Christian feeling was outraged 
by a statue of Jupiter on the site of the 
resurrection and of Venus on that of the 
crucifixion. Trees andstatues were placed on 
the platform of the temple, and a grove to 
Adonis near the cave of the nativity at Beth- 
lehem. Such persistent defiance of national 
feeling roused widespread indignation, which 
burst out under a leader whom we know by his 
assumed name of Bar-Cocheba (‘‘the son of a 
star’’)—a name probably suggested by the 
imagery of Balaam (Num. xxiv. 17), possibly 
also by the recollection of the ‘‘ star in the 
east’’ of Matt. ii. 2. He is described by 
Eusebius (H. FE. iv. 3) as a murderer and a 
robber (povixds καὶ λῃστρικὸς) of the Barab- 
bas type, but was recognized by Akiba, the 
leading rabbi of the time, as the Messiah, 
seized 50 fortresses and 985 villages, and 
established himself in the stronghold of 
Bethera, between Caesarea and Lydda (rebuilt 
by Hadrian and renamed Diospolis). The 
Christians of Palestine, true to the apostolic 
precept of submission to the powers that be, 
took no part in the insurrection, and were 
accordingly persecuted by the rebel leader and 
offered the alternative of denying the Messiah- 
ship of Jesus or the penalty of torture and 
death (ib. iv. 8). Severus was recalled from 
Britain, the rebellion suppressed with a strong 
hand, and edicts of extreme stringency issued 
against the Jews, forbidding them to circum- 
cise their children, keep the Sabbath, or 
educate their youth in the Law. Akiba died 
under torture, and a secret school for in- 
struction in the Law, continuing the rabbinic 
traditions, was formed at Lydda (Jost, Juden- 
thum, ii. 7). To the Christian church in 
Judaea the suppression of the revolt and the 
tolerant spirit of the emperor brought relief. 
They left Pella, where they had taken refuge 
during the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, and 
returned to the holy city. Its 15 successive 
bishops had all been Hebrews, but now the 
mother-church of the world first came under 
the care of a gentile bishop (Eus. H. E. iv. 5). 

In his general treatment of Christians, 
Hadrian followed in the footsteps of Trajan. 
The more cultivated members of the church 
felt that in addressing the tolerant, eclectic 
emperor, “‘ curiositatum omnium explorator,”’ 
as Tertullian calls him (A pol. c. 5), they had 
a chance of a favourable hearing, and the age 
of apologists began. Quapratus presented 
his Apologia, laying stress on the publicity of 
the works of Christ, and appealing to still 
surviving eye-witnesses. ARISTIDES ad- 
dressed to the emperor (A.D. 133) a treatise, 
extant and admired in the time of Jerome, in 
defence of the Christians, and was said even 
to have been admitted to a personal hearing. 
Early in his reign, but probably a little later, 
an Asiatic official of high character, Serenius 
Granianus, applied to Hadrian for instructions 


HADRIANUS, PUBLIUS AELIUS 


‘as to the treatment of Christians, complaining 
that their enemies expected him to condemn 
‘them without atrial. The emperor thereupon 


addressed an official letter to Minucius Fun- 


_danus, proconsul of Asia, regulating the mode 
of procedure against the persecuted sect. No 
encouragement was to be given to common 
informers (συκοφάνται) or to popular clamour. 
If the officials of the district (ἐπαρχιῶται) were 
confident that they could sustain a prosecu- 
tion, the matter was to be investigated in due 


course. Offenders against the laws were to) 


be punished ; but, above all things, the trade 
of Τῇ ae was to be checked (Eus. H. E. 
iv. 8, 9). 
inferred from his policy. He had not the zeal 
of a persecutor nor the fear that leads to 
cruelty. His philosophy and his religion did 
not keep him from the infamy of an impure 
passion of the basest type. He adapted him- 
self without difficulty to the worship of the 
place in which he was. At Rome he main- 
tained the traditional sacred rites which had 
originated under the republic, and posed as the 
patron of Epictetus and the Stoicism identified 
with his name. At Athens he was initiated 
in the Eleusinian mysteries, and rose to the 
dignity of an Epoptes in the order, as one in 
the circle of its most esoteric teaching. He 
became an expert in the secrets of magic and 
astrology. To him, as he says in his letter to 
Servianus, the worshippers of Serapis and 
of Christ stood on the same footing. Rulers 
of synagogues, Christian bishops, Samaritan 
teachers, were all alike trading-on the credulity 
of the multitude (Flavius Vopiscus, Saturn. 
ec. 7, 8). According to a later writer, Lam- 
ptidius (in Alex. Sev. c. 43), his wide eclec- 
ticism led him at one time to erect temples 
without statues, which he intended to dedi- 
cate to Christ. He was restrained, it was 
reported, by oracles, which declared that, if 
this were done, all other temples would be de- 
serted and the religion of the empire subverted. 


But the absence of contemporary evidence of | 


such an intention, on which Christian apolo- 
gists would naturally have lain stress, leads us 
to reject Lampridius’s explanation of these 
temples as an unauthenticated conjecture. 
More probably, as Casaubon suggests (Annot. 
in Lamprid. c. 43), they were intended ulti- 


mately to be consecrated to Hadrian himself. 


So the imperial Sophist—the term is used of 
Hadrian by Julian (Cae:ares, p. 28, ed. 1583) 
—passed through life, ‘‘ holding no form of 


creed and contemplating all,’’ and the well-| 


known lines— 


“ Animula, vagula, blandula, 
Hospes, comesque corporis, 
Quae nunc abibis in loca, 
Pallidula, rigida, nudula ? 
Nec, ut soles, dabis jocos”’ 
(Spartian. Vit. Hadr.) 
shew a like dilettanteism in him to the last. 
A reign like that of Hadrian naturally, on 


The character of Hadrian may be | 


the whole, favoured the growth of the church. | 


The popular cry, ‘‘ Christianos ad loenes,’’ was 
hushed. Apologetic literature was an appeal 
to the intellect and judgment of mankind. 
The frivolous eclecticism of the emperor and 
yet more his deification of Antinous were 


enough to shake the allegiance of serious | 


minds to the older system. 


Tolerance was, | 


HEDIBIA 435 


however, equally favourable to the growth of 
heresy ; and to this reign we trace the rise and 
growth of the chief Gnostic sects of the and 
cent., the followers of SarurNinus in Syria, of 
BASILIDES, CARPOCRATES, and VALENTINUS in 
Egypt, of Marcion in Pontus (Eus. H. Ε. 
Iv. 7, 8). Cf., besides the authorities cited, 
Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. iii.; Milman, 
Hist. of Christ. bk. ii. c. vi. ; Lardner, Jewish 
and Heathen Testimontes, c. xi. [κ.ν.ν».} 
Hecebolius or Hecebolus, a rhetor at Con- 
stantinople in the reign of Constantius, who 
professed himself a ‘‘ fervent "’ Christian, and 
was therefore selected by that emperor as one 
of the teachers of Julian (Socr. iii, 41, 14). 
After the death of Constantius, however, 
Hecebolius followed the example of his former 
pupil and became a “ fierce pagan" (γοργὸν 
Ἕλλην ; Socr. u.s. 13). Hewasin great favour 
with Julian, and appears to have been one of 
his familiar correspondents (Julian, Ep. το, 
ed. Heyler, p. 23; Ἑκηβόλῳ), and seems to 
have had some civil office at Edessa. The 
Arians of that city, ‘‘in the insolence of 
wealth,”” had violently attacked the Valen- 
tinians. Julian wrote to Hecebolius to say 
that, ‘‘ since they had done what could not 
be allowed in any well-governed city,’ “ in 
order to help the men the more easily to enter 
the kingdom of heaven as it was prescribed " 
by their ‘‘ most wonderful law, he had com- 
manded all moneys to be taken away from the 
church of the Edessenes, that they might be 
distributed among the soldiers, and that its 
property should be confiscated to his private 
treasury ; that being poor they might become 
wise and not lose the kingdom of heaven which 
they hoped for’’ (Julian, Ep. 43, ed. Heyler, 
p. 82; Baron. 5.4. 362, ΧΙ. ; 50Ζ. Vi. 1). 
Such appropriation of church property was 
one of the crimes of which Julian was accused 
after his death (Greg. Naz. adv. Jul. Orat. iii.). 
The emperor adds that he had charged the 
inhabitants of Edessa to abstain from “ riot 
and strife,’ lest ‘‘ they themselves" should 
suffer ‘‘ the sword, exile, and ἄγε." The last 
sentence in the letter appears to intimate that 
he would hold Hecebolius personally respon- 
sible for the future good conduct of the city. 
After the death of Julian and the reversal of 


| the imperial policy, Hecebolius ostentatiously 


professed extreme penitence for his apostasy 
and prostrated himself at the church door, 
crying to all that entered, ‘‘Trample upon me— 


| the salt that has lost its savour"’ (Socr. i. 13; 


Baron. u.s.=Matt. v. 13). Baronius assumes 
the identity of the magistrate of Edessa with 
the ‘“‘rhetor” of Constantinople (5.4. 362, 
xiii. xiv.), but Tillemont regards them as 
different persons (Mém, vil. 331, 332)- Liba- 
nius mentions a Hecebolius, but gives us no 
clue to his history (Ep. 300). (Tr. w.D.) 
Hedibla (Eprsta), a lady in Gaul, who 
corresponded with St. Jerome (then at Beth- 
lehem) c. 405. She was descended from the 
Druids, and held the hereditary office of 
priests of Belen (= Apollo) at Bayeux. Her 
grandfather and father (if majores is to be 
taken strictly) Patera and Delpbidius (the 
names being in each case derived from their 
office) were remarkable men. Of Patera, 
Jerome says in his Chronicle, under A.D. 33% 
ἵν Patera rhetor Romae gloriosissime docet.”’ 


436 HEGESIPPUS 
Delphidius was a writer in prose and verse and 
a celebrated advocate. Ammianus Marcel- 
linus (xviii. 1) tells of his pleading before the 
emperor Julian. Both became professors at 
Bordeaux (Ausonius, Carmen, Prof. Burd. iv. 
and v.). The wife and daughter of Delphidius 
became entangled in the Zoroastrian teaching 
of Priscillian, and suffered death in the per- 
secution of his followers (Sulp. Sev. Hist. Sac. 
ii. 63, 64; Prosper Aquit. Chron.; Auson. 
Carmen, ν.). Hedibia was ἃ diligent 
student of Scripture, and, finding no one to 
assist her, sent, by her friend Apodemius, a 
list of questionsto Jerome. He answered them 
in a long letter (Ep. 120, ed. Vall.). We 
hear of her again as a friend of Artemia, wife 
of Rusticus, on whose account she again wrote 
to Jerome (Ep. 122, ed. Vall.). [W.H.F.] 
Hegesippus (1), commonly known as the 
father of church history, although his works, 
except a few fragments which will be found in 
Routh (Rel. Sacr. i. pp. 207-219) and in Grabe 
(Spicil. ii. 203-214), have perished. Nothing 
positive is known of his birth or early circum- 
stances. From his use of the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews, written in the Syro-Chaldaic 
language of Palestine, his insertion in his 
history of words in the Hebrew dialect, and 
his mention of unwritten traditions of the 
Jews, Eusebius infers that he was a Hebrew 
(H. E. iv. 22), but possibly, as conjectured by 
Weizsacker (Herzog, Encyc. v. 647), Eusebius 
knew this as a fact from other sources 
also. We owe our only information as to his 
date to a statement of his own, preserved 
by Eusebius (iv. 22), which is understood to 
mean that at Rome he compiled a succession of 
the bishops of the Roman see to the time of 
Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. After 
this statement Hegesippus is represented as 
adding, “᾿ and to Anicetus succeeds Soter, after 
whom Eleutherus.’”’ Much as the interpreta- 
tion of these words has been disputed, it does 
not seem difficult to gather that Hegesippus 
means that the list of bishops compiled by 
him at Rome was drawn from the authentic 
records of the church there. That list closed 
with Anicetus. He was afterwards able to 
add the names of Soter and Eleutherus. It 
thus appears that he was at Rome in the days 
of Anicetus and made his inquiries then, but 
did not publish them till considerably later. 
But Anicetus, according to Lipsius (Chrono- 
logte der romischen Bischofe), was bp. of Rome 
156-167, and Eleutherus 175-189. Hegesip- 
pus had thus written much of his history 
previous to A.D. 167, and published it in the 
time of Eleutherus, perhaps early in his 
episcopate. Any difficulty in accepting these 
dates has been occasioned by the rendering 
given to another passage of Eusebius (iv. 8), 
where he quotes Hegesippus as speaking of 
certain games (ἀγών) instituted in honour of 
Antinous, a slave of Hadrian, of which he 
says ἐφ᾽’ ἡμῶν γενόμενος (a better established 
reading than ywéuevos). But these words 
seem simply to mean that the games had been 
instituted in his own time, thus illustrating 
the μέχρι νῦν of the preceding sentence. 
Hadrian reigned 117-138, so that if Hegesippus 
published c. 180, being then well advanced in 
life, he might well remember the times of that 
emperor. This derives confirmation from a 


HEGESIPPUS 


statement of Jerome, generally regarded as 
somewhat extravagant, that the life of Hege- 
sippus had bordered on the apostolic age 
(‘vicinus apostolicorum temporum,” de Vir. 
Ill. c. 22). But there is no extravagance in 
the remark. If Hegesippus was born c. 120 
or earlier, he may well be described as having 
lived near the times of St. John. We may, 
therefore, fix the bloom of Hegesippus’s life 
about the middle of the 2nd cent. 

His history embraced, so far as we may 
judge from its fragments, numerous miscel- 
laneous observations, recollections, and tra- 
ditions, jotted down without regard to order, 
as they occurred to the author or came under 
his notice during his travels. Jerome tells us 
that the work contained the events of the 
church from Palestine to Rome, and from the 
death of Christ to the writer’s own day. It is 
not a regular history of the church, Weiz- 
sacker well remarking that, in that case, the 
story of James the Just ought to have been 
found in the first book, not in the last. 

Its general style was thought plain and 
unpretending, says Jerome, and with this 
description what remains sufficiently agrees. 
The question of its trustworthiness is of 
greater moment. The account given in it 
of James the head of the church in Jeru- 
salem has led to many charges against Hege- 
sippus of not having been careful enough to 
prove what he relates. He has been thought 
to be contradicted by Josephus, who tells 
us that ‘‘ Ananus, the high-priest, assem- 
bled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought 
before them the brother of Jesus Who was 
called Christ, whose name was James, and 
some others. And, when he had formed an 
accusation against them, he delivered them 
to be stoned”’ (Ant. xx. 9, 1). We may be 
permitted to doubt, however, whether the 
sentence thus referred to was carried out, for 
not only was it unlawful for the Sanhedrin to 


punish by death without consent of the Roman- 


authorities, but Josephus informs us imme- 
diately after that the charge of the citizens 
against Ananus was, that it was not lawful for 
him to assemble a Sanhedrin without the 
procurator’s assent, nothing being said of 
the stoning to death. Further, Eusebius, 
who has preserved the narrative of Hegesippus, 
and the early Fathers who allude to it, appear 
to have placed in it implicit confidence; and 
there is nothing improbable in most, if not 
even in all, of the particulars mentioned. 
Eusebius speaks of him in the most commend- 
atory terms, and quotes him on numerous 
occasions (see H. E. ii. 23 ; iii. r1, 16, 20, 32; 
iv. 8, 11, 22), illustrating his own words in iv. 
8, πλείσταις κεχρήμεθα φωναῖς. Such con- 
fidence appears to have been deserved. Hege- 
sippus had an inquiring mind, and had 
travelled much; he endeavoured to learn all 
he could of the past and present state of the 
churches that he visited: at Corinth the first 
epistle of Clement excited his curiosity; at 
Rome the history of its early bishops. All 
this, and his unpretending and unexaggerated 
style, shows him as very far from being either 
a hasty observer or acredulous chronicler. 
An important question remains: Was 
Hegesippus of the Judaizing Christian party ? 
Baur looks upon him as representing the 


a le 


HEGESIPPUS 


narrowest section of the Jewish Christians, 


even as a most declared enemy of St. Paul, 
travelling like a commissioned agent in the 
interests of the Judaizers (K. G. i. p. 84; so 
also Schwegler, Nachap. Zeit, i. p. 342, etc.). 
This view is founded mainly upon an extract 
from his works, preserved in Photius (see in 
Routh, R. S. i. p. 219), where Hegesippus 
comments on the words, ‘‘ Eye hath not seen, 
nor ear heard, neither have entered into the 
heart of man the things which God hath 
prepared for the just,’’ ‘Such words are 
spoken in vain, and those who use them lie 
against the Holy Scriptures and the Lord 


Who says, ‘ Blessed are your eyes for they see, | 


and your ears for they hear.’’’ It is argued 
that Hegesippus is here directly attacking 
St. Paul’s words in I. Cor. ii. 9 ; and the infer- 


ence is that Hegesippus was keenly Judaic. | 
We know that the Gnostics were in the habit 


of so using the words in question, and that they 


described by means of them the very essence | 
of that spiritual insight which the neophyte. 


who had just sworn the oath of allegiance to 
them received, ‘‘ And when he [t.e. he who is 
about to be initiated] has sworn this oath, he 
goes on to the Good One, and beholds ‘ what- 


ever things eye hath not seen, and ear hath not | 


heard, and which have not entered into the 
heart of man”’ (Hippolytus, Ref. of all Heresies, 
me 194, Τ. & Τ. Clark). It is much the 
more probable inference, therefore, that Hege- 
a refers to this Gnostic misinterpretation 
of the words and not to St. Paul (cf. Routh, 
R. 5. i. p. 281; Ritschl, Die Entstehung der 
Altk. Kirche, p. 267; Hilgenfeld, Dte A post. 
Vater, p. 102). Further, Hegesippus must 
have known that Clement, whose epistle he 


approved, quotes in c. xxxiv., for a purpose 


precisely similar to that of the apostle, the 
very passage in question, though with a slight 
variation in the words. How, then, can he 
have held the contrary opinion as to the use 
made of it by St. Paul? It is obviously a 
particular application of the passage, different 
from that of the apostle, that he has in view. 

In the light of these considerations, 
Hegesippus appears to have been not a 
Judaizing but a Catholic Christian; and, if 
so, he becomes a witness not only for the 
catholicity in the main of the Christian church 
of the 2nd cent., but for the extent to which 
Catholic truth prevailed init, for his evidence, 
whatever its lope has reference to the 
condition of the church upon a large scale. 
Either, therefore, over this wide extent the 


church was as a whole marked by a narrow, 


Judaic spirit, or over the same wide extent it 
was catholic in spirit, with heretical sects 
struggling to corrupt its faith. If our verdict 
be in favour of the latter view, it becomes 
impossible to look at Hegesippus in the light 
in which he has been presented by the Tiibin- 
gen school. We must regard him as a Cath- 
olic, not as a Judaizing Christian, and his 
statements as to the condition of the church 
in his day become a powerful argument 
against, rather than in favour of, the conclu- 
sions of that school. Cf Zahn, Forschungen 
1900, vi. 228-273. (w.M.] 
Hegesippus (2) (Egesippus), the alleged 
author of a work of which a translation from 


Greek into Latin, or what purported to be. 


HELENA 437 


such, appeared c. 400, and is commonly 
| teersod to as de Bello Judaico or as de 
| Excidio Urbis Hierosolymitanae. It is mainly 
}taken from the Wars of Josephus. The 
| translator freely adds to his author, sometimes 
from the later books of the Antiquities of 
| Josephus, sometimes from Roman historians 
and other sources, and also freely composes 
| speeches for the actors. 
| The work is that of an earnest defender of 
the Christian faith. An approximation to 
his date is supplied by several passages; as 
when he speaks of Constantinople having long 
become the second city of the Roman empire 
(lll. 5, p- 179), and of Antioch, once the metro- 
polis of the Persians, being in his time the 
defence of the Byzantines against that people. 
He also speaks of the triumphs of the Romans 
in ‘Scotia’? and in “ Saxonia,"’ using lan- 
guage strikingly similar to that of Clandian 
(c. 398) (v. 18, p. 299; Claud. de tv. Cons. 
Honor. 31-34). The work early acquired 
a considerable reputation. Some have 
|cribed the translation to Ambrose. The 
Benedictines, however, strongly reject the 
Ambrosian authorship, asserting that it con- 
|tains nothing whatever in Ambrose’s style ; 
while Galland earnestly contends for it, and 
| reprints an elaborate dissertation of Mazochius 
which he regards as conclusive (Galland. 
Biblioth. Patr. vii. prolegom. p. xxix.). The 
|editors of the Patrologia incline to reject the 
Ambrosian authorship, though they print it 
among his writings (xv. 1962). The most 
correct edition (Marburg, 1858, 1864, 4to) was 
commenced by Prof. C. F. Weber of Marburg, 
and completed after his death by Prof. Julius 
Caesar, who elaborately discussed the author- 
ship and date (pp. 389-399). Cf. ὦ. Landgraf, 
“Die Hegesippus Frage’’ in Archiv. ἡ. Latin 
Lextcogr. (1902), xii. 465-472, who decides in 
favour of the Ambrosian authorship. [1.w.p.] 
Helena (1), said to have been the companion 
of Simon Magus. According to Justin 
| Martyr (Apol. i. 26) and Irenaeus (i. 23, p. 
99), who possibly makes use of a lost work of 
| Justin’s, she was a prostitute whom Simon 
|had purchased from a brothel at Tyre and 
led about, holding her up to the veneration of 
his disciples. Giving himself out to be the 
Supreme Power and the Father above all, he 
taught, says Irenaeus, that ‘‘ she was the first 
conception of his mind, the mother of all 
things, by whom in the beginning he conceived 
the thought of making the angels and arch- 
|angels; for that this Conception proceeded 
forth from him and, knowing her father’s 
| wishes, descended to the lower world, and 
produced the angels and powers, by whom 
also he said that this world was made. But 
| after she had produced them, she was detained 
by them through envy... and... confined 
‘in a human body, and for ages passed into 
other female bodies, as if from one vessel into 
another. He said, also, that she was that 
Helen on account of whom the Trojan war 
was fought;... that after passing from one 
body to another, and constantly meeting with 
‘insult, at last she became a public prostitute, 
and that she was ‘ the lost ee On this 
account he had come that he might first of all 
reclaim her and free her from her chains, and 
then give salvation to men through the know- 


HELENA 


The same story is told by 
Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 19, p- 174), Tertullian 
(de Anima, 34), Epiphanius (Haer. 21), 
Philaster (Haer. 29), Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 
1). Tertullian evidently knows no more than 
he read in Irenaeus; but Hippolytus, who 
had read the Μεγάλη ᾿Αποφάσις, gives some 
additional particulars, e.g. that Simon allegor- 
ized the story of the wooden horse and of 
Helen and her torch. The wooden horse must 
also have been mentioned in the earlier treatise 
against heresies, used by Epiphanius and 
Philaster, both of whom state that Simon 
expounded it as representing the ignorance 
of the nations. Epiphanius, then, it may be 
believed, did not invent some other particu- 
lars, in which he differs from or goes be- 
yond Irenaeus. He states that Simon called 
this conception (Ennoea) Prunicus and Holy 
Spirit ; and he gives a different account, in 
some respects, of the reasons for her descent 
into the lower world. According to this 
account, she was sent in order to rob the 


438 
ledge of himself.’ 


Archons, the framers of this world, of their | 
power, by enticing them to desire her beauty, | 


and setting them in hostility to one another. 

The honour paid to Helena by the followers 
of Simon was known to Celsus, who says (v. 62) 
that certain Simonians were also called 
Heleniani, from Helena, or else from a teacher 
Helenus. We are told also by Irenaeus and 
Hippolytus that the Simonians had images of 
Simon as Jupiter and of Helen as Minerva, 
which they honoured, calling the former lord, 
the latter lady. This adaptation of the myth 
of Athene springing from the head of Zeus to 
the alleged relation of Ennoea to the first 
Father is of a piece with the appropriation of 
other Grecian myths by these heretics. 

The doctrine thus attributed to Simon has 
close affinity with that of other Gnostic 
systems, more especially that of the Ophites, 
described at the end of bk. i. of Irenaeus, 


except that in the Simonian system one} 


female personage fills parts which in other 
systems are distributed among more than one. 
But in several systems we have the association 
with the First Cause of a female principle, his 
thought or conception ; 
myth of the descent of a Sophia into the lower 
material regions, her sufferings from the hos- 
tility of the powers who rule there, her 
struggles with them, and her ultimate re- 
demption. Peculiar to Simon is his doctrine 
of the transmigration of souls and his identi- 
fication, by means of it, of himself and his 
female companion with the two principal 
personages of the Gnostic mythology. Simon, 
moreover, persuaded his followers not only to 
condone his connexion with a degraded person, 
but to accept the fact of her degradation fully 
admitted as only a greater proof of his re- 
demptive power. We find it easier to believe, 
therefore, that the story had a foundation in 
fact than that it was imagined without any. 
On the other hand, it does not seem likely 
that Simon could have been the first Gnostic, 
it being more credible that he turned to his 
account a mythology already current than 
that he could have obtained acceptance for 
his tale of Ennoea, if invented for the first 
time for his own justification. 

Baur has suggested (Christliche Gnosis, p. 


and we have the} 


HELENA 


308) that Justin in his account of the honours 
paid at Samaria to Simon and Helena may 
have been misled by the honours there paid 
to Phoenician sun and moon divinities of 
similar names. On this and other cognate 
questions see Simon. Suffice it here to say 
that one strong fact in support of his theory, 
viz. that in the Clementine Recognitions (ii. 14, 
preserved in the Latin of Rufinus) the com- 
panion of Simon is called Luna, may have 
originated in an early error of transcription. 
She is Helena in the corresponding passage 
of the Clementine Homilies, ii. 23 ; and we find 
elsewhere the false reading Selene for Helene, 
e.g. in Augustine (de Haer. 1). [G.s.] 

Helena (2), St., or Flavia Julia Helena 
Augusta, first wife of Constantius Chlorus, 
and mother of Constantine the Great, born 
c. 248, died c. 327. 

Little is known for certain of her life, except 
that she was mother of Constantine the Great 
and when about 80 years old undertook a 
remarkable pilgrimage to Palestine, which 
resulted in the adornment and increased 
veneration of the holy places. 
| She was doubtless of humble parentage, 
| being, according to one story, the daughter 
of an innkeeper (Anon. Valesii 2, 2, ‘‘ matre 
| vilissima,’’ Ambrose, de Obitu Theodosti, 
|§ 42, p- 295). Constantius when he made her 
| acquaintance was a young officer in the army, 
|of good family and position, nearly related, 
by the female line, to the emperor Claudius, 
and appears to have at first united her to 
himself by the looser tie then customary 
between persons of such different conditions 
(Hieron. Chron. anno. 2322; Orosius, vii. 25; 
Chron. Pasch. a.D. 304, vol. i. p. 516, ed. 
Bonn; Zos. ii. 8). The relation of ‘‘ concu- 
binatus ’’ might be a lifelong one and did not 
necessarily imply immorality. In outward 
appearance it differed nothing from the 
ordinary civil marriage by mutual consent, 
and was sometimes called ‘‘ conjugium in- 
|aequale.’’ Her son Constantine, apparently 
| her only child, was born probably in 274, at 
Naissus in Dardania, the country where his 
| father’s family had forsome time been settled. 
After his birth Constantius probably advanced 
| Helena to the position of a lawful wife. That 
she had this position is expressly stated by 
some of our authorities, but the very emphasis 
of their assertion implies that there was some- 
thing peculiar about the case (Eus. H. E. viii. 
13, 12, παῖδα γνήσιον. . . καταλιπών and the 
inscription from Salerno given below). Respect 
for Constantine would naturally prevent 
writers in his reign from stating the circum- 
stances in detail. It may be, however, that 
his law to legitimatize the children of a 
concubine ‘‘ per subsequens matrimonium ” 
| was suggested by his mother’s experience. 

After living with Constantius some 20 years 
Helena was divorced on the occasion of his 
elevation to the dignity of Caesar in 292; the 
Augustus Maximian, in choosing him for his 
colleague, requiring this, as a matter of policy, 
in order that Constantius might marry his 
own step-daughter, Theodora (Eutrop. Brev. 
ix. 22; Victor, de Caesaribus, 39; Epitome, 
54)—a proceeding which has parallels in 
Roman history. The looseness of the marriage 
tie among the Romans is a quite sufficient 


HELENA 


explanation of these acts, without supposing 
any offence or misconduct on the part of the 
wife, or any special heartlessness on that of 
the husband. We know nothing of her life 
during the remainder of her husband’s reign. 
When Constantine succeeded in 306, he prob- 
ably recalled his mother to the court, but 
direct proof of this is wanting. We have 
a coin stamped HELENA. N.F. ζ. δ. nobtlissima 
femina, with a head on oneside and astarina 
laurel crown upon the other, perhaps struck in 
her honour whilst Constantine was still Caesar. 
The statement of Eusebius that Constantine 
paid his mother great honours, and caused her 
to be proclaimed Augusta to all the troops, and 
struck her image on gold coins, is no doubt 
correct, but is unfortunately unaccompanied 
by dates (Vita Const. iii. 47). Silver and copper 
coins are found with the name Flavia Helena 
Augusta, struck in her lifetime. Others with 
the remarkable epigraph ΕἸ. Jul. Helenae Aug. 
were struck at Constantinople and Tréves as 
memorials after her death, and Theodora was 
also similarly commemorated, to mark the 
reconciliation of the two branches of the 
family. Helena is styled Augusta in inscrip- 
tions, but in none necessarily earlier than 320 
(Mommsen, Jnscr. Neap. 106, given below; 
Inscr. Urbis Romae, C. I. L. v. 1134-1136). 

Eusebius also tells us that through Con- 
stantine she became a Christian (V. C. iii. 57), 
and is supported (whatever the support may 
be worth) by the probably spurious letters 
preserved in the Acts of St. Silvester. [Con- 
STANTINE.] We must therefore reject the 
story which ascribes his conversion to his 
mother's influence (Theod. i. 18, and the late 
and fabulous Eutychius Alexandrinus, pp. 
408, 456, ed. Oxon.). 

The following inscription from Salerno 
marks the power of Helena in her son’s court : 
“To our sovereign lady Flavia Augusta 
Helena, the most chaste wife of the divine 
Constantius, the mother of our Lord Con- 
stantine, the greatest, most pious and vic- 
torious Augustus, the grandmother of our 
Lords Crispus and Constantine and Constan- 
tius, the most blessed and fortunate Caesars, 
this is erected by Alpinius Magnus, vir claris- 
simus, corrector of Lucania and Bruttii, de- 
voted to her excellence and piety ’’ (Mommsen, 
u.s. Orell. 1074, Wilmanns 1079). 

In 326 Crispus was put to death on an 
obscure charge by his father’s orders. Tra- 
dition attributes this dark act to Fausta; and 
Helena’s bitter complaints about her grand- 
son’s death are said to have irritated Constan- 
tine to execute his wife by way of retribution 
(Vict. Epit. 41, Fausta conjuge ut putant sug- 
gerente Crispum filium necari jussit. Dehine 
uxorem suam Faustam in balneas ardentes 
conjectam interemit, cum eum mater Helena 
dolore nimie nepotis increparet). 

Eusebius speaks strongly of her youthful 
spirit when she, in fulfilment of a vow, made 
her pilgrimage to the Holy Land, notwith- 
standing her great age, nearly 80 years (V. C. 
iii. 42, cf. 46). She received almost un- 
limited supplies of money from her son and 
spent it in royal charities to the poor and 
bounties to the soldiery ; as well as using her 
power to free prisoners and criminals con- 
demned to the mines and to recall persons 


HELENA 439 


from exile (ἐδ. 44). She wasa frequent atten- 
dant at the church services, and adorned the 
buildings with costly offerings (1h. 44). Her 
death cannot have been earlier than 327 
because she did not make her pilgrimage until 
after the death of Crispus. Tillemont puts it 
in 328, and it may have been later, (See 
further, Clinton, F. R. ii. 80, 81.) Her body 
was carried with great pomp to “ the imperial 
city,” #.e. probably, Constantinople (Eus. 
V. C. iii. 47; Socr. i. 17, thus glosses the 
phrase—els τὴν βασιλεύουσαν νέαν Ῥώμην). 
It was believed, however, in the West that she 
was buried at Rome, and there is a tradition 
that in 480 her body was stolen thence by a 
monk Theogisus and brought to Hautvilliers 
in the diocese of Rheims. Others say that 
it is still in the porphyry vase in the church 
of Ara Coeli (Tillem. Mém. t. vii. n. 7). The 
place too of her death is strangely uncertain. 
Eusebius’s silence would imply that she died 
in Palestine; but if the traditions of her 
bounty to the people and church of Cyprus 
on her way home are of any value, it must 
have been somewhere nearer Rome or Con- 
stantinople. These traditions may be seen in 
M. de Mas Letrie’s Hist. de I'Ile de Chypre 
sous les Lusignan (Paris, 1852-1861) ; Church 
θεν. Rev. vol. vii. pp. 186 f. [1.»ν.} 

Invention of the Cross.—It is in connexion 
with this famous story that the name of 
Helena is especially interesting to the student 
of church history. Its truth has been much 
discussed, and we will briefly summarize the 
evidence of the ancient authorities. 

(1) In the very interesting itinerary of the 
anonymous Pilgrim from Bordeaux to Jeru- 
salem, generally referred to A.p. 333, seven 
years after the date assigned to the finding of 
the cross (Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. 771), we have 
a description of the city, and many traditional 
sites of events both in O. and N. T. are men- 
tioned. Among these are the house of 
Caiaphas with the pillar at which our Lord 
was scourged, the praetorium of Pontius 
Pilate, the little hill (monttculus) of Golgotha, 
and, a stone’s throw from it, the cave of the 
resurrection. On the latter spot a beautiful 
basilica erected by Constantine is noticed, as 
also on Mount Olivet and at Bethlehem. Yet 
there is no allusion to the cross, nor is the 
name of Helena mentioned. 

(2) The Life of Constantine by Eusebius was 
written probably in 338, five years after the 
visit of the Bordeaux Pilgrim. He records the 
visit of Helena to Jerusalem, but does not 
connect her name with the place of Crucifixion 
nor with the Holy Sepulchre. He tells us 
that Constantine built a house of prayer on 
the site of the Resurrection and beautified the 
caves connected with our Lord's Birth and 
Ascension, and that he did so in memory of 
his mother, who had built two churches, one 
at Bethlehem, the other on the Mount of 
Ascension. Thus of the three famous caves, 
Eusebius connects Helena not with that of the 
Resurrection, but only with the other two. 
He indeed says that these were not the only 
churches she built, but it is hardly conceiv- 
able that he should have left the one on the 
site of the Resurrection unspecified. The 
original motive of her journey, he says, was 
to return thanks to od for His peculiar 


440 HELENA 


mercies to her family and to inquire as to the 
welfare of the people of the country. His 
account of the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre 
by Constantine is not free from difficulty. It 
is not easy to say whether he represents Its 
discovery as being before or after the death of 
Helena. His language is general, but the pre- 
sumption is that, ifit had been before, her name 
would have been connected with the event. 
He does not imply that any difficulty was ex- 
perienced in finding the site of the tomb, but 
there is nothing asto the cross. All his words 
bear upon the Resurrection, not the Passion, 
of our Lord. But in Constantine’s letter to 
Macarius, bp. of Jerusalem, which he inserts, 
there are one or two expressions of which the 
same cannot be said. Allowing for the excesses 
of hyperbolical language, it is still hard to 
understand the words, ‘‘ When the cave was 
opened, the sight which met the eyes ex- 
celled all possible eulogy, as much as heavenly 
things excel earthly,’’ unless some kind of 
memorial other than the tomb itself was 
discovered; and immediately afterwards we 
have two expressions referring definitely to 
our Lord’s Passion. The first is, 70 yap 
γνώρισμα τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἐκείνου πάθους ὑπὸ τῇ 
Yn πάλαι κρυπτόμενον ; and the second, ἀφ᾽ οὗ 
(since) τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους πίστιν εἰς φῶς 
προήγαγεν (sc. the tomb). At the same time 
it is difficult to believe that, had the cross or 
any part of it been discovered, it should not 
have. been more exactly described, and the 
most probable explanation is that πάθος is 
used to describe the whole scene of Redemp- 
tion, of which the Resurrection was a part 
(Eus. Vit. Const. 111. 26-42, Patr. Gk. xx. 1086). 
That the place was very early venerated is 
proved by Eusebius’s statement (Comm. on 
Ps. |xxxvii. 18) that marvels (θαύματα) were 
even then wrought at the tomb of Christ. 

(3) Cyril of Jerusalem, whose catechetical 
lectures were delivered, he says, upon the very 
spot where our Lord was crucified, and, as we 
know from other sources, not more than 20 
years after the alleged discovery (viz. in 346), 
has three allusions to the wood of the cross 
(iv. το, x. 19, xiii. 4). The most definite is in 
x. 19, where he describes it as “‘ until to-day 
visible amongst us”’ (uexpl σήμερον παρ᾽ ἡμῖν 
φαινόμενον), “and now filling nearly the 
whole world by means of those who in faith 
take from it.’ In his letter to Constantius, 
which, however, is of doubtful authenticity 
[CyrRIL], it is distinctly stated that the cross 
was discovered in the reign of Constantine 
(c. 3). The first quotations prove that it was 
believed in his day that the real wood of our 
Lord’s cross had been discovered, but do not 
give the grounds of the belief. Nor, though 
he speaks of the cross, does he connect it with 
St. Helena. Thus none of our three earliest 
authorities speak of her as the discoverer. 

(4) St. Chrysostom, writing probably before 
387, speaks of the wood of the true cross (Patr. 
Gk. xlviii. 826). 

(5) Sulpicius Severus (c. 395) tells us that 
Helena built three basilicas (not two, as in 
Eusebius), one on each of the sites of the 
Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. The 
site of the Passion, he says, was discovered by 
Helena, but he does not add that it was by 


HELENA 


supernatural help. Three crosses were dis- 
covered, and the right one ascertained by the 
miraculous restoration to life of a dead body 
(Hist. Sacr. i. 33, Patr. Gk. xx. 148). 

(6) St. Ambrose, writing in 395, says that 
Helena was inspired by the Spirit with the 
desire to search for the cross, that she dis- 
tinguished the true cross by its title (thus 
differing from Sulpicius and all later writers), 
that two of the nails were used by the emperor, 
one being fixed in his crown and the other 
employed as a bit for his bridle (de Obitu 
Theodosti, c. 41 ff., Patr. Gk. xvi. 1399).' 

(7) Rufinus (writing in 400, according to the 
Life in Migne’s ed.) tells us further that not 
only was the journey inspired by God, but 
that the place of the Passion was miraculously 
revealed ; that the three crosses were found 
““confuso ordine,’’ and the title separately ; 
that the true cross was discovered by the 
miraculous healing of a sick lady (not the 
revival of a corpse, as above) ; that part of the 
wood was sent to Constantine, and part left at 
Jerusalem in a silver casket (cf. μεχρὶ σήμερον 
φαινόμενον in Cyril’s description above). 
(H. E.i. 7, 8, Patr. Gk. xxi. 475.) 

(8) Paulinus of Nola, writing (6. 403) to 
Sulpicius Severus, and sending him a piece, as 
he says, of the true cross brought from Jeru- 
salem by Benedicta Melanius, adds an account 
of its original discovery, because, as he says, it 
is so difficult to credit. He says that Helena 
went to rescue the holy places, adorned the site 
of our Lord’s Birth in addition to the other 
three sites, and discovered the place of the 
Passion by the concurrent testimony of many 
Jews and Christians in the city. He adds 
that, though pieces were frequently taken from 
the cross, its original bulk was miraculously 
preserved (Ep. xxxi. 4, Patr. Gk. 1xi. 325). 

(9) St. Jerome, in his Comm. on Zech. xiv. 
20 (Patr. Lat. xxv. 1540), probably written 
A.D. 406, mentions the nail from the cross 
which was used for the emperor’s bridle, 
as related in many other writers, and in Ep. 
Iviil. (cb. xxii. 581) speaks of the images of 
Jove and Venus which stood until the time of 
Constantine on the sites of the Resurrection 
and of the Passion respectively. 

(10) St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 420) men- 
tions as a report (φασί) that the wood of the 
cross had been found at different times (κατὰ 
καιρούς) with the nails still fixed in it (Comm. 
on Zech. xiv. 20, Patr. Gk. 1xxii. 271). 

(11) Socrates (c. 430) informs us that Helena 
was told in a night vision to go to Jerusalem ; 
that she found the site of the Passion with 
difficulty, though he alludes to no supernatural 
aid; that Macarius suggested the means of 
distinguishing the true cross, viz. by applying 
it to a woman on the point of death; that the 
empress erected ‘‘ new Jerusalem ”’ on the site 


(a phrase evidently taken from Eusebius) ; and. 


that the emperor put one of the nails on his 
statue at Constantinople, as many inhabitants 
testified (H. E.i. 17, Patr. Gk. |xvii. 118). 
(12) Sozomen (c. 430) claims good authority 
for his account, and states that Constantine, 
in gratitude for the council of Nicaea, wished 
to build a church on Golgotha; that Helena 
about the same time went to Palestine to pray 
and to look for the sacred sites. He does not, 
however, mention any divine impulse. The 


HELIODORUS 


difficulty of discovery was caused, he says, by 
_ the Greeks having defiled them to stop the 
ἢ Β θρησκεία ; the site of the Sepulchre 

was made known, as some say, by a Hebrew 
living in the East, from documentary evidence, 
but more probably by signs and dreams from 
God. He says that the crosses were found 
near the same spot (ἑτέρωθι περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν 
τόπον) as they had been left by the soldiers in 
confused order, the inscription still remaining 
on the tablet. He mentions two miracles: 
the healing of a woman with an incurable 
disease and the raising of a corpse, combining 
the other accounts; and adds that the greater 
part of the cross was still preserved at Jeru- 
salem (H. E. ii. 1, 2, Patr. Gk. Ixvii. 929). 

(13) Theodoret (c. 448) inserts the letter of 
Constantine to Macarius, and follows the order 
of Eusebius, representing, however, Helena’s 
journey, more definitely than Eusebius does, as 
consequent upon the finding of the Sepulchre 
by Constantine. But his account seems incon- 
sistent. The crosses, he says, were found near 
the Lord’s tomb—zapa τὸ μνῆμα τὸ Δεσποτικόν 
(5. E. i. 16, 17, Patr. Gk. Ἰχχχῖϊ. 955). 

(14) St. Leo (454), in writing to Juvenal, bp. 
of Jerusalem, speaks of the constant witness 
borne at Jerusalem to the reality of Christ’s 
Passion by the existence of the cross (Ep. 
exxxix. 2, Patr. liv. 1106). 

(15) St. Gregory of Tours (d. 595) adds that 

iscovery was made on May 3, 326; that, 
during a great storm which occurred soon after, 
Helena put one of the nails into the sea, which 
was at once calmed; that two more were used 
for the emperor’s bridle, and the fourth placed 
on the head of his statue; that the lance, 
crown of thorns, and pillar of scourging were 
preserved and worked miracles (Lib. Mtrac. i. 
5, Patr. Lat. \xxi. 709), and the cross found by 
the aid of a Jew, afterwards baptized as Quiri- 
acus (Hist. Franc. i. 34, Patr. Lat. Ἰχχὶ. 179). 

Thus no detailed story is found until nearly 

70 years after the event, and then in the West 

a The vagueness of St. Cyril of Alex- 
andria is particularly observable. Small differ- 
ences of detail occur; the last author cited 
adds several particulars not included in the 
other accounts, and there are features in the 
story which look like invention or exaggera- 
tion. On the whole, considering that our 
earliest authorities do not represent Helena 
as the discoverer and that the story gradually 
develops, it seems probable that she had no 
part in the discovery of the cross, even if it 
took place, which itself seems exceedingly 
doubtful. That the site of the Holy Sepulchre 
was discovered, or supposed to be discovered, 
in the reign of Constantine, there seems every 
reason to believe ; and it is easy to understand 
how marvels would grow up around it. [M.F.A.] 

Heliodorus (7), bp. of Altinum near Aquileia, 
δ. 400, had served originally as a soldier, but 
had been ordained before we first hear of him. 
He belonged to a band of friends drawn to- 

ether at Aquileia, c. 372, for the study of 
ipture and the practice of asceticism, which 
included St. Jerome, Evagrius afterwards bp. 
of Antioch, Rufinus, Bonosus, and Chromatius 
afterwards bp. of Aquileia. The passion for 
asceticism and the troubles which arose about 
Jerome made the companions resolve, under 
the guidance of Evagrius, to go to Syria and 


HELLADIUS 441 


Antioch. Heliodorus went on to Jerusalem, 
where he enjoyed the hospitality of Florentius, 
who, having devoted himself to the ascetic 
life, employed his wealth in the entertainment 
of pilgrims (Hieron. Ep. iv. ed. Vall.). Re- 
turning to Antioch, he found Jerome resolved 
to gointo the solitude of the desert of Chaleis. 
Heliodorus felt that he himself had a call to 
the pastoral life, having a sister and a nephew 
dependent on him (Hieron. Ep. |x. 9, ed. Vall.). 
He therefore returned to his native Aquileia, 
holding out to his friend some hopes that 
he might rejoin him one day in the desert 
(tb.). Jerome wrote to him on his return to 
Italy a letter, reproaching him for turning 
back from the more perfect service, which 
afterwards had a great effect in furthering 
asceticism and became so celebrated that a 
Roman lady, Fabiola, knew it by heart 
(Hieron. Ep. Ixxvii. 9, ed. Vall. ; Ep. xiv. τὰ 
But their friendship was never broken. He- 
liodorus continued in the pastoral office, and 
not long afterwards became bp. of Altinum 
He was present in 381 as a bishop at the council 
of Aquileia. In after-years he was closely 
allied with Chromatius, bp. of Aquileia, and 
they both kept up communications with 
Jerome, then residing at Bethlehem. They 
took a warm interest in Jerome's translation 
of the Scriptures, and frequently wrote to 
him, exhorting him to complete the long- 
delayed work. They supported amanuenses 
to assist him; and by the grateful mention of 
their aid in the prefaces to the books last 
translated, their names are for ever associated 
with the great work of the Vulgate (‘ Pre- 
face to the Books of Solomon and to Tobit,” 
Jerome’s Works, vol. ix. 1305, x. 26; Migne’s 
ed. of Vallarsi’s Jerome). Cappelletti (Le 
Chiese d'Italia, v. 516, 610) reckons his suc- 
cessor in the see of Altinum to have been 
Ambrosius, A.D. 407. [W.H.F.] 
Helladius (4), bp. of Tarsus c. 430, a disciple 
of St. Theodosius of Antioch, after whose 
death (c. 412) he presided over the monastery 
he had founded near Rhosus in Cilicia. Having 
spent 60 years in monastic life, he succeeded 
Marianus, bp. of the metropolitan see of 
Tarsus (Theod. Vit. Patr. c. 10). His episeo- 
pate illustrates the stormy period of the 
council of Ephesus. He was one of those who 
protested against commencing the council 
before the arrival of John of Antioch and the 
Oriental bishops (Baluz. Nov. Conesl. Coll 
p. 697), and he joined the opposition council 
(conctliabulum) presided over by John upon 
his arrival. He supported the counter-remon- 
strances addressed to the emperors by Nes- 
torius (ἐδ. 703), and his name is appended to 
the synodal letter to the clergy and laity of 
Hierapolis (ἐδ. 705) and to that to John of 
Antioch and Theodoret and the other mem- 
bers of the Oriental deputation to Theodosius 
(ib. 725). Helladius steadily ignored the de- 
position of Nestorius and withheld all recog- 
nition of Maximian as his successor. John of 
Antioch wrote, commending his action (ἐδ. 782, 
c. 48). When the rival leaders sought peace, 
Helladius kept aloof, and on the receipt of the 
six articles drawn up by John at a council 
at Antioch, which ultimately opened the way 
for reconcilation, he and Alexander of 


| Hierapolis rejected the terms and all com- 


442 HELLADIUS 


munion with Cyril. He wrote to Alexander 
that, wearied by the struggle and sick at 
heart at the defection of his fellow-combat- 
ants, he longed to retire to a monastery, 
and was only restrained by his care for 
his flock (7b. 770, c. 68). The year 433 saw 
the concordat between Cyril and John con- 
firmed, to the indignation of the irreconcilable 
party. A synod held by Helladius at Tarsus 
indignantly repudiated the ‘‘ execrable agree- 
ment,’ and declared that the condemnation 
could not be removed from ‘“‘ the Egyptian ”’ 
until he had ‘‘ anathematized his own anathe- 
matisms.’’ The firmness of Helladius rejoiced 
Alexander, who wrote that he intended to 
hold a synod himself, begging Helladius, whom 
he regarded as his leader, to attend it and sign 
its decrees (δ. 713, c. 110; 814, c. 111; 815, 
c. 114). Helladius with Eutherius of Tyana 
next drew up a long letter to pope Sixtus, 
giving their account of the council of Ephesus 
and begging him as a new Moses to save the 
true Israel from the persecution of the Egyp- 
tians. This was sent round to obtain the 
signatures of other bishops (ἐδ. 817 sqq. c. 117). 
At this period we have a letter from Theodoret, 
complaining that Helladius refused to answer 
him and seemed to regard him as a deserter. 
Theodoret had accepted Cyril’s letter because 
he found it orthodox, but he would never 
desert Nestorius (7b. 813, c. 110). The resolu- 
tion of Helladius now began to break down. 
The concordat was accepted by an increasing 
number of Oriental prelates and he was left 
more and more alone. John wrote to com- 
plain of his obstinacy (ib. 842, c. 140). Theo- 
dosius threatened to put the civil power in 
motion against him and the other recusants. 
He, Alexander, Theodoret, and Maximian 
were ordered to accept the concordat or resign 
their sees. All eventually yielded except 
Alexander. The quaestor Domitian and 
Theodoret both urged Helladius to submit 
(tb. 829, c. 125; 859, c. 160), and this was 
made easier by the death of Maximian, Apr. 
12, 434, and the succession of the saintly 
Proclus (Socr. H. E. vii. 41). The orthodoxy 
of the new bishop was readily acknowledged 
by Helladius (Baluz. 850, c. 148), who, having 
determined on yielding, wrote to Alexander 
to explain his conduct (tb. 862, c. 164). 
Alexander bitterly reproached him with his 
weakness (7b. 863, c. 164), but the latter 
convoked the bishops of his province, whose 
synodical letters to Theodosius declared their 
complete acceptance of all required of them: 
admission of the decrees of the council of 
Ephesus, communion with Cyril, the rati- 
fication of Nestorius’s sentence of deposition, 
and the anathematization of him and his ad- 
herents (2b. 887, c. 192). Helladius thus saved 
himself from deposition and exile at the ex- 
pense of consistency. He had now to justify 
his conduct to Nestorius, whom he had re- 
peatedly promised never to forsake. The 
task was no easy one; nor can we say that 
he fulfilled it with any honour to himself. He 
wrote Nestorius that though through men’s 
evil deeds everything had turned out directly 
contrary to his prayers, his feeling towards 
him remained unchanged, and that, as he 
knew he was still struggling for true piety, he 
believed that he would joyfully endure all 


HELVIDIUS 


laid upon him, and that he hoped he might 
be reckoned with him at the last judgment, 
when his soul, tried by so many and great 
temptations, would shine forth. He excuses 
himself for joining Theodoret and those who 
had accepted the concordat, as the letters 
produced from Cyril were in perfect harmony 
with apostolical traditions (1b. 888, c. 193). 
Then Helladius passes from the history. The 
letters are printed by Chr. Lupus (Ep. Ephe- 
sinae, Nos. 68, 111, 114, 144, 154, 193) and by 
Baluze, Concil. Nov. Collect. in the Tragoedia 
Trenaet, cc. 68, 111, 114, 117, 130, 164, 192, 193. 
Tillem. Mém. t. xiv.; Le Quien, Or. Christ. 
τ. ii. p. 874; Cave, Hist. Lit. t.i. p. 418. [E.v.] 

Helvidius, a Western writer who, like 
Novatian and Pelagius, Jovinian and Vigi- 
lantius, put forward opinions on anthropo- 
logical subjects opposed to the generally 
received teaching of the church in their day. 
The only extant contemporary notice of 
him is the short tract against him by St. 
Jerome (Op. ii. p. 203-230, ed. Vall.), written 
when they were both at Rome, while pope 
Damasus was alive. It appeared, according 
to Vallarsius, A.D. 383. St. Jerome says he 
had put off answering him for some time: 
““Ne respondendo dignus fieret, qui vincere- 
tur’’; and he describes him throughout as 
“hominem rusticanum, et vix primis quoque 
imbutum literis ’’ (§ 1) ; besides being wholly 
unknown to him: ‘‘ Ego ipse, qui contra te 
scribo, quum in eadem urbe consistam, albus, 
ut aiunt, aterve sis, nescio.” St. Jerome 
speaks of his own work in writing to Pam- 
machius as “librum contra Helvidium de 
beatae Martiae virginitate perpetua’”’ (Ep. x\viii. 
§ 17), this being what his opponent had denied 
in the first instance, though the outcome of 
his opinions had been to rank virginity below 
matrimony. Helvidius sought countenance 
for his first point in the writings of Tertullian 
and Victorinus. St. Jerome shews (§ 17) he 
had misrepresented the latter; of Tertullian, 
whose writings may still speak for themselves, 
he merely says, ‘‘ Ecclesiae hominem non 
fuisse.”’ But, in any case, he retorts with 
much force: What avail straggling opinions 
against primitive truth? ‘‘ Numquid non 
possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem 
commovere: Ignatium, Polycarpum, Ire- 
naeum, Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios 
apostolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adversus 
Ebionem, et Theodotum Byzantium, Valen- 
tinum, haec eadem sentientes, plena sapientiae 
volumina conscripserunt. Quae si legisses 
aliquando, plus saperes.’’ This argument is 
just as suitable to our own as it was to 
patristic times, never losing anything by 
repetition. What had Helvidius to oppose 
to it in this case? Nothing, unless his ad- 
versary misrepresents him, but novel inter- . 
pretations of Scripture by himself. St. 
Jerome therefore refutes him only so far as 
to point out that there is no necessity for 
understanding any of the passages adduced 
by him otherwise than the church had under- 
stood them hitherto; but that, in any case, the 
interpretations of them offered by Helvidius 
were delusive. For the application of the 
views of Helvidius to the question of the 
perpetual virginity of the Lord’s mother see 
Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 247-282, and Murray’s 


HENOTICON, THE 


Illus. B. D. (1908), art. James. As Jerome 
nowhere charges Helvidius with having been 
“a disciple of Auxentius,” the Arian bp. 
of Milan, or ‘‘ an imitator of Symmachus,” 
the champion of idolatry, we may well ask 
with Vallarsius where Gennadius, who wrote 
more than a century later, got authority for 
both statements (de Script. Eccl. c. 33) which 


Cave repeats in part (Hist. Lit. i. 278). Neither | 


St. Ambrose nor St. Augustine mentions him 
when, in writing on Virginity, 
St. Jerome in condemning his views. His 
followers constitute the 84th of the heresies 
enumerated by the latter. [E.S.FF.] 


Henoticon, The, or Instrument of Union, | 


a document owing its existence to Acacius, 
the patriarch of Constantinople, and probably 
the production of his pen, put forth by 
the emperor Zeno, A.D. 482, on his restora- 
tion to the throne, after the discomfiture of 
the usurper Basiliscus, with the view of 
putting an end to the dissensions caused by 
what Gibbon calls ‘‘ the obstinate and san- 
guinary zeal of the Monophysites.’’ Like 
every endeavour, however well meant, to 
cover radical differences by a vague compre- 
hensiveness, it not only failed to secure union 
but aggravated the divisions it was intended to 
cure, and created a schism which divided the 
East and West for nearly 40 years, lasting 
down to the reign of Justinian and the pope- 
dom of Hormisdas. 

The immediate cause of its issue was the 
dissension between the rival occupants of the 
patriarchal see of Alexandria. On the death 
of Timotheus Salofaciolus in 482, John 
Talaia, the oeconomus of the Alexandrian 
church, was elected by the orthodox party. 
He at once, according to custom, dispatched 
synodical letters to the chief bishops of 
Christendom, to notify his election. Those 
addressed to Simplicius of Rome and Calan- 
dion of Antioch were duly received; but the 
letters for Acacius and Zeno were delayed, and 
Acacius heard of John’s appointment from 
another quarter. Thinking the seeming neg- 
lect a studied insult, Acacius and Gennadius, 
bp. of Hermopolis Minor, a relation of Timo- 
theus Salofaciolus, and ‘‘ apocrisiarius’’ or 
legate of the see of Alexandria, who conceived 
that he too had been slighted by the new 
patriarch, determined to compass his over- 
throw. They represented to Zeno that Talaia 
was unworthy of the patriarchate, both as 
having replaced the name of Dioscorus on the 
diptychs, and as having perjured himself by 
accepting the see of Alexandria, after having, 
as was asserted, taken an oath that he would 
not seek for it. Zeno readily gave credence 
to these charges, and when it was further 
represented that, if he recognized Peter Mon- 
gus, the deposed patriarch, peace would be 
restored, he wrote to Simplicius, stating his 
grounds for hesitating to sanction the appoint- 
ment of John, and urging the restoration of 
Peter Mongus to put an end to the distractions 
of the church. Simplicius replied, June 482, 
that he would delay recognizing John as 

atriarch until the grave charges brought by 

eno could be investigated; but he utterly 
refused to allow the elevation of a convicted 
heretic such as Peter Mongus to the patriarchal 
see. Hisreturn to the true faith might restore 


they join | 


HENOTICON, THE 443 


| him to communion, but could not render him 
| worthy to beachief ruler ofthe church (Liberat. 
Diac. Breviar. cc. 16,17 ; Evagr. H. E. iii. 12). 
This opposition roused the indignation of 
Zeno, who issued imperative commands to 
Pergamius, the new prefect of Egypt, then 
about to sail for Alexandria, and to Apollonius 
the governor, to expel John Talaia and seat 
Peter Mongus in his place. Acacius persuaded 
Zeno to present himself to the world in the 
novel character of an expounder of the faith 
of the Catholic church. The “ Henoticon " 
was drawn up, and as it did not directly 
|}mention the council of Chaleedon and a 
hypothetical allusion in it was capable of being 
| construed in a depreciatory sense, it could be 
accepted by those who, like Mongus, had 
hitherto rejected that council's decrees. The 
friends of Mongus undertook that he would 
adopt it, and on this he was recognized by 
Zeno and Acacius as the canonical patriarch 
and his name inserted in the diptychs. 

_The ‘‘ Henoticon”’ was directed to the 
bishops and people in Alexandria, Egypt, 
Libya, and Pentapolis; but, as Tillemont has 
remarked (Mém. eccl. xvi. 327), it was really 
addressed only to those who had separated 
themselves from the church, #.e. to the Mono- 
physites or semi-Eutychians. The original 
document is given by Evagrius (H. E. iii. 14) 
and in a not very clear Latin translation by 
Liberatus (Breviar. c. 18; Labbe, Conceal. 
v. 767). It commences by stating that 
““certain abbats, hermits, and other reverend 
persons had presented to the emperor a 
petition, supplicating him to restore the unity 
of the churches, and enlarging on the lament- 
able results of the late divisions."’ On this 
account, and knowing also that the strength 
and shield of the empire rested in the one true 
faith declared by the holy Fathers gathered at 
Nicaea, confirmed by those who met at Con- 
stantinople and followed by those who had 
condemned Nestorius at the council of 
Ephesus, the emperor declares that “ the 
creed so made and confirmed is the one only 
symbol of faith, and that he has held, holds, 
and will hold no other, and will regard all who 
hold another as aliens, and that in this alone 
those who desire saving baptism must be 
baptized.”” All who hold other views he 
anathematizes, and recognizes the twelve 
chapters of Cyril as a symbolical book. The 
document then proceeds to declare the ortho- 
dox faith, viz. “ that our Lord Jesus Christ is 
the only-begotten Son of God, and Himself 
God, incarnate, consubstantial with the Father 
according to His Godhead, and consubstantial 
with us according to His manhood, that He 
came down from heaven, and was incarnate 
by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, Mother 
|of God, and that He is One Son, not two." 
| That ‘it was this one and the same Son of 
| God Who wrought miracles, and endured the 
sufferings which He underwent voluntarily in 

His flesh.”” Those ‘“‘ who divide or confound 
ἀπ natures, or admit only a phantastical 
incarnation,” are to be rejected, ‘since the 
lincarnation without sin of the Mother of God 
| did not cause the addition of a Son, for the 
| Trinity remained even when one Person of the 
| Trinity, God the Word, became incarnate.” 
It asserts that this is no new form of faith, 


444 HENOTICON, THE 


and anathematizes all who have ever thought, 
or do think, ‘‘ anything to the contrary, either 
now or at any other time, either at Chalcedon 
or in any other synod,” especially Nestorius 
and Eutyches and their followers. It closes 
with an earnest appeal to all to return to the 
church which, ‘‘as a loving mother, opens her 
longing arms to receive them.” 

Such was the document which was to 
‘* combine all the churches in one harmonious 
confederacy.”’ It was ‘‘ a work of some skill, 
of some adroitness, in attempting to reconcile, 
in eluding, evading difficulties ; it is subtle to 
escape subtleties’? (Milman, Hist. of Lat. 
Christ. bk. iii. c. i. vol. i. p. 248). The crucial 
test of the unity or duality of the natures of 
the Incarnate Word is left an open question, 
on which a difference of opinion might be 
lawfully permitted. Gibbon’s verdict is by 
no means an unfair one, that “‘ it accurately 
represents the Catholic faith of the incarnation 
without adopting or disclaiming the peculiar 
terms of the hostile sects’’ (vol. vi. p. 44, c. 
xlvii.). But its fatal error was its feebleness, 
and that it endeavoured to substitute for real 
unity of doctrine a fictitious cohesion of dis- 
cordant elements. The Monophysites who 
subscribed were to be admitted into com- 
munion without being required to give up 
their distinctive doctrines; while their 
opponents were left free to maintain the 
authority of the decrees of Chalcedon and the 
tome of Leo. The resulting peace was natur- 
ally more apparent than real and satisfied no 
one. The Catholic party, zealous in their 
advocacy of the council of Chalcedon, had no 
liking for a document which disparaged its 
authority and suggested the possible erro- 
neousness of its decisions. The Monophysites, 
on the other hand, clamoured for a more 
definite condemnation of a council which they 
regarded as heretical. 
party, chiefly consisting of the monastic 
orders, condemned the ‘‘ Henoticon’’ as 


tainted with Eutychianism, and, on the other | 


hand, the Eutychians or Monophysites, 


indignant with Mongus for turning traitor to | 


their cause, separated themselves, and, form- 
ing a distinct body without any chief leader 
and not holding communion with the patri- 
arch, were designated ‘‘the headless sect,”’ 
“* Acephali.”” A third body of dissidents was 
formed by the high ecclesiastical party, who 


were offended at the presumption of the | 


emperor in assuming a right to issue decrees 
on spiritual matters, ‘‘ aright,’’ writes Milman, 
(u.s. Pp. 235), “‘complacently admitted when 
ratifying or compulsorily enforcing ecclesias- 
tical decrees, and usually adopted without 
scruple on other occasions by the party with 
which the court happened to side.’’ A fourth 
party was that of the centre or moderates, who 
were weary of strife, or too loyal or too 
cowardly to resist the imperial power. This 
party of the centre was in communion with 
Peter Mongus, who had at once signed the 
“ Henoticon,’’ and had had it read in church 


at a public festival and openly commended | 


it to the adoption of the faithful. Violence 
and falsehood characterized the conduct of 
Mongus. Assoon as he felt himself safe in his 
seat, his overbearing temper knew no bounds. 
He removed from the diptychs the names of 


The high Chalcedonian | 


HENOTICON, THE 


Proterius and Timotheus Salofaciolus, dis- 
interring the remains of the latter and casting 
them out of the church; inserted the names 
of Dioscorus and Timotheus Aelurus; and 
anathematized the council of Chalcedon and 
the tome of Leo. When called to account by 
Acacius, he coolly denied the anathemas, and 
professed his acceptance of the faith as declared 
at Chalcedon. He wrote to the same effect to 
Simplicius, expressing a desire to be received 
into communion by him (Evagr. H. Ε. iii. 17; 
Liberat. Breviar. c. 18). Such double-dealing 
estranged many of his own party, and the dis- 
cussions of which the unhappy “ instrument 
|of union’’ was the parent were still further 
aggravated by the cruel persecution of the 
orthodox throughout the whole of Egypt by 
the new patriarch. In bold defiance of the 
prohibitions of the emperor, all, whether 
clerics, monks, or laymen, who refused to 
accept the ‘‘ Henoticon’’ were subjected to 
expulsion and serious maltreatment (Evagr. 
H. E. iii. 22). At this crisis Simplicius died, 
| A.D. 483. The first act of his successor, Felix 
| II., was an indignant rejection of the ‘‘ Heno- 
| ticon,”’ as an insult to the council of Chalcedon, 
as an audacious act of the emperor Zeno, who 
| dared to dictate articles of faith, and as a seed- 
plot of impiety (Theod. Lect. ap. Milman, u.s. 
p- 236). He also anathematized all bishops 
who had subscribed this edict. This anathema 
| included nearly all the bishops of the East. A 
strong admonitory letter was addressed by 
| Felix to Acacius, and another in milder terms 
to Zeno, the authors of the ‘‘ Henoticon.’”’ All 
remonstrance proving vain, Felix fulminated 
an anathema against Acacius, deposing and 
excommunicating him, July 28, a.p. 484 
(Liberat. c. 18; Labbe, Conctl. iv. 1072). 
This anathema severed the whole of the 
Eastern church from the West for nearly 40 
years. [ACACIUS.] Neither emperor nor 
| patriarch took much heed of the condemnation 
of the Roman see, and continued to press the 
“‘Henoticon’’ everywhere, ejecting bishops 
| who withheld their signatures and refused to 
communicate with Peter Mongus (Theoph. 
|p. 114; Liberat. c. 18; Vict. Tunun. Chron. ; 
Tillem. Mém. eccl. xvi. p. 168; Aece, A7t. 
xcv.). Calandion, patriarch of Antioch, was 
deposed, and Peter the Fuller reinstated. 
Thus the three chief sees of the East were in 
constrained communion and nearly all the 
suffragan bishops had been silenced or de- 
/posed. Zeno and Acacius had ‘“‘made a 
solitude and called it peace.’ It would be 
|tedious to narrate in detail the subsequent 
|issues of this unhappy attempt to force dis- 
|cordant elements into external union which 
continued under Acacius’s successors and 
under the emperor Anastasius. Anastasius 
required toleration of the bishops who were 
| forbidden to force the decrees of Chalcedon on: 
a reluctant diocese or to compel one which had 
accepted that council to abandon it. Those 
who violated this law of toleration were 
deposed with impartial severity (Evagr. H. E. 
11 30). Euphemius was deposed from 
Constantinople a.D. 495. Macedonius, his 
successor, began by subscribing the ‘‘ Heno- 
ticon,’’ but overawed by the obstinate 
orthodoxy of the ‘‘ Acoemetae’’ and other 
monastic bodies of Constantinople, whom he 


- 


HENOTICON, THE 


had undertaken to reconcile to that instru- 
ment, he became an ardent partisan of the 
council of Chalcedon, and, after having headed 
the religious tumults in the city which at one 
time threatened Anastasius’s throne, was in 
his turn deposed and succeeded by Timotheus, 
A.D. 511. The new patriarch not only signed 
the “ Henoticon,’”’ but pronounced an ana- 
thema on the council of Chalcedon. Flavian- 
us, accused of being a concealed Nestorian, 
was ejected from Antioch in a.p. 512, where 
the Monophysite Severus, who had raised 
religious riots in the streets of Alexandria and 
Constantinople, reigned supreme. Elias of 
Jerusalem, though making large concessions 
to the Catholic party, refused to go all lengths 
with them, and was deposed in 513. 
“ Throughout Asiatic Christendom it was the 
same wild struggle. Bishops deposed quietly, 
or, where resistance was made, the two fac- 
tions fighting in the streets, in the churches. 
Cities, even the holiest places, ran with 
blood ’’ (Milman, u.s. p. 245). 

The ‘ Henoticon,”’ 
dissension in the East, became also the watch- 
word of rival parties in the West. Gelasius, 
succeeding Anastasius II., sought to re-unite 


the churches by the proposal, couched in the | 


very spirit of the ‘* Henoticon,’’ that Acacius’s 
name should be quietly left on the diptychs. 
On his death in 498 a contested election 
ensued, exasperated by differences of opinion 
on the “ Henoticon’’ and the schisms in the 
East. Tworival pontiffs were consecrated on 
Dec. 22, a.p. 499—Laurentius an advocate of 
union, and Symmachus its uncompromising 
opponent. Theodoric decided in favour of 
Symmachus, who had received the largest 
number of votes. This choice was fatal to the 
restoration of peace in the East on the terms 
of the ‘ Henoticon.”’ 
hurled at one another charges of heresy and 
messages of defiance. The turbulent orthodox 
party at Constantinople was supported in its 


obstinate resistance to the emperor by the) 
The rebellion of Vitalian, | 


Roman see. 
characterized by Gibbon as “ the first of the 
religious wars,’’ whose battle-cry was the 
council of Chalcedon, was countenanced by 
Symmachus’s still more haughty successor, 
Hormisdas, who reaped the fruits of the 
humiliation of the aged Anastasius and became 
“the dictator of the religion of the world.” 
The demand of Hormisdas for the public 
anathematization of the authors and main- 
tainers of the ‘‘ Henoticon’’ was indignantly 
rejected by Anastasius. The conflict only 
ended with the life of Anastasius, who died 
worn out by strife at the age of nearly 90 
years, A.D. 518. His successor, Justin, was 
an unlettered soldier of unbending orthodoxy. 
The new patriarch, John of Cappadocia, “a 
man of servile mind though unmeasured 
ambition,’’ was prepared to adopt any course 
which would secure his power. He had 
seconded all the measures of Anastasius, but 
at the demand of the mob he now pean 
assembled a synod of 40 bishops, whic 

anathematized all upholders of the ‘* Heno- 
ticon,” recalled the banished bishops, and 
deposed the so-called usurpers. All heretics, 
t.e. those who refused the council of Chalcedon, 
were made incapable of civil or military office. 


so fruitful a source of | 


Pope and emperor) 


HERACLEON 445 


| Hormisdas profited by the favourable oppor- 
jtunity to press his demands, which were 
| admitted without question. The names of the 
| patriarchs Acacius, Fravitta, Euphemius, and 
| Macedonius, together with those of the em- 
/peror Zeno and Anastasius, were erased from 
the diptychs, and Acacius was branded with 
}aspecial anathema. Fresh disturbances were 
|created when it was found that Hormisdas 
|}demanded the condemnation of all who had 
communicated with Acacius, and turned a 
deaf ear to the repeated applications of both 
}emperor and patriarch for some relaxation of 
these terms (Evagr. H. E. iv. 4; Labbe, 
| Concal. iv. 1542; Natal. Alexand. Hist. Ἐπεὶ. 
τ. ii. p. 448). Hormisdas at last consented 
that Epiphanius, John’s successor, should act 
for him in receiving churches into communion. 
Some honoured names were allowed to remain 
|on the diptychs, and eventually Euphemius, 
|Macedonius, Flavian of Antioch, Elias of 
Jerusalem and some others who had died 
| during the separation, were admitted to the 
Roman Calendars (Tillem. Mém. ecel. t. xvi. 
|p. 697; Bolland. Apr. 25, p. 373). 
Thus ended the unhappy schism. The 
᾿ς Henoticon,’”’ without being formally re- 
pealed, was allowed to sink into oblivion. The 
|four oecumenical councils, including Chalce- 
don, were everywhere received, save in Egypt, 
and one common creed expressed the religious 
\faith of the Christian world. Gibbon, 
| Decline and Fall, c. xlvii.; Tillem. Mém. 
eccl. vol. xvi. ‘‘ Acace’’; Schréickh, Kér- 
| chengesch. vol. xviii.; Migne, Patr. τ. lviii. ; 
| Evagr. H. E. libb. iii. iv.; Liberat. Breviar. ; 
Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. vi.; Fleury, Hust. 
eccl. t. vi. vii.; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. 
pp. 253 ff. (Clarke’s trans.); Dorner, Person, 
div. ii. vol. i. pp. 123 ff. ; Milman, Hist. of Lat. 
Christ. vol. i. bk. iii. ce. i. iii. [Ξ.ν.} 
Heraoles, patriarch of Alexandria, a.p. 233- 
249; brother of the martyr Plutarch, one of 
Origen’s converts (Eus. H. E. vi. 3). From 
being a pupil he became an assistant in 
teaching to Origen, who left the school to him 
when he retired from Alexandria to Caesarea 
| (ib. 15, 26). Heraclas retained the school but 
ἃ short time, for on the death of Demetrius 
|he was elected to the archiepiscopal throne. 
|Heraclas did not adopt any of his teacher's 
| peculiar views, but voted for his deprivation 
both from his office as teacher and from his 
| orders and for his excommunication at the two 
‘synods held by Demetrius, nor when elected 
bishop did he attempt torescind thesesentences. 
' Eusebius (ἐδ. 31) narratesa visit paid to Heraclas 
by Africanus the annalist on beextag his great 
learning, and (ἐδ. vii. 7), on the authority of his 
successor Dionysius, gives his rule respecting 
‘the treatment of heretics. Le Quien, Oriens 
| Christ. ii. 392; Phot. Cod. 118; Acta ss. Ball 
ul. 3. 644-647. L.D. 
: Heracieon’ (1), a Gnostic described by 
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. ? γ, 404) as 
the most esteemed (δοκιμώτατοι) of the school 
of Valentinus; and, according to Origen 
| (Comm. in S. Joann. t. ii. § 8, Opp. τ. iv. p. 66), 
' said to have been in personal contact (γνώριμοι) 
with Valentinus himself. He is barely men- 
tioned by Irenaeus (ii. 41) and by Tertullian 
(adv. Valent. 4). The common source ot 
Philaster and Pseudo-Tertullian (#.¢. probably 


446 HERACLEON 


the earlier treatise of Hippolytus) contained 
an article on Heracleon between those on 
Ptolemaeus and Secundus, and on Marcus and 
Colarbasus. 

The chief interest that now attaches to 
Heracleon is that he is the earliest commen- 
tator on the N.T. of whom we have know- 
ledge. Origen, in the still extant portion of 
his commentary on St. John, quotes Heracleon 
nearly 50 times, usually controverting, occa- 
sionally accepting his expositions. We thus 
recover large sections of Heracleon’s com- 
mentary on ce. 1. il. iv. and viii. of St John. 
There is reason to think that he wrote com- 
mentaries on St. Luke also. Clement of 
Alexandria (Strom. iv. 9) expressly quotes from 
Heracleon’s exposition of Luke xii. 8; and 
another reference (25 Eclog. ex Script. Proph. 
P- 995) is in connexion with Luke iii. 16, 17, 
and so probably from an exposition of these 
verses. The fragments of Heracleon were 
collected by Grabe (Spicileg. ii. 85, etc.), and 
reprinted as an appendix to Massuet’s, 
Stieren’s, and Migne’s editions of Irenaeus. 

The first passage quoted by Clement bears 
on an accusation brought against some of the 
Gnostic sects, that they taught that it was 
no sin to avoid martyrdom by denying the 
faith. No exception can be taken to what 
Heracleon says on this subject. ‘‘ Men mis- 
take in thinking that the only confession is 
that made with the voice before the magis- 
trates; there is another confession made in 
the life and conversation, by faith and works 
corresponding to the faith. The first con- 
fession may be made by a hypocrite: and it 
is one not required of all; there are many 
who have never been called on to make it, 
as for instance Matthew, Philip, Thomas, 
Levi [Lebbaeus]; the other confession must 
be made by all. He who has first confessed 
in his disposition of heart will confess with the 
voice also when need shall arise and reason 
require. Well did Christ use concerning 
confession the phrase ‘in Me’ (ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃ 
ἐν ἐμοί), concerning denial the phrase ‘ Me.’ 
A man may confess ‘Him’ with the voice 
who really denies Him, if he does not confess 
Him also in action; but those only confess 
‘in Him’ who live in the confession and in 
corresponding actions. Nay, it is He Whom 
they embrace and Who dwells in them Who 
makes confession ‘in them’; for ‘ He cannot 
deny Himself.’ But concerning denial, He 
did not say whosoever shall deny ‘in Me,’ 
but whosoever shall deny ‘ Me’; for no one 
that is ‘in Him’ can deny Him. And the 
words ‘before men’ do not mean before 
unbelievers only, but before Christians and 
unbelievers alike; before the one by their 
life and conversation, before the others in 
words.”’ In this exposition every word in 
the sacred text assumes significance ; 
this characteristic runs equally through the 
fragments of Heracleon’s commentary on St. 
John, whether the words commented on be 
our Lord’s own or only those of the Evangelist. 
Thus he calls attention to the facts that in the 
statement “all things were made by Him,”’ 
the preposition used is διά ; that Jesus is said 
to have gone down to Capernaum and gone 
up to Jerusalem ; that He found the buyers and 
sellers ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, not ἐν τῷ ναῷ ; that He said 


and | 


HERACLEON 


salvation is of the Jews not im them, and again 
(iv. 40) that our Lord tarried with the Samari- 
tans, not 7m them; notice is taken of the 
point in our Lord’s discourse with the woman 
of Samaria, where He first emphasizes His 
assertion with ‘‘ Woman, believe Me’’; and 
though Origen occasionally accuses Heracleon 
of deficient accuracy, for instance in taking 
the prophet (i. 21) as meaning no more than 
a prophet ; “‘in three days”’ (ii. 19) as meaning 
no more than ‘‘on the third day’’; yet on 
the whole Heracleon’s examination of the 
words is exceedingly minute. He attempts 
to reconcile differences between the Evan- 
gelists, e.g. our Lord’s ascription to the 
Baptist of the titles ‘‘ Elias’ and ‘‘ prophet ” 
with John’s own disclaimer of these titles. 
He finds mysteries in the numbers in the 
narrative—in the 46 years which the temple 
was in building, the 6 husbands of the woman 
of Samaria (for such was his reading), the 2 
days our Lord abode with the people of the 
city, the 7th hour at which the nobleman’s son 
was healed. He thinks it necessary to reconcile 
his own doctrine with that of the sacred 
writer, even at the cost of some violence of 
interpretation. Thus he declares that the 
Evangelist’s assertion that all things were 
made by the Logos must be understood only 
of the things of the visible creation, his own 
doctrine being that the higher aeon world was 
not so made, but that the lower creation was 
made by the Logos through the instrumen- 
tality of the Demiurge. Instances of this 
kind where the interpreter is forced to reject 
the most obvious meaning of the text are 
sufficiently numerous to shew that the gospel 
was not written in the interests of Valentin- 
ianism; but it is a book which Heracleon 
evidently recognized as of such authority 
that he must perforce have it on his side. 
He strives to find Valentinianism in the 
Gospel by a method of spiritual interpreta- 
tion. Thus the nobleman (βασιλικός, iv. 47) 
is the Demiurge, a petty prince, his kingdom 
being limited and temporary, the servants 
are his angels, the son is the man who belongs 
to the Demiurge. As he finds the ψυχικοί 
represented in the nobleman’s son, so again 
he finds the πνευματικοί in the woman of 
Samaria. The water of Jacob’s well which 
she rejected is Judaism ; the husband whom 
she is to call is no earthly husband, but her 
spiritual bridegroom from the Pleroma; the 
other husbands with whom she previously 
had committed fornication represent the 
matter with which the spiritual have been 
entangled; that she is no longer to worship 
either in ‘‘ this mountain”’ or in ‘‘ Jerusa- 
lem ’’ means that she is not, like the heathen, 
to worship the visible creation, the Hyle, or 
kingdom of the devil, nor like the Jews to 
worship the creator or Demiurge; her 


watering-pot is her good disposition for re-' 


ceiving life from the Saviour. Though the 
results of Heracleon’s metnod are heretical, 
the method itself is one commonly used by 
orthodox Fathers, especially by Origen. Many 
orthodox parallels to Heracleon’s exposition 
could be adduced, e.g. that the cords with 
which our Lord drove the traffickers from the 
temple represent the power of the Holy 
Spirit ; the wood to which He assumes they 


HERACLEON 


were attached, the wood of the cross. Origen 
even occasionally blames Heracleon for being 
too easily content with more obvious inter- 


pretations. Heracleon at first is satisfied to. 


take “* whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to 
loose’’ as meaning no more than “‘ for whom 
I am not worthy to perform menial offices,” 
and he has Origen’s approbation when he 
tries, however unsuccessfully, to investigate 
what the shoe represented. It does not 
appear that Heracleon used his method of 
interpretation controversially to establish 
Valentinian doctrine, but, being a Valentinian, 
readily found those doctrines indicated in the 
passages on which he commented. 


One other of his interpretations deserves. 


mention. The meaning which the Greek of 
John viii. 44 most naturally conveys is that 
of the pre-Hieronymian translation ‘‘ mendax 
est sicut et pater ejus,’’ and so it is gener- 
ally understood by Greek Fathers, though in 
various ways they escape attributing a father 
to the devil. Hilgenfeld and Volkmar con- 
sider that the Evangelist shews that he em- 
braced the opinion of the Valentinians and 


some earlier Gnostic sects that the father of | 


the devil was the Demiurge or God of the 
Jews. 
cleon, who here interprets the father of the 
devil as his essentially evil nature; to which 
Origen objects that if the devil be evil by the 
necessity of his nature, he ought rather to be 
pitied than blamed. 

To judge from the fragments we have, 
Heracleon’s bent was rather practical than 
speculative. He says nothing of the Gnostic 
theories as to stages in the origin of the uni- 
verse; the prologue of St. John does not 
tempt him into mention of the Valentinian 
Aeonology. In fact he does not use the word 
aeon in the sense employed by other Valen- 
tinian writers, but rather where according 
to their use we should expect the word 
Pleroma; and this last word he uses in a 
special sense, describing the spiritual husband 
ofthe Samaritan woman as her Pleroma—that 
is, the complement which supplies what was 
lacking to perfection. We find in his system 
only two beings unknown to _ orthodox 
theology, the Demiurge, and apparently a 
second Son of Man; for on John iv. 37 he 
distinguishes a higher Son of Man who sows 


from the Saviour Whoreaps. Heracleon gives | 


as great prominence as any orthodox writer 
to Christ and His redeeming work. But all 
mankind are not alike in a condition to profit 


by His redemption. There is a threefold order | 


of creatures: First, the Hylic or material, 
formed of the ὕλη, which is the substance 
of the devil, incapable of immortality. 


Secondly, the psychic or animal belonging to) 


the kingdom of the Demiurge; their ψυχή is 
naturally mortal, but capable of being clothed 
with immortality, and it depends on their 
disposition (θέσις) whether they become sons 
of God or children of the devil; and, thirdly, 
the ara or spiritual, who are by nature 
of the divine essence, though entangled with 


matter and needing redemption to be delivered | 


from it. These are the special creation of the 
Logos; they live in Him, and become one 
with Him. 
seems to have had the Jews specially in mind 


=. 


But this idea was unknown to Hera- | 


In the second class Heracleon) 


HERACLIDES CYPRIUS 447 


and to have regarded them with a good deal 
of tenderness. They are the children of 
Abraham who, if they do not love God, at 
least do not hate Him. Their king, the 
Demiurge, is represented as not hostile to the 
Supreme, and though shortsighted and ignor- 
ant, yet as well disposed to faith and ready 
to implore the Saviour's help for his subjects 
whom he had not himself been able to deliver. 
When his ignorance is removed, he and his 
redeemed subjects will enjoy immortality in 
a place raised above the material world. 

Besides the passages on which he comments 
Heracleon refers to Gen. vi. ; Isa. i. 2; Matt. 
Vili. 2, ix. 37; xviii. rr; Rom. i. 25, xii. 1; 
I. Cor. xv. 54; 11. Tim. ii. 13. Neander and 
Cave have suggested Alexandria as the place 
| where Heracleon taught; but Clement's lan- 
| guage suggests some distance either of time 
|or of place; for he would scarcely have 
| thought it necessary to explain that Heracleon 
| was the most in repute of the Valentinians if 
| he were at the time the head of a rival school 
|in the same city. Hippolytus makes Hera- 
cleon one of the Italian school of Valentinians ; 
but the silence of all the authorities makes it 
unlikely that he taught at Rome. It seems, 
therefore, most likely that he taught in one of 
the cities of S. Italy; or “ Praedestinatus " 
may be right in making Sicily the scene of his 
inventions about Heracleon. 

The date of Heracleon is of interest on 
account of his use of St. John’s Gospel, which 
clearly had attained high authority when 
he wrote. The mere fact, however, that a 
book was held in equal honour by the Valen- 
tinians and the orthodox seems to prove that 
it must have attained its position before the 
separation of the Valentinians from the 
church; and, if so, it is of less importance to 
determine the exact date of Heracleon. The 
decade 170-180 may probably be fixed for the 
centre of his activity. This would not be 
inconsistent with his having been personally 
instructed by Valentinus, who continued to 
teach as late as 160, and would allow time for 
Heracleon to have gained celebrity before 
Clement wrote, one of whose references to 
Heracleon is in what was probably one of his 
earliest works. He had evidently long passed 
from the scene when Origen wrote. (Neander, 
Gen. Entwick. 143, and Ch. Hist. ii. 135; 
Heinrici, Val. Gnosis, 127; Westcott, N. T. 
| Canon. 299.) The Gk. text of The Fragments 
of Heracleon has been ed. with intro, and notes 
by A. E. Brooke (Camb. Univ. Press). [6.5.} 

Heraclides (5) Cyprius, bp. of Ephesus; ἃ 
native of Cyprus, who had received a liberal 
education, was versed in the Seriptures, and 
|had passed some years in ascetic training in 
the desert of Scetis under Evagrius. He then 
| became deacon to Chrysostom, and was in 
limmediate attendance on him. On the de- 
privation of Antoninus, bp. of Ephesus, a.p. 
4o1, there being a deadlock in the election 
through the number of rival candidates and 
the violence of the opposing factions, Chrysos- 
tom brought Heraclides forward, and he was 
elected by the votes of seventy bishops to the 
vacant see. The election at first only in- 
creased the disturbance, and loud complaints 
were made of the unfitness of Heraclides for 
the office, which detained Chrysostom in Asia 


448 HERMAS 


(Socr. H. E. vi. 11; Soz. H. E. viii.6; Pallad. 
p- 139). At the assembling of the synod of 
the Oak, a.p. 403, Heraclides was summoned 
to answer certain specified charges brought 
against him by Macarius, bp. of Magnesia, a 
bishop named Isaac, and a monk named John. 
Among these charges was one of holding 
Origenizing views. The urgency with which 
the condemnation of Chrysostom was pressed 
forward retarded the suit against Heraclides, 
which had come to no issue when his great 
master was deposed and banished. After 
Chrysostom’s second and final exile in 404, 
Heraclides was his fellow-sufferer. He was 
deposed by the party in power, and put in 
prison at Nicomedia, where, when Palladius 
wrote, he had been already languishing for 
years. A eunuch who, according to Palladius, 
was stained with the grossest vices, was con- 
secrated bp. of Ephesus in his room (Pallad. 
Dial. ed. Bigot. p. 139). On the ascription 
to this Heraclides of the Lausiac History of 
Palladius, under the name of Paradisus 
Heraclidis, see PALLADIUsS (7) ; also Fabricius, 
Bibl. Graec. x. 117; Ceillier, vii. 487. [Ε.ν.] 
Hermas (2). In the latter half of the 2nd 
cent. there was in circulation a book of visions 
and allegories, purporting to be written by one 
Hermas and commonly known as The Shep- 
herd. This book was treated with respect 
bordering on that paid to the canonical 
Scriptures of N.T., and was publicly read in 
some churches. A passage from it is quoted 
by Irenaeus (iv. 20, p. 253) with the words, 
““Well said the Scripture,” a fact which 
Eusebius notes (H. E. v. 8). Probably in the 
time of Irenaeus the work was publicly read 
in the Gallican churches. The mutilated 
commencement of the Stromateis of Clement 
of Alexandria opens in the middle of a quota- 
tion from The Shepherd, and about ten times 
elsewhere he cites the book, always with a 
complete acceptance of the reality and divine 
character of the revelations made to Hermas, 
but without suggesting who Hermas was or 
when he lived. Origen, who frequently cites 
the book (in Rom. xvi. 14, vol. iv. p. 683), 
considered it divinely inspired. He suggests, 
as do others after him, but apparently on no 
earlier authority, that it was written by the 
Hermas mentioned in Rom. xvi. 14. His other 
quotations shew that less favourable views 
of the book were current in his time. They 
are carefully separated from quotations from 
the canonical books, and he generally adds a 
saving clause, giving the reader permission to 
reject them; he speaks of it (in Matt. xix. 7, 
vol. iii. p. 644) as a book current in the 
church but not acknowledged by all, and (de 
Princ. iv. 11) as despised by some. Eusebius 
(iii. 25) places the book among the orthodox 
νόθα with the Acts of Paul, Revelation of 
Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, etc. Elsewhere 
(iii. 3), while unable to place it among the 
ὁμολογουμένα because rejected by some, he 
records its public use in churches and by some 
most eminent writers, and that it was judged 
by some most necessary for elementary in- 
struction in the faith. Athanasius (Ep. Fest. 
39, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 963) classes it with some of 
the deutero-canonical books of O.T. and with 
The Teaching of the Apostles as not canon- 
ical, but useful for catechetical instruction. 


HERMAS 


It is found in the Sinaitic MS. following the 
Ep. of Barnabas, as an appendix to the N.T. 
After the 4th cent. it rapidly passed out of 
ecclesiastical use in the East. 

The Western tradition deserves more atten- 
tion, as internal evidence shews the book to 
have been composed at Rome. The Mura- 
TORIAN FRAGMENT on the Canon tells us that 
it had been written during the episcopate of 
Pius by his brother Hermas, a period which 
the writer speaks of as within then living 
memory. He concludes that the book ought 
to be read but not publicly in the church 
among the prophetic writings, the number of 
which was complete, nor among the apostolic. 
The statement that the book not only might 
but ought to be read is a high recognition of 
the value attributed to it by the writer, and 
we gather that at least in some places its 
use in church was then such as to lead some 
to regard it as on a level with the canonical 
Scriptures. Tertullian, in one of his earliest 
treatises, de Oratione, has a reference to its 
influence on the practice of churches which 
shews it to have enjoyed high authority at the 
time, an authority which Tertullian’s argu- 
ment does not dispute. It had probably been 
used in church reading and translated into 
Latin, since Tertullian describes it by the 
Latin title Pastor, and not by a Greek title, as 
he usually does in the case of Greek writings. 
Some ten years later, after Tertullian had 
become a Montanist, and the authority of The 
Shepherd is urged in behalf of readmitting 
adulterers to communion, he rejects the book 
as not counted worthy of inclusion in the 
canon, but placed by every council, even those 
of the Catholic party, among false and apo- 
cryphal writings (de Pudic. c. 10). Quoting 
Hebrews, he says that this is at least more 
received than that apocryphal Shepherd of 
the adulterers (c. 20). The phrase ‘‘ more 
received’’ warns us to take cum grano Ter- 
tullian’s assertion as to the universal rejection 
of The Shepherd; but doubtless the distinc- 
tion between apostolic and later writings was 
then drawn more sharply, and in the interval 
between Tertullian’s two writings The Shep- 
herd may have been excluded from public 
reading in many churches which before had 
admitted it. The Liberian papal catalogue 
(probably here, as elsewhere, following the 
catalogue of Hippolytus) states that under the 
episcopate of Pius his brother Ermas wrote a 
book in which the commands and precepts 
were contained which the angel gave him when 
he came to him in the habit of a shepherd. 
Yet, while refusing to assign the book to 
apostolic times, it makes no doubt of the 
reality of the angelic appearance to Hermas. 
Later biographical notices of popes state that 
the message given to Hermas was that Easter 
should always be celebrated on a Sunday.., 
These clearly shew that by then all knowledge 
of the book had been lost ; and further notices 
shew a confusion between the name of Hermas 
and that of his book, which imply that the 
book was no longer in use. Jerome, when 
quoting Eusebius about the book (de Κ17. IU. 
10, vol. ii. 845), adds that among the Latins 
it was almost unknown. He speaks contemp- 
tuously of it (in Habac. i. 14, vol. vi. 604), 
for it seems certain that the book of Hermas 


HERMAS 


is here referred to. It is marked in the 
Gelasian decree as apocryphal. Notwith- 
standing, there are indications that some use 
of the book continued in the West, e.g. the 
fact being that there still exist some 20 MSS. 
of the Latin version. In the African church 
of the 4th cent. we find from the list in the 
Codex Claromontanus (Westcott, Canon N. T. 
p- 557) that it was placed with the Acts of Paul 
and the Revelation of St. Peter as an appendix 
to the N.T. books; and it occupies a similar 
place in the Sinaitic MS., the only Greek Bible 
known to have contained it. But in some 
existing Latin MSS. it is placed with the 
apocryphal books of O.T. 
The book is in three parts. The first 
art consists of visions. Hermas tells that 
e who had brought him up had sold him 
to Rome to a lady named Rhoda; that 
after a considerable time he renewed his 
acquaintance with her and began to love her 
as a sister; that he saw her one day bathing 
in the Tiber and assisted her out of the water ; 
that admiring her beauty he thought how 
happy he should be if he had a wife like her 
in person and disposition. Further than this 
his thought did not go. But a little time 
after he had a vision. He fell asleep, and in 
his dream was walking and struggling on 
ground so rugged and broken that it was 
impossible to pass. At length he succeeded 
in crossing the water by which his path had 
been washed away, and coming into smooth 
ground knelt to confess his sins toGod. Then 
the heavens were opened and he saw Rhoda 
saluting him from the sky. On his asking her 
what she did there, she told him that she had 
been taken up to accuse him, because God was 
angry with him for having sinned in thought 
against her. Then Hermas was overwhelmed 
with horror and fear, not knowing how he 
could abide the severity of God’s judgment, if 
such a thought as his was marked as sin. 
Rhoda now passes out of his dream and he 
sees a venerable aged lady clad in shining 
aie sitting on a great white chair and 
olding a book in her hand. She asks why 
he, usually so cheerful, is now so sad. On 
telling her, she owns what a sin any impure 
thought would be in one so chaste, so single- 
minded and so innocent as he; but tells him 
that this is not why God is displeased with 
him, but because of the sins of his children, 
whom he, through false indulgence, had 
allowed to corrupt themselves, but to whom 
repentance was open if he would warn them. 
Then she reads to him out of her book, but 
of all she reads he can remember nothing 
save the last comforting sentence, and that 
all which preceded was terrible and threaten- 
ing. She parted from him with the words, 
“Play the man, Hermas.’’ Hermas was an 
elderly man with a grown-up family, and 
Rhoda must have been at least as old as him- 
self. If the tale is an invented one, this is 
certainly an incongruity; but if it be a true 
story, it is quite conceivable that the thought 
may have occurred to Hermas, who seems to 
have been not happy in his family relations, 
how much happier it would have been for 
him if Rhoda had been his wife ; 


and that | 
afterwards, in a dream, this thought may : 
have recurred to his memory as a sin to be allegorical form, 


HERMAS 


repented of. The vision presents all the 
characteristics of a real dream; the want of 
logical connexion between the arts, the 
changes of scene, the fading out of Rhoda as 
principal figure and the appearance of the 
aged lady in her room; the substitution of 
quite a different offence for the sinful thought 
which weighed on his conscience at the begin- 
ning; the physical distress in his sleep at 
first presenting the idea of walking on and on 
without being able to find an outlet, after- 
wards of mental grief at words spoken to 
him ; the long reading of which only the words 
spoken immediately before awaking are re- 
membered,—all these indicate that we are 
reading not a literary invention like the dream 
of the Pilgrim's Progress, but the recital, a 
little dressed up it may be, of a dream which 
the narrator really had. In another vision, 
a year after, he saw again the lady and her 
book, and received the book to copy, but still 
it conveyed no idea to his mind. He then set 
himself by fasting and prayer to learn its 
meaning, and after about a fortnight was 
gratified. He learns, too, that the lady is 
not, as he had imagined, the sibyl, but the 
church, and that she appeared as old because 
she was created first of all, and for her sake 
the world was made. Ephesians, which prob- 
ably suggested this doctrine of the pre- 
existence of the church, is one of the N.T. 
books of whose use by Hermas there are clear 
traces. In subsequent visions we have a 
different account of the matter; he sees in 
each a woman more and more youthful in 
appearance, whom he is taught to identify 
with the church of his former vision; and it 
is explained that he saw her old at first be- 
cause the spirit of Christians had been broken 
by infirmity and doubt, and afterwards more 
youthful as by the revelations made him 
their spirit had been renewed. After his 
first two visions Hermas watched eagerly for 
new revelations, and set himself to obtain them 
by fasting and prayer. In those later visions, 
while the pictures presented to his mind are 
such as we can well believe to have been 
dream representations, the explanations given 
of them have a coherence only to be found 
in the thoughts of a waking man. This is 
still more true of the second and third parts 
of the work. At the end of the first part he 
has the vision in which he sees a man dressed 
like a shepherd, who tells him that he is the 
angel of repentance and the guardian to whose 
care he had been entrusted. From this 
shepherd he receives, for his instruction and 
that of the church, the ‘‘ Commandments,” 
which form the second, and the “ Similitudes,”’ 
which form the third, part of the work. The 
Similitudes were probably suggested by N.T. 
parables, though the frigid compositions of 


4ay 


| Hermas fall infinitely below these. 


The literary merits of the work of Hermas 
are of little importance compared with the 
fundamental question as to the date of the 
book and whether it claims to be an inspired 
document, the writer of which aspires to no 
literary merit, save that of faithfully recording 
the revelations made him. Are we to suppose 
that Hermas in relating his visions intended 
no more than to present edifying lessons in an 
and that it was merely as 


20 


450 HERMAS 


an instructive fiction that the book was re- 
garded when it was introduced into public 
reading in the church? Donaldson says: 
“ΤΕ the book be not inspired, then either the 
writer fancied he had seen these visions, or 
tried to make other people fancy this, or he 
clothed the work in a fictitious form designedly 
and undisguisedly. If he did the first, he 
must have been silly. If he did the second, 
he must have been an impostor.’’ But as he 
believes the author to have been “‘ an honest, 
upright, and thoughtful man,’’ he concludes 
that he did the third, ‘‘as multitudes of 
others have done after him, with John 
Bunyan at their head.”” If we took this view 
we could lay no stress on anything the author 
tells us about himself and his family. These 
details might be fictitious, as the angels, the 
towers, and the beasts of the visions. We could 
not even assume that his name was Hermas, 
for the narrator of the visions, who bears this 
name, might be an imaginary personage. 
But we ourselves feel bound to reject this as 
altogether mistaken criticism, and as an 
application to the 2nd cent. of the standards 
of to-day. To us it seems plain that, what- 
ever the author intended, the first readers of 
Hermas did not receive the book as mere 
allegorical fiction. Bunsen (Hippolytus and 
his Age, i. 315) tells us that Niebuhr used to 
pity the Athenian (sic, Qu. Roman) Chris- 
tians for being obliged to listen to this ‘‘ good 
but dull novel.’ If the authorities of the 
church regarded it merely as a novel, would 
they have appointed it for public reading ? 
At the end of the century Clement and others 
shew no doubt of the reality of the visions. 
Were the men of a couple of generations 
earlier likely to have been more severe in their 
judgments, and would an angelic appearance 
seem to them so incredible that one who 
related it would be regarded as the narrator 
of a fiction that he did not intend to be be- 
lieved ? The book itself contains directions 
to the rulers of the Roman church to send the 
volume to foreign churches. If we suppose 
it really was sent to them stamped as a pro- 
phetic writing by the authority of the Roman 
church, we have an explanation of the con- 
sideration, only second to that of the canonical 
Scriptures, which it enjoyed in so many dis- 
tant churches. A man at the present day 
might publish a story of visions, and be per- 
suaded that his readers would not take him 
seriously, but no one in the 2nd cent. would 
be entitled to hold such a persuasion, and if 
the book of Hermas was accepted as inspired, 
the writer cannot be acquitted of the respon- 
sibility of having foreseen and intended this 
result. Mosheim, de Rebus Christ. ante Const. 
163, 166, holds that the writer must either 
have been ‘‘ mente captus et fanaticus,’’ or 
else ‘‘scientem volentemque fefellisse,’’ the 
latter being the opinion to which he inclines, 
believing that the lawfulness of pious frauds 
was a fixed opinion with many Christians at 
the date of the composition we are discussing. 
We maintain, however, that it is possible to 
disbelieve in the inspiration of Hermas 
without imputing folly either to him who 
made the claim or to those who admitted it. 
We must not regard the men of the 2nd cent. 


as fools because their views as to God’s manner 


HERMAS 


of teaching His church were different from 
those which the experience of so many follow- 
ing centuries has taught us. A Christian 
cannot regard them as fools for believing that 
in the time of our Lord and His apostles a 
great manifestation of the supernatural was 
made to the world. How long and to what 
extent similar manifestations would present 
themselves in the ordinary life of the church 
only experience could shew, and they are not 
to be scorned if their expectations have not 
been borne out by later experience. In par- 
ticular, if we are to set down as fools all who 
have believed that supernatural intimations 
may be given in dreams, our list would be a 
long one, and would include many eminent 
names; and though modern science may re- 
gard visions as phenomena admitting a natural 
explanation, it is not reasonable to expect 
such a view from the science of the 2nd cent. 
What Hermas tells of his personal history 
and of the times and circumstances of his 
visions conveys to us the impression of artless 
truth. His information about himself is 
contained in incidental allusions, not very 
easy to piece together; and the author of a 
fictitious narrative would not have conveyed 
so obscurely what he tells about his hero. 
He would probably also have made him a 
man of some eminence, holding high church 
office, whereas Hermas always speaks of the 
presbyters as if he were not one of them, 
and could have no motive for making his 
hero one engaged in trade unsuccessfully and 
not very honestly, and an elderly man with 
a termagant wife and ill brought-up children. 
On the other hand, if the book be true history, 
it is very much to the point that Hermas 
should get a revelation, directing his wife to 
keep her tongue in better order, and his 
children to pay more respect to their parents ; 
nor need we suppose Hermas guilty of dis- 
honesty in thus turning his gift of prophecy 
to the advantage of his family comfort; for 
nothing can be more natural than that the 
thoughts which troubled his waking moments 
should present themselves in his visions. 
There is nothing incredible in the supposition 
that the pictures of the first vision did present 
themselves to the mind of Hermas as he re- 
lates them. They must have been very vivid, 
and have impressed him strongly. Still, it is 
a year before he has another vision. After 
this he begins to fast and pray and look out 
eagerly for more revelations. Finally he 
comes to believe himself to be under the 
constant guardianship of the shepherd angel 
of repentance, and he ascribes all the lessons 
he desires to teach to the inspiration of this 
heavenly monitor. But perhaps his language 
expresses no more than his belief in the divine 
inspiration under which he wrote, for else- 
where he states that he does not regard the 
personages of his visions as having objective 
reality, and those things which in the earlier 
part are represented as spoken to him by the 
church are afterwards said to have been 
spoken by God’s Spirit under the form of 
the church. That he sincerely believed him- 
self to be the bearer of a divine message 
appears to be the case. A summary of his 
convictions would serve also for those of a 
man in many respects very unlike, Savon- 


HERMAS 


arola, (a) that the church of his time had 
corrupted itself, and had become deeply 
tainted with worldliness; (δ) that a time of 
ποι tribulation was at hand, in which the 
should be purged away; (c) that there 
was still an intervening time, during which 
repentance was possible and would be ac- 
cepted; (d) that he was himself divinely 
commissioned to preach that repentance. 
Date and Authorship.—Antiquity furnishes 
authority for three suppositions: (a) the 
author was the Hermas to whom a salutation 
is sent in Rom. xvi. 14; or (δὲ brother to Pius, 
bp. of Rome at the middle of the 2nd cent. ; 
or (c) contemporary with Clement who was 
bishop at the very beginning of that century 
or the end of the preceding. The first may 
be set aside as a highly improbable guess of 
Origen. The author shews no wish to be taken 
for the apostolic Hermas, but distinctly speaks 
of the apostles as all dead. A forger could 
have found many more suitable names than 
Hermas, one of the least prominent in N.T., 
and of which, except in connexion with this 
book, there is no trace in ecclesiastical tra- 
dition. If our view of the book be correct, 
the author had no motive for antedating it. 
His prophecy announced tribulation close at 
hand and only a short intervening period for 
repentance. To represent such a prophecy 
as being already 50 or 100 years old would be 
to represent it as having failed, and in fact 
The Shepherd did lose credit when it had been 
so long in existence. Hermas seems to have 
thought that, if the worldliness of the church 
could be repented of and reformed, it would 
be possible to keep it pure during the brief 
remainder of its existence. He announced 
therefore forgiveness on repentance for sins 
of old Christians prior to the date of his reve- 
lation, but none for those of new converts, 
or for sins subsequent to his revelation. To 
date his revelation 50 years back would have 
defeated his own purpose and made his 
message inapplicable to those whom he ad- 
dressed.. Again the acceptance of the book 
by the church of Rome is inexplicable if it 
were introduced by no known person, con- 
taining, as it does, revelations purporting to 
have been given among themselves and to a 
leading member of their church. If the first 
readers of the work of Elchesai or of the 
Clementine homilies asked, Why did we never 
hear of these things before ? these books had 
provided an answer in the fiction that the 
alleged authors had only communicated them 
under a pledge of strict secrecy ; in this book, 
on the contrary, Hermas is directed (Vis. ili. 8) 
to go after three days and speak in the hearing 
of all the saints the words he had heard in his 
vision. Elsewhere he enables us to under- 
stand how this direction could be carried out. 
We learn (Mand. 11) that certain persons 
were then recognized in the church as having 
prophetic gifts, and that at the Christian 
meetings for worship, if after prayer ended 
one of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, 
he might speak unto the people as the Lord 
willed. The simplest explanation how the 
Roman Church came to believe in its inspira- 
tion seems, then, to be that it had previously 
admitted the inspiration of its author, that 


he held the position of a recognized prophet | 


HERMAS 


as in the East did Quadratus and Ammia of 
Philadelphia (Eus. H. E. v. 16), and that he 
really did publicly deliver his message in 
the church assembly. As the and cent. went 
on, the public exercise of prophetic powers in 
the church seems to have ceased, and when 
revived by Montanus and his followers had 
to encounter much opposition. The ensuing 
controversy led the church to insist more 
strongly on the distinction between the in- 
spiration of the canonical writers and that of 
holy men of later times, and the Muratorian 
fragment exhibits the feeling entertained to- 
wards the end of the cent. that the list of 
prophetic writings had been closed and that 
no production of the later years of the church 
could be admitted. 

But if, as we think, the Hermas of The 
Shepherd is not a fictitious character, but a 
real person known in the church of Rome in 
the 2nd cent., we incline to follow Zahn in 
relying more on his connexion with Clement 
than with Pius. Zahn places The Shepherd 
c.97; but if we assign that date to the epistle 
of Clement we ought to allow a few years for 
that letter to have obtained the celebrity and 
success which the notice in Hermas implies. 
That notice need not necessarily have been 
published in the lifetime of Clement, for Her- 
mas is not instructed to deliver his message 
immediately, but only after the completion 
of his revelations, and this may have been 
after Clement's death. 

Are, then, any indications of date in the 
book inconsistent with such an early date ? 

There is much affinity between the leading 
ideas of Montanism and of the book of Hermas, 
especially as to the fall of many in the church 
from the ideal of holiness. The question was 
asked, Was it possible to renew such again to 
repentance? In both our Lord's second 
coming was eagerly looked forward to, and a 
knowledge of God's coming dealings with His 
church sought for from visions and revelations. 
But the teaching of Hermas is less rigorous 
than the Montanistic, and all that is special 
to Montanism is unknown to him. 

Hermas directs his efforts almost exclusively 
to combating the relaxation of morality in the 
church; he scarcely notices doctrinal errors, 
and no reference to Gnostic doctrines can be 
found in his book, unless it be a statement 
(Sim. v. 7) that there were some who took 
licence to misuse the flesh on account of a 
denial of the resurrection of the body. But 
these false teachers seem to have been all in 
the church, not separate from it. In the 
passage which seems most distinctly to refer 
to Gnostics (ἐδ. ix. 22), they are described as 
“ wishing to know everything and knowing 
nothing,” as “ praising themselves that they 
have understanding, and wishing to be 
teachers, though they were really fools." 
Yet, he adds, “ to these repentance is open 
for they were not wicked, but rather silly an 
without understanding."” The seeds of Gnow- 
ticism had begun to spring up even in ἄρον» 
tolic times ; but we cannot think that Hermas 
would have written thus after Gnosticism had 
become dangerous to the Roman church. 

Hermas rebukes the strifes for precedence 
among Christians (Vis. tii. 9 ; Mand. ix. ; Sim. 
viii. 7), and it is difficult to find in his book 


451 


452 HERMAS 


evidence of the existence of the episcopal form 
of government or of resistance to its intro- 
duction. He appears to use ἐπίσκοπος as 
synonymous with πρεσβύτερος and always 
speaks of the government of the church as in 
the hands of the elders, without hinting that 
one elder enjoyed authority over others. 
Clement, indeed, is recognized as the organ by 
which the church of Rome communicated 
with foreign churches; but we are not told 
that implied a pre-eminence in domestic rule. 
Similarly, though we infer that the presbyters 
had seats of honour in the church assemblies, 
we are not told that one had a seat higher than 
the rest. Either it was not the case or it was 
too much a matter of course to be mentioned. 
But a message regarding dissensions is sent 
Tots προηγουμένοις τῆς ἐκκλησίας Kal τοῖς πρωτο- 
καθεδρίταις. Τί is a very forced explanation 
of the last plural noun to suppose it means 
some one of the προηγούμενοι who desired to 
make himself the first, nor have we reason 
to think that the word implies any sarcasm. 
It is more natural to understand that besides 
the presbyters there were others, such as the 
teachers and prophets (Mand. xi.), who in 
church assemblies were given seats of honour. 

The church had at the time of this writing 
enjoyed a good deal of quiet, but this had 
evidently been broken by many harassing 
persecutions, in which some had apostatized. 
Usually their danger is described as no more 
than of loss of goods and of injury to worldly 
business ; but there had been (though perhaps 
not recently) martyrs who had given their 
lives and endured crosses and wild beasts for 
the Name of the Son of God. They could have 
saved themselves by denial or by committing 
idolatry. Thus they suffered as Christians, 
and it has been inferred that the date must 
be later than the well-known letter of Trajan 
to Pliny which first made the profession of 
Christianity unlawful. Yet it seems possible 
to assign an earlier date to The Shepherd, and 
to I. Peter which is affected by the same 
argument, when we remember that Trajan 
only gave imperial sanction to the rule on 
which Pliny had been acting already, and on 
which others had probably been acting pre- 
viously ; for Pliny implies that trials of 
Christians were then well known. And it 
may be argued that after the edict of Trajan 
obstinate profession of Christianity was liable 
to be punished with death, whereas in the 
time of Hermas it seems to have been punished 
only by fine or imprisonment. Hermas lost 
his business in the persecution, having been be- 
trayed, it seems, by his children. At the time 
of the visions he was apparently farming. Zahn, 
who places the persecution under Domitian, 
ingeniously conjectures (p. 133) that Hermas 
was one of those to whom, as Dion Cassius 
tells (68, 2), Nerva made restitution by giving 
land instead of the goods of which they had 
been despoiled by Domitian. 

It is disappointing to have to add that an 
ordinary Christian of to-day would find in the 
book neither much interest nor edification, and 
that the historical student finds in it much less 
help than he might expect. Hermasis absorbed 
in trying to bring about a practical reform ; he 
shews much less interest in doctrine, in which 
possibly as alayman he was perhaps not ac- 


HERMAS 


curately instructed; he never quotes either 
O. or N. T., noris his language much influenced 
by Scripture phraseology, and some would 
describe him as having preached not the Gospel, 
but merely a dry morality. The inference was 
natural, if Pauline Christianity is so much in 
the background in Hermas, that he must have 
been an anti-Pauline Jewish Christian; and 
this may seem confirmed by the fact that the 
N.T. book which has most stamped itself on his 
mind is the Ep. of St. James. Yet a closer ex- 
amination finds noreal trace of Judaism in him. 
It is scarcely credible that one brought up a Jew 
should seem so unfamiliar with O.T.* The 
Jewish nation and its privileges are not even 
mentioned, nor the distinction between Jew 
and Gentile. Michaelis not the guardian angel 
of the nation, but of the Christian church. 

The only express quotation is from the lost 
apocryphal book of Eldad and Modad. His 
use of either O. or N. T. not being indicated 
by formal quotation, but only by coincidences 
of language or thought, there is room for 
difference of opinion as to his use of particular 
books. The proofs of the use of the Epp. of 
James and of Ephesians seem decisive, and only 
a little less strong in the case of I. Peter and 
I. Cor. Of his use of the Gospel and Revelation 
of St. John we are persuaded, though we admit 
that the evidence is not conclusive. We believe 
also that the knowledge of sayings of our Lord 
which Hermas unmistakably exhibits was ob- 
tained from our Synoptic Gospels, the coin- 
cidences with St. Mark (see Zahn, p. 457) being 
most striking. 

Where Hermas had lived before he was sold 
to Rome we can only conjecture. According 
to areading which there seems no good ground 
to question, he supposes himself in one of his 
visions to have been transported to Arcadia, 
and Mahaffy says (Rambles in Greece, p. 330, 
2nd ed.) that the scenery he describes suits 
that in Arcadia, and does not suit the neigh- 
bourhood of Rome. Zahn conjectures that 
Hermas was born in Egypt because the archi- 
tecture of the tower of Hermas’s visions 
resembles the description in Josephus of the 
Jewish temple in the Egyptian Heliopolis. 

The Shepherd has been edited by Hilgenfeld 
(Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec. 1866) and Gebhardt 
and Harnack (Patres Apostolicit, 1877). The 
latter ed. is indispensable, and contains a full 
list of editions, and of works treating of 
Hermas. Some interesting discussion is to 
be found in the reviews of Gebhardt’s ed. by 
Overbeck (Schurer, Theol. Literaturzeitung, 
1878), Donaldson in Theological Review (1878), 
and Zahn, Gdttingen gelehrte Anzeigen (1878). 
Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas (1868), is the work 
from which we have learned most. Another 
ed. is by Funk (Pat. Apost. Tiibingen, 1878). 
A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd 
with intro. by Dr. Lambros, trans. and ed. 
with preface and appendices by Dr. J. A. 
Robinson, has been pub. by Camb. Univ. 
Press; a cheap Eng. trans. of The Shepherd by 
Dr. C. Taylor (2 vols.) by S.P.C.K.; and in 

* The contrast is striking if we compare the full- 
ness of O.T. quotation in Clement’s ep. with the 
scantiness in Hermas. Harnack noted seven pas- 
sages which seem to shew acquaintance with O.T. 
Four of these relate to passages quoted in N.T. 
books which seem to have been read by Hermas ; 
the other three are doubtful. 


~ 


HERMENIGILD 


_ Ante-Nic. Fathers, vol. ii. See also F. Spitta, 
Zur Gesch. und Lit. der Urchristenthums, vol. ii. 


(Géttingen, 1898), and Funk, in Theol. 
chr. \xxxi. and Ixxxv. (G.s.] 
Hermenigild (Ermenigild), St., Visigoth 


Catholic — in Spain, son of the Arian king 
Leovigild. Hermenigild and Reccared were 
sons of Leovigild’s first wife (Joh. Bicl. apud 
Esp. Sagr. vi. 378), who was dead in 569. 


but Hermenigild was the elder. In 573 both 
sons were made ‘‘consortes regni"’ (#).). Most 
= 1, between 573 and 575 (cf. Greg. Tur. 
v. 38) Hermenigild was betrothed to the Catho- 

rankish princess Ingunthis, the daughter 

of Sigibert of Rheims. In 579 (Joh. Bicl. .c. 
381) Ingunthis, then 12 years old, reachedSpain, 
and, owing to dissensions between her and her 
Arian grandmother, Leovigild sent the newly 
married pair to a distance, assigning to Her- 


it, with Seville for a capital (#.). Here laterin 
579 (cf. Gorres, Kritische Untersuch. tiber den 
Aufstand und das Martyrium des Westgoth. 
Konigsohnes Hermenigild, in Zeitschrift fiir Hist. 
Theol. 1873, i. n. 83; Dahn, Kén. der Germ. v. 
137, gives 580 as the year) Hermenigild re- 
nounced Arianism, wasconfirmedin the Catholic 
faith by Leander the Catholic metropolitan of 
Seville, and took the name of Joannes (Greg. 
Tur. v. 39; Greg. Magn. Dial. iii. 31; Paul. 
Diac. iii. 21). This was immediately followed 
by the rebellion of Hermenigild (Joh. Bicl. l.c.), 
who shortly afterwards formed a close alliance 
with the Byzantines in the south, and with the 
recently catholicized Sueviin the north, t.e. with 
the two most formidable enemies of his father’s 
state and power (cf. Dahn, v. 138). Thus the 
struggle shaped itself as a conflict of confessions 
and nationalities, of Arianism and Catholicism, 
of Goth and Roman, although Leovigild had 
adherents among the provincials, and Hermeni- 
gild counted some Gothic partisans (tb. 140). 
It was not till the end of 582 that Leovigild 
felt himself strong enough to attack his son. 
Seville fell in 584 (Joh. Bicl. 1.0. 383), and 
shortly afterwards Hermenigild was captured 
in or near Cordova (tb.; Greg. Tur. v. 39, Vi- 43), 
deprived of the government of Baetica, and 
exiled to Valencia. In585 Hermenigild was put 
todeath (Joh. Bicl. 384). Isidore does not men- 
tion her death at all. Gregory of Tours men- 
tions it in passing (Hist. Fr. viii. 28). Upon 
the account given by Gregory the Great alone 
(Dial. iii. 31) rests the claim of Hermenigild 


martyr for the Catholic faith. 
the pope, Hermenigild, after a painful im- 
risonment, was beheaded on the night of 
ter Sunday, by his father’s apparttores, 
because he had refused to receive the sacra- 
ment from the hands of an Arian bishop. 
After the execution, miracles were not wanting 
tosubstantiate hisclaim to veneration. In his 
ave, according to Gregory, were laid the foun- 
tions of Visigothic Catholicism ; for, after 
Leovigild’s death, his son Reccared was con- 
verted by Leander and led the whole people of 
the Visigoths to the true faith. [M.A.W. 
Hermes (1) Trismegistus. Under this title 
we have a variety of writings of uncertain date 
and unknown authorship originating in Egypt. 


he | 
dates of their births are unknown (? 560-562), | 


menigild the government of Baetica, or part of | 


to be considered not as a rebel suffering 
the penalty of a political crime, but as ἃ. 
According to| 


HERMES TRISMEGISTUS 453 


The name “ Hermes Trismegistus" never 
belonged to any single writer. Jamblichus, 
at the beginning of his treatise de Mystertis, 
tells us that “ Hermes, who presides over 
speech, is, according to ancient tradition, 
common to all priests; he it is who exists in 
all of them. That is why our ancestors 
attributed all discoveries to him, and issued 
their works under the name of Hermes.” 
There was, in fact, a long-continued series of 
books called “ hermetic,”’ extending over 
several centuries. Tertullian, however (cont. 
Valent. c. 15), speaks of Hermes Trismegistus 
as a master in philosophy; and the extant 
hermetic books have, whatever their date, 
hilosophical and spiritual relations of a very 
interesting kind. They belong, as is now 
generally agreed, to the neo-Platonic school ; 
| and gather up in a synthesis, the artificiality 
of which is not at first sight apparent, large 
elements of all the different factors of religious 
belief in the Roman world or the and and 4rd 
cents. The two principal are the Iopdrdpys 
(the ‘Shepherd of Men"), and the Adéyor 
τέλειος (or ‘* Discourse of Initiation "'), other- 
wise called ‘ Asclepius.’"’ These two works, 
together with a variety of fragments, have 
been translated into French by M. Louis 
Ménard (Paris, 1867), and accompanied with 
a preliminary essay of much interest on the 
hermetic writings and their affinities generally. 
His most important fragments are from a work 
entitled Κόρη κόσμου (the “ Virgin of the 
World ’’), a dialogue between Isis and her son 
Horus on the origin of nature and of animated 
beings, including man. Other less noticeable 
works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus are 
named in D. of G. and R. Biogr. (s.v.). 

It is not to be assumed that these, the 
Ποιμάνδρης, and Λόγος τέλειος, are by the same 
author; but from their great similarity of 
tone and thought, this is possible. Both 
works are quoted by Lactantius (who ascribed 
to them the fabulous antiquity and high 
authority which the early Fathers were 
wont to attribute to the Sibylline books) ; 
and must have been written before ἐς. 330, 
when Lactantius died. The historical allu- 
sions in the Asclepius distinctly point to a time 
when heathenism was about to perish before 


the increasing power of Christianity. Hence 
both these works were probably written 
towards the close of the 3rd cent. 

Three motives are discernible in them. 


First, the endeavour to take an intellectual 
survey of the whole spiritual universe, without 
marking any points where the understanding 
of man fails and has to retire unsatisfied ; this 
is a disposition which, under different forms 
and at different times, has been called Pan- 
theism or Gnosticism (though the Gnostic idea 
of an evil element in creation nowhere appears 
in these treatises). The ideas of the author 
are presented with a gorgeous material 
imagery ; and, speaking generally, he regarct 
δὲ material world as interpenctrated by the 
‘spiritual, and almost identified with it. The 
power and divine character which he attri- 
| butes to the sun and other heavenly bodies are 
| peculiarly Egyptian, though this also brings 
lhim into affinity with Stoic, and even with 
Platonic, views. Secondly, this Pantheism 
lor Gnosticism is modified by and 


moral 


454 HERMIAS 


religious elements which certainly might to 
some degree be paralleled in Plato, but to 
which it is difficult to avoid ascribing a Jewish 
and even a Christian origin. Great stress is 
laid on the unity, the creative power, the 
fatherhood and goodness of God. The argu- 
ment from design also appears (Poemander, 
c. 5). Even the well-known terms of baptism 
and regeneration occur, though in different 
connexions, and the former in a metaphorical 
sense. One of the chapters of the Poemander 
is entitled ‘‘ The Secret Sermon on the Moun- 
tain.’’ The future punishments for wrong- 
doing are described with emphasis, but there 
is no moral teaching in detail. Thirdly, these 
intellectual and religious elements are asso- 
ciated with a passionate and vigorous defence 
of the heathen religion, including idol worship, 
and a prophecy of the evils which will come 
on the earth from the loss of piety. They are 
thus the only extant lamentation of expiring 
heathenism, and one that is not without 
pathos. But for the most part the style is 
hierophantic, pretentious, and diffuse. See 
further Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. i. pp. 46-94 ; 
Baumgarten Crusius, de Lib. Hermeticorum 
Origine atque Indole (Jena, 1827); and 
Chambers, The Theol. and Philos. Works of 
Her. Tris. (Edin. 1882). [J.R.M. ] 
Hermias (5), a Christian philosopher, author 
of the Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum, 
annexed in all Bibliothecae Patrum to the 
works of Athenagoras (Migne, Patr. Gk. vi. 
1167). It was published in Greek and Latin 
at Basle in 1553. It consists of satirical re- 
flections on the opinions of the philosophers, 
shewing how Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Pytha- 
goras, Epicurus, etc. agree only in repelling 
and refuting one another. Who the author 
was seems to have baffled all inquiries. Some 
identify him with Hermias Sozomen the eccle- 
siastical historian. Even the martyr of May 
31 has been suggested (Ceillier, vi. 332). Cave 
(i. 81) attributes the work to the 2nd cent. 
As it was plainly written when heathenism 
was triumphant, Ceillier (u.s.) places it 
under Julian. Neander (H. E. ii. 429, ed. 
Bohn) regards Hermias as ‘‘one of those 
bitter enemies of the Greek philosophy whom 
Clement of Alexandria thought it necessary 
to censure, and who, following the idle Jewish 
legend, pretended that the Greek philosophy 
had been derived from fallen angels. In the 
title of his book he is called the philosopher ; 
perhaps he wore the philosopher’s mantle 
before his conversion, and after it passed at 
once from an enthusiastic admiration of the 
Greek pilosophy to extreme abhorrence of it ”’ 
(Du Pin, H. E. t. i. p. 69, ed. 1723). The 
latest ed. is by H. Diels, in Doxographt Graeci 
(Berlin, 1879). [G.T.S.] 
Hermogenes (1), a teacher of heretical 
doctrine towards the close of 2nd cent., the 
chief error ascribed to him being the doctrine 
that God had formed the world, not out of 
nothing, but out of previously existing un- 
created matter. Tertullian wrote two tracts 
in answer, one of which is extant, and is our 
chief source of information about Hermogenes. 
The minuteness with which his arguments are 
answered indicates that Tertullian is replying 
to a published work of Hermogenes, apparent- 
ly written in Latin. Another doctrine of 


HERMOGENES 


Hermogenes preserved by Clement of Alex- 
andria (Eclog. ex Script. Proph. 56, p. 1002), 
being unlike anything told of him by Tertul- 
lian, was conjectured by Mosheim (de Rebus 
Christ. ante Const. p. 435), to belong to some 
different Hermogenes. But the since recov- 
ered treatise on heresies by Hippolytus 
combines in its account of Hermogenes (viii. 
17, p- 273) the doctrines attributed to him by 
Clement and by Tertullian. Probably Clem- 
ent and Hippolytus drew from a common 
source, namely, the work “‘ against the heresy 
of Hermogenes,’’ which, Eusebius tells us 
(H. E. iv. 24}, was written by Theophilus of 
Antioch, and which is mentioned also by 
Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 19), who probably 
drew from it his account of Hermogenes, in 
which he clearly employs some authority 
different from the tenth book, or summary, of 
Hippolytus, of which he makes large use of 
elsewhere. Theodoret adds that Hermogenes 
was also answered by Origen, from which it 
has been supposed that he refers under this 
name to the summary now ascribed to Hippo- 
lytus ; but there is no evidence that Theodoret 
regarded this work as Origen’s (see Volkmar, 
Hippolytus und die rvémischen Zeitgenossen, 
p- 54), so that some lost work of Origen’s must 
be presumed. The passages cited are all our 
primary authorities about Hermogenes, except 
some statements of Philaster (see below). 

A considerable distance of time and place 
separates the notices by Theophilus and Ter- 
tullian. THEOPHILUS survived the accession 
of Commodus in 180, but probably not more 
than two years. Hence 180 would be our 
latest date for the teaching of Hermogenes, 
which may have been earlier. He probably had 
disciples at Antioch, and therefore must have 
taught at or near there, and any writing of 
his answered by Theophilus must have been 
written in Greek. Tertullian’s tract against 
Hermogenes is assigned by Uhlhorn (Funda- 
menta Chron. Tert. p. 60) to A.D. 206 or 207. 
In it Hermogenes is spoken of as still living 
(“ad hodiernum homo in saeculo”’’) and 
coupled with one Nigidius in the work on Pre- 
scription, c. 30, as among theheretics ‘‘ whostill 
walk perverting the ways of God.’”’ There are 
indications that the work to which Tertullian 
replies was in Latin, and every reason to think 
that Hermogenes (though probably, as his 
name indicates, of Greek descent) was then 
living in Carthage, for Tertullian assails his 
private character, entering into details in a 
way which would not be intelligible unless 
both were inhabitants of the same city. The 
same inference may be drawn from the fre- 
quency of Tertullian’s references to Hermo- 
genes in works of which his errors are not the 
subject (de Monog. 16; de Praescrip. 30, 33; 
adv. Valent. 16; de Animd, 1, ΤΙ, 21, 22, 24); 
for apparently proximity gave this heretic an - 
importance in his eves greater than was other- 
wise warranted. Tertullian describes him as 
a turbulent man, who took loquacity for 
eloquence and impudence for firmness. Two 
things in particular are shocking to his then 
Montanist principles, that Hermogenes was 
a painter, and that he had married frequently. 
Neander and others have supposed that the 
offence of Hermogenes was that he painted 
mythological subjects. But there is no trace 


HERMOGENES 


of this limitation in Tertullian’s treatise, 
which shews all through a dislike of the pic- 
torial art, and Tertullian seems to have con- 
sidered the representation of the human form 
absolutely forbidden by the znd command- 
ment. As for the charge of frequent mar- 
riages, if Hermogenes, who in 207 would be 
advanced in life, was then married to a third 
wife, a writer so fond of rhetorical exaggera- 
tion as Tertullian might describe him as one 
who had formed a practice of marrying (nubit 
asstdue), or who had ‘‘ married more women 
than he had painted.’’ Tertullian’s language 
may imply that Hermogenes had also endea- 
voured to prove from Scripture that a second 
marriage was not unlawful. 

With regard to the doctrines of Hermogenes, 
the language of Hippolytus suggests that he 
denied the physical possibility of creation 
from nothing; but in the representation of 
Tertullian no stress is laid on the philosophic 
maxim, ‘ Nihil ex nihilo,’’ and the eternal 
existence of matter seems only assumed to 
account for the origin of evil. The argument 
of Hermogenes was, either God made the 
world out of His own substance, or out of 
nothing, or out of previously existing matter. 
The first or emanation hypothesis is rejected, 
since He Who is indivisible and immutable 
could not separate Himself into parts, or 
make Himself other than He had ever been. 
The second is disproved by the existence of 
evil, for if God made all things out of nothing 
unrestrained by any condition, His work 
would have been all good and perfect like 
Himself. It remained, therefore, that God 
must have formed the world out of previously 
existent matter, through the fault of which 
evil was possible. Further, God must have 
been always God and Lord, therefore there 
must always have existed something of which 
He was Godand Lord. Tertullian replies that 
God was always God but not always Lord, and 
appeals to Genesis, where the title God is 
given to the Creator from the first, but the 
title Lord not till after the creation of man. 
Concerning Tertullian’s assertion that God 
was not always Father, see Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. 
iii. ro. From the assertion of Hermogenes that 
God was always Lord of matter, Neander in- 
ferred that he must have denied any creation 
in time, and held that God had been from 
eternity operating in a formative manner on 
matter. Tertullian does not appear to have 
drawn this consequence, and (c. 44) assumes as 
undisputed some definite epoch of creation. 
But the account of Hippolytus shews Neander 
to have been right. With regard to the 
general argument, Tertullian shews that the 
hypothesis of the eternity of matter relieves 
none of the difficulties of reconciling the 
existence of evil with the attributes of God. 
If God exercised lordship over matter, why 
did He not clear it of evil before He employed 
it in the work of creation? Or why did He 
employ in His work that which He knew to 
be evil? It would really, he says, be more 
honourable to God to make Him the free and 
voluntary author of evil than to make him 
the slave of matter, compelled to use 11 in 
His work, though knowing it to be evil. He 
contends that the hypothesis of Hermogenes 
amounts to Ditheism, since, though he does 


HERMOGENES 455 


not give to matter the name of God, he 
ascribes to it God's essential attribute of 
eternity. He asks what just claim of lordship 
God could have over matter as eternal as 
Himself ; nay, which might claim to be the 
superior; for matter could do without Ged, 
but God, it would seem, could not carry out 
His work without coming to matter for 
assistance. In the discussion every word in 
the Mosaic account of creation receives minute 
examination and there is a good deal of 
strained verbal interpretation on both sides. 
But the authority, and apparently the canon, 
of Scripture were subjects on which both were 
agreed. Tertullian holds Scripture so exclusive 
an authority that its mere silence is decisive, 
and, since it does not mention pre-existent 
matter, that those who assert its existence 
incur the woe denounced against those who 
add to that which is written. 

Though the word ‘ materialist"’ is first 
heard of in this controversy, the views of 
Hermogenes were very unlike those now 
known by that name, and it is doubtful 
whether our word matter exactly corresponds 
to the hyle of Hermogenes. This apparently 
included the ideas of shapelessness and dis- 
orderly motion, so that all the sensible world 
could not, as in our modern language, be 
described as material. That which became 
κόσμος ceased to be Ayle, and, in fact, Ter- 
tullian does not admit the existence of matter 
in the sense of Hermogenes. Hermogenes 
held matter to be infinite and refused to apply 
to it any predicate. It is without form, and 
is described as in a perpetual state of turbulent 
restless motion, like water boiling in a pot. 
It is not to be called good, since it needed the 
Deity to fashion it; nor bad, since it was 
capable of being reduced to order. It is not 
to be called corporeal, because motion, one 
of its essential attributes, is incorporeal, nor 
incorporeal because out of it bodies are made. 
Hermogenes repudiated the Stoic notion that 
God pervades matter, or is in it like honey in 
a honeycomb ; his idea was that the Deity, 
without intermixing with matter, operated 
on it by His mere approach and by shewing 
Himself, just as beauty affects the mind by 
the mere sight of it (a very appropriate illus- 
tration for a painter) or as a magnet causes 
motion without contact merely on being 
brought near. By this approach part of 
matter was reduced to order and became 
the κόσμος, but part remains unsubdued ; 
and this, it is to be supposed, was in the theory 
of Hermogenes the source of evil. Tertullian 
acutely remarks that this language about 
God’s drawing near to matter as well as the 
use of the words above and below with refer- 
ence to the relative position of God and 
matter cannot be reconciled with the doctrine 
of Hermogenes as to the infinity of matter. 

The lost tract of Tertullian against Hermo- 
genes discussed the origin of the soul, which 
Hermogenes ascribed to matter, Tertullian to 
the breath of life inspired by God at the 
formation of man (Gen. ii. 7). Tertullian 
accuses his opponent of mistranslation in 
substituting “‘ Spirit "ἡ for “ breath,” appar- 
ently in order to exclude the possibility of 
interpreting this part of the verse of the 
communication of the soul, since the Divine 


456 HERMOGENES 


Spirit could not be supposed capable of falling 
into sin. This supplies one indication that 
the tract to which Tertullian replies was in 
Latin ; and Hermogenes, as a Greek by birth, 
would probably not use the current Latin 
translation of the Bible, but render for himself. 

The opinion of Hermogenes (not mentioned 
by Tertullian, but recorded by Clement, 
Hippolytus, and Theodoret) is that our Lord 
on His ascension left His body in the sun 
and Himself ascended to the Father, a doc- 
trine which he derived or confirmed from 
Ps. xix., ‘“‘ He hath placed his tabernacle in 
the sun.’”’ (Theodoret adds that Hermogenes 
taught that the devil and the demons would 
be resolved into hyle. This agrees very well 
with the doctrine that the soul derived its 
origin from matter.) It is a common point of 
Gnostic doctrine that our Lord’s nature was 
after the passion resolved into its elements 
and that only the purely spiritual part as- 
cended to the Father. But on no other point 
does Hermogenes approach Gnostic teaching ; 
in his theory of creation, he recognizes neither 
emanation from God nor anything inter- 
vening between God and matter; his general 
doctrine was confessedly orthodox and he 
would seem to have no wish to separate 
from the church nor to consider himself as 
transgressing the limits of Christian philo- 
sophic speculations. 

It remains to notice Philaster’s confused 
account of Hermogenes. It would not cause 
much difficulty that he counts (Haer. 53) the 
Hermogenians as a school of Sabellians, called 
after Hermogenes as the Praxeani were after 
Praxeas. Though the silence of Tertullian 
leads us to believe that Hermogenes himself 
was orthodox on this point, his followers may 
very possibly have allied themselves with 
those of Praxeas against their common 
opponent. But in the next section Philaster 
tells of Galatian heretics, Seleucus and 
Hermias, and attributes to them the very 
doctrines of Hermogenes that matter was 
co-eternal with God, that man’s soul was from 
matter, and that our Lord deposited His 
body in the sun in accordance with the Psalm 
already quoted. It is beyond all probability 
that such a combination of doctrines could 
have been taught independently by two 
heretics and it is not likely that Hermogenes 
had disciples in Galatia; we may therefore 
reasonably believe that Philaster’s Hermias is 
Hermogenes. Philaster, however, attributes 
to his heretics other doctrines which we have 
no reason to think were held by Hermogenes : 
that evil proceeded sometimes from God, 
sometimes from matter; that there was no 
visible Paradise ; that water-baptism was not 
to be used, seeing that souls had been formed 
from wind and fire, and that the Baptist had 
said that Christ should baptize with the Holy 
Ghost and with fire; that angels, not Christ, 
had created men’s souls; that this world was 
the only “‘infernum,” and that the only 
resurrection is that of the human race occur- 
ring daily in the procreation of children. 
Philaster may have read tracts not now extant, 
in which Tertullian made mention of Hermo- 
genes, and possibly if we had the lost tract 
de Paradiso it might throw light on Philaster’s 
statements. But we may safely reject his 


HESYCHIUS 


account as untrustworthy, even though we 
cannot now trace the origin of his confusion. 
The tract against Hermogenes has been 
analysed by writers on Tertullian; e.g. 
Neander, Antignosticus, p. 448, Bohn’s trans. ; 
Kaye, Tertullian, p. 532; Hauck, Tertullian, 
p. 240. Consult also arts. s.v. in Tillemont, 
iii. and Walch, Hist. der Ketz. i. 576; and E. 
Heintzel, Hermogenes (Berlin, 1902). [G.s.] 
Hesychius (3) (Hesechius), bp. of an 
Egyptian see, mentioned as the author, with 
Phileas, Theodorus, and Pachumius, of a 
letter to Meletius, schismatic bp. of Lycopolis 
in Egypt. The letter, given in a Latin version 
in Gallandius, Bibl. Patrum, iv. 67, is a remon- 
strance to Meletius on his irregular ordina- 
tions in other dioceses, and was written (c. 
296) when the authors were in prison and 
Peter of Alexandria alive. The martyrdom of 
Hesychius under Galerius, with Phileas, 
Pachumius, and Theodorus, is recorded in 
Eus. Hist. Eccl. viii. 13. This Hesychius has 
been usually identified with the reviser of the 
text of the LXX, and of N.T., or at least of 
the Gospels, which obtained extensive cur- 
rency in Egypt. There are no grounds for 
questioning the truth of this conjecture. 
This Hesychian recension is mentioned more 
than once by Jerome, who states that it was 
generally accepted in Egypt, as that of his 
fellow-martyr, Lucian of Antioch, was in 
Asia Minor and the East (Hieron. Praef. in 
Paralipom. ad Chromat. Ep. 107, repeated in 
Apologia II. adv. Rufin. vol. i. p. 763, Paris, 
1609). Jerome alsorefers to it as ‘‘ exemplaria 
Alexandrina ’”’ (in Esai. lviii. 11). We know 
little or nothing more of this edition of the 
LXX._ It was doubtless an attempt, like that 
of Lucian, to purify the text in use in Egypt, 
by collating various manuscripts and by re- 
course to other means of assistance at hand. 
Jerome speaks with some contempt of his 
labours in the field of O.T. recension, and still 
more of his and Lucian’s recension of the 
Gospels. If we interpret his words strictly, 
Hesychius, as well as Lucian, added so much 
to the text as to lay them open to the charge 
of falsifying the Gospels and rendering their 
work ‘‘apocryphal’’ (Hieron. Praef. in 
Evang. ad Damasum). The words of the 
famous Decretal of Gelasius (6. 500) ‘‘ On 
ecclesiastical books,’’ which are, however, 
regarded by Credner (Zur Gesch. d. K. p. 216) 
as additions to the original decree ‘‘ made at 
the time it was republished in Spain under 
the name of Hormisdas, c. 700-800 ’’ (West- 
cott, Hist. of Can. p. 448, n. 1), are equally 
condemnatory: ‘‘ Evangelia quae falsavit 
Isicius [Hesychius]}—Apocrypha”’ (Labbe, 
Conc. iv. 126). Westcott pronounces Hug’s 
speculations as to the influence of this recen- 
sion, ‘‘ of which nothing is certainly known,” 
“quite unsatisfactory ”’ (ib.). [Ε.ν.]. 
Hesychius (25), presbyter of Jerusalem in 
the first half of 5th cent., a copious and learned 
writer whose comments on Holy Scripture 
and other works gained a great reputation. 
Considerable confusion exists as to the 
authorship of several of the treatises as- 
cribed to him—a confusion which it is hope- 
less entirely to remove. It is possible that 
some were written by the bp. of Salona. 
(HeEsycutus (6).] It is altogether a mistake 


7 
᾿ 


HESYCHIUS 


to speak of Hesychius as bp. of Jerusalem. 
_ According to the Greek Menology, Mar. 28, 
he was born and educated at Jerusalem, where 
“by meditating on the Scriptures he obtained 
a deep acquaintance with divine things.” 
On reaching manhood he left home and 
devoted himself to a solitary life in the 
desert, where he ‘‘ with bee-like industry 

thered the flowers of virtue from the holy 

athers there.’’ He was ordained presbyter 
against his will by the patriarch of Jerusalem, 
and spent the rest of his life there or at other 
sacred places. Hesychius the presbyter is 
mentioned by Theophanes, who, in 412, speaks 
of him as “‘ the presbyter of Jerusalem,”’ and 
in 413 records his celebrity for theological 
learning. He is mentioned in the Life of 
St. Euthymius by Cyril of Scythopolis (Cote- 
ler. Eccl. Graec. Monum. t. ii. p. 233, § 42), 
as accompanying Juvenal, patriarch of Jeru- 
salem, to the consecration of the church of 
the “‘laura”’ of St. Euthymius, a.p. 428 or 
429, and as received with much honour by the 
abbat. He is said by Allatius (Diatriba de 
Simeonibus, p. 100) to have been Chartophylax 
or Keeper of the Records of the church of the 
Anastasis at Jerusalem. His death can only 
be placed approximately c. 438. He is twice 
mentioned by Photius, who shares to some 
extent in the confusion as to the Hesychii, 
and assigns him nodate. In Cod. 275 Photius 
quotes a rhetorical passage from a sermon 
on James the Lord’s brother and David 
(θεοπάτωρ), evidently delivered at Jerusalem. 
Hesychius compares Bethlehem and Sion, to 
the great advantage of the latter, and, in a 
manner very natural in a presbyter of Jeru- 
salem, elevates St. James’s authority above 
that of St. Peter in the council of Jerusalem. 

Of several of the numerous works attributed 
to this author, all we can say is that they bear 
the name of Hesychius in one of its forms, but 
whether actually the composition of the pres- 
byter of Jerusalem or of some other Hesychius 
it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. 
Tillemont feels no insuperable difficulty in 
assigning them all to the same author, but 
confesses that fuller light might lead to a 
different conclusion. 

(1) In Leviticum Libri VII. Explanationum 
Allegoricarum sive Commentarius, dedicated to 
the deacon Eutychianus, is the most extensive 
work extant under the name of Hesychius. 
It has frequently been printed. The earliest 
editions are those of Basle (1527, fol.) and Paris 
(1581, 8vo). It is inthe various Bibliothecae 
Patrum, as that of Lyons, t. xii. p. 52, and the 
Vet. Patr. Bibl. of Galland, t. xi. 

(2) Commentaries on the Psalms.—Harles and 
Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 549, speak of 
many portions of this work existing in MS., 
especially one in the University Library of 
Cambridge containing Pss. Ixxvii.-cvii. The 
only portions printed are the Fragmenta in 
Psalmos, extracted from the Greek Calena in 
Psalmos, with a Latin trans. by Balthazar 
Corderius. These are very sensible and useful, 
and lead us to wish for the publication of the 
whole. See Faulhaber, Hesych. Hterosol. In- 
terpr. Is. Proph. 1900 sqq.; att. to Faulhaber 
in Theol. Quartalschr.1901. The Commentary 
on the Psalms att. to Athanasius (Migne, 
Patr. Gk. xxvii.) is by Hesychius. 


HESYCHIUS ILLUSTRIS 457 


(3) Στιχηρὸν sive κεφάλαια in XII. Pro- 
eons et Esaiam, an epitome of the 12 Minor 

ophets and Isaiah, section by section. 

(4) Fragments of Commentaries on Exk., 
Dan., Acts, James, I. Peter, and Jude. 

(5) Difficultatum εἰ Solutionum Collectio.—A 
harmonizing of 61 discrepant passages in the 
Gospel! history, generally characterized by 
sound common sense and a reluctance to force 
an unreal agreement. 

(6) Eight Sermons, or Fragments of Sermons. 

(7) ᾿Αντιρρητικὰ καὶ Εὐκτικά. Two Centuries 
of Moral Maxims on Temperance and Virtue 
and Instructions on Prayer, addressed to one 
Theodotus. 

_ (8) The Martyrdom of Longinus the Centu- 
rion.—The author, according to Fabricius, 
belonged to a much later period than the one 
who wrote the works previously enumerated. 

(9) An Ecclesiastical History, of which a 
fragment is given in the Acts of the council of 
Constantinople, a.p. 353, Collat. Quinta, con- 
demnatory of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 

Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. §70; Fabricius, 
Bibl. Graec. ed. Harles, t. vii. pp. 548-551; 
Galland, Vet. Patr. Bibl. τ. xi.; Migne, Patr. 
Gk. vol. xciii. pp. 781-1560. fe.v.] 

Hesychius (27) Illustris, a copious histories! 
and biographical writer, the son of an advocate 
and born at Miletus. His distinctive name 
(ἸΧλούστριος) was the official title conferred by 
Constantine the Great on the highest rank of 
state officers. Nothing is known of him 
except that he lived in the reigns of Anastasius, 
Justin, and Justinian, and that his literary 
labours were cut short by grief at the pre- 
mature death of a son named John. Suidas 
doubts whether he was a Christian on the 
somewhat precarious ground of his omission 
of all ecclesiastical writers in his work on men 
of learning. But very substantial reasons 
have been produced on the other side by Cave 
(Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 518) and accepted by Fabri- 
cius. His chief work was a Universal History 
in six books and in a synoptical form through 
a period of 1920 years, reaching from Belus, 
the reputed founder of the Assyrian empire, 
to the death of Anastasius I., a.p. 418, The 
whole has perished except the initial portion 
of bk. vi., which has been several times printed 
under the title of Constantinopolis Ortgines, or 
Antiquitates. It was published by George 
Dousa, and ascribed to Georgius Codinus 
(Heidelberg, 1596), and subsequently by Meur- 
sius, under the name of its real author, ap- 
pended to his de Viris Claris (Lugd. Bat. 
1613). It was followed by a supplement, 
recording the reign of Justin, and the early 
years of Justinian. This, as the work of a 
contemporary whose official position enabled 
him to obtain accurate information, must bave 
been of great historical value, and its loss ts 
νοῦν much to be regretted. Hesychius also 
wrote a series of biographical notices of 
learned men, which, going over very much the 
same ground as the work of Diogenes Laertius, 
has been supposed to be an epitome of the 
Vitae Philosophorum. A comparison of the 
two will shew that the differences are too great 
to admit this idea. This work has been 

rinted by Meursius (Lugd. Bat. 16134). 
Without sufficient grounds Hesychius Ilustris 
has been identified with the lexicographer of 


458 HIERACAS 


Alexandria. Cave, l.c.; Suidas, s.v.; Photius, 
Cod. 69; Fabr. Bibl. Graec. t. vii. p. 544; 
Thorschmidius, de Hesychio Illustri, ap. 
Orellium Hesychti Opera. [E-v-] 
Hieracas (Hievax), an Egyptian teacher, 
from whom the sect of Hieracitae took their 
name. Our knowledge of him is almost 
entirely derived from Epiphanius (Haer. 67, 
Pp- 709), who states that he was contemporary 
with the Egyptian bp. Meletius and Peter of 
Alexandria, and lived under Diocletian’s 
persecution. This agrees very well with the 
notice of him by Arius (vide infra), so that he 
may be placed at the very beginning of the 
4th cent. Epiphanius treats him with more 
respect than other founders of heretical sects, 
and is willing to believe that he practised 
asceticism bond fide, which, in the case of his 
followers, he counts but as hypocrisy. Ac- 
cording to Epiphanius, Hieracas lived at 
Leontopolis, in Egypt, abstaining from wine 
and animal food; and by his severity of life 
and the weight of his personal character did 
much to gain reception for his doctrines, 
especially among other Egyptian ascetics. 
He had great ability and learning, being well 
trained in Greek and Egyptian literature and 
science, and wrote several works in both 
languages. Epiphanius ascribes to him a 
good knowledge of medicine, and, with more 
hesitation, of astronomy and magic. He 
practised the art of calligraphy, and is said to 
have lived to 90 years of age, and to have 
retained such perfect eyesight as to be able to 
continue the practice of his art to the time of 
his death. Besides composing hymns, he 
wrote several expository works on Scripture, 
of which one on the Hexaemeron is particular- 
ly mentioned. It was, doubtless, in this work 
that he put forward a doctrine censured by 
Epiphanius, viz. the denial of a material 
Paradise. Mosheim connects this with his 
reprobation of marriage, imagining that it 
arose from the necessity of replying to the 
objection that marriage was a state ordained 
by God in Paradise. Neander, with more 
probability, conceives that the notion of the 
essential evil of matter was at the bottom of 
this as well as of other doctrines of Hieracas. 
This would lead him to allegorize the Paradise 
of Genesis, interpreting it of that higher 
spiritual world from which the heavenly spirit 
fell by an inclination to earthly matter. This 
notion would also account for a second doc- 
trine, which, according to Epiphanius, he held 
in common with Origen, viz. that the future 
resurrection would be of the soul only, not of 
the material body; for all who counted it a 
gain to the soul to be liberated by death from 
the bonds of matter found it hard to believe 
that it could be again imprisoned in a body 
at the resurrection. The same notion would 
explain the prominence which the mortifica- 
tion of the body held in his practical teaching ; 
so that, according to this view, Hieracas would 
be referred to the class of Gnostic ENCRATITES. 
The most salient point in his practical teaching 
was, that he absolutely condemned marriage, 
holding that, though permitted under the old 
dispensation, since the coming of Christ no 
married person could inherit the kingdom of 
heaven. If it was objected that the apostle 
had said, ‘‘ marriage is honourable in all,’”’ he 


HIEROCLES 


appealed to what the same apostle had said 
“a little further on’’ (I. Cor. vii.), when he 
wished all to be as himself and only tolerated 
marriage ‘‘ because of fornication,”’ 1.6. as the 
lesser of two evils. Thus it appears that 
Hieracas believed in the Pauline origin of 
Hebrews, and his language seems to indicate 
that in his sacred volume that epistle pre- 
ceded I. Corinthians. He received also the 
pastoral epistles of St. Paul, for he appeals 
to I. Tim. ii. rr in support of another of his 
doctrines, viz. that children dying before the 
use of reason cannot inherit the kingdom of 
heaven; and asks if he who strives cannot be 
crowned unless he strive lawfully, how can he 
be crowned who has never striven at all? 
Arius, in his letter to Alexander in defence of 
his views concerning our Lord’s Person 
(Epiph. Haer. 69, 7, Ρ- 732; Athan. de Syn. 
i. 583; Hilar. de Trin. vi. 5, 12), contrasts his 
own doctrine with that of Valentinus, of 
Manichaeus, of Sabellius, of Hieracas; and 
presumably all these teachers, by rejection of 
whom he hopes to establish his own orthodoxy, 
were reputed as heretics. Hieracas, according 
to Arius, illustrated the relation between the 
first two Persons of the Godhead by the 
comparison of a light kindled from another, 
or of a torch divided into two, or, as Hilary 
understands it, of a lamp with two wicks 
burning in the same oil. 

His doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is 
more questionable. He was influenced by the 
book of the Ascension of Isaiah, which he 
received as authoritative. In it Isaiah is 
represented as seeing in the seventh Heaven, 
on the right and left hand of God respectively, 
two Beings like each other, one being the Son, 
the other the angel of the Holy Spirit Who 
spake by the prophets. Hieracas inferred 
that the latter Being, Who makes priestly 
intercession with groanings that cannot be 
uttered, must be the same as Melchisedek, who 
also was ‘‘ made like unto the Son of God,” 
and ‘‘who remaineth a priest for ever.” 
These tenets are ascribed to Hieracas by 
Epiphanius, whose account is abridged by 
Augustine (Haer. 47), by Joannes Damascenus 
(66), and by “ Praedestinatus’’ (47). The 
continued existence of the sect is assumed in 
a story told by Rufinus (Hist. Mon. 28, p. 196) 
of Macarius, who, when he had failed to 
confute the cunning arguments of a Hieracite 
heretic to the satisfaction of his hearers, van- 
quished him by successfully challenging him 
to a contest as to which could raise a dead 
body. Rufinus does not make the story turn 
on the fact that Hieracas denied the resur- 
rection of the flesh. [6.5.1 

Hierocles (1), a native of a small town in 
Caria, born at latest c. 275. He was a Neo- 
platonic philosopher, to be distinguished from 
the 5th-cent. philosopher Hirrocies (2). 
Lactantius supposed him to have been in early 
life a Christian, as he displayed in his writings 
such intimateknowledge of Scriptureand Chris- 
tian teaching. He must have been an active 
and able administrator, as he seems to have 
risen rapidly by his own exertions. In an in- 
scription at Palmyra (Corp. Inscript. Lat. τ. ill. 
no. 133) his name occurs as ruler of that city 
under Diocletian and Maximian, Galerius and 
Constantius being Caesars. Here he probably 


ge 


HIEROCLES 


: in contact with Galerius and impressed 
the Caesar with a respect for his abilities on 
his famous Persian expedition, when the first 
seeds of the persecution were sown, 297-302. 
The expression reiterated by Lactantius, that 
he was the ‘‘ author and adviser of the per- 
secution,”’ lends support to this view. He 
was translated as prefect in 304 or 305 to 
Bithynia after the persecution broke out, and 
in 305 or 306 was promoted to the government 
of Alexandria, as is proved by the fact that 
Eusebius records the martyrdom of Aedesius 
at Alexandria as occurring by his orders a 
short time after that of Apphianus, which he 
dates Apr. 2, 306 (cf. Eus. Mart. Pal. cc. iv. 
v.; Epiphanius, Haer. Ixviii.; Assem. Mart. 
Orient. ii. 195). MHierocles seems to have 
there displayed the same bloodthirsty cruelty 
as marked another philosophic persecutor, 
Theotecnus. He wrote a book against Chris- 
tianity, entitled Adyos φιλαλήθης πρὸς τοὺς 
Χριστιανούς, in which he brought forward 
various scriptural difficulties and alleged 
contradictions and instituted comparisons 
between the life and miracles of Jesus Christ 
and of Apollonius of Tyana. To this Eusebius 
replied in a treatise yet extant, Liber contra 
Hieroclem, wherein he shews that Apollonius 
was “50 far from being comparable to Jesus 
Christ that he did not deserve to be ranked 
among the philosophers’’ (Du Pin, H. E. i. 
155, art. ‘‘Eusebius ’’). Duchesne, in an acute 
treatise on the then lately discovered works 
of Macarius Magnes (Paris, Klinksieck, 1877), 
suggests that the work of Hierocles em- 
bodied the objections drawn by Porphyry 
from Holy Scripture, and that the work of 
Macarius was a reply to them, and suggests 
that Hierocles wrote his book while ruling at 
Palmyra before the persecution. Coming 
from a man in his position, it would carry 
great weight in the region of the Euphrates. 
Macarius, therefore, as a dweller in that 
region (Duchesne, p. 11), and Eusebius, re- 
lied. Fleury, H. E. τ. ii. 1. viii. § 30; Tillem. 
ém. xiii. 333; Hist. des Emp. iv. 307; 
Neander, H. E. t. i. pp. 201, 240, ed. Bohn ; 
Macar. Mag. ed. Blondel; Mason, Dtoclet. 
Persec. pp. 58, 108; Herzog, Real-Encyc. 
art. ‘‘ Hierocles."’ Dr. Gaisford, of Oxford, 
ub. in 1852 the treatises of Eusebius against 
ierocles and against Marcellus. [G.T.S.] 
Hierocles (2), a philosopher, generally 
classed among the neo-Platonists, who lived at 
Alexandria in the first half of 5th cent., and 
delivered lectures of considerable merit. His 
character is spoken of by Damascius (quoted 
by Suidas) in high terms. When sojourning 
at Constantinople he came into collision with 


the government (or, as Kuster interprets it, | 


with the Christian authorities) and was severe- 


πα in the court of justice, possibly (as. 


ller conjectures) for his adherence to the 
old religion. He was then banished, a 
retired to Alexandria. His teacher in philo- 
sophy was Plutarch the neo-Platonist ; Theo- 
sebius is mentioned as his disciple. 

His principal extant work is a commentary 
on the Golden Verses attributed to Pythagoras. 
His entire remains have been ed. by bp. 
Pearson, P. Needham (Camb. 1709), Gaisford 
(1850), and Mullach (1853). See the last vol. 
of Zeller’s Greek Philosophy, pp. 681-687- 


and | 


HIEROCLES 459 


Hierocles appears to have been a reconciler 
between the old and the new. Doubtless a 
sincere adherent of the heathen religion, its 
distinctive features melt away in his bands 
and his soft and tender tone recalls the accents 
of Christian piety, eg. in the following pas- 
sages from his commentary on the Golden 
Verses: ‘‘ No proper cause is assignable for 
God to have created the world but His 
essential goodness. He is good by nature; 
and the good envies none in anything " (p. 
20, ed. Needham). ‘ What offering can you 
make to God, out of material things, that 
shall be likened unto or suitable to Him? 
... For, as the Pythagoreans say, God has no 
place in the world more fitted for Him than 
a pure soul" (p. 24). ‘‘ Strength dwells 
near necessity.” Our author adds this to shew 
that we must not measure our ability to 
tolerate our friend by mere choice, but by our 
real strength, which is discovered only by 
actual necessity. We have all in time of need 
more strength than we commonly think" 
(p. 52). ‘* We must love the unworthy for the 
sake of their partnership in the same nature 
with us"’ (p. 56). ‘‘ We must be gentle to 
those who speak falsely, knowing from what 
evils we ourselves have been cleansed. .. . And 
gentleness is much aided by the confidence 
which comes from real knowledge "’ (p. 110). 
‘*Let us unite prayer with work. We must 
pray for the end for which we work, and work 
for the end for which we pray; to teach us 
this our author says, ‘ Go to your work, having 
prayed the gods to accomplish it’ "’ (p. 172). 

The reasons adduced by Hierocles for belief 
in a future state are strictly moral, and quite 
remote from subtlety: ‘‘ Except some part 
of us subsists after death, capable of receiving 
the ornaments of truth and goodness (and the 
rational soul has beyond doubt this capa- 
bility), there cannot exist in us the pure desire 
for honourable actions. The suspicion that 
we may suffer annihilation destroys our con- 
cern for such matters "’ (p. 76). 

Not less noteworthy are his views respecting 
Providence. God, he says, is the sole eternal 
author of all things; those Platonists who say 
that God could only make the universe by 
the aid of eternal matter are in error (p. 246, 
from the treatise περὶ rpovolas). Man has 
free will; but since the thoughts of man 
vacillate and sometimes forget God, man ts 
liable to sin: what we call fate is the just and 
necessary retribution made by God, or by 
those powers who do God's will, for man’s 
actions, whether for merit or demerit (p. 256; 
cf. p. 92). Hence the inequality tn the lots 
of men. Pain is the result of antecedent sin; 
those who know this know the remedy, for 
they will henceforward avoid wrongdoing and 
will not accuse God as if He were the essential 
cause of their suffering (pp. 92, 94)- 

The approximation of heathen philosophy 
to Christianity is the most interesting point to 
be noticed in connexion with Hierocles. He 


| never, in bis extant works, directly mentions 


Christianity ; what degree of tacit opposition 
is implied in his philosophy is a difficult 


question. His philosophy has points more 
specially characteristic of Platonism and 
neo-Platonism, ¢g. bis belief in the pre- 


existence of man and in the transmigration 


460 HIERONYMUS 


of souls. With Porphyry and Jamblichus, 
however, he denied that the souls of men could 
migrate into the bodies of animals. 

We conclude by quoting a passage on 
Marriage ; shewing the singularly modern and 
Christian type of his mind. ‘“‘ Marriage is 
expedient, first, because it produces a truly 
divine fruit, namely children, our helpers 
alike when we are young and strong, and 
when we are old and worn... . But even 
apart from this, wedded life is a happy lot. 
A wife by her tender offices refreshes 
those who are wearied with external toil; she 
makes her husband forget those troubles 
which are never so active and aggressive as 
in the midst of a solitary and unfriended 
life; sometimes questioning him on_ his 
business pursuits, or referring some domestic 
matter to his judgment, and taking counsel 
with him upon it: giving a savour and 
pleasure to life by her unstrained cheerfulness 
and alacrity. Then again in the united 
exercise of religious sacrifice, in her conduct 
as mistress of the house in the absence of 
her husband, when the family has to be held 
in order not without a certain ruling spirit, 
in her care for her servants, in her careful 
tending of the sick, in these and other things 
too many to be recounted, her influence is 
notable. . . . Splendid dwellings, marbles and 
precious stones and myrtle groves are but 
poor ornaments toa family. But the heaven- 
blessed union of a husband and wife, who 
have all, even their bodies and souls, in 
common, who rule their house and bring up 
their children well, is a more noble and ex- 
cellent ornament ; asindeed Homersaid. .. . 
Nothing is so burdensome but that a husband 
and wife can easily bear it when they are in 
harmony together, and willing to give their 
common strength to the task.” [j-R.M.] 

Hieronymus (4) (Jerome), St. The full 
name is Eusebius Hieronymus. 

Among the best accounts of St. Jerome are : 
Saint Jéréme, la Société chrétienne ἃ Rome 
et Vémtgration romaine en Terre Sainte, par 
M. Amédée Thierry (Paris, 1867), and Hier- 
onymus sein Leben und Werken von Dr. Otto 
Zockler (Gotha, 1865); the former gives a 
vivid, artistic, and, on the whole, accurate 
picture of his life, with large extracts in the 
original from his writings, the latter a critical 
and comprehensive view of both. These con- 
tain all that is best in previous biographers, 
such as the Benedictine Martianay (Paris, 
1706), Sebastian Dolci (Ancona, 1750), Engel- 
stoft (Copenhagen, 1797); to which may be 
added notices of Jerome in the Acta Sanctorum, 
Biblia Sacra, Du Pin’s and Ceillier’s Histories 
of Ecclesiastical Writers, the excellent article 
in the D. of G. and R. Biogr., the Life of 
Jerome prefixed to Vallarsi’s ed. of his works, 
which has a singular value from its succinct 
narrative and careful investigation of dates. 

He was born c. 346 at Stridon, a town near 
Aquileia, of Catholic Christian parents (Pref. 
to Job), who, according to the custom then 
common, did not have him baptized in 
infancy. They were not very wealthy, but 
possessed houses (Ep. Ixvi. 4) and slaves 
(cont. Ruf. i. c. 30), and lived in close intimacy 
with the richer family of Bonosus, Jerome’s 
foster-brother (Ep. iii. 5). They were living 


HIERONYMUS 


in 373, when Jerome first went to the East 
(xxii. 30), but, since he never mentions them 
later, they probably died in the Gothic invasion 
(377) when Stridon was destroyed. He had 
a brother Paulinian, some 20 years younger 
(Ixxxii. 8), who from 385 lived constantly with 
him. He was brought up in comfort, if not 
in luxury (xxii. 30) and received a good 
education. He was in a grammar school, 
probably at Rome, and about 17 years old, 
when the death of the emperor Julian (363) 
was announced (Comm. on Habakkuk, i. το). 
Certainly it was not much later than this 
that he was sent with his friend Bonosus 
to complete his education at Rome, and they 
probably lived together there. The chief 
study of those days was rhetoric, to which 
Jerome applied himself diligently, attending 
the law courts and hearing the best pleaders 
(Comm. on Gal. ii. 13). Early in his stay at 
Rome he lived irregularly and fell into sin 
(Ep. vi. 4, xiv. 6, xlvili. 20). But he was 
drawn back, and finally cast in his lot with 
the Christian church. He describes how on 
Sundays he used to visit, with other young 
men of like age and mind, the tombs of the 
martyrs in the Catacombs (Comm. in Ezek. c. 
40, Ρ- 468) ; and this indicates a serious bent, 
which culminated in his baptism at Rome 
while Liberius was pope, 1.6. before 366. 
While there he acquired a considerable library 
(Ep. xxii. 30) which he afterwards carried 
wherever he went. On the termination of 
his studies in Rome he determined to go with 
Bonosus into Gaul, for what purpose is un- 
known. They probably first returned home 
and lived together for a time in Aquileia, 
or some other town in N. Italy. Certainly 
they at this time made the acquaintance of 
Rufinus (iii. 3) and that friendship began 
between him and Jerome which afterwards 
turned out so disastrously to both (see 
Augustine to Jerome, Ep. cx.). Hearing that 
they were going into Gaul, the country of 
Hilary, Rufinus begged Jerome to copy for 
him Hilary’s commentary on the Psalms and 
his book upon the Councils (Ep. v. 2); and 
this may have fostered Jerome’s tendency 
towards ecclesiastical literature, which was 
henceforward the main pursuit of his life. 
This vocation declared itself during his stay 
in Gaul. He went with his friend to several 
parts of Gaul, staying longest at Tréves, then 
the seat of government. But his mind was 
occupied with scriptural studies, and he made 
his first attempt at a commentary. It was 
on the prophet Obadiah, which he interpreted 
mystically (pref. to Comm. on Obadiah). 
The friends returned to Italy. Eusebius, 
bp. of Vercellae, had a few years before re- 
turned from banishment in the East, bringing 
with him Evagrius, a presbyter (afterwards 
bp.) of Antioch, who during his stay in Italy 
had played a considerable part in church 
affairs (Ep. i. 15). He seems to have had a 
great influence over Jerome at this time; and 
either with him or about the same time he 
settled at Aquileia, and from 370 to 373 the 
chief scene of interest lies there, where a com- 
pany of young men devoted themselves to 
sacred studies and the ascetic life. It included 
the presbyter Chromatius (afterwards bp. of 
Aquileia), his brother Eusebius, with Jovinus 


HIERONYMUS 


the archdeacon; Rufinus, Bonosus, Heliodorus | drink, since the monks 


(afterwards bp. of Altinum), the monk Chryso- 
-gonus, the subdeacon Niceas, and Hylas the 
ρα of the wealthy Roman lady Melania; 
_ allof whom are met with later in Jerome's his- 
tory. They were knit together by close friend- 
ey eand common pursuits ; and the presence 
of Evagrius, who knew the holy places and 
hermitages of the East, gave a special direc- 
tion to their ascetic tendencies. For a time 
all went well. The baptism of Rufinus took 
lace now (Ruf. Apol. i. 4). It was Jerome's 
ortune to become, wherever he lived, the 
object of great affection, and also of great ani- 
mosity. Whatever was the cause (Ep. iii. 3), 
the society at Aquileia suddenly dispersed. 

The friends went (probably early in 373) in 
different directions. Bonosus retired to an 
island in the Adriatic and lived as a hermit 
(vii. 3). Rufinus went to the East in the 
train of Melania. Jerome, with Heliodorus, 
Innocentius, and Hylas, accompanied Eva- 
grius to Palestine. Leaving his parents, 
sister, relations and home comforts (xxii. 
30), but taking his library, he travelled 
through Thrace, Pontus, Bithynia, Galatia, 
Cappadocia and Cilicia, to Antioch. The 
journey was exhausting, and Jerome had a 
long period of ill-health, culminating in a 
fever. Innocentius and Hylas died from the 
same fever. Heliodorus went to Jerusalem. 
During his illness (#5.) Jerome had his bent 
towards scriptural studies and asceticism con- 
firmed. While his friends stood by his bed 
expecting his death, he felt himself, in a 
trance, carried before the throne of God, 
and condemned as being no Christian but a 
Ciceronian, who preferred worldly literature 
to Christ. From this time, though he con- 
tinued to quote the classics profusely, his 
literary interest was wholly with the Bible and 
church writings. It seems likely that, as 
soon as his health was restored, he determined 
to embrace the solitary life. He wrote to 
Theodosius (ii.), who was apparently a kind of 
chief of the hermits in the desert of Chalcis, 
asking to be received among them, and thither 
he proceeded about the autumn of 374. 

He was now about 28 years old. The desert 
of Chalcis, where he lived for 4 or 5 years 
(374-379), was in the country of the Saracens, 
in the E. of Syria (v.). It was peopled by 
hermits, who lived mainly in solitude, but had 
frequent intercourse among themselves and a 
little with the world. They lived under some 
kind of discipline, with a ruling presbyter 
named Marcus (xvii.). Jerome ‘ived in a 
cell, and gained his own living (xvii. 3); 
eae, according to the recommendation 

6 gives later to Rusticus (cxxv.), cultivat- 
ing a garden, and making baskets of rushes, 
or, more congenially, copying books. He 
describes his life in writing to Eustochium 
(xxii. 7), 9 or ro years later, as one of 
spiritual struggles. ‘‘I sat alone; I was 
filled with bitterness: my limbs were un- 
comely and rough with sackcloth, and my 
squalid skin became as black as an Ethiopian’s. 
Every day I was in tears and groans; and if 
ever the sleep which hung upon my eyelids 
overcame my resistance, I knocked against the 
ground my bare bones, which scarce clung 
together. 


| companions." 


I say nothing of my meat and) 


HIERONYMUS 40] 
even when sick use 
cold water, and it is thought a luxury if they 
ever partake of cooked food. Through fear of 
hell, I had condemned myself to prison; I 
had scorpions and wild beasts for my only 
i His literary talent was by no 

means idle during this period. He wrote 
letters to his friends in Italy, to Florentius at 
Jerusalem (v.-xvii.), and to Heliodorus (xiv.) 
on the Praises of the Desert, chiding him for 
not having embraced the perfect life of soli- 
tude. A Jew who had become a Christian 
was his instructor in Hebrew (xviii. 10), 
and Jerome obtained from one of the 
sect of the Nazarenes at Beroea the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews, which he copied, 
and afterwards translated into Greek and 
Latin (de Vir. Jil. 2, 3). He was frequently 
visited by Evagrius (Ep. vii. 1), who also 
acted as the intermediary of his communica- 
tion with his friends in Aquileia, and later with 
Damasus at Rome (xv. 54). But again, 
owing chiefly to his vehement feelings and 
expressions, he made enemies. He was driven 
away by the ill-will of his brother-monks. At 
first, as we see from his letter to Heliodorus, 
he was satisfied with his condition: but 
his last years in the desert were embittered 
by theological strife, relating to the conflicts 
in the church at Antioch, from which he was 
glad to escape. The see of Antioch was 
claimed by three bishops, Vitalis the Arian, 
Meletius, acknowledged by Basil and the 
orthodox bishops of the East (Basil, Ep. 156, 
to Evagrius), and Paulinus, supported by pope 
Damasus and the stronger anti-Arian party of 
Rome. Between Meletius and Paulinus the 
dispute was mainly verbal, but none the less 
bitter. Jerome complains that the Meletians, 
not content with his holding the truth, treated 
him as a heretic if he did not do so in their 
words (Ep. xv. 3). He appealed to Damasus, 
strongly protesting his submission to Rome 
(xv. xvi.). Finding his position more and more 
difficult, he wrote to Marcus, the chief presby- 
ter of the monks of Chalcis (xvii.), in the winter 
of 378, professing his soundness in the faith, 
declaring that he was ready, but for illness, to 
depart, and begging thehospitality of thedesert 
till the winter was past. Proceeding in the 
spring of 379 to Antioch, he stayed there till 
380, uniting himself to the party of Paulinus, 
and by him was ordained presbyter against his 
will. He never celebrated the Eucharist or 
officiated as presbyter, as appears from many 
assages in his works. There are extant no 

etters and only one work of this period, the 
dialogue of an orthodox man with ἃ Luciferian. 
Lucifer of Cagliari having taken part in the 
appointment of Paulinus, a corrective was 
needed for the more extreme among the 
Western party at Antioch; and this was 
given in pe dialogue, which is clear, 
moderate, and free from the violence of his 
later controversial works. It exhibits a 
considerable knowledge of church history, and 
contains the account of the council of Arimi- 
num, with the famous words (c. 19): “ In- 
gemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus 
est.” In 380 Jerome went to Constanti- 
nople until the end of 381. He sought the 
instruction of Gregory Nazianzen, who had 
taken charge of the orthodox church there 


462 HIERONYMUS 


HIERONYMUS 


in 379, and frequent allusions in his works| pref. to vol. x.; also Murray’s Illus. B. Ὁ. 


witness to his profiting greatly from his mas- 
ter’s mode of interpreting Scripture. He 
calls him ‘‘ praeceptor meus ”’ (de Vir. Ill. 117) 
and appeals to his authority in his comment- 
aries and letters (Comm. on Ephes. v. 3; Epp. 
1. 1, lii. 8, etc.). He was also acquainted with 
Gregory of Nyssa (de Vir. Ill. 128). He was 
attacked, while at Constantinople, with a 
complaint in the eyes, arising from overwork, 
which caused him to dictate the works he now 
wrote. This practice afterwards became 
habitual to him (pref. to Comm. on Gal. 
iii.), though he did not wholly give up writing 
with his own hand; and he contrasts the 
imperfections of the works which he dictated 
with the greater elaboration he could give 
those he himself wrote. 
here; but his literary activity was great. He 
translated the Chronicle of Eusebius, a large 
work, which embraces the chronology from 
the creation to A.D. 330, Jerome adding the 
events of the next 50 years. He translated 
the Homilies of Origen on Jer. and Ezk., pos- 
sibly also on Isa., and wrote a short treatise for 
Damasus on theinterpretations of the Seraphim 
in Isa. vi., which is improperly placed among 
the letters (Ep. xviii.). 
epoch when he began to feel the importance of 
Origen as a church-writer, though daring even 
then to differ from him in doctrine, and also 


to realize the imperfections of the existing | 
| because of heresy, as the dogs who are mad 


versions of the Scriptures.~ In the treatise on 
the Seraphim, and again in the preface to the 
Chronicle, we find him contrast the various 
Gk. versions of O.T., studies which eventually 
forced on him the necessity of a translation 
direct from the Hebrew. 


381 we do not know. It is certain, however, 
that pope Damasus desired his presence in 
Rome at the council of 382, which reviewed the 
Acts of that council, and that he went in the 
train of bps. Paulinus of Antioch and Epipha- 
nius of Constantia (Salamis) in Cyprus (cxxiii. 
τὸν OXxVils 7) = 

Bible Work.—His stay in Rome, from the 


spring of 382 to Aug. 385, was a very eventful | 


and decisive period in his life. He made many 
friends and many enemies ; his knowledge and 
reputation as a scholar greatly increased, and 
his experience of Rome determined him to 
give himself irrevocably and exclusively to his 
two great interests, scriptural study and the 
promotion of asceticism. He undertook, at the 
request of Damasus, a revision of the version 
of the Psalms (vol. x. col. 121). He translated 
from the LXX ; and his new version was used 
in the Roman church till the pontificate of 
Pius V. He, also at the request of Damasus, 
revised the N.T., of which the old Versio Itala 
was very defective. The preface addressed to 
Damasus (7b. col. 557) is a good critical docu- 
ment, pointing out that the old version had 
been varied by transcribers, and asking, “ If 
any one has theright version, which is it?”’ It 
was intended as a preface to the Gospels only; 
but from the record of his works in the list of 
ecclesiastical writers (de Vir. Ill. 135), which 
states that he had restored the N.T. according 
to the original Greek, as well as from other 
passages (e.g. Ep. xxvii. 3), we infer that the 
whole version was completed (see Vallarsi’s 


He wrote no letters | 


These works mark the | 


What were his| 
relations to the council of Constantinople in | 


(1908), art. VULGATE). He also, at the request 
of Damasus and others, wrote many short 
exegetical treatises, included among his letters 
(on Hosanna, xix. xx.; Prodigal Son, xxi.; O.T. 
Names of God, xxv.; Halleluia and Amen, 
xxvi.; Selaand Diapsalma, xxviii.; Ephod and 
Seraphim, xxix.; Alphabetical Psalms, xxx.; 
“‘ The Bread of Carefulness,”’ xxxiv.). Hebegan 
also his studies on the original of O.T. by collat- 
ing the Gk. versions of Aquila and the LXX 
with the Heb. (xxxii., xxxvi. 12), and was thus 
further confirmed in the convictions which led 
to the Vulgate version. He translated for Da- 
masus the Commentary of Origen on the Song 
of Songs (vol. x. p. 500), and began his trans- 
lation of the work of Didymus, the blind 
Origenistic teacher of Alexandria, on the Holy 
Spirit, which he did not complete till after his 
settlement at Bethlehem, probably because of 
the increasing suspicions and enmity of clergy 
and people, whom he speaks of as the senate of 
the Pharisees, against all that had any con- 
nexion with Origen (pref. to Didymus on the 
Holy Spirit, vol. ii. 105), which cause also 
prevented him continuing the translation of 
Origen’s Commentaries, begun at Constanti- 
nople. Jerome was Origen’s vehement cham- 
pion and the contemptuous opponent of his 
impugners. ‘‘ The city of Rome,” he says, 
‘“consents to his condemnation . . . not be- 
cause of the novelty of his doctrines, not 


against him now pretend; but because they 
could not bear the glory of his eloquence and 
his knowledge, and because, when he spoke, 
they were all thought to be dumb” (Ep. 
χα ΧΙ 4). 

Asceticism.—The other chief object of his 
life increased this enmity, although it also 
made great advances during his stay at Rome. 
Nearly fifty years before, Athanasius and the 
monk Peter (334) had sown the seeds of 
asceticism at Rome by their accounts of the 
monasteries of Nitria and the Thebaid. The 
declining state of the empire had mean- 
while predisposed men either to selfish luxury 
or monasticism. Epiphanius, with whom 
Jerome now came to Rome, had been trained 
by the hermits Hirarron and HeEsycHAs; 
he was, with Paulinus, the guest of the 
wealthy and noble Paula (cviii. 5), the heiress 
of the Aemilian race; and thus Jerome was 
introduced to one who became his life-long 
friend and his chief support in his labours. 
She had three daughters: Blessila, whose 
death, after a short and austere widowhood, 
was so eventful to Jerome himself; Julia 
Eustochium, who first among the Roman 
nobility took the virgin’s vow; and Paulina, 
who married Jerome’s friend Pammachius. 
These formed part of a circle of ladies who 
gradually gathered round the ascetic teacher 
of scriptural lore. Among them were Mar- 
CELLA, whose house on the Aventine was their 
meeting-place; her young friend Principia 
(exxvii.); her sister the recluse Asella, the 
confidant of Jerome’s complaints on leaving 
Rome (xlv.); Lea, already the head of a 
kind of convent, whose sudden death was 
announced whilst the friends were reading 
the Psalms (xxiii.) ; Furia, the descendant of 
Camillus, sister-in-law to Blesilla, and her 


+ 


HIERONYMUS HIERONYMUS 403 


nother Titiana; Marcellina and Felicitas, to | moderate his language (xxvii. 2), continued to 
whom Jerome’s last adieus were sent on/| use the most insulting expressions towards all 
leaving Rome (xlv.) ; perhaps also, though who opposed him. Itis not surprising that the 
she is not named till later, the enthusiastic | Roman church should have deemed him un- 
Fabiola, less steady, but more eager than the | fitted to be its head, and that Jerome himself 
rest (Ixxvii.). These ladies, all of the highest | should, in his calmer reflections, have felt that 
patrician families, were already disposed to| Rome was ill-suited to him, and that in 
the ascetic life. Contact with the Eastern | attempting, with his temper and habits, to 
bishops added a special interest in Palestine ;| carry out his conception of Christianity in 
and the presence of Jerome confirmed both | Rome he had been vainly trying "τὸ sing the 
these tendencies. He became the centre of | Lord'’ssongin astrangeland” (xlv.6). Siricius, 
a band of friends who, withdrawn from ἃ the successor of Damasus, had no sympathy 
litical and social life which they regarded as | with Jerome either then or in the subsequent 
opelessly corrupt, gave themselves to the} Origenistic controversy. The party of friends 
study of Scripture and to works of charity. | on the Aventine was broken up. Jerome coun- 
They knew Greek ; learned Hebrew that they | sels Marcella (xliv.) to leave Rome and seek 
might sing the Psalms in the original ; learned | religious seclusion in the country. Paula and 
by heart the writings of their teacher (Ixxvii. | Eustochium preferred to go with him to Pales 
9); held daily meetings whereat he expounded | tine. In Aug. 385 Jerome embarked, with all 
the Scriptures (xxiii. τ), and for them he wrote | that was dearest to him, at Portus, and in bis 
many of his exegeticaltreatises. Theprinciples | touching and instructive letter to Asella (xly.) 
heinstilledintotheir mindsmay be seeninmany | bade a final farewell to Rome. Accompanied 
of his letters of this period, which were at once | by his brother Paulinian and his friend Vincen- 
copied and eagerly seized both by friends and | tius(cont. Ru/.iii.22), hesaileddirect toAntioeh. 
enemies. The treatise which especially illus-| Paula and Eustochium (£p. evili., where all 
trates his teaching at this time is addressed to | these incidents are narrated), leaving Paulina, 
Eustochium on the Preservation of Virginity| then of marriageable age, and her young 
(xxii.). Jerome’s own experience in the desert, | brother Toxotius, embarked at the same time, 
his anti-Ciceronian dream at Antioch, his} but visited Epiphanius in Cyprus on their way. 
knowledge of the desert monks, of whom he} The friends were reunited at Antioch, as 
ives a valuable description, were here used | winter was setting in. Paula would brook no 
in favour of the virgin and ascetic life; the| delay, and, despite the inclemency of the 
extreme fear of impurity contrasts strangely | season, they started at once for Palestine. 
with the gross suggestions in every page; it | They visited Sarepta, Acre, Caesarea, Joppa, 
contains such a depreciation of the married| Lydda, and Emmaus, arriving at Jerusalem 
state, the vexations of which (‘uteri tumentes, | early in 386. The city was moved at their 
infantium vagitus’’) are only relieved by|coming, and the  proconsul pooretes a 
vulgar and selfish luxury, that almost the only | splendid reception for them in the Praetorium ἃ 
advantage allowed it is that by it virgins are | but they only stayed to see the holy places, 
brought into the world; and the vivid | and, after visiting spots of special interest in 
descriptions of Roman life—the pretended | the S. of Palestine, journeyed on into Egypt. 
virgins, the avaricious and self-indulgent | There the time was divided between the two 
matrons, the dainty, luxurious, and rapacious | great objects of Jerome's life, the study of 
clergy—forcible as they are, lose some of their | Scripture and the promotion of asceticism. 
value by their appearance of caricature. An-| At Alexandria he sat, though already grey- 
other treatise written during this period, | haired (Ixxxiv. 3), at the feet of Didymus, 
against the layman Helvidius, the pupil of | the great Origenistic teacher, whom, In con- 
Auxentius of Milan, on the perpetual virginity |trast to his blindness, Jerome delights to 
of Mary, though its main points are well|speak of as ‘the seer.’ (See in his praises 
argued, exhibits the same fanatical aversion | the preface to the commentary on Ephesians.) 
to marriage, combined with a supercilious Jerome had already, as we have seen, trans 
disregard of his opponent which was habitual | lated in part his book on the Holy Spirit; and 
to Jerome. [Hetvipius.] | now, at the request of his distinguished pupil, 
A crisis in Jerome’s fortunes came with the | Didymus composed his Commentary om 
end of 384. Damasus, who had been pope for Hosea and Zechariah (Hieron. pref. to Hosea, 
nearly 20 years, was dying, and amongst his and de Vir. /Il. 109). Pausing at Alexandria 
possible successors Jerome could not escape | only 30 days, they turned to the monasteries 
mention. He had, as he tells us, on first | of Nitria, where they were received with great 
coming to Rome, been pointed out as the} honour. At one time they were almost per- 
future pope cal 3). But he was entirely | suaded to remain in the Egyptian desert, but 
unfitted by character and habit of mind for the attractions of the holy places of Palestine 
an office which has always required the prevailed; and sailing from Alexandria to 
talents of the statesman and man of the world, | Majoma, they settled at Bethlehem, in the 
rather than those of the student, and he had | autumn of 386. There jerome lived the 
offended every part of the community. The| remaining 34 years of his life, pursuing 
general lay feeling was strongly opposed to | unremittingly and with the utmost success 
asceticism (xxvii. 2). At the funeral of Blesilla the two great objects of his life. , 
xxxix. 4) the rumour was spread that she had| Bethlehem, Furst Period, 486- ον 
killed by the excessive austerities enjoined | teries.—Their first work was to esta t ee 
upon her ; the violent grief of her mother was selves at Bethlehem. A monastery an 8 
taken as a reproach to the ascetic system, and convent were built, over which Jerome an 
the cry was heard, “‘The monks to the Tiber!"’ Paula respectively presided (Ep. evill. 14, 19}. 
Jerome, though cautioned by his friends to There was ἃ church in which they met on 


404 HIERONYMUS 


Sundays, and perhaps oftener (cxlvii.); and 
a hospice for pilgrims, of whom a vast number 
came from ali parts to visit the holy places 
(Epp. xvi. Ixvi.; cont. Vigilantium, 13, 14). 
These institutions were mainly supported by 
Paula, though, towards the end of her life, 
when she by her profusion had become poor, 
their support fell upon Jerome, who, for this 
purpose, sold his estate in Pannonia (Ep. 
Ixvi.). He lived in a cell (cv. and cont. 
Joan. Jerus.), in or close to the monastery, 
surrounded by his library, to which he con- 
tinually added, as is shewn by his constant 
reference to a great variety of authors, sacred 
and profane, and by his account of obtaining a 
copy of the Hexapla from the library at 
Caesarea (Comm. on Titus, c. 3, p- 734). He 
describes himself as living very moderately 
on bread and vegetables (Ep. Ixxix. 4); he 
was not neglectful of his person, but recom- 
mended a moderate neatness of dress (li. 
9, Ix. 10). We do not read of any special 
austerities beyond the fact of his seclusion 
from the world, which he speaks of as a 
living in the fields and in solidude, that he 
might mourn for his sins and gain Christ’s 
mercy (cont. Joan. Jerus. 41). He did not 
officiate in the services, but his time was 
greatly absorbed by the cares (Ep. cxiv. 1) and 
discipline (cxlvii.) of the monastery and by the 
crowds of monks and pilgrims who flocked to 
the hospice (Ixvi. 14; adv. Ruf. i. 31). Heex- 
pounded the Scriptures daily to the brethren 
in the monastery. Sacred studies were his 
main pursuit, and his diigence is almost incred- 
ible. ‘‘Heis wholly absorbed in reading,” says 
Sulpicius; ‘‘ he takes no rest by day or by 
night; he is ever reading or writing something.” 
Hewrote, orratherdictated, with greatrapidity. 
He was believed at times to have composed 
1,000 lines of his commentaries in a day (pref. to 
bk. ii. of Comm. on Ephes. in vol. vii. col. 507). 
He wrote almost daily to Paula and Eusto- 
chium (de Vir. Ill. 135) ; and, though many of 
his letters were mere messages, yet almost 
all were at once published (Ep. xlix. 2), either 
by friends or enemies. There were many in- 
terruptions. Besides the excessive number of 
ordinary pilgrims, persons came from all parts, 
and needed special entertainment. The agi- 
tated state of the empire also was felt in the 
hermitage of Bethlehem. The successive in- 
vasions of the Huns (ΕΡ. Ixxvii. 8} and the 
Isaurians (cxiv.) created a panic in Palestine, 
so that, in 395, ships had been provided at 
Joppa tocarry away the virgins of Bethlehem, 
who hurried to the coast to embark, when the 
danger passed away. These invasions caused 
great lack of means at Bethlehem (cxiv. 1), so 
that Jerome and his friends had to sell all to 
continue the work. Amidst such difficulties his 
great literary works were accomplished. Im- 
mediately on settling at Bethlehem, he set to 
work to perfect his knowledge of Hebrew with 
the aid of a Jew named Bar Anina (called Bar- 
abbas by Jerome’s adversaries, who conceived 
that through this teacher his version was tainted 
with Judaism; see Ruf. Apol. ii. 12). Their 
interviews took place at night (Ep. Ilxxxiv.), 
each being afraid of the suspicions their inter- 
course might cause. He also learned Chaldee, 
but less thoroughly (pref. to Daniel, vol. ix. 
col. 1358). When any unusual difficulty 


HIERONYMUS 


occurred in translation or exposition, he 
obtained further aid. For the book of Job 
he paid a teacher to come to him from Lydda 
(pref. to Job, vol. ix. col. 1140); for the 
Chaldee of Tobit he had a rabbi from Tiberias 
(pref. to Tobit, vol. x.). The Chronicles 
he went over word by word with a doctor 
of law from Tiberias (pref. to Chron.). 
The great expense entailed was no doubt in 
part defrayed by Paula. At a later time, 
when his resources failed, Chromatius of 
Aquileia, and Heliodorus of Altinum, sup- 
ported the scribes who assisted him (pref. to 
Esther, addressed to Chrom. and Hel.). 

Bible Work.—The results of his first six 
years’ labours may be thus summed up. The 
commentary on Eccles. and the translation of 
Didymus on the Holy Spirit were completed; 
commentaries were written on Gal. Eph. Tit. 
and Philemon; the version of N.T. begun in 
Rome wasrevised ; a treatise on Pss. x.-xvi. 
was written; and translations made of Origen’s 
Commentaries on St. Luke and the Psalms. 
Jerome, who had long before felt the great 
importance for scriptural studies of a know- 
ledge of the localities (pref. to Chron.), 
turned to account his travels in Palestine 
in his work on the names of Hebrew places, 
mainly translated from Eusebius, and gave 
to the world what may be called ‘‘ Chips from 
his Workshop,” in the book on Hebrew proper 
names and the Hebrew questions on Gen., 
a work which he seems to have intended to 
carry on in the other books as a pendant to 
his translations. Further, as a preparatory 
work to the Vulg., he had revised the Latin 
version of O.T. then current (which was 
imperfectly made from the LXX), by a com- 
parison of Origen’s Hexapla (pref. to Joshua, 
vol. ix. 356; pref. to Chron. vol. ix. col. 1394 ; 
pref. to Job, vol. ix. col. 1142; Ep. Ixxi. ad 
Lucinium). This work, though not mentioned 
in the Catalogue (de Vir. Ill. 135), certainly 
existed. Jerome used it in his familiar 
expositions each day (cont. Ruf. ii. 24). Au- 
gustine had heard of it and asked to see it 
(Ep. cxxxiv., end), but it had, through fraud 
or-neglect, been lost ; and all that remains of 
it is Job, the Psalms, and the preface to the 
books of Solomon (vol. x.). The Vulgate 
itself was in preparation, as we find from the 
Catalogue; but as it was not produced for 
some years, what had been done thus far was 
evidently only preliminary and imperfect work. 

Besides his work on the Scriptures, Jerome 
had designed a vast scheme of church history, 
from the beginning to his own time, giving 
the lives of all the most eminent men; and 
as a preliminary to this, and in furtherance 
of asceticism, he wrote Lives of MALcHuUS 
and HiLarion. The minuteness of detail in 
these works would have made a church 
history on such a scale impossible; and the 
credulity they shew throws doubt on Jerome’s_ 
capacity for such work. 

A far more important work for the purposes 
of the church historian is the book which is 
variously called the ‘‘ Catalogue of Church 
Writers,’’ the ‘‘ Book on Illustrious Men,”’ or 
the ‘‘ Epitaphion’’ (though it includes men 
then living). Some portions are taken from 
Eusebius, but the design and most of the 
details are original. It includes the writers of 


¥ 


HIERONYMUS 


N.T., and church teachers of East and West 
up to Jerome’s own time, and even men 
accounted heretics and non-Christians like 
Seneca, whose works were of importance to 
the progress of human thought. 

The letter which Jerome wrote in the name 
of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella at 
Rome (Ep. xlvi.), the only letter preserved 
from these first six years, expresses an en- 
thusiastic view of their privileges in reading 
the Scriptures in the tongue and country 
in which they were written. The crowds who 
came from all parts seem to them to be so 
many choirs, engaged in services of praise, 
each in their own tongue. The very plough- 
men chant Hallelujahs. Far from the Baby- 
lon of Rome, they associate with the saints 
of Scripture and find in the holy places the 
gate of heaven. This view of Palestine is 
always present to Jerome, however much he 
has to confess the actual secularization of 
Jerusalem (lviii. 4) ; and it makes his Biblical 
work not merely one of learning but of piety. 

Second Period, 393-404.—Private letters of 
Jerome abound during this period, and illus- 
trate his personal history. 

To this period belong the many external 
difficulties at Bethlehem already mentioned. 
During almost the whole of 398 Jerome was 
ill, and again in 404-405 (Ixxiv. 6, cxiv. I). 
He was disturbed also by the controversy or 
schism between the monks of Bethlehem and 
the bp. of Jerusalem; and an injury to his 
hand prevented his writing. Poverty was 
also overtaking him. Paula had spent her 
fortune in lavish charity, and Jerome sent his 
brother Paulinianus to their former home to 
sell the remains of their property to support 
the monasteries (Ixvi. 14). The sad quarrel 
between Jerome and Rufinus began in 394 ; 
see under the controversies (infra) which oc- 
cupied so much of this period. 

Commentaries.—] erome had begun his com- 
mentaries on the Minor Prophets in 391 (de 
Vir. Ill. 135) ; they form four books, and were 
published at long intervals up to 406. In 
397 he wrote his commentary on Matthew, 
the last on the N.T. It was finished, with 
great haste and eagerness (Ep. Ixxiii. 10), in 
Lent 398, as he was recovering from an illness. 
After a long interval the commentary on 
Isaiah followed, and thereafter he wrote upon 
the Great Prophets only. 

The Vulgate-—That which we now call the 
Vulgate, and which is in the main the work of 
Jerome, was during his life the Bible of the 
learned and only by degrees won general 
acceptance. The editio vulgata in previous 
use was a loose translation from the LXX, 
almost every copy varying. Jerome had begun 
very early to read the O.T. in Gk. Here the 
same difficulty met him. The LXX version 
was confronted, in Origen’s Hexapla, with 
those of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus, 
and with two others called Quinta and Sexta. 
Where they differed, who was to decide ? 
This question is asked by Jerome as early as 
the preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (381) 
and was constantly repeated in defence of 
his translation. He seems to have distinctly 
contemplated this work from the moment of 
his settlement at Bethlehem, and a great deal 
of the labour of his first years there may be 


HIERONYMUS 465 


regarded as preliminary to it. It was begun 
within the first few years. But, in so elabor- 
ate a work, it was impossible that the first 
copies should be perfect. It is probable that 
the whole, or larger part, was gone through 
at an early date and given to his friends or 
the public after a more mature revision, 
according as his health or courage allowed. 
He distinctly purposed to publish it from the 
first. Yet the actual publication was made 
in a fragmentary and hesitating manner. 
At times he speaks of portions as extorted 
from him by the earnest requests of his friends 
(pref. to Gen. vol. ix. etc.). Some parts he 
represents as done in extreme haste; the 
books of Solomon as the work of three days 
(pref. in vol. ix. col. 1307) ; Tobit and Judith 
were each that of a single day. He shews 
in his prefaces extreme sensitiveness to attacks 
upon his work, and speaks of it often as an 
ungrateful task. Of the Apocrypha he trans- 
lated only parts, and these very cursorily 
(pref. to Tobit, vol. x.), doubtless because of 
his comparative indifference to the Apocrypha, 
his opinion of which is quoted in Art. vi. of 
the 39 Articles, from the preface to the Books 
of Solomon (vol. ix. ed. 1308). Samuel and 
Kings were published first, then Job and the 
Prophets, then Ezra, Nehemiah and Genesis. 
All these were finished in or before 393; but 
here occurred a break, due partly, no doubt, 
to unsettlement and panic caused by the 
invasion of the Huns in 395. In 396 the work 
was resumed at the entreaty of Chromatius 
and Heliodorus, who sent him money to sup- 
port the necessary helpers (pref. to Books of 
Solomon). The Books of Solomon were then 
completed (398) and the preface indicates an 
intention to continue the work more system- 
atically. But the ill-feeling excited by his 
translation made him unwilling to continue, 
and his long illness in 398 intervened. He 
tells Lucinius that he had then given his ser- 
vants the whole except the Octateuch to copy 
(Ep. xlix. 4). But, from whatever cause, the 
work was not resumed till 403-404, in which 
years the remainder was completed, namely, 
the last four books of Moses, Joshua and 
Judges, Ruth and Esther. His friends col- 
lected the translations into one volume, and 
the title of Vulgate, which had hitherto 
applied to the version before in use (pref. to 
Exzk. vol. ix. col. 995, pref. to Esther, vol. ix. 
1503), in time came to belong to an edition 
which is in the main the work of Jerome. 
Controversies —Controversial works at this 
period occupied a share of Jerome’s energies 
out of all proportion to their importance. 
Against J ovinian.—J OVINIAN was a Roman 
monk, originally distinguished by extreme 
asceticism, who had adopted freer opinions. 
He put off the monastic dress and lived like 
other men. The book of Jovinian was sent 
to Jerome about the end of 393, and he at 
once answered it in two books. He warmly 
attacks Jovinian as a renegade and as a dog 
who has returned to his vomit. 
Origenism.—The second great controversy 
in which Jerome was now engaged arose about 
Origenism, which embraces in its wide sweep 
Epiphanius, bp. of Cyprus, John, bp. of Jeru- 
salem, Theophilus, bp. of Alexandria, St. John 
Chrysostom, the pope Anastasius, and above 


30 


466 HIERONYMUS 


all Jerome’s former friend Rufinus—a con- 
troversy by which the churches of the East 
and the West were long and deeply agitated. 
It divides itself, as far as Jerome is concerned, 
into two distinct parts: the first represented 
by his writing against John of Jerusalem, and 
extending from 494-499, when peace was made 
between them; the second represented by 
three books directed against Rufinus, the first 
two written in 401, the third in 402. 

Jerome’s own relation to Origen is not 
difficult to understand, though it laid him 
open to the charge of inconsistency. He had 


become acquainted with his works during | 
his first enthusiasm for Greek ecclesiastical 


learning and had recognized his as the greatest 
name in Christian literature, worthy of com- 
parison with the greatest of classical times 
(see esp. Ep. xxxiii.). The literary interest 
was to Jerome, then as at all times, more than 
the dogmatic ; deeply impressed by the genius 
and learning of the great Alexandrine, his 
praise, like his subsequent blame, was without 
reason or moderation. He spoke with entire 
commendation of his commentaries, and even 
of the Téua, or Chapters, which included the 


book περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν (which may be translated | 


either On First Principles or On the Powers 


on which the chief controversy afterwards | 


turned). ‘‘In his work,”’ he says (pref. to trans. 


of Origen on Jer. vol. v. col. 611), ‘‘ he gave. 


all the sails of his genius to the free breath 


of the winds, and receding from the shore, | 


went forth into the open sea.”’ It was not 


the peculiarities of Origen’s dogmatic system, | 
but the boldness of his genius, that appealed to 
From the first he shewed | 


the mind of Jerome. 
a certain independence, nor did he ever give 
his adherence to Origen’s peculiar system. 
He quoted without blame even such theories 


as the possible restoration of Satan, but never | 
gave his personal assent tothem. Even when, 


afterwards, he became a violent opponent of 
Origenism, he shewed discrimination. He 
continued to use Origen’s commentaries, and 
even in some points of doctrine commended his 
exposition. His vehement language, how- 


ever, makes him appear first a violent partisan | 
of Origen, and later an equally violent op-| 
has_ the) 


ponent. The change, moreover, 
appearance of being the result, not so much 
of a great conviction, as of a fear of the sus- 
picion of heresy. 

John, bp. of Jerusalem, and Rufinus.— 
During the first year of Jerome’s stay at 


Bethlehem he was on good terms with both | 
John the bp. and Rufinus, who had been | 
established with Melania on Mount Olives) 
John, who succeeded Cyril a few 
months before Jerome and Paula arrived in) 
386, was on familiar terms with Rufinus whom | 


since 377. 


he ordained, and there is no sign that he was 
ill-disposed towards Jerome. 
originated in the visit to Jerusalem of a certain 


Aterbius, otherwise unknown (cont. Ruf. iii. | 
33), who scattered accusations of Origenistic | 


heresy among the foremost persons at Jeru- 
salem, and joining Jerome with Rufinus on 
account of their friendship, charged them both 
with heresy. Jerome made a confession of 
his faith which satisfied this self-appointed 
inquisitor; but Rufinus refused to see him, 
and with threats bade him begone. This was 


The troubles) 


HIERONYMUS 


| apparently in 393. In 394 Epiphanius, bp. 
| of Salamis in Cyprus, who in his book on 
heresies had formally included the doctrines 
| of Origen, visited Jerusalem, and strife broke 
| out in the church of the Resurrection, where 
| Epiphanius’s pointed sermon against Origen- 
|ism was taken as reflecting so directly upon 
| John that the bishop sent his archdeacon to 
|remonstrate and stop him. John, after he 
/had delivered a long sermon against Anthro- 
| pomorphism, was requested by Epiphanius, 
amidst the ironical applause of the people, to 
condemn Origenism with the same earnest- 
ness; and then Epiphanius came to the 
monastery at Bethlehem declaring John a 
heretic, and, after attempting to elicit some 
anti-Origenistic confession from the bishop, 
finally at night left his house, where he had 
been a guest, for the monastery. Epiphanius, 
convinced that John was on the verge of 
heresy, advised Jerome and his friends to 
separate themselves from their bishop; and 
provided for the ministrations of their church 
by ordaining Jerome’s brother Paulinian. 
JohnnowappealedtoAlexandriaandto Rome 
against Jerome and his friends as schismatics. 
Theophilus of Alexandria at once took John’s 
side, but, becoming an anti-Origenist later, 
opened communication with Jerome, of which 
the latter gladly availed himself. Jerome was 
thenceforward the minister of Theophilus inhis 
| communication with the West inthe war against 
Origen; andthus completely united himself with 
the anti-Origenistic party. Rufinus, when he 
arrived in Rome with Melania in 397, found 
the contest about Origenism at its height, but 
ignorance on the subject was so great that 
pope Anastasius, even though induced to 
condemn Origen, plainly admitted in his 
letter to John of Jerusalem (Hieron. ii. 677, 
Vallarsi’s Rufinus [Migne’s Patr. xxi.] 408) 
that he neither knew who Origen was nor what 
he had written. Rufinus being asked by a 
pious man named Macarius to give an exposi- 
tion of Origen’s tenets, made the translation 
of the περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν which is now published in 
Origen’s works and is the only extant version. 
This translation was at once the subject of 
dispute. Jerome’s friends complained that 
Rufinus had given a falsely favourable version. 
Rufinus declared that he had only used the 
just freedom of a critic and translator in 
omitting passages interpolated by heretics, 
who wished to make Origen speak their views, 
and in translating Eastern thoughts into 
Western idioms. But the real complaint 
against Rufinus rested on personal grounds. In 
his preface he had seemed to associate Jerome, 
as the translator of Origen, with Origen’s 
work, and to shield himself under Jerome’s 
authority. Jerome and his friends, extremely 
sensitive of the least reproach of heresy and 
having already taken a strong part against 
Origen, trembled for his reputation. 
us’s preface was sent to him by Pammachius 
and Oceanus, with the request (Ep. Ixxxii.) 
| that he would point out the truth, and would 
'translate the περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν as Origen had 
| Written it. Jerome did so, and with his new 
| translation sent a long letter (Ixxxiv.) to his 
| two friends, which, though making too little of 
| his former admiration for Origen, in the main 
|states the case fairly and without asperity 


Rufin- > 


HIERONYMUS 


towards Rufinus. The same may be said of 
his letter (Ixxxi.) to Rufinus himself, possibly 
in answer to one from Rufinus (‘‘diu te Romae 
moratum sermo proprius indicavit '’), which 
speaks of their reconciliation and remonstrates, 
as a friend with a friend, against the mention 
Rufinus had made of him. ‘‘ There are not 
many,’’ he says, ‘‘ who can be pleased with 
feigned praise’’ (‘‘fictis laudibus’’). This 
letter, unfortunately, did not reach Rufinus. 
He had gone to Aquileia with the ordinary 
commendation (‘‘literae formatae’’) from the 
pope. Siricius had died; his _ successor, 
Anastasius, was in the hands of Pammachius 
and Marcella (cxxvii.), who were moving him 
to condemn Origen. Anastasius, though 
ignorant on the whole subject, was struck by 
passages shewn him by Eusebius in Jerome’s 
translation of the περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν, which had been 
given him by Marcella (Rufin. A pol. ii.), and 
proceeded to condemn Origen. He also was 
persuaded to summon Rufinus (Rufinus 
{[Migne’s Patr. Lat. xxi.] 403) to Rome to make 
a confession of his faith ; and wrote to John of 
Jerusalem, expressing his fear as to Rufinus’s 
intentions and his faith (see the letter in 
Jerome’s Works, ii. 677, Rufinus, 408). Jer- 
ome’s friends kept his letter to Rufinus, so 
that Rufinus was prevented from learning 


Jerome’s actual dispositions towards him. 
He only knew that the latter’s friends were in 
some way involving him in the condemnation 
they had procured against Origen and which 
the emperors themselves had now ratified 
(Anastasius to John, w.s.).. To Anastasius, 
therefore, he replied in a short letter, ex- 
cusing himself from coming to Rome, but 
giving an explicit declaration of his faith. 
But from Jerome he was wholly alienated. 
His friend Apronianus at Rome having sent 
him the letter of Jerome to Pammachius and 
Oceanus, he replied in the document which is 
called his Apology, with bitter feelings against 
his former friend. He did not scruple to use 
against him the facts known to him through 
their former intimacy, such as the vows made 
in consequence of his anti-Ciceronian dream, 
which he declared Jerome to have broken, and 
he allowed himself to join in the carping spirit 
in which Jerome’s enemies spoke against his 
translation of the Scriptures. This document 
was privately circulated among Rufinus’s 
friends at Rome. It became partly known 
to Pammachius and Marcella, who, not being 
able to obtain a copy, sent him a description 
of its contents, with such quotations as they 
could procure. Jerome at once composed the 
two first books of his Apology in the form of a 
letter to his Roman friends. Its tone is that 
of one not quite willing to break through an 
old friendship, but its language is strong and 
at times contemptuous. It was brought to 
Rufinus at Aquileia, who answered in a letter 
meant for Jerome’s eyes alone, which has not 
come down to us. From Jerome’s reply we 
know that it was sharp and bitter, and 
declared his ability to produce facts which if 
known to the world would blast Jerome’s 
character for ever. Jerome was estranged 
by extracts from Rufinus’s Apology. Then 
Rufinus himself sent him a true copy, and the. 
result was a final rupture. Augustine, to 


|in burning the martyrs.” 


whom Jerome sent his book, writes (Hieron. | 


HIERONYMUS 467 


Ep. cx. 6) with the utmost sorrow at the 
scandal; he declares that he was cast down 
by the thought that ‘‘ persons so dear and so 
familiar, united by a chain of friendship which 
had been known to all the church,"’ should 
now be publicly tearing each other to pieces. 
He writes like one who has an equal esteem for 
both the combatants, and only desires their 
reconciliation. But Jerome never ceased to 
speak of his former friend with passionate 
condemnation and contempt. When Rufinus 
died in Sicily in 410 he wrote: ‘ The scorpion 
lies underground between Enceladus and 
Porphyrion, and the hydra of many heads has 
at last ceased to hiss against me”’ (pref. to 
Comm. on Ezk.). In later years he sees the 
spirit of Rufinus revived in Pelagius (pref. to 
Comm. on Jer. bk. i.), and even in letters of 
edification he cannot refrain from bitter re- 
marks on his memory (Ep. cxxv. 18, cxxxiii. 3). 

Vigtlantius.—A fourth controversy was with 
Vigilantius (cont. Vig. liber unus), a Spanish 
monk, into whom, as Jerome says, the soul of 
his former opponent Jovinian had passed, a 
controversy further embittered by mutual 
accusations of Origenism, and in which 
Jerome’s violence and contemptuousness 
passes all bounds. Vigilantius had stayed at 
the monastery at Bethlehem in 396, on the 
introduction of Paulinus. In a letter to 
Vigilantius in 396, Jerome accuses him of 
blasphemous interpretations of Scripture 
derived from Origen. He treats him as a 
vulgar fool, without the least claim to know- 
ledge or letters. He applies to him the 
proverb "Ὄνῳ λύρα, turns his name to Dormi- 
tantius, and ends by saying he hopes he may 
find pardon when, as Origen holds, the devil 
will find it. Vigilantius is said by Gennadius 
(de Scr. Eccl. 35) to have been an ignorant 
man, though polished in words. But he was 
as far in advance of Jerome in his views of the 
Christian life as he was behind him in literary 
power. His book, written in 404, was sent 
by Riparius to Jerome, who replied (EP. cix.), 
dismissing the matter with contempt. After- 
wards, probably finding the opinions of Vigilan- 
tius gaining ground, he, at the request of certain 
presbyters, wrote his treatise against him. It 
is a short book, dictated, he states, untus 
noctis lucubratione; his friend Sisinnius, who 
was to take it, being greatly hurried. Vigilan- 
tius maintained that the honour paid to the 
martyrs’ tombs was excessive, that watching 
in their basilicas was to be deprecated, that the 
alleged miracles done there were false; that the 
money collected for the ‘‘ poor saints at Jeru- 
salem” had better be kept at home; that the 
hermit life was cowardice ; and, lastly, that it 
would be well that presbyters should be married 
before ordination. Jerome speaks of these ac- 
cusations as being so openly blasphemous as 
torequire neither argument nor the production 
of testimonies against them, but merely the 
expression of the writer’sindignation. He does 
not admit even agrain of truthinthem. “If 
you do not honour the tombs of the martyrs,” 
he says, ‘‘ you assert that they were not wrong 
He himself believes 
the miracles, and values the intercession of the 
saints. This is the treatise in which Jerome 
felt most sure he was in the right, and the only 
one in which he was wholly in the wrong. 


468 HIERONYMUS 


Augustine.—The exchange of letters be- 
tween Jerome and Augustine, though begun 
with something of asperity, ended in edifica- 
tion. Jerome heard of Augustine soon after 
his conversion (386); and Augustine, eight 
years his junior, had a great respect (which 
did not prevent criticism) for Jerome and his 
work. Augustine’s friend Alypius stayed with 
Jerome in 393, and Jerome heard with satis- 
faction of the great African’s zeal for the study 
of Scripture and of his rising fame. In 394 
Augustine, then coadjutor bp. of Hippo 
(succeeding in 395), having had his attention 
no doubt called to Jerome’s works by Alypius, 
wrote the letter (among Jerome’s, lvi.) which 
originated the controversy. It related to the 
interpretation of the dispute of St. Paul and 
St. Peter at Antioch, recorded in Gal. ii. The 
letter is written in a grave tone, but perhaps 
with something of assumption, considering the 
great position of Jerome. Augustine com- 
mends him for translating Greek commen- 
taries into Latin, and wishes that in his trans- 
lations of O.T. he would note very carefully 
the places in which he diverges from the LXX. 
He then notes that Jerome, in his Commentary 
on the Galatians, had maintained that the 
dispute was merely feigned, that Peter had 
pretended to act so as to incur Paul’s rebuke, 
in order to set before the church the incon- 
gruity of a Christian continuing under Mosaic 
law. This appeared to Augustine to impute 
to the apostles an acted lie. This letter was 
committed, together with other works of 
Augustine on which Jerome’s opinion was 
desired, to Profuturus, a presbyter, who being, 
before he sailed, elected to a bishopric in N. 
Africa, turned back, and soon after died. He 
had neither transmitted the letter to Jerome 
nor returned it to Augustine ; but it was seen 
by others and copied, so that the attack on 
Jerome was widely known in the West while 
entirely unknown to Jerome at Bethlehem. 
Augustine, discovering that his letter had not 
reached Jerome, wrote a second (among 
Jerome’s, lIxvii.), again entering into the 
question, asking Jerome to confess his error 
and to sing a palinode for the injury done to 
Christian truth. Paulus, to whom this letter 
was committed, proved untrustworthy, and let 
it be circulated without being transmitted to 
Jerome. It was seen by a deacon, Sisinnius, 
who, coming to Bethlehem some five years 
afterwards, either brought a copy or described 
its contents to Jerome. Meanwhile Augustine 
heard, through pilgrims returning from Pales- 
tine, the state of the facts and the feelings 
aroused by them. He wrote a short letter to 
excuse himself (among Jerome’s, ci.), point- 
ing out that what he had written was not, as 
seemed to be supposed, a book for publication, 
but a personal letter expressing to a friend a 
difference of opinion. He begged Jerome to 
point out similarly any points of his writings 
he might think wrong, and concluded with an 
earnest wish for some personal converse with 
the great teacher of Bethlehem. Jerome 
replied in a letter (cii.) in which friendship 
struggled with suspicion and resentment. He 
sent some of his works, including those last 
written, against Rufinus. As to Augustine’s 
works, he says he knows little of them, but 
intimates that he might have much to say in 


HIERONYMUS 


criticism. He insinuates that Augustine 
might be seeking honour by attacking him, 
but warns him that he too can strike hard. 
Augustine replied in a letter (among Jerome’s, 
civ.) written with demonstrations of profound 
respect, but in which, after explaining how 
his first letter had miscarried, he again enters 
into questions of Biblical literature. He 
commends Jerome’s new translations of N.T., 
but begs him not to translate O.T. from the 
Heb., enforcing his wish by the story of a 
parish in Africa being scandalized and almost 
broken up by its bishop reading Jonah in 
Jerome’s new version. In this version as then 
read, tvy was substituted for gourd in ec. iv. 
When the bishop read ‘‘ivy’’ the people 
rose and cried out “gourd,” till he was 
obliged to resort to the received version, lest 
he should be left without any followers. 
Augustine recommends Jerome to translate 
from the LX X, with notes where his version 
deviates from the received text. Jerome 
answers that he has never received Augustine’s 
original letter, but has only seen what pur- 
ports to be a copy. ‘‘ Send me,’ he says, 
““your letter signed by yourself, or else cease 
from attacking me. As to your writings, which 
you put forward so much, I have only read 
the Soliloquies and the Commentary on the 
Psalms, and will only say that in this last there 
are things disagreeing with the best Greek 
commentaries. Let me beg you in future, if 
you write to me, to take care that I am the 
first whom your letter reaches.’’ Augustine 
now (in 404) sent by a presbyter Praesidius 
authentic copies of his two original letters 
(written nine or ten years before), accompanied 
by one in which he begged that the matter 
might be treated as between friends, and not 
grow into a feud like that of Jerome and 
Rufinus, which hedeeplylamented. Onreceipt 
of this Jerome at once wrote (Ep. civ.) a full 
answer to Augustine’s principal letters (in 
Hieron. ἵν]. lxvii. civ. cx.), and on the question 


of St. Peter at Antioch appealed to the great - 


Eastern expositors of Scripture. Augustine 
replied in a long letter (in Jerome’s, cxvi.) on 
the chief question, adding many expressions 
tending to satisfy Jerome as to their personal 
relations. Jerome appears to have been more 
than satisfied; perhaps even to have been 
convinced. The only allusions in his later 
writings to this controversy seem to favour 
Augustine’s view. . Augustine wrote two 
letters to him a few years later on the origin 
of souls (cxxxi.), and on the meaning of the 
words, ‘‘ He that offends in one point is guilty 
of all’’ (cxxxii.). Jerome’s reply (cxxxiv.) 
is wholly friendly. He refers to a request 
in one of Augustine’s former letters (civ.) 
for translations from the LXX, saying that 
these had been stolen from him, and adds, 
“Each of us has his gift; there is nothing in 


your letters but what I admire; and I wish - 


to be understood as assenting to all you say, 
for we must be united in order to withstand 
Pelagianism.’’ Augustine, on his part, shewed 
a remarkable deference to Jerome’s opinion 
on the origin of souls, as to which after five 
year she still hesitated (Hieron. Ep. cxliv.) to 
give a definite answer to his friend Optatus 
because he had not received one from Jerome ; 
and he sent Orosius, probably referring to this 


HIERONYMUS 


very question, to sit, as Orosius himself says, 
at the feet of Jerome (de Lib. Arb. 3). The 
remaining letters shew a constant increase of 
friendship. The two great teachers, though 
from somewhat different points of view, 
laboured together in combating Pelagianism ; 
and, having been to each other for a while 
almost as heretics, stand justly side by side 
as canonized doctors of Latin Christianity. 
Last Pertod, 405-420. Old Ageand Troubles. 
—tThis last period of Jerome's life was full of 
external dangers and towards its close agitated 
by controversy. In 405 the Isaurians devas- 
tated the N. of Palestine, the monasteries of 
Bethlehem were beset with fugitives, and 
Jerome and his friends were brought into 
great straits for the means of living. The 
winter was extremely cold, and Jerome was 
laid low by a severe illness in Lent 406 (Ep. 
exiv.) which left him weak for a longtime. The 


barbarian invasions culminated in the sack of | 


Rome by Alaricin 410. In this last calamity, 
which seemed to be ushering in the end of the 
world (cxxiii.), Pammachius and Marcella 
died. Emigration from Italy to Africa and 
Syria set in, and the more religious among the 
fugitives flocked to Jerusalem and Bethlehem 
(pref. to bks. iii. and vii. of Comm. on Ezk.). 
Jerome was not unaffected by the evil political 
influences of the time. He represents himself 
as watched by enemies, who made it danger- 
ous for him even to express his sense of the 
miseries of the empire. In his Commentary on 
the Monarchies in Daniel he reflects on the 
low state to which the Roman empire had 
fallen and its need of support from barbarians ; 
and these words were taken as reflecting on 
Stilicho, the great half-Vandal general, the 
father-in-law and minister of Honorius, and 
the real ruler of the empire. Stilicho, whom 
Jerome afterwards speaks of (Ep. cxxiii. 17) 
as ‘“‘ the half-barbarian traitor who armed the 
enemy against us with our own resources,”’ 
appears to have heard of Jerome’s expressions 
in his commentary and to have taken great 
offence, and Jerome believed that he was 
meditating some revenge against him when 
he was put to death (‘‘ Dei judicio,”’ pref. to 
bk. xi. of Comm. on Is.) by order of his imperial 
relative. In the year following the sack of 
Rome Palestine suffered from an incursion of 
barbarians from which Jerome barely escaped 
(Ep. cxxvi. 2). He was very poor (pref. to 
Comm. on Ezk. bk. viii.), but made no com- 
plaint of this. His best friends had passed 
away—Paula in 403, Pammachius and Mar- 
cella in 410 (pref. to Comm. on Ezk. bk. i.). 
Of his Roman friends, Oceanus, Principia, and 
the younger Fabiola alone remained (Epp. 
CXX. cxxvii.); Eustochium had very possibly 
(as Thierry supposes) less authority than her 
mother in the management of the convent, 
and this left room for irregularities like those 
relatedin J erome’sletter(cxlvii.) to Sabinianus. 
Eustochium died in 418 (pref. to Comm. on Jer. 
bk. i.). Jerome’s days were taken up by the 
monastery and the hospice (pref. to Comm. on 
Exzk. bk. viii.) and he could only dictate his com- 
mentaries at night; he was even glad when 
winter came and gave him longer nights for this 
purpose (7b.). He was growing weak with age 
and frequent illnesses, and his eyesight, which 
had originally failed nearly 40 years before 


HIERONYMUS 469 


(Constantinople, 380), was so weak that he 
could hardly decipher Heb. letters at night (#.). 
Controversy arose again with Pelagius (pref. 
to Comm. on Jer. bks. i.-iv.), and Jerome's re- 
lations with the bp. of Jerusalem can hardly 
have been smooth (Ep. exxxvii.). On the other 
hand, his brother Paulinian was still with him; 
the younger Paula, daughter of Toxotius and 
Laeta (cvii. cxxxiv.), survived him and re- 
placed her aunt Eustochium in managing the 


| monasteries. Albina, and the younger Melania 


with her husband Pinianus (exliv.), came to 
live with him; he had kindly relations with 
persons in many countries; and the only 
leading man of the Western church was his 
friend. Amidst all discouragements, he con- 
tinued his Biblical studies and writings with 
no sign of weakness to the end. 
Pelagianism.—The Pelagian controversy 
was forced upon his notice. He had not ante- 
cedently formed any strong opinion on it, and 
had been connected in early life with some of 
the leading supporters of Pelagius (pref. to 
Comm. on Jer. bk. iv.). But no great question 
could now arise in the church without an appeal 
to Jerome, and his correspondence necessarily 
embraced this subject (Epp. cxxxiii. cxxxviii.). 
Orosius, the friend of Augustine, came to re- 
side at Bethlehem in 414, full of the council 
of Carthage and of the thoughts and doings 
of his teacher ; and when in 415 Pelagius and 
Coelestius came to Palestine, Jerome was in 
the very centre of the controversy. A 
synod was held under John of Jerusalem 
[JOANNES (216)] in July 415 with no result ; 
and at a synod at Diospolis in 416 Pelagius 
was acquitted, partly, it was believed, because 
the Eastern bishops could not see their way 
in matters of Western theology and in judging 
of Latin expressions. But the mind of the 
church generally was against him, and J erome 
was called upon to give expression to it. 
Ctesiphon from Rome wrote to him directly on 
the subject and drew a long reply (cxxxiii.). 
Augustine addressed to him two letters on 
points bearing upon the subject (cxxxi. 
cxxxii.-), and in his letter on the origin of 
souls insinuated that Jerome’s creationism 
might identify him with Pelagius’s denial of 
the transmission of Adam’s sin (cxxx. 6). 
Pelagius sometimes quoted Jerome as agree- 
ing with him (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. i.), 
sometimes attacked passages in his commen- 
taries (id. bk. iv.) and depreciated his transla- 
tion of the Scriptures (pref. to Dial. against 
Pelag.). Orosius, who withstood Pelagius in 
the synod of Jerusalem with little success, 
appealed (de Libero Arbitrio contra Pelagtum) 
to Jerome as achampion of the faith. Jerome 
wrote, therefore, in 3 books, the dialogue 
against the Pelagians, an amplification of his 
letter to Ctesiphon, in which Atticus (the 
Augustinian) and Critobulus (the Pelagian) 
maintain the argument. It turns upon the 
question whether a man can be without sin 
if he so wills. Its tone is much milder than 
that of Jerome’s other controversial writings, 
with the single exception of the dialogue 
against the Luciferians. But still he is deal- 
ing with a heretic, and heresy is under the ban 
of the church and of heaven. This terrible 
doom contrasts somewhat sharply with the 
balanced argument, in which Jerome appears 


410 HIERONYMUS 


not as a thorough-going predestinarian, but 
a ‘‘synergist,’’ maintaining the coexistence 
of the free will, and reducing predestination 
to God’s foreknowledge of human determina- 
tion (see the Dialogue, esp. i. 5, ii. 6, iil. 18). 
Nevertheless, the partisans of Pelagius were 
irritated to bitterness and violence. A crowd 
of Pelagian monks attacked, partly threw 
down, and partly burned the monasteries 
of Bethlehem, some of the inmates were 
slaughtered, and Jerome only escaped by 
taking refuge in a tower stronger than the 
rest. This violence, however, was their last 
effort. A strong letter from pope Innocentius 
(cxxxvii.) to John of Jerusalem (who died soon 
after, 418) warned him that he would be held 
accountable for any future violence, and Jerome 
received a letter (cxxxvi.) assuring him of the 
pope’s protection. Jerome’s letters to Riparius 
(exxxvili.), Apronius (cxxxix.), and Augustine 
(cxli. cxliii.), speak of the cause of Augustine 
as triumphant, and of Pelagius, who is com- 
pared to Catiline, leaving Palestine, though 
Jerusalem is still held by some powerful 
adversary, who is compared to Nebuchad- 
nezzar (cxliv.). There was, however, in 
the East no strong feeling against Pelagius. 
His cause was upheld by Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, who in a work, of which parts are 
extant (in Hieron. vol. il. pp. 807-814), argues 
against Augustine and Jerome (whom he 
calls ‘‘ Aram’’), as ‘“‘ those who say that men 
sin by nature and not by will.”” In the West 
a work was written by Anianus, a deacon of 
Celeda, of which a copy was sent to Jerome 
(cxlili. 2) by Eusebius of Cremona, but to 
which he was never able to reply. 
Letters.—The letters of this period of 
Jerome’s life are mostly ones of counsel to 
those who asked his advice. Among these 
may be mentioned that to Ageruchia (cxxiii.), 
exhorting her to persevere in her estate as 
a widow, and giving as deterrents from a 
second marriage some touches of Roman 
manners and a remarkable account of the 
sack of Rome; to the virgin Demetrias (cxxx.), 
who had escaped from the burning of Rome 
and fallen into the hands of count Heraclian in 
Africa; and to Sabinianus (cxlvii.) the lapsed 
deacon, who had brought disorder into the 
monasteries, and from which letter a whole 
romance of monastic life might be constructed. 
Jerome wrote also the Memoir of Marcella 
(cxxvii.), who died from ill-treatment in the 
sack of Rome, addressing his letter to her 
friend Principia; but he was too dejected 
and infirm to write the Epitaphium of 
Eustochium, who died two years before him 
(cdxviii.). Other letters relate to scriptural 
studies; cxix., to Minucius and Alexander, 
learned presbyters of the diocese of Toulouse, 
on the interpretation of the words, ‘‘ We shall 
not all sleep, but we shall all be changed ”’ ; 
cxx., to Hebidia, a lady of a remarkable family 
whose father and grandfather were orators, 
poets, professors, and priests of Apollo Belen 
at Bayeux; cxl., to the presbyter Cyprian, an 
exposition of Ps. xc.; cxxiv., to Avitus, on the 
περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν ; cxxix., on how Palestine could 
be called the Promised Land; and cxlvi., to 
Evangelus an African presbyter, containing the 
well-known theory of Jerome on the relative 
positions of bishops, priests, and deacons. 


HIERONYMUS 


Commentaries on Greater Prophets.—Of 
Bible work in his later years we have only the 
Commentaries on the Greater Prophets: on 
Daniel in 407; on Isaiah in 16 books, written 
in the intervals of business and illness, and 
issued at various times from 408-410; on 
Ezekiel, from 410-414; and on Jeremiah, 
cut short at c. xxxii. by Jerome’s last illness. 
The prefaces to these are remarkable docu- 
ments and very serviceable for the chronology 
of Jerome’s life. Those on Ezekiel record the 
sack of Rome, the death of Rufinus (bk. i.), 
the immigration from Rome (bks. iii. and vii.), 
the rise of Pelagianism (bk. vi.) ; and bk. ix. 
of the commentary speaks of the invasion of 
Rome by count Heraclian. Jerome was 
prevented from taking up the commentary 
on Jeremiah till after the death of Eustochium 
(418), and thus his last work was written in 
the year (419) which intervened between 
Eustochium’s death and his own. Yet not 
only is the work full of vigour, but the pre- 
faces shew a renewal of controversial ardour 
against Pelagius, whom he speaks of as 
‘“Scotorum pultibus praegravatus ”’ (bks. i. 
and iii.). That controversy and the business 
of the pilgrims (bk. iv.) shortened his time for 
the commentary (bk. iii.), which, though in- 
tended to be short (bk. i.), required his excuses 
inthelast preface (bk. vi.) forits growing length. 

Death.—It is generally believed that a long 
sickness preceded the death of Jerome, that 
after 419 he was unable to work at all, that 
he was attended in this illness by the 
younger Paula and Melania; that he died, 
according to the Chronicle of Prosper of 
Aquitania, on Sept. 20, 420, and that he was 
buried beside Paula and Eustochium near the 
grotto of the Nativity. His body was be- 
lieved to have been subsequently carried to 
Rome and placed in the church of Sta. Maria 
Maggiore on the Esquiline. Legends, such 
as that, immortalized by the etching of 
Albert Diirer, of the lion which constantly 
attended him, and of the miracles at his grave, 
are innumerable. 

Writings now Extant.—Vallarsi’s ed. con- 
tains a complete table of contents which may 
be usefully consulted. In our list the date 
of time and place at which each was composed, 
and the volume in Vallarsi’s ed., are added. 

I. ΒΙΒΙῈ TRANSLATIONS :— 

(1) From the Hebrew.—The Vulgate of O.T., 
written at Bethlehem, begun 391, finished 
404, vol. ix. 

(2) From the LXX.—The Psalms as used 
at Rome, written in Rome 383; and as used 
in Gaul, written at Bethlehem c. 388. The 
book of Job, being part of the translation of 
LXX made between 386 and 392 at Bethle- 
hem, the rest being lost (Ep. cxxxiv.), vol. x. 

(3) From the Chaldee—Tobit and Judith, 
Bethlehem, a.D. 398. 

(4) From the Greek.—The Vulgate version of . 
N.T., made at Rome between 382 and 385. 

II. COMMENTARIES :— 

(x) Original.—Ecclesiastes, vol. ili. a.D. 388 ; 
Isaiah, vol. iv. 410; Jeremiah, i.-xxxii. 41, 
vol. iv. 419 ; Ezekiel, vol. v. 410-414 ; Daniel, 
vol. v. 407; Minor Prophets, vol. vi. at 
various times between 391 and 406 ; Matthew, 
vol. vii. 387; Galatians, Ephesians, Titus, 
Philemon, vol. vii. 388: all at Bethlehem. 


HIERONYMUS 


(2) Translated from Origen.—Homilies on 
Jer. and Ezk., vol. v. Bethlehem, date doubtful; 
on Luke, vol. vii. Bethlehem, 389; Canticles, 
vol. ili. Rome and Bethlehem, 385-387. 

There is also a commentary on Job, and a 
specimen of one on the Psalms, vol. vii. ; 
and the translation of Origen’s Homilies on 
Isaiah, all attributed to Jerome, vol. iv. 

III. Books ILLUSTRATING SCRIPTURE :— 

(1) Book of Hebrew Names, or Glossary 
of Proper Names in O.T.; Bethlehem, 388 ; 
vol. iii. 1. 

(2) Book of Questions on Genesis, Bethle- 
hem, 388; vol. iii. 301. 

(3) A translation of Eusebius’s book on the 
Sites and Names of Hebrew Places, Bethle- 
hem, 388; vol. iii. 121. 

(4) Translation of Didymus on the Holy 
Spirit, Rome and Bethlehem, 385-387; vol. 
ii. 105. 

IV. Books on (ἕσκοη History AND Con- 
TROVERSY (all in vol. ii.) :— 

(1) Book of Illustrious Men, or Catalogue 
of Ecclesiastical Writers, Bethlehem, a.p. 392. 

(2) Dialogue with a Luciferian, Antioch, 


370. 

(3) Lives of the Hermits: Paulus, Desert, 
374; Malchus and Hilarion, Bethlehem, 390. 

(4) Translation of the Rule of Pachomius ; 
Bethlehem, 404. 

(5) Books of ascetic controversy: against 
Helvidius, Rome, 383; against Jovinian, 
Bethlehem, 393; against Vigilantius, Beth- 
lehem, 406. 

(6) Books of personal controversy : against 
John, bp. of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, 398 or 
399; against Rufinus, i. and ii. 402, iii. 404. 

(7) Dialogue with a Pelagian, Bethlehem, 
416. 

V. GENERAL History :—Translation of the 
Chronicle of Eusebius, with Jerome’s addi- 
tions, vol. viii., Constantinople, 382. 

VI. Letrers :—The series of letters, vol. i. 
Ep. i. Aquileia, 371 ; ii.-iv. Antioch, 374; v.- 
xvii. Desert, 374-379; xviii. Constantinople, 
381; xix.-xlv. Rome, 382-385; xlvi.-cxlvili. 
Bethlehem, 386-418. 

The works attributed to Jerome but not 
genuine, which are given in Vallarsi’s ed., are: 
A Breviary, Commentary, and Preface on the 
Psalms, vol. vii.; some Greek fragments, and 
a Lexicon of Hebrew Names, the Names of 
Places in the Acts, the Ten Names of God, 
the Benedictions of the Patriarchs, the Ten 
Temptations in the Desert, a Commentary on 
the Song of Deborah, Hebrew Questions in 
Kings and Chronicles, an Exposition of Job, 
vol. iii., three letters in vol. i., and 51 in 
vol. xi., and several miscellaneous writings in 
vol. xi., most of which are by Pelagius. 

Criticism.—(1) As ἃ Bible translator, 
Jerome deserves the highest place for his 
clear conviction of the importance of his task 
and his perseverance against great obstacles. 
This is shewn especially in his prefaces, which 
are of great value as shewing his system. He 
took very great pains, but not with all alike. 
The Chronicles he went over word by word 
with his Hebrew teacher; Tobit he translated 
in a single day. His method was, first, never 
to swerve needlessly from the original; 
second, to avoid solecisms ; third, at all risks, 
even that of introducing solecisms, to give the 


HIERONYMUS 471 


true sense. These principles are not always 
consistently carried out. There is sometimes 
undue laxity, which is defended in the de 
Optimo Genere Interpretandi; sometimes an 
unnecessary literalism, arising from a notion 
that some hidden sense lies behind the words, 
but really depriving the words of sense. His 
versions were during his lifetime both highly 
prized and greatly condemned. His friend 
Sophronius translated a great part of them 
into Greek and they were read in many East- 
ern churches in Jerome's lifetime. After his 
death they gradually won universal accept- 
ance in the West, and were finally, with some 
alterations (mostly for the worse), stamped 
with the authority of the Roman church at 
the council of Trent. See Vallarsi’s preface 
to vol. ix., and Zéckler, pt. II. ii. Hieronymus 
als Bibel Uebersetzer. 

(2) As an expositor, Jerome lacks origin- 
ality. His Commentaries are mostly com- 
pilations from others, whose views he gives 
at times without any opinion of his own. 
This, however, makes them of special value as 
the record of the thoughts of distinguished 
men, such as Origen. His derivations are 
puerile. His interpretation of prophecy is 
the merest literal application of it to events 
in the church. He is often inconsistent, and 
at times seems to veil his own opinion under 
that of another. His allusions to the events 
of his own time as illustrations of Scripture 
are often of great interest. His great haste 
in writing (pref. to bk. 11. of Comm. on Eph. 
and pref. to bk. iii. of Comm. on Gal.), his 
frequent weak health and weak eyes, and his 
great self-confidence caused him to trust his 
memory too much. 

(3) The books on Hebrew Names, Questions 
on Genesis, and the Site and Names of Hebrew 
Places shew a wide range of interest and are 
useful contributions to Biblical knowledge, 
especially the last-named, which is often 
appealed to in the present day. But even 
here he was too ready to accept Jewish tales 
rather than to exercise independent judgment. 

In theology, properly so called, he is weak. 
His first letter to Damasus on the Trinitarian 
controversies at Antioch shews a clear per- 
ception of what the church taught, but also 
a shrinking from dogmatic questions and a 
servile submission to episcopal authority. 
He accepted without question the damnation 
of all the heathen. His dealings with Origen 
shew his weakness; he surrendered his im- 
partial judgment as soon as Origen’s works 
were condemned. In the Pelagian con- 
troversy his slight realization of the importance 
of the questions contrasts markedly with the 
deep conviction of the writings of Augustine. 
In some matters, which had not been dealt 
with by church authority, he held his own ; 
4.6. as to the origin of souls he is decided as 
a creationist. He puts aside purgatory and 
scoffs at millenarianism. His views on the 
Apocrypha and on the orders of the Christian 
ministry have become classical. 

(4) For church history he had some con- 
siderable faculty, as is shewn by the dialogue 
with a Luciferian. His knowledge was great 
and his sympathies large, when there was no 

uestion of church condemnations. His book 
de Viris Illustribus is especially valuable and 


472 HIERONYMUS 


his defence of it against Augustine’s criticism 
shews him to have the wider culture and 
greater knowledge. But the lives of the 
hermits incorporate legend with history. In 
controversy his ordinary method is to take as 
absolute truth the decisions of bishops and 
even the popular feeling in the church and to 
use all his powers in enforcing these. His 
own life and documents which give its details 
are his best contributions to church history. 

(5) His knowledge of and sympathy with 
human history generally was very like that of 
monks of later times. He had much curiosity 
and considerable knowledge. His translation 
of the Chronicle of Eusebius shews his interest 
in history, but is very uncritical. The mis- 
takes of Eusebius are not corrected but 
aggravated by the translator; his own addi- 
tions shew that his critical faculty was not 
such as to guard against the admission of 
considerable errors; and his credulity con- 
stantly reveals itself. He nowhere shews even 
the rudiments of a philosophy of history. He 
knew both the events of his time and facts 
lying beyond the usual range. He was 
acquainted with the routes to India, and 
mentions the Brahmans (Epp. xxii. Ixx. etc.) 
and Buddha (adv. Jov. i. 42). Events like the 
fall of Rome deeply impressed him; but he 
deals with these very much as the monks of the 
middle ages dealt with the events of their time. 
He is a recluse, with no political sagacity and 
no sense of human progress. 

(6) His letters are the most interesting part 
of his writings. They are very various; vivid 
in feeling and graphic in their pictures of 
life. The letters to Heliodorus (xiv.) on the 
praise of hermit life ; to Eustochium (xxii.) on 
the preservation of virginity in the mixed life 
of the Roman church and world; to Asella 
(xlv.) on his departure from Rome; to Nepo- 
tian (lii.) on the duties of the presbyters and 
monks of his day ; to Marcella from Paula and 
Eustochium (xlvi.), giving the enthusiastic 
description of monastic life among the holy 
places of Palestine; to Laeta (cvii.) on the 
education of a child whose grandfather was a 
heathen priest, whose parents were Christians, 
and who was herself to be anun; to Rusticus 
(cxxv.), giving rules which shew the character 
of the monastic life in those days,—all these are 
literary gems; and the Epitaphia of Blesilla 
(xxxix.), Fabiola (Ixxvii.), Nepotianus (lx.), 
Paula (cviii.), and Marcella (exxvii.) form a 
eee of the best and most attractive 

ind. 

Style.—His style is excellent, and he was 
rightly praised as the Christian Cicero by 
Erasmus, who contrasts his writings with 
monkish and scholastic literature. It is 
vivid, full of illustrations, with happy turns, 
such as “‘lucus a non lucendo,” Ὀνῷ λύρα, 
““fac de necessitate virtutem,” ‘“ Ingemuit 
totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est.” 
The scriptural quotations and allusions are 
often overdone and forced, but with no un- 
reality or cant ; and he never loses his dignity 
except 1n some controversial personalities. 

Character.—He was vain, and unable to 
bear rivals; extremely sensitive as to the 
estimation of his contemporaries, especially 
the bishops; passionate and resentful, but 
at times suddenly placable; scornful and 


HIERONYMUS 


violent in controversy ; kind to the weak and 
poor; respectful in dealing with women; 
entirely without avarice; extraordinarily 
diligent, and nobly tenacious of the main 
objects of his life. 

Influence.—His influence grew through his 
life and increased after his death. ‘‘ He lived 
and reigned for a thousand years.’’ His 
writings contain the whole spirit of the church 
of the middle ages; its monasticism, its con- 
trast of sacred things with profane, its credu- 
lity and superstition, its deference to hier- 
archical authority, its dread of heresy, its 
passion for pilgrimages. To the society which 
was thus in a great measure formed by him, his 
Bible was the greatest boon which could have 
been given. But he founded no school and 
had no inspiring power; there was not 
sufficient courage or width of view in his 
spiritual legacy. As Thierry says, ‘‘ There is 
no continuation of his work; a few more 
letters of Augustine and Paulinus, and night 
falls over the West.’’ A cheap popular Life of 
St. Jerome by E. L. Cutts is pub. by S.P.C.K. 
in their Fathers for Eng. Readers. A trans. of 
his principal works is in the Ltb. of Nic. and 
Post.-Nic. Fathers. The Bp. of Albany has in 
preparation (1911) a trans. of the Epistolae 
Selectae (ed. Hurter). [W.H.F.] 

Hierotheus, a writer whose works are 
quoted by the Pseudo-Dionysius, who styles 
him his teacher. Two long extracts are 
preserved in the de Divinis Nominibus of 
the Pseudo-Dionysius (c. 2, §§ 9, 10; c. 4, 
§§ 15-17), and there are incidental references 
to him elsewhere. In the first extract (c. 2, 
§ 9 fin.) his Theological Institutes (θεολογικαί 
στοιχειώσεις) are cited; in the second his 
Amatory Hymns (ἐρωτικοὶ ὕμνοι. His writ- 
ings most probably belong to the school of 
Edessa, and should be dated about the middle 
or end of 5th cent. In confirmation of this 
view Dr. Westcott has noted a statement in 
Assemani (Bziblioth. Orient. ii. 290, 291) that 
Stephen Bar-Sudaili, abbat of a monastery at 
Edessa, published a book under the name of 
Hierotheus to support his own mystic doc- 
trines. Assemani says that this abbat held 
the doctrine of final restoration as taught by 
Origen, and was abused for it by Xenaias and 
James of Sarug, bp. of Batnae (Bzbl. Or. i. 
303, ll. 30-33; Ceillier, x. 641; Westcott on 
Dionys. Areop. in Contemporary Rev. May, 
1867). The mystical views in the works of 
Hierotheus and Dionysius easily lend them- 
selves to the support of that theory. Accord- 
ing to Assemani (ii. 291), Bar-Sudaili wrote 
under the name of Hierotheus to prove 
“‘finem poenarum aliquando futurum, nec 
impios in saeculum saeculorum puniendos fore, 
sed per ignem purgandos ; atque ita et malos 
daemones misericordiam consequuturos esse, 
et cuncta in divinam naturam transmutanda, 
juxta illud Pauli, ut sit Deus omnia in omni- 
bus.” In Mai’s Spicilegium Romanum (iii. 
704-707) will be found other fragments of this 
writer, translated from some Arabic MSS. 
Their theology savours, however, more of the 
4th and 5th cents. than of the 1st. But see 
A. L. Frothingham, Stephen Bar-Sudaili and the 
Book of Hierotheos (Leyden, 1886). ([G.T.s.] 

Hilarianus (1), Quintus Julius (Hilarion), 
a Latin Chiliast writer, c. 397, author of twa 


— 


HILARION 


extant treatises. The first, Exposttum de Die 
Paschae et Mensis, after having disappeared 
for several centuries, was printed in 1712, with 
a dissertation by Pfaffius to prove that it 
was written A.D. 397. Hilarian supports the 
Latins against the Greeks, in agreement with 
pope Victor and the council of Nicaea. 

The second treatise, Chronologia sive Libellus 
de Mundi Duratione, is founded on a dispute 
about the date of the end of the world. The 
author counts 5,530 years from the Creation 
to the Passion; gives the world 6,000; and 
would therefore end it c. 498. 

The following is a sketch of his chronology : 


From the Creation to the Deluge 


. « 2237 years. 
as », Deluge to the Call of Abraham 


ΧΟΙΣ ;, 
"ὙΠΕΡ σε tothe Exodus .: . . . 430 ,; 
” SHS OGINUCLO hime er a’ ss ἄκος; 
bs 7 PNM ΘΙ ἐν. τὰ δ ιν AS Sides 
The Captivity lasted Be τ τ, αὐ δοὺς LPO. 
προ το Ὑπὸ Passion)... « , , « ‘887 ,, 


He believes that after the close of the 
apocalyptic thousand years will come the 
loosing of Satan, the seducing of the nations 
Gog and Magog, the descent of fire from 
heaven upon their armies; then the second 
resurrection, the judgment, the passing away 
of the old things and the bringing in of the 
new heavens and new earth; ‘‘impii in 
ambustione aeterna ; justi autem cum Deoin 
vita aeterna’’ (c. 19). His style is barbarous. 
La Bigne, Biblioth. Vet. Patr. 1609, t. vii. ; 
ΒΗ ἘΠ Va ΡΕ ΤΣ YO54. t. ΝΗ. 1077. ἃ: Vil. 
Migne, Pair. Lat. xiii. col. 1094-1114 ; Cave, i. 
252; Ceillier, vi. 288. A new ed. of de Mundi 
Durattone was pub. by C. Frisk in Chronica 
Minora (Leipz. 1892). [W.M.S. AND 1.6. 

Hilarion (1), a hermit of Palestine (d. 371). 
Jerome wrote his Life in 390, quoting Epi- 
phanius, Hilarion’s disciple. Jerome certainly 
considered his Lives of the Hermtts as historical 
(Vit. Malchi, i.) ; but the marvels of the Life 
of Hilarion have induced some to believe it 
to be a mere romance (Israel in Hilgenfeld’s 
Zeitschrift for 1880, p. 128, but see Zéckler’s 
Jerome, 179). No attempt is made in this 
art. to separate fact from fiction. The Life of 
Hilarion in any case shews the ideal on which 
monasticism was nourished in the 4th cent. 

Hilarion was born at Thabatha, 5 miles 
S. of Gaza, c. 300, of heathen parents, who sent 
him for education to Alexandria. There he 
shewed great talents and proficiency in rhet- 
oric, which then comprehended nearly the 
whole of a liberal education. He was of a 
disposition which made him beloved by all. 
He became a Christian, and, turning from the 
frivolous pleasures of the circus and theatre, 
spent all his leisure in the assemblies of the 
church. Hearing of the monastic retreat of 
Anthony, he became his disciple for a time, 
but found that the multitude who resorted to 
Anthony made life with him a city life rather 
than one of retirement. Though but fifteen 
years old, he determined to become a hermit. 
He returned to Palestine and found his parents 
dead, gave away his goods to his brothers and 
the poor, and went to live in a desert place 7 
miles from the Christian city of Majoma near 
Gaza. The boy hermit was clad in a sackcloth 
shirt, which he never changed till it was worn 
out, a cloak of skins which Anthony had given 


him, and a blanket such as peasants wore. lib. x. c. 6, lib. xv. c. 2. 


HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 473 


His daily sustenance was 15 carices (a sort of 
figs). He cultivated a little plot of ground 
and made baskets of rushes, so as not to be 
idle. His disordered fancy summoned up a 
thousand temptations of Satan, but he over- 
came them all by calling on the name of 
Christ. He dwelt 12 years in a little cabin 
made by himself of woven reeds and rushes ; 
after that in a hut only 5 feet high, still shewn 
when Jerome was in Palestine, and more like 
a sepulchre than a house. 

The fame of his sanctity spread rapidly, and 
he was reputed to be a worker of miracles and 
an exorcist. Men of all ranks (whose names 
and abodes are circumstantially recorded) 
suffering from hysteric affections, then attri- 
buted to demons, were healed. An officer of 
Majoma, whose duty it was to rear horses 
for the Circensian games and who had been 
always beaten through a spell laid upon his 
chariot by the votaries of Marnas, the idol of 
Gaza, won the race when the saint had poured 
water upon his chariot wheels. Hilarion had 
many disciples, whom he formed into societies 
and went on circuits to visit them ; and many 
stories were told of his shrewdness and pene- 
tration in rebuking their weaknesses. 

But the crowds who flocked about him made 
him feel no longer a hermit ; and in his 63rd 
year, the year of the death of Anthony (which 
was miraculously made known to him), he 
resolved to set out on his wanderings. Men 
crowded round him to the number of 10,000, 
beseeching him not to depart. Business 
ceased throughout Palestine, the minds of men 
being wholly occupied with hopes and fears 
about his departure; but he left them, and 
with a few monks, who seem soon to have left 
him, he went his way, never to return. He 
first turned towards Babylon, then to Egypt. 
He fled to the Oasis, and afterwards sailed for 
Sicily. There he lay hid for a time; but his 
disciple Hesychius at last discovered him. 
He again set forth in search of solitude; but 
wherever he went his miracles betrayed him. 
He at length arrived in Cyprus, the home of his 
friend Epiphanius. There he found a solitary 
and inaccessible place, still called by his name, 
where he lived the last three years of his life, 
often in the company of Hesychius and 
Epiphanius. His body was buried in the 
grounds of a lady named Constantia, but 
Hesychius disinterred it, and carried it to 
Majoma in Palestine. Constantia died of 
grief, but the translation caused joy through- 
out Palestine, where its anniversary was 
observed as a festival. Vita 5. Hilarionis, in 
Jerome’s Works, vol. ii. 13-40, ed. Vall. ; Soz. 
lii. 14, vi. 32; Vit. Patrum, lib. v. c. 4, § 15, p. 
568, in Migne’s Pair. Gk. vol. lxxiii. Hisname 
occurs in the Byzantine Calendar, Oct. 21, as 
“Our Father Hilarion the Great.” [w.u.r.] 

Hilarius (7) Piotaviensis, St. (Hilary οἱ 
Potclters), ἃ. A.D. 368. 

Authorities.—(1) His own writings. These 
furnish so much information that the bio- 
graphy in the Benedictine ed. of Hilary's works 
is mainly drawn from them. (2) Hieron. de 
Viris Illustribus (seu Scriptorum Eccles. Cata- 
logus),c.100. Alsoin Esaiam, c.1x., in Psalm. 


| lviii. (A.V. lix.), in the prooemium in lib. ii. 


Comm.adGal. (3) St. Augustine, de Trinitate, 


(4) Cassian, de Incar- 


44 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 


natione, lib. vii. (5) St. Gregory of Tours, de 
Gloria Confessorum, c. 2. (6) Fortunatus, whose 
identification is uncertain. [ForTUNATUs (17) 
and (18).] (7) Cassiodorus, Institut. Divin. 
lib. i. c. 16. 

Life.—Hilary is believed to have been born 
of illustrious stock in Poictiers. St. Jerome 
(tn Gal.) distinctly asserts this, but some 
authorities name more vaguely the province 
of Aquitaine, rather than the capital. He 
enjoyed a good education in the Latin classics, 
and evidently was specially fond of the 
writings of Quintilian. 

About A.D. 350, Hilary, then a married man 
but, it would seem, still young, appears to have 
become a Christian. He depicts himself as 
gradually rising first above the attractions of 
ease and plenty; then aiming at knowledge 
of truth and the practice of virtue. The 
books of Moses and the Psalms gave him 
abundant help in his desire to know God; in 
his consciousness of weakness the writings of 
apostles and evangelists aided him, more espe- 
cially the Gospel of St. John, with its clear and 
emphatic teaching on the incarnation of the 
co-eternalSon. His conversion was essentially 
due to the study of Holy Scripture. 

After his baptism he became an edifying 
example of a good Christian layman. He 
must have remained a layman for some few 
years. His wife’s name is unknown, but a 
daughter, his only child, was called Abra (al. 
Apra seu Afra). About 353 the see of 
Poictiers became vacant by death. The 
popular voice fixed upon Hilary as the new 
bishop, and he was raised per saltum to the 
episcopate. He amply justified the choice. 

Two years after his consecration a visit from 
St. Martin, which was regarded as a compli- 
ment to the orthodoxy and zeal of Hilary, 
proved a prelude to an active struggle against 
the Arian party in Gaul, then headed by 
Ursacius, Valens, and Saturninus, of whom 
Saturninus occupies, in the writings of the 
orthodox, an evil pre-eminence, being repre- 
sented as immoral, violent, and apt to seek the 
aid of the civil power against the defenders 
of the creed of Nicaea. Hilary unites with 
Sulpicius Severus in censuring Saturninus 
more than his comrades. The course pursued 
by Ursacius and Valens, though less violent, 
was extremely fitful and uncertain, and a 
majority of the bishops of Gaul, led by Hilary, 
formally separated themselves from the com- 
munion of all three. Many even of those who 
had leant towards Arianism now threw in their 
lot with Hilary, who received them on condi- 
tion that they should be approved by the 
confessors then suffering exile. At. τὰ 
council at Béziers, in Languedoc, Saturninus 
probably presiding, Hilary (with some other 
orthodox bishops) was present, but declares 
that he was refused a hearing. -The emperor 
Constantius received from Saturninus an 
account of this gathering, and at once resolved 
to banish to Phrygia Hilary and one of his 
allies, St. Rhodanus, bp. of Toulouse. Hilary 
believed that the accusation laid against him 
before the emperor involved a charge of gross 
impropriety of conduct. As this event 
occurred soon after the council of Béziers and 
before that of Seleucia, its date is assigned to 
the middle of 356. During this exile of 


HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 


somewhat more than three years Hilary had a 
good deal of liberty and much enforced leisure. 
He employed it in examining the condition of 
religion in Asia Minor, forming an exceedingly 
unfavourable impression, especially as re- 
garded his episcopate, and in composition and 
an attempt to remove misunderstandings, 
especially between the bishops of the East and 
those of Gaul; for the Gallicans imagined all 
in Asia to be sheer Arians, while the Orientals 
supposed their brethren in Gaul to be lapsing 
into Sabellianism. Hilary’s treatise de Syn- 
odis belongs to this period (358 or 359), and 
also his great work de Trtinitate. 

The fourth year (359) of Hilary’s exile 
witnessed the council of Rimini in the West 
and that of Seleucia in the East. The em- 
peror apparently intended the decisions of 
these two. assemblies, if accordant, to be 
conjointly regarded as the decree of one 
oecumenical council. Hilary was compelled 
by the secular authorities to attend that of 
Seleucia, Constantius himself having convoked 
it. He found there three sections: the 
orthodox, semi-Arian, and ultra-Arian or 
Anomoean. Although his presence was of 
great service in explaining the true state of 
things in Gaul, the language of the Acacians 
so shocked him that he retired from the 
assembly. These Anomoeans were neverthe- 
less condemned there. 

From Seleucia Hilary went to Constanti- 
nople and was granted an interview with the 
emperor. Here the Arians, having joined the 
Anomoeans, were in great force, and, having 
gathered another council in the Eastern 
capital, tried to reverse their failure at 
Seleucia. A challenge from Hilary to discuss 
the questions at issue publicly, in presence of 
the emperor, on the evidence of Holy Scrip- 
ture, was, as he informs us, declined; and 
Constantius sent his prisoner back to Gaul, 
without formally annulling the sentence of 
banishment or allowing him perfect liberty. 
The energies of Hilary in Gaul were chiefly 
concerned with the Arians, but his acts 
(though by no means all his writings) in 
Phrygia with the semi-Arians. His attitude 
towards these two forms of error was by no 
means identical. Arianism he regarded as a 
deadly heresy, with which anything like com- 
promise was impossible. But with semi- 
Arianism, or at any rate with certain leading 
semi-Arians, he thought it quite possible to 
come to an understanding ; and it will be seen 
in the account of his works how earnestly he 
strove to act as a peacemaker between them 
and the supporters of the creed of Nicaea. 
The three succeeding years (A.D. 360-362) were 
partly occupied by his rather dilatory journey 
homeward, and after his return by efforts 
which, though of a conciliatory character, all 
aimed at the restoration of the faith as set 
forth at Nicaea. His joy at reaching Poictiers | 
(where he was warmly welcomed) and at 
finding in health his wife, his daughter, and 
his disciple St. Martin, was dashed by the 
scenes witnessed during his progress. Con- 
stantius had banished all bishops who had 
refused to accept the formula promulgated at 
Rimini (Socr. H. E. ii. 37 ; confirmed by Soz. 
iv. 19, and by St. Jerome in his treatise adv. 
Luciferianos). Hilary and his more ardent 


HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 


friends were not prepared at once to refuse 
communion to all who had been betrayed into 
accepting the Riminian decrees. He gathered 
in different parts of Gaul assemblies of bishops 
for mutual explanation, apparently with great 
success. Hilary’s former opponent, Saturninus, 
bp. of Arles, vainly attempted to thwart this 
work, and Saturninus soon found himself de- 
serted and practically, perhaps even formally, 
excommunicated by the Gallican episcopate. 

Hilary now ventured, despite the unre- 
pealed sentence of banishment, to journey 
into N. Italy and Illyria, to bring these pro- 
vinces into spiritual conformity with Gaul. 
He arrived in Italy a.p. 362 and was greatly 
encouraged and assisted by St. Eusebius of 
Vercelli. These two friends, especially in 
remote districts, into which a fair statement 
of the points at issue had not penetrated, 
created a considerable impression, though not 
equal to that produced in Gaul. Possibly 
Lucifer of Cagliari proved an obstacle. That 
this ardent and ultra-Athanasian supporter of 
orthodoxy disapproved of one of the con- 
ciliatory manifestos of Hilary will be seen 
below; and as on another ground he had 
broken with Eusebius and was opposed to all 
communion with any who had accepted the 
decrees of Rimini, he could not have viewed 
their career with satisfaction. 

Hilary, nevertheless, remained in Italy until 
the late autumn of 364. Valentinian, who 
became emperor in Feb. 364, found him at 
Milan in November. A serious altercation 
between Hilary and Auxentius, bp. of Milan, 
attracted his attention. The generally charit- 
able tone adopted by Hilary towards his 
ecclesiastical opponents warrants our accept- 
ing his unfavourable report of Auxentius. 
According to Hilary, the profession of the 
creed of Nicaea made by Auxentius was 
thoroughly insincere, though he persuaded 
Valentinian that he was acting in good faith ; 
and, as a natural result, Hilary was com- 
manded to return to Gaul and at once obeyed, 
but to the bishops and the church at large made 
known his own convictions respecting the real 
character of the bp. of Milan. 

Hilary spent more than three years at 
Poictiers after his return from Italy. These 
years, especially the last two, were compara- 
tively untroubled. He died calmly on Jan. 
13, 368, though in the Roman service-books 
his day is Jan. 14, so as not to interfere with 
the octave of the Epiphany. 

Writings.—1. ExEGETICAL.—(1) Exposition 
of the Psalms (Commentarii in Psalmos).—The 
comments embrace Ps. i., ii. ; ix.-xiii. (and per- 


haps xiv.) ; li.-lxix. ; xci.-cl. (The numbers are | 


the Vulgate reckoning, e.g. li. is lii., and 1xix. 
islxx.in A.V.) The treatment is not critical, 
but reveals a deeply sincere and high-toned 
spirit. Jerome’s translation was yet to come 
when Hilary wrote. As was natural, he leant 
mainly and somewhat too confidently upon 
the LXX, but took full advantage of the 
comments of Origen. He seeks a via media 
between the literal sense, and that reference of 
everything to Christ which marks some later 
commentators, both patristic and medieval. 

(2) Commentarii in Matthaeum.—This is the 


earliest gospel commentary in the Western | 


church; all previous ones being either, like 


HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 475 


that of Origen, in Greek, or, if in Latin, only 
partial, as some tractates of St. Cyprian. In 
the next century the work of Hilary was some- 
what overshadowed by the commentaries 
produced by the genius of St. Augustine and 
the learning of St. Jerome in the West, and by 
the eloquence of St. Chrysostom in the East. 
Although he may have made some use of the 
writings of Origen, there is much that is 
curious and sometimes acute as well as devout 
that seems to be really his own. Jerome and 
Augustine frequently quote it. It was prob- 
ably composed before his banishment to 
Phrygia in 356. 

Onthe expressions concerning divorce (Matt. 
V. 31, 32), Hilary regards Christian marriage 
as absolutely indissoluble. His endeavours 
to solve difficulties, such as that of the gene- 
alogies of our Lord, indicate a real willingness 
to face them and are not devoid of acuteness. 
On ‘the brethren of the Lord’’ Hilary uses 
the powerful argument that Christ would not 
have committed the Virgin Mother to the care 
of St. John if she had had children of her 
own, and he adopts the view, usually con- 
nected with the name of Epiphanius, that they 
were children of Joseph by a former wife. 

Hilary’s respect for the LXX led him to 
embrace the Alexandrian rather than the 
Palestinian canon of O.T. He occasionally 
cites some portions of the Apocrypha (as 
Judith, Wisdom, and Maccabees) as Scripture. 
He is earnest in urging the study of Scripture, 
and lays much stress on the need of humility 
and reverence for reading them with profit. 
Both the Word and the Sacraments become 
spiritual food for the soul. 

II. DocmaticaL.—Ltbri XII.de Trinitate — 
For de Trinitate some copies read contra 
Artanos, others de Fide, and others some 
slight varieties of a like kind. But de Trint- 
tate appears on the whole the most suitable ; 
and as Hilary’s is the most ancient extant 
exposition of St. Matthew by a Latin father, 
so the de Trinitate is the first great contri- 
bution, in Latin, to the discussion of this great 
dogma. Bk. i. treats of natural religion, 
and how it leads up to revelation. Bk. ii. 
especially discusses the baptismal formula 
(Matt. xxviii. 19); bk. iii. the union of the 
two natures in Christ; bk. iv. that this co- 
existence of two natures does not derogate 
from the unity of His Divine Person. Bk. v. 
urges, as against heretics, the testimony of 
the prophets (ex auctoritatibus propheticts) in 


favour of the propositions of bk. iv. Bk. vi. 
is mainly occupied with refutations of 
| Sabellian and Manichean doctrines. Bk. vii. 


shews how the errors of Ebionites, Arians, and 
Sabellians overthrow each other, thus illus- 
trating a principle asserted in bk. i. § 26: 
“‘Lis eorum est fides nostra.’’ Bk. viii. 
contains a demonstration of the unity of God, 
and shews that it is nowise affected by the 
Sonship of Christ. Bk. ix. replies to the Arian 
appeal to certain texts, e.g. Mark xiv. 32, Luke 
xviii. 19, John v. 19, xiv. 28, xvii. 3. Bks. 
x. and xi. similarly discuss, ¢.g., Matt. xxvi. 38, 
39, 46, Luke xxiii. 46, John xx. 17, and 1 Cor. 
xv. 27, 28. Bk. xil. is also expressly written 
against Arianism. It includes a passage of much 
beauty, which bears a slight resemblance to 
the devout and eloquent pleading of Wisd. ix. 


476 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 


The work is a longer, more methodical, and 
more consecutive anti-Arian argument than 
Athanasius himself found time to indite. 
Viewed intellectually, it must perhaps be 
ranked above Hilary’s commentary on Scrip- 
ture. Its recognition of the rights of reason 
as well as of faith, combined with its sense of 
human ignorance and of our need of humility, 
its explanation of many difficulties and of the 
meaning of the terms employed; the endea- 
vour (though not always successful) to adapt 
to his subject the imperfect medium of Latin, 
its many felicitous descriptions, both of the 
temper in which we ought, and the spirit in 
which we ought not, to approach the study of 
these mysteries ; the mode of his appeals to 
Holy Scripture,—all form very striking 
features. The book evidently produced a 
great impression. A high compliment is paid 
it by the historian Socrates: ‘“‘ Both [t.e. 
Hilary and Eusebius of Vercelli] nobly con- 
tended side by side for the faith. Hilary, who 
was an eloquent man, set forth in his book the 
dogmas of the Homoousion in the Latin tongue 

. and powerfully confuted the Arian dog- 
mas” (H. E. iii. 10). It marks an epoch in 
the history of dogmatic theology in the Western 
church. Its influence declined in the next 
century and throughout the earlier and later 
middle ages. About 416, some 56 years after 
its publication, the 15 books de Trinttate 
of the great bp. of Hippo appeared. St. 
Augustine became the doctor par excellence 
of the West, and the labours of Hilary, most 
effective at their appearance, became some- 
what neglected and obscured. The errors of 
Pelagianism, perhaps some anticipations of 
Nestorianism, had certainly by the time of 
Augustine tended to bring into clearer relief 
some particular phases and elements of 
Christian doctrine. Development in_ this 
sense is fully recognized by the Lutheran 
Dorner and by the Anglican Prof. Hussey. 
Nor can it be called a novel theory. ‘ By the 
very events,” writes the historian Evagrius, 
“by which the members of the church have 
been rent asunder have the true and faultless 
dogmas (τὰ ὀρθὰ καὶ ἀμώμητα δόγματα) been 
the more fully polished and set forth, and the 
Catholic and apostolic church of God hath 
gone on to increase and to a heavenward 
ascent’? (H. E. i. τι] ‘‘ Many things,” 
says Augustine himself, ‘‘ pertaining to the 
Catholic faith, while in course of agitation 
by the hot restlessness of heretics, are, with 
a view to defence against them, weighed 
more carefully, understood more clearly, and 
preached more earnestly; and the question 
mooted by the adversary hath become an 
occasion of our learning.’’ * The intentions 
of Hilary were so thoroughly good that both 
his studies of Holy Scripture and the influence 
of the three later oecumenical councils would 
doubtless have saved him from some serious 
mistakes, if he had lived to hear of their 
decisions. It is true, as the Benedictine 
editor points out, that Hilary’s note upon 


* Dean Hook, in his University Sermons preached 
before 1838, called attention to this as a favourite 
opinion of St. Augustine’s. Bp. Moberly, in his 
Discourses on the Great Forty Days (preface and dis- 
course iv.) shewed the difference between this view 
and the modern Roman theory of development. 


HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 


Ps. liii. 8 condemns not only Apollinaris, but 
(by anticipation) Nestorius and Eutyches as 
well. Nevertheless, such mistakes as Hilary 
did make are all connected with the subject, 
which has been summed up in so masterly a 
manner by Hooker (E. P. bk. v. cc. lii.-liv., 
esp. § 10 of liv.), viz. the union of the two 
natures in the one divine personality of Christ. 
The chief of these mistakes are as follows: In 
de Trinitate, bk. x., Hilary seems to approach 
toa denial of the truth that the Incarnate Lord 
took man’s nature from His Virgin Mother, 
of her substance. This is probably only 
an incautious over-statement of the article, 
“Ἢρ was conceived of the Holy Ghost.” For 
the language in other passages of this book and 
on Pss. cxxxviii. and Ixv. implies a complete 
acceptance of the Homo ex substantia Matrts. 
Some laxity of usage appears in regard to the 
terms Verbum and Spiritus. Certainly the 
former word seems necessary instead of 
the latter in the phrase (bk. x.) “ Spiritus 
sanctus desuper veniens naturae se humanae 
carne immiscuit.’? Dom Coutant points out 
similar confusion of language in Tertullian and 
Lactantius, and even in St. Irenaeus and St. 
Cyprian. St. Gregory and St. Athanasius 
seem inclined to palliate it. 

A more serious error is Hilary’s apparent 
want of grasp of the truth of our Lord’s 
humanity in all things, sin alone excepted. 
At times he seems to speak of our Lord’s 
natural body as if endued with impassibility 
(tndolentia), and of His soul as if not obnoxious 
to the human affections of fear, grief, and the 
like. This and the other mistakes of Hilary 
are more or less palliated by Lanfranc, by the 
two great schoolmen Peter Lombard and 
Aquinas, and by Bonaventure. Hilary also 
meets with indulgence from Natalis Alexander; 
and, above all, is defended by his Benedictine 
editor, Dom Coutant, who, as Cave justly re- 
marks, ‘‘naevos explicare, emollire et vindicare 
satagit.’’ A sort of tradition was handed down 
to Bonaventure by a schoolman, William of 
Paris, that Hilary had made a formal retrac- 
tation of his error concerning the indolentia, 
which he had ascribed to our Lord. This 
seems very doubtful; nevertheless, the lan- 
guage of his later books, e.g. on the Pss., 
appears to recognize the reality of both the 
mental and bodily sufferings of Christ. 

11. Potemicat.—(1) Ad Constantium 
Augustum Liber Primus.—This address, prob- 
ably Hilary’s earliest extant composition, is 
a petition to the emperor—evidently written 
before Hilary’s exile, at the close of 355 or 
early in 356—for toleration for the orthodox 
in Gaul against the persecution of Arian bishops 
andlaymen. These assaults Hilary represents 
as both coarse and cruel. He names some sup- 
porters of Arianism, both in the East and in 
Gaul. Among the latter, Ursacius and Valens 
occupy a painful prominence. He urges that . 
it is even on political grounds a mistake for the 
emperor to allow such proceedings; among his 
Catholic subjects will be found the best de- 
fenders of the realm against internal sedition 
and barbarian invasion. The excellent tone 
of this address is admitted on all sides. 

(2) Ad Constantium Augustum Liber Secun- 
dus.—This second address is subsequent to 
Hilary’s exile, having been presented to the 


HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 


emperor in 360. Hilary protests his innocence 
of all charges brought against him. He is 
still in effect a bishop in Gaul, ministering to 
his flock through the clergy. He would gladly 
meet the man whom he regards as the author 
of his exile, Saturninus, bp. of Arles. He is 
anxious to plead for the faith in the council 
about to be summoned. He will argue from 
Holy Scripture, but warns the emperor that 
every heretic maintains his creed to be agree- 
able to Scripture. He is deeply conscious of 
the injury wrought to Christianity in the sight 
of the outer world by the distractions of so 
many rival councils and professions of faith. 

(3) Contra Constantium Augustum Liber.— 
This book is addressed to the bps. of Gaul. 
Jerome is almost certainly mistaken in assert- 
ing its composition to be later than the death 
of Constantius. Internal evidence sufficiently 
confutes the idea, though its existence prob- 
ably did not become widely known until after 
that event (361). Hilary’s tone is now utterly 
changed. He has given up all hope of 
influencing Constantius. The emperor, too, on 
his side, has altered the traditional line of 
policy against opponents. He is here charged, 
not with persecution, but with the enticements 
of bribes, of good dinners, of flatteries and in- 
vitations to court. Hilary appears to have 
laid aside his usual self-restraint, perhaps to 
have lost his temper, and to have forgotten his 
usual respectfulness and charity of language. 
Constantius has become, in his eyes, an Anti- 
christ, who would fain make a present of the 
world to Satan. The entirelettershews that 
Hilary had lost all hope of any aid to the faith 
being granted by Constantius, and it is at least 
just to give its due weight to the remark of 
Mohler that, ‘‘ if we drive men to despair, we 
ought to be prepared to hear them speak the 
language of despair.” 

(4) De Synodis Fidet Catholicae contra 
Arianos et praevaricatores Arianis acquies- 
centes ; also occasionally referred to as de Fide 
Orientalium; and sometimes, though less 
frequently, as de Synodis Graeciae, or even 
simply as Epistola. Internal evidence fur- 
nishes a satisfactory approximation to the 
date of its composition, viz. in 358 or very 
early in 359. It is a letter from Hilary, an 
exile in Phrygia, to his brother-bishops in Gaul, 
who had asked for an explanation of the 
numerous professions of faith which the 
Orientals seemed to be putting forth. Hilary, 
although (as we have seen from his subsequent 
second letter to Constantius) deeply conscious 
of the harm wrought by these proceedings, 
wrote back a thorough Jrenicon, for such 
must the de Synodis among all his writings 
be especially considered. Praising his Gallic 
brethren for firmness in opposing Saturninus 
and for their just condemnation of the second 
formula proposed at Sirmium, he desires that 
they and their brethren in Britain (provinct- 
arum Britanniarum episcopi) should come to 
Ancyra or to Rimini in a conciliatory frame of 
mind. Just as the orthodox Homoousion may 
be twisted into Sabellianism, even so may 
the unorthodox Homotousion be found patient 
of a good interpretation. It may be shewn 
to those well disposed that, rightly understood, 
complete similarity in reality involves identity. 
The faith professed at Sardica was, he main- 


HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 477 


tains, substantially sound. It asserted the 
external origin of the Son from the substance 
of the Father, and condemned the heresy of 
Photinus, ‘‘ quae initium Dei filii ex partu 
Virginis mentiebatur. ” Hilary appeals to the 
more peace-loving among the semi-Arian 
bishops to accept both terms in their true 
sense. ‘‘ Date veniam, Fratres, quam fre- 
quenter poposci. Ariani non estis; cur negando 
homoouston censemini Ariani?”’ ἰξ 88). Here 
comes in that remarkable statement, that he 
had never, before his exile, heard the Nicene 
Creed, but had made it out for himself from 
the Gospels and other books of N.T. 

A peacemaker is often suspected on one side, 
sometimes upon both. His first letter to 
Constantius, his commentary on St. Matthew, 
his confessorship as shewn in his exile, did not 
save Hilary from suspicion. By some he was 
held to have conceded too much to the semi- 
Arians. This opinion was voiced by Lucifer 
of Cagliari, the earnest put somewhat harsh- 
minded representative of that extreme wing 
which might be called more Athanasian than 
Athanasius. Some apologetic notes, shewing 
much courtesy and gentleness, appended by 
Hilary to a copy sent to Lucifer, were first 
published in the Benedictine ed. (Paris, 1693). 

(5) Liber contra Auxentium.—Written a.p. 
365, under Valentinian, who had become 
emperor in 366. Hilary was convinced that 
the profession of orthodoxy made by Auxen- 
tius was thoroughly insincere. The emperor 
accepted the position avowed by Auxentius, 
entered into communion with him, and 
ordered Hilary toleave Milan. Hilary obeyed 
at once, but, as the sole resource left him, 
published this address to the church at large. 
Hence its other titles, viz. contra Arianos vel 
Auxentium Mediolanensem, and Epistola ad 
Catholicos et Auxentium. It forms a curious 
commentary upon church history by bringing 
into vivid relief the utterly changed character 
of the temptations to which Christians were 
now exposed as compared with those of the 
ante-Nicene period. Hilary’s view must be 
considered a rather one-sided one. He sees 
clearly the evils of his own day, but hardly 
realizes what must have been the trials of the 
times of Nero, Decius, and Galerius. The 
concluding part makes out a strong case 
against Auxentius. It is difficult to believe 
that he was not an Arian at heart. Hilary, 
like some of his contemporaries, declares that 
the ears of the people have become purer than 
the hearts of the bishops. He begs those who 
shrink from breaking off communion with. 
Auxentius, whom he calls an angel of Satan, 
not to let their love of mere walls and build- 
ings seduce them into a false peace. Anti- 
christ may seat himself within a church; the 
forests and mountains, lakes and prisons, are 
safer. It must be remembered, in palliation 
of Hilary’s strong language respecting the bp. 
of Milan, that he regarded him not as an open 
foe, but as a betrayer of truth by false pre- 
tences. Rufinus, who speaks of Hilary as a 
‘** confessor fidei Catholicae,”’ entitles this work 
“librum instructionis plenissimae.”’ * 

(6) Fragmenta Hilarii.—These fragments 
were first published in 1598 by Nicolaus Faber, 
who got them from the library of Father 

* Rufinus, de Adulteratione Librorum Origenis. 


478  HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 


Pithou. They possess considerable value in 
the elucidation of the history of the period 
embraced by Hilary’s episcopate. It is 
claimed that they are the remnants of a book 
by Hilary mentioned by Rufinus, and de- 
scribed by Jerome as Liber contra Valentem et 
Ursacium, which contained a history of the 
councils of Riminiand Seleucia. On this book 
Hilary expended much labour, having begun 
it in 360 and completed it in 366. The 15 
fragments occupy some 80 folio pages. They 
are, with one exception, recognized as genuine 
by Tillemont and by Ceillier. Whether, 
however, all the other documents cited in these 
fragments can be depended upon has been 
disputed. Respecting the genuineness of the 
commentaries given by Dom Pitra, opinions 
may fairly differ ; and happily there is in that 
case no disturbing influence at work as there 
is in the case of these fragments. If we accept 
them as authentic, the case against LIBERIUS 
is certainly darkened. But this is precisely 
the conclusion which certain modern critics 
(such as, e.g., the anonymous editor of Dom 
Ceillier) are for very obvious reasons most 
anxious to avoid. 

(7) Epistola ad Abram Filiam suam (ο. 
358).—Hilary, during his exile, learnt that 
there was some prospect of his daughter Abra, 
though only in her 13th year, being sought in 
marriage. He draws a mystic portrait of the 
heavenly bridegroom, which is evidently 
intended to suggest the superiority of a 
religious celibacy, but leaves her an entirely 
free choice, only desiring that the decision 
should be really her own. He encloses a 
morning and an evening hymn. On any 
difficulties in the letter or the hymns, Abra is 
to consult her mother. The Hymnus matutt- 
nus, a very brief one, is still extant. The 
Hymnus vespertinus is more disputed, but 
Cardinal Mai makes a fair case for it, though 
it does not satisfy Dom Coutant and Dom 
Ceillier. Two other hymns by Hilary, com- 
mencing respectively ‘‘ Hymnum dicat turba 
fratrum ”’ (a hymn on the life of our Lord) and 
κε Jesus refulsit omnium ”’ (on the Epiphany) 
are given by Thomassy in his Hymnarium. 
Dom Pitra gives some verses of considerable 
beauty on our Lord’s childhood, which seem 
to be Hilary’s. The letter to Abra is con- 
sidered doubtful by some critics, and rejected 
by Cave, but upon insufficient evidence. 

The best ed. of Hilary is the Benedictine by 
Coutant (Paris, 1693), orits reprint with a few 
additions by Maffei (Verona, 1730). The de 
Trinttate is in Hurter’s Ss. Pat. Opuse. (Inns- 
briick, 1888). 

In conclusion, it must be observed that, 
though Hilary in his de Trinitate (lib. vi. 36- 
38) speaks of Peter’s confession as the founda- 
tion of the church, he, in other writings, more 
especiaily in his commentary on the Psalms, 


is inclined to make Peter himself, whom he | 


terms caelestis regni janitorem, the foundation. 
In the fragmenta we find a letter from the 
fathers of Sardica to pope Julius, which 
certainly does refer to the Roman see as 
the head see. If Hilary approved of this 
document, he may very probably have allowed 
to Rome a primacy, at any rate, in the West. 
But this is a somewhat slender foundation to 


build a superstructure upon ; and it is singular, 


HILARIUS ARELATENSIS 


to find Ceillier’s editor, in his anxiety to dam- 
age the authority of the fragmenta, somewhat 
injuring the credit of the only one brief 
sentence in the extensive works of Hilary 
which can be cited as a recognition, however 
indirect, of the Roman primacy (Ceillier, iv. 
Ρ. 63, note). In practice Hilary did not 
often take his stand upon authority. The 
metropolitan see of Arles was in his time 
occupied by the Arian Saturninus, Hilary’s 
chief opponent in his earlier day. He had not 
been long bishop when, by force of character, 
will, intellect, and confessorship, he came into 
the first rank of champions. The idea of con- 
troversy being settled by the fiat of any one 
bishop, whether of Rome or elsewhere, had 
never dawned upon his mind. No leave was 
asked when he descended into Italy toconfront 
Auxentius. A cheap popular Life of Hilary of 
Poictiers, by J. G. Cazenove, ispub. byS.P.C.K. 
in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, and aselection 
of his works is in the Lib. of Nic. and Post- 
Nic. Fathers. Cf. also an art. in Journ. of 
Theol. Stud. Apr. 1904, by A. J. Mason on ‘‘The 
First Latin Christian Poet.’’ [J-G.c.] 
Hilarius (17) Arelatensis (Hilary of Arles), 
St., bp. of Arles and metropolitan. 
Authorities.—(1) References to himself in 


| his biography of his predecessor, Honoratus of 


Arles. (2) Vita Hilarii, usually assigned to 
St. Honoratus, bp. of Marseilles, a disciple of 
Hilary (Boll. Acta SS. 5; Mai. ii. 25). (3) 
Gennadius, Illust. Vir. Catal. ὃ 67. (4) St. 
Leo (Ep. 89, al. 10). (5) Councils of Riez, 439, 
Orange and Vaison, 442, Rome, 445 (Labbe, 
Concil.t. i. pp. 1747, 1783), Vienne, 445 (Nata- 
lis Alexander, Hist. Ecclestastica, t. v. p. 168, 
art. vili. de Concilio Romano in causd Hilaris 
Arelatensis). (6) Notices of St. Hilary are 
also to be found in the writings of St. EucHE- 
RIUS (who dedicated to him his book de Laude 
Eremt), of St. Isidore, of Sidonius Apollinaris, 
and others; and very specially in certain 
writings of St. Prosper and St. Augustine, to 
which references will be found below. 

The place of his birth, probably in 401, 
was apparently that part of Gallia Belgica 
called later Austrasia. He was of noble 
family. His education was, according to the 
standard of the age, a thoroughly liberal 
one, including philosophy and rhetoric. That 
in rhetoric he became no mean proficient is 
proved by the graceful style of the one assured 
composition of his which is extant. 

The early ambition of Hilary’s mind lay 
in the direction of secular greatness. Both 
station and culture gave him every prospect 
of success, and he appears to have ably dis- 
charged the duties of some dignified offices in 


| the state, though we are not informed of their 


precise nature. He must have been very 
young when the example and the entreaties 


| of his friend and kinsman Honoratus of Arles 


induced him to renounce all secular society for 
the solitude of the isle of Lérins. He sold his 
estates to his brother, and gave the proceeds 
partly to the poor, partly to some monasteries 
which needed aid. At Lérins he became a 
model monk inthe very best and highest sense; 
but after a period probably not exceeding 
two years his friend Honoratus, being chosen 
(A.D. 426) bp. of Arles, obtained the comfort 
of Hilary’s companionship in his new duties. 


HILARIUS ARELATENSIS 


Honoratus died Jan. 16, 429, and Hilaryat once 
prepared to return to Lérins, but the citizens 
of Arles compelled him to occupy the vacant 
see. As bishop, he lived in many respects 
like a monk, though by no means as a recluse. 
Simply clad, he traversed on foot the whole 
of his diocese and province. At home he 
dwelt in a seminary with some of his clergy. 
For the redemption of captives he earned 
money by tilling the earth and planting vines, 
and did not scruple to sell on emergencies 
sacred church vessels, substituting others of 
meaner material. He continued his studies, 
was constant in meditation and prayer, and 
as a preacher produced a great impression, 
by his excellent matter and delivery. 

The canons passed by the councils of Riez 
and of Orange, over which Hilary presided in 
439 and 442 respectively, were in the main of 
a disciplinary character; at Riez a special 
canon, the seventh, insisted strongly on the 
rights of the metropolitan. It seems un- 
deniable that Hilary was inclined to press the 
claims of this office to a degree which amounted 
to usurpation ; partly, perhaps, in regard to 
the geographical extent of the jurisdiction 
claimed by him for the see of Arles, and cer- 
tainly with respect to the rights of the clergy, 
the laity, and the comprovincial bishops. 

But before dealing with his important 
contest with pope Leo, we must interpose a 
few words on the semi-Pelagianism of which 
he has been accused. In 429, the year in 
which he became bishop, two letters (225 and 
226 in the Benedictine ed. of St. Augustine) 
were addressed to the great bp. of Hippo, one 
by Prosper, and one by another Hilary, a 
layman. In the former, Prosper, after 
recounting various shades of dissent mani- 
fested in S. Gaul from the Augustinian teach- 
ing on predestination, expressly names Hilary, 
bp. of Arles, among the recalcitrants. Pros- 
per refers in terms of high encomium to Hilary, 
and intimates that in all other respects the 
bp. of Arles was an admirer and supporter of 
Augustine’s teaching. He believed, indeed, 
that Hilary had some intention of writing to 
Augustine for explanation on the points at 
issue. The epistle of Hilary the layman, 
though its statement is more brief and general, 
entirely confirms that of Prosper. 

If on this evidence, and also from the re- 
spect shewn by him to Faustus of Riez, we are 
compelled to class Hilary of Arles with the 
semi- Pelagians, it must be recognized that he 
is a supporter of their views in their very 
mildest form. That Hilary had some grounds 
for fearing that Augustine’s teaching might 
imperil the acknowledgment of man’s free 
agency is admitted by many of our historians, 
e.g. Canons Bright (Hist. of Church, p. 307) 
and Robertson (Hist. of Chr. Church, bk. iii. 
cc. ii. and vii.). St. Germain of Auxerre, who 
went twice over to Britain to contend against 
Pelagianism, was a companion of the bp. of 
Arles on at least one of his tours through Gaul. 
Out of this tour, undertaken by Hilary as 
metropolitan, there arose the important con- 
test between the bps. of Arles and Rome 
which ended in procuring for the Roman see a 
great increase of authority, both in respect of 
territory and of power. The struggle is in 
many respects a remarkable one. Each side 


HILARIUS ARELATENSIS 479 


was well championed. Leo and Hilary were 
men of saintly piety, earnest and energetic in 
the discharge of their duties. Each con- 
scientiously believed himself in the right; 
both were apt to be hasty and high-handed 
in carrying out their views of ecclesiastical 
government. Hilary found at Besancon 
(Vesontio), or according to some at Vesoul, 
a bp. named Chelidonius, the validity of 
whose position was assailed on the two 
grounds that he had married a widow while 
yet a layman, and that he had previously, 
as a lay magistrate, pronounced sentences of 
capital punishment. Hilary held a council 
at Vienne in 444, and we learn from his bio- 
grapher and from the testimony of Leo that by 
its sentence Chelidonius was deposed from the 
episcopate and appealed to Rome in person. 
Although it was now midwinter, Hilary went 
on foot across the Alps. Presenting himself 
to Leo, he respectfully requested him to act 
in conformity with the canons and usages of 
the universal church. Persons juridically 
deposed were known to be serving the altar 
in Rome. If Leo found this to be the case, 
let him, as quietly and secretly as he pleased, 
put a stop to such violation of the canons. If 
Leo would not do this, Hilary would simply 
return home, as he had not come to Rome to 
bring any accusation. It seems probable, 
however, that he would have listened if Leo 
had been content with suggesting a rehearing 
of the cause in Gaul. Leo declined to take 
this view. Although Gaul was not a portion 
of the Roman patriarchate, the Roman pontiff 
resolved to assert over that region a claim 
similar to that which he had just failed to 
establish in Africa. [Lro.] He summoned a 
council or conference in which Hilary, for the 
sake of peace, consented to take part. Several 
bishops were present, including Chelidonius. 
Hilary, with much plainness of speech, de- 
fended his conduct. Leo had him put under 
guard; but Hilary contrived to escape and 
(apparently in Feb. 445) returned to Arles. 
Leo found the charge of marriage with a 
widow not proven against Chelidonius; and 
formally (as he had already done informally) 
pronounced him restored to his rank of bishop 
and to his see. Not content with the re- 
versal of Hilary’s sentence, Leo proceeded to 
deprive the bp. of Arles of his rights as a 
metropolitan, and to confer them on the bp. 
of Vienne. He further charged Hilary with 
having traversed Gaul attended by a band of 
armed men, and with hastily, without waiting 
for election bythe clergy and laity,consecrating 
a new bishop in place of Projectus, a bishop 
(according to Hilary within his province) who 
was at that time ill. Leo availed himself of his 
great influence with Valentinian III. to obtain 
an imperial rescript against Hilary, as one 
who was injuring the peace of the church and 
rebelling against the majesty of the empire. 
This celebrated document, which virtually 
promised the support of the secular arm to the 
claim of the Roman pontiff to be a universal 
bishop, was issued in 445, and was addressed 
to the Roman general in Gaul, Aetius. _ 

In this controversy Protestant historians, 
as arule, take the side of Hilary. But Roman 
Catholics are much divided. Writers of the 
ultramontane school, as Rohrbacher or the 


480 HILARIUS ARELATENSIS 


Italian Gorini (cited in the recent edition of 
Dom Ceillier), are severe upon Hilary and 
profess to regard the emperor’s rescript as 
only stating explicitly a principle always 
recognized. But the Gallicans, as Quesnel and 
Tillemont, strongly defend Hilary. 

It must be said for him that his conviction, 
that the see of Arles gave him metropolitical 
power over the whole of Gaul, was based upon 
no small amount of cogent testimony. The 
case in favour of this has been ably summed 
up by Natalis Alexander (ΗΠ. E. ὃ v. c. v. 
art. 8), and by the Rev. W. Kay in a note to 
the Oxf. trans. of Fleury (Lond. 1844). But 
if it hold good for the case of Chelidonius, it 
is not equally clear for that of Projectus. 
That Hilary should escape from Rome, when 
he found the secular authority employed to 
detain him, was only natural and justifiable. 
That he should take soldiers with him in 
making his visitations may be reasonably 
ascribed (as Fleury suggests) to the disturbed 
state of the country. As regards Projectus, 
he may have strayed beyond the ill-defined 
limits of his province and most certainly 
violated canonical rule. But there is no 
reason to doubt that Hilary, in so acting, 
really believed that Projectus would not 
recover, and wished to provide against an 
emergency. As forHilary’s exceeding freedom 
of language in the presence of Leo, which 
greatly shocked Leo and probably others 
among the audience, it must be remembered 
that the bp. of Arles was always wont to 
speak very plainly. Moreover, as a friend of 
Hilary, the prefect Auxiliaris subsequently 
observed, ‘‘ Roman ears were very delicate.”’ 

Those who are willing to accept pleas on 
behalf of Hilary do not thereby commit them- 
selves to unreserved censure on pope Leo. 
The encouragement to interference in the 
affairs of S. Gaul was undeniably very great. 
Strong as was the case for the jurisdiction of 
Arles over most of the Gallican sees, the 
authority over Narbonensian Gaul had long 
been claimed for the bp. of Vienne. A contest 
between Patroclus of Arles and Proculus of 
Marseilles had already been carried to a 
former bp. of Rome, Zosimus, in 422 (some 22 
years before the case of Hilary), though the 
result had not been encouraging to the par- 
tisans of Rome, since Zosimus misjudged it 
and his successor Boniface referred it back to 
the prelates of Gaul. But Leo, though at 
times dwelling more upon St. Peter’s confes- 
sion of faith than on his personal position, in 
all his letters bearing on the contest with 
Hilary repeats continually the text (Matt. 
Xvi. 18) on which other bishops of Rome had 
dwelt so much, and appeals to it as if no other 
interpretation had ever been heard of, and 
as in itself his sole and sufficient justification. 

Leo’s recourse to the emperor’s aid has been 
severely censured; and Tillemont declared 
concerning the famous law of June 6, 445, that 
“in the eyes of those who have any love for 
the church’s liberty or any knowledge of her 
discipline, it will bring as little honour to him 
whom it praises as of injury to him whom it 
condemns”’ (Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xv. art. xx. 
p- 83). Baronius (as Tillemont naturally 
adds) is fully justified in appealing to this 
act of Valentinian as a proof of the powerful 


HILARIUS 


aid lent by the emperors towards establishing 
the greatness and authority of the pope. 

Of the remaining four years of Hilary’s life, 
after his return to Gaul, we know little more 
than that they were incessantly occupied with 
the discharge of his duties. Practically the 
acts of Leo do not appear to have affected his 
position (see Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. ii. 
c. vil. pt. i. and Fleury), and Hilary never 
acknowledged their validity; though an 
appeal to Leo was made after Hilary’s death 
for the restoration of its ancient metropolitical 
rights to Arles. The attempts of Hilary 
through friends to conciliate Leo availed little. 
But when, after the death of Hilary (May 5, 
449), the prelates of the provinces announced 
to Leo that Ravennius had been elected and 
duly consecrated, Leo wrote an acknowledg- 
ment which sounds like a virtual retractation 
of his imputations on the motives and charac- 
ter of Hilary and most justly entitled him a 
man ‘‘ of holy memory.”’ 

Writings.—Waterland (Critical History of 
the Athanasian Creed) argues that Hilary of 
Arles was the author of the (so-called) Creed 
of St. Athanasius, but this remains only an 
ingenious conjecture. Among other doubt- 
ful works assigned to Hilary must be classed 
certain poems on sacred subjects: (1) Poema 
de septem fratribus Maccabaeis ab Antiocho 
Eptphane tinterfectis. (2) A poem, more fre- 
quently attributed to Prosper Aquitanus and 
generally included in his works, entitled 
Carmen de Dei Providentid. (3) Carmen in 
Genesim. This poem (which, like the two 
preceding, is in hexameters) has been more 
often ascribed to the earlier Hilary, bp. of 
Poictiers. The Benedictine editors reject it 
with some indignation from the genuine works 
of Hilary of Poictiers; remarking, however, 
that this does not involve its attribution to 
Hilary of Arles. But despite faults—theo- 
logical, grammatical, and metrical—the poem 
is curious as a real attempt at that blending 
of the Christian and classic elements of litera- 
ture displayed in after-ages so brilliantly, 
though after all with questionable success, by 
such able scholars as the Jesuit Casimir and 
the Presbyterian Buchanan. 

We have the authority of Hilary’s bio- 
grapher for asserting that he did compose some 
poetry (versus), wrote many letters, an ex- 
planation of the Creed (Symboli Expositio— 
this is a main element in Waterland’s argu- 
ment) and sermons for all the church’s festivals 
(Homuliae in totius Anni Festivitates). These 
were apparently extant when MHonoratus 
wrote. Two only survive: (1) Epistola ad 
Eucherium Episcopum Lugdunensem. (2) Vita 
Sancti Honorati Arelatensis Episcopt. This 
may be read in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, 
for Jan. 16. [1.α.0.] 

Hilarius (18) (Hilarus), bp. of Rome from 
Nov. 19 (or 17, Bolland.), 461, toSept. 10, 467, - 
succeeding Leo I. after a vacancy of nine 
days. Hewasa native of Sardinia and, when 
elected pope, archdeacon of Rome. He had 
been sent, when a deacon, as one of the legates 
of pope Leo to the council at Ephesus called 
Latrocinium (449), and is especially mentioned 
in the Acts of the council as having protested 
against the deposition of Flavian. After the 
council, Flavian having died from the violent 


st - 
eg <r 


a 


‘iene: 


HILARIUS 


treatment he had undergone, Hilarius, fearing 
with reason the like usage, escaped from 
Ephesus and travelled by by-roads to Italy. 
A letter from Hilarius, addressed after his 
return to the empress Pulcheria, gives an 
account of these transactions (Baron. ad ann. 
449, and Act. Concil. Chalced.). His short 
pontificate is chiefly memorable for his asser- 
tion of the authority of the see of Rome in 
Gaul and Spain. His predecessor Leo, during 
his struggle with St. Hilary of Arles for 
supremacy in Gaul, had obtained from Valen- 
tinian III. a famous rescript (445) confirming 
such supremacy to the fullest extent both in 
Gaul and elsewhere [LEO] ; and to such extent 
it was accordingly claimed by Hilarius. Soon 
after his accession he wrote (Jan. 25, 462) to 
Leontius, bp. of Arles and exarch of the 
provinces of Narbonensian Gaul, announcing 
the event and referring to the deference due 
tothe Romansee. In the same year he wrote 
a second letter to Leontius, who had deferenti- 
ally congratulated the pope on hisaccession, and 
had begged him to continue the favour shewn 
to the see of Arles against opponents of its 
jurisdiction. The pope, in his reply, com- 
mends his correspondent’s deference to St. 
Peter and desires that the discipline of the 
Roman church should prevail in all churches. 
Rusticus, metropolitan of Narbonne, had 
nominated his archdeacon Hermes as his 
successor, but had failed to obtain Leo’s 
approval. On the death of Rusticus, Hermes 
had been accepted by the clergy and people 
of Narbonne as their metropolitan bishop. On 
this, Frederic, kingof the West Goths, an Arian, 
wrote to acquaint the pope with the ‘‘ wicked 
usurpation ”’ and ‘* execrable presumption ”’ of 
Hermes. Accordingly Hilarius wrote a third 
letter to Leontius, in which he adopts the 
language of Frederic, and requires Leontius 
to send to Rome a statement of the affair, 
signed by himself and other bishops (Hil. Ep. 
vii. Labbe). The matter was now brought 
before a synod at Rome (462), and Hermes 
was declared degraded from the rank of 
metropolitan, but allowed to retain his see. 
Hilarius notified this decision in a letter dated 
Dec. 3, 462, to the bishops of the provinces 
of Vienne, Lyons, Narbonensis prima and 
secunda, and the Pennine Alps, which letter 
also contained regulations for the discipline 
of the church in Gaul (Hil. Ep. viii. Labbe). 
In 463 Hilarius again interposed in the affairs 
of the church in Gaul; and on this occasion 
not only Leontius of Arles but also Mamertus, 
metropolitan of Vienne, fell under his dis- 
pleasure. The city Diae Vocontiorum (Die 
in Dauphine) had been assigned by pope Leo 
to the jurisdiction ot Arles; but Mamertus 
had, notwithstanding, ordained a bp. of that 
see. Hilarius, again deriving his information 
from an Arian prince, Gundriac the Bur- 
gundian king, wrote a severe letter to Leon- 
tius, censuring him for not having apprized 
the holy see, and charging him to investigate 
the matter in a synod and then send to Rome 
a synodal letter giving a true account of it. 
Mamertus seems to have continued to assert 
his claim to jurisdiction in spite of the pope; 
for in Feb. 464 we find two more letters from 
Hilarius, a general one to the Gallican bishops, 
and another to various bishops addressed by 


HILARIUS 481 


name, in the former of which he accuses 
Mamertus of presumption and prevarication, 
threatens to deprive him of his metropolitan 
rank and disallows the bishops whom he had 
ordained till confirmed by Leontius. The 
second letter is noteworthy in that the pope 
rests his claim to supremacy over Gaul on 
imperial as well as ecclesiastical law ; alluding 
probably to the rescript of Valentinian III. 
“ He [t.e. Mamertus] could not abrogate any 
portion of the right appointed to our brother 
Leontius by my predecessor of holy memory ; 
since it has been decreed by the law of Chris- 
tian princes that whatsoever the prelate of the 
apostolic see may, on his own judgment, have 
pronounced to churches and their rulers . . . 
is to be tenaciously observed; nor can those 
things ever be upset which shall be supported 
by both ecclesiastical and royal injunction "’ 
(Hil. Epp. ix. x. xi. Labbe). Baronius 
finds it needful to account for St. Leo and St. 
Hilarius having so bitterly inveighed against 
St. Hilary and St. Mamertus by saying that 
popes may be deceived on matters of fact, and, 
under the prepossession of false accusations, 
persecute the innocent (Baron. ad ann. 464). 

In 465 Hilary exercised over the Spanish 
church the authority already brought to bear 
on that of Gaul, but this time on appeal. Two 
questions came before him. First, Silvanus, 
bp. of Calchorra, had been guilty of offences 
against the canons; and his metropolitan, 
Ascanius of Tarragona, had in 464 sent a 
synodal letter on the subject to the pope, 
requesting directions (Inter Hilar. Epp., Ep. 
il. Labbe). Secondly, Nundinarius, bp. of 
Barcelona, had nominated his successor, and 
after his death the nomination was confirmed 
by the metropolitan Ascanius and his suffra- 
gans. But they wrote to the pope desiring 
his concurrence and acknowledging the 
primacy of St. Peter’s see. Both these letters 
were considered in a synod at Rome. On the 
second case it was decided that Irenaeus, the 
nominated bishop, should quit the see of Bar- 
celona and return to his former one, while 
the Spanish bishops were ordered to condone 
the uncanonical acts of Silvanus (Hil. Epp. i. 
ii. iii, and Concil. Rom. xlviii. Labbe). 

In 467 the new emperor Anthemius was 
induced by one Philotheus, a Macedonian 
heretic whom he had brought with him, to 
issue a general edict of toleration for heretics. 
This was, however, revoked before coming 
into effect, and pope Gelasius (Ep. ad Epise. 
Dardan.) says that this was due to Hilarius 
having in the church of St. Peter remonstrated 
with the emperor and induced him to promise 
on oath that he would allow no schismatical 
assemblies in Rome. In the same year 
Hilarius died. He appears in the Roman 
Calendar as a saint and confessor. In re- 
membrance of his deliverance at Ephesus 
from the trials that procured him the title 
of confessor, he built, after he became pope, 
in the .baptistery of Constantine near the 
Lateran, two chapels dedicated to St. John 
Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, to the 
latter of whom he attributed his deliverance. 
The chapel to the Evangelist bore the inscrip- 
tion, ‘‘ Liberatori suo Johanni Evangelistae, 
Hilarus famulus Christi’’ (Bolland. citing 
Caesar Rasponus),. 


3l 


482 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


The extant writings of Hilarius are his 
letters referred to above. Anastasius Biblio- 
thecarius mentions his decreta sent to various 
parts, confirming the synods of Nice, Ephesus, 
and Chalcedon. condemning Eutyches, Nes- 
torius, and all heretics, and confirming the 
domination and primacy of the holy Catholic 
and apostolic see (Conctl. Rom. u.s.; Thiel. 
Epp. Pontiff. Rom. i.). {J-B—yY.] 

Hippolytus (2) Romanus. Though so 
celebrated in his lifetime, Hippolytus has been 
but obscurely known to the church of sub- 
sequent times. He was at the beginning of 
the 3rd cent. unquestionably the most learned 
member of the Roman church, and a man of 
very considerable literary activity ; his works 
were very numerous, and their circulation 
spread from Italy to the East, some having 
been translated into Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, 
Ethiopic, and perhaps other languages. His 
mame assumes various disguises, as Poltus in 
the popular memory of Italy, in Egypt as 
Abulides. There is evidence also that he took 
a very active part in the affairs of his own 
church; but there are no contemporary wit- 
nesses to inform us concerning his personal 
history. A century after his death Eusebius 
evidently knew nothing of him beyond what 
he could infer from such works of his as had 
reached him. These works were soon super- 
seded by those of other more able and learned 
writers. Scarcely one has come down to us 
without mutilation, and {πὸ authenticity of 
almost every work assigned to him has been 
disputed. Yet his celebrity survived, and 
various legends, not always carefully distin- 
guished from the authentic history of the saint, 
arose. It has been disputed whether Hippo- 
lytus was a presbyter or a bishop; and if a 
bishop, of what see; whether he laboured in 
Italy or Arabia; whether he was orthodox or 
a schismatic ; whether he was a martyr, and 
if so, by what death he died. At length the 
recovery of the work on heresies, now by 
general consent attributed to him, cleared 
away some obscurities in his personal history, 
though many questions can still receive only 
doubtful answers. 

The earliest notice of Hippolytus is by 
Eusebius in two passages (H. E. vi. 20, 22). 
In the first, speaking of ecclesiastical writers 
of whom letters were then preserved in the 
library at Jerusalem, Eusebius mentions 
“likewise Hippolytus, who was bishop of 
another church somewhere.”’ In the second 
he gives a list of the works of Hippolytus 
which he had met with (not including any 
letters), this being probably the list of those 
in the library at Caesarea, but adds that many 
other works by him might be found elsewhere. 

If the earliest witnesses give no certain 
information as to where Hippolytus laboured, 
they enable us to determine when he lived. 
Eusebius says that he wrote a work on the 
Paschal feast, in which he gives a sixteen- 
years’ Easter table, and accompanies it with 
a chronology, the boundary of his calculations 
being the first year of the emperor Alexander, 
1.6. A.D. 222. In 1551, in some excavations 
made on the Via Tirburtina, near Rome, a 
marble statue was found, representing a 
venerable person sitting in a chair, clad in the 
Greek pallium. The back and sides of the 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


chair contain Greek inscriptions. The back 
has a list of works presumably written by the 
person represented. One side has a sixteen- 
years’ cycle, exactly corresponding to the 
description of Eusebius and beginning with 
the first year of Alexander. Other evidence 
makes it certain that this cycle is that of 
Hippolytus. The works sufficiently agree 
with those ascribed to Hippolytus by Eusebius 
and Jerome; and no doubt is entertained that 
Hippolytus is the person commemorated. 
The list of Paschal full moons in the cycle 
gives accurately the astronomical full moons 
for the years 217-223 inclusive. For the next 
eight years the true full moons are a day or 
two later than those given, and after that 
deviate still further; so that after two or 
three revolutions of the cycle the table would 
be useless. This table must, then, have been 
framed about the time specified, a.D. 222, and 
the chair must be a nearly contemporary 
monument, for it is not conceivable that the 
table would be put on record, to doits author 
honour, after it had been tried long enough 
to make its worthlessness apparent. Further, 
the inscription is in Greek, and the early 
Roman church contained a large section, if 
not a majority, of foreigners, whose habitual 
language was Greek. This inscription must 
have been placed before that section had 
disappeared and Latin had become the ex- 
clusive language of the church. A further 
proof of antiquity is furnished by the list of 
writings, which is independent of those of 
Eusebius and Jerome, and which no one in 
the West could have drawn up long after the 
death of Hippolytus. The date thus fixed 
agrees with what we otherwise know, that 
Hippolytus was a contemporary of Origen, 
Jerome telling us that it appeared from a 
homily of Hippolytus then extant that it had 
been delivered in Origen’s hearing. We know 
from Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14) that Origen 
visited Rome in the reign of Caracalla and 
episcopate of Zephyrinus, 7.e. some time in the 
years 211-217. In one of these years he might 
thus have heard Hippolytus preach. We 
must place the commencement of the activity 
of Hippolytus as early as the 2nd cent. 
Photius tells us that the treatise of Hippolytus 
Against all the Heresies professed to be a syn- 
opsis of lectures delivered by Irenaeus. The 
simplest supposition seems to be that Hippo- 
lytus heard Irenaeus lecture in Rome. Euse- 
bius tells of one visit of Irenaeus to Rome 6. 
178. A note in a Moscow MS. of the martyr- 
dom of Polycarp (Zahn’s Ignatius, p. 167) 
represents him as teaching at Rome several 
years before. It is not unlikely that Irenaeus 
came again to Rome and there delivered 
lectures against heresies. The time could not 
have been long after the beginning of the last 
decade of the 2nd cent. It has been shewn 
that the author of the cycle engraved on the 
chair must also have been the author of a 
chronicle,, a Latin translation of which is 
extant, the last event in which is the death 
of the emperor Alexander (235). In that year 
an entry in the Liberian Catalogue of bishops 
of Rome records that Pontianus the bishop, 
and Hippolytus the presbyter, were trans- 
ported as exiles to the pestilent island of 
Sardinia. It is difficult to believe that the 


a 


te ge 


i 
! 
4 
‘ 
i 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


Hippolytus here described as presbyter is not 
our Hippolytus, and probably both he and 
Pontianus gained the title of martyrs by 
dying in the mines. From the “ depositio 
martyrum’”’ of the Liberian Catalogue it 
appears that the bodies of Pontianus and 
Hippolytus were both deposited on the same 
day (Aug. 13), the former in the cemetery of 
Callistus, the latter in that on the Via Tibur- 
tina, and it is natural to think that both 
bodies were brought from Sardinia to Rome. 
The translation of Pontianus, we are told, was 
effected by pope Fabianus, probably in 236 or 
237. Avery different account of the martyr- 
dom of Hippolytus is given by Prudentius 
(Peristeph. 11), who wrote at the beginning of 
the 5th cent. His story is that Hippolytus 
had been a presbyter, who was torn in pieces 
at Ostia by wild horses, like the Hippolytus 
of mythology. Prudentius describes the 
subterranean tomb of the saint and states that 
he saw on the spot a picture representing this 
execution, and that this martyrdom was 
commemorated on Aug. 13. He gives an 
account of the crowds who flocked to the 
commemoration and a description of a stately 
church, with a double row of pillars, which 
Dollinger considers was the church of St. 
Laurence (ft 258), a saint whose cultus 
attained much greater celebrity, and who was 
also buried on the Via Tiburtina, his church 
being adjacent to the tomb of Hippolytus. 

The picture which Prudentius saw may well 
have been originally intended to depict the 
sufferings of the mythological Hippolytus, 
and, being inscribed with that name, have 
been ignorantly copied or transferred by 
Christians to adorn the resting-place of the 
martyr of that name. The tale told by Pru- 
dentius is plainly the offspring of the picture, 
and the authentic evidence of the deposition, 
on Aug. 13, on the Via Tiburtina of the remains 
of a Hippolytus who is coupled with Pontianus 
indicates the real owner of the tomb, of whom, 
in the century and a half which passed before 
Prudentius visited it, all but his name andthe 
day of his feast had been forgotten. 

What light has been cast upon his history 
by the recovery of the treatise against here- 
sies? The portion previously extant had 
been known under the name of Origen’s 
Philosophumena. We make no scruple in 
treating this as the work of Hippolytus, for 
this is the nearly unanimous opinion of critics, 
Lipsius alone hesitating and cautiously citing 
the author as Pseudo-Origenes. From this 
work it appears that he took an active part in 
the affairs of the Roman church in the epis- 
copates of Zephyrinus and Callistus. D6l- 
linger has shewn that, without imputing wilful 
misstatement to Hippolytus, it is possible to 
put on all that he relates about CALLISTUS a 
very much more favourable interpretation 
than he has done; and with regard to the 
charge that Callistus in trying to steer a middle 
course between Sabellianism and orthodoxy 
had invented a new heresy, the retort may be 
made that it was Hippolytus himself who in his 
dread of Sabellianism had laid himself open to 
the charge of Ditheism. But the point towhich 
Déllinger called attention, with which we are 
most concerned here, is that Hippolytus in this 
work never recognizes Callistus as bp. of Rome. 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 483 


He says that Callistus had aspired to the 
episcopal throne and that on the death of 
Zephyrinus ‘‘he supposed himself to have 
obtained what he had been hunting for."’. But 
Hippolytus treats him only as the founder of 
a school (διδασκαλεῖον) in opposition to the 
Catholic church, using the same word with 
regard to Noetus (cont. Haer. Noeti, Lagarde, 
p- 44), of whom he says that when expelled 
from the church he had the presumption to 
set up “a school.’"’ Hippolytus says that 
Callistus and his party claimed to be the 
Catholic church and gloried in their numbers, 
though this multitude of adherents had been 
gained by unworthy means, namely, by 
improper laxity in receiving offenders. Cal- 
listus had received into his communion per- 
sons whom Hippolytus had excommunicated. 
He adds that this school of Callistus still con- 
tinued when he wrote, which was plainly after 
the death of Callistus, and he refuses to give 
its members any name but Callistians. Evi- 
dently the breach between Hippolytus and 
Callistus had proceeded to open schism. But 
if Hippolytus did not regard Callistus as bp. 
of Rome, whom did he so regard? To this 
question it is difficult to give any answer but 
Déllinger’s: Hippolytus claimed to be bp. of 
Rome himself. In the introduction to his 
work, Hippolytus claims to hold the episcopal 
office; he declares that the pains which he 
took in the confutation of heresy were his duty 
as successor of the apostles, partaker of the 
grace of the Holy Spirit that had been given 
to them and which they transmitted to those 
of right faith, and as clad with the dignity of 
the high priesthood and office of teaching and 
guardian of the church. Afterwards we find 
him exercising the power of excommunication 
upon persons, who thereupon joined the school 
of Callistus. Thus we seem to have a key to 
the difficulty that Hippolytus is described in 
the Liberian Catalogue only as presbyter, and 
yet was known in the East universally as 
bishop, and very widely as bp. of Rome. His 
claim to be bishop was not admitted by the 
church of Rome, but was made in works of 
his, written in Greek and circulating exten- 
sively in the East, either by himself in the 
works or more probably in titles prefixed to 
them by his ardent followers. We have also 
a key to the origin of the tradition that 
Hippolytus had been a Novatianist. He had 
been in separation from the church, and the 
exact cause of difference had been forgotten. 
Against another hypothesis, that Hippolytus 
was at the same time bp. of Portus and a 
leading presbyter of Rome, Dé6llinger urges, 
besides the weakness of the proof that Hippo- 
lytus was bp. of Portus, that there is no 
evidence that Portus had then a bishop, and 
that, according to the then constitution of the 
church, the offices of presbyter and bishop 
could not be thus combined. Ddéllinger con- 
tends that the schism could not have occurred 
immediately on the election of Callistus; but 
there is exactly the same reason for saying 
that Hippolytus refused to recognize Zephyr- 
inus as bishop, as that he rejected Callistus ; 
for he speaks of the former also as “ imagin- 
ing’’ that he governed the church. In con- 
sistency, then, Déllinger ought to have made 
the schism begin in the time of Zephyrinus, 


48 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


and so de Rossi does, adding a conjecture of 
his own, that the leader of the schism had been 
Victor’s archdeacon, and had in that capacity 
obtained his knowledge of the early life of 
Callistus, and that he was actuated by dis- 
appointment at not having been made bishop 
on Victor’s death. On the other hand, to 
make a schism of which no one in the East 
seems to have ever heard begin so early 
ascribes to it such long duration as to be quite 
incredible. For it continued after the death 
of Callistus, some time after which the account 
in the treatise on heresies was plainly written, 
and Ddllinger thinks it even possible that it 
may have continued up to the time of the 
deportation of Pontianus and Hippolytus to 
Sardinia. He regards with some favour the 
hypothesis that this banishment might have 
been designed to deliver the city from dissen- 
sions and disputes for the possession of 
churches between the adherents of the rival 
leaders. It seems to us most likely that 
Pontianus and Hippolytus were banished early 
in the reign of Maximin as the two leading 
members of the Christian community. We 
find it hard to refuse the explanation of von 
Dollinger, which makes Hippolytus the first 
anti-pope ; but the difficulties arising from the 
fact that the existence of so serious a schism 
has been absolutely unknown to the church 
from the 4th cent. to the rgth are so great, 
that if we knew of any other way of satis- 
factorily explaining the language of Hippoly- 
tus we should adopt it in preference. We are 
not told who consecrated Hippolytus asbishop, 
but aschism ininaugurating which bishops thus 
took the lead must have been a serious one: 
it lasted at least 5 or 6 years, and, if we make 
it begin in the time of Zephyrinus as we seem 
bound to do, perhaps 20 years, and it had as 
its head the most learned man of the Roman 
church and one whose name was most likely 
to be known to foreign churches. Yet the 
existence of this schism was absolutely un- 
known abroad. All Greek lists of the popes, 
as well as the Latin, include Callistus, and 
make no mention of Hippolytus; and the 
confessed ignorance of Eusebius about the see 
of Hippolytus is proof enough that he was not 
in possession of the key to the difficulty. In 
the Novatianist disputes which commenced 
about 15 years after the death of Hippolytus, 
when many would still be alive who could have 
remembered the controversy between him and 
Callistus, we find no allusion on either side to 
any such comparatively recent schism of 
which a man holding rigorist views resembling 
those of Novatian was the head. Bearing in 
mind the excitement caused in the case of 
Novatian, we ask, Was the question who was 
bp. of Rome regarded as a matter of such 
purely local concern that controversy could 
go on at Rome for years and the outside world 
know nothing of it, and that although the 
unsuccessful claimant was a person on other 
grounds very widely known? Is it conceiv- 
able, if Hippolytus really set up a rival chair 
to Callistus, that he, whose books and letters 
widely circulated in the East, made no at- 
tempt to enlist on his side the bishops of the 
great Eastern sees? Or is it likely, if Hippo- 
lytus had started a long-continued and 
dangerous schism at Rome, that the pre- 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


dominant party should have completely 
condoned his offence, that he should have been 
honoured for centuries as a saint andamartyr, 
and that his name should have been handed 
down with no hint of that schism until 
words of his own came to light to suggest it ? 
These improbabilities in the theory hitherto 
most generally received, amount almost to 
impossibilities, though we confess it difficult 
to find a satisfactory substitute. Wecan only 
suggest that if there were at the time, as there 
are grounds for supposing, a Greek congrega- 
tion at Rome, the head of it is very likely to 
have been Hippolytus, and the head of such 
a congregation might naturally be entrusted 
with the episcopal power of admitting or 
excluding members, since doubtful cases could 
scarcely be investigated by a Latin-speaking 
pope. The supposition that he may have 
received episcopal consecration, besides ex- 
plaining the enigmatical dignity ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκο- 
mos ascribed by Photius to Caius, would give 
a less violently improbable account of the 
claim of Hippolytus to episcopal dignity than 
the theory that he had been consecrated as 
anti-pope. Ashe was probably the last holder 
of his anomalous office, it is not surprising if 
no remembrance was retained of its exact 
constitution ; but it is in the nature of things 
probable that the period when the church of 
Rome was Greek and when it was Latin should 
be separated by a bilingual period; and it is 
not unnatural that the arrangements made 
during that interval should be forgotten when 
the need for them had passed. The severity 
of the persecutions at Rome under Decius and 
Valerian seems to have obliterated much of 
the recollections of the history of the early 
part of the century. Whether Hippolytus 
was bishop or presbyter, he wrote his attacks 
on Callistus in Greek and addressed them to 
Greek-speaking people, and there is no evi- 
dence that he made any assault on the unity 
of the Latin-speaking church. This may 
account for the faintness of the impression 
which his schismatic language produced and 
for the facility with which it was pardoned. 
That the arrogance and intemperance of 
language which he displayed did not deprive 
him of permanent honour in the Roman church 
is to be accounted for by the leniency with 
which men treat the faults of one who has real 
claims to respect. Hippolytus was a man of 
whose learning the whole Roman church must 
have been proud ; he was of undoubted piety, 
and of courage which he proved in his good 
confession afterwards. The way of return 
would not be made difficult for such a man 
when he really wished all dissension to end. 
The preceding discussions have told all that 
is known of the life of Hippolytus. We now 
proceed to enumerate his works; acknow- 
ledging the great help of the list of Caspari, 
Taufsymbol und Glaubensregel, 111. 377. 


(1) Most completely associated with his” 


name is the 16 years’ cycle (mentioned by 
Eusebius and Jerome, w.s.), and the little 
treatise in which he explained it. This is 
among the list of works on the statue, ᾿Α πόδειξις 
χρόνων τοῦ πάσχα Kal τὰ ἐν τῷ πίνακι. That 
the cycle engraved on the statue is undoubted- 
ly that of Hippolytus is not only proved by 
facts already pointed out and by its interpre- 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


tation of the 70 weeks of Daniel in the manner 
peculiar to Hippolytus, but is placed beyond 
doubt by its literal agreement with a Syriac 
version of the cycle of Hippolytus preserved 
in a chronological work by Elias of Nisibis 
(Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, p. 89). The cycle 
of 8 years used by Greek astronomers for 
harmonizing lunar and solar years is much 
older than Hippolytus. What was novel in 
the scheme of Hippolytus was his putting two 
eight-years’ cycles together in order to exhibit 
readily the days of the week on which the full 
moons fell. The cycle of Hippolytus is not 
astronomically correct, and, as the Syriac 
writer correctly states, the error accumulates 
at the rate of three days for every sixteen- 
years’ cycle. Of this Hippolytus has no 
suspicion, and he supposed that he could by 
means of his cycle determine all Paschal full 
moons future or past. 

(2) Eusebius, in the passage where he has 
spoken of the work on the Paschal feast just 
considered (τὸ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα σύγγραμμα). 
proceeds with a list of the other works of 
Hippolytus he had met with, among which is 
one περὶ τοῦ πάσχα. The use of the definite 
article in the first case might suggest that 
Eusebius only knew one such work, and men- 
tions it the second time in its order in his 
collection of works of Hippolytus. But it 
may be considered certain that Hippolytus 
treated doubly of the Paschal celebration : in 
(1) giving rules for finding Easter ; in another 
writing, which probably was an Easter-day 
sermon, treating of its doctrinal import. 

(3) Among the works enumerated on the 
statue is achronicle. The list runs χρονικῶν 
πρὸς Ἕλληνας. and it has been questioned 
whether this describes two separate works, or 
a chronicle written with a controversial object; 
but the remains of the chronicle itself shew it 
to have been written for the instruction of 
Christians and not as a polemic against 
heathenism. The chronicle records the death 
of the emperor Alexander, and therefore the 
deportation of Hippolytus and Pontianus to 
Sardinia could not have taken place under 
Alexander as the later Papal Catalogue has it, 
but under Maximin. It follows, also, that 
this chronicle is likely to be the latest work of 
Hippolytus, and therefore that a passage 
common to it and to the later treatise on 
heresy was taken from an earlier work, a 
supposition which presents no difficulty. 

(4) We pass now from the chronological to 
the anti-heretical writings; first, the treatise 
against all heresies, which may have been the 
earliest work of Hippolytus. It is mentioned 
in the lists of both Eusebius and Jerome, and 
a passage is quoted from it in the Paschal 
Chronicle, though it is not in thelist onthechair 
as we have it, which shews that we cannot 
build any conclusion on the absence of a name 
therefrom. The fullest account of this treat- 
ise is given by Photius (Cod. 121). He de- 
scribes it as a small book, βιβλιδάριον, against 
32 heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and 
ending with Noetus and the Noetians; that 
it purported to be an abstract of discourses of 
Irenaeus; was written in a clear, dignified 
style, though not observant of Attic propriety. 
It denied St. Paul’s authorship of Hebrews. It 
was probably published in the early years of 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


the episcopate (199-217) of Zephyrinus, to 
lead up to an assault on Noetianism, then the 
most formidable heresy at Rome. 

(5) A work, or rather a fragment, bearing in 
the MS. the title of Homily of Hippolytus 
against the Heresy of one Noetus, appears on 
examination to be not a homily, but the con- 
clusion of a treatise against more heresies than 
one. It begins: ‘* Certain others are privily 
introducing another doctrine, having become 
disciples of one Noetus.’’ It proceeds to 
refute the Noetian objection that the assertion 
of the distinct personality of our Lord contra- 
dicts those texts of Scripture which declare 
the absolute unity of God. At the end of this 
discussion he says, ‘‘ Now that Noetus also 
has been refuted, let us come to the setting 
forth of the truth, that we may establish the 
truth, against which all so great heresies have 
arisen, without being able to say anything." 
The orthodoxy of the tract seems unsuspected 
by Tillemont, Ceillier, Lumper, and others. 
It was formallv defended by bp. Bull, and was 
published by Routh (Ecc. Script. Opusc.) as a 
lucid exposition of orthodox doctrine. When, 
however, it came to light that the teaching of 
Hippolytus had been censured by pope 
Callistus, Déllinger had no difficulty in point- 
ing out features init opentocensure. Though 
Hippolytus acknowledges the Logos to have 
been from eternity dwelling in God as His 
intelligence, he yet appears to teach that there 
was a definite epoch determined by the will of 
God, prior no doubt to all creation, when that 
Logos, which had previously dwelt imperson- 
ally in God, assumed a separate hypostatic 
existence, in order that by Him the world 
should be framed and the Deity manifested 
to it. Thus, beside God there appeared 
another; yet not two Gods, but only as light 
from light, a ray fromthe sun. Hippolytus 
also teaches that it was only at the Incarna- 
tion that He Who before was the Logos 
properly became Son, though previously He 
might be called Son in reference to what He 
was to be. Déllinger imagines that this 
emanation doctrine of Hippolytus may, in the 
controversies of the time, have been stig- 
matized as Valentinian, and that thus we 
may account for a late authority connecting 
this heresy with his name. 

(6) Refutation of all Heresies.—In_ 1842 
Minoides Mynas brought to Paris from Mount 
Athos, besides other literary treasures, a 14th- 
cent. MS. containing what purported to be a 
refutation of all heresies, divided into 10 books. 
Owing to mutilation, the MS. begins in the 
middle of bk. iv.; but from the numbering of 
the leaves it is inferred that the MS. had never 
contained any of the first three books. Miller, 
who published it in 1851 for the Univ. of 
Oxford, perceived that it belonged to the work 
published under the name of Origen’s Philoso- 
phumena by Gronovius, and afterwards in the 
Benedictine ed. of Origen, though it had been 
perceived that the ascription to Origen must 
be erroneous, as the author claims the dignity 
of high priesthood, and refers to a former work 
on heresies, while no such work is said to have 
been composed by Origen. Miller in his 
edition reprinted the Philosophumena as bk. 1. 
of the Elenchus, but ascribed the whole to 
Origen, an ascription which was generally 


485 


46.  HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


rejected. Jacobi, in a German periodical, 
put forward the claims of Hippolytus, a theory 
which was embraced by Bunsen (Hippolytus 
and his Age, 1852; 2nd ed., Christianity and 
Mankind, 1854) and Wordsworth (St. Hippol. 
and the Ch. of Rome, 1853, 2nd ed. 1880), and 
completely established by Ddllinger (H7zppoly- 
tus und Kallistus, 1853). From the book itself 
we infer that the author lived at Rome during 
the episcopates of Zephyrinus and Callistus, 
and for some time afterwards; that he held 
high ecclesiastical office, and enjoyed much 
consideration, being not afraid to oppose his 
opinion on a theological question to that of the 
bishop, and able to persuade himself that fear 
of him restrained the bishop from a course on 
which he otherwise would have entered. Hip- 
polytus satisfies these conditions better than 
any one else for whom the authorship has been 
claimed. Further, the hypothesis that Hip- 
polytus was the author gives the explanation 
of the prevalent Eastern belief that he was bp. 
of Rome, of the tradition preserved by Pru- 
dentius that he had been once in schism from 
the church, and of the singular honour of a 
statue done him; for as the head of a party 
his adherents would glorify his learning and 
prolific industry. That the work on heresies 
connects itself with six distinct works of Hip- 
polytus makes the ascription certain. A trans. 
of the Refutaiion and of other fragments is 
in the vol. Apost. Fathers in Ante-Nic. Lib. 
(T. & T.. Clark). 

(a) The Treatise against the Thirty-two 
Heresies.—The author begins by saying that 
he had a long time before (πάλαι) published 
another work against heresy, with less minute 
exposure of the secret doctrines of the heretics 
than that which he now proposes to make. 
Of those for whom the authorship has been 
claimed, Hippolytus is the only one whom we 
know to have published a previous work on 
heresies. The time between the two works 
would be 20 years at least. 

(δ) The Treatise on the Universe.—At the end 
of the Refutation (x. 32, Ρ. 334, Plummer’s 
trans.) the author refers to a previous work 
of his, περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας, and among 
the works ascribed to Hippolytus on the statue 
we read, πρὸς “Ἕλληνας καὶ πρὸς Πλάτωνα ἣ καὶ 
περὶ τοῦ παντός. Photius remarks that the 
author of the work on the universe also wrote 
the Labyrinth, according to a statement at the 
end of that work. Now, bk. x. begins with 
the words, ‘‘ The labyrinth of heresies.’” We 
may, then, reasonably conclude that what 
Photius knew as the Labyrinth was our bk. x., 
which-was known by its first word. 

(c) The Chronicle and the Treatise on the 
Psalms.—The enumeration of the 72 nations 
among whom the earth was divided (x. 30), 
and which the author states that he had 
previously given in other books, precisely 
agrees with that in the Chronicle of Hippoly- 
tus; and though this chronicle was probably 
later than the Refutation, Hippolytus wrote 
commentaries on Genesis, where this enumera- 
tion would naturally be given in treating of 
c. x., and he appears to have been, like many 
prolific writers, apt to repeat himself. This 
same enumeration is given in his commentary 
on the Psalms (No. 29 infra). 

(4) The Tract against Noetus.—On compar- 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


ing this tract with the exposition of the truth 
given at the end of the Refutation, the identity 
of doctrine, and sometimes of form of expres- 
sion, decisively proves common authorship. 
The same doctrine is found, that the Logos, 
Which had from eternity dwelt in the Deity 
as His unspoken thought, afterwards assumed 
a separate hypostatic existence, differing from 
created things not only in priority but also 
because they were out of nothing, He of the 
substance of the Godhead; and being the 
framer of the universe according to the divine 
ideas (in the Platonic sense of the word) which 
had dwelt in Him from the first. That the 
Son’s personal divinity was not by the original 
necessity of His nature, but given by an act 
of the divine will, is stated more offensively 
than in the earlier tract. He says to his 
reader, ‘‘ God has been pleased to make you 
aman, notagod. If He had willed to make 
you a god He could have done so; you have 
the example of the Logos.” 

(e) The Treatise on Antichrist.—In c. ii. of 
this treatise (Lagarde, p. 2), when telling how 
the prophets treated not only of the past but 
of the present and the future, he uses language 
in some respects verbally coinciding with what 
is said in the Elenchus (x. 33, Pp. 337). 

The evidence which has been produced 
amounts to a demonstration of the Hippoly- 
tine authorship. The title of the work would 
be φιλοσοφούμενα ἢ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων 
ἐλέγχος ; the name Philosophumena properly 
applying to the first 4 books, the Elenchus 
to the last 6. Its chief value to us consists, 
in addition to the light cast on the disputes in 
the church of Rome at the beginning of the 
3rd cent., in its extracts from otherwise un- 
known Gnostic writings, inserted by the 
author to shame these sects by an exposure of 
their secret tenets. Its attack on the charac- 
ter of pope Callistus was fatal to its circulation. 
No doubt when a reconciliation was effected 
at Rome all parties desired to suppress the 
book. Bk. i. was preserved as containing a 
harmless and useful account of the doctrines 
of heathen philosophers; and bk. x., which 
presented no cause for offence (there being 
nothing to indicate that the heretic Callistus 
mentioned in it was intended for the bp. of 
Rome), also had some circulation and was seen 
by Theodoret and Photius. But these two 
writers are the only ones in whom we can trace 
any knowledge of bk. x., which was certainly 
not used by Epiphanius. The rest of the work 
is mentioned by no extant writer, and but for 
the chance preservation of a single copy in the 
East would have altogether perished. 

(7) The Little Labyrinth.—Eusebius (H. E. 
v. 27) gives some long extracts from an anony- 
mous work against the heresy of Artemon. 
Internal evidence shews that the writer was a 
member of the Roman church and speaks of 
things that occurred in the episcopate of 
Zephyrinus as having happened in his own 
time. On the other hand, Zephyrinus is 
described as Victor’s successor, language not 
likely to be used if Zephyrinus were at the time 
bishop, or even the last preceding bishop. 
The writer’s recollection too does not appear 
to go back to the episcopate of Victor. The 
date would therefore be soon after the epis- 
copate of Callistus. Theodoret (Haer. Fab. 


wow 


iene 
----.- 


a 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


ii. 5) refers to the same work as_ known in his 
time under the name of the Little Labyrinth 
and attributed by some to Origen; though 
Theodoret considers this assumption disproved 
by the difference of style. Photius (Cod. 48) 
ascribes to Caius a book called the Labyrinth, 


which we have identified with the summary | 


of the Elenchus. He does not mention the 
Little Labyrinth, but adds that it was said that 
Caius had composed a special treatise against 
the heresy of Artemon. We have no reason 
to think that the Labyrinth of Photius and the 
Little Labyrinth of Theodoret were the same ; 
on the contrary, the latter was probably iden- 
tical with the treatise against Artemon, which 
Photius expressly distinguishes from his Laby- 
rinih. Internal evidence, and the fact that 
we have some external evidence for the author- 
ship of Caius and none for that of Hippolytus, 
cause us to give our verdict for Caius. 

(8) The Work against Bero and Helix.—A 
certain Anastasius of the 7th cent. is the 
earliest authority for designating Hippolytus 
as bp. of Portus. He so calls him in sending 
to Rome extracts made by him at Constanti- 
nople from what purported to be a treatise of 
Hippolytus, περὶ θεολογίας καὶ capxwoews, 
against the above-named heretics, his adver- 
saries having hindered Anastasius from getting 
possession of the entire work. Dé6llinger (p. 
295) has given conclusive reasons for regarding 
this as no work of Hippolytus, but as a forgery 
not earlier than the 6th cent. The technical 
language of these fragments is also that of the 
controversies of the 5th cent., and quite unlike 
that of the age of Hippolytus. It was doubt- 
less Anastasius who supplied another passage 
from the discourse περὶ θεολογίας produced at 
the Lateran Council in 649. 

(9) A Syriac list of the writings of Hippoly- 
tus given by Ebed Jesu, a writer of the very 
beginning of the 14th cent. (Assemani, B7bl. 
Or. iii. 1, p. 15), contains a work whose Syriac 
title is translated by Ecchelensis de Regimine, 
by Assemani de Dispensatione. Adopting 
the latter rendering and taking ‘‘ dispensatio ”’ 
to be equivalent to οἰκονομία, we should con- 
clude its subject to be our Lord’s Incarnation. 
It may therefore be identical with (8). If the 
other rendering be adopted, the work would 
relate to church government, and might be 
identical with some part of (21). 

(10) The Treatise against Marcton.—Men- 
tioned in the catalogues of Eusebius and 
Jerome, but nothing of it remains. 

(11) On the statue is enumerated a work 
περὶ τἀγαθοῦ Kal πόθεν τὸ κακόν. This may 
well have been an anti-Marcionite composition, 
and possibly that mentioned by Eusebius (10). 

(12) Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of 
St. John.—We may probably class among 
anti-heretical writings the work described on 
the chair as ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην εὐαγγελίου 
καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως, and in the list of Ebed Jesu 
as “ἃ defence of the Apocalypse and Gospel 
of the apostle and evangelist John.’’ The 
work on the Apocalypse mentioned by Jerome 
we take to be different, and we notice it among 
the exegetical works. Hippolytus in_ his 
extant remains constantly employs the Apoc- 
alypse, and his regard for it is appealed to by 
Andrew of Caesarea (Max. Bibl. Patr. v. 590): 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 487 


It has been supposed that Carus was the 
writer, replied to by Hippolytus, who ascribes 
the Apocalypse and the Gospel to Cerinthus ; 
but the arguments for supposing that Caius 
rejected the Apocalypse are inconclusive, and 
it is highly improbable that he, an orthodox 
member of the Roman church, rejected the 
Gospel of St. John. 

_ (13) One argument in support of the view 
just referred to is that Ebed Jesu (.s.) 
enumerates among the works of Hippolytus 
Chapters (or heads) against Catus, which, it 
has been conjectured, were identical with (12). 
But Ebed Jesu reckons the two works as dis- 
tinct. What other heresy of Caius Hippolytus 
could have confuted is unknown. 

(14) It is hard to draw the line between 
controversial and dogmatic books. Thus, 
with regard to the treatise cited by Anastasius 
Sinaita (Lagarde, No. 9,P- 90), περὶ ἀναστάσεως 
καὶ ἀφθαρσίας, which may be the same as that 
described on the statue as περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς 
ἀναστάσεως and by Jerome as de Resurrec- 
tione, we cannot tell whether it was a simple 
explanation of Christian doctrine or directed 
against the errors of heretics or heathens. 

(15) A controversial character more clearly 
belongs to another work on the same subject, 
a fragment of which is preserved in Syriac 
(Lagarde, Anal. Syr. p. 87), and contains what 
Stephen Gobar (Photius, Cod. 232) noted asa 
peculiarity of Hippolytus, found also in both 
his treatises against heresy, viz. that he makes 
Nicolas the deacon himself, and not any mis- 
understood saying of his, the origin of the 
errors of the Nicolaitanes. Here he is charged 
with maintaining that the resurrection has 
passed already and that Christians are to 
expect none other than that which took place 
when they believed and were baptized. | 

(16) One work at least Hippolytus specially 
directed to the heathen, and though this is not 
included in the list of Jerome he probably 
alludes to it (Ep. ad Magnum, i. 423) where 
he classes Hippolytus with others who wrote 
“contra gentes.”? On the chair we read 
χρονικῶν mpds"EAAnvas καὶ πρὸς Πλάτωνα ἢ καὶ 
περὶ τοῦ παντός. We might take πρὸς Ἑλληνας 
as a distinct work, or with what precedes or 
with what follows. That the last is the true 
construction appears both from the title given 
in one of the MSS., in which a fragment is 
preserved, ὁ λόγος mpds"EAAnvas ὁ ἐπιγεγραμ- 
μένος κατὰ Πλάτωνα περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας, 
and from the fact that the same fragment 
contains addresses to the Greeks. This, then, 
is evidently the treatise περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς 
οὐσίας, mentioned at the end of the Elenchus, 
and of which Photius speaks in a passage 
already referred to (Cod. 48). He says that 
the treatise was in two short books, that it 
shewed that Plato was inconsistent ; that the 
Platonic philosopher Alcinous had spoken 
falsely and absurdly about the soul, matter, 
and the resurrection; and that the Jewish 
nation wasmuch older than the Greek. = The 
theory of the universe embodied in this work 
made all things consist of the four elements, 
earth, air, fire, or water. Things formed of 
more elements than one are subject to death 
by the dissolution of their component parts, 
| but things formed of one element (e.g. angels, 


488 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


formed of fire alone) are indissoluble and 
immortal. Angels also have no female, for 
from water the generative principle is derived. 
Man is made of all four elements, his soul 
being formed of air and called ψυχή, because 
this element is colder than the other three. 
The principal extant fragment contains a 
description of Hades as a place underground 
where souls are detained until the judgment. 
The gate is guarded by an archangel. When 
the angels appointed to that service conduct 
thither righteous souls, they proceed to the 
right to a place of light called Abraham’s 
bosom, where they enjoy continued present 
pleasures with the expectation of still greater 
happiness in the future. The wicked, on the 
other hand, are hurried down to the left into 
a place of darkness where is the lake of fire, 
into which no one has yet been cast, but which 
is prepared for the future judgment. There 
they not only suffer present temporary punish- 
ments, but are tormented by the sight and 
smoke of that burning lake and the horrible 
expectation of the punishment to come. The 
sight of the righteous also punishes them, 
between whom and them a great gulf is fixed ; 
and while the bodies of the righteous will rise 
renewed and glorified, theirs will be raised 
with all their diseases and decay. 
conjectures that Hippolytus may have taken 
some points for which he has not Scripture 
authority from the Apoalypse of Peter. 

(17) The Demonstration against the Jews.— 
The Greek text of a fragment of a work bearing 
this title was first published by Fabricius (vol. 
11. 1) from a copy supplied by Montfaucon from 
a Vatican MS. There is no external evidence 
to confirm the ascription in the MS. of this 
work to Hippolytus. The mutilated list on 
the chair begins -ovs ; but it is bare conjecture 
which completes this into πρὸς ᾿Ιουδαίους. 
There is nothing in the fragment which forbids 
us to suppose Hippolytus the writer. It shews 


that the Jews have no reason to glory in the | 
sufferings they inflicted on Jesus of Nazareth, | 


for it had been foretold that the Messiah should 
so suffer, and these sufferings had been the 
cause of the misery afterwards endured by the 
Jewish nation. 

(18) We pass now to dogmatic writings. 
Jerome, in his list of the writings of Hippoly- 
tus. gives “"Προσομιλία de laude Domini sal- 
vatoris.’’ This is the homily delivered in the 
presence of Origen. 

(19) The Work on Antichrist.—Of all the 
writings of Hippolytus this is the only one 
extant in a perfect state, or nearly so. It 
appears in Jerome’s list with the title de Antt- 
christa; Photius calls it περὶ Χριστοῦ καὶ 
ἀντιχρίστου ; and the title it bears in the MS. 
from which the first printed edition was made 
is περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ περὶ 
τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου. The work is addressed to 
one Theophilus, and the author cautions him 
against communicating to unbelievers what 
he was about to teach him, quoting Paul’s 
directions to Timothy, ‘‘ the things thou hast 
heard of me commit thou to faithful men.” 
The doctrine of the treatise as to the coming 
overthrow of the Roman power would give 
good reason for this caution. Jerome’s title 
best describes the treatise, of which, after some 


Bunsen | 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


introductory remarks on prophetic inspiration, 
Antichrist is almost exclusively the subject. 
The later title has some justification in the 
parallel between Christ and Antichrist, with 
which he begins, shewing how the deceiver had 
sought in all things to liken himself to the Son 
of God. He was to be, like Christ, a lion 
(Deut. xxxiii. 22), a king, a lamb (Rev. xiii. 
11), he was to come in the form of a man, and 
to be of the circumcision ; he was to send out 
false apostles and gather in a people, and as 
the Lord had given a seal to those who believe 
in Him, so should he, ete. The writer then 
quotes fully all the prophecies of Antichrist, 
and concludes that he shall be of the tribe of 
Dan; that Daniel’s four kingdoms are the 
Babylonian, Median, Grecian, and Roman; 
that the ten toes of the image are ten kings 
among whom the Roman empire should be 
divided, that from among these Antichrist 
should arise and overthrow three of the kings, 
viz. those of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, and 
make an expedition against Tyre and Berytus, 
and then should gain the submission of the 
Jews, hoping to obtain vengeance by their 
means; that he should shew himself forth as 
God, and persecute to the death those who 
refuse to worship him; that he should reign 
three years and a half and then that he and 
his kingdom should be destroyed by Christ’s 
second coming. For the problem of the num- 
ber of the beast, while other solutions men- 
tioned by Irenaeus are noticed, that of Aaretvos 
is preferred. This is one of many coincidences 
shewing that Hippolytus used the treatise of 
Irenaeus against heresies and enumerated 
(§iv.) by Overbeck in an able monograph on 
this tract Quaestionum Hippol. specimen. 
Overbeck discusses also the points of contact 
between this tract and Origen, deciding that 
these may be accounted for without supposing 
either writer indebted to the other. 

(20) The text of a homily on the Holv Theo- 
phany was communicated to Fabricius by 
Gale from a MS. still preserved at Cambridge. 
There is also extant a Syriac translation of 
great part of this homily, viz. to the end of 
c. 7 (Wright, Catal. of Svr. MSS. of Brit. Mus. 
ii. 842). The ascription of the MSS. is not 
confirmed by any external evidence, nor is 
this homily mentioned in any list of the 
Hippolytine works, nor quoted by any ancient 
author. We do not, however, see anything 
in it which Hippolytus might not have 
written, and Wordsworth has pointed out a 
remarkable coincidence with the Refutation, 
viz. that in both man is spoken of as becoming 
a god by the gift of new birth and immortality. 

(21) On the chair is enumerated περὶ 
χαρισμάτων ἀποστολικὴ παράδυσις. It is 
doubtful whether this is the title of one work 
or two. For various speculations see Fabri- 
cius, p. 83. The most probable theory is that 
it treated of Montanist claims to inspiration. 

(22) On the chair we have words which 
have been read δαὶ εἰς πάσας Tas γραφάς. If 
the line describes only a single work it may 
denote hymns, one in praise of each of the 
books of Scripture and perhaps giving a 
poetical account of its contents. 

(23) On the Hexaemeron.—We now pass to 
the exegetical writings. This work is given 
in the lists of Eusebius and Jerome. The 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


latter states (Ep. liv., ad Pammach. et Ocean. 
vol. i. p. 525) that Ambrose had made use of 
it in his work on the same subject. 

(24) εἰς Ta μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον (Eus.). In 
Genesim (Hieron.). From this we suppose the 
account of the 72 nations to have been taken. 

(25) On Exodus.—This we only know from 
Jerome's list. No quotations have been pre- 
served, though Magistris makes a doubtful 
suggestion that Theodoret’s citations from the 
λόγος els τὴν ὠδὴν τὴν μεγάλην are from a 
commentary on the Song of Moses (Ex. xv.). 

(26) There is extant a fragment (Lagarde, 
51) of a commentary on ‘‘the blessings of 
Balaam’’; and Trithemius also ascribes to 
Hippolytus a commentary on Numbers. An 
Arabic catena on the Pentateuch, of which a 
portion was pub. by Fabricius, ii. 33-44, and 
the whole of Gen. by Lagarde, Matertalien zur 
Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs, contains 
numerous extracts from an Hippolytus whom 
it describes as the expounder of the Targum. 
It is generally admitted that the scholia do not 
belong to our Hippolytus. 

(27, 28) Theodoret cites several passages 
from the Discourse on Elkanah and Hannah. 
Another part of Samuel was the subject of a 
special treatise called by Jerome de Saul et 
Pythontssa, and in Gk. els τὴν ἐγγαστρίμυθον, 
for so an imperfect line on the chair is gener- 
ally, and, as we believe, correctly, completed. 

(29) The Commentary on the Psalms.—The 
eixstence of this work is testified by Jerome 
and by the inscription on the chair. Yet 
elsewhere when writing to Augustine Jerome 
gives a list of commentators on the Psalms 
(Ep. exii., vol. i. p. 754), leaving out Hippoly- 
tus and counting Eusebius as the next Greek 
commentator after Origen, either through 
mere forgetfulness or because Jerome had only 
read, of Hippolytus, homilies on particular 
Psalms and some general observations on 
the whole book. Theodoret quotes from 
the commentary on Pss. ii. xxiii. and xxiv., 
and on the gd) μεγάλη, which may mean Ps. 
cxix. These quotations may be from separate 
homilies, and not from the present work. A 
fragment published by Bandini comments 
on Ps. Ixxviii. Several other fragments of 
doubtful genuineness are given by Magistris 
(Migne, x. 722). Hippolytus classifies the 
Psalms according to their authors and in- 
scriptions, and explains that they are all 
called David’s because he originated the 
institution of temple psalmody, as the book 
of Esther is called after her, and not after 
Mordecai, of whom it has much more to tell, 
because Esther, by her act of self-sacrifice, was 
the originator of the whole deliverance. 
Hippolytus points out that the Psalms are not 
in chronological order, and supposes that 
Ezra did not find them all at once and 
placed them in books as he found them. The 
Greek, on the contrary, supposes that the 
chronological order was deranged to establish 
a mystical connexion between the number of 
a Psalm and its subject. Eusebius here 
follows Hippolytus. 

(30) On Proverbs. Mentioned in Jerome's 
list. Some fragments have been preserved in 
catenae (Lagarde, pp. 196-199). Others pub. 
by Mai (Bib. Nov. Pat. vii-) will be found in 
Migne (p. 6). 


HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 489 


(31, 32) Jerome enumerates a commentary 
on Ecclesiastes; both Eusebius and Jerome 
one on the Song of Songs. Lagarde gives one 
fragment from the former (No. 136, p. 200) and 
four from the latter (No. 35, p. 200; and Anal. 
Syr. p. 87). One of these states that Hezekiah 
suppressed the works of Solomon on natural 
history, because the people sought in them for 
the recovery of their diseases, instead of seeking 
help from God. 

(33, 34, 35) Jerome enumerates a commen- 
tary on Isaiah; Eusebius one on parts of 
Ezekiel. Assemani states (Bibl. Or. i. 607) 
that there is Syriac testimony to the existence 
of one on Jeremiah. 

(36) On Dantel.—In Jerome's list. It is the 
subject of an article by Photius; is quoted by 
several other writers, and large fragments of 
it remain. In a most valuable contribution 
to Hippolytine literature, Bardenhewer (Frei- 
burg, 1877) collects all the notices of this 
work, discusses the different extant fragments, 
and restores the original as far as possible. 
Catenae quote passages from the commentary 
of Hippolytus on Susanna, but the early lists 
do not mention this as a separate treatise, and 
Bardenhewer is probably right in thinking 
that it was the commencement of the commen- 
tary on Daniel, to which book that of Susanna 
was then commonly prefixed. The list of 
Ebed-Jesu attributes to Hippolytus an exposi- 
tion of Susanna and of Daniel the Little. 
This writer’s list of O.T. books includes 
Daniel, Susanna, and Daniel the Little. There 
is no evidence what is meant by the last. 
Hippolytus supposes Susanna to have been the 
daughter of the high-priest Hilkiah (II. Kings 
xxii. 4) and sister to the prophet Jeremiah, 
and he probably, like Africanus, identified 
her husband with the Jehoiachin who was 
kindly treated by Evil-Merodach. Hippolytus 
thought, like so many of the Fathers, that the 
persons, institutions, and events of O.T. in- 
cluded, beside their literal meaning, a typical 
representation of things corresponding in the 
new dispensation. The remains of the 
commentary on Daniel contain a theory at- 
tested by Photius, that our Lord had come in 
the year of the world 5500, and that its end 
should be in the year 6000, that is, not until 
500 years after the Incarnation. In Scripture 
proof of this calculation, Hippolytus appeals 
to the 54 cubits which he finds in Ex. xxv. τὸ ; 
to the sixth hour, John xix. 14, which denotes 
half a day or 500 years; and to Rev. xvii. 
1o. This 5500 years must be understood as 
round numbers, for the Chronicle of Hippoly- 
tus counts the exact number of vears as 5502. 

(37) On Zechariah.—Known only from 
Jerome’s list and the prologue to his com- 
mentary on Zechariah. 

(38) On Matthew.—We know of this from 
the prologue to Jerome’s commentary on 
Matthew ; and Theodoret quotes from a dis- 
course on the parable of the talents, which, 
however, may have been a separate homily. 

(39) On Luke.—Two fragments are given by 
Mai (Lagarde, p. 202), and Theodoret has 
preserved part of a homily on the two thieves. 

(40) On the Apocalypse.—In the list of Jer- 
ome, and mentioned by Jacob of Edessa (Ieph. 
Syr. Opp. Syr. i. 192) and Syncellus, 354. 
Some fragments are preserved in an Arabic 


490 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 


Catena on the Apocalypse (Lagarde, Anal. 
Syr. app. pp. 24-27). It appears that Hippo- 
lytus (who is described as pope of Rome) 
interpreted the woman (Rev. xii. 1) to be the 
church ; the sun with which she is clothed, our 
Lord; the moon, John the Baptist; the 
twelve stars, the twelve apostles; the two 
wings on which she was to fly, hope and love. 
He understood xii. ro to speak, not of an actual 
swallowing up by the earth of the hostile 
armies, but only that they wandered about in 
despair. He understood by the wound of the 
beast (xiii. 3) the contempt and refusal of 
obedience with which Antichrist would be 
received by many at first; and by the healing 
of it the subsequent submission of the nations. 
The two horns (xiii. 11) are the law and the 
prophets, for this beast will be a lamb out- 
wardly, though inwardly a ravening wolf. 
Of the number of the beast, beside the Ire- 
naean solutions, Lateinos, Euanthas, and 
Teitan, he gives one of his own, Dantialos, a 
name possibly suggested by the theory that 
Antichrist was to be of the tribe of Dan. The 
kings of the East (xvi. 12) come to the support 
of Antichrist. Armageddon is the valley of 
Jehoshaphat. The five kings (xvii. 13) are 
Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Alexander 
and his four successors. The next is the 
Roman empire, whose time was not yet com- 
pleted; the seventh, who had not yet come, 
was Antichrist. 

This enumeration includes all the works for 
which there is evidence of Hippolytine author- 
ship, unless we add the letters with which 
it would seem Eusebius was acquainted. The 
list of genuine writings is quite enough to 
establish the immense literary activity of 
Hippolytus, especially as an interpreter of 
Scripture ; and his labours must have given 
a great impulse to the study of God’s word. 
As a writer he must be pronounced active 
rather than able or painstaking. Yet he must 
be admitted to deserve the reverence his 
literary labours gained from his contempora- 
ries and the honour paid him at his death. For 
centuries afterwards his name was obscured ; 
but his glory blazed out again when in the 
time of Charlemagne his relics were trans- 
ferred to France. For some interesting par- 
ticulars of this translation see Benson, Journ. 
of Classical and Sacred Philology, i. 190. We 
quote his account of the visit of pope Alex- 
ander III. to his shrine in the church of St. 
Denys in 1159. ‘‘ On the threshold of one of 
the chapels he paused to ask, ‘ Whose relics 
it contained?’ ‘Those of St. Hippolytus,’ 
was theanswer. ‘I don’t believe it—I don’t 
believe it’ (‘ Non credo—non credo’), replied 
the infallible authority. ‘The bones of St. 
Hippolytus were never removed from the holy 
city.” But St. Hippolytus, whose dry bones 
apparently had as little reverence for the 
spiritual progeny of Zephyrinus and Callistus 
as the ancient bishop’s tongue and pen had 
manifested towards these saints themselves, 
was so very angry that he rumbled his bones 
inside the reliquary with a noise like thunder 
(‘ut rugitus tonitrui putaretur’). To what 
lengths he might have gone if rattling had not 
sufficed we dare not conjecture. But the 
pope, falling on his knees, exclaimed in terror, 
‘TI believe, O my Lord Hippolytus—I believe ; 


HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 


pray be quiet.’ And he built an altar of 
marble there to appease the disquieted saint.”’ 

Literature.—Arts. on Hippolytus are to be 
found in Tillem. vol. iv.; Ceillier, vol. i. ; 
Fabr. Bibl. Gr. vii. 183, ed. Harles, where is 
the best account of the older bibliography. 
The discovery of the Refutation made a good 
deal of the older literature antiquated. We 
have already referred to some of the more im- 
portant writings which that discovery elicited. 
The more important special dissertations on 
the other works have been referred to under 
their respective sections. The most important 
discussion on the life and works of Hippolytus 
is that in vol. xi. of part i. of Bp. Lightfoot’s 
A post. Fathers, pp. 137-477. [α.5.] 

Hippolytus (5): Aug. ro (Bas. Men.), Aug. 
13 (Mart. Vet. Rom. Usuard.). An apocryphal 
martyr, first mentioned in the 5th or 6th cent. 
His story, as given in the martyrology of Ado, 
is taken from the spurious acts of St. Lauren- 
tius the Roman archdeacon, where we are told 
that that saint, when arrested, was delivered 
by the prefect Valerian into the custody of 
Hippolytus, a high military officer, who was 
converted and at once baptized by him, and 
thereupon sentenced to be torn asunder by 
wild horses. Déllinger, in Hippolytus and 
Callistus (Plummer’s trans.), pp. 28-39 and 
51-60, discusses the rise and development of 
this legend, which has largely helped to con- 
fuse the story of the genuine Hippolytus, the 
Roman presbyter and writer of the 3rd cent. 
(q.v.) (cf. Bunsen’s Christianity and Mankind, 
i. 426). D6llinger fixes the composition of this 
story between the time of pope Liberius and 
that of Leo the Great, a period of about 70 
years. The whole subject is in a state of great 
confusion in the martyrologies, which D6l- 
linger has striven, with his usual critical power 
and vast knowledge, to arrange in some con- 
sistent order. Yet the impartial reader must 
feel sorely perplexed between the opposing 
theories of Déllinger and Bunsen. (Cf. for the 
more modern traditions regarding this martyr, 
Aug. Hare’s Walks in Rome, ii. 139.) [6.1.5.] 

Honorius (1), Flavius Augustus, emperor, 
b. 384, d. 423. A full account of him is given 
in the Dict. of Classical Biogr. He was de- 
clared emperor of the West in 394 at Milan, 
where he remained almost uninterruptedly 
till 399. He and his brother Arcadius seem 
to have been only ill-informed spectators 
of the tremendous events passing around 
them. 

There is an important enactment against 
paganism in the first year of Honorius’s reign 
(Cod. Theod. XVI. x. 13) which forbids all 
sacrifices and apparently all public assemblage 
for pagan worship. The legislation against 
heresy is varied and stringent. In XVI. v. 25 
of the Theodostan Code all Theodosius’s co- 
ercive edicts were re-enacted in their sharpest 
form and all concessions revoked. The Euno- 
mians in particular were excluded from rights 
of military service, legal testimony and in- 
heritance, though this special severity was 
relaxed soon after (v. 27), in accordance with 
Theodosius’s edicts (XVI. v. 22-24). All 
heretical congregations were forbidden, and 
their celebration of the holy mysteries, with 
ordination either of bishops or presbyters, 
altogether interdicted. Two more of the five 


HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 


severe edicts of this year provided that slight 
error or deviation (‘‘ vel levi argumento a 
tramite Catholica’’) shall be unsparingly 
crushed. Penalties for neglect of statutes on 
heresy are made capital (XVI. v. 28), and c. 29 
is inquisitorial and applies to all employés and 
officials, civil or military. All found to be 
““culpae hujus affines’’ are to be expelled 
from the service and the city. This is dated 
Nov. 23, Constantinople, so that Arcadius, or 
rather Eutropius, may be its author. 

It is difficult to say how strictly the Hono- 
tian edicts against heresy were carried out, but 
no such persecution as that of St. Chrysostom 
is laid to the account of the emperor of the 
West. There is doubt, however, that the eccle- 
siastical legislation of 396 and following years 
was very severe. On March 2, 396 (T. C. 
XVI. v. 30), all heretical places of assemblage 
were confiscated and all meetings interdicted. 
By edicts 31 and 32 the Eunomian clergy were 
banished and inquiries were directed to bemade 
after their leaders. XVI. vii. 6 deprived all 
apostates of testamentary power, their pro- 
perty was to go to their natural heirs ; and by 
XVI. x. 14 all privileges of pagan priesthood 
or ministry were done away. The Jews were 
protected by three edicts (XVI. viii. 11-13). 

The following edicts on church matters 
extend over 397 and 398. The Apollinarians 
were banished from Constantinople (T. C. 
XVI. v. 33) on Apr. 1, which was the only 
coercive measure of the year, and does not 
belong to Honorius. By XVI. ii. 30, Jan. 31, 
all ancient privileges were confined to bishops 
and clergy, with the proviso ‘‘ Nihil extra- 
ordinarii muneris ecclesiae, vel sordidae 
functionis agnoscatur,’’ repeated in XI. xvi. 
22 (June 4). The Jews were protected from 
popular tumults (XVI. viii. 12, 13), and equal 
privileges and respect shewn to high-priests 
and patriarchs as to the higher Christian 
clergy. In 398 there were severe statutes on 
heresy. By T. Ὁ. XVI. v. 34 (Constantinople, 
but in Honorius’s fourth consulship) Euno- 
mian and Montanist clergy were banished from 
all cities and deprived of civic rights. If 
detected performing their rites in the country 
they were to be banished and the building 
confiscated, their books seized and burned, 
and keeping them was a capital offence. The 
Manicheans were specially attacked A.D. 399 
(c. 35), and those who harboured them were 
threatened. C. 36 allowed testamentary 
rights to the Eunomians, but forbad them 
to assemble or to celebrate the mysteries. 
Their clergy (‘‘ ministri sceleris, quos falso 
nomine antistites vocant) were to be banished. 
Clerical rights of sanctuary for criminals were 
formally refused (de Poenis, ix. xl. 16), but 
intercession was permitted. This claim seems 
to have been pressed by the clerical and 
monastic body by violent means, which the 
authorities had difficulty in restraining. 
Cases in which “‘ tanta clericorum ac monach- 
orum audacia est, ut bellum velint potius 
quam judicium”’ were to be referred to the 
emperor for severer adjudication. Bishops 
were to punish the offences of monks. Debt- 
ors, public and private, including some un- 
happy curiales, had claimed sanctuary in 
churches (IX. xlv. 3). They were to be 
removed ‘‘manu mox injecta.’’ No cleric 


HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 491 


or monk was to assert sanctuary by forcible 
defence for condemned criminals (XI. xxx. 
7). Bishops were recommended to ordain 
clergy from the monastic orders (VI. ii. 32). 
Ambrose had successfully resisted the re- 
introduction of the altar or statue of Victory 
into the senate-house in 384; and by 399 it 
may have appeared to Honorius’s advisers 
that the time was come when paganism might 
be hastened out of existence. The paganism 
of the Roman senate and people was connected 
with the proudest associations of their public 
and domestic history, and it lingered long in 
the old patrician houses of the metropolis and 
among the rustic population. This was a 
source of weakness in keeping Christian 
emperors away from Rome. It may have 
been intended to end this division by direct 
attempts at suppressing paganism. The 
death-struggle of a paganism long fostered, and 
quite without real devotion, contributed to the 
final overthrow of Rome. Its immediate 
result in the life of Honorius seems to have 
been the undermining of Stilicho. The 
eunuch influence in both Eastern and Western 
courts had always been against him. There 
seems no doubt that Stilicho was opposed to 
anything which thinned his muster-rolls and 
weakened the hearts of his followers. Athan- 
asius had advised Jovian (Broglie, L’Eglise et 
UV Empire romain, vol. v. p. 362) to bear with 
error; to bear witness to truth as emperor, 
but trust for its victory to the God of truth. 
Stilicho hardly reached this, as is proved by 
the many laws against heretics and idolaters 
in the code; but the accusations of Orosius 
(vi. 37) and the hostility of Zosimus on the 
pagan side seem to justify Gibbon’s honour- 
able estimate of him. In any case he had a 
few years of glory to come, and his great 
enemy was preparing for the defeats of Pol- 
lentia and Verona. In 398-399 Alaric was 
declared master-general of Eastern Illyricum 
by Arcadius, and raised on barbarian bucklers 
as king of Visigoths, with one man only be- 
tween him and Rome (de Bello Getico, 503). 
Between 400 and 403 he had crossed Pannonia 
to the Julian Alps, taken Aquileia, subdued 
Istria and Venetia, and was threatening Milan. 
Honorius, now in his 15th year, thought only 
of flight into Gaul; but Alaric, overthrown 
by Stilicho at Pollentia and Verona, was 
allowed or compelled to retreat, and Honorius 
went with Stilicho to Rome to celebrate the 
last triumph of the empire (A.p. 404). The 
customary games took place with great 
magnificence, and on this occasion St. Tele- 
machus sacrificed himself by attempting to 
separate the gladiators. Honorius seems not 
to have prevented their exhibition, though 
there are traces of an attempt to substitute 
hunting scenes, races, and grand cavalry 
displays, among which seems to have been the 
ancient game of Troy. After a stay of some 
months at Rome, during which he appears to 
have honestly done all in his power to con- 
ciliate the senate, clergy, and people, Honorius 
determined (a.p. 404) to fix his residence in the 
fortress of Ravenna, which was almost im- 
pregnable on the land side and afforded easy 
escape by sea. The Milanese entertained an 
affection for Honorius, and desired his return ; 
but he had soon good reason to feel that his 


492 HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 


choice of residence had been a wise one, both 
strategically and for his own comfort. 

The anti-pagan legislation of 399-400 
prepared for the consummating decree of 
confiscation in 408. 7. C. XVI. x. 15 pro- 
hibited sacrifice, but restrained the destruction 
of temples, as monumental public works. In 
July there was an edict (c. 16) for the de- 
struction of rural temples (‘‘sine turba ac 
tumultu’’). Some concession was 
necessary, for, in Sept., Tit. x. 17 allowed the 
usual civic festivals and days of enjoyment 
(‘‘festoset communem laetitiam’’), but strictly 
without sacrifice. This is commented on by 
Gibbon in his 23rd chap., on the ‘‘ Decay of 
Paganism,”’ vol. iii. p. 16, where he points 
out how offerings of produce without sacrifice 
might be used, and the various evasions by 
which absolutely pagan celebration might 
elude Christian rule. Such usages might 
remain for ages, and be carried bodily into 
Christian country life by popular custom. 
This is matter of historical experience in all 
countries ; and the May or Beltane, and other 
strange rites of the Teutonic races, bear wit- 
ness to it in our own day. There was a final 
injunction this year (c. 18) against destroying 
temples, if sacrifices in them had been thor- 
oughly discontinued. XVI. v. 35 was a 
severe edict against the Manicheans and their 
harbourers in Africa (June). In July (c. 36) 
the Eunomians were released from intestacy 
and allowed freedom of movement. Their 
meetings were still forbidden and their profane 
mysteries made a capital offence. As the 
crudest form of Arianism, this heresy seems 
to have specially vexed Honorius and his 
advisers. An edict (de Religione, XVI. xi. 1) 
gave bishops a claim to special authority in 
causes involving religious questions. ‘‘ Quoties 
de religione agitur episcopos convenit agitare.”’ 
Ecclesiastics were to find substitutes in the 


found | 


curiae, appeals being allowed (XI. xxx.58, 59). | 


In A.D. 400 the games were forbidden during 
Lent and the week before Easter, also on 
Christmas Day and Epiphany. 
ment and exclusion from society was decreed 
on bishops and clergy deprived or degraded 
by their fellow-clergy for seditious conduct 
(XVI. ii. 35). Sons of priests were not to be 
forced into the ministry (XII. i. 166). 

The single edict of a.p. 401 on ecclesiastical 
matters, addressed to Pompeianus, proconsul 
of Africa, excepted bishops and clergy actively 
employed in sacred duties from the ‘‘ auraria 
pensio,’’ apparently (see Brissonus, Dict.) a 
tax on commercial men. 

In 404 there were 14 decrees, chiefly on 
religious matters. Of XVI. viii. 15, 16, 17, de 
J udaeis, 15 renewsthe general privileges of their 
patriarchs ; 16 deprives or exempts Samaritans 
from military responsibilities; 17 withdraws 
the prohibition of a.p. 400 as to collections 
in the synagogues. XVI. ii. (37 Aug.) re- 
leases from prison various clerical persons con- 
cerned in popular tumults in Constantinople, 
but expels them, with all other foreign bishops 
and clergy, from the city. XVI. iv. 4,5 (De 
his qut super Religione contendunt) coerces ‘‘the 
orthodox, who now forsake the holy churches, 
and assemble elsewhere (‘ alio convenire con- 
antur’), and venture to dissent from the 


Civic banish- | 


religion of Acacius, Theophilus, and Porphy- | 


HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 


rius,”’ now dominant in Constantinople—Nov. 
Tillemont considers that all these edicts refer 
to the tumults which took place in 404 on the 
persecution of St. Chrysostom, except that 
which refers to officials, issued in Jan. The 
saint was not exiled till June. 

There were 5 religious decrees out of 18 in 
405. Two related to the Manichean and 
Donatist heresies, former statutes being put 
in force or threatened: ‘‘ Una sit catholica 
veneratio, una Salus sit, Trinitatis par sibique 
congruens Sanctitas expetatur.”’ XVI. vi. 3, 
14 were against the repetition of baptism, 
which some persons seem to have thought 
might be repeated not only after heresy, but 
for forgiveness of repeated sins. Persons 
guilty of rebaptizing others were deprived of 
all their property, which was, however, secured 
to their heirs if orthodox. The contumacious 
were threatened with loss of all civil rights, and 
there was a heavy fine for connivance. | 

The irruption of the pagan and ferocious 
Radagaisus is dated by Gibbon 406, by Tille- 
mont 405. He had to capitulate and was be- 
headed, and so many of his Germans were sold 
as slaves that their price fell to a single gold 
piece. After this invasion and in his desper- 
ate circumstances as the last general of Italy’s 
last army, Stilicho apparently turned towards 
his worthiest enemy and felt the necessity of 
making terms with Alaric. Stilicho was slain 
at Ravenna Aug. 23, 408. 

Alaric now (Oct. 408) crossed the Alps on 
pretence of a large claim of money. MHonorius 
fled to Ravenna, and Alaric besieged Rome for 
the first time, but accepted a large ransom 
in 409 and withdrew into Tuscany. He re- 
newed the siege in the same year, and Rome 
submitted. Attalus was proclaimed emperor 
by him. In 410 the capture and sack of Rome 
followed. Alaric died before the end of the 
year, and in 412 the Goths under Adolf with- 
drew into Gaul, where Adolf remained until 
driven into Spain about 3 years after. 

A.D. 407, 408. T.C. XVI. v. 40, 41 included 
the Manichean, Phrygian, and Priscillianist 
sects in the liabilities of the Donatists, 1.6. loss 
of rights of property and succession, gift, sale, 
contract, will, and right to restrain orthodox 
slaves from worship. Heresy was expressly 
made a public offence, because crimen tn 
veligione divina in omnium fertur injuriam, 
but by c. 41 simple ‘‘ confessio’’ or acknow- 
ledgment of error and return to orthodox 
service sufficed for restoration to allrights, and 


| Honorius shewed genuine anxiety to recall his 


people to the right path on easy terms. XVI. 
ii. 38 enacted clerical immunities for Africa. 
In 408, XVI. viii. 18 stated that at the feast 
of Purim (“Aman ad recordationem”’’) the Jews 
were accustomed to burn or insult the cross. 
This was to cease, their other ceremonies were 
“infra contemptum Christianae legis,’’ and 
might continue. There were 6 statutes on . 
heretics and pagans—X VI. v. 42-45, with XVI. 
x. 19, and V. xiv. 7—and XVI. ii. 36, de Epis- 
copis. Enemies to the Catholic faith were for- 
bidden to serve in the emperor’s palace guard. 
Allstatutes against Donatists, Manicheans, and 
Priscillianists were to be fully enforced, and 
a new sect called Caelicolae were, with them, 
to be deprived of all buildings for public 
assemblage. Donatists who had not yet con- 


HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 


fessed their heresy, but only withdrawn from 
Catholic service (** saevae religionis obtentu’’) 
were included. Certain Jews and Donatists 
had insulted the Sacraments, and were to be 
punished; illegal assemblage for heretical wor- 


ship was again prohibited. XVI. ii. 39 provi- | 


ded that a degraded cleric who had renounced 
clerical office should be at once made a curialis 
and forbidden to resume his orders. 

A.D. 409. De Haereticis, X V1. v. 46, Jan., 47, 
June. Two edicts to enforce laws on Jews, 
Gentiles, or pagans, and heretics. Tillemont 


says that the death of Stilicho caused a general | 
outbreak of heretics, the Donatists of Africa in | 


particular asserting that his laws against them 
were now abrogated. Two edicts in March 
and July forbad amusements (‘‘ voluptates ’’) 
on Sunday and exempted Jews from public 
calls on their Sabbath (II. viii. 25, 26). ; 

In 410 there were 4 decrees (out of 10) on 
heresy. The Montanists, Priscillianists, and 
others were forbidden military service, and 
other means of exemption from curial burdens 
(XVI. v. 48). To the intestacy of the Euno- 
mians was added the reversion of bequests to 
the fisc, if no orthodox heir survive; c. 51 
altogether abrogated a former imperial ora- 
culum or rescript, by which certain heretics 
had been allowed to meet insecret. XVI. xi. 3 
confirmed all existing religious statutes. 

A.D. 411, 412. XVI. v. 52, Jan. Heavy 
fines, or total confiscation of property, on 
obstinate Donatists. Pressure was to be 
exercised by masters on their slaves, and by 
the local authorities on coloni. Heretical 
clergy banished from Africa (c. 53). Jovinian 
and others, his followers, to be corporally 
punished and banished to island of Boas, 
on coast of Dalmatia. XVI. ii. 40, 41, de 
Episcopis. Church properties exempted from 
fugatio (a kind of land-tax by acreage, Bris- 
son), also from repairs of public roads and 
bridges. By c. 41 clergy were to be tried only 
before their bishops and unnecessary scandal 
avoided by only bringing accusations which 
could be definitely proved. For perfect toler- 
ance towards the Jews, XVI. viii. 20, 21. 

In 418 Wallia and his Visigoths were settled 
in the S.W. of France with Toulouse for their 
capital. Britain was entirely lost, and the 
Armoricans were maintaining themselves in 
independence. A fresh revolt under another 
Maximus seems not to have been suppressed 
till 422. 
feudal ally of the empire, won a succession of 
victories over the Alani, Vandals, and Suevi, 
and restored great part ot the peninsula to 


Honorius, who is said by Prosper’s Chronicle | 


to have entered Rome in triumph a second 
time. The Burgundians occupied the two 

rovinces which still bear their name, and the 

ranks were settled on the Rhine. All con- 
tinued to acknowledge the title of Honorius, 
and to hold titles from the empire; and all 
accepted the civil law and magistracy of Rome. 
Honorius himself had confirmed the independ- 
ence of Britain and Armorica c. 410, and died 
of dropsy in his goth year (423), Aug. 27. 

His later legislation has little historical 
interest, but the enactments on paganism and 
heresy from 413 to 423 were as follows; Two 
against repetition of baptism, Aa.p. 413; two 
against Donatists, v. 54, 55. These comprise 


Wallia, however, acted in Spain as a) 


HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 493 


|(XVI. vi. 6, 7) the settlement effected by 
| Marcellinus on Honorius’s part at Carthage, 
between the orthodox and the Donatists, 
| which, Tillemont says, brought the heresy to 
,an end. Against any public assemblage for 
heretical purposes, v. 56. By v. 57 Montan- 
ist congregations were forbidden ; their clergy 
[τὸ be banished if they attempted to ordain 
|others. Harbourers to be deprived of the 
| house or property where the heretic remained. 
Their places of meeting, if any were left 
|standing, to be the property of the church. 
By c. 58 houses of Eunomian clergy were 
confiscated to the fisc ; or any in which second 
baptism has been administered. Their clergy 
were exiled, and they were again deprived of 
testamentary and military rights. All these, 
except the last, were addressed to Africa. By 
111. xii. 4 marriage with a deceased wife's 
|sister or husband's brother was forbidden. 
XVI. x. 20. All pagan priests were required 
to return to their native place. Confiscation 
|to the church or the emperor of lands and 
| grounds used for pagan purposes. To become 
a pagan was now a capital offence. In 416 
Gentiles, or persons guilty of participation in 
pagan rites, were excluded from the army and 
from official or judicial positions. In 423 
Honorius renewed all his edicts against heresy, 
with special mention of Manicheans, Phry- 
gians, Priscillianists, Arians, Macedonians, 
Eunomians, Novatianists, and Sabbatiani. 
XVI. v. 59, 60. He was able to say that he 
believed there were very few pagans remain- 
ing, and so far his persecution may seem to 
have been successful, as with the Donatists 
and others. Other and more powerful causes 
were at work, and error and idolatry were 
taking other forms. The remarkable statute 
|(XVI. x. 22 and 23) ran thus: ‘“‘ Paganos, 
si qui supersunt, quanquam jam nullos esse 
credamus, promulgatorum legum jam dudum 
praescripta compescant.”’ The next (c. 23) 
stated that pagans caught in acts of idolatrous 
ceremonial ought to be capitally punished, 
but are only subject to loss of property 
and exile. He denounced the same sentence 
in c. 24 on Manicheans and Pepuzitae, who 
| were worse than all other heretics, saying, 
‘quod in venerabili die Paschatis ab omnibus 
dissentiant.’’ He ended with ἃ strong 
caution against any violence on Christian 
pretences to pagans or Jews leading quiet and 
legal lives, with penalty of triple or fourfold 
| restitution. Two more decrees this year 
restored all fabrics taken from the Jews, even 
\for church purposes; or, in case the holy 
mysteries had been celebrated in such build- 
ings, equal accommodation should be provided 
for the former holders. 

Honorius possessed no character except a 
timid docility, but with some natural goodness 
of heart or gentleness, otherwise he could 
|not have continued to reign so disastrously 
‘for 28 years. It must be remembered, in 
excuse of his coercive action, that persecu- 
tion was no invention of his or Theodosius’s, 
but an inheritance of the empire. Such 
questions as the expediency or the possibility 
| of perfect toleration, the limits of pressure or 
\coercion, and what body in the state is to 
exercise it, have been debated in theory and 
hewn out in practice, from the beginnings of 


404 HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 


society, and are still unsettled. Nor can they 
be solved, unless the relation of the individual 
conscience to the public, and of the individual 
soul to the church, were accurately known and 
defined. That there is a point at which the 
church militant must cease to strive with 
invincible ignorance or determined error, 
leaving them to the civil power, as civil 
dangers or nuisances only, seems a rule which 
the sad experience of 1800 years has but 
imperfectly taught the Christian world. Only 
the great spirit of Athanasius seems to have 
anticipated it in his day, though he did not 
always act on it. The world knew no toler- 
ance, and never had known it in Honorius’s 
time; and his position as emperor com- 
pelled him to do as other emperors had done 
before him. The temptation to a Christian 
emperor to hold heresy or paganism an 
offence against the State, which he personified 
(at least on earth, and in heathen theory in 
heaven), was too much for man. Without 
asserting that all the faults of the Christian 
church may be traced to the fatal gift of 
Constantine, we cannot doubt that her 
alliance with the temporal power proved as 
dangerous as her investiture with temporal 
rule was fabulous. Pagan emperors had 
claimed to rule as personal and present 
divinity, and this claim had always specially 
embittered their persecution of the Christian 
faith. It was never, infact, withdrawn; the 
ruler of Rome was invested with an awe 
beyond man, and that, in fact, descended to 
the mediaeval popedom. Constantine him- 
self had allowed his statues to be worshipped 


with incense and lights, and so most unhappily | 
encouraged the earlier iconodulism of half- | 


Christianized Greeks. But the connexion he 
instituted between the temporal and spiritual 
power tempted a Christian despot like Theo- 
dosius, under guidance of a great representa- 
tive of the church, to think that God was 
surely with them in whatever persecuting 
edict they set forth; and thus Justinian’s 
words, ‘‘ Sacrilegii instar est dubitare’’ (Cod. 
IX. xxix. 3), were literally meant, and logic- 
ally, if not conscientiously, 
empire could not forget its traditions. Ex- 
cuses which are admitted by Christians for 
Aurelius or Diocletian ought to be considered 
in behalf of Theodosius and his sons. 
fierceness and necessities of their age must be 
allowed as palliations. 

Theodosius’s 15 edicts in 15 years, from 
380-384, extend over the ministers, assem- 
blies and persons of heretics, and make not 
only the Manichean heresy punishable by 
death, but the Quartodeciman error as to 
keeping Easter. Ambrose, like other Church- 
men, could not abstain from the use of the 


believed. The} 


The | 


mighty arm of flesh at his command, and the | 
institution of inquisitors must certainly have | 


been an ecclesiastical measure. It should be) 


HORMISDAS 


Guizot, Civ. in Europe, lect. ii. p. 34, ed. Bohn.) 
He was consequently involved with the civil 
power in coercive measures of all kinds and in 
all directions. 

Lastly, the empire was divided between 
Rome and Constantinople, but Italy between 
Rome and Milan or Ravenna. Ambrose must 
have felt that the remaining paganism of Rome 
was his chief difficulty, and his influence must 
have been accordingly exerted on Honorius in 
his first days. Hence, perhaps, his supine- 
ness and indifference to the fate of Rome, and 
perhaps, in a great degree, the paralysis of 
Italian defence as soon as the barbaric genius 
of Stilicho was withdrawn. 

A coin of Honorius is figured in Smith’s 
Dict. of G. and R. Biogr. s.v. The counten- 
ance has an inexpressiveness which may have 
belonged to him in a special degree, but 
extends to most portraiture after the 3rd 
cent. Another represents the emperor in the 
paludamentum, bearing a globe and the 
labarum. On another, with Vota Publica, are 
two emperors with nimbi, which is important 
evidence of the derivation of that symbol from 
imperial effigies (see Tyrwhitt, Art Teaching of 
Prim. Ch., Index ‘* Nimbus’’). [R.ST.J.T.] 

Hormisdas (3), bp. of Rome after Symma- 
chus from July 26, 514, to Aug. 6, 523, Anasta- 
sius and Justin being successively emperors of 
the East and Theodoric ruling the West as 
king of Italy. Hormisdas was a native of 
Frusino in Campania. Pope Silverius (acc. 
536) is said to have been his son (Liberat. 
Breviar. 22). The memorable event of his 
pontificate was the restoration of communion 
between Rome and Constantinople, which had 
been interrupted since 484, in connexion with 
the Eutychian heresy. [Ferix III.; Aca- 
cius.] The first overtures were made in 515 
by the emperor Anastasius, being moved 
thereto by Vitalian, a Scythian, the command- 
er of the imperial cavalry, who, having takenup 
the cause of orthodoxy, made himself master of 
Thrace, Scythia, and Mysia, and marched with 
an army of Huns and Bulgarians to the gates 
of Constantinople. Anastasius had to pro- 
cure peace by assenting to 3 conditions, one 
being that he should summon a council at 
Heraclea, the pope being invited and free 
discussion allowed (Theophan. Chron. ad an. 
Imp. Anast. 23). In 515 the emperor wrote 
to Hormisdas, desiring his concurrence in 
restoring unity to the church by means of 
such acouncil; and Hormisdas, after a guarded 
reply, sent legates to Constantinople with 
letters to the emperor and Vitalian, and a 
statement of the necessary conditions for 
union. These were: (1) The emperor should 
issue to all bishops of his dominion a written 


| declaration accepting the council of Chalcedon 


and the letters of pope Leo. (2) A like de- 
claration should be publicly signed by the 
Eastern bishops, who should also anathema- 


remembered that the Christian faith had by its | tize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Aelurus, 
own influences so elevated and organized the Peter Mongus, Peter the Fuller, and Acacius, 


influence of the human conscience as to have! with all their followers. 


(3) Persons exiled 


become a temporal power by the nature of for religion should be recalled and their 


things. 


men’s persons and fortunes; the bishop was in | tolic see. 


The Christian spiritual power ruled | cases reserved for the judgment of the apos- 


(4) Such exiles as had been in 


fact obeyed by his large share of the popula-|communion with Rome and professed the 


tion, and became a temporal magistrate be- | catholic faith should first be recalled. 


(5) 


cause men made him arbitrate for them. (See| Bishops accused of having persecuted the 


ee ae 


HORMISDAS 


orthodox should be sent to Rome to be judged. 
Thus the emperor proposed a free discussion 
in council; the pope required the unqualified 
acceptance of orthodoxy, and submission to 
himself as head of Christendom, before he 
would treat at all. He did not reject the 
idea of a council, but, from his point of view, 
none was wanted. The Easterns had but to 
renounce their errors and accept the terms of 
reconciliation dictated by the apostolic see, 
and peace would be at once restored. 

This attempt failed, as Anastasius, though 
now professing orthodoxy, demurred to eras- 
ing the name of Acacius from the diptychs. 
But he continued his overtures. In 516 he 
sent two distinguished laymen to Rome with 
a letter to Hormisdas. But Hormisdas con- 
tinued resolute, and the emperor dismissed the 
bishops already assembled at Heraclea for the 
intended council. In a letter to Avitus of 
Vienne (517) the pope, referring to this 
embassy, complains of the fruitless and per- 
fidious promises of the Greeks, but rejoices at 
the faithfulness of the churches of Gaul, 
Thrace, Dardania, and Illyricum, which had 
stood firm against persecution in the com- 
munion of Rome. It appears that 40 bishops 
of Illyricum and Greece had renounced 
obedience to their metropolitan of Thessa- 
lonica and sent to Hormisdas to seek com- 
munion with Rome (Theophan. Chron.). 

Hormisdas, building on the emperor’s 
political necessities, sent in 517 a second 
embassy to the East with increased demands. 
They were charged with a rule of faith (regula 
fidet) for the signature of all who desired 
reconciliation with Rome which was more 
exacting than any previous document. The 
signers were to declare that, mindful of the 
text ‘‘ Thou art Peter,’’ etc., the truth of which 
has been proved by the immaculate religion 
ever maintained by the apostolic see, they 
profess in all things to follow that see, and to 
desire communion with it. Accordingly they 
were to accept the decrees of Chalcedon and 
the ‘‘ tome ’’ of pope Leo, and also all letters on 
religion he had ever written ; and not only to 
anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, 
Timothy Aelurus, Peter Fullo, and Acacius, 
with all their followers, but also exclude from 
their diptychs all who had been “ sequestrated 
from catholic communion,’ which is explained 
to mean communion with the apostolic see. 
Such demands ended the negotiations, and 
Anastasius peremptorily dismissed the legates, 
and sent a reply to Hormisdas (July 11, 517) 
which ended: ‘‘ We can bear to be injured 
and set at naught ; we will not be commanded”’ 
(Hormisd. Epp. post. Ep. xxii. Labbe). 

Persecutions were now renewed in the East. 
The monasteries of the orthodox in Syria 
Secunda were burnt and 350 monks mas- 
sacred. The survivors sent a deputation to 
the pope, acknowledging in ample terms the 
supremacy of ‘‘ the most holy and blessed 
patriarch of the whole world,”’ ‘‘ the successor 
of the Prince of the Apostles,’’ and *‘ the Head 
of 411. They implore him to exercise his 
power of binding and loosing in defence of the 
true faith, and to anathematize all heretics, 
including Acacius (zb.). To this appeal Hor- 
misdas replied in a letter to all the orthodox in 
the East, exhorting them to steadfastness in 


HORMISDAS 495 


the faith of Chalcedon, and to patience under 
present straits (in Act. V. Concil. Constantin. 
Labbe, vol. v. p. 1111). 

The death ol Anastasius (July 9, 518) and 
the accession of the orthodox Justin changed 
the aspect of affairs. During divine service at 
Constantinople, while John the Cappadocian 
(who had lately succeeded Timotheus as 
patriarch) was officiating, the populace, who 
had been all along on the orthodox side, seem 
to have made a riot in the church in the 
impatience of their orthodox zeal, erying, 
““Long live the emperor!" ‘ Long live the 
patriarch!’’ They would not brook delay. 
By continued cries, by closing the doors of 
the church and saying they would not leave 
it till he had done what they wanted, they 
compelled him to proclaim the acceptance of 
the four general councils, including Chalcedon. 
A synod, attended by some 4o bishops, ratified 
what the patriarch had done. Letters were 
sent to various Eastern metropolitans, in- 
cluding those of Jerusalem, Tyre, and Syria 
Secunda, who forthwith reported to the synod 
the full acceptance of orthodoxy by their 
several churches (ἐδ. p. 1131, etc.). Coercive 
measures were used by Justin. In two edicts 
he ordered the restoration of the orthodox 
exiled by Anastasius, the acknowledgment of 
the council of Chalcedon in the diptychs of all 
churches, and declared heretics incapable of 
public offices, civil or military. 

The pope insisted upon the erasure of the 
name of Acacius and the subscription of the 
rule of faith rejected by Anastasius as the first 
steps to restoration of communion. In 519 
Hormisdas sent a legation to Constantino- 
ple, charged with letters tothe emperor and 
patriarch, and also to the empress Euphemia 
and other persons of distinction, including 
three influential ladies, Anastasia, Palmatia, 
and Anicia. They carried with them the 
libellus described above, to be signed by all 
who desired reconciliation. 

At Constantinople they were met by 
Vitalian, Justinian, and other senators, and 
received by the emperor in the presence of the 
senate and a deputation of four bishops to 
represent the patriarch. The lJibellus was 
read; the bishops had nothing to say against 
it, and the emperor and senators recommended 
them to accept it. The patriarch proved 
unwilling to sign it as it stood; but at length, 
after much contention, it was agreed that he 
might embody the I/zbellus unaltered in a 
letter, with his own preamble. This was 
done, the names of Acacius and his successors 
in the see, Fravitas, Euphemius, Macedonius, 
and Timotheus, and of the emperors Zeno and 
Anastasius, were erased from the diptychs ; 
the bishops of other cities, and the archi- 
mandrites who had been previously reluctant, 
now came to terms; and the legates wrote to 
the pope expressing thankfulness that so 
complete a triumph had been won without 
sedition, tumult, or shedding of blood. The 
patriarch’s preamble was a protest against the 


|claim of Rome to dictate terms of communion 
|/to Constantinople and an assertion of the 


co-ordinate authority of his own see. He 
says, ‘‘ Know therefore, most holy one, that, 
according to what I have written, agreeing in 
the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, 


490 HORMISDAS 

renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: 
for I hold the most holy churches of the elder 
and of the new Rome to be one; I define that 
see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial 
city to be one see.’”” The same view of the 
unity of the two sees is expressed in his letter 
to Hormisdas. Even Justin, in his letter to 
the pope, guards against implying that the 
authority of Constantinople was inferior to 
that of Rome, saying that ‘‘ John, the prelate 
of our new Rome, with his clergy, agrees with 
you,” and that ‘‘ all concur in complying with 
what is your wish, as well as that of the Con- 
stantinopolitan see.”’ Peace being thus 
concluded at Constantinople, a deputation 
was sent to Thessalonica, headed by bp. John, 
the papal legate, to receive the submission of 
that church. Dorotheus, bp. of Thessalonica, 
tore the libellus in two before the people, and 
declared that never would he sign it or assent 
tosuch as did. Hormisdas, on hearing of this, 
wrote to the emperor, requiring that Doro- 
theus should be deposed. But Dorotheus 
was summoned to Constantinople to be tried, 
sent thence to Heraclea while his cause was 
being heard, and eventually allowed to return 
to his see. He and his church were now re- 
stored to Catholic communion, and he wrote a 
respectful letter to the pope (A.D. 520) express- 
ing great regard for him personally and for the 
apostolic see. Hormisdas replied that he was 
anxious to believe in his innocence, and in his 
being the author of the peace now concluded, 
but expressed dissatisfaction that he ‘“‘ de- 
layed even to follow those whom he ought to 
have led,’”’ and hoped he would “‘repel from 
himself the odium of so great a crime, and in 
reconciliation to the faith would at length 
follow the example of those whohad returned.”’ 
It thus seems clear that Dorotheus, though 
professing orthodoxy and restored by the em- 
peror to his see, had not so far fully complied, 
if he ever did, with the pope’s terms (Inter 
Epp. Hormisd. Ixii. | xiii. 1xxil. Ixxiii.). 

Notwithstanding the general triumph of 
orthodoxy throughout the East, except at 
Alexandria, the unbending pertinacity of 
Hormisdas still caused difficulties. In 520 
the emperor Justinian and Epiphanius (who 
had succeeded John as patriarch) wrote urgent 
letters to him on the subject. They alleged 
that, though the condition was complied with 
in the imperial city, yet no small part of the 
Orientals, especially in the provinces of 
Pontus, Asia, and Oriens, would not be com- 
pelled by sword, fire, or torments to comply, 
and they implored the pope not to be more 
exacting than his predecessors. The pope 
persisted in his demand, and urged Justin, as 
a duty, not to shrink from coercion. He 
authorized Epiphanius to deal at his dis- 
cretion with various cases (tb. Ixxii. Concztl. 
Constant. act. V. Labbe, vol. v. p. 1119). 

A nice question, arising out of the now 
defined orthodox doctrine of One Person and 
Two Natures in Christ, came before Hormisdas 
for settlement. There being but one Person- 
ality in the Incarnate Word, and that Divine, 
it seemed correct to say that this Divine 
Person suffered ; and yet to say this seemed 
to attribute passibility to the Godhead. It 
was undoubted Nestorian heresy to deny that 


He Whom the Blessed Virgin brought forth | 


HORMISDAS 


was God. But He Who was brought forth was 
the same with Him Who suffered on the Cross. 
On the other hand ‘‘ God was crucified’ had 
been a favourite Monophysite formula, used 
to emphasize their doctrine of the absorption 
of the human nature into the divine; and 
great offence had formerly been given to the 
orthodox by the addition of ‘‘ Who wast 
crucified for us’’ to the Trisagion by Peter 
Fullo. The adoption of this addition at 
Constantinople under Anastasius had caused 
a popular tumult, and it was probably its 
abrogation during the reaction under Justin 
that caused certain Scythian monks to defend 
the formula, and to maintain that ‘‘ onE of 
the holy and undivided Trinity’’ suffered. 
The question was laid before the legates of 
Hormisdas, when in Constantinople, A.D. 519. 
They decided against the Scythian monks, 
arguing that the faith had been fully and 
sufficiently defined at Chalcedon and in the 
letter of pope Leo, and that the formula of the 
monks was an unauthorized novelty, likely to 
lead to serious heresy. The monks contended 
that its adoption was necessary for rendering 
the definitions of Chalcedon distinct against 
Nestorianism. Vitalian seems to have sup- 
ported them. Justin and Justinian begged 
the pope to settle the question. He wrote to 
desire that the monks should be kept at Con- 
stantinople; but they managed to get to 
Rome to lay their case before him (Ep. 1xxix. 
Labbe). At length they left Rome, having 
publicly proclaimed their views there. Hor- 
misdas does not seem to have actually con- 
demned the expression of the monks, though 
annoyed by their propounding it, but spoke 
strongly against it as an unnecessary novelty. 
In the end, however, their view triumphed. 
For in 533 the emperor Justinian issued an 
edict asserting that ‘‘the sufferings and 
miracles are of one and the same—for we do 
not acknowledge God the Word to be one and 
Christ another, but one and the same: for the 
Trinity remained even after the Incarnation 
of the One Word of God, Who was of the 
Trinity ; for the Holy Trinity does not admit 
of the addition of a fourth person. We 
anathematize Nestorius the man-worshipper, 
and those who think with him, who deny that 
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and our 
God, Incarnate, made man, and crucified, was 
One of the holy consubstantial Trinity ᾿᾿ (Lex 
Justinian. A.D. 533, Cod. 1. 1. 6; Joann. Pap. 
ii. Epp. in Patr. Lat. \xvi. 18 B), and it has 
since been accounted orthodox to affirm that 
God suffered in the flesh, though in His 
assumed human, not in His original divine, 
nature. (See Pearson On the Creed, art. iv.). 

Hormisdas died early in Aug. 523, having 
held the see 9 years and 11 days. He, as well 
as all the popes during the schism with the 
East, except the too conciliatory Anastasius, 
has had his firmness acknowledged by canon- 


ization, his day in the Roman Calendar being * 


Aug. 6. His extant writings consist of letters, 
80 being attributed to him, one of which, to 
St. Remigius (in which he gives him vicariate 
jurisdiction over the kingdom of Clovis which 
he had converted), is probably spurious, as it 
implies that Clovis was still reigning, though 
he had died in 511, more than two years before 
the election of Hormisdas. Most of the 


HOSIUS 


remaining 70 letters refer to the affairs of the 
East, several to the metropolitan see of Nico- 
polis in Epirus (Hormisd. vi.-ix., xvii.-xxii.). 

Three letters of Hormisdas (xxiv.-xxvi.), to 
John, bp. of Tarragona, Sallustius, bp. of 
Seville, and the bishops of Spain in general, 
give the two prelates vicariate jurisdiction 
over E. and W. Spain, exhort against simony 
and other irregularities, and direct the regular 
convention of synods. Cf. Thiel, Epp. Pontiff. 
Rom. i. 

Hormisdas had great administrative and 
diplomatic abilities, was singularly uncom- 
promising and firm of purpose, and one of the 
most strenuous and successful assertors of the 
supremacy of the Roman see. {J-B—yY.] 

osius (1), (Ostus), a confessor under Maxi- 
mian, and bp. of Corduba, the capital of the 
province of Baetica in Spain. He took a 
leading part on the catholic side in the con- 
troversies of the first half of the 4th cent. For 
nearly 50 years he was the foremost bishop of 
his time, held in universal esteem and enjoy- 
ing unbounded influence. Eusebius says, ‘* He 
was approved for the sobriety and genuineness 
of his faith, had distinguished himself by the 
boldness of his religious profession, and his 
fame was widely spread’”’ (Vit. Cons. bk. ii. 
ce. 63, 73). Socrates calls him ‘‘ the cele- 
brated Hosius”’ (H. E, ii. 29). Sozomensays: 
““He was honoured for his faith, virtuous life, 
and steadfast confession of truth” (H. E. i. 
16). Athanasius is never weary of repeating 
his praises. ‘‘ Of the great Hosius,’’ he says, 
““ who answers to his name, that confessor of 
a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to 
speak, for he is not an obscure person, but of 
all men the most illustrious’’ (A pol. de Fugé, 
§ 7). Considering his great renown and his 
prominent part in affairs, it is remarkable how 
very little is known of his personal history. 
There seems no reason to doubt Eusebius, Ath- 
anasius, and others, who make him a native 
of Spain. Athanasius says (Hist. Arian. § 45) 
that when Hosius was more than 100 years 
old, and had been more than 60 years a bishop, 
he was summoned by Constantius from Spain 
to Sirmium, and there subscribed an Arian 
formula about the middle of a.p. 357. Soon 
afterwards he returned to his native country 
and died. We may probably, therefore, place 
his birth c. 256, as Tillemont does (Mém. t. vii. 
Ῥ- 302, 4to ed.). 

The common view that he suffered for the 
Christian faith in Diocletian’s persecution 
between 303 and 305 is more than doubtful. 
We have his own testimony in his letter to 
Constantius (the son of Constantine) preserved 
by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. ὃ 44). ‘‘Iwasa 
confessor at the first, when a persecution arose 
in the time of your grandfather Maximian.”’ 
These words can hardly refer to the general 
persecution enjoined by Diocletian. The 
allusion seems to be to the persecution of 
which the chief promoter was Maximian, the 
Augustus and colleague, not the son-in-law, of 
Diocletian. Maximianus Herculius was made 
Caesar in 285, and Augustus in 286, as is shewn 
by coins and inscriptions (cf. Clinton, Fastt 
Romani, vol. i. p. 328), and for six years the 
Roman empire was divided between these two 
rulers, Diocletian having the East and Maxi- 
mian the West. In 292 a further partition of 


HOSIUS 497 


the empire took place by the appointment of 
two Caesars, Constantius Chlorus (the father 
of Constantine) and Galerius Maximianus. 
When Constantius was made Caesar in 292, 
Maximian's half of the empire was subdivided. 
““Cuncta quae trans Alpes Galliae sunt Con- 
stantio commissa ; Africa Italiaque Herculio”’ 
(Aur. Vict. de Caesar, xxxix. 30). On the 
abdication of Diocletian and Maximian in 305, 
Gaul, with Italy and Africa, was given to Con- 
stantius, and the rest of the empire to Galerius. 
But Constantius, content with the dignity of 
Augustus, refused to administer Italy and 
Africa(Eutropius, x. 1). Orosius similarly says 
that Constantius, ‘“‘ Italiam, Africam, Hispani- 
am et Gallias obtinuit. Sed, vir tranquillissi- 
mus, Gallia tantum Hispaniaque contentus, 
Galerio caeteris patribus cessit’’ (Hist. vii. 25). 
Constantius, says Sozomen (H. E. i. 6), was 
not willing that Christianity should be ac- 
counted unlawful in the countries beyond the 
confines of Italy, 1.6. in Gaul, Britain, or the 
region of the Pyrenaean mountains as far as 
the western ocean. These facts shew that in 
the division of the empire Spain was always 
an appendage of Gaul, and under the same 
administration. If so, it was under the 
jurisdiction of Constantius, and, as both 
Lactantius and Eusebius affirm, that Constan- 
tius took no part in the persecution of the 
Christians, it could not have been in his 
period that Hosius became ἃ confessor. 
When, then, did he suffer? We have his own 
testimony that he had been a confessor in the 
time of Maximian. Probably it was in some 
special and local persecution carried out under 
the orders of Maximianus Herculius while he 
was sole ruler of the West, before Constantius 
was appointed Caesar in 292, and much be- 
fore the general persecution authorized by 
the edicts of Diocletian in 303. It is very 
probable that between 286 and 292, while 
Maximian was sole ruler of the West, there 
were many martyrdoms in Spain as well as 
in Gaul and Italy. Hosius would have been 
then between 30 and 36 years old, and it is 
far more likely that he suffered persecution 
and witnessed a good confession then than 
later under the mild rule of Constantius. 
Beyond Hosius’s own statement, we have no 
contemporary evidence upon the subject. 

As the bishops and officers of the church 
generally suffered first in the outbreaks of 
persecution, it is more than probable that 
Hosius was already bp. of Corduba when he 
became a confessor. His earliest public act 
with which we are acquainted was his presence 
as bp. of Corduba at the synod of Elvira, but 
the date of this synod, like that of other events 
in his history, is involved in much obscurity. 
Mendoza, who has written more fully upon it 
than any other author, is of opinion that it 
should be placed in 300 or 301. Nineteen 
bishops from different parts of Spain were 

resent, hence it may be regarded as represent- 
ing the whole church of Spain. The president 
was Felix of Acci (Guadix) in Baetica, pro- 
bably the oldest bishop present. The name 
of Hosius comes next. As arule the order of 
signatures to the Acts of councils indicates the 
order of precedence among the bishops, either 
according to the date of their consecration or 
the importance of their episcopal sees (Hefele, 


32 


498 HOSIUS 

Hist. of Councils, vol. i. 64, Eng. trans.). As 
Hosius was probably not over 45 years old, 
his high position could not have been due to 
his age, but must have been in right of his see. 
We infer, therefore, that Corduba then held 
the first place among the cities of Spain. 

It is now very difficult to form a true con- 
ception of Corduba in its ancient grandeur. 
Tn the rst and the beginning of the 2nd cents. 
Spain reached a very high development in 
the social system of Rome. Roman influence 
had so spread in Baetica that the natives had 
forgotten their own language. Roman schools 
were opened in the coloniae and municipia, the 
most brilliant being at Corduba and Osca. 
For nearly two centuries Spain produced men 
remarkable in all kinds of culture. Lucan and 
the two Senecas were born at Corduba, its 
schools thus furnishing rivals even to Vergil 
and Cicero. In the time of Hosius this 
intellectual activity had considerably declined, 
and pre-eminence in literary culture had 
passed to the province of Africa. But Cor- 
duba must still have retained a high place in 
the social development of the time. A man 
called to such an important see would most 
probably be one of some personal distinction. 
Baronius(ad ann. 57) attaches little importance 
to this synod, which he suspects of Novatianist 
tendencies. The very first canon, indeed, 
decrees that adults who have sacrificed to idols 
have committed a capital crime and can never 
again be received into communion. Such a 
denial of pardon to those who lapsed under 
persecution was the chief error of Novatian 
(Socr. H. E. iv. 28). The Novatianist dis- 
cipline was very rigid in other respects also, 
especially with reference to carnal sins, and 
many of the canons of Elvira relate to such 
offences, and their stern and austere spirit 
shews how deeply the Fathers at Elvira were 
influenced by Novatianist principles. Though 
we cannot trace the hand of Hosius in the 
composition of these canons, yet as he was a 
leading member of the synod, its decrees would 
doubtless be in harmony with his convictions. 

For 12 or 13 years after this synod nothing 
is known of his life. He then seems to have 
been brought into close personal relations 
with the emperor Constantine, and thence- 
forward his acts form part of the history of his 
time. It would be interesting to know how 
Hosius acquired the great influence over Con- 
stantine which it is believed he exercised up 
to the time of the Nicene council. But there 
is not a single passage in any ancient writer 
which relates the origin of their connexion. 

The absence of Hosius from the synod of 
Arles, Aug. 1, 314, the most numerously at- 
tended council that had hitherto been held in 
Christendom, is remarkable. Bishops from 
Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Britain were assembled 
as representatives of the whole Western 
church. Constantine was absent, being en- 
gaged in his first war with Licinius in Panno- 
nia. Possibly Hosius may have been in 
attendance upon the emperor, as we learn 
from Eusebius (Vit. Const. ii. 4) that in 
this campaign Constantine took with him 
“the priests of God,’’ for the benefit of their 
prayers and “ to have them constantly about 
his person, as most trusty guardians of the 
soul.” Traces exist of the presence of 


HOSIUS 


Hosius at the imperial court in 316, when the 
Donatists, having been condemned at the 
council in Nov. at Milan by the emperor him- 
self, spread abroad a report, as we learn from 
Augustine (cont. Ep. Parmen. lib. i. c. 8, vol. 
ix. p. 43, ed. Migne), that by the advice of 
Hosius, a friend of Caecilian, the catholic bp. 
of Carthage, they had been condemned. 

In the relations between Christianity and 
paganism there is ground for thinking that the 
position of Hosius at this time must have been 
somewhat of a representative one on the 
Christian side; otherwise it is difficult to 
understand why the emperor should have 
addressed to him a law declaring free such 
slaves as were emancipated in the presence of 
the bishops or clergy (A.D. 321; Cod. Tneod. 
lib. iv. tit. 7, col. 379, Hanel’s ed.). By the 
end of 323 Constantine had becomesole master 
of the Roman empire in the East and West, 
and took measures for the re-establishment 
of religious concord throughout his dominions. 
To this end, says Socrates (H. E. i. 7), “‘ he 
sent a letter to Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, 
and to Arius, by a trustworthy person named 
Hosius, who was bp. of Cordubain Spain, whom 
the emperor greatly loved and held in the 
highest estimation,’ urging them not to con- 
tend about matters of small importance (Eus. 
Vit. Const. ii. 63). That Hosius, a bishop of 
the Western church, and speaking only Latin, 
should be sent to a city in the East in which 
Greek civilization had reached its highest 
development is a striking proof of the high 
opinion that the emperorhadofhim. Moreover, 
his mission gave him precedence as an imperial 
commissioner over the bp. of Alexandria, whose 
see ranked next to that of Rome. It is not 
very clear what Hosius did at Alexandria, the 
accounts being very imperfect and confused. 
He apparently devoted himself with great 
earnestness to refuting the dogmas of Sabellius 
(Socr. H. E. iii. 7), but as to his steps with 
reference to Arius, history is silent. Weknow, 
however, that he failed to extinguish the flame 
which the Arians had lighted. Finding it im- 
possible to terminate these controversies, he 
had toreturn to Constantine and acknowledge 
that his mission had failed. The emperor there- 
upon, probably by his advice (Sulpit. Sever. 
Hist. ii. 55, ‘‘ Nicaena synodus auctore illo 
{Hosio] confecta habebatur’’), resolved to 
convoke an oecumenical council and to invite 
bishops from all quarters. The council was 
held at Nicaea in 325. Thepart of Hosius in it 
hasbeen much discussed. (1) Was he thepresi- 
dent of the council, and if so (2) did he preside 
as legate of the pope? There is no doubt of 
his very prominent position. Unfortunately 
no complete account of the acts of the synod 
is extant, if such ever existed. 

(1) Roman Catholic writers, such as Baro- 
nius, Nat. Alexander (vol. vii. p. 390), Fleury, . 
Alzog, and Hefele (Cone. i. 39), maintain that 
he was president, but as the legate of the pope. 
They refer to Gelasius (lib. i. c. 5), who says, 
““Osius ex Hispanis, ... Silvestri Episcopi 
maximae Romae locum obtinebat ’’—éréywv 
καὶ τὸν τόπον. Mansi, ii. 806 Dp. There is a 
little ambiguity in these words. A man may 
occupy a place which rightly belongs to an- 
other, but it does not follow that he is his re- 
presentative because he sits in his seat. At this 


HOSIUS 


epoch, although the bp. of Rome held the first 
place among all his brethren, partly because 
Rome was the principal city in the world, yet 
his ecclesiastical jurisdiction does not appear 
to have extended beyond the churches of the 
ten provinces of Italy, called in the versio 
prisca of the 6th Nicene canon ὁ suburbicaria 
loca.’’ The churches of the East were mainly 
under the jurisdiction of the metropolitans of 
Alexandria or Antioch, and these great bishops 
would not brook the interference of their 
Western brethren. Moreover, the great 
strength of Christianity lay then in the East. 
The West was still imperfectly Christianized. 
It is difficult, therefore, to believe that Hosius 
presided at the council of Nicaea—an Eastern 
synod—as legate of the pope. 

(2) But when we inquire why the usual order 
of precedence was departed from, we are a 
little at a loss for a satisfactory answer. Du 
Pin (Nouv. Bib. t. ii. pt. 2, p. 315) thought that 
Hosius presided because already acquainted 
with the question at issue and highly esteemed 
by the emperor. Similarly Schréckh (K7r- 
chengeschichte, ΤῊ]. v. ὃ 336). This seems the 
most probable explanation. It would be 
difficult to understand how the bishop of a see 
in Spain took precedence over the great patri- 
archs of the East if he had not been appointed 
by the emperor. MHosius was at the height of 
his reputation and enjoying the fullest con- 
fidence of his imperial master. He was, says 
Dean Stanley (Eastern Church, lect. iii.), ‘‘ as 
the world-renowned Spaniard, an object of 
deeper interest to Christendom than any bp. 
of Rome could at that time have been.’”’ The 
power of the popes of Rome was not yet 
sufficiently consolidated for their claim to 
preside to have been admitted. Eleven years 
before, at the great council of the West at 
Arles in 314, the emperor appointed Marinus, 
bp. of Arles, to preside, while pope Silvester 
was represented there, as at Nicaea, by two 
presbyters and two deacons (cf. Hefele, Conc. 
1.181). The council of Nicaea was convoked 
by Constantine, and there is good reason to 
believe that Hosius held the foremost place by 
hisappointment. He is believed to have been 
the emperor’s adviser in ecclesiastical matters. 
The part that Constantine, then only a cate- 
chumen, took in the proceedings at Nicaea 
shews that he must have received some instruc- 
tion as to the debated questions from an 
orthodox teacher. It is very unlikely that 
he could have of himself given such a philo- 
sophical explanation of the Homoousion as he 
did (see the letter addressed by Eusebius to 
the Christians at Caesarea and preserved by 
Socrates, H. E. i. 8). Again, the emperor’s 
letter to the churches respecting the council 
(Eus. Vit. Const. iii. 17-20) bears unmistakable 
traces of the hand of atheologian. Dean Mil- 
man (Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 364, crown 
8vo ed.) calls the letter of Constantine to Arius 
and Alexander ‘‘in its spirit a model of temper 
and conciliation. Itis probable that the hand 
of Hosius is to be traced in its composition. 
His influence was uniformly exercised in this 
manner. Wherever the edicts of the govern- 
ment were mild, conciliating, and humane, 
we find the bp. of Corduba.”’ 

At the conclusion of the council Hosius 
seems to have returned to Corduba. For 


council.”’ 


HOSIUS 499 


nearly 20 years he lived in retirement in his 
own diocese. No trace of a return to the 
court of Constantine remains, and it does not 
appear that they ever met again. We must 
look to the history of the time for some ex- 
planation of the cause for these altered rela- 
tions. Constantine left Asia Minor for Rome, 
which he reached c. July 326. His brief 
stay there was marked by deeds of cruelty. 
In the midst of the Vicennalia the people of 
Rome heard with regret that his son Crispus 
had been put to death. Not long afterwards 
the young Licinianus, his nephew, a boy of 12, 
was killed, at the suggestion, it is said, of 
the empress Fausta, whom retribution soon 
overtook. There followed a great number of 
public executions. The true causes of these 
events are involved in mystery, but Constan- 
tine is said to have become a prey to remorse. 
A great change certainly took place in his 
character after he became sole master of the 
Romanempire. He was spoiled by prosperity 
(Eutropius, lib. x. cc. 4, 6). He became 
arrogant and impatient of counsel, distrustful 
and suspicious. This moral deterioration was 
accompanied with great vacillation in his re- 
ligious opinions. A few years after the council 
of Nicaea he fell under Arian influences. 
Arius was recalled; and at the instigation of 
Eusebius of Nicomedia and his adherents, 
Athanasius was condemned upon a false charge 
and banished to Gaul (A.D. 335). Not long 
before his death, in 337, Constantine received 
baptism from Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian 
bishop. This change in the characterand opin- 
ions of Constantine was the true cause of his 
altered relations with Hosius. As the influence 
of the Arians over his mind increased, that of 
his old counsellor would of necessity decline. 
Hosius does not appear to have been present 
at any of the synods between those of Nicaea 
and Sardica, nor to have taken any public part 
in the controversies between Athanasius and 
the Arians during 20 years. In 345 the 
emperor Constans summoned Athanasius to 
Milan from Rome, and informed him that he 
had been urged by certain bishops (believed 
to have been pope Julius, Hosius, and Maxi- 
minus of Tréves; cf. Hilar. Frag. 2, p. 16) to 
use his influence with his brother Constantius, 
that a council might be called to settle the 
questions concerning him, the place of meeting 
to be Sardica. Athanasius while in Milan 
was directed by Constans to go to Gaul to meet 
Hosius and travel with him to Sardica (Athan. 
Apol. ad Const. c. 4). Hosius was now 
nearly go years old. So long a journey implies 
considerable vigour of body, and that age had 
not changed his convictions nor impaired his 
zeal. Nor had his long retirement lessened 
his influence or the unbounded respect felt for 
him by his contemporaries. In the encyclical 
letter of the council of Sardica to be found 
in Athanasius (Apol. contr. Arian. Cc. 44), 
Hosius is spoken of as ‘‘ one who on account 
of his age, his confession, and the many labours 
he had undergone, is worthy of all reverence.” 
His presidency in this case is affirmed in 
express terms by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. c. 
16): ‘* The great Hosius was president of the 
The Acts shew him as the life and 
soul of the synod, proposing most of the 


| canons and taking the foremost part in the pro- 


δ00 HOSIUS 


ceedings. The synod afforded a great oppor- 
tunity for his wisdom and conciliatory spirit. 
He specially sought to conciliate the Eusebian 
party, of which he writes to Constantine (2b. 
c. 44): ‘‘On my own account I challenged 
the enemies of Athanasius, when they came to 
the church where I generally was, to declare 
what they had against him. This I did once 
and again, requesting them if they were un- 
willing to appear before the whole council, yet 
to appear before me alone.’’? The Eusebians, 
however, rejecting all overtures, held a synod 
of their own at Philippopolis, whence they sent 
an encyclical letter to the churches, condemn- 
ing Hosius, Julius, bp. of Rome, and others, 
chiefly for holding communion with Athan- 
asius. Hosius, they said, had also always been 
a persecutor of a certain Marcus of blessed 
memory, a strenuous defender of evil men, 
and a companion of wicked and abandoned 
persons in the East (Hilar. Frag. 111. t. il. 
col. 674, ed. Migne). 

Until 354 we hear nothing further of him. 
An extant letter written to him by pope Li- 
berius, early in 354, shews the great respect in 
which he was held. Liberius writes, full of 
grief, because Vincentius of Capua, one of his 
legates in whom he had placed great confidence, 
at a synod consisting chiefly of the Eusebian 
party, held at Arles in 353, had consented 
under constraint to give up communion with 
Athanasius (ἐδ. vi. t. 11. col. 688). 

During his long life Hosius had preserved 
an unblemished name and been a consistent 
and uncompromising supporter of the Nicene 
faith. At length, when 100 vears old, he gave 
way for a brief moment to the violence of his 
persecutors, and consented under torture to 
hold communion with Valens and Ursacius 
(Athan. Hist. Arian. 45), a concession which 
has been much magnified and misrepresented. 

_ In 355 a synod was convoked by Constan- 
tius at Milan, which deserved, says Tillemont 
(Mém. t. vi. p. 362), the name of a robber 
synod even more than did the false council of 
Ephesus. At this synod the Eusebians first 
openly declared in favour of the dogmas of 
Arius, and endeavoured to secure their accept- 
ance by the church. The emperor called upon 
the orthodox bishops, under penalty of 
banishment, to join in the condemnation of 
Athanasius. Most of them gave way, and 
consented to condemn Athanasius and to hold 
communion with the Arians (Rufinus, lib. i. 
c. 20). The few who stood firm were 
banished, bound with chains, to distant pro- 
vinces: Dionysius, exarch of Milan, to Cap- 
padocia, or Armenia; Lucifer to Syria; 
Eusebius of Vercelli into Palestine (cf. 
Athan. A pol. Const. 27). In 366 Liberius, bp. 
of Rome, was summoned to Milan, where 
Constantius was residing, and allowed three 
days to choose between signing the condemn- 
ation of Athanasius or going into exile. He 
chose the latter, and was banished to Beroea 
in Thrace. From the first the object of the 
Arians had been to gain the great Hosius. 
“* As long as he escaped their wicked machin- 
ations they thought they had accomplished 
nothing. We have done everything, they said 
to Constantius. We have banished the bishop 
of the Romans, and before him a very great 
number of other bishops, and have filled every 


HOSIUS 


place with alarm. But these strong measures 
are as nothing, nor is our success at all more 
secure so long as Hosiusremains. Begin then 
to persecute him also, and spare him not, 
ancient as he is. Our heresy knows not to 
honour the hoary hairs of the aged’’ (Athan. 
Hist. Arian. § 42). At their solicitation the 
emperor had previously summoned Hosius to 
Milan, c. a.D. 355. On his arrival he urged 
him to subscribe against Athanasius and hold 
communion with the Arians. The cld man, full 
of grief that such a proposal should have been 
even made to him, would not for one moment 
listen to it. Severely rebuking the emperor 
and endeavouring to convince him of his error, 
he withdrew from the court and returned to 
his own country. Constantius wrote fre- 
quently, sometimes flattering, sometimes 
threatening him. ‘‘ Be persuaded,” he said, 
““and subscribe against Athanasius, for who- 
ever subscribes against him thereby embraces 
with us the Arian cause.’”? Hosius remained 
fearless and unmoved, and wrote a spirited 
answer to Constantius, preserved by Athan- 
asius, the only extant composition by Hosius 
(tb. § 44). The emperor continued to 
threaten him severely, intending either to 
bring him over by force or to banish him, 
for, says Socrates (H. E. ii. 31) the Arians 
considered that this would give great authority 
to their opinions. Finding that Hosius would 
not subscribe, Constantius sent for him to Sir- 
mium and detained him there a whole year. 
“ Unmindful,”” says Athanasius (l.c.), ‘‘ of his 
father’s love for Hosius, without reverence for 
his great age, for he was then 100 years old, 
this patron of impiety and emperor of heresy 
used such violence towards the old man that 
at last, broken down by suffering, he was 
brought, though with reluctance, to hold 
communion with Valens and Ursacius, but 
he would not subscribe against Athanasius ”’ 
(A.D. 357). Hesays elsewhere (A pol. pro Fug. 
§ 7) that Hosius ‘“ yielded for a time to the 
Arians, as being old and infirm in body, and 
after repeated blows had been inflicted upon him 
above measure, and conspiracies formed against 
his kinsfolk.’’ Socrates gives similar testi- 
mony (l.c.; cf. Newman, Arians, c. iv. § 3). 
It is difficult to determine which of the 
confessions of faith drawn up at Sirmium was 
actually signed by Hosius. Whether there 
was only one synod of Sirmium, or two or three 
at intervals of a few years, is also a question 
upon which opinions have differed widely. The 
predominant opinion is expressed by Valesius 
in a note to Socrates (H. E. ii. 30), viz. that 
there were three synods there, each issuing a 
different creed. The first,in 351, at which Pho- 
tinus was deposed, published a confession in 
Greek. At the second, in 357, Hosius was com- 
pelled to be present and his subscription was 
obtained by force to a creed written in Latin, 


called by Hilarius ‘‘ blasphemia apud Sirmium ἡ 


per Osium et Potamium conscripta ”’ (Opp. ed. 
Migne, t. ii. col. 487). The third Sirmian 
creed, called the ‘‘ Dated Creed” from its 
naming the consuls, was agreed upon at a 
convention of bishops in May 359. This was 
the creed afterwards produced by Ursacius 
and Valens at the synod of Ariminum (cf. 
Athan. de Synod. 48). Socrates, indeed (H. E. 
ii. 30), says that three creeds were drawn up 


| 


Cee 


HOSIUS 


at the same synod of Sirmium as that which 
deposed Photinus (A.p. 351)—one in Greek and 
two in Latin—neither of which agreed to- 
gether. But thisis clearly an error. Sozomen 
says (H. E. iv. 12) that ‘‘ Hosius had certainly, 
with the view of arresting the contention ex- 
cited by Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius, 
consented, though by compulsion, with some 
other bishops at Sirmium to refrain from the 
use of the terms Homoousion and Homoiou- 
sion, because such terms do not occur in the 
Holy Scriptures and are beyond the under- 
standing of men.’’ These very expressions 
occur in the creed set forth at Sirmium in 
Latin, and afterwards translated into Greek, 
which Socrates gives (l.c.), and there is no 
room to doubt that this was the confession 
which Hosius signed. 

It may be doubted, says Dean Stanley (East. 
Ch. lect. vii. c. 3), ‘‘ whether in his own age the 
authority of Hosius in the theological world 
was not even higher than that of Athanasius.”’ 
The Arians, therefore, would naturally make 
the most of the concession wrung from him. 
Those who constantly slandered Athanasius 
would not have many scruples about calum- 
niating Hosius. Epiphanius (Haer. 73), about 
20 years later, says that the Arians thought 
they could condemn the teaching of the church 
as to the Homoousion by producing letters 
fraudulently procured from the venerable 
Hosius, stating that the substance was dis- 
similar. Sozomen says (H. E. iv. 12) that 
Eudoxius, bp. of Antioch, c. 358, upheld the 
heresy of Aetius, that the Son is dissimilar to 
the Father, and rejected the terms Homo- 
ousion and Homoiousion. When he received 
the Ietter of Hosius he spread a report that 
Liberius had also made the same admission 
(iv. 15). These letters were most probably 
spurious. There is reason also to believe that 
the creed actually signed by Hosius was inter- 
polated and sent into the East in his name. 
This may perhaps explain the expression of 
Hilarius (contr. Constantium, c. 23, col. 580, 
ed. Migne, vol. ii.) when he speaks of “‘ delira- 
menta Osii et tncrementa Ursacii et Valentis ” 
(cf. Newman’s notes to Athanasius, Eng. 
trans. vol. i. p. 162). 

Exaggerated reports of the fall of Hosius 
were spread by the Arians far and wide. His 
perversion was their strongest argument 
against the Catholic party in Gaul. To this 
a contemporary writer, Phoebadius, bp. of 
Agennum, replies (Lib. contra Arian. c. 23, 
Patr. Lat. ed. Migne, vol. xx. col. 30) : ‘‘ Novit 
enim mundus quae in hanc tenuerit aetatem 
qua constantia apud Sardicam et in Nicaeno 
tractatu assensus sit et damnaverit Arianos. 
. .. Sinonaginta fere annis male credidit, post 
nonaginta illum recte sentire non credam.”’ 
The Donatists also, whose views Hosius had 
opposed equally strongly, did not fail to 
calumniate him. Augustine vindicates his 
memory (Lib. contra Parmen. lib. i. c. 4, 
§ 7, ed. Migne, vol. ix. col. 38). Marcellus and 
Faustinus, two presbyters who were followers 
of Lucifer of Cagliari, relate (Libellum ad 
Theodos. c. 383 or 384) that on the return of 
Hosius to Spain, Gregory, bp. of Elvira, re- 


fused to hold communion with him, and as | 


Hosius was in the act of pronouncing his 
deposition he was struck dumb and fell from 


HOSIUS 501 


his seat. It is very possible that the first part 
of the story may have had some foundation, 
as a letter is extant (Hilar. Frag. xii. t. ii. 
col. 713, ed. Migne) from Eusebius of Vercelli 
to Gregory of Spain (c. 360), congratulating 
him on having withstood the transgressor 
Hosius. Among ancient writers, no one 
_ has referred to the lapse of Hosius so bitterly as 
| Hilary of Poictiers. This is the more remark- 
able as he had never heard of the Nicene Creed 
until he went into exile (Hilar. de Syn. c. 91, 
| ad fin. vol. ii. col. 545, ed. Migne). He charges 
| Hosiusand Potamuus, bp. of Lisbon, with having 
| drawn up the second creed of Sirmium, which 
|he designates in one place (Opp. ed. Migne, 
| t. ll. col. 487) as the ‘* blasphemia,” in another 
| (col. 599) as “ deliramenta Osii’’; and says (col. 
539) that his fall was due to his having been too 
anxious to get away from Sirmium and die in 
|hisowncountry. These hard sayings occur in 
Hilary’s treatise de Synodis, written probably 
|in 358, a year after the second synod of Sir- 
| mium, at which Hosius was forced to bepresent. 
| Hilary himself tells us (de Syn. c. 63, t. ii. 
col. 533) that the majority of those with whom 
| he was then living in exile had no true ac- 
| quaintance with God—in other words, held 
| Arian opinions—‘‘ Ex majori parte Asianae 
_decem provinciae intra quas consisto, vere 
| Deum nesciunt.’’ Whatever tidings came to 
him would therefore reach him through Arian 
channels. His means of information are not 
to be compared with those of Athanasius. He 
|is, moreover, the only ancient writer who says 
that Hosius had any hand in the composition 
of the creed of the second council of Sirmium, 
and any combination between Hosius and 
Potamius, the reputed author with him of this 
confession, isfor otherreasons most improbable. 
The one had been all his life a consistent sup- 
porter of the Nicene Creed, the other a rene- 
|gade. Moreover, Hosius at this time was 
| about 100 years old. At such an age men do 
|not willingly invent new creeds; they are far 
more likely to cling tenaciously to old ones. 
Sulpicius Severus (c. 404 or 405) speaks of 
the lapse of Hosius as resting on a popular 
rumour which seemed quite incredible unless 
extreme old age had enfeebled his powers and 
/made him childish (Htst. Sac. lib. 2). 
To clear his memory from the charges of 
| Hilary it is sufficient to point out that the 
| synod of Sardica spoke of Hosius as a man of 
|a ‘happy old age, who, on account of his age, 
| his confession, and the many labours he has 
/undergone, is worthy of all reverence."’ So 
public a testimony to his high character is 
‘enough to silence all detraction, and the 
| affectionate and reverential language in which 
|the great Athanasius describes the passing 
frailty of his venerable friend, the father of 
the bishops, is very different from the furious 
|and intemperate tone in which it is referred 
to by Hilary. ‘ This true Hosius, and his 
blameless life,’’ says Athanasius, ‘* were 
known ἴο 411. As herelates the violence used 
towards him, he expresses only the tenderest 
commiseration for his friend; but against 
Constantius, his persecutor, his indignation 
|knows no bounds (Hist. Artan. 46). 
There is some doubt whether Hosius suc- 
!cumbed to the violence used against him at 
|Sirmium and died there in 357, or whether, 


502 HUNNERIC 


after subscribing the Arian formula, he was 
permitted to end his days in Spain. This 
involves the further question—whether before 
his death he recanted, and was readmitted 
into the Catholic church, or retained his Arian 
opinions to the last. The story told by the 
Luciferians and the charges brought against 
his memory by his old enemies the Donatists 
serve at least to shew that, according to 
ecclesiastical tradition, he died in Spain. The 
question is fully examined by Baronius (sub 
ann. 357, CC. XXX.-XXxXvVii.), whodoesnot believe 
the story told by the Luciferians. The story of 
the apostate Marcellinus is not confirmed by 
any contemporary writer. Had it been true, 
it must have been known to Athanasius, who 
says distinctly that Hosius yielded to the 
outrages of the Arians ‘‘ for a time, as being 
old and infirm in body’”’ (Apol. pro Fug. § 5), 
and that “αἱ the approach of death, as it were 
by his last testament, he bore witness to the 
force which had been used towards him, and 
abjured the Arian heresy and gave strict 
charge that no one should receive it’’ (Hist. 
Arian. 45). These words prove that his lapse 
was but a temporary one, that he died in com- 
munion with the church, and in the midst of his 
friends. Hilary’s words as to his anxiety to 
leave Sirmium and be buried in his own country 
imply that he obtained his wish to return to 
Spain. The date of his death isa little uncer- 
tain, but from Marcellinus we learn that it was 
soon after his return to Spain and before the 
concession he had made to the Arians had 
become widely known. As the treatise of 
Athanasius (Hist. Arian.) was written between 
358 and 360, it must have been before that 
period. Some writers favour the end of 357 ; 
others think he lived till 359. 

His. profound acquaintance with Christian 
doctrine was combined with a singularly 
blameless and holy life. He seems to have 
had great tact and judgment and a concilia- 
tory disposition. The shadow cast upon his 
name by the concession extorted from him by 
the Arians must not be allowed to obscure the 
rightful honour due to him for his labours and 
sufferings on behalf of the Catholic faith. 
‘““Bven Christianity,’’ says Dean Milman 
(Hist. of Christianity, vol. il. p. 427, ed. 1875), 
‘‘has no power over that mental imbecility 
which accompanies the decay of physical 
strength, and this act of feebleness ought not 
for an instant to be set against the unblem- 
ished virtue of a whole life.’’ 

A very full account of his life, and a dis- 
cussion of various points in his history, will be 
foundin Gams (Die Kirchengesch. von Spanien, 
Bandii. pp. 1-309, Regensburg, 1864). Seealso 
Hefele, Conciliengesch. vols. 1. andii., of which 
thereisan Eng. trans. ; Tillemont, Mém.t. vii. p. 
300, 4toed.; Dom Ceillier, s.v. t. ili. 392, new 
ed. ; Zahn, Const. der Gr. u. die Kirche, 1876; 
Florez, Espatia Sagrada, La Provinciade Bética, 
vol. ix. and x. (Madrid, 1754). [T.D.C.M.] 

Hunneric (Ugnericus, Hunertx, Hono- 
richus), eldest son and successor (Jan. 24, 
477) of Genseric, king of the Vandals. Sent 
to Rome in his youth as a hostage for the 
observance of the treaty his father had made 
with Valentinian III., he married (462), after 
the sack of Rome, the captive Eudocia, eldest 
of the daughters of that emperor. Soon after 


HUNNERIC 


he ascended the throne he ordered diligent 
search to be made for Manicheans, of whom 
he burnt many and exiled more across the 
sea, being commended for this by Victor. 
His subjects were oppressed with taxes and 
exactions, but he relaxed the strictness of his 
father’s laws against the orthodox, and, at 
the intercession of his sister-in-law Placidia, 
the widow of the emperor Olybrius, and the 
emperor Zeno, allowed (A.D. 481) a bp. of 
Carthage (Eugenius) to be elected, the see 
having been vacant since the death of Deo- 
gratias in 457. He made this concession upon 
condition that a similar liberty should be 
allowed the Arian bishops and laity in Zeno’s 
dominions, or else the newly elected bishops 
and all other orthodox bishops with their 
clergy would be banished to the Moors. 

To secure the succession to his son, Hun- 
neric sent his brother Theodoric into exile and 
put to death his wife and children. The Arian 
patriarch of Carthage, who was supposed to 
favour Theodoric, was burnt alive, and many 
of his clergy shared his fate or were thrown to 
wild beasts; nor did Hunneric spare the 
friends his father had commended to him on 
his death-bed if suspected of being inclined to 
support his brother. Hunneric now took 
measures against the orthodox. The influence 
of Eugenius on the Vandals was especially 
dreaded by the Arian clergy, at whose sug- 
gestion the king forbade him to preach in 
public or to allow persons in Vandal dress to 
enter Catholic churches. The bishop replied 
that the house of God was open to all. A 
great number of Catholics, being the king’s 
servants, wore the Vandal dress. Men were 
therefore posted at the church doors with long 
rakes, with which:any person entering in 
Vandal dress was seized by the hair as so to 
tear off hair and scalp together. Many died 
in consequence. Hunneric next deprived 
Catholics who held posts at the court or 
belonged to the army of their offices and pay ; 
many of the former were forced to work in the 
fields near Utica and the latter were deprived 
of their property and exiled to Sicily or Sar- 
dinia. A law confiscating the property of 
deceased bishops and imposing a fine of 500 
solidi on each new bishop was contemplated, 
but abandoned for fear of retaliatory measures 
against the Arians in the Eastern empire. 
Virgins were hung up naked with heavy 
weights attached to their feet, and their 
breasts and backs burnt with red-hot irons, to 
extort, if possible, a confession of immorality, 
which might be used against the bishops and 
clergy. Many expired under the torture and 
the survivors were maimed for life. A body 
of Catholic bishops, priests, deacons, and 
laity, numbering 4,976, was sent into banish- 
ment among the savage Moors of the desert. 
Victor gives a touching description of their 
sufferings during their marches by day and 
in crowded dens at night. 

These cruelties were only the prelude of a 
more extensive and systematic persecution. 
Hunneric, on Ascension Day, 483, published 
an edict to Eugenius, and the other Catholic 
or, as he termed them, Homoousian bishops, 
ordering them to assemble at Carthage on 
Feb. 1, to meet the Arian bishops in conference 
and decide the points in controversy between 


. 
| 


HUNNERIC 


them, promising them a safe-conduct. Even 
before the conference, however, the persecu- 
tion began. Victor tells of various bishops 
cruelly beaten and sent into exile, while on 
Sept. 20, Laetus, bp. of Nepta, was burnt to 
terrify the rest of the Catholic party. When 
the meeting assembled, the Catholics were 
indignant to find Cyrila, the Arian patriarch, 
in the presidential chair. After mutual re- 
criminations the orthodox presented a state- 
ment of their belief and their arguments for 
it. The Arians received it with indignation, 
as in it the orthodox claimed the name of 
Catholics, and falsely suggested to the king 
that the disturbance was the fault of their 
opponents. Hunneric seized this pretext for 
publishing, on Feb. 25, an edict he had 
already prepared and distributed to the 
magistrates throughout his dominions, order- 
ing all churches of the orthodox party to be 
handed over with their endowments to the 
Arians, and further, after reciting the penalties 
imposed on the Donatists in 412 and 414 by 
edicts of Honorius (Codex Theodosianus, XVI. 
v. 52, 54), enacting that the Catholics should 
be subject to the same penalties and disabili- 
ties. Pardon was promised to those who 
should renounce Catholicism before June 1. 
Persecution, however, began before the three 
months’ grace had expired. The first to 
suffer were the bishops assembled at Carthage. 
They were expelled from the town with no- 
thing but the clothes they had on, and were 
obliged to beg their bread. The inhabitants 
were forbidden to give them shelter or food 
under pain of being burnt alive with their 
whole families. While outside the walls in 
~this miserable state, they were summoned to 
meet at the Temple of Memory persons sent 
by the king, and were required to take an oath 
to support the succession of Hilderic, the 
king’s son, and to hold no correspondence 
with countries beyond the sea. On these 
conditions the king promised to restore them 
their churches. Some took the oath, but 
others refused, excusing themselves by the 
precept ‘‘ Swear not at all.’’ They were then 
told to separate, the names and sees of the 
bishops of each party were taken down, and 
they were all sent to prison. A few days 
afterwards those who had taken the oath were 
told that, as they had infringed the precept 
of the Gospel, the king banished them to the 
country, assigning them land to cultivate, on 
condition that they should not chant, pray, 
baptize, ordain, or receive any into the church. 
To those who had refused was said, ‘* You 
refused to swear because you did not wish our 
master’s son to succeed him. Therefore you 
are exiled to Corsica, where you shall cut 
timber for our master’s navy.’’ Of the 466 
attending the council, 88 fell away to Arian- 
ism ; of the others one was a martyr, one a 
confessor, 46 were banished to Corsica, and the 
rest to the country parts of Africa. 
Meanwhile throughout Africa a most cruel 
persecution raged, neither age nor sex being 
a protection ; some were cruelly beaten, others 
hung, and some burnt alive. Noble ladies 
were stripped naked and tortured in the public 
streets. Victorian, a former proconsul of 
Carthage, was the most illustrious victim 
of the persecution. Victor's fifth book is full 


HUNNERIC 503 


of accounts of the constancy and suffering of 
the Catholics. Eugenius was entrusted to the 
custody of the cruel Antonius, the Arian bp. 
of a city in Tripoli, where his hardships 
brought on a stroke of paralysis. Bp. Habet- 
deus was bound and gagged by Antonius and 
forced to undergo the rite of a second baptism, 
which was imposed also by force or fraud upon 
many of the orthodox. The Vandals, who 
had renounced Arianism, were treated with 
peculiar cruelty. Some had their eyes put 
out, others their hands, feet, noses, or ears cut 
off. Hunneric, to insult Uranius, and Zeno 
who had sent him to intercede for the Cath- 
olics, ordered some of the cruellest scenes of 
torture to be enacted in the streets through 
which he had to pass on his way to the palace. 
_ The most celebrated event of the persecu- 
tion occurred at Typasa, a seaport town of 
Mauritania. A former notary of Cyrila’s 
having been consecrated as the Arian bishop 
of that town, the greater part of the citizens 
took ship to Spain. A few, not finding 
room on board, remained, whom the Arian 
bishop on his arrival endeavoured, first by 
persuasion and then by threats, to induce 
to become Arians. They refused, and having 
assembled in a house, began publicly to 
celebrate the divine mysteries. The bishop 
thereupon dispatched secretly to Carthage an 
accusation against them to the king, who sent 
an officer with orders to have their tongues 
cut out and their right hands cut off before 
the assembled province in the forum. This 
was done, but they continued to speak as 
plainly as before. This is attested by Victor, 
who was probably an eye-witness; by the 
eye-witnesses Aeneas of Gaza, the Platonic 
philosopher (Theophrastus, in Migne, Patr. 
Gk. \xxxv. 1000), Justinian (Cod. 1. 27), and 
Marcellinus (Chron. in Migne, Patr. Lat. li. 
933), all of whom had seen some of these 
persons at Constantinople; by Procopius (de 
Bello Vandalico, i. 8); Victor Tununensis 
(Chron. in Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 946); and 
pope Gregory the Great (Dial. iii. 32 in Migne, 
Patr. Lat. \xxvii. 293), and has generally been 
considered not only a miracle, but the most 
remarkable one on record after apostolic times. 
The variety of the witnesses and the consist- 
ency of their testimony on all material points 
give it claims to belief, such as few apparently 
preternatural events possess. Dr. Middleton 
was the first to suggest (Free Inquiry, 313-316) 
that, assuming the account true, it by no 
means follows that the event was miraculous, 
a position he maintains by instances of a 
person born without a tongue, and of another 
who had lost it by disease, who were able to 
speak. Mr. Twistleton (The Tongue not 
Essential to Speech) has shewn this explana- 
tion probable. He gives numerous cases of 
similarly mutilated persons in Eastern coun- 
tries, and of persons in England whose tongues 
had been removed by surgical operations, who 
could still pronounce distinctly all lettersexcept 
dandt; one of the latter he had actually seen 
and conversed with. Hesums up by saying: 
‘* The final result seems to be that questions 
connected with the phenomenon of speech in 
the African confessors are purely within the 
domain of natural science, and that thereis no 
reason for asserting or suspecting any miracu- 


δ04 HYGINUS 


lous intervention in the matter.’’ The perse- 
cution continued to rage till Hunneric died, on 
the following Dec. 11. Like the persecutor 
Galerius his body mortified, and bred worms. 

Sources.—Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione 
Vandalica, ii. iv. and v. in Migne, Patr. Lat. 
lviii., with Ruinart’s Appendix; Procopius 
de Bello Vandalico, i. 8; Appendix to Pros- 
per’s Chron. in Migne, Patr. Lat. li. 605; Chron. 
of Victor Tununensis in 7b. Ixviii. Gibbon 
(c. xxxvii.) gives a good narrative of the perse- 
cution, and Ceillier (A uteurs sacrés, x. aoe re) 
may also be consulted. 

Hyginus (1), bp. of Rome after Paes phonies 
probably from 137 to 141. Our early author- 
ities for the dates and duration of his episco- 
pate are confused, as in the case of other 
bishops of that early period. Anastasius (Lib. 
Pontif ) says that he was a Greek, son of an 
Athenian philosopher, of unknown genealogy. 
Several spurious decretals are assigned to him. 
See Mart. Rom. under Jan. 11 ; also Lightfoot, 
on the Early Roman successions, A post. Fath. 
part i. vol. i. [J-B—y.] 

Hypatia (1). Socrates (H. E. vii. 15) says: 
““There was a lady in Alexandria, by name 
Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon. 
She advanced to such a point of mental culture 
as to surpass all the philosophers of her age and 
to receive the office of lecturer in the Platonic 
school. of which Plotinus had been the 
founder, and there expound all philosophic 
learning to any desirous of it. Students of 
philosophy came from all quarters to hear 
her. The dignified freedom of speech, which 
her training had implanted in her, enabled 
her to appear even before the public magis- 
trates with entire modesty; none could feel 
ashamed to see her take her station in the 
midst of men. She was reverenced and 
admired even the more for it, by reason of the 
noble temperance of her disposition. This 
then was the woman upon whom malicious 
envy now made its attack. She was wont to 
have frequent communications with Orestes 
[the prefect] ; this aroused enmity against her 
in the church community. The charge was 
that it was through her that Orestes was 
prevented from entering upon friendly rela- 
tions with the bishop [Cyrir]. Accordingly 
some passionate fanatics, led by Peter the 
Reader, conspired together and watched her 
as she was returning home from some journey, 
tore her from her chariot, and dragged her to 
the church called Caesarium ; there they 
stripped her and killed her with oyster shells, 
and, having torn her in pieces, gathered to- 
gether the limbs toa place called Cinaron, and 
consumed them with fire. This deed oc- 
casioned no small blame to Cyril and the 
Alexandrian church; for murders, fightings, 
and the like are wholly alien to those who are 
minded to follow the things of Christ. This 
event happened in the fourth year of the 
episcopate of Cyril, in the consulships of 
Honorius (for the tenth time) and Theodosius 
(for the sixth time) in the month of March, at 
the season of the fast ”’ (1.6. Mar. 415). Little 
can be added to this. Synesius of Cyrene 
(afterwards bp. of Ptolemais) was a devoted 
disciple of hers. According to Suidas, she 
matriedIsidorus. No trustworthyaccount con- 
nects Cyril directly with her murder. [j.R.M. ] 


IBAS 


Hypatia (2). In the synodical book of the 
council of Ephesus is given a letter, from its 
style evidently the work of a female writer (un- 
named), which is falsely attributed to Hypatia 
(1) the philosopher of Alexandria. It complains 
of the condemnation and banishment of 
Nestorius, which took place 17 years after the 
death of Hypatia. The writer is struck by 
the teaching of the Christians that God died 
for men; she founds her plea for Nestorius 
on an appeal toreason and Scripture. Baluze, 
Concil. App. p.837 (Paris, 1683, fol.) ; Ceillier, 
viii. 387. [w.M.S.] 

Hypatius (19), presbyter and hegumenus in 
the first half of the 5th cent. of the monastery 
in Bithynia, once presided over and afterwards 
abandonedby Rufinus. His Life, by Callinicus 
his disciple (Boll. Acta SS. 17 Jun. 111. 303), 
tells how his zeal brought him into collision 
with his lukewarm bishop Eulalius of Chalce- 
don. Understanding that Nestorius, before 
his formal accusation, was broaching novel 
opinions, Hypatius had the patriarch’s name 
removed from the office books of the church 
adjoining his monastery (§§ 14, 38, 51, 53)- 
Eulalius, alarmed at this daring act, which 
amounted to an excommunication of the all- 
powerful patriarch, remonstrated and threat- 
ened, but Hypatius undauntedly persisted. 
Again, when Leontius, the prefect of Con- 
stantinople, was about to re-establish at 
Chalcedon the Olympic games abolished by 
Constantine, Hypatius, finding that Eulalius 
would do nothing, openly declared that he 
would by main force defeat this restoration of 
idolatry at the head of his monks, though it 
should cost him his life. Leontius, having 
had warning of this opposition, relinquished 
the project and returned to Constantinople 
(§ 45). A certain ascetic archimandrite, 
Alexander, from Asia Minor, having taken up 
his abode in the capital with 100 monks, gained 
muchreputationforsanctity, butinconsequence 
of his bold rebukes of the imperial household 
was orderedtoleave. The exiles betook them- 
selves to the church of Hypatius, but Eulalius, 
obeying orders from the palace, had them 
beaten and expelled. Hypatius immediately 
welcomed them into his monastery and 
dressed their wounds. The bishop threatened 
fresh violence, but the rustic neighbours 
volunteered a defence, and a riot was im- 
minent when a messenger from the empress 
ordered that they should not be molested. 
Alexander and his party retired in peace and 
founded a monastery near, the inmates bearing 
the name of Acoemetae, the Sleepless (§ 57; 
ACOEMETAE in D. C. A., and the Bollandist 
account of their founder in Acta SS. Jan. i. 
1018). [c.H.] 


I 


Ibas, bp. of Edessa ¢ A.D. 435-457, a Syrian 
by birth. His name in Syriac is Ihiba or Hiba 
=Donatus. He appears first as a presbyter 
of the church of Edessa during the episcopate 
of Rabbulas, and warmly espousing the theo- 
logical views which his bishop uncompromis- 
ingly opposed. He was an ardent admirer of 
the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which 
he translated into Syriac and diligently dis- 


IBAS 


seminated through the East. The famous 
theological school of Edessa, of which, accord- 
ing to some accounts, Ibas was head, and to 
which the Christian youth from Persia and 


adjacent lands resorted for education, offered | 


great facilities for this propagation of Theo- 
dore’s tenets. The growing popularity of 
doctrines which appeared to him decidedly 
heretical caused Rabbulas much alarm, and 
he endeavoured to get Theodore’s works 
anathematized and burnt. The church of 
Edessa was generally favourable to Theodore’s 


teaching, and Ibas was supported by the) 


majority against their bishop. He attended 
the council of Ephesus in 431 as a presbyter, 
was cognizant of Cyril’s autocratic conduct 
(Ep. ad Mar.; Labbe, Cone. iv. 662), and wrote 
in 433 the letter to Maris, then or subsequently 
bp. of Hardaschir in Persia, to which sub- 
sequent events gave celebrity. 
been at Edessa previous to the Nestorian 
controversy, and Ibas wrote this letter to tell 
him what had occurred since his visit. Though 
evidently written under great exasperation, it 
shews Ibas as a man of independent judgment, 
free from party spirit. Nestorius is severely 
censured in it for refusing the title θεοτόκος to 
the Virgin, and Ibas accuses Cyril of Apollin- 
arianism, and denounces the heresy of his 12 
chapters, charging him with maintaining the 

erfect identity of the manhood and Godhead 
in Christ, and denying the Catholic doctrine of 
the union of two Natures in One Person (Labbe, 
iv. 661, v. 510). Rabbulas dying in 435 or 
436, a reactionary wave made Ibas hissuccessor. 
This was very distasteful to those who held the 
strong anti- Nestorian views of their late bishop, 
and they speedily planned to secure his deposi- 
tion, by spreading charges against him of openly 
preaching heretical doctrines. The accusa- 
tions soon reached the ears of Theodosius II. 
and Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople. To 
Proclus the matter appeared so serious that 
towards the close of 437 he wrote to John of 
Antioch, as the leading prelate of the East, 
though really having no canonical jurisdiction 
over Osrhoene, begging him to persuade Ibas, 
if innocent, to remove the scandal by con- 
demning publicly certain propositions chiefly 
drawn from Theodore’s writings against the 
errors of Nestorius. The same demand was 
made by Proclus of all the Eastern bishops ; 


but Ibas and the bishops generally refused | ] 
ἘΠῚ party strongly hostile to the Eastern 


to condemn Theodore’s propositions (tb. v. 
511-514). Though foiled so far, the mal- 
contents at Edessa maintained their hostile 
attitude to their bishop. Their leaders were 
four presbyters, Samuel, Cyrus, Eulogius, and 
Maras, acting at the instigation of one of Ibas’s 
own suffragans, Uranius, bp. of Himeria, a 
pronounced Eutychian. Domnus, who had 
In 442 succeeded his uncle John as bp. of 
Antioch, visiting Hierapolis for the enthroniza- 


tion of the new bp. Stephen, the conspirators | 


chose that moment for action. Cyrus and 
Eulogius formally laid before Domnus the 


accusation against Ibas, signed by about 17 | 
/and secretary of 


clergy of Edessa, and supported by 30 (tb. iv. 
658). Ibas, when starting for Hierapolis to 
pay his respects to Domnus, heard of the 


Maris had) 


accusation, and at once summoned his clergy, | 


pronounced excommunication on Cyrus and 


IBAS 505 


treatment to all who participated in their 
proceedings. No immediate step seems to 
have followed the presentation of the libel. 
In 445 Ibas was summoned by Domnus to the 
synod held at Antioch in the matter of Athan- 
asius of Perrha, but he excused himself by 
letter (ἐδ. iv. 730). The sympathies of Dom- 
nus inclined to Ibas, and he shewed no 
readiness to entertain the charges brought 
against him. At last, in Lent 448, the four 
chief delators presented their indictment 
before Domnus and the council of the East in 
a manner too formal to be neglected. Dom- 
nus consequently summoned Ibas to appear 
before him after Easter to answer the charges. 
The council was held at Antioch, and was 
attended by only a few bishops. The existing 
Acts bear only nine signatures (ἐδ. iv. 643). 
Ibas in person answered the 18 charges, mostly 
of a frivolous character and destitute of proof : 
e.g. that he had appropriated a jewelled chalice 
to his own use; that the wine at the Eucharist 
was inferior in quality and quantity; the 
malversation of sums given for the ransom of 
captives; simoniacal ordinations and the 
admission of unfit persons to the ministry and 
episcopate, especially his nephew Daniel, 
stated to be a scandalous person, whom he 
had made bp. of Charrae. The most weighty 
charges were that he had anathematized Cyril 
and charged him with heresy; that he was a 
Nestorian ; and especially that at Easter 445, 
in the presence of his clergy, he had spoken the 
blasphemous words, ‘“‘I do not envy Christ 
His becoming God, for I can become God ne 
less than He.’’ ‘‘ This is the day that Jesus 
Christ became God ”’ (tb. iv. 647-654; Liberat. 
c.12). The first charge he acknowledged, the 
others he indignantly repudiated as base 
slanders. Only two of the accusers appeared. 
Samuel and Cyrus had gone to Constantinople, 
in defiance of the terms on which the excom- 
munication had been taken off, to lay their 
complaint before the emperor and patriarch, 
the favourable feeling of Domnus towards the 
accused being too evident for them to hope 
for an impartial trial. Domnus and the 
council declined to proceed in the absence of 
the chief witnesses, and the case seemed to be 
postponed indefinitely (Labbe, iv. 642 seq. ; 
Theod. Ep. 111). Eulogius and Maras, there- 
upon, hastened to join their fellow-conspirators 
at Constantinople, where they found a power- 


bishops, Theodoret in particular. Their 
faction was soon strengthened by the arrival 
of Uranius, the prime mover of the whole 
cabal, and half a dozen more Edessene clergy. 
The emperor and Flavian, who had succeeded 
Proclus as patriarch, listened to their com- 
plaints, but declined to hear them officially. 


| The case was remitted to the East, and by an 


imperial commission, dated Oct. 26, 448, 
Uranius of Himeria, Photius of Tyre, just 
elected Sept. 9, 448, on the deposition of 
Irenaeus, and Eustathius of Berytus were 
deputed to hear it, and Damascius, the tribune 
state, was dispatched as 
imperial commissioner. The whole proceed- 
ing was manifestly illegal. It was contrary 
to the canons that bishops should be subjected 
to the judgment of other bishops, two belong- 


Eulogius as calumniators, threatened the same | ing to another province, on the strength of an 


δ06 IBAS 


imperial decree. No one, however, protested. 
The imperial power was regarded as absolute. 
The tribunal also was grossly unfair. One of 
the three judges, Uranius, was ringleader of 
the movement against Ibas; the other two 
had obtained their sees by the instrumentality 
of Uranius (Martin, Le Brigandage d’Ephése, 
pp. 118-120). Tyre was named as the place of 
trial. The exasperation stirred up there by the 
blasphemies charged against Ibas was so great 
that it was thought politic to remove the trial 
to Berytus to avoid disturbances (Labbe, iv. 
636). Thecourt sat in the hall of Eustathius’s 
episcopal residence. The indictment was 
produced by Ibas’s accusers. Ibas laid before 
his judges a memorial signed by many of his 
clergy, denying that he had ever uttered the 
alleged blasphemies (tb. iv. 667-671). Only 
three witnesses supported the accusation, and 
brought forward a copy of the celebrated letter 
to Maris (δ. iv. 659-662). The commissioners, 
avoiding any judicial decision, brought about a 
friendly arrangement. His enemies agreed to 
withdraw their accusations on Ibas promising 
that he would forget the past, regard his accusers 
as his children, and remit any fresh difficulty 
for settlement to Domnus; and that, to avoid 
suspicion of malversation, the church revenues 
of Edessa should be administered, like those 
of Antioch, by oeconomi. Ibas gave equal 
satisfaction on theological points. He en- 
gaged to publicly anathematize Nestorius and 
all who thought with him on his return, and 
declared the identity of his doctrine with that 
agreed upon by John and Cyril, and that he 
accepted the decrees of Ephesus equally with 
those of Nicaea as due to the inspiration of 
the Holy Spirit. The concordat was signed, 
Uranius alone dissenting, Feb. 25, 449 (2b. 
iv. 630-648). The truce had no elements 
of permanence, and a very few weeks saw it 
broken. The Eutychian party, resolved on 
the ruin of Ibas and irritated at their failure 
at Berytus, left no stone unturned to over- 
throw it. All-powerful at Constantinople 
through the intrigues of Chrysaphius, Dios- 
corusandhis partisans easily obtainedfrom the 
feeble emperor, indignant at the condemnation 
of Eutyches, an edict summoning a general 
council at Ephesus for Aug. I, 449. Reports 
diligently spread in Edessa during his absence 
of Ibas’s heterodoxy made his reception so 
unfavourable that he was obliged to leave the 
town and call upon the ‘‘ magister militiae ”’ 
for a guard to protect him. He soon dis- 
covered that all appeal to the civil power was 
idle ; he was regarded as a public enemy to 
be crushed at all hazards. The count Chae- 
reas as civil governor of Osrhoene, but with 
secret instructions from Constantinople eman- 
ating from Chrysaphius and Eutyches, was 
deputed to arrest and imprison him and 
reopen the suit. When Chaereas entered 
Edessa, Apr. 12, 449, to commence the trial, 
he was met by a turbulent body of abbats and 
monks and their partisans, clamouring furious- 
ly for the immediate expulsion and condemna- 
tion of Ibas and his Nestorian crew. Ibas was 
“a second Judas,”’ ‘‘ an adversary of Christ,”’ 
an “‘ offshoot of Pharaoh.’”’ ‘‘ To the fire with 
him and all his race.’’ Two days later the 
inquiry began in the absence of Ibas amid 
violent interruptions. All Edessa knew that 


IBAS 


Chaereas had come merely to ratify under 
the colour of judicial proceedings a sentence 
of condemnation already passed. Chaereas, 
however, was moving too slowly for their 
hatred, and on Sun. Apr. 17 the excitement 
in church was so violent that the count was 
compelled to promise that the verdict of the 
synod of Berytus should be reviewed and a 
new investigation commenced. This began 
on Apr. 18; all the old charges were repro- 
duced by the same accusers, amid wild yells 
of ‘‘ Ibas to the gallows, to the mines, to the 
circus, to exile’’ drowning every attempt at 
explanation or defence. Chaereas, as had 
been predetermined, addressed a report to the 
imperial government, declaring the charges 
proved ; and on June 27 the emperor, acknow- 
ledging the receipt of the document, ordered 
that a bishop who would command the con- 
fidence of the faithful should be substituted 
for Ibas (Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus; 
Martin, w.s. t. ii. c.ix.). Only a legally consti- 
tuted synod could depose him, but meanwhile 
his enemies’ malice could be gratified by his 
maltreatment. He was forbidden to enter 
Edessa, apprehendedand treated as the vilest of 
criminals, dragged about from province to pro- 
vince, changing his quarters 40 times and being 
in 20 different prisons (Labbe, iv. 634; Liberat. 
c. 12; Facund. lib. vi. c. 1. The council of 
Ephesus, so notorious for its scandalous vio- 
lence, which gained for it, from Leo the Great 
(Ep. 95), the title of the ‘‘ Gang of Robbers,”’ 
opened on Aug. 3. One ofits objects was to get 
rid finally of Ibas. This was the work of the 
second session, held on Aug. 22. Ibas was 
not cited to appear, being then in prison at 
Antioch (Labbe, iv. 626, 634). Before the 
witnesses were allowed to enter, the three 
bishops who had conducted the investigation 
at Tyre and Berytus were asked for an account 
of their proceedings. Instead of declaring the 
fact that, after examination made, they had 
acquitted Ibas, they made pitiful excuses as 
to their inability to arrive at the truth from 
the distance of the place of trial to Edessa, 
and endeavoured to shift the burden by saying 
that an investigation had subsequently been 
held at Edessa itself, which had received the 
approbation of the emperor, and that the 
wisest course for the council would be to 
inquire what was the decision there. This 
advice was followed. The monks of Edessa 
and the other parties to the indictment were 
admitted, and the whole of the depositions and 
correspondence read to the assembly. As the 
reading of the document ended, wild male- 
dictions burst forth, invoking every kind of 
vengeance, temporal and eternal, on the head 
of this ‘‘second Iscariot,’ this ‘‘ veritable 
Satan.’’ ‘‘ Nestorius and Ibas should be 
burnt alive together. The destruction of the 
two would be the deliverance of the world.”’ 
Eulogius, the presbyter of Edessa, who had 
been one of the first accusers of Ibas before - 
Domnus, followed with a summary of the 
proceedings from their commencement, speci- 
fying all the real or supposed crimes laid to 
his charge. The question of deposition was 
put to the council, and carried nem. con. 
Among those who voted for it were Eustathius 
of Berytus and Photius of Tyre, who had 
previously acquitted him ont he same evid- 


IBAS 


ence. The sentence was that he should be 
deposed from the episcopate and priesthood, 
deprived even of lay communion, and com- 
pelled to restore the money of which it was 
pretended he had robbed the poor. Ibas, 
twice acquitted, was condemned without being 
heard or even summoned ; and no protest was 
raised in his favour, even by those who, a few 
months before, had given him their suffrage 
(Martin, u.s. t. iii. c. ii. Ὁ. 181; Labbe, iv. 
674; Chron. Edess. anno 756; Assemani, 
Bibl. Or. i. 202). We have no certain know- 
ledge of what befel Ibas on his deposition. 
At the beginning of 451 the deposed and 
banished bishops were allowed to return from 
exile, but the question of their restoration was 
reserved for the fourth general council which 
met at Chalcedon a.p. 451. Inthe 9thsession, 
Oct. 26, the case of Ibas came before the 
assembled bishops. On his demand to be 
restored in accordance with the verdict of 
Photius and Eustathius at Berytus and Tyre, 
the Acts of that synod were read, and the next 
day the pope’s legates gave their opinion that 
Ibas, being unlawfully deposed, should be at 
oncerestored. After much discussion this was 
carried unanimously. The legates led the 
way, declaring his letter to Maris orthodox, 
and commanding his restitution. All the 
prelates agreed in this verdict, the condition 
being that he should anathematize Nestorius 
and Eutyches and accept the tome of Leo. 
Ibas consented without any difficulty. ‘‘ He 
had anathematized Nestorius already in his 
writings, and would do so again ten thousand 
times, together with Eutyches and all who 
teach the One Nature, and would accept all 
that the council holds as truth.’’ On this he 
was unanimously absolved, restored to his 
episcopal dignity, and voted as bp. of Edessa 
at the subsequent sessions (Labbe, iv. 793, 
799; Facund. lib. v. c. 3. Nonnus, who had 
been chosen bishop on his deposition, being 
legitimately ordained, was allowed to retain 
his episcopal rank, and on Ibas’s death, Oct. 
28, 457, quietly succeeded him as metropolitan 
(Labbe, iv. 891, 917). The fiction that Ibas 
had disowned the letter to Maris at Chalcedon 
(Greg. Magn. lib. viii. Ep. 14), as he was 
asserted by Justinian to have done before at 
Berytus, as having been forged in his name, is 
thoroughly disproved by Facundus (lib. v. 
c. 2, lib. vii. c. 5). A controversy concerning 
his letter to Maris arose in the next century, 
in the notorious dispute about the ‘‘ Three 
Articles,’’ when the letter was branded as 
heterodox (together with the works of Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret’s writings 
in favour of Nestorius) in the edict of J ustinian, 
and was formally condemned in 553 by the 
fifth general council, which pronounced an 
anathema, in bold defiance of historical fact, 
against all who should pretend that it and the 
other documents impugned had been recog- 
nized as orthodox by the council of Chalcedon 
(Evagr. H. E. iv. 38; Labbe, v. 562-567). 
Ibas is anathematized by the Jacobites as a 
Nestorian (Assemani, t. i. p. 202). According 
to the Chronicle of Edessa, Ibas, during his 
episcopate, erected the new church of the 
Apostles at Edessa, to which a senator gave 
a silver table of 720 lb. weight, and Anatolius, 
praefectus militum, a silver coffer to receive 


IDATIUS 507 


the relics of St. Thomas the Apostle, who was 
said, after preaching in Parthia, to have been 
buried there (Socr. H. E. iv. 18). 

Ibas was a translator and disseminator of 
the writings of others rather than an original 
author. His translations of the theological 
works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodorus 
of Tarsus, Theodoret, and Nestorius, were 
actively spread through Syria, Persia, and the 
East, and were very influential in fostering the 
Nestorian tenets which have, even to the 
present day, characterized the Christians of 
those regions. His influence was permanent 
in the celebrated theological school of Edessa, 
in spite of the efforts of Nonnus to eradicate 
it, until its final overthrow and the banishment 
of its teachers to Persia. Tillem. Mém. eccl. 
t. xv.; Assemani, Bibl. Orient. τ. i. pp. 199 seq., 
t. lll. pp. 70-74 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 426; 
Facund. Defens. Trium. Capitul. ; Schréckh, 
Xv. 438, Xvili. 307-311; Perry, Acts of the 
Second Council of Ephesus ; Abbé Martin, Actes 
du Brigandage d’Ephése; Le Pseudo-synode 
@ Ephése. [E.v.] 

Idatius (3) (Idacius; surnamed Lemicen- 
sts), bp. of Aquae Flaviae (Chaves or Chiaves) 
in Gallicia, from c. 427 to 470, and author of a 
well-known Chronicle which was one of the 
various continuations of Jerome. Our only 
sources for his life are notices in his own work, 
for the meagre Life by Isidore in de Vir. 1]. 
c. ix. is merely a summary of Idatius’s own 
prologue. The existing material was elabor- 
ately sifted and put together by Florez (Esp. 
Sagr. iv., Madrid, 1749), and less completely 
by Garzon, whose ed. of Idatius was pub. at 
Brussels in 1845 by P. F. X. de Ram. 

Birthplace and Bishopric.—Idatius tells us 
in the prologue to his Chronicle that he was 
born “‘ in Lemica civitate,’’ ‘‘ Lemica”’ being 
a copyist’s error for Limica in Portugal. He 
was born c. 388, shortly after the execution 
of Priscillian and his companions at Tréves, 
and about the time when, as he tells us in his 
Chronicle (ad. ann. 386), the Priscillianists, 
falling back on Spain after the death of their 
chief, took a special hold on the province of 
Gallicia. About a.p. 400 he wasin Egypt and 
Palestine, where, as he says (Prolog. and Chron. 
ad ann. 435), he, “δὲ infantulus et pupillus,”’ 
saw St. Jerome at Bethlehem, John bp. of 
Jerusalem, Eulogius of Caesarea, and Theo- 
philus of Alexandria. His return to Gallicia 
may be dated c. 402 (Florez, Esp. Sagr. iv. 
301). In 416, seven years after the irruption 
of the Suevi, Alani, and Vandals into the 
peninsula, Idatius entered the ministry, for 
so we must understand the entry in the Chron. 
Parvum (see below) under that year, ‘‘ Idatii 
conversio ad Dominum peccatoris”’ (ef. 
Florez, 1.6. p. 302), and in 427 he was made 
bishop (see Prol. Esp. Sagr. iv. 348). In 431 
the rule of the Suevi had become so intolerable 
that Idatius was sent by the Gallician pro- 
vincials to Aetius in Gaul to ask for help. He 
returned in 432, accompanied by the legate 
Censorius, after whose departure from Gallicia 
the bishops persuaded Hermeric, the Suevian 
king, to make peace with the provincials. For 
about 24 years Gallicia enjoyed tranquillity 
compared with the rest of Spain, and the 
Gallician bishops found themselves to some ex- 
tent free to deal with the prevalent Priscillianist 


δ08 IDATIUS 


and Manichean doctrines, which had even 
infected some of the episcopate (Ep. Leo Magn. 
ad Turribium; Tejada y Ramiro, Colecc. de 
Can. etc. ii. p. 889). Between 441 and 447 
must be placed the letter of Turribius to 
Idatius and Ceponius (? bp. of Tuy) on the 
Priscillianist apocryphal books (Esp. Sagr. xvi. 
95; Tejada y Ramiro, ii. 887). In 444-445, 
the confessions of certain Roman Manicheans 
having disclosed the names of their co-be- 
lievers in the provinces, letters were sent to 
the provinces by pope Leo warning the 
bishops (Prosper ad ann. 444; see Garzon’s 
note 6, ed. De Ram, p. 83). Accordingly we 
find Idatius and Turribius in 445 holding a 
trial of certain Manicheans discovered at 


Astorga, no doubt by aid of the papal letters, | 
| Western empire, and without which we should 


and forwarding a report of the trial to the 
neighbouring metropolitan of Merida, evident- 
ly to put him on his guard. In 447, in answer 
to various documents from St. Turribius on 
the Gallician heresies, Leo sent a long decretal 
letter to Spain to be circulated by him, urging 
the assembly of a national council, or at least 
of a Gallician synod, in which, by the efforts 
of Turribius and of Idatius and Ceponius, 
‘“‘fratres vestri,’? a remedy might be devised 
for the prevailing disorder. Probably the synod 


IDATIUS 


he says, describing his second division, ‘I, 
undeservedly chosen to the office of the 
episcopate, and not ignorant of all the troubles 
of this miserable time, have added both the 
falling landmarks (‘metas ruituras’) of the 
oppressed Roman empire, and also what is 
more mournful still, the degenerate condition 
of the church order within Gallicia, which is 
the end of the world, the destruction of honest 
liberty by indiscriminate appointments (to 
bishoprics), and the almost universal decay 
of the divine discipline of religion, evils 
springing from the rule of furious men and the 
tumults of hostile nations.’’ This is the note 
of the whole Chronicle, which gives a vivid 
and invaluable picture of one most important 
scene in the great drama of the fall of the 


be almost in the dark as to events of the first 
half of the 5th cent. in Spain. Idatius de- 
scribes the entry of the Vandals, Alani, and 
Suevi into the Peninsula in Oct. 409, and the 
two following years of indiscriminate pillage 
and ruin before the division of the country by 
lot amongst the invaders. 

The Chronicle altogether embraces ΟἹ years. 


| On the chronology of the last five years and 


| 


never actually met, for Idatius’s Chronicle, | 
which rarely omits any ecclesiastical news he | 


could give, does not mention it. 


In the troubled times after the flight and | 


execution of Rekiar, Idatius fell a victim to 


the disorders of the country. His capture at | 


Aquae Flaviae by Frumari (July 26, 460) was 
owing mostly, no doubt, to his importance as 
a leader and representative of the Roman 
population, but partly, perhaps, as Florez 
suggests, to the hatred of certain Gallician 
Priscillianist informers (their names are Latin ; 
cf. Chron. ad ann.) who had felt the weight 
of his authority. He was released in 3 months, 
and after his return to Chiaves lived at least 
8 years under the Suevian kingdom which he 
had too hastily declared to be “ destructum et 
finitum’”’ in 456 (ἢ ‘‘ pene destructum,”’ as 
Isidore, his copyist in Hist. Suevorum, eod. 
loc.), but which took a new lease, on Frumari’s 
death (464), under Remismund. His Chron- 
tcle ends with 469, and he must have died before 
474, the year of the emperor Leo’s death, under 
whom Isidore places that of Idatius (Esp. Sagr. 
iv. 303, ed. De Ram, pp. 15, 39)- 
Chronicle—The prologue to the Chronicle, 
composed apparently after its completion, 
at any rate in the extreme old age of its 
author, gives a full account of its intention, 
sources, and arrangement. It was intended 
to continue the Chronicle of Eusebius and 
Jerome, Idatius including his own works in 
one vol. with theirs (ed. De Ram, p. 48, note 3, 
and p. 59, note 4), and he divides it into two 
parts, the first starting from 379, where 
Jerome breaks off, and ending 427, when 
Idatius was made bishop ; the second extend- 
ing from 427 tothe end. In the first division 
Sulpicius and Orosius seem to have been his 
main authorities, together with the works of 
SS. Augustine and Jerome (Esp. Sagr. iv. 335, 
356), and the lives and writings of certain 
contemporary bishops (John of Jerusalem, l.c. 
357, Paulinus of Beziers, #b., Paulinus of Nola, 
358, etc.). ‘*‘ Thenceforward”’ (t.¢. from 427), 


on possible interpolations of certain chrono- 
logical notes by the copyist, see ed. De Ram, 
p- 39, also Florez, iv. 310. 

The Fasti Idatiani were first attributed to 
Idatius by Sirmond, partly because in the 


| ancient MS. from which he printed the Chron- 


icle the Fastt followed immediately, and 
partly because he believed that there was 
strong internal evidence for the Idatian 
authorship (Op. 1728, ii. 287). This opinion 
has been generally adopted, notably by Dr. 
Mommsen (Corpus Inscr. Lat. i. 484). Florez 
is an exception, but his grounds are extremely 
slight (see Esp. Sagr. iv. 457, and Garzon’s 
answer, ed. De Ram, p. 41). The history of 
the Fasti has now been cleared up with great 
learning and acuteness by Holder-Egger in the 
Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fiir dltere Deutsche 
Geschichtskunde, ii. pp. 59-71. His general 
conclusions are (1) that the Fastt Idatiani are 
one of two derivatives of certain consular 
Fasti put together at Constantinople in 4th 
cent., the Chronicon Paschale (Migne, Patr. 
Gk. xcii.) being the other. (2) That the 
common source of the Fasti and of the Chron. 
Pasch. was itself compiled at Constantinople 
from older Roman Fasti, such as are still 


preserved in the Chronographus of 354 
(Mommsen, op. cit. i. 483; Wattenbach, 
Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, p. 48), the 


notices peculiar to Constantinople beginning 
from 330, when Byzantium became the 
second capital of the empire. (3) That after 
390-395, when the Chron. Pasch. branches off 
from the Fasti Idatiani, a copy of the Con- 
stantinople Fasti came westward, received 
certain additions in Italy and then reached 
Spain, where a Spanish reviser and continuator 
gave them the shape under which we now 
know them as the Fasti Idatiani. That Ida- 


| tius the author of the Chronicle revised the 


Fasti Holder-Egger does not believe, but is 
inclined to hold that their agreement is best 
explained by the theory that Idatius used but 
did not compose the Fastt. His arguments 
on this point seem scarcely conclusive, and he 


IGNATIUS 


is indeed prepared to admit that certain 
trifling additions to and alterations in the 
Fasti were probably made by Idatius. For 
the latter use of the Fasti Idatiant, the East 
Roman Fasti as the Ravenna annals are the 
West Roman Fasti (Wattenbach, i. 49), see 
Holder-Egger’s art. Die Chrontk des Marcel- 
linus Comes und der Ostrémischen Fasten, 
Neues Archiv, etc. il. 44. 

The Chrontcon Parvum Idatit is the work 
of an unskilful abbreviator of the larger 
Chronicle, who adds a continuation to the time 
of Justinian. It must not be confused with 
the excerpita from Idatius made under Charles 
the Great. 

Besides the references already given see 
Adolf Ebert, Allgemeine Gesch. der Litt. des 
Mittelalters 1m Abendlande, i. 1874; Teuffel, 
Gesch. der Roémischen Litt. 1875. [M.A.W.] 

Ignatius (1), St. (called Theophorus), Oct. 
17, the 2nd bp. of Antioch (c. 70-c. 107), 
between Evodius and Hero. He is sometimes 
reckoned the 3rd bishop, St. Peter being 
reckoned the first (Bosch, Pat. Ant. in Boll. 
Acta SS. Jul. iv. introd. p. 8; Le Quien, Or. 
Chr. ii. 700). 

The question of the life and writings of 
Ignatius, including the connected subject of 
the Ep. of Polycarp to the Philippians, has 
been described by M. Renan as the most 
difficult in early Christian history next to 
that of the fourth gospel. 

I. About 165 Lucian in his satire de Morte 
Peregrint relates (cc. 14-41) that Peregrinus 
was made a prisoner in Syria. The Christians 
of Asia Minor sent messengers and money to 
him according to their usual custom when 
persons were imprisoned for their faith. 
Peregrinus wrote letters to all the more 
important cities, forwarding these by mes- 
sengers whom he appointed (ἐχειροτόνησε) and 
entitled vexpayyé\ous and νερτεροδρόμους. 
The coincidence of this story with that of 
Ignatius, as told afterwards by Eusebius, 
would be alone a strong evidence of connexion. 
The similarity of the expressions with the 
πρέπει χειροτονῆσαί τινα ὃς δυνήσεται θεοδρόμος 
καλεῖσθαι of ad Pol. vii. would, if the words 
stood alone, make it almost certain that 
Lucian was mimicking the words of the epistle. 
These two probabilities lead us to believe that 
the composition was by one acquainted with 
the story and even some of the letters of 
Ignatius. (Renan, i. 38; Zahn, i. 517; Pearson, 
i. 2; Denzinger, 85 ; Lightfoot, ii. See Author- 
tties at the foot of this art.) 

Theophilus, bp. of Antioch (fl. before 167), 
has a coincidence with Ignat. ad Eph. xix. 1, 
where the virginity of Mary is said to have 
been concealed from the devil. Irenaeus, 
c. 180 (adv. Haer. iii. 3, 4), bears witness that 
Polycarp wrote to the Philippians, and (v. 28) 
mentions how a Christian martyr said, ‘* I am 
the bread-corn of Christ, to be ground by the 
teeth of beasts that I may be found pure 
bread ’’—words found in Ignat. ad Rom. iv. I. 
The passage of Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius 
(H. E. iii. 36) as a testimony to Ignatius. 
Origen, early in 3rd cent., Prol. in Cant. (Op. 
ed. Delarue, iii. 30), writes, ‘‘ I remember also 
that one of the saints, by name Ignatius, said 
of Christ, ‘My love was crucified’ ’’—words 
found in Ignat. ad Rom. vii. 2. Origen also 


IGNATIUS 509 


(Hom. in Luc. vol. iii. 938) says, “1 find it 
well written in one of the epistles of a certain 
martyr, I mean Ignatius, 2nd bp. of Antioch 
after Peter, who in the persecution fought with 
beasts at Rome, that the virginity of Mary 
escaped the prince of this world "’ (Ignat. ad 
Eph. xix. 1). 

Eusebius, early in 4th cent., gives a full 
account which explains these fragmentary 
allusions and quotations. In his Chronicle he 
twice names Ignatius as 2nd bp. of Antioch 
after the apostles ; in one case adding that he 
was martyred. In his Ecclesiastical History, 
besides less important notices of our saint and 
of Polycarp, he relates (iii. 22, 37, 38, iv. 14, 
15) how Ignatius, whom he calls very cele- 
brated among the Christians, was sent from 
Syria to Rome to be cast to the beasts for 
Christ’s sake. When journeying under guard 
through Asia he addressed to the cities near 
places of his sojourn exhortations and epistles. 
Thus in Smyrna, the city of Polvcarp, he wrote 
to Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles. He wrote 
to the Romans, begging them not to impede 
his martyrdom. Of this epistle Eusebius 
appends § v. at length. Then he tells how 
Ignatius, having left Smyrna and come to 
Troas, wrote thence to the Philadelphians and 
Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp. One sentence 
from Smyr. iii. Eusebius copies as containing 
a saying of Christ not otherwise handed down. 
The A postolical Constitutions, in their uninter- 
polated form as known to us through the 
Syriac trans. of the Didascalia, in several 
places coincide very strikingly with the 
shorter Greek or 7 Vossian epistles. An 
epistle which passes under the name of 
Athanasius, and which if not by him is by a 
contemporary writer, quotes a passage from 
ad Eph. vii. 2, as written by Ignatius, who 
after the apostles was bp. of Antioch and a 
martyr of Christ. (See, as to the genuineness 
of this epistle, Cureton, Ixvili.; Zahn, i. 578.) 
St. Basil (ed. Ben. ii. 598) quotes, without 
naming Ignatius, the familiar sentence from 
ad Eph. xix. 1, concerning Satan’s ignorance 
of the virginity of Mary. St. Jerome's testi- 
mony is dependent on that of Eusebius. St. 
Chrysostom (Op. vol. ii. 592) has a homily on 
St. Ignatius which relates that he was ap- 
pointed by the apostles bp. of Antioch ; was 
sent for to Rome in a time of persecution to 
be there judged; instructed and admonished 
with wonderful power all the cities on the 
way, and Rome itself when he arrived; was 
condemned and martyred in the Roman 
theatre crying, Ἐγὼ τῶν θηρίων ἐκείνων ὀναίμην ; 
and his remains were transferred after death 
with great solemnity to Antioch. (Zahn {i. 
33-49] does not believe that the genuine 
writings of Chrysostom shew that he was 
acquainted with the writings of Ignatius. 
But see the other side powerfully argued by 
Pearson, i. 9; Denzinger, 90; Lipsius, i. 
21.) Theodoret frequently cites the 7 
Vossian epistles, and mentions Ignatius as 
ordained by St. Peter and made the food of 
beasts for the testimony of Christ. Severus, 
patriarch of Antioch (513-551), has a long 
catalogue of sayings from Ignatius, in which 
every one of the 7 epistles is laid under con- 
tribution. These are to be found in Syr. in 
Cureton, in Gk. in Zahn (ii. 352). Cureton 


510 IGNATIUS 

furnishes also a large collection of Syriac 
fragments, in which passages taken from the 
7 Vossian epistles are declared to have the 
force of canons in the church. 

II. We possess also a multitude of Acts of 
the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, which, if we 
could accept them, would supply very par- 
ticular accounts of his life and death. Of 
these Ussher published 3 in whole or part: 
one in Lat. from two related MSS.; another 
in Lat. from the Cottonian library; a third 
in Gk. from a MS. at Oxford. The Bollandists 
published a Latin martyrdom in the Acta SS. 
for Feb. 1; Cotelerius a Gk. one by Symeon 
Metaphrastes. Ruinart, and afterwards 
Jacobson (Pat. Ap. ii.), printed a Gk. MS. 
from the Colbertine collection (MS. Colb.) ; 
J. S. Assemani found a Syriac one which may 
be the same as that partly printed by Cureton 
(i.). Aucher, and afterwards Petermann 
(p. 496), published an Armenian one. Dressel 
printed a Gk. version of the roth cent. (MS. 
Vat.). The g are reducible to 5, possessing 
each a certain independence. But of these MS. 
Colb. and MS. Vat. are by far the most valu- 
able, being completely independent, while the 
remaining versions are mixtures of these two. 

MS. Colb. (see Zahn, ii. p. 301) relates the 
condemnation of Ignatius by Trajan in An- 
tioch, and incorporates the Ep. to the Romans. 
This MS. bears marks of interpolation, and its 
chief value lies in its incorporation of the Ep. 
tothe Romans. The other epistles the author 
of the MS. has not read carefully. We con- 
clude that this martyrdom, written in the 4th 
cent., assumed its present form after the first 
half of the 5th. 

MS. Vat. (Zahn, ii. 307) omits all judicial 
proceedings in Antioch. Ignatius is sent for 
by Trajan to Rome, as a teacher dangerous to 
the state ; an argument takes place before the 
senate between the emperor and the saint ; 
the lions kill him, but leave the body un- 
touched, and it remains as a sacred deposit at 
Rome. Thus MS. Vat. seems to have arisen 
on the basis of an account of the journey and 
death of the saint, extant at the end of the 
4th cent. On the whole, the martyrdoms are 
late and untrustworthy compositions, wholly 
useless as materials for determining the 
question of the epistles; we are thrown back 
on Eusebius. 

III. Eusebius in the Chronicle (ed. Schone, ii. 
152, 158, 162) omits (contrary to his custom) 
the durations of the episcopates of Antioch. 
We can, therefore, place Ignatius’s death any 
time between Ab. 2123, Traj. 10, and 2132, 
Traj. 19. In dH. E. iti. 22, Eusebius, in a 
general way, makes the episcopates of Symeon 
and Ignatius contemporary with the first 
years of Trajan and the last of St. John and 
(ili. 36) with Polycarp and Papias. We may 
date his epistles, journey, and death in any 
year from 105 to 117. Funk fixes it at 107. 

In 1878 Harnack published a tract (Dze 
Zeit des Ign. Leipz.) impugning the tradition 
that Ignatius was martyred under Trajan. 
The argument rests upon the acts of the 
martyrdom being proved by Zahn, with the 
general assent of all his critics, to be untrust- 
worthy; the date of the saint’s death thus 
resting wholly on the testimony of Eusebius, 
who shews that he had no data except the 


IGNATIUS 


untrustworthy information of Julius African- 
us (Harnack, pp. 66 sqq.). But it is very 
improbable that Eusebius had no tradition 
save through Africanus, or the latter no 
tradition save four names. 

The theory of Volkmar, which the author of 
Supernatural Religion (i. 268) regarded as 
“ demonstrated,’’ was that the martyrdom of 
Ignatius happened not in Rome but in 
Antioch, upon Dec. 20, 115 (on which day his 
feast was kept), in consequence of the excite- 
ment produced by an earthquake a week 
previously ; but it is now known from the 
ancient Syriac Menologion, published by 
Wright (Journ. Sac. Lit. Jan. 1866, p. 45), that 
the feast was originally kept not upon Dec. 20, 
but upon Oct. 17. (Zahn, i. 33, and Light- 
foot, li. 352, note ὃ, are to be corrected in 
accordance with this discovery.) 

The other details in the martyrdoms and 
elsewhere are but expansions from hints 
supposed to be found in the letters, of which 
we find an instance in the long dialogue 
between Ignatius and Trajan upon the name 
Θεοφόρος. There is no reason to suspect the 
genuineness of this addition to the saint’s 
name. It is given untranslated in the 4th- 
cent. Syriac version. The interpolator found 
it in his copy, for it stands in all his epistles 
except that to Polycarp and in all the MSS. of 
the shorter translation, both Greek and Latin. 
The 4th-cent. writers, regarding it as a title of 
honour, do not quote it ; in the 6th it came to 
be regarded as a name. 

The tradition that Ignatius was martyred 
at Rome can be traced higher than the records 
of Eusebius and Origen. The designation of 
world-famed, which Eusebius gives him, 
shews the general tradition; and the words 
of Origen are to the same effect. The testi- 
mony of Irenaeus, which Eusebius adduces 
as perfectly agreeing with the tradition known 
to him, dates but 70 years after the fact. 
True, these expressions come from writers who 
knew the epistles; but the mere existence of 
the epistles at such a date, even if they were 
spurious, would be sufficient proof of the 
existence of the tradition ; and it is impossible 
that such a story should have arisen so soon 
after Trajan, if it had contradicted known 
facts or prevalent customs of his reign. 

Eusebius clearly wrote with the collection 
of letters before him, and knew of no other 
collection besides the 7 he mentions. These 
he arranges according to place and time of 
writing, gives his quotation from Romans as 
out of ‘‘ the Epistles,’ and cites Irenaeus’s 
quotation from Ignatius, as proof of that 
writer’s knowledge of them, although Irenaeus 
did not mention the author’s name. 

IV. The gradual presentation of the various 
Ignatian documents to the modern world is 
related in the introduction to Cureton’s Corpus | 
Ignatianum and is briefly as follows. Late in 
the 15th and in the beginning of the 16th cents. 
12 epistles, purporting to be by Ignatius, 
were given to the world, first in Latin trans- 
lations, then in the original Greek, together 
with three others manifestly spurious, which 
existed in Latin alone. The epistles which 
bear non-Eusebian titles were soon suspected 
of spuriousness, and it was proved that the 
text of the Eusebian, as then known, was 


IGNATIUS 


interpolated. Ussher first restored the genu- 
ine text by means of a Latin translation which 
he discovered, and his arguments (except as 
to his doubt whether Ignatius wrote separately 
to Polycarp) were confirmed by Vossius’s 
publication of the Medicean MS. Thence- 
forward we have had the longer and the 
shorter (or Vossian) recensions, the former 
containing the 7 Eusebian epistles in a longer 
text and also epistles of Mary of Castabala to 
Ignatius, with his reply, of Ignatius to the 
Tarsians, Philippians, Antiochenes, and Hero, 
his successor; the Vossian comprising only 
the Eusebian letters and those in a shorter 
text. The longer recension has had few 
defenders, while the shorter had many and 
early assailants, moved especially by its 
support of episcopacy. Of these Daillé was 
perhaps the ablest, but he was sufficiently 
answered by bp. Pearson. The genuineness 
of the longer recension as a whole is now 
generally denied, the time and method of its 
interpolations and additions being the only 
points for consideration. 

Cureton in 1839 transcribed from Syriac 
MSS. in the Brit. Mus. a fragment of the 
martyrdom of Ignatius and of the Ep. to the 
Romans therein contained. In 1847 he dis- 
covered, among Syriac MSS. acquired in the 
meantime, three epistles of Ignatius, viz. to 
Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the 
Romans, transcribed in the 6th or 7th cent. 
These epistles are in a form considerably 
shorter even than the shorter recension of 
the earlier time. Cureton believed this the 
sole genuine text, and argued the point very 
ably, but with a confidence which in its 
contrast with the present state of belief should 
be a warning to all who are tempted to be too 
positive on this difficult controversy. Many 
scholars at the time accepted the Curetonian 
theory, and Bunsen wrote a voluminous work 
in its defence. The Armenian version, first 
printed, though very incorrectly, in 1783, is 
mentioned by Cureton, who failed to perceive 
the effect its testimony was to have upon his 
own argument. The correct publication and 
due estimate of the Armenian version are due 
to Petermann. According to him, it was 
rendered out of Syriac in the 5th cent., and 
agrees with Ussher’s Latin MS. in that, while 
it contains several post-Eusebian epistles 
united with the Eusebian, the latter are free 
from any systematic interpolations such as 
are in the longer recension. 

V. Date of the Longer Recension.—The latest 
ancient writer who cites only the Eusebian 
epistles in the uninterpolated text is the monk 
Antonius in the early part of the 7th cent. 
(Cureton, p. 176; Zahn, ii. 350). Severus of 
Antioch, 6th cent. (Cureton, 212; Zahn, 352) 
cites all the Eusebian epistles in a text free 
from interpolations. 

We cannot doubt that in Ussher’s MS. and 
in the Armenian translation we have (minute 
textual criticism apart) the 7 epistles as the 
Fathers from Eusebius to Severus of Antioch 
and as the interpolator had them. The argu- 
ments of Ussher upon this point remain un- 
answered. But the Armenian, with 
Syriac translation from which it sprang, 
brings back the composition of the six ad- 
ditional epistles to a.p. 400 at latest; andthese 


the | 


IGNATIUS 51 


are undoubtedly the work of the same hand 
which interpolated the others. On the other 
hand, the interpolation cannot have been 
before 325, or Eusebius would have cited or 
alluded to it; moreover, it shews undoubted 
marks of dependence on his history. The 
period of the interpolator is thus fixed at the 
latter part of the 4th cent. His doctrine, as 
Ussher shewed (p. 221), is stark Arianism. 

Several names in Pseudo-Ignatius are bor- 
rowed from the period a.p. 360 to 380 (Philost. 
lil, 15; Theod. i. 5, v. 7; Socr. iii. 25, iv. 
12). The titles of the new letters are also 
easily accounted for in the same _ period. 
Pseudo-Ignatius interests himself against the 
Quartodecimans; proving that they must 
have been still strong when he wrote, which 
was not the case at the conclusion of the 4th 
cent. These oppositions point to the period 
360-380. Thus all historical indications point 
to the 2nd half of the 4th cent. as the date 
of the interpolations. 

Zahn conjectures the interpolator to have 
been Acacius, the scholar, biographer, and 
successor of Eusebius at Caesarea, who, as 
Sozomen (iv. 23) informs us, was regarded as 
heir to the learning as well as the position of 
that divine. The roughness of the known 
character of Acacius (c. 360) agrees with the 
abusiveness of Pseudo-Ignatius. 

Different Syriac translations of Greek works 
give similar citations from Ignatius in some- 
what varying language ; probably because the 
authors cited from memory an existing Syriac 
version. Zahn contends that the Armenian 
version came from the one Syriac translation 
in the 5th cent., and from it the extracts were 
taken, perhaps somewhat later, which Cureton 
mistook for the original epistles. The con- 
nexion in which Cureton’s epistles were found 
is that of a series of extracts from Fathers 
whose remaining works are not to be supposed 
rendered doubtful by their absence from this 
Syriac MS., and Petermann (xxi.) has cor- 
rected Bunsen’s supposition that the conclud- 
ing words of the MS. imply that the epistles of 
Ignatius, as known to the writer, were all 
comprised in what he copied. Zahn (pp. 199, 
200) compares the Syriac extracts numbered 
i. and ii. in Corp. Ignat., taken as they were, 
beyond doubt, from the existing Syriac 
translation, with S. Cur. (1.6. Cureton’s Syriac 
Epp.); and apparently succeeds in making 
out that the same translator, whose work is 
presented in a fragmentary form in S. Cur., 
meets us in these extracts. E.g. the expres- 
sion θηριομαχεῖν, and many other peculiar 
words, are similarly rendered; though no. 1. 
seems sometimes to preserve better the text 
from which it was copied. We might cull 
from S. Cur. itself certain proofs that it was 
inot the original. Moreover, there are 
certain passages in it which are plainly not 
complete in themselves. It is surely a 
quite sufficient motive to suppose that the 
epitomator intended to make one of those 
selections of the best parts of a good work, 
which in all ages have been practised upon 
the most eminent writers without disrespect. 
Hefele (see Denzinger, pp. 8, 196) thinks he 
can discern the practical ascetic purpose of the 
‘selection, and we observe that very naturally 
ἀπὸ abbreviator begins each epistle with a 


512 IGNATIUS 

design of taking all that is most edifying ; but 
his resolution or his space fails him before the 
end, when he abridges far more than at the 
beginning. His form of Ephesians has alone 
an uniform character of epitome from the first; 
but a number of personal names plainly fit 
to be omitted come very early. Denzinger 
powerfully urges(pp.77 seq.) the certainty that 
the Monophysites would have complained 
when the seven epistles were quoted against 
them had these been spurious, and he and 
Uhlhorn have fully shewn how entirely the 
epitomator is committed to any doctrines in 
the shorter recension which can be found 
difficult. What a useless and objectless task 
then would any one have in interpolating and 
extending Cureton’s three into the seven! 
Upon the whole case we can pronounce with 
much confidence that the Curetonian theory 
is never likely to revive. 

VI. The Ep. to the Romans differs from the 
other six Eusebian letters in being used by 
some authors who use no others and omitted 
by some who cite the others. Zahn suggests 
that it did not at first belong to the collection, 
but was propounded by itself, with or without 
a martyrdom. This seems supported by the 
fact that it escaped the interpolations which 
the other epistles suffered at the hand, prob- 
ably, of Acacius. 

VII. The circumstances of the journey and 
martyrdom of Ignatius, gathered from the 
seven epistles and from that of Polycarp, are 
as follows: He suffers under a merely local 
persecution. It is in progress at Antioch 
while he is in Smyrna, whence he writes to the 
Romans, Ephesians, Magnesians, and Tral- 
lians. But Rome, Magnesia (xii.), and 
Ephesus (xii.) are at peace, and in Troas he 
learns that peace is restored to the church in 
Antioch. Of the local causes of this Antioch- 
ene persecution we are ignorant, but it is not 
in the least difficult to credit. The imagined 
meeting of the emperor and the saint is not 
found in the epistles ; it is “‘ the world’ under 
whoseenmity thechurch is there said to suffer. 
All now recognize that, according to the 
testimony of the letters, Ignatius has been 
condemned in Antioch to death, and journeys 
with death by exposure to the beasts as the 
settled fate before him. He deprecates inter- 
position of the church at Rome (quite powerful 
enough at the end of the 1st cent. to be con- 
ceivably successful in such a movement) for 
the remission of a sentence already delivered. 
The supposition of Hilgenfeld (i. 200) that 
prayer to God for his martyrdom, or abstin- 
ence from prayer against it, is what he asks of 
the Romans seems quite inadmissible, and we 
could not conceive him so assured of the 
approach of death if the sentence had not 
been already pronounced. The right of ap- 
peal to the emperor was recognized, and could 
be made without the consent of the criminal, 
but not if the sentence had proceeded from the 
emperor himself. Thus the Colbertine Mar- 
tyrdom, which makes Trajan the judge at 
Antioch, contradicts the epistles no less than 
the Vatican which puts off the process to 
Rome. MS. Colb. brings Ignatius by sea to 
Smyrna; but Eusebius, who had read the 
epistles, supposes the journey to be by land, 
and he is clearly right. The journey ‘‘ by 


IGNATIUS 


land and sea’”’ (ad Rom. v.) may easily refer 
to a voyage from Seleucia to some Cilician 
port, and thence by road. The ordinary way 
from Antioch to Ephesus was by land, and 
Ignatius calls the messenger to be sent by the 
Smyrnaeans to Antioch θεοδρόμος (Pol. vii.). 
Ignatius did not, as was usual, pass through 
Magnesia and Ephesus, but left the great road 
at Sardis and came by Laodicea, Hierapolis, 
Philadelphia, and perhaps Colossae, as he had 
certainly visited Philadelphia and met there 
the false teachers from Ephesus (Zahn, 258 
seq. also 266 seq.). The churches written to 
were not chosen at random, but were those 
which had shewn their love by sending mes- 
sengerstohim. The replies were thus, primarily, 
letters of thanks, quite naturally extending 
into admonitions. 

We find him in the enjoyment of much 
freedom on his journey, though chained to a 
soldier. In Philadelphia he preaches, not in 
a church, but in a large assembly of Christians; 
in Smyrna he has intercourse with the Chris- 
tians there and with messengers of other 
churches. He has much speech with the 
bishops concerning the state of the churches. 
That of Ephesus he treats with special respect, 
and anticipates writing a second letter (ad 
Eph. xx.); that of Tralles he addresses in a 
markedly different manner (ad. Tr. 2, 12). 
He must, therefore, have had time in Smyrna 
to acquaint himself with the condition of the 
neighbouring churches. If the writing of 
epistles under the circumstances of his cap- 
tivity should cause surprise, it must be 
remembered that they are only short letters, 
not books. The expression βιβλέδιον, which 
in Eph. xx. he applies to his intended second 
missive, is often applied to letters. He dic- 
tated to a Christian, and thus might, as 
Pearson remarks, have finished one of the 
shorter letters in an hour, the longest in 
three. Perpetua and Saturus wrote in prison 
narratives as long as the epistles of Ignatius 
(Acta SS. Perp. et Fel. Ruinart). A ten days’ 
sojourn would amply meet the necessities of 
the case; and there is nothing in the treat- 
ment to which the letters witness inconsistent 
with that used to other Christian prisoners, 
e.g. St. Paul. The numberless libelli pacts, 
written by martyrs in prison, and the celebra- 
tions of the holy mysteries there with their 
friends, shew that the liberty given Ignatius was 
not extraordinary; especially as the word 
εὐεργετούμενοι which he applies to his guard 
points, doubtless, to money given them by the 
Christians. Ignatius is always eager to 
know more Christians and to interest them in 
each other. The news of the cessation of 
persecution in Antioch stirs him to urge 
Polycarp to take an interest in that church. 
The great idea of the Catholic church is at work 
in him. He does not deny that his request 


that messengers should be sent to Antioch is ἡ 


an unusual one, but dwells upon the great 
benefit which will result (Pol. 7; Sm. 11; 
Phil. 10). But when Polycarp, a few weeks 
or months afterwards, writes to the Philip- 
pians, the messenger had not yet been sent. 
Ignatius had but lately passed through 
Philippi, by the Via Egnatia to Neapolis. 
The Philippians immediately after wrote to 
Polycarp, and forwarded a message to the 


Ἷ 
᾿ 
} 


IGNATIUS 


Antiochenes, expecting to be in time to catch 
the messenger for Antioch before his depar- 
ture. Ignatius had plainly been suggesting 
the same thoughts to them as to Polycarp ; 
and this would be plainer still if the reading 
in Eus. H. E. tii. 36, 14 (ἐγράψατέ wo καὶ ὑμεῖς 
καὶ ᾿Ιγνάτιος) were more sure, and thus a 
second letter had been received by Polycarp 
from Ignatius. But this second epistle, if 
written, has been lost. Polycarp wrote 
immediately after receiving the epistle of the 
Philippians. He speaks of the death of 
Ignatius, knowing that the sentence in Antioch 
made it certain; probably knowing also the 
date of the games at which he was todie. But 
he is not acquainted with any particulars, 
since he asks for news concerning the martyr 
and those with him (Ep. Pol. xiii.), and at the 
request of the Philippians forwards all the 
epistles of Ignatius to which he had access, 
viz. those to the Asiatic churches; but not all 
that he knew to have been written. 

VIII. The chief difficulty in accepting the 
epistles as genuine has always arisen from the 
form of church government which they record 
as existing and support with great emphasis. 
They display the threefold ministry estab- 
lished in Asia Minor and Syria, and the terms 
‘Emicxoros and πρεσβύτερος are applied to 
perfectly distinct orders—a state of things and 
use of language which are argued to be wholly 
incompatible with a date early in the 2nd 
cent. Hence Daillé derived his ‘* palmary 
argument ”’ (c. xxvi., answeredby Pears. ii. 13). 

It is noteworthy that the testimony of the 
epistles on this point extends no further than 
the localities named. To the Romans Igna- 
tius only once names the office of a bishop, and 
that in reference to himself; and in Poly- 
carp’s Ep. to the Philippians there is no 
mention of any bishop, while the deacons and 
presbyters are addressed at considerable 
length. The standpoint of the epistles is 
perfectly consistent with the supposition that 
episcopacy existing from the times of the 
apostles in Asia Minor and Syria and believed 
by the Christians there to be a divinely or- 
dained institution, made its way gradually 
into other parts of the church, and that those 
who most valued it might yet know that it 
did not exist in churches to which they wrote, 
or not be assured that it did, and might feel 
it no part of their duty to enter upon a con- 
troversy concerning it. 

Zahn fairly observes that thereis noattempt, 
even in those epistles where obedience to the 
bishop is most urged, to recommend it in 
opposition to other forms of church govern- 
ment. Not only is the supposition that 
Ignatius was introducing episcopacy utterly 
out of the question, but none of the epistles 
bear the slightest trace of any recent intro- 
duction of it in the places in which it exists. 
The presbyterate is everywhere identified 
with the episcopate in its claims to obedience, 
and those who resist the one resist the other. 
It is extremely hard to reconcile these char- 
acteristics with the supposition that the letters 
were forged to introduce the rule of bishops 
or to uplift it to an unprecedented position 
in order to resist the assaults of heresy. 

A good deal of uncertainty remains as to the 
relations which the smaller congregations out- 


IGNATIUS 513 


side the limits of the cities held in the Ignatian 
church order to the bishops of the cities. No 
provision appears for episcopal rule over 
country congregations whose pastors are 
not in the ‘ presbytery '’—an uncommon 
expression in antiquity, but used 13 times by 
Ignatius. 

The duties the epistles ascribe to bishops are 
very similar to those which St. Paul (Acts. xx.) 
lays upon presbyters. Only in one place (Pol. 
5) do they speak of the preaching of the 
bishop; and it is not peculiar to him, but 
common with the presbyters. The deacons 
have duties wholly distinct, concerned with 
the meat and drink given to the poor and with 
the distribution of the mysteries of the Eu- 
charist. But the presbyters are very closely 
united with the bishop. They are not his 
vicars, but his συνέδριον (Phil. 8; Pol. 7), and 
yet the bishop is by no means a mere president 
of the college of presbyters. Zahn shews that 
even though the development of episcopacy 
were thought to have taken place through the 
elevation of one of a college to a presidency 
in those parts where it did not exist in the end 
of the 1st cent., it would still be impossible to 
hold this of Asia. The youth of many of the 
earliest Asiatic bishops puts this theory en- 
tirely out of the question there. Whatever 
development is implied in the passage from 
the state of things represented in 1. Pet. and 
I. Tim. to organized episcopacy, took place, 
according to the testimony of all records both 
of Scripture and tradition, in the 30 years 
between the death of St. Paul and the time of 
Domitian, had Asia Minor for its centre, and 
was conducted under the influence of St. John 
and apostolic men from Palestine, in which 
country Jerusalem offers the records of a 
succession of bishops more trustworthy per- 
haps than that of any other see. Now the 
Syrian churches were from the first in closest 
union with Palestine. Thus all the most un- 
doubted records of episcopacy in the sub- 
apostolic age centre in the very quarters 
in which our epistles exhibit it, a weighty 
coincidence in determining their authenticity. 

It is certainly somewhat startling to those 
accustomed to regard bishops as the successors 
of the apostles that Ignatius everywhere 
speaks of the position of the apostles as cor- 
responding to that of the existing presbyters, 
while the prototype of the bishop is not the 
apostles, but the Lord Himself. It would be 
hasty, however, to infer that Ignatius denied 
that the office and authority of the apostles 
was represented and historically succeeded 
by that of the bishops. The state of things 
visibly displayed when the Lord and His 
apostles were on earth is for Ignatius the type 
of church order for all time. (See Bp. Harold 
Browne, The Strife and the Victory, 1872, 
p. 62.) If, however, the epistles had been 
forged to support episcopacy, they would not 
have omitted an argument of such weight 
as the apostolical authority and succession. 

The duty of submission is with Ignatius the 
first call upon each member of the church, and 
exhortations to personal holiness go hand in 
hand with admonitions to unity and obedience. 
The word ὑποτάσσεσθαι denotes the duty of 
all, not (be it marked) towards the bishop 
alone, but towards authority in all its steps 


33 


514 IGNATIUS 
(Mgn. 13 and 7). But the bishop represents 
the principle of unity in the church. 

Sprintzl ingeniously argues (p. 67) that the 
supremacy of the bp. of Rome is taught by 
Ignatius, on the ground that, first, he teaches 
the supremacy of the Roman church over 
others (Rom. prooem.), and secondly, the 
supremacy of the bishop in every church. 
But the explanation of the passage in Romans 
is very doubtful, and the marked omission of 
any mention of the bp. of Rome seems incon- 
sistent with any supremacy apart from the 
natural position of his church. 

The emphatic terms in which these letters 
propose the bishop as the representative of 
Christ have always presented a stumbling- 
block to many minds, even apart from the 
question of date. But before we pronounce 
these expressions exaggerated, we must 
remember that obedience to the bishop is 
valued by the writer for the sake of unity, 
while unity is for him the only fence against 
the heresy to which small and disunited 
bodies are subject (Phil. 4, 8; Megn. 1, etc). 
Identification of the position of the church 
ruler with that of the Lord would be more 
easy to a writer of an age very close to Christ 
than to one of later date. When the divine 
nature of the Lord and His elevation in heaven 
came through lapse of time to overshadow the 
remembrance of His life on earth, it seemed a 
superhuman claim on the part of any office to 
say that it represented Him. But it would 
naturally be otherwise when the recollection 
of His human intercourse with men was fresh ; 
for why should not men represent one so truly 
man? Thus the strong expressions may 
really be a mark of early date. 

1X. In Sm. 8is first found the phrase Catholic 
church—an expression pronounced by Lipsius 
(iii.) to prove of itself the later date of the 
epistles. Such a decision is very precarious, 
even if, with Lipsius, we reject the testimony 
of the Martyrdom of Polycarp to the use of the 
expression. Sprintzl remarks that the phrase 
‘““ Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic 
church ’’ naturally follows upon the preceding 
statement of the relation of the bishop to the 
particular church: what the bishop is to it, 
that Christ is to the Catholic church at large. 
Thus to Ignatius the church of each place is a 
miniature of the church at large (Sm. 8) and 
its unity is guarded by all the sanctions of the 
Christian faith. The one faith is, in the 
epistles, the bond of the church. ‘‘ The 
gospel”’ is that which the apostles proclaimed 
(Phil. 5); not the four written gospels, but 
the substance of the message of salvation. 

We find in the epistles the germ of the great 
ideas of worship afterwards developed in the 
church. The altar-idea and the temple-idea 
as applied to the church are there (Eph. 5; 
Men. 7; Phil. 4). The Eucharist holds its 
commanding place (Rom. 7; Phil. 4, and 
probably Eph. 5), though what its rites were 
at this early period is hard to answer from the 
letters. "Ayaan (Sm. 8) is applied to the 
Eucharist, and ἀγαπᾶν (Sm. 7) means to 
celebrate it. In Ignatian phraseology Evyap- 
ιστία is used where the blessing of Holy Com- 
munion is denoted, ᾿Αγάπη means the whole 
service of which the consecration is only a 
Moment. In Sm. 7 those who speak against 


IGNATIUS 


the gifts of God are plainly those who deny τὴν 
εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἷναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ. Christians observed the Lord’s Day, 
not the Jewish Sabbath (Mgn. 8, 9). 

X. As to the theology of the epistles, 
there have been great differences of opinion. 
The more significant theological statements 
are uncontroversial, though called out by 
heresies to which the writer opposes his con- 
ception of the nature of Christ. The origin- 
ality and reality of the revelation in Christ is 
the great point with him. Hence follows the 
unreasonableness of J udaizing, which he some- 
times presses in terms apparently inconsistent 
with the recognition of Jewish Christians as 
really believers. But probably, like St. Paul, 
he is treating the question from the Gentile 
standpoint alone. Prophets and the law are 
worthy of all honour in Christ; πάντα ὁμοῦ 
καλά ἐστιν ἐὰν ἐν ἀγάπῃ πιστεύητε. The 
prophets were Christians in spirit, and Christ 
raised them from the dead (Mgn. 9). They 
were believers in Christ ; yea, even the angels 
must believe in His blood (Sm. 6). But for 
this practical and real salvation finding its 
expression in history the heretics would sub- 
stitute a shadowy representation of religious 
notions in a merely apparent and unreal life of 
Christ. Therefore we find Ignatius constantly 
adding the word ἀληθῶς to his records of the 
acts of Christ (Sm.3,4; Tr. 10). ᾿Εν capktis an 
equivalent phrase. The Blood is named with 
or instead of the Flesh to shew that the Lord 
had in death the same bodily constitution 
as in life, of which the faithful partake in 
the Eucharist. Being real flesh, Christ was the 
New Man, and the revelation of God in the 
earth (Eph. 18). Heis an eternal Person, but 
He is God’s Son, as born of Mary and of God. 
When the writer speaks of an outcoming of 
Christ from God, he means the Incarnation, 
and not anything previous. Though he uses 
the epithet ἀΐδιος with Λόγος, yet he does not 
seem to mean that it is as Λόγος that the Lord 
is eternal. It is as incarnate and as man that 
He is the Logos of God. His twofold nature 
furnishes the explanation of the opposite 
attributes ascribed to Him (Eph. 7; Pol. 3). 
Baur and Lipsius have discovered Patripas- 
sianism in the last-quoted passage. But this 
accusation is inconsistent with all the rest of 
the epistles, and seems, indeed, to have been 
since abandoned by Lipsius. In opposition 
to Baur’s assertion that except in one suspect- 
ed place there is no mention of Christ as Son 
of God, Zahn finds himself able to enumerate 
29 such cases. The epistles lay vast stress 
upon the Godhead of the Lord; it is because 
of this that His birth is the entrance of the 
New Man, and His death the resurrection of 
the faithful. To them He stands in a personal 
and practical relation, which makes Him their 
God. His present invisible relation to them 
involves an increase of the activity of His 
Godhead, and of its revelation to men (ad 
Rom. 3; ad Eph. 15); but He was always 
God. Therefore Ignatius can speak of the 
blood and of the suffering of God (Eph. 1; 
Rom. 6). The τρία μυστήρια κραυγῆς, the 
three mysteries loudest in proclamation of 
truth to those who can hear, are the Incarna- 
tion, Birth, and Death of Christ, hid in their 


IGNATIUS 


real significance from the devil and from the 
unbelieving. The terms Son and Λόγος are 
not applied to express the relations of the 
Divine Persons. Ignatius is content to main- 
tain on the one hand the unity of God, on 
the other the eternal personality of Christ. 

XI. The question what special heresies are 
denounced in the epistles possesses, in relation 
to their date, an importance scarcely below 
that of episcopacy. All, except Romans, 
contain warnings against heresy, and the 
exhortations to unity and submission to 
authority derive their urgency from _ this 
danger. It was long a question whether two 
forms of heresy, Judaic and Docetic, or only 
one, Judaeo-docetic, were aimed at. But 
already in 1856, despite the arguments of 
Hilgenfeld (i. 230), it appeared to Lipsius (i. 
31) that the question was decided in the latter 
sense. The heretics were wandering teachers, 
ever seeking proselytes (Eph. 7), and all the 
denunciations of heresy are directed against 
that mixture of Judaism with Gnosticism, 
represented by some whom Ignatius met in his 
journey (Mgn. 8, 10,11; Tr.g; Sm.1). The 
idea of Ritschl (Entst. der altk. Kirche, p. 580) 
that they were Montanist teachers met with 
little favour. 

Cureton and others have thought to find 
direct allusions to the teaching of Valentinus 
in the epistles (but see Pearson II. vi.). But 
the allusion Λόγος ἀπὸ Σιγῆς προελθών (Megn. 
8) is not applicable to Valentinus. 

Basilides is probably early enough, and 
disciples of his might have been wandering in 
Asia Minor; Cerinthus too was of this age. 
I. and II. John contain warnings against 
Docetism, which Polycarp (Ep. 7) applies to 
the heretics of his own time, which was also 
that of Ignatius. Of all the heretics whom 
Bunsen and others have supposed the epistles 
to denounce, Saturninus alone can be proved 
to have held the doctrines they condemn. 

XII. From the epistles, as Hilgenfeld (i. 
225-226) truly remarks, different critics, 
according to their bias, have derived in some 
cases the very highest, and in some the very 
poorest, notion of the writer’s character. The 
letters are indeed more characteristic than any 
we have between St. Paul and the great 
Fathers of the 4th cent.; but they give no 
record of the writer’s surroundings or of his 
ways in his diocese when the times were quiet. 
His name is Latin; his style very Semitic. 
He had not seen the Lord or the apostles, and 
was not, as MS. Colb. makes him, afellow-pupil 
with Polycarp of St. John. It is perhaps 
somewhat precarious to infer with Zahn, from 
his strong terms of self-reproach (Eph. 21; 
Men. 14), that he had led an un-Christian or 
anti-Christian life in early years. His longing 
for death is extreme, but is really for life under 
another and better form. We do not know 
that he courted martyrdom before his judges, 
since we only meet him after he has been con- 
demned and is well used to the idea. All his 
exhortations have the one burden and object, 
closer union with Christ. He bids others seek, 
and seeks himself, that union in permanence 
and perfection which the Holy Eucharist gives 
here in part. He does not imagine death in 
itself to have any value (Rom. 4; Tr. 3, 4; 
Eph. 12; Sm. 4). The prayers he asks are 


IGNATIUS 515 


not for his death, but for his due preparation 
(Eph. 21; Mgn. 14; Tr. 12, 13). For an 
interesting summary of the moral aspect of 
the Ignatian epistles in respect to the person- 
ality of the writer and to the ideal which his 
teaching presents, see Sprintzl, PP: 244 568. 

XIII. The great majority of critics, whether 
adverse to the genuineness of the epistles or 
not, have recognized that the seven epistles 
professing to be of Ignatius, as shewn by the 
individuality of the author there displayed, 
and the one of Polycarp, form an indivisible 
whole. Romans, indeed, is the brightest and 
most interesting of the letters. This is be- 
cause its chief subject is his personal eagerness 
for martyrdom; he is writing to the place 
where he expects to suffer, and to people who 
can help or hinder his object. 

The Ep. of Polycarp contains a witness for 
the whole body of epistles, which (if it be 
genuine) renders almost all others superfluous ; 
since it mentions letters written to Smyrna by 
Ignatius, and by Polycarp collected and sent 
to Philippi; and intimates the existence of 
others. Thus those who believe the Ignatian 
letters to be a production late in the 2nd cent. 
are forced to consider the Ep. of Polycarp a 
fraud also, in whole or in part. For its satis- 
factory defence see Lightfoot, Cont. Rev. 1875. 
With it we may consider the genuineness of the 
Ignatian epistles proved. For a forger late in 
the 2nd cent., it would have been impossible to 
avoid mentioning Polycarp’s connexion with 
the apostles, or alluding to the epistles to the 
seven Asiatic churches in Revelation ; they are 
never mentioned. In all historical fictions of 
antiquity, reiterated pains are taken to make 
the facts to be maintained understood. In 
Ignatius they are hard to reach; the writer is 
not thinking of readers who have all to learn 
from him. Lastly, no ancient fiction has 
succeeded in individualizing character to the 
degree here displayed; e.g. in the picture of 
the false teachers. The improbabilities on 
which the author of Supernatural Religion, and 
even, though less decidedly, Hilgenfeld(17), rely 
to prove the whole story an undoubted fabrica- 
tion, are recognized by M. Renan as established 
facts, even though he does not believe that the 
epistles we possess are those to which thestory 
refers. Finally, bythe great work of Bp. Light- 
foot the genuineness of theseven Vossian epistles 
may be regarded as completely established. 
The Epp. of Ignatius in the longer and shorter 
recensions and the Syr. version were in Patr. 
Apost. ed. G. Jacobson (Clar. Press); and a 
trans. of the Epp. together with the Martyr- 
dom and spurious Epp. are in the Ante-Nte. 
Lib. 

Authorities.—Ussher, Dissertatio de Ig. εἰ Pol. 
(1644), in Works by Elrington, vii. 57-295; 
Joannis Dallaei, de Scriptis quae sub Dion. 
Areop. et Ig. Ant. nominibus circumferuntur, 
lib. il. (Genev. 1666); Pearson, Vindiciae Igna- 
tianae (ed. nov. Oxf. 1852); Zahn, i. /gnatius 
von Antiochien, p. 629 (Gotha, 1873), ii. 
Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, fasc. ii. (Lips. 
1876); Hilgenfeld, i. Die apostolischen Vater 
(Halle, 1853), ii-in his Zettsch. 1574, pp. 96seq.; 
Lightfoot, 1. in Phil. pp. 208-210, 1i. in Cont. 
Rev. (Feb. 1875) ; Petermann,S.Jgn. Ep. (Lips. 
1849); Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius (Leipz. 
1878); Cureton, Corpus Ignatranum (Lond. 


διὸ INNOCENTIUS i. 


1849); Denzinger, Ueber die Aechtheit der Ign. 
Briefe (Wiirzburg, 1849); Renan, i. Les 
Evangiles (Paris, 1877), ii. in Journal des 
Savants (1874); Uhlhorn, i. in Zeztschrift fiir 
hist. Theol. (1851, 283), ii. in Herzogs Encyc.; 
Funk, Op. Pai. Ap. (ed. 5, Tiibing. 1878). 
Cureton (Corp. Ign.) or (better still, except 
for Syriac scholars) Zahn (ii.) will furnish the 
student with all the documents and ancient 
testimonies. The special treatise of Zahn on 
Ignatius is, as Bp. Lightfoot remarks, little 
known in England, and is of an exhaustive 
character. The reader will understand that, 
while we have not hesitated to dissent from it 
where necessary, we have freely availed our- 
selves of its pages. The Epistles of Ignatius 
have been pub. in a cheap trans. by J. R. 
Srawley (S:P.C.K. 2 vols.) [R.T.S.] 
Innocentius (12) I., bp. of Rome, after 
Anastasius, from May 402, to Mar. 12, 417. 
The circumstances of his time and the 
character and talents of Innocent render his 
pontificate important. Christianity had now 
for nearly a century been the religion of the 
emperors; paganism was fast becoming a 
system of the past; the capture of Rome by 
Alaric during his pontificate, regarded as the 
divine judgment on the heathen city and 
causing the dispersion and ruin of the remains 
of the heathen nobility, completed the down- 
full of the ancient order. With the ascend- 
ancy of the church had grown that of the 
hierarchy, and especially of the head of that 
hierarchy in the West, the Roman bishop. 
The need of centres of unity and seats of au- 
thority to keep the church together amid 
doctrinal conflicts ; the power and importance 
hence accruing to the patriarchal sees, and 
especially to Rome as the one great patriarch- 


ate of the West, the see of the old seat of | 


empire and the only Western one that claimed 
apostolic origin; the view now generally re- 
ceived of the bp. of Rome as the successor of 
the prince of the apostles ; the removal of the 
seat of empire to Constantinople, leaving the 
pope, when there was but one emperor, the sole 
Western potentate, and when there were two, 
as in Innocent’s time, the fixing of the imperial 
residence at Ravenna instead of Rome,—such 
were among the causes of the aggrandizement 
of the Roman see. The Western church had 
been comparatively free from the controver- 
sies which had divided the East, nor had 
the popes taken much personal part in them; 
but they had almost invariably supported 
the orthodox cause, received and protected the 
orthodox under persecution, and, after watch- 
ing with quiet dignity the Eastern struggle, 
had accepted and confirmed the decisions of 
orthodox councils. Hence Rome appeared 
as the bulwark of the cause of truth, and its 
claim to be the unerring guardian of the apos- 
tolic faith and discipline gained extensive 
credence. Innocent himself was eminently 
the man to enter into, and make the most of, 
the position he was called to occupy. Un- 
stained in life, able and resolute, with a full 
appreciation of the dignity and prerogatives 
of his see, he lost no opportunity of asserting 
its claims, and under him the idea of universal 
papal supremacy, though as yet somewhat 
shadowy, was already taking form. At his 
accession the empire had for seven years been 


INNOCENTIUS 1. 


divided between the two sons of Theodosius, 
Arcadius and Honorius; the latter, now 18 
years of age, under the control of the great 
general Stilicho, ruling in the West. Two 
years after Innocent’s accession (A.D. 404) he 
fixed his residence at Ravenna. 

I. West. (i) I/lyria.—Immediately after 
his election Innocent wrote to Anysius, bp. of 
Thessalonica, informing him of the event and 
giving him the oversight of the churches of 
eastern Illyria. The prefecture of Illyria had 
been dismembered since 388, the Eastern part, 
including Dacia and Macedonia, being assigned 
to the Eastern empire, but popes Damasus and 
Siricius had continued to claim ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction over the separated portion, 
delegating their authority to the bishops of 
Thessalonica. Innocent thus made no new 
claim, nor did he hereby assert any authority 
over the East generally (Innoc. Ep. 1; Galland. 
Bibl. Patr.). When Rufus, some years after, 
succeeded Anysius as bp. of Thessalonica, a 
letter was at once sent to him, reversing the 
vicariate commission, defining its extent, and 
reminding him that his jurisdiction was 
derived from the favour of the apostolic see 
only. In 414 we find Innocent exercising 
authority of a summary kind, without the 
intervention of the bp. of Thessalonica, in 
East Illyria. The bishops of Macedonia had 
sent him a synodal letter, desiring directions 
as to: (1) Whether persons ordained by one 
Bonosus, a deceased heretical bishop, might 
be admitted to the priesthood. (2) Whether 
persons who had married widows might be 
ordained and made bishops, for which allow- 
ance they pleaded the custom of their church. 
(3) They had asked leave to raise to the 
episcopate one Photinus, who had been con- 
demned by Innocent’s predecessors, and to 
depose a deacon called Eustatius. Some at 
least of these questions had already been 
decided by Innocent, for he expresses surprise 
and displeasure at their being again mooted. 
He then authoritatively decides them. Those 
who had married widows he debars from 
ordination, citing the prohibition of such 
marriages to the high-priest under the Mosaic 
law. Those ordained by Bonosus are debarred 
the priesthood bythe law of the Roman church 
(lex nostrae ecclestae), which admitted to lay 
communion persons baptized by heretics, but 
did not recognize their orders. The Nicene 
canon about the Novatianists, he says, applied 
to them only, and the condonation by Anysius 
had only been a temporary expedient. The 
question whether those who had married one 
wife before and another after baptism were 
to be accounted deuterogamists, and so in- 
capable of ordination, he discussed at length 
also in other epistles.* He decides that they 
are to be so accounted, for baptism is not the 
commencement-of a new life in such sort as 


to relax the obligations of a previous marriage. _ 
| Though with hesitation and much anxiety, he 


allows the promotion of Photinus, notwith- 


the episcopate, after marrying a second wife after 
baptism, being large enough to compose a council, 


el ITI 


INNOCENTIUS I. 


standing the condemnation of him by previous 
popes, on the ground that they had been 
imposed on by false reports; and he disallows 
the deposition of Eustatius (Ep. xvii. Galland.). 
Another epistle, addressed to the bishops of 
Macedonia, confirms the deposition of Babalius 
and Taurianus, who had appealed to Rome 
from the sentence of the bishops of their pro- 
vince. This appeal the bishops seem to have 
taken amiss, for Innocent presses upon them 
the advantage of having their judgment revised 
(Ep. xviii. Galland.). 

ii) Gaul.—Victricius, bp. of Rouen, having 
been in Rome towards the end of 403 (Ep. ad 
Victric. § 14, and Paul. Nolan. Ep. ad Victric. 
XxXvii. 1), applied to the pope soon after for 
information as to the practice and discipline 
of the Roman church. Innocent sent him a 
letter containing 14 rules, of which he says 
that they are no new ones, but derived by 
tradition from the apostles and fathers, though 
too generally unknown or disregarded. He 
directs Victricius to communicate them to the 
bishops and others, with a view to their future 
observance. Among them were: (1) No bishop 
may ordain without the knowledge of his 
metropolitan and the assistance of other 
bishops. (3) Ordinary causes against bishops 
are to be determined by the other bishops of 
the province, saving always the authority of 
Rome. (4) Greater causes, after the judgment 
of the bishops, are to be referred to the 
apostolic see, ‘‘ as the synod [referring, pro- 
bably, to the canons of Sardica] has decreed.”’ 
(6, 7) No layman who has married a widow, 
or been twice married, may be ordained. (8) 
No bishop may ordain any one from another 
diocese without leave of its bishop. (g) Con- 
verts from Novatianism and Montanism are to 
bereceived byimposition of hands only, without 
iteration of baptism ; but such as, having left 
the church, had been rebaptized by heretics, 
are only to be received after long penance. (10) 
Priests and Levites who have wives are not 
to cohabit with them. This rule is supported 
by argument, resting mainly on the prohibi- 
tion of intercourse with their wives to priests 
under the old law before officiating. Christian 
priests and Levites, it is argued, ought always 
to be prepared to officiate. (11) Monks, taking 
minor orders, may not marry. (12) Courtiers 
and public functionaries are not to be admitted 
to any clerical order; for they might have to 
exhibit or preside over entertainments un- 
doubtedly invented by the devil, and were 
liable to be recalled to his service by the em- 
peror, so as to cause much “sadness and 
anxiety.’’ Victricius is reminded of painful 
cases he had witnessed in Rome, when the pope 
had with difficulty obtained from the emperor 
the exemption even of priests from being re- 
called to hisservice. (13) Veiled virgins who 
marry are not to be admitted even to penance 
till the husband’s death; but (14) such as have 
promised virginity, but have not been “ veiled 
bythepriest,’’ may be reconciled after penance. 

In 405 Innocent was similarly consulted by 
another bp. of Gaul, Exsuperius of Toulouse, 
whom he commends for referring doubtful 
questions to the apostolic see, and gives him 
the following directions: (1) Priests or dea- 
cons who cohabit with their wives are to be 
deprived, as pope Siricius had directed. The 


INNOCENTIUS I. 517 


prohibition of conjugal intercourse to the 
priests in O.T. before officiating is adduced 
as before; also St. Paul’s injunction to the 
Corinthian laity to abstain for a time, that 
they might give themselves unto prayer; 
whence it follows that the clergy, to whom 
prayer and sacrifice is a continual duty, ought 
always to abstain. When St. Paul said that 
a bishop was to be the husband of one wife, 
he did not mean that he was to live with her, 
else he would not have said, ‘‘ They that are 
in the flesh cannot please God’; and he said 
“having children,’’ not ‘‘ begetting’’ them. 
The incontinence of clergy whom the injune- 
tion of pope Siricius had not reached may, 
however, be condoned; but they are not to 
be promoted to any higher order. (2) To the 
question whether such as had led continually 
loose lives after baptism might be admitted 
to penance and communion at the approach 
of death, Innocent replies that, though in 
former times penance only and not communion 
was accorded in such cases, the strict rule may 
now be relaxed, and both given. (3) Baptized 
Christians are not precluded from inflicting 
torture or condemning to death as judges, nor 
from suing as advocates for judgment in a 
capital case. Innocent, however, elsewhere 
precludes Christians who had been so engaged 
from ordination (Ep. xxvii. ad Felicem). (4) 
To the question how it was that adultery in a 
wife was more severely visited than in a 
husband, it is replied that the cause was the 
unwillingness of wives to accuse their hus- 
bands, and the difficulty of convicting the 
latter of transgression, not that adultery was 
more criminal in one case than in the other. 
(5) Divorced persons who marry again during 
the life of their first consort and those who 
marry them are adulterers, and to be excom- 
municated, but not their parents or relations, 
unless accessory. Lastly, a list is given of the 
canonical books of Scripture, the same as are 
now received by the church of Rome; while 
certain books, bearing the names of Matthias, 
James the Less, Peter, John, and Thomas, are 
repudiated and condemned. 

(iii) Spain.—In 400 had been held the first 
council of Toledo, mainly to deal with Pris- 
cillianists returning to the church. Two such 
bishops, Symphorius and Dichtynius, with 
others, had been received by the council; but 
certain bishops of Baetica still refused to 
communicate with them. A Spanish bishop, 
Hilary, who had subscribed the decree of the 
council of Toledo, went with a priest, Elpidius, 
to Rome, to represent this to the pope; com- 
plaining also of two bishops, Rufinus and 
Minicius, who had ordained other bishops out 
of their own province without the knowledge 
of the metropolitan; and of other prevalent 
irregularities with respect to ordinations. 
The complainants do not appear to have been 
commissioned by any synod, or other author- 
ity of the Spanish church, to lay these matters 
before the pope, but Innocent took the 
opportunity to address a letter, after a synod 
held at Rome, to the bishops of the Toledo 
council, advising or directing them; though 
without asserting, as he does to other churches, 
the authority of the Roman see. He con- 
demns those who refused to communicate with 
reconciled Priscillianists, and directs the 


518 INNOCENTIUS I. 


bishops to inquire into the cases of Rufinus 
and Minicius and to enforce the canons. As 
to other prevalent irregularities—such as the 
ordination of persons who had, after baptism, 
pleaded as advocates, served in the army, or 
as courtiers (curiales) been concerned in 
objectionable ceremonies or entertainments— 
he directs that such past irregularities should 
be condoned for fear of scandal and disturb- 
ance, but avoided in the future. He insists, 
as so often in his letters, on the incapacity for 
ordination of such as had married widows or 
had married twice, and again protests that 
baptism cannot annul the obligation of a 
previous marriage. He supports these pro- 
hibitions by arguments from O.T. and from 
St. Paul, ‘‘ Husband of one wife’’ (Ep. iii. 
Bibl. Patr. Galland.). We do not know how 
this admonitory letter was received in Spain. 

(iv) Africa.—In 412 or 413 Innocent wrote 
to Aurelius, bp. of Carthage, requesting him 
to announce in synod the day for keeping 
Easter in 414, with the view of its being 
announced, as was then customary, to the 
church by the bp. of Rome (Ep. xiv. Galland.). 
Towards the end of 416 he received synodal 
letters from councils at Carthage and Milevis 
in Numidia, and from St. Augustine (who had 
taken part in the latter council), with four 
other bishops, on the Pelagian controversy ; 
to all of which he replied in Jan. 417. This 
correspondence illustrates the relations then 
subsisting between the West African church 
and Rome. (For such relations at an early 
period see STEPHANUS; CYPRIANUS; SIXTUS 
II.) The synodal letters inform Innocent of 
the renewal of the condemnation of Pelagius 
and Coelestius pronounced five years previous- 
ly at Carthage, and very respectfully request 
him to add the authority of the apostolical see 
to the decrees of their mediocrity (‘‘ ut statutis 
nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis 
auctoritas adhibeatur’’); setting forth the 
heresies condemned, and arguments against 
them. They recognize the weight that the 
pope’s approval would carry, but do not at all 
imply that the validity of their own condem- 
nation depended onit. The five bishops imply 
some doubt as to his probable action, having 
heard that there were some in Rome who 
favoured the heretic; and they await the 
result with suspense, fear, and trembling. 
Innocent, in replying, assumes much greater 
dependence on the see of Rome on the part of 
the Africans than their language had implied, 
and asserts very large claims to general 
authority. He commends the bishops of the 
Carthaginian synod for referring the matter 
to his judgment, as knowing what was due to 
the see of the apostle from whom all episcopal 
authority was derived; and for having ob- 
served the decrees of the Fathers, resting on 
divine authority, according to which nothing 
done, even in remote and separated provinces, 
was to be considered settled till it had come to 
the knowledge of the Roman see and been 
confirmed by its authority, that all waters 
proceeding from the fountain of their birth, the 
pure streams of the uncorrupted head, might 
flow through the different regions of the whole 
world. The abundant stream of Rome, flow- 
ing, the bishops hoped, from the same foun- 
tain-head as the smaller stream of Africa, 


INNOCENTIUS I. 


becomes in Innocent the fountain-head from 
which all streams must flow. He addresses 
the bishops of the Milevetan synod in the same 
strain. He then proceeds to condemn the 
Pelagian heresy in strong terms and to ana- 
thematize all its abettors and supporters. To 
adduce proofs, he says, is unnecessary, since his 
correspondents had said all that was wanted. 
He declines to accede to their suggestion that 
he should make overtures to Pelagius, or send 
for him to Rome. It is for the heretical, he 
says, to come to me of his own accord, if 
ready to retract his errors; if not ready, he 
would not obey my summons; if he should 
come, repudiate his heresy, and ask pardon, 
he will be received (Epp. Augustine, xc.-xcv. ; 
Epp. Innoc. clxxxi.-clxxxiii. Galland.). 

In a letter to Decentius, bp. of Eugubium in 
Umbria (dated a.p. 416), the claims of the 
Roman see are no less strongly asserted than 
in the letters to the African bishops. Inno- 
cent tells him that no one can be ignorant of 
the obligation of all to observe the traditions, 
and those alone, which the Roman church had 
received from St. Peter, the prince of the 
apostles, and which that church ever pre- 
served—especially as no churches had been 
founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, 
or the interjacent islands, except by St. Peter 
or his successors. The letter proceeds to 
require observance of various Roman usages. 
(1) The pax in the Eucharist must be given 
after communion, not before. (2) The names 
of such as offer oblations at the Eucharist are 
not to be recited by the priest before the 
sacrifice, or the canon. (3) Infants after 
baptism may not be confirmed by unction 
except by the bishop ; but priests may anoint 
other parts of the body than the forehead, 
using oil blessed by the bishop. (4) Saturday 
as well as Friday in each week is to be observed 
as a fast, in commemoration of the whole time 
Christ was in the grave. (5) Demoniacs may 
receive imposition of hands from priests or 
other clergy commissioned by the bishop. (6) 
St. James’s direction that the sick are to call 
for the elders of the church does not preclude 
the bishop from administering the unction ; 
but not only priests, but any Christian may 
anoint, using chrism prepared by the bishop. 
Penitents, however, to whom the other sacra- 
ments are denied, may not receive unction, 
““quia genus sacramenti est.’’ It appears 
plain from the way the unction of the sick is 
spoken of that it was then used with a view 
torecovery, not asalastrite. (7) One Roman 
custom, that of sending, on the Lord’s day, 
the Eucharist consecrated by the bishop to the 
presbyters throughout the city, that all on that 
day at least may partake of one communion, 
is not to be observed where it involved carry- 
ing the sacrament to great distances. Even 
in Rome it is not taken to the priests in the 
various cemeteries (Epp. xxv. Galland.). 

II. East.—In 404 Innocent began to inter- 
vene in the affairs of the East in the matter of 
St. Chrysostom, who had been deposed and 
driven from Constantinople after the synod of 
the Oak in 403, and finally expelled on June 
20, 404. A letter reached Innocent from 
Chrysostom himself, another from the 40 
bishops who remained in his communion, a 
third from hisclergy. That from Chrysostom 


INNOCENTIUS I. 


(given by Palladius in his Dialogus de Vita 
S. Johan. Chrysost.) was addressed to the 
bps. of Rome, Aquileia, and Milan, as the three 
great bishops of the West. It requests them 
to protest against what had been done, and to 
continueincommunion with the writer. To all 
these letters Innocent replied that, while still 
in communion with both parties, he reprobated 
the past proceedings as irregular, and proposed 
a council of Easterns and Westerns, from 
which avowed friends and enemies of the 
accused should be excluded. A second letter 
arrived from Theophilus, patriarch of Alex- 
andria, with the Acts of the synod of the Oak, 
shewing that Chrysostom had been condemned 
by 36 bishops, of whom 29 were Egyptians. 
Innocent’s brief reply is that he cannot re- 
nounce communion with Chrysostom on the 
strength of the past futile proceedings and 
demands that Theophilus should proffer his 
charges before a proper council, according to 
the Nicene canons. Communications from 
Constantinople continued to reach Innocent, 
one from about 25 bishops of Chrysostom’s 
party, informing him of Chrysostom’s banish- 
ment to Cucusus and the burning of his 
cathedral church. To them and to the ban- 
ished prelate the pope sent letters of com- 
munion, being unable to render help. Cruel 
persecution of the friends of Chrysostom, set 
afoot by the Eastern emperor Arcadius, 
brought a number of letters to Rome from 
oppressed bishops and clergy, and the resort 
thither of many in person, including Anysius 
of Thessalonica, Palladius of Helenopolis (the 
author of the Dialogus de Vit. S. Johan. 
Chrysost.), and Cassianus, famous afterwards 
as a monk and a writer. Innocent repre- 
sented the matter to the emperor Honorius, 
who wrote thrice to his brother Arcadius on 
the subject. His third letter, sent under the 
advice of a synod assembled by the pope at his 
request, urged the assembling of a combined 
council of Easterns and Westerns at Thessa- 
lonica. He desired Innocent to appoint five 
bishops, two priests, and one deacon as a 
deputation from the Western church; and 
these he charged with this third letter,in which 
he requested his brother to summon the 
Oriental bishops. He also sent letters ad- 
dressed to himself by the bishops of Rome and 
Aquileia, as specimens of many so addressed, 
and as representing the opinion of the Western 
bishops on the question at issue (Innoc. Ep. 
ix. Galland.; Pallad. Dialog. c. lii.). The 
deputation was accompanied by four Eastern 
bishops who had fled to Rome. It failed 
entirely. Persecution was continued in the 
East ; Honorius contemplated a war against 
his brother, but was deterred by a threatened 
invasion of the Goths; and Innocent, failing 
in his attempt to bring about an impartial 
council, separated himself from the commu- 
nion of Atticus, Theophilus, and Porphyrius. 
This appeal of St. Chrysostom and his 
friends involved no acknowledgment of any 
authority of the Roman bishop over the 
Eastern church. They apply to him not asa 
superior or a judge, but as a powerful friend 
whose support they solicit. Chrysostom’s 
letter, which in Roman editions appears as 
addressed to the pope alone, was really 
written to the three principal bishops of the 


INNOCENTIUS I. 519 


West. Its contents leave no doubt of this. 
Honorius, in his letters to his brother, speaks 
of the Western bishops generally having been 
applied to, and quotes their views as of equal 
moment with that of the bishops of Rome. 
Innocent in his replies makes no claim to 
adjudicate, nor does he make any assertion 
of the universal supremacy of his see, such 
as appears in his letters to the Africans and 
to Decentius, but recommends a council of 
Easterns and Westerns as the proper authori- 
tative tribunal. For a view of papal claims 
over the East less than a century later see 
Feurx III. and Acacius (7). 

After the death of Chrysostom the pope and 
all the West remained for some time out of 
communion with Constantinople, Alexandria, 
and Antioch. The church of Antioch was the 
first to be reconciled, when bp. Alexander in 
413 replaced the name of Chrysostom in the 
diptychs of his church, and sent a legation to 
Rome to sue for restoration of communion. 
This was cordially granted in a synodal letter 
signed by 20 Italian bishops. Innocent wrote 
to Alexander congratulating him warmly and 
desiring a frequent interchange of letters. At 
the same time Acacius of Beroea, one of 
Chrysostom’s bitterest opponents, was re- 
ceived into communion by Innocent through 
Alexander, to whom the letter of communion 
was sent for transmission. Atticus of Con- 
stantinople was reconciled a few years later. 
Moved partly by the threatening attitude of 
the populace, and partly by the advice of the 
emperor, he consented, with a bad grace, to 
place Chrysostom’s name on the diptychs, and 
was received into communion. The church 
of Alexandria was the last to come to terms. 
Theophilus’s nephew Cyril, succeeding him 
Oct. 18, 412, was urged by Atticus to yield, 
and did so at last, though not till 417, ten 
years afterthedeath of Chrysostom. Through- 
out Innocent appears to have acted with 
dignity, fairness, firmness, and moderation. 
Alexander having, later, consulted the pope 
as to the jurisdiction of his patriarchal see of 
Antioch, Innocent replied that in accordance 
with the canons of Nice (Can. vi.) the authority 
of the bp. of Antioch extended over the whole 
diocese, not only over one province. Dtocese 
is here used, in its original sense, to denote a 
civil division of the empire comprising many 
provinces. The Oriental diocese here referred 
to included 15 provinces, over the metro- 
politans of which the patriarchal jurisdiction 
of Antioch is alleged to extend. 

Two more letters, written in the last year 
of his life, further illustrate Innocent’s attitude 
towards the churches of the East. St. Jerome 
had been attacked in his cell at Bethlehem by 
a band of ruffians and had narrowly escaped ; 
the two noble virgins, Eustochium and her 
niece Paula, living in retirement under his 
spiritual direction, had been driven from their 
house, which had been burnt, and some of 
their attendants killed. The party of Pelagius 
was suspected. Innocent wrote to Jerome, 
offering to exert ‘ the whole authority of the 
apostolic see'’ against the offenders, if they 
could be discovered, and to appoint judges to 
try them; and to John, bp. of Jerusalem, who 
was no friend to Jerome, in an authoritative 
tone, reproving him severely for allowing such 


δ20 IRENAEUS 


atrocities within his jurisdiction (Epp. xxxiv. 
xxxv. Galland.). 

III. ALtaric.—There were three Gothic in- 
vasions of Italy—the first under Alaric, the 
second under Radagaisus, the third led by 
Alaric himself, who laid siege to Rome A.D. 
408. Innocent was within the city, the 
emperor at Ravenna. Famine and plague 
having ensued during the siege, Zosimus, the 
heathen historian, alleges that Pompeianus, 
the prefect of the city, having been persuaded 
by certain Etruscan diviners that their spells 
and sacrifices, performed on the Capitol, could 
draw down lightnings against the enemy, 
Innocent was consulted and consented, but the 
majority of the senators refused (v. 40). Sozo- 
men mentions the circumstance but does not 
implicate Innocent (ix. 6). It seems highly 
improbable that Innocent would sanction such 
ritesofheathenism. In 409 theofferofaransom 
led Alaricto raise the siege, and twodeputations 
were sent to the emperor at Ravenna to induce 
him tosanction the terms agreedon. The first 
having failed, Innocent accompanied the 
second, and thus was not in the city when it 
was finally taken on Aug. 24, 410. Alaric’s 
invasion was regarded as a judgment on 
heathen rather than Christian Rome, and as 
a vindication of the church, the pope’s 
providential absence being compared by 
Orosius to the saving of Lot from Sodom. 
Undoubtedly the event was a marked one in 
the supersession of heathenism by Christianity. 
The destruction of the old temples, never 
afterwards restored, the dispersion and ruin of 
families which clung most to the old order, the 
view that judgment had fallen on old heathen 
Rome, which its deities had been powerless to 
protect, all helped to complete the triumph 
of the church and to add importance to the 
reign of Innocent. Soon after this great event 
Augustine (A.D. 413) began his famous work, 
de Civitate Det, though he took 13 years to 
complete it, in which he sees a vision of the 
kingdom of God rising on the ruins of the 
kingdom of the world—a vision which grad- 
ually took more distinct shape in the idea, 
already more or less grasped by Innocent, of 
a Catholic Christendom united under the 
Roman see. 

Innocent’s Epistolae et Decreta are printed 
in Galland’s Bibl. Pat. t. viii. and in Migne, 
Patr. Lat. t. xx. Cf. Innocent the Great by 
C. H. C. Pirie-Gordon (Longmans ; 4 maps and 
8 genealogical tables). [J-B—Y.] 

Irenaeus (1), bp. of Lyons. Very little is 
known of his personal history except that he 
was a native of Asia Minor; in early youth had 
seen andheard bp. Polycarp at Smyrna ; after- 
wards came into Gaul, and during the perse- 
cution of 177 carried, as presbyter of Lyons, 
a letter from the Gallican confessors to the 
Roman bp. Eleutherus (174 or 175-189) ; after 
the death of bp. Pothinus of Lyons (177) be- 
came his successor (Eus. H. E. v. 5), and was 
still bishop in the time of bp. Victor, who suc- 
ceeded Eleutherus at Rome (189-198 or 199) ; 
and that he took a leading part in all eccle- 
siastical transactions and controversies of the 
time. St. Jerome speaks of him (de V7r. 11]. 
35) as having flourished in the reign of Com- 
modus (180-192). His birth is assigned to 
widely distant epochs. The earliest and the 


IRENAEUS 


latest dates proposed are 50 years apart (97- 
147). Various considerations lead us to fix on 
c. 126, or possibly c. 136, as the latest admis- 
sible date. 

Of his youthful literary training and culture 
we can only judge from his writings, which 
shew some acquaintance with the Greek poets 
and philosophers; he cites Homer, Hesiod, 
Pindar, and Plato. Of his Christian training 
he tells us that, besides instructions from 
Polycarp, he had other teachers, ‘‘ Presbyters’”’ 
(of Asia Minor), whom he designates as mediate 
or immediate disciples of the apostles (Haer. ii. 
22:.5...1ν 5 27. ἘΠ, 321k GeV τ OO, τ Sopa 
36, 1). Whether he was personally acquaint- 
ed with Papias, whom he mentions so frequent- 
ly, is uncertain. If he was in Rome A.pD. 156 
he doubtless continued his studies there. The 
time of his removal into Gaul is unknown, but 
there were close ties between the missionary 
church of Gaul and the mother-churches of 
Asia Minor. At the time of the persecution, 
to which the aged bp. Pothinus fell a victim 
in the 17th year of Marcus Aurelius, A.D. 177 
(cf. my Chronologie der rémischen Bischéfe, p. 
185), Irenaeus was a presbyter at Lugdunum. 
That Irenaeus wrote the epistle of the Gallican 
confessors to the churches of Asia Minor and 
Phrygia, which so vividly describes the perse- 
cution (ap. Eus. H. E. v. 1), is an uncertain 
conjecture. There is indeed a fragment pre- 
served by Oecumenius and assigned to Irenaeus 
(Fragm. Graec. xiii. ap. Harvey, ii. 482 seq.), 
whichreallystandsin very close connexion with 
that epistle, mentioning in a similar way the 
calumny about “ Thyestean banquets,’ which 
rested on depositions wrung from tortured 
slaves, the endeavours of the persecutors to 
forcethe martyrs Sanctusand Blandinatomake 
alike confession, and Blandina’sanswer, which, 
though not identical with that in the epistle, is 
nearly related toit. Irenaeus’s mission to Rome 
was undertaken tointercede with bp. Eleutherus 
for the Montanists of Asia Minor in the name 
and on behalf of the Gallican confessors (Eus. 
H. E. v. 3, 4). That another object of the 
journey was that Irenaeus himself might 
obtain episcopal consecration at Rome is an 
unproved assertion of some Roman Catholic 
authors. The common assumption that there 
was then no episcopal see but Lyons in all 
Gaul is hardly warranted by the fact that in 
the narrative of the persecution at Vienne a 
deacon only and no bishop is mentioned. A 
better argument is that Eusebius (H. E. v. 23) 
appears to speak of Irenaeus as bishop of all 
the churches of Gaul. But neither can be 
regarded as a sure proof. 

As bp. of Lyons Irenaeus was distinguished 
for his zeal for the conversion of the heathen 
(cf. the Acts of St. Ferreolus and his com- 
panions, Boll. Acta SS. 16 Jun. iii.), and yet 
more by his conflicts with heretics and his 
strenuous endeavours to maintain the peace 
of the church, in true accord with his name 
Eipnvatos (Peace-man). His great work 
Against all Heresies was probably written 
during his episcopate. The preface informs 
us that he then first wrote as an ecclesiastical 
writer. We subsequently find him exerting 
himself to protect the churches of his native 
country (Asia Minor) from Roman pretensions 
and aggression. The Roman bp. Victor was 


᾿ Ἂν ae τῷ 


IRENAEUS 


endeavouring to compel these churches, which 
had hitherto kept Easter, with the Jews, on 
Nisan 14, to conform to the practice of Rome. 
On their refusal to abandon the custom of their 
forefathers, their reasons being given in a 
letter addressed to Victor by Polycrates, bp. 
of Ephesus, he had cut them off from his 
communion. This harsh treatment was 
highly disapproved by many even of those 
who, like the Roman bishop, kept Easter on 
the Sunday following the equinoctialfull-moon. 
Among these was Irenaeus himself. In the 
name of all the Gallican churches he remon- 
strated with Victor, in a writing of which a 
considerable fragment is extant, reminding 
him of the example set by his predecessors, 
who had found no occasion in these differences 
of paschal observance for excommunicating 
their brethren of Asia Minor. Irenaeus (as 
Eusebius further informs us, H. E. v. 23) also 
appealed to other foreign bishops, but without 
any effect on the harsh determination of the 
Roman. Another writing of Irenaeus men- 
tioned by Eusebius (H. E. v. 20), which seems 
to have referred to the same subject, was 
entitled περὶ σχίσματος and addressed to 
Blastus, head of the Roman Quartodecimans. 

How long Irenaeus was bishop is uncertain. 
His death is commonly assigned to 202 or 203. 
This rests on the assumption that he was 
martyred under Septimius Severus. But such 
a martyrdom is by no means established. 
Tertullian, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, 
Ephrem, Augustine, Theodoret, are silent. In 
the Syriac fragments Irenaeus is frequently 
spoken of as “ἃ disciple of Polycarp, bishop 
and martyr,’’ but not himself honoured with 
the martyr’s title either there or in any 
quotations from his writings. The first wit- 
ness for his martyrdom is found in Jerome’s 
commentary on Isaiah, written c. 410, where 
(c. 64) Irenaeus is spoken of as vir apostolicus 
episcopus et martyr; but when elsewhere 
treating ex professo of his life and writings 
(de Vir. Ill. c. 35), Jerome is silent as to his 
martyrdom. As Dodwell conjectures, the 
words et martyr may be an interpolation. If 
not, Jerome must have learnt the alleged fact 
subsequently to 392, when the de Virts Illus- 
tribus was written. There is no witness for it 
earlier than the 5th cent. 

Writings.—The chief was the great work in 
five books against Gnosticism entitled’ EXeyxos 
καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς Ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, Detectio 
et eversio falso cognominatae agnitionis. (The 
full Greek title is found in Eus. H. E. v. 7; 
Phot. Bzbl. Cod. 120 and elsewhere; cf. also 
frequent references to it by Irenaeus in the 
praefationes to bks. ii. iv. v. and the conclu- 
sion of bk. iv.) It is commonly cited under 
the briefer title πρὸς αἱρέσεις (contra Haereses). 
We possess it entire in the Latin version only, 
which, however, must have been made from 
the Greek original very soon after its com- 
position, since the Latin was used by Tertul- 
lian some ten years after, in his tractate adv. 
Valentinianos. Its translator was a Celt 
(witness the barbarous Latinity) ; probably 
one of the clergy of Lyons. Most of the ori- 
ginal work being now lost, the slavish literality 
of the translator imparts to his version a very 
high value. Many obscurities of expression, 
arising in part from a misunderstanding of the 


IRENAEUS 521 


Greek idiom, admit an easy solution when 
translated back into Greek. Beside this Latin 
version, which appears to have soon super- 
seded the Greek original in the Westernchurch, 
there was a Syriac translation, of which 
numerous fragments are extant and were 
first put together by Harvey in his ed. of 
Irenaeus (ii. 431 seq.). They are derived from 
the Brit. Mus. collection of Nitrian MSS., some 
of which are as old as the 6th, 7th, and 8th 
cents. (cf. Harvey, ii. 431, note). To these are 
added (Nos. xxi. xxxi. and xxxii.) fragments 
of an Armenian interpolated version first 
published by Pitra in his Spicilegium Soles- 
mense, t. i. (Paris, 1852). Of these No. xxi. 
only is taken from the work Against Heresies. 
The almost entire agreement between these 
Syriac fragments and the Old Latin version 
further witnesses its genuineness and fidelity. 
The Greek original, said to have been still 
extant in the 16th cent., was made great use 
of by Hippolytus (or whoever wrote the 
Philosophumena), Epiphanius, and Theodoret. 
To the numerous extracts in these writers, 
esp. the first two, we owe the greater part of 
the original Greek of bk. i.—the preface and 
cc. I-21 entire, and numerous fragments 
besides. Of the other books, the Greek has 
come down to us in isolated passages, mostly 
through citations by Eusebius. The ed. of 
Wigan Harvey (2 vols. Camb. 1857) is based 
on a careful collation of the Codices Claro- 
mont. and Arundel. His Prolegomena con- 
tain minute investigations into the origin, 
characteristics and main phenomena οἵ 
Gnosticism, as well as concerning the life 
and writings of Irenaeus. 

Against Heresies was written in Gaul. 
(Irenaeus says so expressly, lib. i. praef. 3, 
cf. i. 13, 7. We follow Massuet’s division of 
chapters.) The date of composition is deter- 
mined iii. 3, 3, in which he speaks of Eleu- 
therus as then twelfth in succession to the 
apostles on the episcopal chair of Rome (viv 
δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν 
ἀποστύλων κατέχει κλῆρον ᾿᾿λεύθεροτ). Ac- 
cording to this, the third book was written at 
the earliest a.p. 174 or 175, at the latest a.D. 
189 (cf. Chronologte der rom. Bischofe, pp. 184 
sqq.). The commencement and completion 
of the work were possibly some years apart, 
but we cannot put the date of bks. iv. and v. 
so late as the episcopate of Victor (189-198 or 
199). We may tentatively assume 182, the 
mid-period of Eleutherus’s episcopate, or(since 
the first two books alone appear to have been 
written immediately after each other—cf. the 
prefaces to bks. ii. and iii.-v.) we may pro- 
pose from a.p. 180 to 185 as the date of the 
whole work. To assign a more exact date is 
hopeless. That Irenaeus wrote as bishop, and 
not earlier than 178 as presbyter, is by far 
most probable, though it cannot be drawn 
with absolute certainty from the words of the 
preface to bk. v. to which Massuet appeals. 

As the first external motive for its composi- 
tion, Irenaeus himself mentions (lib. i. praef. ; 
ii. 17, 1; iii. praef.) the request of a friend 
for some instruction as to the heretical 
opinions of the Valentinians and how to refute 
them. The recent spread of the Valentinian 
sect through the Rhone district had already 
led Irenaeus to acquaint himself particularly 


522 IRENAEUS 


with their writings and tenets. The danger- 
ous character of their teaching had been fully 
recognized by others, whom he modestly 
designates as multo nobis meltores; but these 
had been (iv. praef.) unable through ignorance 
of the Valentinian ‘‘rule’’ or system of doc- 
trine to adequately refute it. That it was his 
first object to refute Valentinianism, and only 
in a secondary and occasional way to attack 
other heresies, is evident from the whole 
construction and arrangement of bk. i., which 
is almost exclusively occupied with the 
Valentinians, and in a great measure bk. ii. 
also. Irenaeus repeatedly observes that he 
who refutes the Valentinians at the same time 
refutes all other heresies (cf. ii. 31, τὴ ‘‘ de- 
structis itaque his quia Valentino sunt, omnis 
haereticorum eversa est multitudo,”’ an asser- 
tion of which he proceeds (31, 1-35, 5) to give 
detailed proof, in reference to various heretical 
parties. Thus in the preface to bk. iv. he 
speaks of the ‘‘ doctrina eorum qui sunt a 
Valentino” as a ‘‘recapitulatio omnium haere- 
ticorum,”’ and in bk. ii. of having taken them 
as an example of the way in which all heretics 
are toberefuted (“‘tanquamspeculum habuimus 
eos totius eversionis’’). In bks. ili. iv. and v. 
the circle of vision is enlarged. Taking the 
Scriptures for his guide, he goes through in 
order the fundamental doctrines of Gnosticism, 
and besides Valentinian dogmas reviews the 
cognate ones of other hereticalschools, specially 
of the Marcionites, but nowhere gives such a 
connected view and refutation of other Gnostic 
systems as of the Valentinian in bk. ii. 

His sources were primarily the writings of 
the heretics themselves. In the preface of 
bk. i. he speaks of the ὑπομνήματα of disciples 
of Valentinus, and observes that he has been 
in personal communication with some of them. 
More particularly it is the school of Ptole- 
maeus, an ἀπάνθισμα τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς, 
whose dogmatic system he sets himself to 
describe. The detailed account (c. Haer. i. 
1-7) describes its development in the Western 
or Italian form, and this from several writings, 
one of which Clemens Alexandrinus also made 
use of in the excerpta ex scriptis Theodott, cc. 
44-65. From another source were derived 
additional details, cc. rr and 12, of various 
opinions within the Valentinian system and 
of Valentinus himself, Secundus, Ptolemaeus, 
and “others + Ὁ: 33° 1-5; cc: 14 ‘and! 15 “are 
concerned with Marcus, his magic arts and 
theories about the symbolism of letters and 
numbers, concluding with a citation of some 
Iambic Senarii, written against him by a 
“‘Divinae aspirationis Senior et Praeco 
veritatis” (ὁ θεόπνευστος πρεσβύτης καὶ κήρυξ 
τῆς ἀληθείας). The same authority is further 
designated, after the quotation, as ‘“‘ amator 
Dei senior,’? which Epiphanius expresses by 
ὁ θεοφιλὴς πρεσβύτης. 

Two other sources, from which Irenaeus 
may have derived acquaintance with Gnostic 
opinions, have been conjectured by Harnack 
(Zur Quellenkrittk der Geschichte des Gnostt- 
cismus. p. 56) for the information in bks. iii.-v. 
concerning the details of Marcion’s system, 
which with the Valentinian is the heresy most 
frequently referred to in that portion. These 
were Marcion’s own writings and a refutation 
of Marcion by a presbyter of Asia Minor. 


{RENAEUS 


It would be of great interest to obtain more 
exact impressions of those other presbyters to 
whose words and writings Irenaeus makes 
frequent reference. Besides the ‘‘ God-loving 
elder,’ from whom he borrows the Iambic 
Senarii against Marcus, Irenaeus cites on 
various occasions from ‘‘ presbyters and 
disciples of the apostles ’’ ; under which title, 
besides Polycarp, bp. Papias of Hierapolis 
must certainly be included. From bk. iv. of 
Papias’s Aoylaw κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις Irenaeus 
cites the saying traditionally attributed to our 
Lord on the alleged testimony of St. John 
concerning the glories of His millennial king- 
dom (v. 33, 3 544:). : 

Of the writings of Polycarp there is no 
certain trace in Irenaeus, but he held in faithful 
remembrance his oral utterances. He knows 
indeed several writings of the bp. of Smyrna 
(Ep. ad Florin. ap. Eus. v. 20) and specially 
mentions Polycarp’s Ep. to the Philippians 
(Haer. iii. 3, 4). Ofthe works of Justin Martyr 
Irenaeus knew and used—besides -the Syn- 
tagma against all Heresies, and the possibly 
identical Syntagma against Marcion—the first 
Apologies, without, however, citing it (Quellen 
der dltesten Ketzergeschtchte, p. 63). From 
which of Justin’s works the citation, v. 26, 2, 
is derived cannot be decided. With far 
greater confidence we may assume Irenaeus 
to have used the Memoirs of Hegesippus (iii. 
3,33 4, 3, cf. Quellen der alt. Καὶ etzergesch. Ὁ. 73), 
and he makes one citation from the Ep. of 
Ignatius to the Romans (v. 28, 4), but without 
mentioning his name. 

Irenaeus’s great work is divided into five 
books. Bk. i. contains a detailed account of 
the Valentinian system, together with a 
general view of the opinions of the other sects. 
Bk. ii. undertakes to exhibit the unreasonable- 
ness and self-contradiction of the doctrines of 
Valentinianism. His chief object here is to 
combat the doctrine of the Demiurge or 
Creator as a subordinate existence outside the 
Pleroma, of limited power and insight, and 
separated from the ‘‘ Father’’ by an infinite 
chasm. He also controverts the Valentinian 
doctrine concerning the Pleroma and its 
antithesis the Kenoma, the theory of Emana- 
tions, of the Fall of Achamoth, and the forma- 
tion of the lower world through the sufferings 
of the Sophia; and finally, at great length, 
the Gnostic teaching concerning souls, and the 
distinction between Psychici and Pneumatici. 
Bks. iii. iv. and v. contain the refutation of 
Gnostic doctrines from Holy Scripture, pre- 
ceded by a short dissertation on the sources 
of Christian truth. The one foundation of the 
faith is the gospel transmitted first by oral 
tradition and subsequently committed to 
writing. The Gnostics allow neither the 
refutation of their doctrines out of Scripture 
nor disproof from tradition. Against the one 
they appeal to a secret doctrine handed down 
among themselves, against the other to their 
own higher knowledge (gnosis). Irenaeus 
meets them by stating the characteristics of 
genuine apostolic tradition as ensuring the 
right interpretation of Holy Scripture. The 
chief media and transmitters of this tradition 
are the apostolic churches and their episcopal 
succession from the apostles themselves (Haer. 
iii. 1-4). He proceeds to give the proof from 


—_— ~~ As 


IRENAEUS 


Scripture—first, against the doctrine of the 
Demiurge, then against the Gnostic Christo- 
logy. There is but one God, Creator of the 
world and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
Who is the Son, the Eternal God-Logos, and 
has truly been made Flesh in order to redeem 
mankind from its fallin Adam. Under this 
head he combats the errors of both Docetae 
and Ebionites, and, returning to his main 
purpose, attacks the chief Gnostic doctrine in 
a refutation of Marcion’s attempt to distin- 
guish between the Good God and the Just or 
Judicial God. This occupies him at the close 
of bk. iii. Bk. iv. is directed against the 
same doctrine. Irenaeus now attacks the 
distinction made between the lawgiver and 
the Father, shewing the identity of the divine 
revelation in O. and N. T., the close connexion 
between law and gospel, and the typical pre- 
announcement of the N.T. in the Old. He 
shews that eternal happiness or endless misery 
will befall men from the same God, as reward 
or as punishment for their own free choice of 
good or evil. Bk. v. gives a detailed proof of 
the resurrection of the body and of the mil- 
lennial kingdom. 

Of other writings of Irenaeus, fragments 
only, or bare names, have been preserved. 
Whether he ever carried out the intention, 
announced i. 27, 4 and iii. 12, 12, of writing a 
special treatise against Marcion, cannot be 
determined. Eusebius (H. E. v. 8) mentions 
this intention, and elsewhere (H. E. iv. 25) 
reckons Irenaeus, with Philip of Gortyna and 
Modestus, among authors who had written 
against Marcion. Of his Epistle to Florinus, 
Eusebius has preserved a considerable frag- 
ment. FLorINnus was an older contemporary 
of Irenaeus and a disciple of Polycarp. He 
was afterwards a presbyter at Rome, and was 
deposed, apparently for heresy (Eus. H. E. 
v. 15). The epistle of Irenaeus, addressed to 
him, bore also, according to Eusebius (H. E. 
v. 20), the title περὶ μοναρχίας ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ 
εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν, which implies 
that he had adopted Gnostic opinions. The 
““God”’ whom he apparently regarded as the 
author of evil was the Gnostic Demiurge. 
He afterwards, according to Eusebius, inclined 
to Valentinianism; whereupon Irenaeus 
addressed him in another treatise, περὶ dy- 
δοάδος, from which Eusebius quotes the con- 
cluding words, conjuring the copyists to make 
an accurate and faithful transcript of his 
words. The epistle περὶ μοναρχίας is re- 
garded by Leimbach (Zeitschrift fur luthertsche 
Theologie, 1873, pp. 626 seq.) and Lightfoot 
(Contemp. Rev. 1875, May, Ρ. 834) as one of 
Irenaeus’s earliest writings. Leimbach would 
date it between 168 and 177, but his arguments 
are trivial. Of far greater importance is 
Lightfoot’s argument that the treatise περὶ 
ὀγδοάδος was probably written before the 
great work Against Heresies, since its detailed 
treatment of the Valentinian system would 
have made a special tractate on the Ogdoad 
superfluous. But Lightfoot seems to have 
overlooked the fragmentary portion of an 
epistle to Victor of Rome, preserved among 
the Syriac fragments of Irenaeus (Fragm. 
XXviii. ap. Harvey, ii. p. 457), which is intro- 
duced with the words, ‘‘ And Irenaeus, bp. of 


Lyons, to Victor, bp. of Rome, concerni 


IRENAEUS 523 


Florinus, a presbyter who was a partisan of 
the error of Valentinus, and published an 
abominable book, thus wrote:"’ whereupon 
follows the fragment itself. From these 
words it appears that the epistle from which 
the fragment was taken could not have been 
written till after the first three books Against 
Heresies, probably not till after the completion 
of the whole, and, at the earliest, c. 190. 

If Eusebius is right in making the deposition 
of the Roman presbyter Blastus contempo- 
raneous with that of Florinus ,the epistle ad- 
dressed to the former by Irenaeus and entitled 
περὶ σχίσματος (Eus. H. E. v. 20) must belong 
to the same period. Blastus was, according 
to Eusebius, the head of the Roman Montan- 
ists (H. E. v. 15)—cf. also Pacianus, Ep. ad 
Sympronian. c. 1—and, according to Pseudo- 
Tertullian (Libell. adv. Omn. Haereses, 22), a 
Quartodeciman. Both are probably correct. 
We know that the Montanists of Asia Minor 
(like the Christians there) kept Easter on 
Nisan rq (cf. Schwegler, Montantsmus, p. 251) ; 
it is therefore quite credible that Blastus, as a 
Montanist, may have conformed to Quarto- 
deciman practice, and, as a member of the 
Roman presbytery, may have sought to intro- 
duce it into Rome. But if Blastus be the one 
referred toin another Syriac fragment (Fragm. 
xxvii. ap. Harvey, ii. 456), he was not an 
Asiatic but an Alexandrian ; and on this sup- 
position his Quartodecimanism must have 
come from his close connexion with the Mon- 
tanists of Asia Minor, since the Paschal calen- 
dar of Alexandria was the same as that of 
Rome. One can, moreover, quite understand 
bp. Victor’s responding to any attempt on 
Blastus’s part to create a schism in the Roman 
church by introducing the Asiatic custom, with 
deposition from the presbyteral office. Such 
a breach of discipline in his own diocese (the 
actual spectacle of some Roman Christians 
keeping Easter with the Asiatics on Nisan 14, 
and in opposition to the ancestral custom 
of the bps. of Rome) would naturally excite 
him to uncompromising harshness towards 
the brethren of Asia Minor generally ; so that 
on these refusing to conform to the Roman 
custom, he at once cut off the churches of 
the Asiatic province and the neighbouring 
dioceses from his church-communion (cf. my 
art. in Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theo- 
logie, 1866, pp. 192 seq-, and Chronologte der 
rom. Buschéfe, p. 174). These ecclesiastical 
troubles moved the man of peace, Irenaeus, to 
send letters of remonstrance to both Blastus 
and bp. Victor. To the former, which accord- 
ing to Eusebius bore the title περὶ σχίσματος, 
may possibly be assigned the Syriac fragment 
(xxvii. ap. Harvey, ii. 456) introduced with the 
following words: ‘ Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons, 
who was a contemporary of Polycarp, disciple 
of the apostle, bp. of Smyrna and martyr, and 
for this reason is held in just estimation, wrote 
to an Alexandrian that it is right, with respect 
to the Feast of the Resurrection, that we 
should celebrate it upon the first day of the 
week.’’ But inasmuch as we know from 
Eusebius (H. E. v. 24) that Irenaeus wrote on 
the same subject to several persons, it is 
possible that this Alexandrian may have been 
another than Blastus. Of the letter to Victor 


ng! Eusebius (#b.) has preserved a considerable 


524 IRENAEUS 


extract showing that the current controversies 
regarded also the mode and duration of the 
antecedent Paschalfast. Some kept one day, 
others two days, others several days; some 
again reckoned their fast-day at 40 hours 
of day and night (οἱ δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας 
ἡμερινάς τε Kal νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τὴν 
ἡμέραν αὐτῶν). But these differences of 
practice resting on ancient custom—so Ire- 
naeus proceeds to say—have never yet dis- 
turbed the church’s peace and unity of faith. 
For although former bishops of Rome, from 
Xystus to Soter, had never kept Nisan 14, 
they had always maintained full communion 
with any who came from dioceses where it was 
observed ; e.g. Polycarp, whom Anicetus per- 
mitted to celebrate in his own church, both 
separating afterwards in peace. No title is 
given by Eusebius to this epistle, but accord- 
ing to the Quaestiones et Responsa ad Ortho- 
doxos of Pseudo-Justin (c. 115) it was entitled 
περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα (cf. Fragm. Graec. vii. ap. 
Harvey, ii. 478). In the same work Pseudo- 
Justin tells us further that the old Christian 
custom of refraining from kneeling on Easter 
Day, as a sign of Christ’s resurrection, is 
carried back by Irenaeus to apostolic times, 
and the observance of this custom continued 
through the season of Pentecost, as the 
whole period (of 50 days after Easter) was 
regarded as equal to Easter Day itself. 

_ Of other writings of Irenaeus Eusebius men- 
tions (H. E. v. 26) a short tractate, πρὸς 
Ἕλληνας, which bore also the title περὶ ém- 
στήμης, an ἐπίδειξις τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγμα- 
τος, addressed to a certain Marcian; and a 
βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων, in which he is 
said to have cited Hebrews and the Wisdom of 
Solomon. Jerome, apparently copying Euse- 
bius, makes, however, a distinction (de Vir. 
Tll. 35) between the λόγος πρὸς “EXAnvas and 
the περὶ ἐπιστήμης (‘‘scripsit contra 
Gentes volumen breve et de Disciplina aliud”’). 
The tractate on Apostolical Preaching ad- 
dressed to Marcian appears to have been a 
catechetical work on the Rule of Faith. The 
βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων appears, in ac- 
cordance with the early usage of the word 
διαλέξεις (cf. Harvey, i. p. clxvii. sqq.), to 
have been a collection of homilies on various 
Scripture texts. Rufinus incorrectly renders 
διαλέξεις by Dialogus; Jerome by Tractatus. 
From these homilies were probably taken the 
numerous Gk. fragments found in various 
catenae, containing expositions of various 
passages of the Pentateuch and the historical 
books of O.T. and of St. Matthew and St. 
Luke (Fr. Graec. xv.-xxili., XXv.-xXxix., xxxi., 
XXXIll., χχχῖν., Xxxix., xl., xlii.-xlvii.), as well 
as the Syriac fragment of an exposition of the 
Song of Solomon (Fr. Syr. xxvi. ap. Harvey, 
ii. 455) and the Armenian homily on the Sons 
of Zebedee (Fr. Syr. xxxii. ap. Harvey, ii. 464 
sqq.). To the same collection would also 
belong a tractate on the History of Elkanah 
and Samuel, mentioned in a Syriac manuscript 
(Harvey, li. 507 note). 

His Theology and Influence on Ecclesiastical 
Development.—Irenaeus, with Tertullian, Hip- 
polytus, Cyprian, on the one side, and Clemens 
Alexandrinus and Origen on the other, was a 
main founder of the ancient Catholic church, 


IRENAEUS 


as it rose amid conflicts with Gnosticism and 
Montanism, out of the church of the post- 
apostolic era. Baur and the Tiibingen school 
were wrong in explaining the development of 
primitive Catholic Christianity as the fruit of 
a compromise effected by the Pauline and 
Petrine parties soon after the middle of the 
znd cent. to overcome the new opposition. 
The earliest post-apostolic form of Christianity 
was no mere product of conflicting anti- 
theses of the apostolic time, or of their re- 
conciliation. The Jewish-Christian commu- 
nities of Palestine and Syria formed, even 
towards the end of the rst cent., a small and 
vanishing minority as compared to the swell- 
ing dimensions of the Gentile church. That 
to some extent J ewish-Christian influences did 
operate upon Gentile Christianity during the 
former half of the 2nd cent. need not wholly 
be denied; yet the one feature in which we 
are most tempted to trace them—the con- 
ception of the gospel as a new law—is quite as 
much the outcome of an internal development 
within the Gentile church itself. The ul- 
timate triumph of Christian universalism, and 
the recognized equality between Jewish and 
Gentile members of the church of the Messiah, 
was a fruit of the life-long labours of St. Paul. 
The new Christian community, largely Gen- 
tile, regarded itself as the true people of God, 
as the spiritual Israel, and as the genuine heir 
of the church of the O.T., while the great mass 
of Jewish unbelievers were, as a penalty for 
their rejection of the true Messiah, excluded 
from the blessings of the kingdom of God. 
To this new spiritual Israel were speedily, in 
part at least, transferred the forms of the 
O.T. theocracy, and all the Jewish Scriptures 
were received as divinely inspired documents 
by the new church. But, whereas St. Paul 
had emphasized the antithesis between law 
and gospel, the Gentile churches after his 
time attached themselves more closely to the 
doctrinal norm of the older apostles, and laid 
stress on the continued validity of the law 
for Christians; though, as it was impossible 
to bind Gentiles to observe the ceremonial 
law, its precepts were given, after the example 
of the Jewish religious philosophy of Alex- 
andria, a spiritual interpretation. Already, 
in Hebrews, we find the relations between O. 
and N. T. viewed under the aspect of Type 
and Anti-type, Prophecy and Fulfilment. The 
later Gentile Christianity learned to see 
everywhere in O.T. types of the gospel revela- 
tion, and thus combined freedom from the 
Mosaic ceremonial law with the maintenance 
of the entire continuity of the O. and N. T. 
revelation. The Moral Law, as the centre 
and substance of the Mosaic revelation, re- 
mained the obligatory norm of conduct for 
Gentile Christians ; Christ had not abrogated 
the law of Moses, but fulfilled and completed 
it. The theological learning of the time con- 
fines itself too exclusively to a typological 
interpretation of O.T. So much the greater, 
on the other hand, is the influence exercised 
upon these writers by heathen philosophic 
culture. In the Apologists of the middle 
portion of the znd cent.—Justin, Tatian, 
Theophilus, Athenagoras—this influence ap- 
pears specially strong. Justin makes con- 
stant endeavours to comprehend Christianity 


IRENAEUS 


under the then generally accepted forms of 
philosophical speculation, and to commend it 
as a manifestation of the highest reason to 
the cultured minds of his time. In this way 
he became the first founder of a Catholic 
system of theology. The doctrine of the 
Divine Logos as the ‘‘ Second God,” the 
Mediator through Whom all divine revelation 
is transmitted, was already for Justin an apo- 
logetic weapon, remained thence forward a 
standing basis for the philosophical defence of 
Christianity, and proved in after-times the 
strongest weapon in the church’s armoury in 
the conflict with Gnostic opinions. 

The widespread appearance of the manifold 
forms of Gnosticism in the 2nd cent. is a most 
significant proof of the far-reaching influence 
exercised by pagan thought and speculation 
on the Gentile church of that age. The 
danger from the influx on all sides of foreign 
thought was all the greater because the 
Gentile churches had as yet but a feeble 
comprehension of the ideas specially belonging 
to Christianity. The conflict with Gnosticism 
gradually gave fresh vigour to that revival of 
fundamental Christian and Pauline thought 
which distinguishes the theology of Irenaeus 
and of other early ‘‘ Catholic’’ doctors at the 
end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd cent. 
from the simpler and poorer view of Christian 
truth presented in the works of the early 
Apologists. The perils with which the 
Gnostic speculation menaced the Christian 
system were, on the one hand, concerned with 
that which formed a common groundwork for 
Christianity and Judaism—i.e. first and 
specially the Monotheistic principle itself, and 
then the doctrines of Divine Justice, Freedom 
of the Will, and Future Retribution; on the 
other hand, they had regard to the traditions 
peculiar to Christianity concerning the his- 
torical person and work of Jesus Christ, the 
genuine human realism of His life and suffer- 
ings, the universal application of His redeem- 
ing work to all believers, and the external and 
historical character of that final restitution to 
which Christians looked forward. The Mono- 
theistic idea, the divine μοναρχία, was assailed 
by the Gnostic doctrine of the Demiurge, the 
Pleroma, and the series of Aeons; and the 
universally accepted doctrine of our Lord’s 
Incarnation and Messiahship by the various 
forms of Gnostic docetism. Further, the 
whole ethical basis of Christian religion was 
destroyed by the distinctions which Gnostic 
teachers made between two or three separate 
classes of mankind, and by their view of 
redemption as a purely theoretical process, or 
as the impartation of true knowledge (gnosis) 
to those only who by their own originally 
pheumatic nature had from the beginning 
been predestined to reception into the heaven- 
ly realm of light. Instead of the Christian 
doctrine of Freewill and consequent respon- 
sibility, they taught an iron heathenish meta- 
physical Necessity, which arbitrarily deter- 
mined the fortunes of men ; instead of a future 
divine recompense according to the measure 
of faith and works, a one-sided over-estimation 
of mere knowledge as the one condition of 
ultimate salvation; instead of the original 
Christian notion of the final consummation as 
a series of great outward visible occurrences, 


IRENAEUS 525 


the resurrection of the flesh, a day of final 
judgment, and the setting up on earth of a 
millennial kingdom, they taught the spiritual- 
istic conception of a saving deliverance of 
pneumatic souls and their translation into the 
upper world; whereas for the Psychict was 
reserved only a limited share in such know- 
ledge and salvation, and for the material 
(“‘ hylic "’ or *‘ choic ’’) man and for the earthly 
bodies of men, nothing but an ultimate and 
complete annihilation. It cannot be denied 
that both the Gentile Christianity of that era 
and the Catholic theology of following times 
appropriated various elements nearly related 
to these Gnostic speculations. A Catholic 
gnosis also appeared, which differed essentially 
from that heretical gnosis in intending to 
maintain unimpaired the received foundations 
of Christian faith. Yet, in truth, the idealistic 
speculations of the Alexandrine school were 
separated from those of the heretical gnosis 
by very uncertain lines of demarcation, and 
were afterwards, in some essential points, 
rejected by the church. Irenaeus, in contra- 
distinction to the Alexandrine doctors, ap- 
pears to have been less concerned with setting 
up a Catholic in opposition to the heretical 
gnosis, than with securing the foundations of 
the common Christian faith by strengthening 
the bands of existing church unity. He recog- 
nizes certain subjects which, as lying outside 
the rule of faith delivered to all, might be 
safely entrusted to the deeper and more 
searching meditations and inquiries of the 
more enlightened, but these related only to a 
clearer understanding of the details of the 
history of divine revelation, the right inter- 
pretation of parables, insight into the divine 
plan of human salvation (why God should 
bear with such long-suffering the apostasy of 
angels and the disobedience of man at the 
Fall), the differences and unity of the two 
Testaments, the necessity for the Incarnation 
of the Logos, the second coming of Christ at 
the end of time, the conversion of the heathen, 
the resurrection of the body, etc. (Haer. i. 
10, 3). These questions would arise in the 
course of the Gnostic controversy, but the 
form in which Irenaeus presents them assumes 
everywhere a clear antithesis to Gnostic 
speculation and a firm retention of the 
Catholic rule of faith. Only in quite an 
isolated form is once named the question why 
one and the same God should have created 
the temporal and the eternal, the earthly and 
the heavenly ; while Irenaeus insists strongly 
on the narrow bounds of human knowledge 
and insight, and on the impossibility for mor- 
tal man to know the reasons for everything 
(ii. 25, 3; 28, 1), and is never weary of 
chastising the arrogant presumption of the 
Pneumatict who exalt themselves above the 
Creator, while their impotence in the presence 
of His works is manifest to all (ii. 30, 1 sqq.). 

His theoretical refutation of Gnoste 
opinions, ¢.g. in bk. ii., is full of acute remarks. 
His main purpose is to repel the Gnostic 
assault on the divine monarchia. He shews 
that by the separation of the Creator from the 
highest God, the absolute being of God Him- 
self is denied. Neither above nor beside the 
Creator Himself can there be any other prin- 
ciple, for so God Himself would cease to be the 


526 IRENAEUS 


all-embracing Pleroma, and being limited 
from without would cease to be infinite. And 
so again, if the Pleroma be separated from all 
beneath it by an immeasurable discrepancy, a 
third principle is introduced, which limits the 
other two, and is greater than both, and the 
questions concerning the limiting and the 
limited become boundlessly insoluble. He 
urges similar arguments against the doctrine 
of creative angels. If their creative energies 
are independent of the Godhead, God ceases to 
be God ; if dependent upon Him, He is repre- 
sented as needing inferior assistants. Against 
the assumption of a vacuum (κένωμα, σκιὰ 
kevwuatos) outside the Divine Pleroma, he 
remarks that, if the world be thought of as 
produced out of this void and formless sub- 
stratum without the knowledge of the προ- 
πατώρ, then the attribute of omniscience is 
denied Him. Nor can it be explained why for 
such endless times He should have left that 
space thusempty. Again, if God did actually 
beforehand form this lower world for Himself 
in thought, then was He its real creator. In 
that case its mutability and transient duration 
must have been fore-willed by the Father 
Himself, and not be due to any defect or 
ignorance on the part of an inferior maker. 
The origin of the κένωμα also is incomprehen- 
sible. If it be an emanation from the Divine 
Pleroma, that Pleroma itself must be burdened 
with emptiness andimperfection. Ifit be self- 
originated, it is really as absolute as the Father 
of all Himself. Such a defect, again, in the 
Pleroma, like a spot on a garment, would have 
been at once removed, in the very beginning, 
had the Divine Father been able to remove it ; 
if otherwise, the blame of letting it remain so 
long must fall upon Him, and He will have to 
be accounted, like the heathen Jupiter, re- 
pentant over His own ways. Nay, if He was 
unable to remove this defect in the beginning, 
He cannot remove it now. The imperfection 
of this lower world leads back then to the 
conclusion that there must have been some- 
thing void or formless, dark or disorderly, an 
element of error or infirmity in the Father 
Himself or in His Pleroma. The like thought 
recurs in the further argument that the tem- 
poral and transient could not have been made 
after the image cf the unchangeable and 
eternal without introducing into it an alien 
element of mutability. The image must be 
like its prototype, and not opposed to it, 
and therefore the earthly material composite 
cannot be the image of that which is spiritual 
without drawing down the spiritual into its 
own sphere of materialism. The same objec- 
tion is made to the notion that the corporeal 
may be an image or shadow of the spiritual 
world. It is only something corporeal that can 
cast ashadow. Again, if it be maintained that 
the Creator could not make the world out of 
Himself, but only after a foreign archetype, the 
same must be trueofthe Divine Father. Healso 
must havederived, from some other source, the 
archetypeof that higher world of which He was 
the maker, and so on. The question about 
type andarchetype wouldthus bedrawnout in- 
to infinity (ii. 1-8). Butinasmuch as we must 
stop at some original at last, it is far more 
reasonable to believe that the Creator and the 
Oneonly Godareoneandthesame (ii. 16, 1sqq.). 


IRENAEUS 


In the interest of the same absolute divine 
Perfection and Unity, Irenaeus controverts 
the Valentinian doctrine of the Aeons. Be- 


sides noting the arbitrary way in which the’ 


Pleroma is made to consist of 30 Aeons, neither 
more nor less (ii. 12, I; 15, 1; 16, 1), he finds 
fault with the anthropomorphic conceptions 
behind the whole theory of emanations. The 
fact that the Propator Himself is reckoned as 
an Aeon, the unemanate, unborn, illimitable, 
formless One placed in the same class with 
emanations and births and limitations and 
forms, destroys the absolute perfection of the 
divine Nature (ii. 12, 1). Again, the separa- 
tion from the Godhead of its own indivisible 
elements, the conception of the divine "Ἔννοια, 
the divine Νοῦς, the divine Λόγος, etc., as so 
many hypostases, which in various stages have 
issued from its bosom, is an unwarrantable 
transfer of human passions and affections to 
the divine, which, onthecontrary, is all Ἔννοια, 
all Νοῦς, all Λόγος, and knows of no such divi- 
sion from itself (ii. 13). He subjects to acute 
criticism the manner in which each Aeonissup- 
posed to have been produced: was it without 
substantial separation, as the ray proceeding 
from the sun, or was it hypostatical, as one 
human being is personally distinct from all 
others, or was it by organic growth, as the 
branch from the tree ? He asks whether these 
emanations are all of the same substance with 
those from which they proceed and con- 
temporaneous with them, or have come forth 
in different stages? Whether they are all 
simple and alike, asspirits and lights, or com- 
posite and corporeal and of various forms ? 
(ii. 17, 1sqq.). Heinsists on carrying to their 
literal consequences the mythological con- 
ceptions which regarded the Valentinian Aeons 
as so many distinct personalities, produced 
according to human analogy among them- 
selves; and he offers the alternative, that they 
must either be like their original Parent the 
Father and therefore impassible as He is (in 
which case there could be no suffering Aeon 
like the Valentinian Sophia), or different from 
Him in substance and capable of suffering, 
upon which the question arises, how such 
differences of substance could come to exist 
in the unchangeable Pleroma. 

So acute a polemic must have equally 
served the interests of philosophy by its 
maintenance of the absolute character of the 
divine idea and of religion by its assertion of 
the divine monarchia. Irenaeus, like other 
opponents of Gnosticism, was clearly con- 
vinced that the whole system betrayed 
influences of heathen thought. The theory 
that everything must return to the originals 
of its component parts, and that God Himself 
is bound by this Necessity, so that even He 
cannot impart to the mortal immortality, to 
the corruptible incorruption, was derived by 
the Gnostics from the Stoics; the Valentinian 
doctrine of the Soter as made up from all the 
Aeons, each contributing thereto the flower 
of his own essence, is nothing more than the 
Hesiodic fable about Pandora. 

Yet the Gnostics wished and meant to be 
Christians, and indeed set up a claim to 
possess a deeper knowledge of Christian truth 
than the Psychici of the church. Like their 
opponents, they appealed to Scripture in proof 


τ φ Ὡρῶν 


IRENAEUS 


of their doctrines, and also boasted to be in 
possession of genuine apostolical traditions, 
deriving their doctrines, some from St. Paul, 
others from St. Peter, others from Judas, 
Thomas, Philip, and Matthew. In addition 
to the secret doctrine Which they professed to 
have received by oral tradition, they appealed 
to alleged writings of the apostles or their 
disciples. In conducting his controversy on 
these lines with the Valentinians, Irenaeus 
remarks first on their arbitrary method of 
dealing with Scripture; and describes their 
mode of drawing arguments from it as a 
“twisting ropes of sand”’ (i. 8, 1; ii. 10, 1). 
They indulge in every kind of perverse inter- 
pretation, and violently wresting texts out of 
their natural connexion put them arbitrarily 
together again after the manner of the centos 
made from Homer (i. 9, 4). He compares this 
proceeding to that of a bungler who has broken 
up a beautiful mosaic portrait of a king made 
by skilful artists out of costly gems, and puts 
the stones together again to form an ill- 
executed image of a dog or fox, maintaining 
that it is the same beautiful king's portrait as 
before (i. 8, 1). Since the Gnostics specially 
exercised their arts of interpretation on our 
Lord’s parables, Irenaeus repeatedly lays 
down principles on which such interpretation 
should be made (ii. 10, 2; 20, 1 sqq.; 27, 
1 sqq.). Dark and ambiguous passages are not 
to be cleared up by still darker interpretations 
nor enigmas solved by greater enigmas; but 
that which is dark and ambiguous must be 
illustrated by that which is consistent and 
clear (ii, 10, 1). Irenaeus himself in inter- 
preting Scripture, especially when he indulges 
in allegory, is not free from forced and arbit- 
rary methods of exposition (cf. e.g. the inter- 
pretations of Judg. vi. 37, in Haer. iii. 17, 3; 
Jon. il. r sqq. Haer. iii. 20, 1; Dan. ii. 34, 
Haer. iii. 21, 7); but in opposition to the 
fantastic interpretations which characterize 
the Valentinian school, he represents for the 
most part the historical sense of the written 
Word. His main purpose in the last three 
books is to refute the Gnostics out of Scripture 
itself. Irenaeus quotes as frequently from 
N.T. as from O.T. Whereas formerly men 
had been content with the authority of 
O.T. as the documentary memorial of divine 
revelation, or with the Lord’s own words in 
addition to the utterances of law and prophets, 
they now felt more and more impelled, and 
that by the very example of the Gnostics 
themselves, to seek a fixed collection of N.T. 
Scriptures and to extend to them the idea of 
divine inspiration. The Gnostics in their 
opposition to O.T., which they supposed to 
have proceeded from the Demiurge or some 
subordinate angelic agency, had appealed to 
writings real or supposed of the apostles as 
being a more perfect form of divine revelation, 
and the first point to be established against 
them was the essential unity of both revela- 
tions—Old and New. Bk. iv. is almost wholly 
devoted by Irenaeus to the proof of this point 
against Marcion. It is one and the same 
Divine Spirit that spake both in prophets and 
apostles (iii. 21, 4), one and the same Divine 
Authority from which both the law and its 
fulfilment in Christ proceeds. 


contains presages and fore-types of Christian 


IRENAEUS 527 


Revelation (iv. 15; 15, i; 19, i. ete.); the 
literal fulfilment of its prophecies proves that 
it came from the same God as the N.T., and 
is therefore of the same nature (iv. 9, 1). 
The prophets and the gospels together make 
up the totality of Scripture (“‘ universae Scrip- 
turae,’’ ii. 27, 2). hat the Bible is one 
divinely inspired whole is thus clearly enun- 
ciated. Even Justin Martyr seems to regard 
the gospels rather as memoirs (ἀπομνη- 
μονεύματα) by apostles of the Lord's words and 
actions than as canonical Scriptures; but 
Irenaeus cites passages from the gospels as 
inspired words of the Holy Spirit, using the 
same formulae of citation as for O.T. (iii. 
10,4; 16,2; cf. il. 35, 4 and 5), and similarly 
from the epistles and Apocalypse (iii. 16, 9 ; 
v. 30, 4). The two main divisions of the N.T. 
canon are for him the gospels and the apostolic 
writings (τὰ εὐαγγελικὰ καὶ τὰ ἀποστολικά, 
i. 3, 6). These two already constitute a com- 
plete whole, like the Scriptures of the O.T., 
and he therefore blames the Ebionites for 
using only the gospel of St. Matthew, the 
Docetae only that of St. Mark, Marcion St. 
Luke's gospel only and the Pauline epistles, 
and even these not unmutilated (iii. 11, 7 and 
12, 12). He remarks that those “ἢ unhappy 
ones ’’ who reject the gospel of St. John cast 
away also the divine prophetic spirit of which 
it contains the promise (iii. 11, 9). But he 
equally condemns the use of apocryphal 
writings. The teachers of Alexandria, with 
laxer notions about inspiration, made use of 
such without scrupulosity. Irenaeus draws 
a clear line of demarcation between canonical 
Scriptures and apocryphal writings. He 
blames the Valentinians for boasting to 
possess ‘‘ more gospels than actually exist’’ 
(iii. 11, 9) and the Gnostic Marcus for having 
used besides our Gospels ‘‘ an infinite number 
of apocryphal and spurious works ”’ (i. 20, 1). 
He considers himself able to prove that there 
must be just four gospels, neither more nor 
less. The proof is a somewhat singular one. 
From the four regions of the earth, the four 
principal winds, the fourfold form of the 
cherubim, the four covenants made by God 
with man, he deduces the necessity of one 
fourfold gospel (iii. 11, 8). This gospel first 
orally delivered, and then fixed in writing, 
Irenaeus designates the /fundamentum et 
columna fidet nostrae (iii. 1, 1). The N.T. 
canon of Irenaeus embraces nearly all now 
received; viz. the four gospels, twelve 
epistles of St. Paul (the omission of Philemon 
appears to be accidental), 1. Peter, I. and II. 
John, the Acts, and the Revelation. The omis- 
sion of III. John is most probably accidental 
also. From St. James there is probably a 
quotation at iv. 16, 2 (cf. Jas. ii. 23), and 
the frequently recurring expression “lex 
libertatis’’ appears to have been borrowed 
from Jas. i. 25. The possible references to 
Hebrews are uncertain. Resemblances, per- 
haps echoes, are found in several places (cf. 
Harvey’s Index), and Eusebius testifies (H. FE. 
v. 26) that both Hebrews and the Wisdom of 
Solomon are mentioned by Irenaeus in his 
διαλέξεις διάφοροι. The epistle is cited as a 
Pauline work in one fragment only, the 


The O.T. | second Pfaffian (Fr. Graec. xxxvi. ap. Harvey.) 


Irenaeus inhis controversy with the Gnostics 


528 IRENAEUS 


assumes the possibility that we might have 
had to be without N.T. Scriptures altogether. 
In this case we should have to inquire of the 
tradition left by the apostles of the churches 
(ili. 4,1: ‘‘quid autem si nequeapostoli quidem 
Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat 
ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis 
quibus committebant, ecclesias?”’). But the 
Gnostics also appealed to an apostolical tra- 
dition. Irenaeus complains that when one 
would refute them from the Bible they accused 
it of error, or declared the interpretation to 
be doubtful. The truth can only be ascer- 
tained, they said, by those who know the true 
tradition (iii. 2, 1). But this teaching is 
identical with that of Irenaeus himself, and 
he insists on finding this true tradition in the 
rule of faith (κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας, Regula 
Fidei), as contained in the Baptismal Confes- 
sion of the whole church (i. 9, 4; cf. 22, I). 
Irenaeus thus obtains a sure note or token 
by which to distinguish the genuine apostolical 
tradition (ἡ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρυσσομένη 
ἀλήθεια. i. 9, 5 ; praecontum ecclestae, V. 20, 2; 
apostolica ecclesiae traditio, iii. 3, 3; or simply 
παράδοσις, traditio, i. 10, 2; iii. 2, 2 and fre- 
quently) from the so-called apostolical secret 
doctrine to which the Gnostics made their 
appeal. The Baptismal Confession (or Credo) 
acquired its complete form only through the 
conflicts of the Gnostic controversy. In the 
writings of Irenaeus, as in those of his contem- 
poraries, it is cited in various, now longer now 
shorter, forms. This is no proof that one or 
other of these was the actual form then used 
in baptism. The probability is far greater that 
the shorter form of the old Roman credo still 
preserved to us was that already used in the 
time of Irenaeus. (Caspari, Ungedruckte, etc. 
Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der 
Glaubensregel, tom. 111. 1875, pp. 3 sqq-) The 
variations as we find them in the creeds of 
the Eastern churches appear to have been 
introduced in order to express, with greater 
distinctness, the antithesis of Christian belief 
to Gnostic heresy. So here a special emphasis 
is laid on the belief in ‘‘ One God the Father 
Almighty, Who made heaven and earth,”’ and 
in ‘“‘one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who 
became flesh for our salvation.” This rule 
of faith Irenaeus testifies that the church, 
scattered over the whole οἰκουμένη, delivers 
as with one mind and mouth, even as she has 
herself received it from the apostles and their 
disciples (i. 10,1 and 2). Aclear, determinate 
note is thus given by which to distinguish 
the genuine Christian tradition from that of 
heresy. To the pretended secret doctrine of 
the latter is opposed the public preaching 
of the faith of the apostolic churches ; to the 
mutability and endless varieties of Gnostic 
doctrines the unity of the church’s teaching ; 
to their novelty her antiquity, and to their 
endless subdivisions into schools and parties 
the uniformity and universality of her tra- 
ditional witness. That only which, from the 
times of the apostles, has been handed down 
in unbroken tradition by the elders of the 
church and publicly and uniformly taught in 
the churches, that doctrine which at all times 
and in every place may be learned by inquiry 
from the successors of the apostle in their 
teaching office, that alone is the Christian 


IRENAEUS 


apostolic truth) 1 10, 2 ; ΠΣ, ΖΦ; 46 re Ὁ 
4,1 seq: > 24:15 iv. $3) 7 ΞΘ ; v.120; τῇ,» 

The learned church antiquarian Hegesippus 
had, c. 170, undertaken long journeys to 
assure himself of the general agreement of 
Christian communities in their doctrinal tra- 
ditions; in each apostolic church he had set 
himself to inquire for the unbroken succession 
of its pastors and their teaching, and records 
with satisfaction the result of his investiga- 
tions: ‘‘In every succession in every city 
it is still maintained as the law announces and 
as the prophets and the Lord.”’ And again, 
“580 long as the sacred choir of the apostles 
still lived, the church was like a virgin un- 
defiled and pure, ard not till afterwards in the 
times of Trajan did error, which so long had 
crept in darkness, venture forth into the light 
Of day,” (ap. us. Ἣ: ΒΞ αν 22; πἴὶ ἜΣ 
Irenaeus is specially emphatic in everywhere 
contrasting the vacillation and variety of 
heretical opinions with the uniform pro- 
clamation of one and the same apostolic wit- 
ness in all the churches of the world (i. 8, 1; 
10, 1). Truth, he remarks, can be but one; 
while each heretical teacher proclaims a 
different doctrine of his own invention. How 
impossible is it that truth can have remained 
so long hidden from the church and been 
handed down as secret doctrine in possession 
of the few! She is free and accessible to all, 
both learned and ignorant, and all who 
earnestly seek her find. With almost a shout 
of triumph he opposes to the unstable, ever- 
changing, many-headed doctrinal systems and 
sects of Gnosticism, with their vain appeals 
to obscure names of pretended disciples of the 
apostles or to supposititious writings, the one 
universal norm of truth which all the churches 
recognise. ‘‘ The church, though dispersed 
through the whole world, is carefully guarding 
the same faith as dwelling in one and the same 
house; these things she believes, in like 
manner, as having one soul and the self-same 
heart; these, too, she accordantly proclaims, 
and teaches, and delivers, as though possessing 
but one mouth. The speeches of the world 
are many and divergent, but the force of our 
tradition is one and thesame.”’ And again: 
““The churches in Germany have no other 
faith, no other tradition, than that which is 
found in Spain, or among the Celts, in the 
regions of the East, in Egypt and in Libya, 
or in these mid parts of the earth.”” He com- 
pares the church’s proclamation of the truth 
to the light of the sun, one and the same 
throughout the universe and visible to all who 
have eyes. ‘‘ The mightiest in word among 
the presidents of the churches teaches only 
the same things as others (for no one here is 
above the Master), and the weak in word 
takes nothing away from what has been de- 
livered him. The faith being always one and 
the same, he that can say much about it doth 
not exceed, he that can say but little doth 
not diminish’”’ (i. το, 2). ‘‘ The tradition of 
the apostles made manifest, as it is, through 
all the world can be recognized in every 
church by all who wish to know the truth ”’ 
(iii. 3, 1). But this light from God shines not 
for heretics because they have dishonoured 
and despised Him (iii. 24, 2). Cf. also the first 
of Pfaffian fragments (Fr. Graec. XxxXv.). 


IRENAEUS 


The argument from antiquity is also em- 
ployed by Irenaeus on behalf of church tra- 
dition. If controversies arise about matters 
of faith, let recourse be had to the most 
ancient churches in which the apostles them- 
selves once resided and a decisive answer 
will then be found. This oral apostolic tra- 
dition exists even in the churches among 
barbarous nations, in whose hearts the Spirit, 
without ink or parchment, has written the old 
and saving truth (iii. 4, 1 and 2). But while 
thus the genuine tradition may, in the apos- 
tolic churches, be traced back through the 
successions of the elders to the apostles them- 
selves, the sects and their doctrines are all 
of later origin. There were no Valentinians 
before Valentinus, no Marcionites before 
Marcion. Valentinus himself and Kerdon 
(Marcion’s teacher) did not appear in Rome 
till the time of Hyginus the ninth bishop after 
the apostles, Valentinus flourished under Pius, 
Marcion under Anicetus (ili. 4, 3). All these 
founders of sects were much later than the 
apostles (iii. 21, 3) and the first bishops to 
whom they committed the care of the churches 
(v. 20, 1). In contradistinction to their 
ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις the true gnosis consists in 
the doctrine of the apostles and the mainten- 
ance of the pure and ancient constitution of 
the church (τὸ ἀρχαῖον τῆς ἐκκλησίας σύστημα) 
throughout the world (iv. 33, 7). The main 
point then, on which all turns, is the clear 

roof of a pure transmission of apostolic teach- 
ing through immediate disciples of the apostles 
themselves and their disciples after them. 
What is the tradition of the elders (πρεσβῦται, 
πρεσβύτεροι), 1.6. the heads of apostolic 
churches who stood in direct communication 
with the apostles themselves or with their 
disciples ?—is the question, therefore, which 
Irenaeus is everywhere asking. These elders 
are the guardians and transmitters of the 
apostles’ teaching. As in the preceding 
generation Papias had collected the traditions 
of “disciples of the Lord,’’ so now Irenaeus is 
collecting reminiscences of their disciples, 
mediate or immediate, a Polycarp, a Papias, 
etc., and as Hegesippus had been careful to 
inform himself as to the succession of pastors 
from apostolic times, so Irenaeus, in opposi- 
tion to the doctrines of the Gnostics, appeals 
not only to the ancestral teaching maintained 
in churches of apostolic foundation, such as 
Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, but also to the lists 
of those men who, since the apostles, had 
presided over them (iii. 3). 

The main representatives therefore of 
genuine apostolical tradition are for Irenaeus 
the bishops of the churches as successors of 
the apostles and guardians of their doctrines. 
In the episcopate, as a continuation of the 
πο office, he finds the one sure pledge 
of the church’s unity and the maintenance 
of her doctrine. Although the expression 
ἐκκλησία καθολική, which came into vogue to- 
wards the end of the 2nd cent., does not occur 
in his writings, the thing itself is constantly 
before him, 1.5. the conception of one true 
church spread over the earth, and bound to- 
gether by the one true Faith, in contrast to 
the manifold and variegated and apostate 
forms of “heresy.” Its external bond of 
unity is the episcopal office. The develop- 


IRENAEUS 529 


ment of monarchical episcopacy was a primary 
consequence of the conflict with Gnosticism, 
and its origination out of simpler constitu- 
tional forms betrays itself in a mode of 
expression derived indeed from earlier times, 
but still common to Irenaeus, with Tertullian, 
Clemens Alexandrinus, Hippolytus, and 
others, the use, namely, of the official titles, 
πρεσβύτεροι and ἐπίσκοποι to designate 
alternately the same persons. [ρεσβύτεροι 
in this context are, in the first place, “ el- 
ders,’’ #.e. ‘‘ ancients’ or fathers, who repre- 
sent the immediate connexion of the early 
church with the apostolic time. This name 
or title is then transferred to the heads of 
churches, inasmuch as they in succession to 
the apostles have been faithful transmitters 
of what was handed down to them. The true 
unbroken apostolical succession and prae- 
contum ecclesiae is therefore attributed to the 
same persons, now as πρεσβύτεροι now as 
ἐπίσκοποι (iii. 3, 2, cf. ili. 2, 2; iv. 26, 2, 4,5; 
Ep. ad Victorem ap. Eus. H. E. v. 24); nay, 
in so many words, the ‘‘ successio episcopalis "’ 
was assigned to the πρεσβύτεροι (iv. 26, 2). 
By these ‘‘ presbyters,’’ however, we are 
certainly to understand heads of churches 
(especially those of apostolic foundation), 
who alone were capable of acting as the guar- 
dians and maintainers of church unity. The 
episcopate is for Irenaeus no mere congre- 
gational office, but one belonging to the whole 
church; the great importance attached by 
his contemporaries to the proofs of a genuine 
apostolical succession rests on the assumption 
that the episcopate was the guardian of the 
church’s unity of teaching, a continuation, in 
fact, of the apostolic teaching-office, ordained 
for that purpose by the apostles themselves. 
The bishop, in reference to any particular 
congregation, is a representative of the whole 
Catholic church, the very idea of catholicity 
being indebted for its completion to this more 
sharply defined conception of the episcopal 
office. In the episcopate thus completely 
formed the Catholic church first manifested 
herself in organic unity as ‘“‘the body of 
Christ.”” As formerly the apostles, so now 
the bishops, their successors, are the “ ecclesia 
repraesentativa.” Only through the epis- 
copate as the faithful guardian and trans- 
mitter of the apostolical tradition do such 
congregations retain their hold on visible 
church unity and their possession of the 
truth (cf. iv. 33, 7). The significance of the 
episcopal office rests therefore on the fact of 
an apostolical succession, and on this historical 
connexion of the bishops with the apostolic 
era depends the certainty of their being 
possessed of the true tradition. That this 
assurance is not illusory is proved by the 
actual uniformity of church teaching through- 
out the world, the agreement of all the apos- 
tolic churches in the confession of the same 
truth (iii. 3, 3). Beyond this historical proof 
of the church's possession of the true teaching 
through her episcopate, the argument 15 not 
carried further by Irenaeus. The later dogma 
of a continua successio Spiritus Sancti, t.¢. of 
an abiding special gift of the Holy Spirit 
attached to the episcopate of apostolical suc- 
cession, has nevertheless some precursive 
traces in his writings. Though the Holy 


9“ 


530 IRENAEUS 

Spirit is a scala ascensionis ad Deum, of which 
all the faithful are partakers, yet the guidance 
of the church by the Spirit is mediated by 
apostles, prophets, and teachers, and they 
who would have the guidance of the Spirit 
must come to the church. ‘‘ For, where the 
church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where 
the Spirit of God is, there is the church and 
all grace—the Spirit, moreover, is the truth ”’ 
(ili. 24, 1). Expressly therefore is the “‘ char- 
isma veritatis’? attached to the episcopal 
succession (iv. 26, 2), not as a gift of inspira- 
tion enabling the bishops to discover fresh 
truths, but rather as such guidance as enables 
them to preserve the original truth. There- 
fore it is more particularly the churches of 
apostolical foundation, and in the West 
specially the church of Rome, which can 
give the surest warrant for the true and 
incorrupt tradition. In this sense the much- 
disputed passage is to be understood in which 
some would find a witness for the primacy 
of the Roman church: “ For with this church 
must, on account of her more excellent origin 
(‘propter potiorem principalitatem,’ i.e. διὰ 
τὴν διαφορωτέραν ἀρχήν), every church, that is, 
all the faithful coming from all quarters, put 
themselves in agreement, as being the church 
in which at all times by those who come from 
all quarters the tradition derived from the 
apostles has been preserved ”’ (iii. 3, 2). The 
potentior principalitas denotes here not only 
the superior antiquity of the Roman church 
as the greatest, oldest, and most widely known 
(1.6. in the West, where Irenaeus was writing), 
but also her nobler origin as founded by those 
“two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul.” 
The mention of the “‘ faithful coming from all 
quarters ’’ points again to the position of the 
great world’s metropolis as a centre of inter- 
course, and therefore the place in which 
Christians could most easily convince them- 
selves of the oneness of apostolical tradition 
in the whole church. Obscurations and cor- 
ruptions of that tradition, quite possible in 
remoter churches, would at Rome be soonest 
discovered and most easily removed. It is 
not of any Roman lordship over other churches 
or a primatial teaching-office committed to the 
Roman bishop that Irenaeus is here speaking, 
but only of the surer warrant offered by the 
position of that church for the uncorrupt 
maintenance of the apostolical traditions. 
So, after reckoning the succession of Roman 
bishops down to Eleutherus, his own contem- 
porary, Irenaeus proceeds: τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει καὶ 
τῇ αὐτῇ διαδοχῇ, ἥ τε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν 
TH ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας 
κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς (iii. 3, 3). 
But just the same he says of the church of 
Ephesus founded bySt. Paul, and till the times 
of Trajan under the guidance of St. John: 
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ ἐκκλησία ὑπὸ Παύλον μὲν 
τεθεμελιωμένη, ᾿Ιωἄννου δὲ παραμείναντος αὐτοῖς 
μέχρι τῶν Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων, μάρτυς ἀληθής ἐστι 
τῆς ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως (iii. 5, 4). 

The unity of the Catholic church, thus 
secured by the continuance of the apostolic 
office, is regarded by Irenaeus as mainly a 
doctrinal unity. Of her guardianship of 
sacramental grace he gives hints only. Yet 
he is certainly on the way to that conception 


IRENAEUS 


when he singles out the continuance of spirit- 
ual gifts as a special note of the true church, 
meaning thereby not merely the charisma 
veritatis, but also the gifts of prophecy and 
miracle (ii. 32, 4; cf. iii. 11,9). He is not less 
decided in opposing schismatics, who destroy 
the church’s unity (iv. 26, 2; 33, 7), than 
heretics who corrupt her doctrine. In internal 
divisions among the faithful he never wearies 
in urging the interests of peace. Neither in 
the Montanistic movement nor in the Paschal 
controversy does he see grounds for the 
severance of church communion. At the 
same time he determinedly opposes that 
separatist temper, which, denying the presence 
of the Spirit in the church, would claim His 
gifts exclusively for its own sect or party. 
Even if we are not warranted in identifying 
with the Montanists those ‘‘ false prophets ”’ 
of whom he speaks (iv. 33, 6) as with lying lips 
pretending to prophesy, any more than those 
who (iii. 11, 9) deny the gospel of St. John— 
all the more applicable to them is the following 
description: ‘‘ Men who bring about schisms, 
devoid of true love to God, seeking their own 
advantage rather than the unity of the church ; 
wounding and dividing for petty reasons the 
great and glorious body of Christ, and so far 
as in them lies destroying it ; speaking peace, 
but acting war, and in sober truth straining 
out the gnat and swallowing the camel. For 
no reformation which they could bring about 
would outweigh the evils produced by their 
schism ᾿᾿ (iv. 33, 7). The great importance 
attached by Irenaeus to the maintenance of 
church unity rests for him on the assumption 
that the church being sole depositary of 
divine truth is the only trustworthy guarantee 
of human salvation. While himself sharing, 
with the Montanists, not only the hope of the 
millennial kingdom but also the expectation of 
its outward visible glory (v. 32-36) and delight- 
ing in reminiscences of what the “ elders” 
(Papias) have handed down concerning it as 
from the lips of the apostle St. John (v. 33, 3), 
Irenaeus does, on the other hand, with his 
conception of the church as an outward visible 
institution of prime necessity for human sal- 
vation, pave the way for that catholic ideal, 
which, in contrast to the dreams and aspira- 
tions of Montanism, would substitute for a 
glorious vision of the future the existing 
church on earth as God’s visible kingdom. 
When the visible church as an outward insti- 
tution comes to be regarded as the essential 
medium of saving grace, all its forms and 
ordinances at once acquire a quasi-legal or 
sacramental character. The church is for 
Irenaeus an earthly paradise, of the trees of 
which every one may eat, while heresy has 
only the forbidden tree of knowledge, whose 
fruits are death-bringing (v. 20, 2). As the 
church’s faith is the only faith which is true 
and saving (iii. praef.), so is he alone a Chris-. 
tian man who conforms to the church’s insti- 
tutions and laws (cf. iii. 15, 2; ΡΥ. 20, I). 
The church’s sacrifices, the church’s prayers, 
the church’s works alone are holy (iv. 18, 
© SQQa3) 1: 32: δὴ» ὃ 
This essentially legal conception of Chris- 
tianity was also that of the generation which 
followed the apostles. The great Catholic 
doctors gave to this legal conception of the 


IRENAEUS 


church a further development. For Tertul- 
lian, Clement, and Origen the work of Christ 
was primarily the promulgation of a new 
divine law. Irenaeus calls indeed Christianity 
the N.T. of freedom (iii. 12, 14; iv. 16, 5; 
34, 3; cf. ili. ro, 5), but simply in reference to 
the exemption of Gentile Christians from 
obedience to the Mosaic ceremonial law. In 
antithesis to Marcion, who derived the Mosaic 
law from the Demiurge, the gospel from the 
good God, Irenaeus maintained the substan- 
tial identity of both covenants (‘‘unius et 
ejusdem substantiae sunt,’’ iv. 9,1; cf. 9, 2; 
13, 3, etc.). When he appropriates the 
Pauline antithesis of bondage and liberty (cf. 
MISOMG-Q) τ 6: 13,210,535 18, 2; 34, x 
seq.,etc., etc.), the religious premises which led 
up in St. Paul’s mind to that antithesis are 
perhaps wanting to Irenaeus. The N.T. 
consists for him in a body of divine prescripts. 
The bondsman and undisciplined has indeed 
one law, the free, the justified by faith, another 
(iv. 9, 1); but inasmuch as the nucleus of both 
Testaments is one and the same—namely, those 
natural precepts (naturalia praecepta) (iv. 13, 
4; cf. 15, 1ὴ which have from the beginning 
impressed themselves on the mind of man—it 
follows that the evangelical law of liberty (iv. 
34, 4) differs only quantitatively, not quali- 
tatively, from that of Moses. This difference 
consists on the one hand in the abolition of the 
precepts of the ceremonial law, which for the 
Israelites themselves had but a temporary 
purpose and validity, to restrain from idol 
worship, to uphold external discipline, or to 
serve as precursors and symbols of spiritual 
precepts (iv. 13, 2; 14, I sqq.; 15, 1; 16, 
3 Sqq.; 19, 1; 23, I Seq. ; 24, I seq.), and on 
the other in the reinforcement of those natural 
precepts which have come down to us from 
the beginning (iv. 9, 2; 13, 1; 16,5). The 
laws of liberty (decreta libertatis) do not annul 
the duty of obedience ; the difference between 
sons and servants from this point of view 
consists in the sons having a larger faith (iv. 
32, 2) and exhibiting a more ready obedience 
(iv. 11, 4). Accordingly, the antithesis be- 
tween the two Testaments is not an antithesis 
of fear and love. Love is the greatest com- 
mandment under the O.T. (iv. 12, 3). Fear 
continues as a precept under the New. Christ 
has even enlarged the precept of fear—the 
children must fear as well as love more than 
the servants (iv. 16, 5). On the one side the 
children indeed are free, on the other they 
are still servants (iv. 14, 1). The two law- 
givings differ only in the number and great- 
ness (multitudine et magnitudine) of their 
commandments. The law of liberty, being 
the greater, is given not for Jews only, but 
for all nations (iv. 9, 2); but the precepts of 
a perfect life (consummatae vitae praecepta) 
are for both Testaments the same (iv. 12, 3). 

The new precepts which characterize Chris- 
tianity are, in the first place, the ordinances 
and institutions of the church. Among other 
distinguishing notes of the new law Irenaeus 
further emphasizes that Christians believe not 
in the Father only but also in the Son, that 
they do as well as say, and that they abstain 
from evil desires as well as from evil works 
(iv. 13, 1). Even while largely using Pauline 
language in speaking of Justification by Faith 


IRENAEUS 531 


(iv. 5,53 9, 1; 16, 2; 21, 1), his legal con- 
ception is still there. Faith is opposed by 
Irenaeus to the ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις of the 
heretics, and essentially consists in the recep- 
tion of the Regula Fidet, the Rule of Faith ; it 
is therefore simply defined as obedience to the 
will of God (iv. 16, 5), #.e. a moral duty, and 
not, as for St. Paul, the subjective form in 
which a new religious life and relation is first 
constituted. 

This legal conception leads Irenaeus further 
to insist on the freedom of the will, and on 
salvation as conditioned by a man’s own 
ethical self-determination. All Catholic prac- 
tical theology tends to limit the free forgive- 
ness of sins to the moment of baptism, and 
after that to make salvation dependent on a 
godly life and the performance of good works. 
In the same spirit Irenaeus quite innocently 
puts in juxtaposition justification by obedience 
tothenatural preceptsand justification by faith: 
““naturalia legis per quae homo justificatur 
quae etiam ante legislationem custodiebant 
qui fide justificabantur et placebant Deo”’ (iv. 
13, 1). He is led thus strongly to insist on 
the moral law by his opposition to the Gnostic 
teaching that the spiritual man is exempted 
from it and obtains salvation through his 
higher gnosis. His energetic assertion of the 
freedom of the will has also a polemical object 
—to refute the Valentinian dualistic doctrine, 
which made the salvation of the spiritual man 
the result of his original pneumatic nature (cf. 
esp. iv. 37). But this perfectly justifiable 
opposition leads Irenaeus to put too much in 
the background the doctrine of divine grace 
as the only source of human salvation. He 
even puts it as a divine requirement that in 
order to the Spirit’s resting upon them, Chris- 
tians must, beside their baptismal vocation, 
be also adorned with works of righteousness 
(iv. 36, 6). This seems inconsistent with the 
Pauline teaching that it is only by the gift of 
the Spirit that Christians are enabled to do 
good works at all. But, on the other hand, 
he says that the Spirit dwells in men as God's 
creation, working in them the will of the 
Father and renovating into the newness of 
Christ (iii. 17, 1). As dry ground, without 
dew from heaven, can bear no fruit, so neither 
can the soul perform good works without the 
irrigation of the water of life (iii. 17, 2). 

If in his legal conception Irenaeus may be 
said to anticipate the mode of thought which 
characterizes the Catholicism of a later time, 
the same cannot be said of his teaching on the 
sacraments. Indeed the sacramental side of 
Catholic theology did not take shape till 
through and after the Montanistic and Nova- 
tianist controversies. Whereas both these 
parties insisted on finding the church's sanc- 
tity in the spiritual endowments and personal 
holiness of individual members, ** Catholics ne 
sought for the note of holiness mainly in the 
church’s sacramental ordinances, or In mar- 
vellous operations of the Holy Spirit in certain 
functions of her public life. The chief organ 
of these operations would be the episcopate, 
which thus came to be viewed as not merely 
the guardian of doctrinal purity, but also the 
bearer of supernatural grace and powers, and 
following the type of the O.T. priesthood as a 
kind of mediator between God and men. This 


532. IRENAEUS 


side of the Catholic ideal of the church is not 
yet developed in the writings of Irenaeus. On 
the contrary, he insists on the original Chris- 
tian conception of the universal priesthood 
and outpouring of the Spirit on all believers 
(iv. 20, 6sqq.; v. 6,1; cf. iv. 13, 2 sqq.; 33; 
I sqq.), first, as against the Gnostics, and their 
claims to an exclusive possession of the divine 
πνεῦμα, and, secondly, against the false 
prophets, and their denial of the presence of 
the Spirit in the church (iii. rr, 9; iv. 33, 6). 
The sacramental idea of grace imparted 
through the church is for Irenaeus restricted 
to baptism as a divine institution for the sal- 
vation of man, the type of which is the ark 
of Noah (iv. 36, 4). Of priestly absolution and 
its sacramental significance he nowhere 
speaks; on the contrary, he adopts the 
saying of an elder which has a somewhat 
Montanistic ring about it—that after baptism 
there is no further forgiveness of sins (iv. 27, 
2). This, as is clear from the epistle of the 
Gallican confessors, is not meant to exclude 
the possibility of indulgence being extended 
to the fallen under any circumstances. The 
familiar thought of the Ignatian epistles, that 
separation from the episcopal altar is a separa- 
tion from the church herself, also finds no 
distinct utterance in the writings of Irenaeus. 
But in his time the ministration of the Euch- 
arist by bishops and presbyters was undoubt- 
edly a long-established custom. In regard to 
the dogma of the Holy Communion Irenaeus, 
like Justin Martyr, expresses the thought that 
through the invocation of Christ’s name over 
the earthly elements the Divine Logos does 
actually enter into such mysterious connexion 
with the bread and wine as to constitute a 
union of an earthly and a heavenly πρᾶγμα 
similar to that which took place at the Incar- 
nation itself. In virtue of this union of the 
Logos with the bread and wine those earthly 
substances are made the flesh and blood of 
Christ; and it appears to have been with 
Irenaeus a favourite thought, that through the 
partaking of Christ’s flesh and blood in the 
Holy Communion our earthly bodies are made 
partakers of immortality (iv. 18, 4 Seq. = 33, 2; 
Vv. 2, 2 seq. ; cf. also iv. 17, 5 seq. ; 18, 1Sqq., 
and the second Pfaffian fragment, Fr. Graec. 
XXXVI, ap. Harvey). 

The chief significance of Irenaeus as a theo- 
logian consists in his doctrine concerning the 
Person and Work of Christ. The doctrine of 
Christ’s Godhead was for the Gentile Chris- 
tianity of the post-apostolic age the theo- 
logical expression of the absolute significance 
of that divine revelation which was enshrined 
in His person and work. While the Gnostics 
regarded Christ as only one among numerous 
eradiations of the divine essence, thereby 
imperilling on the one hand the truth of the 
divine monarchia, and on the other the abso- 
lute and final character of the gospel revela- 
tion, the opposing doctrine of the Godhead of 
the Logos, and of His Incarnation in Jesus 
Christ, provided the exact theological truth 
and formula of which the Christian conscience 
felt the need, in order to gather into one the 
scattered elements which the multitude of 
Gnostic Aeons were dividing. Following the 
guidance of St. John’s gospel, the more 
philosophically cultured teachers of the church 


IRENAEUS 


—Justin, Theophilus, Tatian, Athenagoras, 
the Alexandrine Clemens, Origen, Tertullian, 
and Hippolytus—found in the doctrine of the 
Divine Logos the classical expression which 
they needed for the unique and absolute 
character of the gospel revelations. It was 
in antithesis both to the Gnostic doctrine of 
Aeons and the psilanthropism of the Ebionites 
that the Divine Logos or Eternal Thought of 
God Himself was conceived of as the personal 
organ of all divine revelation Which had 
issued from the inner life of the Divine Pater- 
nity. His manifestation in the flesh is there- 
fore the climax of all the revelations of God 
in the world. This Logos-doctrine Irenaeus 
adopted. The invisible Father is visible in 
the Logos (iv. 20, 7). The divine ‘‘ Pleroma ”’ 
(Irenaeus borrows the Gnostic term to express 
the fulness of divine perfection, ii. 1, 3 seq.) is 
revealed therein. God Himself is all Intelli- 
gence, all Thought, all Logos ; what He thinks 
He utters, what He utters He thinks; the 
all-embracing divine intelligence is the Father 
Himself, Who has made Himself visible in the 
Son (ii. 28, 5). The infinite, immeasurable 
Father is, in the words of some old teacher of 
the church, become measurable and compre- 
hensible in the Son (“‘immensus Pater in Filio 
mensuratus’’), for the Son is the ‘‘ measure of 
the Father,’ the manifestation of the Infinite 
in finite form (iv. 4, 2). In contrast with 
Tertullian, Irenaeus’s first great purpose and 
object is to emphasize the absoluteness and 
spirituality of God, and therefore to reject 
anything like a physical emanation (prolatio) 
of the Logos, lest God should be made into 
something composite, and something other 
than His own infinite thought (principalis 
mens), or His own Logos (ii. 28, 5). The older 
teachers of the Logos-doctrine conceived the 
generation of the Logos after the analogy of 
the temporal process from thinking to speak- 
ing, and assumed that His issuing from the 
Father as a distinct person, 1.6. the out- 
speaking of the inward divine thought, first 
took place at the creation. _ Tertullian repre- 
sented the same conception in a more sensuous 
form. The Father is for him the whole 
Godhead, the Son “‘ portio totius”’; and on 
this point he expressly recognizes the resem- 
blance between his view and that of the 
Gnostics (c. Drax. 8). Irenaeus, on the 
other hand, is driven by his own opposition to 
the Gnostic doctrine of Aeons to reject any- 
thing like a προβολή or prolatio from the God- 
head as a limitation of His infinity or an 
anthropomorphism. He is therefore the first 
doctor of the church who maintained with the 
utmost distinctness the eternal coexistence of 
the Son with the Father (‘‘semper coexistens 
Filius Patri,’’ ii. 30, 9; 111. 18, 1). Hisfrequent 
designation of the Son and Holy Spirit as the 
‘* Hands of God”’ is a figurative expression to 


denote Their being not so much emanations of. 


the Godhead as organs of its creative energy. 
To presumptuous endeavours to comprehend 
the way in which the Son comes from the 
Father he opposes our human ignorance, and 
mocks at the vain attempts of those who would 
transfer human relations to the Infinite and 
Unchangeable One (‘‘quasiipsi obstetricaverint 
prolationem enunciant,” 11. 28, 6). These 
polemics, if directed primarily against the 


a 


IRENAEUS 


Gnostics, are not less applicable to the 
emanistic theories of other teachers. On 
the other hand, the clearly marked division 
between the Logos-doctrine of an Hippolytus 
and Tertullian and the Patripassian concep- 
tion of it can hardly be said to exist for 
Irenaeus, who often speaks as if the eternal 
Logos were but the self-revealing side of the 
otherwise invisible and hidden Godhead, 
without one’s being always able to see how 
the personal distinction between the two can 
be thus maintained. His doctrine of the 
Logos was developed (unlike that of Tertullian 
and Hippolytus) without any direct reference 
to Patripassianism (of which no mention is 
made in his writings), while the true human 
personality of the Son is maintained against 
the Gnostics with as much decision as His true 
Godhead against the Ebionites. 

His conception of the Logos as the one great 
and absolute organ of all divine revelations 
leads Irenaeus, as it did Justin Martyr and the 
other Apologists, to refer back to His agency 
all the pre-Christian mantfestations of God (iv. 
20, 7seq.). But Irenaeus is the first Christian 
doctor who expressly applies this thought, in 
his conflict with the Gnostics, to the origina- 
tion of the Mosaic law (iv. 9). ‘‘ Both Testa- 
ments proceeded from one and the same head 
of the family (paterfamtlias), our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Word of God, Who spake (of old) 
to Abraham and to Moses”’ (cf. iv. 12, 4). 
But Irenaeus nowhere maintains the precepts 
of the old ceremonial law as obligatory upon 
Christians. 

The fulfilment of all previous revelations is 
attained in the personal manifestation of the 
Logos in the flesh. By the Incarnation of the 
Son the divine purpose in creation, the union 
(adunatio, communto, commixtio) of God and 
man, has been accomplished, and the end is 
brought back to the beginning (iv. 20, 2, 4; 
33, 43 V- 2, I, et passim). 

Together with the Logos the Spirit of God is 
often spoken of as an organ of divinerevelation. 
It is not, however, easy to determine their 
right relation one to the other. The designa- 
tion of the Holy Spirit as Wisdom (Sapientia) 
reminds us of the Alexandrine phraseology, in 
which λόγος and σοφία are also distinguished 
without the distinction being fully worked out 
or consistently adhered to. Irenaeus uses the 
term ‘‘ Sapientia ’’ of the Divine Spirit always. 
But the comprehension of his meaning is made 
somewhat difficult by his sometimes speaking 
of our communion with the Son as mediated 
by the Spirit (v. 36, 2), and sometimes of the 
historical manifestation of the Logos as the 
mean whereby men become partakers of the 
Spirit of the Father (iv. 38, 2). The solution 
probably is that Irenaeus uses the term 
“Spirit of God”’ in now a narrower, now a 
wider sense. In the narrower sense the Spirit 
is the organ of Divine Revelation in the heart 
and consciousness of man, and so distinguished 
from the Logos as the universal organ of 
Divine Revelation to all creatures and all 
παν τὴν ci. ii. 2%, 45 1V.: 33) Σ; 2; 
etc.). In the wider sense the Spirit is the 
inner Being of God Himself in contradistinc- 


IRENAEUS 533 


distinguished from the Logos as another divine 
hypostasis, “‘ progenies et figuratio Dei" (iv. 7, 
4; 20, I seq.) ; the latter, where the Spirit is 
spoken of as “ the bread of immortality "’ (iv. 
38, 1) and the life-giving principle from which 
endless life wells forth (v. 12, 2). It is with 
this latter meaning that Irenaeus, speaking of 
the humanity of Jesus Christ, expresses a 
thought, often recurred to by later theologians, 
that the Spirit is the anointing (unctio, χρίσμα) 
and bond of unity between the Father and the 
Son. The Holy Spirit is in fact, for him, also 
the uniting principle between God and man. 
God through the Spirit imparts Himself to 
man; man through the Incarnation enters 
into God (v. 1, 1). This last thought leads us 
on to the grand conception which Irenaeus 
entertains of the development of the whole 
human race from Adam up to Christ. Man 
was not from the first, according to Irenaeus, 
made perfect and immortal, but designed, in 
God’s purpose concerning him, to become so. 
But this can only be through the Spirit of 
God, and in order that man may be made 
partaker of the Spirit and thereby united to 
God, it was necessary that the Logos should 
become incarnate (iv. 38, 1 sqq.). The image 
of God (εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ), for which man was 
created, could not become visible before the 
Incarnation, and so man lost this image, the 
likeness of God, the possession of the Spirit 
(v. 16, 2), falling into sin by his own fault, and 
thereby coming not only under the power of 
natural death, but rendered incapable of 
exhibiting the image of God (v. 12, 2; 23, 
I seq.). Thus though Irenaeus regards sin, 
not like the Gnostics as a necessity of nature, 
but as man’s own free act, he yet works out 
the thought that God has permitted the exist- 
ence of evil because only by the contrast could 
goodness be appreciated, like health after 
sickness, light after darkness, life after death 
(iv. 37, 7; 39, 1). Without sin there would 
have been no consciousness of need, no desire 
for union with God, no thankfulness for His 
mercy (iii. 20, 1 544... The chief aim of 
Irenaeus in these disquisitions is again his 
conflict with Gnostic error, especially that of 
Marcion, who explained the origin of evil in 
the universe by the theory of two Gods—the 
highest and an inferior one. Irenaeus appro- 
priates the language of the prophet (Isa. xlv. 
6, 7), 1 am the Lord: I make peace, and create 
evil, and works out the thought that for the 
very sake of destroying evil a final recapitula- 
tio totius iniquitatis may be necessary (Vv. 29, 
2). Two equally significant thoughts must be 
distinguished in the full doctrine of Irenaeus 
concerning the Incarnation of the Logos and 
the divine purpose in the Incarnation: the 
idea of humanity being raised to perfection 
in Christ through union with the divine nature, 
and that of the victory gained by humanity 
in the God-man its Head over sin and the devil. 

The Incarnation is for Irenaeus not merely 
an historical fact, but has for its basis the 
eternal divine predestination of man. It was 
only by God becoming man that man could 
attain the predestined end of his original 
creation. The perfecting of humanity in 


tion to the material universe and the σάρξ Christ is also a realisation of the true idea of 
(caro) or human corporeity. The former sense | humanity—the Logos first assimilating Him- 


is always to be assumed where the Spirit is 


| self to man, and then man to Himself (‘‘semet 


534 IRENAEUS 


ipsum homini et hominem sibimet ipsi assimi- 
lans’’). ‘In past times it was said indeed that 
man had been made after God’s image, but it 
was not shewn. For the Logos was still 
invisible after Whose image man had been 
made. And on this very account did man 
also easily forfeit the likeness. But when 
the Logos of God became flesh He established 
both points: He truly exhibited the [divine] 
image, by Himself becoming that which was 
the image of Himself, and firmly restored the 
likeness by making man to be like the unseen 
Father ’’ (v. 16, 2). Man’s destination is to be 
like God, and by the attainment of this like- 
ness God’s great purpose is accomplished of 
indwelling in man, and so of uniting man to 
Himself (iii. 20, 2). Hence follows the neces- 
sity that He by Whom the perfecting of man 
was accomplished should be Himself both God 
and man. Irenaeus is therefore as strongly 
opposed to the Ebionitic as to the Docetic 
error. To the Ebionites he objects that they 
do not receive the doctrine of the commixture 
of the heavenly wine with the earthly water, 
the union of God and man, but, retaining the 
leaven of the old birth (after the flesh), abide 
in mortal flesh and in that death which dis- 
obedience has incurred (v. 1, 3; iii. 19, 1). 
It was necessary that the Logos should be- 
come man in order that man, receiving the 
Logos and obtaining the sonship, might be- 
come son of God. We could not obtain in- 
corruption and immortality except by being 
united to that which is incorruptible and im- 
mortal. Only through the absorption of the 
one by the other can we become partakers of 
the divine Sonship (iii. 19, 1; cf. iii. 18, 7). 
On the other hand, in opposition to Gnostic 
Docetism, Irenaeus insists no less strongly on 
the reality of the Incarnation of the Logos. 
If this were but putative, salvation would be 
putative also (iv. 33, 5). The mediator be- 
tween God and man must belong to both in 
order to unite both (iv. 18, 7). If we are 
truly to know God and enter into fellowship 
with the Divine Logos, our teacher must Him- 
self have become man. We need a teacher 
Whom we can see and hear, in order to be 
followers of His deeds and doers of His words 
(v. 1, τὴ. This fundamental thought—that 
the divine nature of which we are to be par- 
takers can be brought nigh to us only in the 
form of a genuine human existence—is ex- 
pressed elsewhere still more emphatically, 
when Irenaeus insists that Christ, in order 
to conduct the human race to its divine 
destination, must Himself belong to it, and 
take upon Him human flesh and all the char- 
acteristics of humanity; that if man is to be 
raised to God, God must come down to man 
(iv. 33, 4, πῶς ἄνθρωπος χωρήσει εἰς Θεόν, 
εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐχωρήθη εἰς ἄνθρωπον). The 
second Adam, the head of our spiritual hu- 
manity, must Himself come of the race of 
Adam in order to unite the end with the 
beginning (iii. 22, 3 seq.; 23, 1; iv. 34, 4; 
v. I, 3; 16, 1seq.). The profound conception 
of a recapitulatio (avaxe@aXaiwors) of human- 
ity in Christ is one to which Irenaeus per- 
petually recurs. (See iii. 18, 1; 22, 1, 3; 
23, 1; lv. 38, I; Vv. I, 2 Seq. ; 14, I; 23, 23 36, 
3; cf. iv. 40, 3; v. 16, 2). It was needful 
that Christ should recapitulate and pass 


IRENAEUS 


through all the stages of an ordinary human 
life in order to consecrate each of them in us, 
by a likeness to Himself in each (ii. 22, 4; iii. 
18, 7), and that He should come at the end 
of time in order to conduct all who from the 
beginning had hoped in Him to eternal life 
in fellowship with God (iv. 22, 1 seq.; cf. 27, 
1). As Christ was typically pre-formed in 
Adam (111. 22, 3), so was Adam’s destiny ac- 
complished in Christ (v. 1, 3; 16, 2seq.). The 
Spirit of God descended on the Son of God 
made man that in Him He might accustom 
Himself to an indwelling in the human race 
(ili. 17, 1). Man was to grow used to receive 
God, and God to indwell in man (ii. 20, 2). 
With this thought of the recapitulatio of the 
human race in Christ is combined another of 
equal depth and significance—that of the vtc- 
tory over sin and deliverance of sin’s captives 
from the power of Satan by the obedience of 
Christ. This deliverance or redemption was 
necessary before the divine purpose of the 
union of God and man could be accomplished. 
For if man, created by God for life, but cor- 
rupted by the serpent, had not returned to 
life, but been wholly subjected to death’s 
power, God would then have been defeated, 
and the devil’s iniquity proved itself stronger 
than His holy will. But God, triumphant and 
magnanimous, has by the second Adam 
(Christ) bound the strong man and spoiled his 
goods, and deprived death of its prey, and 
brought back man once slain to life. He who 
by false promises of life and the likeness of 
God had bound man in the chains of sin has 
now been justly made captive in his turn, and 
his prisoner, man, set free (iii. 23, 1 seq. ; cf. 
18,7; iv. 21, 3). The power of the devil over 
man consisted in man’s sin, and the apostasy 
into which the devil had seduced him (v. 21, 3), 
but now the disobedience of one man has been 
repaired by one man’s obedience (iii. 18, 7; 
21, 10). The first Adam was initium morien- 
tium, the second Adam tinitium viventium, 
Who needed to be both God and man, no less 
in order to become the saviour than to be the 
perfecter of mankind (ili. 22, 4; v. I, 3). 
Only One Who was Himself man could over- 
come man’s enemy, and bind in his turn him 
by whom man had been bound; in this way 
alone could the victory over the enemy be 
altogether just. So, on the other hand, only 
One Who was also God could accomplish a 
redemption which should be stable and sure 
(iii. 18, 7; v. 21, 3). Christ must be truly 
man to be as man truly tempted, must be 
born of a woman to deliver those who by a 
woman had been brought under the devil’s 
power, and must truly live and suffer as a man 
in order as man to fight and triumph. Again, 
He must also be the Logos in order to be 
glorified, in order as the strong one to over- 
come the enemy in whose power the whole 
human race found itself (iii. 18, 6, 7; 19, 3; 
ἵν. 33),45 V--17; 35 2%, Lj) 22; τῇ" andfinally 
that man might learn that it is not through 
himself but only through God’s mercy that 
he obtains incorruption (v. 21, 3). The re- 
capitulation of mankind in Christ consists 
therefore not only in man’s original destiny 
being accomplished by the beginner of a new 
humanity, but also in His taking up and 
conducting to a triumphant issue, at the end 


te νοι 


IRENAEUS 


of time, the conflict wherein, at the beginning, 
man had been overcome. The victory of God 
made man is man’s victory, since all humanity 
is summed up (recapitulated) in Christ. Man 
must himself leave the evil one bound with 
the same chains wherewith he himself had 
been bound—the chains of transgression (v. 
21, 3); but the first man could not thus have 
triumphed, having been by him seduced and 
bound, but only the second man, the Son of 
God, after Whose image Adam was created, and 
Who has become man in order to take back 
His old creation (‘‘ antiquam plasmationem ’’) 
into Himself (iv. 33, 4). The devil had ob- 
tained πῆς dominion over the first man by 
deceit and violence; whereas the redemption 
of the new race had taken place not with 
violence but, as became God, by free persua- 
sion (‘‘secundum suadelam, quemadmodum 
decebat Deum suadentem, non vim infer- 
entem, accipere quae vellet,’’ v. 1, 1). The 
dominion of the devil is an unjust dominion, 
for he, like a robber, has seized and taken to 
himself what did not belong to him, estranged 
us from our original godlike nature, and made 
us into his own disciples. Divine justice de- 
mands that what the devil has obtained by 
conflict should in a lawful conflict be won back 
from him. The Son of God deals, according 
to His own sense of right, with the apostasy 
itself, redeeming from it, at a price, that which 
was His own(‘‘nondeficiensinsua justitia juste 
etiam adversus ipsam conversus est aposta- 
siam, ea quae sunt sua redimens ab ea,” v. I; 
1; cf. 24, 4. Christ came not snatching with 
deceit that which was another’s, but justly and 
graciously resuming that which was His own ; 
justly in regard to the apostasy (the evil one) 
from whose power He redeemed us with His 
own blood, and graciously in reference to us 
whom He so redeemed (v. 2, 1). The per- 
suasion (suadela) of which the Son of God made 
use consisted, so far as the devil was con- 
cerned, in his free consent to accept the re- 
demption price of the Lord’s death for his 
prisoners; and so the Lord redeemed us, 
giving His soul for our souls and His flesh for 
our flesh (v. 1, 1). Two thoughts are here to 
be distinguished. The first is that of Christ’s 
victorious conflict with the evil one, maintain- 
ing, spite of all his temptations, full and entire 
obedience to the Father, unmasking Satan as 
rebel and deceiver, and thereby proving Him- 
self the strong one (v. 21, 2 seq.). The second 
is that of redemption through Christ’s blood, 
which is expressly represented as a price paid 
to the devil and by him voluntarily received. 
The first thought is developed mainly with 
reference to the temptation in the wilderness. 
In the third temptation the evil one is com- 
pletely exposed and called by his true name, 
the Son of God appears as victor, and, by His 
obedience to the divine command, absolves 
the sin of Adam (v. 21, 2). With this chain 
of thought, complete in itself, the other theory 
of a redemption-price paid in the blood of 
Christ, is placed in no connexion. It is not 
said that the devil, acting up to his rights, 
caused the Saviour’s death, which indeed is 
represented from another point of view as a 
price legitimately offered and paid down to 
him (v. 1, τ). The thought, moreover, sub- 
sequently worked out by Origen, that the 


IRENAEUS 535 


devil deceived himself with the hope of bring- 
ing under his power One Whom he was too 
weak to hold, is not found in Irenaeus. But 
along with this conception of the redemption- 
price offered to the devil appears another 
thought, that man has been reconciled to God 
by the sacrifice of the body of Christ and the 
shedding of His blood (v. 14, 3). 

It must be allowed that Irenaeus gives no 
complete dogmatic theory with regard to the 
nature of Christ's work of redemption, for 
his theological speculations nowhere appear 
as an independent system, but are simply 
developed in polemical contrast to those of 
the heretical gnosis. By this conflict with 
Gnosticism the currents of Christian religious 
thought were once more put in rapid move- 
ment and problems which had exercised St. 
Paul were again before the church. 

A new letter of St. Irenaeus of considerable 
importance was discovered in 1904 by an 
Armenian scholar in the Church of the Virgin 
at Erivan in Russian Armenia, and trans. into 
German with notes by Dr. Harnack (1907). 
It was written to his friend Marcian and pos- 
sibly intended as a manual for catechising 
(Drews, Der lit. Charakter der neuernt deck- 
ten Schrift des Iren. 1907). For an account 
of it see Essay VI. in Dr. Knowling’s Messt- 
anic Interpretation (S.P.C.K. 1911). 

Literature.—The Vita Irenaet of Feuardent 
and that of Peter Halloix; the Dissertationes 
in Irenaeum of Dodwelland those of Massuet ; 
the Prolegomena of Harvey (Preliminary 
Matter, 1. Sources and Phenomena of Gnostic- 
ism; 11. Life and Writings of St. Irenaeus) ; 
Tillemont, Mémoires, iii. 77 sqq. and 619 5646. ; 
Lipsius, Dte Zeit des Irenaeus von Lyon und 
die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche in 
Sybel’s Histor. Zeitschrift, xxviil. pp. 241 Sqq.; 
Lightfoot, The Churches of Gaul, in Contemp. 
Review, Aug. 1876, pp. 405 sqq-; the post- 
humous work of Dean Mansel, The Gnostte 
Heresies of the First and Second Centurtes 
(London, 1875). Some translations of Iren- 
aeus are in the Ante-Nic. Fathers, and bk. ili. 
of adv. Haer. has been trans. by H. Deane 
with notes and glossary (Clar. Press). A 
critical ed. of adv. Haer. is pub. by the Camb. 
Univ. Press in 2 vols. [R.A.L.] 

Irenaeus (7), count of the empire and sub- 
sequently bp. of Tyre, while a layman took 
a zealous interest in theological controversies 
and was ardently attached to the cause of his 
personal friend Nestorius. In 431 Irenaeus 
unofficially accompanied Nestorius to the 
council of Ephesus (Labbe, Concsl. tii. 443), 
employing his influence in behalf of his friend 
to the great irritation of Cyril and his party 
(ib. 749, 762; Baluze, 496, 524). When, five 
days after Cyril had hastily secured the con- 
demnation of Nestorius, the approach of John 
of Antioch and the Eastern bishops was an- 
nounced, Irenaeus, accompanied by a guard of 
soldiers, hurried out to apprise them of the 
high-handed proceedings of the council. He 
was followed by deputies from the council, 
who, as Memnon relates, were at the count’s 
instigation maltreated by the soldiers, and 
prevented from having an audience with Jobn 
(Labbe, ἐδ. 764; Mercator, 1). praef. xxvil.). 
To counteract the influence of Dalmatius and 
the monastic party at Constantinople, the 


536 IRENAEUS 


Eastern bishops deputed Irenaeus to proceed 
thither with letters to the emperor and the 
leading officers of state, narrating their side 
(Labbe, ἐδ. 717-720). Irenaeus obtained an 
audience of Theodosius, and his statement of 
the proceedings was so convincing that Theo- 
dosius was on the point of pronouncing the 
condemnation of Nestorius illegal, when the 
arrival of John, the Syncellus of Cyril, entirely 
frustrated his efforts. 

The decree of Theodosius which banished 
Nestorius, Aug. 435, pronounced the same 
sentence against Irenaeus and a presbyter 
named Photius, as propagators of his impiety. 
Stripped of his honours, his property confis- 
cated, he was deported to Petra (Baluz. p. 
884, c. clxxxviii, clxxxix.), and passed 12 years 
in his Arabian banishment without once par- 
ticipating in Christian ordinances. His time 
was spent in the preparation of a history of 
the troubled scenes in which he had taken 
part, known as the Tvagoedia Irenaet. The 
invectives in this work against Theodoret, 
Ibas, and all who had questioned Nestorius’s 
perfect orthodoxy, render it probable that it 
was written early in his banishment, and that 
the lapse of time brought calmer thoughts. 
His doctrinal views seem also to have received 
some modification during this period, for at 
its close the banished heretic suddenly re- 
appeared as the unanimous choice of the 
bishops of the province of Phoenicia for the 
vacant metropolitical see of Tyre, their choice 
being ratified by the leading members of the 
episcopate of Pontus and Palestine and ac- 
cepted with warm commendation by Proclus of 
Constantinople. The date of his ordination 
as bp. of Tyre must have been before the end 
of 446. Since the reconciliation of John of 
Antioch and Cyril, a kind of truce had existed 
between the two parties—the Egyptians and 
Orientals—which this elevation of a leading 
Nestorian sympathiser to the episcopate ren- 
dered no longer possible. Irenaeus had been 
consecrated by Domnus, the patriarch of 
Antioch, who, therefore, was the first object 
of attack. He was plied with missives from 
the dominant clerical party at Constantinople, 
asserting that the election of a convicted 
heretic and a digamus was ipso facto null and 
void and charging him under severe threats 
to proceed to a fresh election. The emperor’s 
name was adroitly kept in the background; 
but it was implied that the malcontents were 
acting with his sanction. Domnus turned for 
counsel to Theodoret, who replied that ‘it 
was better to fall under the ill-will of man than 
to offend God and wound one’s own con- 
sclence.’’ But the ruin of Irenaeus had been 
resolved on, and Theodosius was compelled to 
seal with his imperial authority the act of 
deposition. An edict was issued (Feb. 17, 
448), renewing those formerly published 
against the Nestorians, and commanding that 
Irenaeus should be deposed from his see, 
deprived of the dress and title of priest, com- 
pelled to live as a layman in his own country 
and never set foot again in Tyre. Domnus, 
unwilling to consecrate a successor, sought to 
temporise, until fear of ulterior consequences 
prevailed over his scruples, and Photius was 
made bp. of Tyre, Sept. 9, 448 (Actes du 
Brigand. pp. 134, 143),and Irenaeus disappears 


ISAACUS I. 


entirely from the scene. The Latrocinium in 
449 confirmed his deposition, after that of 
Ibas and Daniel of Charrae, and passed an 
anathema on him (Martin, Actes du Brigandage, 
pp. 82-86; Evagr. H. E.i. 10). As Irenaeus 
is not mentioned at the council of Chalcedon, 
he was probably no longer alive. 

During the latter part of his career Irenaeus 
enjoyed the friendship and confidence of 
Theodoret, who speaks highly of his ortho- 
doxy, magnanimity, liberality towards those 
in adversity, especially those who had known 
better times, and of his other virtues (Ep. 35, 
110), and wrote him frequent letters. 

Irenaeus’s great historical work, the Tva- 
goedia, has unfortunately perished and is only 
known to us from an ill-executed Latin 
translation of large portions of it, made sub- 
sequently to the time of Justinian by a parti- 
san of ‘‘ the Three Chapters.’’ The anonymous 
translator, who has given very little more 
than the letters and other documents, in- 
valuable for the light thrown on the trans- 
actions of the period, together with the 
summaries of Irenaeus and some interpola- 
tions and explanations of his own, sometimes 
barely intelligible, entitled his work Synodicon. 

Tillem. Mém. eccl. xiv. 606-608, 613, 614 
et passim; xv. 264-266, 578, 579 et passim; 
Cave, Hust. Lit. i. 437; Le Quien, Or. Christ. 
ii. 807 ; Labbe, Concil. tom. iii. passim; Bal- 
uze, Nov. Coll. Concil. passim ; Abbé Martin, 
Le Brigandage @ Ephése, pp. 82-95, 183. [E.v.] 

Isaacus (7) I., St. (Sahag the Great, 
Parthev the Parthian), catholicos of the 
church of Greater Armenia for 40 or 51 years, 
390-441. Moses of Khorene states that he 
belonged to the house of the founder of the 
Armenian church, Gregory the Illuminator. 
His long patriarchate is remarkable for the 
invention of the Armenian characters by 
Mesrob, the translation of the Scriptures into 
the Armenian language, and the commence- 
ment of the golden age of Armenian literature ; 
for the revision of the Armenian liturgy, first 
translated from the Greek by Gregory, which 
has continued unaltered ever since in the 
Armeno-Gregorian church; and for the 
destruction of the independence of Armenia. 
At the commencement of his patriarchate 
Isaac visited the Persian king at Ctesiphon, 
where, on behalf of his sovereign, he acknow- 
ledged Armenia to be tributary to Persia. 
Owng to the troubled state of the country he 
was virtually ruler for several years. In 428, 
from which date Armenian chronology be- 
comes more certain (St. Martin, Mém. sur 
lv Arménie, i. 320, n.), the Persian king deposed 
Ardaces IV., the last of the Armenian Arsaci- 
dae, and Isaac retired into Western Armenia, 
either by order of the Persian monarch or 
through the enmity of the satraps of his own 
country, whom it is said he had offended by 
refusing to join in their plans. Whilst in 
Western Armenia (428-439) he sent Mesrob to 
Constantinople with letters to Theodosius II., 
and the general Anatolius, who was com- 
missioned by the emperor to build the city of 
Theodosiopolis (called Garin by the Arme- 
nians, Erzeroumby the Turks), near the sources 
of the Euphrates, as a place of refuge for 
Isaac. Meanwhile the Persian kings set up 
others as patriarchs in his stead, but at length 


ISAACUS NINIVITA 


the Armenian satraps repented and invited 
Isaac to resume his throne. This he refused 
to do, but appointed one administrator in his 
stead, according to some Mastentzes, accord- 
ing to Moses of Khorene Samuel, nominated 
by the Persian king. After the death of his 
vicar he seems to have partially resumed his 
episcopal functions over the whole Armenian 
community. On account of the patriarch’s 
expulsion, the archbp. of Cappadocian 
Caesarea disallowed the ordination of bishops, 
which had been conceded to Isaac; but by the 
influence of the Persians all connexion between 
Armenia and Caesarea was from this time forth 
broken off—a fact which tended towards the 
isolation of the Armenian church. Isaac did 
not attend the general council of Ephesus. 
He died at the age of 110 years, being the last 
Armenian patriarch of the family of Gregory 
the Illuminator ; he was followed to the grave 
in six months by his friend Mesrob. Moses 
of Khorene, bk. iii. cc. xlix.-Ixviii., in Langlois, 
Hist. de l Arménie, ii. 159-173; St. Martin, 
Mém. sur lArménie, i. 437; Galanus, Hist. 
Arm. c. vii. ; Le Quien, Oriens Christ. i. 1375; 
Malan, Life of St. Gregory, p. 28. {L.D.] 

Isaacus (14) Ninivita, anchorite and bishop 
towards the end of the 6th cent. An anony- 
mous Life prefixed to his works states that he 
was by birth a Syrian, and, with his brother 
who became abbat, entered the great monas- 
tery of St. Matthew at Nineveh. Afterwards 
he retired to a lonely cell, where he long 
remained. Isaac’s fame as an anchorite be- 
came so great that he was raised to the 
bishopric of Nineveh, which, however, he 
resigned on the very day of his consecration, 
owing to an incident which convinced him 
that his office was superfluous in a place where 
the gospel was little esteemed. Feeling also 
that episcopal functions interfered with the 
ascetic life, he finally retired to the desert of 
‘Scete or Scetis, where he died. Lambecius 
(Comment. lib. v. pp. 74 sqq.), Cave (Hist. Lit. 
i. 519) and others confuse him with another 
Isaacus Syrus. 

Works.—Ebedjesu (Cat. p. 63) writes that 
“he composed seven tomes on spiritual guid- 
ance, and on divine mysteries, judgments, 
and government.’’ A considerable number, 
though not all, of these discourses are extant 
in Syriac, Arabic, and Greek MSS. in the 
Vatican and other libraries. Fifty-three of 
his homilies were rendered from Greek into 
Latin, δ. 1407, by a monk who freely abridged 
and altered the order of his original. In this 
form they appear in the various Brbliothecae 
Patrum, as a continuous treatise entitled de 
Contemptu Mundi, uniformly but wrongly 
attributed to Isaacus Antiochenus. 

He is much quoted by the old Syrian writers. 
His style teems with metaphor ; his matter is 
often interesting, both theologically and 
historically. He treats mainly of the ascetic 
life, its rules and spiritual experiences. 
Watching, fasting, silence, and solitude are 
means to self-mastery. There are three 
grades of anchorites—novices, proficients, and 
the perfect. The worth of actions is gauged 
by the degree of the love of God which inspires 
them. By the thoughts which stir within, a 
man may learn to what grade of holiness he 
has risen. There are three methods by which 


ISAACUS 537 


every rational soul can approach unto God— 
viz. love, fear, divine training. He who has 
gotten love feeds on Christ at all times, and 
becomes immortal (John vi. 52). Sermons 8, 
47, 48 (B. M. cod. 694) treat of the alternations 
of light and darkness, the deep dejection and 
sudden ecstasy to which anchorites were 
subject. For the former Isaacus prescribes 
holy reading and prayer—" infer tibi violen- 
tiam ad orandum, et praestolare auxilium, et 
veniet tibi teignorante."’ Serm. 23 is directed 
against those who asked, If God be good, why 
did He create sin, Gehenna, Death, and Satan? 
Elsewhere Isaacus says that there is a natural 
faculty whereby we discern good from evil, to 
lose which is to sink lower than one’s natural 
state; and this faculty precedes faith, and 
leads us thereto. There is also a faculty of 
spiritual knowledge which is the offspring of 
faith. He explains the ‘‘ many mansions" 
of heaven as meaning the different capacities 
of the souls abiding there—a difference not of 
place but of grace. 

Zingerle (Mon. Syr. i. 97 sqq.) has published 
Serm. 31, On the natural offspring of the virtues, 
and Serm. 43, On the vartous grades of know- 
ledge and faith. Other titles are, On the differ- 
ences of revelations and operations in holy men ; 
In how many ways the perception of things 
tncorporeal is received by the nature of man 
(B. M. cod. 694, 14 and 24); That tt ts wrong 
without necessity to desire or expect any sign 
manifested through us or to us (do. 695, 46). 

A short tract, de Cogttationibus (περὶ 
λογισμῶν), attributed to this Isaacus, is given 
in Migne, vol. Ixxxvi., along with the de Con- 
temptu Mundi. A book, de Causa Causarum 
or Liber Generalis ad Omnes Gentes, treating of 
God and the creation and government of the 
universe, has been assigned to this Isaacus ; 
it really belongs to Jacobus Edessenus (fl. 710), 
see Pohlmann, Zettschr. d. Morgenland. 
Gesellsch. (1861), p. 648. 

Cf. Wright’s Cat. Syr. MSS. in Brit. Mus. 
vol. ii. pp. 569-581; de Contemptu Mundt in 
Migne, Patr. Curs. Gk. 1xxxvi. pp. 811-885 ; 
Assem. Bibl. Orient. i. 444-463, lil. 104, ete. ; 
Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 519; Fabric. Brblioth. 
Graec. xi. 114-122 Harl.; Casimir Oudin, 
Comment. de Scriptor. Eccl. i. coll. 1400-1405 ; 
Ceillier, xii. 100. [c.J.B.] 

Isaacus (21), a Donatist who, together with 
Maximianus, met his death at Carthage in 
consequence of the cruel punishment inflicted 
by order of the proconsul of Africa, A.D. 348. 
The history is related by a fellow-Donatist 
named Macrobius; and though he does not 
mention the name of the proconsul, doubtless 
the tragedy took place in connexion with the 
mission into Africa of Paulus and Macarius. 
The narrative is told in barbarous Latin and 
a rhetorical style so turgid as to suggest the 
suspicion of exaggeration in the details. But 
these, horrible as they are, agree too well with 
what we know to have taken place in other 
cases. Maximianus suffered first, but Isaac 
provoked the anger of the judges by his 
taunting exclamations and was forthwith 
compelled to undergo a treatment no less 
brutal. Having been first scourged with 
‘‘plumbata,” a whip armed with leaden 
bullets, and then beaten with sticks, they were 
both cast into prison, but Isaac disappointed 


538 ISAACUS 

the further violence of his tormentors by 
death. This took place on a Saturday. 
Crowds immediately flocked to the prison, 
singing hymns as if it were the eve of Easter, 
and they watched beside the corpse to ensure 
it Christian burial. To disappoint this 
intention, the proconsul on the day following 
gave orders that both the living man and the 
dead body should be cast together into the 
sea. To execute this command, the soldiers 
were obliged to clear the way from the prison 
by force, and many persons were wounded in 
the struggle. The two victims were thrown 
into the sea at some distance from each other 
in baskets weighted with sand to ensure their 
sinking. But the action of the waves, caused, 
according to thewriter’s belief, by divine inter- 
position, tore away the sand, and after six 
days brought the two bodies together to shore, 
where they were received with welcome by 
their fellow-Christians on their way to the 
churches and received Christian burial, the 
malice of those who had sought to deprive 
them of it being thus gloriously defeated. 

Notwithstanding the inflated style of the 
narrative (very different, as Mabillon remarks 
truly, from that of the existing accounts of the 
deaths of true Catholic martyrs), and notwith- 
standing the very slight notice St. Augustine 
takes of the event, into which he acknowledges 
that he had made very little inquiry, and also 
despite his evident success in convicting some 
accounts of Donatist martyrdoms of in- 
accuracy, if not of direct falsehood, there 
seems no reason for doubting the substantial 
truth of this narrative, especially as Marculus, 
in Dec. of the same year, suffered death for a 
similar cause and with similar circumstances 
of cruelty. Neither can we doubt that the 
cause for which these men suffered was 
essentially one of religion. True, St. Augus- 
tine compares such cases to that of Hagar, and 
elsewhere argues in favour of the duty of the 
state as the guardian of truth to repress 
heresy and insinuates that those guilty of this 
offence are punished not so much on account 
of religion as of treason or disloyalty; but 
we must bear in mind that (1) the proceedings 
here related took place six years before St. 
Augustine’s birth, and had not been repeated 
in his time, and that thus he was no witness 
either to the truth or falsehood of the narra- 
tives; (2) the behaviour and language of 
Isaac remind us more of an angry partisan 
than a Christian martyr; (3) the glaring faults 
of the narrative in style and temper do not 
extenuate the treatment which, after every 
allowance for exaggeration, the sufferers must 
have endured. Aug. Tr. in Joann. xi. 15; 
c. Cresc. iii. 49, 54; Mabillon, Vet. Anal. 
p- 185; Mon. Vet. Don. No. 29, pp- 237, 248, 
ed. Oberthiir; Ceillier, v. 106; Morcelli, 
Africa Christiana, ii. 249. [H.Ww.P.] 

Isaacus (28). Several eminent solitaries of 
the Egyptian deserts in the 4th cent. bore this 
name. The references are scattered up and 
down in the Vitae Patrum, and it is not always 
clear which Isaac is intended. The following 
seem to be distinct persons. 

(i) Abbat Isaacus, presbyter of the anchor- 
ites in the Scetic desert (ἡ Σκῆτις, Copt. 
Schiét), S.W. of Lake Mareotis. At 7 years 
of age he withdrew from the world, a.p. 


ISAACUS 


358, and attached himself to Macarius of 
Alexandria, the disciple of St. Anthony. 
Palladius relates of abbat Isaac that he knew 
the Scriptures by heart, lived in utter purity, 
and could handle deadly serpents (κεράσται) 
without harm. He lived in solitude for 50 
years, his followers numbering 150. Certain 
anecdotes in the Apophthegmata Patrum 
appear to belong to him. ‘‘ Abbat Isaac was 
wont to say to the brethren, Our fathers and 
abbat Pambo wore old bepatched raiment and 
palm husks (σεβένια); nowadays ye wear 
costly clothing. Hence! It was ye who 
desolated the district.’’ (Scetis was overrun, 
c. 395, by the Mazices, a horde of merciless 
savages.) 

Cassianus, who was in Scetis A.D. 398, con- 
versed with Isaacus, to whom he assigns the 
gth and roth of his Conferences (Collationes), 
which treat of prayer. In the former Isaacus 
distinguishes four kinds of prayer, according 
to I. Tim. ii. 1 (Collat. 9, cc. 9-14). Then he 
expounds at length the Lord’s Prayer (cc. 
18-23). The highest type, however, is 
prayer ‘‘ unuttered, unexpressed,”’ like that 
of Christ on the mountain or in the garden 
(c. 25, de qualitate sublimiorts orattonts). In 
c. 36 he advises short and frequent petitions 
(‘‘frequenter quidem sed breviter’’), lest, while 
we linger, the foe suggest some evil thought. 

The roth Conference begins by relating how 
the patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria scan- 
dalized the Scetic anchorites by his Paschal 
Letter denouncing Anthropomorphism, and 
how the aged abbat Serapion, though con- 
vinced of his error, could not render thanks 
with the rest, but fell a-weeping and crying, 
“They have taken my God from me!” 
Cassianus and the other witnesses asked 
Isaacus to account for the old man’s heresy. 
Isaacus made it a survival of heathen ideas of 
Deity in a simple and unlettered mind (ccs 
I-5). Isaacus proceeds to shew how to attain 
to perfect and unceasing prayer. That will 
be realized when all our love and desire, 
every aim, effort, thought, all that we con- 
template, speak of, hope for, is God ; when we 
are united with Him by an enduring and in- 
dissoluble affection. C. 10 gives as a prayer 
suited to all emergencies the verse Ps. Ixx. 1. 
Ill prays he who only prays when upon his 
knees. He prays never, who even upon his 
knees is distracted by wandering thoughts. 
Such as we would be found when praying, such 
should we be before we pray. 

When 50 years old Isaacus was expelled 
from his desert by Theophilus of Alexandria, 
albeit that prelate had made bishops of seven 
or eight of his anchorites. Isaacus turned for 
succour to St. Chrysostom and Olympias. He 
was still living in A.D. 408. 

Sources.—Pallad. Dialog. de Vita Chrysost. 
in Patr. Gk. xlvii. 59, 60; Casstant Massil. 
Collat. 9, το, in Migne, xlix. 770 sqq. ; Apoph- 
thegmata Patr. ib. Ιχν. 223; a number of 
anecdotes headed περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αββᾶ ᾿Ισαὰκ τοῦ 
πρεσβυτέρου τῶν Κελλίων, but referring to 
several persons, cf. de Vit. Patr. lib. iii.col. 752, 
in Migne, Ixxiii.; Tillem. Mém. viii. 650, 617, 
648, and 813, n. vi. ; Ceillier, viii. 174-177. 

(ii) Isaacus, presbyter and abbat of the 
Nitrian desert, sometimes called Presbyter of 
the Cells (Κελλία N. of Nitria). The chief 


ISAACUS 


account of this Isaacus is also in Palladius 
(Dialog. Migne, xlvii. coll. 59, 60). He was | 
head of 210 recluses. His charity and humil- 

ity were famous. He built a hospital for the 

sick and for the numerous visitors to his 

community. Like Isaacus of Scetis, he was 

an adept in the Scriptures. Like him, too, 

after 30 years in the desert, he was driven forth | 
c. 400 by the patriarch Theophilus, who had 
chosen a number of his disciples to be bishops. 
The A pophthegmata Patrum gives some stories | 
about Isaac of the Cells. ‘‘ The abbat Isaac 

said, In my youth I lived with abbat Cronius. 

Old and trembling as he was, he would never 

bid me do anything; he would rise by him- 

self, and hand the water-cruse (τὸ βαυκάλιονν, 
to me and the rest. And abbat Theodore of 
Phermé, with whom also I lived, would set out 
the table by himself and say, ‘ Brother, if thou 
wilt, come and eat.’ I said, ‘ Father, I came 
to thee to profit: why dost not bid me do 
somewhat ?’ He answered never a word; 
but when the old men asked him the same 
thing, he broke out with, ‘ Am I Coenobiarch, 
that I should command him? If he like, | 
what he sees me doing, he will himself do.’ 

Thenceforward I forestalled the old man’s 
purposes. And I had learned the lesson of 
doing in silence.”’ 

It appears that, after the persecution of 
Theophilus, Isaacus had returned to his 
desert. In the Apoph. Patr., Migne, t. Ixv. 
223, 239, there are other anecdotes concerning | 
him (cf. Tillem. Mém. viii. 623-625). 

(iii) Isaacus, called Thebaeus, an anchorite 
of the Thebaid, probably notidentical with (ii), 
although Cronius, the master of the Cellia, at 
one time lived in the Thebaid (Vit. Patr. lib. 
vii. col. 1044, Migne, t. Ixxili.). Alardus 
Gazaeus, the Benedictine annotator of Cassia- 
nus, writes (Collat. 9 ad init.) that there were 
two chief anchorites named Isaac; one who 
lived in the Scetic desert, and another called 
Thebaeus, often mentioned in the Vitae 
Patrum and in Pratum Spirttuale, c. 161. 

Once Isaac (‘‘ de Thebaida,’’ Vit. Patr. v.) 
had banished an offending brother from the 
congregation. When he would have entered 
his cell, an angel stood in the way. ‘‘ God 
sends me to learn where you wish Him to 
bestow the solitary whom you have con- 
demned.’’ The abbat owned his fault and 
was forgiven, but was warned not to rob God 
of His prerogative by anticipating His judg- 
ments. Isaac Thebaeus used to say to the 
brethren, ‘‘ Bring no children hither. Four 
churches in Scetis have been desolated, owing 
to children.”’ 

Sources.—A poph. Patr. col. 240, in Migne, 
Ixv.; de Vit. Patr. lib. v. in Migne, Ixxiii. 
(version of an unknown Greek author by 
Pelagius, c. 550), coll. 909, 918; de Vit. Patr. 
iii. col. 786 (prob. by Rufinus). 

(iv) Isaacus, disciple of St. Apollos, probably 
lived at Cellia. He was accomplished in every 
good work. On his way to the church he 
would hold no converse with any, and after 
communion he would hurry back to his cell, 
without waiting for the cup of wine and 
the food (mataudrns) usually handed round 
among the brethren after service. ‘‘ A lamp 
goes out, if one hold it long in the open air ; 
and if I, kindled by the holy oblation, linger | 


| and yet is from another. 


ISAACUS ANTIOCHENUS 539 


outside my cell, my mind grows dark” 
(Apoph. Patr. col. 241). [c.J.B.] 
saacus (29) Senior, mentioned in an anony- 
mous Life of Ephraim the Syrian among the 
more distinguished disciples of Epbraim who 
were also Syriac writers. He is cited by 
Joannes Maro (Tract. ad Nest. et Eutych.), by 
Bar-hebraeus (Hist. Dynast.91), and by many 
other Syriac and Arabic authors, most of 
whom, however, confuse him with Isaac pres- 
byter of Antioch (Assemani, B. O. i. 165). 
Gennadius in his de Scriptor. Eccl. c. 26, says: 
“Isaac wrote, concerning the Three Persons 
of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the 
Lord, a book of very dark disputation and 
involved discourse; proving that there are 
three Persons in the one Godhead, each pos- 
sessing a proprium peculiar to himself. The 
proprium of the Father is that He is the origin 
of the others, yet Himself without origin; 
that of the Son is that, though begotten, He is 
not later than His begetter ; that of the Holy 
Ghost is that It is neither made nor begotten, 
\ Of the Incarnation 
he writes that two Natures abide in the one 
Person of the Son of God."’ This chapter 
precedes those about Marcarius and Evagrius 
Pontinus, who lived ante 400. It is hence 
inferred that Isaac flourished about the end 
of the 4th cent. (Cave, i. 415, places him 
c. 430 (?), but some put him a century earlier.) 
The work of Isaac, not unfairly described 
by Gennadius, is entitled Libellus Fides SS. 
Trinitatis et Incarnationis Domint. It is a 
brief treatise, and is printed in Migne, Patr. 
Gk. xxxiili. In a codex Pithoeanus, teste 
Sirmond, the title is Fides Isaacts (or Isacts) 
ex Judaeo. Hence Isaac Senior has been 
identified by Tillemont (viii. 409) with Isaac 
the converted Jew who calumniated pope 
Damasus. Assemani thinks that the silence 
of Gennadius and his epitomizer Honorius 
renders it doubtful that Isaac Senior, the 
author of the Libellus Fidet, was a Jew. Cf. 
also Galland. vii. Prol. p. xxv.; Ceillier, vi. 


290; Mansi, iii. 504 B; Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 

2378. ἘΣ. [c.J-B.] 
Isaacus (31) Antiochenus, born at Amid 

(Diarbekir) in Mesopotamia, called ‘“ the 


Great’ and ‘‘ the Elder,”’ a priest of Antioch 
in Syria, said to have visited Rome. His 
teacher was Zenobius the disciple of St. 
Ephraim, not (as Cave) Ephraim himself. 
The Chronicle of Edessa speaks of him as an 
archimandrite, without specifying his monas- 
tery, which was at Gabala in Phoenicia. He 
died c. 460. He is sometimes confused with 
Isaacus of Nineveh. Bar-hebraeus (Hzst. 
Dynast. p. 91) unjustly brands him as a heretic 
and arenegade. He was author of numerous 
works in Syriac, of which the chief were 
polemics against the Nestorians and Euty- 
chians, and of a long elegy on the overthrow 
of Antioch by the earthquake of 459. He 
also wrote a poem on the Ludi Seculares, held 
by Honorius in his sixth consulship (A.D. 404), 
and another on the sack of Rome by Alaric 
(A.D. 410). Jacobus of Edessa reckons him 
among the best writers of Syriac. His poems 
are extant in MSS. in the Vatican and other 
European libraries. Many of them are wrong- 


‘ly ascribed to St. Ephraim, and_ included 


amongst his works in the Roman edition. In 


540 ISCHYRAS 


discourse No. 7 Isaacus speaks of relic- 
worship and holy days. Besides Sunday, 
many Christians observed Friday, the day of 
the Passion. No. 9 attacks prevalent errors 
on the Incarnation. Here Isaacus seems to 
fall into the opposite heresies, failing to dis- 
tinguish Nature from Person; but elsewhere 
he uses language unmistakably orthodox. 
Assemani thinks his words have been tam- 
pered with by Jacobite copyists. No. 24, 
Christ suffered as man, not as God. No. 50 
touches on future retribution: ‘‘ The fault is 
temporal, the punishment eternal.’ This 
aims at those Syrian monks who had adopted 
the opinion of Origen on this subject. No. 59 
is a hymn asserting, against the Cathari or 
Novatianists, that fallen man recovers inno- 
cence not only by baptism, but also by peni- 
tence. No. 62 is a hymn of supplication, 
lamenting the disasters of the age, e.g. the 
inroads of Huns and Arabs, famine, plague, 
and earthquake. Johannes Maro quotes two 
discourses not found in the Vatican MSS. 
The first, on Ezekiel’s chariot, clearly asserts 
two natures and one person in Christ: ‘‘duo 
aspectus, una persona; duae naturae, unus 
salvator.’’ Similarly, the second, on the In- 
carnation. Bickell printed both, so far as he 
found them extant (S. Isaac. Op. i. 50, 52). 

The library of the British Museum possesses 
about 80 of the discourses, hymns, prayers, 
etc., of St. Isaacus in MSS., ranging from the 
6th to the 12th cent. Dr. Bickell, in the 
preface to his edition of the works of Isaac, 
gives a list of 178 entire poems, and of 13 
others imperfect at the beginning or end (179- 
191); three prose writings dealing with the 
ascetic life (192-194) ; five sermons in Arabic, 
on the Incarnation, etc. (195-199); andasermon 
in Greek, on the Transfiguration, usually 
assigned to St. Ephraim (200). 

See S. Isaact Antiochent opera omnia ex 
omnibus quotquot exstant codd. MSS. cum varia 
lectione Syr. Arab. primus ed. G. Bickell, vol. 
i. 1873, ii. 1877; Gennadius, Vir. Illustr. 66 ; 
Assem. Bibl. Ortent. i. 207-234; Cave, Hist. 
Lit. i. 434; Ceillier, x. 578; Wright’s Cat. 577. 
MSS. Brit. Mus. General Index, p. 1289. 

The poems of Isaac are important for the 
right understanding of the doctrines of the 
Nestorians, Eutychians, Novatianists, Pela- 
gians, and other sects; besides being au- 
thorities for the events, manners, and customs 
of the writer’s age. [c.J.B.] 

Ischyras (2) (Zschyrion, Soz.), Egyptian 
pseudo-presbyter and finally bishop; a slan- 
derer of Athanasius. His story, which begins 
under the predecessor of Athanasius, is made 
out from scattered passages in the Apol. c. 
Arian., and a slight outline is given by So- 
crates (i. 27). He belonged to a hamlet in the 
Mareotis too small for a church of its own 
(§ 85, ed. Migne) and there had a conventicle 
attended by seven persons at most (77, 83). 
He did not bear a good moral character (63) 
and was once charged with insulting the 
emperor’s statues (vol. i. 185 B, m.). The 
Alexandrian synod of 324 disallowed his 
orders and pronounced him a layman (74, 75), 
disproving his pretensions to have been or- 
dained by bp. Meletius, in whose breviarium 
his name did not appear (11, 28, 46, 71). He 
had given out that he was a presbyter of the 


ISDIGERDES I. 


pseudo-bishop CoLLutuHus (2), but no one out 
of his own family believed him, as he never 
had a church, and no one in the neighbourhood 
looked on him as a clergyman (74, 75). He 
never attended ecclesiastical assemblies as a 
presbyter (28). In spite of the synod, he con- 
tinued to act as a presbyter, and was doing 
this in the cottage of Ision when Athanasius, 
being on a visitation in the Mareotis, sent his 
presbyter Macarius to bid him desist. When 
Macarius reached the house, Ischyras was 
reported ill in his cell or in a corner behind the 
door (28, 63, 83), certainly not officiating at 
the Eucharist (41). This occurrence may be 
assigned to c. 329, between the latest date 
(June 8, 328) possible for the consecration of 
Athanasius and Nov. 330, when the troubles 
broke out. Ischyras on his recovery went 
over to the Meletians, in conjunction with 
whom he framed his accusation against 
Macarius (63), and through Macarius against 
Athanasius. In the spring of 331 (see vol. i. 
p. 184, and Hefele, ii. 13) the three Meletians 
accused Macarius at Nicomedia of having 
broken a chalice, overturned a holy table, 
and burnt service books on the occasion of 
his visit. As his friends became ashamed of 
him (63), Ischyras confessed the fabrication to 
the archbishop and implored forgiveness (16, 
28, 63, 74). This would be in mid-Lent 332. 
In the summer of 335 Ischyras, having mean- 
while been gained over by the Eusebians, 
revived the accusation before the council of 
Tyre (13), and accompanied the synodal com- 
mission to the Mareotis to investigate its 
truth (27). For his reward his Eusebian 
patrons procured (85) an imperial order for the 
erection of a church for him at a place called 
Pax Secontaruri, and the document recog- 
nized him as a “ presbyter.’’ They after- 
wards obtained for him the episcopal title (16, 
41), and he figures as bp. of Mareotis among 
the bishops assembled at Sardica in 343 (Socr. 
ii. 20; Soz. iii. 12, here ‘‘Ischyrion’’). He 
afterwards withdrew to Philippopolis (Hilar. 
Frag. iii. in Patr. Lat. x. 677A; Mansi, iii. 139), 
at which synod his name is corruptly written 
Quirius. No other instance of a bp. of Mare- 
otis occurs. Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 530. [T.w.D.] 

Isdigerdes (1) I. (Jezdedscherd, Yazde- 
jirdus, Y ezdegerdes; 1σδιγέρδης and ᾿Ισδεγέρδης 
by the Greeks; in Armenian Yazgerd; on 
his coins, ὩΣ 1, 1.6. Izdikerti), king of 
Persia, surnamed Al Aitham (the Wicked), 
known in history as Isdigerd I., though 
an obscure and uncertain predecessor of 
the same name makes Mordtmann reckon 
him as Isdigerd II. Rawlinson thinks the 
best evidence favours 399 for the commence- 
ment of his reign, and 419 or 420 for his death. 
He was son of Sapor III., succeeding his 
brother Vararanes IV., and succeeded by his 
son Vararanes V. He reigned at Ctesiphon. 
With the Romans he appears to have lived in ' 
peace; Agathias (Η 15 . ἵν. 26, p. 264, ed. Bonn, 
1828) and Theophanes (Chron. i. 125, 128, p. 
69, ed. Bonn, 1839) relate how the emperor 
Arcadius on his death-bed directed his son 
Theodosius to be put under Isdigerdes’s tute- 
lage. (Petavius, Rat. Temp. pt. 1.1. vi. c. 15, 
p- 249, Lugd. 1710; Greg. Abul-Pharajius, 
Hist. Comp. Dyn. i. p. 91, Oxf. 1663.) For 
a time he was almost a Christian, and as 


ISDIGERDES II, 


Socrates (H. E. vii. 8) says, gave every 
facility for the propagation of the gospel, yet 
probably closed his days in persecuting the 
church. Under the example and influence of 
Maruthas, bp. of Martyropolis in Mesopo- 
tamia, who had been sent on an embassy from 
the Romans early in his reign, he was very 
favourably disposed towards Christianity and 
the church in Persia had peace with full 
liberty of worship and church-building. He 
overcame and exposed the impostures of the 
magi, with the assistance of Maruthas and 
other Christians, and miracles are said to 
have been wrought before him for the con- 
firmation of the gospel. A second visit of 
Maruthas seems to have deepened the im- 
pression (Socr. 7b.), but the indiscreet and 
impetuous zeal of one of Maruthas’s com- 
panions, Abdas bp. of Susa, lost this royal 
convert to the faith. Abdas burned one of 
the temples of fire (Theod. H. E. v. 30). This 
offence Isdigerd was prepared to overlook, if 
Abdas would rebuild the burned pyreion; 
failing this, the king threatened to burn down 
and destroy all Christian churches in Persia. 
Abdas, esteeming it morally wrong to rebuild 
the temple, refused tocomply, and the churches 
were burned. Abdas was among the first 
of the martyrs, and a persecution commenced 
in or towards the end of Isdigerd’s reign, 
which his son and successor Vararanes or 
Bararanes carried on with most revolting 
cruelty and which was only ended by the 
presence of the Roman legions. From the 
odium of this persecution the memory of 
Isdigerd is specially shielded by Socrates (H. 
FE. vii. 18-21), who throws it on his son; but 
Theodoret (v. 39) probably gives the truer 
account, though Isdigerd had _ probably 
neither the time nor inclination to carry out 
his edicts with severity. His character is 
described as noble and generous, tarnished 
only by this one dark spot in the last year of 
his reign or in a brief period in the middle of 
it. For the best modern literature of this 
reign, see ISDIGERDES (2). [G.T.s.] 
Isdigerdes (2) II., king of Persia, the son 
and successor of Vararanes V. All modern 
writers place his death a.p. 457, but differ 
somewhat as to the length of his reign. For 
its commencement Rawlinson thinks the best 
evidence is for 440. Soon after he declared 
war against the Roman empire. Theodosius 
II. shortly made peace with him, and Isdigerd 
then undertook a war, which continued many 
years (443-451), against the Tatars of Trans- 
oxiana. He attempted to force the Zoroas- 
trian religion on Christian Armenia. In this 
he was ably seconded by his vizier Mihr-nerses, 
whose proclamation, still extant, embodies 
the Zoroastrian objection to Christian doc- 
trine [Mresropes]. It was answered in 
a council of eighteen Armenian bishops, 
headed by the patriarch Joseph, at Ardashad 
in 450. This document, also extant, is a 
lengthened apology for Christianity and con- 
tains a detailed confession of faith, with a 
resolution of adhering to it couched in these 
terms: ‘‘ Do thou therefore inquire of us no 
further concerning these things, for our belief 
originates not with man. We are not taught 
like children ; but we are indissolubly bound 
to God, from Whom nothing can detach us, 


ISIDORUS 541 


neither now, nor hereafter, nor for ever, nor 
for ever and ever" (Hist. of Vartan, tr. by 
Neumann, 1830). Isdigerd’s attempt to con- 
vert Armenia to Zoroastrianism was mani- 
festly dictated by a desire to detach the 
country from the Christian Roman empire. 
In 451 he attacked the Armenians. They 
endeavoured to secure the help of the emperor 
Marcian, who was, however, paralysed through 
fear of Attila and the Huns. In 455 or 456 
the Persians triumphed in a great battle, 
wherein the patriarch Joseph and many 
nobles were taken prisoners and martyred. 
Agathias, iv. 27; Tabari, Chronique, iii. 127; 
Clinton, Fasti Romani, i. p. 546; Tillem. Emp. 
vi. 39; Saint-Martin, Mém. sur l’Armén. vol. 
1. p. 322; Pathkanian, Histoire des Sassan. in 
Journal Asiatique (1866), pp. 108-238 ; Mordt- 
mann, Zettschrift der deutschen Morgenlan- 
dischen Gesellschaft, τ. viii. 70; Rawlinson's 
Seventh Or. Monarchy (1876), c. Xv. p- 301, 
where other authorities will be found. Path- 
kanian’s article gives a list of writers who 
have treated of this period. Isdigerd 11. was 
succeeded by Perozes. (G.T.S.] 

Isidorus (13), archbp. of Seville, 600-636. 
Notwithstanding his prominent place in 
Spanish ecclesiastical history, the known facts 
of his life are few, and considerable uncertainty 
attaches to many points. It appears certain 
that his father was of the province of Carta- 
gena, and that for some reason his parents left 
there for Seville either before or very shortly 
after his birth. It is not certain, therefore, 
whether Isidore was born at Seville or Carta- 
gena, but probably at the latter. Arevalo 
(i. 122) decides for Seville; so Dupin: 
Florez (Esp. Sag. ix. 193, X. 120) is in favour 
of Cartagena. All things tend to shew that 
his parents died when he was very young. 
He was the youngest of the family. Leander, 
the eldest, was archbp. of Seville ¢. 579-599, 
and Fulgentius was bp. of Astigi or Ecija in 
the province of Seville. Isidore was archbp. 
of Seville for nearly 40 years, and died in 636. 
Leander received the pall from Gregory the 
Great in 599. Gams fixes 600 as the year of 
Leander’s death, and consequently of Isidore’s 
succession (ii. 41). To date the birth of Isi- 
dore c. 560 will not be far wrong. His early 
manhood was probably passed in a monastery, 
where he could pursue the studies which 
afterwards made him famous. Most probably 
he never belonged to a coenobite order. 

We meet his name in connexion with the 
so-called decree of Gunthimar, the Gothic 
king, and a supposed synod of Toledo in 610 
assigning metropolitan rank to the see of 
Toledo. In the list of subscriptions appended 
to the Decretum in the conciliar collections 
(e.g. Mansi, x. 511) Isidore stands second, 
following the king. He next appears as 
presiding over the second council of Seville in 
Nov. 618 or 619, in the reign of king Sisebut 
(Mansi, x. 555). The church of Seville is 
spoken of as the “holy Jerusalem.”’ The 
governor of the city, Sisisclus, and the trea- 
surer Suanilanus were present. The decrees 
set forth fully the doctrine of the Person of 
Christ against the Acephali, supporting it with 
appeals to Scripture, the Apostles’ Creed, and 
the Fathers. his document was signed by 
8 bishops, of whom Isidore subscribed first as 


δ42 IsIDORUS 


metropolitan of Baetica. Some uncertainty 
hangs over Isidore’s presence at a council 
held at Toledo c. 625. 

The fourth council of Toledo was held in 
633, in the extreme old age of Isidore and 
shortly before his death, soon after Sisenand 
came to the throne. It met in the basilica 
of St. Leocadia, and was composed of pre- 
lates from Gaul and Narbonne, and from all 
the provinces of Spain. The king, with his 
court magnates, was present, and threw him- 
self on the earth before the bishops, and with 
tears and sighs entreated their intercession 
with God, and exhorted them to observe the 
ancient decrees of the church and to reform 
abuses. The council issued 75 decrees, for a 
summary of which see D. C. A. ii. 1968. 
They were signed by the six metropolitan 
archbishops of Spain. This council was the 
only one in which they were all present, and 
was the most numerously attended of all 
Spanish synods. Isidore signed first as the 
oldest metropolitan and oldest bishop present 
(Mansi, x. 641). The council probably ex- 
pressed with tolerable accuracy the mind and 
influence of Isidore. It presents a vivid pic- 
ture of the church of Spain at that period. 
The position and deference granted to the 
king is remarkable, and nothing is said of 
allegiance to Rome. The church is free and 
independent, yet bound in solemn allegiance 
to the acknowledged king. The relations of 
the church to the Jews are striking, and the 
canons shew that there were many Jews in 
the Spanish community and that the Christian 
church had not yet emancipated itself from 
the intolerance of Judaism. This council 
was the last great public event of Isidore’s 
life. He died three years afterwards. As he 
felt his end approaching he distributed his 
goods lavishly among the poor, and is said to 
have spent the whole day for six months in 
almsgiving. In his last illness he performed 
public penance in the church of St. Vincentius 
the martyr, gathered around him the bishops, 
the religious orders, the clergy, and the poor, 
then, as one bishop invested him with the peni- 
tential girdle, and another strewed ashes on his 
head, he made a pious and eloquent prayer, 
translated in full by Gams, received the Body 
and Blood of Christ in the sacrament, took 
affectionate leave of all present, retired to his 
cell, and in four days died. 

Isidore was undoubtedly the greatest man 
of his time in the church of Spain. He was 
versed in all the learning of the age, and well 
acquainted with Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. 
His works shew him as a man of varied 
accomplishments and great versatility of 
mind ; and the prominent place he long filled 
in his own country sufficiently indicates his 
general ability and character. His eloquence 
struck all who heard him with astonishment, 
and he represented in himself all the science 
of his time. His language is studiously 
scriptural. He is quoted as holding pre- 
destinarian views, but his language seems 
hardly to go so far. At the 8th council of 
Toledo, in 653, the epithet Egregius was 
applied to him, and confirmed at the 15th 
council of Toledo, 688. Popes and councils 
vied in doing him honour, till Benedict XIV. 
permitted the office of St. Isidore to be recited 


IsIDORUS 


with the antiphon ‘‘O doctor optime,’’ and 
the gospel, ‘‘ Vos estis sal terrae.” 

His works are many and multifarious. (r) 
His Etymologies or Origins was, according to 
Braulio and Ildefonsus, his last work. It is 
in 20 books, and treats of the whole circle of 
the sciences in a very concise, methodical, and 
convenient manner. It is for the period a 
really wonderful work, and the authors quoted 
in it shew his wide classical reading. The 
subjects of the books are: i. Grammar in 44 
chapters, containing an immense amount of 
information in a convenient form. ii. Rhet- 
oric and dialectics, in 31 chapters. iii. The 
four mathematical sciences: 1.6. arithmetic, 
9 chapters; geometry, 5 chapters; music, 9 
chapters; and astronomy, 48 chapters; 
algebra not being yet invented. iv. Medicine, 
in 13chapters. v. Laws, 27 chapters ; Times, 
12 chapters. vi. Ecclesiastical books and 
offices, 19 chapters. vii. Of God, angels, and 
the orders of the faithful, 14 chapters. viii. 
The church and divers sects, 11 chapters. 
ix. Languages, nations, kingdoms, warfare, 
citizens, and relationships, 7 chapters. x. 
An alphabetical index and explanation of 
certain words. A vast amount of erroneous 
ingenuity is displayed in deriving all the 
words of the Latin language from itself: e.g. 
““ Nox, a nocendo dicta, eo quod oculis noceat. 
Niger, quasi nubiger, quia non serenus, sed 
fusco opertus est. Unde et nubilum diem 
tetrum dicimus. Prudens, quasi porro videns: 
perspicax enim est, et incertorum praevidet 
casus. Cauterium dictum quasi cauturium 
quod wrat,’’ etc. xi. Of men and portents, in 
4 chapters. xii. Animals, in 8. xiii. The 
universe (mundus), in 22. xiv. The earth and 
its parts,ing. xv. Buildings, land-surveying, 
roads, etc., in 16. xvi. Mineralogy, stones, 
weights, measures, and metals, in 27. xvii. 
Agriculture, in 11. xviii. War and various 
games, in 69. xix. Ships, architecture, 
clothes of various kinds, in 34. xx. Food, 
domestic and agricultural implements, car- 
riages, harness, etc., in 16. The treatise, 
which in the Roman edition occupies two 
quarto vols., is a singular medley of informa- 
tion and ignorance, and presents a remarkable 
picture of the condition of life and knowledge 
at the time. In bk. v., under the head of 
““De discretione temporum,”’ is a chrono- 
logical summary of sacred and secular history 
from Adam to Heraclius, concluding in these 
striking words: ‘‘ Eraclius xvii nunc agit 
imperii annum: Judaei in Hispania Chris- 
tiani efficiuntur. Residuum sextae aetatis 
soli Deo est cognitum.’’? The whole period 
(after an idea common in Augustine) is divided 
into six ages, ending with Noah, Abraham, 
Samuel, Zedekiah, Julius Caesar, Heraclius. 
In bk. vi. is an introductory account of the 
several books of the Bible. It is probably not 
possible to overrate the value and the useful- 
ness of this treatise to the age in which Isidore 
lived, and indeed for many ages it was the 
best available handbook. i 

(2) Librt Dtfferentiarum sive de Proprtetate 
Sermonum.—Bk. i. treats of the differences of 
words, often with acuteness and accuracy. 
Bk. ii. treats in 40 sections and 170 paragraphs 
of the differences of things, e.g. between Deus 
and Dominus, Substance and Essence, etc. 


ISIDORUS 


This is, in fact, a brief theological treatise on 
the doctrine of the Trinity, the power and 
nature of Christ, Paradise, angels, and men. 
He elaborately defines words denoting the 
members of the body, sin, grace, freewill, the 
law and the gospel, the active and con- 
templative life, virtues, vices, and the like. 

*(3) Allegoriae quaedam Sacrae Scripturae.— 
A spiritual interpretation of the names of 
Scripture characters: 129 from O. T. and 121 
from N. T.; the latter being often from our 
Lord’s parables, miracles, etc., as the ten 
virgins, the woman with the lost piece of 
money, the man who planted a vineyard, and 
the like. The angered king who sent his 
armies and destroyed those murderers and 
burnt up their city is interpreted of God the 
Father, who sent Vespasian Caesar to destroy 
Jerusalem. He shews an intimate acquaint- 
ance with Scripture and with the wonderful 
way it had then permeated the teaching and 
life of the church. The treatise is of intrinsic 
interest. 

(4) Somewhat similar to the last is de Ortu 
et Obitu Patrum quit in Scriptura Laudibus 
Efferuntur; 64 chapters on O.T. characters 
and 21 on New, from Adam to Maccabaeus 
and from Zacharias to Titus. The genuine- 
ness of this treatise has been much doubted. 

(5) Proomeia in Libros Vet. et Nov. Test.— 
Very brief introductions to the several books 
of O. and N.T., including Tobias, Judith, 
Esdras, and Maccabees, ‘“‘ ex quibus quidem 
Tobiae, Judith, et Maccabaeorum, Hebraei 
non recipiunt. Ecclesia tamen eosdem intra 
canonicas scripturas enumerat.”’ 

(6) Liber Numerorum qui tn sanctis Scripturis 
occurrunt.—A mystical treatment of numbers 
from one to sixty, omitting some after twenty. 

(7) Quaestiones tam de Novo quam de Veteri 
Testamento.—A series of 41 questions on the 
substanceand teaching of Scripture with appro- 
priate answers. Some are very interesting. 

(8) Secretorum Expositiones Sacramentorum, 
seu Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum.—A 
mystical interpretation of the principal events 
recorded in the books of Moses, Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Maccabees. 
The preface states that he has gathered the 
opinions of ancient ecclesiastical writers, viz. 
Origen, Victorinus, Ambrose, Jerome, Augus- 
tine, Fulgentius, Cassianus, and pope Gregory 
the Great. Gen. is treated of in 31 chapters 
Ex. in 59, Lev. in 17, Num. in 42, Deut. in 
22, Josh. in 18, Judg. in g (including 1 on 
Ruth), I. Kings (1.6. Sam.) in 21, 11. Kings 
in 6, III. Kings in 8, IV. Kings in 8, Ezra in 
3, Mac. ini. The mystical method of inter- 
pretation is pursued to an excessive degree. 

(9) De Fide Catholica ex Vetert et Novo 
Testamento contra J udaeos.—Addressed to his 
sister Florentina and apparently written at 
her request. It treats of the person of Christ 
from His existence in the bosom of the Father 
before the world was till His ascension and 
return to judgment ; and the consequences of 


the Incarnation, viz. the unbelief of the Jews, | 


the ingathering of the Gentiles, the conversion 
of the Jews at the end of the world, and the 
cessation of the Sabbath. 

(10) Sententiarum Libri iiii—A kind of 
manual of Christian faith and practice, treat- 
ing of God and His attributes. 


| thunder, 


ISIDORUS 543 


also upon the world, the origin of evil, angels 
man, the soul, and senses of the flesh, Christ 
and the Holy Spirit, the church and heresies, 
the heathen nations, the law, seven rules or 
principles for the understanding of Scripture, 
the difference between the two Testaments, 
symbol and prayer, baptism and communion, 
martyrdom, the miracles wrought by the 
saints, Antichrist and his works, the resurree- 
tion and judgment, hell, the punishment of 
the wicked, and the glory of the just. Great 
use is made throughout of the works of 
Augustine and Gregory. 

(11) De Ecclesiasticis Offictis treats of the 
services of the church, and of clerics, their 
rules and orders, the tonsure, the episcopal 
office, vicars episcopal, presbyters, deacons, 
sacristans and subdeacons, readers, psalmists, 
exorcists, acolytes, porters, monks, penitents, 
virgins, widows, the married, catechumens, 
exorcism, salt, candidates for baptism, the 
creed, the rule of faith, baptism, chrism, 
imposition of hands, and confirmation. 

(12) Synonyma de lamentatione animae pecca- 
tricts.—One of the most curious of Isidore’s 
works ; a kind of soliloquy between Homo and 
Ratio. Homo begins by lamenting his lost 
and desperate condition in consequence of sin, 
and Ratio undertakes to direct him aright to 
a higher and holier condition issuing in the 
bliss of eternal felicity. 

(13) Regula Monachorum.—This treatise led 
some to suppose Isidore a Benedictine monk, 
the only order then established in the West ; 
but Gams thinks the proof not sufficient. 

(14) Thirteen short letters follow: to bp. 
Leudefred of Cordova; to Braulio, to whom 
he speaks of giving a ring and a pall; to 
Helladius of Toledo on the fall of a certain bp. 
of Cordova; to duke Claudius, whom he con- 
gratulates on his victories ; to Massona, bp. of 
Merida; and to archdeacon Redemptus. 

(15) De Ordine Creaturarum.—This book has 
been doubted by some, and, though Arevalo 
maintains it to be genuine, he prints it in 
smaller type. Gams reckons it as Isidore’s. 
It treats of faith in the Trinity, spiritual 
creation, the waters above the firmament, the 
firmament of heaven, the sun and moon, the 
devil and the nature of demons, the nature 
of waters and course of the ocean, Paradise, 
the nature of man after sin, the diversity of 
sinners and their place of punishment, pur- 
gatorial fire and the future life. 

(16) De Natura Rerum Liber.—One of the 
most celebrated of Isidore’s treatises, dedi- 
cated to king Sisebut (acc. A.D. 612), one of the 
best kings of Spain, whose death was univer- 
sally lamented by the Goths. Isidore dis- 
courses of the days, the night, the seasons, the 
solstice and equinox, the world and its five 
zones, heaven and its name, the planets, the 
waters, the heavens, the nature, size, and 
course of the sun, the light and course of the 
moon, the eclipse of sun and moon, the course 
of the stars, the position of the seven planets, 
the light of the stars, falling stars, the names 
of the stars and whether they have any soul, 
lightning, the rainbow, clouds, 
showers, snow, hail, the nature and names of 


| the winds, the signs of storms, pestilence, the 
| heat, size, and saltness of the ocean, the river 


It discourses | Nile, the names of sea and rivers, the position 


δ44 IsIDORUS 


and motion of the earth, mount Etna, and the 
parts of the earth. He gives diagrams to 
illustrate his meaning. For a full analysis of 
the sources of this book see Gustavus Bekker’s 
ed. (Berlin, 1857). 

(17) Chronicon.—A very brief summary of 
the principal events from the creation of the 
world to the reign of the emperor Heraclius 
and of king Sisebut. Hertzberg gives an 
elaborate analysis of the sources of Isidore’s 
two chronicles in the Forschungen zur deut- 
schen Gesch. xv. 289. 

(18) Historia de regibus Gothorum, Wandal- 
orum et Suevorum.—The Goths, according to 
Isidore, were descended from Gog and Magog, 
and of the same race as the Getae. They first 
appeared in Thessaly in the time of Pompey, 
and in that of Valerian devastated Macedonia, 
Greece, Pontus, Asia, and Illyricum. The 
history is brought down to 621, the reign of 
king Swintila. Isidore praises the Goths 
highly ; and Spaniards of his time esteemed 
it an honour to be reckoned Goths. This 
brief sketch is invaluable as our chief author- 
ity for the history of the West Goths. Of the 
Vandals we learn less from him, and his 
sketch of the Suevi is very brief, the former 
compressing 123 years into a single page, and 
the latter 177 inthesamespace. The Vandals 
entered Spain under Gunderic and were 
destroyed on the fall of Gelimer; the Suevi 
entered under Hermeric in 409 and became 
incorporated with the Gothic nation in 585. 

(19) De Viris Illustribus liber.—Many Greeks 
and Latins had treated of the Christian writers 
before Isidore, but he determined to give a 
brief outline of those whom he had read him- 
self. The list embraces 46 names, and Braulio 
has added that of Isidore himself in the cele- 
brated ‘‘ Praenotatio librorum 5. Isidori a 
Braulione edita.’’ Among the 46 are Xystus 
the pope, Macrobius the deacon, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Hosius of Cordova, Eusebius of 
Dorylaeum, Chrysostom, Hilary of Arles, 
Gregory the pope, Leander his own brother, 
and Maximus of Saragossa. This is a valuable 
summary of important facts in ecclesiastical 
history, but too often disfigured by the fierce 
and illiberal polemical spirit of the day—vide, 
e.g., his remarks on the death of Hosius. 

Other minor works assigned, some doubt- 
fully, to Isidore need not be enumerated. 

His Latin is not pure. He uses many 
Spanish words, and Arevalo has collected no 
fewer than 1,640 words which would not be 
understood by the ordinary reader or would 
strike him as strange. The style is feeble and 
inflated, having all the marks of an age of 
decadence. He was a voluminous writer of 
great learning, well versed in Holy Scripture, 
of which he manifests a remarkable know- 
ledge, had a trained and cultivated mind, but 
was rather a receptive and reproductive writer 
than one of strong masculine and original 
mind. He was a very conspicuous ornament 
of the Spanish church and shed great glory on 
the age he adorned. He didmuch to hand on 
the light of Christianity and make it effectual 
to the amelioration of a semi-barbarous nation, 
and his character contrasts favourably with 
those of a later period. 

_A full list of the Lives of Isidore up to his 
time may be seen in Chevalier’s Sources 


ISsIDORUS 


historiques du Moyen-dge, p. 1127, including 
those of Henschen in Boll. Acta SS. 4 Apr. 
i. 327; Arevalo in his ed. of Isidore’s Works ; 
Florez, Esp. Sag. ix. 173 (ed. 1752) ; Dupin, 
Eccl. Writ. t. ii. p. τ (ed. 1724) ; Ceillier, xi. 
710; Cave, i. 547; Gams, Kirchengeschtchte 
von Spanien (3 vols. 8vo, Regensburg, 1862- 
1874; the great want of this excellent work 
is an adequate index ; the first vol. alone has 
a “‘ Register’’). Arevalo’s ed. of Isidore’s 
works has been reprinted by the Abbé Migne 
in his Patr. Lat. |xxxi.-lxxxiv., with the addi- 
tion of an eighth vol., containing the Collectio 
Canonum ascribed to Isidore; vols. 1xxxv.- 
Ixxxvi. of Migne contain Liturgia Mozarabica 
secundum Regulam Beati Isidorit. Thereis an 
excellent ed. of the de Natura Rerum Liber by 
G. Becker (Berlin 1857). Prof. J. E. B. Mayor 
has given a list of editions and authorities 
in his Bibliographical Clue to Latin Literature, 
p- 212. [s.L.] 

De Reg. Gothorum, Vandalorum, et Suev- 
orum.—The histories, of all Isidore’s works, 
have the most practical value for the present 
day. The Historia Gothorum is still to us, as 
it was to Mariana, one of the main sources of 
Gothic history. Upon the histories in general 
was based all the later medieval history- 
writing of Spain. A most valuable contribu- 
tion was made to our knowledge of the exact 
place of the histories in historical work by 
Dr. Hugo Hertzberg (G6ttingen, 1874) in his 
Die Historien und die Chroniken des Istdorus 
von Sevilla; Eine Quellenuntersuchung, Erster 
Th., die Historien. Dr. Hertzberg’s great 
merit lies in the clearness with which he shews 
exactly how Isidore worked, what were the 
kind and amount of his material, and the 
method employed in working it up. 

Dr. Hertzberg’s general conclusions are, 
that Isidore neither possessed large material 
nor used what he had well. In no case did 
he take all that earlier chronicles offered him, 
but only extracts ; his choice and arrangement 
of statements are often bad, and the proper 
chronological order frequently disregarded. 
Notwithstanding these drawbacks, the perma- 
nent historical value of certain portions of the 
Hist. Goth. is very great. From the reign of 
Euric, where Idatius breaks off, Isidore becomes 
for a time our only informant. He alone pre- 
serves the memory of Euric’s legislation, while 
our knowledge of Visigothic history under 
Gesalic, Theudis, Theudigisel, Agila, and 
Athanagild rests essentially on his testimony. 
In the prominent reigns of Leovigild and 
Recared, Joh. Biclarensis becomes our great 
source, but Isidore’s additions are important. 
From Recared to Suinthila he is again our 
best and sometimes our only source. The 
Hist. Vand. is, however, historically valueless, 
as we possess the sources from which it is a 
mere extract, and the same may almost be 
said of the Hist. Suev. Just where Isidore 
might have drawn most from oral testimony 
and thus supplied a real gap in our historical 
knowledge, viz. in the 100 years of Suevian 
history between Remismund and Theodemir, 
he fails us most notably. The whole missing 
cent. is dismissed in one vague sentence which 
tells us nothing. 

For a complete catalogue of the nine 
MSS. of the longer form of the text, and the 


IsIDORUS 

two MSS. of the shorter, as well as of the 
editions of both texts, see Dr. Hertzberg’s 
Diss. 8-18. He gives a complete analysis of 
both texts according to the sources. For 
general references see Potthast, Bibl. Hist. 
Med. Devt. The longer text of the histories is 
printed in Esp. Sagr. vi. with an introduction 
and long notes by Florez. [M.A.W.] 

Isidorus (24). [BasiLipDes.] 

Isidorus (31) Pelusiota, an eminent ascetic, 
theologian, and spiritual director in 5th cent., 
born at Alexandria (Photius, Bibl. 228). His 
family was probably of high rank. The wide 
range of his reading, as shewn by his famili- 
arity with Greek poets, historians, orators,and 
philosophers, witnesses to the best Alexandrian 
education. He also felt the full influence of 
that great development of Egyptian monas- 
ticism which was encouraged by the seclusion 
of Athanasius during his third exile and by 
the persecution of the “ holy solitaries ’’ after 
his death, and which made so deep an impres- 
sion on the as yet unconverted Augustine 
(Confess. vili. 6; cf. 1514. Ep. i. 173, alluding 
to ‘‘the blessed Ammon’”’). [Isidore re- 
solved to adopt the monastic life in its 
coenobitic form, as it had been organized by 
Pachomius at Tabenna and was being ex- 
hibited by various communities in the Upper 
Thebaid which followed his rule, by others in 
the Lower Thebaid, and the 5,000 inmates of 
the cells of Nitria (cf. Fleury, bk. xx. c. 9). 
The place he selected was near Pelusium, an 
ancient border-town at one of the Nile mouths. 
Jerome says it had “ἃ very safe harbour’”’ and 
was a centre of all ‘“‘ business connected with 
the sea’ (Comm. in Ezech. ix. 30), but its in- 
habitants were proverbial for dulness (Hieron. 
Ep. |xxxiv. 9). It was the capital of the pro- 
vince of Augustamnica Prima, and as such the 
seat of a ‘‘ corrector’’ or governor. When Isi- 
dore first knew it, it was “‘ rich and populous ”’ 
(Ep. iii. 260). It suffered much from the 
maladministration of a Cappadocian named 
Gigantius. Believing that monastic life was 
the ‘‘ imitation and receptacle of all the Lord’s 
precepts’’ (Ep. i. 278), Isidore became ἃ 
thorough monk in his ascetic self-devotion. 
Whether he became abbat Tillemont con- 
siders uncertain (xv. 101). We know from 
Facundus (Def. Tri. Capit. ii. 4), and, in- 
deed, virtually from himself (Ep. i. 258), that 
he was ordained a presbyter, very likely by 
bp. Ammonius (Ep. ii. 127), clearly not by 
his successor Eusebius, whom Isidore depicts 
as the centre of an ecclesiastical scandal which 
was to him a standing grief and offence. 

Perhaps this ecclesiastical degeneracy near 
his own home led Isidore to generalize some- 
what too despondingly as to its prevalence 
all around. Alluding to Eusebius’s love of 
church-building he says: ‘‘ It was not for the 
sake of walls, but of souls, that the King of 
Heaven came to visit us.’’ ‘‘ Could I have 
chosen, I would have rather lived in apostolic 
times, when church buildings were not thus 
adorned but the church was decked with 
grace, than in these days, when the buildings 
are ornamented with all kinds of marble, and 
the church is bare and void of spiritual gifts ”’ 
(Ep. ti. 246; cf. ii. 88). ‘* Once pastors 
would die for their flocks; now they destroy 
the sheep by causing the soul to stumble.... 


ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 545 


Once they distributed their goods to the 
needy ; now they appropriate what belongs to 
the poor. Once they practised virtue; now 
they ostracize [a favourite phrase with Isidore} 
those who do... . I will not accuse all"’ (iii. 
223). ‘‘Once men avoided the episcopate 
because of the greatness of its authority ; now 
they rush into it because of the greatness of 
its luxury. .. . The dignity has lapsed from a 
priesthood into a tyranny, from a stewardship 
into a mastership [deororelay]. For they 
claim not to administer as stewards, but to 
appropriate as masters "’ (v. 21, to a bishop). 
δ ΤῈ is not long since the church had splendid 
teachers and approved disciples;"’ and it 
might be so again if bishops would “ἢ lay aside 
their tyranny and shew a fatherly interest in 
their people . . . but until that foundation is 
well laid, I think it idle to talk about the top- 
stone’’ (v. 126). He would say to worldly 
and arrogant prelates, ‘‘ Abate your pride, 
relax your superciliousness, remember that 
you are but ashes... . Do not use the arms of 
the priesthood against the priesthood itself "’ 
(v. 131). ‘‘ When those who were crowned 
with the priesthood led an evangelical and 
apostolical life, the priesthood was naturally 
dreaded by the sovereignty; but now it is 
the sovereignty which is dreaded by the priest- 
hood, or rather by those who seem to dis- 
charge it but by their conduct insult it”’ (v. 
268, to Cyril). ‘‘Some.. . openly reproach 
priests ; others pay them outward respect but 
in secret revile them. . . . This does not sur- 
prise me. As they do not act like those of old, 
they are treated differently. Those of old 
corrected kings when they sinned; these do 
not correct even rich subjects; and if they 
try to correct some poor man, they are re- 
proached as having been convicted of the 
same offences”’ (v. 278). So, speaking to an 
ambitious deacon about I. Tim. iii. 1, he cor- 
rects a misapprehension. ‘‘ Paul did not say, 
‘ Let every one desire the episcopate.’ ... It 
is a work, not a relaxation; a solicitude, not 
a luxury; a responsible ministration, not an 
irresponsible dominion; a fatherly supervision, 
not a tyrannical autocracy"’ (ili. 216). Else- 
where he complains that bishops would receive 
persons excommunicated by other bishops, 
to the ruin of the discipline of souls (ill. 259), 
and that in their bitter contests these official 
peacemakers would fain devour each other 
(iv. 133). The secularization of the episcopal 
character he traces in one letter to the exces- 
sive honour paid by emperors to bishops, and 
adds: ‘‘ There are bishops who take pains to 
live up to the apostolic standard ; if you say, 
‘Very few,’ I do not deny it; but... many 
are called, few are chosen.” Isidore exhibits 
an intense habitual moral earnestness, vigilant 
against all that implied or might tend to sin 
(v. 17, 208). His downright censures, de- 
livered under a serious conviction that he was 
specially appointed for the purpose (i. 359; 
cf. Tillem. xv. 102), naturally made him 
enemies among the higher clergy, who tried 
to put him under some sort of ban, and there- 
by ‘unintentionally set a crown upon his 
head” (Ep. v. 131). But he was not less 
stern to faults in other orders, such as the in- 
hospitality (i. 50), gluttony (i. 392), or ‘* pug- 
nacity”’ (i. 298) of monks; their neglect of 


35 


546 ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 


manual labour (i. 49), the disorderliness of 
those who haunted cities and frequented 
public shows, as if all that ‘“‘ the angelic life ”’ 
required were “ἢ a cloak, a staff, and a beard ”’ 
(i. 92; cf. i. 220, and Chalcedon, can. 4). He 
rebukes a physician who is morally diseased 
(Ep. i. 391), denounces a homicide who went 
“swaggering’”’ through Pelusium (i. 297), 
warns a wicked magistrate to flee from eternal 
punishment (i. 31), remonstrates with a 
soldier for invading the cells of monks and 
teaching them false doctrine (i. 327), and with 
a general for attempting to take away the 
privilege of sanctuary (i. 174), etc. Ina letter 
probably addressed to Pulcheria he repro- 
bates the conduct of some imperial envoys, 
who had compromised their Christianity in 
the negotiation of a peace (iv. 143). 

The two great church questions in which 
Isidore took a decided part brought him into 
collision with his own patriarch, Cyril of 
Alexandria. The first related to the recog- 
nition of St. Chrysostom’s memory as worthy 
of the reverence of faithful Christians. Theo- 
philus of Alexandria had practically procured 
his deposition and exile; the West had sup- 
ported Chrysostom while he lived and after- 
wards had suspended communion with 
churches which would not insert his name in 
their diptychs. Antioch had yielded; even 
Atticus of Constantinople had done so for 
peace’ sake. Cyril, the nephew and successor 
of Theophilus, held fast to his uncle’s position. 
Isidore had loved and honoured “ holy John,” 
if he had not, as Nicephorus says (xiv. 30), 
been instructed by him. In a letter to a 
grammarian he quotes Libanius’s panegyric 
on his oratory (Ep. ii. 42) ; to another Isidore 
he specially recommends ‘‘the most wise 
John’s’’ commentary on the Romans (v. 32) ; 
in another letter, recommending his treatise 
““on the Priesthood,” he calls him ‘‘ the eye 
of the Byzantine church, and of every church ”’ 
(i. 156); and he describes the ‘‘ tragedy of 
John” in the bitter words: ‘‘ Theophilus, 
who was building-mad, and worshipped gold, 
and had a spite against my namesake”’ (see 
Socr. vi. 9), was ‘‘ put forward by Egypt to 
persecute that pious man and true theologian ”’ 
(Ep. i. 152). Similarly he wrote to Cyril: 
“Put a stop to these contentions: do not 
involve the living Church in a private ven- 
geance prosecuted out of duty to the dead, 
nor entail on her a perpetual division [αἰώνιον 
διχόνοιαν] under pretence of piety”’ (i. 570, 
transl. by Facund.). Cyril took this advice, 
and the *‘ Joannite’’ quarrel came to an end, 
probably in 417-418 (Tillem. xiv. 281; see 
Photius, Bibl. 232). 

The other matter was far more momentous. 
When Cyril was at the council of Ephesus 
endeavouring to crush Nestorianism, Isidore 
wrote to him: ‘‘ Prejudice does not see 
clearly ; antipathy does not see at all. If 
you wish to be clear of both these affections 
of the eyesight, do not pass violent sentences, 
but commit causes to just judgment. God... 
was pleased to ‘come down and see’ the cry 
of Sodom, thereby teaching us to inquire 
accurately. For many of those at Ephesus 
accuse you of pursuing a personal feud, in- 
stead of seeking the things of Jesus Christ in 
an orthodox way. ‘ He is,’ they say, ‘the 


ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 


nephew of Theophilus,’’”’ etc. (Ep. i. 310; cf. 
a Latin version, not quite accurate, by Facun- 
dus, l.c.). He had, however, no sympathy 
with Nestorius: in the close of the letter he 
seems to contrast him with Chrysostom; in 
the next letter he urges Theodosius II. to 
restrain his ministers from ‘‘ dogmatizing ’’ to 
the council, the court being then favourable 
to Nestorius. Isidore was, indeed, very 
zealous against all tendencies to Apollinarian- 
ism: he disliked the phrase, ‘‘ God’s Passion,” 
he insisted that the word “‘ Incarnate ’’ should 
be added—it was the Passion of Christ (Ep. 
i. 129); he urged on Cyril the authority of 
Athanasius for the phrase, “ from two natures” 
(i. 323), and he even uses the yet clearer phrase, 
ultimately adopted by the council of Chal- 
cedon, “τη both natures’”’ (i. 405); but he 
repeatedly insists on the unity of the Person 
of Christ, the God-Man, which was the point 
at issue in the controversy (i. 23, 303, 405). 
He says that ‘“‘ the Lamb of God,” as the true 
Paschal victim, ‘‘combined the fire of the 
divine essence with the flesh that is now eaten 
by us’”’ (i. 219); in a letter to a Nestorianizing 
““scholasticus ’’ he calls the Virgin (not simply 
Theotokos, but) ‘‘ Mother of God Incarnate ”’ 
(Θεοῦ σαρκωθέντος pnrépa,” i. 54). When 
Cyril, two years later, came to an under- 
standing with John of Antioch, Isidore ex- 
horted him to be consistent and said that his 
most recent writings shewed him to be ‘‘ either 
open to flattery or an agent of levity, swayed 
by vainglory instead of imitating the great 
athletes’ of the faith, etc. (i. 324). Perhaps 
these letters were ‘‘the treatise to’’ (or 
against) Cyril, which Evagrius ascribes to 
Isidore. Isidore was better employed when 
he uttered warnings against the rising heresy 
of Eutychianism: ‘‘ To assert only one nature 
of Christ after the Incarnation is to take away 
both, either by a change of the divine or an 
abatement of the human’”’ (i. 102); among 
various errors he mentions ‘‘ a fusion and co- 
mixture and abolition of the natures,” urging 
his correspondent, a presbyter, to cling to the 
‘‘ inspired ’’ Nicene faith (iv. 99). 

His theology was generally characterized by 
accuracy and moderation. Ina truly Athana- 
Sian spirit (cf. Athan. de Decr. Nic. 22) he 
writes, ‘‘ We are bound to know and believe 
that God is, not to busy ourselves as to what 
He is”’ (ze. attempt to comprehend His 
essence; Ep. 11. 299). Heis emphatic against 
the two extremes of Arianism and Sabellian- 
ism. ‘‘ If God was always like to Himself, 
He must have been always Father; there- 
fore the Son is co-eternal”’ (i. 241, cf. i. 389) ; 
and Eunomians exceed Arians in making the 
Son a servant (i. 246). Sabellians misinter- 
pret John x. 30, where ἕν shews the one 
essence, and the plural ἐσμὲν the two hypo- 
stases (i. 138). In the Trinity, the Godhead 
is one, but the hypostases are three (i. 247). 
In Heb. i. 3 the ἀπαύγασμα indicates the co- 
eternity, the χαρακτήρ the personality; it is 
in things made that “ before’’ and ‘ after’’ 
have place, not in ‘‘ the dread and sovereign 
Trinity ” (iii. 18; cf. the Quicunque, ver. 25). 
The belief in three Persons in one essence ex- 
cludes alike Judaism and polytheism (Ep. iii. 
112). Of John xiv. 28 he observes that 
““greater’’ or ‘‘less than’? implies identity 


ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 


of nature (i. 422). On Phil. ii. 6 seq. he argues 
that, unless Christ was equal to the Father, 
the illustration is irrelevant ; if He was equal, 
thenit is pertinent. (iv. 22. 
interesting as shewing that he, like St. 
Chrysostom, while interpreting οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν 
---Θεἐῴ of the condescension, understood St. 
Paul to mean, “ἧ Christ could afford to waive 
the display of His co-equality, just because 
He did not regard it as a thing to which He 
had no right.”’) He explains Rom. iii. 25: 
when no other cure for a man’s ills was 

ossible, ‘‘ God brought in the Only-begotten 

on as aransom; one Victim, surpassing all 
in worth, was offered up for all’’ (iv. roo). 
He contends that the divinity of the Holy 
Spirit—denied by Macedonians—is involved 
in the divinity of the Son (i. 20). Against the 
denial of the latter doctrine he cites a number 
of texts and explains the ‘‘ humble language ”’ 
used by Jesus as the result of the ‘‘ economy ”’ 
of the Incarnation, whereas the “ lofty langu- 
age”’ also used by Him would be inexplicable 
if He were a mere man (iv. 166). “ Baptism,” 
he writes to a count, ‘‘ does not only wash 
away the uncleanness derived through Adam’s 
transgression, for that much were nothing, 
but conveys a divine regeneration surpassing 
all words—redemption, sanctification, adop- 
tion, etc.; and the baptized person, through 
the reception of the sacred mysteries [of the 
Eucharist: cf. i. 228], becomes of one body 
with the Only-begotten, and is united to Him 
as the body to its head”? (iii. 195). He cen- 
sures such abstinence as proceeds from 
““Manichean or Marcionite principles’ (i. 
52); notices the omissions in the Marcionite 
gospel (i. 371) ; accuses Novatianists of self- 
righteous assurance (i. 100), but is credulous 
as to the scandalous imputations against 
the Montanists, much resembling the libels 
which had been circulated against the early 
Christians (i. 242). His letters illustrate the 
activity of Jewish opposition to the Gospel. 
They tell us of a few who cavilled at the sub- 
stitution of bread for bloody sacrifices in the 
Christian oblation (i. 40r) ; of one who criti- 
cized the ‘‘ hyperbole”’ in John xxi. 25 (ii. 99) ; 
of another who argued from Haggai ii. 9 that 
the temple would yet be restored (iv. 17). 
Although Paganism, as asystem and organized 
power, was defunct (i. 270), yet its adherents 
were still voluble ; 
“a new-fangled scheme of life’’ (ii. 46), con- 
temned its principle of faith (v. ror), dis- 
paraged Scripture on account of its ‘‘ barbaric 
diction’’ and its defects of style (iv. 28), 


sneered at the ‘‘ dead Jesus,’’ the Cross, the | 


Sepulchre, and the “ ignorance of the apostles”’ 
(iv. 27), and Isidore heard one of them, a 
clever rhetorician, bursting into ‘‘a broad 
laugh ’’ at the Passion, and presently put him 
to silence (iv. 31). He wrote a “little 
treatise ’’ (λογίδιον) to prove that there was 
“no such thing as fate”’ (iii. 253), and a book 
“ against the Gentiles’’ to prove that divina- 
tion was ‘nonsensical’ (ii. 137, 228), thus 


using in behalf of religion the ‘‘ weapons and > 


syllogisms of its opponents, to their confusion "’ 
(iii. 87). Both are now lost. His familiarity 
with heathen writers—among whom he 
criticizes Galen (iv. 125)—gave him great 
advantages in discussion with unbelievers ; 


The passage is | 


they called Christianity | 


ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 547 


and he takes occasion from a question as to 
Origen’s theory about the lapse of souls to 
cite a variety of opinions still current, appar- 
ently among those who still rejected the 
Gospel. ‘‘Some think that the soul is ex- 
tinguished with the body . - some have 
imagined that all is governed by chance: 
some have entrusted their lives to fate. 
necessity, and fortune... some have said that 
heaven is ruled by providence, but the earth 
is not "’ (iv. 163). He speaks of the harm done 
to the Christians’ argument by Christians’ mis- 
conduct : ‘‘ If we overcome heretics, pagans 
and Jews by our correct doctrine, we are 
bound also to overcome them by our conduct 
lest, when worsted on the former ground, 
they should think to overcome on the latter, 
and, after rejecting our faith, should adduce 
against it our own lives" (iv. 226). 

Very many of his letters are answers to 
questions as to texts of Scripture. Like 
Athanasius, he sometimes gives a choice of 
explanations (e.g. i. 114) ; although a follower 
of Chrysostom, he shews an Alexandrian 
tendency to far-fetched and fantastic inter- 
pretation, as when he explains the live coal 
and the tongs in Isa. vi. 7 to represent the 
divine essence and the flesh of Christ (i. 42), 
or the carcase and the eagles to mean human- 
ity ruined by tasting the forbidden fruit and 
lifted up by ascetic mortification (i. 282), or 
when “ he that is on the house-top "’ is made 
to denote a man who despises the present life 
(i. 210). He reproves a presbyter for criticiz- 
ing mystical interpreters (ii. 81), but says also 
that those who attempt to make the whole 
of O.T. refer to Christ give an opening to 
pagans and heretics, ‘‘ for while they strain 
the passages which do not refer to Him, they 
awaken suspicion as to those which without 
any straining do refer to Him”’ (ii. 195). 
With similar good sense he remarks that St. 
Paul’s concessions to Jewish observance were 
not a turning back to the law, but an “ econ- 
omy ᾿᾿ for the sake of others who had not out- 
grown it (i. 407). Again, he observes that 
church history should relieve despondency as 
to existing evils, and that even the present 
istate of the church should remove mistrust 
as to the future (ii. 5). Difficulties about the 
resurrection of the body are met by consider- 
|ing that the future body will not be like the 
present, but *‘ ethereal and spiritual " (ii. 43). 
He admits that ambition is a natural motive 
and can be turned to good (iii. 34). Ascetic as 
he was, he dissuades from immoderate fasting, 
|lest an “" immoderate reaction '’ ensue (ii. 45). 
Obedience to the government, when it does not 
interfere with religion, is inculeated, because 
jour Lord “ was registered and paid tribute 
ito Caesar”’ (i. 48). But he exhorts Theodo- 
sius II. (probably soon after his accession) 
to ‘‘ combine mildness with authority" (i. 35), 
intimating that his ears were too open to 
|malicious representations (i. 275); and he 
| speaks to a “" corrector "' in the manly tones so 
seldom heard in those days, except from the 
lips of typical Christians: ‘* He who has been 
invested with rule ought himself to be ruled 
by the laws ; if he himself sets them aside, how 
can he be a lawful ruler ? "’ (v. 383). He con- 
\siders that the genealogy traced through 
| Joseph proves that Mary also sprang from 


548 ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 


David (i. 7); that the fourth beast in Daniel 
meant the Roman empire (i. 218); that the 
zo weeks extended from the 2oth year of 
Artaxerxes to the 8th of Claudius (iii. 89) ; 
that Hebrews was by St. Paul (i. 7). He in- 
terprets Mark xiii. 32 evasively (i. 117). He 
corrects the confusion between the two 
Philips (i. 447). His shrewdness and humour, 
occasionally tinged with causticity, appear in 
various letters. ‘‘I hear that you have 
bought a great many books, and yet... know 
nothing of their contents;’’ take care lest 
you be called ‘a book’s-grave,”’ or ‘“* moth- 
feeder’’; then comes a serious allusion to the 
buried talent (i. 127). He tells a bishop that 
he trains the younger ministers well, but 
spoils them by over-praising them (i. 202). 
He hears that Zosimus can say by heart some 
passages of St. Basil and suggests that he 
should read a certain homily against drunkards 
(i. 61). He asks an ascetic why he “ abstains 
from meat and feeds greedily on revilings ” 
(i. 446). His friend MHarpocras, a good 
‘“sophist’’ (whom he recommends for a 
vacant mastership, v. 458, and urges to keep 
his boys from the theatre and hippodrome, 
v. 185), had written a sarcastic “‘ monody,”’ 
or elegy, on Zosimus and his fellows, as al- 
ready ‘‘ dead in sin’’; Isidore, whom he had 
requested to forward it to them, defers doing 
so, lest he should infuriate them against the 
author; however, he says in effect, if you 
really mean it to go, send it yourself, and then, 
if a feud arises, you will have no one else to 
blame (v. 52). He remarks that ‘‘some 
people are allowed to be tempted to cure them 
of the notion that they are great and invincible 
persons”’ (v. 39). He points out to a palace 
chamberlain the inconsistence of being glib 
at Scripture quotations and “‘ mad after other 
people’s property’”’ (i. 27). But for all this 
keenness and didactic severity, and in spite 
of his expressed approval of the use of torture 
(i. 116), he impresses us as a man of kindly 
disposition, warm in his friendships (see Epp. 
i. 161, ii. 31, V- 125). He observes that 
“‘ God values nothing more than love, for the 
sake of which He became man and obedient 
unto death ; for on this account also the first- 
called of His disciples were two brothers. . 

our Saviour thus intimating that He wills all 
His disciples to be united fraternally ”’ (i. 10). 
In this spirit he says of slaves, ‘‘ Prejudice or 
fortune... has made them our property, but 
we are all one by nature, by the faith, by the 
judgment to come”’ (i. 471) ; and he tells how 
a young man came to his cell, asked to see 
him, was introduced by the porter, fell at his 
feet in tears in silence, then, on being re- 
assured, said that he was the servant of Iron 
the barrister, and had offended his master in 
ignorance, but too deeply for pardon. ‘‘I 
cannot think,’’ writes Isidore, ‘‘ that the true 
Christian Iron, who knows the grace that has 
set all men free, can hold a slave” (οἰκέτην 
ἔχειν. i. 142). This tenderness is in harmony 
with the candour (“si sainte et si belle,”’ says 
Tillemont, xv. 104) with which he owns that 
when he has tried to pray for them who have 
deliberately injured him, he has found him- 
self doing so ‘‘ with his lips only.” ‘‘ Not 
that I doubt that some have attained that 
height of excellence: rather, I rejoice at 


IVO 


and rejoice with them, and would desire to 
reach the same point ”’ (v. 398). 

Isidore’s letters naturally contain allusions 
to the religious customs or opinions of his 
age: such as pilgrimage to the shrines of the 
saints, as of St. Peter (ii. 5; cf. i. 160 on that 
of Thecla, and i. 226 on the martyrs who 
“guard the city’’ of Pelusium); the bene- 
diction given by the bishop ‘“‘ from his high 
chair,’’ and the response ‘‘ And with thy 
spirit ’’ (i. 122) ; the deacon’s linen garment, 
and the bishop’s woollen ‘‘ omophorion ’’ 
which he took off when the gospel was read 
(i. 136); the right of sanctuary (i. 174); the 
wrongfulness of exacting an oath (i. 155). 

His death cannot be placed later than 449 
or 450 (see Tillem. xv. 116). 

Two thousand letters of his, we are told, were 
collected by the zealously anti-Monophysite 
community of Acoemetae, or ‘‘ sleepless” 
monks, at Constantinople, and arranged in 
4 vols. of 500 letters each. This collection 
appears to be identical with the extant 2,012 
letters, distributed, without regard to chron- 
ology, into 5 books (see Tillem. xv. 117, 847), 
of which the first three were edited by Billius, 
the fourth by Rittershusius, and the fifth by 
Andrew Schott, a Jesuit ; the whole being in- 
cluded in the ed. pub. at Parisin 1638. Many 
of the letters are, in effect, repetitions. See 
Bouuy, De S. Isid. Pel. lib. iii. (Nimes, 1885) ; 
also C. H. Turner and E. K. Lake in Journ. 
of Theol. Stud. vol. vi. pp. 70, 270. —[w.B.] 

Ivo, St. (Yvo), June 10, a supposed Persian 
bp. in Britain, after whom the town of St. 
Ives in Hunts was named. His Life was 
written by the monk Goscelin when resident 
at Ramsey, towards the end of 11th cent., 
based on a more diffused account by a previous 
abbat Andrew, who collected his information 
while in the East on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem 
in 1020. Goscelin’s Life is printed in Boll. 
Acta SS. 10 June ii. 288. It describes Ivo as 
a missionary bishop, a star of the East, a 
messenger of the true Sun, divinely marked 
out for work in Britain. Quitting Persia, he 
passed through Asia and Illyricum to Rome, 
enlightening every place he visited. From 
Rome he proceeded to Gaul, where the ad- 
miring king and nobles would have detained 
him, but he pushed forward to Britain with 
his three companions. There he rescued the 
people from idolatry. The first-fruit of his 
labours was ‘‘a youth of patrician dignity 
named Patricius, the son of a Senator.’’ 
Passing into Mercia, Ivo settled at the vill of 
Slepe, 3 English leucae (Gosc. c. 2, ὃ 8) from 
Huntedun. There he laboured many years, 
died, and was buried. About 100 lustra (c. 1, 
§ 4) had passed since the bishop’s death, when 
a peasant of Slepe struck with his plough a 
stone sarcophagus, within which were found, 
besides human remains, a silver chalice and 
insignia of the episcopal rank. Slepe being 
one of the estates of the abbey of Ramsey, 8 
leucae (c. 2, § 8) distant, abbat Eadnoth was 
informed of this. The same night a man of 
Slepe saw in a vision one robed as a bishop, 
with ornaments like those in the sarcophagus, 
who said he was St. Ivo and wished to be 
removed to the abbey, with two of his com- 
panions, whose burial-places he described. 
The translation was accordingly effected, and 


Ivo 


on the spot where the saint was found a church 
was dedicated to him, connected with which 
was a priory as a cell of the parent abbey. 
The spot was thenceforth known as St. Ives. 
A later hand adds that temp. Henry I. the 
relics of the two companions were re-trans- 
lated to St. Ives. As Ramsey abbey was 
founded about ggr or a little earlier (Mon. 
Hist. Brit. 580p; Monast. Angl. ii. 547), 
Eadnoth the first abbat (Ltber Eliens. ed. 
Stewart, p. 188) would be living c. rooo (the 
common date of the translation is roor). 
Reckoning back roo lustra or 400 years (com- 
puting by the four-year lustrum), we arrive at 
A.D. 600 as about the period of Ivo’s death, and 
this is the year given by Florence of Worcester 
(Chron. in M. H. B. 526). His mission at 
Slepe must thus be placed c. 580-600, which 
nearly corresponds with the reign of the em- 
peror Maurice, with whom Diceto (in Gale, iii. 
559) makes him contemporary. Thus Ivo’s 
Mercian mission preceded the arrival of 
Augustine by about half a generation and 


anticipated by some 70 years the conversion | 


of Mercia as narrated in Bede. The obvious 
improbability of this leaves the monks of 
Ramsey responsible for the legend. 

Possibly there may be here a lingering 
tradition of old British Christianity and a 
reminiscence of its Oriental origin, leaving 
the period out of the question. It would not 
be surprising if a British remnant should have 
survived in that locality as late as the Con- 
quest. There are indications that Britons 
did actually maintain themselves in E. 
Mercia and the fastnesses of the fens long 
after the conversion of the English race. 
Moreover, the name of Patrick gives the story 
a Celtic look, and the locality might have 
been a sort of eastern Glastonbury. The 
Celtic element in the first conversion of the 
Mercian Angles was likely to prolong the 
vitality of Celtic traditions. If there was 
Celtic blood surviving in the fens when Ram- 
sey was founded, the Uriental colouring of the 
legend is accounted for. The stone sarco- 
phagus may have been a genuine Roman 
relic, furnishing a material basis for the story 
and suggesting the occasion. If the above 
inferences are not unreasonable, the legend of 
St. Ivo contains a reminiscence that the Chris- 
tian missionaries who reached Britain from 
the East came by way of Gaul and of the 
tradition of their having beensent from Rome. 

Slepe is found in Domesday and is still the 
name of one of the manors of St. Ives. 

The priory of St. Ives, the ruins of which 
survive, is described in Monast. Angl. ii. 631. 
In the time of Brompton (Twysd. p. 883) no 
saint in England was so eminent as St. Ivo 
at Ramsey for the cure of diseases. 

The story was written again by John of 
Tynemouth in 14th cent., in whose Sanctilo- 
gium, before the MS. was burnt, it stood No. 
70 (Smith, Cat. Cotton MSS. p. 29). It was 
one of those adopted by Capgrave in 15th 
cent. for his Nova Legenda (ff. 199) and so is 


preserved. This version states that the pope} 


commissioned him to Britain. The MS. Lives 
of Ivo are mentioned by Hardy (Desc. Cat. i. 
184-186), and the Life by Goscelin exists as a 
Bodleian manuscript in a fuller form than the 
recension given by the Bollandists, the Life 


JACOBUS or JAMES 549 


in Capgrave being another abridgment. One 
of the MSS. mentioned by Hardy purports 
to be the very Life by abbat Andrew referred 
to by Goscelin. [ς.".} 


J 


Jacobus (4) or James, bp. of Nisibis in Meso- 
potamia, called ‘‘ the Moses of Mesopotamia," 
born at Nisibis or Antiochia Mygdoniae to- 
wards the end of 3rd cent. He is said to have 
been nearly related to Gregory the Illuminator, 
the apostle of Armenia. At an early age he 
devoted himself to the life of a solitary, and 
the celebrity he acquired by his self-imposed 
austerities caused Theodoret to assign him 
the first place in his Religiosa Historia or 
Vitae Patrum—where he is entitled ὁ μέγας, 
During this period he went to Persia for 
intercourse with the Christians of that country 
and to confirm their faith under the persecu- 
tions of Sapor II. Gennadius (de Seript. Eccl. 
c. I) reports that James was a confessor in 
the Maximinian persecution. On the vacancy 
of the see of his native city he was compelled 
by the popular demand to become bishop. 
His episcopate, according to Theodoret, was 
signalized by fresh miracles. 

In 325 he was summoned to the council of 
Nicaea (Labbe, Concil. il. 52, 76). A leading 
part is ascribed to him by Theodoret in its 
debates (Theod. u.s. p. 1114). He is com- 
mended by Athanasius, together with Hosius, 
Alexander, Eustathius, and others (adv. Artan. 
t. i. p. 252). According to some Eastern ac- 
counts, James was one whom the emperor 
Constantine marked out for peculiar honour 
(Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 203). His name 
occurs among those who signed the decrees 
of the council of Antioch, in Encaentis, ΔΑ.Ὁ. 
341, of more than doubtful orthodoxy (Labbe, 
Concil. ii. 559), but no mention of his being 
present at this council occurs elsewhere 
(Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. vi. note 27, les Arenst; 
Hefele, Councils, ii. 58, Eng. tr.). That the 
awfully sudden death of Arius at Constanti- 
nople, on the eve of his anticipated triumph, 
A.D. 336, was due to the prayers of James of 
Nisibis, and that on this emergency he had 
exhorted the faithful to devote a whole week 
to uninterrupted fasting and public supplica- 
tion in the churches, rests only on the au- 
thority of one passage, in the Religiosa Hts- 
toria of Theodoret, the spuriousness of which 
is acknowledged by all sound critics. The 
gross blunders of making the death of the 
heresiarch contemporaneous with the council 
of Nicaea, and of confounding Alexander of 
Alexandria with Alexander of Constantinople, 
prove it an ignorant forgery. In the account 
of the death of Arius obtained by Theodoret 
from Athanasius (Theod. H. E. i. 14; 502. 
H. E. ii. 20) no mention is made of James, 
nor in that given by Athanasius in his letter 
to the bishops. As bp. of Nisibis James was 
the spiritual father of Ephrem Syrus, who 
was baptized by him and remained by his 
side as long as he lived. Milles, bp. of Susa, 
visiting Nisibis to attend a synod for settling 
the differences between the bps. of Seleucia 
and Ctesiphon, c. 341, found James busily 
erecting his cathedral, towards which, on his 
return, Milles sent a large quantity of silk 


δῦο JACOBUS SARUGENSIS 


from Adiabene (Assemani, Bibl. Or. tom. i. p. 
186). On the attempt, three times renewed, 
of Sapor II. to make himself master of Nisibis, 
A.D. 338, 346, 350, James maintained the faith 
of the inhabitants in the divine protection, 
kindled their enthusiasm by his words and 
example, and with great military genius and 
administrative skill thwarted the measures 
of the besiegers. For the tale of the final 
siege of 350, which lasted three months, and 
of the bishop’s successful efforts to save his 
city, see Gibbon, c. xviii. vol. ii. pp. 385 ff. 
or De Broglie, L’Eglise et l Empire, t. iii. 
pp. 180-195. See also Theod. u.s. p. 1118; 
H. E. ii. 26; Theophan. p. 32. Nisibis was 
quickly relieved by Sapor being called away 
to defend his kingdom against an inroad of 
the Massagetae. James cannot have Jong 
survived this deliverance. He was honourably 
interred within the city, that his hallowed 
remains might continue to defend it. When 
in 363 Nisibis yielded to Persia, the Christians 
carried the sacred talisman with them. 
(Theod. u.s. p. 1119; Soz. H. E. v. 3; Gen- 
NAG τ 5. δι το 

Gennadius speaks of James as a copious 
writer, and gives the titles of 26 of his treat- 
ises. Eighteen were found by Assemani in 
the Armenian convent of St. Anthony at 
Venice, together with a request for some of 
his works from a Gregory and James’s reply. 
Their titles—de Fide, de Dilectione, de 
Jejunio, de Oratione, de Bello, de Devotis, 
de Poenitentia, de Resurrectione, etc.—corre- 
spond generally with those given by Genna- 
dius, but the order is different. In the same 
collection Assemani found the long letter of 
Jamestothe bishops of Seleucia andCtesiphon, 
on the Assyrian schism. It is in 31 sections, 
lamenting the divisions of the church and 
the pride and arrogance which caused them, 
and exhorting them to seek peace and concord. 
These were all published with a Latin trans- 
lation, and a learned preface establishing their 
authenticity, and notes by Nicolas Maria 
Antonelli in 1756; also in the collection of 
the Armenian Fathers, pub. at Venice in 1765, 
and again at Constantinople in 1824. The 
Latin translation is found in the Patres A pos- 
tolict of Caillau, t. 25, pp. 254-543. The 
liturgy bearing the name of James of Nisibis, 
said to have been formerly in use among the 
Syrians (Abr. Ecchell. Not. in Catal. Ebed- 
Jesu, p. 134; Bona, Liturg. i. 9) is certainly 
not his, but should be ascribed to James of 
Sarug (Renaudot, Lit. Or. t. ii. p. 4). James 
of Nisibis iscommemorated in Wright’s Syrian 
Martyrology, and in the Roman martyrology, 
July15. Assemani, Bibl. Or. t. i. pp. 17 sqq., 
186, 557, 652; Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. vii.: 
Ceillier, Ant. eccl. t. iv. pp. 478 544. ; Fabri- 
cius, Bibl. Graec. t. ix. p.289; Cave, Hist. Lit. 
tele 180. [E.v.] 
_ Jacobus (13) Sarugensis, bp. of Batnae, a 
little town in the district of Sarug in Osrhoéne. 
He enjoyed an extraordinary reputation for 
learning and holiness and was sainted alike by 
orthodox and heretics. The Syrian liturgies 
commemorate him with St. Ephraim as ‘os 
eloquentissimum et columnam ecclesiae.’’ 

Two Lives are extant in the Vatican and 
one in the Brit. Mus. (Cod. deccclx. 46, dated 
A-D. 1197). The oldest and best is the 


JACOBUS SARUGENSIS 


spirited eulogium by his disciple Georgius, 
perhaps a bishop of the Arabs. The other 
two, which are anonymous and later than 
roth cent., are in close agreement with it. 
According to them, Jacobus was born at Kur- 
tom on the Euphrates, A.D. 452, and was taught 
in one of the schools of Edessa (according to 
Mares the Nestorian). 

The anonymous Life (Vat.) states that 
Jacobus was made bp. of Batnae (“ urbis 
Sarug’’) when 67} years old, a.p. 519, and 
that he died 2} years afterwards, 1.6. A.D. 
521. Before a.pD. 503, Joshua Stylites tells us, 
Jacobus was a periodeutes or visitor of the 
district of Batnae, a middle rank between the 
episcopate and the priesthood. Cf. Ep. 16 in 
the Brit. Mus. Cod. delxxii. The Stylite adds 
that Jacobus composed many homilies on 
Scripture, psalms, and hymns; which proves 
his fame already established in 503. 

Renaudot (t. ii. Liturgg. Ortentt.) has 
charged Jacobus with Monophysitism, a 
charge which Assemani and Abbeloos shew to 
be unwarranted. Timotheus of Constanti- 
nople (fl. 6th cent. ad init.) calls him ‘‘ ortho- 
dox,’”’ Isaacus Ninivita and Joannes Maro 
quote him as such, and Joshua the Stylite, his 
contemporary, calls him venerable. The 
Maronites, always hostile to Nestorians and 
Jacobites, honour him as a saint. Further, 
he began his episcopate under J ustin, by whose 
orders Severus was driven from Antioch, 
Philoxenos from Hierapolis, and other heretics 
from Mesopotamia and Syria. Had Jacobus 
been a Monophysite, he would have shared 
their fate. Not asingle Catholic writer of the 
5th, 6th, or 7th cent., says Assemani, has so 
accused him. Bar-hebraeus and the Life in 
the Brit. Mus., indeed, allege that he com- 
municated with Severus, and Dionysius in his 
Chronicon asserts that St. Jacobus of Sarug 
would not communicate with Paul of Antioch, 
because the latter confessed the two natures. 
But Dionysius is contradictory in his dates. 
Some passages of the extant hymns speak of 
the single nature of Christ, but may be inter- 
polated. There is direct evidence that after 
the council of Chalcedon the Monophysites 
began to tamper with texts (cf. Evagr. iil. 31). 
They even attributed whole works, written in 
their own interests, to such men as Athanasius 
and Gregory Thaumaturgus. Jacobus Edes- 
senus testifies that a certain poem was falsely 
ascribed by the Jacobite sect to the bp. of 
Batnae shortly after his decease (Bar-hebr. 
Horr. Myst. ad Gen. vi.). Asilly poem against 
the council of Chalcedon (Cod. Nutr. 5 fol. 139) 
is proved by internal evidence to be spurious. 
His writings in general supply ample proof 
of orthodoxy on the doctrines in question. 

Works.—He was a very voluminous writer. 
Bar-hebraeussays that he employed 70 amanu- 
enses in writing his homiletic poems, of which 
760 exist, besides expositions, epistles, hymns, 
and psalms. Georgius, in his panegyric, gives 
a list of his poetic writings which treat of the 
great men of O.T., of angels, and of the 
mysteries of the Son of God. The anonymous 
Life (Vat.) states that his homilies (mim’ré) 
numbered 763. Of these many may be lost ; 
most of those which survive are unedited. 

Prose Works.—(1) An anaphora or liturgy 
(Renaud. Lit. Or. ii. 556-566) beginning Deus 


yee 


an Υ ἃ 


ΦΑΟΟΒΟΌΒ or JAMES BARADAEUS 


Patey, quit es tranquillitas! also found in 
Ethiopic (Brit. Mus. Cod. cclxi. rz, ‘‘ Ana- 
phora of holy Mar Jacob the Doctor, of Batnan 
of Serg.’’ Also Codd. cclxiii. and cclxxiii.). 

(2) An order of Baptism; one of four used 
by the Maronites (Assemani, Cod. Lit. ii. 309). 

(3) An order of Confirmation (ἐδ. iii. 184). 

(4) A number of epistles—the Brit. Mus. 
Cod. dclxxii. (dated a.p. 603) contains 34 in a 
more or less perfect state, including (a) Ep. 
to Samuel, abbat of St. Isaacus at Gabula ; on 
the Trinity and Incarnation. ‘‘ The Father 
unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit pro- 
ceeding from the Father, and receiving from 
the Son.” (b) Ep. to the Himyarite Chris- 
tians. (c) Ep. to Stephen  bar-Sudail of 
Edessa, proving from reason and Scripture 
the eternity of heaven and hell. (d) Ep. to 
Jacobus, an abbat of Edessa, explaining Heb. 
x20, Τ᾿ (}ohn Vv. δ᾽ ἴοι. (e)) Ep. to bp. 
Eutychianus against the Nestorians. 

(5) Six Homilies: on Nativity, Epiphany, 
Lent, Palm Sunday, The Passion, The Resur- 
rection (Zingerlé, Sechs Homilien des heilig. 
Jacob von Sarug, Bonn, 1867). 

Poetic Works.—Assemani gives a catalogue 
of 231, with headings and first words. Very 
few have been printed. The subjects are 
chiefly the personages and events of O. and 
N.T., esp. the words and deeds of Christ. 
Jacobus is very fond of an allegorical treat- 
ment of O.T. themes. 

Wright’s Cat. Syr. MSS., pp. 502-525, gives 
an account of upwardsof 40 MSS. and fragments 
of MSS., containing metrical discourses, and 
letters and a few homilies in prose, by St. 
Jacobus. Jacobus Edessenus classed the bp. 
of Batnae with St. Ephraim, Isaacus Magnus, 
and Xenaias Mabugensis, as a model writer of 
Syriac. Assem. Bibl. Or. i. 283-340 ; Cave, ii. 
110; Abbeloos, de Vita et Scriptt. 5. Jacobi 
Bain. Sarugi in Mesop. Episc. (Lovan. 1867) ; 
Matagne, Act. Sanct. xii. Oct. p. 824; Bickell, 
Consp. Syr. 25, 26. [c.J.B.] 

Jacobus (15) or James Baradaeus (4/ 
Baradat, Burdoho, Burdeono, Burdeana, or 
Burdeaya, also Phaselita, or Zanzalus), or- 
dained by the Monophysites bp. of Edessa 
(c. A.D. 541), with oecumenical authority over 
the members of their body throughout the 
East. By his indomitable zeal and untiring 
activity this remarkable man rescued the 
Monophysite community from the extinction 
with which persecution by the imperial power 
threatened it, and breathed a new life into 
what seemed little more than an expiring 
faction, consecrating bishops, ordaining clergy, 
and uniting its scattered elements in an 
organization so well planned and so stable that 
it has subsisted unharmed through all the 
many political and dynastic storms in that 
portion of the world, and preserves to the 
present day the name of its founder as the 
Jacobite church of the East. Materials for his 
Life are furnished by two Syriac biographies 
by his contemporary, John of Asia, the Mono- 
physite bp. of Ephesus ordained by him, 
printed by Land (Anecdota Syriaca, vol. ii. 
PP- 249-253, pp- 364-383), and by the third 
part of the Eccles. History of the same author 
(Payne Smith’s trans. pp. 273-278, 291). 

The surname Baradaeus is derived from the 
tagged mendicant’s garb patched up out of 


JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS 551 


old saddle-cloths, in which, the better to dis- 
guise his spiritual functions from the unfriend- 
ly eyes of those in power, this indefatigable 
propagator of his creed performed his swift and 
secret journeys over Syria and Mesopotamia. 
James Baradaeus is stated by John of 
Ephesus to have been born at Tela Mauzalat, 
otherwise called Constantina, a city of Os- 
rhoéne, 55 miles due E. of Edessa, towards the 
close of 5th cent. His father, Theophilus 
Bar-Manu, was one of the clergy of the place. 
In pursuance of a vow of his parents, James, 
when two years old, was placed in that 
monastery under the care of abbat Eustathius 
and trained in Greek and Syriac literature an 
in the strictest asceticism (Land, A necdot. Syr. 
t. ll. p. 364). He became remarkable for the 
severity of his self-discipline. Having on the 
death of his parents inherited their property, 
including a couple of slaves, he manumitted 
them, and made over the house and estate to 
them, reserving nothing for himself (th. 366). 
He eventually became a presbyter. His fame 
spread over the East and reached the empress 
Theodora, who was eagerly desirous of seeing 
him, as one of the chief saints of the Mono- 
physite party of which she was a zealous 
partisan. James was with much difficulty 
induced toleave his monastery for the imperial 
city. Arriving at Constantinople, he was re- 
ceived with much honour by Theodora. But 
the splendour of the court had no attrac- 
tions for him. He retired to one of the 
monasteries of the city, where he lived as a 
complete recluse. The period spent by him 
at Constantinople—15 years, according to John 
of Ephesus—was a disastrous one for the 
Monophysite body. Justinian had resolved 
to enforce the Chalcedonian decrees univer- 
sally, and the bishops and clergy who refused 
them were punished with imprisonment, 
deprivation, and exile. Whole districts of 
Syria and the adjacent countries were thus 
deprived of their pastors, and the Monophy- 
sites were threatened with gradual extinction. 
For ten years many churches had been desti- 
tute of the sacraments, which they refused to 
receive from what were to them heretical 
hands. The extreme peril of the Monophy- 
sites was represented to Theodora by the 
sheikh Harith, and by her instrumentality the 
recluse James was drawn from his cell and 
persuaded to accept the hazardous and 
laborious post of the apostle of Monophysitism 
in the East. A considerable number of 
Monophysite bishops from all parts of the 
East, including Theodosius of Alexandria, 
Anthimus the deposed patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, Constantius of Laodicea, John of 
Egypt, Peter, and others, who had come to 
Constantinople in the hope of mitigating the 
displeasure of the emperor and exciting the 
sympathies of Theodora, were held by J ustin- 
ian in one of the imperial castles in a kind of 
honourable imprisonment. By them James 
was consecrated to the episcopate, nominally 
as bp. of Edessa but virtually as a metropoli- 
tan with oecumenical authority. The date is 
uncertain, but that given by Assemani (A.D. 
541) is probably correct. The result proved 
the wisdom of the choice. Of the simplest 
mode of life, inured to hardship from his 
earliest years, tolerant of the extremities of 


552 JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS 


hunger and fatigue, ‘‘a second Asahel for 
fleetness of foot’? (Abulpharagius), fired with 
an unquenchable zeal for what he regarded 
as the true faith, with a dauntless courage that 
despised all dangers, James, in his tattered 
beggar’s disguise, traversed on foot the whole 
of Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the 
adjacent provinces, even to the borders of 
Persia, everywhere ordaining bishops and 
clergy, by his exhortations or his encyclical 
letters encouraging his depressed co-religion- 
ists to courageously maintain their faith 
against the advocates of the two natures, and 
organizing them into a compact spiritual body. 
By his indefatigable labours ‘‘ the expiring 
faction was revived, and united and per- 
petuated.... The speed of the zealous mission- 
ary was promoted by the fleetest dromedaries 
of a devout chief of the Arabs; the doctrine 
and discipline of the Jacobites were secretly 
established in the dominions of Justinian, and 
each Jacobite was compelled to violate the 
laws and to hate the Roman legislator’”’ 
(Gibbon, vol. vi. p. 75, ed. 1838). Heisstated 
to have ordained the incredible number of 
80,000 clergy. John of Ephesus says 100,000 
(Land, Anecdot. Syr. ii. 251); including 89 
bishops and two patriarchs. His wonderful 
success in reviving the moribund Monophysite 
church aroused the emperor and the Catholic 
bishops. Orders were issued and rewards 
offered for his apprehension. But, in his 
beggar’s garb, aided by the friendly Arab 
tribes and the people of Syria and Asia, he 
eluded all attempts to seize him, and lived 
into the reign of Tiberius. The longer of the 
twoLivesof James, by Johnof Ephesus (Land, 
u.s. pp. 364-383), must be consulted for the 
extent and variety of his missionary labours 
and for the miracles which illustrated them. 

James failed miserably when he attempted 
to govern the vast and heterogeneous body he 
had created and organized. The simplicity 
and innocence of his character, as described 
by his contemporary John of Ephesus (H. E. 
iv. 15), disqualified him for rule, and put him 
in the power of ‘‘ crafty and designing men 
about him, who turned him every way they 
chose, and used him as a means of establishing 
their own powers.”’ His unhappy dissensions 
with the bishops he had ordained clouded the 
closing portion of James’s long life. The 
internecine strife between the different sec- 
tions of the Monophysite party is fully de- 
tailed by John of Ephesus, who records with 
bitter lamentation the blows, fighting, mur- 
ders, and other deeds ‘‘ so insensate and unre- 
strained that Satan and his herds of demons 
alone could rejoice in them, wrought on both 
sides by the two factions with which the 
believers—so unworthy of the name—were 
rent,’ provoking ‘“‘ the contempt and ridicule 
of heathens, Jews, and heretics” (H. E. iv. 
30). For a full account see John of Ephesus, 
op. ctt. (Payne Smith’s trans. pp. 48 sqq., 81 
sqq., 274 sqq.). 

One of these party squabbles was between 
James and the bps. Conon and Eugenius, 
whom he had ordained at Alexandria—the 
former for the Isaurian Seleucia, the latter for 
Tarsus—who became the founders of the 
obscure and short-lived sect of the ‘‘ Conon- 
ites,’ or, from the monastery at Constanti- 


JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS 


nople to which a section of them belonged, 
““Condobandites’”’ (John of Ephesus, H. E. 
i. 31, V. I-12; trans. 4.s. pp. 49-65). Each 
anathematized the other, James denoancing 
Conon and his companion as “‘Tritheists,’’ and 
they retaliated by the stigma of ‘‘ Sabellian.”’ 

A still longer and more widespreading 
difference arose between James and Paul, 
whom he had ordained patriarch of Antioch 
(H. E.i. 41, p. 81). Paul and the other three 
leading bishops of the Monophysites had been 
summoned to Constantinople under colour of 
taking measures for restoring unity to the 
church, and, proving obstinatein the adherence 
totheirowncreed, were thrown into prison for a 
considerable time and subjected to the harsh- 
est treatment. This prolonged persecution 
broke their spirit, and one by one they all 
yielded, accepting the communion of John the 
patriarch of Constantinople and the ‘‘ Synod- 
ites,’’ as the adherents of the Chalcedonian 
decrees were contemptuously termed by their 
opponents, ‘‘lapsing miserably into the 
communion of the two natures”’ (ἐδ. i. 41, ii. 
I-9, iv. 15). Paul, stung with remorse for his 
cowardice, escaped into Arabia, taking refuge 
with Mondir, son and successor of Harith. 
On hearing of his defection James at once cut 
Paul off from communion; but at the end of 
three years, on receiving the assurance of his 
contrition, his act of penitence was laid before 
the synod of the Monophysite church of the 
East, and he was duly and canonically restored 
to communion by James, who notified the fact 
by encyclic letters (ἐδ. iv. 15). Paul’s rehabi- 
litation caused great indignation among the 
Monophysites at Alexandria. They clam- 
oured for his deposition, which was carried 
into effect by Peter, the intruded patriarch, 
in violation of all canonical order; the patri- 
arch of Antioch (Paul’s position in the Mono- 
physite communion) owning no allegiance 
to the patriarch of Alexandria (ib. iv. 16). 
James allowed himself to be persuaded that 
if he were to visit Alexandria the veneration 
felt for his age and services would bring to 
an end the unhappy dissension between the 
churches of Syria and Egypt, and though 
he had denounced Peter, both orally and in 
writing, he was induced not only to hold 
communion with him but to draw up instru- 
ments of concord and to give his formal assent 
to the deposition of Paul, only stipulating that 
it should not be accompanied by any excom- 
munication (7b. 17). The intelligence was 
received with indignation and dismay in Syria 
on James’s return. The schism which re- 
sulted between the adherents of James and 
Paul, A.D. 576, ‘‘ spread like an ulcer ’”’ through 
the whole of the East, especially in Constanti- 
nople. In vain did Paul entreat James to 
discuss the matters at issue between them 
calmly, promising to abide by the issue. In 
vain did Mondir put himself forward asa peace- "ἡ 
maker. James shrank from investigation, 
and caused an obstinate refusal to be returned 
to all overtures of accommodation (ib. 20, 
21). Wearied out at last, and feeling the 
necessity for putting an end to the violence 
and bloodshed which was raging unchecked, 
James suddenly set out for Alexandria, but 
never reached it. On the arrival of his party, 
including several bishops, at the monastery of 


JOANNES I. 


Cassianus or Mar-Romanus on the Egyptian 
frontier, a deadly sickness attacked them, and 
James himself fell a victim to it, July 30, 578. 
His episcopate is said to have lasted 37 years, 
and his life, according to Renaudot (Lit. Or. 
ii. 342), 73 years. 

A liturgy bearing the name of ‘ Jacobus 
Bordayaeus "’ is given by Renaudot (Lit. Or. 
t. ii. pp. 332-341), who confuses him, as Ba- 
ronius does (ad ann. 535), with Jacobus Bara- 
daeus. That this liturgy is correctly assigned 
to the Jacobite church 15 proved by the special 
memorial of their founder, ‘‘ memento Domine 
omnium pastorum et doctorum ecclesiae 
orthodoxae . . . praecipue vero Jacobi Bor- 
daei,’’ as well as by the special condemnation 
of those who ‘‘impiously blasphemed the 
Incarnation of the Word, and divided the 
union in nature (unionem in natura) with 
the flesh taken from the holy mother of God”’ 
(tb. 337, 338). The Catechesis, the chief dog- 
matical formulary of the Jacobites, ‘‘ totius 
fidei Jacobiticae norma et fundamentum”’ 
(Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 524), though adjudged to 
be his by Cave, Abraham Ecchellensis, and 
others, together with the Encomium in Jaco- 
bitas, and an Arabic Homily on the Annun- 
ciation, are discredited by Assemani on philo- 
logical and chronological grounds. [E.v.] 

Joannes (11) I., surnamed Talaia, patri- 
arch of Alexandria and afterwards bp. of 
Nola. From having been a presbyter in the 
monastery of the Tabennesians at Canopus 
near Alexandria, he was known as Tabennesi- 
otes (Pagi, Critic. s.a. 482, xix.; Mansi, vii. 
1178 B). Previous to the expulsion of Salo- 
faciolus from his see of Alexandria, and after 
his restoration, John held the office of oecono- 
mus under him (Brevic. Hist. Eutych. Mansi, 
vii. 1063; Liberat. Breviar. c. 16 in Migne, 
Patr. Lat. \xviii. 1020). Shortly afterwards 
John was sent bythe Catholics of Alexandria to 
the emperor Zeno, to thank him for the restora- 
tion of Salofaciolus, and to pray that when a 
vacancy occurred in the see they might choose 
his successor. He obtained an edict from the 
emperor complying with this request (Evagr. 
H. E. iii. 12), and after his return became 
greatly distinguished as a preacher in Alex- 
andria (Brevic. Hist. Eutych. u.s.). Salo- 
faciolus died A.p. 482, and the Catholics then 
elected John (zb.). The Monophysites elected 
Peter Mongus, then in exile (Liberat. c. 17; 
Theophan. s.a. 476). John sent the usual 
synodic announcement of his election to 
Simplicius, bp.of Rome, but neglected todirect 
one to Acactus, bp. of Constantinople, only 
sending one to his friend Illus, who was then 
in that city, with instructions to make what 
use of it he thought fit, and accompanying it 
with a letter addressed tothe emperor. When 
the magistrianus whom John employed as his 
messenger to Constantinople arrived there, he 
found that Illus had gone to Antioch, whither 
he followed him with the synodic. On receiv- 
ing it at Antioch Illus delivered the synodic 
to Calandio, then recently elected to the 
patriarchate of that see (Liberat. cc. 17, 18). 
Acacius, taking offence at not receiving a 
synodic from John, joined the Monophysites 
in their appeal to the emperor against him, 
and prevailed upon Zeno to write to Simpli- 


JOANNES 553 


(Simplic. a 17, July 15, A.D. 482, in Mansi, 
vii. 992). Without waiting for the reply of 
Simplicius, Zeno instructed the civil author- 
ities to expel John. Thus driven from 
Alexandria, Talaia went to Illus at Antioch, 
and thence to Rome (Liberat. c. 18). There 
he was favourably received by Simplicius, who 
at once wrote to Acacius on his behalf (Ep. 18, 
Nov. 6, 482, in Mansi, vii. 995). Acacius 
replied that he did not recognize J ohn, but had 
received Mongus into communion by command 
of Zeno; and Simplicius rejoined, blaming 
Acacius in no measured terms (Liberat. c. 18). 
Simplicius died March 2, 483, but John was 
warmly supported by his successor Felix III., 
who cited Acacius to answer certain charges 
brought against him by Talaia, and wrote to 
the emperor praying him to withdraw his 
countenance from Mongus and restore John 
(Libell. Citationis ad Acac. Mansi, vii. 1108 ; 
Felic. Ep. 2, A.D. 483, in 1b. 1032). On the re- 
turn of his legates from Constantinople, Felix 
held a synod at Rome which excommunicated 
Acacius for his persistent support of Mongus 
(Ep. 6, July 28, 484, in tb. 1053). Felix wrote 
toinform Zeno of this, and to let him know 
that ‘‘ the apostolic see would never consent 
to communion with Peter of Alexandria, who 
had been justly condemned long since”’ (Ep. 
9, Aug. 1, 484, in 7b. 1065). Felix did not 
obtain his end, and John seems to have re- 
mained at Rome until the death of Zeno and 
the succession of Anastasius, A.D. 491, to 
whom John had shewn kindness at Alexandria 
after his shipwreck. Presuming that Anas- 
tasius would not be unmindful of this, John 
went to Constantinople to appeal to him. On 
hearing of his arrival Anastasius at once 
ordered him to be exiled, and John made his 
escape and returned to Rome (Theophan. s.a. 
484, p. 118; Victor Tunun. s.a. 494, in Migne, 
Patr. Lat. \xviii. 948). Felix died Feb. 25, 492, 
but his successor, Gelasius I., equally interest- 
ed himself in John (Gelas. Epp. 13, 15, in 
Mansi, viii. 49 564., Cc. 403-405). 

All these efforts to procure his reinstatement 
were of no avail; John never returned to 
Alexandria, but received, as some compensa- 
tion, the see of Nola in Campania, where, after 
many years, he died in peace (Liberat. c. 
18). During his episcopate there he appar- 
ently wrote an ἀπολογία to Gelasius, in which 
he anathematized the Pelagian heresy, Pela- 
gius himself, and Celestius, as well as J ulia- 
nus of Eclana. Phot. Brbltoth. Cod. liv. ; Le 
Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 417, 419; Remondini, Del 
Nolana Eccl. Storia, iii. 56-59; Ughelli, Ital. 
Sacr. vi. 251; Tillem. Mém. xvi. 313 seq. ; 
Hefele, Conctl. ii. 604 seq. [T.W.D.]} 

Joannes (31), bp. of Antioch (429-448). 
Our knowledge of him commences with his 
election as successor to Theodotus in the see 
of Antioch. In 429 the bishops of the East, 
according to the aged Acacius of Beroea, 
congratulated themselves on having such a 
leader (Labbe, iii. 386); but the troubles 
which rendered his episcopate so unhappily 
famous began immediately to shew them- 
selves. His old companion and fellow-towns- 
man Nestorius had just been appointed to the 
see of Constantinople, and had inaugurated 
his episcopate with a sermon in the metro- 


cius, praying him not to acknowledge Jobn | politan church repudiating the term ‘* Mother 


554 JOANNES 


of God,’’ @eoréxos. Celestine, the Roman 
pontiff, summoned a synod of Western bishops 
in Aug. 430, which unanimously condemned 
the tenets of Nestorius, and the name of John 
of Antioch appears in the controversy. The 
support of the Eastern prelates, of whom the 
patriarch of Antioch was chief, being of great 
importance, Celestine wrote to John, Juve- 
nal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and 
Flavian of Philippi, informing them of the 
decree passed against Nestorius (Baluz. p. 438, 
c. xv.; Labbe, iii. 376). At the same time 
Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, wrote to John 
calling upon him, on pain of being separated 
from the communion of the West, to accept 
Celestine’s decision and unite with him in 
defending the faith against Nestorius (Baluz. 
P. 442, c. xviii.; Labbe, iii. 379). Such a 
declaration of open hostility against an old 
friend, of whose virtual orthodoxy he was 
convinced, was very distasteful to John. He 
dispatched a letter full of Christian persua- 
siveness, by the count Irenaeus, to Nestorius, 
in his own name, and that of his brother- 
bishops Archelaus, Apringius, Theodoret, 
Heliades, Melchius, and the newly appointed 
bp. of Laodicea, Macarius, entreating him not 
to plunge the church into discord on account 
of a word to which the Christian ear had 
become accustomed, and which was capable 
of being interpreted in his own sense. He 
enlarged on the danger of schism, warning 
Nestorius that the East, Egypt, and Mace- 
donia were about to separate from him, and ex- 
horted him to follow the example of Theodorus 
of Mopsuestia in retracting words which had 
given pain to the orthodox, since he really 
held the orthodox faith on these points (Baluz. 
Ῥ- 445, c. xxi.; Labbe, iii. 390 seq.). John 
wrote also to count Irenaeus, Musaeus bp. of 
Antarada, and Helladius bp. of Tarsus, who 
were then at Constantinople, hoping to avail 
himself of their influence with Nestorius 
(Baluz. p. 688). Nestorius’s reply indicated 
no intention of following John’s counsels. 
He declared himself orthodox in the truest 
sense. He had no rooted objection to the 
term θεοτόκος, but thought it unsafe, because 
accepted by some in an Arian or Apollinarian 
sense. He preferred Χριστοτόκος, as a middle 
term between it and ἀνθρωποτόκος. He pro- 
posed to defer the discussion to the general 
council which he hoped for (ib. p. 688). 

The divergence of the Antiochene and 
Alexandrian schools of thought in their way 
of regarding the mystery of the Incarnation 
lay at the root of this controversy about the 
term, and it was brought into open manifesta- 
tion by the publication of Cyril’s twelve 
“anathematisms ”’ on the teaching of Nesto- 
rius. Nestorius, on receiving these fulmina- 
tions at the end of 430, at once sent copies of 
them to John, together with his two sermons 
of Dec. 13 and 14, in which he professed to 
have acknowledged Mary as the ‘“‘ Mother of 
God.” (tb. p. 691, c. iv.).. John declared him- 
self horror-stricken at the Apollinarian heresy 
which characterized Cyril’s articles. He made 
them known far and wide, in Cappadocia, 
Galatia, and through the East generally, 
accompanying them with earnest appeals 
to the bishops and the orthodox everywhere 
to openly repudiate the grave errors they 


JOANNES 


contained (ib. p. 838, No. xxxvi. Ep. Alexandri 
Episc.). His letter to Firmus is preserved 
(Baluz. p. 691, c. iv.), in which he expresses 
abhorrence of the ‘‘ capitula,’’ which he con- 
siders so unlike Cyril both in style and doctrine 
that he cannot believe they are his, and calls 
upon Firmus, if they reach Pontus, to get 
them abjured by the bishops of the province, 
without naming the supposed author. He 
rejoices over Nestorius’s public acceptance of 
the test-word, in the two sermons he has sent 
him, which has quieted the storm and restored 
tranquillity to the church of Constantinople. 
John was also careful to have Cyril’s heretical 
formularies refuted by able theologians. 
[ANDREAS SAMOSATENSIS ; THEODORET.] 

The breach between the two patriarchs was 
complete. Each denounced the other as 
heretical. A larger arena was supplied by the 
general council summoned by Theodosius to 
meet at Ephesus at Pentecost, 431. John’s 
arrival having been delayed more than a 
fortnight beyond the time fixed for the 
opening of the council, he wrote that Antioch 
was 42 days’ journey from Ephesus, at the 
fastest. He had been travelling without 
interruption for 30 days; he was now within 
five or six stages of Ephesus. If Cyril would 
condescend to wait a little longer, he hoped 
in a veryfewdays to arrive (ib. p. 451, C. Xxill.). 
Cyril would not delay. On Mon. June 22, 431, 
198 bishops met in the church of St. Mary the 
Virgin, and in one day Nestorius was tried, 
condemned, sentenced, deposed, and excom- 
municated. Five days later, Sat. June 27, 
John arrived with 14 bishops. His reasons 
for delay were quite sufficient. His patri- 
archate was a very extensive one. His 
attendant bishops could not leave their 
churches before the octave of Easter, Apr. 26. 
The distances some of them had to travel did 
not allow them to reach Antioch before May 
ro. John’s departure had been delayed by 
a famine at Antioch and consequent outbreaks 
of the populace; their progress was impeded 
by floods (Labbe, iii. 602); the transport broke 
down; many of the bishops were aged men, un- 
fit for rapid travelling. There was nothing to 
support Cyril’s accusation that John’s delay 
was intentional. 

Cyril sent a deputation of bishops and 
ecclesiastics to welcome John, apprise him in 
the name of the council of the deposition of 
Nestorius and that he must no longer regard 
him as a bishop (2b. iii. 761). John, who had 
already heard from count Irenaeus of the 
hasty decision of the council, refused to admit 
the deputation, and they complained that they 
were rudely treated by the guard whom 
Irenaeus had sent to do honour to and protect 
the Eastern bishops. The deputation were 
compelled to wait for some hours at the door 
of the house where John took up his quarters, 


exposed to the insults of the soldiers and the - 


attendants of the Orientals (1b. 593, 764), 
while a rival council was being held within. 
The bishops who sided with J ohn had hastened 
to his lodgings, where, ‘‘ before they had 
shaken the dust off their feet, or taken off 
their cloaks ’’ (Cyril. Ep. ad Colest. Labbe, iii. 
663), the small synod—the “‘ conciliabulum ” 
their enemies tauntingly called it—of 43 
bishops, passed a sentence of deposition on 


2 ® ey 


JOANNES 


JOANNES 555 


Cyril and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, and of! a presbyter of Constantinople, in defiance of 
excommunication on all the other prelates of | the protest of John and his party, was conse- 
the council, until they should have condemned | crated (Oct. 25) bp. of the imperial see in his 


Cyril’s ‘‘capitula,’’ which 


they declared room. 


Memnon and Cyril were reinstated : 


tainted not only with Apollinarian, but with | the former to remain at Ephesus as bishop ; 
Arian and Eunomian heresy (tb. 596, 637, 657, | Cyril and the other bishops to return home. 


664 passim). The sentences of excommunica- 
tion and deposition were posted up in the city. 
There John vouchsafed an audience to the 
deputies of the other council. They communi- 
cated its decrees as to Nestorius, but received, 
they asserted, no reply but insults and blows 
(tb. 764). 


Returning to Cyril they formally | 


complained of John’s treatment, of which they | 


shewed marks on their persons. The council 


immediatelydeclared J ohnseparatedfrom their | 


communion until he explained this conduct. 
John’s attempts to reduce Cyril and his 


adherents to submission by his own authority | 


proved fruitless, and he had recourse to the 
emperor and the ecclesiastical power at Con- 
stantinople. Several letters were written to 
Theodosius, to the empresses Pulcheria and 
Eudocia, the clergy, the senate, and the 
people of that city (Labbe, ill. 601-609 ; 
Liberat. c. vi.) to explain the tardiness of 
John’s arrival and to justify the sentence 
pronounced on Cyril, Memnon, and the other 
bishops. Theodosius wrote to the council, 
declaring their decisions null (Labbe, iii. 704). 
The letter reached Ephesus June 29. John 
and his friends welcomed it with benedictions, 
assuring the emperor that they had acted 
from pure zeal for the faith which was im- 
perilled by the Apollinarianism of Cyril’s 
“‘anathematisms.’’ Relying on imperial 
favour, John strove in vain to persuade the 
Ephesians to demand a new bishop in the 
place of Memnon. Meantime, the legates of 
Celestine had arrived from Rome, and the 
council, strengthened by their presence and 
the approbation of the bp. of Rome, pro- 
ceeded, July 16, tosummon John before them. 
Their deputation was informed that John 
could hold no intercourse with excommuni- 
cated persons (1b. 640). On this the council 
declared null all the acts of John’s “ concili- 
abulum,”’ and, on his persisting, separated him 
and the bishops who had joined him from the 
communion of the church, pronounced them 
disqualified for all episcopal functions, and 
published their decree openly (1b. 302). 

Two counter-deputations from the opposite 

arties presented themselves to Theodosius 
in the first week of September at Chalcedon. 
John himself did not shrink from an open de- 
fence of the orthodoxy of Nestorius, declaring 
his deposition illegal and exposing the heresy 
of Cyril’s anathematisms (Baluz. pp. 837, 839). 
To support their evidently failing cause, John 
and his fellow-deputies wrote to some leading 
prelates of the West, the bps. of Milan, 
Aquileia, and Ravenna, and Rufus of Thessa- 
lonica, laying before them in earnest terms the 
heretical character of Cyril’s doctrines (Theod. 
Ep. 112; Labbe, iii. 736), but apparently 
without favourable result. The victory was 
substantially with the Cyrillian party. After 
six audiences the emperor, weary of the fruit- 
less strife, declared his final resolve. Nes- 
torius, generally abandoned by his supporters, 
was permitted to retire to his former monas- 
tery of St. Euprepius at Antioch. Maximian, 


John and the Orientals were only not formally 

condemned because the dogmatic question 
| had not been discussed. Before he retired 
vanquished, John delivered a final remon- 
strance. The churches of Chalcedon were 
closed against the Oriental bishops, but they 
had obtained a spacious hall for public worship 
and preaching. Large crowds assembled to 
listen to the powerful sermons of Theodoret 
and the milder exhortations of John. The 
| mortification with which John left Chalcedon 
was deepened by the events of his homeward 
journey. At Ancyra he found that letters 
from its bp. Theodotus, who was one of the 
eight deputies of the council, as well as from 
Firmus of Caesarea, and Maximian the newly 
appointed bp. of Constantinople, had com- 
manded that he and hiscompanions should be 
regarded as excommunicate. 

From Ancyra John proceeded to Tarsus. 
Here, in his own patriarchate, he immediately 
held a council, together with Alexander of 
Hierapolis and the other deputies, at which 
he confirmed the deposition of Cyril and his 
brother-commissioners (Baluz. 840, 843, 847). 
Theodoret and the others engaged never to 
consent to the deposition of Nestorius. On 
reaching Antioch, about the middle of Dec., 
John summoned a very numerously attended 
council of bishops, which pronounced a fresh 
sentence against Cyril and wrote to Theo- 
dosius, calling upon him to take measures for 
the general condemnation of the doctrines of 
Cyril, as contrary to the Nicene faith which 
they were resolved to maintain to the death 
(Socr. H. E. vii. 34; Liberat. c. vi.; Baluz. 
Ῥ. 741, c. xxxix.). Soon after his return to 
Antioch John, accompanied by six bishops, 
visited the venerable Acacius of Beroea, whose 
sympathy in the controversy had greatly 
strengthened and consoled him. The old man 
was deeply grieved to hear the untoward 
result of their proceedings. 

The battle was now over and the victory 
remained with Cyril. His return to Alexan- 
dria was a triumphal progress (Labbe, ili. 105). 
But the victory had been purchased by a 
schism in the church. Alexandria and An- 
tioch were two hostile camps. For three 
years a bitter strife was maintained. The 
issue, however, was never doubtful. John, 
alarmed for his own safety, soon began to 
shew symptoms of yielding. The emperor, 
at the urgent demand of Celestine, had pro- 
nounced the banishment of Nestorius. Jobn 
might not unreasonably fear a demand for his 
own deposition. It was time he should make 
it clear that he had no real sympathy with the 
errors of the heresiarch. The pertinacity 
with which Nestorius continued to promulgate 
the tenets which had proved so ruinous to 
the peace of the church irritated John. The 
newly elected bp. of Rome, Sixtus, who had 
warmly embraced Cyril's cause, in a letter 
addressed to the prelates of the East in the 
interests of reunion, a.p. 432, declared that 
John might be received again into the Catholic 


556 JOANNES 


church, provided he repudiated all whom the 
council of Ephesus had deposed and proved 
by his acts that he really deserved the name 
of a Catholic bishop (Coteler. Mon. Eccl. Graec. 
i. 47). Cyril was disposed to limit his require- 
ments to the condemnation of Nestorius and 
the recognition of Maximian. John sum- 
moned Alexander of Hierapolis, Andrew of 
Samosata, Theodoret, and probably others, to 
Antioch and held a conference to draw up 
terms of peace. It was agreed that if Cyril 
would reject his anathematisms they would 
restore him to communion. Propositions for 
union were dispatched by John to Cyril. 
John and his fellow-bishops next sought the 
intervention of Acacius of Beroea, who was 
universally venerated, in the hope that his 
influence might render Cyril more willing to 
accept the terms (Baluz. 756, c. liii.; Labbe, 
iii. 1114). Cyril, though naturally declining 
to retract his condemnation of Nestorius’s 
tenets, opened the way fora reconciliation with 
John. John, eager to come to terms with his 
formidable foe, declared himself fully satisfied 
of Cyril’s orthodoxy ; his explanation had re- 
moved all the doubt his former language had 
raised (Labbe, iii. 757, 782). Paul, bp. of 
Emesa, was dispatched by John to Alexandria 
to confer with Cyril and bring about the much- 
desired restoration of communion (ib. 783). 
These events took place in Dec. 432 and 
Jan. 433. Cyril after some hesitation signed 
a confession of faith sent him by John, de- 
claring in express terms ‘‘ the union of the two 
natures without confusion in the One Christ, 
One Son, One Lord,’’ and confessing ‘‘ the 
Holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, because 
God the Word was incarnate and made man, 
and from His very conception united to Him- 
self the temple taken from her’’ (Labbe, iii. 
1094; Baluz. pp. 800, 804; Liberat. 8, p. 30), 
and gave Paul of Emesa an explanation of his 
anathematisms which Paul approved (Labbe, 
iii. 1090). Cyril then required acceptance of 
the deposition of Nestorius, recognition of Max- 
imian, and acquiescence in the sentence passed 
by him on the four metropolitans deposed as 
Nestorians; terms acceded to by Paul. Each 
party was desirous of peace and disposed to 
concessions. Paul, placing in Cyril’s hand a 
written consent to all his requirements, was 
admitted to communion and allowed to preach 
at the Feast of the Nativity (Cyril. Ep. 32, 40; 
Labbe, iii. 1095 ; Liberat. c. 8, p. 32). John, 
however, sent letters stating that neither he 
nor the other Oriental bishops could consent 
so hastily to the condemnation of Nestorius, 
from whose writings he gave extracts to prove 
their orthodoxy (Baluz. p. 908). Cyril and 
the court began to weary of so much inde- 
cision, and, to bring matters to a point, a 
document drawn up by Cyril and Paul was 
sent for John to sign (Cyril, Epp. 40, 42), 
together with letters of communion to be 
given him if he consented. Fresh delays 
ensued, but at last, in Apr. 433, the act giving 
peace to the Christian world was signed and 
dispatched to Alexandria, where it was an- 
nounced by Cyril in the cathedral on Apr. 23. 
John, in a letter to Cyril, stated that in signing 
this document he had no intention to derogate 
from the authority of the Nicene Creed, and 
expressly recognized Maximian as the lawful 


JOANNES 


bp. of Constantinople in place of Nestorius, 
sometime bishop, but deposed for teaching 
which merited anathema. He also wrote a 
circular letter of communion addressed to pope 
Sixtus, Cyril and Maximian (Labbe, iii. 1087, 
1090, 1094, 1154; Cyril, Ep. 41). The East 
and West were once more at one. Cyril tes- 
tified his joy in the celebrated letter to John, 
commencing ‘‘ Let the heavens rejoice, and 
let the earth be glad ’’ (Labbe, iii. 1106-1111). 
John wrote to Theodosius thanking him for 
the peace which his efforts had procured, and 
begged him to render it universal by restoring 
the deposed bishops. 

This accommodation was far from being 
satisfactory to the extreme members of either 
party. Isidore of Pelusium and other adher- 
ents of Cyril expressed a fear that he had made 
too large concessions; while John had given 
great offence to many of his warmest sup- 
porters, who accused him of truckling to 
powerful advocates of a hollow peace to 
secure his position as bishop. Theodoret 
refused to abandon Nestorius. Alexander of 
Hierapolis broke off communion with his 
patriarch John (Baluz. pp. 799, 832). During 
the next two years John sought to force the 
bishops of his patriarchate to accept the terms 
of peace. Theodoret’s unwillingness to aban- 
don Nestorius and rooted dislike to Cyril’s 
articles raised a coldness between him and 
John which was much strengthened by an 
unwarrantable usurpation on John’s part, 
who at the close of 433 or beginning of 434 had 
ordained bishops for Euphratesia. This ag- 
gression caused serious irritation among the 
bishops of the province, who, led by Theo- 
doret, withdrew from communion with John. 
John unhappily continuing his acts of usurpa-+ 
tion, the disaffection spread. Nine provinces 
subject to the patriarch of Antioch renounced 
communion with John, who had at length 
to request the imperial power to force them 
into union by ejecting the bishops who 
refused the agreement he had arranged with 
Cyril. Theodoret, yielding to the entreaties 
of James of Cyrus and other solitaries of his 
diocese, consented to a conference with John 
and was received by his old friend with great 
cordiality. All reproaches were silenced, and 
as John did not insist on his accepting the 
sentence against Nestorius, he embraced the 
concordat, and returned to communion with 
John and Cyril (7b. pp. 834-836). The way 
towards peace had been smoothed by the 
death of Nestorius’s successor, Maximian, 
Apr. 12, 434, and the appointment as archbp. 
of Constantinople of the saintly Proclus, who, 
in the early part of the Nestorian controversy, 
had preached the great sermon on the Theo- 
tokos (Socr. H. E. vii. 40; Baluz. p. 851). 
Proclus’s influence was exerted in favour of 
peace, and so successfully that all the remon- 
strant bishops, except Alexander of Hierapolis 
and five others, ultimately accepted the con- 
cordat and retained their sees. Alexander 
was ejected in Apr. 435. John made a strong 
representation to Proclus in 436 that Nestorius 
in his retirement was persisting in his blas- 
phemies and perverting many in Antioch and 
throughout the East (Baluz. p. 894), and form- 
ally requested Theodosius to expel him from 
the East and deprive him of the power of doing 


JOANNES 


mischief (Evagr. H. E. i. 7; Theophan. p. 78). | 
An edict was accordingly issued that all the 
heresiarch’s books should be burnt, his fol- | 
lowers called ‘* Simonians ’’ and their meetings 
suppressed (Labbe, ili. 1209; Cod. Theod. 
XVI. v. 66). The property of Nestorius was 
confiscated and he was banished to the remote 
and terrible Egyptian oasis. 

Nestorian doctrines were too deeply rooted 
in the Eastern mind to be eradicated by 
persecution. 


the bishops who had verbally condemned Nes- 
torius still in their hearts cherished his teach- 
ing, procured orders from the Imperial 


government that the bishops should severally | 


and explicitly repudiate Nestorianism. A 
formula of Cyril’s having been put into John’s 
hands for signature, John wrote in 436 or 437 
to Proclus to remonstrate against this multi- 


plicity of tests which distracted the attention | 
of bishops from the care of their dioceses. 


(Labbe, 11. 894). 

Fresh troubles speedily broke out in the 
East in connexion with the writings of the 
greatly revered Theodore of Mopsuestia and 
Diodorus of Tarsus, whose disciple Nestorius 
had been. The bishops and clergy of Armenia 
appealed to Proclus for his judgment on the 
teaching of Theodore (δ. v. 463). Proclus 
replied by the celebrated doctrinal epistle 
known as the “ Tome of St. Proclus.’”’ To this 
were attached some passages selected from 
Theodore’s writings, which he deemed de- 
serving of condemnation (ib. 511-513). This 
letter he sent first to John requesting that he 
and his council would sign it (Liberat. p. 46; 
Facundus, lib. 8, c. 1, 2). 
provincial bishops at Antioch. They ex- 
pressed annoyance at being called on for 
fresh signatures, as if their orthodoxy was 
still questionable, but made no difficulty about 
signing the ‘‘ Tome,”’ which they found worthy 
of all admiration, both for beauty of style and 
the dogmatic precision of its definitions. But 
the demand for the condemnation of the ap- 
pended extracts called forth indignant pro- 
tests. They refused to condemn passages 
divorced from their context, and capable, even 
as they stood, of an orthodox interpretation. 
A fresh schism threatened, but the letters of 


remonstrance written by John and his council | 
to Proclus and Theodosius put a stop to the) 


whole matter. Even Cyril, who had striven 
hard to procure the condemnation of Theodore, 
was compelled to desist by the resolute front 
shewn by the Orientals, some of whom, John 
told him, were ready to be burnt rather than 
condemn the teaching of one they so deeply 
revered (Cyril. Epp. 54, 199). Theodosius 
wrote to the Oriental bishops that the church 
must not be disturbed by fresh controversy 


and that no one should presume to decide. 


anything unfavourable to those who had 
died in the peace of the church (Baluz. p. 
928, c. ccxix.). The date of this transaction 
was probably 438. It is the last recorded 
event in John’s career. His death occurred | 
in 441 or 442. Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xiv. xv.; | 
Ceillier, Auteurs eccl.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 412; 


Cyril, suspecting that the union | 
was more apparent than real and that some of | 


John assembled his | 


JOANNES Il. 557 


Joannes (113), surnamed Silentiarius, bp. 

of Colonia and afterwards one of the most 
celebrated of the monks. His Life was written 
by Cyril of Scythopolis. He was born in 454, 
at Nicopolis in Armenia. His father and 
mother, noble and wealthy Christians, gave 
him a Christian education. John consecrated 
himself to God when 18 years old, built a 
church at Nicopolis in honour of the Virgin 
Mary, and taking ten brethren set up a monas- 
tery. In his 28th year (c. 481) the bp. of 
Sebastia, metropolitan of the district, at the 
request of the people of Colonia, consecrated 
him bishop of that see against his will. He 
continued his monastic life, specially avoiding 
the baths. ‘He thought it the greatest of 
| all virtues never to be washed’”’; ‘‘determined 
never to be seen, even by his own eyes, without 
his clothes.’’ His character had the happiest 
effect on his own family. 

When he had been bp. ten years he went to 
Constantinople with an appeal to the emperor. 
| Here he embarked on a ship unknown to his 
| friends, made his way to Jerusalem, and dwelt 
| there in a hospital for old men, wherein was 
jan oratory of George the Martyr, but was 
|supernaturally guided to the community of 
(St. Sabas, who presided over 150 anchorets 

and received J ohn, and appointed him to some 

| petty office. A guest-house was being built ; 
|the former bp. of Colonia, the noble of the 
| Byzantine court, fetched water from a torrent, 
| cooked for the builders, brought stones and 
| other materials for the work. Next year the 
| steward appointed John to the humble duty 
of presiding over the kitchen. At the end of 
three years he was appointed steward. Sa- 
bas, ignorant of his ecclesiastical rank, con- 
sidering it high time for John to be ordained, 
took him to Jerusalem, and introduced him 
to archbp. Elias. John was obliged to con- 
fess that he was a bishop. Archbp. Elias 
wondered at his story, summoned Sabas, and 
excused John from ordination, promising that 
from that day he should be silent and nobody 
should molest him. He never left his cell 
for four years afterwards, and was seen by 
none but the brothers who served him, 
except at the dedication of a church in the 
community, when he was obliged to pay his 
|respects to archbp. Elias. The patriarch was 
captivated with his conversation and held him 
in lifelong honour. In 503 John went into 
the desert of Ruba. Here he remained silent 
about seven years, only leaving his cave every 
third or fourth day to collect wild apples, the 
usual food of the solitaries. 

Sabas eventually persuaded John to return 
to his old community when 56 years old, 
A.D. 510. Here he continued to live a life 
that seemed to the people of those days abso- 
lutely angelical and many stories are told of 
his miraculous endowments. He must have 
died c. 558. Cyril. Mon. ap. AA. SS. Bolland. 
13 Mai. iii. 232; Baron. Annal. ad ann. 457, 
lviii. etc. ; Ceillier, xi. 277. (W.M.S. 

Joannes (124) 11., surnamed Cappadox, 
27th bp. of Constantinople, 517-520, appoint- 
ed by Anastasius after an enforced condemna- 
tion of Chalcedon. His short patriarchate is 


Neander, Church. Hist. vol. iv., Clarke's ed. ; 
Milman, Latin Christ. vol. i. pp. 141-177; | 
Bright, Hist. of Church, pp. 310-365. [Ε.ν.] 


memorable for the celebrated Acclamations of 
Constantinople, and the reunion of East and 
West after a schism of 34 years. At the death 


558 JOANNES II. 


of Timothy, John of Cappadocia, whom he had 
designated his successor, was presbyter and 
chancellor of the church of Constantinople. 

On July 9, 518, the long reign of Anastasius 
came to a close, the orthodox Justin succeed- 
ing. On Sunday, July 15, the new emperor 
entered the cathedral, and the archbishop, ac- 
companied by twelve prelates, was making his 
way through the throngs that crowded every 
corner. As he came near the raised dais 
where the pulpit stood shouts arose, ‘‘ Long 
live the patriarch! Long live the emperor ! 
Why do we remain excommunicated ? Why 
have we not communicated these many years ? 
You are Catholic, what do you fear, worthy 
servant of the Trinity ? Cast out Severus the 
Manichee! O Justin, our emperor, you win! 
This instant proclaim the synod of Chalcedon, 
because Justin reigns.’’ These and other 
cries continued. The procession passed into 
the inclosure, but the excited congregation 
went on shouting outside the gates of the 
choir in similar strains: ‘‘ You shall not 
come out unless you anathematize Severus,” 
referring to the heretical patriarch of Antioch. 
The patriarch John, having meanwhile gained 
time for thought and consultation, came out 
and mounted the pulpit, saying, ‘‘ There is 
no need of disturbance or tumult; nothing 
has been done against the faith ; we recognize 
for orthodox all the councils which have con- 
firmed the decrees of Nicaea, and principally 
these three—Constantinople, Ephesus, and 
the great council of Chalcedon.”’ 

The people were determined to have a more 
formal decision, and continued shouting for 
several hours, mingling with their former cries 


such as these: ‘‘ Fix a day for a festival in 
honour of Chalcedon!’’ ‘* Commemorate 
the holy synod this very morrow!’’ The 


people being thus firm, the deacon Samuel 
was instructed toannounce the desired festival. 
Still the people continued to shout with all 
their might, ‘‘ Severus is now to be anathe- 
matized; anathematize him this instant, or 
there’s nothing done!’’ The patriarch, seeing 
that something must be settled, took counsel 
with the twelve attendant prelates, who agreed 
to the curse on Severus. This extemporaneous 
and intimidated council then carried a decree 
by acclamation: ‘‘It is plain to all that 
Severus in separating himself from this church 
condemned himself. Following, therefore, the 
canons and the Fathers, we hold him alien and 
condemned by reason of his blasphemies, and 
we anathematize him.’’ The domes of St. 
Sophia rang with shouts of triumph and the 
crowd dispersed. It was a day long remem- 
bered in Constantinople. 

The next day the promised commemoration 
of Chalcedon took place. Again 85 the 
patriarch made his processional entrance and 
approached the pulpit clamours arose: ‘‘ Re- 
store the relics of Macedonius to the church ! 
Restore those exiled for the faith! Let the 
bones of the Nestorians be dug up! Let the 
bones of the Eutychians be dug up! Cast 
out the Manichees! Place the four councils 
in the diptychs! Place Leo, bp. of Rome, in 
the diptychs! Bring the diptychs to the 
pulpit!’’ This kind of cry continuing, the 
patriarch replied, ‘‘ Yesterday we did what 
was enough to satisfy my dear people, and we 


JOANNES II. 


shall do the same to-day. We must take the 
faith as our inviolablefoundation; it will aid us 
to reunite the churches. Let us then glorify 
with one mouth the holy and consubstantial 
Trinity.’”’ But the people went on crying 
madly, ‘‘ This instant, let none go out! I 
abjure you, shut the doors! You no longer 
fear Amantius the Manichee! Justin reigns, 
whyfearAmantius?’’ Sotheycontinued. The 
patriarch tried in vain to bring them to reason. 
It was the outburst of enthusiasm and excite- 
ment long pent up under heterodox repression. 
It bore all before it. The patriarch was at 
last obliged to have inserted in the diptychs 
the four councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, 
Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and the names of 
Euphemius and Macedonius, patriarchs of 
Constantinople, and Leo, bp. of Rome. Then 
the multitude chanted for more than an hour, 
‘* Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He 
hath visited and redeemed His people!”’ 
The choir assembled on the raised platform, 
and, turning eastwards, sang the Trisagion, 
the whole people listening in silence. When 
the moment arrived for the recitation of the 
names of the defunct bishops from the 
diptychs, the multitude closed in silence about 
the holy table; and when the deacon had read 
the new insertions, a mighty shout arose, 
‘* Glory be to Thee, O Lord!” 

To authenticate what had been done, John 
assembled on July 20 a council of 40 bishops, 
who happened to be at the capital. The four 
general councils and the name of Leo, bp. of 
Rome, were inscribed in the diptychs. Severus 
of Antioch was anathematized after an ex- 
amination of his works in which a distinct 
condemnation of Chalcedon was discovered. 
John wrote to John of Jerusalem and to 
Epiphanius of Tyre, telling them the good 
news of the acclamations and the synod. His 
letters were accompanied by orders from 
Justin to restore all who had been banished 
by Anastasius, and to inscribe the council of 
Chalcedon in the diptychs. At Jerusalem 
and at Tyre there was great joy. Many other 
churches declared for Chalcedon, and during 
the reign of Justin 2,500 bishops gave their 
adhesion and approval. Now came the re- 
conciliation with Rome. The emperor Justin 
wrote to the pope a fortnight after the scene 
of the acclamations, begging him to further 
the desires of the patriarch John for the 
reunion of the churches. John wrote saying 
that he received the four general councils, and 
that the names of Leo and of Hormisdas him- 
self had been put in the diptychs. A deputa- 
tion was sent to Constantinople with instruc- 
tions that Acacius was to be anathematized by 
name, but that Euphemius and Macedonius 
might be passed over in silence. 

The deputies arrived at Constantinople on 
Mar. 25, 519. Justin received the pope’s 
letters with great respect, and told the am- 
bassadors to come to an explanation with the 
patriarch, who at first wished to express his 
adherence in the form of a letter, but agreed 
to write a little preface and place after it the 
words of Hormisdas, which he copied out in 
his own handwriting. Two copies were sent 
by the legates to Rome, one in Greek, the other 
in Latin. Emperor, senate, and all present 
were overjoyed at this ratification of peace, 


νι, 


JOANNES III. 


The sting of the transaction still remained ; 
they had now to efface from the diptychs the 
names of five patriarchs and two emperors— 
Acacius, Fravitta, Euphemius, Macedonius, 
and Timotheus; Zeno and Anastasius. All 
the bishops at Constantinople gave their con- 
sent in writing; so did all the abbats, after 
some had raised a difficulty. On Easter Day 
the pacification was promulgated. The court 
and people, equally enthusiastic, surged into 
St. Sophia. The vaults resounded with ac- 
clamations in praise of God, the emperor, St. 
Peter, and the bp. of Rome. Opponents, 
who had prophesied sedition and tumult, were 
signally disappointed. Never within memory 
had so vast a number communicated. The 
emperor sent an account of the proceedings 
throughout the provinces and the ambassa- 
dors forwarded their report to Rome, saying 
that there only remained the negotiations with 
Antioch. John wrote to Hormisdas to con- 
gratulate him on the great work, and to offer 
him the credit of its success. Soon after, 
Jan. 19, 520, John died. 

Baronius, ad ann. 518, x.-lxxvii. 520, vii. ; 
Fleury, ii. 573; Acta SS. Bolland. 18 Aug. 111. 
655; Theoph. Chronogr. ὃ 140, Patr. Gk. cviii.; 
Niceph. Callist. iii. 456, Patr. Gk. cxlvii.; Pho- 
tius, lii. ὃ 287 a, Patr. Gk. ciii.; Avitus, Ep. vii. 
Patr. Lat. lix. 227; Hormisdas, Epp., Patr. Lat. 
Ixiil. p. 426, etc. [w.M.S.] 

Joannes (125) III., surnamed Scholasticus, 
“The Lawyer,’ 32nd bp. of Constantinople 
(Apr. 12, 565-Aug. 31, 577), born at Sirimis, 
in the region of Cynegia, near Antioch. There 
was a flourishing college of lawyers at Antioch, 
where he entered and did himself credit. 
This was suppressed in 533 by Justinian. 
John was ordained and became agent. and 
secretary of his church. This would bring 
him into touch with the court at Constanti- 
nople. When Justinian, towards the close of 
his life, tried to raise the sect of the Aphthar- 
todocetae to the rank of orthodoxy, and deter- 
mined to expel the blameless Eutychius for 
his opposition, the able lawyer-ecclesiastic of 
Antioch, who had already distinguished him- 
self by his great edition of the canons, was 
chosen to carry out the imperial will. 

Little is known of his episcopal career. 
Seven months after his appointment Justinian 
died. The new emperor, Justin II., was 
crowned by the patriarch, Nov. 14, 565. 
John himself died shortly before Justin. 

One of the most useful works of that period 
was the Digest of Canon Law formed by John 
at Antioch. Following some older work 
which he mentions in his preface, he aban- 
doned the historical plan of giving the decrees 
of each council in order and arranged them on 
a philosophical principle, according to their 
matter. The older writers had sixty heads. 
He reduced them to fifty. To the canons of 
the councils of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, 
Gangra, Antioch, Ephesus, and Constanti- 
nople, already collected and received in the 
Greek church, John added 89 ‘‘ Apostolical 
Canons,”’ the 21 of Sardica, and the 68 of the 
canonical letter of Basil. Writing to Photius, 
pope Nicholas I. cites a harmony of the canons 
which includes those of Sardica, which could 
only be that of John the Lawyer. When John 
came to Constantinople, he edited the Nomo- 


JOANNES IV. 559 


canon, an abridgment of his former work, with 
the addition of a comparison of the imperial 
rescripts and civil laws (especially the Novels 
of Justinian) under each head. Balsamon 
cites this without naming the author, in his 
notes on the first canon of the Trullan council 
of Constantinople. In a MS. of the Paris 
library the Nomocanon is attributed to Theo- 
doret, but in all others to John. Theodoret 
would not have inserted the ‘ apostolical 
canons ’’ and those of Sardica, and the style 
has no resemblance to his. In 1661 these 
two works were printed at the beginning of 
vol. ii. of the Bibliotheca Canontca of Justel- 
lus, at Paris. Photius (Cod. Ixxv.) mentions 
his catechism, in which he established the 
Catholicteaching of the consubstantial Trinity, 
saying that he wrote it in 568, under Justin I1., 
and that it was afterwards attacked by the 
impious Philoponus. Fabricius considers that 
the Digest or Harmony and the Nomocanon 
are probably rightly assigned to John the 
Lawyer. Fabricius, xi. 101, xii. 146, 193, 
201, 209; Evagr. H. E. iv. 38, v. 13, Patr. Gk. 
Ixxxvi. pt.2; Theoph. Chronogr. 204, etc., Patr. 
Gk. eviii.; Niceph. Callist. ili. 455, Patr. Gk. 
exlvii. ; Victor Tunun. Patr. Lat. |xviii. 937 ; 
Baronius, ad, ann. 564, xiv. xxix. ; 565, Xvil. ; 
578, 5; Patr. Constant. in Acta SS. Bolland. 
ae 1. p.* 67. [W.M.S.] 

Oannes (126) IV. (surnamed The Faster, 
Jejunator, sometimes also Cappadox, and 
thus liable to be confused with the patriarch 
John II.), 33rd bp. of Constantinople, from 
Apr. 11, 582 to Sept. 2, 595. He was born at 
Constantinople of artisan parents, and was 
a sculptor. In 587 or 588 he summoned 
the bishops of the East in the name of “ the 
Oecumenical Patriarch’’ to decide the cause 
of Gregory, archbp. of Antioch, who was ac- 
quitted and returned to hissee. Pelagius I1., 
bp. of Rome, solemnly annulled the acts of 
this council. In 593 we find John severely 
blamed by pope Gregory for having allowed an 
Isaurian presbyter named Anastasius, accused 
of heresy, to be beaten with ropes in the church 
of Constantinople. 

In 595 the controversy was again rife about 
the title of universal bishop. Gregory the 
Great wrote to his legate Sabinianus forbidding 
him to communicate with John. In the case 
of a presbyter named Athanasius, accused of 
being to some extent a Manichee, and con- 
demned as such, Gregory shews that the 
accuser was himself a Pelagian, and that by 
the carelessness, ignorance, or fault of John 
the Faster the Nestorian council of Ephesus 
had actually been mistaken for the Catholic, 
so that heretics would be taken for orthodox, 
and orthodox condemned as heretics ! 

His Writings.—Ilsidore of Seville (de Script. 
Eccl. 26) attributes to him only a letter, not 
now extant, on baptism addressed to St. 
Leander. John, he says, ‘‘ propounds nothing 
of his own, but only repeats the opinions of 
the ancient Fathers on trine immersion.’ 

But there are extant four works attributed 
to John the Faster. (1) His Penitential, 
Libellus Poenitentialis, or, as it is described 
in bk. iii. of the work of Leo Allatius, de 
Consensus Utriusque Ecclesiae (Rome, 1655, 
4to), Praxis Graecis Praescripta in Confessione 
Peragenda, The Greeks of the middle ages 


560 JOANNES 


always attributed this and (2) to John the 
Faster. 

(2) Instructio, qua non modo confitens de con- 
fessione pte et integre edenda instituitur, sed 
etiam sacerdos, qua ratione confesstones excipiat, 
poenitentiam  imponat et  reconciliationem 
praestet informatur. 

(3) Homily on Penitence, Continence, and 
Virginity. Oftenprinted among Chrysostom’s 
homilies, but now agreed not to be Chrysos- 
tom’s. Montfaucon, Vossius, and Pearson 
held it to be by John the Faster; Morel and 
Savile printed it among Chrysostom’s works. 

(4) Homily on False Prophets and False 
Doctrine. Attributed occasionally to Chrysos- 
tom, by Peter Wastel to John of Jerusalem, 
but by Vossius, Petavius, and Cave to John 
the Faster. 

(5) A set of Precepts to a Monk, ina MS. at 
the Paris library. 

Migne reproduces the Penitential, the In- 
structions for Confession, and the Homily on 
Penitence in Patr. Gk. 1xxxvili. 1089. See 
also Baronius, ad. ann. 588-593; AA. SS. 
Bolland. Aug. 1, p. 69; Fleury, li. bk. xxxiv. 
c. 44, etc.; Ceillier, xi. 427, etc.; Fabricius, 
Bibl. Graec. xi. 108, xil. 239. [w.M.S.] 

Joannes (160) (called of Asia and of 
Ephesus), Monophysite bp. of Ephesus, born 
c. 516, and living in 585, a Syriac writer whose 
chief work was his History of the Church, in 
the extant portion of which he describes him- 
self once as ‘‘ John, who is called superin- 
tendent of the heathen and Breaker of Idols ”’ 
(ii. 4), and twice as ‘‘ John who is over the 
heathen, who was bp. of Ephesus”? (ii. 41; 
iii. 15). Elsewhere he styles himself, ‘‘ John 
bp. of Ephesus” (iv. 45), or simply, ‘ John 
of Ephesus”’ (v. 1); and, lastly, ‘“‘ John of 
Asia, that is, John of Ephesus’’ (v. 7). Hence 
John of Ephesus is clearly the historian so 
often mentioned by Syriac writers as John 
bp. of Asia, ‘‘ Asia’’ meaning the district of 
which Ephesus was the capital. 

Dr. Land (Johann von Ephesus der erste 
syrische Kirchenhistortker) discusses his identi- 
fication with one or other of his numerous 
namesakes who wrote during the same 
period; and has pronounced in the negative. 

What we know of the personal history of 
John of Ephesus is gathered from the meagre 
extracts from pt. 11. of his great work, pre- 
served in the Chronicon of Dionysius; and 
from the extant pt. ili., which is to some 
extent an autobiography. Dionysius (ap. 
Assemani, Bibl. Or. 83-90) tells us that John’s 
birthplace was Amid in N. Mesopotamia. He 
stood high in the confidence of the emperor 
Justinian, by whom he was commissioned in 
542 as ‘‘ Teacher of the heathen”’ in the four 
provinces of Asia, Caria, Phrygia, and Lydia. 
His success was such that in four years 70,000 
persons adopted Christianity. In the third 
part of his history (ii. 44) John mentions that 
Deuterius was 35 years his fellow-labourer, and 
his successor in Caria. Together they had 
built 99 churches and 12 monasteries. John 
tells (iii. 36-37) how the work began among 
the mountains round Tralles. His chief 
monastery, Darira, rose upon the site of a 
famous temple which he had demolished. 

In 546 he was entrusted with an inquiry 
into the secret practice of pagan rites by pro- 


JOANNES 


fessing Christians. Members of all ranks were 
inculpated: Phocas, prefect of the capital, 
being informed against, poisoned himself. 
John was appointed to instruct the accused 
in Christian doctrine; and an imperial edict 
prescribed conversion within three months! 
Theophanes tells us that heathens and heretics 
were to be excluded from public office. 

From pt. ili. of John’s history we learn that 
in the 2nd year of Tiberius (A.D. 579), upon 
the rumour of a heathen plot to destroy the 
Christians of Baalbec, the emperor ordered 
an officer named Theophilus to suppress 
paganism in the East. Torture, crucifixion, 
the sword, wild beasts, were among the means 
employed. Numbers were accused; the 
prisons teemed with victims of every rank; 
and a permanent inquisition was established 
for their trial. 

As bp. of Ephesus or “ Asia,’’ John appears 
to have supervised all the Monophysite con- 
gregations of Asia Minor. His 30 years of 
influence at the court of Justinian and his 
high personal qualities gave him very con- 
siderable authority among his own party. He 
tells us (v. 1) that in the reign of Justin II. 
he ‘‘ was dwelling in the royal city and con- 
trolling all the revenues of all the congrega- 
tions of the Faithful there and in every place.” 
In a chapter written A.D. 581 he mentions his 
old intimacy with Tiberius at the court of 
Justin: ‘‘ He and I were often together, and 
stood with the other courtiers before the 
serene Justin ”’ (ili. 22). 

John suffered grievously in the persecution 
instigated first by John Scholasticus, whom he 
calls John of Sirmin, and afterwards by Euty- 
chius. Together with Paul of Aphrodisias 
(subsequently patriarch of Antioch), Stephen, 
bp. of Cyprus, and the bp. Elisha, John of 
Ephesus was imprisoned in the patriarch’s 
palace. In the heated debates which followed, 
the four Monophysite bishops stoutly charged 
John of Sirmin with breach of the canons in 
annulling the orders of their clergy, and, when 
the patriarch demanded of them ‘‘a union 
such as that between Cyril of Alexandria and 
John of Antioch,’ declared their willingness 
provided they might drive out the council of 
Chalcedon from the church, as Cyril had 
driven out Nestorius. The vacillating em- 
peror, of whom John testifies that for six 
years he had been friendly to the “‘ orthodox,” 
attempted to secure peace by drawing up a 
dogmatic formula, in the shape of an imperial 
edict, which he sent to the four captive bishops 
for revision. Their changes were admitted, 
but the ‘‘ Nestorians and semi-Nestorians ”’ of 
the court—so John puts it—scared the timid 
emperor into further alterations, of which the 
chief was an inserted clause, ‘‘ that the cus- 
toms of the church were to be maintained,” 
which meant that the obnoxious council was 


still to be proclaimed from the diptychs. . 


Weary of the dispute, and probably not under- 
standing its grounds, Justin now signed the 
document, and required the subscription of 
John of Ephesus and his companions. They 
declined, and 33 days passed in constant 
wrangling between them and the patriarch. 
Meanwhile they were kept under close guard ; 
the patriarch’s creatures stripped them of 
everything; friends were denied admittance 


JOANNES 


to their prison; and their personal followers 
were also confined in the dungeons of the 
palace. The misery of the four bishops was 
aggravated by the reproaches of the leading 
Monophysite laymen, who supposed that their 
obstinacy alone hindered a compromise which 
would stop the persecution. The cunning 
patriarch was careful to encourage this belief. 
At last his victims gave way, the patriarch 
promising upon oath that the council of 
Chalcedon should be sacrificed. The four 
bishops twice communicated with him; but 
when they reminded him of his promise, he 
referred them to the pope; he could not, for 
their sakes, risk a schism from Rome. Our 
historian touchingly describes the sorrow of 
himself and his companions over this fraud ; 
even their opponents pitied them, until they 
once more faced them with galling taunts, 
which led to a second imprisonment (i. 17-25). 
The emperor made further fruitless attempts 
at conciliation. The upshot of a discussion 
before the senate was that the four bishops 
boldly uttered their anathema ‘‘ upon the 
whole heresy of the two natures,’ and re- 
nounced communion with their deceivers for 
ever. Thereupon they were sentenced to 
‘“banishment.’’ The sentence was at once 
carried out. They never saw each other again. 
John of Ephesus was confined in the hospital 
of Eubulus at Constantinople. Though help- 
less from gout and exposed to swarms of 
vermin, he was denied all assistance. As he 
lay in his filthy prison, it seemed to him that 
his feverish thirst was slaked and his misery 
comforted by a heavenly visitant, whose 
coming he describes with much pathos and 
simplicity. After a year he was removed to 
an island, where he remained 18 months, 
when the Caesar Tiberius ordered his release. 
For three years, however, he was under sur- 
veillance, until the patriarch died (a.p. 578). 
Before the outbreak of this persecution, John 
of Ephesus and Paul of Aphrodisias had 
argued publicly with Conon and Eugenius, the 
founders of the Cononites, nicknamed Tri- 
theites, in the presence of the patriarch and 
his synod, by command of Justin (v. 3). 
Conon had vainly tried to win the support of 
John, who proved to him that he was a 
heretic and afterwards wrote him a letter of 
warning (v. 1-12). Eutychius, who, upon the 
death of John of Sirmin, was restored to the 
patriarchal throne, was hardly more tolerant 
of Monophysites than its late occupant. Per- 
secution was renewed, and John of Ephesus 
again met with disgraceful injustice. By 
another imprisonment Eutychius wrung from 
him the resignation of a property which 
Callinicus, a chief officer of the court, had 
bestowed, and which John had largely im- 
proved and converted into a monastery. 
After being further deprived of his right of 
receiving five loaves at the public distribu- 
tions, for which he had paid 300 darics, John 
was released. ; 
Tiberius, Justin’s successor, though unwill- 
ing to persecute, was overcome by popular 
clamour. The mob of the capital groundlessly 
suspected their new emperor of Arian leanings 
(iii. 13, 26). Anedict was therefore published 
ordering the arrest of Arians, Manicheans, etc. 
Under cover of this, the ‘‘ orthodox’”’ were 


JOANNES 561 


once more harried and plundered. The first 
victim was John of Ephesus (iii. 15), who had 
now lived many years and suffered much in 
Constantinople. He and his friends were 
Incarcerated at Christmas in a miserable 
prison called the Cancellum (a.p. 578 ?); and 
after much fruitless argument were finally 
ordered to leave the city. 

It is greatly to our historian’s credit that, 
during the bitter strife which raged long 
among the Monophysites themselves, in the 
matter of the double election of Theodore and 
Peter to succeed Theodosius as their patriarch 
of Alexandria, he maintained an honourable 
neutrality, standing equally aloof from Paul- 
ites and Jacobites, although his sympathies 
were with Theodore, the injured patriarch 
(iv. 9-48). John wrote his account of this 
pernicious quarrel in 583, the 2nd year of 
Maurice; for he says that it had already 
lasted 8 years (iv. 11), and that he is 
writing an outline of events from the year of 
Alexander 886 (A.p. 575) onwards (iv. 13). 
In his anxiety to heal the schism, John sent 
to epistles to ‘‘ the blessed Jacob”’ [J acosus 
BARADAEuS], protesting his own neutrality, 
and urging reconciliation between the two 
factions (iv. 46); and after Jacob’s death 
(A.D. 581) his party made overtures to John of 
Ephesus, then living at the capital, to induce 
him to recognize Peter of Callinicus as patri- 
arch of Antioch in place of Paul (iv. 45). In 
reply the historian rebuked them for violating 
the canons. John accuses both sides of an 
utter want of mutual charity, and an entire 
aversion to calm examination of the grounds 
of their quarrel. He adds that he has briefly 
recorded the main facts from the outset to 
the current year, 896 (A.p. 585)—the latest 
date observable in his work. 

The Ecclesiastical History.—J ohn states (pt. 
ili. bk. i. c. 3) that he has already written 
a history of the church, “ beginning from the 
times of Julius Caesar, as far as to the sixth 
year of the reign of Justin II., son of the sister 
of Justinian.’’ If, as Dr. Payne Smith 
assumes, pt. i. was a mere abridgment of 
Eusebius, its loss is not a great one. The 
disappearance of pt. ii. is more unfortunate, 
as it would probably have furnished much 
important matter for the reign of Justinian. 
It brought the history down to 571. Pt. iil. 
continues it to c. 585, thus covering the period 
between the 6th year of Justin II. and the 4th 
of Maurice. It was called forth by the per- 
secution above mentioned, which broke out 
in the 6th or 7th year of Justin, and the writer 
often apologizes for want of chronological 
order, occasional repetitions, and even 
inconsistencies of statement (see esp. i. 3; WU. 
50), as defects due to the stress of untoward 
circumstances: ‘‘ This should be known to 
critics: many of these stories were penned in 
time of persecution... people conveyed away 
the papers inscribed with these chapters, and 
the other papers and writings, into divers 
places, and in some instances they remained 
hidden so long as two or three years in one 
place or another” (ii. 50). John had no 
memoranda of what he had already written, 
and never found opportunity for revision. 
With these drawbacks, the work possesses 
special interest as an original account. John 


36 


562 JOANNES 


was contemporary with most of the characters 
described ; he writes of what he himself saw 
and heard and of doings in which he was 
personally concerned. For 30 years he was 
a trusted servant of Justinian; and Gibbon 
would probably have recognized in the second 
part of his history a valuable gauge of the 
servility and the malice of Procopius. Had 
Gibbon possessed the third part of John’s 
work, he would hardly have surmised that 
“the sentiments of Justin II. were pure and 
benevolent,” or believed that the four last 
years of that emperor “ were passed in /ranquil 
obscurity ’’ (cf. iii. 1-6); had he read what 
John has to say of the worthless stepson of 
Belisarius he might have rated “ the gallant 
Photius’”’ less highly; and he would have 
learned that it was the thoughtless improvid- 
ence of Tiberius which forced the unhappy 
Maurice to appear a grasping niggard (ctf. ii. 
II; v.20). Asregards chronology, Assemani, 
who did not love a Monophysite, accuses John 
of inaccuracy, asserting that he used a pecu- 
liar Greek era, making almost all Justinian’s 
acts and his death ten years later than the 
dates assigned by Evagrius, Theophanes, and 
Cedrenus. But in pt. iii. (v. 13) John gives 
the usual date for Justinian’s death—Nov. 14, 
876 [565]. Of Theophanes Gibbon has said 
that he is ‘‘ full of strange blunders ”’ and ‘‘ his 
chronology is loose and inaccurate”; his 
verdict in regard to John of Ephesus would 
have been very different. 

His attitude to the great controversy of his 
day is that of one thoroughly convinced that 
his own party holds exclusive possession of 
the truth. The Monophysites are ‘the 
orthodox,” ‘‘ the faithful”; their opponents 
** Synodites,”’ ‘‘ Nestorians,”’ or at least “" half- 
Nestorians’’ ; the synod of Chalcedon is “‘ the 
stumbling-block and source of confusion of the 
whole church’”’; ‘it sunders Christ our God 
into two natures after the Union, and teaches 
a Quaternity instead of the holy Trinity ”’ (i. 
10, 18); the four bishops taunt the patriarch 
with ‘‘ the heresy of the two natures, and the 
blasphemies of the synod, and of the tome of 
Leo”’ (i. 18). Yet John does not labour to 
blacken the memory of his adversaries ; the 
strong terms in which he speaks of the pride 
of power and savage tyranny of John Scho- 
lasticus are warranted or at least excused by 
facts (i. 5, 12, 37); and Baronius denounces 
John of Sirmin in language equally decided 
(H. Ε. ad ann. 564). In regard to Eutychius, 
John protests his adherence to truth: “ΑἹ. 
though we declare ourselves opposed to the 
excellent patriarch Eutychius, yet from the 
truth we have not swerved in one thing out 
of a hundred; nor was it from eagerness to 
revile and ridicule that we committed these 
things to writing ”’ (iii. 22). His impartiality 
is manifest in his description of the great 
schism which rent asunder his own com- 
munion; unsparing in his censure of both 
factions, he refers their wicked and worse 
than heathenish rancour to the instigation of 
devils (iv. 19, 22, 39). Credulous John was, 
but credulity was “ἃ common attribute of his 
age. More serious objection might be 
taken to his approval of the cruelties connected 
with the suppression of heathenism (iii. 34) 
and his intolerance of “ heresy’ other than 


JOANNES II. 


his own. In 550 he dug up and burnt the 
bones of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla, 
the false prophets of Montanism (Extr. ap. 
Dionys.). Herein also he shared the temper 
of his contemporaries. The spirit of persecu- 
tion is not the peculiar mark of any age, 
church, or sect. Apart from these blemishes 
we may recognize in him an historian who sin- 
cerely loved truth ; a bishop who was upright 
and devoted; and a man whose piety rested 
upon a thorough knowledge of Scripture. 

His style, like that of most Syriac writers, is 
verbose and somewhat unwieldy, but has the 
eloquence of simple truth and homely pathos. 

The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of 
John of Ephesus was first edited from the 
unique MS. in the Brit. Mus. by Dr. Cureton 
(Oxf. 1853)—a splendid reproduction of the 
original—and translated into English by Dr. 
Payne Smith (Oxf. 1860) and into German by 
Schonfelder (Miinchen, 1862). These ver- 
sions are of great assistance, many chapters 
being defective in the original. {c.J-B.] 

Joannes (216) If., bp. of Jerusalem, 386-417, 
in succession to Cyril; a prelate known to 
us chiefly through the invectives of Jerome, 
and hence particularly difficult to estimate. 
Imbued with that tendency of Eastern church 
teachers which formed their chief difference 
from those of the Western church, he with 
difficulty brought himself to acquiesce in the 
condemnation of Origenism or to take any 
steps against Pelagius, with whom he was 
brought in contact at the close of his epis- 
copacy, and the presence of Jerome and other 
immigrants from Italy, and the anti-Origen- 
istic vehemence of Epiphanius of Salamis and 
Theophilus of Alexandria, made it impossible 
for him to escape the reproach of laxity and 
even at times of heresy. 

Born between 350 and 356 (Hieron. Ep. 
lxxxii. 8, ed. Vall.), he passed as a young man 
some time among the monks of Nitria in 
Egypt. There he, no doubt, imbibed his 
affection for Origen’s teaching, and probably 
became acquainted with two persons who had 
much to do with his own subsequent history 
and with that of the Origenistic controversy— 
the monk Isidore (one of the Long Monks) 
and Rufinus. During the troublous times 
before the accession of Theodosius, when 
Arianism was in the ascendant, he declined, 
teste Jerome (cont. Joan. Jerus. 4), to commu- 
nicate with the orthodox bishops exiled by 
Valens. But noimputation of Arianism rests 
upon him. He was evidently esteemed very 
highly, and of great eloquence (7b. 41) and 
subtlety of mind. His flatterers compared him 
with Chrysippus, Plato, and Demosthenes (2b. 4). 
He was little more than 30 years old (Hieron. 
Ep. \xxxii. 8, ed. Vall.) when chosen to succeed 
Cyril as bp. of Jerusalem. It was a see of 
great importance, subject in certain respects 
to the metropolitan at Caesarea, but acting 
at times independently; of great wealth 
(cont. Joan. Jerus. 14), and of great interest 
for its holy places, which were visited by 
pilgrims from all parts. It had also a special 
interest from the settlements of distinguished 
persons from the West, which made it during 
his episcopate a focus of Christian and literary 
activity, and with two of which, that of 
Rufinus and Melania on the Mount of Olives, 


JOANNES II. 


and of Jerome and Paula at Bethlehem, he 
was destined to have close but similar rela- 
tions. Jerome accuses him of making a gain 
of his bishopric and living in luxury (Comm. 
in Joann. c. 14, and Ep. lvii. 12) ; but this may 
be only the common animus of monk against 
bishop, embittered by momentary resentment. 
The clergy of Jerusalem were certainly at- 
tachedtohim. Rufinus thought it a sufficient 
defence of his own faith to say that it was that 
preached at Jerusalem by the holy bp. John 
(Ruf. Apol. i. 13). But the most important 
testimony is given by the pope Anastasius, in 
a letter to him in 401, a time when the adver- 
saries of John, Pammachius, and Marcella had 
access to the pope, and only two or three years 
after Jerome’s Philippic was composed. 
Anastasius speaks of the splendour of his 
holiness and his divine virtues; his eminence 
and his praise are so conspicuous that he can- 
not find words equal to his merits. He 
accounts it an honour to have received praise 
from one of so serene and heavenly a dis- 
position, the splendour of whose episcopate 
shines throughout the world (see Vallarsi’s 
Rufinus, pp. 408, 409; Migne’s Patr. Lat. xxi.). 

When John became bishop, Rufinus had 
already been settled on the Mount of Olives 
some nine years, and Jerome and his friends 
were just entering on their work at Bethlehem. 
At first he lived in impartial friendship with 
them both, seeking out Jerome especially 
(“nos suo arbitrio diligebat,’’ Hieron. Ep. 
Ixxxil. 11, ed. Vall.), and making use of 
Rufinus, whom he ordained, as a learned man, 
in business which required his special talents. 
After some six years their peace was disturbed. 
A certain Aterbius (Hieron. cont. Ruf. iii. 33), 
who by his officious insinuations and imputa- 
tions of Origenistic heresy caused the first 
breach between Jerome and Rufinus, had, no 
doubt, some dealings with the bishop also; 
and, probably through him, the suspicions of 
Epiphanius, the venerable bp. of Salamis, were 
aroused. When Epiphanius came to Jeru- 
salem in 394, the strife broke out. For the 
controversy see EPIPHANIUS (1) and HIERONY- 
Mus (2). During the dispute between Jerome 
and Rufinus, John in no way intervened. 
Zockler (Hieron. p. 249) thinks him to have 
inclined rather to the side of Jerome. We 
certainly find Jerome, in a letter to Theo- 
philus, in commendation of his encyclical 
(Ep. |xxxvi., ed. Vall.), pleading for his bishop. 
John had accepted a person under the ban of 
Theophilus who had come from Jerusalem to 
Alexandria, and thus had incurred the wrath 
of that fierce prelate; but Jerome repre- 
sented that Theophilus had sent no letters 
condemnatory of this person, and that it would 
be rash to condemn John for a supposed fault 
committed inignorance. As regards Rufinus, 
John wrotea letter topope Anastasius, the tenor 
of which can be only dimly inferred from the 
pope’sextantreply. John wasapparently less 
anxious todefend Rufinus than to securehisown 
freedom from implication in the charges made 
against Rufinus by Jerome’s friends at Rome. 
Thepope, with fulsome expressions of esteem for 
John, bids him put such fears away and judge 
Rufinus for himself. He professes to know 
nothing about Origen, not even who he was, 
while yet he has condemned his opinions; and 


JOANNES II. 563 


as to Rufinus, he only says that, if his trans- 
lation of the works of Origen implies an accept- 
ance of his opinions (a matter which he leaves 
to his own conscience), he must see where he 
can procure absolution. That John was not 
then in familiar communication with Rufinus, 
but was with Jerome, may be inferred from 
the fact that Jerome used this letter in his 
controversy with Rufinus (cont. Ruf. ii. 14), 
while Rufinus did not know of its existence, 
and, when he heard of it, treated it as an 
invention of Jerome (tb. iii. 20). The recon- 
ciliation of John with the monks of Bethlehem 
is further attested by Sulpicius Severus (Dal. 
i. 8), who had stayed six months at Bethlehem, 
and says that John had entrusted to Jerome 
and his brother the charge of the parish of 
Bethlehem. A letter from Chrysostom to 
John in 404 (Migne’s Patr. Gk. vol. lii.) shews 
that he had taken Chrysostom’s part ; then we 
hear nothing more of John for 12 or 13 years, 
when the Pelagian controversy brings him 
forward once more. Pelagius and Coelestius, 
having come in 415 to Jerusalem, were en- 
countered by Orosius, the friend of Augustine, 
who had come to visit Jerome, and afterwards 
by the Gaulish bishops Heros and Lazarus. 
Orosius, who recounts these transactions in the 
first nine chaps. of his Liber de Arbitrii Liber- 
tate, addressed himself to John, as did also 
Pelagius ; but John was not willing to accept 
without inquiry the decrees of the council of 
Carthage and resented their being pressed 
upon him by Orosius. The two parties were 
in secret conflict for some time, till John 
determined on holding a synod to end the 
strife, on July 28, 415. John was the only 
bishop present; the rest were presbyters and 
laymen. He shewed some _ consideration 
towards Pelagius, allowing him, though a 
layman, to sit among the presbyters; and 
when there was a clamour against Pelagius 
for shewing disrespect for the name and 
authority of Augustine, John, by saying, 1 
am Augustine,’’ undertook both to ensure 
respect to that great teacher and not to allow 
his authority to be pressed too far against his 
antagonist. ‘“ If,’’ cried Orosius, ‘* you repre- 
sent Augustine, follow Augustine’s judgment.” 
John thereupon asked him if he was ready to 
become the accuser of Pelagius; but Orosius 
declined this duty, saying that Pelagius had 
been condemned by the African bishops, whose 
decisions John ought to accept. he pro- 
ceedings were somewhat confused from the 
necessity of employing an interpreter. Final- 
ly, it was determined to send a letter to pope 
Innocentius and to abide by his judgment. 
Meanwhile, John imposed silence upon both 
parties. This satisfied neither. The opinions 
of Pelagius continued to be spread by private 
intercourse, and Augustine wrote to remon- 
strate with John against the toleration of 
heresy. On the arrival of the Gaulish bishops 
Heros and Lazarus, another synod was held 
at Diospolis (416) under the presidency of 
Euzoius, the metropolitan bp. of Caesarea, in 
which John again took part. Augustine, in 
his work against J ulianus, records the decision 
of this council, which was favourable to 
Pelagius, but considers his acquittal due to 
uncertainties occasioned by difference of 
language, which enabled Pelagius to express 


564 JOANNES ΠῚ. 


himself in seemingly orthodox words; and 
both in this work and in his letter to John he 
treats John as a brother-bishop whom he 
holds in high esteem. Meanwhile, the more 
intemperate partisans of Pelagius resorted 
to open violence. The dialogue of Jerome 
against the Pelagians, though mild compared 
with his other controversial works, incensed 
them, and they proceeded to burn the monas- 
teries of Bethlehem. The attitude of John 
at this time cannot be gathered with any 
certainty. That he was in any way an 
accomplice in such proceedings is incredible. 
Nothing of the sort appears from the letters of 
Jerome, though he speaks in a resigned 
manner of his losses. Complaints, however, 
of the ill-treatment of Jerome and the Roman 
ladies at Bethlehem reached pope Innocent, who 
wrote to John a letter (Hieron. Ep. cxxxvil., 

ed. Vall.) of sharp rebuke. He does not imply 
that John had been accessory to the violence ; 

but, considering that a bishop ought to be 
able to prevent such acts or at least relieve 
their consequences, he bids him take care that 
no further violence is done, on pain of the 
laws of the church being put in force against 
him. The view here taken of these transac- 
tions, which is that of Zéckler (Hzeron. pp. 
310-316), is opposed by Thierry (St. Jerome, 
bk. xii. c. iii.), who looks upon John as a 
partisan of Pelagius and as the enemy of 
Jerome to the end. John was now at the 
close of his career. Possibly the letter of 
Innocentius never reached him, for it can 
hardly have been written, as Vallarsi shews 
(pref. to Hieron. sub. litt. cxxxv.-cxxXviii.), 
before 417, and J ohn died (see Ceillier, vii. 497, 
etc.) on Jan. rointhat year. After a troubled 
episcopate of 30 years and a life of from 60 to 
65 years, failing health may have prevented 
his exercising full control in this last and most 
painful episode of his career. 

Several works are attributed to him (see 
Ceillier, vii. 97, etc.). Gennadius (30) men- 
tions one which he wrote in his own defence ; 
but no work of his is extant. He must, 
therefore, always be viewed through the 
medium of other, mostly hostile, writers, and 
through the mists of controversy. [W.H.F.] 

Joannes (217) ΠΙ., bp. of Jerusalem, 513- 
524. On the banishment of Elias, bp. of 
Jerusalem, by the emperor Anastasius, John, 
deacon of the Anastasis, was forcibly thrust 
into his episcopal seat by Olympius, prefect 
of Palestine, on his engaging to receive Severus 
of Antioch into communion and to anathema- 
tize the decrees of Chalcedon (Cyrill. Scythop. 
Vit. 5. Sab. cc. 37, 56). Such an engagement 
awoke the orthodox zeal of St. Sabas and the 
other fathers of the desert, who successfully 
used their influence with the new-made bishop 
to prevent the fulfilment of the compact, 
which Olympius lacked sufficient firmness to 
enforce. Anastasius, recalling Olympius, dis- 
patched in his room a name-sake of his own, 
who had offered to forfeit 300 pounds of gold 
if he failed to induce John to fulfil his agree- 
ment, A.D. 517. The prefect Anastasius sur- 
prised the unsuspicious bishop and threw him 
into prison until he should fulfil his promise. 
This step delighted the populace, who re- 
garded John as having obtained Elias’s seat 
by fraud. Zacharias, one of the leading men 


JOANNES i. 


of Caesarea, gaining a secret interview with 
the imprisoned bishop, persuaded him to 
feign assent to Anastasius’s requirements and 
promise, if he would release him from prison, 
to publicly signify, on the following Sunday, 
his agreement to the original conditions. 
Anastasius, believing John’s professions, 
liberated him. On the Sunday a vast con- 
course assembled, including 10,000 monks. 
Anastasius was present with his officials to 
receive the expected submission. John, 
having ascended the ambo, supported by 
Theodosius and Sabas, the leaders of the 
monastic party, was received with vociferous 
shouts, ‘‘ Anathematize the heretics !’’ ‘‘ Con- 
firm the synod!’’ When silence was secured, 
John and his two companions pronounced a 
joint anathema on Nestorius, Eutyches, 
Soterichus of the Cappadocian Caesarea, and 
all who rejected the decrees of Chalcedon. 
Anastasius, utterly unprepared for this open 
violation of the compact, was too much 
terrified by the turbulent multitude, evidently 
prepared for violence, and hastily escaped to 
Caesarea. The emperor, though furious, had 
too much on his hands to attend to ecclesias- 
tical disputes at Jerusalem, and John was 
allowed to go unpunished. The death of 
Anastasius in 518, and the succession of 
Justin, changed the whole _ situation. 
Orthodoxy was now in the ascendant. The 
whole East followed the example of the 
capital, and John could, without fear of con- 
sequences, summon his synod to make the 
same profession of faith with his brother- 
patriarch in the imperial city, and was 
received into communion by pope Hormisdas, 
at the request of Justin (7b. c. 60). John died 
A.D. 524, after an episcopate of Ir years. 
Theophan. Chronogr. p. 136; Tillem. Mém. eccl. 
Xvi. 721; Fleury, ΠΗ. Ε-. livre xxi: cc. 27-266 
Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii. 185. [Ε.ν.] 
Joannes (346) I., bp. of Rome after 
Hormisdas, Aug. 13, 523, to May 18, 526. 
The emperor Justin, having during the 
pontificate of Hormisdas restored the churches 
in the East to orthodoxy and communion 
with Rome, continued to shew his orthodox 
zeal by the persecution of heretics. Having 
already suppressed the Eutychians and 
Nestorians, he issued in 523 a severe edict 
against Manicheans, condemning them, where- 
ever found, to banishment or death (Cod. 
Justin. leg. 12). Justin’s edict had debarred 
other heretics from public offices, but had 
excepted the Arian Goths because of his 
league with Theodoric, the Gothic king of 
Italy. Soon afterwards, however, he pro- 
ceeded against the Arians also, ordering all 
their churches to be consecrated anew for the 
use of the Catholics. Theodoric, who, though 
an Arian, had hitherto granted toleration to 
Catholics in his own dominions, remonstrated 
with the emperor by letter, but without effect. ° 
He therefore applied to the bp. of Rome, 
whom he sent for to Ravenna, desiring him to 
go to Constantinople to use his influence with 
the emperor, and threatening that, unless 
toleration were conceded to ‘Arians in the 
East, he would himself withhold it from 
Catholics in the West. John went (A.D. 525), 
accompanied by five bishops and four sena- 
tors. The unprecedented event of a visit by 


JOANNES II. 


a bishop of Rome to Constantinople caused a 
great sensation there. He was received with 
the utmost respect by acclaiming crowds and 
by the emperor. Invited by the patriarch 
Epiphanius to celebrate Easter with him in 
the great church, he consented only if seated 
on a throne above that of the patriarch. 
He officiated in Latin and according to the 
Latin rite. None were excluded from his 
communion except Timotheus, patriarch of 
Alexandria (Theophan.; Marcellin. Com.). 
Anastasius (Lib. Ponttf/.) states that the 
emperor, though now in the 8th year of his 
reign, bowing to the ground before the vicar 
of St. Peter, solicited and obtained the honour 
of being crowned by him. There is con- 
currence of testimony that John obtained a 
cessation of Justin’s measures against the 
Arians. Baronius and Binius, anxious to 
clear a pope from tolerating heresy, insist that 
John dissuaded the emperor from the conces- 
sions demanded. 
Pagi (Critic.) cites the following: ‘‘ Justin, 
having heard the legation, promised that he 
would do all, except that those who had been 
reconciled to the Catholic faith could by no 
means be restored to the Arians’’ (Anonym. 
Vales.) ; ‘‘ The venerable pope and senators 
returned with glory, having obtained all they 
asked from Justin’’ (Anastasius) ; ‘‘ Justinus 
Augustus granted the whole petition, and 
restored to the heretics their churches, accord- 
ing to the wish of Theodoric the heretical 
king, lest Christians, and especially priests, 
should be put to the sword”’ (Auctor. Chron. 
Veterum Ponttficum); ‘‘ Having come to 
Augustus, they requested him with many 
tears to accept favourably the tenour of their 
embassy, however unjust ; and he, moved by 
their tears, granted what they asked, and left 
the Arians unmolested’”’ (Miscell. lib. 15, 
ad ann. vi. Justin). Whatever the cause, it is 
certain that John and the legates were, on re- 
turning, received with displeasure by Theodoric 
and imprisoned at Ravenna, where the pope 
died on May 18, 526. His body was buried in 
St. Peter’s at Rome on May 27, on which dav 
he appears in the Roman Martyrology as a 
saint and martyr. Seealso Fragm. Vales. Greg. 
Dial. i. iii. c. 2. [J-B—Y.] 

Joannes (347) II. (called Mercurius), bp. 
of Rome after Boniface II., Dec. 31, 532, to 
May 27, 535, a Roman by birth who had been 
a Roman presbyter (Anastas. Lib. Pont.) 
The canvassings and contests then usual 
delayed the election 11 weeks. Church funds 
were used and sacred vessels publicly sold for 
bribery (Ep. Athalaric. ad Joann. pap.; Cassi- 
odor. Variar. 1. ix.; Ep. 15). 

The most noteworthy incident of his brief 
reign is a doctrinal decision, in which he 
appears at first sight to differ from one of his 
predecessors. Pope Hormisdas had in 522 
written in strong condemnation of certain 
Scythian monks who had upheld the statement 
that ‘‘ One of the Trinity ’’ (Unus ex Trinttate) 
“ suffered in the flesh.’’ His rejection of the 
phrase had at the time been construed so as 
to imply heresy (Ep. Maxent. ad Hormisd.), 
and now the Acoemetae, or ‘‘ Sleepless Monks,”’ 
of Constantinople argued from it in favour of 
the Nestorian position that Mary was not 
truly and properly the mother of God; saying 


Against this supposition | 


JOANNES III. 565 


with reason that, if He Who suffered in the 
flesh was not of the Trinity, neither was He 
Who was born in the flesh. The emperor 
Justinian, supported by the patriarch Epi- 
phanius, having condemned the position of 
the ‘Sleepless Monks,”’ they sent a deputation 
to Rome, urging the pope to support their 
deduction from the supposed doctrine of his 
predecessor. The emperor, having embodied 
his view of the true doctrine in an imperial 
edict, sent it with an embassy to Rome and a 
letter requesting the pope to signify in writing 
to himself and the patriarch his acceptance of 
the doctrine of the edict, which he lays down 
as indubitably true, and assumes to be, as a 
matter of course, the doctrine of the Roman 
see (Inter. Epp. Joann. 11. Labbe). But the 
edict was a distinct assertion of the correctness 
of the phrase contended for by the Scythian 
monks and so much objected to by Hormisdas. 
Its words are, ‘‘ The sufferings, as well as 
miracles, which Christ of His own accord 
endured in the flesh are of one and the same. 
For we do not know God the Word as one and 
Christ as another, but one and the same”’ 
(Lex. Justin. Cod. 1, i. 6). In his letter 
Justinian expresses himself similarly. 

John, having received both deputations, 
assembled the Roman clergy, who at first could 
come to no agreement. But afterwards a 
synod convened by the pope accepted and 
confirmed Justinian’s confession of faith. To 
this effect he wrote to the emperor on Mar. 
25, 534 (Joann. II. Ep. ii.; Labbe) and to 
the Roman senators, laying down the true 
doctrine as the emperor had defined it, and 
warning them not to communicate with the 
““Sleepless Monks.”’ 

It is true that we do not find in the letters 
of Hormisdas any distinct condemnation of 
the phrase itself, however strongly he in- 
veighed against its upholders, as troublesome 
and dangerous innovators. But the fact 
remains that a doctrinal statement which one 
pope strongly discountenanced, as at any rate 
unnecessary and fraught with danger, was, 
twelve years afterwards, at the instance of an 
emperor, authoritatively propounded by an- 
other. Justinian’s view, which John accepted, 
has ever since been received as orthodox. 

In 534 John, being consulted by Caesarius of 
Arles as to Contumeliosus, bp. of Riez in Gaul, 
wrote to Caesarius, to the bishops of Gaul, and 
to the clergy of Riez, directing the guilty bishop 
to be confined in a monastery. 

A letter assigned to this pope by the 
Pseudo-Isidore, addressed to a bp. Valerius, 
on the relation of the Son to the Father, is 
spurious. [j-B—Y.] 

Joannes (348) III., bp. of Rome, after 
Pelagius, July 18, 560, to July 12, 573, or- 
dained after a vacancy of 4 months and 17 
days, was the son of a person of distinction at 
Rome (Anastas. Lib. Pont.). There are two 
incidents in which his name appears. Two 
bishops in Gaul had been deposed by a synod 
held by order of king Guntram at Lyons under 
the metropolitan Nicetius. The deposed 
prelates obtained the king’s leave to appeal to 
Rome, and John III. ordered their restoration 
(Greg. Turon. Hist. 1. v. cc. 20, 27). The 
second incident is mentioned by Anastasius 
(Lib. Pont. in Vit. Joann. 111.), and by Paulus 


566 JOANNES PRESBYTER 


Diaconus (i. 5). The exarch Narses, having 
retired to Naples, there invited the Lombards 
to invade Italy. The pope went to him, and 
persuaded him to return to Rome. This inci- 
dent, discredited by Baronius (Aun. 567, Nos. 
8-12) is credited by Pagi and Muratori (cf. 
Gibbon, c. xlv.). [J-B—yY.] 
Joannes (444) Presbyter, a shadowy per- 
sonage of the sub-apostolic age, the reasons 
for belief in his existence being solely derived 
from an inference drawn by Eusebius from 
language used in a passage of Papias. In the 
middle of the 3rd cent. Dionysius of Alex- 
andria (Eus. H. E. vii. 25) had maintained on 
critical grounds that the author of the fourth 
gospel and of the Catholic epistle could not 
also have been the author of the Apocalypse. 
Dionysius takes for granted that the author 
of the gospel was John the apostle, and has 
no difficulty in conceding that the name of the 
author of the Apocalypse was also John, since 
the writer himself says so; but urges that he 
never claims to be the apostle. He calls 
himself simply John, without adding that he 
was the disciple whom Jesus loved, or who 
leaned on our Lord’s breast, or the brother of 
James, or in any way forcing us to identify 
him with the son of Zebedee. Now, there were 
many Johns, and it is said that there were 
two tombs in Ephesus, each called John’s. 
Except in the statement last made, Dionysius 
does not pretend to have found any actual 
trace of any John of the apostolic age besides 
John the apostle and John Mark. His argu- 
ment is merely that if we have good critical 
reasons for believing the authors of the gospel 
and of the Apocalypse to be distinct, the fact 
that both bore the name John does not force 
us to identify them. Some 75 years later 
Eusebius found historic evidence for regarding 
as a fact what Dionysius had suggested as a 
possibility. He produces from the preface 
to the work of Papias an extract, for a fuller 
discussion of which see Pariras. What con- 
cerns us here is that Papias, speaking of his 
care in collecting oral traditions of the apos- 
tolic times, says, ‘‘On any occasion when a 
person came in my way, who had been a fol- 
lower of the elders, I would inquire about the 
discourses of the elders—what was said by 
Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by 
Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or 
any other of the Lord’s disciples, and what 
Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of 
the Lord say ’’ (Lightfoot’s trans.). Eusebius 
points out that as the name John occurs here 
twice: the first time in a list of apostles, no 
doubt representing John the apostle; the 
second time in a different list, after the name 
of Aristion and with the title elder prefixed, 
it must represent a different person. Thus 
the John whose traditions Papias several 
times records is the elder, not the apostle. 
We find thus, remarks Eusebius, that ‘“‘ the 
account of those is true who have stated that 
two persons in Asia had the same name, and 
that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each 
of which, even to the present time, bears the 
name of John.” ‘It is likely that the second 
(unless we allow that it was, as some would 
have it, the first) beheld the revelation as- 
cribed to John” (H. E. iii. 39). Although 
Eusebius does not here name Dionysius of 


JOANNES PRESBYTER 


Alexandria, he plainly had in mind that 
passage of his writings which he gives at length 
elsewhere. The ambiguous way in which he 
speaks of the Apocalypse shews that his 
personal inclination was to pronounce it non- 
apostolical, but that he was kept in check by 
the weight of authority in its favour. The 
silence of Eusebius indicates that the other 
passages in Papias where John was mentioned 
contained no decisive indications what John 
was intended. 

Modern writers have not been unanimous in 
their judgment on this criticism of Eusebius. 
Several reject it, judging Papias to be men- 
tioning one John twice. So Milligan (Journal 
Sac. Lit. Oct. 1867), Riggenbach (Jahrb. fiir 
deutsche Theol. xiii. 319), Zahn (Stud. und 
Krit. 1866, p. 650, Acta Johannis, 1880, p. 
cliv.). But a far more powerful array of 
critics endorses the conclusion of Eusebius— 
e.g. Steitz (Stud. und Krit. 1868, p. 63), Light- 
foot (Contemp. Rev. Aug. 1875, p. 379), West- 
cott (N. T. Canon. p. 69) ; while less orthodox 
critics with one consent base their theories 
with confidence on John the Elder being as 
historical as SS. Peter or Paul. 

The argument of Eusebius, on the other 
hand, seems to have made little impression at 
the time and his successors seem to know only 
of one John and go on speaking of Papias as 
the hearer of John the apostle. In this they 
follow Irenaeus; and it is animportant fact 
that Irenaeus, who was very familiar with the 
work of Papias of which he made large use and 
whose Eastern origin ought to have acquainted 
him with the traditions of the Asiatic church, 
shews no symptom of having heard of any 
John but the apostle, and describes Papias 
(v. 33, P- 333) as a hearer of John and acom- 
panion of Polycarp. That Polycarp was a 
hearer of John the apostle is stated explicitly 
by Irenaeus in his letter to Victor (Eus. H. E. 
v. 24; see also his letter to Florinus, v. 20). 
That Polycarp was made bp. of Smyrna by 
John the apostle is stated by Tertullian 
(Praes. v. 30) and was never doubted by sub- 
sequent writers. Polycrates, appealing to the 
great lights of the church of Asia (Eus. v. 24), 
names John, who leaned on our Lord’s breast, 
who sleeps at Ephesus, but says nothing about 
any second John buried there or elsewhere. 
The silence of Dionysius of Alexandria is 
positive proof that no tradition of a second 
John had reached him. If he knew and re- 
membered the passage in Papias it did not 
occur to him to draw from it the same infer- 
ence as Eusebius. Neither, though he men- 
tions the two monuments at Ephesus, both 
bearing the name of John, does he say what 
would have been very much to his purpose, 
that he had heard that they were supposed to 
commemorate different persons; and in fact 
Jerome, who in his ‘‘ catalogue’’ repeats the 
story, tells us that some held that the same 
John was commemorated by both.* The 
Acts of Leucius are notoriously the source 
whence the Fathers, from the 4th cent., derived 
Johannine traditions. While disagreeing with 


* Zahn (Acta Johannis, p. cliv. sqq.) tries to prove 
that one memorial church was erected outside the 
walls where John was buried; the other inside on 
the site of the house where he resided and had 
celebrated his last communion. 


~~ UU 


_ EO 5... 5ϑὉῦϑᾷϑὖὩὩὩΦΖΠὖ.. ἡ»... ὦ. 


JOANNES PRESBYTER 


Zahn’s opinion that Leucius was earlier than 
Papias, it is highly probable that he was a 
full century earlier than Eusebius, and we can 
assert, with as much confidence as such a 
thing can be asserted of a book of which only 
fragments remain, that Leucius mentioned no 


John but the apostle. If when Leucius put 


his stories together any tradition had remained 
of a second John, this would surely have been 
mong the Leucian names of the apostle’s 
disciples, so many of which we are able to 
Eusebius had not thought of his 


amon 


enumerate. 
theory at the time of his earlier work, the 
Chronicle, in which he describes Papias as a 
disciple of the evangelist. Jerome also is not 
self-consistent, speaking in one way when 
immediately under the influence of Eusebius, 
at other times following the older tradition. 
In the East the only trace of the theory of 
Eusebius is that the Apostolic Constitutions 
(vii. 46) make John ordain another John, as 
bp. of Ephesus in succession to Timothy. The 
writers who used the work of Papias do not 
seem to suspect that any John but the apostle 
was the source of his information. One frag- 
ment (Gebhardt and Harnack, 2nd ed. No. iii. 
P- 93) Was preserved by Apollinarius, who de- 
scribes Papias as a disciple of John; some 
authorities add ‘‘ the apostle,’’ but wherever 
John is mentioned without addition no other 
is meant. Anastasius of Sinai (Gebhardt, 
No. vi.) describes Papias as ὁ ἐν τῷ ἐπιστηθίῳ 
φοιτήσας and No. vii. as ὁ Iwdvvov τοῦ evayye- 
λιστοῦ φοιτητής; Maximus confessor (No. 
ix.) describes him as συνακμάσαντα τῷ θείῳ 
εὐαγγελιστῇ Ἰωάννῃ. An anonymous’ but 
ancient note even makes Papias the scribe 
who wrote the gospel from the apostle’s 
dictation. Thus Eusebius stands completely 
alone among ancient authorities, differing 
alike from his predecessors and successors. 
It by no means necessarily follows that he 
was wrong. If he has correctly interpreted 
the language of Papias, the authority of so 
ancient a witness outweighs that of any num- 
ber of later writers. We can conceive either 
that there were two Johns in Asia, and that 
the latter’s fame was so absorbed by the glory 
of his greater namesake that all remembrance 
of him was lost ; or else we may imagine that 
the second John, the source of apostolic tradi- 
tions to the Asiatic churches, was held in such 
high consideration that, though not really so, 
he passed in common fame as the apostle. 

The supposition that John the apostle was 
never in Asia Minor has been embraced by 
Keim (Jesu von Nazara), Scholten (Der A postel 
Johannes in Kleinasien) and others. But 
except that the recognition of the residence 
of a different John in Asia opens the possi- 
bility of a confusion, their reasons for disbelief 
in the apostle’s residence in Asia are worthless. 
There is an immense mass of patristic testi- 
mony that John the apostle lived to a great age 
and died in Asia in the reign of Trajan. 

If, then, both John the apostle and the elder 
taught in Asia, can we transfer to the second 
anything traditionally told of the first? 
Dionysius and Eusebius transfer to him the 
authorship of the Apocalypse, but those who 
now divide the Johannine books between 
these two Johns unanimously give the Apoca- 
lypse to the first. St. Jerome assigns to “* the 


JOANNES PRESBYTER 567 


Elder"’ the two minor epistles, and this is a 
very natural inference from their inseription. 
That is a modest one, if the writer could have 
claimed the dignity of apostle; but if not, it 
seems arrogant to designate himself as the 
elder when there must have been elders in 
every city. There is also a great assumption 
of authority in the tone of the 3rd epistle. 
The writer sends his legates to the churches 
of the district, is angry if these legates are 
not respectfully received, and addresses the 
churches in a tone of command. It may be 
suggested as an explanation of this, that the 
writer knew himself to be the sole survivor in 
the district of the first Christian generation ; 
and it agrees with this that Papias describes 
him asa disciple of our Lord, yet speaks of him 
in the present tense while he speaks of the 
apostles in the past. But this hypothesis 
is scarcely tenable if we believe what is told 
of the great age attained by the apostle John, 
who is said to have lived to the reign of Trajan. 
This hardly leaves room for any one who 
could claim to have heard our Lord to acquire 
celebrity after the apostle’s decease. Further, 
no one who used the fourth gospel only could 
know that there had been an apostle named 
John. Even our Lord’s forerunner, called in 
other gospels John the Baptist, in this is 
simply John, as if there were no need to dis- 
tinguish him from any other. The apostle 
alone would not feel such need, therefore if 
he were the author of the gospel, all is intel- 
ligible; but if the author were his disciple, 
is it conceivable that he should thus suppress 
the name of his great master and predecessor 
in labour in Asia; and if beside the apostle 
there were in our Lord's circle another John, 
is it conceivable that the writer should not 
have distinguished between them ? 

Thus the Eusebian interpretation of Papias 
must stand on its own merits. It obtains no 
confirmation from independent testimony, nor 
does it solve any perplexing problems. It is 
certainly possible that we with our more 
powerful instruments of criticism may be able 
to resolve a double star which had appeared 
to the early observers single. Yet con- 
sidering how much closer and more favourably 
circumstanced they were, we have need to 
look well that the mistake is not our own. 
One Eusebian argument must then be re- 
jected, namely, that by calling his second 
John the elder, Papias meant to distinguish 
him from the apostle. This would be so if 


he had called the first John an apostle, but 


actually he callshim anelder. If we suppose, 
as do Lightfoot and others, that he uses the 
word elder in two different senses, at least 
the word cannot be used the second time fo 
distinguish him from those to whom it 15 
applied the first time. If it is to distinguish 
him from any one it is from Aristion, to whom, 
though also called a disciple of the Lord, this 
name isnot applied. Hence Eusebius ssecond 
argument, that Papias by placing John after 
Aristion meant to assign to him a less honour- 
able place, fails since John is given a title of 
dignity which is refused to Aristion. Some 
light is thrown on the sense In which the word 
elder is applied to John by Papias in his 
yreface by the fact that one of his traditions 
is told with the formula, ‘‘ These things the 


568 JOAN NES 


elder used to say.’’ This must surely mean 
more than that the authority cited was one of 
the many presbyters of the church and we 
cannot help connecting with it the fact re- 
vealed by the minor Johannine epistles, that 
there was some one in the Asiatic church who 
spoke of himself, and no doubt was habitually 
spoken of by others, as ‘‘ the Elder.”’ 

The only Eusebian argument then that 
remains is that Papias mentions the name 
John twice over and therefore may be pre- 
sumed to speak of two Johns. But might he 
not first enumerate John in his list of seven 
apostles, concerning whom he had been able 
to glean traditions, and a second time in his 
shorter list of men of the first Christian genera- 
tion who had survived to his ownday? Papias 
wrote for the men of his time, to whom 
the facts were well known, and the idea of 
being misunderstood would no more occur to 
him than it would to us, if we spoke of one 
of our leading statesmen at one moment by 
his surname only, the next with the addition 
of his title or Christian name. The second 
time the title ‘‘ elder ’’ is used it does not mean 
“‘one of the first generation of Christians,”’ 
for Aristion to whom the title is refused was 
that; it does not mean merely one holding 
the office of presbyter, for then the phrase 
‘the elder’’ would have no meaning. What 
remains but that the second John had the 
same right to the title as Andrew, Peter, and 
the rest to whom it is given in the beginning 
of the sentence ? 

Hence while we own the Eusebian interpre- 
tation of Papias to be a possible one, we are 
unable to see that it is the only possible one ; 
and therefore while willing to receive the 
hypothesis of two Johns, if it will help to 
explain any difficulty, we do not think the 
evidence strong enough to establish it as an 
historical fact: and we frankly own that 
if it were not for deference to better judges, 
we should unite with Keim in relegating, 
though in a different way, this ‘‘ Doppel- 
ganger’’ of the apostle to the region of 
ghostland. [6.5.]} 

Joannes (504), surnamed Climacus, Scho- 
lasticus, or Sinaita. At the age of 16 he 
entered the monastery of Mount Sinai, sub- 
sequently became an anchoret, and at 75 
abbat of Mount Sinai. At the entreaty of 
John abbat of Raithu he now composed his 
works, the Scala Pavadisi and the Liber ad 
Pastorem; from the title (κλῖμαξ) of the first 
of these he gained his name of Climacus 
(Climakos). It contains his experiences in 
the spiritual life, with instructions for the 
attainment of a higher degree of holiness, and 
is dedicated to the abbat of Raithu who after- 
wards wrote a commentary upon it (Pair. 
Gk. |xxxviil. 1211-1248). Returning into soli- 
tude, John died at an advanced age early in 
the 7th cent. 
Migne, u.s. 631-1210; anew ed. of the Gk. text 
of his works was pub. in 1883 at Constantinople 
by Sophronius Eremites; Surius, de Probatis 
Sanct. Histortis, Mar. 30. [1.G.S.] 

Joannes (507) Saba, a native of Nineveh, 
fl. in 6th cent. ; an orthodox monk of Dilaita 
or Daliatha, a small town on the W. bank of 
the Euphrates. His works are 30 discourses 
and 48 epistles, of which Syriac and Arabic 


Boll. Acta SS. Mart. ill. 834: | 


JOANNES 


MSS. exist in the Roman libraries. Though 
abounding in digressions, the style is marked 
by persuasive eloquence. They are headed: 
“On the divine gifts and spiritual solaces 
vouchsafed to monks for their comfort and 
delight.”’ Assem. Bib. Or. i. 433-444, 11]. 1. 
103, 4; Bickell, Consp. Syr. p. 26. [c.J.B.] 

Joannes (509), called of Béth-Rabban or 
Béthnarst, disciple and successor in the 6th 
cent. of Jacobus the founder of the monastery 
of Béth-Haba. Jesujab, bp. of Nineveh, 
stated that Joannes had been a monk 70 years 
before his departure from Béth-Haba; 30 
years he had lived as a solitary, 40 with 
Jacobus as a coenobite. Joannes was for 
some time in the monastery of Béth-Rabban, 
which was subject to the same abbat as Béth- 
Haba. Ebedjesu (ap. Assem. Bibl. Or. ut. 
i. 72) states that he wrote a commentary on 
Ex., Lev., Num., Job, Jer., Ezk., and Prov., 
also certain tracts against Magi, Jews, and 
heretics. He also wrote prayers for Rogation 
days, a prayer on the death of Chosroes I. 
(d. 579), and on a plague which befel Nisibis, 
besides paracletic addresses for each order in 
the church (7.e. metrical discourses read in the 
office of the dead), a book of questions relating 
to O. and N.T., psalms, hymns, and chants. 
One of his hymns is in the Mosul Breviary, 
p. 61, and in a MS. in the Brit. Mus. (Wright, 
Cat. p. 135). Rosen and Forshall (Cat. MSS. 
xii. 3n.) mention another hymn of his. Cf. 
also Lelong, Bibl. Sacr. 11. 794. [c.J.B.] 

Joannes (520), surnamed Moschus and 
Eucratas (also Everatas and Eviratus, cor- 
ruptions of Eucratas as Fabricius remarks), a 
monk, author of Pratum Spirituale, c. 620. 
The materials of his Life are to be collected 
from his book (which exhibits no historical 
arrangement), a brief notice by Photius (Cod. 
199) and a Greek Vatican MS. of which Migne 
has printed a Latin version entitled Elogium 
Auctoris. This document extends the chrono- 
logical material, and purports to have been 
composed while the laura of St. Sabas in 
Palestine was standing. 

Photius states that Moschus commenced the 
recluse life in the monastery of St. Theodosius, 
perhaps c. 575. In the Pratum Moschus is 
found at two monasteries named after two 
Theodosii, near Antioch and Jerusalem re- 
spectively. The one intended by Photius is a 
laura founded c. 451 by the younger St. Theo- 
dosius a little E. of Jerusalem (Boll. Acta SS. 
Jan.i.683). The Pratum (c. 92) shews Moschus 
at this spot, described as ‘‘in the desert of the 
holy city,’’ Gregory beingarchimandrite. Inthe 
reign of Tiberius (Prat. 112) John Moschus was 
sent by his superior on monastic business with 
a companion, Sophronius Sophista (said to 
have been afterwards patriarch of Jerusalem), 
to Egypt and Oasis. This circumstance, un- 
noticed by Photius, is assigned by the Elogium 
to the beginning of the reign of Tiberius (1.6. 
578). The absence was perhaps temporary, 
and Moschus’s more protracted wanderings in 
Egypt may be assigned to a much later day. 
His Palestine life lasted more than 25 years, 
and Sophronius Sophista is frequently men- 
tioned as his companion, once with a remark 
that it was ‘‘ before he renounced the world.” 
Photius states that he began monastic life at 
St. Theodosius, he afterwards resided with 


JOANNES 


the monks of the Jordan desert and in the 
new laura of St. Sabas. The Pratum fills up 
this outline. The laura of Pharon (Φαρών, 
Φαρῶν, Papa, Pharan in the Latin version) 
was his residence for ten years (40). It was 
within burying distance of Jerusalem (42), 
and near the laura of Calamon and that of 
the Towers of Jordan (40). The laura of 
Calamon where Moschus visited was near 
Jordan (157, 163). Another ten years (67) he 
resided at the laura of Aeliotae. This also 
was near Jordan (134) and still under the rule 
of its founder Antonius (66). Moschus was at 
Jerusalem at the consecration of the patriarch 
Amos (149), probably therefore a.p. 594 (Le 
Quien, Or. Chr. iil. 246); he records having 
ascended from ‘‘ holy Gethsemane”’ to the 
“holy mount of Olives’’ (187). He resided 
at the laura of St. Sabas, called New Laura 
(3,128) near the Dead Sea (53), and a few miles 
E. of St. Theodosius (Boll. u.s.).. He visited 
the μονή of the eunuchs near ‘‘ holy Jordan”’ 
(135-137), the xenodochium of the fathers at 
Ascalon (189), and Scythopolis (50). That he 
held the office of a xavévapyos is a mistake of 
Fabricius, citing Prat. 50, where it is a nar- 
rator, not Moschus, who thus describes him- 
self. From the wilderness of Jordan and 
the New Laura, says Photius, John went to 
Antioch and its neighbourhood, the Elogium 
adding that this occurred when the Persians 
attacked the Romans because of the murder 
(Nov. 27, 602) of the emperor Maurice and 
his children. In 603 Chosroes declared war 
against Phocas. The Pratum shews Moschus 
at Antioch or Theopolis (88, 89) and at 
Seleucia while Theodorus was bp. (79); 
but as this bp. is not otherwise known 
we get no date (Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 780). 
He visited the μοναστήριον (also μονή) of the 
elder St. Theodosius, on the Rhosicus Scopu- 
lus, a mountain promontory between Rhosus 
in the gulf of Issus and Seleucia (80-86, 95, 
99). At a village six miles from Rhosus, in 
the seventh indiction (1.6. between Sept. 1, 
604, and Aug. 31, 605), he heard the story of 
Joannes Humilis. From those parts, says 
Photius, he went to Alexandria and Oasis and 
the neighbouring deserts. This was his prin- 
cipal visit to Egypt, the only one noticed by 
Photius and the most prominent one in the 
Elogium, which states his reason for leaving 
Syria to have been the invasion of the empire 
by the Persians, 1.6. when Chosroes overran 
N. Syria in and after 605 (as detailed by 
Rawlinson, Seventh Monarchy, 501, 502). At 
Alexandria Moschus remained eight years (as 
the Latin version renders χρόνους ὀκτώ, Prat. 
13 fin.) in the μοναστήριον of Palladius (69-73). 
The names of monastic localities in and about 
Alexandria occur in Prat. 60, 105, 110, 111, 
145, 146, 162, 177, 184, 195.. There are re- 
corded also visits to the Thebaid cities of 
Antinous and Lycus (44, 143, 161), to the 
laura of Raythu (115, 116, 119) on the Red 


Sea shore (120, 121), and to Mount Sinai (122, | 


123). Photius states that from Egypt Mos- 
chus went to Rome, touching at some islands 
en route, and at Rome composed his book. 
What drove him from Egypt appears in the 
Elogium. The holy places had fallen into the 
hands of the enemy and the subjects of 
the empire were terror-stricken. This again 


JOANNES 569 


assists the chronology; for as the Persians 
obtained possession of Jerusalem in 615 and 
in 616 advanced from Palestine and took 
Alexandria (Rawl. 503, 504), the rumour of 
their approach would cause the retirement of 
Moschus in one of those years. The Pratum 
(185) records a visit to Samos. The Elogium 
relates how on his deathbed at Rome he 
delivered his book to Sophronius, requesting 
to be buried if possible at Mount Sinai or at 
the laura of St. Theodosius. Sophronius and 
12 fellow-disciples sailed with the body to 
Palestine, but, hearing at Ascalon that Sinai 
was beset by Arabs, took it up to Jerusalem 
(in the beginning of the eighth indiction, ἐν. 
c. Sept. 1, 620) and buried it in the cemetery 
of St. Theodosius. 

The work of Moschus consists of anecdotes 
and sayings collected in the various monas- 
teries he visited, usually of eminent anchorets 
of his own time, as he states in his dedicatory 
address to Sophronius; but some whose 
stories were related belonged to an earlier 
period, e.g. John of Sapsas. The work is now 
distributed in 219 chapters, but was originally 
comprised, says Photius, in 304 narrations 
(διηγήματα). The discrepancy may be partly 
due to arrangement, as some chaps. (e.g. 5, 55, 
92, 95, 105) contain 2 or even 3 distinct narra- 
tions, introduced by the very word διήγημα. 
Moschus (To Sophron.) compares the character 
of his worthies to various flowers in a spring 
meadow, and names his work accordingly 
Λειμών (Pratum). In the time of Photius 
some called it Νέον ΙΠαραδείσιον (Hortulus 
Novus), and it has since been named Virt- 
dartum, N éos Παράδεισος (Novus Paradisus) and 
ΔΛειμωνάριον. The title Pratum Spirituale ap- 
parently originated with the first Latin trans- 
lator, said by Possevinus to have been Am- 
brosius Camaldulensis (ob. 1439), who trans- 
lated numerous works of the Greek Fathers 
(Oudin. iii. 2437). The Pratum in this version 
forms lib. x. of Rosweyd’s Vitae Patrum 
(1615), which Migne reprinted in 1850 (Pat. 
Lat. \xxiv.), prefixing to the Pratum the Elo- 
gtum Auctoris already described. In 1624 an 
incomplete Greek text made its appearance, 
accompanying the Latin, furnished by Fronto 
Ducaeus in vol. li. of the Auctartum to the 
4th ed. of La Bigne’s Magna Bibliotheca Pa- 
trum. In La Bigne’s ed. of 1654 it stands in 
vol. xiii. p. 1057. In 1681 Cotelier (Eccles. 
Gr. Mon. ii. 341) supplied more of the Greek 
and gave an independent Latin translation of 
some parts. In 1860 Migne (Pat. Gk. Ixxxvii. 
2814) reprinted the thus augmented Greek, 
leaving a gap of only three chaps. (121, 122, 
132), retaining the Latinof Ambrosius through- 
out. Other bibliographical particulars, in- 
cluding an account of the Italian and French 
versions, will be found in Fabricius (Β δὶ. Gr. 
x. 124, ed. Harles). The authorship of the 
Pratum used sometimes to be attributed to 
Sophronius, in whose name it is cited by John 
of Damascus (de Imagin. orat. i. 328, ll. 344, 
iii. 352 in Patr. Gk. xciv. 1279, 1315, 1335) and 
likewise in actio iv. of the seventh synod in 
787 (Mansi, xiii. 59). John Moschus and his 
book are treated by Cave (i. 581) and more 
fully by Ceillier (xi. 700). Dupin gives an 
analysis of the Pratum for illustrations of 


| church discipline (Eng. trans. 1722, t. 11. p. 11). 


570 JOANNES PHILOPONUS 
Cf. 5. Vailhé, St. Jean Mosch. in Echos 
@ ortent, 1g9ot. [c.H.] 


Joannes (564) Philoponus, a “ grammati- 
cus”’ of Alexandria; a distinguished philo- 
sopher, a voluminous writer (Suidas, 5.0. 
Ἰωάννης Tp.), and one of the leaders of the 
Tritheites of the 6th cent. (Sophron. Ep. 
Synodic. Co. Const. A.D. 680; act. xi. in 
Mansi, xi. 501; Leont. Byzant. de Sect. act. 
v. in Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi.i. 1232). From 
his great industry he acquired the surname of 
Philoponus. He was a native of Alexan- 
dria. His earliest known appearance as an 
author was in his περὶ αἰδιότητος, a reply to 
Proclus Diadochus. It shows great dialectic 
ability and learning, the quotations in it 
covering the whole range of the literature of 
his own and previous times (Fabricius, Bzbl. 
Gr. ed. Harles, x. 652-654), and is said by 
Suidas to have been a complete refutation of 
the great neo-Platonist and to have con- 
victed him of gross ignorance (5. v. IIpéxXos). 

Apparently about the same time Philoponus 
was engaged in a controversy with Severus, 
the deposed bp. of Antioch (Suidas, s.v. Ἴωαν ; 
Galland. Bibl. Vet. Patr. xii. 376; Cureton, 
Fragments, 212, 245 seq.).. To the same period 
may be assigned a treatise de Universali et 
Particulari, described by Assemani in his cata- 
logue of Syriac MSS. (Bzbl. Or. i. 613). 

At the request of Sergius (ordained patriarch 
of Antioch by the Monophysites c. 540) Philo- 
ponus wrote his Διαιτητής, Arbiter, the Umpire. 
It is an attempt to shew that the doctrine 
which he and his followers held upon the 
subject of the union of the two natures in the 
person of our Lord was dialectically necessary. 
The argument is admirably condensed by 
Prof. Dorner in his History of the Development 
of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ (Clark’s 
trans. ii. 1. 416). 

At what period Philoponus distinctly 
avowed what is known as Tritheism (Eulog. 
Patr. Alex. Orat. Phot. ccxxx. ed. Schott. p. 
879) does not clearly appear, but it must have 
been before the middle of the 6th cent. as Mar 
Abas, ‘‘ Primas Orientis”’ (d. 552) was one of 
his converts to that doctrine (Assem. Bzbl. Or. 
ii. 411). Notwithstanding this, if not because 
of it, the emperor Justinian sent one of his 
officers named Stephanus to Alexandria to 
summon Philoponus to Constantinople ‘‘ in 
causa fidei,’’ but he wrote excusing himself 
because of age and infirmity. In his letter he 
urged Justinian to issue an edict prohibiting 
the discussion of the ‘‘ two natures.” 

On the death of Joannes Ascusnaghes, the 
founder of the Tritheites, his Demonstrationes 
were sent to Philoponus at Alexandria. The 
latter then wrote a treatise on the subject and 
sent it to his friend at Constantinople. The 
Monophysites, finding that this publication 
brought them into great disrepute, appealed to 
theemperor J ustinII., whohad married Sophia, 
a granddaughter of the empress Theodora, and 
was known to be favourable to their party. 
He complied with their request, and the 
matter was committed to Joannes Scholas- 
ticus, who had succeeded Eutychius on his 
refusal to subscribe the J ulianist edict of J us- 
tinian, A.D. 565 (Greg. Bar-hebr. ; Asseman. 
Bibl. Or. ii. 328). 

We hear no more of Philoponus until 568, 


JORDANIS 


when, John, patriarch of Constantinople, 
having delivered a catechetical discourse on 
the ‘“‘ Holy and consubstantial Trinity,’ he 
published a treatise in reply toit. Photius is 
unsparing in his criticism of this work, charg- 
ing the author with having perverted the 
authorities whom he quotes (Bibl. Ixxv.). 
Philoponus must now have been very old, 
but apparently lived some years longer. 

During his lifetime the Tritheites appear 
to have been united under his leadership (Tim. 
Presb. Recept. Haer. in Patr. Gk. \xxxvi.i. 62), 
but after his decease they became divided 
because of the opinions he had maintained on 
the resurrection-body, both in his writings 
against the heathen and in a special work on 
this subject. This last was in several books, 
of which Photius speaks in no respectful terms 
(Bibl. xxi. xxiii.), though it found great favour 
with that section of the Monophysites which 
persevered in their adherence to Philoponus 
and with Eutychius the Catholic patriarch of 
Constantinople. [Eurycuius (18).] Those 
Tritheites who still followed him were dis- 
tinguished as Philoponiaci, or Athanasiani 
because of Athanasius’s prominence amongst 
them (Schonfelder, Die Tritheiten, app. to his 
German trans. of John of Ephesus, 269, 274, 
297), While their opponents were called 
Cononitae, after Conon of Tarsus who wrote 
a reply to the Περὶ ἀναστάσεως. 

Philoponus wrote numerous other works, 
many of them non-theological. His work de 
Aeternitate Mundi has been ed. by Rabe 
(Leipz. 1899); his de Opificis Mundi by 
Reichardt (Leipz. 1897), and a Libellus de Pas- 
chale by Walter (Jena, 1899). [T.w.D.] 

Joannes (565) Seythopolita, a scholasticus 
of Scythopolis in Palestine. Photius had read 
a work of his in 12 books, A gainst Separatists 
from the Church or Against Eutyches and Dios- 
corus, written at the request of a patriarch 
Julianus, probably Julian patriarch of An- 
tioch, A.D. 471-476 (Phot. Cod. 95, in Patr. Gk. 
cili. 339 nn). John of Scythopolis was also the 
author of παραθέσεις or commentaries on the 
Pseudo-Dionysius, which had a wide circu- 
lation for some centuries. Among the Syriac 
MSS. in the Brit. Mus. there is a Syriac trans. 
of Dionysius, with an introduction and notes 
by Phocas bar-Sergius of Edessa, a writer of 
the 8th cent. The notes are largely a trans- 
lation of the παραθέσεις (Wright, Cat. Syr. 
MSS. pt. ii. p. 493). Cf. Loofs, Leontius von 
Byzanz. (1887). [T.w.D.] 

Jordanis (Jornandes, the Gothic name, on 
his becoming an ecclesiastic was changed to 
Jordanis, Wattenbach, p. 62), historian of the 
Goths (and probably bp. of Crotona, in Bru- 
tium) in the middle of 6th cent. 

I. Authorities—Grimm, Kleinere Schriften, 
iii. 171, etc.; Ebert, Geschichte der Christlich 
Lat. Lit. (Dahn, 1875) ; Die Kontige der Ger- 
manen, ii. 243-260, for Jordanis’s use of words 
of constitutional importance ; Anekdoton Hol- 
deri (Hermann Usener, Bonn, 1877); and for 
other authorities, Wattenbach, p. 55. 

11. Writings.—His only works of which we 
have certain knowledge are the de Brevia- 
tione Chronicorum (more commonly but wrong- 
ly called de Regnorum Successione) and the de 
Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis. 

(1) The de Breviatione Chronicorum (Mura 


JORDANIS 


tori, Scriptores Rerum Ital. i. 222-242) is a 
compendium of the history of the world, of 
little value, and only important as indicating 
the strong feeling of the Goth Jordanis that 
the power of the Roman empire was to last 
to the end of time. 

(2) The de Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis 
is one of the most important works written 
during the period of the Teutonic settlements 
in Western Europe. In amount of matter it 
may equal about 20 pages of this Dict. Its 
contents are most conveniently arranged 
under four heads (cf. Ebert. p. 532). 

I (c. i. 13). The work opens with a geo- 
graphical account of the world and in par- 
ticular of N. Europe and the island ‘‘ Scandza.”’ 
Jordanis then identifies the Goths with the 
Scythians, whose country he describes, and 
praises their learning and bravery. He then 
recounts their wars with the Egyptians 
and Amazons, and, identifying the Goths with 
the Getae, describes the deeds of Telephus 
and Tomyris. Cyrus, Xerxes, Alexander the 
Great, Caesar and Tiberius are mentioned. 
With chap. 18 he suddenly passes to the de- 
vastation of the banks of the Danube by the 
Goths and their victory over the Romans. 
He then pauses to give fuller details about 
the royal Gothic race of the Amali. 

2 (c. 14-23). He carries the genealogy of 
the Amali down to Mathasuentha, the grand- 
daughter of Theodoric and widow of Vitigis, 
who had just married, as he tells us, Germanus 
brother of Justinian. He then returns to the 
Goths and their movement into Moesia and 
Thracia. Claiming for the emperor Maximus 
a Gothic father, he thus raises the Goths to 
high honour. The deeds of Ostrogotha are 
then related, the victory over the Gepidae, the 
expeditions to Asia Minor, and Geberich’s 
conquest of the Vandals. After Geberich 
came Hermanaric conqueror of the Heneti and 
many other tribes. 

3 (c. 24-47). This division begins with an 
account of the Huns, their victory over the 
Goths, and the death of Hermanaric. He 
traces the separation of the Visigoths from the 
Ostrogoths, and follows their history. He 
shortly recounts Alaric’s invasion of Italy, 
and introduces the story of Attila’s invasion 
of Gaul and defeat. The battle of Chdlons is 
described at considerable length. At the close 
of the section he describes the subjugation 
of Italy by Odoacer and the deposition of 
Augustulus. 

4 (c. 48-60). Jordanis now returns to the 
Ostrogoths, once more mentions the defeat 
of Hermanaric, and this leads him to speak of 
the death of Attila. He describes the move- 
ment of the Ostrogoths into Pannonia, the 
reign of Theodemir and the birth of Theodoric. 
The dealings of Theodoric with Zeno, his en- 
trance into Italy and his victory over Odoacer 
are recounted. The outline of the fortunes 
of the Goths in Italy is related very briefly, and 
the work closes with the captivity of Vitigis, 
and another mention of the marriage of 
Mathasuentha with Germanus. 

His own words in the dedication of the de 
Getarum Origine or History of the Goths, 
convey an impression that he had written an 
abstract from memory of a three days’ reading 
of the History of the Goths by Cassiodorius, 


JORDANIS 571 


adding extracts of his own from Latin and 
Greek writers, and that the beginning, middle, 
and end of the work were his own composition. 
It might certainly have been supposed that 
the preface at least was the composition of 
Jordanis himself. But the most convincing 
evidence of the writer's want of originality 
has been shewn by the discovery made by Von 
Sybel with reference to this preface (Schmidt, 
Zeitschrift fiir Geschichte, vii. 288). Itis largely 
a literal copy of the introduction by Rufinus 
to his trans. of Origen’s Comm. on Romans. 

If the general view of the History of the Goths 
by Jordanis, first propounded by Schirren, and 
afterwards worked out by Képke, Bessel, and 
others, be true, the place οἱ Jordanis as a 
historian is but low. He does not acknow- 
ledge several authorities whom he largely 
uses and displays an array of authorities 
whom he only knows at second-hand. But 
it must be remembered that J ordanis does not 
claim originality, except under the clause in 
the preface (‘‘initium finemque et plura in 
medio mea dictione permiscens"’). The sub- 
stratum of the whole work must still be 
ascribed to Cassiodorius. Is it, then, possible 
to disentangle the work of Cassiodorius from 
the setting in which Jordanis has placed it ? 
A complete separation can, from the circum- 
stances of the case, hardly be possible. Yet 
we may be tolerably sure that, though many 
of the extracts bear the traces of the treat- 
ment and colouring of Jordanis, enough re- 
mains of the lost work to bring us in to close 
contact with the mind and words of Cassio- 
dorius, and, to a certain extent, to enable us 
to understand his purpose in his great work. 

The history of the Goths was certainly 
completed before the death of Athalaric in 534 
(Variae, ix. 25); K6épke and others suppose 
Casas Since the discovery of the Anek- 
doton Holderi, however, it has become practi- 
cally certain that the Gothic History of Cas- 
siodorius was composed some years before 
533; probably not later than 521. 

In two passages of his Vartae Cassiodorius 
refers to his Gothic History. By far the more 
important passage, of which nearly every 
word helps to shew his purpose, is in ix. 25, 
where Cassiodorius describes his History in a 
letter addressed nominally by king Athalaric 
to the senate in 534. 

Cassiodorius clearly shews that his primary 
object was not literary, but political. He saw 
the growing antagonism between Goths and 
Romans and Theodoric’s efforts to lessen it. 
He saw the king trying to combine the old 
and the new elements and to form a kingdom 
in which both could live with mutual respect. 
He determined to assist by his writing his 
master’s plans. He would try to draw the 
Goths and Romans together by shewing that 
both nations were alike honourable for the 
antiquity of their race and the glory of their 
history. He would tell the Goths of the 
greatness of the Roman empire, with whom 
they fought in ancient days, and would shew 
the Romans that the kingly family of the 
Amali was as noble as any Roman house. No 
one was better fitted than he to write a history 
of the Goths. His real knowledge of ancient 
writers, his constant opportunities of con- 
verse with the king and Gothic nobles, his 


572 JORDANIS 


father’s share and his own in all the later or 
contemporary events, provided him with 
ample material. In the earlier part of the 
work we can clearly see from Jordanis how 
the political theory of Cassiodorius was 
worked out. He adopted the belief that the 
Getae and the Goths were the same nation. 
Further, he accepted the identity of the Goths 
with the Scythians, a theory stated by several 
Greek writers. Thus the Goths were brought 
into contact or conflict with the great nations 
of antiquity and even the Amazons appear as 
Gothic women. Yet even with all the notices 
he could collect from Greek or Roman authori- 
ties and the stories and sagas he heard at the 
court of Ravenna, his stock of accurate infor- 
mation about the early history of the Goths 
cannot have been large. The very theory 
with which he wrote shews that much must 
be accepted with reserve. 

Thirty years later the Gothic bishop, in his 
adaptation of the work, shewed that he rested 
his hopes of the future quite as much on the 
Roman empire as on the Gothic race itself. 
However little individuality as a historian 
Jordanis may have had, it lay with him to 
choose and adapt his extracts from Cassio- 
dorius in accordance with his own feelings, and 
there is enough of himself in the work to 
enable us to catch something of his spirit. 
For him the end of the great struggle between 
Goths and Romans had come; the war 
between Totila and Belisarius, or Narses, 
which was yet going on, had no supreme 
interest. The race of the Amali, with which 
he was connected and on which all his hopes 
were centred, had ceased to rule the Goths. 
His desires for the future rested rather on the 
union of the brother of the emperor with the 
granddaughter of Theodoric than on the issue 
of a struggle which he probably and rightly 
thought hopeless. His Catholic sympathies, 
rejecting the idea of an Arian ruler, and his 
family pride, alike contributed to this result. 
Three times he alludes to the marriage of 
Mathasuentha, widow of Vitigis (with whom 
she had been brought captive to Constanti- 
nople), to Germanus, brother of the emperor 
Justinian (cc. 14, 48, 60). Inc. 60 he tells 
how Germanus died, leaving an infant son: 
“Item Germanus: in quo conjuncta Anici- 
orum gens cum Amala stirpe spem adhuc utri- 
usque generis Domino praestante promittit.”’ 

Jordanis was the first since Tacitus to 
treat the history of the Teutonic nations from 
their side. The eternity of the Roman empire 
had impressed itself on the mind of Jordanis. 
The idea, therefore, that the Goths were 
equally learned and ancient must have been 
a support to him (and others like him) 
when Theodoric was ruling almost as a 
miniature emperor in Italy. But the 
thought of a union between the imperial 
family and the Amalicould alone satisfactorily 
reconcile his hopes for the great family to 
which he belonged and his belief in the church 
and empire of Rome. This traditional belief 
in the empire and church was destined never 
to be altogether broken in Italy. After two 
centuries of struggles between rival principles 
in church and state the next Italian ecclesias- 
tic who attained importance as a historian, 
Paulus Diaconus, himself, like Jordanis, of 


JORDANIS 


Teutonic race, was able to witness the return 
of imperial power of old Rome and to have 
friendly intercourse with the new Teutonic 
emperor. To Jordanis the first Teutonic 
historian of a Teutonic race such a possibility 
was unknown, and he could only fix fruitless 
hopes on a union of the Greek and the Goth 
to solve his difficulties. For the spirit of the 
age and times which we thus seem to gather 
from Jordanis’s work we owe him a debt of 
gratitude, and also for his preservation, if only 
in a broken form, of fragments from the 
greatest work of Theodoric’s great secretary. 

The most important editions of the History 
of the Goths are: Muratori, Scriptores Rev. 
Ital. i. 187-241 (Medial. 1723). Migne, Patr. 
Cursus, xix. Appendix to works of Cassio- 
dorius. Jordanis, de Getarum Origine et 
Rebus Gestis, ed. C. A. Closs (Stuttg. 1861). 
In the Monumenta Germaniae the two works 
of Jordanis are undertaken by Mommsen 
himself. Neues Archiv. ἢ). G. F. dltere Deut- 
schen Geschichtskunde, ii. 5. 

III. Life.—Jordanis tells us that his grand- 
father was notary to Candac, chief of the 
Alani in Moesia, that he himself was a notary 
before becoming an ecclesiastic, that he was 
of the Gothic race and apparently connected 
with the royal family of the Amali. We know 
from his own writings no more, and nothing 
further can be absolutely certain. But a 
discovery, first made by Cassel, has led to an 
extremely important and very highly probable 
conjecture about his identity. The name of 
one Jordanes Crotonensis, bp. of Crotona (now 
Cotrone) in Bruttium is found, with those of 
several other bishops, appended to a document 
sometimes called the Damnatio Theodori, 
issued by pope Vigilius in Aug. 551 at Con- 
stantinople. If this should be our Jordanis, 
it becomes exceedingly probable that the 
Vigilius to whom the Chronicle of Jordanis 
is dedicated and sent, along with the History 
of the Goths, is pope Vigilius. Vigilius was 
pope from 537 to 555. He had been made 
pope by the influence of Belisarius at Rome, 
at the request of the empress Theodora. After 
the issue of the Three Chapters by Justinian, 
which Vigilius apparently dared not sign when 
in Italy, the pope was summoned to Constan- 
tinople, which he reached on Christmas Day, 
547. He was retained at Constantinople, or 
in the neighbourhood, for seven years, till he 
at last obtained permission from Justinian to 
return to Italy. At Constantinople he was 
much persecuted by the emperor and his party, 
who tried to force him to sign a confession of 
faith in accordance with their views. He was 
bold enough to excommunicate the bp. of 
Caesarea, and then, fearing the emperor’s 
wrath, took sanctuary in the basilica of St. 
Peter in Constantinople. While in this church 
with his companions, and, among others, 
several Italian bishops, he issued (Aug. 551) 
the document in which the name of Jordanes, 
bp. of Cotrona, is found. 

Several considerations make it exceedingly 
probable that Jordanis wrote his work at 
Constantinople. His almost complete ignor- 
ance of the later and contemporary events in 
Italy is thus explained, and his detailed ac- 
quaintance, shewn in several passages, with 
the affairs of the empire accounted for. 


A cack wet 


JOSEPHUS 


The bp. of Cotrona lived not far from the 
monastery in Bruttium (monasterium Vivari- 
ense) to which Cassiodorius had retired after 
his active life as astatesman. Here Jordanis 
first saw the 12 books of the Gothic history, 
and was allowed by the steward of Cassio- 
dorius a second perusal of the work. When he 
was, as we presume, with the pope in Constan- 
tinople he was suddenly called upon to write 
his Gothic history, and, as he tells us, had to 
make the best of what materials he had at 
hand orcouldremember. The de Getarwm Ori- 
gine et Rebus Gestis was the result. [A.H.D.A.] 

Josephus (2), catholicos of Armenia (Le 
Quien, Or. Christ. i. 1079). St. Martin (Mém. 
sur Arm. i 437) places him between Mesrob 
and Melidé, giving his dates as 441-452, but 
these figures do not represent his place in the 
series accurately. The Persian king contem- 
porary with him was Isdigerd II., and the 
governor of Armenia was an Armenian Chris- 
tian Vasag, prince of the Siounians (442-452). 
Joseph was one of the band of Armenian 
scholars trained under Mesrob and Isaac the 
Great and afterwards in the schools of Athens 
and Constantinople. [Mrsroses.] He re- 
turned to Armenia probably c. 434. His 
patriarchate occurred at a most critical 
period, when Isdigerd Il. was endeavouring 
to supplant the Christianity of Armenia by 
Zoroastrianism. For a full contemporary ac- 
count of this see Elisha Vartabed’s Hist. of 
Vartan, trans. from the Armenian by Neu- 
mann and Langlois. Isdigerd issued a pro- 
clamation to the Armenians—one of the 
utmost valuable ancient Zoroastrian docu- 
ments we possess. A reply was issued in 450 
by a synod of 17 bishops held at Ardashad. 
The name of Joseph, bp. of Ararat, heads the 
subscriptions (Neum. 13, 14, 87), the province 
of Ararat being one of 15 into which Armenia 
was divided. This seems J oseph’s first appear- 
ance in these events. The reply is given in full 
by Elisha; for the spirit of it see Isp1GErp II. 
Exasperated by that bold manifesto, the king 
ordered the leading Armenian princes to 
appear before him, and they, depositing a 
confession of their faith with Joseph, obeyed 
(1b. 21). In the royal capital on the feast of 
Easter, 450, they were summoned into the 
king’s presence, and peremptorily ordered to 
adore the sun on its rising the next day. 
Finding Isdigerd inexorable, they feigned 
compliance, and Isdigerd, accepting the act as 
a formal submission of their country, sent 
them home accompanied by a band of magi, 
who, supported by a large military force, were 
to instruct the Armenians in the Zoroastrian 
religion and laws. On the appearance of this 
armed mission the bishops went among their 
flocks exhorting them to resist. The people 
were resolved, and a Holy League was formed. 
On behalf of his distressed country Joseph 
appealed to the emperor Theodosius II., but 
shortly afterwards (July 28, 450) Theodosius 
died, and Marcian his successor would not 
help (ib. 36, 37). The Armenian Christians 
nevertheless assembled in arms, 60,000 in 
number, among them Joseph, Leontius the 
priest, many other priests and a multitude of 
deacons. On June 2, 451, at the Dekhmud, 
a tributary of the Araxes (St. Martin, i. 41), 
led by their prince Vartan they were dis- 


JOVIANUS FLAVIUS 573 


astrously defeated (Neum. 51). A fortress 
where the priests had taken refuge fell. 
Joseph and Leontius, when about to be put 
to death, asked to be sent to the king, hoping 
to make terms for their people. They were 
sent, but would not waver in their steadfast- 
ness (ἰδ. 63, 66). Thus much Elisha relates of 
Joseph in his 7th chap., his last as Neumann 
believes. In an 8th chap. added by Langlois 
In 1867, and in another Armenian writer, 
Lazarus of Barb (c. 48 in Langlois, ii. 315), it 
is stated that in the 6th year of Isdigerd (i.e. 
455) and on the 25th of the month Hroditz, 
the patriarch Joseph, Sahag, bp. of Resch- 
douni, the priests Arsenius, Leontius, Mousché, 
and the deacon Kadchadch were executed in 
the province of Abar, near Révan, a village 
of the Moks. Lazarus (I.c.) records his dying 
words. On the position of Abar see Langlois 
(t. ii. p. 186, note 1), and Neumann (p. 77, 
note 18. [Lrontius (74).] [G.T.S. 
Joshua (1) Stylites, a Syrian monk, a native 
of Edessa, entered the monastery of Zuenin 
near Amida in Mesopotamia. After some 
years he determined to imitate St. Simeon and 
live the rest of his days on a column, from 
which he derives his distinguishing name. 
Before this he had written in 507 the history 
of his times from 495, entitled, History of the 
Calamities which befel Edessa, Amida, and all 
Mesopotamia. A full description, with quota- 
tions from the original Syriac, is given by 
Assemani (Bibl. Or. i. 260). It was published 
at Leipzig in 1878, inthe Abhandlungen fiir die 
Kunde des Morgenlandes, in the original Syriac, 
with a French trans. by Abbé Paulin Martin. 
The translator describes it as the most ancient 
history extant in Syriac, and specially valu- 
able because of Joshua’s personal share in the 
events. His text corrects many omissions and 
mistakes in Assemani’s abstract. He fixes its 
composition between 510-515, and classes 
Joshua as a Monophysite, while Assemani re- 
garded him as orthodox. [1.0.5. AND 6.1.5. 
Jovianus (1), Flavius, Christian emperor 
from June 27, 363, to Feb. 16, 364. The 
authorities for the Life of Jovian are generally 
the same as those for that of Julian. The 
fifth oration of Themistius, and certain tracts 
printed among the works of St. Athanasius, 
are important for the special points of his 
edict of toleration and dealings with the 
Arians. There is a useful Life of Jovian by 
the Abbé J. P. R. de la Bléterie (Paris, 1748, 
2 vols., and 1776, 1 vol.), containing also a 
translation of some of Julian’s works. 
Life-—Jovian was born c. A.D. 331. His 
father, the count Varronianus, was an inhabit- 
ant of the territory of Singidunum (Belgrade) 
in Moesia, the country which gave birth to so 
many emperors (Victor, Epit. 68). At the 
time of his unexpected elevation he was the 
first of the imperial bodyguard, a position of 
no very great distinction (Amm. xxv. 5, 4). 
Julian died of a wound at midnight, be- 
tween June 26 and 27, 363, in the midst of his 
retreat from Persia, leaving his army sur- 
rounded by active enemies. Early in the 
morning the generals and chief officers met 
to choose an emperor. Saturninus Secundus 
Sallustius, the prefect of the East, a 
moderate heathen, who was respected also 
by Christians, was elected; but he refused 


574 JOVIANUS FLAVIUS 
the dangerous honour, and Jovian was 
chosen. 

The new emperor was a Christian and a firm 
adherent of the Nicene faith. He had, indeed, 
some claim to the honours of a confessor under 
his predecessor, but Julian, it is said, did not 
wish to part with so good an officer (Socr. iii. 
22). He was in other respects a man of no 
very marked ability (Amm. xxv. 5, 4; Eutro- 
pius, x. 17). He was a generous, bluff, and 
hearty soldier, popular with his companions, 
fond of jest and merriment, and addicted to 
the pleasures common in the camp (Vict. Epzt. 
6; Amm. xxv. 10, 15). He had a bright and 
open face, always cheerful, and lighted with 
a pair of clear grey eyes. His figure was 
extremely tall and his gait rather heavy, and 
it was long before an imperial wreath could be 
found to fit him. He was only a moderate 
scholar, and in this and many other points 
was a strong contrast to Julian (Amm. l.c.). 

Though he was a sincere believer, we cannot 
credit the statement of Rufinus that he would 
not accept the empire till he had obliged all 
his soldiers to become Christians (H. E. ii. 1). 
But the greater part of the army did, no doubt, 
return without difficulty to the profession of 
faith to which they had been accustomed 
under Constantius. The labarum again be- 
came their standard; and Jovian’s coins 


present, besides the Se the new and striking 


type (now so familiar) of the ball surmounted 
by the cross, the symbol of the church domin- 
ating the world (see Eckhel, Num. Vet. viii. 
Ρ. 147). Ammianus notes that sacrifices were 
offered, and entrails of victims inspected on the 
morning of Jovian’s inauguration to decide on 
the movements of the army (xxv. 6, 1). But 
directly the reins of power were in his hands 
such things apparently ceased at once. 

We need not describe at length the per- 
plexities of the Roman generals in their 
endeavours to escape from Persia, and the 
protracted negotiations with Sapor, to whose 
terms Jovian felt it imperative to submit 
(Eutrop. Brev. x. 17; Amm. xxv. 7, 8). The 
terms were ignoble and humiliating: the 
cession of the five Mesopotamian provinces 
which Galerius had added to the Roman 
dominions, and of the fortresses of Nisibis and 
Singara, the former of which had been the 
bulwark of the empire since the reign of 
Mithridates. No less disgraceful was the 
sacrifice of Arsaces, king of Armenia, the firm 
ally of the Romans and a Christian prince, 
allied to the house of Constantine by his 
marriage with Olympias (Amm. 7b. 9-12; cf. 
Greg. Naz. Or. v. 15). But probably no better 
terms could have been obtained without the 
loss of nearly all the army. 

After crossing the Tigris with difficulty, the 
Roman forces marched for six days through 
very desert country to the fortress of Ur, 
where they were met by a convoy of provi- 
sions (Amm. xxv. 8, 16). The scenes at 
Nisibis were heartrending when the inhabit- 
ants were bidden leave their homes. Jovian, 
however, was firm (xxv. 9, 2). The Persian 
standard was hoisted on the citadel, in token 
of the change of ownership and the weeping 
and broken-hearted people were settled in the 
suburb of Amida. The emperor proceeded to 


| Benedictine ed. Paris, 1778). 


JOVIANUS FLAVIUS 


Antioch. The remains of Julian were sent 
to be buried at Tarsus, where he had in- 
tended to reside on his return from the Persian 
war. 

The consternation of the pagans at the news 
of the death of Julian and the accession of 
Jovian was as sudden and as marvellous as 
the triumph of the Christians. All Antioch 
made holiday, churches, chapels, and even 
theatres being filled with cries of joy, and 
taunts at the discomfiture of the heathen 
party. ‘‘ Where are the prophecies and 
foolish Maximus? God has conquered and 
His Christ ’’ (Theod. iii. 28). St. Gregory was 
writing his bitter and brilliant invectives at 
Nazianzus, where but a few months before 
the Christian population had trembled at 
the approach of Julian (Ovat. iv. and v., the 
στηλιτευτικοί: they were probably not de- 
livered from the pulpit; see p. 75 of the 
Some acts of 
violence were committed, especially in the 
destruction of temples and altars, and more 
were apprehended. At Constantinople a 
prefect of Julian’s appointment was in danger 
of his life (Sievers, Libanius, p. 128; cf. 
Lib. Epp. 1179, 1186, 1489). Heathen priests, 
philosophers, rhetoricians, and magicians hid 
themselves in fear, or were maltreated by 
the populace. Libanius himself was in peril 
at Babylon, and was accused before Jovian 
of never ceasing his ill-omened lamentations 
for his dead friend, instead of wishing good 
fortune to the new reign (Liban. de Vita sud, 
vol. i. pp. 93, 94, ed. Reiske; cf. Sievers, 
Libanius, pp. 128 ff.; Chastel, Destruction du 
Paganisme, pp. 154, 155, who, however, is 
not accurate in all details). Libanius was 
saved by the intervention of a Cappadocian 
friend, who told the emperor that he would 
gain nothing by putting him to death, as his 
orations would survive him and become cur- 
rent. This looks as if his Monody was already 
written and known at least by report, though 
probably only delivered to a select circle of 
friends. The Epttaphius was probably not 
completed and published till five or six years 
later (Sievers, p. 132). 

To appease this disturbed state of feeling 
Jovian issued an edict that all his subjects 
should enjoy full liberty of conscience, though 
he forbade the practice of magic (Themistis 
Oratio, v. pp. 68-70; cf. Chastel, p. 156). 
This was probably one of the earliest of 
his laws. It is impossible to reconcile the 
positive statements of Themistius with that 
of Sozomen, that Jovian ordered that Chris- 
tianity should be the only religion of his 
subjects (Soz. vi. 3) ; and Socrates, who quotes 
the oration of Themistius, says that all the 
temples were shut, and that the blood of 
sacrifices ceased to flow (iii. 24). Jovian may 
very probably have strongly recommended the 
Christian faith in his edicts without pretending 
to enforce it, and the cessation of sacrifice 
seems to have been a popular rather than a 
directly imperial movement (the passage in 
Libanius’s Monodia, vol. i. p. 509, appears to 
refer to Constantius rather than Jovian; and 
that in the Epitaphius, pp. 619, 620, was 
probably written later). Jovian allowed the 
philosophers Maximus and Prisan, the intimate 
friends of Julian, to enjoy the honours they 


eee 


JOVIANUS FLAVIUS 


had received during Julian’s reign (Eus. Vita 
Maximi, p. 58, ed. Boissonade, 1822). 

The reaction under Jovian, so far as it was 
directed by his orders, consisted rather in 
favours granted to Christians than in acts of 
oppression towards paganism. The edict of 
toleration was perhaps issued at Antioch, 
which he reached some time in Oct., having 
been at Edessa on Sept. 27 (Cod. Theod. vii. 
4, 9=Cod. Just. xii. 37, 2; it is omitted by 
accident in Hanel’s Series Chronologia, p. 1654, 
but is given by Godefroy and Kruger). He 
restored the immunities of the clergy, and the 
stipends paid to the virgins and widows of the 
church, and such part of the allowance of corn 
which Julian had withdrawn as the state of 

ublic finances allowed (Soz. vi. 3; Theod. 
1. 11, iv. 4. A count named Magnus, who 
had burned the church of Berytus in the late 
reign, was ordered to rebuild it, and nearly 
lost his head (Theod. iv. 22, p. 180 B). At the 
same time probably Jovian issued a law con- 
demning to death those who solicited or forced 
into marriage the virgins of the church (Cod. 
Theod. ix. 25, 2, this law is addressed to 
Secundus, prefect of the East, and is dated at 
Antioch, Feb. 19, a day or two after Jovian’s 
death according to most accounts. Either 
we must read Ancyrae or suppose the month 
wrongly given, see the commentators ad loc.). 

Jovian is remembered in church history on 
account of his connexion with St. Athanasius 
more than any other of his actions. The 
death of Julian was, it is said, revealed to his 
companion Theodore of Tabenne, and the 
bishop took courage to return to Alexandria. 
Here he received a letter from the new em- 
peror praising him for his constancy under all 
persecutions, reinstating him in his functions, 
and desiring his prayers (Athan. Op. i. 622= 
vol. ii. col. 812, ed. Migne). Jovian in another 
letter (no longer extant) desired him to draw 
up a statement of the Catholic faith. He 
accordingly summoned a council, and wrote a 
synodal letter, stating and confirming the 
Nicene Creed (l.c. and Theod. iv. 3). Armed 
with this, he set sail for Antioch (Sept. 5, 363), 
where he met with a most gracious reception. 
The leaders of other ecclesiastical parties had 
been able to gain little beyond expressions of 
the emperor’s desire for unity and toleration. 
The Arians, and especially bp. Lucius, who 
had been set up as a rival of Athanasius, 
followed Jovian about in his daily rides in 
hopes of prejudicing him against the champion 
of Catholicity (1.6. pp. 624, 625=vol. ii. col. 
819 ff.). The bluff emperor reining up his 
steed to receive their petitions, and his rough 
and sensible answers mixed with Latin words 
to their old and worn-out charges and irrele- 
vant pleas, stand out with singular vividness. 
We can almost hear him saying, ‘‘ Feri, feri,’’ 
to his guard, in order to be rid of his trouble- 
some suitors. 

Little seems to have been effected by 
Athanasius with the Arians at Antioch, and 
Jovian was disappointed in his endeavour to 
terminate the schism between the Catholic 
bps. Meletius and Paulinus (Basil, Ep. 89, 
νΟ]. 111. p. 258, ed. Gaume). A coldness ensued 
between Meletius and Athanasius, and the 
latter was led to recognize the bishop of the 
Eustathians as the true head of the Antiochene 


JOVINIANUS 5765 


church on his making a declaration of ortho- 
doxy. Soon after this he returned in triumph 
to Alexandria. 

Jovian quitted Antioch in Deec., and came 
by forced marches to Tarsus, where he 
adorned the tomb of Julian. At Tyana, in 
Cappadocia, he received the news that Mala- 
rich had declined the charge of Gaul, and that 
Jovinus still continued in his own position, 
but faithful to the new regime. Jovian also 
learned that his father-in-law Lucillianus had 
been murdered at Rheims in an accidental 
mutiny of the Batavian cohorts (Amm. xxv. 
10; Zos. iii. 35). The deputies of the 
Western armies saluted their new sovereign 
as he descended from Mount Taurus. With 
them was Valentinian, so soon to be his sue- 
cessor, whom he appointed captain of the 
second division of scutarii (Amm. xxv. 10, 9). 

Another and a heavier blow followed—the 
news of the loss of his father Varronianus, 
whom he had for some time hoped to associate 
with himself in the consulship of the ensuing 
year. The loss was softened by the arrival 
of his wife Charito and infant son Varronianus, 
who, it was determined, should fill the place 
destined for his grandfather. The inaugura- 
tion of the new consuls took place on Jan. 1 at 
Ancyra (Amm. xxv. 10, 11; cf. Themist. Or. 
v. p. 71). Zonaras (Annal. xiii. 14) says that 
Charito never saw her husband after his 
elevation, but this seems a mistake (see De 
Broglie, iv. p. 485 n.). The oration of The- 
mistius was, it seems, delivered at this time. 

Jovian still pushed on, notwithstanding the 
inclemency of the weather, and arrived at an 
obscure place called Dadastané, about halfway 
between Ancyra and Nicaea. About Feb. 16, 
after a heavy supper, he went to bed in an 
apartment recently built. The plaster being 
still damp, a brazier of charcoal was brought 
in to warm the air, andin the morning he was 
found dead in his bed, after a short reign of 
only 8 months. (Amm. xxv. 10, 12, 13, de- 
scribes his death ; the date is variously given 
as Mar. 16, 17, and 18; see Clinton.) He was 
buried at Constantinople, and after τὸ days’ 
interval Valentinian succeeded. 

Owing to the shortness of Jovian’s reign, 
inscriptions relating to him (other than those 
on milestones) are very rare, but there is one 
over the portal of the church of Panaghia at 
Palaeopolis in Corfu. It may be found in 
the Corpus Inscr. Graec. vol. iv. 8608, from 
various authorities, and was also copied on the 
spot by bp. Wordsworth of Lincoln in 1832, 
who alone gives the first line: “αὔτη πύλη 
τοῦ κυρίου δίκεοι εἰσελεύσοντε [i.e. δίκαιοι 
εἰσελεύσονται ἐν αὐτῇ. [1.»ν.]} 

Jovinianus (2), condemned as a heretic by 
synods at Rome and Milan c. 390. Our fullest 
information about him is derived from St. 
Jerome, who wrote two books, adversus 
Jovinianum. From these we learn that he 
had been a monk, living austerely, but 
adopted certain views which led him to sub- 
stitute luxury in dress and personal habits and 
food for the asceticism of the convent, the 
opinions ascribed to him by Jerome being: 
(1) A virgin is no better as such than a wife 
in the sight of God. (2) Abstinence is no 
better than a thankful ghey: of food. (3) 
A person baptized with the Spirit as well as 


576 JULIANA 


with water cannot sin. (4) All sins are equal. 
(5) There is but one grade of punishment and 
one of reward in the future world. We learn 
further from St. Augustine (lib. i. contra 
Julian. c. ii.), and from the letter of the 
Milanese synod to Siricius (Ambros. Op. Ep. 
42), that Jovinian maintained tenets as to 
the Virgin Mary’s virginity in giving birth to 
Jesus Christ in opposition to the orthodox 
view. He was living at Rome (Hieron. 
Prolog. adv. Pelag.), and wrote in Latin (ἰδ. 
lib. ii. adv. Jovin. § 37). Certain Christians 
at Rome, amongst them Jerome’s correspond- 
ent Pammachius, brought the book to the 
notice of Siricius, bp. of Rome, who called a 
meeting of his clergy and condemned the new 
heresy. Hoping for protection from Theo- 
dosius, who was now at Milan, Jovinian and 
his friends proceeded thither; but Siricius 
sent three of his presbyters with a letter of 
warning to the church at Milan. Ambrose 
responded warmly to Siricius, and with eight 
other bishops endorsed the sentence passed by 
the Romanchurch. Inaletter by Ambrose in 
the name of the synod of Milan to Siricius 
conveying this judgment, it is stated that the 
emperor ‘‘execrated’’ the impiety of the 
Jovinianists, and that all at Milan who had 
seen them shunned them like acontagion. In 
409 Jerome, writing against Vigilantius, refers 
to Jovinian as having recently died. 

The heresies of Jovinian would be especially 
obnoxious to the great ecclesiastics of his 
time, who were wont to insist strongly upon 
the merit of virginity and of abstinence. 
Jerome writes against Jovinian, he says, in 
answer to an appeal made by holy brethren 
at Rome who desired that he should crush the 
Epicurus of the Christians with evangelical 
and apostolic vigour. The vigour of the reply 
was a little too much even for them (quod 
nimius fueritm). His praise of virginity 
seemed to do some wrong to marriage. Ac- 
cordingly Pammachius (prudenter et amanter, 
as Jerome acknowledges) thought it best to 
suppress the copies of Jerome’s answer. But 
the books had already circulated too much to 
be recalled. Whatever Jerome wrote was 
seized upon by friends or enemies, and quickly 
made public (Ep. 48, 49). Jovinian is not 
accused of any worse immorality than an 
indulgence in good living, which was probably 
exaggerated rhetorically by Jerome. Augus- 
tine reproaches him with having led conse- 
crated virgins of advanced age to accept 
husbands. He himself abstained from mar- 
riage, merely because of the troubles involved 
in it. See Hieron. lib. i. adv. Jov. §3; August. 
de Haer. ὃ 82, lib. ii. de Nupt. et Concep. ὃ 23 ; 
Retract. lib. ii. ὃ 23; also Haller, Jovinianus 
sein Leben und seine Lehre in Texte und Unter- 
such. xvii. new ser. (Leipz. 1897). [1.-.11.}.] 

Juliana (8), mother of the virgin DEMETRIAS, 
to whom we have letters from Jerome, Au- 
gustine, pope Innocent, and Pelagius. She was 
of noble birth, being connected through her 
mother Proba and her husband Olybrius with 
some of the greatest families of Rome, and was 
possessed of great wealth. When her daugh- 
ter proposed to take vows of virginity, she 
refrained from influencing her; but when 
Demetrias appeared in the church clad in the 
dress of a virgin she shewed her great delight 


JULIANUS 


at this step. She supported the cause of 
Chrysostom at Rome and entertained his 
messengers. His thanks were conveyed in a 
letter from his place of exile (A.D. 406), 
exhorting her to hold fast and aid in allaying 
the waves of controversy (Chrys. Ep. 169). 
She fled with her daughter to Africa from 
Rome when it was sacked by Alaric, but fell 
into the rapacious hands of count Hera- 
clion, who robbed her of half her property. 
She was commended to the African churches 
by pope Innocent in a laudatory letter (Ep. 
15), which takes the rank of a decree in the 
collection of papal rescripts by Dion. Exig. 
(Coll. Dec. 39; Hieron. Ep. 130, ed. Vall.). 
She became acquainted with Augustine while 
in Africa, and she and her daughter had 
relations with Pelagius, who wrote a long 
letter to Demetrias (given among the Sup- 
posititia of Jerome; ed. Vall. vol. xi.) vindi- 
cating free will by her example. Augustine, 
with Alypius, wrote to Juliana (Aug. Ep. 188, 
A.D. 418), arguing that all the virtues of Deme- 
trias were from the grace of God. __[w.H.F.] 

Julianus (15) (Eclanensis), bp. of Eclana 
or Aeculanum (Noris, ad Hist. Pelag. in Opp. 
iv. 747, ed. 1729-1732), near Beneventum 
(2b. i. 18, in Opp. i. 178; Pagi, Critic, s.a. 419, 
ix.), a distinguished leader of the Pelagians of 
5th cent. A native of Apulia (August. Opus 
Imperf. vi. 18 in Patr. Lat. xlv. 1542), his 
birth is assigned to c. 386 (Garner, Diss. i. 
ad part. i. Opp. Mar. Merc. c. 6, in Patr. Lat. 
xlvlii. 291). His father was an Italian bishop 
named Memor or Memorius (Mar. Mere. 
Subnot. iv. 4, Garner’s ἢ. g. u.s. p. 130; 
Pagi, u.s.; Cappelletti, Chies. Ital. xx. 19) and 
his mother a noble lady named Juliana (Mar. 
Mere. u.s.). Augustine of Hippo was intimate 
with the family, and wrote of them in terms 
of great affection and respect, c. 410 (Ep. τοι ; 
Noris, Opp. i. 422, iv. 747). Julian, c. 404, 
became a “‘lector’’ in the church over which 
his father presided, and while holding that 
office married a lady named Ia. Paulinus, 
afterwards bp. of Nola, composed an elaborate 
Epithalamium, which represents him as on 
terms of great intimacy with the family 
(Poem. xxv. in Palt. 1xi. 633). By c. 410 
Julian had become a deacon, but whether Ia 
was then living does not appear. 

He was consecrated to the episcopate by 
Innocent I. c. 417 (Mar. Merc. Commontt. 111. 
2), but the name of his see is variously given. 
Marius Mercator, who was his contemporary, 
distinctly speaks of him as ‘“‘ Episcopus 
Eclanensis ’’ (Nestor. Trvact. praef. § 1, Migne, 
184; Theod. Mops. praef. § 2, Migne, 1043). 
Innocent I. died Mar. 12, 417. Up to that 
date Julian had maintained a high reputation 
for ability, learning, and orthodoxy, and 
Mercator concludes that he must have sym- 
pathized with Innocent’s condemnation of the 
Pelagians (Commonit. ili. 2). 
reason to believe that even Innocent had 
ground for at least suspecting his proclivities 
(August. cont. Julian. i. 13). When the cases 
of Pelagius and Coelestius were reopened by 
Zosimus, shortly after the death of Innocent, 
Julian seems to have expressed himself strong- 
ly in their favour in the hearing of Mercator 
(Subnot. vii. 2 ; Noris, Opp. i. 183); and when 
Zosimus issued his Epistola Tractoria against 


Yet there is . 


—— ee σανς.---.- ααῳνὐσνσ»... 


JULIANUS 
the Pelagians (A.p. 417; Jaffé, Reg. Pont. 


Rom. 417) and sent it to the bishops of 


JULIANUS 577 


some of his fellow-exiles went into Cilicia and 
| remained for a time with Theodorus, bp. of 


the East and West for subscription, Julian | Mopsuestia (Mar. Merc. Theod. Mops. praef. 
was among those who refused. He was | § 2), who is charged by Mercator with having 
accordingly deposed, and afterwards exiled | been one of the originators of Pelagianism 


under the edicts issued by the emperor Honor- 
ius in Mar. 418 (Mar. Merc. Commonitt. iii. 1). 
Julian now addressed two letters to Zosimus 
(August. Op. Imp. i. 18), one of which was very 
generally circulated throughout Italy before 
it reached the pontiff. Of this Mercator has 
preserved some fragments (Subnot. vi. 10-13, 
1x. 3). Of the other we have no remains (Pagi, 
Critic. a.D. 418, lvii.). 

About the same time Julian addressed a 
letter to Rufus, bp. of Thessalonica (410-431), 
on his own behalf and that of 18 fellow- 
recusants. Rufus was vicarius of the Roman 
see in Illyricum (Innocent’s ep. to Rufus, 
June 17, 412, in Mansi, viii. 751) and just then 
in serious collision with Atticus the patriarch 
of Constantinople. As Atticus was a strenu- 
ous opponent of the Pelagians (Noris, Opp. 
iv. 884), Julian and his brethren perhaps 
thought Rufus might be persuaded to favour 
them (7b. i. 201, 202). Zosimus died Dec. 26, 
418, and was succeeded by Boniface I., Apr. 
10, 419. The letter of Julian to Rufus, with 
another to the clergy of Rome which he 
denied to be his (August. Op. Imp. i. 18), 
were answered by Augustine in his contra 
Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum. Julian avows 
an earnest desire to gain the aid of the Oriental 
bishops against the ‘“‘ profanity of Mani- 
cheans,”’ for so he styles the Catholics (cont. 
Duas. Ep. ii. t) ; accuses Zosimus of tergiver- 
isation and the Roman clergy of having been 
unduly influenced in their condemnation of 
the Pelagians (ii. 3); charges both with 
various heresies (il. 2-5); and protests that 
by their means the subscriptions of nearly all 
the Western bishops had been uncanonically 
extorted to a dogma which he characterizes 
as ‘‘non minus stultum quam impium”’ (iv. 
8, ὃ 20 init.). Garnier assigns the letter to 
Rufus and the two to Zosimus to a.p. 418 
(ad Primam Partem, diss. i. Migne, 292). 

When Julian addressed his two letters to 
Zosimus he was preparing a reply to the first 
of Augustine’s two books de Nuptits et Con- 
cupiscentiad (Mar. Merc. Subnot. praef. § 7), 
which he addressed to a fellow-recusant 
named Turbantius, whose prayers he earnestly 
asks that the church may be delivered from 
the defilement of Manicheism (7b. iii.). He 
sent some extracts from the work, which was 
in four books, and apparently entitled Contra 
eos qui nuptias damnant et fructus earum 
diabolo assignant (August. de Nuptiis et Con- 
cupisc. ii. 4, ὃ 11), to Valerius, who forwarded 
them to his friend Augustine, who at once 
rejoined in a second book de Nuptits et Con- 
cupiscentid (August. Retract. ii. 53). When 
Julian’s work subsequently came into his 
hands, Augustine published a fuller rejoinder 
in his contra Julianum Pelagianum. Augus- 
tine freely quotes his antagonist, and we see 
that Julian again insisted upon the Mani- 
cheism of his opponents (lib. ii. passim) ; 
again charged Zosimus with prevarication 
(iii. 1, vi. 2), and elaborated the whole anthro- 
pology for which he contended. 

When driven from the West, Julian and 


(Subnot. praef. § 1, Symb. Theod. Mops. praef. 
ὃ 2) and who wrote against Augustine (Phot. 
| Bibl. Cod. 177; Mar. Merc. Garnier, ad Prim, 
| Partem, diss. vi.). Meanwhile the rejoinder 
of Augustine had reached Julian, who an- 
swered it in 8 books, addressed to Florus, a 
fellow-recusant (Co. Eph. a.p. 431, actio v. 
in Mansi, iv. 1337; Mar. Merc. Subnot. praef.). 
Mercator has given various extracts (Subnot, 
passim), but it is best known from Augustine's 
elaborate Opus Imperfectum, which was 
evoked by it (August. Opp. t. x. in Patr. Lat. 
xlv. 1050), but left incomplete. On the death 
of Boniface I. and the succession of Celestine I. 
in Sept. 422, Julian apparently left Cilicia 
and returned to Italy, probably hoping that 
the new pontiff might reconsider the case of 
the Pelagians, especially as a variance had 
then arisen between the Roman see and the 
African bishops. Celestine repulsed him, and 
caused him to be exiled a second time (Prosper. 
contr. Collator. xxi. 2, in Patr. Lat. li. 271). 


Juliau was also condemned, in his absence, by 
acouncil in Cilicia, Theodorus concurring in the 
censure (Mar. Merc. Symb. Theod. Mops. 
praef. § 3; Garnier, ad Prim. Part. diss. ii. 
Migne, 359). On this Julian went to Con- 
stantinople, where the same fate awaited him 
both from Atticus and his successor Sisinnius 
(A.D. 426, 427) (Garnier, u.s. 361; Coelest. ad 
Nestor. in Mansi, iv. 1025). On the accession 
of Nestorius to the patriarchate (A.p. 428) the 
expectations of Julian were again raised, and 
he appealed both to Nestorius and to the 
emperor Theodosius II. Both at first gave 
him some encouragement (Mar. Merc. Nestor. 
Tract. praef. § 1), which may be why there is 
no mention of the Pelagians in the celebrated 
edict which the emperor issued against here- 
sies at the instance of Nestorius (Cod. Theod. 
ΧΙ Μααν 30, 428 < σοῦ  . i. 
vii. 29). The patriarch wrote to Celestine 
more than once in his behoof and that of his 
friends (Nestor. Ep. to Celest. in Mansi, iv. 
1022, 1023), but the favour he shewed them 
necessitated his defending himself in a public 
discourse delivered in their presence, and 
translated by Mercator (t.s. Migne, 189 seq.). 
In 429 Mercator presented his Commont- 
torium de Coelestio to the emperor, wherein he 
carefully relates the proceedings against the 
Pelagians and comments severely upon their 
teaching. Julian and his friends were then 
driven from Constantinople by an imperial 
edict (Mar. Merc. Commonit. praef. ὃ 1). 
Towards the close of 430 Celestine convened 
a council at Rome, which condemned Julian 
and others once more (Garnier, u.s. diss. ii.). 
Whither he went from Constantinople does 
not appear, but he with other Pelagians seem 
to have accompanied Nestorius to the convent 
of Ephesus, a.p. 431, and took part in the 
“ Conciliabulum "” held by Joannes of Antioch 
(Relat. ad Coel. in Mansi, iv. 1334). Baronius 
(s.a. 431 Ixxix.) infers from one of the letters of 
Gregory the Great (lib. ix. ind. ii. ep. 49 in Patr. 


Lat. xv. Ixxvii. 981) that the “ Conciliabulum"’ 


absolved Julian and his friends, but Cardinal 


37 


578 JULIANUS 


Noris (Opp. i. 362) has shewn that the council 
repeat their condemnation of the Pelagians, 
expressly mentioning Julian by name (Relat. 
u.s.; Mar. Merc. Nestor. Tract. praef. § 2). 

Sixtus III., the successor of Celestine (July 
31, 432), when a presbyter, had favoured the 
Pelagians, much to the grief of Augustine 
(Ep. 174). Julian attempted to recover his 
lost position through him, but Sixtus evidently 
treated him with severity, mainly at the 
instigation of Leo, then a presbyter, who 
became his successor, A.D. 440 (Prosper. 
Chron. s.a. 439). When pontiff himself, Leo 
shewed the same spirit toward the Pelagians, 
especially toward Julian (de Promiss. Det, pt. 
iv. c. 6in Patr. Lat. li. 843). We hearno more 
of Julian until his death in Sicily, c. 454 (Gen- 
nad. Script. Eccl. xlv. in Patr. Lat. lviii. 1084 ; 
Garnier, u.s. diss. i. Migne, 297). 

Some years after his death Julian was again 
condemned by Joannes Talaia, formerly patri- 
arch of Alexandria, but c. 484 bp. of Nola in 
Italy (Phot. Bibl. Cod. liv.; s.f. August. Opp. 
in Patr. Lat. xlv. 1684). 

Julian was an able and a learned man. 
Gennadius speaks of him as “‘ vir acer ingenio, 
in divinis Scripturis doctus, Graeca et Latina 
lingua scholasticus”’ (w.s.). He was of high 
character, and especially distinguished for 
generous benevolence (Gennad. u.s.), and 
seems actuated throughout the controversy by 
a firm conviction that he was acting in the 
interests of what he held to be the Christian 
faith and of morality itself. 

Besides his works already mentioned, Bede 
speaks of his Opuscula on the Canticles, and 
among them of a “ libellus”’ de Amore, anda 
“‘libellus” de Bono Constantiae, both of which 
he charges with Pelagianism, giving from each 
some extracts (in Cantica, praef. Migne, 1065- 
1077). Garnier claims Julian as the translator 
of the Libellus Fidei a Rufino Palaestinae Pro- 
vinciae Presbytero, which he has published in 
his ed. of Marius Mercator (ad Primam Partem, 
dissert. v. Migne, 449, dissert. vi. Migne, 623), 
and as the author of the Liber Definitionum 
seu Ratiocinationum, to which Augustine re- 
plied in his de Perfectione Justitiae (note 6 in 
Mar. Merc. Subnot. Migne, 145, 146). Cf. A. 
Bruckner, Julian von Eclanum (Leipz. 1897) 
in Texte und Untersuch. xv. 3. [T.W.D.] 

Julianus (27), bp. of Cos, the friend and 
frequent correspondent of Leo the Great. He 
was by birth an Italian. Being educated at 
Rome (Leo. Mag. Ep. 1xxxi. 1042 ; Migne, Ep. 
cxiii. 1190) he was acquainted with Latin as 
well as Greek (Ep. cxiii. 1194) and was thus 
useful to Leo, who was ignorant of Greek. 
Leo found in him a man after his own heart. 
He describes him as a “‘ part of himself’’ (Ep. 
cCxxv. 1244). Long experience led him to put 
the fullest confidence in his orthodoxy, erudi- 
tion, watchfulness, and zeal (Ep. xxxv. 875, 
xci. 1066). Nothing could exceed the value 
of such a man to Leo to watch over the inter- 
ests of the faith and the Roman see in the 
East. Julian was present at the council of 
Constantinople in 448 and professed his belief 
in the ‘‘two natures in one Person ’’—an ex- 
pression which Dioscorus could not tolerate 
when he heard it read at Chaleedon—and sub- 
scribed the condemnation of Eutyches (Labbe, 
Concilia, iv. 188 B, 231 B). In Apr. 449 he 


JULIANUS 


was present at the synod in Constantinople, 
granted by the emperor at the demand of 
Eutyches to verify the records of the former 
council. Here we find him disputing occa- 
sionally the exact accuracy of the “ Acta”’ 
(Labbe, iv. 231 (2), c. 234 (2)B; Tillem. xv. 
511). He wrote to Leo a letter which pro- 
duced two replies dated the same day, J une 13, 
449, the first of a long series of letters from Leo 
to Julian (Epp. xxxiv. xxxv.). The latter of 
the two contains an elaborate dogmatic state- 
ment against Eutyches. After this Julian 
became one of the pope’s chief mediums for 
impressing his wishes and policy on the East. 
{Leo.] Through the Eutychian troubles 
Julian remained true to the faith and suffered 
so much that, as he tells Leo, he thought of 
retiring to Rome (Ep. 1Ixxxi. 1042). It was 
Jutius of Puteoli, however, not this Julian, 
who was papal legate at the council of Ephesus. 
Leo commended Julian to the favour of Pul- 
cheria and Anatolius of Constantinople as one 
who had always been faithful to St. Flavian 
(Epp. \xxix. xxx. 1037, 1041, dated Apr. 451). 
In June 451 he begs him to associate himself 
with his legates, Lucentius and Basil, to the 
council of Chalcedon (Ep. 1xxxvi. 1063). He 
is commended to Marcian the emperor as a 
““particeps’’ with them (Ep. xc. 1065). His 
exact position at that council appears some- 
what ambiguous. Heis not mentioned among 
the legates in the letter of Leo to the council 
(Ep. xciii. 1070), but in the Acts of the council 
is always spoken of as holding that position 
(Labbe, iv. 80c, 8520, 559). In the list 
of signatures he does not appear among the 
legates of Rome, yet higher than his own 
rank, as bp. of Cos, would entitle him to 
appear, and among the metropolitans (cf. 
Tillem. xv. 645, and note, 43). His condem- 
nation of Dioscorus, with reasons assigned, 
appears in the acta of the third session of the 
council (Labbe, iv. 427 6). In the matter of 
the claims of BAsstan and Stephen to the see 
of Ephesus, he gives his voice first for setting 
both aside, then for allowing a local council 
to choose (7γοι D, 703 D). He displeased Leo 
by not resisting the 28th canon of the council 
in favour of the claims of Constantinople 
(Ep. xcviii. 1098), and by writing to Leo 
begging him to give his assent to it (Ep. cvii. 
1172). After this, however, he is in as good 
favour as ever. From Mar. 453 he was 
apocrisiarius or deputy of the see of Rome at 
the court of Constantinople. Leo requests 
him to remain constantly at court, watching 
zealously over the interests of the faith (Epp. 
cxi. 1187, cxiii. 1190, ‘“‘specularinon desinas’”’; 
cf. Tillem. xv. 761). In Mar. 453 Leo re- 
quested him to make a complete translation 
of the Acts of the council of Chalcedon (Ep. 
cxiii. 1194). Julian seems to have returned 
to his diocese in 457 (cf. Tillem. xvii. 762, 791) 
and wrote a reply, in his own name only, to 
the circular letter of the emperor Leo on the 
excesses of Timothy Aelurus and the authority 
of the Chalcedoniancouncil. [Lro, emperor.] 
Julian urges that Timotheus should be pun- 
ished by the civil power and maintains 
strongly the authority of the council. ‘“‘ For 
where were assembled so many bishops, where 
were present the holy Gospels, where was so 
much united prayer, there, we believe, was 


a 


a er ὦ 


‘earnestly contended for the 


JULIANUS 


also present with invisible power the author of 
all creation "’ (Labbe, iv. 942 ; Or. Chr. i. 935). 
After this no more is known of him. [6.0.] 

Julianus (47), bp. of Halicarnassus in the 
province of Caria; a leader of the Mono- 
physites. In 511 he was active in conjunction 
with Severus and others in instigating the 
emperor Anastasius to depose Macedonius, 
patriarch of Constantinople (Theod. Lect. ii. 
26). Theophanes erroneously speaks of him 
as bp. of Caria before he was bp. of Halicar- 
nassus (Chron. A.c. 503, in Patr. Gk. eviii. 362). 
On the accession of Justin I. in 518, severe 
measures were taken against the Monophysites 
and Julian was driven from his see. He went 
to Alexandria, followed quickly by Severus 
on his expulsion from Antioch (Liberatus, 
Brev. c. 19; Evapr. H. E. iv. 4; Vict. 
Tunun. Chron. s.a. 539). Timotheus the 
successor of Dioscorus the younger received 
both kindly, and they settled near the city. 
Shortly afterwards a monk appealed to 
Severus as to whether the body of our Lord 
should be called corruptible. He answered 
that the ‘‘fathers’? had declared that it 
should. Some Alexandrians hearing this 
asked Julian, who said that the “ fathers”’ 
had declared the contrary. In the fierce con- 
troversy thus evoked the Julianists charged 
the Severians with being Phthartolatrae or 
Corrupticolae, while the Severians charged 
the Julianists with being Phantasiastae and 
Manicheans (Liberatus, u.s.; Tim. Presb. de 
Recept. Haer. in Patr. Gk. \xxxvi. 58; Niceph. 
Call. E. H. xviii. 45). The designation by 
which the Julianists were more generally 
known was Aphthartodocetae or Incorrup- 
ticolae (Jo. Damasc. de Haer. § 84). Much 
Was written on either side. The only writings 
of Julian that remain are his Ten Anathemas, 
a Syriac version by Paulus, the deposed bp. 
of Callinicus, being published by Assemani 
(MSS. Cod. Biblioth. Apost. Vatic. Catalog. iii. 
230, 231). A Latin trans. of this valuable 
document is given by Gieseler in his Commen- 
tatio qua Monophysitarum veterum variae de 
Christi persona opiniones imprimis ex tpsorum 
effatis recens editis illustrantur (P. ii. p. 5). 
Three letters from Julian to Severus, also 
translated by Paulus, and several fragments 
are among the Syrian MSS. in the Brit. Mus. 
(Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. pt. ii. 554, 929, 960, 
g61, pt. iii. 1059). Assemani also gives three 
letters of his to Severus from the Syriac MSS. 
in the Vatican (u.s. ili. 223). 

Leontius of Byzantium tells us that Julian 
“* Incorrupti- 
bility,” because he considered the view of 
Severus made a distinction (διαφοράν) be- 
tween the body of our Lord and the Word of 
God, to allow of which was to acknowledge 
two natures in Him (de Sect. act v. 3, in Patr. 
Gk. \xxxvi. 1230). This explanation is also 
given by Theodorus Rhaituensis (de Incarnat. 
in Patr. Gk. xci. 1498) and is fully sustained, 
especially by the eighth Anathema as pub. 
by Gieseler. He was certainly no Phan- 
tasiast and far from being a Manichean ; 
but, as Dorner justly observes, in asserting 
“the supernatural character of our Lord’s 
body,” Julian and his followers did not intend 
to deny its ‘reality,’ but only aimed at 
‘giving greater prominence to His love by 


JULIANUS 579 


tracing not merely His sufferings themselves, 
but even the possibility of suffering" to His 
self-sacrifice (Person of Christ, ed. Clark, ii. 
1. 129). Jo. Damase. Orth. Fid. iii. 28; Eus. 
Thess. contr. Andr.; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 162 ; 
Thom. Aquin. Sum. p. iii. q. i. art. § conel. 

Julian »y some means recovered his see of 
Halicarnassus, but in the council of Constanti- 
nople A.p. 536, under Agapetus bp. of Rome, 
he was again deposed ( heoph. s.a. §29; 
Mansi, viii. 869; Libell. Syn. in Labbe, v. 
276). After this he disappears, but his 
opinions continued to spread long afterwards, 
especially in the East; where his followers 
ultimately divided, one part holding “that 
the body of our Lord was absolutely (κατὰ 
πάντα τρόπον) incorruptible from the very 
‘Unio’ itself" (ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἐνώσεωτ) ; 
another, that it was not absolutely incor- 
ruptible but potentially (δυνάμει) the reverse, 
yet could not become corruptible because the 
Word prevented it; and a third that it was 
not only incorruptible from the very ‘* Unio,” 
but also increate (οὐ μόνον ἄφθαρτον ἐξ αὐτῆς 
ἑνώσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄκτιστον). These last were 
distinguished as Actistitae. Tim. Presb. u.s. 
43; Leont. Byzant. contr. Nestor. et Eutych. 
ii. in Patr. Gk. 1xxxvi. 1315, 1358; Id. de Sect. 
act x. th. 1259; Anastas. Sinait. Viae Dux, 
c. 23, in Patr. Gk. 1xxxix. 296; Isaac. Arm. 
Cath. Orat. contr. Armen. c. 1, in Patr. Gk. 
Cxxxil. 1155; Id. de Reb. Arm. tb. 1243. 

Four scholastici from Alexandria visited 
Ephesus c. 549, and prevailed upon bp. 
Procopius to avow himself a Julianist. In 
560, immediately after his decease, seven of 
his presbyters, who were also Julianists, are 
said to have placed the hands of his corpse 
on the head of a monk named Eutropius, and 
then to have recited the consecration prayer 
over him.* Eutropius afterwards ordained 
ten Julianist bishops, and sent them as mis- 
sionaries east and west, among other places to 
Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, and 
into Syria, Persia, Mesopotamia, and the 
country of the Homerites (Asseman. Brbl. 
Or. i. 316, ii. 86, 88, iii. pt. ii. ceeclv. ; Wright, 
Cat. Syr. MSS. ii. 755). 

By a.p. 565 the emperor Justinian had 
become an Incorruptibilist. He issued an 
edict avowing his change of opinion and gave 
orders that ‘‘ all bishops everywhere "’ should 
be compelled to accept Julianism (Evagr. 
H. E. iv. 39; Theoph. s.a. 557; Cedrenus, 
Comp. Hist. ed. Bonn. i. 680; Pagi, Critic. 
s.a. 565, ii-). This naturally encountered 
great opposition, especially, among others, 
from Anastasius patriarch of Antioch (A.D. 
559-569) and Nicetius bp. of Tréves (527-566) 
(Nicetius, Ep. 2 in Patr. Lat. \xviii. 380). But 
the Gaianites of Alexandria took courage 
from the edict to erect churches in that city, 
and elected Helpidius, an archdeacon, as their 
bishop (Theoph. w.s.). He almost immediately 
incurred the displeasure of the emperor and 
died on his way to Constantinople, whither he 
had been summoned. They then united with 
the Theodosians under Dorotheus, who, Theo- 
phanes says, was one of that party, but who 


9 The corpse of Julian is said to have been treated 
in the same manner by his personal followers (Isaac, 
Arm, Cath. de Reb, Arm, u.s, 1248). 


580 JULIANUS 


both Sophronius of Jerusalem and John of 
Ephesus, the latter of whom especially was 
likely to be much better informed than the 
Chronographer, say was a Julianist (Sophron. 
Ep. Syn. in Patr. Gk. \xxxvii. 3191; Jo. v. 
Eph. Kirchengesch. uebers, v. Schonfelder, i. 
40, p- 47). Justinian died Nov. 565. 

The Julianists were still numerous at Alex- 
andria during the patriarchate of Eulogius 
(Phot. Bibl. Cod. 227) and continued so still 
later. Sophronius of Jerusalem speaks of 
**Menas Alexandrinus, Gaianitarum propug- 
nator’’ as his contemporary (u.s. 3194), and 
Anastasius Sinaita relates a public disputation 
with the Gaianites of that city in which he 
took part (Viae Dux, u.s. 150 seq.). They 
were known in the West as late as the com- 
mencement of 7th cent. (Greg. I. Ep. lib. ix. 
ind. ii. ep. 68, ad Eus. Thessal. in Patr. Lat. 
Ixxvil. A.D. 601 ; Jaffé, Reg. Pont. 145; Eus. 
Thessal. u.s.). In Armenia they were very 
numerous in the time of Gregory Bar-heb- 
raeus (Assemani, u.s.ii. 296; Dorner, u.s.13n.). 

Julian achieved a very high reputation as a 
commentator on the Scriptures. Nicetas bp. 
of Heraclea, c. 1077, selected many of the 
most striking passages in his Catena Graecorum 
Patrum in Beatum Job from Julian’s exe- 
getical and other writings. This catena was 
first published by Patricius Junius, with a 
Latin trans. (London, 1637, fol.), and after- 
wards in Greek only at Venice (1792, fol.). 
The quotations from Julian are in the ‘‘ Proe- 
mium 2 and PPp- 37, 45, 66, 93, 170, 178, 228, 
230, 273, 437, 465, 480, 505, 539, 547-613, of 
the former of these editions. Fabric. Bzbl. 
Gr. ed. Harles, viii. 647, 650; Cave, i. 495; 
Ceillier, xi. 344. Cf. Usener in Lietzmann’s 
Katenen, Freib. in Bretsq (1897), p. 28, and 
the Rhein Mur. f. Phil. 1900, iv. p. 321; also 
Loofs in Leont. von Byzanz. (Leipz. 1887), i. 
p- 30. [T.w.D.] 

Julianus (73), missionary priest to the 
Nubians in the reign of Justinian. John of 
Ephesus (R. Payne Smith’s trans. pp. 251 seq.) 
and Bar-hebraeus (in Asseman. Bzbl. Or. ii. 
330) give an account of him. He was an old 
man of great worth, and one of the clergy in 
attendance on Theodosius, the Monophysite 
patriarch of Alexandria, then residing at Con- 
stantinople. Julian had long desired to 
Christianize the Nobadae or Nubians, a 
wandering people E. of the Thebais and be- 
yond the limits of the empire, which they 
greatly harassed. The empress Theodora 
warmly encouraged the undertaking and con- 
sulted Justinian about it, who became inter- 
ested but objected to Julian as a Monophysite, 
and named another instead, whilst Theodora 
persisted in favouring Julian. John of 
Ephesus describes fully the rival missions and 
the triumph of the empress’s schemes. Julian 
reached the Nubian court first, won over the 
king and secured the rejection of the emperor’s 
envoy when he arrived. Thus the Nubians 
were gained to the Monophysite creed and to 
the jurisdiction of Theodosius. After labour- 
ing there two years Julian placed Theodore, a 
Thebaid bishop, in charge and returned to Con- 
stantinople, where he soon afterwards died. 
For the subsequent history of the mission see 
LONGINUS. [T.w.D.] 

Julianus (103), Flavius Claudius, emperor; 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


often called Julian the Apostate; born a.p. 
331; appointed Caesar, Nov. 6, 355; pro- 
claimed Augustus, Apr. 360; succeeded Con- 
stantius as sole emperor, Nov. 3, 361; died 
in Persia, June 27, 363. For the authorities 
for Julian’s life, see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v. 

The first and still in some respects the 
best English account of Julian is to be found in 
Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Em- 
pire, cc. 19, 22-24—a forcible and on the whole 
very just picture. Like some other cold and 
sceptical people (e.g. Strauss), Gibbon despised 
Julian’s superstitious enthusiasm, and, though 
he cannot restrain some sneers at the church 
and the orthodox faith, this part of his history 
has generally met with comparative favour 
at the hands of Christian critics. Mr. J. W. 
Barlow on Gibbon and Julian in the Dublin 
Hermathena for 1877 endeavours to shew that 
Gibbon, in order to gain a reputation for 
impartiality, is unfair to the emperor, whom 
he thinks morally and intellectually the best 
man “Οὗ the whole series.’’ In the first three 
quarters of the last century little or nothing 
was published in England specially on this 
subject. An interesting and valuable essay, 
written for a Cambridge historical prize by 
the Hon. Arthur Lyttelton, has been kindly 
placed at the disposal of the writer of this 
article, who owes to it several important 
references. It is embodied in the Church 
Qtly. Rev. for Oct. 1880, vol. xi. pp. 24-58, 
The Pagan Reaction under Julian, which gives 
a fresh and vigorous view of the subject. 
Mr. Gerald H. Rendall’s Hulsean Essay for 
1876, The Emperor Julian; Paganism and 
Christianity is decidedly the best account of 
Julian’s religious position in English, perhaps 
in any modern language. In French we have 
the invaluable Tillemont and other writers of 
church history. Besides the articles in vol. iv. 
of the Empereurs there is a special treatise on 
the Persécution del’ Eglise par J. V Apostat, in 
vol. vii. of the Mémoires. We miss, however, 
a critical treatment of the authorities and wide 
generalizations in Tillemont. He also seems 
to exaggerate the scope of the law against 
Christian professors. The fullest history of 
Julian is that of Albert de Broglie in vols. 
iii. and iv. of his L’Eglise et Vempire romain 
au quatriéme siécle (Paris, 1866, etc.). This is 
indispensable tothe student of the period. Its 
general attitude is that takenin thisarticle, but 
he is too anxious to make points to be careful 
of minute accuracy, and therefore of entire 
fairness, and his references often want cor- 
rection. These volumes were reviewed by C. 
Martha in the Revue des deux mondes for Mar. 
1867, vol. Ixvili. pp. 137-169, who paints the 
emperor more favourably. In German J. F. 
A. Miicke, Flavius Claudius Julianus: nach 
den Quellen (Gotha, 1867 and 1869, 2 parts) 
is the most complete modern account. Fr. 


Rode, Geschichte der Reaction Kaiser Julians, 


gegen die christliche Kirche (Jena, 1877); a 
useful study, and generally very accurate, 
paying proper attention to chronology. The 
writer takes up something of the same position 
as Keim does in his essay on Constantine’s 
conversion—striving after fairness towards 
the church, without accepting its doctrines. 
He admires Julian’s books against the Chris- 
tians as anticipating the line of modern critical 


_ ess SSS ΩΝ ἐμ ϑμνιια. τς 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


theology in many points, pp. 102, 103; cf. 
p- 32, n. ro. 


§ 1. Early years of Julian as a Christian 
(A.D. 331-351). § 2. Conversion to heathenism 
351-355. § 3. Julian as Caesar from Nov. 6, 
355 to Nov. 3, 361. ὃ 4. Residence at Con- 
stantinople as Augustus, Nov. 3, 361 to May, 
362. ὃ 5. Journey through Asia Minor, May 
to July, 362. § 6. Restdence at Antioch, 
July, 362 to March 5, 363. ὃ 7. Perstan cam- 
paign and death, March 5 to June 27, 363. 


δ τ. Early Years of Julian as a Christian 
(A.D. 331-351)-—Flavius Claudius Julianus 
was the youngest son of Julius Constantius, 
the half-brother of Constantine the Great. 
His mother, Basilina, was of the noble family 
of the Anicii, and daughter of Julianus the 
praetorian prefect, whose name was given to 
her son. Julian was born at Constantinople 
in the latter part of a.p. 331, the year after 
the dedication of the new capital. 

Upon the death of Constantine in May 337, 
and the accession of his three sons, there was 
a general massacre of the male branches of 
the younger line of the Flavian family de- 
scended from Constantius Chlorus and his 


second wife Theodora. In this tragedy there 
perished the father and eldest brother of 
Julian, his paternal uncle, his cousins the 
Caesars Delmatius and Hanniballian, and 
four other members of the family. Julian and 
his elder half-brother Gallus, who was sick 
of anillness which was expected to be mortal, 
were alone preserved, by the compassion or 
the policy of Constantius (cf. Socr. H. E. iil. 
1; Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 588. Julian, ad 
5. P. Q. Athen. p. 270 ©, gives the list of those 
who perished, and ascribes their deaths to 
Constantius, who he says wished at first to 
slay both himself and Gallus). Julian is said 
to have owed his life to the interference of 
Mark, bp. of Arethusa, who gave him sanc- 
tuary ina church (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 80 C). 
The boy was taken charge of by his mother’s 
family, and his education conducted under the 
direction of the Arian Eusebius, bp. of Nico- 
media, who was distantly related to him 
(Aram: xxii. 9. 4; cf. Soz. v. 2).. When 
Eusebius was translated in 388 to the see of 
Constantinople Julian probably went with 
him, and attended the schools of that city 
(cf. Libanius, ἐπιτάφιος, ed. Reiske, i. Ρ. 525 ; 
Julian, Ep. 58; and Rode, Dte Reaction 
Julians, p. 22, n. 10). His constant attendant 
and guardian was his mother’s slave Mardonius, 
whose influence evidently had great power in 


moulding the character and tastes of his 
pupil, and who insisted strongly on a staid and | 
perhaps rather pedantic demeanour (Liban. 
Lc. ; Jul. Misopogon, pp. 351 seq.; Miicke, 
in his Julianus nach den Quellen, zweite Ab- 
theilung, pp. 6 and 9, makes a curious blunder 
in supposing that Julian disliked Mardonius). 
Though educating him only for a private posi- 
tion, he set before him a high standard, and 
particularly held up to his imitation the names 
and characters of ‘‘ Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, | 
and Theophrastus’? (Misop. p. 353 8). He) 
kept him from the theatre and the circus, and 
taught him rather to love the Homeric de- 

scriptions of Phaeacia and Demodocus and | 
Calypso’s isle, and the cave of Circe (ἰδ. 351 D). 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 581 


Such teaching doubtless fed the naturally 
dreamy temperament of his pupil. Julian 
tells us that from a child he had a strange 
desire of gazing at the sun, and that he loved 
to spend a clear night in looking fixedly at the 
moon and stars, so that he almost gained the 
character of an astrologer (Jul. Or. iv. ad 
regem Solem ad init.; cf. the fable, Or. vii. 
Ῥ. 229, in which he speaks of himself as en- 
trusted by Zeus to the sun's guardianship). 
These pleasant days of freedom were 
brought to an abrupt conclusion by the com- 
mand of Constantius. The death of his rela- 
tive Eusebius (in 342) deprived Julian of a 
powerful protector, when he was about rr 
years old; and soon after (probably in 343 or 
344) the emperor recalled Gallus from exile, 
and sent the two brothers to the distant 
palace of Macellum in Cappadocia. Here for 
six years they were kept under surveillance, 
with no lack of material comforts, but apart 
from young men of their own age and with 
only the society of their slaves (Greg. Naz. Or. 
iii. p. 58 B; Julian, ad Ath, p. 271 c). Their 
seclusion was only once broken by a visit 
from Constantius (Jul. ad Ath. p. 274, prob- 
ably in 347, see laws of the Cod. Theod. in 
this year). Masters and teachers were not 
wanting, especially of that form of Arianism 
to which Constantius was devoted; and 
Julian now, if not before, made a considerable 
verbal acquaintance with the Bible, an 
acquaintance which frequently appears in 
his writings. He and Gallus were admitted 
to the office of Reader in the church—a proof 
that he had been baptized, though no mention 
of his baptism is recorded. They interested 
themselves zealously in the building of chapels 
over the relics of certain martyrs (Greg. Naz. 
Or. iii. p. 58; Soz. v. 2). The success of 
Gallus in this building and the ill-success of 
Julian was remarked at the time, and was 
(afterwards, at any rate) considered as an 
omen of his apostasy (Greg. Naz. l.c. p. 59). 
In the spring of 351 Constantius felt himself 
forced by the burden of empire to take a col- 
league, and Gallus was appointed Caesar. 
Julian with difficulty was permitted to leave 
Macellum, and seems to have returned for a 
short time to Constantinople ; there he studied 
grammar with Nicocles, and rhetoric with 
Hecebolius then a zealous Christian (Socr. 
H. E. iii. 1). Constantius, fearing lest his 
presence in the capital might lead to his 
becoming too popular, ordered him to remove 
to Nicomedia (Liban. Epitaph. p. 526, προσῴφω- 
νητικός. p. 408). Hecebolius exacted a promise 
from his pupil that he would not attend the 
lectures of the famous heathen sophist Li- 
banius; Julian kept his promise, perhaps 
fearing to excite suspicion by outward inter- 
course with a chief partisan of the old re- 
ligion, but contented himself with a study of 
the written lectures of the master (Liban. Lc. 
526 seq. Libanius does not name Hecebolius, 
but the description seems to point to him: 
Sievers, Libanius, p. 54, n. 5, supposes Nicocles 
to be meant). Others, however, in Nicomedia 
besides Libanius attracted the attention of 
the young prince. He here learnt to know 
some of the more mystical of the heathen 
party, to whom paganism was still a reality 
and the gods living beings, visions of whom 


582 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


were to be seen by night and whose power 
still worked signs and wonders. ‘“‘ He is sent 
to the city of Nicomedes,” says Libanius, 
““as a place of less importance than Con- 
stantinople. But this was the beginning 
of the greatest blessings both to himself and 
the world. For there was there a spark of the 
mantic art still smouldering, which had with 
difficulty escaped the hands of the impious. 
By the light of this’’ (turning to Julian) 
“you first tracked out what was obscure, and 
learnt to curb your vehement hatred of the 
gods, being rendered gentle by the revelations 
of divination” (Liban. Prosphoneticus, ed. 
Reiske, 1, p- 408). 

While Julian was thus having his first ex- 
perience of the inner circle of heathen life, 
Gallus met his brother for the last time as he 
passed through Bithynia to undertake the 
government of the East with which Constan- 
tius had invested him (Liban. Epitaph. p. 527, 
διὰ τῆς Bibvvias). The two brothers, ac- 
cording to Julian’s account, corresponded but 
rarely after this, and on few subjects (Jul. ad 
Ath. p. 273; Liban. Epitaph. p. 530). Gallus, 
it is said, having reason at a later date to 
suspect his brother’s change of belief, sent 
the Arian Aetius to confer with him (Philo- 
storgius, 3, 27). Julian, if we may believe 
Libanus, sent Gallus good advice on his political 
conduct, which had he followed he might have 
preserved both the empire and his life (Liban. 
ad Jul. cos. p. 376, ed. Reiske). 

§ 2. Conversion to Heathenism (A.D. 351- 
355).—The secret apostasy of Julian was 
the result of his residence at Nicomedia, 
though it was not completed there. The 
chief agent in effecting it was the neo- 
Platonist Maximus of Ephesus, a philosopher, 
magician, and political schemer. The fame 
of the wisdom of Aedesius first attracted Julian 
to Pergamus, but he, being old and infirm, 
recommended him to his pupils, Chrysanthius 
and Eusebius. The latter was, or pretended 
to be, an adversary of the theurgic methods of 
Maximus, and a folJower of the higher and 
more intellectual Platonism, and used to 
finish every lecture by a general warning 
against trickery and charlatans. Julian, 
much struck with this, took the advice of 
Chrysanthius upon the point, and asked 
Eusebius to explain what he meant. The 
latter replied by an account of Maximus, 
which gave a new edge of the already keen 
curiosity of Julian. ‘‘Some days ago” (he 
went on) ‘“ he ran in and called our company 
together to the temple of Hecate, thus making 
a large body of witnesses against himself. . . . 
When we came before the goddess and saluted 
her, he cried, ‘ Sit down, dearest friends, and 
see what will happen, and whether I am 
superior to ordinary men.’ We all sat down, 
then he burnt a grain of frankincense, and as 
he repeated some sort of chant to himself he 
so far succeeded in the exhibition of his power 
that first the image smiled and then even 
appeared to laugh. We were confounded at 
the sight, but he said, ‘ Let none of you be 
disturbed at this, for in a moment the torches 
which the goddess has in her hands will be 
lighted up’—and before he had done speak- 
ing light actually burned in the torches. We 
then retired, being amazed and in doubt at 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


the wonder which had taken place. But do 
not you wonder at anything of this kind, just 
as I also through the purifying effects of 
reason conceive it is nothing of great import- 
ance.” Julian (says Eunapius) hearing this, 
exclaimed, ‘‘ Farewell, and keep to your 
books, if you will; you have revealed to me 
the man I was in search of’? (Eunapius, 
Vita Maximi, pp. 48-51, ed. Boissonade). 
It is difficult to believe that Eusebius was not 
in league with Chrysanthius to bring Julian 
under the influence of Maximus. The young 
prince hurried off to Ephesus, and there threw 
himself with eagerness into the teaching of his 
new master, which seems exactly to have 
suited his fantastic temperament. Julian 
had no practical Christianity to fall back 
upon. The sense of being watched and sus- 
pected had sunk deeply into his mind at 
Macellum, and he had learnt to look upon 
Constantius not only as his jailor, but as the 
murderer of his nearest relations. This 
naturally did not incline him to the religion 
inculcated by Arian or semi-Arian court 
bishops, who probably laid stress upon their 
peculiar points of divergence from the ortho- 
dox faith, and neglected the rest of Christian 
theology. Julian therefore conceived of 
Christianity, not as a great body of truth 
satisfying the whole man, but as a set of 
formulas to be plausibly debated and distin- 
guished. On the other hand, he had a real, 
though pedantic, love of Hellenic authors and 
literature, and a natural dislike to those who 
destroyed the ancient monuments of the old 
faith. His characteristic dreaminess and love 
of mystery found satisfaction in the secret 
cults to which men like Maximus were 
addicted—all the more zealously as public 
sacrifice was difficult or dangerous. He was 
by nature ardent and superstitious, and 
never fellinto good hands. The pagan coterie 
soon discovered the importance of their con- 
vert, and imbued him with the notion that 
he was the chosen servant of the gods to bring 
back again Hellenic life and religion. By 
the arts of divination a speedy call to the 
throne was promised him, and he vowed to 
restore to the temples if he became emperor. 
(Libanius, Epitaph. pp. 529 and 565, who 
agrees substantially with Socrates, iii. 1, p. 
168, and Sozomen, v. 2, p. 181; cf. Theod. 
111. 1). For the present, however, the ful- 
filment of such hopes seemed distant, and 
Julian for ten years pretended zeal for Chris- 
tianity (Liban. Epitaph. p. 528; Amm. xxil. 5, 
1; Socr. iii. 1; Soz. v. 2). He had, indeed, 
good reason to fear the suspicions of his 
cousin. In 354 Gallus was craftily removed 
from his government and executed [GALLUS], 
and Julian was apprehended, on obscure 
charges (Amm. xv. 2, 7—the charge of 
leaving Macellum without permission seems 
strange, since the brothers had been released 
from their retirement some four years before). 
For seven months he was confined in N. Italy 
near the court, being removed from place to 
place (Jul. ad Ath. p. 272 Ὁ; Liban. Epitaph. 
p- 530;- cf. Jul. ad Themist. p. 260 a)—an 
imprisonment brought to an end by the inter- 
vention of the gentle empress Eusebia, who 
procured for him an interview with Constan- 
tius, and leave to return to his studies (Jul. 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


ad Ath. pp. 272, 274; Or. 3, p. 118 8B). At 
first he determined to retire to his mother’s 
property in Bithynia, Constantius having 
confiscated all the estates of his father 
(Jul. ad Ath. p. 273; Ep. 40, p. 4174, to 
Iamblichus—an interesting letter written 3 
years later, and not concealing his religious 
opinions). He had hardly arrived in Asia 
Minor when the suspicions of Constantius 
were aroused by two reports brought by 
informers, one of treasonable proceedings at 
a banquet given by Africanus, the governor 
of Pannonia Secunda at Sirmium, the other 
of the rising of Silvanus in Gaul (Jul. ad Ath. 
p- 273 ¢,D; cf. Amm. xv. 3, 7 seq.). The 
first was no doubt connected in his mind with 
Julian, who had just passed through that 
country, and whom he in consequence recalled, 
but on his way back received permission, 
or rather command, to turn aside into Greece, 
a privilege which Eusebia had procured for 
him (ad Ath. 273 D; Or. 3, p.118 Cc). Hethus 
could gratify a long-cherished wish of visiting 
Athens. The young prince was naturally 
well received by professors and sophists, such 
as Prohaeresius and Himerius, then teaching 
at Athens. He had a turn for philosophy, 
and could discourse eagerly, in the modern 
neo-Platonic fashion, about the descent and 
the ascent of souls. He was surrounded by a 
swarm of young and old men, philosophers and 
rhetoricians, and (if we may believe Libanius) 
gained favour as much by his modesty and 
gentleness as by the qualities of his intelligence 
(Liban. Epitaph. p. 532). Two of the most 
distinguished of his familiars among his 
fellow-students at this time were the future 
bishops Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, then 
as always close and intimate friends. Gre- 
gory, however, seems to have detected some- 
thing of his real character ; he noticed an air 
of wildness and unsteadiness, a wandering 
eye, an uneven gait, a nervous agitation of 
the features, an unreasoning and disdainful 
laugh, an abrupt, irregular way of talking, 
which betrayed a mind ill at ease with itself, 
and exclaimed, ‘‘ What a plague the Roman 
empire is breeding! God grant I may be a 
false prophet!” (Or. pp. 161, 162). Gre- 
gory, who had many friends among the 
professors, may well have been aware of the 
real state of the young prince’s mind, and of 
his nightly visits to Eleusis, where he could 
indulge his religious feelings without reserve. 
Maximus had introduced him to the hiero- 
hant there, a great miracle-worker who was 
in league with the heathen partyin Asia Minor 
(Eunapius, Vita Maximi, pp. 52, 53). 

§ 3. Julian as Caesar (from Nov. 6, 355, 
to Nov. 3, 361 — death of Constantius).— 
About May 355 Julian was permitted to 
go to Athens, but a few months later was 
summoned again to the court (Jul. ad Ath. 
p- 273 D). He left the city in low spirits and 
with many tears, and, stretching out his 
hands to the Acropolis, besought Athena to 
save her suppliant—an act which, he tells us, 
many saw him perform (tb. p. 475 A). Those 
who did so could hardly have doubted his 
change of religion, and there were doubtless 
many sympathizers who looked to him as 
the future restorer of the old faith. He first 
crossed the Aegean to Ilium Novum, where 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 588 


he visited the antiquities under the guidance 
of the then Christian bp. Pegasius, who 
delighted him by omitting the sign of the 
cross in the temples, and otherwise shewing 
heathen sympathies (Jul. Ep. 78 — the 
letter, first edited by C. Henning, in Hermes, 
vol. ix.). On his arrival at Milan, Con- 
stantius was absent, but Julian was well 
received by the eunuchs of the empress (ad 
Ath. pp. 274, 275 B). His first impulse was 
to write to his protectress and implore her 
to obtain leave for him to return home; but 
on demanding a revelation from the gods, 
he received an intimation of their displeasure 
and a threat of disgraceful death if he did so, 
and, in consequence, schooled himself to 
yield his will to theirs, and to become their 
instrument for whatever purposes they chose 
(tb. pp. 275, 276; cf. Liban. ad Jul. consulem, 
t. 1, p. 378). Constantius soon returned, 
and determined, under the persevering pres- 
sure of his wife and notwithstanding strong 
opposition, to give the dignity of Caesar 
to his sole remaining relative (Amm. xv. 8, 3; 
Zos. 3, 1). On Nov. 6, 355, Julian received 
the insignia in the presence of the army at 
Milan, and was given control of the prefec- 
ture of Gaul (#.e. Spain, Gaul, Britain, and 
Germany), and especially of the defence 
of the frontiers (ad Ath. p. 277A; Amm. 
l.c.). As he drew the unwonted garb around 
him in place of his beloved pallium, he 
was heard to mutter the line of Homer, to 
which his wit gave a new shade of meaning : 


‘“‘Him purple death and destiny embraced ” 


(Amm. xv. 8, 17). At the same time he 
received, through the management of Eusebia, 
the emperor’s sister Helena as his bride, and 
the gift of a library from the empress herself 
(Or. iii. p. 123 D). Thus the reconciliation 
of the cousins was apparently complete. 
Julian produced a spirited panegyric upon the 
reign and just actions of Constantius, which 
it seems right to assign to this date (Or. 1; 
cf. Spanheim’s notes, p. 5). He set out, on 
Dec. 1, for his new duties with a small retinue, 
from which almost all his personal followers 
were carefully excluded (Amm. xv. 8, 17, 18; 
Jul. ad Ath. p. 277 B, c). Of his four slaves, 
one was his only confidant in religious matters, 
an African named Euhemerus (ad Ath. p. 
2778; Eunap. Vita Maximi, p. 54). His 
physician, Oribasius, who had charge of his 
library, was only allowed to accompany him 
through ignorance of their intimacy (ad Ath. 
Le.; Eunap. Vtta Oribasti, p. 104). He 
entered Vienne with great popular rejoicing 
(for the province was hard-pressed by the 
barbarians) and possibly with secret expecta- 
tions amongst the heathen party, which had 
been strong in the time of Magnentius. A 
blind old woman, learning his name and office 
as he passed, cried out, ‘* There goes he who 
will restore the temples of the gods!"’ (Amm. 
xv. 8, 22). 

During the next five years the young Caesar 
appears as a strenuous and successful general 
and a popular ruler. The details of his wars 
with the Franks and Alamanns, the Salii 
and Chamavi, will be found in Ammianus 
and Zosimus. Perhaps we ought to recollect 
that he was his own historian, writing ὁ com- 


584 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


mentaries’’ (now no longer extant) which 
were no doubt intended to rival those of the 
author of the Gallic War. After an ex- 
pedition against the Franks in the autumn of 
357 he wintered for the first time at Paris, 
which became a favourite abode of his. He 
gives a well-known description of his φίλη 
Λουκετία in the Misopogon (pp. 340 Seq.). 
His military successes endeared him to both 
troops and people. His internal government, 
particularly as lightening public burdens, was 
equally popular. He had specially to contend 
with the avarice of Florentius, the praetorian 
prefect, who desired to increase the capitatio, 
and who, on Julian’s refusal to sign the 
indiction, complained of him to Constantius 
(Amm. xvii. 3, 2, and 5, in 357). Constantius, 
while reproving him for discrediting his officer, 
left him a practically free hand, and the tax, 
which on his entering Gaul was 25 aurei a 
head, had been reduced to 7 when he left 
(Amm. xvi. 5, 14; cf. xvii. 3, 6). 

His ambition was to imitate Marcus Aure- 
lius as a philosopher upon the throne, and 
Alexander the Great as a model in warfare 
(ad Themist. p. 253). His table was very 
plainly furnished, and he refused all the 
luxuries which Constantius had written down 
for him as proper for a Caesar’s board (Amm. 
xvi. 5, 3. His bed was a mat and a rug of 
skins, from which he rose at midnight, and, 
after secret prayer to Mercury, addressed him- 
self first to public business and then to 
literature. He studied philosophy first, then 
poetry, rhetoric, and history, making himself 
also fairly proficient in Latin. His chamber 
was ordinarily never warmed ; and one very 
cold night, at Paris, he was nearly suffocated 
by some charcoal in a brazier, but erroneously 
attributed it to the dampness of the room 
(Misopogon, p. 341). All this attracted the 
people, but was not agreeable to many of 
the courtiers. Julian knew that he was 
surrounded by disaffected officials and other 
spies upon his conduct, and continued to 
conceal his religious sentiments, and to act 
cautiously towards his cousin. During his 
administration of Gaul he produced another 
panegyric upon Constantius, and one upon 
Eusebia, though the exact occasion of neither 
can be determined (Or. 2 and 3). In these 
orations Julian, though indulging to the full 
in classical parallels and illustrations, takes 
care to hide his change of religion. He speaks 
even of his prayers to God for Constantius, 
naturally indeed and not in a canting way 
(Or. 3, p. 118 δ). Nor did he hesitate to join 
with him in issuing a law denouncing a capital 
penalty against those who sacrifice to or wor- 
ship idols (Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 6, Apr. 356), 
in repressing magic and all kinds of divination 
with very severe edicts (7b. ix. 16, 4-6, in 357 
and 358), in punishing renegade Christians 
who had become Jews (ib. xvi. 8, 7), and in 
granting new privileges to the church and 
clergy, and regulating those already given 
(ib. xvi. 2, 13-16; the last as late as Mar. 
361). Tohave hinted at dislike to any of these 
measures would, indeed, have aroused at once 
the strongest suspicions. One of the edicts 
against magic, which threatens torture for 
every kind of divination, seems almost person- 
ally directed against Julian (Cod. Theod. ix. 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


16, 6, dated July 5, 358, from Ariminum). 
The effect upon his conscience of condemning 
as a public officer what he was secretly prac- 
tising must have been hardening and demoraliz- 
ing. For Julian was not without thought on 
such subjects. At another time he declared he 
would rather die than sign the oppressive edict 
brought him by Florentius (Amm. xvii. 3, 2) ; 
and in his later famous decree against Christian 
professors he writes vehemently of the wicked- 
ness of thinking one thing and teaching another 
(Ep. 42). 

In Apr. 360 Constantius ordered the flower 
of the Gallic auxiliaries to be sent to aid him 
in his expedition against the Persians (Amm. 
xx. 4). This request produced great irritation 
among men who had enlisted on the under- 
standing that they were not to be required to 
cross the Alps—an irritation fomented no 
doubt by the friends of Julian, particularly, 
it is said, by Oribasius (Eunap. Vita Oribasi, 
p- 104). The troops surrounded the palace 
at Paris and demanded that their favourite 
should take the title of Augustus (ad Ath. 
p- 284; Amm. xx. 4, 14). Julian, according 
to his own account, was quite unprepared for 
such a step, and would not accede till Jupiter 
had given him a sign from heaven. This sign 
was no doubt the vision of the Genius of the 
Empire, who declared that he had long been 
waiting on his threshold and was now unwill- 
ing to be turned away from it. Yet he 
warned him (so Julian told his intimates) that 
his residence with him would in no case 
be for long (Amm. xx. 5, 10; cf. Lib. ad Jul. 
cos. p. 386). We have no reason, however, 
to think that Julian had any real hesitation, 
except as to the opportuneness of the moment. 
When he came down to address the troops, he 
still appeared reluctant, but the enthusiasm of 
the soldiers would take no denial, and he was 
raised in Gallic fashion upon a shield, and 
hastily crowned with a gold chain which a 
dragoon (draconarius) tore from his own 
accoutrements. He promised the accustomed 
donative (Amm. xx. 4, 18),-which the friends 
of Constantius, it would seem, secretly tried 
to outdo by bribes (ad Ath. p. 285 a). The 
discovery of their intrigue only raised the 
popular enthusiasm to a higher pitch, and 
Julian felt strong enough to treat with his 
cousin. He dispatched an embassy with a 
letter declining to send the Gallic troops, who 
(he declared) positively refused to go, and 
could not be spared with safety; but he 
offered some small corps of barbarian auxili- 
aries. He related the action of the army in 
proclaiming him Augustus, but said nothing 
of his own wish to bear the title. As a com- 
promise he proposed that Constantius should 
still appoint the praetorian prefect, the chief 
governor of that quarter of the empire, but 
that all lesser offices should be under his 


own administration (7b. p, and for particulars, . 


Amm. xx. 8, 5-17), who gives the substance of 
the letter at length). But to these public and 
open requests he added a threatening and bitter 
private missive, which had the effect, whether 
intentionally or not, of rendering his negotia- 
tions abortive (Amm. l.c.). 

Such a state of things could only end in war, 
but neither party was in a hurry to precipitate 
it. In Vienne Julian celebrated the fifth 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


anniversary of his appointment, and appeared 
for the first time in the jewelled diadem 
which had become the symbol of imperial 
dignity (Amm. xxi. 1, 4). Meanwhile both 
Eusebia and Helena had been removed by 
death, and with them almost the last links 
which united the cousins. Julian still kept 
up the pretence of being a Christian. At 
Epiphany, 361, he kept the festival solemnly 
and even ostentatiously, joining in the public 
prayers and devotions (ἐν. 2). He witnessed 
calmly the triumphant return of St. Hilary 
after his exile, and permitted the Gallic bishops 
to hold acouncil at Paris (S. Hilarii, Frag. Hist. 
PP. 1353, 1354). His name also appears, after 
that of Constantius, attached to a law issued 
on Mar. 1 at Antioch, giving privileges to Chris- 
tian ascetics. But allthis was mere dissimula- 
tion for the sake of popularity. In secret he was 
anxiously trying, by all possibleheathen means, 
to divine the future (Amm. xxi. 1, 6seq.). He 
sent in particular for the hicrophant of Eleusis, 
with whose aid he performed rites known to 
themselves alone (Eunap. Vita Maximi, p. 53; 
cf. Amm. xxi. 5, 1, ‘‘ placata ritu secretiori 
Bellona’’). 

The irritation against Constantius was 
further increased by an arrogant letter, 
addressed of course to the Caesar Julian, 
requiring his immediate submission and 
merely promising him his life. Julian, on 
receiving this, uttered an exclamation which 
betrayed his religion: ‘‘He would rather 
commit himself and his life to the gods than 
to Constantius’’ (Zos. iii. 9, 7). The 
moment seemed now come for action. Ina 
speech to the soldiers in which he referred in 
ambiguous language to the will of the God of 
heaven—“‘ arbitrium dei caelestis ’’—he called 
upon them to take the oath of allegiance and 
follow him across the Alps. He spoke in 
general terms of occupying Illyricum and 
Dacia, and then deciding what was to be 
done (Amm. xxi. 5). Having thus secured 
the Western provinces, he made a rapid and 
successful passage through N. Italy, receiving 
its submission. He reached Sirmium without | 
opposition, having ordered the different divi- | 
sions of his army to concentrate there. Then 
he took and garrisoned the important pass of 
Succi (Ssulu Derbend) on the Balkans, between 
Sardica and Philippopolis, thus securing the 
power to descend into Thrace. For the time | 
he established his quarters at Naissus (Nish), 
and awaited further news. From there he 


wrote to the senate of Rome against Constan-| 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 585 


monuments prove that many pagans of position 
continued the taurobolium till the end of the 
4th cent. (see the inscriptions in Wilmanns, 
Exempla Inscr. Lat. 107-126). 

Such secret incidents preceded Julian's 
public declaration of his change of religion. 
At Naissus or Sirmium he threw off the 
mask, and professed himself openly a heathen. 
Of his first public sacrifice he wrote with 
exultation to his friend Maximus: “ We 
worship the gods openly, and the greatest part 
of the troops who accompanied me profess the 
true religion. We have acknowledged our 
gratitude to the gods in many hecatombs. 
The gods command me to consecrate myself 
to their service with all my might, and most 
readily do I obey them. They promise us 
great returns for our toils if we are not remiss "’ 
(Ep. 38, p. 415 c). 

Now came the news of his cousin’s sudden 
death at Mopsucrene, at the foot of Mount 
Taurus, on Nov. 3, and Julian learnt that he 
was accepted without opposition as the 
successor designated by his dying breath, a 
report of which we cannot guarantee the truth 
(Amm. xxii. 2, 6). 

§ 4. Julian as Augustus at Constantinople 
(from Nov. 3, 361, to May 362).—Julian 
hastened to Constantinople, through the 
pass of Succi and by Philippopolis and 
Heraclea, entering the Eastern capital amid 
general rejoicings on Dec. τ᾿. He conducted 
the funeral of Constantius with the usual 
honours ; laying aside all the imperial insignia, 
except the purple, and marching in the pro- 
cession, touching the bier with his hands 
(Liban. Epitaph. p. 512, cf. Greg. Naz. Or. 5, 
16, 17, pp. 157, 158). Constantius was buried 
near his father in the Church of the Apostles, 
but whether Julian entered it is not stated. 

Almost his next act was to appoint a special 
commission under the presidency of Satur- 
ninus Sallustius Secundus (to be distinguished 
from the prefect of the Gauls) to bring to 
justice the principal supporters of the late 
government. Julian himself avoided taking 
part in it, and allowed no appeal from its 
decisions. The commission met at Chalcedon, 
and acted with excessive rigour. 

Julian next turned his attention to the 
palace, with its swarm of needless and over- 
paid officials, eunuchs, cooks, and barbers, 
who battened on bribes and exactions. All 


| these he swept away, to the general satisfaction 


(Amm. xxii. 4; Liban. Epit. p. 565). 
Towards Christians he adopted a policy of 


tius, and in self-defence to the Athenians, toleration, though desiring nothing more 
Lacedemonians, and Corinthians (Zos. iii. 10). | keenly than the humiliation of the Church. 
The Athenian letter was possibly entrusted | His object was to set sect against sect by 

to the Eleusinian hierophant, who returned | extending equal licence to all (cf. Amm. xxii. 
home about this time. It was perhaps also| 5). He issued an edict allowing all bishops 
under his guidance that Julian underwent the | exiled under Constantius to return, and 

secret ceremonies of initiation described by | restoring their confiscated property (Soer. iii. 
Gregory Nazianzen (Or. 4, 52-56, pp- 101-103). | 1, p- 171). On the other hand, the extreme 
According to common report, he submitted to | Arian, Aetius, as a friend of Gallus, received 
the disgusting bath of blood, the taurobolium | a special invitation to court (Ep. 31). _ A letter 
or criobolium, through which the worshippers “ to Basil,"’ seemingly of the same date, and 
of Mithra and Cybele sought to procure eternal | of similar purport, may possibly have been 
life. Julian’s object, it is said, was not only | addressed to St. Basil of Caesarea (Ep. 12 ; 
to gain the favour of the gods, but also to | De Broglie assumes this, t. iv. pp. 133, 235, n.). 
wash away alldefilement from previous contact | To Caesarius, a court physician of high repute 
with the Christian mysteries. This miserable and the brother of Gregory, Julian shewed 
story is yet a very credible one. Existing | great attention, and strove for his conversion. 


586 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


He even entered into a public discussion on 
religion with him, and was much mortified by 
the ill success of his rhetoric (Greg. Naz. Ep. 
6; Orat. vii. 11-14). The Donatists, Nova- 
tianists, and perhaps some extreme Arians 
were not loth to appear before the new 
emperor, who sought to destroy unanimity by 
extending free licence to all Christian sects, 
but there is no trace of any important Catholic 
leader falling into the snare. In thesame spirit 
he ordered Eleusius, Arian bp. of Cyzicus, to 
restore the ruined church of the Novatianists 
within two months (Socr. ii. 38, p. 147; iii. 

t; cf. Ep. 52, p. 436 A). Toleration was 
also extended to the Jews, from a real though 
imperfect sympathy. Their ritual seemed to 
Julian a point of contact with Hellenism, and 
with their rejection of an Incarnate Saviour 
he was quite in harmony. He approved of 
their worship of the Creator, but could not 
tolerate their identification of Him with the 
God Whose especial people they claimed to be 
—and Whom he, in his polytheism, imagined to 
be an inferior divinity (S. Cyril. im Jul. iv. pp. 
115, 141, 201, 343, 354, ed. Spanheim). 

The great task which lay nearest his heart 
was the restoration of heathenism to its former 
influence and power, and its rehabilitation 
both in theory and practice. He composed 
an oration for the festival of the sun, no doubt 
that celebrated on Dec. 25, as the ‘‘ Natalis 
Solis invicti,’’ in connexion with the winter 
solstice. Though Constantinople had never 
been a heathen city, or polluted with public 
heathen ceremonies, he called this ‘“‘ the 
festival which the imperial city celebrates with 
annual sacrifices’’ (Orat. 4, p. 131 D). The 
main body of the oration is occupied with 
the obscure theory of the triple hierarchy of 
worlds: the κόσμος νοητός or “ intelligible 
world,” the κόσμος voepds or “ intelligent,” 
and the κόσμος αἰσθητός the “ visible’’ or 
“phenomenal.” In each of these three worlds 
there is a central principle, who is the chief 
object of worship and the fountain of power ; 
the Sun king being the centre of the inter- 
mediate or “ intelligent ’’ world. This ideal 
god was evidently a kind of counterpoise in 
Julian’s theology to the Word of God, the 
mediator of the Christian Trinity (μέση τις, 
οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄκρων κραθεῖσα, τελεία δὲ καὶ 
ἀμιγὴς ad ὅλων τῶν θεῶν ἐμφανῶν τε καὶ 
ἀφανῶν καὶ αἰσθητῶν καὶ νοητῶν, ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως 
“Ἡλίου νοερὰ καὶ πάγκαλος οὐσία. p. 139 Β, and 
τῷν νοερῶν θεῶν μέσος ἐν μέσοις τεταγμένος 
κατὰ παντοίαν μεσότητα. Cf. Naville, Jul. lA. 
et sa philosophie du polythéisme, pp. 102 seq.). 
This oration should be read in connexion with 
the fifth oration “‘ on the Mother of the Gods,” 
which he delivered at her festival, apparently 
at the vernal equinox, and while still at Con- 
stantinople. It is chiefly an allegorical 
platonizing interpretation of the myth of Attis 
and Cybele, very different from the modern 
reference of it to the circle of the seasons. 

In the practice of all superstitious cere- 
monies, whether public or mystic, Julian was 
enthusiastic to the point of ridiculous osten- 
tation. He turned his palace into a temple. 
Every day he knew better than the priests 
themselves™what festival was in the pagan 
calendar, and what sacrifice was required. 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


He himself acted as attendant, slaughterer, 
and priest, and had a passion for all the details 
of heathen ritual (Liban. Epitaph. p. 564, ad 
Jul. cos. pp. 394 seq-; Greg. Orat. 5, 22, p. 161; 
de Broglie, iv. pp. 126, 127). No previous 
emperor had so highly prized his office of 
pontifex maximus, which Julian valued as 
equal to all the other imperial prerogatives 
(χαίρει καλούμενος ἱερεὺς οὐχ ἧττον ἢ βασιλεύς, 
Liban. ad Jul. cos. p. 394). [π this 
capacity he apparently attempted to introduce 
something of the episcopal regimen into the 
loose system of the heathen priesthood, him- 
self occupying the papal or patriarchal chair 
(cf. Greg. Or. 4, li.p. 138). Thus he appointed 
Theodorus chief priest of Asia and Arsacius 
of Galatia, with control over inferior priests ; 
the hierophant of Eleusis was set over Greece 
and Lydia, and Callixene made high priestess 
of Pessinus. (Ep. 63 Theodoro is early in his 
reign, and the long Fragmentum Epistolae may 
be a sequel to it; Ep. 49 Arsacio is later, as 
is that to Callixene, Ep. 21. The appoint- 
ments of the hierophant and of Chrysanthius 
are described by Eunapius, Vita Maximi, 
PP- 54, 57:) As chief pontiff he issued some 


remarkable instructions to his subordinates, 


some of which have been preserved. His 
“pastoral letters,’’ as they may properly be 
called, to the chief priests of Asia and Galatia, 
shew a striking insight into the defects of 
heathenism considered as a religious ideal, and 
a clear attempt to graft upon it the more 
popular and attractive features of Christianity. 
He regrets several times that Christians and 
Jews are more zealous than Gentiles, espe- 
cially in charity to the poor (Ep. 49, pp. 430, 
431; in Frag. p. 305 he refers to the influence 
of the Agapé and similar institutions. In 
Ep. 63, p- 453 D, he describes the persistency 
of the Jews in abstaining from swine’s flesh, 
etc.). He promises large endowments of corn 
for distribution to the indigent and the sup- 
port of the priesthood; and orders the 
establishment of guest-houses and hospitals 
(ξενοδοχεῖα, καταγώγια ξένων καὶ πτωχῶν, 
Soz. v. 16, Jul. Ep. 49, Ρ- 430 6). In the very 
spirit of the Gospel he insists on the duty of 
giving clothing and food even to enemies and 
prisoners (Frag. pp. 290-291). ‘‘ Who was 
ever impoverished,’’ he writes, ‘‘ by what he 
gave to his neighbours? I, for my part, as 
often as I have been liberal to those in want, 
have received back from them many times as 
much, though I am but a bad man of business ; 
and I never repented of my liberality ’’ (Frag. 
p- 290 C). Elsewhere he enters into minute 
details on the conduct and habits of the 
priesthood. He fixes the number of sacrifices 
to be offered by day and night, the deportment 
to be observed within and without the tem- 
ples, the priest’s dress, his visits to his friends, 
his secret meditations and his private reading. 


The priest must peruse nothing scurrilous or ἢ 


indecent, such as Archilochus, Hipponax, or 
the old comedy; nothing sceptical like 
Pyrrho and Epicurus; no novels and love- 
tales; but history and sound philosophy like 
Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics ; 
and must learn by heart the hymns to the 
gods, especially those sung in his own temple 
(Frag. pp. 300-301 ; cf. Ep. 56, to Ecdicius, 
ordering him to train boys for the temple 


: 
: 
: 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 587 


choirs). He must avoid theatres and taverns, | Socr. iii. 13; Liban. pro Aristophane, pp. 435, 
and all public resorts where he is likely to hear | 436, and Ep. 17 ; Greg. Naz. Or. iv. 62, p. 105 ; 
or see anything vulgar or indecent (Frag.| Jul. Ep. 78; cf. Sievers, Libanius, p. 105. 
p- 304 B, c; Ep. 49, p. 4308). Not only | On the readiness of many of these converts to 
priests, but the sons of priests, are forbidden to | return to the church ef. Asterius of Amasea, 
attend the ‘‘ venationes”’ or spectacles of wild | Hom. in Avaritiam, p. 227, and Hom. xix. in 
beasts (Frag. p. 304 D). The true priest is to | Psalm. v. p. 433, Migne.) But the number 
be considered superior, at least in the temple, of these new converts was less than might 
to any public official, and to be honoured as the | perhaps have been expected from the divided 
intercessor between gods and men (frag. | state of the church and the low standard of 
p- 296 B, c; cf. the edict to the Byzantine | court Christianity under Constantius. It was 
against applauding himself in the Tychaeum, | far less, no doubt, than Julian's sanguine 
Ep. 64). He, however, who does not obey the | expectations. Caesarius, as we have seen, 
rules laid down for his conduct, is to be | stood firm, and so did three prominent officers 
removed from his office (Frag. p. 297; Ep.|in the army, destined to be his successors in 
49, P- 4308); and we possess an edict οἵ the empire—Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens 
Julian’s suspending a priest for three months | (Valentinian was banished, Soz. vi. 6; 
for injury done to a brother priest (Ep. 62). | Philost. vii. 7; cf. Greg. Or. iv. 65, p. τοῦ]. 
Further, ‘‘ he intended,’’ says Gregory (Or. | The steadfastness of the court and the army 
iv. 111, p. 138), “ἴο establish schools in all| was indeed sorely tried. The monogram of 
cities, and professorial chairs of different | Christ was removed from the Labarum, and 
grades, and lectures on heathen doctrines, | replaced by the old S.P.Q.R.; and heathen 
both in their bearings on moral practice and | symbolsagain began toappearupon the coinage, 
in explanation of their abstruser mysteries.”’ | and upon statues and pictures of the emperor, 
Of such lectures, no doubt, he wished his own |so that it was difficult to pay him respect 
orations on the Sun and the Mother of the | without appearing to bow to an idol. (Greg. 
Gods to be examples. Besides this imitation | Or. iv. 80, 81, pp. 116, 117; Socr. vi. 17. Socrates 
of Christian sermons and lectures, he desired to| probably somewhat exaggerates. The ob- 
set up religious communities of men and scure letter of Julian to a painter, Fp. 65, 
women, vowed to chastity and meditation | appears to reprimand him for painting him 
(ἁγνευτήριά τε καὶ παρθενεύματα καὶ φροντι- without his customary images in his hands or 
ornpia, cf. Soz. v. 16). These were institu- by his side.) Julian even condescended toa 
tions familiar to Oriental heathenism, but out | trick to entrap a number of his soldiers, prob- 
of harmony with the old Greek spirit of which | ably of the praetorian guard, by persuading 
Julian professed himself so ardent an admirer. them to offer incense when receiving a dona- 
He was, indeed, unconsciously less a disciple tive from his hands (Soz. v. 17; Greg. Or iv. 
of Socrates than of the Hindu philosophy, a| 83, 84, pp- 118, 119; cf. Rode, p. 62). Some 
champion of Asian mysticism against Euro- | of the soldiers, on discovering the snare from 
pean freedom of thought. the jeers of their companions, protested loudly 
Julian used not only his literary and per- | and threw down their money ἢ and Julian, in 
sonal influence and pontifical authority in | consequence, dismissed all Christians from his 
favour of the worship of the gods, but also his | bodyguard (Greg. L.c. ; Socr. iii. 13). Many 
imperial power. The temples where stand- | common soldiers were doubtless less firm, and 
ing were reopened, or rebuilt at the expense | conformed, at least outwardly, but the sub- 
of those who had destroyed them, and received | sequent election of Jovian by the army of 
back their estates, which had been to some! Persia looks as if their conviction was not 
extent confiscated under Constantius (Amm. | deep). (Liban. ad Jul. cos. Jan. 1, 363, P- 399; 
xxii. 4, 3, ‘‘ pasti ex his quidam templorum | Greg. Or. iv. 64, 65, Ρ. 106; St. Chrys. de 
spoliis ”’ ; Liban. Epitaph. p. 564, describes the | Babyla contra Julianum, § 23, vol. 11. pp- 686, 
general plan of restitution; cf. his Ep. 624, | 687, ed. Gaume ; cf. Sievers, Libantus, pp. 
πᾶσι κηρύξας κομίζεσθαι τὰ αὑτῶν.) A friend of 107-100). _ It was pretty well understood 
the gods was asa friend of the emperor’s, their | that no Christian official would be promoted 
enemy became his (Liban. /.c. andmorestrongly | to high civil functions, while converts like 
p- 617). Yet direct persecution was forbidden | Felix and Elpidius were. Julian is reported 
and milder means of conversion practised (Ep. 7 | to have stated in an edict that the Christian 
to Artabius; Liban. 564). Julian even bore law forbade its subjects to wield the sword of 
with some patience the public attacks of the justice, and therefore he could not commit 
blind and aged Maris, Arian bp. of Chalcedon, the government of provinces to them. Such 
who called him an “ impious atheist,’’ while he ἃ sentiment would be characteristic, and this 
was sacrificing in the Tychaeum of Constanti- | edict is probably an historical fact (Rufin. 1. 
nople. Julian replied only with a scoff at his 32), but perhaps did not extend to pemoas 
infirmity: “ Not even yourGalilean God will heal | already in office or in the army, unless t ey 
you.” Maris retorted, “ I thank my God for my | offered resistance to the course of events. 
blindness which prevents me from seeing your Other measures were aimed at the clergy as ὃ 
apostasy,” ἃ rebuke which the emperor ignored | body, and intended to reduce the oe 
(Soz. v. 4, where we must of course read ruxaly | generally to the position which it held δ ἐν 
for τειχίω. cf. Jul. Ep. 64, Byzantinis). Nota | Constantine. The church suffered hac 
few persons of position apostatized, among perhaps as private owners of property by the 
P - P j is | ore the temples and refund temple 
them Julian’s maternal uncle Julianus, his | order to restor ples 
i i ‘~ \lands. The clergy and widows who had re- 
former tutor Hecebolius, the officials Felix, lands ἘΣ τ πε 
Modestus, and Elpidius, and the former bp. | ceived grants from the munic ἀφ᾽ ΜΕ 
of Ilium Novum, Pegasius, all of whom were | were deprived of them and ita ο repay 
rewarded by promotion. (Philost. vii. τὸ; their previous receipts—an act of great in 


588 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


justice (Soz. v. 5). The church lost its power 
of inheritance, and its ministers the privileges 
of making wills and of jurisdiction in certain 
cases (Jul. Ep. 52, p. 437 4, Bostrents). But 
perhaps what was felt most of all was the loss 
of immunity from personal taxation and from 
the service of the curiae or municipal councils, 
who were held responsible for the taxes of 
their district. A short decree issued on Mar. 
13, 362, made all persons, formerly privileged 
as Christians, liable to the office of decurion 
(Cod. Theod. xii. 1, 50). We may readily 
admit that the church would have been safer 
and holier without some of its privileges, 
which bound it too closely to the state. But 
to abolish them all at once, without warning, 
was a very harsh proceeding, which caused 
much suffering, and Ammianus only spoke the 
general opinion when he censured the conduct 
of his hero (Amm. xxv. 4, 21, cf. xxii. 9, 12). 
A Greek decree of apparently the same date, 
addressed to the Byzantines—i.e. the citizens of 
Constantinople—extended this measure to al] 
privileged persons whatsoever, except thosewho 
had “‘ done public service in the metropolis ”— 
1.6. probably, those who had as consuls or 
praetors exhibited costly games for the public 
amusement (Ep. 11); a later decree also 
confirming the “ chief physicians’’ in their im- 
munities (Cod. Theod. xiii. 3-4, nearly equivalent 
to Ep. 25*). 

In the spring of this year, while he was still 
at Constantinople, the affairs of the church of 
Alexandria attracted Julian’s attention, and 
led to the first decided step which violated his 
policy of personal toleration. The intruded 
Arian bishop, George of Cappadocia, had made 
himself equally detested by pagans and 
Catholics. On Dec. 24 he was foully mur- 
dered by the former (without any intervention 
of Christians) in a riot. Dracontius, master 
of the mint, who had overturned an altar 
recently set up in his office, and Diodorus, who 
was building a church and gave offence to pagan 
prejudices by cutting short the hair of some 
boys employed under him, were both torn to 
pieces in the same sedition (Amm. xxii. 11, 9). 
Julian wrote an indignant reprimand to the 
people, but inflicted no punishment (Ep. 10, 
Amm. l.c.; cf. Julian’s letter to Zeno, Ep. 45). 
On Feb. 22 St. Athanasius was again seatedupon 
his throne amid the rejoicing of the people. 
Julian saw in him an enemy he could not afford 
to tolerate. He wrote tothe Alexandrians (ap- 
parently at once), saying that one so often 
banished by royal decree ought to have awaited 
special permission to return; that in allowing 
the exiled bishops to come back he didnot mean 
to restore them to their churches; Athanasius, 
he feared, had resumed his ‘“‘ episcopal 
throne,’’ to the great disgust of “‘ god-fearing 
Alexandrians.”’ He therefore ordered him to 
leave the city at once, on pain of greater 
punishment (Ep. 26). Athanasius braved the 
emperor’s wrath and did not leave Alexandria, 
except, perhaps, for a time. Public feeling 
was with him, and an appeal was apparently 
forwarded to the emperor to reconsider his 
sentence. (Ep. 51, written probably in Oct. 
362, speaks of Athanasius as ἐπιζητούμενος 
by the Alexandrians.) The sequel of this 
apveal will appear later. 

Another change of policy about this time 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


shewed a further advance in intolerance and in- 
consistency. Julian determined to take the 
control of education into the hands of the state. 
On June 17, while en route between Constanti- 
nople and Antioch, he issued an edict, promul- 
gated at Spoleto, to the Western empire, on 
June 28. This document said nothing about 
Christian teachers, but required for all professors 
and schoolmasters a diploma of approval from 
the municipal council in every city before they 
might teach. This was to be forwarded to 
himself for counter-signature (Cod. Theod. 
xiii. 3, 5). This power of veto was no doubt 
aimed at Christian teachers; and another edict, 
supposed to have been issued soon after, struck 
an open and violent blow at the church. This 
may have been issued even earlier; it can 
hardly have been much later (Ep. 42, with no 
title or date). It declares that ‘‘onlya cheat and 
a charJatan will teach one thing while he thinks 
another. All teachers, especially those who in- 
struct the young, ought . . . not to oppose the 
common belief and try to insinuate their own. 
. . . Now Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Hero- 
dotus, Thucydides, Isocrates, and Lysias all 
founded their learning upon the gods, and con- 
sidered themselves dedicated to Hermes or the 
Muses. It is monstrous, then, that those who 
teach these writers should dishonour their gods. 
I do not wish them to change their religion that 
they may retain their offices, but I give them 
the choice, either not to teach, or, if they 
prefer to do so, to teach at the same time that 
none of these authors is guilty of folly or 
impiety in his doctrine about the gods... . 
If teachers think these authors which they 
expound wise, and draw philosophy from 
them, let them emulate their religion. If they 
think them in error, let them go to the 
churches of the Galileans and expound Mat- 
thew and Luke, who forbid our sacrifices. I 
wish, however, the ears and tongues of you 
Christians may be ‘ regenerated,’ as you would 
say, by these writings which I value so much.” 

Christians considered the decree practically 
to exclude them from the schools. For Julian 
expressly orders all teachers to insist on the 
religious side of their authors. Grammar- 
schools were to become seminaries of pagan- 
ism. No indifferent or merely philological 
teaching was to be allowed. No sincere 
Christian parents therefore could send their 
sons to such schools. A quotation given by 
Gregory, as if from this decree, is not found in 
the text of the edict as we have it (Or. 4, 102, 
p- 132). Perhaps he may be quoting some 
other of Julian’s writings, e.g. the books against 
the Christians. The words are characteristic : 
“Literature and the Greek language are 
naturally ours, who are worshippers of the 
gods; illiterate ignorance and rusticity are 
yours, whose wisdom goes no further than to 
say ‘ believe.’ ”’ 
from Celsus (Origen, c. Celsum, i. 9). 

Two celebrated men gave up their posts 
rather than submit to this edict—Prohaeresius 
of Athens, whom many thought superior to 
Libanius, and C. Marius Victorinus of Rome. 
Julian had already made overtures to the 
former (Ep. 2), and even offered to except him 
from the action of the edict ; but he refused 
to be put in a better condition than his fellows 
(Hieron. Chron. sub anno 2378; cf. Eunap. 


The last taunt is borrowed 


“a 
4 
᾿ 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


Prohaeresius, p. 92; Himerius, p. 95; and 
Frag. 76, p. 544, ed. Boissonade). Vistochits 
was equally famous at Rome, and his con- 
stancy was a subject of just glory to the 
church (see the interesting account of his 
conversion, etc. in August. Conf. viii. 2-5). 

Attempts were made to supply the place of 
classical literature by putting historical and 
doctrinal portions of Scripture into Greek 
prose and verse. Thus the elder APOLLINARIS 
wrote 24 books in hexameters, which were to 
form a substitute for Homer, on the Biblical 
history up to the reign of Saul, and produced 
tragedies, lyrics, and even comedies on Bibli- 
cal subjects (Soz. v. 18). The younger Apol- 
linaris reduced the writings of the N.T. into 
the form of Platonic dialogues (Socr. iii. 16) ; 
and some of the works of Victorinus in Latin, 
such as the poem on the seven Maccabean 
brothers, and various hymns, may have been 
written with the same aim (cf. Teuffel, Gesch. 
der Rim. Lit. § 384, 7), as also the Greek 
tragedy, still extant, of Christus patiens. 
Whatever their merit, these books could not 
properly supply the place of the classical 
training; and if Julian had lived and this 
edict had been put in force for any time, it 
would have been a very dangerous injury to 
the faith. (Socrates has some very good 
remarks on this subject, iii. 16.) 

§ 5. Julian’s Journey through Asia Minor— 
(May to July 362).—After a sojourn of about 
five months in Constantinople Julian began 
to think of foreign affairs. Fears of internal 
resistance were removed by the surrender of 
Aquileia, which had been seized by some troops 
of Constantius. He determined upon an expe- 
dition against Persia, the only power he thought 
worthy of his steel. Shortly after May 12 he 
set out upon a progress through Asia Minor 
to Antioch. He passed through Nicaea into 
Galatia, apparently as far as Ancyra, from 
which place, perhaps, he dispatched the edict 
about education just described (Amm. xxii. 9, 
5. If the law, Cod. Just. i. 40, 5, is rightly 
attributed to Julian, he was at Ancyra on 
May 28, to which visit belongs a somewhat 
hyperbolical inscription celebrating his tri- 
umphant march from the Western Ocean to 
the Tigris, beginning, DOMINO TOTIVS ORBIS 
| IVLIANO AVGVSTO | EX OCEANO BRI | TAN- 
nico (C. I. L. iii. 247, Orell. r109, Wilmanns 
1089). From Ancyra he visited Pessinus in 
Phrygia to pay homage to the famous sanc- 
tuary of the Mother of the Gods, at which he 
offered large and costly presents (Amm. l.c.; 
‘Liban. ad Jul. cos. p. 398). The oration in 
honour of this deity, who, with the Sun-god, 
was Julian’s chief object of veneration, was 
probably delivered earlier; but he took occasion 
about this time to vindicate the doctrine of 
Diogenes from the aspersions of false and luxu- 
rious cynics (Or. vi. els τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτους κύνας, 
delivered about the summer solstice, p. 181 A). 
He was not satisfied with the progress of 
heathenism amongst the people of the place 
(Ep. 49, Arsacio pontifict Galatiae, ad fin.). 
At Ancyra, according to the Acts of the 
Martyrs, a presbyter named Basil was accused 
of exciting the people against the gods and 
speaking injuriously of the emperor and his 
apostate courtiers. Basil was cruelly treated 
in his presence, and, after a second trial, was 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 589 


put to death by red-hot irons (Boll. Mar. 22; 
also in Ruinart, Acta Mart. Sincera, p. 599; 
Soz. p. 11). [Basitius or Ancyra.) Julian 
left Ancyra, according to the same Acts, on 
June 29, and soon after was met by a crowd 
of litigants, some clamouring for a restoration 
of their property, others complaining that they 
were unjustly forced into the curia, others 
accusing their neighbours of treason. Julian 
shewed no leniency to the second class, even 
when they had a strong case, being deter- 
mined to allow as few immunities as possible. 
To the rest he was just and fair, and an amusing 
instance is recorded of the summary way he 
disposed of a feeble charge of treason (Amm. 
κι, δ᾽. 16. Ch SEV. 4, 22), 

In Cappadocia his ill-humour was roused 
by finding almost all the people Christian. 
‘“Come, I beseech νοὶ," he writes to the 
philosopher Aristoxenus, ‘and meet me at 
Tyana, and shew us a genuine Greek amongst 
these Cappadocians. As far as 1 have seen, 
either the people will not sacrifice, or the very 
few that are ready to do so are ignorant of 
our ritual”’ (Ep. 4). He had already shewn 
his anger against the people of Caesarea, the 
capital of the province, who had dared, after 
his accession, to destroy the Temple of For- 
tune, the last that remained standing in their 
city. According to Sozomen (v. 4), he erased 
the city from the “list of the empire and 
called it by its old name Mazaca.”" He fined 
the Christians 300 pounds of gold, confiscated 
church property, and enrolled the ecclesiastics 
in themilitia of the province, besides imposinga 
heavy poll-tax onthe Christian laity. But either 
these severe measures must have been justified 
by great violence on the part of the Christians 
or Sozomen’s account Is exaggerated; for 
Gregory Nazianzen says that it is perhaps not 
fair to reproach him with his violent conduct 
to the Caesareans, and speaks of him as 
“justly indignant ”’ (Or. 4, 92, p. 126). Such 
mild language in this instance may well make 
us attach more weight to Gregory's statements 
as to Julian’smisdoings onother occasions. The 
emperor was further incensed by the tumul- 
tuous election of Eusebius to the bishopric of 
Caesarea, in which the soldiers of the garrison 
took part. This Eusebius was still a catechu- 
men, but a man of official rank and influence, 
known to be anenemy of the emperor (Greg. Or. 
in Patrem, xviii. 33, p- 354). The elder Gregory 
firmly resisted the remonstrances of the governor 
of the province, who was sent to him by Julian, 
and the storm passed away (1b. 34, Pp. 355). 
“ Youknewus,” cried Gregory, * you knew Basil 
and myself from the time of your sojourn in 
Greece, and you paid us the compliment which 
the Cyclops paid Ulysses, and kept us to be 
swallowed last " (Or. 5, 39, Ρ. 174). The silence 
of Gregory may be taken as clenching the 
arguments from style against the genuineness 
of the supposed correspondence between 
Julian and St. Basil, which would otherwise 
be assigned to this date (see pp. 490 f.). The 
letters referred to are Epp. 40, 41, in the 
editions of St. Basil, the first of these= Jul. 
Ep. 75 (77 Heyler) ; cf. Rode, p. 86, note τι. 

A more pleasant reception awaited hem 
in the neighbouring province, Cilicia. Enter- 
ing it by the famous pass of the Pylae Ciliciae, 
he was met by the governor, his friend Celsus, 


590 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


once his fellow-student, and probably his 
confidant at Athens, who greeted him with a 
panegyric—a greeting more agreeable to 
Julian than the customary presents made to 
emperors in their progresses (Amm. xxii. 9, 
13; Liban. Epit. p. 575, and Ep. 648). Julian 
shewed his high esteem for his encomiast by 
taking him up into his chariot and entering 
with him into Tarsus, a city which evidently 
pleased him by its welcome. Celsus accom- 
panied him to the southern boundary of his 
province, a few leagues N. of Antioch. Here 
they were met by a large crowd, among whom 
was Libanius (Liban. de Vita Sua, p. 81; 
Ep. 648; see Sievers, Libanius, p. 91). He 
reached Antioch before July 28, the date of a 
law found in both the Codes, permitting pro- 
vincial governors to appoint inferior judges 
or judices pedanei (Cod. Theod. i. 68=Cod. 
Just. iii. 3, 5; οἵ. C. 1. L. ili. 459). 

8 6. Julian’s Residence at Antioch (July 362 
to March 5, 363).—The eight months spent 
at Antioch left Julian yet more bitter against 
the church, and less careful to avoid injustice 
to its members, in fact countenancing per- 
secution even to death, though in word still 
forbidding it and proclaiming toleration. 
(Libanius says that Julian spent nine months 
at Antioch, Epit. p. 578, 15, but it is hard to 
make more than eight.) The narrative of 
this period may be divided into an account of 
(a) his relations with the citizens of Antioch ; 
(b) his relations to the church at large; (c) 
attempt to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. 

(a) Internal State of Antioch.—On his en- 
trance into the city Libanius greeted him in 
a speech in which he congratulated him on 
bringing back at once the ancient rites of 
sacrifice and the honour to the profession 
of rhetoric (Prosphoneticus Juliano, ed. Reiske, 
i. p. 405). But other sounds saddened Julian 
with a presage of his coming doom. It was 
the festival of the lamentation for Adonis, and 
the air resounded with shrieks for the lover of 
Venus, cut down in his prime as the green corn 
fails before the heat of the summer sun. This 
ill-omened beginning was followed by other 
equally unpropitious circumstances, and the 
residence of Julian at Antioch was a dis- 
appointment to himself and disagreeable to 
almost all the inhabitants. He was impatient, 
or soon became so, to engage upon his Persian 
campaign; but the difficulty of making the 
necessary preparations in time determined 
him to pass the winter at the Syrian capital 
(Liban. Epit. p. 576; Amm. xxii. 10, 1). He 
had anticipated much more devotion on the 
part of the pagans and much less resistance 
on that of the Christians. He was disgusted 
to find that both parties regretted the pre- 
vious reign—‘‘ Neither the Chi nor the 
Kappa’”’ (1.6. neither Christ nor Constantius) 
“did our city any harm’”’ became a common 
saying (Misopogon, p. 357 A). Tothe heathens 
themselves the enthusiastic form of religion 
to which Julian was devoted was little more 
than an unpleasant and somewhat vulgar 
anachronism. His cynic asceticism and 
dislike of the theatre and the circus was 
unpopular in a city particularly addicted to 
public spectacles. His superstition was 
equally unpalatable. The short, untidy, long- 
bearded man, marching pompously in pro- 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


cession on the tips of his toes, and swaying his 
shoulders from side to side, surrounded by a 
crowd of abandoned characters, such as 
formed the regular attendants upon many 
heathen festivals, appeared seriously to com- 
promise the dignity of the empire. The blood 
of countless victims flowed everywhere, but 
seemed to serve merely to gorge his foreign 
soldiery, especially the semi-barbarous Gauls ; 
and the streets of Antioch were disturbed 
by their revels (Amm. xxii. 12, 6). Secret 
rumours spread of horrid nocturnal sacrifices 
and of the pursuit of arts of necromancy from 
which the natural heathen conscience shrank 
only less than the Christian. The wonder is, 
not that Julian quarrelled with the Antioch- 
enes, but that he left the city without a 
greater explosion than actually took place. 
Not a little of the irritation between the 
emperor and the citizens was centred upon the 
suburb of the city, called Daphne, a delicious 
cool retreat in which, as it was fabled, the 
nymph beloved by Apollo had been trans- 
formed into a laurel. Here was a celebrated 
temple of the god, and a spring that bore the 
name of Castalian, in former days the favour- 
ite haunt of the gay, the luxurious, and the 
vicious. Gallus had counteracted the genius 
loci by transposing to it the relics of the 
martyr bp. Babylas, whose chapel was 
erected opposite the temple of Apollo. The 
worship of the latter had almost ceased, and 
Julian, going to Daphne in Aug. (Loiis), to 
keep the annual festival of the Sun-god, was 
surprised to find no gathering of worshippers. 
He himself had returned for the purpose from 
a visit to the temple of Zeus Casius, several 
leagues distant. To his disgust the city had 
provided no sacrifice, and only one poor priest 
appeared, offering a single goose at his own 
expense. Julian rated the town council 
soundly (Mtsop. pp. 361 D, seq.). He tookcare 
that in future sacrifices should not be wanting, 
and eagerly consulted the oracle and un- 
stopped the Castalian spring. After a long 
silence he learnt that Apollo was disturbed by 
the presence of the “‘ dead man,”’ 1.6. Babylas. 
“1 am surrounded by corpses,”’ said the voice, 
““and I cannot speak till they are removed ” 
(Soz. v. 19; Chrys. de 5. Bab. § 15, p. 669; 
Liban. Monodia in Daphnen, vol. iii. p. 333). 
All the corpses were cleared away, but espe- 
cially that of the martyr (Amm. xxii. 12, 8; 
Misop. p. 361 B). A remnant of religious awe 
perhaps prevented Julian from destroying the 
relics of which his actions practically acknow- 
ledged the power, and they were eagerly 
seized by the Christians and borne in triumph 
to Antioch. The procession along the five 
miles from Daphne to the city chanted aloud 
Ps. xcvii.: ‘‘ Confounded be all they that 
worship carved images and that delight in 
vain gods.’’ Julian, incensed by this person- 
ality, forced the prefect Sallustius, much 
against his will, to inquire into it with 
severity and punish those concerned. One 
young man, Theodorus, was hung upon the 
rack (ejuuleus) and cruelly scourged with iron 
nails for a whole day, till he was supposed to 
be dying. Rufinus, the church historian, who 
met him in after-life, asked him how he bore 
the pain. Theodorus replied that he had felt 
but little, for a young man stood by him 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


wiping off the sweat of his agony and com- 
forting him all the time (Rufin. i. 35, 36, re- 
ferred to by Soc. iii. 19, and given in Ruinart, 
Acta Martyrum, p. 604, ed. Rabisbon. 1859). 
The anger of Julian was also braved by a 
widow named Publia, the head of a small 
community of Christian virgins, who sang in 
his hearing the Psalms against idols and 
against the enemies of God. She was brought 
before a court and buffeted on the face with 
severity, but dismissed (Theod. iii. 19). 

Shortly after the translation of the relics of 
St. Babylas to Antioch, on the night of Oct. 22, 
the temple of Daphne itself was burnt to the 
ground. The heathens accused the Christians 
of maliciously setting it on fire; they attri- 
buted it to fire from heaven and the prayers 
of St. Babylas. A story also got about that 
Asclepiades the cynic had left a number of 
lighted candles burning in the shrine (Amm. 
xxii. 13; Soz. v. 20; Chrys. de S. Bab. § 17, 
p- 674). Julian’s wrath was intense. He 
accused the Christians of the deed, and sus- 
pected the priests of knowing about it (Mrsop. 
Pp- 3468, 3618, 0). As a punishment he 
ordered the cathedral church of Antioch to 
be closed, and confiscated its goods (Amm. 
xxii. 13, 2; Soz. v. 8). The order was exe- 
cuted by his uncle Julianus, now count of the 
East, with all the zeal of a new convert and 
with circumstances of disgusting profanity. 
Theodoret, a presbyter, who still collected a 
congregation of the faithful, was tortured and 
beheaded (Ruinart, Acta Mart. p. 605). The 
Christian account tells us that Julian reproved 
his uncle as having brought him into disgrace, 
but in the Misopogon he gives him nothing but 
praise (tb. p. 607, Misop. p. 365 c). The count’s 
miserable death, which followed soon after, 

_was naturally treated as a judgment from 
heaven (Soz. v. 8; Theod. iii. 12, etc.). That 
of Felix, another renegade, had, a little earlier, 
been equally remarkable for its suddenness. 
The two were regarded as a presage of the 
emperor’s own doom, for now that Julianus 
and Felix were gone, Augustus would soon 
follow, a play upon the imperial title Julianus 
Felix Augustus (Amm. xxiii. 1, 5). This was 
a trivial saying, but calculated to disquiet and 
irritate a mind like Julian’s. 

Antioch meanwhile was afflicted by a 
dearth, which almost became a famine, and 
the emperor’s efforts to alleviate it failed. 
He imported a large quantity of grain from 
Egypt, and fixed the market price at a low 
figure. Speculators bought up his importa- 
tions, and would not sell their own stores, and 
soon there was nothing inthe markets. Julian 
declared that the fault was in the magistrates, 
and tried in vain to infuse some of his own 
public spirit into the farmers and merchants 
(Liban. Epit. p. 587). The town council were 
sent to prison (Amm. xxii. 14, 2; Liban. Epit. 
p. 588). Their confinement, however, did not 
last a day, and they were released by the 
intercession of Libanius, who tells us that he 
was not deterred from his petition by the 
sarcastic hint that the Orontes was not far 
off (de Vita Sua, vol. i. p. 85). The whole 
winter, indeed, was clouded with misfortunes. 
On Dec. 2 the rest of Nicomedia was des- 
troyed by earthquake, and a large part of 
Nicaea suffered with it (Amm. xxii. 13, 5). 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 591 


News was brought that Constantinople was 
in danger from the same cause, and some 
Suggested that the wrath of the earth-shaker 
Poseidon must be appeased. This gave Julian, 
who had a real affection for the city, an oppor- 
tunity of showing his enthusiasm. He stood 
all day long in the open air, under rain and 
storm, in a fixed and rigid attitude, like an 
Indian yogi, while his courtiers looked on in 
amazement from under cover. It was caleu- 
lated afterwards that the earthquake stopped 
on the very day of the imperial intercession, 
and Julian, it is said, took no harm from his 
exposure (Liban. Epit. p. 581). But this partial 
success did not make him feel secure of the 
favour of the gods. He was convinced that 
Apollo had deserted Daphne and the other 
deities were not propitious. Even the day 
of his entering the consulship, Jan. 1, 363, 
graced with anoration of Libanius (ad Jul. imp. 
consulem), was disfigured by a bad omen: a 
priest fell dead on the steps of the temple of the 
Genius. This was the more annoying, as he had 
no doubt intended to make his fourth consul- 
ship mark a new era by taking as his colleague 
his old friend Sallustius prefect of the Gauls, an 
honour paid to no one outside the imperial 
family since the days of Diocletian (Amm. 
xxiii. 1, 1). At the same time too he received 
news of the failure of the attempt (see (c), 
tnfra) to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem 
(Amm. xxiii. 1, 3). 

Meanwhile his designs for involving the 
city in heathen rites caused considerable ex- 
citement and odium. He _ profaned the 
fountains of the city of Daphne according 
to Christian ideas, and consecrated them 
according to his own, by throwing into them 
a portion of his sacrifices, so that all who 
used them might be partakers with the gods, 
and for a similar reason ordered all things sold 
in the market, such as bread, meat, and vege- 
tables, to be sprinkled with lustral water. 
The Christians complained but followed the 
precept of the apostle in eating freely all 
things sold in public, without inquiry (Theod. 
iii. 15). Two young officers, Juventinus and 
Maximinus, were one day lamenting this state 
of things, and quoted the words from the 
Greek Daniel, c. 111. 32, ‘‘ Thou hast delivered 
us to a lawless king, to an apostate beyond all 
the heathen that are in the earth.’ Their 
words were repeated by an informer, and 
they were ordered to appear before the 
emperor. They declared the cause of their 
complaint, the only one (as they said) which 
they had to bring against his government. 
They were thrown into prison, and friends 
were sent to promise them large rewards if 
they would change their religion; but they 
stood firm, and were beheaded in the middle 
of the night, on the charge of having spoken 
evil of the emperor (Chrys. in Juvent. εἰ Max. 
3; cf. Theod. iii. 15). The date of this “ mar- 
tyrdom ”’ may have been Jan. 25, as it appears 
in Latin calendars (Boll. Jan. p. 618). 

Julian discharged his spleen upon the 
Antiochenes by writing one of the most re- 
markable satires ever published—the Mtsopo- 

on. “ He had been insulted,"’ says Gibbon, 
‘by satires and libels; in his turn he composed, 
under the title of The Enemy of the Beard, 
an ironical confession of his own faults aud a 


592 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


severe satire on the licentious and effeminate 
manners of Antioch. The imperial reply was 
publicly exposed before the gates of the palace, 
and the Misopogon still remains a singular 
monument of the resentment, the wit, the 
humanity, and the indiscretion of Julian” 
(Decline and Fall, c. 24, vol. 3, p. 8, ed. Bohn). 
Julian’s own philosophic beard gives the title 
to the pamphlet, which throws much light upon 
the character of the emperor. In form it isa 
dialogue between himself and the people, in 
which he describes his own virtues under the 
colour of vices, and their vices as if they were 
virtues. Occasionally he laysaside his irony and 
directly expresses his indignation against them, 
and reveals his own character with a humorous 
simplicity that in turn attracts and repels us. 
This pamphlet was written inthe seventh month 
of hissojourn at Antioch, probably, that is, in 
the latter half of Jan.; and he left the cityin the 
first week of March. ‘I turn my back upon 
a city full of all vices, insolence, drunkenness, 
incontinence, impiety, avarice, and impu- 
dence,’’ were his last words to Antioch (Liban. 
Legatio ad Jul. pp. 469 seq.). 

(b) Julian’s Relation to the Church at Large 
during his Residence at Antioch.—The general 
object of the emperor’s policy was to degrade 
Christianity and to promote heathenism by 
every means short of an edict of persecution 
or the imposition of a general penalty on the 
profession of the faith. 

We do not possess the text of many of 
Julian’s edicts, a number of which were 
naturally removed from the statute book. 


We know that he ordered the temples to be | 


reopened and their estates to be restored, but 
we do not know the terms in which this order 
was couched. Probably he used bitter lan- 
guage against the “ atheists’? and “ Gali- 
leans,’’ ordering all chapels of martyrs built 
within the sacred precincts to be destroyed, 
and all relics of ‘‘dead men’”’ to be sum- 
marily removed. Something of this kind 


must have been the σύνθημα or “ signal,” of | 


which he speaks in the Misopogon as having 
been followed by the neighbouring “‘holycities”’ 
of Syria with a zeal and enthusiasm which 
exceeded even his wishes (Misop. p. 361 4; 
Soz. p. 20, ad fin., mentions an order to 
destroy two Christian chapels near the temple 
of Apollo Didymaeus at Miletus). This con- 
fession from his own mouth goes far to justify 
the statements of his opponents. Riots oc- 
curred in consequence of this “ signal’’ in 
many cities, particularly of Syria and the 
East, where the Christians were numerous 
and popular passion was strong. The details 
of Julian’s relation to some of these cases form 
perhaps the gravest stains upon his character. 

The earliest case after his entry into An- 
tioch which can be dated exactly was that 
of Titus, bp. of Bostra, in Arabia Auranitis. 
Julian had informed Titus that he should be 
held responsible for any breach of the peace 
(Soz. v. 15, Ρ- 102 B). The bishop answered 
by a memorial, declaring that the Christian 
population was equal in numbers to the 
heathen but that under his influence and that 
of their clergy they were careful to abstain 
from sedition (7b.). Julian on Aug. 1, 362, 
replied by a public letter to the people of 
Bostra, representing this language as an imper- 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


tinence, and calumniating Titus as the accuser 
of the Christian body. After quoting the 
memorial of Titus, he proceeds: ‘‘ These are 
the words of the bishop concerning you. Ob- 
serve, he does not ascribe your regularity to 
your own inclination ; unwillingly, hesays, you 
refrain ‘by his exhortations.’ Do you then use 
your wills, and expel him as your accuser from 
your city. ... Such is their fate who turn 
from the worship of the immortal gods to dead 
men and relics’’ (Ep. 52). 

A month or two later, probably in Oct., he 
continued his attack upon Athanasius, the first 
acts of which have already been described. 
The great champion had never left Alexandria, 
or had soon returned. Julian was thoroughly 
enraged to find his first order had not been 
executed. He wrote angrily to the prefect 
Ecdicius: ‘‘ I swear by great Serapis if he does 
not leave Alexandria and every part of 
Egypt, by the rst of Dec., I will fine your 
cohort a hundred pounds of gold. You know 
that I am slow to condemn, but when I have 
condemned much slower in pardoning,’’ add- 
ing in his own hand, “ I am thoroughly pained 
at being treated in this way with contempt. 
By all the gods, no sight, or rather no news, 
of your doings could give me greater pleasure 
than that of Athanasius being driven from 
Egypt, the scoundrel who in my reign has 
dared to baptize Greek ladies of rank. Let 
him be expelled’”’ (Ep. 6). At the same time 
he wrote to the people of Alexandria, mingling 
personal abuse of their bishop with arguments 
to enforce the worship of Serapis and the 
visible gods, the sun and moon, and to de- 
preciate the worship of ‘“‘ Jesus, Whom neither 
you nor your fathers have seen,’’ and ‘‘ Whose 
doctrine has done nothing for your city.” 
““We have long ago ordered him,’’ he con- 
cludes, ‘‘ to leave the city, now we banish 
him from the whole of Egypt” (Ep. 51). 
The news of these decrees was brought to 
Athanasius on Oct. 23, and he felt it time to 
depart. ‘ Be of good heart,” he said to those 
who clustered round him, “it is but a cloud; 
it will soon pass ’”’ (Ruf. i. 32; Festal Epistles, 
Chronicle, p. 14, for the date). During the 
rest of Julian’s reign he lived in retirement in 
the monasteries of the Egyptian desert. 

To Hecebolius (who was perhaps his old 
master advanced to some place of authority) 
he wrote concerning a sedition at Edessa, in 
much the same terms as he had written to the 
people of Bostra, but apparently with more 
justice. “1 have always used the Galileans 
well, and abstained from violent measures of 
conversion; but the Arians, luxuriating in 
their wealth, have treated the Valentinians in 
a manner which cannot be tolerated in a well- 
ordered city. In order, therefore, that they 
may enter more easily into the kingdom of 
Heaven in the way which their wonderful 
law bids them, I have ordered all the money 
of the church of Edessa to be seized for 
division amongst the soldiers, and its estates 
to be confiscated ’’ (Ep. 43, cf. Rufin. i. 32; 
Socr. iii. 13). This twisting of the gospel 
precept against the church is a close parallel 
to the alleged edict forbidding Christians to 
exercise the sword of the magistrate, and sup- 
ports its authenticity (so Rode, p. 85, n. 9, 
see supra). Another disturbance was reported 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


as occurring between the cities of Gaza and 
Maiuma in Palestine. The latter, originally a 
suburb of Gaza, had been raised by Constantius 
to the rank of an independent corporation. 
The people of Gaza had successfully peti- 
tioned the new emperor for a withdrawal of 
these privileges, and now in their exultation 
attacked their neighbours, and set fire to their 
chapels, with other acts of violence. Three 
brothers of a respectable family named Euse- 
bius, Nestabus, and Zeno, were murdered with 
circumstances of great atrocity. The people 
were considerably alarmed by fear of what the 
emperor might do, and the governor arrested 
some of the ringleaders, who were brought 
to Antioch. In this case Julian’s sense of 
justice seems entirely to have deserted him. 
Not only was no reprimand addressed to the 
people of Gaza, but the governor was himself 
put on his trial and deprived of his office. 
‘“ What great matter is it if one Greek hand 
has slain ten Galileans?’’ were words well 
calculated to bear bitter truit wherever they 
were repeated, and equivalent, as Gregory 
argues, to an edict of persecution (Greg. Or. 4, 
93, Ρ- 127; Sozomen—a Gazene himself—v. 
9). Rode accepts most of this story, but re- 
jects without sufficient reason the words 
attributed to Julian, p. 92, n. 12, who did and 
said many things in a fit of passion, of which 
his cooler judgment disapproved. Dis- 
turbances against the Christians broke out in 
many parts of Palestine. Holy places and 
holy things were profaned, and Christian 
people maltreated, tortured, and destroyed, 
sometimes in the most abominable manner 
(Chron. Pasch. p. 546, ed. Bonn.; Soz. v. 21 ; 
Philost. vii. 4). 

Meanwhile Mark, bp. of Arethusa, a small 
town in Syria, who was said to have saved 
the life of the infant Julian, had refused to 
pay for the restoration of a temple which he 
had destroyed in the preceding reign. He was 
scourged in public, his beard was torn, his 
naked body was smeared with honey and hung 
up in a net exposed to the stings of insects 
and the fierce rays of the Syriansun. Nothing 
could be wrung from him, and he was at last 
set free, a conqueror (Greg. Or. 4, 88-91, pp. 
122-125; Soz. v. 10). Wherever he went, he 
was surrounded by admirers, and this case 
became a warning to the more temperate and 
cautious pagans not to proceed to extremities. 
Libanius intercedes for an offender, lest he 
should turn out another Mark (Ep. 730) ; and 
Sallust, the prefect of the East, admonished 
Julian for the disgrace this fruitless contest 
with an old man brought upon the pagan 
cause (Greg. /.c.; Sallust’s mame is not men- 
tioned, but his office and character are de- 
scribed with sufficient clearness). 

(c) Attempt to rebuild the Temple at J erusa- 
lem.—Julian had apparently for some time 
past wished to conciliate the Jewish people, 
and was quite ready to grant Jehovah a place 
amongst the other local deities (cf. Frag. p. 
2950; St. Cyril. in Spanheim’s Julian, pp. 
99, 100, and p. 305, on Sacrifice). It seems 
probable, therefore, that his chief motive in 
wishing to restore the temple at Jerusalem 
was the desire to increase the number of 
divinities who were propitious to him, and to 


gain the favour of the Jewish God in the prose- | 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 593 


cution of his Persian campaign. This is 
substantially the account given by Socrates, 
who tells us that he summoned the Jews to 
him and asked why they did not offer sacrifice. 
They replied that it was not lawful for them 
to do so, except at Jerusalem, and he there- 
fore determined to rebuild the temple of 
Solomon (Socr. iii. 20). This account agrees 
best with the statements of the emperor him- 
self in his epistles and in his books against the 
Christians, and other motives attributed to 
him may be considered as subordinate (cf. 
Greg. Or. 5, 3, p- 149; Rufin. i. 37; Soz v. 
21). There is, however, an air of great prob- 
ability in the statement of Philostorgius that 
he wished to falsify the prediction of our 
Blessed Lord as to the utter destruction of the 
temple (vii. 9). Nor could the enmity of the 
Jews against the Christians be otherwise than 
very pleasing to him (Greg. 1.6. ἐπαφῆκε καὶ 
τὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων φῦλον ἡμῖν). Julian provided 
very large sums for the work, and entrusted 
its execution to the oversight of Alypius of 
Antioch, an officer who had been employed 
by him in Britain and whe was his intimate 
personal friend (Amm. xxiii. i. 2; Epp. 29 and 
30 are addressed to him). The Jews were 
exultant and eager to contribute their wealth 
and their labour. The rubbish was cleared 
away and the old foundations were laid bare. 
But a stronger power intervened. To quote 
the words of Ammianus: ‘‘ Whilst Alypius 
was strenuously forcing on the work, and the 
governor of the province was lending his 
assistance, fearful balls of flames, bursting 
out with frequent assaults near the founda- 
tions, and several times burning the workmen, 
rendered access to the spot impossible; and 
in this way the attempt came to a standstill 
through the determined obstinacy of the ele- 
ment” (xxiii. τ, 3). No doubt the Christians 
saw in this defeat of their oppressor not 
only a miracle of divine power, but a pecu- 
liarly striking fulfilment of the old prophecies 
in which fire is so often spoken of as the em- 
blem and instrument of judgment (¢.g. Deut. 
Xxxii. 22, Jer. xxi. 14, and particularly, per- 
haps, the historical description of Lam. iv. 11, 
‘“‘The Lord hath accomplished His fury; He 
hath poured out His fierce anger, and hath 
kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured 
the foundations thereof’’). They thought 
also, of course, of our Lord’s own words, now 
more completely verified than ever. Julian 
retained his wide knowledge of the text of 
Scripture, as we see by his writings, and these 
prophecies doubtless irritated him by their 
literal exactness. The ‘‘globi flammarum 
prope fundamenta erumpentes” of the heathen 
historian are an undesigned coincidence with 
the words of Hebrew prophecy. 

From heathen testimonies, and from the 
fathers and historians of the church, Dr. 
Newman has put together the following de- 
tailed account of the occurrence, in which he 
chiefly follows Warburton. The order of the 
incidents is, of course, not certain, but only 


'ἃ matter of probable inference; nor can we 


guarantee the details as they appear in the 
later writers. “They declare as follows: 
The work was interrupted by a violent whirl- 
wind, says Theodoret, which scattered about 
vast quantities of lime, sand and other loose 


38 


594 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


materials collected for the building. A storm 
of thunder and lightning followed; fire fell, 
says Socrates, and the workmen’s tools, the 
spades, the axes, and the saws were melted 
down. Thencame an earthquake, which threw 
up the stones of the old foundation, says 
Socrates; filled up the excavation, says 
Theodoret, which had been made for the new 
foundations; and, as Rufinus adds, threw 
down the buildings in the neighbourhood, 
and especially the public porticoes in which 
were numbers of the Jews who had been 
aiding in the undertaking, and who were 
buried in the ruins. The workmen re- 
turned to their work; but from the re- 
cesses, laid open by the earthquake, balls of 
fire burst out, says Ammianus; and that 
again and again as often as they -renewed the 
attempt. The fiery mass, says Rufinus, raged 
up and down the street for hours; and St. 
Gregory, that when some fled to a neighbour- 
ing church for safety the fire met them at the 
door and forced them back, with the loss either 
of life or of their extremities. At length the 
commotion ceased; a calm succeeded; and, 
as St. Gregory adds, in the sky appeared a 
luminous cross surrounded by a circle. Nay, 
upon the garments and the bodies of the 
persons present crosses were impressed, says 
St. Gregory ; which were luminous by night, 
says Rufinus; and at other times of a dark 
colour, says Theodoret ; and would not wash 
out, adds Socrates. In consequence the 
attempt was abandoned’’ (Newman, Essay 
on Miracles in Early Eccl. Hist. p. clxxvii.). 
All these incidents present a picture consistent 
with the extraordinary operations of the 
forces of nature. Even for the luminous 
crosses there are curious parallels in the 
history of storms of lightning and volcanic 
eruptions (see those collected by Warburton 
and quoted by Newman, p. clxxxii. notes). 
The cross in the sky has its likeness in the 
effects of mock suns and parhelia. But even 
so, a Christian may still fairly assert his right 
to call the event a miraculous interposition 
of God’s providence. It fulfilled all the pur- 
poses we can assign to the Scripture miracles. 
It gave ‘‘ an impression of the present agency 
and of the will of God.’’ It seemed to shew 
His severe disapproval of the attempt and 
fulfilled the prophecy of Christ. It came, 
like the vision of Constantine, at a critical 
epoch in the world’s history. It was, as the 
heathen poet has it, a ‘“‘ dignus vindice nodus.”’ 
All who were present or heard of the event at 
the time thought it, we may be sure, a sign 
from God. Asa miracle it ranges beside 
those Biblical miracles in which, at some 
critical moment, the forces of nature are seen 
to work strikingly for God’s people or against 
their enemies. 

§ 7. Julian’s Persian Campaign and Death 
(Mar. 5 to June 27, 363).—Julian’s route into 
Persia is marked with considerable exactness ; 
the first part of it by a letter which he wrote 
to Libanius from Hierapolis (Ep. 27). At 
Beroea, the modern Aleppo, he ‘‘ conversed 
with the senate on matters of religion—all 
praised my discourse, but few only were con- 
vinced by it” (Ep. 27, p. 399 D). 

At Batnae (the scenery of which he com- 


| emperor 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


tious preparations for sacrifice upon the 
public roads, but thought them too obviously 
studied and too redolent of personal flattery. 
Leaving Edessa on his left hand, probably as 
a city too distinctly Christian to be visited 
with comfort, he had reached Carrhae, a 
place of vigorous pagan traditions, on Mar. 19. 
At some distance from the town there was a 
famous temple of the Moon, in which it was 
worshipped both as a male and a female deity, 
and near which the emperor Caracalla had 
been murdered (Herodian. iv. 13, 3; Spartian. 
Caracallus, 6,6; 7, 3). Julian made a point 
of visiting it and offered sacrifices ‘‘ according 
to the local rites.’? Of his secret doings in 
this temple there are different accounts. 
Ammianus had heard that he invested his 
relative Procopius, who was his only com- 
panion, with his paludamentum, and bid him 
seize the empire in case he died in the cam- 
paign on which they were engaged (Aram. 
Xxlii. 3, 2). Among Christians a report was 
current that he offered a human sacrifice. 
The story ran that he sealed up the temple 
and ordered it not to be opened till his return : 
and that after the news of his death people 
entered it and found a woman hanging by the 
hair of her head, and her body cut open as if 
to search for omens (Theod. iii. 26). 

On Mar. 27 he was at Callinicum and cele- 
brated the festival of the Mother of the Gods 
(Amm. xxiii. 3, 7). At the beginning of Apr. 
he came to Circesium (Carchemish) at the 
junction of the Chaboras and the Euphrates. 
Here he received distressing letters from his 
friend Sallustius in Gaul, urging him to give 
up his campaign as he felt sure that the gods 
were unfavourable (Amm. xxiii. 5, 6). At 
Zaitham (where Ammianus first begins to 
speak in the first person) they saw the high 
mound which marked the burial-place of the 
Gordian. The historian records 
numerous portents on their march; among 
them, alion which appeared at Dura gave rise 
to a curious dispute between the Etruscan 
augurs and the philosophers who followed in 
his train. The former shewed from their 
books that it was an ill omen; the latter 
(amongst whom were Maximus and Priscus) 
had historical precedents to prove that it need 
not be so regarded. ἃ similar dispute 
occurred next day as to the meaning of a 
thunderstorm (xxiii. 5, 10 seq.). Such super- 
stitious discussions were not likely to embolden 
the soldiery ; but Julian decided in favour of 
the philosophers, animated the army with 
his own courage, and tried to dispel the pre- 
judice that the Romans had never invaded 
Persia with success. One of his most import- 
ant officers, Hormisdas (elder brother of 
Sapor, the reigning king of Persia), had angered 
the nobles of his country by threats, had been 
imprisoned by them, and escaped to the court 
of Constantine. 
cere Christian, yet remained a usefuland trusted 
officer of Julian. By his intervention several 
Assyrian towns opened their gates to the 
invaders (xxiv. I, 6, etc.). The country was 
inundated by the natives, and it required all 
Julian’s inventive quickness and personal 
example to carry the army through the 
marshes. After various successes he arrived 


pared to that of Daphne) he found ostenta-| at the bank of the Tigris, at the ruins of 


He became apparently a sin- ° 


mae”. 


ait we 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


the old Greek city of Seleucia opposite 
Ctesiphon. He forced the passage of the river 
by a very vigorous and dangerous move- 
ment in the face of the enemy, and found 
himself under the walls of the capital (xxiv. 
6, 4-14). But no threats or sarcasms could 
draw the inhabitants from their impregnable 
defences, and Sapor himself made no ap- 
pearance. Part of the Roman army had 
been left in Mesopotamia, where the two 
ambitious generals, Procopius and Sebastian- 
us, fell out, and the support expected from 
Arsaces was not forthcoming. But though 
Sapor did not appear to give battle, he sent a 
secret ambassador with offers of an honourable 
peace, the exact terms of which are unknown 
to us (Liban. Epit. p. 608; Socr. iii. 21 ; 
Ammianus is here defective). These Julian 
declined, against the advice of Hormisdas. 
He was fired with all sorts of vague and 
enthusiastic projects; he longed to visit the 
plain of Arbela and to overrun the whole 
Persian empire (Liban. Epit. p. 609). These 
ideas were kindled into action by the arts of 
a certain Persian noble, who pretended to be 
a deserter, indignant against his sovereign, 
but who in reality played the part of a second 
Zopyrus (Greg. Naz. Or. 5, 11, p. 154; cf. 
Aurel. Victor. Epit. 67; Soz. vi. 1, p. 218). 
Julian’s fleet presented a difficulty, and he 
determined upon the hazardous measure of 
burning it, except a very few vessels, which 
were to be placed on wheels. This was done 
at Abuzatha, where he halted five days 
(Zos. iii. 26). A short time of reflection 
and a discovery that his Persian informants 
were deceiving him made him regret his 
decision. He attempted too late to save some 
of the ships. Only twelve out of some 1,100 
were still uninjured. What had been intended 
to be a triumphant progress almost insensibly 
became a retreat. The Persian cavalry were 
perpetually harassing the outskirts of the 
army, and though beaten at close quarters 
were continually appearing in fresh swarms. 
The few ships that remained were insufficient 
to build a bridge by which to open communica- 
tions with Mesopotamia. Nothing was left 
but to proceed along the E. bank of the Tigris 
to the nearest friendly province, Corduene in 
S. Armenia, as quickly as possible. This was 
determined on June 16, only ten days before 
the death of Julian (Amm. xxiv. 8, 5). How 
far he had previously penetrated into the 
interior is not easy to determine. In the next 


few days the Romans fought several battles | 


with success, but not such as to ensure them 
a quiet march forwards. They suffered from 
want of food, and Julian shared their priva- 
tions on an equality with the commonest 
soldier (Amm. xxv. 2, 2). On the night of 
June 25, as he was studying some book of 
philosophy in his tent, he had a vision (as he 
told his intimates) of the Genius of the Re- 
public leaving his tent in a mournful attitude, 
with a veil over his head and over the cornu- 
copia in his hand—reminding him by contrast 
of his vision of the night before he was pro- 
claimed Augustus. He shook off his natural 
terror, and went out into the night air to offer 
propitiatory sacrifices, when he received an- 
other shock from the appearance of a brilliant 
meteor, which he interpreted as a sign of the 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 596 


wrath of Mars, whom he had already offended 
(xxv. 2, 4; cf. xxiv. 6, 17). When day 
dawned the Etruscan diviners implored him 
| to make no movement that day, or at least to 
put off his march for some hours. But his 
courage had returned with daylight, and he 
gave the order to advance. Sudden attacks 
of the enemy from different quarters threw 
the army into confusion, and Julian, ex- 
cited by the danger, rushed forward without 
his breastplate, catching up a shield as he 
went. As he raised his hands above his head 
to urge his men to pursue, a cavalry spear 
from an unknown hand grazed his arm and 
lodged in his right side. He tried to draw 
out the spear-head, but the sharp edges cut 
his fingers. He threw up his hand with a con- 
vulsive motion, and fell fainting from his horse 
(Xxv. 3, 7, compared with other accounts), utter- 
ing acry which is differently reported. Some 
said he threw his own blood towards heaven 
with the bitter words, ‘‘ O Galilean, Thou hast 
conquered ! ᾽ (Theod. iii. 25). Others thought 
they heard him reproach the gods, and 
especially the Sun, his patron, for their 
desertion (Philost. vii. 15; Soz. vi. 2). He 
was borne to his tent and his wound dressed, 
no doubt by his friend Oribasius. For a 
moment he revived, and called for a horse and 
arms, but a gush of blood shewed how weak 
he really was. On learning that the place was 
called Phrygia he gave up all hope, having 
been told by some diviner that he should die 
in Phrygia. He addressed those who stood 
around him in a highly philosophic speech in 
the style of Socrates, of which Ammianus has 
preserved a report. He considered that 
death was sent him as a gift from the gods. 
He knew of no great faults he had committed 
either in a private station or as Caesar. He 
had always desired the good of his subjects, 
and had endeavoured to be a faithful servant 
of the republic. He had long known the 
decree of fate, that his death was impending, 
and thanked the supreme God that it came, 
not in a disgraceful or painful way, but in a 
glorious form. He would not discuss the 
appointment of his successor, lest he should 
pass over one who was worthy, or endanger 
the life of some one whom he thought fit, but 
hoped that the republic would find a good 
ruler after him. He then distributed his 
personal effects to his intimate friends, and 
asked among others for Anatolius, the master 
of the offices. Sallustius (the prefect of the 
East) replied that he was happy. Julian 
understood that he had fallen, but lamented 
| the death of his friend with a natural feeling 
which he had restrained in thinking of his 
|own. Those who stood round could no 
| longer restrain their grief, but he still kept his 
habit of command, and rebuked them for 
their want of high feeling. ‘* My life gives 
me confidence of being taken to the islands of 
the blest, to have converse with heaven and 
the stars; it is mean to weep as if I had 
deserved to be condemned to Tartarus Ὁ 
(Liban. Epit. p. 614, ἐπετίμα τοῖς re 
ἄλλοις, καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα (τοῖς pioodpas) εἰ τῶν 
| βεβιωμένων αὐτὸν εἰς μακάρων νήσους ἀγόντων, 
᾿οἱ δὲ ὡς ἀξίως ταρτάρου βεβιωκότα δακρύουσιν : 
Amm. xxv. 3, 22, “ humile esse caelo sideri- 
| busque conciliatum lugeri principem dicens"). 


596 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


His last moments were spent in a difficult 
discussion with Maximus and Priscus on “‘ the 
sublimity of souls.’’ In the midst of this 
debate his wound burst afresh, and he called 
for a cup of cold water, drank it, and passed 
away quietly at midnight on the evening of 
June 26, having not yet reached the age of 32 
(Ammmerxxve 19:7} 5,1. 9608: 11}: 21, NeLe-)= 

It was never found out who threw the fatal 
spear, though the Persians offered a reward. 
The suggestion of Libanius that it was a Chris- 
tian was such as he would naturally make in 
his bitterness (Epit. pp. 612, 614). Gregory, 
Socrates, and Rufinus consider it uncertain 
whether it was a Persian or one of his own 
soldiers (Greg. Or. v. 13, p- 155; Ruf. i. 36; 
Socr. iii. 21). Sozomen notices the suspicion 
of Libanius, and defends it in a spirit which 
cannot but be condemned (Soz. vi. 1). 

The news of Julian’s death and that the 
army had elected a Christian, Jovian, to 
succeed him caused enormous rejoicings, 
especially in Antioch. Jovian was obliged to 
make peace by ceding the five Mesopotamian 
provinces, including Nisibis, which had been 
the bulwark of the empire in the East. Pro- 
copius was ordered to carry back the body to 
Tarsus, where it was interred with pagan 
ceremonies opposite that of Maximinus Daia. 

Character.—Julian’s story leaves the im- 
pression of a living man far more than that of 
most historical personages. The most opposite 
and unexpected estimates of him have been 
formed. He has been admired and pitied 
by religious-minded men, detested and satir- 
ized by sceptics and atheists. His own 
friend Ammianus despised his superstition, 
and paints it in terms not much weaker than 
the invectives of Gregory and Chrysostom ; 
Gibbonsneers at him alternately with hisChris- 
tian opponents. A. Comte wished to appoint 
an annual day for execrating his memory in 
company with that of Bonaparte, as one of the 
““two principal opponents of progress,’’ and 
as the ‘‘ more insensate’’ of the two (System 
of Positive Polity, Eng. trans. vol. i. p. 82; 
an ordinance afterwards withdrawn, 7b. vol. iv. 
Pp- 351). Strauss treats him as a vain, re- 
actionary dreamer, comparable to medieval- 
ists who tried to stay the march of modern 
thought. On the other hand, pietistic his- 
torians like Arnold, Neander, and even UII- 
mann, unlike the ancient writers of the 
church, are tolerant and favourable. 

The simple reason of this divergence is, of 
course, that the strongest force working in 
him was a self-confident religious enthusiasm, 
disguised under the form of self-surrender to 
a divine mission. Such acharacter constantly 
appears in different lights, and some of those 
who have judged him have looked chiefly 
at the sentimental side of his life, without 
considering his actions; while others have 
estimated him by his actions apart from his 
principles—the more so because he was 
inconsistent himself in his conduct, and some- 
times acted with, sometimes against, his 
principles; and hence any one who chooses 
to take a partial view may easily find a justi 
fication in the positive statements of this or 
that historian, or of Julian himself. 

A Christian who attempts to judge Julian 
without prejudice will probably go through 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


several phases of opinion before he comes to 
a final estimate. All but the cold-hearted 
will sympathize, to some extent at least, with 
his religious enthusiasm, and with the sacri- 
fices which he was ready to make in its 
behalf. It is impossible to doubt that he had 
a vein of noble sentiment, and a lofty and, in 
many ways, unselfish ambition. He had a 
real love of ideal beauty, and of the literary 
and artistic traditions of the past. There was 
something even pathetic in his hero-worship 
and his attachment to those whom he sup- 
posed to be his friends. If he was often 
pedantic and imitative, if he had a somewhat 
shallow and conceited manner, yet we must 
confess that much of this was the vice of the 
age, and this pettiness was thrown off in 
critical moments. Under strong excitement 
he often became simple, great, and natural. 

Or again, many persons will sympathize 
with his conservative instincts, and his wish 
to retain what was great in the culture and 
art of past ages ; while others will be attracted 
by his mystic speculations and ascetic prac- 
tices, which were akin to much that has been 
valued and admired in many great names in 
the history of the church. But on reflection 
we see that all this was combined with a 
ruling spirit and view of things which was 
essentially heathen, and therefore fundament- 
ally defective, as well as antagonistic, to all 
that we hold dearest and most vital. Julian 
was at bottom thoroughly one-sided. He 
was enthusiastic and even passionate in 
his religion; but it was the passion of the 
intellect and senses rather than of the heart. 

Much of his natural warmth of feeling had 
been chilled and soured by the sense of in- 
justice and secret enmity under which he so 
long laboured. He could not forget the 
murder of his nearest relations, nor the sus- 
picions, intrigues, and actual personal indig- 
nities of which he was the subject. What we 
know of his early surroundings inclines us to 
suppose that their influence for good was but 
slight. His relation, Eusebius of Nicomedia, 
does not bear ahigh character. His pedagogue 
Mardonius was evidently more heathen than 
Christian in his sympathies, and a time-serving 
creature like Hecebolius was not likely to 
make much impression upon his pupil. 

We have endeavoured to give a fair general 
estimate of this remarkable character, with 
the full consciousness how hazardous such an 
estimate is. If any one wishes for a catalogue 
of qualities, which can, as it were, be ticketed 
and labelled, he cannot do better than read 
Ammianus’s elaborate award (xxv. 4). The 
historian takes the four cardinal virtues— 
temperance, prudence, justice, and courage— 
and gives a due amount of praise tempered 
with some fault-finding under each head. 
His chastity and abstinence were remarkable. 
He aimed at justice, and to a great extent 
earned a high reputation for it. He was 
liberal to his friends, and careless of his own 
comforts and conveniences in a very remark- 
able degree ; while he did much to lighten and 
equalize the burden of taxation upon his 
subjects. His successes in Gaul gained him 
the affection of the people, and his popularity 
with the soldiers may be gathered from the 
manner in which the dwellers in northern and 


fe 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


western lands followed him into the midst of 
Persia. He may be said to have quelled a 
military tumult by the threat of retiring into 
private life. The lighter qualities of his 
character present him in rather a disagreeable 
aspect. He was loquacious and inconsistent 
in small things and in great. He was ex- 
tremely superstitious, and even fanatical in 
his observance of religious rites, to a degree 
that made him appear trifling and undignified 
even to his friends. His manner was obvious- 
ly irritating, and such as could not inspire 
respect in his subjects; and, on the other 
hand, he was too eager to gain popular 
applause. No one can doubt his cleverness 
and ability as a writer, but the greater number 
of his writings do not shew method, and they 
are often singularly deficient in judgment. 
An exception, perhaps, may be made in respect 
to the first oration to Constantius, the letter 
to the Athenians, and the Caesars. The 
latter, however, was a strange performance 
for one who was himself an emperor. 

In person he was rather short, and awk- 
wardly though very strongly built. His 
features were fine and well-marked, and his 
eyes very brilliant; his mouth was rather 
over-large and his lower lip inclined to droop. 
As a young man he grew a beard, but was re- 
quired to cut it off when he became Caesar, and 
seems only to have grownit again after taking 
possession of Constantinople. At Antioch it 
was allowed to grow toa great size. His neck 
was thick, and his head hung forward, and 
was set on broad and thick shoulders. His 
walk was ungraceful ; and he had an unsteady 
motion of the limbs. There is a fine life-size 
statue of Julian, of good and artistic work- 
manship, in the ruined hall of his palace in the 
garden of the Hotel Clugny at Paris. It is 
figured as the frontispiece to E. Talbot’s 
translation of his works. 

Theory of Religion.—Julian’s theory was 
too superficial and occasional to leave much 
mark upon the history of thought. His 
book against Christianity became indeed a 


favourite weapon with infidels, but he never | 


founded a school of positive belief. He was, in 
fact, an enthusiastic amateur, who employed 
some of the nights of a laborious career of 
public business in writing brilliant essays in 
the neo-Platonic manner. He tells usthat the 
oration in praise of the Sun took him three 


nights (p. 157 c); that on the Mother of the 


Gods was composed, “without taking breath, 
in the short space of one night’ (p. 178 pb). 
Such work may astonish us even now, but it 
is not surprising that it should be incomplete, 
rambling, and obscure. 

There are, however, certain constantly 
recurring thoughts which may be regarded 
as established principles with Julian. 
forms one of that long line of remarkable men 


in the first four centuries after Christ who) 
endeavoured to give a rational form to the | 


religion and morality of the heathen world 
in opposition to the growing power of Chris- 
tianity—men whose ill-success is one of the 
strongest proofs of the deadness of their own 
cause, and the vitality of that against which 
they strove. Seneca, Plutarch, Epictetus, 
Marcus Aurelius, Celsus, Plotinus, Porphyry, 
lamblichus, and Hierocles were in this sense 


Julian | 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 597 


precursors of Julian. We may define the ob- 
jects of their efforts on behalf of paganism as: 

(1) To unite popular beliefs in many gods 
with some conception of the unity of the divine 
being, and to give some consistent, if not 
rational, account of the origin of the world 
and of the course of human history. 

(2) To defend the myths and legends of 
heathenism, and generally to establish heathen 
morals on a higher basis than mere custom. 

(3) To satisfy the yearnings of the soul for 
the knowledge of God, while rejecting the 
exclusive claims of the Jewish and Christian 
revelation. 

(1) Doctrine as to the Nature of God.—The 
birth of Christ took place in the fulness of 
time, 1.6. when mankind had been prepared 
for it, by many influences bearing them to- 
wards the acceptance of a revelation. One 
of the most important of these preparations 
was the movement towards monotheism. 
The old simple belief in many gods living 
together in a sort of upper world was gone, 
and thinking men would accept no system 
which did not assume the supremacy of one 
divine principle, and in some degree “justify” 
the action of Providence in dealing with man- 
kind asa whole. But the worship of many gods 
had too deep a hold upon the fancy and affec- 
tions, as well as the mind, of the people to 
be surrendered without a long struggle, and 
various methods were advanced to shelter and 
protect the current belief. The systems 
thus formed were naturally all more or less 
pantheistic, finding unity in an informal 
abstraction from the phenomena of nature. 
But, as we should expect to be the case on 
European soil, they were neither logically 
pantheistic in the abstract way of the Hindu 
philosophical sects nor sharply dualistic like 
the speculations of the Gnostics and Mant- 
cheans. The more practical minds of the 
Graeco-Roman world were satisfied to give an 
account of things as they appeared without 
overpowering and paralyzing themselves by 
the insoluble question as to the existence and 
potencies of matter; and thus they were at 
once more inconsistent and less absurd than 
some of their contemporaries. While looking 
upon matter as something degrading, and 
upon contact with it as a thing to be avoided, 
they nevertheless did not define matter to be 
non-existent, or merely phenomenal, nor did 
they regard it as absolutely evil. In the same 
way, while they lost all true hold upon the 
personality of God, and believed in the 
eternity of the world (e.g. Jul. Or. iv. p. 132 6), 
they used the terms creation and providence, 
and spoke of communion with and likeness to 
God. Into an eclectic system of this kind 
it was not difficult to incorporate the gods of 
the heathen world, and to make them subserve 
a sort of philosophy of history. With Julian 
they take a double position: (a) as inter- 
mediate beings employed in creation who pro- 
tect the Supreme Being from too intimate 
contact with the world; (δ) as accounting for 
the difference between nations, and so en- 
abling men to uphold traditional usages with- 


| out ceasing to hold to one ideal law and one 


truth (Jul. Or. vi. p. 184 ο, ὥσπερ yap ἀλήθεια 
μία. οὕτω δὲ καὶ φιλοσοφία ula). : 
The chief source of information on this part 


598 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


of Julian’s theory is his Fourth Oration, in 
pratse of the Sovereign Sun. The most striking 
feature of the theology proper of this system 
is its triple hierarchy of deities and worlds. 
Such a triple division was a common feature 
of neo-Platonism and had its roots in thoughts 
current before the Christian era; but it was 
no doubt emphasized by later theorists as a 
counterpoise to the Christian doctrine of the 
Trinity. That of Julian was probably bor- 
rowed from Iamblichus of Chalcis (uncle, it 
has been supposed, of his correspondent), to 
whom he frequently appeals in terms of the 
highest veneration (6.5. Or. iv. p. 146 A, 150 D, 
157D; see Ueberweg, Hist. of Philosophy, 
§ 69, vol. i. pp. 252-254, Eng. trans.). 

According to this belief there are three 
worlds informed and held together by three 
classes of divine beings. The highest and 
most spiritual is the κόσμος vonrds, or 
‘intelligible world,’’ the world of absolute 
immaterial essences, the centre of which is the 
One or the Good, who is the source of beings 
and of all beauty and perfection to the gods 
who surround him (p. 133 0). Between 
this highly elevated region and the grosser 
material world comes the κόσμος voepds, or 
‘intelligent world,” the centre of which is the 
sovereign sun, the great object of Julian’s de- 
votion. He receives his power from the Good, 
and communicates it not only to the gods 
around him, but also to the sensible world, 
the κόσμος αἰσθητός, in which we live. In this 
sphere the “ visible disk”’ of the sun is the 
source of light and life, as the invisible sun is 
in the intelligible world. Any one who will 
read this oration with care will be convinced 
that Julian wished to find in his sovereign sun 
a substitute for the Christian doctrine of the 
second person of the blessed Trinity, and this 
appears in particular on pp. 141, 142 (cf. 
Naville, p. 104; Lamé, pp. 234 ff.). The 
position specially given to the sun is a proof of 
the advance of Oriental thought in the Roman 
empire, and it was certainly no new idea of 
Julian’s. Amongst others, Aurelian and Ela- 
gabalus had made him their chief divinity, and 
Constantine himself had been specially de- 
voted to the “ Solinvictus.’’ Julian, we have 
seen, had from his childhood been fascinated 
with the physical beauty of the light. To- 
wards the close of the century we find Macro- 
bius arguing somewhat in the spirit of some 
modern inquirers that all heathen religion is 
the product of solar myths. Yet it is curious 
to observe the shifts to which Julian is put to 
prove this doctrine out of Homer and Hesiod, 
and from the customs of the ancient Greeks 
and Romans (pp. 135-137 and 148 ff.). He 
seems, indeed, conscious of the weakness of his 
arguments from the poets, and dismisses them 
with the remark that they have much that is 
human in their inspiration, and appeals to the 
directer revelations of the gods themselves— 
we must suppose in the visions which he 
claimed to receive (p. 137 C). 

The connexion of this theory with the 
national gods is nowhere distinctly worked 
out. It is, in fact, part of the pantheistic 
character of this belief that the idea of the 
personality of the gods recedes or becomes 
prominent, like the figures in a magic lantern, 
according to the subject under discussion, 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


without any shock to the dreamy neo- 
Platonist. At one time they are mere es- 
sences or principles, at another they are Zeus, 
Apollo, Ares, etc., ruling and directing the 
fortunes of nations, and imposing upon them 
a peculiar type of character and special laws 
and institutions. At one moment they are 
little more than the ideas of Plato, at another 
they are actual δαίμονες, acting as lieutenants 
of the Creator. This last view is in essentials 
the same as that put forward by Celsus 
(probably in the reign of Marcus Aurelius) in 
his book, known to us from its refutation by 
Origen (bk. v. cc. 25-33). It is the view as- 
serted at length by Julian in his books against 
the Christians, especially as a defence of the 
customs and institutions of antiquity against 
the innovations of the religion which strove to 
break down all prejudices of class and nation. 
(St. Cyril. adv. Jul. iv. pp. 115, 116, 130, 
141, 143, 148, etc.; cf. Fragmentum Epistolae, 
Pp. 292C,D, ἄνθρωποι τοῖς yevedpxats θεοῖς 
ἀποκληρωθέντες, οἱ καὶ προήγαγον αὐτούς, ἀπὸ 
τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τὰς ψυχὰς παραλαμβάνοντες ἐξ 
αἰῶνος; for the subject generally, see 
Naville, c. iii. ‘‘ Les Dieux Nationaux.’’) It 
is easy to see how fatal such a doctrine must 
be to moral progress. If everything is as it 
is by the will of the gods, no custom, how- 
ever revolting, lacks defence. It is strange 
that, after the refutation of this absurdity by 
Origen, any oneshould have been bold enough 
to put it forward as a serious theory (cf. Orig. 
contra Celsum, v. cc. 25-28 and 34-39)- 

With regard to the relation of images and 
sacrifices to the gods, who are worshipped by 
these means, there is an interesting passage 
in the Fragment of the Leiter to a Priest (pp. 
293 ff.) He warns his correspondent not to 
consider images as actually receiving worship, 
nor to suppose that the gods really need our 
sacrifices. But he defends their use as 
suitable to our own bodily condition (ἐπειδὴ 
yap ἡμᾶς ὄντας ἐν σώματι σωματικὰς ἔδει ποιεῖσ- 
θαι τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τὰς λατρείας, ἀσώματοι δέ 
εἰσιν αὐτοί, p. 293 D). “Just as earthly 
kings desire to have honour paid them and 
their statues without actually needing it, so 
do the gods. The images of the gods are not 
the gods, and yet more than mere wood and 
stone. They ought to lead us up to the un- 
seen. And yet being made by human art, 
they are liable to injury at the hands of wicked 
men, just as good men are unjustly put to 
death like Socrates, and Dion, and Empedo- 
timus. But their murderers afterwards were 
punished by divine vengeance, and so have 
sacrilegious persons manifestly received a due 
reward in my reign’’ (pp. 294 to 295 B). 

(2) Defence of Pagan Morality—We have 
already described at some length Julian’s 
attempts to raise the morality of his heathen 
subordinates, especially in the priesthood. 
He was conscious of a defect, and strenuously 
set himself to remedy it, though he could do 
little more in the way of quotation of texts 
than allege a few general maxims drawn from 
ancient writings as to kindness to the poor, etc. 
His strongest argument is one that might well 
have made him hesitate—the shame of being 
so much outdone by the “‘ Galileans.” An- 
other branch of this subject was the relation of 


a ee “—s 
Pa a 
ἊΣ τὼν. — ΠΡ ον» 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


morality to Greek mythology, and with this 
he busied himself on two occasions, about the 
same time. The two orations, The Praise of 
the Mother of the Gods and Against the Cynic 
Heraclius, were probably both delivered about 
the time of the vernal equinox, while he was 
still at Constantinople, A.p. 362. In the first 
of these he gives an elaborate explanation of 
the story of Attis; in the second he rebukes 
Heraclius for his immoral teaching in the form 
of myths, and gives an example of one which 
he thinks really edifying, which describes his 
own youth under the protection of the gods. 
_ The explanation of the myth of Attis is 
important as a specimen of Julian’s theology. 
According to modern interpreters, this myth, 
as well as that of Adonis in its hundred forms, 
describes merely the succession of the seasons ; 
Julian adapts it to his speculations on the 
triple hierarchy of worlds. With him the 
mother of the gods is the female principle of 
the highest and most spiritual world. He 
calls her the lady of all life, the mother and 
bride of great Zeus, the motherless virgin, she 
who bears children without passion, and 
creates things that are together with the 
father (p. 166 A, B). Here we are landed into 
the full obscurity of Gnostic principles and 
emanations, and the whole story is evidently 
only a kind of converse arrangement of that 
which meets us in the Valentinian myth of 
Achamoth (see Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 
lects. 11, 12). Attis is a principle of the 
second or intelligent world, ‘‘ the productive 
and creative intelligence, the essence which 
descends into the farthest ends of matter to 
give birth to all things’’ (p. τότ ο). It is 
difficult to see how he is distinguished in his 
functions with regard to creation from the 
sovereign sun, but this is only one of the many 
weak points of this fanciful exposition. His 
material type in the lowest world is the Milky 
Way, in which philosophers say that the 
impassible circumambient ether mingles with 
the passible elements of the world (p. 165 Cc). 
The mother of the gods engages Attis to 
remain ever faithful to herself, that is, to look 
always upward. Instead of this, he descends 
into the cave, and has commerce with the 
nymph, that is, produces the visible universe 
out of matter. The sun, who is the principle 
of harmony and restraint, something like the 
Valentinian Horus (ὅρος), sends the lion or 
fiery principle to put a stop to this production 
of visible forms. Then follows the ἐπτομή of 
Attis, which is defined as the ἐποχὴ τῆς ἀπειρίας, 
the limit placed upon the process into infinity. 
The part played by the sun is indicated by the 
season at which the festival took place, the 
vernal equinox, when he produces equality of 
day and night (p. 168c,p). All this is ex- 


plained as a mere passionless eternal procedure | 


on the part of the supposed gods. A real 
creation proceeding from God’s love and good 
pleasure was a thought far above the scope 
of this philosophy, to which the world was as 
personal as the so-called gods. 

Enough has been said to shew how thor- 
oughly pantheistic was Julian’s interpreta- 
tion of the myths; how destructive of any true 
conception of the divine nature, how thorough- 
ly unmoral, how utterly incapable of touching 
the heart, was his theology. Yet he felt the 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 599 


need of some personal commerce with God, 
however inconsistent such a wish was with 
his intellectual view of divine things. 
_ (3) Intercourse with God.—When Julian was 
in Asia Minor under the influence of the 
pen ome Eusebius and Chrysanthius, and 
eard the details of the wonderful works of 
Maximus, he said (according to Eunapius), 
“* Farewell, and keep to your books if you will ; 
you have revealed to me the man I was in 
search of ” (Eunap. Vita Maximi, p. 51). This 
story has been discredited by some, who think 
it strange that so great a lover of books as 
Julian should speak slightingly of them. But 
it is confirmed by his own language in his 
Oration on the Sun (p. 1370}: ‘Let us say 
farewell to poetic descriptions ; for they have 
much that is human mixed up with the divine. 
But let us go on to declare what the god him- 
self seems to teach us both about himself and 
the other gods” (ix. 11, 5). Julian here 
appeals from a book revelation, as it were, to 
adirect instruction given him in the numerous 
visions in which he was visited by the gods. 
_ We have already noticed Julian's enthu- 
siasm for the mysteries and his love of all 
rites and practices which promised a closer 
intercourse with the gods. He could never 
bring himself to acquiesce in the colder 
methods of some of the masters of the neo- 
Platonic school. He was not satisfied with 
the intellectual ecstasy described by Plotinus, 
nor with the self-purification of Porphyry, who 
generally rejected sacrifice and divination 
(Ueberweg, Hist. of Philosophy, § 68, notes, 
vol. i. p. 251, Eng. trans.). The party of 
Iamblichus, to which Julian belonged, required 
something approaching a control of a god 
(theurgy), a quasi-mechanical method of com- 
munication with him, which could be put in 
force at will, and the result of which could 
only be called a “ὁ Bacchic frenzy "’ (Or. vii. pp. 
217 Ὁ and 221 D, etce.). Julian was duped by 
men who were half deceivers and half deceived. 
He is one among many who are forced by an 
inward conviction to believe in supernatural 
revelation, but who will only have it on their 
own terms. Libanius tells us that Julian 
knew the forms and lineaments of the gods 
as familiarly as those of his friends, and we 
have mentioned the visions which appeared 
to him at great crises of his life. He himself 
says, ‘‘ Aesculapius often healed me, telling 
me of remedies’’ (St. Cyril. adv. Jul. viil. 
p- 234), and elsewhere he speaks of this 
deity as a sort of incarnate Saviour (Or. iv. 
Ρ- 144 B, C). This temper of mind, while 
it speaks in high-flown, positive language of 
the knowledge of God and pours contempt on 
the uninitiated, yet means something by 
‘“‘knowledge”’ very different from the sober 
and bracing certainty attained by Christian 
| faith, hope, andlove. Here, as elsewhere, the 
pantheistic temper speaks grandly, but feels 
meanly. Death indeed is looked forward 
to with some composure as the emancipation 
of the divine element in man from darkness. 
Julian several times prays for a happy death, 
andexpected after it to be raised to communion 


with the gods. His orations to the Sun and 
the Mother of the Gods both conclude with 
such prayers, and we have seen how he 
actually met his end (Liban. Ep. p. 614; Amm. 


600 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


Xxv. 3, 22). But the doctrine of the ascent 
(sublimitas) of souls, on which he was con- 
versing with Maximus and Priscus when that 
end came, was a very different thing from the 
Christian’s hope. It was, in fact, the same 
in substance as the barren and deadening 
Oriental doctrine of transmigration; and it 
is remarkable that Julian, who felt himself so 
favoured by the heavenly powers, in one of his 
most ardent prayers to the sun, looks forward 
to a felicity which has no certainty of being 
eternal (Or. iv. p. 1580; see some good 
remarks on the contrast between this and the 
Christian doctrine in Naville, pp. 59 ff.). 

Julian’s Polemic against Christianity.— 
How near measures against Christianity were 
to his heart may be seen in his prayer to 
the Mother of the Gods, where he speaks of 
“cleansing the empire from the stain of 
atheism ”’ as the great wish of his life (Or. v. 
p- 1808). He preferred, however, the method 
of persuasion to that of constraint, and his 
books against the Christians are an evidence 
of this temper. He begins by saying that 
he wishes to give the reasons which have 
convinced him that the Galilean doctrine 
is a human invention (Cyr. ii. p. 39). He 
then goes on to attack the narratives of 
the Bible as fabulous. He allows that the 
Greeks have monstrous fables likewise (p. 44), 
but then they have philosophy, while Chris- 
tians have nothing but the Bible, and are in 
fact barbarians. If Christians attack the 
idolatry of heathens, Julian retorts, ‘‘ you 
worship the wood of the cross, and refuse to 
worship the ancile which came down from 
heaven ”’ (Cyr. vi. p. 194). On the whole, 
he does not spend much time in such questions, 
but accepts the Bible as a generally true 
narrative, and rather attacks Christianity on 
grounds of supposed reason, and in connexion 
with and in contrast to Judaism. 

We may follow Naville in considering the 
main body of his works under three heads: 
(1) his polemic against the monotheism of the 
O.T.; (2) his attack upon the novel and 
aggressive character of Christian doctrine; 
(3) especially against the adoration of Christ 
as God, and the worship of ‘‘ dead men,”’ such 
as the martyrs (cf. Naville, pp. 175 ff.). 

(1) Against the Monotheism of the O.T.— 
Julian regarded the gods of polytheism as 
links or intermediaries between the supreme 
God and the material world, and so as render- 
ing the conception of creation easier and more 
philosophical. He contrasts Plato’s doctrine 
of creation in the Timaeus with the abrupt 
statements of Moses, ‘“‘God said,” etc. (pp. 
49-57). One might almost suppose (he urges) 
that Moses imagined God to have created 
nothing incorporeal, no intermediate spiritual 
or angelic beings, but to have Himself directly 
organized matter (p. 49). He proceedsto argue 
against the supposition that the supreme God 
made choice of the Hebrew nation as a pecu- 
liar people to the exclusion of others. ‘‘If 
He is the God of all of us, and our common 
creator, why has He abandoned us?” (p. 
106). Both in acts and morals the Hebrews 
are inferior. They have been always in 
slavery, and have invented nothing. As for 
morality, the imitation of God amongst the 
Jews is the imitation of a “‘ jealous God,”’ as 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


in the case of Phinehas (Cyr. v. pp. 160-171). 
The worst of our generals never treated subject 
nations so cruelly as Moses treated the 
Canaanites (vi. p. 184). The only precepts in 
the Decalogue not held in common by all 
nations are the commandments against 
idolatry and for the observance of the sabbath. 
The true view, to his mind, was that the God 
of the Jews was a local, national god, like 
those of other peoples, far inferior ‘to the 
supreme God (iv. pp. 115, 116, 141, 148, etc.). 
Sometimes he seems inclined to accept 
Jehovah as the creator of the visible world, 
while at other times he throws doubt upon this 
assumption; but in any case he considered 
Him a true object of worship (Ep. 25, Judaets. 
But in Cyril. iv. p. 148 he blames Moses 
for confounding a partial and national god 
with the Creator). Further, the Jewish usages 
of temples, altars, sacrifices, purifications, 
circumcision, etc., were all observed to have 
a close resemblance to those of heathenism, 
and were a foundation for many reproaches 
against the Galileans, who had abandoned so 
much that was laudable and respectable (vi. 
Ρ- 202; Vil. p. 238; ix. pp. 298, 299, 305, etc.). 

(2) Juluan’s Attack upon Christianity as a 
Novel and Revolutionary Religion.—In the 
same spirit he puts Christianity much below 
Judaism. “Τῇ you who have deserted us had 
attached yourself to the doctrines of the 
Hebrews, you would not have been in so 
thoroughly bad a condition, though worse 
than you were before when you were amongst 
us. For you would have worshipped one God 
instead of many gods, and not, as is now the 
case, a man, or rather a number of miserable 
men. You would have had a hard and stern 
law, with much that is barbarous in it, instead 
of our mild and gentle customs, and would 
have been so far the losers; but you would 
have been purer and more holy in religious 
rites. As it is, you are like the leeches, and 
suck all the worst blood out of Hebraism and 
leave the purer behind ”’ (Cyr. vi. pp. 201, 202). 
It was thus natural that St. Paul should be the 
special object of his dislike. ‘‘ He surpasses 
all the impostors and charlatans who have 
ever existed’? (Cyr. iii. p. 100). Julian 
accuses the Jewish Christians of having de- 
serted a law which Moses declared to be 
eternal (ix. p. 319). Even Jesus Himself said 
that He came to fulfilthelaw. Peter declared 
that he had a vision, in which God shewed him 
that no animal was impure (p. 314), and Paul 
boldly says, ‘‘ Christ is the end of the law”’; 
but Moses says, ‘‘ Ye shall not add unto the 
word which I command you, neither shall ye 
diminish ought from it’’; and ‘‘ Cursed is 
every one that continueth not in all things ”’ 
(Gyr. ix. p:) 320—Deut. ἔν. 2, χανε. 27 20et. 
X- ῬΡ. 343, 351, 354, 356, 358, where he 
attacks Christians for giving up sacrifice, 
circumcision, and the sabbath, and asserts 
that Abraham used divination and practised 
astrology). He sneers at baptism, which 
cannot cure any bodily infirmity, but is said 
to remove all the transgressions of the soul— 
adulteries, thefts, etc.——so great is its pene- 
trating power ! (vii. p. 245). The argument 
against the Christian interpretation of pro- 
phecy is also remarkable. He comments 
textually on the blessing of Judah, Gen. xlix. 


JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 


10; on the prophecy of Balaam, Num. xxiv. |a single distinguished 


17; on that of Moses, Deut. xviii. 15-18 ; and 
on that of Emmanuel, Is. vii. 14; and tries 
to shew that they have no reference outside 
Judaism itself, though the last is evidently a 
difficulty to him (pp. 253, 261, 262). 

(3) The Worship of Jesus as God and the 
Adoration of the Martyrs are the great objects 
of Julian’s attacks. His argument is partly 
concerned with the prophecies just quoted, 
partly with the NaI. itself. He asserts 
that Moses never speaks of “ the first-born 
Son of God,” while he does speak of ‘* the sons 
of God,” #.e. the angels, who have charge of 
different nations (Gen. vi. 2). But Moses 
Says expressly, ‘‘ Thou shalt worship the Lord 
thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve” 
(Cyr. ix. p. 290). Even if the prophecy of 
Emmanuel in Is. refers to Jesus, it gives you 
no right to call His mother @eoréxos. How 
could she bear God, being a human creature 
like ourselves? And how is her son the 
Saviour when God says, “1 am, and there 
is no Saviour beside Me”’ ? (viii. p. 276). 

“ John began this evil. You have gone on 
and added the worship of other dead men to 
that of the first dead man. You have filled 
all things with tombs and sepulchres ; though 
Jesus speaks of ‘whited sepulchres full of 
dead men’s bones and all uncleanness’”’ (p. 
335). ‘“‘Why, then, do you bow before 
tombs? The Jews did it, according to 
Isaiah, to obtain visions in dreams, and four 
apostles also probably did so after their 
master’s death’’ (p. 339). (The reference is 
to Is. Ixv. 4, ‘which remain among the 
graves and lodge among the monuments”: 
the words δι᾿ ἐνύπνια are added in the Greek 
version.) _ In his letter to the Alexandrians 
he puts with equal force the folly of adoring a 
man, and not adoring the sun and the moon, 
especially the former, the great sun, the 
living, animated, intelligent, and beneficent 
image of the intelligible or spiritual Father 
(Ep. 51, p. 434). It is strange to find this 
slighting disregard for men as objects of wor- 
ship in one who assumed that he was a 
champion of pure Hellenism, especially in an 
emperor who succeeded a long line of deified 
emperors. A great deal of his dislike to what 
he considered the Christian doctrine arose, 
doubtless, from aristocratic pride. He looked 
down upon Christ as a Galilean peasant, a 
subject of Augustus Caesar (Cyr. vi. p. 213). 
“It is hardly three hundred years since He 
began to be talked about. During all His life 
He did nothing worth recording, unless any 
one reckons it among very great acts to have 
cured halt and blind people, and to exorcize 
demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and 
Bethany”’ (vi. p. 191). He looked upon 
Christians as parvenus who had assumed a 
position of power for which they were not 
fitted, and exercised it wantonly in destroying 
temples and prosecuting their own heretics, 
etc. ‘Jesus and Paul never taught you 
this. They never expected that Christians 
would fill so important a place, and were 
satisfied with converting a few maidservants 
and slaves, and by their means to get hold of 
their mistresses, and men like Cornelius and 
Sergius. If under the reigns of Tiberius and 
Claudius they have succeeded in convincing 


JULIANUS SABAS 601 
9erson, you may hold 
me for a liar in every thing "’ (vi. p. 206). 

It is remarkable that Julian shews practic- 
ally no appreciation of the need of redemption 
or of the contrast between Christian and 
heathen life. This we must ascribe in great 
measure to the misfortune of his early train- 
ing, to the Arianism of his teachers, and the 
unloveliness and unlovingness of his early 
surroundings. Some allowance must also 
be made for the corruption and extravagance 
of some forms of popular religion, and for the 
rash and violent acts of fanaticism committed 
by many Christians. The superstitious cultus 
of martyrs, for instance, was no doubt dis- 
avowed by the highest minds of the 4th cent., 
such as St. Athanasius and St. Augustine. 
But in the masses newly converted from 
paganism it formed a natural centre for much 
of the old superstition and fanaticism (Athan. 
Or. cont. Arian. ii. 32; August. de Vera 
Relig. 55; and esp. cont. Faustum, xx. 21). 

But besides all this there was in the family 
of Constantine generally a hardness and self- 
assertion, though accompanied with strong 
religious pressure, which made them inacces- 
sible to Christian feeling on the subject of sin. 
The members of it believed strongly in their 
providential vocation to take a great part in re- 
ligious questions, but were very rarely troubled 
by scruples as to their personal unworthiness. 
Julian’s own character, as we have seen, was 
specially inconsistent, but its ruling element 
was self-confidence, which he disguised to 
himself as a reliance upon divine direction. 
In conclusion, we may draw attention to some 
of Julian’s admissions. He accepts the 
account of the Gospel miracles. He rejects 
the Gnostic interpretation of St. John, which 
separated the Word of God from the Christ. 
He witnesses to the common use of the term 
Geordxos long before the Nestorian troubles. 
His remarks about martyr-worship and the 
adoration of the cross have some importance 
as facts in the history of Christian worship. 

On the Coins of Julian see ἢ. C. B. (4- 
vol. ed.) s.v. We conclude that from policy 
Julian did not make any general issue of coins 
with heathen inscriptions or strongly marked 
heathen symbols which would have shocked 
his Christian subjects. The statements of 
Socrates and Sozomen are in perfect harmony 
with this conclusion. [y.w.] 

Julianus (105) Sabas, Oct. 18, an anchorite, 
whose history Theodoret tells. Sabas or 
Sabbas, says Theodoret, was a title of venera- 
tion, meaning an elder, corresponding with 
“abbas” or father, commonly applied to 
anchorites in the East. His cave was in 
Osrhoéne ; he practised extraordinary ascetic- 
ism and endured extremes of heat and fatigue. 
In 372, on the expulsion of Meletius, bp. of 
Antioch, the triumphant Arian party gave 
out that Julian had embraced their views ; 
whereupon Acacius (subsequently bp. of 
Berrhoea), accompanied by Asterius, went to 
Julian and induced him to visit Antioch, 
where his presence exposed the slander and 
encouraged the Catholics. He returned to 
his cave and there died. Theod. H. E. iii. 
19, iv. 24; Hist. Religios. No. ii.; Menol. 
Grace. Sirlet.; Ceillier, viii. 238 ; Wright, Cat. 
Syr. MSS. ii. 700, ili. 1084, 1090. [ς.5.} 


602 JULIUS 


Julius (5), bp. of Rome after Marcus, 
Feb. 6, 337, to Apr. 12, 352, elected after a 
vacancy of four months. His pontificate is 
specially notable for his defence of Athanasius, 
and for the canons of Sardica enacted during 
it. When Julius became pope, Athanasius 
was in exile at Tréves after his first deposition 
by the council of Tyre, having been banished 
by Constantine the Great in 336. Constan- 
tine, dying on Whitsunday 337, was succeeded 
by his three sons, by whose permission Athan- 
asius returned to his see. But the Eusebians 
continuing their machinations, the restoration 
of Athanasius was declared invalid; and one 
Pistus was set up as bp. of Alexandria in his 
stead. A deputation was now sent to Rome 
to induce Julius to declare against Athanasius 
and acknowledge Pistus; but having failed 
to convince the pope, desired him to convene 
a general council at which he should adjudi- 
cate upon the charges against Athanasius. 
Socrates (H. E. ii. 11) and Sozomen (H. E. 
iii. 7) state that Eusebius wrote to Julius 
requesting him to judge the case. But this is 
not asserted by Julius, and is improbable. 
Julius undertook to hold a council wherever 
Athanasius chose, and seems to have sent a 
synodical letter to the Eusebians apprising 
them of hisintention. The dates of the events 
that followed are not without difficulty. 

Early in 340 Pistus had been given up as 
the rival bishop, and one Gregory, a Cappa- 
docian, violently intruded by Philagrius the 
prefect of Egypt into the see; and the 
Lenten services had been the occasion of 
atrocious treatment of the Catholics of Alex- 
andria. Athanasius, having concealed him- 
self for a time in the neighbourhood and 
prepared an encyclic in which he detailed the 
proceedings, seems to have departed for Rome 
about Easter 340, and to have been welcomed 
there by Julius, who, after his arrival, sent 
two presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenes, with 
a letter to Eusebius and his party fixing Dec. 
340, at Rome, for the proposed synod. The 
Eusebians refused to come, and detained the 
envoys of Julius beyond the time fixed. 
Elpidius and Philoxenes did not return to 
Rome till Jan. 341, bringing then a letter, the 
purport of which is gathered from the reply 
of Julius to be mentioned presently. Julius 
suppressed this letter for some time, hoping 
that the arrival of some Eusebians in Rome 
might spare him the pain of making it public, 
and in this hope he also deferred the assem- 
bling of the council. But noonecame. The 
Eusebians now shewed themselves by no 
means prepared to submit to his adjudication, 
but took advantage of the dedication of a new 
cathedral at Antioch to hold a council of their 
own there, known as the ‘‘ Dedication coun- 
cil’’ (probably in Aug. 341) and attended by 
97 bishops. They prepared canons and three 
creeds, designed to convince the Western 
church of their orthodoxy, confirmed the 
sentence of the council of Tyre against Athan- 
asius, and endeavoured to prevent his restora- 
tion by a canon with retrospective force, 
debarring even from a hearing any bishop or 
priest who should have officiated after a 
canonical deposition. Julius meanwhile had 
made public their letter, and, not yet knowing 
of the proceedings at Antioch, assembled his 


JULIUS 


council in the church of the presbyter Vito at 
Rome, apparently in Nov. 341, Athanasius 
being stated to have been then a year and a 
half in Rome. It was attended by more than 
50 bishops. Old and new accusations were 
considered; the Acts of the council of Tyre, 
and those of the inquiry in the Mareotis about 
the broken chalice, which had been left at 
Rome by the Eusebian envoys two years 
before, were produced ; witnesses were heard 
in disproof of the charges and in proof of 
Eusebian atrocities; and the result was the 
complete acquittal of Athanasius and con- 
firmation of the communion with him, which 
had never been discontinued by the Roman 
church. Marcellus of Ancyra, who had been 
deposed and banished on a charge of heresy 
by a Eusebian council at Constantinople in 
336 and had been 15 months in Rome, was 
declared orthodox on the strength of his 
confession of faith which satisfied the council. 
Other bishops and priests, from Thrace, 
Coelesyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt, 
are said by Julius in his subsequent synodal 
letter to have been present to complain of 
injuries suffered from the Eusebian party. 
Socrates (H. E. ii. 15) and Sozomen (H. E. 
iii. 8) say that all the deposed bishops were 
reinstated by Julius in virtue of the preroga- 
tive of the Roman see, and that he wrote 
vigorous letters in their defence, reprehending 
the Eastern bishops and summoning some of 
the accusers to Rome. But there seems much 
exaggeration here. Paul certainly, the de- 
posed patriarch of Constantinople (whom 
Eusebius had succeeded and who is mentioned 
by Socrates and Sozomen among the successful 
appellants), was not restored till the death of 
his rival in 342, and then only for a time and 
not through the action of Julius; nor did 
Athanasius regain his see till 346. Indeed, 
Sozomen himself acknowledges (111. 10) that 
Julius effected nothing at the time by his 
letters in favour of Athanasius and Paul, and 
consequently referred their cause to the 
emperor Constans. Julius’s real attitude and 
action are best seen in the long letter he 
addressed to the Easterns at the desire of the 
Roman council, which has been preserved 
entire by Athanasius (Apol. contra Arian. 
21-36). He begins by animadverting strongly 
on the tone of the letter brought to him by his 
envoys, which was such, he says, that when 
he had at last reluctantly shewn it to others 
they could hardly believe it genuine. His 
own action had been complained of in the 
letter. He therefore both defends himself and 
recriminates: ‘‘ You object to having your 
own synodal judgment [that of Tyre] ques- 
tioned in a second council. But this is no 
unprecedented proceeding. The council of 
Nice permitted the re-examination of synod- 
ical Acts. If your own judgment were right, 
you should have rejoiced in the opportunity © 
of having it confirmed ; and how can you, of 
all men, complain, when it was at the instance 
of your own emissaries, when worsted by the 
advocates of Athanasius, that the Roman 
council was convened? You certainly cannot 
plead the irreversibility of a synodical de- 
cision, having yourselves reversed even the 
judgment of Nice in admitting Arians to 
communion. If on this ground you complain 


JULIUS 


of my receiving Athanasius, much more may 
I complain of your asking me to acknowledge 
Pistus, a man alleged by the envoys of Athan- 
asius to have been condemned as an Arian at 
Nice and admitted by your own representa- 
tives to have been ordained by one Secundus, 
who had been so condemned. It must have 
been from chagrin at being so utterly refuted 
in his advocacy of Pistus that your emissary 
Macarius fled by night, though in weak health, 
from Rome.” He next refers sarcastically 
to an allegation of his correspondents as to 
the equality of all bishops, made either in 
justification of their having judged a bp. of 
Alexandria or in deprecation of the case being 
referred to Rome. “If, as you write, you 
hold the honour of all bishops to be equal, and 
unaffected by the greatness of their sees, this 
view comes ill from those who have shewn 
themselves so anxious to get translated from 
their own small sees to greater ones.’’ He 
here alludes to Eusebius himself, who had 
passed from Berytus to Nicomedia, and 
thence to Constantinople. Having treated as 
frivolous their plea of the short time allowed 
them to get to the Roman council, he meets 
their further complaint that his letter of 
summons had been addressed only to Eusebius 
and his party, instead of the whole Eastern 
episcopate. “1 naturally wrote to those who 
had written to me.’”” He adds emphatically, 
‘Though I alone wrote, I did so in the name 
of, and as expressing the sentiments of, all 
the Italian bishops.’? He then justifies at 
length his action and that of the Roman 
council. The letters of accusation against 
Athanasius had been from strangers living at a 
distance, and contradicted one another: the 
testimonies in his favour from his own people, 
who knew him well, had been clear and 
consistent. He exposes the false charges 
about the murder of Arsenius and the broken 
chalice, and the unfairness of the Mareotic 
inquiry. He contrasts the conduct of Athan- 
asius, who had come of his own accord to 
Rome to court investigation, with the un- 
willingness of his accusers to appear against 
him. He dwells on the uncanonical intrusion 
of Gregory the Cappadocian by military force 
into the Alexandrian see, and on the atrocities 
committed to enforce acceptance of him. “It 
is you,”’ he adds, “‘who have set at nought 
the canons, and disturbed the church’s peace ; 
not we, as you allege, who have entertained a 
just appeal, and acquitted the innocent.” 
After briefly justifying the acquittal of Mar- 
cellus from the charge of heresy, he calls upon 
those to whom he writes to repudiate the base 
conspiracy of a few and so remedy the wrong 
done. He points out what would have been 
the proper course of procedure in case of any 
just cause of suspicion against the bishops. 
This part of his letter is important, as shewing 
his own view of his position in relation to the 
church at large. ‘“‘If,’’ he says, ‘‘ they were 
guilty, as you say they were, they ought to 
have been judged canonically, not after your 
method. All of us [t.e. the whole episcopate] 
ought to have been written to, that so justice 
might be done by all. For they were bishops 
who suffered these things, and bishops of no 
ordinary sees, but of such as were founded by 
apostles personally. Why, then, were you 


JULIUS 603 


unwilling to write to us [i.e to the Roman 
church] especially about the Alexandrian see ? 
Can you be ignorant that this is the custom ; 
that we should be written to in the first place, 
so that hence [#.e. from this church] what is 
just may be defined? Wherefore, if a sus- 
picion against the bishop had arisen there 
[t.e. in Alexandria], it ought to have been 
referred hither to our church. But now, 
having never informed us of the case, they 
wish us to accept their condemnation, in 
which we had no part. Not so do the ordin- 
ances of St. Paul direct; not so do the Fathers 
teach: this is pride, and a new ambition. I 
beseech you, hear me gladly. I write this for 
the public good: for what we have received 
from the blessed Peter I signify to you." 
This language will hardly bear the inferences 
of Socrates ii. 8, 17) and of Sozomen (iii. 10), 
that, according to church law, enactments 
made without the consent of the bp. of Rome 
were held invalid. It certainly implies no 
claim to exclusive jurisdiction over all 
churches. All that Julius insists on is that 
charges against the bishops of great sees ought, 
according to apostolic tradition and canonical 
rule, to be referred to the whole episcopate ; 
and that, in the case of a bp. of Alexandria at 
least, custom gave the initiative of proceedings 
to the bp. of Rome. In this reference to 
custom he probably has in view the case of 
Dionysius of Alexandria, the charges against 
whom had been laid before Dionysius of Rome. 
The allegation in the earlier part of his letter 
of the fathers of Nice having sanctioned the 
reconsideration of the decisions of synods is 
more difficult to account for. He may be 
alluding to the action of the Nicene council * 
in entertaining the case of Arius after he had 
been synodically condemned at Alexandria. 
The action of pope Julius appears open to no 
exception, for if the synod consisted of 
Westerns only, that was because the Easterns 
refused to attend it, though Julius had 
convened it at the suggestion of their own 
emissaries ; and, after all, the Roman synod 
only confirmed the continuance of communion 
with Eastern prelates whom it deemed un- 
justly condemned. It had no power to do 
more. Still, the action of Julius may have 
served as a step towards subsequent papal 
claims of a more advanced kind; and it prob- 
ably suggested the canons of Sardica, pregnant 
with results, which will be noticed presently. 
Athanasius remained still in Rome, till, in 
his fourth year of residence there—probably 
in the summer of 343—he received a summons 
from Constans, now sole emperor of the West, 
to meet him at Milan (Athan. Apol. ad Imp. 
Constantium, 4), about the holding of a new 
council, at which both East and West should 
be fully represented. With the concurrence 
of the Eastern emperor Constantius, this 
council was summoned at the Moesian town 
of Sardica on the confines of their empires, 
probably towards the end of 343. The 
scheme of united action failed, the Eastern 
bishops holding a separate synod at Philip- 
popolis. The rest met at Sardica under the 
* This indeed was one of the purposes which the 
emperor had at heart in convening it, Just as the 
synod of Arles had also met by his orders to recon- 
sider the acquittal of St. Caccilian, decreed in the 
previous synod of Rome under Melchiades.—2.5.¥P. 


004 JULIUS 


venerable Hosius of Cordova. In some 
editions of the Acts of the council he is desig- 
nated one of the legates of the Roman see. 
But this designation seems due only to the 
desire, which appears in other cases, of assign- 
ing the presidency of all councils to the pope. 
According to Athanasius (Apol. contra 
Arian. 50), Julius was represented by two 
presbyters, Archidamus and Philoxenes, whose 
names appear in the signatures to the synodal 
letter of the council after that of Hosius. 
Hosius undoubtedly presided, and there is no 
sign of his having done so as the pope’s deputy 
either in the Acts of the council or in the 
letter sent to Julius at its close. Nor can the 
initiative of the council be assigned to Julius, 
for this is inconsistent with the statement of 
Athanasius, who calls God to witness that 
when summoned to Milan he was entirely 
ignorant of the purpose of the summons, but 
found that it was because “ certain bishops ”’ 
there had been moving Constans to induce 
Constantius to allow a general council to be 
assembled (Apol. ad Imp. Constantium, 4). 
If Julius had been the mover, it is unlikely 
that Athanasius, who was with him at Rome, 
would have been ignorant of the purpose of 
his summons or would have spoken only of 
“certain bishops.’’ The council was con- 
vened by the emperors on their own authority, 
to review the whole past proceedings, whether 
at Tyre, Antioch, or Rome, without asking the 
pope’s leave or inviting him to take the lead. 
It confirmed and promulgated anew all the 
decisions of the Roman council, decreed the 
restoration of the banished orthodox prelates, 
and excommunicated the Eusebian intruders. 
It also passed 21 canons of discipline, 3 
being of special historic importance. The 
extant Acts of the council give them thus. 
Canon III. (al. III., IV.) ‘‘ Bp. Osius said: 
This also is necessary to be added, that 
bishops pass not from their own province to 
another in which there are bishops, unless 
perhaps on the invitation of their brethren 
there, that we may not seem to close the gate 
of charity. And, if in any province a bishop 
have a controversy against a brother bishop, 
let neither of the two call upon a bishop from 
another province to take cognizance of it. 
But, should any one of the bishops have been 
condemned in any case, and think that he 
has good cause for a reconsideration of it, let 
us (if it please you) honour the memory of the 
blessed Apostle St. Peter, so that Julius, the 
Roman bishop, be written to by those who 
have examined the case; and, if he should 
judge that the trial ought to be renewed, let 
It be renewed, and let him appoint judges. 
But, if he should decide that the case is such 
that what has been done ought not to be 
reconsidered, what he thus decides shall be 
confirmed. St hoc omnibus placet? The 
synod replied, Placet.’’ Canon IV. (al. V.) 
“Bp. Gaudentius said: Let it, if it please you, 
be added to this decree that when any bishop 
has been deposed by the judgment of bishops 
who dwell in neighbouring places, and he has 
proclaimed his intention of taking his case to 
Rome, no other bishop shall by any means be 
ordained to his see till the cause has been 
determined in the judgment of the Roman 
bishop.” Canon V. (al. VII.) ‘‘ Bp. Osius 


JULIUS 


said: It has seemed good to us (placuit) that 
if any bishop has been accused, and the 
assembled bishops of his own region have 
deposed him, and if he has appealed to the 
bishop of the Roman church, and if the latter 
is willing to hear him, and considers it just 
that the inquiry should be renewed, let him 
deign to write to the bishops of a neighbouring 
province, that they may diligently inquire 
into everything, and give their sentence 
according to the truth. But if the appellant 
in his supplication should have moved the 
Roman bishop to send a presbyter [al. pres- 
byters] ‘de suo latere,’ it shall be in his [1.6. 
the Roman bishop’s] power to do whatever he 
thinks right. And if he should decide to send 
persons having his own authority to sit in 
judgment with the bishops, it shall be at his 
option to do so. But if he should think the 
bishops sufficient for terminating the business, 
he shall do what approves itself to his most 
wise judgment.’’* In these canons we notice, 
firstly, they were designed to provide what 
recent events had shewn the need of, and what 
the existing church system did not adequately 
furnish —a recognized court of appeal in 
ecclesiastical causes. The canons of Nice had 
provided none beyond the provincial synod, 
for beyond that the only strictly canonical 
appeal was to a general council, which could 
be but arare event and was dependent on 
the will of princes. The need was felt of a 
teadier remedy. Secondly, this remedy was 
provided by giving the Roman bishop the 
power to cause the judgment of provincial 
synods to be reconsidered ; but only on the 
appeal of the aggrieved party, and only in 
certain prescribed ways. He might refuse to 
interfere, thus confirming the decision of the 
provincial synod; or he might constitute the 
bishops of a neighbouring province as a court 
of appeal; he might further, if requested and 
if he thought it necessary, send one or more 
presbyters as his legates to watch the pro- 
ceedings, or appoint representatives of himself 
to sit as assessors in the court. But he was 
not empowered to interfere unless appealed 
to, or to summon the case to Rome to be 
heard before himself in synod; still less, of 
course, to adjudicate alone. Thirdly, it is 
evident that this course was sanctioned for the 
first time at Sardica. The canons, on the face 
of them, were not a confirmation of a tradi- 
tional prerogative of Rome. The words of 
Hosius were, ‘‘ Let us, if it please you, honour 
the memory of the blessed Apostle St. Peter,” 
t.e. by conceding this power to the Roman 
bishop. Fourthly, the power in question was 
definitely given only to the then reigning 
pope, Julius, who is mentioned by name; and 
it has hence been supposed that it was not 
meant to be given his successors (cf. Richer. 
Hist. Conctl. General. t. i. ο. 3, ὃ 4). 
arrangement was probably at any rate in- 
tended to be permanent, since the need for it 
and the grounds assigned for it were per- 
manent. Fufthly, since it was the causes of 


* The editions of these canons, extant in Greek and 
Latin translations, vary in their wording and ar- 
rangement of them, but all agree in the drift as given 
above. Doubts have been entertained of their 
authenticity, but they are generally accepted. See 
Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. 2nd period, div. 1, c. iii. note 7. 


But the — 


JULIUS 


Eastern bishops that led to the enactment, 
the canons were probably meant to apply to 
the whole church, and not to the Western only. 
The Greek canonists, Balsamon and Zonaras, 
maintain their narrower scope ; and it is true 
that, the council having consisted of Westerns 
only, they were never accepted by the churches 
of the East. But though the council of 
Sardica was not in fact oecumenical, the 
emperors had intended it to be so, and the 
Roman canonists call it so in virtue of the 
general summons. They, however, regard it 
as an appendage to that of Nice; and prob- 
ably its canons were from the first added at 
Rome to those of Nice as supplementary to 
them, since in the well-known case of Apiarius, 
the African presbyter (A.D. 417), pope Zosimus 
quoted them as Nicene; and pope Innocent 
(A.D. 402) seems previously to have done the 
same in defending his appellate jurisdiction 
over Gaul. In the African case the error was 
eventually exposed by reference to the copies 
of the Nicene canons preserved at Constan- 
tinople and Alexandria, and the Africans 
thereupon distinctly repudiated the claims of 
Rome which rested upon this false foundation. 
But Boniface and Celestine, the successors of 
Zosimus, refer to these canons as Nicene, as 
did Leo I. in 449; and this continued to be 
the Roman position. The persistence of the 
popes in quoting them as Nicene after the 
mistake had been discovered is an early 
instance of Roman unfairness in support of 
papal claims. It is further a significant fact 
that in some Roman copies the name of 
Sylvester was substituted for that of Julius, 
as if with an intention of throwing their date 
back to the Nicene period. The scope also of 
the canons came in time to be unduly extend- 
ed, being made to involve the power of the 
pope to summon at his will all cases to be 
heard before himself at Rome. Our proper 
conclusion seems to be that, though probably 
intended by their framers to bind the whole 
church, their authority was not really ade- 
quate to the purpose; and that the popes 
afterwards appealed to them unfairly in sup- 
port of their claims by misrepresenting both 
their authority and their scope. 

At the close of its sittings the council of 
Sardica addressed letters to the two emperors, 
to Julius, to the church of Alexandria, to the 
bishops of Egypt and Libya, and an encyclic 
*‘to all bishops.’”’ In that to Julius the 
reason he alleged for not attending—viz. the 
necessity of remaining in Rome to guard 
against the schemes of heretics—is allowed as 
sufficient ; and he is presumed to have been 
present in spirit. The documents sent him 
and the oral report of his emissaries would 
inform him of what had been done, but it was 
thought fit to send him also a brief summary : 
The most religious emperors had permitted the 
council to discuss anew all past proceedings, 
and hence the following questions had been 
considered : 
faith; (2) The condemnation or acquittal of 
those whom the Eusebians had deposed; (3) 
The charges against the Eusebians themselves 


of having unjustly condemned and persecuted | 


the orthodox. For full information as to the 
council’s decisions he is referred to the letters 
written to the emperors; and he is directed, 


(1) The definition of the true | 


JULIUS 605 


rather than requested (‘‘ tua autem excellens 
prudentia disponere debet, ut per tua seripta,”’ 
etc.), to inform the bishops of Italy, Sardinia, 
and Sicily of what had been done, that they 
might know with whom to hold communion. 
A list is appended of those excommunicated 
by the synod. The whole drift of the letter 
is inconsistent with the council having been 
convened by the pope himself, or held in his 
name, or considered dependent on him for 
ratification of its decrees. He is not even 
charged with the promulgation of them, 
except to bishops immediately under his 
jurisdiction. The only expression pointin 
to his pre-eminent position is that it woul 
appear to be best and exceedingly fitting 
(‘optimum et valde congruentissimum"’) that 
“the head, that is the see of St. Peter," 
should be informed respecting every single 
province. Nor is there in the letter to the 
Alexandrians, or in the encyclic to all bishops, 
any reference to him as having initiated or 
taken part in the council; only in the latter a 
passing allusion to the previous council which 
he (‘‘comminister noster dilectissimus’’) had 
convened at Rome. The letter to Julius is 
signed, first by Hosius, and then by 58 other 
bishops, being probably those present at the 
close of the council. But as many as 284 are 
given by Athanasius (Apol. contra Arian. 
49, 50) as having assented to its decrees and 
signed its encyclic letter. They include, from 
various parts of the West with a few from the 
East 78, from Gaul and Britain 34, from Africa 
36, from Egypt 94, from Italy 15, from 
Cyprus 12, from Palestine 15. 

Not till Oct. 346, some three years after the 
council, was Athanasius allowed to return to 
his see. Before that he again visited Rome, 
and was again cordially received by Julius, 
who wrote a letter of congratulation to the 
clergy and laity of Alexandria, remarkable for 
its warmth of feeling and beauty of expression. 
He regards the return at last of their beloved 
bishop after such prolonged affliction as a 
reward granted to their unwavering affection 
for him, shewn by their continual prayers and 
their letters of sympathy that had consoled 
his exile, as well as to his own faithfulness. 
He dwells on the holy character of Athanasius, 
his resoluteness in defence of the faith, his 
endurance of persecution, his contempt of 
death and danger. He congratulates them 
on receiving him back all the more glorious 
for his long trials and fully proved innocence. 
He pictures vividly his welcome home by 
rejoicing crowds at Alexandria. The letter 
is the more admirable for the absence of all 
bitterness towards the persecutors. 

The only further notice of Julius is of his 
having received the recantation of Valens and 
Ursacius, two notable opponents of Athan- 
asius who had been condemned at Sardica. 
They had already recanted before a synod at 
Milan, and written a pacific letter to Athan- 
asius; but went also of their own accord, 
A.D. 347, to Rome, and presented a humble 
apologetic letter to Julius, and were admitted 
to communion (Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Mon- 
achos, 26; Hilar. Fragm.i.). Their profession 
however (in which they owned the falsity 
of their charges against Athanasius and 
renounced Arian heresy), proved insincere. 


606 JULIUS 


For when, after the defeat of Constans in 350 
and the defeat of Maxentius in 351, the tide 
of imperial favour began to turn, they recanted 
their recantation, which they said had been 
made only under fear of Constans. But 
Julius, who died Apr. 12, 352, was spared the 
troublous times which ensued. The fresh 
charges now got up, and sent to him and the 
emperor, arrived at Rome too late for him to 
entertain them. [LIBERIUS.] 

His only extant writings are the two letters, 
to the Eusebians andthe Alexandrians, referred 
to above. Ten decreta are ascribed to him in 
the collections of Gratian and Ivo. One is 
interesting for its allusion to certain usages in 
the celebration of the Eucharist—viz. using 
milk, or the expressed juice of grapes, instead 
of wine; administering the bread dipped in 
the wine, after the manner of the Greeks at the 
present day; and using a linen cloth soaked 
in must, reserved through the year and 
moistened with water, for each celebration. 
All these are condemned, except the use of 
the unfermented juice of the grape, in which 
(it is said) is the efficacy of wine, in case 
of need, if mixed with water, which is declared 
always necessary to represent the people, as 
the wine represents the blood of Christ. 

Julius was buried, according to the Liberian 
and Felician Catalogues, ‘tin coemeterio 
Calepodii ad Callistum’’ on the Aurelian 
Way, where he had built a basilica. [j.s—y.] 

Julius (9) (Julianus), bp. of Puteoli (Gesta 
de Nom. Acacti, in Labbe, iv. 1079 D), probably 
the bp. Julius to whom, a.p. 448, Leo the 
Great entrusted the execution of certain dis- 
ciplinary measures in the church of Beneven- 
tum (Leo Mag. Ep. xix. 736). Certainly he, 
with Renatus the presbyter and H1Larus the 
deacon, carried to Flavian of Constantinople 
the famous “‘tome’’ of St. Leo in June 449, 
and acted as his legate in the ‘‘ Robber ’”’ 
council of Ephesus (Leo Mag. Ep. xxxiii. 866, 
Migne). The legates are described by Leo as 
sent de latere meo (Ep. xxxii. 859, xxxiv. 
870. He was not the first pope to use this 
phrase; see the Ballerini im loc. Migne). 
Because Julius appears in the ‘‘ acta”’ of the 
council most frequently as Julianus he has 
been confused with Julian of Cos. That it 
was our Julius who was the papal legate at 
Ephesus is proved by Leo’s letter to the latter 
(xxxiv. 870) and by the fact that the legate 
did not know Greek, which Julian of Cos 
certainly did (see JULIANUS (27); Labbe, iv. 
121B; Tillem. xv. note 21, pp. 901-902). 
Evagrius (H. E. i. x.), Prosper (Chron), and 
Gesta de Nom. Acac. (in Labbe, iv. 1079 p), call 
the papal legate Julius, not Julianus (see also 
Marianus Scotus, Chron. ann. 450 in Patr. Lat. 
exlviil. 726). On Quesnel’s hypothesis, that 
Julius and not Renatus died on the road to 
Ephesus, and that Julian took his place, cf. 
Tillemont, /.c., and Hefele, Concil. ii. 368, 369. 
On their arrival at Ephesus the legates lodged 
with Flavian; on the ground that they had 
lived with him and been tampered with by 
him (συνεκροτήθησαν, Lat. munerati), Euty- 
ches took exception to their impartiality as 
judges (Labbe, iv. 149 B). 

The assertion of Liberatus (Breviarium, c. 
xii.) that the Roman legates could not take 
part in the council (‘‘ assidere non passi sunt”’ 


JUNILIUS 


are his words) because the precedence was not 
given to them as representing Rome, and 
because Leo’s letter was not read, is not in 
harmony with the acta of the council (see 
Tillem. xv. notes 26 and 27, p. 904). They 
undoubtedly did take part in the proceedings 
of the council, and Julius ranked after Dios- 
corus. His interpreter, as he could not speak 
Greek, was Florentius, bp. of Sardis (Labbe, 
iv. 122 B). We read that he made several 
efforts to resist Droscorus, especially urging 
that Leo’s letter should be read, but he does 
not seem to have been so prominent in 
opposition as Hilarus the deacon (Ὁ. 128 B, 
149 B, 302 D). Leo, however, expresses high 
commendation of the conduct of his legates 
generally. They protested in the council, he 
says, and declared that no violence should 
sever them from the truth (Ep. 45, 922). He 
speaks to Theodosius, the emperor, of intelli- 
gence having been brought him of the acts of 
the synod by the bishop whom he had sent, 
as well as by the deacon (Ep. xliii. 902); but 
this in other letters (xliv. 911, xlv. 919) is 
corrected by the statement that only Hilarus 
escaped to Rome. What happened to Julius 
we do not know, nor do we hear of him sub- 
sequently (Ughelli, Italia Sacra, vi. 272). 
Ughelli and Cappelletti (xix. 647, 669) name 
him Julianus and make him 6th bp. of Puteoli 
between Theodore and Stephen. [c.G.] 
Junilius (lovvi\0s, Junillus), an African 
by birth, hence commonly known as Junilius 
Africanus. He filled for seven years in the 
court of Justinian the important office of 
quaestor of the sacred palace, succeeding the 
celebrated Tribonian (Procop. Anecd. c. 20). 
Procopius tells us that Constantine, whom the 
Acts of the 5th general council shew to have 
held the office in 553, succeeded on the death 
of Junilius, which may therefore be placed a 
year or two earlier. Junilius, though a lay- 
man, took great interest in theological studies. 
A deputation of African bishops visiting 
Constantinople, one of them, Primasius of 
Adrumetum, inquired of his distinguished 
countryman, Junilius, who among the Greeks 
was distinguished as a theologian, to which 
Junilius replied that he knew one Paul [PauL 
oF ΝΙΒΙΒΙ5), a Persian by race, who had been 
educated in the school of the Syrians at 
Nisibis, where theology was taught by public 
masters in the same systematic manner as the 
secular studies of grammar and rhetoric else- 
where. Junilius had an introduction to the 
Scriptures by this Paul, which, on the soli- 
citation of Primasius, he translated into Latin, 
breaking it up into question and answer. 
Kihn identifies this work of Paul with that 
which Ebedjesu (Asseman. Bibl. Or. III. i. 87 ; 
Badger, Nestorians, 11. 369) calls Maschelmonu- 
tho desurtho. The work of Junilius was called 
“TInstituta regularia divinae legis,’’ but is 


commonly known as ‘‘ De partibus divinae~ 


legis,’ a title which really belongs only to 
chap. i. It has been often printed in libraries 
of the Fathers (e.g. Galland, vol. xii.; Migne, 
vol. Ixviii.). The best ed., for which 13 MSS. 
were collated, is by Prof. Kihn of Wiirzburg 
(Theodor von Mopsuestia, Freiburg, 1880), a 
work admirable for its thorough investigations, 
and throwing much light on Junilius. 

The introduction does not, as has been 


τι. 
μὴ 
"Α΄ 
) 


JUNILIUS 


often assumed, represent an African school of 
theology, but the Syrian; and Kihn conclu- 
sively shews that (although possibly Junilius 
was not aware of it himself) it is all founded 
on the teaching of THEODORE of Mopsuestia. 
Junilius divides the books of Scripture into 
two classes. The first, which alone he calls 
Canonical Scripture, are of perfect authority ; 
the second added by many are of secondary 
(mediae) authority ; all other books are of no 
authority. The first class consists of (1) Hts- 
torical Books : Pentateuch, Josh., Judg., Ruth, 
Sam., and Kings., and in N.T. the four Gospels 
and Acts; (2) Prophetical (in which what is 
evidently intended for a chronological arrange- 
ment is substituted for that more usual): 
ΒΕ δ ΞΡ; Am. \Ob.; Jon;,  Mic., 
-Nah., Hab., Zeph., Jer., Ezk., Dan., Hag., 
Zech., and Mal. (he says that John’s Apoca- 
lypse is much doubted of amongst the 
Easterns) ; (3) Proverbial or parabolic: the 
Prov. of Solomon and the Book of Jesus the 
Son of Sirach; (4) Doctrinal: Eccles., the 14 
epp. of St. Paul in the order now usual, 
including Heb., I. Pet., and I. Jn. In his 
second class he counts (1) Historical: Chron., 
Job, Esdras (no doubt including Neh.), 
Judith, Est., and Macc.; (3) Proverbial: 
Wisdom and Cant.; (4) Doctrinal: the Epp. 
ofjas, I. Pet; Jude, Il. Ill. Jn. Lam. 
and Bar. were included in Jer. Tobit is not 
mentioned, but is quoted in a later part of the 
treatise. Kihn is no doubt right in regarding 
its omission as due to the accidental error of 
an early transcriber ; for no writer of the time 
would have designedly refused to include 
Tobit even in his list of deuterocanonical 
books. Junilius gives as a reason for not 
reckoning the books of the second class as 
canonical that the Hebrews make this differ- 
ence, as Jerome and others testify. This is 
clearly incorrect with regard to several of 
them, and one is tempted to think (pace Kihn) 
that Junilius himself added this reference to 
Jerome and did not find it in his Greek 
original. The low place assigned to Job and 
Cant. accords with the estimate formed by 
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Junilius quotes as 
Peter’s a passage from his second epistle, 
which he had not admitted into his list of 
canonical books. He describes Ps., Eccles., 
and Job as written in metre (see Bickell, 
Metrices Biblicae Regulae). The work of 
Junilius presents a great number of other 
points of interest, e.g. his answer, li. 29, to 
the question how we prove the books of Scrip- 
ture to have been written by divine inspiration. 
The publication of the work Kihn assigns to 
551, in which year the Chronicle of Victor 
Tununensis records the presence at Constanti- 
nople of the African bishops Reparatus, 
Firmus, Primasius, and Verecundus. He 
thinks that Junilius probably met Paul of 
Nisibis there as early as 543. We do not 
venture to oppose the judgment of one 
entitled to speak with so high authority ; 
but we should have thought that the intro- 
duction into the West of this product of the 
Nestorian school of theology took place at an 
earlier period of the controversy about the 
Three Chapters than 551. It is not unlikely 
that Primasius paid earlier visits to Constan- 
tinople than that of which we have evidence. 


JUSTINIANUS I. 607 


A commentary on Gen. i. wrongly ascribed 
to Junilius is now generally attributed to 
Bede. {G.s.] 

5 Justina (5), empress, second wife of Valen- 
tinian I., a Sicilian by birth, and, teste Zosimus 
(iv. 19 and 43), the widow of Magnentius, 
killed in 353. Valentinian may have divorced 
his first wife (Chron. Pasch. 302), and then 
espoused Justina, probably in 368. 

_ She was an Arian, but during her husband's 
lifetime concealed her opinions (Ruf. H. EF. 
li. 15, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxi. 523). She, 
however, endeavoured to prevent him from 
allowing St. Martin of Tours to enter his 
presence (Sulp. Sev. Dial. ii. in tb. xx. 205). 
After her husband’s death she at once used 
her influence as mother of the infant em- 
peror Valentinian 11. to advance the inter- 
ests of her sect, and soon came into collision 
with St. Ambrose. Their first contest was 
probably c. 380, when St. Ambrose was sum- 
moned to Sirmium to take part in the conseecra- 
tion of Anemius as bishop of that see, the 
empress being desirous that the new bishop 
should be consecrated by the Arians (Paulinus, 
Vita S. Ambrosi, in ib. xiv. 30). 

After the murder of Gratian and the seizure 
by Maximus of Spain, Gaul, and Britain in 
383, Justina (who, with her infant son, was 
residing in the imperial palace at Milan) had 
recourse to her former opponent St. Ambrose. 
She placed her son in his hands, and induced 
him to undertake the delicate task of going 
as ambassador to Maximus, to persuade him 
to be contented with Gratian’s provinces and 
to leave Valentinian in undisturbed possession 
of Italy, Africa, and Western Illyricum (St. 
Ambrose, Epp. 20, 21, 24; Id. de Obitu 
Valentiniant, 1182 in Patr. Lat. xvi. 1001, 
1007, 1035, 1368). His mission was success- 
ful, at any rate for a time; but the ungrateful 
Justina assailed him at Easter 385 with the 
object of obtaining a church at Milan for the 
use of her fellow-Arians. For an account of 
this memorable struggle see AMBRosIus. By 
a constitution (Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, 4), dated 
Jan. 21, 386, and drawn up at her direction 
(Soz. H. E. vii. 13), those who held the 
opinions sanctioned by the council of Arimi- 
num were granted the right of meeting for 
public worship, Catholics being forbidden 
under pain of death to offer opposition or to 
endeavour to get the law repealed. 

When danger again threatened, Justina 
again had recourse to Ambrose’s services. 
After Easter 387 he was sent to Trier to ask 
that the body of Gratian should be restored 
to his brother and to avert Maximus’s threat- 
ened invasion of Italy (Ep. 24). His mission 
was unsuccessful; Maximus crossed the Alps 
in the autumn and made himself master of 
Italy without striking a blow. Valentinian 
and his mother and sisters fled by sea to 
Thessalonica, whence she sent to Theodosius 
imploring his help. Zosimus (iv. 44) narrates 
how she overcame his reluctance by the 
charms of her daughter, the beautiful Galla, 
whose hand paid for his assistance. (See Duc 
de Broglie, L’Eglise et emp. iii. 228.) In 388, 
the year of her son’s restoration, Justina died 
(Soz. H. E. vii. 14; Ruf. H. E. ii. 17). [Ψ.Ὁ.] 

Justinianus (6) I., Roman emperor (275-565). 

I. Life and Character.—Justinian was born 


608 JUSTINIANUS I. 


most probably in 483 at Tauresium, on the 
borders of Illyricum and Macedonia, a spot 
probably a little S. of Uskiub, the ancient 
Scupi (see Procop. A edif. iv. 1,and Tozer, High- 
lands of European Turkey, ii. p. 370). After his 
accession he built at his birthplace a city which 
he named Justiniana Prima and made the 
capital of the province and seat of an arch- 
bishop. [The tale regarding his Slavonic 
origin started by Alemanni in his notes to the 
Anecdota of Procopius seems to be baseless ; 
see art. in Eng. Hist. Rev. Oct. 1887, by the 
present writer.] Early in life he came to 
Constantinople, and attached himself to his 
uncle Justin, who, serving in the imperial 
guards under the emperors Zeno and Anas- 
tasius, had risen to high place. At Constan- 
tinople Justinian diligently studied law, theo- 
logy, and general literature, and the influence 
of his uncle doubtless procured him employ- 
ment in the civil service of the state. When 
Justinian was 35, the emperor Anastasius was 
succeeded by Justin, an illiterate soldier, 
weakened by age, to whom the help of his more 
active nephew was almost indispensable. 
Ecclesiastical affairs and the general adminis- 
tration of the state fell under the control of 
Justinian. He became co-emperor in 527, 
and on Justin’s death, a month later, assumed 
without question the sole sovereignty of the 
Roman world, retaining it till his death in 565, 
at the age of 82, when he was peaceably suc- 
ceeded by his nephew Justin II. 

In 526 he married Theodora, a woman of 
singular beauty, and still more remarkable 
charms of manner and intellect, said to have 
been a native of Cyprus and acomedian. The 
gossip of the time, starting from this un- 
doubted fact, has accumulated in the A necdota, 
or unpublished memoirs, ascribed to, and no 
doubt written by (although there has been a 
controversy on the point), Procopius, a variety 
of scandalous tales regarding her earlier career. 
{THEODoRA.] She soon acquired an almost 
unbounded dominion over Justinian’s mind, 
and was commonly regarded as the source of 
many of his schemes and enterprises. She died 
in 548, and he did not marry again. 

Most of what we know directly about 
Justinian comes from Procopius, which does 
not diminish the difficulty of forming a com- 
prehensive and consistent view of his abilities 
and character. For Procopius wrote of him 
with servility in his lifetime, and reviled him 
in the Anecdota, a singular book which did not 
come to light till long afterwards. Setting 
aside exaggerations in both directions, it may 
be concluded that Justinian was a man of 
considerable, if not first-rate, abilities. He 
was well educated, according to the ideas and 
customs of the time, and more or less conver- 
sant with many branches of knowledge. 
Procopius accuses him of being a barbarian 
both in mind and speech, which probably 
means only that he spoke Greek like an IlIly- 
rian provincial (Amecd. c. 14). His artistic 
taste is shewn by the many beautiful buildings 
which he erected, two among which—those of 
St. Sophia at Constantinople and St. Vitalis 
at Ravenna (though it does not appear that he 
had any share in designing this latter)—have 
had the unique distinction of becoming archi- 
tectural models for subsequent ages, the one 


JUSTINIANUS I. 


for the East and the other for the West. 
Several hymns still used in the orthodox 
Eastern church are ascribed to his pen, and 
he is the author of a treatise against the 
Monophysites, which Cardinal Mai has pub- 
lished. The records of his government and 
administration shew that he possessed great 
ingenuity and enterprise; but the enterprise 
was often prompted more by vanity and lust 
of power than by regard to the welfare of his 
people, and his ingenuity was not guided by 
prudence or by a solid knowledge of the 
economical conditions of prosperity. There 
was much more cleverness than wisdom about 
him; we see in his policy few indications of 
deep and statesmanlike foresight. The chief 
feature of his character is his extraordinary 
industry. He seemed to live for work, and 
toiled harder than any of his own clerks. He 
was naturally abstemious and regular in life, 
observing the church fasts very strictly, able 
to go long without food, taking little sleep, 
and spending most of his time, when not 
actually giving audiences, in pacing up and 
down the rooms of the palace listening to 
readers or dictating to an amanuensis. He 
cared little for vulgar pleasures (though he 
shewed an excessive partiality for the blue 
faction, he does not appear to have been 
personally addicted to the games of the circus), 
and yielded to no influences except those of 
his wife Theodora. We are told that he was 
easy of access—a rare merit in the despotic 
centre of a highly formal court—pleasant and 
reassuring in manner, but also deceitful and 
capable of treachery and ingratitude. How 
far this ingratitude was in the most notable 
case, that of Belisarius, excused by apprehen- 
sions of danger, is a problem not wholly solved 
or soluble. Wantonly cruel he does not seem 
to have been, and on several occasions shewed 
an unexpected clemency, but he shrank from 
no severities that his intellect judged useful. 

In person he was well formed, rather above 
the middle height, with a ruddy and smiling 
countenance. Besides his effigy on coins, we 
have two probably contemporary portraits 
among the mosaics of Ravenna—one in the 
apse of the church of San Vitale, built in his 
reign, in which he appears among a number of 
other figures; the other now preserved in the 
noble church of Sant’ Apollinare in Urbe. 

II. The political events of his reign may be 
read in Procopius, Agathias, Theophanes (all 
three in the Bonn ed. of the Byzantine histo- 
rians), in the ecclesiastical history of Evagrius, 
in Gibbon (see cc. xl.-xliii. for a full and 
brilliant picture of Justinian’s times), and in 
Le Beau (Histoire du bas empire, vols. Viil. 
and ix., with St. Martin’s notes). Finlay 
(Greece under the Romans, vol. i. of new ed.) 
has some valuable remarks, as also Hertzberg, 
Griechenland unter der Romer, vol. iii.; see 
also Dahn, Prokopios von Caesarea. At 
Justinian’s accession the empire was generally 
at peace. An expedition was dispatched in 
533, under Belisarius, which landed in Africa 
without opposition and reduced the whole 
Vandal kingdom to submission in little more 
than three months. The Vandals who sur- 
vived seem to have been rapidly absorbed into 
the African population ; anyhow, we hear no 
more ofthem. The fleet of Belisarius received 


JUSTINIANUS I. 


in rapid succession the submission of Sardinia, 
Corsica, and the Balearic Isles. Orthodoxy 
was re-established there and in Africa. 
Justinian directed the laws against heretics 
to be put in force against the Arians and 
Donatists in Africa, and their meetings to be 
altogether forbidden (Baron. ad ann. 535). 
The orthodox bishops met in a council, at 
which 207 prelates were present (Baron. ad 
ann. 535). The orthodox churches of Africa 
were restored to the full enjoyment of their 
rights, property, and privileges. But the 
African church and province never regained 
its former prosperity. The misgovernment of 
the imperial iieutenants completed the ruin 
which the Vandals had begun, and the wild 
Moorish tribes encroached in all directions on 
the Roman population. Great part of the 
country, once the most productive part of 
the Roman dominions, relapsed into solitude 
and neglect ; the Christians there were still 
divided by the mutual jealousies of Donatists, 
Arians, and orthodox. 

The success of his enterprise against the 
Vandals encouraged Justinian to attempt the 
recovery of Italy from the Ostrogoths, who 
had heldit and Sicily since the invasion under 
Theodoric in 493-494. The emperors at 
Constantinople considered themselves, ever 
since the extinction of the Western branch of 
the empire in 476, de jure sovereigns of Italy 
and the whole West, regarding the Gothic 
kings partly as their lieutenants, partly as 
mere usurpers. Justinian dispatched Beli- 
sarius from Constantinople with a fleet and 
over 7,000 men in the autumn of 535. He 
reduced Sicily easily in a few weeks. Then 
he attacked Italy, occupying Rome in Dec. 
536. The Ostrogoths had shortly before 
risen against their king Theodahad, and 
chosen Witigis, whom Belisarius took at 
Ravenna and carried to Constantinople, 
leaving the imperial power supreme in Italy. 
Totila, whom the Goths chose in the room of 
Witigis, recovered fortress after fortress from 
the incompetent generals who _ succeeded 
Belisarius, till he was master of most part of 
Italy; and at length restored the Gothic 
kingdom to a better position than it had held 
since the death of Theodoric. But in 552 his 
army was defeated, and himself slain by 
Narses, and with him died the last hopes of 
the Gothic kingdom of Italy. After Narses 
had destroyed Butelin and his host in a great 
battle near Casilinum in Campania, 544, the 
small remains of the Gothic nation either 
passed into Spain and Gaul to mingle with 
other barbarians or were lost among the 
Roman population of Italy, which now was 
finally in Justinian’s hands. It was, however, 
a desolated and depopulated Italy. Nor was 
it long left to his successors. 

The third great struggle of Justinian’s reign 
was against the Persian empire, then under 
Kobad and Chosroes Anushirvan in the zenith 
of its power. After several campaigns Chos- 
roes concluded in 533, on obtaining from the 
emperor 11,000 pounds of gold, a peace which 
gave rest to the eastern provinces. In 539 
war broke out again, and also a revolt against 
Justinian in Armenia, a part of whose people 
appealed to the Persians for help. Chosroes 
commanded a vast force, which the Roman 


JUSTINIANUS 1. 


generals were quite unable to resist in the open 
held. In 540 Antioch, far the greatest town 
of the eastern part of the empire, was sacked 
and many thousand inhabitants carried to a 
new city, built for them near Ctesiphon, his 
own capital. Towards the end of Justinian’s 
reign the fighting slackened; a peace for 50 
years was concluded in 562 on terms humili- 
ating to Justinian, who undertook to pay 
yearly 30,000 gold pieces. This peace lasted 
only ro years; but the war which began in 
572 lies outside Justinian’s reign. 

Less famous, but perhaps even more ruinous 
were the contests which Justinian had to 
maintain against the barbarians of Seythia 
and the Danube. From the Alps to the Black 
Sea, the N. border of the empire was the scene 
of seldom intermitted warfare. The various 
tribes whom the Roman historian calls Huns 
and who included the race subsequently dis- 
tinguished as Bulgarians, poured from the S. 
of what is now Russia down upon Thrace, 
ravaged it and Macedonia, penetrated on one 
occasion to the isthmus of Corinth, and six 
years before Justinian’s death, in 559, ap- 
peared in great force under the walls of Con- 
stantinople, from which they were repulsed 
by the skill and vigour of Belisarius. In the 
N.W. provinces villages were destroyed, 
cultivated land laid waste, and immense 
numbers of the inhabitants carried into 
slavery. The only serious efforts the emperor 
made against these enemies (besides the 
building of fortresses) were by diplomacy. 
His policy was to foment hostilities between 
neighbouring tribes, taking sometimes one, 
sometimes another, into alliance with the 
empire, and offering large presents, often so 
regular as to amount to a kind of blackmail, 
to buy them off for the moment or induce 
them to turn their arms against some other 
barbarian power. His activity as a negotiator 
was unwearied. Embassies from all parts of 
the barbarian world arrived at Constanti- 
nople, excited the wonder of the people by 
their strange garb and manners, and returned 
home laden with gifts and promises. Even 
the tribes of the Baltic and the Turks of Cen- 
tral Asia seem to have thus come into relations 
with him. His policy was much blamed in 
his own time (see esp. Procop. Anecd.), and 
may appear shortsighted as supplying fresh 
inducements to the barbarians to renew their 
attacks and letting them know the wealth of 
the capital; but perhaps no other policy was 
possible, and the incidental advantages of 
Roman influence and culture upon the border 
tribes may have been considerable. 

III. We possess no systematic account of 
the internal state of the empire in Justinian's 
time, and depend only upon occasional 
notices by historians like Procopius and 
Agathias, and a study of Justinian's legislative 
measures. The civil service was, and had 
long been, in a high state of efficiency. Such 
alterations as Justinian made tended to perfect 
this organization and to render all its members 
more completely subservient to the crown. 
He spent enormous sums not only on his wars 
but in the erection of churches, fortresses, and 
public buildings of every kind (a list will be 
found in the de Aedificits of Procopius), and 
was therefore always in want of money. Op- 


39 


609 


610 JUSTINIANUS I. 


pressive as taxation had been before, he seems 
to have made it even more stringent; and 
when the land-tax and other ordinary sources 
of revenue failed, he was driven to such ex- 
pedients as the sale of public offices, and even 
to the prostitution of justice and the confisca- 
tion of the property of private persons. 
Though the instances of this rest chiefly on 
the untrustworthy authority of the Anecdota 
of Procopius (who ascribes the worst to the 
immediate action of the empress), stories in 
other historians give some support to the 
accusation. On one occasion he attempted 
to debase the coin, but was checked by a 
threatened insurrection in the capital. The 
same charges of venality and extortion are 
brought against Tribonian, John of Cappa- 
docia, and others of Justinian’s ministers. 
The administration of justice must have been 
greatly improved by the promulgation of the 
whole binding law in the Codex, Pandects, and 
Institutes ; and great importance was evident- 
ly attached to the maintenance of the law 
schools of Berytus and Constantinople; cor- 
ruption may, however, have largely prevailed 
among the judges. Brilliant as Justinian’s 
reign may appear to us, the sufferings endured 
by the people from war, taxation, the per- 
secution of heretics, the blows struck at the 
privileges of various classes and professions, 
as well as from the great plague and from 
destructive earthquakes, made his rule un- 
popular, as shewn by the rebellions in Africa 
and the disaffection of the reconquered 
Italians. In Constantinople, not to speak of 
minor seditions, there occurred a tremendous 
insurrection in Jan. 532, arising out of a 
tumult in the hippodrome, and apparently 
due, partly to resentment at the maladminis- 
tration of John of Cappadocia, partly to the 
presence in the city of a large number of 
starving immigrants. The revolters held the 
city for some days, set fire to some of 
the finest buildings, drove Justinian into his 
palace fortress, and proclaimed Hypatius, 
nephew of the deceased emperor Anastasius, 
emperor. Having no concerted plan of action, 
part of them were induced to abandon the 
rest, who were then surprised and slaughtered 
by the imperial guards under the command of 
Belisarius. It is said that 30,000 people 
perished in this rising, which is known as the 
Nika sedition, from the watchword used by 
the rebels. (See an interesting account by 
W. A. Schmidt, Der Aufstand in Constantinopel 
unter Kaiser Justinian.) 

He made efforts to open up new channels 
for the traffic in silk, and ultimately suc- 
ceeded, through the boldness of two Persian 
monks, who conveyed the eggs of the worm 
in a hollow cane from China to the empire. 
The manufacture of silk was thus no longer 
at the mercy of the Persians, who had stopped 
the supply in time of war, and the culture of 
the silk-worm became an important branch 
of industry in the Roman East. 

As a whole, the faults of Justinian’s domes- 
tic government appear greatly to outweigh its 
merits. His subjects had grown tired of him 
long before his death; but later ages looked 
back to his reign as a period of conquest 
abroad and magnificence at home, and accept- 
ed the surname of the Great. 


JUSTINIANUS I. 


IV. Ecclesiastical policy occupied no small 
share of Justinian’s thoughts and care. 

During the lifetime of Justin I., he sought 
to re-establish the communion of the churches 
of Constantinople and Rome, which had been 
interrupted owing to the Monophysite contro- 
versies. On his accession in 527 he professed 
himself a zealous supporter of the Two Natures 
and the decrees of Chalcedon, and the firmness 
of his throne was no doubt partly due to this 
coincidence of his theological views with those 
of the bulk of his subjects in Constantinople, 
Thrace, and Asia Minor. He had great con- 
fidence in his own powers as a theologian, 
and took an active part in all the current con- 
troversies. A diligent student and having 
some literary pretensions, he read and wrote 
much on theological topics. His ecclesiastical 
policy apparently had two main objects, not, 
however, consistently pursued—the mainten- 
ance of the orthodox doctrine of the Four Coun- 
cils, and especially of Chalcedon, and the re- 
conciliation of the Monophysites, or at least 
the inducing by apparent concessions the more 
moderate Monophysites to accept the decrees 
of Chalcedon. There was in his court an 
active, though probably concealed, Monophy- 
site party, headed by, and sheltering itself 
under, the empress Theodora. One of the 
emperor’s first acts was to summon a confer- 
ence of leading theologians on both sides, so 
as to bring about a reconciliation. After 
several sittings, however, in one of which 
Justinian delivered a long allocution, vital 
points were reached on which neither side 
could yield, and the conference was dissolved. 
Among the Monophysite leaders were Severus, 
deposed from the patriarchate of Antioch in 
the time of Justin, and Anthimus, bp. of 
Trebizond. They seem to have acquired 
much influence in Theodora’s coterie, and, 
probably owing to her, Anthimus was raised 
in 535 to the patriarchate of Constantinople, 
in spite of the doctrinal suspicions attaching 
to him. Pope Agapetus, having heard of 
these suspicions, and disapproving, as Rome 
was wont to do, of translations from one 
bishopric to another, refused to communicate 
with the patriarch till he should have purged 
himself from the charge of heresy, and insisted 
that, when purged, Anthimus should return 
to Trebizond. Justinian (perhaps owing to 
the support which Theodora seems to have 
given Anthimus) was at first displeased and 
resisted, but Agapetus prevailed. Anthimus 
was deposed, and Mennas, head of the hospi- 
tium of Samson in Constantinople, appointed 
in his place and consecrated by Agapetus, 
who soon afterwards died. By the directions 
of Justinian, Mennas called a local synod, 
which met during May and June 536 (Mansi, 
viii.; cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ii. pp. 742- 
753), and deposed Anthimus from his see of 
Trebizond. The synod anathematized Sever- 
us, Peter of Apamea, and Zoaras as suspected 
of Monophysitism. In Aug. 536 Justinian 
issued an edict addressed to Mennas confirm- 
ing all that the synod had done. 

After this there appears to have been a 
comparative calm in the ecclesiastical world 
of Constantinople, till the emperor’s attention 
was called to the growth of Origenistic 
opinions in the East, and especially in Syria. 


» 


JUSTINIANUS IL. 


About the beginning of the 6th cent. there 
had been in the monasteries of Palestine, and 
particularly in that great one called the New 
Laura, a considerable diffusion of Origen’s 
opinions, which excited the alarm of St. Sabas 
and of the patriarch Peter of Jerusalem. The 
latter in 543 induced Pelagius, apocrisiarius 
of the Roman bishop, to make representations 
to the emperor on the subject, and sent with 
him four monks to accuse the followers of 
Origen. The four monks were supported by 
Mennas the patriarch. Two Origenist bishops, 


Theodore Ascidas, archbp. of Caesarea in Cap- | 


padocia, and Domitian, bp. of Ancyra, resided 
usually at Constantinople and had much in- 
fluence with the emperor. Nevertheless they 
seem to have] feared the charge of heresy 
too much to resist the monks from Palestine, 
and perhaps did not own their attachment 
to Origen’s writings. Anyhow, the emperor 
promptly condemned the accused opinions, 
issuing a long edict addressed to the patriarch 
Mennas, in which he classes Origen among the 
heretics, and singles out for anathema ten 
particular doctrines contained in his writings. 
A local council, convoked by Mennas, dutifully 
echoed the emperor’s edict, publishing its 
anathemas against 14 propositions drawn 
from Origen, and condemning his person. 
Theodore and Domitian had submitted, but 
their mortification drove them to take action 
in another way, and thus to awaken a long, 
needless, and most mischievous controversy. 
Justinian was at work upon a treatise on the 
Incarnation, whereby he trusted to convince 
and conciliate the stubborn Acephali (or ex- 
tremer Monophysites) of Egypt. Theodore, 
according to our authorities, suggested to him 
that a simpler way of winning back those who 
disliked the council of Chalcedon would be to 
get certain writings condemned which that 
council had approved, but which the Mono- 
physites disliked as being of a distinctly Nes- 
torian tendency. (See Liberatus ap. Galland. 
Bibl. Patr. xii. 160, as to Theodore, and Facun- 
dus, bk. i. c. 2, as to Domitian of Ancyra; cf. 
Evagr. H. E. iv. 38; Vita S. Sabae.) They 
singled out 3 treatises for condemnation, 
which soon became famous as the τρία 
κεφάλαια (tria capitula), which we usually 
translate Three Chapters, but would be better 
called the Three Articles, viz. the writings of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, the treatise of Theo- 
doret against Cyril and his twelve articles, and 
the letter of (or attributed to) Ibas, bp. of 
Edessa, to the Persian bp. Maris. Later, the 
term τρία κεφάλαια came to mean both the 
persons and writings impugned. This latter 
is the usual sense in the authors of the time 
(e.g. Facundus of Hermiane, whose treatise 
is entitled Defensio pro Tribus Capitulis) and 
in the protocols of the fifth general council. 
The Nestorians still appealed to Theodore as 
their highest authority, and triumphantly 
pointed to the fact that he had never been 
condemned. Against Theodoret and [bas the 
case was weaker. Both had joined in ana- 
thematizing Nestorius at Chalcedon, and been 
restored to their sees. 
Cyril, who, though claimed by the Mono- 
physites, was also a bulwark of orthodoxy, 
and the ep. to Maris was a violent assault on 
the councilof Ephesus. It might therefore be 


But both had attacked | 


JUSTINIANUS I, 611 


with some show of plausibility alleged that 
the authority of that council was not estab- 
lished while these assailants seemed to be 
protected by the aegis of Chalcedon. 
Seconded by Theodora (says Liberatus, 
u.s.), Theodore Ascidas and Domitian per- 
suaded Justinian to compose and issue a 
treatise or edict against δε Three Articles. 
Desisting from his book against the Acephali, 
he forthwith composed the suggested edict, 
which was issued between 543 and 545, prob- 
ably in 545. It has perished, only three or 
four short extracts being preserved by Fa- 
cundus. It was circulated aan the church 
for the signatures of the bishops. The four 
Eastern patriarchs were naturally afraid of 
reopening any question as to the authority 
of Chalcedon. Mennas, after some hesitation, 
signed, but subject to a promise given him on 
oath, that he might withdraw his signature if 
the bp. of Rome refused to agree. he other 
three, Ephraim of Antioch, Peter of Jerusa- 
lem, Zoilus of Alexandria, under real or 
imagined threats of deposition, obeyed and 
signed, and after more or less intimidation and 
the offer of various rewards, the great ma- 
jority of bishops through Syria, Asia Minor, 
Greece, and Macedonia signed also. In the 
West, the bishops having less to lose and being 
accustomed to face Arian potentates, Jus- 
tinian found a less ready compliance. The 
bishops of Africa led the opposition, and were 
largely supported by those of Italy, Gaul, 
Illyricum, and Dalmatia. In Rome much 
alarm was produced by the arrival of the edict, 
and by the emperor’s command to Vigilius, 
lately chosen pope, to repair to Constantinople. 
Theodora enforced by terrible threats his 
appearance. Vigilius, not venturing openly 
to oppose the emperor, and fearing the anger 
of Theodora, had also to reckon with the all 
but universal loyalty to the council] of Chalce- 
don of the Roman church and of the Western 
churches generally, and so temporized. He 
arrived in Constantinople in 547, having 
delayed nearly a year in Sicily. In 548 he 
issued a document called the Judtcatum, con- 
demning the Three Articles, saving, however, 
the authority of Chalcedon. In 548 Theo- 
dora died, but Justinian was now thoroughly 
committed against the Three Articles. He 
continued to coerce the recalcitrant bishops 
of Africa, depriving some of their sees, and, 
after various negotiations with Vigilius, issued 
in 551 asecond edict against the Three Articles 
addressed to the whole Christian world, which 
has been preserved under the name of the Con- 
fession of Faith, ὁμολογία πίστεως ᾿Ἰ ουστινιανοῦ 
αὐτοκράτορος (Mansi, ix. 537). This edict 
is really a theological treatise, taking the 
writings of the three impugned doctors and 
discovering heresies in them by minute scru- 
tiny and inference. Vigilius was required to 
subscribe it, but refused, and took refuge in 
the basilica of St. Peter at Constantinople, 
and afterwards in the church of St. Euphemia 
at Chalcedon. Here he remained, until the 
emperor, anxious for his concurrence in sum- 
moning a general council as the only solution 
for the dissensions, induced him to withdraw 
his censure of the edict. He then returned 
to Constantinople to await the opening of the 
council. The first sitting was on May 5, 553. 


612 . JUSTINIANUS I. 


Eutychius, who, upon the death of Mennas in 
Aug. 552, had become patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, presided. By him sat Apollinaris of 
Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch. Eus- 
tochius of Jerusalem was represented by 3 
bishops. Altogether 151 bishops were present 
at the opening, while 164 signed at the end, 
the very large majority belonging to the East. 
Six from Africa attended, but more than 20 
were kept away by Vigilius, who himself 
refused to attend, but sent his views in writ- 
ing in a document called the Cunstitutum 
(Mansi, ix. 61), presented, not to the council, 
but to Justinian himself, who refused to 
receiveit. Justinian addressed a letter to the 
fathers, reproaching Vigilius, and requiring 
his name to be struck out of the diptychs, as 
having by his defence of Theodoret and Ibas 
excluded himself from the right to church- 
fellowship. He also produced evidence that 
the pope had solemnly promised, both to him- 
self and Theodora, to procure the condemna- 
tion of the Three Articles. Thereupon the 
council, troubling no further about the pope, 
proceeded to examine the writings impugned. 
(Hefele, w.s. 267-274. For the Acta see 
Mansi, vol. ix. and under CONSTANTINOPLE, 
D. C. A.) Theodore of Mopsuestia was ana- 
thematized absolutely, and anathema was 
pronounced against Theodoret’s treatise in 
opposition to Cyril’s Twelve Articles and 
against the letter to Maris, which passed under 
the name of Ibas. A series of 14 articles, or 
anathemas, was prepared, most of them corre- 
sponding closely with the articles of J ustinian’s 
ὁμολογία πίστεως, in which the orthodox faith 
as to the Trinity and Incarnation was restated. 
The first four general councils and their 
decrees were formally accepted, and art. 11 
anathematizes Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, 
Apollinarius, Origen, Nestorius, Eutyches, 
and their adherents. It has been often sup- 
posed that the opinions of Origen and his 
followers were formally condemned at this 
council. (See Evagr. iv. 38; Theoph. 
Chronogr. p. 354 of Bonn ed. vol. i.) But this 
has arisen from confounding the former local 
council under Mennas in 543 with this general 
council. Origen is only referred to in its 
general anathema, and thus no particular 
doctrines of his have ever been condemned by 
the whole church. The 14 articles were sub- 
scribed at the last sitting, on June 2, 553, by 
all the 164 bishops, headed by Eutychius of 
Constantinople. Eight African bishops signed. 
Justinian sent the decrees all over the empire 
for signature by the bishops. Little opposition 
was experienced in the East. The monks of 
the New Laura, who attacked the decrees, 
were chased out by the imperial general Anas- 
tasius. The council had threatened with de- 
position any bishops or other clerics who 
should teach or speak against it. We hear, 
however, of only one bishop, Alexander of 
Abydus, wh) was deposed. Vigilius and the 
Western ecclesiastics who had signed the 
Constitutum appear to have held out for some 
time, but in Dec. 553 Vigilius issued a letter 
(Mansi, ix. 414), addressed to the patriarch 
Eutychius, in which he owns that he was in 
the wrong and is now glad to confess it. He 
then anathematizes Theodore, Theodoret, 
and the letter of Ibas, without prejudice to 


JUSTINIANUS I. 


the authority of the council of Chalcedon, 
which of course never meant to approve these 
heresies. Being then released by Justinian, 
Vigilantius set off for Rome, but died in Syra- 
cuse upon his way. A serious schism fol- 
lowed in the West. The bishops of Dalmatia 
and Illyricum were hottest in their opposition 
to the anathemas of the fifth council, and 
their archbp. Frontinus was taken to Con- 
stantinople and thence banished to Upper 
Egypt. A manifesto by Justinian, addressed 
to some Western bishops (7b. 589), has been 
supposed to be an answer to remonstrances 
from these Illyrians. The resistance in Africa 
was broken by similar violent means, a good 
many bishops being deposed and imprisoned 
in convents, under the auspices of the metro- 
politan Primasius of Carthage, and by the 
secular arm of the governor. In Gaul and 
Spain there was great discontent, though nota 
complete breach with Rome ; while in N. Italy 
the bishops of Tuscany, the province of Milan, 
and Istria and Venetia, broke off communion 
with the pope. The patriarchate of Aquileia, 
afterwards removed to Grado, and finally 
divided into the two small patriarchates of 
Grado and Aquileia, arose out of this schism, 
which did not end till the beginning of the 8th 
cent. Ultimately the whole Western church 
was brought by the efforts of the popes to re- 
cognize the fifth general council. The effect, 
however, which Justinian had been encouraged 
to expect was not attained. Not a single 
Monophysite seems to have returned to the 
orthodox church. The Egyptian Acephali in 
particular were as stubborn as ever. 

Justinian in his last days himself lapsed 
into heresy. The doctrine that the body of 
Christ was insensible to fleshly passions and 
weaknesses, was in fact incorruptible, and so 
not ordinary flesh at all, had been broached 
early in the century by bp. JuLtan of Hali- 
carnassus, a leading Monophysite, in opposi- 
tion to the view of Severus, patriarch of 
Antioch, that Christ’s body was corruptible 
up to the resurrection, and only afterwards 
ceased to beso. Justinian published an edict 
declaring the doctrine of Julian orthodox and 
requiring the assent of all patriarchs and 
bishops to this new article. Eutychius of 
Constantinople was deposed for rejecting the 
edict. Before more could be done, Justinian 
died (A.D. 565) and the controversy at once 
collapsed, for his successor took comparatively 
slight interest in theological questions. 

The general character of Justinian’s eccle- 
siastical policy has been sufficiently indicated. 
In spite of his protestations of respect for the 
clergy, the important place they held at his 
court, and the privileges which his legislation 
gave them, he never hesitated to resort to 
despotism and banishment to bend them to 
his will. No previous Roman emperor had 


been so much interested in theological dis- ~ 


putes, nor arrogated to himself so great a 
right of interference even with the popes. 
His control of the fifth council was much more 
direct and considerable than his predecessors 
exercised at Ephesus and Chalcedon. 
Justinian was through his life a resolute, 
though not always consistent, persecutor. 
Nestorians and Eutychians were punished 
with deposition from ecclesiastical office, ex- 


JUSTINIANUS I. 


communication, and occasionally with banish- 
ment. Manicheans, Gnostics, and Montanists 
were more severely dealt with, deprived of 
all civil rights and forbidden to meet for 
worship. These penalties were often enforced 
with much cruelty and sometimes produced 
sanguinary contests. The Montanists of 
Phrygia, being required to undergo baptism, 
shut themselves up in their churches, killed 
their wives and children, and set fire to the 
buildings. Similar rigours were inflicted on 
Jews and Samaritans, though the Jews, as 
a serviceable element in the population, 
seem to have in practice fared somewhat 
better than the others. It is not very easy 
to determine precisely how far the laws 
directed against heathenism were carried out. 
They punish apostasy with death, require all 
persons to undergo baptism, deprive pagans 
of all civil rights and privileges, and forbid 
any public pagan worship. In spite of this, a 
great number of pagans continued to exist 
even among the cultivated and wealthy classes 
of the capital. An inquisition at Constanti- 
nople in the 3rd year of Justinian’s reign 
(Theoph. Chron. p. 153) shewed a large number 
of pagans in the higher official classes. An 
ordinance was then issued, forbidding all civil 
employment to persons not orthodox Chris- 
tians and three months were allowed for con- 
version. Not long before, Justinian had taken 
away all the churches of the heretics, except 
one of the Arians, and given them to the 
orthodox (tb. 150). Energetic inquiries through 
W. Asia Minor are said to have led to the 
enforced baptism of 70,000 persons. Among 
the mountain tribes of Taygetus paganism 
survived till the days of Basil I. (867-886). 
Only at Athens, however, did persons of 
intellectual and social eminence continue to 
openly avow themselves heathens. The pro- 
fessors of its university, or at least the most 
distinguished among them, were not Chris- 
tians. Although speculative moralists and 
mystics, making philosophy their rule of life, 
rather than worshippers of the old deities of 
Olympus, their influence was decidedly anti- 
Christian. In 528, on the discovery of crypto- 
paganism in his capital, Justinian issued 
several stringent constitutions, one of which, 
forbidding “‘ persons persisting in the madness 
of Hellenism to teach any branch of know- 
ledge,’”’ struck directly at the Athenian pro- 
fessors. In 529 he sent a copy of the Codex 
Constituttonum, containing this ordinance, 
to Athens, with a prohibition to teach law 
there, and shortly after the teaching of philo- 
sophy was similarly forbidden, and the re- 
maining property of the Platonic Academy was 
seized for public purposes. This finally extin- 
guished the university. Its head, Damascius, a 
neo-Platonist of Syrian birth,and byconviction 
a resolute heathen, and six of his colleagues 
proceeded (in 532) to the court of Chosroes, 
king of Persia, at Ctesiphon, but soon returned 
to the Roman empire, in which Chosroes 
secured for them, by a treaty he negotiated 
with Justinian, the freedom to live unbaptized 
and unmolested. They did not, however, 
settle again in Athens, which rapidly became 
a Christian city even in externals, its temples 


JUSTINIANUS 1. 613 
Roman world of open and cultivated paganism 
as well as of the Platonic philosophy. 

V. Justinian’s legislation falls under two 
principal heads—his work as a codifier and 
consolidator of pre-existing law ; and his own 
new laws, some of which were incorporated in 
the Codex Constitutionum, while others, pub- 
lished subsequently, remain as detached 
statutes, and go by the name of the Novels 
(Novellae Constituttones). The vast changes 
involved in the establishment of Christianity 
had rendered much of the old law, though still 
formally unrepealed, practically obsolete. 
There was therefore overwhelming necessity 
for sweeping reforms both in the substance 
and in the outward form and expression of the 
law. Such reforms had been attempted in 
the time of THEoposius II., when the Theo- 
dosian Codex, containing a collection of the 
later constitutions, had been prepared and 
published a.p. 438. This, however, dealt only 
with the imperial constitutions, not with the 
writings of the jurists ; and now, nearly a cen- 
tury later, the old evils were found as serious 
as ever, while the further changes in society 
had made the necessity for abolishing anti- 
quated enactments even greater. 

Justinian set to work so promptly after his 
accession that he had probably meditated 
already upon the measures which were called 
for and fixed his eyeson the men to be used as 
instruments. He began with the easier part 
of the task, the codification of jus novum, the 
imperial constitutions of more recent date. A 
commission was appointed in Feb. 528 to go 
through the whole mass of constitutions and 
select for preservation those still in force and 
of practical importance. In Apr. 529 the 
Codex Constitutionum was formally promul- 
gated, and copies sent into every province of 
the empire, with directions that it should 
supersede all other constitutions previously 
in force. (See Const. Summa Reipublicae 
prefixed to the Codex.) 

The next step was to deal with the jus vetus, 
the law contained in the writings of the 
authorized jurists, which practically included 
so much of the old leges, senatus consulta, and 
edicta as retained any practical importance. 
But there were many differences of opinion 
among the jurists whose writings had legal 
authority. Justinian accordingly issued a 
series of 50 constitutions, known as the 
Quinquaginta Decisiones, settling the dis- 
puted points (see Const. Cordt Nobis pre- 
fixed to the Codex). At the same time ἃ 
large number of other ordinances were pro- 
mulgated, amending the laws and abolishing 
obsolete provisions. The ground being thus 
cleared, he appointed a commission of 16 
lawyers, under the presidency of Tribonian. 
Their instructions were chiefly: to collect 
into one body all best worth preserving in the 
writings of the authorized jurists, making 
extracts so as to avoid both repetition and 
contradiction, and give one statement of the 
law upon each of the many points where dis- 
crepant views had formerly prevailed. Re- 
dundancies were to be cut off, errors in manu- 
scripts or in expression set right, alterations 
introduced where necessary, no antinomta 


being turned into churches. So one may (contradiction) allowed to remain, nothing 
ascribe to Justinian the extinction in the repealed which had been already enacted in 


614 JUSTINIANUS I. 

the Codex. Obsolete rules of law were to be 
passed over. The work was to be distributed 
into 50 books. The constitution containing 
these directions is dated Dec. 530. The com- 
missioners promptly set to work, reading no 
less than 2,000 treatises for the purpose of 
making extracts. The work, to which the 
names of Digesta or Pandectae (Πανδέκται--- 
all receivers) are indifferently given by Justin- 
ian, was completed in the autumn of 533 and 
published with two prefatory constitutions on 
Dec. 16. Each book is divided into titles, 
each title into extracts. The total number 
of titles is 432, and of extracts from 39 jurists 
9,723. The whole book is published as an 
imperial constitution, deriving its force from 
the imperial sanction, which abrogated all 
pre-existing law, except that contained in the 
Codex and subsequently published constitu- 
tions. No judge nor advocate might travel 
out of the four corners of these two new 
statutes, the Codex and the Digesta. 

_While the Digest was in progress, Justinian 
directed three of the chief commissioners— 
Tribonian, Theophilus professor of law in the 
university of Constantinople, and Dorotheus 
professor of law at Berytus (Beyrut in Syria, 
the other great law-school of the empire)—to 
prepare an elementary manual for educational 
purposes, based on the existing treatises, and 
especially on the deservedly popular Institutes 
of Gaius, but brought up to the state of the 
law as changed by recent emperors and by 
Justinian himself. This treatise, dealing in 
four books with the law of Persons, of Things, 
and of Actions, was published shortly before 
the Digest, not only as a text-book for teach- 
ing, but also as a law, a constitution with full 
imperial authority. It is the treatise now 
known as Justinian’s Jmstitutiones. 

On Nov. 16, 534, a revised Codex, including 
constitutions published since 529, and omitting 
laws that had been in the interval repealed or 
become unnecessary, was issued with an in- 


troductory constitution (now prefixed to it) | 


called Cordi nobis, abrogating the former 
edition altogether. The Codex we now have 
is this new one. It is divided into 12 books 
and 765 titles, containing 4,652 constitutions, 
the earliest dating from Hadrian, while far 
the larger part of the constitutions in the 
Codex were more recent, and perhaps half of 
them the work of the Christian emperors. 

Between 534 and the end of Justinian’s 
reign a large number of new laws appeared, 
the majority during the lifetime of Tribonian 
(d. 545). These are called Novellae Constitu- 
tiones post Codicem (veapai διατάξεις), or 
shortly Novellae (veapai), Novels. They 
mostly have the form of edicts or general laws 
rather than of the earlier vescripta. They do 
not appear to have ever been gathered into 
one Officially sanctioned volume (although 
this had originally been promised, see Const. 
Cordi nobis), but several private collections 
were made, from which our present text is 
derived. (See as to the Novels Biener, Gesch. 
der Novellen Justinians, and generally as to the 
history and edd. of the Corpus Juris, Rudorff, 
Romische Rechtsgeschichte, Leipz. 1857.) 

The Corpus Juris Civilis, consisting of the 
four parts already mentioned—the Codex, the 
Digesta, the Institutiones, and the Novellae— 


JUSTINIANUS I. 


became under Justinian the sole law of the 
Roman empire, was accepted in the early 
Middle Ages as the law of Germany, S. France, 
and Italy, and has exerted a great influence 
on the jurisprudence even of countries which, 
like England, repudiate (except in special 
departments) its authority. As we now 
understand by codification the reduction of 
the whole law into one scientific system of 
rules, new in form and expression though 
mostly old in substance, the work of Justinian 
would be better described as a Consolidation 
than a Codification. On the whole, it may be 
said that he exercised a wise discretion in 
attempting no more, and many as are the 
faults in the arrangement of his Codex and 
Digest and in the occasional disproportion of 
treatment, the work was done decidedly better 
than other literary and scientific productions 
of Justinian’s age would have led us to expect. 

The Corpus Juris held its ground as the 
supreme law book of the empire for little more 
than three centuries. Much of the earlier 


\law had then become obsolete, and something 


shorter, less elaborate, more adapted to the 
needs and lower capacities of the time was re- 
quired. Accordingly the emperors, Basil the 
Macedonian, Constantine, and Leo the philo- 
sopher, directed the preparation of a new law 
book, which, revised and finally issued under 
Leo c. 890, received the name of the Basilica, 
or Imperial Code. It contains, in 60 books, 
a complete system of law for the Eastern 
empire, retaining a great deal of the substance 
of the Corpus Juris, but in a wholly altered 
form; the extracts from the Codex of con- 
stitutions, and those from the Pandects and 
Novels being all thrown into one new Codex, 
and intermingled with later matter. It is in 
Greek ; is much less bulky than the Corpus 
Juris, and has come down to us imperfect. 
The best ed. is Haimbach’s (Leipz. 1833- 
1851), with supplement by Zacharia (Leipz. 
1846). The Codex is cited in Herzog. vol. ix. 
(1901), according to the ed. of P. Kriiger 
(Berlin, 1877); the Novellae according to the 
ed. of C. E. Zacharias a Lingenthal (2 vols. 
Leipz. 1881). 

The new legislation of Justinian is contained 
partly in the Codex and partly in the Novels. 
The legal changes made by the constitutions 
of the first seven years of his reign, which 
have been incorporated in the Codex, are often 
merely solutions of problems, or settlements 
of disputes which had perplexed or divided 
the earlier jurists. These were promulgated 
in the Quinquaginta Decistones already men- 
tioned. A considerable number more relate 
to administrative subjects ; while the rest are 
miscellaneous, running over the whole field of 
law. For his ecclesiastical constitutions see 
articles in D. C. A., to which this subject more 
properly belongs. A few remarks may, how- 
ever, be profitably made here on the emperor’s 
ecclesiastical laws as contained firstly in the 
Codex Constitutionum, where they are abbre- 
viated ; and, secondly, in the Novels, where 
they appear at full and often wearisome 
length. The earlier ones are in the Codex, 
the Novels extend from 534 to 565. 

In Justinian’s Codex the first 13 titles of 
bk. i. are occupied by laws relating to Christian 
theology and doctrine. Title I., styled “‘ De 


JUSTINIANUS 1. 


Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica et ut nemo 
de ea publice contendere audeat,’’ contains 
(besides extracts from laws of earlier emperors) 
four laws by Justinian, beginning with the 
fifth, some of which have been taken into 
the Codex from the Collectio Constitutionum 
Ecclesiasticarum, laying down the true ortho- 
dox faith as defined by the first four general 
councils, and anathematizing ‘‘ Nestorius the 
man-worshipper, Eutyches the insane, Apol- 
linaris the soul destroyer,’’ and all who agree 
with these heretics. One of these constitu- 
tions is an edict addressed by Justinian to 
pope John (as well as to Epiphanius, patriarch 
of Constantinople), with the reply of the pope 
confirming the edict as a declaration of the 
faith. Title II., ‘‘De Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis 
et de rebus et privilegiis earum,’’ contains 
eight laws by Justinian dealing chiefly with 
legacies to churches or other charitable uses, 
and with the management of church property. 
Title III. is, ‘‘De Episcopis et clericis et 
orphanotrophiis et xenodochiis et brepho- 
trophiis et ptochotrophiis et asceteriis et 
monachis et privilegiis eorum et castrensi 
peculio et de redimendis captivis et de nuptiis 
clericorum vetitis seu permissis.’’ Sixteen 
laws in it (less than one-third in number, but 
more than half in bulk) are by Justinian, and 
treat of a great many topics, including the 
election and qualifications of bishops and 
priests, the choice of heads (ἡγούμενοι, ac) of 
monasteries and nunneries, the observance of 
a pure and strict life in monasteries, the man- 
agement of church property by the bishop and 
steward, with various provisions relating to 
charitable foundations, to the residence of the 
clergy at their churches, the regular mainten- 
ance of divine service there, and to wills of 
property for church purposes. Title IV., 
““De Episcopali Audientia et de diversis 
capitulis quae ad jus curamque et reverentiam 
pontificalem pertinent,’’ is almost equally 
miscellaneous in its contents. Fourteen con- 
stitutions in it are by Justinian. The fifth, 
“De Haereticis et Manichaeis et Samaritis,”’ 
contains a selection of persecuting or disabling 
laws from the time of Constantine down to and 
including Justinian‘s own. The penalties 
threatened, and the general severity of tone, 
steadily increase as time goes on, and the 
number of different kinds of heretics included 
in the denunciations is enlarged. In one 
case (c. 21) a distinction is drawn by the 
emperor between various degrees of heresy 
and infidelity. ‘‘ Manichaeis Borboritis et 
paganis, necnon Samaritis et Montanistis et 
Ascodrogitis et Ophitis omne testimonium 
sicut et alias legitimas conversationes sanci- 
mus esse interdictum. Aliis vero haereticis 
tantum modo judicialia testimonia contra 
orthodoxos, secundum quod constitutum est, 
volumus esse inhibita.” Title VI., ‘‘ Ne 
sanctum baptisma iteretur’’; VII., ‘ De 
Apostatis’’; VIII., ‘‘ Nemini licere signum 
Salvatoris, Christi humi vel in silice vel in 
marmore aut insculpere aut pingere’’; IX., 
“De Judaeis et coelicolis’’; and X., “ΝΕ 
Christianum mancipium haereticus vel pagan- 
us vel Judaeus habeat vel possideat vel cir- 
cumcidat,” are comparatively short and 
contain only laws of earlier emperors. In ΧΙ,, 
“De Paganis Sacrificiis et Templis,” is an 


JUSTINIANUS 1. 615 


interesting collection of various enactments 
against paganism from the famous edict of 
Constantius (A.D. 353) onwards, concluding 
with a general command to all heathens to be 
baptized forthwith, on pain of losing all their 
property and all civic rights; while death is 
the penalty for any one who, having been 
baptized, relapses into heathenism. All 
sacrifices, or other acts of pagan worship, are 
strictly forbidden and severely punishable ; 
all gifts of property to any heathen temple or 
purpose are confiscated, the temples being 
all destroyed or appropriated to other uses, 
and the teaching of paganism, and indeed any 
teaching by any pagan, is absolutely pro- 
hibited. Titles XII. and XIIL., ‘‘ De his qui 
ad ecclesias confugiunt vel ibi exclamant,”’ 
and “‘ De his qui in ecclesiis manumittuntur,” 
are less important. They illustrate the growth 
of the right of sanctuary in churches, and the 
practice of manumission there. With title 
XIV., ‘‘ De Legibus et Constitutionibus Prin- 
cipum et edictis,’’ ordinary civil legislation 
begins. A good many references to eccle- 
siastical matters, and especially to the juris- 
diction of the bishops, are scattered through 
other parts of the Codex. It is clear from 
this summary that neither Justinian nor his 
predecessors intended to frame a complete 
body of laws or rules for the government of 
the church, its hierarchical constitution and 
administration, much less for its internal 
discipline or its ritual. These things had 
been left to be settled by custom, by the 
authority of patriarchs, metropolitans, and 
bishops, by the canons of councils as occasion 
arose. Not that the civil monarch supposed 
such to lie beyond his scope, for in Constan- 
tinople the emperors, and Justinian most of 
all, regarded themselves as clothed with a 
supreme executive authority over the religious 
no less than the secular society. The dis- 
tinction afterwards asserted in the West 
between the temporal and spiritual powers 
had not then been imagined. No Eastern 
ecclesiastic denied the emperor's right to 
summon general councils, direct them, and 
confirm their decrees. But the emperors had 
been content to leave to churchmen the settling 
of what were regarded as more or less technical 
and professional matters, which they were 
fittest to settle. The narrow and bigoted 
spirit, which runs through the persecuting 
laws included in the Codex, is fully as con- 
spicuous in Justinian’s own as in those of any 
of his predecessors. Moreover, by re-enacting 
them he made himself responsible for all that 
they contained. In that age of the world it 
was believed possible to stamp out heresy by 
a sufficiently vigorous exercise of the arm of 
flesh. Paganism was in fact thus stamped 
out, though in one or two mountainous dis- 
tricts of Greece and perhaps of Asia Minor it 
lingered secretly for 2 or 3 centuries more, 
The topics of the Novels, or constitutions 
issued by Justinian from 535 till his death in 
565, are very various. Of the 153 to which 
the 168 appearing in the largest collection may 
be reduced, 33, forming the largest group, 
relate to ecclesiastical and religious matters. 
Next in number come those dealing with 
civil and military administration. Marriage 
and the legal relations arising therefrom are 


616 JUSTINIANUS I. 


dealt with in various Novels. Justinian was 
fond of tinkering at this subject, and not 
always successfully. The most remarkable 
provisions are in Novels 117 (§§ 10 and 12) 
and 134 (§ 11), in which he greatly limits the 
freedom of divorce previously allowed, almost 
indeed abolishing it. But this severity was 
found unmaintainable : such complaints arose 
that in 566, ten years after the 134th Novel 
appeared, Justin II., nephew and successor of 
Justinian, repealed (Nov. cxl.) the penalties 
provided by it and by the 117th, leaving the 
law as it had stood under earlier sovereigns. 
The Novels have a great many provisions 
regarding dowries, simplifying a rather com- 
plicated branch of the law and securing the 
interests of the wife. Several constitutions, 
prompted by a desire for moral reforma- 
tion, deal with criminal law, several relate to 
guardianship, the position of freedmen, and 
other parts of the law of persons, and nine 
deal with the law of obligations ; none of them 
of any great importance. Among the eccle- 
siastical Novels, several groups may be dis- 
tinguished. One group contains those which 
deal with the temporal rights and relations 
of the church and her ministers as holders of 
property. Eight constitutions may be re- 
ferred to it, most of which are occupied with 
the length of time needed for a good title to 
lands originally belonging to the church to 
be acquired by adverse enjoyment; and with 
the conditions under which ecclesiastical 
lands might be alienated for a term or in 
perpetuity. Both topics gave Justinian much 
trouble and he was sometimes obliged to 
modify his enactments. A second group com- 
prises constitutions merely local in application, 
referring to a particular province (e.g. Nov. 37 
to Africa), church (e.g. Nov. 3 to the Great 
Church of Constantinople, Nov. 40 to the 
Church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem), or 
see (e.g. Noy. τι to the privileges of the 
archiepiscopal chair of Justiniana Prima in 
Illyricum). To a third and more important 
group may be referred the 13 constitutions 
dealing with ecclesiastical organization and 
discipline, the mode of choosing bishops and 
other clerics, their qualifications, the juris- 
diction of bishops, the restrictions on the 
jurisdiction of civil courts in causes where 
clerics are concerned (a matter of great interest 
in view of the questions which were to occupy 
medieval Europe), the rights, immunities, 
and position generally of the clergy (e.g. the 
exemption of a bishop from patria potestas, 
Nov. 81, the devolution of the property of a 
cleric dying intestate without legal heirs, Nov. 
131, § 13), the regulations under which a 
church or oratory might be built, endowed, 
and consecrated, the internal discipline of 
monasteries and regulation of monastic life. 
A fourth and last group includes four ordin- 
ances levelled at heretics (a good many pro- 
visions affecting whom incidentally occur in 
other Novels, especially in those of the third 
group). One of these four, called Edictum de 
Fide, is a short appeal to heretics to return 
to the safe teaching and anathematizings of 
the Catholic church (Nov. 132); another is 
directed against Jews and Samaritans, refusing 
them immunities from public burdens such as 
their exclusion from public offices and honours 


JUSTINIANUS I. 


might otherwise have appeared to imply (Nov. 
45); a third deprives heretic women of the 
privileges granted by Justinian’s laws to 
women in respect of their dowry; and the 
fourth is a sentence of deposition and anathe- 
ma against Anthimus patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, Severus patriarch of Antioch, Peter 
of Apamea, Zoaras, and others charged with 
Monophysitism, issued in confirmation of the 
sentence passed by the synod at Constanti- 
nople under the patriarch Mennas in 536. 
The most generally remarkable characteristics 
of these ecclesiastical statutes, apart from their 
spirit of bitter intolerance, are the strong dis- 
position to favour the church, the clerical 
order, and the monastic life ; and the assump- 
tion throughout of a complete right of control 
by the imperial legislator over all sorts of 
ecclesiastical affairs and questions. Although 
there are some matters, such as ritual, penance, 
etc., touched not at all or very slightly, still 
the impression conveyed here, as in the Codex, 
is that the civil power claimed a universal and 
paramount right of legislating for the church ; 
nor is there any distinction laid down or 
recognized between matters reserved for the 
legislative action of the church in her synods 
and those which the emperor may deal with. 
He always speaks with the utmost respect of 
the sacred canons, sometimes quotes them, 
professes to confirm them, and (Nov. 131, § 1) 
expressly declares that all the canons of the 
four great general councils are to have the 
force and rank of laws (τάξιν νόμων ἐπέχειν). 
But there is no admission of the exclusive 
right of the church or of any ecclesiastical 
dignitary or body to legislate on any particular 
topics; this is indeed implicitly excluded by 
the laws, especially those in bk. i. of the 
Codex, which deal with the most specially 
spiritual of spiritual questions, the cardinal 
doctrines of the Christian faith. It is therefore 
not surprising that the African bishops who 
wrote against him in the matter of the Three 
Articles complain of his conduct as arrogating 
to the magistrate what belonged of right to the 
duly constituted officers of the church. Sub- 
sequent history shows that the Eastern em- 
peror always maintained his authority over the 
church; while different political conditions 
enabled the Western patriarch and the 
Western church generally to throw off the 
control of the civil power and even extend its 
own jurisdiction over civil causes. 

These ecclesiastical Novels throw much 
light on the state of the 6th-cent. Eastern 
church, and the evils which it was thought 
necessary to remedy. We hear once or twice 
of the ignorance of the clergy, persons being 
sometimes ordained who could not read the 
prayers used in the sacramental services of the 
Supper and Baptism (Novs. 6, 137). Irregu- 
larities in monastic life were frequent, as 
appears from the penalties threatened (Novs. 
5, 133). Bishops too often resided away from 
their sees, so that a prohibition to the admin- 
istrator to send money to them while absent 
was needed (Nov. 6, § 3; Nov. 123, § 9)- 
That a bishop must be unmarried, and a priest 
either unmarried or married only once and 
to a virgin, was insisted on. The habit of 
building churches without funds sufficient for 
their due maintenance and service is checked 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


(Novs. 57, 67), as also that of having private 
chapels, or celebrating the sacred mysteries 
in houses (Novs. 58, 131). The often neg- 
lected canonical direction to hold provincial 
synods twice, or at least once, a year is re- 
newed (Nov. 138). The substance of the 
enactments contained in these Novels and in 
the Codex, upon such matters as the election 
of bishops, celibacy of clergy, permanency of 
monastic vows, etc., will be found under the 
appropriate heads in D. C. A. The regula- 
tions regarding a monastic life have a special 
interest as very shortly anterior to the creation 
of the rule of St. BENepict of Nursia, who 
was a contemporary of Justinian. {y-B.] 
Justinus (2) Martyr, St., son of Priscus, 
grandson of Bacchius; born at Flavia Nea- 
polis, hard by the ruins of ancient Sychem 
(now Nablous), in Palestine (Apol.i. 1). He 
calls himself a Samaritan (Dial. c. 120, ὃ 349 
c), so that his family had probably settled 
there definitely; but he is obviously not a 
Samaritan by blood or religion; nothing in 
his writing would point to such an origin. 
He has not heard, even, of Moses or of the 
prophets until well on in life ; he classes him- 
self among those Gentiles to whom the Gospel 
was opened so largely when the main mass 
(A pol. i. 53, ὃ 88 B) of the house of Jacob, in 
which he includes by name the Samaritans as 
well as the Jews, rejected it. He speaks of 
being brought up in heathen customs, being 
uncircumcised (Dial. c. 29, ὃ 246 0), and 
receiving a thoroughly Greek education (Dzal. 
c. 2, § 219). The name of his grandfather is 
Greek; of his father and himself Latin. 
What we know of him is gathered almost 
entirely from his own writings, and chiefly 
from his famous description of the studies 
through which he passed to his conversion, 
given in his Dialogue with the New Tryphon. 
The opening of the Dialogue discovers Justin 
walking in the colonnades of a city, which 
Eusebius identifies with Ephesus (H. E. iv. 
18), shortly after the wars of the Romans 
against Bar-Cocheba in 132-136 (Dial. c. 1, 
§ 217). To the Jew, who greets him as a 
philosopher, he recounts his philosophic 
experiences, though we gain but little clue as 
to where or at what time these experiences 
occurred. He speaks of his first longing to 
share in that wisdom ‘“ which is verily the 
highest possession, the most valued by God, 
to Whom it alone leads and unites us’’; when 
with this hope he went successively to a Stoic 
teacher, a Peripatetic, and a famous Pytha- 
gorean, but in each case to no purpose. 
Much grieved at this, he thought of trying the 
Platonics, whose fame stood high. He went 
chiefly to one lately settled in his town, who 
was thought highly of by his school; ad- 
vanced some way with him, giving him the 
greater part of every day; was delighted with 
the perception of the Incorporeal; the con- 
templation of the Ideas ‘‘ gave wings to my 
mind, quickly I thought to become wise, and 
expected that, if it were not for my dull 
sight, I should be in a moment looking 
upon God; for this sight is the fulfilment of 
the Platonic philosophy.’’ ‘* While in this 
frame of mind I one day had a wish for quiet 
meditation, away from the beaten track of 
men, and so went to a bit of ground not far 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 617 


from the sea; and there, just as I was nearing 
the place where I looked to be alone with my 
thoughts, an old man, of a pleasant counten- 
ance, and with a gentle and dignified mien, 
came following me a little behind.” The old 
man asked Justin, *‘‘ For what are you come 
here ?’ “I delight,’ I answered, ‘in these 
strolls, in which I can hold converse with 
myself, without interruption; a place like 
this is most favourable for such talking as I 
love.’ “Ah! you are a lover of talk, and 
not of action or of reality,’ he said. ‘You 
are one, I suppose, who cares more for reasons 
than for facts, for words than for deeds.’ 
“And how, indeed,’ I answered, ‘can a man 
act more efficiently than in exhibiting the 
reason that governs all, or than in laying hold 
of it, and there, borne aloft on it, looking 
down on others who stray helplessly below, 
and do nothing sane, or dear to God? With- 
out philosophy and right reason there is no 
possible wisdom. Every man, _ therefore, 
ought to esteem philosophy as his noblest 
work, and to let all else come second or third 
to it; for by philosophy things are made right 
and acceptable, without it they become 
common and vulgar.’ ‘Philosophy, then, 
is the true cause of happiness, isit ?’ he asked 
in reply. ‘Yes, indeed, it is,’ I said, ‘it 
and it alone.’ ”’ 

A discussion follows on the possibility of 
philosophy giving the true knowledge of God, 
which is Happiness; at its close Justin con- 
fesses that his philosophy supplies no clear 
account of the soul, of its capacity to perceive 
the Divine, nor of the character of its life ; 
the old man speaks with a decision that he 
professes to owe neither to Plato nor to Pytha- 
goras, who are the bulwarks of philosophy. 
What teacher is there who can give certainty 
where such as these fail? asks Justin. The 
old man replies that there have been men, far 
older than all these philosophers, men blessed 
and upright and beloved of God, who spoke 
by the spirit of God, and are called Prophets. 
These alone have seen the truth, and spoken 
it to men; not as reasoners, for they go 
higher than all argument, but as witnesses of 
the truth, who are worthy to be _ believed, 
since the events foretold have come to pass 
and so compel us to rely on their words, as 
do also the wonders they have worked to the 
honour and glory of God the Father and of His 
Christ. ‘‘ Pray thou, then, that the gates of 
the Light may be opened too for thee; for 
these things can only be seen and known by 
those to whom God and His Christ have given 
understanding.” Justin saw the old man 
no more; but in his soul the flame was fired 
and a passion of love aroused for these pro- 
phets, the friends of Christ ; and as he reflected 
upon it he found that here indeed lay the one 
and only sure and worthy philosophy. 

This is all we know of his conversion. The 
scene is, perhaps, idealized; it has a savour 
of Plato; but the imagination of Justin was 
hardly equal to producing, unaided, such vivid 
detail of scenery and character. The de- 
scription would imply that he was somewhat 
advanced in study, but not past the enthu- 
siasms of earlier life. The event, apparently, 
occurred in Flavia Neapolis, 7.e. ‘‘ our town,” 
in which the Platonist teacher had settled; 


618 JUSTINUS MARTYR 

but ‘‘ our town ’’ may mean that in which he 
and Tryphon were conversing, i.e., according 
to Eusebius, Ephesus. It must have been 
before the Bar-Cocheba wars, ifit is from them 
that Tryphon was flying when Justin met him. 
The conversion takes the form of a passage 
from the imperfect to the perfect philosophy ; 
throughout his life it retains that impress. 
He was not rescued from intellectual despair, 
but was in the highest condition of confidence 
when the old man met him. The aim with 
which he started on his studies was achieved 
when he became a Christian. Hence he is not 
thrown into an attitude of antagonism to that 
which he leaves ; his new faith does not break 
with the old so much as fulfil it. He still, 
therefore, calls himself the philosopher, still 
invites men to enter his school, still wears the 
philosopher’s cloak (Dial. i. ὃ 217; Eus. H. E. 
iv. 11; cf. the Acts of Justin). From the 
first, philosophy had been pursued with the 
religious aim of attaining the highest spiritual 
happiness by communing with God; _ the 
certified knowledge of God, therefore, pro- 
fessed by the prophets, and made manifest in 
Christ, comes to him as the crown of his 
existing aspiration. 

One other motive he records to have affected 
his conversion, 1.6. his wondering admiration 
at the steadfastness of Christians under perse- 
cution. ‘‘ When I was still attached to the 
doctrine of Plato, and used to hear the 
accusations hurled against Christians, and yet 
saw them perfectly fearless in the face of 
death and of all that is terrible, I understood 
that it was impossible they should be living 
all the time a life of wickedness and lust ”’ 
(A pol. ii. 12, ὃ 50 A). This appeal, which the 
moral steadfastness of the Christians had made 
to him, he continually brings to bear upon 
others (i. 8, § 57; i. ΤΙ, ὃ 58 E, etc.). Per- 
haps, too, the lack of moral reality and energy 
in the doctrines of philosophy was not unfelt 
by Justin, for his words seem sometimes to 
recall the old man’s taunt, ‘‘ You are a man 
of words, and not of deeds ”’ (cf. i. 14, § 61 E, 
‘For Christ was no Sophist, but His word 
was the power of God’’). 

We have no details of his life after baptism. 
He seems to have come to Rome, and, perhaps, 
to have stayed there some time, according to 
Eusebius (ΗΠ. E. iv. 11). His peculiar office 
was to bring the Christian apologetic into the 
publicity of active controversy in the schools. 
The collision with Tryphon in the Colonnades 
is probably but a specimen of the intellectual 
intercourse which Justin challenged by wear- 
ing the philosopher’s cloak. The introduction 
to the Dialogue appears to record a familiar 
habit. The Second Apology mentions a dis- 
pute with Crescens the Cynic (3, § 43, B, C). 
The memory of Justin’s characteristic attitude 
is recorded by Eusebius: ‘‘ It was then that 
St. Justin flourished, who, under the dress of 
a philosopher, preached the word of God, and 
defended the truth of our faith by his writings 
as wellas by his words’’; and the Acts of his 
martyrdom speak of Justin as sitting in the 
house of Martinus, a recognized place of meet- 
ing for Christians, and there conversing with 
any who visited him, imparting to them the 
true doctrine. The persons condemned with 
him are companions whom he has gathered 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


about him and converted. ‘I took delight,’ 
says one of them, Evelpistus, “ in listening to 
Justin’s discourse.”’ 

When persecution fell sharply upon the 
church, he was in the van of those who con- 
sidered it their first duty to make public to 
their judges the doctrine and life so foully 
accused (Apol. i. 3, ὃ 54). So, in the Dia- 
logue with Tryphon, he speaks of the guilt he 
would incur before the judgment seat of 
Christ if he did not freely and ungrudgingly 
open to them his knowledge of the meaning 
of Scripture (Dial. c. 58, § 280 B). 

This freedom of apologetic crowned itself 
towards the close of Justin’s life in the three 
works which alone can be accepted as un- 
doubtedly authentic: the two Apologies and 
the Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. This 
same freedom brought him to his death. 

The secret cause of his seizure is supposed 
by Eusebius to have been the enmity of an 
opponent whom he had convicted of ignorance, 
Crescens the Cynic. ‘‘ Crescens,’’ Tatian 
writes, ‘‘ who made himself a nest in Rome, 
while professing to despise death, proved his 
fear of it by scheming to bring Justin and 
myself to death as to an evil thing ”’ (Or. c. 32; 
cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 16). For the reality of his 
violent death for Christ we have the indubit- 
able testimony of his historic title, Justin 
Martyr. For the actual account of it we are 
dependent on the Acts of his martyrdom, 
which embody, probably without serious 
change, the simple and forcible tradition 
which the 3rd cent. retained of the death- 
scene. They have the appearance of contain- 
ing genuine matter. According to these, he 
and his companions are brought before 
Rusticus, the prefect of the city, and are 
simply commanded to sacrifice to the gods, 
without any mention of Crescens, or of 
Justin’s Apologies to the emperors. Justin, 
on examination, professes to have found the 
final truth in Christianity, after exploring all 
other systems; this truth, he declares, con- 
sists in adoring the one God, Who has made 
all things, visible and invisible, and Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God, Who was foretold by 
the prophets to be coming into the world to 
preach salvation and teach good doctrine. 
He declares that Christians meet wherever 
they choose or can, seeing that their God is 
not limited to this or that place, but fills 
heaven and earth; but that he himself, on 
this, his second visit to Rome, held meetings 
for his followers in the house of one Martinus 
only, near the baths of Timotinus. After a 
brave refusal to sacrifice, and an assurance of 
salvation in Christ, he and those with him 
were condemned to be beaten with rods and 
beheaded. They died praising God and con- 
fessing their Saviour. The faithful secretly 
carried their bodies to a fit burial. 

Such are the fragments left to us of his life ; 
between what dates do they fall? The 
title of the First Apology is decisive; it is 
addressed to the ‘‘ Emperor Titus Aelius 
Antoninus Pius, Augustus, Caesar; to 
Verissimus his son, philosopher, and to Lucius, 
the natural son of a philosophic Caesar, the 
adopted son of a pious Caesar.’’ Here we 
have Antoninus Pius as sole emperor, with his 
two imperial companions, adopted by him as 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


sons at the request of Hadrian, t.¢. Marcus 
Aurelius and Lucius Verus (cf. Neander, Ch. 
Hist. [trans.] vol. ii. 446, 1851). With this 
the Eusebian tradition agrees; according to it, 
the first Apology was addressed to Antoninus ; 
in the Chronicon it is assigned to c. 141, the 
fourth of that reign. Antoninus reigned from 
137 to 161; will 141 suit Justin's language ἢ 

According to some, this is not early enough, 
for the title omits to salute Aurelius as Caesar, 
which he became publicly in 140. Against 
this lie several weighty objections : (1) Lucius 
Verus is called, possibly philosopher, certainly 
“ ἐραστὴς madelas,”’ lover of culture; but by 
140 he is only ten years old. (2) Marcion is 
in the Apology the greatest type of heresy, 
“with a following spread over every race of 
men.’ Justin’s Janguage seems to belong to 
a time when Marcion’s pre-eminence had over- 
shadowed the earlier heretics (cf. Lipsius, Die 
Quellen der Ketzergeschichte, 1875, pp. 21, 22), 
and this could hardly be till well after 140. 
It was under Antoninus (according to general 
authority, cf. Tertullian, Clement, etc.) that 
Marcion succeeded in putting himself in the 
front, and arrived at Rome. Yet, already 
before the Apology, Justin has written a book 
against him, with other heretics (A pol. i. 26, 
§ 70 c). It is difficult to attribute to Marcion 
this immense position in the very first years 
of Antoninus (cf. contra, Semisch, Justin, p. 73, 
1840). (3) Justin professes to be writing 150 

ears after our Lord’s birth, around number, it 
is true, but in a context where the object is to 
diminish the interval. Without very positive 
evidence against it, the year 148—1.e. Justin’s 
A.D. 150—Should be taken as the approximate 
date. These reasons would place the first A po- 
logy near the end of the first half of the reign 
of Antoninus. This would not conflict with 
two other references to times—to the deifica- 
tion of Antoninus, 1.6. 131 (Apol. i. 29, ὃ 72), 
and to the wars of Bar-Cocheba, 132, 136 (31, 
§ 72). Both have the same formula: τῷ viv 
γεγενημένῳ πολέμῳ and ᾿Αντινόου τοῦ viv 
γεγενημένου. The expression is vague, but 
requires the two events to be well within the 
memories of Justin’s readers. 

The address of the second Apology has at 
last, after many confusions, been determined 
to refer to Antoninus again, and Marcus 
Aurelius. It isindirect, and found in 2, ὃ 42 ¢, 
where a single emperor is definitely meant, 
and in the last chapter, where the rulers are 
spoken of in the plural; in 2, § 43 B there are 
two people in office, Pius the αὐτοκράτωρ, and 
a philosopher, who is saluted as son of Caesar ; 
and continued reference is made to the| 
mingled piety and philosophy of these per- 
sonages. These two, with the well-known 
titles, can hardly be other than Antoninus and 
Marcus Aurelius. This is made almost a) 
certainty when we consider that the second 
Apology seems to have followed close upon 
the first and bears all the mark of a sequel or | 
appendix (cf. Volkmar, in Theolog. Jahrb. 1855, 
N. 14; cf. Hort, in Journ. of Classic and Sacred | 
Philol. vol. iii. p. 155 (1857), of which much 
use is made in the art.). This is clear, among 
other things, from the references in the second | 
to the first Apology (A pol. li. 4, § 43; 6, ὃ 45; 
8, ὃ 46) as toa writing close at hand and fresh- | 
ly remembered. The date of the Apologies | 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 619 


may be thrown back as far in the reign of 
Antoninus as is consistent with the prominence 
attributed to Marcion. 

Of the date of Justin's birth we have no- 
thing certain. Epiphanius states that he died 
when 30 years old. The evidence is not forth- 
coming. For the date of his conversion we 
have scarcely any evidence except that it was 
before the wars of Bar-Cocheba, 132-136 (Dial. 
i. 1, §217). Eusebius supposes he was uncon- 
verted at the date of Antinous, a.p. 131 (H. F. 
iv. 8), but it is doubtful if Eusebius had an 
ground for this except A pol. i. 29, § 72, whic 
certainly does not require it. 

The genuineness of the three writings al- 
ready mentioned is universally accepted. The 
first Apology definitely pronounces itself to be 
Justin's ; the second obviously belongs to the 
first ; the Dialogue claims to be written by a 
Samaritan, who had addressed the emperor— 
its personal history of the writer exactly 
tallies with Justin’s attitude towards philo- 
sophy in the Apologies. The peculiar phrase 
ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων occurs in 
these three works, and in them alone. The 
whole tone of the works agrees with the 
period assigned. The external evidence 
gathered by Eusebius is strong and unbroken 
(cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 18). 

But it is otherwise with an Oratio ad 
Graecos ; a λόγος παραινετικὸς πρὸς “ENAnvas, 
or Cohortatio ad Graecos; a fragment, περὶ 
᾿Αναστάσεως; and a book, περὶ Movapyias, 
which must be classed as very doubtful; 
others are decidedly not genuine. 

Several works of Justin have been entirely 
lost: (ἡ The book Against all Heresies, to 
which he refers in Afpol. i. 26, § 70. (2) 
Against Marcion, referred to by Irenaeus (iv. 
contra Haer. c. 14; cf. v. 26), supposed by some 
to be part of (1). (3) A book called Ψάλτης, 
and (4) περὶ Ψυχῆς, in which he contrasts his 
own doctrine with that of the Greek philo- 
sophers (Eus. H. E. iv. 18). 

‘*Many other works of his,’’ says Eusebius, 
‘‘are in the hands of the brethren.’’ Evi- 
dently he must have written a great deal, and 
the three undoubted works still extant per- 
haps account for this voluminous character of 
his writings. For these three pieces are 
written loosely and unsystematically, and 
read like the outpouring of a mind that had 
ranged widely in heathen literature and philo- 
sophy, and had massed a large store of general 
knowledge, which could be easily and effee- 
tively brought to bear upon current topics, 
without any scrupulous regard to the artistic 
or symmetrical appearance of the result. 

Justin’s writing, especially in the first 
Apology, is full of direct and striking force ; 
it moves easily and pleasingly; his thinking 
is fresh, healthy, vigorous, and to the point; 


|his wide knowledge is used with practical 


his whole tone and character are im- 
mensely attractive by their genuineness, 
simplicity, generous high-mindedness, and 
frank and confident energy. 

In the first Apology, composed with much 
more care and completeness than the second, 
he defines and justifies his position of apologist 
before the rulers, with supreme dignity and 
confidence. He calls upon them to let it be 
seen whether they are the loyal guardians of 


skill ; 


620 JUSTINUS MARTYR 

right and lovers of culture, which they are 
reported to be. He demands for himself and 
his fellows the justice of an exact and critical 
examination, without regard to prejudice, 
superstition, irrational panic, or any long- 
established evil fame. It is, as it were, for 
the sake of the governors and their justice 
that he seems to be asking a trial, for, ‘‘ as 
for us Christians,’’ he proudly declares, ‘‘ we 
do not consider that we can suffer any ill from 
any one, unless we are convicted of wicked- 
ness or evil-doing ; you can kill us indeed, but 
damage us you cannot” (Apol. i. 2, 54 A); 
“* Princes who prefer prejudice to truth can 
do no more harm than robbers in a desert ”’ 
(A pol. i. 12, ὃ 59 E). So he opens his Apology, 
which can be roughly divided into three divi- 
sions, cc. 3-23, in which he refutes, generally, 
the false charges made against Christianity ; 
cc. 23-61 exhibiting the truth of the Christian 
system and how it has got misunderstood ; 
cc. 61-68 revealing the character of Christian 
worship and customs. 

The charges against the Christians, en- 
countered in pt. 1., are: (1) The very fact 
of Christianity is itself treated as a punishable 
crime (c. iv.). (2) Atheism (c. vi.). How 
can they with any justice be called atheists, 
who reverence and worship the Father of all 
Righteousness, the Son Who came from the 
Father and taught us this, the whole Host of 
Angels and the Prophetical Spirit ? ‘‘ These 
are they whom we honour in reason and truth, 
offering our knowledge of them to all who will 
learn of us.’’ (3) That some Christians have 
been proved malefactors. Yes, very likely, 
for we all are called Christians however 
much we vary. Therefore let every one be 
tried on his merits. If convicted of evil, let 
him pay the penalty, only as an evil-doer, 
not as a Christian. If innocent of crime, let 
him be acquitted though a Christian. (4) 
Christians are charged with aiming at a king- 
dom. But this can hardly be a kingdom on 
earth; for, then, we should be ruining all 
our hopes of it by our willingness to die for 
Christ. Yet we never attempt to conceal our 
faith; and here Justin makes a direct appeal. 
““Surely,’’ he cries, ‘‘ we are the best friends 
that a ruler could desire, we who believe in a 
God Whose eye nocrime can escape, no false- 
hood deceive; we who look for an eternal 
judgment, not only on our deeds, but even on 
our thoughts! So our Master, Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God, has taught us.’’ For the 
reality and true character of this faith in God 
through Christ, he offers the proof of the 
Christian’s moral conversion. ‘‘We who 
once delighted in adultery, now are become 
chaste; once given to magic, now are conse- 
crated to the one good God; once loving 
wealth above all things, now hold all our goods 
in common, and share them with the poor; 
once full of hatred and slaughter, now live 
together in peace, and pray for our enemies, 
and strive to convert our  persecutors.”’ 
All this is emphasised by our belief in the 
resurrection of the body, in which we shall 
hereafter suffer pain for all our sins done here 
(c. 18). Is this incredible? Yet it is be- 
lieved not only by us, but by all who turn to 
magic rites, to spiritualists, to witches, to 
frenzied seers, to oracles at Dodona or Delphi; 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


by Empedocles and Pythagoras, Plato and 
Socrates, by Homer and Virgil. 

Here begins a defence of Christian doctrine, 
on the ground of its likeness to doctrines 
already held in heathenism (c. 21). We 
alone are hated, even though we hold the 
same as the Greeks; we alone are killed for 
our faith, even though we do nothing bad. 

(C. 30.) He turns to a new objection. 
““How do you know the genuineness of your 
Christ, or that He was not some clever magic- 
worker ? ”’ Justin’s answer is, by the proof 
of prophecy. The books of the Jews, trans- 
lated in the LXX, in spite of the bitter hatred 
of the Jews against us, speak, years before 
the event, of us and of our Christ. 

(C. 46.) A new objection: were all men 
irresponsible before 150 years ago, when 
Christ was born under Quirinus ? No; 
there were Christians before Christ, men who 
lived in the power of the Word of God, So- 
crates and Heraclitus, Abraham and Elias. 

(C. 56.) The demons have deceived men 
before Christ by the tales of Polytheism ; and, 
after Christ, by the impieties of Simon, 
Menander, and Marcion: but have never been 
able to make men disbelieve in the end of the 
world and the judgment to come, nor to con- 
ceal the advent of Christ. 

(Cc. 61-67.) He has spoken of Faith in 
Christ and Regeneration of Life; he will now 
tell what this exactly means; and so proceeds 
to describe the baptism by which the regen- 
eration is effected ; the reasons for this rite; 
its accomplishment in the Name of the Name- 
less God called the Father, in the Name of the 
Son Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, 
and in the Name of the Holy Spirit Who spake 
by the Prophets. He describes (c. 65) the 
Eucharistic Feast to which the baptized are 
admitted, and gives a brief account of the 
character to be attributed to the bread and 
wine then consecrated and of the authority 
on which this rests. 

He speaks once more of the feast, as it 
recurs on the Sundays, when they al] assemble 
together, and (c. 68) closes rather abruptly, 
with the personal directness which throughout 
gives dignity to the Apology. ‘‘ If my words 
seem to you agreeable to reason and truth, 
then give them their due value ; if they strike 
you as trifling, then treat them lightly as 
trifles; but, at least, do not decree death 
against those who do nothing wrong, as if 
they were enemies of the state. For, if you 
continue in iniquity, we foretell that you will 
not be able to escape the future judgment of 
God; we shall be content to cry, God’s will 
be done!” 

He adds an epistle of Hadrian to Minucius 
Fundanus, by which he could claim a fair 
trial; but he would rather ask that as a 
matter of plain justice than by right of law 
or precedent. This letter of Hadrian’s, we 
are told by Eusebius, was preserved by Justin 
in its Latin form (H. E. iv. 8), and thrown by 
him into Greek. Its style suits the age of 
Hadrian (Otto, ed. of Justin, vol. i. note on 
p- 190); it is considered genuine by Aubé, 
Ueberweg, doubted by Keim (Theol. Jahrb. 
t. xv. Tiib. 1856, p. 387). It gives so little 
to the Christians, that it seems hardly likely 
to be fictitious. 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


The second Apology, possibly an appendix 
to the first (Otto, ed. p. Ixxxi.; Volkmar, 
Baur und Zell. Theolog. Jahrb. t. xiv. Tiib. 
1855; Keim, Protest. K.-Z. Ber. 1873, ἢ. 28, 
col. 619), anyhow written at no long interval 
after the first, begins abruptly with an appeal 
directly to the Romans, but in reality ad- 
dressed to the imperial rulers (cf. cc. 3, 14, 15), 
together with the whole people. These rulers, 
under whom the affairs which led to the 
Apology occurred, are, it has been argued, the 
emperor Pius and the philosopher Marcus 
Aurelius, and, according to a suggested read- 
ing, Lucius Verus son of Caesar. The opening 
betrays by its suddenness, and emphasizes by 
dwelling on the speed with which the Apology 
had been produced, the excitement under 
which it was composed. ‘‘ Things had hap- 
pened within the last two daysin Rome,” such 
as the irrational actions of the magistrates, 
which had driven Justin to write an Apology 
for his own people, who are, though the 
Romans know it not and will not have it, 
their brothers, of like feelings with them- 
selves. ᾿ 

(C. 2.) He relates the case which had so 
fired him with indignation ; it is very typical 
of what Christians were subject to. The dis- 
solute wife of a dissolute man is converted and 
is anxious to separate from her husband. He 
holds out some hopes of amendment, so she 
forces herself to remain, but he plunges into 
worse debauchery. She sends a writ of 
divorce and leaves him. Then this ‘‘ good and 
noble husband ’’ bethought himself of accusing 
her of being a Christian. While her case was 
pending, a certain Ptolemaus, the wife’s 
master in the faith, whom Urbicus had im- 
prisoned, is challenged with being a Christian. 
Ptolemaus, brought up before Urbicus, is 
asked, ‘‘ Are you a Christian ?’’ and or con- 
fessing it is at once condemned to death. 
Lucius a Christian publicly challenges Urbicus 
to justify a decision which punished a man 
simply for the name of Christian. ‘‘ You, too, 
are a Christian, I suppose?” is the only 
answer he gets from Urbicus; and on con- 
fessing it he is condemned to death, declaring 
as he goes that he is glad to be free of rulers so 
unjust and to depart to the Father and King 
of Heaven. A third in the same way passes 
to a like punishment; ‘And I myself,” 
breaks in Justin, “ look for the same fate, for 
I, too, have enemies who have a grudge 
against me, and are likely enough to take this 
way of avenging themselves; Crescens espe- 
cially, the sham philosopher, whom I have 
convicted of entire ignorance about the Chris- 
tianity which he slanders.”’ 

(C. 4.) It may be said in scorn, “ Be off, 
then, to your God in Heaven by killing your- 
selves, and trouble us no longer!’’ But 
Christians believe the world to be made by 
God to fulfil His purpose; they are not at 
liberty to destroy, as far as in them lies, the 
human race, for whom the world was created. 
Nor yet can we deny our faith ; for this would 
be to allow its guilt and to lie, and would 
leave you in your evil prejudices. _ 

(C. 5.) ‘* Why does God not help His own?” 
He spares to punish and destroy the evil 
world, for the sake of this holy seed, the 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 621 


still preserves the order of nature, which the 
fallen angels have so corrupted. 

The effect of these Apologies upon the rulers 
of Rome is unknown; but Justin's expecta- 
tion of death was not disappointed, and 
Marcus Aurelius still mistrusted the motives 
which made Christians martyrs and saw no 
reason to stay the outcry of the Roman crowd 
when it demanded Christian victims. It 
remained a legal crime to be a Christian. 
Indeed, according to Roman ideas of govern- 
ment, it could hardly cease to be criminal as 
long as Christianity continued its private and 
peculiar organization and found it impossible 
to conform to the tests of good citizenship, 
such as the oath to the emperor. The A polo- 
gies never hint at concession on such points, 
but persist that their present position is entire- 
ly innocent. Their vigour must have revealed 
the irreconcilability of Christian life with the 
mass of pagan custom and temper in which 
the solidity of Rome had its foundation. 

The Dialogue with Trypho follows the first 
Apology, and probably the second also, be- 
tween 142 and 148 according to Hort; in 155 
(Volkmar); or in 160-164 (Keim). It was 
written to report to a dear friend, Marcus 
Pompeius (cf. c. 8, ὃ 225 Ὁ ; c. 141, § 371 B), 
a discussion which Justin had held with the 
Jews during the Bar-Cocheba wars. The dis- 
cussion represents the Christian polemic 
against the Jews; but Trypho makes his 
advance as a philosopher rather than as a 
Jew, and it is Justin who turns the talk to the 
Jewish Scriptures by expressing his surprise 
at a Jew being still engaged in searching for 
truth in the pagan philosophers when he pos- 
sessed already in those Scriptures the au- 
thorized exponent of revealed wisdom, for the 
sake of whose secured certainty Justin himself 
had left all other human systems. Trypho is, 
indeed, a curious type of Judaism; a light 
and superficial inquirer in the courts of the 
schools, surrounded by a band of loud and 
lively friends, he begins with a reference to a 
Socratic at Argos, who had taught him to 
address courteously all who wore the philo- 
sopher’s cloak, in the hope of finding, through 
the pleasant interchange of thoughts, some- 
thing useful to both. He smiles gracefully as 
he inquires what opinion Justin holds about 
the gods, and, apparently, justifies his philo- 
sophic studies in the face of Scripture, by 
claiming that the philosophers are equally 
with Moses searchers after the Being of God. 
The noisy friends having been avoided by 
retirement to a quiet seat, Trypho opens the 
question with the air of a free and tolerant 
seeker after truth; he has read the Gospel, 
and found in it a morality too high for real 
practice, and is ready to acknowledge the 
piety of the better Christians. What he 
wonders at is that with so much goodness, 
they should nevertheless live as Gentiles 
without keeping the pure laws of God, e.g. 
the Sabbath and circumcision, by which He 
separates the holy from sinners; he wonders, 
too, how those who place their hope in a man 
can yet hope for a reward from God, He 
would gladly have all this explained (cf. c. 57, 
§ 280A; 6. 68, § 293A). Trypho, then, is no 
fierce Jewish opponent, prepared to attack, 


Christians, who are the real reason why God | but adopts the tone almost of an inquirer, It 


622 JUSTINUS MARTYR 


is the Jew under a new aspect that we find 
here, the Jew of culture, of open and tolerant 
mind, with the easy courtesy of the literary 
world. Before such apparent openness and 
easy-going lightness it is perhaps not without 
artistic skill that Justin hints at the fierce 
and implacable hatred of Jew against Chris- 
tian which had tortured and slain Christians 
without pity under Bar-Cocheba and made 
Jews everywhere the most violent and re- 
morseless of the church’s slanderers and 
persecutors (c. 108, § 335)- 

The Dialogue takes two days. Some fresh 
friends of Trypho join him on the second day 
(c. 118, §346c); he speaks sometimes of 
them as if only two, at other times as if many. 
One is named Mnaseas (c. 85, § 312). They 
shout disapproval once, as if in a theatre (c. 
122, § 351 A). The whole is spoken as they 
sit on some stone seats in the gymnasium, 
Justin being about to sail on a voyage. 

The actual argument begins at c. 10. The 
points especially raised by Trypho were two, 
1.6. how the Christians could profess to serve 
God and yet (1) break God’s given law, and 
(2) believe in a human Saviour (cf. c. το, ὃ 
227D). The purity of Christian living is 
acknowledged ; the problem is its consistency 
with its creed. ἯΙ 

Justin’s argument may be roughly divided 
into three parts (Otto, Prolegomena). In cc. 
11-47 he refutes Trypho’s conception of the 
binding character of the Jewish law, which 
refutation involves him also in a partial 
answer to-the second part of the problem, 
i.e. the nature of the Christ in Whom they 
trust; for the passing away of the Law turns 
on the character of the Christ of Whom it 
prophesies. In cc. 48-108 he expounds the 
absolute divinity of Christ, His pre-existence, 
incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascen- 
sion, by virtue of which the belief in Him is 
proved consistent with belief in God alone. 
In c. 109 he passes to the necessary outcome 
of these two principles—the conversion of the 
Gentiles, the new Israel, and the abandonment 
of the old Israel, unless they accept the new 
covenant. The whole is rested on the 
Scriptures, on the interpretation of prophecy. 
Justin starts with a claim to believe abso- 
jutely in the God of Israel ; here is his common 
ground with Trypho (c. 11)—both accept the 
old revelation (c. 68, §298 4; cf. 57, §279B; 
56, 8277 5). “1 should not endure your argu- 
ment,’’ Trypho says (c. 56, § 277 D), ‘‘ unless 
you referred all to the Scriptures ; but I see 
you try to find all your reasons in them, and 
announce no other God but the Supreme 
Creator of the world.” Σ 

The Dialogue, therefore, is a perfect store- 
house of early Christian interpretation of 
Scripture. This forms its wonderful value ; 
it earries us back to that first effort at inter- 
pretation which dates from St. Peter’s speech 
at the election of Matthias, and knits itself so 
closely with the walk to Emmaus, when the 
Scriptures were first opened and it was seen 
from them that Christ must suffer. The O.T. 
is still the sacred guide and continual com- 
panion of the Christian life, the type of the 
written revelation; everything is there. Yet 
by the side of it we already feel in Justin that 


a new power has appeared, a fresh canon is | 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


forming, another book is beginning to assert 
itself. The work is full of crucial interest, 
just because Justin appears at the moment 
when this is gradually becoming clear. 

In the two Apologies and the Dialogue 
Justin covers a large part of the theological 
field. His treatment is peculiarly typical of 
the earliest form of Christian speculation out- 
side and beyond the immediate lines laid down 
by the apostolic writings. The apostolic 
Fathers were rather practical than speculative. 
The doctrinal works of people like Melito of 
Sardis are lost. In the Apologists Chris- 
tianity, according to its preserved records, 
first prominently applies itself to the elucida- 
tion of its dogmatic position, and of them 
Justin is among the earliest and the most 
famous. But in considering his theology we 
must remember that we only possess his 
exoteric utterances. He is not spontaneously 
developing the Christian’s creed, but is striv- 
ing, under the stress of a critical emergency, 
to exhibit it most effectively and least sus- 
piciously to an alien and unsympathetic 
audience, prepared not merely to discuss but 
to judge and kill. The whole position tended 
to quicken the natural tendency of Justin’s 
mind towards an optimistic insistence on like- 
nesses and agreements, rather than on differ- 
ences between himself and his opponents. 
This is not said to discredit his utterances, 
but simply in order to consider them, as all 
intelligent criticism must consider them, 
under their actual historical conditions. Jus- 
tin is on what is yet new ground to a great 
extent ; he is pioneering, he is venturing along 
unmarked and unexamined roads. Christian 
doctrine is still forming itself under his hands, 
even on some essential and cardinal points. 

Justin’s Theology, then, begins in the pre- 
sence of (1) Jewish Monotheism, and (2) of the 
Primal and Absolute and Universal Cause of 
all Existence, posited by the philosophic con- 
sciousness of paganism. He has to state how 
his conception of the Deity stands to these. 

He answers, that he believes (1) in a God 
identical with the God of the Jews: ‘‘ There 
is no other God, nor ever has been, but He 
Who made and ordered the Universe; that 
very God Who brought your fathers, Trypho, 
out of Egypt, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob” (Dial. 11, ὃ 228 4). This God of 
creation is the one cause of all existence, 
therefore known as the Father: ὁ πατὴρ τῶν 
ὅλων (tb. 114, ὃ 342 A), OF τῶν πάντων (A fol. i. 
8, $574). In Apol. ii. 6, § 44 D, he sums up all 
the names by which the absolute God may be 
known, πατήρ, Θεός, κτίστης, κύριος, δεσπότης. 
This is his cardinal and prevailing expression 
for God the Father—that He is the Maker and 
Ordainer and Lord of all creation. (2) But, 
besides the Father, Justin undertakes to ex- 
hibit the Divinity of a Second Person, the Son, 
ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως vids (A pol. ii. 6, § 44), 
υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ (7b. i. 13, § 60C), to 
whom is allotted the second place, in honour 
and worship, after the ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀεὶ ὄντα 
Θεὸν γεννήτορα τῶν ἁπάντων. Heis, primarily, 
ὁ Λόγος, the Word of God, with God before 
creation began, συνῆν τῷ πατρὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν 
ποιημάτων (Dial. 62, ὃ 285 Ὁ). With Him the 
Father communicated (προσομιλεῖ), having 


* 
+ 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


begotten Him before all things (γέννημα ὑπὸ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγεγέννητο). The manner of this 
begetting is spoken of as a projection (τῷ 
ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς προβληθὲν γέννημα). Such 
is the Λόγος, called by Solomon the Wisdom, 
who co-existed with the Father at that 
moment when, at the beginning, by Him the 
Father made and perfected all things (A pol. 
ii. 6, § 44 Ε; Dial. 682, ὃ 285 Ὁ). Heit is Who 
is ὁ Θεός, ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων γεννηθείς, 
and Who is known as the Word, and the Wis- 
dom, and the Power, and the Glory of Him 
Who begat Him (Dial. 61, § 284 A, B). The 
Son is the instrument of ‘‘ Creation ” (δι᾿ αὐτοῦ 
πάντα ἔκτισε); hence (in addition to His 
primal names, Λόγος, Υἱός) called Χριστός, κατὰ 
τὸ κεχρίσθαι τὰ πάντα δι᾿ αὐτόν ; but this name 
is in itself of unknown significance, just as the 
title ‘‘God’”’ is no real name, but rather 
expresses a natural opinion, inborn in man, 
about an unutterable fact. Christ's Being, 
therefore, as well as the Father’s, is beyond all 
human expression, and is known only econo- 
mically ; for, if this is true of the title Χριστός, 
it can hardly but be true of the higher names, 
Λόγος and Υἱός. This Λόγος is identical with 
the Man Jesus, conceived through the will of 
the Father on behalf of man, named Jesus as 
being a Man and a Saviour. Justin holds, 
then, the entire Divinity of Him Who was 
born a Man and crucified under Pontius 
Pilate. Nothing can be more pronounced or 
decided than his position; it is brought to 
the front by the necessities of his arguments 
both with the Jew and the Gentile. He starts 
with this position, that he worships as God, 
aman Christ Jesus; it is this that he has to 
justify to the Gentile (cf. Apol. i. 21, 22, § 67). 
“Τὴ that we say,”’ he says, “‘ that the Word, 
Which is the first-begotten of God, has been 
born without human mixture, as Jesus Christ, 
our Master, Who was crucified and died, and 
rose again;”’ or, again, ‘‘ Jesus Christ, Who 
alone was begotten to be the only Son of God, 
being the Word of God, and the first-born 
and the Power of God (πρωτότοκος καὶ δύναμις), 
became Man by the will of the Father, 
and taught us these things.’’ He justifies the 
possibility of these statements to the emperors 
by appeals to Greek mythology, 1.6. he is so 
fast bound to this belief that he has torun the 
risk of all the discredit that will attach to it 
in the minds of the philosophic statesmen to 
whom he is appealing from its likeness to the 
debasing fables which their intellectualism 
either rationalized or discarded. That Justin 
is conscious of this risk of discredit is clear 
from cc. 53 and 54 of the first Apology, with 
which we may compare the taunt of Trypho 
(Dial. 67, ὃ 219 B). So again, in the Dialogue, 
it is the Christian worship of a man that 
puzzles Trypho; and the first necessity for 
Justin is to exhibit the consistency of this with 
the supreme monarchy of God. ‘‘ First shew 
me,’’ asks Trypho (ib. c. 50), ‘‘ how you can 
prove there is any other God besides the 
Creator of the universe?” and this not in| 
any economical sense, but verily and indeed 
(cf. 1b. 55, ὃ 274 c); and Justin accepts the 
task, undertaking to exhibit Jesus, the Christ, 
born of a virgin, as Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος τῶν δυνά- 
μεων (ib. 36, ἃ 254 Ε), to shew Him to be, at, 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 623 


the same time, both Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος. and also 
ἀνὴρ καὶ ἄνθρωπος (ib. 59, § 182 ο)ἡ. The 
rigour with which this is posited may be 
tested by the crucial case of the appearance 
to Abraham at Mamre. Here, it is allowed, 
after a little discussion, that no angelic 
manifestation satisfies the language used by 
Scripture. It is certainly God Himself Who is 
spoken of. Justin undertakes to prove that 
this cannot be God the Father, but must be 
other than He Who created all things— 
** other,” he means, “‘in number, in person, 
not in will or spirit " (ἐδ. 56, § 276 D, ἕτερος, 
ἀριθμῳ λέγω ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γνώμῃ). So, again, he 
applies to this Divine Being the tremendous 
words delivered to Moses from the midst of 
the burning bush, and he will not suffer this 
to be qualified or weakened by any such subtle 
distinctions as Trypho attempts to draw 
between the angel seen of Moses and the voice 
of God that spoke. He insists, against any 
such subtleties, that whatever Presence of God 
was actually there manifested was the Pre- 
sence, not of the Supreme Creator, Who cannot 
be imagined to have left His Highest Heaven, 
but of that Being Who, being God, announces 
Himself to Moses as the God Who had shewn 
Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To 
Him, therefore, apply the words “I am that 
ani; By these two cases, specimens of 
a hundred others drawn from Law and Psalm 
and Prophets, it will be seen how clearly the 
problem was present to Justin, and how 
definitely he had envisaged its solution so far 
as the O.T. was concerned ; in dirett collision 
with the Monotheism of the Jew, he defends 
himself, not by withdrawing or modifying 
his assertions, but by discovering the evidence 
for His dual Godhead in the very heart of the 
ancient Revelation itself; not in any by-ways 
or minor incidents, but in the very core and 
centre of those most essential manifestations 
of God to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and 
Joshua, on the truth of which the whole fabric 
of Jewish faith and worship was reared. 
Justin has next to consider in what relation 
these two Divine Beings stand to each other. 
Given the existence of a Second Person Who 
can so effectually identify Himself with the 
First as to be called ὁ Θεός, how can we con- 
ceive the harmony and unity of such a 
duality ? Justin is clear that the distinction 
between the two Beings is real; it is a numer- 
ical distinction. The Word is no mere 
emanation of the Father, inseparable from 
Him as the light is inseparable trom the sun. 
He is a real subsistence, born of the Father's 
Will (Dial. 128, § 3588). The words used, 
therefore, to express their relation are words 
of companionship, of intercourse, of συνῆν, 
προσομιλεῖ (cf. 1b. 62, § 285 ο, D, where he 
brings out the fact of this personal intercourse 
as involved in the consultations at the creation 
of man). They are two distinct Beings, but 
yet must be One in order not to dissolve the 
absoluteness of the only Godhead. Such a 
unity may be pictured by the connexion 
between a thought and the Reason that thinks 
it, or by the unity of a flame with the fire 
from which it was taken. Each of these 
examples of the unbroken unity has the short- 
coming that they compel us to think of a 


624 JUSTINUS MARTYR 


stage prior to the dual condition in which that 
which is now dual was single. What, then, 
of the existence of the Word before It became 
the προβληθὲν γέννημα ἢ Justin is content 
with the statements: (1) That “ before all 
things,’’ already ‘‘ at the beginning,”’ this pro- 
jection had been effected, the two Persons were 
already distinct (cf. 2b. 62, ὃ 285 D; 56, ὃ 276 
Cc, τὸν καὶ mpd ποιήσεως κόσμου ὄντα Θεόν). 
(2) That besides this actual projection of the 
Λόγος there is a state which may be described 
as a condition of inner companionship with 
God the Creator (συνῆν). This precedence is 
never distinctly asserted to be temporal by 
Justin. In the Dialogue the συνών is stated 
to be eternal in exactly that sense in which 
the γέννημα is eternal, t.e. as being ‘‘ before all 
things.” 

Justin does not appear to definitely pro- 
nounce on the question how the process of 
Begetting consists with the absolute eternity 
of the Personal Word begotten. There is no 
precise realization of a Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and 
προφορικός. He hardly seems conscious of 
this difficulty in his two analogies of the 
thought and the flame; he is satisfied with 
expressing, by them, the unity, and yet dis- 
tinctness, of the Father and the Son. He is 
content to state that this unity in difference 
existed from the very first, before all created 
things. His analysis seems hardly to have 
pressed back to the final question, which Arian 
logic discovered to lie behind all minor issues, 
1.6. was there a moment when the Father was 
not yet a Father? Such a suspension of 
analysis is not unnatural, since Justin, in the 
writings before us, hardly enters on the con- 
templation of the Nature of God in and to 
Himself. It is always as the source of all 
things—the Father, the Maker, the Lord of 
the Universe—that he presents God to us. 
It is God in His relation to His works that 
we contemplate. What He was in Himself 
before all His works does not seem considered, 
and it is therefore all the more sufficient to 
state that God came to the making of the 
world already dual in character. The 
moment at which creation was to begin found 
the Son already existent, as ὁ Θεός. in personal 
intercourse with the Father. With this he 
leaves us, only affirming that that character 
of paternity which constitutes the relation of 
God to the world had a prior and peculiar 
significance and reality in the relation that 
united the absolute God and His Word (cf. 
A pol. ii. 6, ὃ 44, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως vids). 

Justin’s metaphysic, then, culminates in the 
assertion of this essential Sonship pre-existent 
to the creation. This being so, his language 
remains as indecisive on the ulterior question 
of the origin of the Sonship as is the language 
of Proverbs on the eternity of the Wisdom. 
In both cases the utmost expression for eter- 
nity that their logic had attained to is used. 
It is useless to press them for an answer to 
the puzzles of a later logic, which carried the 
problem back into that very eternity which 
closed their horizon. It was inevitable that 
the natural and unsystematized language used 
before the Arian controversy should be capable 
of an Arian interpretation. Since the Father 
is indeed slone ἀγένητυς, the sole unoriginate 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


fount of the Divine life, the expressions used 
about Him, and about the Son, must neces- 
sarily impute to Him an underivative, to the 
Son a derivative Being ; and must, therefore, 
tend to class the Son rather with the rest of 
Ta γενητά than with the sole ἀγενητόν. It 
could only be at the end of a most subtle and 
delicate reflection that Christian logic could 
possibly realize that it was bound, if it would 
be finally consistent with itself, to class the 
derived Being of the Son, by virtue of the 
absolute eternity of its derivation, on the side 
of τὸ ἀγενητόν rather than on that of τὰ yevyrd. 
Justin, in the full flush of readiness to sweep 
in to the service of faith the dear and familiar 
language of his former Platonism, may have 
left himself unguarded and careless on this 
uttermost point of the philosophy of the 
Incarnation ; but it will not easily be doubted 
—by any one who has observed how he de- 
velops the full divinity of the Son over all the 


| ground which his logic covered with a bold- 


ness and a vigour that, in face of the inevitable 
obstacles, prejudices, misunderstandings ex- 
cited by such a creed, are perfectly astonishing 
—what answer he would have given if the 
final issue of the position had once presented 
itself definitely to him. 

Justin had also affirmed the moral unity of 
the Son with the Father. This is not stated 
to be the ground of the Unity. The analogies 
of the thought and of the flame, on the con- 
trary, imply a unity of substance to be the 
ground of the κυρίως vidrns, but it is introduced 
in order to explain the consistency of his 
belief with the reality of a single supreme Will 
in the Godhead (Dial. 56, § 274), and the 
explanation naturally led him to affirm the 
complete subordination of the Son to the will 
of the Father. The Son is the expression of 
the Father’s mind, the δύναμιν λογικήν, Which 
He begat from Himself. He is the interpreter 
of His Purpose, the instrument by which He 
designs. In everything, therefore, the Son 
is conditioned by the supreme Will; His 
office, His very nature, is to be ὁ ἄγγελος, ὁ 
ὑπηρέτης. All His highest titles, υἱός and 
λόγος, as well as others, belong to Him by 
virtue of His serving the Father’s purpose and 
being born by the Father’s Will (ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ 


τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει γεγενῆσθαι, 1b. 61, § 284 


B). “1 say that He never did anything but 
what the Maker of the world, above Whom 
there is no God at all, willed that He should 
do” (ib. 56, ὃ 276). The Father is above all. 
Trypho would not endure to listen to Justin 
if he did not hold this (2b. 56, ὃ 278 B). The 
Son is then subordinate, and perfectly sub- 
ordinate, but this subordination is such that 
it can allow the Son to identify Himself 
utterly with the Father, as with Moses at the 
bush, and so to be called ὁ Κύριος and ὁ Θεός. 
In the expression ‘‘ born of the Father’s 
Will’’ we are once more close to Arian con- 
troversy. Was there, then, a moment when 
the Father had not yet willed to have a Son ? 
If so, how can the Son be eternal? Yet, if 
not, how was the Father’s will free? Justin 
has no such questions put to him. He states 
this dependence of the Son for His very Being 
on the Will of the Father without anxiety as 
to His right to be named ὁ Θείς, and to receive 


+ 
" 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


worship in the absolute sense in which a Jew 
would understand that title and that worship. 
And here, again, surely it was inevitable that 
the Christian consciousness should have so 
stated frankly the subordinate and dependent 
character of the eternal Sonship, before it 
appreciated the subtle puzzle that would 
ensue when logic began its critical work upon 
the novel and double-sided conception. 
Subordination of the Son to the Father must 
represent the immediate, primary, natural, 
and intelligible method of presenting to the 
reflecting mind the reconciliation of the 
duality of Persons with the unity of Will. 
The very name of Son, or of the Word, implied 
it. So far, too, the logic inherited from the 
philosophies would supply the needful formula. 
It would take time to discover that Christian- 
ity held implicitly, in its faith in the entire 
Divinity of the Son, a position which, if ever 
it was to be made consistent with the explicit 
formula of the subordination, must necessitate 
an entirely new and original logical effort, 
such as would justify the synthesis already 
achieved by the Christian’s intuitive belief in 
the absolute Divinity of a dependent and 
subordinate Son. This new logical effort was 
made when Athanasius. recognized the 
dilemma into which the old logic of the Schools 
had thrown the Christian position, and, in- 
stead of abandoning either of the alternatives, 
evolved a higher logic, which could accept 
both. For it must be remembered, if we are 
to be impartial to Justin, that the Nicene 
controversy was not closed by the church 
throwing over the subordination, while the 
Arian threw over the entire Divinity of the 
Son. Nicaea confessed the subordination, and 
made it theoretically consistent with the 
absolute Divinity. This being so, the only 
possible test by which to try Justin (who 
certainly held both the divinity and the 
subordination) would be to ask whether, if 
he had seen the dilemma, he would have held 
the subordination of the Son to be the primary 
and imperative truth to the logical needs of 
which the fulness of the divine Sonship must 
be thrown over, or whether he would have felt 
the latter truth to be so intimately essential 
that a novel logic must be called into existence 
which should interpret it into accordance with 
the subordination. It cannot but be felt that 
Justin’s faith is a great deal more pronounced 
and definite than his Platonic logic; that the 
one is clear and strong where the other is 
vague and arbitrary; and, if so, that in a 
conflict between the two his faith would have 
remained supreme. Justin’s temper of mind 
is the complete reverse of that of Arius. 

On the ministerial activities of the Son for 
the Father Justin is much more explicit. 

The Word has one chief mission from the 
Father, that of interpreting Him to man; 
hence He received the name of ἄγγελος (cf. 
Dial. 56, ὃ 275). He accomplishes this (1) to 
the Jews by means of the Theophanies and 
through the lips of the prophets. The Word 
is the direct inspirer Whose spirit moves the 
prophets, and Whose words they speak (cf. 
Apol. i. 36, ὃ 76D). The whole manifold 
Scripture, with all its many parts and voices, 
is, as it were, a great play written by a single 
author, the Word of God, Who alone speaks 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 625 
through all the characters displayed. Of this 
Justin gives instances in cc. 37, 38, 30. 


Again, He is not only the inward force, but 
the outward object also, to Which all prophecy 
is directed. The Jewish Scripture has in Him 
a permanent aim, a fixed canon; it all 
arranges itself round Him (cf. Apol. i. 41, 
§ 73 A). To foretell Him and His work is the 
one purpose of prophecy. By it His whole 
life in its main outlines is described, His 
advent, His birth from the virgin, His coming 


to man’s estate, His curing of the sick, His 
raising the dead, His being hated, and un- 
known, and crucified, His death, resurrection, 
and ascension, His divine sonship, His mission 
of the apostles, His success among the Gentiles 
(3054s. 3%, 8:73). (2) Justin attributes a 
revelation of the Word to the Gentiles, as well 
as to the Jews; to them He is the ἄγγελος, 
the interpreter of the Father, not by propane 
anticipations, but by partial manifestation, 
of Himself. Every man in every race pos- 
sesses a germ of the Word, by the power of 
which men knew what truth they did know, 
and did what good they did do; above all, 
the philosophers and lawgivers who, in their 
rational inquiries and speculations, were 
obeying the measure of the Word within them 
(κατὰ λόγου μέρος... de’ εὑρέσεως καὶ θεωρίας, 
1b. ii. 10, ὃ 48c). It is Justin who promul- 
gates the famous formula: Ὅσα παρὰ πᾶσι xa- 
λῶς εἴρηται ἡμῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστι (ἐδ. ii. 13, 
§ 51). ‘‘ We do not believe less, but more, 
than Empedocles and Pythagoras, Socrates and 
Plato,” he says: ‘‘ we approve what they 
rightly said; but our doctrine is higher than 
theirs ;’’ and so too with the Stoics, poets, 
and historians (cf. ib. i. 18, ὃ 65 c; ii. το, 13). 
This is the principle the Alexandrians are to 
develop. These ancient friends of Christ, for 
their obedience to the Word, were hated as 
Christians are hated, as impious and curious 
busy-bodies ; chief of them was Socrates, who 
was martyred for Christ. With him are men- 
tioned Heraclitus, Musonius the Stoic, etc. In 
the exercising of human reason to search out 
God such as these obeyed the power of the 
Word, the Reason of God (λόγῳ πειραθέντες τὰ 
πράγματα θεωρῆσαι καὶ ἐλέγξαϊ. . . διὰ λόγου 
ζητήσεως θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγνώστου ἐπίγνωσιν ; tb. ii. το, 
§ 48; οἵ. i.5,§55E: λόγῳ ἀληθεῖ καὶ ἐξετασ- 
τικῶς). This general differs from the Christian 
revelation in the partial character of the λόγος 
σπερματικός ; each philosopher, etc., saw only 
a partofthe Word. Hence the contradictions 
of the philosophic system, the inconsistencies 
of human law ; some had one right part, some 
|another. Christians possess the whole Word of 
| God, in the person of Christ Jesus; they, there- 
fore, hold the canon of truth which distinguishes 
all that was good and true of old, from the 
false and the confused with which it was mixed 
(ἐδ. ii. 9, το, ὃ 47). This distinction is radical ; 
‘‘since the germ and image of something, 
given to man according to the measure of his 
capacity, is quite distinct from that very 
thing itself which permits itself, by its own 
favour, to be so given and communicated " 
(sb. ii. 13, § 51). This clear distinction 
exhibits the full reality of the personality 
attributed by Justin to the Word revealed ia 
Christ; it is personality which distinguishes 


40 


626 JUSTINUS MARTYR 

itself so decisively from the influence and 
energy which it exercises ; it is it again which 
makes the distinction between a partial and a 
complete revelation to be so radical. The 
completeness of the Christian revelation lies 
in its being the revelation of Christ’s Person 
(cf. 1b. ii. 10, ὃ 48, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός ; ii. 13, ὃ 51). 
Hence, the Revelation of the Word concen- 
trates itself in the Incarnation; for so only, 
and then only, is the Word Himself in His 
personal reality, as distinct from all his 
activities, and superior to all His influences, 
made manifest and actual to man. ‘ Our 
truth is more sublime than all human doc- 
trine,’’ says Justin, “on account of the 
entirety with which the Divine Reason has 
appeared, for our sakes, as Christ, being 
manifested as body, and reason, and spirit ” 
(1b. ii. το, ὃ 48 B). It is because the Word of 
the absolute and ineffable God has ‘‘ become 
a man for our sakes, sharing our passions, and 
curing our ills,’ that we surpass all the philo- 
sophers whose wisdom we claim to be ours 
(2b. ii. 13, ὃ 50). Christians now can worship 
and love the Word. They possess in Him a 
doctor who will authoritatively determine the 
truth, separating it from the confusions intro- 
duced by the demons (ἐδ. ii. 13, ὃ 51; ii. 9, 
§ 48 8B). He has thus made the certain and 
secure revelation of the Father, which Soc- 
rates pronounced to be so difficult and perilous 
by the way of human reasoning; and He has 
made this revelation effective and universal, 
by being Himself no mere reasoner, but the 
very Power of the Ineffable God (δύναμίς ἐστι 
τοῦ Πατρός, 2b. ii. το, § 49 A; cf. i. 23, ὃ 68 B). 
This Power of God avails to ensure security of 
truth to those even who cannot use reasoning 
effectively, to artisans and utterly unlearned 
people. The identification of the man 
Christ Jesus with the antecedent Word of God 
is entire and unhesitating. Nothing can 
exceed Justin’s preciseness. ‘‘ Christ Who 
was known in part by Socrates, for He was 


and is the Word which is in every man, and | 
foretold things both by the prophets and in| 


His own Person, when He took upon Him our 
nature and taught these things” (ib. ii. ro, 
§ 49 A). Here it is identically the same Per- 
son Who is known to Socrates, and inspires the 
prophets, and taught mankind in the flesh 
(cf. 2b. i. 23: ‘‘ Jesus Christ, Who is the Word 
of God, His First-born, His Power, His only 
Son, was also made man ”’ ; cf. i. 63, ὃ 96 A). 
In consequence of the pre-existence, the In- 
carnation could only be effected by a super- 
natural birth. Because the Christ existed 
personally in Himself before the ages and then 
endured to be born as a man, He could not 
be begotten by man, but must be born solely 
by the will of the Father Who originally begat 
Him. Such a birth would be unnecessary for 
a human Christ; those, therefore, who held 
that God’s Christ was not pre-existent or 
divine, would not hold that He was born 
supernaturally of a virgin. So Justin claims 
that Trypho might accept the proofs that 
Jesus was Christ, even though he should fail 
to convince him of the eternal pre-existence 
and virgin-birth of Jesus (Dial. 48, ὃ 267 B) 
and here Justin confesses that some who are 
called Christians and acknowledge Jesus to 
be Christ, yet hold Him to be a man born of 


᾿ληπτικὸς παθῶν). 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


men. He himself could never agree with them 
even if the main mass of Christians were to turn 
against him; but he speaks of these Ebionites 
with a mildness that is rather startling in view 
of the immense strength and definiteness of his 
own belief, with which his own church, as he 
tells us, fully agreed. Apparently he is justify- 
ing the possibility of the pzs aller, which he pro- 
poses to Trypho. It is a novelty to Trypho, it 
seems, to hear of there being such Christians : 
he expects them to hold what Justin holds. 
Evidently, the common church faith in the 
pre-existence and divinity of Christ is so 
entire that it already has a theology which is 
anxious to use the agony in the garden and 
the bitter cry on the cross as proofs that Christ 
was actually a man Who could suffer pain (7b. 
103, § 331 D, etc.), as if it were the humanity 
that was more likely to be doubted than the 
divinity. This supernatural birth is justified 
by Isaiah’s prophecy (which he accuses the 
Jews of having corrupted, by changing 
παρθένος into νεᾶνις, and which the demons 
have caricatured in the myth of Perseus) (2b. 
68, ὃ 294); by Psalm cx.: ‘‘ From the womb 
I begat Thee”’ (7b. 63, 286 D); and from many 
other texts in which Justin sees it fore- 
shadowed that the blood of Christ would come 
not by human mixture, but solely by the will 
of God (Apol. i. 32, ὃ 74; Dial. 76, ὃ 301). 
His language on this goes so far that it seems 
sometimes hardly consistent with the perfect 
manhood of Christ. He is “like a son of 
man,”’ 1.6. not born of human seed. His 
blood is called the ‘‘ blood of the grape,” 
because it came not to Him from man, but 
direct from the will of the Father. He is the 
“stone cut without hands,”’ etc. 

The purpose of the Incarnation is to save 
men from evil deeds and evil powers, and to 
teach assured truth (Apol. i. 23, 868 c; ἐπ’ 
ἀλλαγῇ καὶ ἐπαναγωγῇ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους; 
ii. 9 § 48, B). He brings to bear the full 
divine energy (ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Πατρός) on a race 
diseased and deceived through the action of 
devils. So He is the medicine to cure (2b. ii. 
13, §51 D), which He becomes by sharing our 
humanity (τῶν παθῶν τῶν ἡμετέρων συμμέτοχοϑ). 
He is therefore called the Saviour (7b. i. 61, 
§ 94 A), in Whom we receive remission of sins 
and regeneration. His mode of action is by 
(1) teaching, as the Word, which is no mere 
persuasive argument but is a Power penetrat- 
ing deeper than the sun into the recesses of 
the soul (Dial. 121, § 350 A), enabling us not 
only to hear and understand, but to be saved 
(Apol. ii. 12, § 49). His truth is an absolute 
canon by which to sift the true from the false 
in human speculations, since He, the Entire 
Word, distinguishes with certainty, amid the 
confusion of the philosophies, that in them 
which is His own working. Socompletely and 
uniquely authoritative is He, that it is by His 
teaching alone that men rightly know and 
worship the one Father and God (7b. i. 13). 
(2) He saves, secondly, by suffering on the 
cross: so sharing in all the reality of our flesh 
(cf. Dial. 98, ὃ 324 D, γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ἀντι- 
He destroys death by death. 
He gains possession of men by the cross (cf 
ib. 134, § 364 C, δι᾿ αἵματος καὶ μυστηρίου τοῦ 
σταυροῦ κτησάμενος αὐτούς). By His blood 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


He loosens the power of the devil (ἰδ. 94, 
§ 322 aA); Heremoves death (ἰδ. 105, ὃ 332); 
by His blood He purifies those who believe 
(Apol. i. 32, ὃ 74 A): hence, He, as crucified, 
is the Priest, the Eternal High Priest (εὐ. Dial. 
116, 343 E). Man’s power to keep blameless, 
and to drive out devils, follows the economy 
of His Passion (ib. 31, ὃ 247 p). Hence He 
is called βοηθός and λυτρωτής (tb. 30, ὃ 247 C), 
the hope of Christians is hung on the cruci- 
fixion of Christ (ib. 96, ὃ 323 c). By His 
stripes we are healed (tb. 17, ὃ 234 E, 336 D). 
So He is the Paschal Lamb, Who saves from 
death by the sprinkling of blood (ἰδ. 111, 
§ 338 c). He saved, by submitting to that 
which all men deserved for sin, 1.6. the curse 
pronounced on all who kept not the law; 
therefore He was crucified, because the curse 
lay on crucifixion ; but He was no more under 
God’s curse when He endured our curse than 
was the brazen serpent, which was ordered 
by God, though He had condemned all images. 
God saved of old by an image without violating 
the Second Commandment; He saves now, 
by a Crucified, those who are worthy of the 
curse, without, for that, laying His curse on 
the Crucified. It is the Jews, and not God, 
who now fulfil the text by ‘‘cursing Him that 
hung on the tree”’ (7b. 96, 323). This cross 
and suffering the Father willed for man’s sake, 
that on His Christ might fall the curse of all 
men: He willed it, knowing that He would 
raise Him again from this death, as Christ 
testified on the cross by His appeal to the 
Father. This coming of Christ to be despised, 
to suffer, to die, is justified by many appeals 
to prophecy, especially to Ps. xxii. (1b. 98, 
§ 325), to Jacob’s blessing, Gen. xlix. 8, 12, 
etc. It is the ‘‘ hidden power of God which 
is exhibited in the crucified Christ ᾿ (7b. 49, 
§ 269 c). This power (ἰσχὺς τοῦ μυστηρίου 
τοῦ σταυροῦ, 1b. 91, ὃ 318 B) began to manifest 
its hidden efficacy from the day of the resur- 
rection; those who have faith in the cross, 
and exercise penitence, are, through the power 
of Christ, the great and eternal priest, stripped 
of the filthy garments of sin, and clothed with 
new robes, and made priests, through whom 
everywhere sacrifices are offered (1b. 116, § 
344). Christ Himself is raised from the grave, 
to be led up into heaven, by the Father, there 
to dwell until He shall strike down all the 
devils His enemies and the number of the 
elect righteous shall be fulfilled, when He will 
be shewn in glory on the throne of His mani- 
fested kingdom. Then will be the great judg- 
ment of devils and sinners which is delayed 
solely for the sake of gathering in all who may 
yet be willing to believe and repent (A pol. 1. 
45, ὃ 82 Ὁ: ii. 7, § 45 B); till it comes, 
Christ sends down power on His Apostles, by 
which they, and all who will, consecrate them- 
selves to the one God (ib. i. 50, § 86 B; 40, 
§ 85 B). This present efficacy of Christ is 
evident in the power of Christians over devils, 
who are bound and expelled by their adjura- 
tion (cf. Dial. 76, § 302 a). This power, 
offered to all, manifests itself especially among 
the Gentiles, and is rejected by Jew and 
Samaritan, as many a prophecy had foretold 
(ib. 91, § 319 A; cf. 120, § 348, etc. to end of 
Dial.). It calls men by the road of faith into 
friendship and blessing, penitence, and com- 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 627 
punction, and assures them of a kingdom to 
come, eternal and incorruptible (cf. #b. 139, 
§ 369 a). All on whom the power of the 
cross comes are gathered with one mind into 
one synagogue, one church, a church born of 
and called by His name, addressed by the 
Word in Scripture as His daughter, ** Hearken, 
O daughter” (ib. 63, ὃ 287 B). This church 
is described, with St. Paul, as one body, & 
καλεῖται καὶ ἔστι σῶμα (ἰδ. 42, § 261 A). 

The eternal kingdom comes with Christ's 
second advent, in glory, as judge. He will 
judge every man, up to Adam himself (ἐδ. 
132, § 362 A); then shall sinners and devils 
weep, for to them He will allot a place in that 
eternal fire which will destroy this world; 
believers He will admit to the kingdom, re- 
calling the dead to life and establishing them 
in an eternal and indissoluble kingdom, them- 
selves incorruptible, immortal, painless (1b. 
117, ὃ 345, B). This is the Melchisedec, King 
of Salem, eternal Priest of the Most High, Who 
will remake a new heaven and a new earth, 
into which holy land His circumcised shall 
enter (tb. 113, ὃ 341 A). This kingdom is 
generally spoken of as in heaven, as not earthly 
(cf. Apol. i. 11, §59 A, etc.) ; it is a home with 
God, for the sake of which Christians easily 
despise all earthly delights and lusts and the 
fear of death. In one famous passage in the 
Dialogue (80, ὃ 306 B; cf. 113, ὃ 341 A) he 
accepts the Jewish belief of a millennium in a 
restored and beautified Jerusalem ; he claims 
to have dealt already with this point, though 
no such explanation is in the Dialogue; many 
share this belief with him, he says, yet many 
pious and orthodox Christians reject it; only 
those whoare, according to J ustin, ὀρθογνώμονες 
κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοί, hold this faith with 
him, based on Is. lxv. 17 and on the Revela- 
tion of ‘‘ one of themselves, by name John, an 
apostle of Christ,’’ who speaks of a first resur- 
rection and then a second eternal resurrection 
and judgment of all men. Evidently there 
are no words of our Lord’s to support this 
belief; it is a pious opinion, resting on the 
literal reading of the Apocalypse, held by the 
most strict believers, but not necessary to a 
pure and true faith (καθαρὰ καὶ εὐσεβὴς 
γνώμη). Far different are those who deny the 
future resurrection of the body altogether and 
believe in an immediate entrance of the souls 
of Christians into heaven: ‘‘let Trypho be- 
ware of deeming such to be Christians at all." 
The resurrection of the body is a cardinal 
point of Justin’s creed (cf. Apol. i. 18 ff.); 
essential to the reality of future punishment, 
and to the fullness of a Christian's security 
against all loss in death, and justified by an 
appeal to the wonder of our first creation and 
to Christ’s miracles (Dial. 69, § 296 A). 

When this Advent will be, we know not, 
thoughit may besoon. It will be preceded by 
the appearance of the Man of Iniquity. 

On the action of the Third Person, Tosiia is 
not so definite; he is continually speaking of 
Him, but His person and office are not always 
distinguished with precision from those of the 
Second Person. He is there, in J ustin’s creed, 
a recognized element in it, constantly occur- 
ring; but apparently J ustin’s metaphysic had 
not yet had time or occasion to dwell on this 
point with anxiety or exactness. The most 


628 JUSTINUS MARTYR 

definite mention of Him is in the typical 
formula for the object of Christian worship 
and sacramental service ; here He is distinctly 
allied to the First and Second Persons as the 
alone Third, Who shares with Them the adora- 
tion of Christians and the ministration of 
grace (cf. A pol. i. 13, ὃ 60 E, Πνεῦμα προφητικὸν 
ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει τιμῶμεν, Where he is explaining 
what it is that Christians worship); again 
(7b. i. 60, ὃ 93 B), he claims for the Spirit the 
truth of that τὸ τρίτον which Plato was sup- 
posed to have suggested. Here, as in the 
former case, the τρίτον is parallel to ἡ δευτέρα 
χώρα, the place of the Son, and must, there- 
fore, be understood in something of the same 
significance as that; and that ‘‘second 
place”’ signified, we know, a difference in 
number, in fact, in personality, not a mere 
logical distinction; yet it included such a 
unity of substance and will that the termino- 
logy of the Godhead could be directly applied 
to it, with the exception of those symbols of 
absolute supremacy, 7.e. the titles, ‘‘ Father,”’ 
““Creator,’’ etc. As the Holy Spirit is directly 
included within the lines of the object wor- 
shipped, so is He directly implicated in the 
divine action upon men: thus the baptismal 
and sacrificial formula unite His name with 
that of the Father and the Son (7b. i. 61, ὃ 94 
A; 65, § 97D; 67, ὃ 98 c). He, with the Son, 
is the medium by which praise and thanks- 
giving are offered to the Father; His is the 
third name in the might of which the Christian 
receives regeneration. One curious passage 
gives Him a strange place: Justin refutes 
(δ. i. 6, ὃ 56 c) the charge of atheism by 
claiming that Christians honour and adore 
(σεβύμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν) ‘both God the 
Father, and the Son Who came from Him, and 
the host of good angels that follow Him, and 
are made like to Him, and the Prophetic Spirit 
also.’’ Here the angels are brought in front 
of the Spirit, through the need, probably, of 
expressing their unity with Christ by virtue of 
which they become the objects of Christian 
reverence (ἐξομοιουμέν ων). Several attempts 
have been made to avoid this sudden intro- 
duction of the angels, by various interpreters 
(cf. Otto’s note in loc. ed. vol. i. 1, 21); but it 
is hardly possible to read the passage otherwise 
than as it stands. It must be explained by 
its position ; Justin is quite precise and clear 
in other passages, where the position attri- 
buted to the Holy Spirit is definitely marked, 
and this sentence, therefore, must be inter- 
preted in accordance with them, not they be 
confused by it. The angels are best intro- 
duced in close company with that Divine 
Person to Whom they are peculiarly attached, 
and from Whom especially they derive their 
title to sanctity (cf. Dial. 31, § 247 E; Apol. 
i. 52, §§ 87-88; Dial. 61, ὃ 284 B), our Lord 
being Himself ὁ ἄγγελος, and being therefore 
named ἀρχιστράτηγος, the captain of the 
angelic host. Only through Him can they be 
reverenced ; while the Holy Spirit receives 
worship by right of Himself. Justin, by 
throwing in at the end σεβόμεθα with προσκυ- 
vodmev, covers all the varieties of adoration 
that his inclusion of angels may have made 
requisite; and he adds λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ 
τιμῶντες, as if to suggest that there were 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


carefully guarded lines of distinction in the 
Christian’s worship. Elsewhere he shews 
himself perfectly conscious of the impossibility 
of paying absolute worship to any but God 
alone (Apol. i. 16, § 63); in order to justify 
the adoration of Christ, he knows clearly that 
he must shew Him to be higher than all angels 
(Dial. 56, § 276). The whole argument with 
the Jew exhibits the precision of Justin’s dis- 
tinction between God and His angelic ministers; 
but, on the other hand, his language in this 
unique passage evidences the reverential 
service that could be offered, according to 
Christian use, to those who had been fashioned 
into the likeness of Christ. 

The Holy Spirit is concerned with creation 
(1b. i. 60, § 93 B), in His distinct personal full- 
ness, aS ὁ τρίτος, with a third station peculiar 
to Himself (τρίτη χώρα) in the Godhead. His 
main office is with inspiration; He is τὸ 
Πνεῦμα τὸ προφητικόν ; this is His cardinal 
name. He speaks as Himself to man, using 
men as His organ (διὰ Mwiioéws προεμήνυσε, 1b. 
i. 60, ὃ 93 B) ; here, since the words follow the 
statement of the place of the Holy Spirit in 
the Triad, they must definitely intend Him, in 
His distinction from the Word, to be the 
spring of inspiration; so, too, in the formula 
of baptism, it is the name of προφητικός, which 
marks His distinction from the Word; and 
we must, therefore, apply to Him, in His separ- 
ate right and existence, the constantly recur- 
ring use of this name (cf. 2b. i. 38, ὃ 77 C; 
47, ὃ 84 A, etc., etc.), on all which occasions He 
is spoken of as the direct author and speaker 
of prophecy, and prophecy is spoken of as 
peculiarly the note of God (ἐδ. i. 30, ὃ 72 B, 
etc.). This Spirit is one throughout; It spoke 
once in Elias, and afterwards in the Baptist 
(Dial. 49, § 268). Yet Justin sometimes attri- 
butes to the Word this action of inspiration 
which gives to the Spirit His name (cf. A Pol. i. 
36, ὃ 76 p); the prophets speak through the 
Word which moves them (so again 7b. i. 33, 
§ 75 D, θεοφοροῦνται λόγῳ θείῳ ; cf. Dial. 61, 
§ 284. c; 62, 8285; 63, §236D). In both cases 
it is the effective agency by which the prophets 
are stirred to speak which is attributed to 
the Word; and Justin attributes this on 
grounds which he expects the heathen em- 
perors to acknowledge, it is language they 
must understand (A pol. i. 33). The action of 
God on man is so intimately bound up with 
the Word, in Justin, that it is wonderful how 
much inspiration he attributes to the Spirit, 
rather than how little. 

Justin holds very decisively the belief. (1) 
in good angels, attached intimately to our Lord 
(cf. former quotations), messengers of God in 
O. and N.T., fed in heaven on some manna 
(Dial. 57, ὃ 279 6), accompanying Christ in 
His glory on the last day; and (2) more 
particularly in bad angels, to whom the earth 
and man had been committed by God (A pol. 
ii. 5, § 44 A), but who overstepped their limits 
in wicked intercourse with women, who, from 
them, bore sons, the devils ; they reduced the 
human race to servitude, by deceitful magic, 
and by terror, and by instituting sacrifices, 
etc., to themselves, for which they lusted now 
that they had known the passion of fleshly 
desires : they sowed the seeds of war, adultery, 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


crime. Chief among them is the Serpent, the 
tempter of Adam and Eve, the Devil, Satanas, 
a name ascribed to him by our Lord Himself 
at His temptation, signifying Apostate and 
Serpent (ἐδ. i. 28, § 71 B; Dial. 103, ὃ 331 B). 
The problem of the human soul occupies 
the chief place in the account of Justin’s con- 
version ; the philosophers were felt to be un- 
certain and insecure in their conception of it, 
especially as regards its immortality, its con- 
sequent transmigration, and its relation to the 
divine substance. Justin holds that the soul 
is no particle of the absolute mind; has no 
life in itself; is created; is not life, but par- 
taker of life, so that it could perish; but 
receives immortality by the will of God, as is 
proved by a mass of practical testimony, by 
the word of Revelation, and by its consonance 
with the needs of justice; this immortality 
includes as its essential requisite the resur- 


rection of the body, without which Justice | 


could not fulfil itself ; it will be given both to 
Apol. i. 21, ὃ 67 D; 18, 19, ὃ 65), though it is 
only rightly “‘immortality’’ for the just; 
for the others, eternal fire. 

Man, according to Justin, has been impri- 
soned in sin since the fall of Adam, the first 
man, deceived of the devil, who fell greatly 
by deceiving Eve; hence “ ye shall die’’ 
(Dial. 124, ὃ 353 D, ὁμοίως τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ καὶ τῇ 
Εὔᾳ ἐξομοιούμενοι. θάνατον ἑαυτοῖς ἐργάζονται), 
though originally made θεῷ ὁμοίως ἀπαθεῖς καὶ 
ἀθανάτους (cf. 1b. 88, § 316 A). Man, as the 
angels, was made incorruptible, if he kept 
God’s laws. This Biblical view falls in with 
his account of the whole human race, as 
sinning through the deceit of evil angels who 
made them think their own bad passions 
possible in gods. This evilstate, thus brought 
on, is spoken of as a tyranny from which man 
had to be delivered by another (cf. ἐδ. 116, 
§ 344 A; Apol. ii. 6, ὃ 45 a); Christ comes 
ἐπὶ καταλύσει τῶν δαιμόνων. The whole race 
is under the curse; for, if the Jews were, by 
the laws of Moses, much more were the Gen- 
tiles with their horrible idolatry (Dial. 95, 
§ 322 Dp). Only by Christ is the curse removed ; 
He, our Israel, wrestles for us with the devil 
(ib. 125, § 354 D). Only by His grace are 
the devils made subject. But Justin com- 
bines with this a great anxiety to keep man’s 
free-will intact ; he is continually explaining 
himself on this point. Man is never deserted 
of God; he possesses, after the fall, the ger- 
minal Λόγος, by which he discerns between 
good and evil, between true and false (cf. 1b. 
93, § 320 D; Apol. ii. το). ; : 

The gift of Christ to man is primarily re- 
mission of sins (cf. Dial. 116, ὃ 344, etc.), 
effected through penitence on man’s part, 
excited by his call into true faith in the 
Creator; by Christ's power, sin is stripped off 
and remitted ; we are made regenerate (A pol. 
i. 61,§94 D). This regeneration accomplished 
and the truth being now known and confessed, 
we become bound, and fit, to accomplish a 
good life, to keep the commandments, to 
attain eternal life (ib. i. 65, ὃ 97 c). _We are 
clothed with garments prepared of Christ 
(Dial. 116, ὃ 344); we are to imitate God's 
own virtues, to exhibit ourselves worthy of 
His counsel by works (Apol. i. 10, ὃ 58 B). 


the just and to the unjust (cf. Dial. 4, 5, 6;. 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 629 


The entire change of character is beautifully 
given in Apol. i. 14, § 61, 15, ete. 

The most effective guard of this pure living 
is belief in the resurrection of the bases for 
this hope consecrates the entire man to the 
holiness of the eternal kingdom and renders 
real the sense of future punishment; we shall 
feel torture, hereafter, in our bodies; without 
this, future pain would be unreal and meaning- 
less (ἐδ. i. 18, § 65). God will raise and endue 
with incorruptibility the dead bodies, now 
dissolved and scattered like seeds over the 
earth (ἐδ. i. 19). 

This human race will endure until the 
number of those willing to become Christians 
is complete. It is because God acts by the 
free choice of man that He does not destroy 
evil by force, but offers men the chance of 
escape, and gives them time to use the chance 
(Dial. 102, § 329 A). The punishment that 
awaits sinners, when the end comes, will be 
by fire and for ever. On this Justin is very 
pronounced (cf. Apol. i. 8, § 57 By: “an 
eternal punishment "ἢ (αἰώνιον κόλασιν), he 
says, ‘and not a mere period of a thousand 
years,’ ἀπαύστως κολάζεσθαι (Dial. 45, ὃ 264 
B); the kingdom is αἰώνιος καὶ ἄλυτος, the 
κόλασις πυρός is αἰώνιος too (Dial. 117, § 345). 
He uses the language freely and frankly, un- 
hampered, apparently, by his theory of the 
soul, which makes its immortality dependent 
on the Will of God, Who wills it in the shape of 
Holiness (cf. Iren. bk. iii. 36; cf. Apol. i. 21, 
§67). He justifies the existence of reward and 
punishment by the forcible argument, that, 
without them, you are compelled to believe 
God indifferent to good and evil, or else good 
and evil to have no real actuality ; both which 
beliefs are impious. The judgment is the wit- 
ness of God’s regard to the reality of the dis- 
tinction (cf. A pol. ii. 9, § 47 E; i. 28, ὃ 71 Cc). 

The church is that society of Christians in 
which the power of the regeneration is faith- 
fully manifested and the pure knowledge re- 
vealed in Christ loyally held; so Justin is 
anxious to explain that not all so-called 
Christians are real Christians, any more than 
all so-called philosophies mean the same thing 
(1b. i. 7, ὃ 56 δ). Many, professing to confess 
Christ, hold impious and immoral doctrine, 
with whom the ‘disciples of the true and 
pure doctrine ’’ do not communicate; they 
are marked as heretical by assuming the 
names of their founders, ¢.g. Marcion, Valen- 
tinus, Basilides (Dial 35, ὃ 253 Ὁ). 

The true Christians hold “ the pure teaching 
of Jesus Christ’; possess “ἃ pure and pious 
doctrine ’’ based on Scripture, and the words 
of Christ, not on human doctrine (ἐδ. 48, § 269 
Ὁ); prove them true by holiness (cf. Apol. 1. 
26, § 70 B); heretics may be capable of any 
wickedness for all Justin knows. He himself 
has written a work against all the heresies 
(ib. i. 26, § 70 c). The heresies confirm true 
believers in the faith, since Christ foretold 
them (cf. Dial. 82, ὃ 308 8; 35, § 253 0), 
though they lead many away. 

True believers are admitted to the body by 
the rite of baptism, on their acceptance of 
Christian verity and their promise to live 
accordingly (Apol. i. 61, §93 #). This bap- 
tism is the true circumcision of the Spirit 
(Dial. 43, §261 Ὁ); works with the cross to 


090 JUSTINUS MARTYR 


expiate our sins (ib. 86, ὃ 314 A); is appointed 
by Christ Himself for the remission of sins ; 
and is our regeneration, by which we are 
born again out of a state of sin into Light and 
Holiness ; so called ‘‘ Illumination,” φωτισμός 
(Apol. i. 61, 74). It presupposes penitence 
and aconfession of faith (2b. i. 61, 65). Bap- 
tism admits to the brotherhood, the assembly, 
where common prayers are made (ἐδ. i. 65, ὃ 
97 c), the kiss of peace given, and the Euchar- 
ist offered by the leader of the brethren, ὁ 
προεστώς; who takes the bread and water 
and wine brought him, and sends up praise 
and glory to the Father, in the Name of the 
Son and the Holy Spirit; at the end of his 
thanksgiving the people give their consent by 
saying, ‘‘Amen’’; after this thanksgiving, 
εὐχαριστία, the deacons administer the ele- 
ments, with which thanks have been offered 
(τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου), to each one 
present and carry some to the absent. This 
food is itself called the Eucharist ; no one may 
eat of it who does not believe the truth taught 
and has not been washed by baptism ; for it | 
is not ordinary bread or wine, κοινὸν ἄρτον, 
but ‘‘in the very manner that Jesus Christ 
becoming incarnate by the word of God, had, 
for our salvation, both flesh and blood, so have 
we been taught that the food, which has been 
made a thanksgiving by the word of prayer 
which He gave us, by which food our own flesh 
and blood are, through a process of transforma- 
tion, nourished, is both the flesh and the blood 
of that same incarnate Jesus.’’ He proceeds 
to quote, from the books of the apostles, the 
account of the institution of the Last Supper, 
and compares it with the initiatory offerings 
in the mysteries of Mithra (δ. i. 65-66, ὃ 97). 
In this passage the Incarnation is spoken of, 
as elsewhere, as the work of the Word Him- | 
self ; though He is Himself the Incarnate One 
(cf. ib. i. 32, 74 B, ὁ λόγος ὃς σαρκοποιηθεὶς 
ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν). The principle of the 
Eucharist is found in the principle of the In- 
carnation (though the analogy is hardly to 
be pressed into details); it is the flesh and 
blood of Christ, taken for our salvation, that 
are identified with the food; which food is 
itself so intimately allied with our flesh and 
blood that it still nourishes our actual bodies 
κατὰ μεταβολήν, though it is the flesh and 
blood of Jesus, after the word of prayer, δι᾽ 
εὐχῆς λόγου (by some rendered, “prayer of 
His word,”’ cf. Otto’s notes, p. 181 of 3rd ed.), 
which He Himself instituted, 1.6. the words 
ordained by Christ, given by Justin as ‘‘ Do 
this in remembrance of Me: this is My body: 
this is My blood.” In the Dialogue, 117, 
§ 345 A, Justin speaks again of the “‘ dry and 
liquid food’’ in which memorial is made by 
Christians, according to a received institution, 
of the suffering of the Son of God, τὸ πάθος ὃ 
πέπονθε. This memorial is there identified 
with those prayers and thanksgivings, offered 
by holy people, which alone are the sacrifices 
perfect and well-pleasing to God, in contrast 
with the Jewish sacrifices, and in fulfilment of 
Mal. i. ro. These sacrifices (θυσίαι) occur at 
the Eucharist of the bread and of the cup; 
the spiritual sacrifice of praise is then and 
there alone accomplished, by God’s injunction. 
Isa. xxxiii. 13 is fulfilled in the bread which | 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


our Christ ordered us (παρέδωκεν) to offer 
(ποιεῖν) for a memorial of His having taken to 
Himself a body, and so become passible 
(παθητός) (Dial. 70, ὃ 296 E). 

Justin mentions, beside the Eucharist which 
followed the baptism, that the Christians met 
every Sunday (7 τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμέρα), the day on 
which God began creation and raised Christ 
(Apol. i. 67, §97). All came in who could, 
from country and town, to one place; the 
memorials of the apostles or the books of the 
prophets were read publicly ; then, the leader 
preached and admonished; after which all 
rose together and prayed; then the Eucharist 
is administered as before described. At such 
times, offertories were made of voluntary 
gifts, laid in the hands of the leader, who dis- 
tributed them to the sick, widows, ete. 
“© Ever,’’ says Justin, ‘‘ do we remind ourselves 
of this rite ’’ which followed our baptism ; and 
‘* ever we live together ; we who are rich give 
to the poor; and for everything that we have 
we bless the Creator of all through Jesus 
Christ and the Holy Spirit ”’ (7b. i. 67); send- 
ing up to Him solemn prayers (7ou7mds) and 
hymns, not deeming Him to be in need of 
blood and libations and sweet smells (7b. i. 
13, §60c). Sunday, then, was observed as a 
peculiar day (cf. Dial. 24, 241 B); this is in 
contrast with σαββατίζειν, and “ regarding the 
stars,’’ which mean, distinctly, keeping the 
Jewish feasts; this the main body of Chris- 
tians repudiated, so that it was by most 
treated as a criminal heresy to keep the sab- 
bath, and they refused to hold communion 
with those Christians who still held to these 
Jewish customs. This severity Justin con- 
demns; but his whole argument with Trypho 
accepts thoroughly the abolition of the Fourth 
Commandment. The sabbath symbolizes 
Moses, and Christians hope not in Moses but 
in Christ ; the Christian does not think him- 
self pious for keeping one day idle, but for 
keeping a continual sabbath. The sabbath 
was given for the hardness of the Jews’ hearts 
(cf. ἐδ. 10, § 227 B, etc. ; 19, § 237 C; 21, § 238), 

Justin’s conception of the Law is very 
strong and decided. Definite as he is against 
Marcion, in his belief in the revelation of the 
true God made in O.T., he yet takes an ex- 


| treme view of the partial, local and temporal 


character of the law. He bases himself, 
mainly, on his principle of the complete uni- 
versality of God: God is everlasting, through- 
out all time, over all people; He is Judge of 
all the earth ; His justice must be alike every- 
where. Hence He cannot shut up His rela- 
tions to man within the limits of a law ad- 
dressed to a single people, and for a limited 


| period of time (Dial. 23, §240 E; 93, 320C). 


Facts prove this: for God was well-pleased 
with Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchisedec, though 
they were uncircumcised and kept no sabbaths 
(cf. 2b. 19, ὃ 236 ο). Again, if virtue lay in the 
mere act of circumcision, women would be in 
a worse case than men (7b. 23, ὃ 241 0). It 
would be against God’s nature to value such 
rites, and limitations, and new sacrifices, for 
their own sake, as if the good lay in them. 
Did the Law, then, not comefrom Him? Yes; 
but God in it accommodated Himself to the 
Jews; it was for you Jews alone that it was 
necessary ; because you forgot Him, He had 


ne 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


to decree your sabbaths; because you fell 
away to idols, He had to demand of you sacri- 
fices (tb. 19, 8.236 Ε). He ordered you a 
temple, lest you should worship images. All 
was done to distinguish the Jewish race from 
the heathen ; and this, not on account of the 
race’s virtue, so much as for its proneness to 
evil. To justify this, Justin appeals to the 
“everlasting voice of prophecy’’; he quotes 
the many words of the prophets in which 
sabbaths and sacrifices are declared un- 
pleasing and unavailing. “1 am not invent- 
ing all this,’’ he says, but ‘‘ this is what David 
sang, Isaiah preached, Zechariah proclaimed, 
Moses wrote ’’ (ἴδ. 29). Where the prophets 
insist on the laws, it was because of the 
people’s sin (tb. 27, ὃ 244 B). But Justin has, 
still, to account for the Law being, in a relative 
sense, worthy of God; and this He does by 
distinguishing two elements in it, one eternal, 
the other temporal; the two stand to each 
other chiefly as sign and reality; so Justin 
discovers in the temporal provisions of the 
Law allegories of eternal truths. This is what 
was meant when Moses gave minute rules 
about meats and herbs and drinks; it was to 
symbolize the moral laws (cf. ἐδ. 20, ὃ 237 Cc), 
but the Jewish people took it literally. They 
supposed, ¢.g., some herbs to be evil, some 
good; while, in truth, God meant all to be 
good, if it was profitable to men. The cir- 
cumcision under Joshua was allegorical (cf. 
1b. ili. § 332). So, again, meat was a symbol 
of Christ; so, too, the Passover Lamb, and 
the scape-goats (tb. 40, 41, ὃ 250 A). But if 
the Law was allegorical, symbolic, it neces- 
sarily ceased when the reality came. So it 
ended with Christ Who has enabled us to 
sever the eternal from the temporal elements : 
He is the test and canon of what was real 
in the Law (ἐδ. 67, ὃ 292 Cc). 

If Christ took away sin, He took away the 
reason for the Law; He gave us the circum- 
cision of the heart, which made the carnal 
circumcision needless (cf. βαπτίσθητε τὴν 
ψυχὴν ἀπὸ ὀργῆς καὶ ἰδού, τὸ σῶμα καθαρόν 
ἐστι: tb. 14, 231 D). Justin does not con- 
sider that such a principle as this negatives 
the necessity of an outward baptism, or of an 
outward Sunday; for both these he holds. 
Prophecy speaks of a new covenant to be made 
in a Christ; and this for Jew as well as for 
Gentile, for both are to be saved in the same 
Christ (1b. 64, 8 287 B). Why, then, did Christ 
keep the Law? Out of the economy of God ; 
He accepted the Law as He accepted the 
Cross, and the becoming-man: it was in order 
to carry out the Father’s will; but He was not 
justified by keeping the Law; otherwise He 
could not be the Saviour of all men (tb. 67, 
§ 292 A) nor have introduced a new covenant. 
The admission of the eternal significance of 
Christ necessarily carries us back behind the 
Law, to the conditions under which all men 
had always lived (tb. 23, § 241 B). 

The failure of the Jews to believe in the 
Christ is no argument for their being right ; 
for it is foretold all along that the Gentiles are 
the children of prophecy, the true Israel, the 
perfect proselytes ; it is of them that all the 
good promises are spoken. The whole of the 
end of the Dialogue is devoted to shewing this. 

We realize in Justin the complete Gentilism 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


of the Christianity of 140 A.p. He regards the 
Law rather as an evidence of peculiar evil, 
than of peculiar good, in the Jews; so he even 
says in scorn that circumcision only serves to 
mark them out for condemnation, as the 
accursed who are forbidden to enter Jerusa- 
lem ; it enables the Romans to exclude them 
from the Holy Land. 

But if Justin is hard upon the Law, he is 
very different towards Prophecy. On Pro- 
phecy, on Scripture, he relies absolutely ; he 
asks to be believed, only so far as he can prove 
his truth by Scripture. It is the word of God, 
given by God through the Word, or chiefly 
through the Spirit. This is reiterated con- 
tinually. The whole O.T. is as a great 
drama, with various actors, but of which there 
is a single author, the Spirit of God (A pol. i. 46, 
§76p). Itisaunity; so that Justin does not 
believe that any one part can contradict any 
other; rather he would feel bound to confess 
his own ignorance, where such seemed the case 
(Dial. 65,§289¢). His definition is: ‘ Certain 
men existed among the Jews, God's prophets, 
through whom the prophetic spirit foretold 
things before they occurred"’ (Apol. i. 31, § 
72 B). Moses he calls the first; after Moses 
he speaks of an “‘eternal prophecy going forth" 
(tb. i. 31; Dial. 30, ὃ 247 a). They foretold 
Christ, His coming, His birth from a virgin, 
His man’s estate, His curing disease and raising 
the dead, His being hated and despised and 
fixed to a cross, His death, resurrection, and 
ascension, His being, and being called, the Son 
of Uod, His sending out apostles, His success 
among the Gentiles (Apol. i. 31, § 73 A). 

Justin offers a very storehouse of Christian 
interpretations of Scripture, such as cannot be 
classified briefly ; the strongest lines lie :— 

(1) In the exhibition of the divine plurality, 
through which Justin can, while retaining the 
absolute purity and separateness of God the 
Father such as the Jewish monotheism made 
imperative, yet justify and correlate all the 
manifold manifestations of Himself by God 
under local and temporal qualifications, all re- 
ceiving their true and complete elucidation in 
the Incarnation. He Whose nature it is to be 
the expression and exhibition of the Father's 
will, was at the tent door with Abraham, in the 
dream with Jacob, in the burning bush with 
Moses, at the camp side with Joshua, above 
the cherubim with Isaiah, and now is made 
man of Mary (cf. Dial. 75, § 301 A). 

(2) Justin ably gathers into one the many- 
sided characteristics of the Messianic prophecy 
—the many human, mingled with the many 
divine, names attributed to the Christ: He is 
man—yet to be adored; He is suffering, yet 
triumphant; He saves His people, He is 
rejected by His people. Justin, in the para- 
dox of the Cross, has a key to the endless 
paradox of prophecy. All the shifting double- 
sided revelations of Godhead and manhood, of 
triumph and suffering, meet ina crucified king. 
He can give a unity of solution to a Christ Who 
is called ‘* Angel of great Counsel"’ and “ Man” 
by Ezekiel, “5 a Son of man" by Daniel, 
“Servant ’’ or “ Child” by Isaiah, “ Christ " 
and ‘God " and “ Adorable’’ by David, 
“ Christ '’ and “ the Stone "’ by many, “ Wis- 
dom” by Solomon, “ Joseph, Judah, and the 
Star”? by Moses, “the Morning Star" by 


081 


632 JUSTINUS MARTYR 


Zechariah, ‘‘ Suffering,’’ and ** Jacob,” and 
“Israel”? by Isaiah, and ** Rod,” and 
* Flower,” and “‘ Corner-stone”’ “ cut without 
hands,” and ‘“ Son of God,”’ Who is “ despised 
and rejected,” yet also is proclaimed “ King 
of Kings, King of Hosts, King of Glory,”’ and 
is “‘ Set on the right hand of God,” “ Born of 
a virgin,’ yet ‘‘ Existent before all the 
world,” “‘ the power of God, the glory of God,” 
“the Word,” “the Lord,” ‘‘ the Captain of 
the Hosts,” ‘ King,” ‘ Priest,” yet also 
“Man,” ‘the Stone,” ‘the Child,” “ the 
Sufferer ” (ib. 126, §355B; 61, § 2844; 34, 
§ 251 D). In giving force to this last charac- 
teristic of the Christ, 1.6. 6 παθητός, at the 
same time that he gave reality to the highest 
title, ὁ θεὸς προσκυνητός, Justin shews his 
power over the Jew, who can only hover aim- 
lessly between the two, unable to deal with 
or accept either the lowest or the highest. 
Justin declares that no one ever understood 
the prophecy of the sufferings, until Christ 
opened it to His apostles. | i 

(3) He is powerful in his deduction from 
prophecy of the failure, unbelief, and ruin of 
the Jewish race—as the favoured people ; and 
in the change of the manifestation of God from 
them to the Gentiles. Here he had much to 
use which was only a stumbling-block to strict 
Jewish reliance on blood and privilege. 

(4) He is successful in exhibiting the newness 
of Christ’s covenant, the New Law, the New 
Heart ; under this conception the continual 
discontent of God with the old sacrifices and 
sabbaths gains intensity of meaning ; the calls 
to wash and be clean, and put away sims, are 
vivified; the prophetic types of a new and 
wider dispensation are brought into daylight. 
Cf. the whole latter part of the Dialogue. _ 

Where Justin is weakest is, naturally, in 
knowledge. He is ignorant οἵ the original 
tongue and very arbitrary in his interpreta- 
tion of details ; he uses Christ as the accepted 
key to the whole complicated history, in a way 
that to a believer is often full of devotional 
suggestiveness, but to an unbeliever has no 
argumentative force. Instances may be 
found in such chaps. as 77, 78 of the Dialogue, 
orc. 81, etc. He often takes the wrong sense 
of a passage. He interprets the passages con- 
demnatory of the Jewish sacrifices, etc., in 
a way that wins them a new meaning from 
Christ, but is certainly not their intended 
meaning. He can only meet Trypho’s sharp 
criticism on this point by appealing to his own 
presumption that God’s approval of the Law 
can only have been an accommodation to the 
people’s sins (Dial. 27, ὃ 2448). | 

Prophecy is to Justin the main_form of 
Christian evidences; and this for Gentile as 
much as for Jew. It is to prophecy he turns 
to prove that the Christian story of the Incar- 
nation is not a poetic tale, without foundation ; 
Greek mythology offers no testimony to its 
own reality (Apol. i. 54, ὃ 894). Christ’s 
miracles were no magic or conjuring because 
they were foretold (7b. i. 30, 31, ὃ 72 A). Justin 
is shy of arguing from miracles: there had 
been too much false wonder-working for him 
to appeal to them. The miracles of the old 
Prophets he speaks of as worthy to win them 
credit, since they were coincident with a lofty 
desire to reveal God and with prophecy of 


| spiritual power (tb. 35, ὃ 254 B), 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


Christ (Dial. 7, ὃ 225 A). Christ’s miracles 
are to be believed on the ground of prophecy 
(Apol. i. 30). Miracles are, to him, proofs, 
when they have been testified to, but cannot 
stand alone as evidence. 

The other evidence to which Justin appeals 
is the (1) purity of Christian precepts (Aol. i. 
14, ὃ 61); (2) their constancy under torture 
(tb. ii. τῷ, §50A; Dial. 110, § 3378); (3) 
the consecrated lives of uncorrupt virginity, 
the conversion of penitents to holiness (A pol. 
i. 15, 628; C3), cf 16:1... 20) δὲ. Er) 5 5G) iene 
exorcising of demons (7b. ii. 6, ὃ 45 8B); (5) 
the existence of prophetical gifts in the church 
(cf. Dial. 82, ὃ 308 B), as well as of gifts of 
miracle, and 
healing (18. 39, ὃ 258 A). 

We may briefly ask what knowledge Justin 
shows of (1) Jewish, and (2) Gentile learning. 

(1) He refers frequently to Jewish modes of 
interpreting texts and seems used to dealing 
with them (cf. 7b. 50, ὃ 269 δ) ; but perhaps he 
knows them rather in their polemic against 
Christians than in their own inner teaching. 
He charges them with escaping from texts 
against them by throwing doubts on the 


| LX X, while all the Messianic texts that can be 
| accommodated to human affairs they attach 


to whom they choose, but not to Christ (7b. 
63, ὃ 294 8). Thus they attribute the fulfil- 
ment of the triumphs spoken of in the Psalms 
to Solomon, in Isaiah to Hezekiah (7b. 64, 
§ 287A; 77, § 3028). Justin does not seem 
to know of any Jewish theorizing on the 
problem of the Λόγος. The Jews expect a 
purely human Christ (tb. 49, ὃ 268 a), to be 
heralded by Elias in person, and anointed by 
him; till which time the Christ is to be in 
obscurity ; He will not even know Himself 
(ib. 110, ὃ 336 ο). The texts that speak of 
Christ as passible, yet as God and adorable, 
they are compelled, Justin says, to attribute 
to Christ, but they refuse to allow this Jesus 
to be the Christ, though they have to confess 
that the Christ will suffer and be worshipped. 
The divinity of Christ is, according to this, 
forced upon the Jews’ belief by Christian 
logic, but they do not know what to make of 
it, and are in straits. 

(2) As to Gentile philosophy, Justin's 
general knowledge was evidently large; but 
it is a question how far he held to any system 
accurately or scientifically; he sits pretty loose- 
ly to them all. He places Plato highest, and 
delights in his doctrine of Eternal Ideas, but 
no definite Platonic formulae are used; the 
Ideas do not appear ; the doctrine of the Word 
has general relations to Platonism, but that is 
all; it is itself utterly unlike any teaching in 
Plato; it belongs to the process of thought 
which has its roots in O.T., and works through 
Philo up into Christianity. He gives us no- 
thing of Plato’s except the account of the 
“ἫΝ ” as the law of creation, in the Timaeus, 
which Justin supposes him to have taken from 
the account of the brazen serpent; and the 
statement of the triad character of things, 
which is taken from an epistle attributed till 
lately to Plato. He declares Plato’s account 
of creation from formless matter to have been 
taken from Genesis; but he only means this 
in the most general way, for he seems to fancy 
that Plato’s formula is consistent with Moses’ 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


statement that this formless matter had itself 
been made by God (cf. Apol. i. 59, ὃ 92D). 
It is obvious that Justin’s relation to Platon- 
ism is quite external; he holds the Christian 
formulae, and whenever he detects a likeness 
to them in Plato, he delights in bringing it out, 
without regard to context or system; these 
likenesses are entirely arbitrary and super- 
ficial, and can never be pressed. Justin’s | 
canon of truth is absolutely in Scripture ; 
from that standpoint his kindly love for 
Plato pleases itself in exhibiting in him frag- 
mentary resemblance to the truth; but if 
these fragments of truth are rooted in error, so 
much the worse for Plato; Justin has no idea 
of following them down. There is some- 
thing to be said for his connexion with Stoic- | 
ism; he approved their morals, and found them 
right, to some extent, as to the ultimate end of 
Nature; but objects strongly to their physical 
doctrines, their belief in fate, their physico- 
Pantheistic conception of God, by which they | 
must either identify God with evil and change, 
or else deny the reality of evil (tb. ii. 7, 8); 
he considers their physics inconsistent with 
their ethics. Musonius and Heraclitus he 
honourably distinguishes ; of the Epicureans 
he speaks scornfully (ἐδ. ii. 15, ὃ 52 B). 

One problem remains to be considered, t.e. 
the relation of Justin to our four Gospels. 
The amount and frequency of his references 
to our Lord’s life and words, in the generation 
immediately preceding the day in which the 
present Gospels emerge, secure and alone, 
into the full daylight of history, make him 
of salient importance in determining their 
character; and the state of the present 
controversy, which has detected the subtle 
transition, through which the gospel story 
passed, from the conditions of a living, oral 
tradition to those of formal written exemplars, 
increases the importance of Justin, as he 
begins the definite references to written re- 
cords, of a fixed character, capable of being 
used for devotional purposes. Are these 
records identical in substance and in form 
with our Gospels ? 

(1) The substantial characteristics of our 
Lord’s life, down even to minute details, are, 
obviously, the same for Justin as for us. We 
can compose, from his quotations, a full 
summary of the whole gospel life, from the 
angel’s message to the Virgin until the 
ascension, entering into many particulars, 
illustrating prophecies, supplying the very 
words of our Lord, in many instances relating | 
all the circumstances; and, as a whole, it is 
perfectly clear that the lines which limit and | 
determine in detail our Gospel did so, too, to 
his. The same body of facts is selected; the. 
same character, the same limits preserved, 
the same characteristics brought forward ; the | 
same motives, the same interests are con- 
cerned; the same prophetic aspects dwelt | 
upon. This is noticeable, when we remember | 
how very special and remarkable a choice | 
must have been originally exercised upon our 
Lord’s life, to select and retain the peculiar | 
fragments, no more and no less, which are 
collected and sorted by our Synoptists. 

(2) Justin makes some additions or changes 
in detail to this main story ; so few that they 
can be mentioned and their character seen. 


| tells us, if the text is right (Apol. i. 66). 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 633 


He had a genealogy which, whether ours or 
not, he attributed to Mary, not to Joseph ; 
Cyrenius he calls the first procurator of 
Judaea ; our Lord's birthplace is a cave; the 
Magi come from Arabia; all the children in 
Bethlehem are killed ; our Lord is not “ come- 
ly of aspect’; He made ploughs and yokes, 
emblems of righteousness ; the Baptist sat by 
Jordan ; a fire shone in Jordan at our Lord's 
baptism, and the words from heaven complete 
the text of the second Psalm; the tows 


| ascribed our Lord’s miracles to magic; John 


ceased his mission at our Lord’s public appear- 
ance. The Lord said, ‘There shall be 
schisms and heresies’’; and ‘‘ In whatsoever 


| I find you, in that will I judge you.” 


Of these several are, probably, confusions 
or amplifications of Justin’s own; some 
represent additions found in various texts of 
our present Gospels, and were, probably, 


| floating, popular, traditional interpretations 


of various passages. The only remaining 


points definitely distinct are, the home of the 


Magi, the cave of the Nativity, the posture of 
the Baptist, the two sayings of our Lord. 
Does Justin, then, take these from tradition 
or from any uncanonical gospel? We must 
hypothesize the gospel that he used, if it is 
not ours; for we have no relic of it in our 
hands, and here the remark seems convincing 
(Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, p. 101) 
that this gospel, if it existed, belongs not to 
an earlier but to a later stage of the story 
than our canonical works. 

That they were books that he used he tells us 
frequently ; it is all ‘‘ written’’; the books 
are called by a name peculiar to Justin, 
ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων ; they are 
records of our Lord’s sayings and doings, 
written either by apostles or their followers 
(Apol. i. 66, ὃ 988; Dial. 103, ὃ 333D). 
These books constitute τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (tb. 
10, ὃ 227 E); a quotation is referred to this 
εὐαγγέλιον (tb. 100, § 326 c); the drourn- 
μονεύματα are themselves called εὐαγγέλια, he 
All 
this points obviously to the existence of 
various records, “ written either by apostles 
or by their followers,” constituting altogether 
a single story, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. So far our 
Gospels exactly correspond. More than this, 
it is almost incredible that he should not 
have known Matthew, at least; besides the 
general mass of reference, which exhibits 
remarkable resemblance to this Gospel, he 
has marked notices that distinguish Matthew 
from the other forms of the evangelical tra- 
dition: the visit of the Magi, the descent into 


| Egypt, Joseph’s suspicions of Mary, texts, 


elsewhere unparalleled, from the Sermon on 
the Mount, the application of Is. xlii. 1-4 to 
the colt with the ass; above all, the comment 
of the disciples upon the identification of the 
Baptist with Elias (Dial. 49, ὃ 2694; Matt. 
xviii. 11-13), the expressions ἔνοχος εἰς (Matt. 
v. 22), ἀγγαρεύσει (ν. 41), etc., etc. The 


|resemblance to Luke in places where we can 


distinguish St. Luke's peculiar work from the 
general tradition are in a few cases almost im- 


| possible to resist, such as the quotation of xviii. 


27 (Apol. i. 20, § 66); the use of the unique 
expression ἰσάγγελοι. xx. 35-36; and the most 
remarkable expressions at the annunciation, 


634 JUSTINUS MARTYR 


ἐπισκιάζειν δύναμις ὑψίστου, etc., which are 
directly Lucan. Cf., also, the last word on the 
cross. The only statement entirely peculiar 
to Mark is the naming of the sons of Zebedee. 
Thus not only is the whole body of quotation 
accounted for with a few rare exceptions, 
from our Gospels, but in some cases where 
SS. Matthew and Luke affect by their 
individuality the common original tradition 
Justin reproduces them. 

The inexactness of quotation is the one 
opposing element. Justin is inexact, it is 
true, in his O.T. quotations, but he is more 
than three times as inaccurate in his N.T. 
ones. It is intensely difficult to know how 
much to discount for free combination which 
Justin uses extensively, how much for lack of 
memory, how much for mere paraphrase; or 
to determine, after such discounting, how 
much evidence remains to shew Justin’s use 
of any other gospel besides our own. But if 
Justin used some form of the gospel not now 
in the canon, it was either a text used by the 
side of Matthew and Luke, and not differing 
from them in any degree more than they 
differ from each other; and if so, it would 
multiply the evidence for the authenticity of 
the narrative embodied in our canon; or 
else it was a text compounding and combining 
with some freedom the other two; and if so, 
it supposes these canonical gospels to be 
already the formal authorities. The suppo- 
sition that Justin used a perfectly distinct 
form of the gospel story from any we now 
possess is met by the invincible difficulty that, 
though ex hypothest of sufficient importance 
and acceptance to be used in the public 
offices of the metropolitan church as late as 
the boyhood of St. Irenaeus, it has, neverthe- 
less, totally disappeared. 

As to John, the main argument against its 
use is that from silence. Justin is full of 
doctrine on the subject of the Word, on the 
pre-existence and divine authority of Christ, 
yet no words from the Johannine discourses 
appear in his work. This argument has 
necessarily great weight, yet any single dis- 
tinct reference to John must outweigh such a 
negative. Is there any such reference ? 

In Dial. 88 Justin attributes to the Baptist 
himself the words of the prophet, φωνὴ βοῶντος. 
This attribution is one of those remarkable 
distinctions peculiar to St. John’s Gospel. 
We know of no other ground for it. Twice 
(in Apol. i. 22, ὃ 68 B, and Dial. 69, ὃ 296 A) 
he speaks of our Lord healing people infirm ἐκ 
γενετῆς : the only recorded instance of this is 
the blind man in Jn. ix. 20, ἐκ γενετῆς. In 
Apol. i. 61, Justin, it can hardly be doubted, 
is paraphrasing Jn. iii. 3-5. He is referring 
to a definite statement of our Lord; and the 
statement—a most marked and peculiar one— 
occurs here only. Justin refers to it in a way 
that makes it hardly possible to suppose him 
unacquainted with the continuation in John. 
In its context in the A pology the reference to the 
physical impossibility of a literal new birth is 
singularly awkward (cf. Otto, note im loc.). 
Justin, moreover, claims that he is believing 
Christ’s own teaching when he believes in His 
Divine pre-existence ; which would be more 
intelligible of John than of the other Gospels 
(Dial. 48, ὃ 267d). There is, again, a notice 


JUSTINUS MARTYR 


of our Lord (1b. 106, § 333) which receives its 
proper interpretation only in Jn. xiii. and 
Xvii.; Christ, says Justin, knew that the 
Father gave everything to Him, and Himself 
demanded this. Such are the possible direct 
references, rare, indeed, but in one case, at 
least, remarkably noticeable. Indirectly, 
Justin holds a doctrine of the Word, clear, 
pronounced, decisive, such as finds no home 
or base for itself but in the Fourth Gospel. 
This doctrine Justin does not originate ; it is 
the accepted, familiar, Christian faith put 
forth for the whole body, as their common 
belief, without hesitation, apology, anxiety, 
scruple, or uncertainty. It presents the 
exact features of the Johannine teaching ; the 
universalism of the Philonic Λόγος is identified 
with, and made concrete by, the living, vivid 
individualism of the Incarnate Messiah. The 
synthesis is done, is complete, without con- 
fusion or doubt. Justin is as definite, as full 
of sanctioned certainty on the reality of this 
doctrine of the Incarnate Word, as he is on 
the facts and discourses represented by our 
Synoptists. The Life of our Lord is already 
for him the Life as it is in fusion with the 
dogma of the Word—the Life as it is under 
the manipulation that is displayed in the 
Fourth Gospel. Have we any cause of suffi- 
cient force to have achieved so decided a 
result but the Gospel of St. John? (Cf. 
Thoma, in Zeitsch. fiir Wissenschaft. Theolog. 
pt. 4 (1875, Leipz.): an elaborate discussion 
which concludes, ‘‘ Justin cttes only the 
Synopt., but he thinks and argues with the 
Fourth Gospel, evidencing its existence, but 
not its apostolicity’’’; but cf. on last point, 
Westcott, Canon of N.T. p. 100.) 

In connexion with this there must be men- 
tioned a passage in Dial. 123, ὃ 353 B, in which, 
if not the gospel, then the first ep. of St. John 
can hardly be supposed absent from the 
writer’s mind. The peculiar conjunction of 
καλούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν is essentially Johannine 
(I. John iii. 1, 2); as is the connexion of 
“‘sonship ’’ with keeping τὰς ἐντολάς Justin, 
again, knows the writings of the Valentinians, 
and this (according to the evidence of Hip- 
polytus and Irenaeus) must have involved a 
knowledge of the Fourth Gospel. Altogether, 
the problem presented by his not quoting 
John is far easier to solve than the problem of 
his not knowing it. 

As to the rest of the canon, Justin mentions 
the Apocalypse by name, attributing it to St. 
John (Dial. 81, § 308 A). He can hardly but 
be thinking of Romans in 1b. 23, ὃ 241 B. He 
has references to 1. Corinthians (ib. 14, ὃ 231 D; 
111, § 333¢; Apol. 1, 60, § 93), and to JI. 
Thessalonians (Dial. 32, ὃ 110). He constant- 
ly repeats the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, 
which suggests Colossians ; he has references 
which seem to recall Hebrews (1b. 13, ὃ 229 Ὁ; 
Apol. i. 12, ὃ 60, ἀπόστολος . . 
76s); his words appear in several places to 
point to Acts (cf. Apol. 50, ὃ 86 B; 40, § 79 A). 
Everywhere he exhibits traces of St. Paul; 
and his controversy with Marcion must have 
involved a complete acquaintance with the 
theology and language of the great apostle. 

Throughout Justin claims to shew forth, 
with a certainty attested by sacrifice and 
death, a solid body of certified doctrine, which 


. ᾿Ιησοῦς Χρισ- © 


ee ~~~ 


». καὶ 


JUSTINUS 


apostolic authority sealed and secured; Christ, 
as He had been foretold by prophets and 
announced to the world by apostles, is the 
assured ground of his faith (cf. Dial. 119, 
§ 343 A; Apol. i. 39, 42). The apostles are 
the twelve bells on the border of the high- 
priest’s garment, with the sound of whose 
ringing the whole world has been filled (Dial. 


42, ὃ 263 c); the apostles are the evangelical | 


preachers in whose person Isaiah cried, “* Lord, 
who hath believed our report ?"’ the apostles are 


“the brethren in the midst of whom” Christ 


gives praise unto God (1b. τοῦ, ὃ 333 ο). The 
Apologies have been pub. in Eng.intheA nite-Nic. 
Fathers (T. & T. Clark) and in a cheap form in 
the A. and M. Theol. Lib. (Griffith). 


several books, only known to us by the 
abstract which Hippolytus (Ref. Haer. v. 23, 
p- 148) has given of one of them, called the 
book of Baruch. The account which that 
book gives of the origin and history of the 
universe makes it to have sprung from three 
underived principles, two male, one female. 
The first of these is the Good Being, and has 
no other name; He is perfect in knowledge, 
and is remote from all contact with the 
created world, of which, however, He is after- 
wards described as the Ultimate Cause. It is 
the knowledge of this Good Being which alone 
deserves the name, and it is from the posses- 
sion of it that these heretics claimed the title 
of Gnostics. The second principle is called 
Elohim, the Father of the creation, deficient 
in knowledge, but not represented as subject to 
evil passion. The third, or female principle, 
identified with the earth, is called Eden and 
Israel, destitute of knowledge and subject to 
anger, of a double form, a woman above the 
middle, ‘a snake below. Of her, Elohim becomes 
enamoured, and from their intercoursespring 24 
angels—12 paternal, who co-operate with their 
father and do his will, and 12 maternal, who 
do the mother’s will. The principal part is 
played by the third paternal angel, Baruch, the 
chief minister of good, and the third maternal, 
Naas, or the serpent, the chief author of evil. 
Lipsius regards this work of Justinus as 
probably written later than the middle of 
2nd cent., representing in its fundamental 
ideas one of the oldest, perhaps the very 
oldest, form of Gnosticism, and as exhibiting 
the passage of Jewish Christianity into 
Gnosis. We cannot share this view. On 
comparing the system of Justinus with that 
of the Ophite sect described by Irenaeus (i. 30), 
the points of contact are found to be too 
numerous to be all accidental. In the 
system of these Ophites the commencement is 
made with two male principles, and one female. 
On the whole, we feel bound to refer the 
system of Justinus to the latest stage of 
Gnosticism, when a philosophy, in which any 
unproved assumption was regarded as suffi- 
ciently justified by any remote analogy, had 
reached its exhaustion, and when its teachers 
were forced to seek for novelty by wilder and 
more audacious combinations ; and we are not 
disposed to quarrel with the verdict of Hip- 
polytus that he had met with many heretics, 
but never a worse one than Justinus. [oa 
Justinus (12) I., proclaimed emperor (July 9, 
518) on the death of the emperor Anastasius 


; (H.S.H.] | 
Justinus (3), a Gnostic writer, author of. 


JUSTINUS IL. 635 


| by the troops under his command and by the 
| people (Chron. Pasch. 331, in Patr. Gk. xcii, 
| 858), the choice being approved by the 
| senate (Marcell. Chron.). He was a man of 
| no education, and the affairs of the state were 
managed chiefly by his prudent minister 
Proclus the quaestor and afterwards by his 
nephew and eventual successor Justinian. 
For the most memorable event of his reign, 
the end of the schism between the Eastern 
| and Western churches, see Hormispas. For 
his relations with Persia see Cuosroes I. in 
D. Ὁ. B. (4-vol. ed.). 

In 523 Justin issued a constitution against 
the Manicheans and other heretics (Codex, i. tit. 
v. 12). The former were punished with exile 
or death; other heretics, pagans, Jews, and 
Samaritans, were declared incapable of holding 
a magistracy or entering military service. 
The allied Goths were exempted from these 
provisions. Because of the persecution of his 
Arian co-religionists, Theodoric sent pope 
John I. in 525 to Constantinople to remon- 
strate with the emperor. [EprrpHantus (17) ] 

In Apr. 527 Justin caused Justinian, who 
had long taken the chief part in government, 
to be proclaimed emperor and crowned, and 
on Aug. 1 died, in his 75th year. [F.D.] 

Justinus (13) II., emperor, nephew of Jus- 
tinian, son of his sister Vigilantia. He was 
appointed Curopalates or Master of the 
Palace by his uncle (Corip. i. 138). The night 
Justinian died, a deputation of the senate, 
headed by the patrician Callinicus, hurried to 
his house and persuaded him to accept the 
crown. In the early morning he was saluted 
emperor by the populace in the hippodrome. 
The same day (Nov. 14, 565) he was crowned 
by the patriarch John (Theophan. Cron. in 
Pair. Gk. eviii. 525), and received the homage 
of the senate and people in the hippodrome. 

Justin, on his accession, declared himself an 
adherent of the decrees of Chalcedon, and 
restored to their sees the bishops who had 
been banished by his predecessor (Venantius 
Fortunatus, ad J ustinum, 25-26, 39-44, in Patr. 
Lat. \xxxvili. 432). The edict is given in prob- 
ably acorrupt form by Evagrius (H. E. v. 1, 
in Patr. Gk. \xxxvi. 2789), and also by Nice- 
phorus Callistus (H. E. xvii. 33). Soon after- 
wards another edict was published, given at 
length by Evagrius (H. E. v. 4), in which, after 
setting forth the orthodox belief as to the doe- 
trines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, he 
exhorted all to return to the Catholic Church, 
which should remain firm and unchanged for 
ever; and that no one should for the future 
dispute about persons or syllables, probably 
referring to the person of Theodore and the 
writings of Theodoret and Ibas, and also to 
the question as to the Incorruptibility of the 
body of Christ. This edict gained general 
approval, as all interpreted it in favour of 
their own views, but none of the various 
sects returned to communion, in consequence 
of the emperor's declaration that no change 
was to be made in the church. Justin also 
early in his reign sent Photinus, the stepson of 
Belisarius, with full powers to reconcile the 
churches of Egypt and Alexandria, but his 
mission seems to have been fruitless. 

For the secular events of his reign see J us- 
Tinus II., δ. of G. and R. Biogr. 


636 JUVENALIS 


In May 568 a rescript was issued to Spes- 
in-Deum, the archbp. of the Byzacene pro- 
vince in Africa, confirming the privileges of 
his church and synod by which he was the sole 
judge of charges brought against any bishops 
or clergy within his jurisdiction, and in Nov. 
(Clinton, Fasti, 825) a law (Nov. cxlix.) was 
promulgated addressed to the bishops and 
leading men of each province directing them 
to choose the governors (praesides) themselves 
and to submit the names to the emperor, who 
would invest them with their offices. At 
the end of 570 or the beginning of 571, Anas- 
tasius, bp. of Antioch, was deposed and Gre- 
gorius substituted in his place. [ANAsTASIUS 
Srnaita (1); GREGORIUS (31).] On May 18, 
572, a stringent law was passed against the 
Samaritans (Nov. cxliv.). They were declared 
incapable of inheriting under a will or an 
intestacy and of exercising testamentary 
powers except in favour of Christians. Other- 
wise the goods of the deceased were forfeited 
to the treasury. For the sake of agriculture 
farmers were exempted from these provisions. 
Samaritans were also declared incapable of 
holding any civil or military employments. 
Baptized Samaritans who observed the sab- 
bath or other rites of their creed were punished 
with perpetual exile. A Samaritan was de- 
clared incapable of having a Christian slave ; 
if he bought one, the slave ipso facto became 
entitled to his freedom; while a Samaritan 
slave became free on embracing Christianity. 
Justin at length was seized with madness, and 
died, Oct. 5, 578, after reigning nearly 13 
years. [F.pD.] 

Juvenalis (2) succeeded Praylius as bp. of 
Jerusalem c. 420. The ruling object of his 
episcopate was the elevation of the see of 
Jerusalem from the subordinate position it 
held in accordance with the seventh of the 
canons of Nicaea, as suffragan to the metro- 
politan see of Caesarea, to a primary place in 
the episcopate. Juvenal coveted not merely 
metropolitan, but patriarchal rank, and in 
defiance of all canonical authority claimed 
jurisdiction over the great see of Antioch, 
from which he sought to remove Arabia and 
the two Phoenicias to his own province. 
Scarcely had he been consecrated bp. of Jeru- 
salem when he proceeded to assert his claims 
to the metropolitan rank by his acts. A letter 
of remonstrance against the proceedings of the 
council of Ephesus, sent to Theodosius by the 
Oriental party, complains that Juvenal had 
ordained in provinces over which he had no 
jurisdiction (Labbe, Concil. iii. 728). Cyril of 
Alexandria wrote to Leo, then archdeacon of 
Rome, informing him of this and begging that 
his unlawful attempts might have no sanction 
from the apostolicsee. Juvenal, however, was 
far too useful an ally against Nestorius for Cyril 
lightly to discard. When the council met at 
Ephesus, Juvenal was allowed to take pre- 
cedence of his metropolitan of Caesarea and to 
occupy the position of vice-president of the 
council, coming next after Cyril himself (70. iii. 
445), and was regarded in all respects as the 
second prelate inthe assembly. The arrogant 
assertion of his supremacy over the bp. of 
Antioch, and his claim to take rank next after 
Rome as an apostolical see, provoked no open 
remonstrance. At the ‘“‘Latrocinium’’ Juvenal 


JUVENALIS 


occupied thethird place, after Dioscorus andthe 
papal legate, by the special order of Theodosius 
(ἐδ. iv. 109). When the council of Chalcedon 
met, one of the matters before it was the 
dispute as to priority between Juvenal and 
Maximus, bp. of Antioch. The contention 
ended in a compromise agreed on in the 
Seventh Action. Juvenal surrendered his 
claim to the two Phoenicias and to Arabia, 
on condition of being allowed metropolitical 
jurisdiction over the three Palestines (δ. iv. 
613). Theclaim to patriarchal authority over 
the bp. of Antioch put forward at Ephesus was 
discreetly dropped. The terms arranged be- 
tween Maximus and Juvenal received the 
consent of the assembled bishops (7b. 618). 
Maximus, however, soon repented his too 
ready acquiescence in Juvenal’s demands, and 
wrote a letter of complaint to pope Leo, 
who, replying June 11, 453, upheld the au- 
thority of the Nicene canons, and promised to 
do all he could to maintain the ancient dignity 
of the see of Antioch (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Mamt- 
mum, 119 [92]). No further action, however, 
seems to have been taken either by Leo or by 
Maximus. Juvenal was left master of the 
situation, and the church of Jerusalem from 
that epoch has peaceably enjoyed the patri- 
archal dignity. 

On the opening of the council at Ephesus, 
June 22, 431, Juvenal took a prominent part 
in the condemnation of Nestorius. As one of 
the eight legates deputed by the council, he 
aided in the consecration of Maximian in Nes- 
torius’s room, Oct. 25, 431 (Labbe, ili. 780; 
Baluz 571 seq.). Inretaliation, John of Anti- 
och and the Orientals on their way back from 
Ephesus held a synod at Tarsus, which excom- 
municated Cyriland the deputies of the council, 
Juvenal at their head (Baluz. 939). 

When, in 449, the ‘‘ Latrocinium”’ met at 
Ephesus, Juvenal was the first to sign the 
instrument of Flavian’s deposition (Labbe, iv. 
306). The natural consequence of this open 
patronage of heresy was that the name of 
Juvenal, together with those of Dioscorus and 
the other bishops of the ‘‘ Latrocinium,”’ was 
removed from the diptychs of Rome and other 
orthodox churches (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Ana- 
tolium, 80 [60]). This alarmed Juvenal, and 
he faced completely round at Chalcedon in 
451, denouncing the doctrines he had sup- 
ported two years before at Ephesus. The 
place he occupied in the council indicated that 
he had been compelled to abate somewhat of 
his overweening pretensions. Anatolius of 
Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch both 
took precedence of him, as did the Roman 
legates and Dioscorus (Labbe, iv. 79 et passim). 
The proceedings had not advanced far when 
Juvenal, seeing the course events were taking, 
rose up with the bishops of Palestine in his 
train, and crossed over from the right, where 
he had been sitting with the Alexandrine pre- 
lates, to the Orientals on the left amid shouts 
of ‘‘Welcome, orthodox one! It is God Who 
has brought thee over here”’ (7b. 178). This 
desertion of his old friends barely saved him. 
Evidence being read as to the violence with 
which Flavian’s condemnation had been en- 
forced, and the brutality with which he had 
been treated, the imperial commissioners pro- 
posed Juvenal’s deposition, together with that 


JUVENALIS 


JUVENCUS 637 


of Dioscorus, Eusebius, and the others who| study his tome to confirm him in the faith 


had taken a leading part in these disgraceful | (Leo Ma 


transactions (7b. 323). Juvenal evidently felt 
that consistency must now be sacrificed to the 
maintenance of his position, and having given 
his vote and signature to the deposition of 
Dioscorus (1b. 458) and signed the tome of Leo 
(tb. 798), the objections of the commissioners 
were overruled. Juvenal and his four com- 
panions were allowed to resume their seats, 
amid a shout of welcome, ‘‘ This is the Lord’s 
doing.” ‘* Many years to the orthodox ! This 
is the peace of the churches ’”’ (7b. 509). He 
subsequently took part in drawing up the 
declaration of faith (ἰδ. 559-562) and signed 
the letter sent to Leo (Baluz. 1370). Wehave 
a Latin translation of a synodical letter 
written in his own name and that of the 
bishops of Palestine, a.p. 453, to the archi- 
mandrites, presbyters, and monks of the 
province confirming the decrees of Chalcedon 
(Labbe, iv. 880). 

His enjoyment of his newly acquired 
dignity was speedily disturbed. The decrees 
of Chalcedon were not at all acceptable to a 
large number of the archimandrites and monks 
of Palestine, who generally held Eutychian 
views, and they, in 452, addressed letters to 
Marcian and to Pulcheria against the conduct 
of their bishop. The emperor and empress 
administered severe rebukes to the remon- 
strants (tb. 874, 879). The imperial dis- 
pleasure, however, failed to repress the turbu- 
lence of the malcontents, and under the 
leadership of Theodosius, a fanatical Mono- 
physite monk, patronized by the empress- 
dowager Eudocia, who had made Jerusalem 
her home, they threw the whole province into 
confusion. Juvenal’s life was threatened. The 
walls and gates were guarded to prevent his 
escape. But he concealed himself, and to- 
gether with Domnus made his way to the 
desert, whence he fled to Constantinople and 
laid his complaints against Theodosius and 
his partisans before the emperor (1b. 858; 
Cyrill. Scythop. Euthym. Vit. 82; Evagr. 
H. E. ii. 5 ; Theophan. p. 92). Marcian took 
decided measures to restore order. After 
holding possession for two years, Theodosius 
was expelled from Jerusalem, 453, and Juvenal 
was restored. Eudocia returned to Jerusa- 
lem, and renewed communion with Juvenal, 
her example proving influential to bring back 
the large majority both of monks and laity 
to the cathedral church (Euthym. Vit. 86). 
One of Juvenal’s first acts on his restoration 
was to hold a council which issued a synodical 
letter to the two Palestines, declaring the 
perfect orthodoxy of the decrees of Chalcedon 
and denying that anything had there been 
altered in, or added to, the Nicene faith 
(Labbe, iv. 889). Mutual ill-will and suspicion 
still embittered the relations of Juvenal to his 
province, and Evagrius complains of the evils 
which had followed his return (Evagr. H. E. 
ii. 5). Leo (Sept. 4, 454) offered congratula- 
tions on his restoration, but told him plainly 
that he had brought his troubles on himself 
by his condemnation of Flavian and admission 
of the errors of Eutyches, and that having 
favoured heretics he cannot now blame them. 
Leo expressed his satisfaction that he had 


n. Ep. 139 [171]}). In 457 Leo ad- 
dressed vuvenel among the metropolitans of 
the East, with reference to the troubles at 
Alexandria, urging him to defend the faith as 
declared at Chalcedon (Ep. 150 (119). 

The statement of Basil of Seleucia that 
Juvenal first “‘ began to celebrate the glorious 
and adorable salvation-bringing nativity of the 
Lord "’ (Patr. Gk. Ixxxv. 469) must be inter- 
preted to mean that he separated the cele- 
bration of the Nativity and the Epiphany, 
which, till then, had been kept on the same 
day, Jan. 6. We may gather from a letter 
professing to be addressed by the bp. of Jeru- 
salem to the bp. of Rome that this change was 
in accordance with the Western practice. 
Basil of Seleucia, being a contemporary of 
Juvenal and associated with him in his public 
acts, may be regarded as trustworthy evidence 
for the fact. According to Basil, Juvenal 
built a basilica in honour of St. Stephen on the 
site of his martyrdom, for which the empress 
Eudocia furnished the funds. The death 
of Juvenal probably occurred in 458 (cf. 
Tillem. Note sur Juvenal, xv. 867). He was 
succeeded by Anastasius. Tillem. Mém. 
eccl. xv.; Ceillier, xiii. 247; Cave, Script. 
Eccl. i. 419; Oudin, i. 1270.) Soe 

Juvencus, C. Vettius Aquilinus, a Christian 
poet, by birth a Spaniard, descended from a 
noble family. He was a presbyter, and com- 
posed his poem on the gospels during the reign 
of peace established by Constantine (Hist. Ev. 
iv. 808 sqq.; Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c. 84; Ep. 
Ixx. Chronica ad 332 A.D.). His works shew 
an acquaintance with the chief Latin poets. 

(i) Historia Evangelica. This is the only 
extant work attributed to him on the authority 
of St. Jerome. Itisan hexameter poem on our 
Lord’s life, based upon the gospels. It is of 
interest as the first Christian epic, the first effort 
to tell the gospel story in a metrical form. 
Its chief merit lies in its literal adherence to 
the text. Commencing with the events of 
Luke i. ii. (i. 1-258), it passes to the account of 
St. Matthew (i. 18), and follows that to the end, 
omitting only a few short passages (ΧΙ. 44-53, 
XX. 29-34, XXi. 10-13, XXiil. 15-26, 29-36, XXiv. 
28), rarely supplemented from the other 
Synoptists (v. i. 355, ii. 43), but having large 
extracts from St. John, viz. i. 43-iv. (lib. 11. 
99-348), ν. 19-47 (ii. 639 544.), χὶ. (iv. 306-404). 
It is saved from baldness by a clear fluent 
style, which shews a knowledge of Vergil, 
Ovid, and Lucan. It seems to have been widely 
known from the first and quoted with approval 
by St. Jerome (ad Matt. il. ΤΗΝ Rohe Μδενοχρον 
Venantius Fortunatus (de Vita S. Martins, 1), 
Isidore, Jonas Scotus, Bede, and Alcuin (Migne, 
Prolegg. col. 42 sqq-). It has been edited no 
less than 30 times. The best separate edd. are 
by Reusch (Frankfort, 1710); Arevalo (Rome, 
1792) (reprinted in Migne) ; and esp. Huemer 
(Vienna, 1891) in Corpus Sertpt. Eccl. Lat. 
xxiv. Cf. Gebser, de C. Vett. Ag. Vila εἰ 
Scriptis (lib. i.with intro. and notes), Jena, 1827; 
C. Marold, Ueber d. Evang.-buch des J uvenous 
in seinen Verhdltniss z. Bubeltext in Zeitschr. 
fiir wissenschaft. Theol. xxxiii. p. 329 (1890); 
Kritische Beitrage zur Hist. Evang.des J uvencus 
yon Dr. J. Huemer in Wiener Studien (Vienna, 


come to a better mind, and advised him to | 1880), pp. 81-112. 


638 KENTIGERN 


(ii) St. Jerome (u.s) attributes to him 
“nonnulla eodem metro ad sacramentorum 
ordinem pertinentia,’’ but these are not extant. 

(iii) Historia Vet. Testamenti. Only extant 
in parts, and its authorship doubtful. 

(iv) Some later writers attribute hymns to 
him, but there is no trace of any except the can- 
ticles in Hist. Ev. and Hist. Vet. Test. [w...] 


K 


Kentigern (Conthigernus, Cyndeyrn, Kente- 
gernus, Quentigern, Mongah, Munghu, Mungo, 
bp. of Glasgow and confessor). St. Kentigern 
shares, with St. Ninian and St. Columba, the 
highest honour among the early evangelizers of 
Scotland. Thetime, extent, and sphere of St. 
Kentigern’s missionary enterprise are suffi- 
ciently recognized. Strictly speaking, there is 
only one Life of St. Kentigern known, that by 
Joceline of Furness, written probably c. 1180, 
for bp. Joceline of Glasgow (A.D. 1174-1199), 
from two earlier memoirs, but there is an older 
fragment which was probably oneof the twoused 
by him. From these all others are derived. 

St. Kentigern, perhaps better and more 
popularly known as St. Mungo, was a Strath- 
clyde Briton. His parentage is doubtful. 
He was born at Culross in Perthshire. From 
his master there he secretly departed, and 
travelling westward, crossing the Forth prob- 
ably near Alloa, arrived at Carnock near 
Stirling, and thence was led by the oxen which 
carried the corpse of Fregus to Cathures, now 
Glasgow, where St. Ninian had already con- 
secrated a cemetery. There he took up the 
unfinished work of St. Ninian. The picture 
presented of the time and field of his labour 
is a deplorable one. He was consecrated by a 
single bishop, called for the purpose from 
Ireland (c. 11). He was raised to the episco- 
pate in his 25th year (c. 12), but all we know 
of the date is that it was before his departure 
to Wales. Ussher places it in 540, which is 
accepted by Stubbs (Reg. Sacr. Angl. 157). 
At Glasgow he formed a monastic school, and 
a beautiful account is given (cc. 12-18) of the 
man, his austere life and humble piety. He 
had a wide province, which he traversed 
mostly on foot, and his message was to the 
lapsed from the faith and to the morally 
degraded, as well as to the ignorant pagans. 
The disorders in the kingdom, and probably 
the increasing power of the pagan faction, 
induced the bishop to leave his see and find 
refuge in Wales a few years after his conse- 
cration (A.D. 543, Ussher). On his way he 
spent some time in Cumberland, where his 
work is marked by churches still dedicated to 
him (c. 23); thence he advanced as far as 
Menevia, where he visited St. David, and then 
appears to have returned northwards, settling 
for a time on the banks of the Clwyd and 
building his church at its confluence with the 
Elwy, at Llanelwy, now St. Asaph’s, in Flint- 
shire (cc. 23-25), c. 545 (Stubbs). The monas- 
tery which he erected at Llanelwy was soon 
filled. Old and young, rich and poor, prince 
and peasant, flocked to it, and we have a very 
graphic picture of how monasteries were 
raised in ancient days before stone was used 
for such erections, and how the laus perennis 
was carried out in large communities, such as 


LACTANTIUS 


this must have been with its 965 brethren in 
their ‘‘ threefold division of religious observ- 
ance ”’ (cc. 24-25). 

Meanwhile the sovereign had changed, and, 
as a direct consequence, the religious feeling 
of the kingdom of Strathclyde. Rhydderch 
Hael, son of Tudwal Tudglud, had come to the 
throne, and at the battle of Ardderyd (now 
Arthuret, on the Esk near Carlisle), had de- 
feated (573) the heathen party under Gwen- 
dolen, at Ceidio, whereby his kingdom was 
made to extend from the Clyde to the Mersey, 
and thus to the confines of St. Kentigern’s 
Welsh see. The first-fruit of this battle was 
the recall of St. Kentigern to his Cumbrian 
diocese by Rhydderch, who, himself of Irish 
extraction, had received the Christian faith 
during his exile in Ireland. This date is of 
importance, giving one fixed pointin St. Kenti- 
gern’s chronology. Rhydderch’s call he at 
once obeyed; and consecrating his disciple 
St. Asaph to fill his place in N. Wales, returned 
to Strathclyde, but went no farther than 
Holdelm (now Hoddam, Dumfriesshire), where 
for some years (probably eight) he had his 
episcopal seat. His leaving Llanelwy was a 
cause of muchlamentation, and a great number 
of the monks accompanied him. At Hoddam 
a joyous welcome was given to the saint by 
king Rhydderch, whois represented (cc. 31-33) 
as going out with his people to meet him and 
as conceding to him all power over himself 
and his posterity. At Glasgow the still more 
famous meeting took place between St. Co- 
lumba and St. Kentigern. The districts they 
evangelized were contiguous. Their meeting 
was typical of the two currents of Christian 
faith and practice running alongside and over- 
flowing the land—viz. the Irish and the Welsh 
—which were to come in contact again at the 
great rampart of the Grampian range and give 
their character to the Scotic and the Pictish 
churches. The dedications to the N. of Glas- 
gow, and on Deeside in Aberdeenshire, make 
it probable that St. Kentigern had extended 
his labours into the regions of the South Picts, 
and up, at least, to the dividing line between 
them and the Northern. His death is various- 
ly dated from 601 to 614; the Welsh autho- 
rities generally giving 612, as in Annales 
Cambriae ; but the true date is probably 603 
(Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 197 n.; Bp. Forbes, 
Lives, etc., 369-370). He died on Sun., Jan. 13, 
and was buried where the cathedral of Glas- 
gow now stands. The favourite name in 
dedications is St. Mungo. There are none to 
him in Wales, but there are in Cumberland at 
Aspatria, Bromfield, Caldbeck, Crosfeld (in 
Kirkland), Crosthwaite, Grinsdale, Lethington, 
Mungrisedale (in Greystock), and Sowerby. 
His chief dedication and episcopal seat, which, 
as in like cases, was near, but not quite at the 
ancient civil capital, Alelwyd or Dumbarton, _ 
is the cathedral church of Glasgow; and 
there appears to have been a Little St Mun- 
go’s kirk outside the city walls. {j.G.] 


L 


Lactantius (1), Lucius Caelius (or Caecilius) 
Firmianus, a well-known Christian apologist 
of the beginning of the 4th cent.: ‘‘ Rhetor 
erat ille, non theologus: neque inter ecclesiae 


LACTANTIUS 


doctores locum unquam obtinuit,”’ as bp. Bull 
says of him (Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 14, 4, and iii. 
Io, 20). Lactantius, enumerating previous 
Christian apologists, seems only conscious of 
three—Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and St. 
Cyprian—but this is explained by supposing 
that he limits himself to his countrymen, viz. 
African apologists. St. Jerome mentions an 
Itinerary written by him, in hexameter verse, 
of his route from Africa to Nicomedia, as 
though he were then leaving home for the 
first time. The African church produced, as 
did no other country, a succession of learned 
advocates or rhetoricians, men of the world, 
who embraced Christianity from conviction, 
and wrote vigorously in its defence, culminat- 
ing in St. Augustine, each employing Latin 
with the freedom of a vernacular, and in the 
case of Lactantius with so much purity as 
to have procured for him the title of the 
Christian Cicero; while Italy produced no 
Christian apologists and, till St. Ambrose, no 
great theologian. Divines and men of letters, 
as well as emperors, had to be sought in the 
provinces. In all his empire Constantine 
could find no better preceptor for his eldest 
son Crispus, then destined to succeed him at 
Rome, than this African Latin. This brought 
him to Gaul c. 313, the first date we can fix in 
his career on any tangible grounds. Lactan- 
tius had previously been invited to set up 
a school of rhetoric at Nicomedia. There, 
doubtless, he was converted on witnessing 
the superhuman constancy displayed by the 
Christians, and by his “best beloved” 
Donatus in particular, on whose sufferings 
in the tenth and savagest persecution, under 
Diocletian, he dwells with so much tender- 
ness (de Morte Persecut. cc. 16, 35, and 52). 
Donatus, he tells us himself, had lain in prison 
six years when the edict of Galerius, published 
A.D. 311, procured his release. In Gaul, Lac- 
tantius died, perhaps in the year of the Nicene 
council, A.D. 325. To judge from his extant 
writings, he must have been somewhat austere, 
soured it may be by failures, as he had no 
mean estimate of his own powers (de Opif. Det, 
c.1; Inst. v. 1-4): aman of few and warm 
rather than of many friends; thoughtful, 
learned, conscientious, and pure. Eusebius 
(Chron. A.D. 319) speaks of him as having 
always been so poor as frequently to have 
lacked the necessaries of life. St. Jerome 
says it was his ill-success in getting pupils at 
Nicomedia, from its being a Greek city, that 
induced him to write. St. Jerome gives a 
list of his writings, but whether in the order in 
which they were published or not he omits to 
say. The first he names is the Symposium, 
which he calls a youthful performance; the 
second is the Itinerary; the third, the Gram- 
marian. Then comes the well-known treatise 
de Ira Dei, stillextant, which St. Jerome calls 
pulcherrimum ; next, his Institutions, in seven 
books, extant also, on which his fame prin- 
cipally rests; next, his own epitome of the 
same work, In Libro uno acephalo (“ἃ com- 
pendium of the last three books only,” as Cave 
explains it ; but the first half was claimed by 
Pfaff to have been recovered A.D. 1712 from 
a Turin MS., and its genuineness, though dis- 
puted, is still maintained). The seventh work 
named by St. Jerome was in two books, ad- 


LACTANTIUS 639 


| dressed to Asclepiades; both are now lost. 
The eighth, which had disappeared also, was 
claimed by Baluze as recovered by him; it 
was published in 1679 at the commencement 
of his second book of Miscellanies, but with 
the title Liber ad Donatum Confessorem de 
Mortibus Persecutorum, instead of de Perse- 
cutione Liber unus, which is that of St. Jerome. 
Judged by its contents, the first is the more 
accurate title. His four books of letters to 
Probus, two to Severus, and two to his pupil 
Demetrian, which St. Jerome regards as eight 
consecutive books (in Gal. ii. 4), arelost. The 
twelfth and last work assigned to him by St. 
Jerome is de Opificio Dei, vel Formatione 
Hominis. The tract de Morte Persecutorum 
ends with the joint edict of Licinius and Con- 
stantine, published at Nicomedia by the 
former, A.D. 313, at which the author lays 
down his pen in celebrating the triumph of 
God, with thankful joy and prayers day and 
night for its continuance. He could not have 
written thus after the differences between 
Licinius and Constantine had commenced, and 
the former joined the ranks of the persecutors ; 
he therefore probably published it when 
leaving Nicomedia for Gaul. The first chapter 
of his tract de Opificio Dei shews it to have 
been written after, probably only just after, 
his conversion, and ‘‘Quam minime sim 
| quietus, et in summis necessitatibus "’ are just 
the words that might have been wrung from 
a recent convert in a heathen capital, where 
Christians were having to choose daily between 
death and their faith, and his old pupils were 
leaving him on learning what he had become. 
Supposing Lactantius to have been converted 
about midway in the persecution under Dio- 
cletian at Nicomedia, and then betaken him- 
self to writing, penurid discipulorum, as St. 
Jerome says, there was abundance of time for 
the composition of all his extant works during 
the rest of his abode there, with the exception 
of his Epitome. His Epitome and the con- 
fessedly later insertions in his/nstitutions—e.g. 
his appeals to Constantine (i. 1, ii. 1, vii. 26), 
his mention of the Arians, and of the Catholic 
church, his promise of a separate work on 
heresies (iv. 30) which it would seem he never 
fulfilled—would all naturally fall within the 
period of his removal to Gaul and tutorship 
to the heir-apparent, to whom he could have 
scarce failed to dedicate any fresh work, had 
such been afterwards written. Was he the 
pupil or hearer of Arnobius in his younger 
days that St. Jerome makes him in one place 
(de Vir. Illust. c. 80), or contemporary with 
Arnobius, as we might infer from another 
(Chron. a.D. 326)? There is nothing in their 
works to connect them, and at the commence- 
ment of his fifth book, in specifying, ex ts gus 
mihi noti sunt (c. 1), those who had written 
against the assailants of Christianity pre- 
viously to himself, he could scarcely have 
passed over the work of Arnobius, if already 

ublished, and still less if Arnobius, besides 
Sofie an African, had been his old preceptor. 
| We therefore prefer following St. Jerome in his 
continuation of Fusebius, and making Lactan- 
tius and Arnobius independent: Lactantius 
possibly the older of the two. Eusebius finds 
a place for Lactantius in his Chronicon, but 
none for his supposed master. The work of 


θ40 LAEGHAIRE 

Arnobius is limited to a refutation of the poly- 
theism of the day and the popular objections 
to Christianity; that of Lactantius, like the 
City of God by St. Augustine, which cites 
Lactantius with approval (xviii. 23), first 
exposes the false religions, but also expounds 
the true. It has been analysed by Cave 
briefly (Hist. Lit. i. 162), by Le Nourry 
thoroughly (ap. Migne, Patr. Lat. vi. 825), by 
Dupin, with his accustomed vivacity (Ε. H. 
vol. i. 185-187, Eng. trans. by W. W.), and by 
Mountain (Summary of the Writings of Lac- 
tantius, i. 129). It is trans. in full, with notes, 
in the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). 

The tract de Opificio Det may challenge 
comparison with Cicero’s de Naturd Deorum 
in point of style and is far superior to it in 
depth and originality. The tract de Ird Det, 
against the Epicureans and Stoics, is intended 
to prove God as capable of anger as of com- 
passion and mercy. The tract de Morte 
Persecutorum is a collection of historical facts 
tending to show that all the emperors who 
persecuted the Christians died miserably, and 
may be compared with Spelman’s de non 
Temerandis Ecclesiis of modern times. 

As for his theology, the indulgence should 
be shewn him that all breakers of new ground 
may claim. Tertullian was the model that he 
looked up to most: and no writer had as yet 
eclipsed Origen. His account of the origin 
of all things (Ist. ii. 9) reminds us of the 
speeches of Raphael and Abdiel in Paradise 
Lost (v. 577 and 808). We cannot read his 
latest exposition of the Incarnation (Epit. c. 
43) without discovering in it some well-known 
phrases of the Athanasian Creed—e.g. “‘ The 
same person is the Son of God and of man, 
for He was twice born: first of God in the 
Spirit before the origin of the world; and 
afterwards in the flesh of man, in the reign of 
Augustus.”’ Dupin, after having expatiated 
on his many merits, sums up very justly: 
“Ἢ is accused of doubting whether the Holy 
Ghost was the third Person, and to have some- 
times confounded him with the Son, and some- 
times with the Father; but it may be alleged 
in his defence that he meant nothing else 
but that the name of the Spirit in Scripture is 
common to the Father and the Son. But 
whatever the matter is, we find no footsteps 
of this error in any of his works, what are now 
remaining ; though in some places he takes 
occasion to speak of the Holy Ghost. He 
seems to be of opinion that the Word was 
generated in time; but it is an easy matter 
to give a Catholic sense to that expression, as 
we have seen it done to others: and we may 
be with justice allowed to do so, since he 
plainly establishes the Divinity of the Word 
in that very place.”’ 

For further particulars see besides autho- 
rities already cited, Le Nourry (Apparat. ad 
Bibl. Max. Vet. Pat. t. ii. diss. 3), Fabricius 
.Bibl. Lat. lib. xi.), Oudin (de Script. Eccl. 
t. i. p. 307), Lardner (Cred. pt. ii. bk. i. c. 65), 
Schramm (Anal. Ob. SS. Pat. vol. vii. p. 250), 
Fessler (Inst. Patrol. vol. i. p. 328), Nouv. Biog. 
Gen. vol. xxviii. p. 611. See esp. Brandt in 
Sitzungsberichte der phil.-histor. Klasse der 
Kgl. Akud der Wissensh. (Vienna, 1889-1891), 
CXViii.-cxxv. [E.S.FF.] 

Laeghaire (2) (Lagerie, phonet cally Leary), 


LAURENTIUS 


pagan monarch of Ireland, reigning at Tara 
in the county of Meath. In the fifth year 
of his reign St. Patrick, having spent the 
winter in the counties of Down and Antrim, 
in the spring determined to hold his Easter 
festival near Laeghaire’s palace. The mon- 
arch, surrounded by his nobles and his Druid 
priests, saw with wonder and rage the distant 
light of the Christian paschal fire which was 
to quench the lights of heathendom, and rode 
over in force to Ferta-fer-Feic to expel the 
intruder. But mollified by the stranger’s 
address, or frightened by his words of power, 
he allowed the Christian mission to be estab- 
lished. We can hardly believe that he con- 
tinued a persecutor while such progress was 
made in the spread of the Gospel around him 
and in his own family. His queen may 
perhaps have become a Christian; his two 
daughters, Fedhelm the ruddy and Eithne the 
fair, were certainly converted and numbered 
among thesaints. Several of his descendants 
(Reeves, St. Adamnan, 173) are beatified. 

He probably died a pagan. The Four 
Masters give the date as 458, but 463 is more 
likely (Ann. Tig., eo an., ap. O’Conor, Rer. 
Hib. Script. iv. 111). He reigned probably 
35 vears. His body was carried to and buried 
at Tara, in the S.E. side of the external ram- 
part, with his weapons upon him, and his face 
turned towards the Lagenians, as if still 
fighting against them. Vutae 5. Patrictt, ap. 
Colgan, Tr. Thaum. pass. ; Lanigan, Ch. Hist. 
Ir.i.c. 5; Moore, Hist. Ir. i. c. το; O’Hanlon, 
Ir. Saints, i. 163 seq.; Nennius, Hist. c. 59, 
ap. Mon. Hist. Brit. pt. ii. 72; Keating, Gen. 
Hist. Ir. B. ii. pp. 325 564. : Four Mast. by 
O’ Donovan, i. 144-145 n. g; Wills, Ill. Ir. i. 60; 
Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 100 seq. 428 seq. ; Todd, 
St. Patrick, 436 seq.; Joyce, Irish Names of 
Places, 2nd ser. 230-231. [1-6.] 

Lampetius. [ΕὐΟΗΙΤΕΒ.] 

Laurentius (10), antipope, elected on the 
same day as Symmachus, four days after the 
decease of Anastasius II., which, according to 
Pagi (Critic. in Baron.), occurred on Nov. 22, 
498, Laurentius being brought forward in the 
interests of concession, Symmachus in the 
interests of unbending orthodoxy. Fierce 
conflicts ensued. The members of the senate 
as well as the clergy were arrayed in two 
parties. At length it was agreed to refer the 
settlement to Theodoric the Ostrogoth, now 
reigning at Ravenna as king of Italy, and he 
pronounced Symmachus the lawful pope 
(Anastas.). Laurentius at first acquiesced, 
and accepted the see of Nucerina, but his 
partisans at Rome recalled him, and for three 
years after his election Rome was divided 
into two parties, headed by Festus and Pro- 
binus on the side of Laurentius, and by Faus- 
tus on the side of Symmachus. Anastasius 
states that ‘“‘ those who communicated with 
Symmachus were slain with the sword ; holy 
women and virgins were dragged from their 
houses or convents, denuded and scourged ; 
there were daily fights against the church in 
the midst of the city; many priests were 
killed ; there was no security for walking in 
the city by day or night. The ex-consul 
Faustus alone fought for the church.” His 
account implies that more influential laymen 
were on the side of Laurentius, but that the 


LAURENTIUS 


clergy generally adhered toSymmachus. The 
matter was finally settled in the ‘* synodus 
palmaris,”’ the proceedings of which are sup- 
posed to be given under Synod. Romana III. 
sub Symmacho, the date of which is x. Kal. 
Novembris. Laurentius is said, ina fragment 
of a catalogue of the popes printed from a 
remarkably ancient MS. by Joseph Blanchinus 
in his ed. of Anastasius, to have retired to a 
farm of the patrician Festus, and to have died 
there, ‘‘sub ingenti abstinentia.’’ This ac- 
count evidently emanated from the party of 
Laurentius, if not from Festus himself (cf. 
Pagi’s note on Baronius, ann. 502 i.). 
Authorities—Anastasius (in Vit. Sym- 
macht) ; Frag. Cat. Pontif. in Anastas. Bibl. ed. 
1718-1835, Rome, t. iv. Prolegom. p. 1xix.; 
Theodorus Lector (lib. ii.), Theophanes (Chron. 
p- 123, ed. Paris), and Nicephorus (lib. 16, 
c. 35); Acts of Councils under Symmachus ; 
Libellus A pologeticus of Ennodius written in 
justification of Symmachus after his final 
triumph. [J-B—y.] 
Laurentius (15), surnamed Mellifluus, 
thought to have been bp. of Novara c. 507. 
A Laurentius, surnamed Mellifluus, from the 
sweetness with which he delivered homilies, is 
mentioned by Sigebert (Scr. Eccl. c. 120 in 
Patr. Lat. clx. 572) as the author of a treatise 
de Duobus Temporibus, viz. one period from 
Adam to Christ, the other from Christ to the 
end of the world. That this Laurentius was 
the presbyter who instructed Gaudentius the 
first bp. of Novara was maintained by Cotta, 
an outline of whose arguments may be seen 
in the Acta Eruditorum (suppl. t. ii. pp. 525, 
526, ed. Lips. 1696). La Bigne (Max. Bibl. 
Pat. t. ix. p. 465, Lugd. 1677) suspects that 
Laurentius Mellifluus was bp. of Novara, and 
subsequently the 25th bp. of Milan who is 
praised by Ennodius in his first Dictio. La 
Bigne grounds his opinion on certain allusions 
of Ennodius in his second Dictio, which was 
sent to Honoratus, bp. of Novara (e.g. Patr. 
Lat.|xiii. 269 8B). Other corroborative passages 
have been adduced by Mabillon (ut tnf.), as 
where Ennodius describes Laurentius bp. of 
Milan pacifying his haughty brethren by 
honeyed words of conciliation (‘‘ blandimen- 
torum melle,” 1b. 267 A). The historians of 
literature usually therefore designate Lauren- 
tius Mellifluus bp. of Novara, but he is not 
admitted by the historians of the see, as 
Ughelli (Ital. Sac. iv. 692) and Cappelletti (Le 
Chiese d’Ital. xiv.526). Three extant treatises 
are ascribed to Laurentius Mellifluus, viz. two 
homilies, de Poenitentia and de Eleemosyna, 
printed by La Bigne in his Bibliotheca, and a 
treatise de Muliere Cananaea, printed by 
Mabillon with a note on the author, supporting 
the view of La Bigne, in his Analecta (p. 55, 
ed. 1723). The homilies are in La Bigne 
(Max. Bib. Pat. t. ix. p. 465, Lug. 1677) and 
the three treatises in Migne (Patr. Lat. lxvi.87) 
with both La Bigne’s and Mabillon’s notices of 
the author. Cave mistakenly says (i. 493) 
that the de Duobus Temporibus is lost, for it 
is evidently the homily de Poenitentsa, which 
opens with an exposition of the ‘‘duo tem- 
pora,”” which terms he employs somewhat in 
the sense of the two dispensations for the 
divine pardon of sin. The sin inherited from 
Adam is in baptism entirely put away through 


LEANDER δαὶ 


the merits of Christ. Christ the second Adam 
simply cancelled the sin derived from the 
first Adam. Original sin therefore corre- 
sponds, in a manner, with the pre-Christian 
period. For actual transgression each person 
is himself alone responsible and is to be re- 
leased from it by penitence, with which the 
treatise is mainly occupied, and so has re- 
ceived its present title. For other notices see 
Ceillier (xi. 95), Dupin (Eccl. Writ. t. i. p. 540, 
ed. 1722), Tillem. (Mém. x. 259, 260). [ς.Η.]} 
Laurentius (36), Aug. ro, archdeacon of 
Rome, and martyr under Valerian, a.p. 258. 
Cyprian (Ep. 82 al. 80 ad Successum) mentions 
the rescript of Valerian directing that bishops, 
presbyters, and deacons should forthwith be 
punished, and records the martyrdom of 
Xystus bp. of Rome, in accordance with it on 
Aug.6. Laurentius, the first of the traditional 
seven deacons of Rome, suffered four days 
afterwards. The genuine Acts of this martyr- 
dom were lost even in St. Augustine's time, as 
he tells us (Ser. 302, de Sancto Laurent.) that 
his narration was gained from tradition in- 
stead of reciting the Acts as his custom was 
(S. Ambr. de Off. i. 41). Laurentius suffered 
by burning over a slow fire, the prefect think- 
ing thus to extort the vast treasures which 
he believed the Christians to have concealed. 
He was buried in the Via Tiburtina in the 
cemetery of Cyriaca by Hippolytus and Jus- 
tinus, a presbyter, where Constantine the 
Great is said to have built a church in honour 
of the martyr, which pope Damasus rebuilt or 
repaired. Few martyrdoms of the first three 
centuries are better attested than this one. 
St Laurentius is commemorated in the canon 
of the Roman Mass. His name occurs in the 
most ancient Calendars, as Catalog. Liberianus 
or Bucherianus (4th cent.), in the Calendar of 
Ptolemeus Silvius (5th cent.), and in others 
described under CALENDAR in D. C. A. (cf. 
Smedt, Introd. ad Hist. Ecclesiast. pp. 199-219, 
514). He is commemorated by Prudentius in 
his Peristeph. (Mart. Rom. Vet.; Mart. Adon., 
Usuard.; Tillem. Μόν. iv. 38; Ceillier, ii. 
423; Fleury, H. E. vii. 38, xi. 36, xviii. 33). 
Cf. Fronton, Ep. et Dissert. Eccl. p. 219 (1720), 
where, in a note on Aug. ro, in Kom. Kal., an 
accurate account is given of the churches built 
at Rome in his honour. (G.T.s.] 
Leander (2), metropolitan bp. of Seville 
from (?) 575 to 600. His life covers the most 
important period of Visigothic Christianity, 
and with Lerovicitp, HERMENIGILD, and 
RECCARED he plays an indispensable part in 
that drama, half-political, half-religious, 
which issued in the conversion council of 580. 


| All that is historically known of the origin of 


the famous family, which included his two 
brothers Istpore and FuLGentivus, and their 
only sister FLorentiNA, is derived from the 
opening sentence in Isidore’s Life of Leander 
(de Vir. Ill. c. 41; Esp. Sagr. v. 463) and 
from the concluding chapter of Leander's 
Regula, or Libellus ad Florentinam (Esp. Sagr. 
ix. 355). Their father was Severianus ** Car- 
thaginensis Provinciae."” At some unknown 
date, while Florentina was a child, the family 
left their native place (Libell. ad Florent. c. 
21), and settled probably at Seville. It is 
probable that Leander was born between 535 
and 540. He would thus be a youth at the 


41 


642 LEANDER 


time of the family exile. Before 579, the 
date of the outbreak of the Hermenigild 
rebellion, he had been a monk, and then raised 
to the metropolitan see of Seville, perhaps at 
that time the most important ecclesiastical 
post in Spain. The Catholics under the Arian 
king Leovigild had especial need of able and 
faithful leaders. Probably Leander saw the 
opportunity of the Catholics in Hermenigild’s 
youth and the Catholicism of his wife Ingun- 
this, and this conjecture is warranted by the 
evidence that the persuasive and eloquent 
bishop, who afterwards led the conversion 
council, laid the first stone of his great work 
in the conversion and rising of Hermenigild 
against his Arian king and father Leovigild. 
Leovigild’s Arian council of 581 was succeeded 
by civil war between father and son in 582. 
Hermenigild had already endeavoured to 
strengthen himself by alliances with the 
Catholic Suevi in the N. and the Catholic 
Byzantines in the S. and E. In connexion 
with this last alliance we next hear of Leander 
at Constantinople, ‘‘cum—te illuc injuncta 
pro causis fidei Visigothorum legatio per- 
duxisset,’”’ says Gregory the Great, describing 
in after-years (Pref. in Moralia, Patr. Lat. 
Ixxv. 510) his first friendship with Leander. 

The exact date of this mission is unknown 
(see Gorres, Zeitschrift fiir historische Theologte, 
i. 1873, p. 103); but we incline to place it in 
583, about the beginning of the siege of Seville, 
when effectual support from the empire might 
have given victory to Hermenigild. In 584 
Seville fell and Hermenigild was captured at 
Cordova. Thenceforward Arianism was tri- 
umphant, and that persecution of the Catholics 
by Leovigild, which is described by Isidore 
(Hist. Goth. Esp. Sagr. vi. 491) and Gregory of 
Tours (Hist. Franc. v. 39), was carried actively 
forward. In Apr. or May 586 occurred the 
death of Leovigild and the accession of his 
second son Reccared; and Leander, on re- 
ceiving information as to the state of affairs, 
appears to have hurried home from Constan- 
tinople. (Cf. what Lucinian says of his 
““haste’’ on the journey homewards from 
Constantinople, Ep. Licin. ad Greg. Pat. Esp. 
Sagr. v.) In Feb. 587 the preliminary 
synod took place at Toledo, in which Reccared 
and his nobles abjured Arianism, and notice 
of the step was sent to the provinces. 

The Conversion Council.—In 589 a great 
gathering at Toledo of the king and queen, the 
court, and 62 bishops, Arian and Catholic, 
changed the whole outer face of Visigothic 
history and entirely shifted its centre of 
gravity. The causes which led to it had been 
long at work (cf. Dahn, Kénige der Germanen, 
v. on the political causes); but this third 
council of Toledo remains one of the most 
astonishing and interesting events in history. 
For a detailed sketch of the proceedings see 
RECCARED. Here weareonly concerned with 
Leander’s share in it. ‘“‘Summa tamen 
synodalis negotii,’’ says the contemporary bp. 
of Gerona, Joannes Biclarensis, “‘ penes Sanc- 
tum Leandrum Hispal. ecclesiae episcopum 
et beatissimum Eutropium monasterii Ser- 
vitani abbatem fuit.’’ This justifies us in 
attributing to Leander the main outline of the 
proceedings and the wording of a large propor- 
tion of the Acts. Reccared’s speeches are prob- 


LEANDER 


ably to be traced to him. They are quite in 
accordance with Leander’s known style, especi- 
ally with that of the homily which con- 
cludes the council and was avowedly written 
and delivered by him. The homily (Homilia 
Sancti Leandri in laudem ecclesiae ob conver- 
sionem gentis) is an eloquent and imaginative 
piece of writing, with an undercurrent of re- 
ference to the great semi-religious, semi-politi- 
cal struggle which marked the reign of the 
last Arian king. ‘‘ The peace of Christ, then,”’ 
says Leander, ‘“‘has destroyed the wall of 
discord which the devil had built up, and the 
house which division was bringing to ruin is 
united in and established upon Christ the 
corner-stone.’’ Tejada y Ramiro, Colecc. de 
Can. de la Igl. Espanola, ii. 247-260; Gams, 
Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, ii. (2), 6, 41; 
Dahn, v. 159, vi. 434; Helfferich, Entstehung 
und Geschichte der Westgothen Recht, 33-46; 
Hefele, iii. 44-49. 

First Synod of Seville-—Eighteen months 
after the conversion council, Leander, as 
metropolitan of Baetica, and in obedience to 
the 18th canon of the council of 589, sum- 
moned the bishops of Baetica to a provincial 
synod in the cathedral of Seville, ‘‘in ecclesia 
Hispalensi Sancta Jerusalem ’’ (cf. Florez, ix. 
on the use of ‘“‘Sancta Jerusalem’’). The 
Acts, on matters disciplinary, are drawn up in 
the form of a letter to the absent bp. Pegasius 
of Astigi (Ecija). 

Correspondence with Gregory the Great.— 
Gregory and Leander, first made friends at 
Constantinople between 575 and 585, when 
Gregory was apocrisiarius of Pelagius II. at 
the East-Roman court. In May 591 Gregory, 
now pope, wrote a long letter to Leander (Ep. 
lib. i. 43, apud Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxvii. 497) 
in answer to his old friend, who had congratu- 
lated him on his elevation, reported the Visi- 
gothic conversion and the third council of 
Toledo, and inquired as to the form of bap- 
tism to be thenceforward observed in Spain, 
whether by single or threefold immersion. 
The pope expressed his joy in the conversion 
of the Visigoths, declaring that Leander’s 
accounts of Reccared have made him love a 
man of whom he has no personal knowledge. 
Let Leander look to it diligently that the 
work so well begun may be perfected. Ina 
country where unity of faith had never been 
questioned, single or threefold immersion 
might be observed indifferently, as represent- 
ing either the Unity or the Trinity of the God- 
head ; but as in Spain the Arian mode of bap- 
tism had been by threefold immersion, it would 
be well henceforward to allow one immersion 
only, lest the heretics be supposed to have 
triumphed and confusion ensue. Finally, the 
pope sent Leander certain codices; part of the 
Homilies on Job, which he had asked for, were 
to follow, as the librarii had not been able to 
finish the copy in time. 

Gregory’s second letter, dated July 595, is 
a note accompanying the gift of the Regula 
Pastoralis with pts. i. and ii. of the Moralza. 

The Pallium.—iIn Aug. 599 Gregory wrote 
to Reccared, Claudius Dux of Lusitania, and 
Leander. The letter to Leander announces 
the gift of the pallium, to be worn at the 


celebration of Mass, ‘‘solemnia Missarum.’’. 


To Reccared the popewrites: “ΤῸ our honoured 


LEANDER 


brother and fellow-bishop Leander we have 
sent the pallium as a gift from the see of the 
blessed apostle Peter, which we owe to ancient 
custom (antiquae consuetudins), to your de- 
serts, and to his dignity and goodness.” The 
exact force of the gift of the pallium to Lean- 
der has been much disputed. Florez (ix. 167) 
maintains it was nothing more than a mark of 
honour and distinction, and did not carry 
with it the apostolic vicariate, which had, 
however, been bestowed on his predecessors 
in the see, ZENo and SaLLustius, by popes 
Simplicius and Hormisdas (Tejada y Ramiro, 
ii. 962, ror5). In support of his supposition 
that pallium and vicariate were not necessarily 
combined, he quotes the case of bp. Auxanius 
of Arles, successor of St. Caesarius, to whom 
pope Vigilius gave the pallium when the 
vicariate had been previously bestowed 
(Vigil. Ep. vii. abud Migne, Patr. Lat. lxix. 27). 
Gams, however, holds that in Gregory’s mind 
at any rate the pallium carried with it the 
vicariate, and that the phrase antiquae con- 
suetudini is to be taken as referring to the 
vicariates of Zeno and Sallustius, and as 
implying the recognition by Gregory of an 
ancient claim on behalf of the see of Seville 
to represent the apostolic see in Spain. The 
various other bestowals of the pallium on 
Western bishops by Gregory, especially the 
cases of Augustine of Canterbury (Ep. xi. 64, 
65) and Syagrius of Autun (ix. 108), should 
be studied in connexion with the case of 
Leander (cf. Walter, Lehrbuch des Kirchen- 
rechts, pp. 308, 277, and Thomassin, Discipline 
de l’ Eglise, ii. i. cc. 25, 26). Very soon after 
the arrival of the pallium, at latest in 600, 
Leander died, shortly before the king, whose 
constant friend and adviser he had been. 

Works.—The Libellus ad Florentinam con- 
sists of an introductory letter and 21 chapters, 
which constitute the Regula. The style is 
easy and flowing, rising at time to real pathos 
and sweetness, as in the beautiful concluding 
chapter with its well-known reference to 
Isidore. Its laudation of the celibate life and 
depreciation of marriage are quite in the taste 
of the time, and, to judge from can. 5 of C. Tol. 
iii., seem to have been then in Spain a dis- 
tinguishing mark of the Catholic as opposed 
to the Arian clergy. 

The Homily noticed above is the only other 
work of Leander now extant. Isidore, how- 
ever, in his Life of his brother (de Vir. Ill. 
c. 41) speaks of three controversial treatises 
against the Arians, composed by him during 
his exile from Spain under Leovigild. [51- 
dore’s description shews that they were 
especially intended to meet the arguments and 
expose the pretensions of the Arian council of 
581. The last-named was probably in cate- 
gorical answer to the /ibellus issued after the 
synod by the Arian bishops and expressly 
anathematized by the conversion council 
(Joh. Bicl. ad an. 581; Tejada y Ramiro, ii. 
Ρ- 224). : 

Authorities.—Besides those already quoted, 
Baron. Ann. Eccl. a.D. 583, 584, 585, 589, 591, 
595, 599; Nicolas Antonio, Bibl. Vet. ed. 
Bayer, 1788, i. 290; de Castri Bibl. Espanola, 
ii. 280; Aguirre, Coll. Max. Conc. Htsp. iil. 
281-302; Fabric. Bibl. Lat. iv. 252, ed. 1754; 
Mabillon, Ann. Ord. S. Bened. i. 287 ; AA. SS. 


LEO 1. 643 


Boll. March ii. 275 ; Amador de los Rios, Hist. 
Coll. de la Lit. Espan. i. 312, 323; Montalem- 
bert, Moines del’ Occident, ii. [M.A.W.] 

Leo (1) I., emperor (surnamed the Great, 
the Thracian, and the Butcher), born ce. 400 
in the country of the Bessi in Thrace, pro- 
claimed emperor Feb. 7, 457, and coca by 
Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, being 
the first Christian sovereign to receive his 
crown from the hands of a priest. Immedi- 
ately upon the news of Marcian's death, 
religious troubles broke out in Alexandria, 
where the Monophysite party murdered the 
patriarch Proterius (Proteius), substituting 
for him Timothy Aelurus. The orthodox 
bishops of Egypt fled to the emperor to make 
complaint. Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, 
reported their sad case to pope Leo, who 
energetically seconded their shcxts for re- 
dress. The emperor, distracted by the 
demands of pope and patriarch on the one 
hand, of Aspar and the heretical party on the 
other, addressed a circular letter to Anatolius 
and all other metropolitans, commanding 
them to assemble their provincial councils, 
and advise him—(1) whether the decrees of 
the council of Chalcedon should be held bind- 
ing; (2) as to the ordination of Timothy 
Aelurus. He also consulted the three most 
celebrated ascetics of the time, Symeon Sty- 
lites, James the Syrian, and Baradatus. We 
possess in the Codex Encyclius the answers of 
all the bishops and hermits consulted, a most 
valuable monument of ecclesiastical anti- 
quity. It was apparently composed by 
imperial order by some unknown Greek, trans- 
lated into Latin at the order of the senator 
Cassiodorus by Epiphanius Scholasticus, and 
first published in modern times by Laurentius 
Surius. It is in all collections of the councils, 
but in full only in Labbe and Coss. (ον. i. 4, 
pp. 890-980 (cf. Cave, Scriptt. Lit. Hist. i. 495 ; 
Tillem. Mém. xv. art. 167). The bishops, in 
Aug. 458, replied, unanimously upholding the 
decrees of Chalcedon and rejecting the ordin- 
ation of Timothy, who, however, maintained 
his position at Alexandria till 460. 

In 468 Leo sent an expedition under the 
command of Basiliscus, his brother-in-law, 
against the Arian Vandals of N. Africa, who 
were bitterly hostile to him on account of his 
orthodoxy. Aspar and Ardaburius secretly 
arranged with Basiliscus for its failure, as they 
feared any diminution of the great Arian 
power. The emperor, having discovered the 
conspiracy, put Aspar and Ardaburius to 
death, and banished Basiliscus a.p. 469. The 
Gothic guards, in revenge, raised a civil war 
in Constantinople, under one Ostrys, a friend 
of Aspar, and attacked the palace, but were 
defeated. Leo thereupon issued a severe edict 
against the Arians and forbade them holding 
meetings or possessing churches. 

In another quarter controversy burst forth. 
Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, dying 
in 471, was succeeded by Acacius, whom Leo 
admitted a member of the senate, where no 
ecclesiastic had hitherto sat. Acacius ob- 
tained from Leo an edict confirming the 25th 
canon of Chalcedon, which raised Constanti- 
nople to the same ecclesiastical level as Rome. 
| Pope Simplicius resisted the claim, and a 
bitter controversy ensued, lasting many 


θ44 LEO I. 


years and most fruitful in divisions (Milman, 
Lat. Christ. lib. iii. c. i.). 

Leo was very active in church legislation. 
He made laws in 466 confirming the right of 
asylum to churches; in 468 forbidding any 
persons save Christians to act as advocates. 
In 469 he issued an edict against simoniacal 
contracts and one of almost puritan strictness 
upon the observance of Sunday. He forbade 
judicial proceedings on that day, and even the 
playing of lyre, harp, or other musical instru- 
ment (Chron. Pasch. a.D. 467, where the words 
of the edict are given). The same year he 
passed stern laws against paganism and issued 
a fresh edict in favour of hospitals. In 471 a 
law was published, apparently elicited by the 
troubles at Antioch, commanding monks not 
to leave their monasteries. When Isocasius, 
a philosopher and magistrate of Antioch, was 
forced by torture to accept baptism at Con- 
stantinople, the emperor seems to have per- 
sonally superintended the deed (Joan. Malalas, 
Chronogyr. lib. xiv.). Leo died Feb. 3, 474, aged 
73, and was succeeded by his grandson Leo II. 
Evagr. H. E. lib. ii.; Procopii, de Bell. 
Bandal.; Theoph. Chronogr. [G.T.s.] 

Leo (5) I., the Great, saint, bp. of Rome, 
A.D. 440-461. We know but little of him 
before his papacy. He himself and Prosper 
of Aquitaine call Rome his “ patria’’ (Prosp. 
Chron., Patr. Lat. li. 599; Leo Mag. Ep. xxxi. 
4, p- 85, Migne). His birth must have been 
about the last decade of the 4th cent. He is 
said (Vig. Taps. contra Eutych. lib. iv.) to have 
been baptized by Celestine; but if so, this 
must have been while Celestine was still a 
simple priest. There is no trace in his 
writings that his education comprised any 
study of pagan authors, and he was through- 
out life ignorant of Greek (Epp. cxxx. 3, p. 
1258; cxiii. 4, p. 1194); but his elaborate 
style indicates considerable training in com- 
position. In 418 we hear, in the letters of 
St. Augustine (Epp. cxci. cxciv. 1), of a 
certain acolyte Leo, the bearer of a letter from 
Sixtus, afterwards pope, to Aurelius of Car- 
thage and apparently also of pope Zosimus’s 
letter im condemnation of Pelagianism, 
addressed to Aurelius, St. Augustine, and the 
other African bishops. The mention of Sixtus, 
with whom Leo was afterwards connected, 
and the date of the occurrence, would lead us 
to identify this acolyte with Leo the Great. 
If so, it is interesting that he should have 
come in contact early in life with the greatest 
of Latin theologians. Under the pontificate 
of Celestine (422-432) he was a deacon, or 
(according to Gennadius, de Vir. Illus. 61) 
archdeacon of Rome. His important place 
in the church is shewn by two incidents. In 
430 the treatise of Cassian, de Incarnatione, 
against the Nestorians, was written at Leo’s 
exhortation, and dedicated to him with every 
expression of respect (Cassian, de Incarn. 
Praef. Migne, Pair. Lat. i. p. 11). In 431, 
during the council of Ephesus, St. Cyril of 
Alexandria wrote to Leo against the ambitious 
design of Juvenal of Jerusalem to obtain for 
his see the dignity of a patriarchate (Ep. 
Cxix. 4, p. 1216). In 439 Leo, on the alert 
against the Pelagians, urged the pope to offer 
a vigilant resistance to the movements of 
Julian of Eclanum, who was seeking to obtain 


LEO I. 


readmission to the church without any real re- 
cantation of his errors (Prosper, Chron., Patr. 
Lat. li. 598). Very soon after, Leo was sent 
on an important civil embassy to Gaul. The 
Western empire was in a condition of extreme 
weakness. Nominally governed by Placidia 
and her youthful son Valentinian III., the real 
power lay almost wholly in the hands of the 
general Aetius, at this moment engaged in a 
quarrel in Gaul with general Albinus. Itisa 
sign of the important civil position held by 
Leo the deacon that he was chosen to endea- 
vour to bring about a reconciliation (Prosper, 
Chron., Patr. Lat. li. p. 599). During his pro- 
longed absence pope Sixtus died, and Leo was 
promptly elected, and an embassy sent to 
recall him to Rome. ‘‘More than forty 
days,’’ says Prosper, ‘‘the Roman church 
was without a bishop, awaiting with wonderful 
peace and patience the arrival of the deacon 
1,60. He was consecrated Sept. 29, 440. 
The first of his extant works is a brief sermon 
on this occasion, de Natali Ipsius, in which 
he praises God and returns thanks to the 
people, asking their prayers for the success 
of his ministry. (For date of consecration 
see Ballerini’s note, Patr. Lat. lv. 193 ; Tillem. 
xv. note 2 on St. Leo.) 

It was a difficult and trying time. The 
Eastern empire was in its normal state of 
‘premature decay,’’ the Western empire was 
tottering to its fall. Africa was already a 
prey to Genseric and the Vandals. The 
devastation of the African church was well- 
nigh complete. The church at large was in 
evil case. Without, she was encompassed by 
the Arian powers; within the Manicheans, the 
Priscillianists, the Pelagians and the semi- 
Pelagians, were disturbing her peace; in the 
East Nestorianism was still rife. There was 
an extraordinary paucity of men capable of 
leading, whether in church or state. A man 
was needed capable of disciplining and 
consolidating Western Christendom, that it 
might present a firm front to the heretical 
barbarians and remain in unshaken con- 
sistency through that stormy period which 
links the ancient with the modern world. 
The church, preserving her identity, must give 
the framework for the society which was to be. 
That she might fulfil her function, large sacri- 
fices must be made to the surpassing necessity 
for unity, solidity, and strength. Leo was the 
man for the post: lofty and severe in life and 
aims, rigid and stern in insisting on the rules 
of ecclesiastical discipline; gifted with an 
indomitable energy, courage, and persever- 
ance, and a capacity for keeping his eye on 
many widely distant spheres of activity at 
once; inspired with an unhesitating accept- 
ance and an admirable grasp of the dogmatic 
faith of the church, which he was prepared 
to press everywhere at all costs; finally, 
possessed with, and unceasingly acting upon, 
an overmastering sense of the indefeasible 
authority of the church of Rome as the 
divinely ordained centre of all church work 
and life, he stands out as the Christian repre- 
sentative of the imperial dignity and severity 
of old Rome, and is the true founder of the 
medieval papacy in all its magnificence of 
conception and uncompromising strength. 
His is a simple character, if regarded with 


τον αλῴκιαν στ θεν oe os ene ee ee ee eee 


LEO I. 


sympathy, not hard to understand and 
appreciate; representing strongly that side 
of the developing life of the church specially 
identified with Rome—authority and unity ; 


and a special interest attaches to his history. 


from the fact that he stands so much alone, 
as almost the one considerable man in Chris- 
tendom. ‘‘ The dignity of the imperial name 


may be said to have died with Theodosius the | 


Great.’””’ Among churchmen Augustine was 
just dead, Cyril very soon to die. The best- 
known names are those of Theodoret, Prosper, 
Cassian, and Hilary of Arles. There was not 
even an imposing representative of heresy ; 
“on the throne of Rome, alone of all the great 
sees, did religion maintain its majesty, its 
sanctity, its piety ᾿ (Milman, Lat. Christian- 
ity, vol. i. p. 228). In such an age and in 
such a position, a strong man like Leo could 
exercise an abiding influence. 

In strengthening the framework of the 
church, Leo was playing an important part 
in the reconstruction of civil society. In 452 


Attila, having spread desolation over ἔμ. 
plains of Lombardy, was encamped upon the | 


Mincius, ready to advance towards Rome. 
In this extremity Leo, accompanied by the 
consular Avienus and the prefect Trigetius, 
met the barbarian, and Attila, yielding to 
their persuasions, consented to withdraw 
beyond the Danube. 

The terms were discreditable enough to the 
Roman empire; but that the confidence and 
courage of St. Leo in meeting the fearful Hun 
made a great impression on the Eastern as 
well as the Western world may be seen from 
the somewhat curious allusion to it by the 
Eastern bishops in the appeal to pope Sym- 
machus 6. 510 (Patr. Lat. |xii. p. 63). “‘If your 


predecessor, the archbp. Leo, now among the | 


saints, thought it not unworthy of him to go 
himself to meet the barbarian Attila, that he 
might free from captivity of the body not 
Christians only, but Jews and pagans, surely 
your holiness will be touched by the captivity 
of soul under which we are suffering.’’ No 
doubt later ages have exaggerated the import- 
ance of Leo’s action, as may be seen in 
Baronius’s account and that of later Roman 
Catholic writers (Ann. 452, ὃ 56 seq.). Later 
tradition has also introduced the well-known 
legend which represents Attila as confessing 
himself overawed by a miraculous presence, 
the apparition of St. Peter, and, according to 


another account, of St. Paul also, threatening | 


him with instant death if he refused to yield. 
(Baronius boldly maintains the legend, which 
can plead no respectable evidence. See 
Tillem. xv. 751, etc.) Again, in 455, when 


Genseric and the Vandals were at the gates of | 


Rome, the defenceless city, “‘ without a ruler 
and without a standing force,’’ found its sole 
hope in the dauntless courage of Leo. Un- 
armed, at the head of his clergy, he went 
outside the walls to meet the invader and 
succeeded in restraining the cruelty and 
licence of devastation. What exactly the 
barbarian promised, and how much of his 
romise he kept, is not quite certain, but at 
east ‘‘the mediation of Leo was glorious to 
himself, and, in some degree, beneficial to his 
country ᾿᾿ (Gibbon). To neither of these two 
encounters between Leo and the barbarians 


LEO I. 645 


do we find allusion in his extant writings. 
Clearly, if Leo was the “saviour of his 
country,"’ he was not inclined to boast of it. 
He had little to complain of in the submis- 
siveness of the Western emperor in his rela- 
|tions with himself. Nothing can exceed the 
| ecclesiastical authority which is recognized as 
belonging to the pope in the constitution of 
Valentinian, which accompanied Leo's letter 
into Gaul in 448 when Leo was in conflict 
with Hilary of Arles (Leo Mag. Ep. xi.). This 
constitution, which has the names of both 
emperors, Eastern and Western, at its head, 
speaks of the ‘‘merits"’ of St. Peter, the 
dignity of Rome and the authority of a council 
as conspiring to confirm the primacy of the 
| Roman bishops. It declares that it is neces- 
sary for the peace of all that all the churches 
| (‘‘universitas”) should recognize him as their 
ruler, and that his decree on the subject of the 
Gallic church would be authoritative even 
| without imperial sanction; yet by way of 
|giving this sanction, it asserts that “no 
bishops, whether of Gaul or of other provinces, 
are to be allowed, contrary to ancient customs, 
to attempt anything (“πὸ quid tentare"’) with- 
out the authority of the venerable man, the 
pope of the eternal city; but that the one law 
for them and for all is ‘* quicquid sanxit vel 
sanxerit apostolicae sedis auctoritas’’; and 
if any bishop summoned to Rome neglect to 
come, the provincial magistrate (moderator) 
is to compel him. Nothing could be stronger 
than this language; the document, however, 
must be considered entirely Western, the 
result of pressure put by Leo on the feeble 
mind of Valentinian. (See Tillem. xv. 441, 
who calls it “ἀπὸ loy ... trop favorable a la 
puissance du siége [de S. Léon] mais peu 
honorable asa piété.’’) That Valentinian and 
his family were much under Leo's influence is 
proved also by the letters which in the early 
part of 450 he induced him, his mother 
Placidia, and his wife Eudoxia, to write to 
Theodosius II., the Eastern emperor, in the 
interest of Leo’s petition for a council in Italy, 
all which letters reiterate the views of Leo 
and assert the loftiest position for the see of 
Rome (Leo Mag. Epp. liv.-lviii.). Theodosius, 
however, was not so amenable to Leo's wishes. 
In the matter of the councils, the pope had to 
submit to the emperor. It was the emperor 
who summoned the council of Ephesus in 449 
|\(Epp. xxix. 840, xxx. 851); Leo speaking 
always respectfully of him * (xxxi. 856, 840), 
but being inclined to complain at least of the 
short notice (857). The emperor decided 
| the occasion, place, and time; and the pope 
apologizes for not attending in person (#.). 
Again, after the disastrous termination of the 
| Ephesine synod, Leo cannot obtain from the 
'emperor his request for a gathering in Italy. 
| The summoning of councils still depended on 
|the *‘commandment and will of princes" ; 
and Leo gives a constant practical recognition 
(to the interference of the Eastern empire in 
ecclesiastical appointments and affairs gener- 
lally (Ep. Ixxxiv. c. 3, εἰς. ; ef. also οἱ. 1, 
‘remembering that Aspar was an Arian, 
| Tillem. Empereurs, vi. 166). In general Leo 
'conceives of the right relation of the empire 


* Considering the tone official language then took 
| Leo cannot be accused of exaggerated flattery. 


| 


646 LEO I. 


and the church as a very intimate one. 
‘“Human affairs cannot,’ he says, ‘‘ be safe 
unless the royal and sacerdotal authority 
combine to defend the faith” (Ep. lx. 983). 
He tells the emperor Leo on his accession that 
his empire is given him ‘“‘ not only to rule the 
world, but to defend the church” (Ep. clvi. 
1323). When he praises an emperor he 
ascribes to him a “‘sacerdotal’’ mind (e.g. 
Ep. εἰν. 1319). The civil power is constantly 
called upon, at any rate in the East, where 
Leo could not always depend on the eccle- 
siastical authorities, to do the work of the 
church (Epp. cxli. 1189, cxv. 1203, CXXXvVIi.), 
and he justifies the execution of Priscillian in 
the previous century on the ground “ that 
though the lenity of the church, contented 
with a sacerdotal sentence, is averse from 
taking a bloody revenge, yet at times it finds 
assistance in the severe commands of Christian 
princes, because the fear of punishment for 
the body sometimes drives men to seek healing 
for the soul”’ (Ep. xv. 696). 

As an ecclesiastical ruler we will consider 
Leo first in his relation to the various heresies 
in the West. Septimus, bp. of Altina, in the 
province of Aquileia, writes (Ep. i. Migne) to 
inform Leo that Pelagian ecclesiastics are be- 
ing admitted to communion in that province 
without recantation, are being reinstated into 
their ecclesiastical degrees, and allowed, con- 
trary to the canons, to wander from church 
to church. Leo writes to the metropolitan to 
complain, desiring him to summon a provin- 
cial synod and extract from suspected persons 
a condemnation of Pelagian errors (i. 591). 
Of his struggle with the Manicheans we know 
more. Recent troubles, especially the capture 
of Carthage by Genseric in 439, had driven 
many of these heretics to Rome. They were 
to be seen there moving about with pale faces, 
in mean apparel, fasting, and making dis- 
tinctions of meats. They seem to have pro- 
fessed Catholicism and done their best to 
escape attention (Leo Mag. Serm. xvi. 4, 
xxxv.; Ep. xv. 16, p. 708). The vigilance of 
Leo, however, was too much for them. Of 
this sect he had a particular horror. Their 
heresy is a mixture, he says, of all others, 
while it alone has no element of good in it 
(Serm. xvi. 4, xxiv. 5). Accordingly, in the 
beginning of 444, Leo made a diligent search 
for them. A large number, both of teachers 
and disciples, and among them their bishop, 
were tried in the presence of numerous 
authorities, ecclesiastical and civil, a ‘‘ senatus 
amplissimus,”’ as Valentinian calls it, at which 
confession was made of the most hideous 
immoralities in their secret assemblies (Epp. 
vii. p. 624, xv. 16, p. 708; Serm. xvi. 4, and 
Constitutio Valent., Ep. viii.). Those who 
remained impenitent were banished in fer- 
petuum by the civil power, and a constitution 
of Valentinian reviving the previous laws 
against the sect, dated June 19, 445, put them 
under all kinds of civil penalties. Leo, by 
sermons (ix. xvii. xxiv. xxxv. xlii.) and a 
circular letter to the bishops of Italy (Ep. vii.), 
did all he could to publish their infamy, and 
his exertions appear to have stirred up other 
bishops, both in the East and West, to similar 
activity (Prosper and Idatius, Chron., Pair. 
Lat. li. 600, 882). Theodoret, writing in 449, 


LEO I. 


counts this exhibition of zeal against the 
Manicheans one of St. Leo’s greatest titles to 
fame (Leo Mag. Ep. lii. c. 2). In 447 we find 
Leo sending an account of these proceedings 
to Turribius, bp. of Astorga (Ep. xv. 16, 708). 
At this period the Priscillianists were exer- 
cising a very disastrous influence in Spain. 
St. Turribius, their active opponent, wrote to 
Leo for advice, and Leo replies in July 447 
(Ep. xv.). He views the heresy as a mixture 
of Manicheism with other forms of evil, 
heretical and pagan, and exhorts Turribius to 
gather a synod of all the Spanish provinces 
to examine into the orthodoxy of the bishops ; 
with this view he sends letters to the bishops 
of the various provinces, but urges that at 
least a provincial synod of Gallicia should be 
held (c. 17). We find subsequent allusions to 
a Gallician council, to which Leo is said to have 
written (Labbe, Cone. v. 837 4; Idat. Chron. 
xxiii.), and to a council of various provinces 
at Toledo in 447, which is said to have acted 
““cum praecepto papae Leonis’’ (Labbe, ii. 
1227 Β; cf. Tillem. xv. 555 seq. ; Ceillier, x. 
668). Though we hear still of Novatianism 
and Donatism in Africa (Ep. xii. 6), Leo did 
not take any special measures against these 
nor other heresies in the West. 

Leo’s introduction to Eastern disputes is a 
somewhat curious one. Eutyches early in 
448 wrote to Leo apparently deploring the 
revival of Nestorianism. Leo replied on June 
1, applauding his solicitude, and apparently 
heard no more of Eutyches till early in 449 
he received two letters announcing his con- 
demnation in the council of Constantinople— 
one from the emperor Theodosius, the other 
from himself. Eutyches (Ep. xxi.) appeals 
to the judgment of the Roman pontiff. __ Leo, 
however, maintains a cautious attitude; 
writes to Flavian (Ep. xxiii.) complaining that 
he has sent him no information about the 
condemnation of Eutyches, that the appeal of 
the condemned to Rome was, according to his 
own account, not received and he himself 
hastily condemned, though he professed him- 
self ready to amend anything in his faith 
which should be found at fault. At the same 
time Leo writes to the emperor, lamenting his 
ignorance of the true state of the case (Ep. 
xxiv.). Meanwhile, it appears that Flavian 
had really written soon after the close of the 
council toinform Leo,and toDomnusofAntioch 
and other prelates. His letter, however (Ep. 
xxii.) hadnotreached Leoby theend of Feb. 449. 
Had it arrived, it would have been calculated 
to give Leo a clearer view of the dogmatic 
question at issue. Flavian’s second letter to 
Leo, in reply to his (Ep. xxvi.), contains no 
allusions to Leo’s complaints of his silence 
and want of consideration; he characterizes 
Eutyches’s representations as crafty and 
false, explains clearly the drift of his teaching, 
and urges the pope to send his subscription to. 
the condemnation, and to keep the emperor on 
the right side (7b. p. 788) ; the matter, he adds, 
only needs his assistance to keep it all straight. 
Leo, now confirmed in his adhesion to Flavian, 
writes briefly in May 449, assuring him of 
his sympathy (Ep. xxvii.), followed in June 
by “the tome”’ (Ep. xxviii.), one of the most 
justly celebrated of pontifical decrees— 
nominally a letter to an individual bishop, 


LEO I. 


but really addressed to all the world, Western 
as well as Eastern. 
sent letters directed against Eutyches’s doc- 


trine, and calling attention to his tome, to 
Pulcheria, Faustus, Martin, and the other 


archimandrites of Constantinople, to the Ephe- 
sine council itself, and two to his close friend 
Juutan of Cos (Epp. xxxi.-xxxv.). Mean- 
while Theodosius, at the instance of Eutyches, 
had directed the assembling of a council, 
which, professing to be aimed at Nestorianism 


only, excited much alarm in the minds of 


Eastern prelates and in that of Leo, who, 
though praising the emperor's zeal for religion, 


ventures to hint that there is no occasion for 


assembling a synod in a matter where there is 
no possibility of doubt—an opinion which he 
expresses more strongly to Flavian. Theo- 
dosius had sent a request that Leo would be 
present at the council. This, as he writes to 
Pulcheria, the circumstances of the city would 
not permit; 
Theodosius, be no precedent for such a course 
(Epp. xxxi. 857 ; xxxvii. 887). He sent (‘‘de 
latere suo’’) three legates to represent on his 
behalf the spirit at once of severity and 
mercy (Epp. xxix. p. 841 ; χχχῖν. c. 2; xxxiii. 
p- 866). They seem to have left Rome before 
June 23. Apparently at the beginning of 
Oct. news reached Rome that the council had 
been packed and managed by Dioscorus; 
that Leo’s tome had not been read; that Euty- 
ches had been reinstated, St. Flavian and 
Eusebius condemned and deposed ; finally, 
that of Leo’s legates one only had _ barely 
escaped to tell the tale ; and though Leo was 
ignorant of the crowning enormity of the 
murder of St. Flavian, his indignation boils 
over (Epp. xliii. p. 904; xliv. p. 912; xlv. p. 
Q21; CXX. 3, p. 1224; xlv. 2). The pro- 
ceedings of the council are characterized asa 
“ sceleratissimum facinus ’’; ‘‘ it was no synod 
at all, but a “ latrocinium,”’ a den of robbers ; 
its acts are null and void; it cuts to the root 
of the Christian faith (Epp. xliv. i. p. 913; 
i=xxve ep: 105i > χοῦν; 2: χῖν: 2, Ρ. 923); 
xliv. 1, 913). Still, Leo is more indignant than 
dismayed (Fp. xlviii.). The fearful and half- 
anticipated result of the synod only stirs his 
energies. There was then sitting at Rome a 
council apparently representing the whole 
West, and assembled to consider the present 
emergency (Epp. Ixi. 1 ; xlv. 2; xlvi. 2; xix. 
p- 1008). In his own name and that of the 
council Leo addresses letters to various 
quarters. The church of Constantinople and 
the archimandrites (Epp. 1. li.) are exhorted 
to be loyal to the faith and to Flavian, whose 
death was not yet known in Rome, and they 
are assured that no one who usurps his place 
can be in the communion of Rome or a true 
bishop (p. 934). Besides those letters (Epp. 
xliii. xliv. xlv.), there are two to the emperor, 
urgently requesting that a more oecumenical 
council may be held in Italy. Till this has 
been done, Leo begs the emperor by all that 
is most sacred to allow everything to remain 
as it was before the first decision at Constanti- 
nople (Ep. xliv. 2, p. 915). This request, made 
in the name of all the bishops and churches 
of the West (‘‘nostrae partes,” xliv. 3), is 
accompanied by the strongest condemnation 
of the Ephesine council and backed up by an 


At the same time, Leo 


and there would, as he tells 


LEO 1. 647 


appeal to the empress Pulcheria (Ep. xlv.). 
The ground of the request is especially the 
appeal of Flavian to Rome—an appeal for the 
justification of which Leo offers the authority 
of a Nicene canon (Ep. xliv. 916; vid. inf.). 

On Dee. 25 Leo, still surrounded by his 
council, presses his request to the emperor 
again (Ep. liv.) ; and in Mar. 450 writes again 
to stir up Pulcheria, the archimandrites (Ep. 
x1.), and the clergy and people of Constanti- 
nople, to press his petition for a ‘‘ plenaria 
synodus,”’ and ‘ next to the divine assistance 
to aim at obtaining the favour of the Catholic 
princes ’’ (Epp. lix. 5, 981, Ix. Ixi.). Mean- 
while, taking the opportunity of Valentinian’s 
presence in Rome with his wife Licinia 
Eudoxia (Theodosius’s daughter) and_ his 
mother, Galla Placidia, Leo gets them all to 
write letters urging the Eastern emperor to 
do what he wished (Epp. lv. lvi. lvii.). Galla 
Placidia wrote at the same time to Pulcheria, 
expressing detestation of the Ephesine synod, 
and describing how Leo, when solemnly asking 
their intercession with Theodosius, could 
hardly speak for grief (Ep. Iviii.). 

In his replies to Valentinian, Placidia, and 
Eudoxia (Epp. Ixii. Ixiii. Ixiv.) Theodosius 
asserts his continued orthodoxy, but professes 
his complete satisfaction with the Ephesine 
synod. His reply to Leo is not preserved, 
but contained an absolute refusal to do what 
he wished. Leo had another cause of anxiety. 
Anatolius had written to him in the end of 
449, telling him of his election to succeed 
Flavian (E>. liii.). Anatolius had been Dios- 
corus’s representative at Constantinople, and 
what security had Leo for his orthodoxy ? 
Moreover, he had simply announced his con- 
secration, without asking for Leo’s consent 
to it. Leo wrote in July 450 to Theodosius, 
whom he still addresses with the utmost 
respect, requiring that Anatolius should read 
the Catholic Fathers and the Ep. of Cyril, 
without overlooking his own Ep. to Flavian, 
and then make a public profession of adher- 
ence to their doctrine, to be transmitted to the 
apostolic see and all bishops and churches. 
This he demands somewhat peremptorily, 
sending legates to explain his views, and re- 
newing his request for an Italian council (Ep. 
Ixix.). This letter he backs up with others to 
Pulcheria, Faustus, and the archimandrites 
(Epp. 1xx. lxxi. Ixxii.). Leo appears even now 
to have been full of hope (Ep.1xxiii.to Martin), 
though Dioscorus had the audacity to excom- 
municate him and the emperor was all against 
him. But before his legates could reach 
Constantinople, his chief cause of anxiety was 
removed. Theodosius died, July 450, and was 
succeeded by Pulcheria, always Leo's friend, 
who united to herself as emperor, Marcian, 
equally zealous for his cause. Dioscorus’s 
hopes were gone. The letter of the new em- 
peror (Ep. Ixxiii.), announcing his election, 

romised the council to be held specially under 
eo’s influence (‘‘ te auctore "’), and the letter 
which followed the arrival of Leo's messengers 
at Constantinople asked him either to come 
to the East to assist at it or, if that was 
impossible, to let the emperor summon the 
Eastern, Illyrian, and Thracian bishops to 
some place ‘ ubi nobis placuerit "' (Ep. Ixxvi.). 
We hear nothing of Leo's requirement that 


648 LEO I. 


it should be in Italy, though he did not cease 
to wish that it should be there (Ep. xcv. I). 
Meanwhile Anatolius had willingly signed the 
tome, as had “411 the church of Constantinople, 
with a number of bishops’’—it appears that it 
was sent for signature to all the metropolitans 
(Ep. Ixxxviii. 3; Labbe, iv. 546 c)— the 
bishops banished for adherence to Flavian 
were recalled, and all honour shewn to 
Flavian’s body (Ep. Pulcheria, Ixxvii.). At 
the same time a large number of the bishops 
who had been induced by fear to assent to the 
decrees of the Ephesine synod (by July 451 
almost all) had testified their sorrow, and, 
though by the decision of the papal legates 
not yet admitted to the communion of Rome, 
were allowed the privileges of their own 
churches; Eutyches was banished, though 
not far enough to satisfy Leo, and everywhere 
“the light of the Catholic faith was shining 
forth” (Epp. 1xxx. 2; 1xxxiv. 3; cxxxii. p. 
1053). The legates, who returned at once, 
carried back a number of letters to their 
master, and in Apr. 451 we have a number 
of letters from him, expressing genuine satis- 
faction. Hecommends all that has been done, 
praises the ‘‘ sacerdotal”’ zeal of Marcian, the 
diligent watchfulness of Pulcheria, and re- 
joices in Anatolius’s adhesion to the truth 
(Epp. Ixxviii. xxix. Ixxx.; cf. 1xxxv. 3). He 
praises the conduct of his legates and confirms 
their wish that the names of those bishops, 
Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Eustathius, who had 
taken achief part in the crimes of the council 
of Ephesus should not be recited at the altar 
(Ixxx. 3; Ixxxv. 2). As for the council, he 
wishes it postponed, but has to yield to the 
emperor, and writes to him in June 451 (Ep. 
Ixxxix.), nominating the legates to represent 
him. He makes it a point that his legates 
should preside, and that the question of the 
true faith should not be treated as an open 
one (Ep. xc.; cf. xciii.). If Leo, presiding 
in the person of his legates, secures the posi- 
tion of his see, and if the prohibition of main- 
taining heretical positions (‘‘nec id liceat 
defendi, quod non liceat credi’’) gives security 
to the faith, there will be no cause of anxiety 
about the council, but a caution is still needed 
that the condemnation of Eutyches must not 
be an excuse for any rehabilitation of Nes- 
torianism (Ep. xciii.end). When the synodal 
letter of the council of Chalcedon (Ep. xeviii.) 
reached Leo, it was couched in terms highly 
complimentary to himself, and brought the 
best news as regards the question of faith. 
Eutyches had been finally condemned and 
Dioscorus deposed. Leo expresses his satis- 
faction (Ep. to Marcian, civ.). The faith of 
the church was unmistakably asserted. In 
Mar. 453 he tells Maximus of Antioch (Ep. 
cxix.) that ‘‘ the glory of the day is everywhere 
arisen.’’ ‘‘ The divine mystery of the Incar- 
nation,’’ he tells Theodoret, ‘‘has been re- 
stored to the age’’; ‘‘it is the world’s second fes- 
tivity since the advent of the Lord”’ (Ep.cxx.). 

While on this score Leo had every cause 
for joy, there was one decree of the council 
against which his legates had protested and 
which stirred his utmost indignation—viz. 
the 28th decree on the dignity of the see of 
Constantinople, which seemed to imperil the 
unique position of the see of Rome. 


LEO I. 


Before treating of this, we will take a general 
review of the position and influence of Leo 
as bp. of Rome up to this point of his pontifi- 
cate. The age into which Leo was born was 
one which demanded, above all else, a firm 
consistency and therefore centralization in the 
church. It was an age of little intellectual 
energy, and was to be succeeded by ages of 
still less. The world wanted above all things 
unity and strength, and this was found in 
taking Rome for a centre and a guide both in 
faith andin discipline. Accordingly the papal 
supremacy made a great stride during Leo’s 
life. He has been well called “‘ the first pope,”’ 
“the Cyprian of the papacy,”’ for we associate 
with Leo’s name the first clear assertion that 
metropolitans and patriarchs are subject in 
some way, still undefined, to Rome. What is 
Leo’s own view of his position? In his ser- 
mons preached on his ‘‘ birthday,” 1.6. the 
day of his consecration—an occasion on which 
a provincial council used annually to be as- 
sembled at Rome—he expresses his sense of his 
own insignificance but of the magnitude of his 
position and of the presence of St. Peter in 
his see, ‘‘ordinatissima totius ecclesiae charitas 
in Petri sede Petrum suscipit’’ (Serm. ii. 2; 
cf. iii. 3; ν. 4). St. Peteris the rock; St. Peter 
alone has to ‘‘strengthen his brethren”? (iii. 
3; iv. 3). Not only has he the primacy (ili. 
4) but is the channel through which is given 
whatever graces the other apostles have, and 
so, though there are many bishops and pastors, 
yet Peter governs them all by his peculiar 
office (‘‘ proprie’’), whom Christ governs by 
His supreme authority (‘‘ principaliter’’) ; 
thus “‘ great and wonderful is the share in its 
own power which the divine condescension 
assigned to this man”’ (lv. 2). Just as the 
faith of Peter in Christ abides, so also does the 
commission of Christ to Peter, and ‘“‘ Peter’s 
care rules still all parts of the church ”’ (iii. 2 ; 
v. 4). Thus the see of Rome is the centre of 
sacerdotal grace and of church authority; it 
represents Peter, ‘‘ from whom, as from a head, 
the Lord wills that His gifts should flow out 
into the whole body, so that he should know 
he has no share in the divine mystery who has 
dared to retire from the solid foundation of 
Peter’ (Ep. x. 1, in re Hilary of Arles). The 
see of Rome again, occupies in the ecclesi- 
astical world more than the position which 
the empire of Rome occupies in the secular— 
‘“sens sancta, civitas sacerdotalis et regia, 
caput orbis effecta latius praesidet religione 
divina quam dominatione terrena ’’—because 
the Roman empire uniting the world was just 
the divine preparation for the spread of the 
universal Gospel (Serm.1xxxii.1 and2). This, 
then, is his theory: let us see how he put it 
in practice. We see him standing as in a 
watch-tower, with his eye on every part of 
the Christian world, zealous everywhere for 
the interests of the faith and of discipline, and, 
wherever he sees occasion, taking the oppor- 
tunity of insinuating the authority of his see, 
not only in the West, but in the East. The 
‘authority of the apostolic see”’ to regulate 
discipline and depose bishops is asserted very 
absolutely to the bishops of Aquileia and of 
the home provinces in the beginning of his 
pontificate; as for the heretics, ‘‘ obediendo 
nobis, probent se esse nostros”’ (Epp. i. v. iv-)- 


ce 


LEO I. 


With something more of apology (though with 
the precedent of his predecessors), he asserts 
his authority—‘‘in order to prevent usurpa- 
tions’ in Illyria (Ep. v. 1). As his prede- 
cessors had done, he appointed a vicegerent, 
Anastasius of Thessalonica, to whom he 
wishes the Illyrian bishops to submit as to 
himself. He is to be to the metropolitans as 
they are to the ordinary bishops, and a regular 
system of provincial administration is or- 
dained, by which the assent of the papal 
vicarius is required for all episcopal elections 
and by which metropolitans are to be ordained 
actually by him (Ep. vi. 4; but cf. xiv. 6, 
where the latter point is modified). Biennial 
provincial councils, summoned by the metro- 
politans, referring graver matters to a repre- 
sentative synod, summoned by the vicar, 
whence again difficult questions are to be 
referred to Rome, are to maintain provincial 
discipline (Epp. xiv. 7; xiii. 2). Moreover, 
any individual bishop can appeal from the 
metropolitan directly to Rome, as Atticus, 
the metropolitan of Epirus Vetus, actually did 
some years later, securing the pope’s inter- 
ference against the cruel treatment of Anas- 
tasius (Ep. xiv. 1, p. 685). This supremacy 
of the papal vicar, which is of great historical] 
importance, seems to have been accepted 
without remonstrance by the Illyrian churches 
(Ep. xiii. 1). Meanwhile, in 445, a letter from 
Dioscorus of Alexandria, probably announcing 
his succession to St. Cyril, gave Leo an oppor- 
tunity of dictating to the church of Alexandria 
(Ep. ix.). That church owned St. Mark for 
her founder; should not the church of St. 
Mark be in complete accord with the church 
of St. Mark’s master? On the strength of 
this relation between the churches, Leo gives 
Dioscorus detailed directions about days of 
ordination and the celebration ofmass. About 
the same time the restless energy of Leo was 
engaged in his famous controversy with St. 
Hilary of Arles. This controversy (for which 
see H1Lary), which is of special importance as 
being the first case in which ‘“‘ the supremacy 
of the Roman see over Gaul was brought to 
the issue of direct assertion on the pope’s part, 
of inflexible resistance on the part of his op- 
ponent,”’ arose out of an appeal of a bishop, 
Celidonius, to Rome against the judgment of 
Hilary. Though some blame attaches to 
Hilary, Leo’s conduct was imperious, pre- 
cipitate, unjust, and not over-scrupulous. 
The temptation to press a disputed claim of 
the Roman see and extend the Roman pre- 
Togative was too strong; Leo’s violent lan- 
guage about the saintly Hilary (Ep. x.), his 
high-handed treatment of Gallic rights, and 
his attempt to give a sort of primacy in Gaul 
to Leontius on the mere score of age cannot be 


defended. He seems conscious that he is) 


treading on doubtful ground in the beginning 
of his letter to the Gallic bishops, for he is 
careful to assert that there is nothing new in 
his proceedings, and that he is only defending 
the Gallic bishops from the aggresstons of Hilary. 
He professes to consult them (c. 4) ; he forti- 
fies himself with an imperial edict, for which 
he must be held mainly responsible (vid. sup.) ; 
though he apparently excluded Hilary from 
his communion, he did not venture to depose 
him from his episcopal functions, and on his 


LEO I. 649 


death speaks of him as “ sanctae memoriae ” 
(Ep. xl.; cf. Tillem. xv. 80, 89). The per- 
emptory orders of Leo seem to have obtained 
but inadequate execution in Gaul (Tillem. xv. 
86) as shown in the election of Ravennius, 
Hilary’s successor. Leo had desired (Ep. 
Ixvi. 2) that the privileges he took from Hilary 
should be given to the bp. of Vienne; but the 
latter seems to have taken no part in the 
consecration of Ravennius, yet Leo speaks 
of his consecration as constitutionally con- 
ducted and divinely inspired (Epp. x1. xii.) and 
appears in the directions he gives Ravennius 
to recognize him as a metropolitan (Ep. xlii. ; 
Tillem. xv. 93). Of the way Ravennius was 
consecrated, the bp. of Vienne seems to have 
made no complaint. He did, however, com- 
plain of the ordination by Ravennius of a bp. 
of Vaison (Ep. lxvi. 1). This complaint was 
followed on the other side by a petition from 
19 bishops of the three provinces formerly 
subject to Arles, asking for the restoration to 
that see of its former dignity. Leo had now 
an opportunity to mediate. However im- 


perfectly subservient to Leo's wishes the 
Gallic church had hitherto been, the tone of 
this letter is sufficiently abject. The pope's 
authoritative attitude and the imperial edict 
had done their work. They simply put them- 
selves in Leo’s hands. They ground the claim 
of Arles on ancient custom, civil dignity, and 
specially on the fact that in Trophimus that 
town had had the first Gallic bishop, and Tro- 
phimus had been sent by St. Peter; they even 
claim for Arles a certain authority over all 
Gaul as the vicegerent of the Roman see. 
Having received this appeal, so satisfactory in 
its tone, and the counter-complaint from 
Vienne, Leo proceeded to divide the authority. 
He examined carefully, he says, the rival 
claims of Vienne and Arles, and ultimately 
assigned a limited authority over four churches 
to the bp. of Vienne, and the rest of the 
province of Vienne to Arles; of the claims of 
Arles to larger metropolitan rights, he says 
nothing (Ep. Ixvi.). This decision seems to 
have been acquiesced in by Ravennius, but 
did not finally stop the disputes of the rival 
sees (Tillem. xv. 95, 96). Leo sent also his 
tome to Ravennius for distribution in Gaul 
and secret communications, ‘‘ quae commit- 
tenda litteris non fuerunt,”’ by the mouth of 
the messengers. 

Probably c. 446 we find Leo correcting some 
scandals and asserting his authority in the 
church of Africa, too weak and disorganized 
now, from the devastations of Genseric and the 
recently concluded war, to resist interference 
as in the days of Celestine. He had sent a 
representative to make inquiries into alleged 
violations of discipline there in the election of 
bishops; on receiving his report, Leo wrote 
(Ep. xii. to the bishops of Mauretania Caesari- 
ensis) assuming complete authority over the 
administration of their church. He even re- 
ceived an appeal from an African bishop, Lurt- 
cinus, and reversed the decision of the African 


| church in receiving him to communion. 


In 447 we have seen Leo entering into the 
affairs of the church of Spain, distracted like 
ithe African with barbarian invasions, and 
dictating the course to be pursued against the 


Priscillianist heretics ; and the same year he 


060 LEO I. 


sharply reprimanded the Sicilian bishops for 
the alienation of church property, of which 
complaints had been laid before him in a 
Roman synod by the clergy of the despoiled 
churches (Ep. xvii.). The Eutychian contro- 
versy went far to aggrandize the position of 
Rome as the seat of dogmatic truth and the 
refuge of oppressed orthodoxy. Rome's pre- 
tensions to a superior jurisdiction are older 
than her claims to be the source of dogmatic 
truth. The claim of infallibility was yet 
unheard, but it went far to lay the ground of 
this claim that in the last great controversy 
about the Incarnation Rome’s utterance be- 
came the standard of orthodoxy. The glory 
of being the safest dogmatic guide coalesced 
with increasing authority as the centre of dis- 
cipline and government. True, the letter of 
Leo to Flavian went out for signature east and 
west on the authority of a council; there is 
no approach to a claim to dogmatic authority 
as bp. of Rome on Leo’s part; still, the 
letter was Leo’s letter and the stream of things 
was running in the direction of his exaltation. 
Moreover, the position of Rome at this period 
made Leo the recipient of appeal after appeal. 
Eutyches, Flavian, Eusebius, Theodoret, the 
presbyters Basil and John (£p.1xxxvii.), made, 
or were supposed to have made, appeals, and 
gave Leo opportunities of asserting an old 
claim. The council of Sardica had framed a 
canon, allowing appeals from discontented 
bishops to pope Jutrus. This canon, with 
the others of this council, was in the Roman 
church included with the canons of Nicaea, 
and as such had been quoted by the popes ; 
but that it was not Nicene, the African 
church had shewn quite clearly in the time of 
Zosimus. Though Leo could not be ignorant 
of this fact, he still alleges the authority of 
Nicaea for the right of appeal (Ep. liv. p. 917, 
in the case of Flavian). No ‘‘ custom of the 
Roman church”’ can justify this. (For the 
Roman canons, see collection in Migne’s Patr. 
Lat. lv. init.; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. ὃ 92.) 
Leo appears to make no exact or definite 
claim over the Eastern bishops through the 
Eutychian controversy. He professes his 
“universalis cura’’ for the welfare of the 
whole church (Ep. Ixxv.) and claims to be kept 
fully alive to what goes on in the East (cf. Ep. 
to Flavian, xxiii.), while the power of exclud- 
ing from his own communion gave him some 
hold on episcopal elections, which he requires 
to be notified to him with satisfactory proofs 
of the orthodoxy of new bishops (cf. his lan- 
guage at his confirmation of Anatolius’s elec- 
tion); “‘ nostra communio” all through his 
writings is an expression of much meaning 
and weight. Moreover, we have seen that he 
claimed a right of receiving appeals from all 
parts of the Christian world, and we shall see 
him trying to annul the authority of a canon 
of Chalcedon which displeased him. But 
when he writes his celebrated letter to Flavian, 
on the subject of the true faith of the Incarna- 
tion, he writes in a tone no wise different 
from that adopted by St. Cyril in his letters 
against Nestorius. The bp. of Ravenna (Peter 
Chrysologus), at the beginning of the Euty- 
chian controversy, wrote to Eutyches recom- 
mending him to listen to Rome, because “ the 
blessed Peter who lives and presides in his 


LEO I. 


own see gives the truth of the faith to those 
who seek it’ (Ep. xxv. ad fin.), but there is 
nothing of this tone in Leo’s own words. He 
classes his letter with that of Cyril (Epp. Ixvii.; 
lxix. 1006): ‘‘non aspernetur Anatolius,’’ he 
says, ‘‘ etiam meam epistolam recensere, quam 
pietati patrum per omnia concordare re- 
periet’’ (Ixx. roro). After the council of 
Chalcedon, he commends his own letter as 
confirmed by the council and witnessed to 
by patristic testimony (e.g. Ep. cxx. to Theo- 
doret, c. 4; cf. esp. Ep. cx. 3, 117, where he 
fortifies himself by the authority of St. Atha- 
nasius, and Ep. cxxiii. 2, where he speaks of 
his tome simply as “‘ synodalia decreta”’ ; Ep. 
cxxxix. 4; Leo attached the ‘“‘ testimonia pa- 
trum ’’ to his tome after the Robber council, 
Eb. \xxxviii. 3). 

Of the Eastern bishops, THEODORET, in 
making his appeal (Fp. lii.), addresses Leo in 
language very reverential to his see: ‘“‘If 
Paul betook himself to Peter that he might 
carry back from him an explanation to those 
who were raising questions at Antioch about 
their conversation in the law, much more do 
I,’ etc.; but while he admits it expedient 
that the pope should have the first place 
(‘‘primas”’) in all things, he grounds this posi- 
tion on (1) the greatness of Rome; (2) the 
continuous piety of the church; (3) the posses- 
sion of the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul: 
not the sort of prerogatives on which Leo 
would ground his primacy. Flavian ad- 
dresses Leo in a way entirely consistent with 
the dignity of his own see. He informs him 
of the condemnation of Eutyches (Ep. xxii.), 
but only that Leo may put the bishops sub- 
ordinate to him on thety guard; and when 
Flavian asks for Leo’s subscription (Ep.xxvi.), 
he asks it for an already canonically made 
deposition. At the council of Chalcedon, Leo 
was treated with all possible respect. He had 
required (Ep. Ixxxix. to Marcian) that his 
legates should preside, ‘‘ on account of the in- 
constancy of so many of his brethren.’”’ Cer- 
tainly the doubtful orthodoxy of so many of 
the chief Eastern bishops, and the connexion 
of Anatolius with Dioscorus, would have made 
it difficult to find any one so fit as the Roman 
legates to preside. Moreover, all the influence 
of Marcian and Pulcheria was on the side of 
Leo, “* giving him entire authority ’’ (Theodor. 
Lector. lib. i.), except as regards the place of 
the council; hence there were reasons 
enough for giving him the presidency, even if 
Leo had not been Leo and Rome Rome. 
As it was, there was no direct opposition and 
the influence of his legates was strong enough 
to enforce in great measure his wishes as to 
Dioscorus. When the synod proceeded to 
read Leo’s tome, some Illyrian and other 
bishops raised doubts on certain expressions 
in it. Explanations were given and confer- 
ences held, where those points were shewn by 
the legates and others to be in agreement with 
the doctrines of councils and the Ep. of Cyril 
(Labbe, iv. 367c¢,D; 491D). Finally, his 
letter was unanimously received, because it 
was in agreement with the decrees of Nicaea, 
Constantinople, and Ephesus, and the Epp. of 
St. Cyril (pp. 471 seq.). ‘‘ Peter,’’ the bishops 
cried, ‘“‘spoke thus by Leo! Leo teaches 
truly! Cyril taught so! Eternal the mem- 


LEO I. 


ory of Cyril! Leo and Cyril teach alike! 
This is the faith of the Fathers !"’ (367, 368). 
_. Thus Leo’s letter was treated by the council 
like the letter of any other highly respected 
churchman ; and in the eighth session of the 
council Leo’s decision on the orthodoxy of 
Theodoret was not accepted till that bishop 
had satisfied the synod that he really was 
orthodox (621 ο, Ὁ). On one or two points 


especial reverence for Leo was shewn in the 
council. According to the Acts of the council, 
the form in which the papal legates expressed 
the condemnation of Dioscorus was, ‘‘ The 
archbishop of the great and elder Rome, 
through us and through the holy synod now 
present, together with the . . . apostle Peter, 
who is the rock . . . has stripped Dioscorus 
of all sacerdotal dignity’’ (426c). This 
“sentence ᾿ indeed exists in a widely different 
form, as sent by Leo himself to the Gallic 
bishops (Ep. ciii.), in which Leo is described 
as “‘ head of the universal church,’”’ and con- 
demns ‘‘ by us his vicars with the consent of 
the synod.’ The Acta are probably the best 
authority, as we do not know exactly whence 
Leo’s version came. In any case, the papal 
legates were regarded as passing sentence on 
Dioscorus with the consent of the council (cf. 
Patr. Lat. li. p. 989, note b; Evagr. H. E. ii. 4). 
The title ‘‘ oecumenical archbishop ”’ is used 
of Leo in the plea of Sophronius against Dios- 
corus (Labbe, iv. 411 5), and “‘bishop of all the 
churches,”’ or “οὗ the oecumenical church,” 
by the papal legates.* It is, perhaps, in mis- 
taken allusion to these expressions of indi- 
viduals that pope Gregory I. states that the 
bishops of Rome were called ‘‘ universales 
episcopi’’ by the council of Chalcedon (Greg. 
Mag. Epp. lib. v. ep. xviii. 743, Migne) and 
that the title thus offered had been consis- 
tently rejected (pp. 749, 771, 919). The 
synodical letter (Ep. xcviii.) which the as- 
-sembled bishops wrote to Leo was highly 
complimentary. They speak of him as the 
“‘interpreter to all of the blessed Peter.’’ He 
has presided by his legates as *‘ the head over 
the members”’ (c. 1). It is he who took away 
his dignity from Eutyches (c. 2). They ex- 
press indignation at the monstrous attempt 
which Dioscorus made to excommunicate Leo, 


““he to whom the Saviour intrusted the care | 


of the vine”’ (c. 3); but all this language, so 
acceptable to Leo, serves to usher in a very 
unpleasant matter. The first council of Con- 
stantinople had decreed that the bishop of 
that place should have the primacy of honour 
after the bp. of Rome, because “‘it is itself 
new Rome’’ (Labbe, ii. 947 6). Leo's state- 
ment, that this canon had never taken effect, 
is entirely untrue. On the contrary, the pre- 
cedence of honour had become an extensive 
jurisdiction (Tillem. xv. pp. 701 564.); and 
this jurisdiction had now been sanctioned by 
the 28th canon of the council of Chalcedon, 
which professed to confirm the canon of Con- 
stantinople. ‘‘The Fathers,” they say, ‘‘gave 
with reason the primacy to the chair of old 
Rome, because that was the royal city, and, 
with the same object in view, the 180 pious 


* Lest we attach too much importance to these 
flattering titles in the Eastern world, weshould notice | 
that the same title is applied to Dioscorus at Ephesus — 
(Labbe, iv. 270, 472 A, 479 E; Tillem. xv. 564). 


|nople (Ep. civ. 2). 
'with having diverted the council from its own 


LEO 1. 651 


bishops gave equal primacy (ra ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) 
to the chair of new Rome" (which phase, 
however, is afterwards explained by the words 
“being next after old Rome"'); this addition 
to the rank of new Rome is grounded on her 
imperial position; it is then further allowed 
that the see of Constantinople should have the 
right of ordaining the metropolitans of Pontus, 
Asia, and Thrace, and certain other bishops 
(Labbe, iv. 795 ἢ seq.). From the discus- 
sion on this subject the papal legates had 
retired, saying they had no directions from 
Rome in the matter; but when the Eastern 
bishops had confirmed the canon, they de- 
manded and obtained another session, when 
they protested in vain against it (Labbe, iv. 
sess. 12). Doubtless the bishops had been 
partly inspired by jealousy of Rome. Leo's 
oft-repeated sneer, that they had been com- 
pelled to sign, they stoutly denied in session 
(ib. 809, 813 Bseq.). This canon the council 
announce to Leo: their object, they say, was 
to secure order and good discipline, and it was 
made at the wish of the emperor, the senate, 
and the citizens (Ep. xeviii. 1097): they 
therefore express a good hope that Leo will 
not resist it as his legates did. At the same 
time, Leo received letters from Marcian, Ana- 
tolius (Epp. c. ci.), and Julian, expressing joy 
at the successful suppression of heresy and 
endeavouring to conciliate him in regard to 
the 28th canon. Anatolius writes in as con- 
ciliatory a tone as possible, urging that the 
jurisdiction actually reserved for Constan- 
tinople is less than custom had sanctioned, 
repeating that it was at the wish of emperor, 
senate, and consuls that the canon was passed, 
and complaining gently of the conduct of the 
legates after so much deference had been 
shewn them. It would seem from the words 
of the ‘‘ Commonitorium "’ which he intrusted 
to his legates (Labbe, iv. 829 Ε) that Leo had 
had some inkling of what the council might 
do in this respect. Indeed Eusebius of Dory- 
laeum stated in session that he had actually 
read this canon to Leo, when at Rome, in 
presence of some clerics from Constantinople, 
and that he had accepted it (815 8). Leo 1s, 
however, now extremely indignant. A very 
angry tone runs through the letters to Marcian, 
Pulcheria, Anatolius, and Julian (Epp. civ.- 
cvii.). He urges that when Anatolius’s ante- 
cedents were so doubtful, an attitude of 
humility would have best beseemed him (Epp. 
civ. 6. 2; CV. 3; cVvi. 5), that secular import- 
ance cannot confer ecclesiastical pelvilees 
‘*alia enim est ratio rerum saecularium, alia 
divinarum "’ (civ. 3), and that the canon is in 
flat contradiction to the unalterable decrees 
of Nicaea, alluding probably to the sixth 
canon, on the rights of certain metropolitans. 
He treats very scornfully the assent of the 
Chalcedonian bishops; it is an ‘‘ extorta sub- 
scriptio’’; what can it avail against the 
protest of the legates? (Ep. cv. 1055). He 
thinks just as little of the decree of Constanti- 
He charges Anatolius 


proper object to subserve his ambitious pur- 
poses (Ep. evi. 2), and finally takes up the 
cudgels "ὦ Antioch and Alexandria, though 
the bishops of those sees, Theodoret and Maxi- 
mus, had signed the decree—which indeed does 


652 LEO I. 


not appear to interfere with the prerogatives 
which the canon of Nicaea assigned them (cf. 
Tillem. xv. p. 709), while not only had custom 
long allowed to Constantinople a position of 
superior dignity, but that position had been 
secured to her by a council, of the authority 
of which Leo had no right to speak so scorn- 
fully. The exhortations to avoid ecclesi- 
astical ambition which Leo frequently uses 
and his contention for the canons of Nicaea 
did not come with a good grace from a bp. of 
Rome. If anything can justify Leo’s claims, 
surely it is not the council of Nicaea. In 
Feb. 453 the emperor wrote to Leo, begging 
him to send as soon as possible his confirma- 
tion of the Acts of Chalcedon, that none might 
be able to shelter themselves under the excuse 
that he had not confirmed them (Ep. cx.). 
Leo replied, Mar. 11, to the council and to the 
emperor (Epp. cxiv. cxv.), saying that, if 
Anatolius had shewn his letters, which he had 
motives for concealing, no doubt could have 
existed as to his approval of the decrees of the 
council, ‘‘that is, as regards faith (‘‘in sola vide- 
licet causa fidei, quod saepe dicendum est ”’), 
for the determination of which alone the 
council was assembled by the command of the 
Christian prince and the assent of the apos- 
tolic see’’ (cxiv. 1). To the emperor he sent 
his assent to the decrees concerning faith and 
the condemnation of the heretics as a matter 
of obedience to him, and begged him to make 
his assent universally known (cxv. 1204, cf. 
also Epp. cxxvi. cxxvii.). 

Despite the reverential speeches of council, 
emperor, and bishops to Leo, neither this 
canon nor the attitude of the council towards 
Leo’s tome, nor indeed Leo’s own way of 
talking about it, give modern Romanists any 
great cause for satisfaction with the council 
of Chalcedon. 

Meanwhile, in maintaining the cause of the 
faith, Leo was asserting his prerogative in 
many quarters. In 451 Leo’s tome was 
approved in a council under Eusebius of Milan, 
which sent him a highly complimentary letter 
(Ep. xcvii.), in which, however, the tome is 
commended as agreeing with St. Ambrose, 
just as it was by the council of Chalcedon as 
agreeing with St. Cyril. 

About 452 the East was troubled by the 
tumultuous proceedings of the Eutychian 
monks in Palestine, headed by one Theodosius, 
who elected a bishop in place of Juvenal, 
seized Jerusalem, and committed all sorts of 
violences (Tillem. xv. § 138, etc.). These 
disturbances caused Leo great anxiety (Ep. 
cix.), and drew from him (Ep. cxxiv.) a clear 
and admirable exposition of the faith, as lying 
between Nestorian and Eutychian error. On 
the death of Marcian in 457 Eutychian risings 
were attempted in Constantinople and Alex- 
andria (Epp. cxl. cxliv.). Leo (Ep. cxlv.), 
writing to congratulate the emperor Leo on 
his accession, urged him to active measures 
against the heretics, and by constant letters 
did all he could to keep Anatolius and Julian 
also zealous for the Chalcedonian decrees and 
the suppression of heresy. He urged that the 
question of the faith should not again be 
allowed to come into discussion. He com- 
plained to Basil, the new bp. of Antioch, that 
he had not, ‘‘ according to ecclesiastical cus- 


LEO I. 


tom,” notified his consecration to him, and 
addressed other letters against Timotheus 
Aelurus to the bishops of Thessalonica, 
Jerusalem, Corinth, and Dyrrhachium, which 
he sends for distribution to Julian (Epp. cxlix. 
cl. clii.). He sent the expressions of agree- 
ment to his tome from the bishops of Gaul 
and Spain in a letter to Aetius, and wrote 
(Oct. 11, 457) condoling with the refugee 
Egyptian Catholics now in Constantinople 
(Epp. cliv. οἷν. clx.). ‘‘ They are not,’’ he 
says, ‘exiles from God.’’ Meanwhile, a 
circular letter from the emperor, asking all the 
metropolitans to summon provincial councils 
and collect the opinions of their bishops on the 
conduct of Timotheus Aelurus and the author- 
ity of the Chalcedonian decrees, gave Leo an 
opportunity of again impressing his views on 
the emperor, and urging him to make up by 
his zeal for any laxity in Anatolius (Ep. clvi. 
c. 6). He had both to resist all inclination on 
the emperor’s part to listen to the suggestions 
which accused his doctrine of Nestorianism, 
and to oppose strongly the idea of assembling 
another council, which the emperor had enter- 
tained. When the emperor dropped the idea 
of a council, he proposed, wherever the sug- 
gestion may have come from, a conference 
between some of the Eutychian heretics and 
an envoy of the pope (Ep. clxii.). This again 
Leo could not consent to, for it involved the 
discussion of the faith which had been once for 
all determined, as if it were an open question 
(‘‘ patefacta quaerere, perfecta retractare, de- 
finita convellere’’). He sent legates, not, 
however, to dispute, but to teach ‘‘ what is 
the rule of the apostolic faith’’; and some 
time in the same year addressed to Leo a 
long dogmatic epistle (Ep. clxv.) sometimes, 
called the ‘‘ second tome,”’ closely parallel to 
the epistle he had before sent for the instruc- 
tion of the Eutychian monks of Palestine. 
To it is attached a collection of testimonies, 
more ample than he had previously sent to 
Theodosius. In 460 Leo saw his wishes 
realized in the expulsion of Timotheus Aelurus, 
who, however, was allowed to come to Con- 
stantinople. Leo writes in June to congratu- 
late the emperor on his energy against Aelurus, 
and to impress on him the need of a pious and 
orthodox bishop for Alexandria (‘‘ in summo 
pontifice,”’”’ Ep. ccxix. c. 2). At the same 
time he writes to Gennadius, the new bp. of 
Constantinople, who had succeeded Anatolius 
in 468, urging him to be on his watch against 
Aelurus, whose arrival at Constantinople he 
deplored and who appeared likely to have a 
considerable following there. The bishop 
elected for Alexandria, Timotheus Solofacio- 
lus, met with Leo’s warm approval. 

The letters which Leo wrote at this time 
(Aug. 461) to Timotheus, his church, and some 
monks of Egypt (Epp. clxxi. clxxili.) are the 
last public documents of his life. Before his 
death Leo saw the peace of the church of 
Alexandria established and orthodoxy su- 
preme, for a period at least of 16 years, in the 
elevation to its throne of Timothy Solofaciolus. 

Though Leo was heedless of the rights of 
national churches, harsh and violent in his 
treatment of Hilary, and not always very 
scrupulous in his assertions about the canons 
of Nicaea, personal ambition was with him 


ον ἐς 


LEO 1. 


wholly merged in the sense of the surpassing 
dignity of his see, and his zeal was alway 
high-minded and inspired by an overmastering 

assion for unity in faith and discipline, and 
it might have fared ill with that faith and 
discipline in those days of weakness and 
trouble if a man of his persistence, integrity, 
piety, and strength had not been raised up to 
defend and secure both the one and the other. 
The notes of the discipline which he enforced 
were authority, uniformity, and antiquity, the 
authorities to which he appealed Scripture, 
tradition, and the decrees of councils or the 
holy see. His zeal for uniformity shewed 
itself in the beginning of his reign by his care 
that the whole of Christendom should cele- 
brate Easter on the same day. In 444, 
according to the Roman calculation, it fell 
on Mar. 26, according to the Alexandrian on 
Apr. 23. In this difficulty Leo wrote to St. 
Cyril, who replied, of course, in favour of the 
Alexandrian computation, and Leo had to 
surrender his point: ‘‘ non quia ratio mani- 
festa docuerit, sed quia unitatis cura persua- 
serit,’’ and the Roman cycle gave way to the 
Alexandrian (Epp. 1xxxviii. xcvi. cxxi. cxxii. 
exxxiii. [from Proterius of Alexandria], 
CXXXvii. cxxxviii.). Where it did not clash 
with his own he could support the authority 
of other bishops. He maintained the rights 
of metropolitans and reproved a bishop for 
appealing to himself in a difficulty instead of 
consulting his metropolitan (Ep. cviii. 2). 
The bishop was to rule with a strong hand. 
He must know the law and must not shrink 
from enforcing it, for it is ‘ negligent rulers 
who nourish the plague, while they shrink 
from applying to it an austere remedy,’’ and 
the ‘‘ care of those committed to us requires 
that we should follow up with the zeal of faith 
those who, themselves destroyed, would 
destroy others”’ (Epp. i. 5; iv. 2; vii.). Among 
his disciplinary directions were regulations 
forbidding the ordination of slaves (Ep. iv.), 
which, though justified on the ground that 
they are not free for the Lord’s service, are 
couched in language breathing more of the 
Roman patrician than of the Christian bishop 
(cf. “‘ quibus nulla natalium dignitas suffra- 
gatur,” ‘‘tanquam servilis  vilitas hunce 
honorem capiat,’’ ‘“‘ sacrum ministerium talis 
consortii vilitate polluitur’’). Moreover a 
second marriage, or the marriage of a widow 
or divorced woman, was a bar to orders (Epp. 
iv. 2, 3; xii. 5), and those in orders, even sub- 
deacons, must abstain from “ἢ carnale connu- 
bium, ut et qui habent, sint tanquam non 
habentes, et qui non habent, permaneant 
singulares’’ (Epp. xiv. 4 and clxvii. 3). The 
day of ordination and consecration was to be 
Sunday only (Ep. vi.) or Saturday night (Ep. 
ix.). The proper antecedents of the consecra- 


tion of a bishop he declared to be “ vota| 


civium, testimonia populorum, honoratorum 
arbitrium, electio clericorum’’ (Ep. x. 4, 6; 
ccxvii. 1). In case of a division of votes the 
metropolitan must decide and be guided 
by the preponderance of supporters and of 
qualifications (Ep. xiv. 5). When ordained no 
cleric was to be allowed to wander; he must 
remain in his own church (Ep. i.; ef. xiii. 4; xiv. 

. All must rise in due order from the lower 
to the higher grades (Ep. xii. 4; cf. Ep. xix.). 


LEO 1. 653 


Unambiguous condemnation of heresy is to be 
required before ordination from those who are 
suspected ; and those who are reconverted 
must give up hope of promotion (Epp. xviii. ; 
CXxxv. 2). The multiplication of bishops in 
small places where they are not needed is 
forbidden (c. το). As he insists on the relative 
dignity of different parts of the body of Christ 
(Ep. cxix. 6), so he reasons that each part 
should fulfil only its own functions. Laymen 
and monks—#.¢e. those extra ordinem sacer- 
dotalem—are not to be allowed to preach (Epp. 
cxix.; cxx. 6). He would enforce local dis- 
cipline by insisting on provincial councils. 
Baptism was only to be given at Easter or 
Pentecost, except in cases of necessity (Epp. 
xvi. and clxviii.). For the Mass, the rule of 
the Roman church, which he would enforce 
on Alexandria also, is that where the church 
will not hold all the faithful, it should be 
celebrated on the same day as often as is 
necessary for them all to “ offer'’ (Ep. ix. 2). 
As to ecclesiastical penance, believing that 
“indulgence of God cannot be obtained except 
by sacerdotal supplication,” he gives rules for 
receiving penitents, etc. (Epp. eviii. 2; clxvii. 
2, 7-14), and directs that in ordinary cases 
(‘‘ de penitentia quae a fidelibus postulatur"’) 
private confession, first to God and then to 
the priest, should be substituted for public 
confession, the scandals in which might 
deter from penitence altogether (Ep. clxviii.). 
The laity under penitential discipline are 
exhorted to abstain from commerce and the 
civil law courts (Ep. clxvii. 10, 11), and even 
those who have at any time been penitents are 
advised to abstain from marriage and ordered 
to abstain from military service (cc. 12-13). 
Neo of Ravenna asked whether returned cap- 
tives who had no memory of baptism should 
be baptized. On this, as a ‘‘novum et inau- 
ditum”’ point, Leo consulted the synod, “παῖ 
the consideration of many persons might lead 
more surely to the truth "’ (Ep. clxvi. p. 1406). 
He greatly dreads appearing to sanction a 
repetition of baptism, but decides that where 
no remembrance is possible and no evidence 
can be obtained, baptism may be given. Leo 
had a strong opinion on usury. ‘“ Fenus 
pecuniae,” he says, ‘“‘est funus animae.”’ 
‘*Caret omni humanitate ’’ (Serm. xvii.), and 
it is forbidden to the laity as to the clergy 
(Ep. iv. 2, 4). ’* Penitence,"’ he says, 15 
to be measured not by length of time, but by 
sorrow of heart " (Ep. clix. 4); “ποῖ institut- 
ing what is new, but restoring what is old,” 
is his canon of reformation (Ep. x. 2). Among 
his rules for episcopal government we may 
notice the following as characteristic: * In- 
tegritas praesidentium salus est subditorum, 
et ubi est incolumitas obedientiae ibi sana est 
forma doctrinae" (xii. 1); or this: “sie est 
adhibenda correptio, ut semper sit salva 
dilectio” ; or this: ‘‘ constantiam mansuetudo 
commendet, justitiam lenitas temperet, 
patientia contineat libertatem.” 

Leo's theology is to be gathered chiefly from 
some six or seven dogmatic epistles and from 
his sermons (EPP. xxviii. the tome to Flavian, 
xxv. to Julian, lix. to the church of Constan- 
tinople, cxxiv. to the monks of Palestine, 
exxxix. to Juvenal, clxv. the “ second tome,” 
to the emperor Leo, all written between 449 


654 LEO I. 


and 458). These epistles are wholly occupied 
with the controversial statement of the doc- 
trine of the Incarnation. His others are 
devoted almost entirely to discipline and 
organization. Of his genuine sermons 96 
remain, five, ‘‘ de natali suo’”’ (vid. sup.), on 
the see of St. Peter; six, ‘‘ de collectis,’’ on 
the duty of almsgiving; nine, “46 dec. mens. 
jejunio,”’ on the duty of almsgiving, prayer, 
and fasting ; ten, ‘‘ de Nativitate,’’ theological 
and practical discourses on the Incarnation ; 
eight, ‘‘in Epiphaniae solemnitate,’’ contain- 
ing more narrative than do the Christmas 
sermons, and specially applicable to an age 
no longer tried by persecution; twelve, for 
Lent, on fasting and works of mercy; one on 
the Transfiguration ; nineteen on the passion, 
preached on Sundays and Wednesdays in Holy 
Week, being devotional and practical com- 
mentaries on the Gospel narrative; two for 
Easter, preached on the eve; two for Ascen- 
siontide; three for Pentecost, containing 
theological statements; four for the Pente- 
costal fast; four on the feasts on St. Peter, 
St. Paul, and St. Lawrence; nine on the fast 
of the seventh month; one on the Beatitudes ; 
and one against Eutyches when some Egyptian 
merchants arrived who tried to justify the 
doings of the Egyptian Eutychians. 

Leo’s style is generally forcible, and always 
to the point—businesslike and severe, epi- 
grammatic and terse in expression. No doubt 
the love of epigram and antithesis, character- 
istic of his age, always tends to simple man- 
nerism and obscurity, but in Leo the tendency 
is under control; he is almost always weighty 
and clear, and sometimes eloquent. To 
impress his meaning, hehas no objection what- 
ever to repeating himself (Serm. xxv. initt.). 
Some epistles (e.g. Epp. cxxiv. and clxv.) are 
extremely similar even in language. His 
sermons are in very much the same style as 
his epistles. Sozomen (vii. 19) says “ that in 
his day in Rome neither bishop nor any one 
else teaches the people in the church.’”’ This 
statement is denied and its meaning disputed 
(cf. notes 7m loc. and Migne, Pair. lv. p. 197), 
but at least we should judge from Leo’s ser- 
mons that there is no tradition of pulpit 
eloquence behind him. His tone is that of 
the Christian bishop, reproving, exhorting, 
and instructing with the severity of a Roman 
censor (Milman, Lat. Christianity, i. 233). 
Sometimes indeed he rises to eloquence, but 
generally speaks with a terse brevity, more 
adapted, but for its epigrams which would 
catch the ear, to be read than merely listened 
to. The sermons are mostly very short, and 
the practical aspect of the truth as opposed to 
the speculative is specially prominent. If 
Christ has renewed our nature, we must live 
up to the possibilities of the nature He has 
renewed. The mystery of the Incarnation is 
incomprehensible by the understanding ; but 
for that let us rejoice, “‘sentiamus nobis 
bonum esse quod vincimur’’ (Seym. xxix.). 
Christ must be God and man—man to unite us 
to Himself, God to save us, “‘ Expergiscere 
igitur, o homo, et dignitatem tuae cognosce 
naturae; recordare te factum ad imaginem 
Dei, quae etsi in Adam corrupta in Christo 
tamen est reformata’’ (xxvii. 6). 

Leo’s theological statements are always 


|‘ raised,” ‘‘ exalted,” etc. 


LEO I. 


characterized by great clearness, fulness, 
strength, an intense reverence for dogma, and 
a deep conviction of its supreme importance. 
His theology is throughout of the Western 
type, for he is wholly on the practical, not on 
the speculative, side of theology. Philosophi- 
cal theory, speculation on the relation of the 
Persons in the Trinity, there is none, only a 
clear and powerful grasp upon the dogma 
as an inexpugnable truth of quite incompara- 
able practical importance. Moreover, his 
statement of the doctrine of the Trinity is 
Western, tallying with the Athanasian Creed, 
with none of the Eastern doctrine of ‘‘ subor- 
dination’’ remaining, ‘“‘In Trinitate enim 
divina, nihil dissimile, nihil impar est, ut 
omnibus existentiae gradibus exclusis, nulla 
101 Persona sit anterior, nulla posterior’’ 
(Serm. Ixxv.; 1xxvi. 2, cf. Serm. xxii. 2, where 
he interprets ‘“‘ My Father is greater than I”’ 
of the Incarnate Son only). Being ignorant 
of Greek, he could not be versed in Eastern 
theology; but in the “‘testimonia patrum”’ 
(Ep. ccexv.), more Greek than Latin fathers 
are quoted (of course from translations). 
His Doctrine of the Incarnation.—This was 
produced in antagonism to Eutychianism and 
is coloured by this antagonism. The Euty- 
chianism which he opposes is not so much the 
particular doctrine of the particular man as 
that which he represents—namely, the denial 
of the real and permanent humanity of Jesus 
Christ. He presents a dilemma to Eutyches: 
either, he says, denying as you do the two 
natures in Christ, you must hold the impiety of 
Apollinaris, and assert that the Deity was 
converted into flesh and became passible and 
mortal, or if you shrink from that you fall into 
the Manichean madness of denying the reality 
of the body and the bodily acts (Ep. cxxiv. 2). 
If he can escape from this dilemma, he is sure 
to be only veering to the opposite pole of 
Arianism. For Christ is spoken of as being 
What is exalted 
if the humanity is not real? You must assert 
the divinity of Christ to be an inferior one, 
capable of exaltation (Ep. lix. 3). Thus 
Eutyches is to Leo the representative of the 
“* Manichean impiety,’ as he is fond of calling 
it, which denies the reality of our Lord’s 
manhood. This gives him his starting-point 
to assert our Lord’s true and perpetual 
humanity, while avoiding the contrary Nes- 
torian error of abstracting from His perfect 
divinity, which was always being charged upon 
the anti-Eutychians, ‘“‘in integra ergo veri 
hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est 
Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris... humana 
augens, divina non minuens’’ (Ep. xxviii. 3). 
The human nature was really created and 
really assumed; created in being assumed 
(Ep. xxxvi. 3). There is the whole of human 
nature, body and soul, and the whole of the 
divine (Ep. xxxv. 2); each nature remains 
distinct in its operations, “ glorificata per- 
manet in glorificante, Verbo scilicet operante 
quod Verbi est et carne exsequente quodcarnis 
est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud 
succumbit injuriis’’; ‘‘ proprietas. divinae 
humanaeque naturae individua permanet.”’ 
All through the life he traces the duality of 
the operations in the unity of the Person (Epp. 
xxvili.; cxxiv. 5). And so perfect is this unity 


oS SR 


LEO I. 


that what is proper to one nature can be 
ascribed to the other (‘‘ communicatio idioma- 
tum,’ c. 5). The unity is not a mere inhabita- 
tion of the Creator in the created nature, but 
a real mingling of the one nature with the 
other, though they remain distinct (Serm. 
Xxill. § 1), and the result is ‘‘ut idem esset 
dives in paupertate, omnipotens in abjectione, 
impassibilis in supplicio, immortalis in morte ” 
(Ep. xxxv. 2). Just as the visible light is 
contaminated by none of the filth on which it 
sheds itself, so the essence of the eternal and 
incorporeal light could be polluted by nothing 
which it assumed (Serm. xxxiv. 4). 

In proof of this doctrine of the Incarnation 
Leo appeals to several classes of evidence, 
sometimes to the analogies of reason—why, he 
urges, cannot the divinity and humanity be 
one person, when soul and body in man form 
one person? (Ep. xxvi. 2); constantly to 
Scripture—the very source of heresy is that 
man will not labour ‘‘in the broad fields of 
Holy Scripture’’ (‘‘in latitudine SS.,” Ep. 
XXvilil. 1 and 2) ; constantly to the creeds and 
the past of the church (for he hates novelty)— 
it is the creed which introduces us to Scrip- 
ture (Ep. cxxvili. 1); we need not blush to 
believe what apostles and those whom they 
taught, what martyrs and confessors believed 
(Epp. clxv. 9; clii.); but Leo very often and 
very characteristically appeals also to conse- 
quences, and looks at a doctrine in the light 
of the necessities of the church’s life. What 
becomes of the salvation of our human nature 
if Christ have it not? How can He be the 
Head of the new race? How can He clothe 
our human nature with His divine? (‘‘ Caro 
enim Christi velamen est verbi, quo omnis qui 
ipsum integre confitetur induitur,’’ Ep. lix. 
4). What is the meaning of the Holy Com- 
munion of His Body and Blood, the very pur- 
pose of which is that, receiving the virtue of 
the heavenly food, we may pass into (“ tran- 
seamus in ’’) His flesh Who became our flesh ? 
(Ep. lix. 2; cf. also Serm. xci. 3). What 
becomes of the resurrection and ascension ; 
nay, what becomes of His mediation? How 
does He reconcile man to God if He have not 
the whole of humanity, except sin? (Ep. cxxiv. 
6, 7, and Serm. xxv. 5, etc.). 

The Atonement.—Leo holds the view once 
prevalent, but now utterly abandoned, which 
may be stated out of his writings as follows. 
Man in his fallen state was in slavery to the 
devil, and, as by his own free will he had 
fallen, justly so. The devil had certain rights 
over him which he would retain unless that 
humanity which he had conquered could 
conquer him again. In redeeming man, God 
chose to overcome the devil rather by the rule 
of justice than of power. To this end He 
became Man. The Incarnation deceived the 
devil. He knew not with Whom he was 
matched. He saw a Child suffering the sor- 
rows and pains of childhood; he saw Him 
grow by natural stages to manhood, and 
having had so many proofs that He was mortal 
He concluded that He was infected with the 
poison of original sin. So he set in force 
against Him, as though exercising a right upon 
sin-stained humanity, all methods and instru- 
ments of persecution, thinking that, if He, 
Whose virtues exceeded so far those of all 


LEO 1. 655 


saints, must yield to death and His merits 
availed not to deliver Him, he would be secure 
of every one else forever. But in persecuting 
and slaying Christ, Whom was he slaying ? 
One Who was man, but sinless, Who owed 
him nothing, and thus, by exacting the penalty 
of iniquity from Him in Whom he had found 
no fault, he went beyond his right. The 
covenant which bound man to the devil was 
thus broken. His injustice in demanding too 
much cancelled the whole debt of man due to 
him. Man was free. (Serm. xxii. 3, 4; εἴν, 
3; ef. xvi. 1, Ixi. 4. The nails which pierced 
our Lord’s hands and feet transfixed the devil 
with perpetual wounds, Ixiv. 2, 3-) Thus, to 
effect our redemption, Christ must have been 
both man and God; and it was necessary that 
He should suffer and die by the operations of 
the devil ; and His death has a value different 
in kind from that of all the saints (Serm. Ixiv. 
2, 3; lix. 1). On the cross of Christ the ob- 
lation of human nature was made by a Saving 
victim (lv. 3). His death, the Just for the 
unjust, was a price of infinite value (lvi. 3: 
Ivil. 4). According to this theory, the price 
was paid to the devil and man was free: 
“‘ redemptio aufert captivitatem et regeneratio 
mutat originem et fides justificat peccatorem " 
(xxii. 4). Nothing is said about—there is 
hardly clear room left for—an oblation to God. 
Elsewhere, however, Leo speaks of Christ as 
offering a ‘‘ new and true sacrifice of recon- 
ciliation to His Father’’ (Serm. lix. 5 ‘ct. 
Ep. cxxiv. 2, where the sacrifice is clearly con- 
ceived as offered to the Father. Cf. also 
Serm. \xiv. 2, 3). 

The Doctrine of Grace.—Living, though Leo 
did, in a time when this doctrine was still in 
dispute, and mixed up, as he had been, in 
part of the dispute, we have little in his 
genuine works on the subject. He speaks of 
it indeed (Ep. i. 3) in orthodox terms. “ The 
whole gift of God’s works depends upon the 
previous operation of God [‘ omnis bonorum 
operum donatio, divina praeparatio est αὶ ἢ 
for no man is justified by virtue before he is 
{justified] by grace, which is to every man the 
beginning of righteousness, the fount of good, 
and the source of merit.’”’ Nothing in us, he 
implies, can antedate the operation of grace ; 
all in us needs the salvation of Christ; but 
this grace of God which alone justifies was 
given, not for the first time, but in larger 
measure (‘‘aucta non coepta"’) by Christ's 
birth, and this “sacrament of great holiness "’ 
(the Incarnation) was so powerful, even in its 
previous indications (‘tam potens etiam in 
significationibus suis’’), that they who hoped 
in the promise received it no less than thes 
who accepted the gift’? (Serm. xxii. 4). On 
this subject he often dwells; the Incarnation 
is the consummation of a previous presence 
and operation of the Son (Serm. xxv. 4). All 
through the O.T. men were justified by the 
same faith, and made part of the body of 
Christ by the same sacrament (Serm. xxx. 7; 
liv. 1). This same truth comes out in his 
sermons on Pentecost. There is perfect equal- 
ity, he there says, in the Trinity. “ It is 
eternal to the Father to be the Father of the 
co-eternal Son. It is eternal to the Son to be 
begotten of the Father out of all time. It ig 
eternal to the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of 


656 LEO I. 


the Father and the Son; so that the Father 
has never been without the Son, nor the Son 
without the Father, nor the Father and the Son 
without the Spirit. Thus the unchangeable 
Deity of the blessed Trinity is one in sub 
stance, undivided andinseparable in operation, 
concordant in will, alike in power, equal in 
glory.”” ‘‘ What the Father is, that is the 
Son, and that is the Holy Spirit’; and what 
the Father does, that does the Son, and that 
does the Holy Spirit. There was no beginning 
to the operation of the Holy Spirit upon man 
since his creation. The descent at Pentecost 
was not the ‘‘ beginning of a gift, but the 
addition of fulness”’ (‘‘ adjectio largitatis ’’) 
(Serm. \xxvi. 3). The difference has lain not 
in the virtue and reality of the gifts, but in 
their measure (cf. on the unity of divine pur- 
pose and love, from first to last of the divine 
economy, the end of c. 3 of ‘‘ the tome”’). 

Leo holds that the ‘‘ merits’ of saints 
can work wonders and aid the church on 
earth (Serm. v. 4). He often speaks of St. 
Peter assisting his people with his prayers 
(xii. xiii. xvi. ad. fin., etc.) and with his 
merits (Ixxxi. 4). So also of St. Laurence 
(Ixxxv.). He attributes the deliverance of 
the city from the barbarians to the “ care of 
the saints’’ (Ixxxiv. 1). The Leonine Sacra- 
mentary, which certainly contains much of 
Leo’s age, is full of such prayers as ‘‘ adjuva 
nos, Domine, tuorum prece sanctorum, ut 
quorum festa gerimus sentiamus auxilium ”’ 
(cf. Ep. lviii. init. ; ci. 3, for similar sentiments). 
But he never speaks of the blessed Virgin as 
aiding, nor of any saints but St. Peter, St. 
Paul (Serm. 1xxxii. fin.), and St. Laurence; 
nor does he invoke them, or direct them to 
be invoked, though he believes that they are 
aiding the church by their patronage, prayers, 
ormerits. Elsewhere, distinguishing the value 
of the deaths of the saints from that of Christ, 
he very zealously guards the prerogative of 
Christ as the real source of merit. 

To relics he makes no allusion, except where 
he rejoices that those of St. Flavian had been 
brought back to Constantinople (Ep. Ixxix. 2), 
and perhaps when, writing to Eudocia and 
Juvenal in Palestine, he seeks to stir their 
faith through the local memorials of Christ’s 
passion (Epp. cxxxix. 2; cxxili.). Comparing 
his works with Gregory’s, we are struck by the 
total absence of superstition in Leo. His 
sermons “‘ are singularly Christian—Christian 
as dwelling almost exclusively on Christ : His 
birth, His passion, His resurrection’’ (Milman, 
Lat. Christ. i. p. 233). We find constant refer- 
ence to the special dangers and wants of his 
time—e.g. warnings against the prevalent 
Manicheism. When he converted a number of 
Manicheans, he at once applied his sermon, re- 
gardless of repeating himself, to instruct them 
(Serm. xxv. 1). Hereproves the people for for- 
saking the commemoration of the deliverance of 
the city, probably from Genseric, which he had 
instituted on the feast of SS. Peter and Paul, 
for games and spectacles, and he exhorts them 
to gratitude to God (lxxxiv.). He reproves 
idolatrous- practices in the church. Magic, 
charms, cabalistic doctrines, even a worship 
of the rising sun, were in vogue. Christians, 
on their way into St. Peter’s basilica, would 
turn and bow to the sun (lxxxiv. 2; XXvil. 4). 


LEO I. 


This worship, which, as he says, was half pagan, 
akin to that of the Priscillianists and Mani- 
cheans, and half due to ignorance in people 
who really meant to worship the Creator, but 
which in any case was akin to idolatry, he 
deeply deplores and earnestly prohibits. 

Leo especially urges purity, strictness, and 
severity of life, in an age no longer disciplined 
by persecutions. ‘‘ Kings now,’’ he says, 
“do not so much pride themselves on being 
born to empire as rejoice that they are 
reborn in baptism.’’ The devil tries by 
avarice and ease those whom troubles could 
not alienate (xxxvi. 3). Hence the interest 
of his sermons in Lent and at the other 
fasts of the ‘‘ Quattuor Tempora ’’ and those 
(on almsgiving) ‘‘ de Collectis.”” * Prayers, 
fasting, and almsgiving are, in his view, the 
three chief parts of Christian duty. ‘‘ By 
prayer the mercy of God is sought ; by fasting, 
the lusts of the flesh are extinguished; by 
almsgiving, our sins are atoned for [‘ redimun- 
tur’].’’ ‘‘The most effectual petition for 
pardon lies in alms and fasting, and the prayer 
which is assisted by such suffrages rises more 
speedily to the ears of God”’ (xii. 4, xvi. 2). 
He uses almsgiving in a large sense almost 
equivalent to love (xliv. 2). ‘‘ Alms destroy 
sins ’’ (Serm. vii., quoted from Ecclus. iii. 30), 
‘“abolish death, extinguish the penalty of 
eternal fire’’ (x.). It is a grace without which 
we can have no other (x.). ‘“ He who has 
cleansed himself by almsgiving need not doubt 
that even after many sins the splendour of the 
new birth will be restored to him”’ (xx. ad 
fin.). But we must look how we give, so as 
not, é.g., to overlook the retiring; we must 
‘“ understand about ’’ the poor (ix. 3; ‘‘ Bea- 
tus qui intelligit super,’’ Ps. xl. 1). Our gifts 
should go to those who do not yet believe as 
wellas toChristians(xli. 3), and special thought- 
fulness is enjoined for slaves. What God 
looks to is, he often insists, not the amount, 
but the spirit of the gift : ‘‘ ibi censetur quali- 
tus actionis, ubi invenitur initium voluntatis ”’ 
(xciv. 1); ‘‘ nulli parvus est census, cui mag- 
nus est animus ’”’ (Seym. xl. 4) ; and gifts given 
not in the spirit of faith, though ever so large, 
avail nothing (xliv. 2). Love, he insists, is 
the fulfilling of the law. Truth and mercy, 
faith and love, go together. ‘‘There is no love 
without faith, no faith without love”? (cf. esp. 
Serm. xlv.). Fasting, too, is constantly en- 
joined. Virtue is a very narrow mean (xliii. 
2), and strict self-discipline is ever absolutely 
necessary. But fasting is a means, not an end. 
It must not proceed from any belief in matter 
being evil in itself. ‘‘ No substance is evil, 
and evil in itself has no nature”’ (xlii. 4). The 
object of fasting is to make the body apt for 
pure, holy, and spiritual activity—to subject 
the flesh to the reason and spirit. ‘‘A man 
has true peace and liberty when the flesh is 
ruled by the judgment of the mind, and the 
mind is directed by the government of God” 
(xxxix. 2; xlii. 2). He insistsstrongly on this 
dominion of the mind. Otherwise “‘ parum 
est si carnis substantia tenuatur et animae for- 
titudo non alitur’’ ; ‘‘ continendum est a cibis 


* I.e.at that stated period of the year when offer- 
ings were made in the Roman church, by an old 
custom instituted in place of a still older pagan 
solemnity ; cf, Admonit. in Serm. vi. Migne, 


LEO I. 


sed multo magis ab erroribus jejunandum" 
(xci. 2). The “ abstinentia jejunantis ’’ must 
be the ‘“refectio pauperis’ (xiii.); ‘‘ sen- 
tiant humanitatem nostram aegritudines de- 
cumbentium, imbecillitates debilium, labores 
exulum, destitutio pupillorum et desolatarum 
maestitudo viduarum "’ (xl. 4). Fasting with- 
out such works of mercy is not a purification 
of the soul, but a mere affliction of the flesh 
(xv.). In Lent, prisoners are to be set free 
and debts forgiven (xli. 3). If a man cannot 
fast from bodily weakness, let him do works 
of love (Ixxxvii. 3. Through all 
sermons in penitential seasons there runs 
a great sense of the unity of the church's 
work and the co-operation of all her members 
in the penitential discipline and prayers. 
“ The fullest abolition of sins is obtained when 
the whole church joins in one prayer and one 
confession ᾿᾿ (Ixxxviii. 3). The merit of holy 
obedience is the strength of the church against 
her enemies (Ixxxvili. 2, 3). Public acts are 
better than individual ones (Ixxxix. 2). Leo’s 
remedies for sins—as well those of habitual 
laxity as the more venial and accidental—are 
self-examination, penitential works, fasts, 
prayers, works of mercy and moral self-dis- 
cipline as the means of purification (cf. 1. 1, 2; 
Ixxxviii. 3; xli. 1; xliii. 3). Forgiveness of 
injuries (xliii. 4) and the exercise of love (xlv.) 
are insisted on from this point of view: ‘‘ qui 
potuit malitia pollui, studeat benignitate pur- 
gari’’ (xlv. 4. The Christian is purified by 
moral effort and discipline and his sanctifica- 
tion is his purification (but cf. xcii. 1; 1. 1, 2; 
Ixxxviii. 5). 

Another aspect of Leo’s work as an ecclesi- 
astical writerremains to be considered. ‘* The 
collect as we have it is Western in every 
feature: in that ‘unity of sentiment and 
severity of style’ which Lord Macaulay has 
admired ; in its Roman brevity and majestic 
conciseness, its freedom from all luxuriant 
ornament and all inflation of phraseology ”’ 
(Bright, Ancient Collects, append. 206) ; and 
there is no early Western writer to whose 
style it bears a closer resemblance and with 
whose character it is more consonant than that 
of Leo, its reputed inventor. How much of 
Leo’s work the fragment of the Sacramentary 
attributed to him by its first editor in 1735, 
P. Joseph Blanchinius, actually contains, it is 
impossible tosay. ‘‘ Muratori holds it to bea 
series of Missae, clumsily put together by a 
private person at the end of the 5th cent., 
containing much that [Leo] wrote.’’ Certainly 
it is Roman, certainly the oldest Roman sac- 
ramentary, and certainly it contains much 
which is in the style and expresses the doctrine 
of St. Leo. As certainly Leo’s work, Quesnel 
with propriety specifies two noble “ prefaces,” 
for the consecration of a bishop and a pres- 
byter (‘Deus honorum omnium,’’ and 
““Domine sancte,’” ὃ xxvii. 111 and 113, 
Migne), and an “ Allocutio archidiaconi ad 
episcopum pro reconciliatione poenitentium "’ 
(at the end of the Sacramentary in Migne’s 
ed.). In the Liber Pontificalis the addition of 
the words ‘sanctum sacrificium, immacula- 
tam hostiam’”’ to the Canon of the Mass is 
ascribed to Leo (Migne, Pair. liv. p. 1233). 
Collects in the English Prayer-book derived 
from the Leonine Sacramentary are those for 


Leo's | 


LEO IL. 657 


the 3rd Sun. after Easter (referring originally 
to those who had been baptized on Easter 
Eve), the sth Sun. after Trinity (suggested 
originally by thedisasters of the dying Western 
empire), and the 9th, 13th, and r4th Sundays 
after Trinity. (See Bright, pp. 208, 209). ἡ 

Before concluding this notice of Leo as a 
theologian, we must mention a statement of 
Gennadius (de Script. Eccles. Ixxxiv.; Patr. 
Lat. lviii. 1107), that the letters of pope Leo 
on the true Incarnation of Christ are said to 
have been addressed to their various destina- 
tions, and dictated (‘‘ad diversos datae et 
dictatae"’) by Prosper of Aquitaine. It is 
also stated that one or two of Leo's sermons 
are found in one MS. assigned to St. Prosper. 
But Gennadius himself attributes ‘‘ the tome,” 
the chief of Leo's letters on the Incarnation, 
absolutely to his own hand (c. Ixx.). It 
is very probable that Leo should have brought 
Prosper, ‘‘ doctissimus illorum temporum," 
with him from Gaul to Rome, to assist him in 
his conflicts with heresy : he may have been 
secretary to him, as Jerome was to pope 
Damasus *; he may specially have exerted 
himself for St. Leo against the Pelagians. 
But the unity and individuality of style which 
run all through St. Leo’s writings, and which 
appear not least strongly marked in his dog- 
matic epistles, forbid us to attribute to Pros- 
per in any sense their authorship, though he 
may have assisted in their composition. (Cf. 
Tillem. xv. p. 540, xvi. 25, and note 7 on St. 
Prosper; Arendt, Leo der Grosse, p. 417, etc.) 

Leo is said to have restored the silver 
ornaments of the churches of Rome after 
the ravages of the Vandals, and repaired the 
basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, placing a 
mosaic in the latter which represented the 
adoration of the four-and-twenty elders ; and 
to have built a basilica in honour of St. Corne- 
lius, established some monks by the church of 
St. Peter, instituted guardians, called at first 
‘*cubicularii,”” and afterwards ‘“ capellani,’’ 
for the tombs of the apostles (Tillem. xv. art. 
73; Vita Anastasit, Migne, Patr. Lat. liv. 55, 
1234); and received St. Valentine, bp. of 
Passau, at Rome and sent him to missionary 
work in Rhaltia (Tillem. xv. 175). 

Leo died in 461 (Marcell. Chron., etc.), pos- 
sibly on Nov. ro (Tillem. xv. n. 73). He was 
buried in the church of St. Peter, where, it is 
said, no previous pope not a martyr was buried 
(Anast. Vita Ponti/., Patr. Lat. liv. p. 60, Migne). 
He has been honoured as a saint and con/essor. 
Benedict XIV. in 1754 decreed him the title 
of a doctor ecclesiae (Patr. Lat. lv. 835). He 
is commemorated in the Roman church on 
Apr. 11; in the Eastern on Feb. 18 (AA. SS. 
Apr. ii. p. 15). 

The genuine works of Leo which we possess 
are 96 sermons and 173 letters. On works 
ascribed to him (the de Vocatione, etc.) con- 
sult discussions in Migne’s Patr. Lat. For 
history of edd. see Schoenemann’s Nofitia 
Hist.-Lit. in S. Leonem, prefixed to Migne’s ed. 
The most famous editions of his whole works 


ὁ It appears probable that Ep. exx, (to Theodoret) 
was written by a secretary, and that Lco’s personal 
salutation is added at the end. See concluding 
words, ‘et alia manu, Deus te incolumem custodiat, 
frater charissime.” Cf. conclusion of Ep. exxxiil, 
(Proterius to Leo), and Marcian’s letter, Ep. ς, 


42 


658 LEONTIUS 

are Quesnel’s (Paris, 1675), a work of consum- 
mate learning, but condemned by the popes 
because of its strong Gallican opinions, and 
the ed. of the Ballerini (Venice, 1753-1757), 
which re-edited Quesnel in the Roman interest. 
This is now the standard ed. and is reproduced 
in the Paty. Lat. of Migne, vols. liv. lv. lvi. 
Select sermons and letters of St. Leo have 
been edited by H. Hurter, S.J., in Sanc. Patrum 
Opuscula Selecta, vols. xiv. and xxv. There is 
an Eng. trans. of selected sermons, with theo- 
logical notes and ‘‘ the tome ”’ in the original 
by Dr. Bright (Lond. 1862). 

Materials and Authorities.—i. Leo’s own 
works. ii. The contemporary chronicles of 
Prosper, Idatius, etc.; Acta of council of 
Chalcedon, etc. iii. Various Lives of Leo, 
church histories, etc., especially (1) a very 
brief life in Hist. de Vitis Romanorum Ponti- 
ficum of Anastasius Bibliothecarius (9th cent.) 
in Migne’s Patr. Lat. cxxviii. pp. 299 sqq-; (2) 
De Vita et Gestis 5. Leonis in 1b. lv. 153 546. ; 
(3) The exhaustive, accurate, and impartial 
Mémoire of Tillemont (Mém. eccl. xv. 414-832), 
(4) Ceillier’s Auteurs sacrés, vol. x. (for Leo’s 
works) ; (5) The Bollandist Life by Canisino, 
AA. SS. Apr. ii. 15, of very little value ; and, 
omitting various partisan lives on both sides; 
(6) an admirable judgment of Leo’s life and 
works, viewing him chiefly as the architect of 
the papacy, in Béhringer’s Die Kirche Christi 
und thre Zengen, i. 4, pp. 170-309; (7) Mil- 
man’s, Lat. Christ. vol. 1. c. 4, an excellent 
account of Leo and his time; (8) Bright’s 
Hist. of the Church, cc. xiv. xv.; (9) Alzog’s 
Grundriss der Patr. ὃ 78 ; and (10) “1,60 I.”’ in 
Herzog’s Real-Encycl. A short popular Life by 
the present writer is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their 
series of Fathers for Eng. Readers. A trans. of 
Leo’s letters and sermons is ed. by Dr. Feltoe 
in the L7b. of Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers. [c.G.] 

Leontius (2), bp. of Antioch, a.p. 348-357; 
a Phrygian by birth (Theod. H. E. ii. 10), and, 
like many leading Arians, a disciple of the 
celebrated teacher Lucian (Philostorg. iii. 15). 
When the see of Antioch became vacant by 
the removal of Stephen, the emperor Constan- 
tius effected the appointment of Leontius, who 
strove to avoid giving offence to either Arians 
or orthodox. One of the current party tests 
was whether the doxology was used in our 
present form or in that which the Arians (7b. 
13) maintained to be the more ancient, ‘‘ Glory 
be to the Father, through the Son, zm the Holy 
Ghost.” Those who watched Leontius could 
never make out more of his doxology than 
“world without end. Amen’’ (Theod. ii. 19). 
Among the orthodox of his flock were two asce- 
tics, Flavian and Diodorus, who, though not 
yet advanced to the priesthood, had very great 
influence because of their holy lives. To them 
Theodoret ascribes the invention of the 
practice of dividing the choir into two and 
chanting the Psalms of David antiphonically, 
a use of the church of Antioch which legend 
soon attributed to its martyr-bishop Ignatius 
(Socr. vi. 8). They assembled the devout at 
the tombs of the martyrs and spent the whole 
night in singing of hymns. Leontius could 
not forbid this popular devotion, but re- 
quested its leaders to hold their meetings in 
church, a request with which they complied. 
Leontius foresaw that on his death the con- 


LEONTIUS 


duct of affairs was likely to fall into less 
cautious hands, and, touching his white hairs 
predicted, ‘‘When this snow melts there 
will be much mud.’’ The orthodox, however, 
complained that he shewed manifest bias in 
advancing unworthy Arians. In particular he 
incurred censure by his ordination to the 
diaconate of his former pupil Aetius, after- 
wards notorious as an extreme Arian leader. 
On the strong protest of Flavian and Diodorus 
Leontius suspended Aetius from ecclesiastical 
functions. Philostorgius (ili. 27) relates that 
Leontius subsequently saved the life of Aetius 
by clearing him from false charges made to 
the emperor Gallus. When Athanasius came 
to Antioch, he communicated not with Leon- 
tius and the dominant party, but with the 
ultra-orthodox minority called Eustathians, 
who had refused to recognize any other bishop 
while the deposed Eustathius was alive and 
who worshipped in private conventicles. 
Leontius accused Athanasius of cowardice in 
running away from his own church. The 
taunt stung Athanasius deeply. He wrote 
his A pologia de Fuga in reply to it, and always 
speaks bitterly of Leontius, seldom omitting 
the opprobrious epithet ὁ ἀπόκυπος. He even 
(de Fug. 26) accuses the aged bishop of 
criminality in his early relations with Eusto- 
lium. If there had been any proof of this, 
Leontius would have been deposed not for 
mutilation but for corrupting a church virgin ; 
and if it had been believed at Antioch the 
respect paid him by orthodox members of his 
flock would be inconceivable. The censure 
of so great a man irretrievably damaged Leon- 
tius in the estimation of succeeding ages, and 
his mildness and moderation have caused him 
to be compared to one of those hidden reefs 
which are more dangerous to mariners than 
naked rocks. Yet we may charitably think 
that the gentleness and love of peace which all 
attest were not mere hypocrisy, and may 
impute his toleration of heretics to no worse 
cause than insufficient appreciation of the 
serious issues involved. The Paschal Chronicle, 
p- 503, quotes the authority of Leontius for 
its account of the martyrdom of Babylas. 
Leontius died at the end of 357 or beginning 
of 358. Athanasius, writing in 358, Hist. Ar., 
speaks of him as still living, but perhaps the 
news had not reached Athanasius. (G.s.] 
Leontius (62), a scholasticus of Byzantium, 
and afterwards a monk in Palestine, whowrote 
c. 610 a Gk. treatise de Sectis (Patr. Gk. 
Ixxxvi. 1193; Cave, i.543; Ceillier, xi. 666). 
Cf. Fessler Jungmann, /nst. Patr. ii. 2, p. 95; 
but esp. F. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz und dte 
Gletchnamigen Schrifts teller der Griechischen 
Kirche (Leipz. 1887); also Herzog’s Encyecl. 
3rd ed. s.v. ‘‘ Leonz. von Byzanz.” [t.w.D.] 
Leontius (74), priest and martyr of Ar- 
menia in the reign of Isdigerd II. of Persia. 
He acted a conspicuous part in the stand of 
the Armenian church against the court of 
Persia, as related chiefly in the History of 
Vartan by Elisha Vartabed and in the his- 
torical work of Lazarus of Barb. In Nov. 450 
700 magian priests, sent under escort to In- 
struct the Armenians in the court religion, 
arrived at Ankes in the centre of Armenia. 
There having lain encamped for 25 days, they 
ordered the church to be broken open. Thus 


LEOVIGILD 


commenced the persecuting violence of Persia. 
Leontius, putting himself at the head of his 
people, drove the magian party to flight, after 
which divine service went on in the church 
unmolested through the day. A_ general 
rising followed, and in 451 66,000 Armenian 
Christians mustered under prince Vartan in 
the plain of Artass to encounter the Persian 
army. Joseph and a large body of his clergy, 
including Leontius, were present to encourage 
the Christian forces (Lazarus, § 34 in Langl. ii. 
296, 297; Elisha, το. inf.). Leontius, who is 
everywhere mentioned with Joseph, and is 
usually the orator, as he is the chief inspirer, 
of the whole movement, delivered a fervent 
address before the battle (given fully by Lang- 
lois), dwelling on the examples of Phineas, 
Elijah, Gideon, and other famous believers in 
O.T. (Langl. ii. 218). The battle (June 2, 451, 
#b. 298 note) was lost and a remnant found 
refuge in the stronghold of Pag. This too was 
taken and many clergy were put to death. 
Joseph, Leontius, and their companions, were 
taken to the court of Persia, and put on their 
defence. Finally they and four others were 
executed on the 25th of the month Hroditz 
in the 16th year of Isdigerd (a.p. 455), in the 
province of Abar, near a village of the Mogs 
named Révan. The account of the martyr- 
dom has every appearance of being a genuine 
coeval record, simple, natural, unlegendary. 
Lazarus himself wrote in the following genera- 
tion, and his position gave him access to the 
best authorities, which he describes, especially 
assuring his readers that he faithfully reports 
the last words of the martyrs. The most 
severely dealt with was Leontius, he being 
regarded as the chief instigator of the Ar- 
menian resistance. The general history of 
these events may be read in Saint-Martin’s 
Le Beau, t. vi. pp. 258-318. [c-H:) 

Leovigild (Leuvicnitp), Arian king of the 
Visigoths in Spain from 569 to Apr. or May 
586. His reign and that of his successor, the 
convert RECCARED, represent the crisis of 
Visigothic history, religious and political. 

Upon the death of Athanagild in the winter 
of 567, the Gothic throne remained unfilled 
until in 568 Leova, dux of the Septimanian 
province, was made king by the magnates of 
Gallia Gothica. In 569 he assigned to his 
younger brother Leovigild the government of 
the Spanish portion. In the first year of his 
reign Leovigild married Goisvintha, the widow 
of his predecessor Athanagild and a strong 
Arian (Greg. Tur. H. F. v. 39). By a pre- 
vious marriage he had two sons, Hermenigild 
and Reccared. Leovigild faced the situation | 
with success. His first campaign (A.D. 569) 
was against the Byzantine settlers and garri- 
sons of the Baza and Malaga districts. For 
20 years Cordova had refused to acknowledge 
the lordship of the Goths, and the great town 
of the Baetis had been the headquarters of 
the Imperialist and Catholic power in the 
Peninsula. Its fall (early in 572?) was ἃ 
heavy blow to the imperial cause in Spain 
(Joannes Bicl. Esp. Sagr. vi. 377). In 572 
(573 according to J. Bicl.) Leova died, and 
Leovigild remained master of both divisions | 
of the kingdom. 

Hermenigild’s Rebellion.—In 572 (or 573) 
the king had made both the sons of his first | 


|many yielded. 


LEOVIGILD 659 


marriage “‘ consortes regni" (J. Bicl. p. 378), 
and before 580 both were betrothed to Frank- 
ish princesses, Hermenigild to his step-niece 
Ingunthis, granddaughter of Goisvintha, Leo- 
vigild’s second wife, Reccared to Ingunthis’s 
first cousin, Rigunthis, daughter of Chilperic 
and Fredegonde. In 580 Hermenigild’s bride, 
a girl of 12 or 13, passed the Pyrenees, ** cum 
magno apparatu "’ (Greg. Tur. v. 49), having 
been exhorted on her way by bp. Fronimius of 
Agde to hold fast her orthodox profession in 
the midst of the Arian family into which she 
had married, and who no doubt expected her 
to become an Arian. She stood firm, and 
dissension speedily arose with her Arian 
grandmother. In order to secure family 
peace Leovigild assigned to Hermenigild and 
Ingunthis the town of Seville, where the in- 
fluence of his wife, says Gregory of Tours—of 
the famous metropolitan of Baetica, Leander, 
according to Gregory the Great, Dial. iii. 41— 
converted Hermenigild to Catholicism (Hist. 
Fr. v. 39; Paul. Diac. W. iii. 21). He was 
confirmed in the orthodox faith by Leander. 
The son thus placed himself in opposition to 
his father and to all the Gothic traditions, and 
was brought into natural alliance with the 
forces threatening the Gothic state, with the 
Byzantines in the S., the Suevi in the N., and 
the disaffection smouldering among Leovi- 
gild’s provincial subjects. The young couple 
may well have appeared to the Catholics con- 
venient instruments for dealing a deadly blow 
at the heretical Gothic monarchy; while in 
the case of the Byzantines a strictly political 
motive would also be present. 

The peril was a grave one. Leovigild, with 
a combination of energy and prudence, as- 
sembled a council of Arian bishops (581, men- 
tioned in C. Tol. iii. as occurring in the 12th 
year of Leovigild), which drew up a formula 


designed to facilitate the conversion of 
Catholics to Arianism. Rebaptism was no 
longer demanded as heretofore. Converts 


should give glory to the Father “ per Filium 
in Spiritu ϑαποῖο. (The Gloria Patri plays 
an important part in the history of Spanish 
Arianism. Cf. Greg. of Tours’s conversation 
with Leovigild’s envoy, the Arian Oppila— 
Hist. Franc. vi. 40, and C. Tol. iii.) A ltbellus 
containing the decisions of the council was 
widely circulated (C. Tol. iii. 16; Tejada y 
Ramiro, ii.) and other temptations were 
offered to the Catholic bishops and clergy. 
Isidore and Joannes mournfully confess that 
The king also began to pay 
scrupulous respect to Catholic feeling and 
belief and to Catholic saints, and to pray in 
Catholic churches (Greg. Tur. vi. 15). pa 
believe,” he is reported to have said, ‘‘ with 
firmness that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, 
equal to the Father, but I do not at all believe 
that the Holy Ghost is God, since in no book 
of Scripture do we read that He is God." By 
such means Leovigild endeavoured to secure 
the Catholic party within the territory outside 
Hermenigild’s influence. - 

During 581 and 582 Hermenigild had as- 
sumed a more and more formidable position, 
but Leovigild marched S. to the siege of 
Seville, which lasted through §83 into 584, and 
after the fall of Seville up the Guadalquivir 
valley to Cordova. Here the rebellion collapsed. 


660 LEOVIGILD 


The imperial prefect was bribed to give up 
Hermenigild, who took refuge in a church, 
whence he was tempted by the promises of 
his father and brother. Leovigild embraced 
and pardoned him within the church, but as 
soon as he was drawn thence is reported to 
have ordered him to be despoiled of his royal 
dress and of his servants (Hist. Franc. vi. 43). 
He was conveyed to Toledo, and thence exiled 
to Valencia (A.D. 584) (Joh. Bicl. p. 383), and 
in 586 met his death at Tarraco at the hands of 
Sisebert. | Uponthis brilliant success followed 
the final incorporation of the Suevi with the 
Gothic state in 585. 

Persecution of the Catholics.—Leovigild had 
crushed the Catholic and Byzantine con- 
spiracy of which Hermenigild had been the 
instrument, and there followed an outbreak 
of that savage and fanatical temper so charac- 
teristic of the Visigothic race. The persecut- 
ing temper of the Arian kings, however, had 
always some _ political justification. The 
Catholic church was the natural foe of her 
Arian rulers, and when her attempts to shake 
them off failed, it was inevitable that the 
penalty should fall heavily on her and on her 
bishops. Leander of Seville was banished, 
Fronimius of Agde was obliged to fly into 
Merovingian territory (Hist. Franc. ix. 24), an 
Arian bishop was sent to Merida, and Masona, 
after ineffectual attempts by the king to win 
him over to Arianism, was imprisoned (Paulus 
Emerit. Esp. Sagr. xiii. p. 369). From the 
signatures at the conversion council it is 
evident that in many sees, especially within 
the newly annexed Suevian territory, a large 
but indefinite number of Catholic bishops were 
replaced by Arians. (On the general subject 
of the persecution, cf. Greg. Tur. v. 39, and for 
various doubtful details of it, see Greg. Tur. 
Glor. Conf. xii.; Glor. Mart. \xxxii.; and de 
Vit. et Mir. Patr. Emerit. c. xi.) 

Leovigild died in Apr. or May, 586, at 
Toledo, according to some reports constant 
to the beliefs in which he had lived, according 
to others—less trustworthy—a repentant con- 
vert to Catholicism, mourning over the un- 
righteous death of his first-born son. 

“Leovigild’s reign,’? says Dahn, ‘‘repre- 
sents the last attempt to maintain the Gothic 
state in its traditional aspects and character 
by the strenuous use of all possible weapons 
against its traditional dangers—war with 
Catholicism, chastisement of the nobility, 
reinvigoration of the monarchy, and defence 
of it against its hostile neighbours ’’ (v. 150). 
An Arian monarchy, strong in all directions— 
towards its own pillars and supporters, the 
Gothic nobles, towards foreign outsiders, and 
towards its natural enemy Catholicism—this 
appears to have been Leovigild’s ideal. To 
its influence may be traced most of the 
actions of his government, the association of 
his sons, his treatment of the rebellious and 
murderous nobles, his attitude towards the 
Catholic bishops, and, above all, certain 
alterations in the outer aspects of Gothic 
kingship which mark his reign and shew him 
prepared to accept just so much of Roman 
custom as would further his ends. 

The conversations which Gregory of Tours 
reports between himself and Leovigild’s Arian 
envoys on their way through Tours to Soissons 


LEUCIUS 


or Paris (H. F. v. 44; vi. 40) throw much light 
upon the every-day social relations between 
Arianism and Catholicism at the time. 
Sources.—Joannes Biclarensis, abbat of 
Biclaro and bp. of Gerona, a contemporary 
of Leovigild, his Chronicon, apud Florez. Esp, 
Sagr. vi.; Isidore of Seville, writing c. 630, 
Hist. Goth. ib.; Paulus Diaconus Emeri- 
tensis, fl. 650, de Vit. et Mir. Patr. Emeriten- 
stum Esp. Sagr. xiii. Dahn’s Konige der 
Germanen remains the best account of the 
reign in point of insight and treatment; an 
exhaustive discussion of all the moot points is 
that by Prof. F. Gorres, ‘‘ Kritische Untersuch- 
ungen tiber den Aufstand unddas Martyrium 
des westgothischen Konigssohnes Hermenigild,” 
in Zeitschrift fiir hist. Theol. (1873). [M.A.W.] 
Leucius (1), the reputed author of large 
apocryphal additions to the N.T. history, 
which originated in heretical circles, and 
which, though now lost, were much current 
in early times. The fullest account is that 
given by Photius (Cod. 114), who describes a 
book, called The Circuits of the Apostles, which 
contained the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, 
Thomas, and Paul, and purported to have 
been written by Leucius Charinus. This 
second name Charinus is peculiar to Photius, 
earlier writers calling the author simply 
Leucius, a name variously altered by tran- 
scribers. Photius characterizes the book as 
in style utterly unlike the genuine N.T. 
writings, and full of folly, self-contradic- 
tion, falsehood, and impiety. It taught the 
existence of two gods—an evil one, the God 
of the Jews, having Simon Magus as his 
minister, and a good one, from Whom Christ 
came. It confounded the Father and the 
Son; denied the reality of Christ’s Incarna- 
tion, and gave a Docetic account of His life on 
earth and especially of His crucifixion. It 
condemned marriage and regarded all genera- 
tion as the work of the evil principle; denied 
that demons were created by God; related 
childish stories of miraculous restoration to 
life, of both men and cattle; and in the Acts 
of John used language which the Iconoclasts 
regarded as favouring them. From this 
description we can identify as the same work 
a collection of Apostolic Acts, from which 
extracts were read at the 2nd council of 
Nicaea (Actio v., Mansi, xiii. 167), the story of 
Lycomedes (see D. C. B. 4-vol. ed.) being 
that made use of by the Iconoclasts, and the 
Docetic tales being from this work. In the 
council was next read a citation from Amphi- 
lochius of Iconium, denouncing certain heret- 
ical Acts of the Apostles, and in particular 
arguing against the truth of a story, evidently 
that to which we have just referred, because 
it represented St. John as on the Mount of 
Olives during the crucifixion, and so contra- 
dicted the gospel, which relates that he was 
close to the Cross. With this evidence that 
the work read by Photius was in existence 
before the end of the 4th cent., we may prob- 
ably refer to the same source a statement of 
Epiphanius (Haer. 51, p. 427) that Leucius 
was a disciple of John and joined his master 
in opposing the Ebionites. Church writers 
frequently reject the doctrine of heretical 
apocrypha and yet accept stories told in such 
documents as true, provided there were no 


LEUCIUS 


doctrinal reason for rejecting them. The 
Docetic Leucius, who denied the true manhood 
of our Lord, was at the o posite pole from the 
Ebionites, who asserted Hien to be mere man, 
and therefore the Acts of John might well have 
contained a confutation of Ebionism. The 
Acts of Leucius were in use among the Mani- 
chees in the time of St. Augustine. Faustus 
the Manichean (bk. 30, c. 4, vol. viii. p. 447) 
appeals to Acts of the four apostles men- 
tioned by Photius (Peter, Andrew, Thomas, 
and John), charging the Catholic party with 
wrongly excluding them from their canon. 
In several places Augustine refers to the same 
Acts (Cont. Adimant. 17, viii. 137, 139; Cont. 
Faust. xxii. 79, p. 409 ; Cont.adv. Leg. et Proph. 
i. 20, p. 570), and he names as the author 
Leutius, the name being written in some MSS. 
Levitius or Leuticius (Act. cum Felice, ii. 6, 
p- 489 ; see also de Fid. cc. 5, 38, App. pp. 25, 
33). 
supposed to be Evodius of Uzala, a contem- 
porary of Augustine, quotes from the Acts of 
Andrew a story of Maximilla, the wife of the 


proconsul Egeas under whom St. Andrew. 
suffered, who, to avoid having intercourse | 


with her husband, without his knowledge 
substituted her maid in her own place; and 
on another occasion, when she and her com- 
panion were engaged hearing the apostle, an 
angel, by imitating their voices, deceived the 
husband into the belief that they were still 
in her bedchamber. This story, which agrees 
with what Photius tells of the author’s con- 
demnation of sexual intercourse, is much 
softened in the still extant Acts of Pseudo- 
Abdias, which are an orthodox recasting of a 
heretical original. We find still the names 
of Maximilla and Egeas; but Maximilla does 
not refuse intercourse with her husband, and 
only excites his displeasure because, on 
account of her eagerness to hear the apostle, 
she can be with him less frequently; and, 
without any angelic deception, providential 
means are devised to prevent Egeas from sur- 
prising his wife at the Christian meeting. 


These Augustinian notices enable us to infer. 


that it was the same work Philaster had in 
view when he stated (Haer. 88) that the 
Manichees had Acts purporting to be written 
by disciples of St. Andrew, and describing 
apostle’s doings when he passed from Pontus 
into Greece. He adds that these heretics had 
also Acts of Peter, John, and Paul, containing 


stories of miracles in which beasts were made 


to speak ; for that these heretics counted the 
souls of men and of beasts alike (see Epiph. 
Haer. 66, p. 625). In the Gelasian decree on 
apocryphal books we read: “Libri omnes, 
quos fecit Leucius discipulus diaboli, apocry- 
phi,’’ where we have various readings, Luci- 
anus and Seleucius (Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont. 
463). In the spurious correspondence be- 
tween Jerome and Chromatius and Heliodorus, 
Jerome is represented as giving an orthodox 
version of certain authentic additions to St. 
Matthew’s narrative, of which ἃ heretical 


version had been given by Leucius (or, as it 


is printed, Seleucus), the author of the Acts 
already mentioned. In the letter of Innocent 
to Exsuperius (Mansi, iii. 1041) he condemns 


In the passage last cited, the writer, | 


LEUCIUS 061 


Leucius, of Andrew written by Xenocharis and 
Leonidas the philosophers, and of Thomas. 
It has been conjectured that in Xenocharis an 
adjective has been joined with a proper name, 
and that we have here a corruption of Charinus. 
In the Latin version of the apocryphal Des- 
census Christi ad inferos (Tischendorf, Evan. 
Apoc. p. 369), two sons of the aged Simeon, 
named Leucius and Charinus, are represented 
as having died before our Lord, and as miracu- 
lously returning to bear witness to His 
triumphs in the under world. The writer 
clearly borrowed these names from the 
apocryphal Acts; did he there find warrant 
| for regarding them as the names of distinct 
persons, or was Photius right in reporting 
both names to have been given to the same 
person? It would seem that only the Acts 
| of John and perhaps of Peter named Leucius 
|as their author: the necessities of the fiction 
would require the Acts of Andrew to be 
attested by a different witness, possibly 
Charinus, and it is conceivable that Photius 
may have combined the names merely from 
his judging, no doubt rightly, that all the Acts 
had a common author. Concerning the Acts 
of Paul in use among the Manicheans see 
Linus and Tuecra. Besides the authorities 
already cited, the Acts of Leucius are men- 
tioned by Turribius, a Spanish bp. of the first 
half of the 5th cent., from whom we learn that 
they were used by the Priscillianists, and that 
the Acts of Thomas related a baptism, not in 
water but in oil, according to the Manichean 
fashion; and by Pseudo-Mellitus (Fabric. 
Cod. Apoc. N.T. ii. 604), who acknowledges 
the truth of apostolic miracles related by 
Leucius, but argues against his doctrine of 
two principles. Pacian (Ep. i. 2; Migne, 
Patr. Lat. xiii. 1053) says, ‘‘Phryges nobiliores 
qui se animatos a Leucio mentiuntur, se insti- 
tutos a Proculo gloriantur.’’ On this passage 
Zahn (see infra) mainly relies for dating the 
Actsof Leucius earlier than 160. But no other 
writer mentions a Montanist use of these 
Acts, and on this subject the authority of 
Pacian does not count for much. The context 
does not indicate that he had much personal 
knowledge of the sect, and his heretical notices 
appear to be derived from the Syntagma of 
Hippolytus, where we have no reason to think 
that he would have found any mention of 
Leucius. It is highly probably that Pacian, 
as well as others of his contemporaries, believed 
that Leucius was a real companion of St. John, 
and therefore no doubt earlier than Montanus ; 
but that he had any means of real know- 
ledge as to this we have no reason to believe. 
Besides those authorities which mention 
Leucius by name, others speak of apocryphal 
| Acts, and probably refer to the same literature. 
Thus the Synopsis Scripturae ascribed to 
| Athanasius (ii. 154) speaks of books called the 
| Travels (περίοδοι) of Peter, of John, and of 
|Thomas; and by the second the Leucian 
| story is probably intended. Eusebius (iii. 25) 
|tells of Acts of Andrew and of John; Epi- 
phanius (Haer. 47) states that the Encratites 
used Acts of Andrew, John, and Thomas; 
‘that the Apostolici relied on Acts of Andrew 
'and Thomas (ἐν. 61); and that those whom 


documents bearing the name of Matthew, of | he calls Origeniani used Acts of Andrew (sb. 


James the Less, of Peter and Paul written by | 63). 


It is worth remarking that it is of the 


662 LEUCIUS 


three apostles, Thomas, Andrew, and John, 
whose travels were written by Leucius, that 
Origen (ap. Eus. H. E. iii. 1) can tell where the 
lot of their preaching had fallen, viz. India, 
Scythia, and Asia respectively. 

The testimonies we have cited are not 
earlier than the 4th cent., and several of them 
speak of Leucius as a Manichean ; but Grabe, 
Cave, Mill, Beausobre, Lardner, and others 
consider that he lived in the 2nd cent.; and, 
as he therefore could not have been a Mani- 
chean, was probably a Marcionite. Some 
have identified him with the Marcionite Lu- 
cANuUs. But no Marcionite would have 
chosen for the heroes of his narrative the 
Jewish apostles, John, Thomas, and Andrew. 
Beausobre (Manichéisme, i. 350) gives six 
arguments for the early date of Leucius, not 
one of which is conclusive, all being vitiated 
by the tacit assumption that Leucius was a 
real person, and not, as we hold, merely the 
fictitious name of an imaginary disciple of 
St. John, whom the forger chose to make the 
narrator of the story. 

Zahn (Acta Johannts, 1880) published some 
new fragments of Leucius, which increase our 
power of recognizing as Leucian things which 
different fathers have told without naming 


their authority. The Leucian character of | 


these fragments is verified by various coin- 
cidences with the old. Names recur, e.g. 
Lycomedes. There is a story of a miracle 
performed on one Drusiana, who had sub- 
mitted to die rather than have intercourse 
with her husband. This agrees with that 
of Maximilla and Egeas in revealing the vio- 
lently Encratite principles of the author ; cf. 
that told in the Acts of Thomas (Tischendorf, 
Acta Apoc. p. 200). Zahn has argued the case 
for the early date of Leucius in a much more 
scientific way than previous supporters of the 
same thesis. He tries to shew that there are 
statements in earlier writers really derived 
from Leucius, though his name is not given. 
All Zahn’s arguments do not seem to us con- 
clusive, yet enough remains valid to lead us 
to regard the Leucian Acts as of the same age 
as the travels of Peter (which are the basis of 
the Clementines) and the Acts of Paul and 
Thecla. When a writer, who in one place 
quotes Leucius, elsewhere makes statements we 
know to be Leucian, they doubtless come from 
Leucius though he does not there name his 
authority; e.g. Epiphanius names Leucius only 
once, but we may safely count as derived from 
Leucius his reference to the manner of John’s 
death (Haer. 79, 5) and to John’s virginity 
(1b. 28, 7; 78, 10). Further, in the immediate 
context of the passage where Epiphanius 
names Leucius, he names other heretics of the 
apostolic age, and the presumption that he 
found these names in Leucius becomes almost 
a certainty when in one of the new Leucian 
fragments one of them, Cleobius, is found as 
that of a person in John’s company. Other 
names in the same context are Claudius, Merin- 
thus, and the Pauline Demas and Hermogenes; 
concerning whom see the Acts of Thecla and 
the so-called Dorotheus (Paschal Chron. ed. 
Dindorf, ii. 124). The Augustinian and Hie- 
ronymian notices may be treated similarly. 
We can identify as Leucian several statements* 

* In particular an account of a hymn supposed 


LEUCIUS 


which are described as found “‘ in ecclesiastica 
historia ’’ or ‘‘in patrum traditionibus,’’ and 
hence probably others reported with the 
same formulae are from the same source. 

We next enumerate some of the statements 
which may be characterized as Leucian, nam- 
ing some of the early writers who have re- 
peated them. (1) A Leucian fragment (Zahn, 
Ρ- 247) tells how John’s virginity had been 
preserved by a threefold interposition of our 
Lord, breaking off the Apostle’s designs each 
time that he attempted to marry. Thereisa 
clear reference to this story in a sermon 
ascribed to Augustine (Mai, Nov. Pat. Bib. I. 
i. 378), and from this source probably so many 
of the Fathers have derived their opinion of 
John’s virginity, concerning which the canon- 
ical Scriptures say nothing (Ambros. de Inst. 
Virg. viii. 50, vol. iii. 324 ; Ambrosiaster on 
II. Cor. xi. 2, vol. iv. 2, 232; Hieron. in Isatam, 
c. 56, vol. iv. p. 658; adv. Jovin. I. 26, vol. 11. 
278; August. cont. Faust. xxx. vol. x. 535, 77) 
Johan. c. 21, vol. iv. 1082; Epiph. Haer. 58, 
4). The Leucian Acts, in conformity with 
their strong Encratism, seem to have dwelt 
much on the apostle’s virginity, describing 
this as the cause of our Lord’s love to him, 
and as the reason for his many privileges, 
particularly the care of the virgin mother. In 
Pistis Sophia the name of the apostle John has 
usually the title ὁ παρθένος appended, and we 
may therefore set down Pistis Sophia as post- 
Leucian, but uncertainty as to its date pre- 
vents us from drawing any further inference. 
The earliest mention of John’s virginity is 
found in the epithet ‘‘spado”’ given to St. 
John by Tertullian (de Monog. 17), whence 
Zahn infers that Tertullian must have used the 
Acts of Leucius. We think Zahn does not 
sufficiently allow for the probability in the case 
of one who is said to have lived so long, that a 
true tradition that he never married might 
have been preserved in the churches of Asia. 
Zahn contends that because Jerome uses the 
word ‘‘eunuchus,’’ not ‘‘spado,”’ he is not copy- 
ing Tertullian, but that both writers use a 
common source, viz. Leucius. But when the 
passage in Tertullian is read with the rest of 
the treatise, it appears more likely that the 
epithetisTertullian’sown. (2) Otherevidence 
of Tertullian’s acquaintance with Leucius is 
found in his story of St. John’s having been 
cast into burning oil. Speaking of Rome he 
says, ‘‘Ubi apostolus Johannes, posteaquam 
in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in 
insulam relegatur.’? What was Tertullian’s 
authority? Now, though none of the extant 
fragments of Leucius relate to this, yet that 
these Acts contained the story is probable from 
the following evidence. Jerome (vol. vii. 
p- 655) commenting on Matt. xx. 23 states 
on the authority of ‘“‘ecclesiasticae historiae”’ 
that the apostle had been ‘‘ missus in fer- 
ventis olei dolium, et inde ad suscipiendam 
coronam Christi athleta processerit, statimque 
relegatus in Pathmos insulam.’’ Now Abdias, 
whose work is notoriously based on Leucius 
(Hist. Ap. v. 2, Fabric. Cod. Ps. N.T. 11. 534), 
has ‘‘proconsul jussit eum velut rebellem in 


to have been sung on the night before the crucifixion 
by the apostles holding hands and forming a circle 
about our Lord (see Aug. Ep. 237 ad Ceretium, vol. ii. 
p. 849). 


LEUCIUS 


dolio ferventis olei mergi, qui statim ut con- 
jectus in aeneo est, veluti athleta, unctus non 
adustus de vase exiit."". The second passage 
will be seen to be the original, Jerome's use of 
athleta receiving its explanation from Abdias. 
This conclusion is strengthened by another 
passage in Jerome (adv. Vortk. i. 26, vol. ii. 
278), where, though he names Tertullian as 
his authority, he gives particulars not found 
in him, viz. the ‘‘dolium ferventis olei,"’ 
and that the apostle came out fresher and 
more vigorous than he had entered. We feel 
forced to believe that Jerome, who certainly 
used Leucius, found in it the statement about 
the boiling oil; and then there is a strong 
case for suspecting that this was also the au- 
thority of Tertullian. But though Tertullian 
names Rome as the scene of the miracle, it may 
be doubted whether this was so in the Greek 
Leucius. The mention by Abdias of a “ pro- 
consul” suggests Asia. Hippolytus, however, 
agrees with Tertullian in placing John at Rome 
(de Christo et Antic. 36). Some of the earliest 
Fathers who try to reconcile Matt. xx. 23 
with the fact that John did not suffer martyr- 
dom, do not mention this story of the baptism 
in oil (Origen, in loc. De la Rue, iii. 719). A 
later story makes John miraculously ‘ drink 
ἃ cup”’ of poison with impunity. 

(3) An acquaintance with Leucius by Clem- 
ent of Alexandria has been inferred from the 
agreement of both in giving on John’s 
authority a Docetic account of our Lord. 
The “ traditions of Matthias’’ may have been 
Clement’s authority; but that John is appealed 
to no doubt gives probability to the conjecture 


that Clement’s source is the Acts which treat of 
St. John, a probability increased on an exam- 
ination of the story told by Clement (Hypotyp. 
ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 14) as to John’s composition 
of the Fourth Gospel at therequest of his friends. 
In the Muratorian Fragment the request is 
urged by the apostle’s fellow-bishops in Asia ; 
he asks them to fast three days, begging for a 
revelation of God’s will, and then it is revealed 
to Andrew that Johnistowrite. The stories of 
Clement and the Muratorian writer are too 
like to be independent ; yet it is not conceiv- 
able that one copied from the other ; therefore 
they doubtless used a common authority, who 
was not Papias, else Eusebius, when he quotes 
the passage from Clement, would scarcely have 
failed to mention it. Now, several later writers 
(Jerome in pref. to Comm. on Matt., a writing 
pub. as St. Augustine’s—Mai, Nov. Pat. Bibl. 1. 
i. 379—Victorinus in his Scholia on the Apoc., 
Galland. iv. 59 ; and others, see Zahn, p. 198) 
tell the same story, agreeing, however, in addi- 
tional particulars, which shew that they did 
not derive their knowledge from either the 
Muratorian writer or Clement. Thus they tell 
that the cause of the request that John should 
write was the spread of Ebionite heresy, which 
required that something should be added con- 
cerning the divinity of our Lord to what St. 

ohn’s predecessors had told about His human- 
ity ; and that, in answer to their prayers, the 
apostle, filled with the Holy Ghost, burst into 
the prologue, “In the beginning was the Word.” 
Other verbal coincidences make it probable 
that this story was found in the Acts of Leucius, | 
which Epiphanius tells us contained an account | 
of John’s resistance to the Ebionite heresy ; | 


LEUCIUS 663 


and if so, Leucius is likely to have been 
Clement's authority also. 

Combining the probabilities under the three 
heads enumerated, there seems reasonable 
ground for thinking that the Leucian Acts 
were 2nd cent., and known to Clement and 
Tertullian. Irenaeus, however, shews no sign 
of acquaintance with them, and Clement must 
have had some other source of Johannine 
traditions, his story of John and the robber 
being, as Zahn owns, not derived from 
Leucius; for no later writer who tells the 
story shews any sign of having had any source 
of information but Clement. 

We cannot follow Zahn in combining the 
two statements of Theodoret (Haer. Fab. iii. 
4) that the Quartodecimans appealed to St. 
John’s authority, and that they used apocry- 
phal Acts, and thence inferring that Leucius 
represented St. John as sanctioning the 
Quartodeciman practice. Ifso, we think other 
traces of this Leucian statement would have 
remained. Theodoret would have found in 
Eusebius that the churches of Asia appealed 
to St. John as sanctioning their practice, and 
that may have been a true tradition. 

A brief notice will suffice of other probable 
contents of the work of Leucius. He appears 
to have mentioned the exile to Patmos, and 
as resulting from a decree of the Roman 
emperor; but that the emperor was not 
named is likely from the variations of sub- 
sequent writers. Zahn refers to Leucius the 
story of St. John and the partridge, told by 
Cassianus, who elsewhere shews acquaintance 
with Leucius. A different story of a partridge 
is told in a non-Leucian fragment (Zahn, 190). 
The Leucian Acts very possibly contained an 
account of the Virgin's death. [Me.urrus.] 
But the most important of the remaining 
Leucian stories is that concerning St. John's 
painless death. Leucius appears to have 
given what purported to be the apostle's 
sermon and Eucharistic prayer on the last 
Sunday of his life. Then after breaking of 
bread—there is no mention of wine—the 
apostle commands Byrrhus (the name occurs 
in the Ignatian epistles as that of an Ephesine 
deacon) to follow him with two companions, 
bringing spades with them. In a friend's bury- 
ing-place they dig a grave, in which the apostle 
laid himself down, and with joyful prayer 
blessed his disciples and resigned his soul to 
God. Later versions give other miraculous 
details; in particular that which Augustine 
mentions (in Johann. xxi. vol. 3, p. 819), that 
St. John lay in the grave not dead but sleeping, 
the dust heaped over him showing his breathing 
by its motions. For other Johannine stories, 
see PROCHORUS. 

Besides the Acts Leucius has been credited 
with a quantity of other apocryphal literature. 
If, as we believe, he is only a fictitious person- 
age, it is likely enough that the author of the 
romance wrote other like fictions, though our 
information is too scanty for us to identify his 
work. But there is no trustworthy evidence 
that he affixed the name of Leucius to anycom- 

osition besides the Acts of Peter and John. 
Prone the natureof thecase an apostle’s martyr- 
dom must be related by one of the apostles’ 
disciples, but such a one would not be regarded 
as a competent witness to the deeds of our Lord 


664 LIBERATUS DIACONUS 


Himself, and accordingly apocryphal gospels 
are commonly ascribed to an apostle, and not to 
one of the second generation of Christians. The 
only apparent evidence for a connexion of the 
name of Leucius with apocryphal gospels is 
the mention of the name in the spurious letter 
of Jerome to Chromatius and Heliodorus, a 
witness unworthy of credit even if his testi- 
mony were more distinct. Probably the 
orthodox, finding in the Acts which bore the 
name of Leucius plain evidence that the writer 
was heretical in his doctrine of two principles, 


still accepted him as a real personage of the | 


sub-apostolic age, and when they met with 
other apocryphal stories, the doctrine of which 


they had to reject as heretical while willing to | 


accept the facts related as mainly true, Leucius 
seemed a probable person to whom to ascribe 
the authorship. [LiNus.] [G.s.] 
Liberatus (7) Diaconus, archdeacon of Car- 
thage, a Latin writer on the Nestorian and 
Eutychian heresies, an account of which he 
wrote entitled. Breviartum Causae Nestorian- 
orum et Eutychianorum, in which he records 
some circumstances of his life. He visited 
Rome in the pontificate of John II. on the 
affair of the Acoemetae order of monks (c. 20). 


In 535 he was deputed to Rome, with the | 


bps. Caius and Peter, by the council of 
Carthage, to consult John II. as to how con- 
forming Arian bishops should be received. 


They arrived about the time of the pope’s | 
death (he was buried May 27, 535), and his | 
successor Agapetus (consecrated June 3, 535) | 


replied to the synod by the three envoys 
(Mansi, viii. 849). Liberatus was an ardent 
defender of the Three Chapters, and undertook 
many journeys in that cause. On his return 
home he composed his Breviarum, so named 
as being an abridgment in 24 chapters of a 


history which, beginning with the ordination | 


of Nestorius in 428, reached to the meeting of 


the fifth synodin 553. The work was prob- | 


ably written c. 560. Liberatus intimates in 
his preface that he collected his materials from 


the Ecclesiastical History which had been | 
recently translated from the Greek into Latin | 


(as Garnier thinks, the Historia Tripartitia of 
Cassiodorus), from the Acts of the councils, 
and from episcopal letters. The Breviarum was 
ed. with copious notes and dissertations by 
Garnier in 1675 (8vo, Paris), and this ed. is 
reprinted by Migne (Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 969). 


Accounts of Liberatus will be found in Dupin | 


(Eccl. Wr. t. i. p. 558, ed. 1722), Ceillier (xi. 
303), Cave (i. 527), Fabric. (Bibl. Lat. t. iv. p. 
272, ed. Mansi, 1754). [c-H.] 
Liberius (4), ordained bp. of Rome May 22, 
352 (Catalog. Liber.), as successor to Julius I. 


The assassination of Constans (A.D. 350) and | 


the subsequent defeat of Magnentius in 351 
had left Constantius sole emperor. New 
charges against Athanasius were sent to the 


emperor and Julius the pope, and the latter | 
dying before they reached him, the hearing of | 
fell to his successor Liberius. These charges | 


were that Athanasius had influenced Constans 
against Constantius, corresponded with Mag- 
nentius, used an unconsecrated church in 
Alexandria, and disregarded an imperial 
summons calling him to Rome (Athan. A pol. 
ad Constantium). They were considered, 
together with an encyclic of 75 Egyptian 


LIBERIUS 


bishops in behalf of Athanasius, by a council 
under Liberius at Rome in 352, and on this 
occasion the first charge of compliance with 
heresy is alleged against Liberius. Among 
the fragments of Hilary (Fragm. IV.) there is 
a letter purporting to be addressed by Liberius 
to his “‘ beloved brethren and fellow-bishops 
throughout the East,”’ declaring that he agrees 
and communicates with them, and that Athan- 
asius, having been summoned to Rome and 
refused to come, is out of communion with 
himself and the Romanchurch. Bower (Hist. 
of the Popes), Tillemont (Vite de S. Athan. t. viii. 
art. 64, note 68), and Milman (Lat. Christ. bk. i. 
c. 2), accept this letter as genuine. Baronius, 
the Benedictine editors of the works of Hilary, 
Hefele (Conciliengesch. bk. v. ὃ 73)—the last 
very positively—treject it as an Arian forgery ; 
their principal, if not only, ground being the 
improbability of his writing it. 

The death of Magnentius in the autumn of 
353 left Constantius entirely free to follow his 
own heretical bent, when Liberius certainly 
stood forth as a fearless champion of the cause 
under imperial disfavour. Hesent Vincentius 
of Capua, with Marcellus, another bp. of 
Campania, to the emperor, requesting him to 
call a council at Aquileia to settle the points at 
|issue. Constantius being himself at Arles, sum- 
| moned one there, which was attended in behalf 
| of Liberius by legates. The main object of the 
leaders of the council, in which Valens and 
Ursacius took a prominent part, was to extort 
from the legates a renunciation of communion 
with Athanasius. After a fruitless attempt to 
obtain from the dominant party a simultaneous 
condemnation of Arius, the legates at length 
complied. Paulinus of Tréves refused, and 
was consequently banished (Sulp. Sev. 1. 2; 
| Hilar. Libell. ad Const. ; id. in Fragm.; Epp. 
Liber. ad Const. et Eus.). Liberius, on hearing 
| the result, wrote to Hosius of Cordova much 
distressed by the weakness of his messenger 
Vincentius, and to Caecilianus, bp. of Spoletum 
| (Hilar. Fragm. VI.). 

Subsequently(a.D. 354),most of the Western 
bishops having, under fear or pressure, 
|expressed agreement with the East, Lucifer, 
| bp. of Cagliari, being then in Rome, was, at 
/his own suggestion, sent by Liberius to the 
|emperor, to demand another council. The 
result was a council at Milan in the beginning 
of 355, attended by 300 Western bishops and 
but few Easterns. In spite of the bold remon- 
|strances of Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer, 
| Dionysius of Milan, and others, the condem- 
{nation of Athanasius was decreed, and 
|required to be signed by all under pain of 
banishment. The pope’s three legates were 
among the few who refused and were con- 
_demned to exile (see Sulp. Sev. 1.2; Athan. 
Hist. Arian.ad Monachos). Liberius at Rome 
stillstoodfirm. He wrote to Eusebius (ap. Act. 
Eus.) congratulating him on his steadfastness, 
and sent an encyclic (1b. et Hilar. Fragm. VI.) 
to all the exiled confessors, encouraging them, 
and expressing his expectation of soon suffering 
\like them. Theemperor failed to turn him by 
|threats or bribes. Finally Leontius, the pre- 

fect of Rome, was ordered to apprehend him 
| and he was taken to Milan (see Athan. op. cit. 
| c. 35 seq.). Theodoret (1. ii. c. 13) recounts in 
detail his interyiew with the emperor there. 


LIBERIUS 


** I have sent for you,” said Constantius, “ the 
bishop of my city, that you may repudiate the | 
madness of Athanasius, whom the whole world 

hascondemned.”’ Liberius continued to insist 

that the condemnation had not been that of a 

fair and free council, or in the presence of the 

accused, and that those who condemned him 

had been actuated by fear or regard to {πὸ 
emperor's gifts and favour. Liberius having | 
warned the emperor against making use of 
bishops, whose time ought to be devoted to 
spiritual matters, for the avenging of his own | 
enmities, the latter finally cut short the dis- | 
cussion by saying, ‘‘ There is only one thing | 
to be done. I will that you embrace {πὸ 
communion of the churches, and so return to| 
Rome. Consult peace, then, and subscribe, 
that you may be restored to your see.”” ‘‘ 1) 
have already,”’ Liberius replied, ‘‘ bidden fare- 

well to the brethren at Rome ; for I account 
observance of the ecclesiastical law of more 

importance than residence at Rome.” “I 

give you three days,’’ the emperor said, “ to 

make up your mind : unless within that time | 
you comply, you must be prepared to go where 
I may send you.”’ Liberius answered, ‘‘ Three 
days or three months will make no difference 
with me: wherefore send me where you 
please.’’ Two days having been aliowed him 
for consideration, he was banished to Beroea 
in Thrace (A.D. 355). The emperor sent him, | 
on his departure, 500 pieces of gold, which he 
refused, saying, ‘‘Go and tell him who sent 
me this gold to give it to his flatterers and 
players, who are always in want because of 
their insatiable cupidity, ever desiring riches 
and never satisfied. As for us, Christ, Who is 
in all things like unto the Father, supports us, 
and gives us all things needful.’’ To the 

empress, who sent him the like sum, he sent 
word that she might give it to the emperor, 
who would want it for his military expeditions; 
and that, if he needed it not, he might give it 
to Maxentius (the Arian bp. of Milan) and 
Epictetus, who would be glad of it. Eusebius 
the eunuch also offered him money, to whom 
he said, ‘‘ Thou hast pillaged the churches of 
the whole world, and dost thou now bring 
alms to me as a condemned pauper? Depart 
first, and become thyself a Christian.’’ His 
banishment was followed by a general triumph 
of the Arian party. In Alexandria Athan- 
asius was superseded by George of Cappadocia, 
the orthodox there cruelly persecuted, and 
Athanasius compelled eventually to take 
refuge among the hermits and coenobites of 
Egypt. In Gaul, in spite of the fearless pro- 
test of Hilary of Poictiers, the orthodox were 
persecuted and banished, and there also 
heresy triumphed. With regard to Rome, we 
find traces of two conflicting stories, one 
gathered from the practically unanimous 
testimony of contemporary or ancient writers 
of repute, some of whom have been our 
authorities so far—viz. Athanasius (H1st. Arian. 
ad Monach. 75), Jerome (Chron. in ann. 
Abram. mecclx.), Rufinus (H. E. xX. 22), 
Socrates (H. E. ii. 37), Sozomen (H. E. iv. 8, 
11), Theodoret (H. E. ii. 14), together with 
Marcellinus and Faustus, two contemporary 
Luciferian presbyters of Rome, in the preface 
to their Libellus Precum, addressed to the 
emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arca- 


LIBERIUS 665 
dius, during the pontificate of Damasus, the 
successor of Liberius. The other, in conflict 


therewith, is in the Pontifical and the Acts of 
Martyrs. From the former authorities we learn 
that immediately after the exile of Liberius all 
the clergy, including the deacon Feutx (arch- 
deacon according to Marcellinus and Faustus), 
swore before the people to accept no other 
bishop while Liberius lived. The populace, who 
appear throughout strongly on hisside, debarred 
the Arians from the churches, so that the elec- 
tion of a successor, on which the emperor was 
determined, had to be made in the imperial 
palace. The deacon Felix was there chosen and 
consecrated, three of the emperor's eunuchs re- 
presenting the people on the occasion, and three 
heretical bishops, Epictetus of Centumellae, 
Acacius of Caesarea, and Basilius of Anevra 
being the consecrators. It seems probable 
that a considerable party among the clergy 
at least concurred in this consecration. Mar- 
cellinus and Faustus say that the clergy 
ordained him, while the people refused to take 
part; and Jerome states that after the intru- 
sion of Felix by the Arians very many of the 
clerical order perjured themselves by support- 
ing him. Felix appears to have been himself 
orthodox, no distinct charge of heresy being 
alleged by his accusers; only that of conniv- 
ance with his own unlawful election by Arians 
in defiance of his oath, and of communicating 
with them. Two years after the exile of 
Liberius(A.p. 357), Constantius went to Rome, 
and Theodoret tells us that the wives of the 
magistrates and nobles waited on the emperor, 
beseeching him to have pity on the city be- 
reaved of its shepherd and exposed to the 
snares of wolves. Constantius was so far 
moved as to consent to the return of Liberius 
on condition of his presiding over the church 
jointly with Felix. When the emperor's order 
was read publicly in the circus, there burst 
forth the unanimous cry, ‘‘ One God, one 
Christ, one bishop!’’ There appears to have 
been some delay before the actual return of 
Liberius, who was required to satisfy the 
emperor by renouncing orthodoxy and Ath- 
anasius. This he was now, in strange contrast 
to his former firmness, but too ready to do. 
It appears that bp. Fortunatian of Aquileia 
had been employed by the Eusebians to per- 
suade him (Hieron. Catal. Script. 97), and 
that Demophilus of Beroea had personally 
urged him to comply (Ep. Liber. ad Ortent. 
Episc. ap. Hilar. Fragm. V/.). Hilary (Fragm. 
VI.) gives letters written by Liberius from 
Beroea at this time. One is to the Eastern 
bishops and presbyters; from which we give 
extracts, with Hilary's parenthetical com- 
ments: “1 do not defend Athanasius: but 
because my predecessor Julius had received 
him, I was afraid of being accounted a pre- 
varicator. Having learnt, however, that you 
had justly condemned him, I soon gave assent 
to your judgment, and sent a letter to that 
effect by bp. Fortunatian of Aquileia, to the 
emperor. Wherefore Athanasius being re- 
moved from the communion of us all (I will 
not even receive his letters), I say that I have 
peace and communion with you and with all 
the Eastern bishops. That you πε be 
assured of my good faith in thus writing, know 
that my lord and brother Demophilus has 


666 LIBERIUS 


deigned in his benevolence to expound to me 
the true Catholic faith which was treated, 
expounded, and received at Sirmium by many 
brethren and fellow-bishops of ours. (This ts 
the Arian perfidy :—This I have noted, not the 
apostate ;—the following are the words of 
Liberius.) This I have received with a willing 
mind (I say anathema to thee, Libertus, and thy 
companions), and in no respect contradict ; I 
have given my assent, I follow and hold it. 
‘Once more, and a third time, anathema to thee, 
prevaricator Liberius!) Seeing that you now 
perceive me to be in agreement with you in all 
things, I have thought it right to beseech your 
holinesses to deign by your common counsel 
and efforts to labour for my release from exile 
and my restoration to the see divinely entrusted 
to me.’’ Another is to Ursacius, Valens, and 
Germinius, begging their good offices, and 
excusing his apparent delay in writing, as 
above, to the Oriental bishops. Before 
sending that letter he had already, he says, 
condemned Athanasius, as the whole presby- 
tery of Rome could testify, to whom he seems 
to have previously sent letters intended for 
the emperor’s eye. He concludes, ‘‘ You 
should know, most dear brethren, by this 
letter, written with a plain and simple mind, 
that I have peace with all of you, bishops of 
the Catholic church. And I desire you to 
make known to our brethren and _ fellow- 
bishops Epictetus and Auxentius that with 
them I have peace and ecclesiastical com- 
munion. Whoever may dissent from this our 
peace and concord, let him know that he is 
separated from our communion.” In giving 
this letter, Hilary again expresses his indig- 
nation in a note: ‘‘ Anathema, I say to thee, 
prevaricator, together with the Arians.” A 
third is to Vincentius of Capua, the bishop 
whose defection at Milan he had once so much 
deplored. In this he announces that he had 
given up his contention for Athanasius, and 
had written to say so to the Oriental bishops, 
and requests Vincentius to assemble the 
bishops of Campania and get them to join in 
an address to the emperor, ‘‘ that I may be 
delivered from my great sadness.’”’ He con- 
cludes, ‘‘ God keep thee safe, brother. We 
have peace with all the Eastern bishops, and 
I with you. I have absolved myself to God ; 
see you to it: if you have the will to fail me 
in my banishment, God will be judge between 
me and you.” 

No sufficient grounds exist for doubting the 
genuineness of the fragment of Hilary which 
contains these letters, or of the letters them- 
selves. It is resolutely denied by Hefele 
(Conciliengeschichte, Bd. v. § 81) and by the 
Jesuit Stilting in the work of the Bollandists 
(Acta SS. Sept. t. vi. on Liberius), but their 
arguments are weak, resting chiefly on alleged 
historical difficulties and on the style of the 
letters. Allthe great Protestant critics accept 
them; and among the Roman Catholics 
Natalis Alexander, Tillemont, Fleury, Dupin, 
Ceillier, Montfaucon, Constant, and Mohler. 
Dr. Dollinger does the same. Dr. Newman 
also (Arians of the Fourth Century) quotes them 
without any note of suspicion. Baronius 
accepts the letters to the Eastern bishops and 
to Vincentius, but rejects that to Valens and 
Ursacius, though only on the ground of its 


LIBERIUS 


implied statement that Athanasius had been 
excommunicated by the Roman church. A 
refutation of Hefele’s arguments is contained 
in P. le Page Renouf’s Condemnation of Pope 
Honortus (Longmans, 1868), from which an 
extract, bearing on the subject, is given in 
Appendix to the Eng. trans. of Hefele’s work 
(Clark, Edin. 1876). Even if the fragment 
of Hilary could be shewn to be spurious, the 
general fact of the fall of Liberius would re- 
main indisputable, being attested by Athan- 
asius (Hist. Avian. 41; Apol. contr. Arian. 89), 
Hilary (contra Const. Imp. 11), Sozomen (iv. 
15), and Jerome (Chron. et de Vir. Illustr. 97). 
It was never questioned till comparatively 
recent times, when a few papal partisans— 
especially Stilting (loc. cit.), Franz Anton Zac- 
caria (Dissert. de Commentitio Liberit lapsu), 
Professor Palma (Praelect. Histor. Eccles. t. i. 
pt. ii. Romae, 1838)—have taken up his de- 
fence, relying primarily on the silence of 
Theodoret, Socrates, and Sulpicius Severus on 
his fall. Others, as Hefele, endeavour to 
extenuate its extent and culpability. 

In the letter to the Eastern bishops Li- 
berius speaks of having already accepted the 
exposition of the faith agreed upon “‘ by many 
brethren and fellow-bishops’”’ at Sirmium. It 
is a little uncertain what confession is here 
meant. There had been two noted synods 
of Sirmium and both had issued expositions 
of doctrine. The first in 351, assembled by 
the Eusebians, adopted a confession which 
asserted against Photinus and Marcellus of 
Ancyra the pre-existent divinity of the Son 
before His human birth and, but for its 
omission of the term consubstantial, was not 
heretical. Hilary of Poictiers (de Syn. 38 sqq.) 
allows it to be orthodox. Baronius and the 
Benedictine editors of Hilary (with whom 
agrees Dr. Ddollinger in his Papst-fabeln des 
Mittelalters) maintain that this was the creed 
accepted by Liberius at Beroea. The formula 
of the second Sirmian synod, assembled in 357 
by Constantius at the instance of the Ano- 
maeans, prohibited both the definitions, 
homooustos and homoioustos, as being beyond 
the language of Scripture, and declared the 
Father to be in honour, dignity, and majesty 
greater than the Son, and, by implication, 
that the Father alone may be defined as with- 
out beginning, invisible, immortal, impassible. 
The doctrine expressed was essentially that of 
the Homoeans, though the phrase ‘‘ like unto 
the Father,’’ from which they got their name, 
was not yet adopted. This may have been 
the creed accepted by Liberius at Beroea. 
His credit is not much saved by supposing it 
to have been the former one, since his letters 
are sufficient evidence of his pliability. 
Whichever it was, his acceptance was not 
enough to satisfy the emperor, who, having 
gone from Rome to Sirmium, summoned him 
thither, where he was required to sign a new 
formula, apparently prepared for the occasion. 
This was, according to Sozomen, concocted 
from three sources: first, the creed of the old 
Antiochene council of 269, in which the term 
consubstantial, alleged to be used heretically 
so as to compromise the Son’s Personality by 
Paul of Samosta, was condemned ; secondly, 
one of the creeds issued by the Eusebian 
council at Antioch in 341, which omitted 


= 


LIBERIUS 


that term; and thirdly, the first Sirmian 
creed, above described. Sozomen adds that 
he signed also a condemnation of those who 
denied the Son to be {κε the Father according 
to substance and in all respects. When 
Liberius is said by some writers to have been 
summoned from Beroea to the third synod of 
Sirmium, and to have signed the third Sirmian 
confession, we must not understand those 
sometimes so called, viz. of May 359 (when 
a distinctly Homoean formula, prepared by 
bp. Mark of Arethusa, was subscribed), but 
the compilation above described. 

Liberius was now allowed to return to Rome. 
Felix was compelled by the populace to retire 
from the city after tumults and bloodshed. 
Attempting afterwards to obtain a church 
beyond the Tiber, he was again expelled. 

_ Two ways have been resorted to of excusing, 
in some degree, the compliance of Liberius. | 
One, taken by Baronius and Hefele, is that the 
formulae he subscribed were capable of being 
understood in an orthodox sense, and so sub- 
sctibed by him, though otherwise intended by 
the emperor: that ‘‘ Liberius renounced the 
formula ὁμοούσιος, not because he had fallen 
from orthodoxy, but because he had been 
made to believe that formula to be the cloak 
of Sabellianism and Photinism” (Hefele). 
Baronius, however, condemns him so far as 
to say that his envy of Felix and his longing 
for the adulation to which he had been used 
at Rome led to his weakness. The other way 
is that of Bellarmine, who acknowledges his 
external but denies his internal assent to 
heresy : a view which saves his infallibility at 
the expense of his morality. The facts remain 
that in his letters from Beroea he proclaimed 
his renunciation of Athanasius and his entire 
agreement and communion with the Easterns, 
and that at Sirmium he signed a confession 
drawn up by semi-Arians, which was intended 
to express rejection of the orthodoxy for 
which he had once contended. Athanasius, 
Sozomen, Hilary, and Jerome all allude to his 
temporary compliance with heresy in some 
form as a known and undoubted fact. Athan- 
asius, however, unlike Hilary, speaks of it with 
noble tolerance. He says, ‘‘ But they [t.e. 
certain great bishops] not only supported me 
with arguments, but also endured exile; 
among them being Liberius of Rome. For, if 
he did not endure the affliction of his exile to 
the end, nevertheless he remained in banish- 
ment for two years, knowing the conspiracy 
against me”’ (A pol. contra Artan. 89). Again, 
‘Moreover Liberius, having been banished, 
after two years gave way, and under fear of 
threatened death subscribed. But even this 
proves only their [t.e. the Arians’] violence, 
and his hatred of heresy; for he supported 
me as long as he had free choice” (Hist. | 
Artan. ad Monach. 41). Once in possession 
of his see and surrounded by his orthodox 
supporters, Liberius appears to have resumed 
his old position of resolute orthodoxy. In 359 
were held the two councils at Ariminum in the 
West and Seleucia in the East, resulting in | 
the almost universal acceptance for a time— 
of the Homoean formula, which Constantius 
was now persuaded to force upon the church | 
in the hope of reconciling disputants. This 
called forth the famous expression of Jerome _ 


‘as Liberius might 


LIBERIUS 607 


(Dial. adv. Lucifer. 19), ** The whole world 
roaned, and wondered to find itself Arian.” 
iberius was not present at Ariminum, nor is 

there any reason to suppose that he assented 

to the now dominant confession. Jerome's 
language is rhetorical, and, on the other hand, 

Theodoret (H. E. ii. 22) gives a letter from a 

synod of Italian and Gallican bishops held at 

Rome under pope Damasus, stating that the 

Ariminian formula had the assent neither of 

the bp. of Rome, whose judgment was beyond 

all others to be expected, nor of Vincentius, 
nor of others besides. 

The death of Constantius (A.p. 161) and the 
accession of Julian the Apostate having left 
the orthodox free from direct persecution, 
Athanasius returned once more in triumph to 
Alexandria (a.p. 362). In the council, famous 
for its reassertion of orthodoxy, then held at 
Alexandria, Liberius seems to have taken no 
prominent part. The glory of restoring 
orthodoxy and peace to the church is mainly 
due, not to the bp.of Rome, but toAthanasius, 
Eusebius of Vercelli, and Hilary of Poictiers. 

Liberius comes next under notice in the 
last year of his episcopate, and during the 
reign of Valentinian and Valens, who became, 
at the beginning of 364, emperors of the West 
and East respectively, Valentinian being a 
Catholic, Valens an extreme and persecuting 
Arian. His persecutions extending to the 
semi-Arians as well as to the orthodox, caused 
the former to incline to union with the latter 
and to the position that the difference between 
them was one rather of words than of doctrine. 
They came about this time to be called Mace- 
donians, and now turned to the Western 
emperor and the Roman bishop for support in 
their distress, sending three bishops as a 
deputation to Valentinian and Liberius, with 
instructions to communicate with the church 
of Rome and to accept the term “ consub- 
stantial.’’ Valentinian was absent in Gaul, but 
Liberius received them (A.p. 366). At first 
he rejected their overtures because of their 
implication in heresy. They replied that 
they had now repented, and had already 
acknowledged the Son to be in all things like 
unto the Father, and that this expression 
meant the same as " consubstantial."" He 
required a written confession of their faith. 
They gave him one, in which they referred to 
the letters brought by them from the Eastern 
bishops to him and the other Western bishops ; 
anathematized Arius, the Sabellians, Patri- 

assians, Marcionists, Photinians, Marcellian- 
ists, and the followers of Paul of Samosata ; 
condemned the creed of Ariminum as entirely 
repugnant to the Nicene faith ; and declared 
their entire assent to the Nicene creed. They 
concluded by saying that if any one had any 
charge against them, they were willing it 
should be heard before such orthodox bishops 
approve. Liberius now 
admitted them to communion, and dismissed 
them with letters, in the name of himself and 
the other Western bishops, to the bishops of 
the East who had sent the embassy. 

Liberius died in the autumn of 366 (Marcell. 
and Faust.), having thus had a notable oppor- 
tunity of atoning by his latest official act for 
his previous vacillation. 

His extant writings are the letters referred 


008 LICENTIUS 


to above. There is also a discourse of his 
given by St. Ambrose (de Virgintbus, lib. ili. 
6. 1) as having been delivered when Marcellina 
(the sister of Ambrose, to whom he addresses 
his treatise) made her profession of virginity. 
The discourse is interesting as containing the 
earliest known allusion to the keeping of the 
Christmas festival, while the way in which 
Ambrose introduces it shews the estimation 
in which Liberius was held, notwithstanding 
his temporary fall. {J-B—yY.] 

Licentius (1). [RoMANIANUS.] 

Linus (1), accounted the first bp. of Rome 
after the apostles, and identified by Irenaeus 
(iii. 2) with the Linus from whom St. Paul sent 
greetings to Timothy (II. Tim. iv. 21). For 
the question of the order of succession of the 
alleged earliest bishops of Rome, and of the 
positions held by the persons named, see 
CLEMENS Romanus. As Linus there is no 
difference of opinion, since in all the lists he 
comes first. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 13) assigns 
12 years to his episcopate ; the Liberian Cata- 
logue 12 years, 4 months, and 12 days, from 
A.D. 55 to 67 ; the Felician Catalogue 11 years, 
3 months, and 12 days. These cannot be 
accepted as historical, nor can the statements 


of the last-named catalogue, that he died a | 


martyr, and was buried on the Vatican beside 
the body of St. Peter on Sept. 24. [J.B—y-.] 
Under the name of Linus are extant two 
tracts purporting to contain the account of 
the martyrdom of SS. Peter and of Paul. 
These were first printed in 1517 by Faber 
Stapulensis as an appendix to his Comm. on 
Saint Paul’s Epistles. These Acts of Linus 
have so many features common with the 
Leucian Acts [Lrucius] that the question 
arises whether we have not in Linus either a 
translation of a portion of the collection des- 
cribed by Photius or at least a work for which 
that collection supplied materials. Linus does 
not profess to give a complete account of the 
acts of the two apostles. He begins by briefly 
referring to (as if already known to his readers) 
the contest of St. Peter and Simon Magus, his 
imprisonments and other sufferings and la- 
bours, and then proceeds at once to the closing 
scenes. The stories of the martyrdom of the 
two apostles are quite distinct, there being no 
mention of Paul in the first nor of Peter in the 
second. The apostles’ deaths are immediately 
brought about, not by Nero himself, but by 
his prefect Agrippa, a name, we may well 
believe, transferred by a chronological blunder 
from the reign of Augustus. This name, as 
well as some others mentioned by pseudo- 
Linus, occur also in the orthodox Acts of Peter 
and Paul published by Tischendorf and by 
Thilo. The alleged cause of Agrippa’s ani- 
mosity exhibits strongly the Encratite char- 
acter common to Linus and the Leucian Acts. 
St. Peter, we are told, by his preaching of 
chastity had caused a number of matrons to 
leave the marriage bed of their husbands, who 
were thus infuriated against the apostle. 
The intention to destroy Peter is revealed 
by Marcettus and other disciples, who pres- 
singly entreat him to save himself by with- 
drawing from Rome. Among those who thus 
urge him are his jailors, Martinianus and 
Processus, who had already received baptism 
from him, and who represent that the plan to 


LINUS 


destroy Peter is entirely the prefect’s own and 
has no sanction from the emperor, who seems 
to have forgotten all about the apostle. 
Then follows the well-known story of Domine 
quo vadis. St. Peter vields to his friends’ 
entreaties, and consents to leave Rome, but at 
the gate he meets our Lord coming in, Who, on 
being asked whither He is going, replies, “Τὸ 
Rome, in order to be crucified again.’’ The 
apostle understands that in his person his Master 
is to be crucified, and returns to suffer. Linus 
tells of the arrest of Peter, and lays the scene of 
the crucifixion at the Naumachia near Nero’s 
obelisk on the mountain. St. Peter requests to 
be crucified head downwards, desiring out of 
humility not to suffer in the same way as his 
Master. A further reason is given, that in this 
way his disciples will be better able to hear his 
words spoken on the cross, and a mystical ex- 
planationis given of theinverted position which 
bears a very Gnostic character. An alleged 
saying of our Lord is quoted which strongly 
resembles a passage from the Gospel according 
to the Egyptians, cited by Julius Cassianus 
(Clem. Al. Strom. iii. 13, p. 553, see also Clem. 
Rom. ii. 12), ‘‘ Unless ye make the right as 
the left, the left as the right, the top as the 
bottom, and the front as the backward, 
ye shall not know the kingdom of God.” 
Linus relates how during Peter’s crucifixion 
God, at the request of the apostle, opened the 
eyes of his sorrowing disciples, and so turned 
their grief into joy. For they saw the apostle 
standing upright at the top of his cross, 
crowned by angels with roses and lilies, and 
receiving from our Lord a book, out of which 
he reads tohis disciples. Thisstory hasa good 
deal of affinity with that told by Leucius of a 
vision of our Lord during His crucifixion, seen 
by St. John on the Mount of Olives. Thestory 
of Peter’s crucifixion head downwards was in 
the Acts known to Origen, who refers to it in his 
Comm. on Gen. (Eus. H. E. iii. 1). Linus relates 
that Marcellustook Peter’s body from the cross, 
bathed it in milk and wine, and embalmed it 
with precious spices ; but the same night, as he 
was watching the grave, the apostle appeared 
to him, and bid him let the dead bury their 
dead and himself preach the kingdom of God. 

The second book, which treats of St. Paul, 
relates the success of his preaching at Rome. 
The emperor’s teacher, his hearer and close 
friend, when he cannot converse with him, 
corresponds with him by letter. The em- 
peror’s attention is called to the matter by a 
miracle worked by Paul on his favourite 
cupbearer, Patroclus, of whom a story is told 
exactly reproducing that told of Eutychus in 
Acts. Nero orders St. Paul’s execution, Paul 
turns his face to the east, offers a prayer in 
Hebrew, blesses the brethren, binds his eyes 
witha veillent bya Christian matron, Plautilla, 
and presents his neck to the executioner. From 
his trunk there flows a stream of milk—a cir- 
cumstance referred to by Ambrose and by 
Macarius in a work not later than c. 400. A 
dazzling light makes the soldiers unable to find 
the veil; returning to the gate they find that 
Plautillahas already received it back from Paul, 
who has visited her accompanied by a band of 
white-robed angels. The same evening, the 
doors being shut, Paul appears to the emperor, 
foretells his impending doom, and terrifies him 


LUCANUS, or LUCIANUS 


into ordering the release of the prisoners he had be the 


LUCIANUS 669 


author of the apocryphal Acts which 


ἜΝ ἐπ ππορο, The story ends with an account | bore the name of Leuctus, and Lardner treats 
ο 


the baptism of the three soldiers who had | the identification as certain. 


Even, however, 


had charge of St. Paul, and been converted by if it were certain that the Acts of Leucius were 
| Marcionite, not Manichean, and as early as the 


him. After his death he directs them to go to 

his grave, where they find SS. Luke and Titus 

praying and receive baptism at their hands. 
Lipsius infers, from the coincidences of the 


cation but the similarity of name. 


tolerably numerous N.T. citations in Linus | 


with the Vulg., that our present Latin Linus 
must be later than Jerome; but he does not 
seem to have appreciated the conservative 
character of Jerome's revision or to have con- 
sulted the older versions. We have found no 
coincidence with the Vulg. which is not equally 


one case, ‘‘relinque mortuos sepelire mortuos 
suos,’’ the text agrees with the quotations of 
Ambrose, Jerome’s translation being ‘“ di- 
mitte.'’ We conjecture the compiler to have 
been a Manichean, but he is quite orthodox 
in his views as to the work of creation, the 
point on which Gnostic speculation was most 
apt to go astray. [G.s.] 
Lucanus (1), or Lucianus, Marcionite 
(Lucanus, Pseudo-Tert. 18; Philast. 46, and 
so probably their source, the Syntagma of 
Hippolytus; Tertull. de Resur. Carn. 2; 
Λουκᾶνος, Orig. cont. Cels. ii. 27; on the 
other hand, Λουκιανός Hippol. Ref. vii. 37; 
Epiph. Haer. 43). The former is the better 
attested form, and more likely to have been 
altered into the other. The Lucianites are 
reckoned as a sect distinct from the Marcion- 
ites, as well by Origen as by Hippolytus and 
his followers ; but lack of authentic report of 
any important difference in doctrine leads us 
to believe that Lucanus did not separate from 
Marcion, but that after the latter’s death 
Lucanus was a Marcionite teacher (probably 
at Rome), whose celebrity caused his followers 
to be known by his name rather than by that 
of the original founder of the sect. They may 
have been so called in contradistinction to the 
Marcionites of the school of Apelles, who 
approached more nearly to the orthodox. 
Origen’s language (οἶμαι) implies that he had 
no very intimate knowledge of the teaching of 
Lucanus; he will not speak positively as to 
whether Lucanus tampered with the Gospels. 
Epiphanius owns that, the sect being extinct 
in his time, he had difficulty in obtaining 
accurate information about it. Tertullian 
alone (u.s.) seems to have direct knowledge 
of the teaching of Lucanus. He accuses him 
of going beyond other heretics who merely 
denied the resurrection of the body, and of 
maintaining that not even the soul would rise, 
but some other thing, neither soul nor body. 
Neander (Ch. Hist. ii. 189) interprets this to 
mean that Lucanus held that the ψυχή would 
perish and the πνεῦμα alone be immortal ; and 
possibly this may be so, though Tertullian’s 
language would lead us to attribute to Lucanus 
a theory more peculiar to himself than this 
would be. Some commentators, taking a jest 
of Tertullian’s too literally, 


2nd cent., there is no ground for this identifi- 
[G.s.] 
Luolanus (8), a famous satirist, the wittiest, 
except Aristophanes, of all the extant writers 
of antiquity. Born (probably c. 120) at Samo- 


| sata on the Euphrates, the son of poor parents, 


he gradually betook himself to the composing 
and reciting of rhetorical exercises, which he 
did with continually increasing success as he 


cide ἱ : ly journeyed westwards, visiting Greece, Italy, 
a coincidence with an older version; and ἴῃ 


and Gaul, where hissuccess reached the highest 
pitch. Asin course of time his rhetorical vein 


| exhausted itself, he betook himself, when about 


|sought death of the sophist. 


40 years old, to that style of writing—dialogue 
—on which his permanent fame has rested. 
About the same time he returned eastwards 
through Athens, and was at Olympia in A.p. 


|165, when he saw the extraordinary self- 


immolation by fire of the sophist Peregrinus. 
A little later he visited Paphlagonia, where 
he vehemently attacked, and made a bitter 
enemy of, the impostor Alexander of Abono- 
teichos. Of the extraordinary success of this 
man in deluding the weak and credulous minds 
of the rude people of those parts, and even 
the cultivated senators of Rome, Lucian has 
left us an animated account in the False 
Prophet (Wevdduayris). Lucian once had an 
interview with him, and stooping down, in- 
stead of kissing his hand, as was the custom, 
bit it severely. Luckily he had a guard of 
two soldiers with him, sent by his friend the 
governor of Cappadocia (a proof of Lucian's 
importance at this time), or he would have 
fared badly at the hands of the attendants of 
Alexander. The latter pretended reconcilia- 
tion, and subsequently lent Lucian a ship to 
return home in, but gave secret instructions 
to the crew to throw him overboard on the 
voyage. The master of the ship, however, 
repented, and Lucian was landed at Aegialos, 
and thence conveyed to Amastris in a ship 
belonging to the ambassadors of king Eupator. 
He endeavoured to get Alexander punished 
for this piece of treachery, but the latter's in- 
fluence was toostrong. Of his later years we 
know but little; he was, however, appointed 
by the emperor (probably Commodus) toa post 
of honour and emolument in Egypt. ; 
We do not know the cause, manner, or time 
of his death. His writings, with all their 
brilliancy, do not convey the impression of a 
warm-hearted man; the Peregrinus is especi- 
ally noticeable for the hard unconcern with 
which he describes both the self-sacrificing 
love of the Christians and the tragic self- 
For coo] com- 
mon sense and determination to see every- 
thing in its naked reality, apart from the dis- 
turbing influences of hope, fear, enthusiasm, 


or superstition, he has never in any age been 


have, without good | surpassed. 


His most essential characteristic 


reason, ascribed to Lucanus a doctrine of could not be better described than in his own 


transmigration of souls of men into bodies of 
brutes. 


of Epiphanius (Haer. 42, p. 330) for regarding | j 
a οἵ all that rascally sort of men; 
Marcionite. Lucanus has been conjectured to | are very many of them’ (§ 20). 


this doctrine as one likely to be held b 


words, in the dialogue entitled 'A\evs, or the 


They have, however, the authority Fisherman : “T am a hater of imposture, 


ugglery, lies, and ostentation, and in short 
and there 
Shortly 


670 LUCIANUS 


after he says very candidly that there was 
some danger of his losing his power of esteem 
and love, for want of opportunities of ex- 
ercising it ; whereas opportunities in the con- 
trary direction were ample and frequent. 
For a complete analysis of his works see D. 
of G. and R. Biogr., s.v. Here it must suffice to 
indicate his relations to the religious influence 
of his time, and, above all, to Christianity. 
The progress of experience, the leisure of 
research, had in his time shattered all real 
belief in the gods of ancient Greece and Rome 
in the minds of cultured men. But the vast 
crowd of deities, which the conflux of so many 
nations under the protecting shadow of Rome 
had gathered together, received, collectively 
and separately, a certain respect from the 
most incredulous. To the statesman, the 
gods of Rome were the highest symbol of 
the power of the imperial city; as such, he 
required for them external homage, to refuse 
which might be construed as rebellion against 
the state. Philosophers feared lest, if the 
particular acts of special deities were too 
rudely criticized, the reverence due to the 
gods in their remote and abstract sanctity 
might decay. Hence both classes favoured 
the sway of religious beliefs to which they had 
themselves ceased to adhere. The multitude 
was tossed about from religion to religion, 
from ceremony to ceremony, from rite to rite, 
in the vain hope that among so many super- 
natural powers some might lead men rightly 
to safety and happiness. The urgent need 
felt for guidance and the actual deficiency of 
sound guidance formed a combination favour- 
able to the designs of greedy impostors. The 
Stoic philosophers, it is true, had formed a 
moral system capable of impressing on in- 
tellectual minds a remarkable self-restraint 
and large elements of virtue. But in hopeful- 
ness, the living sap which gives virtue its 
vitality, the Stoic was grievously deficient ; 
and hence his philosophy was powerless with 
the multitude, and apt to degenerate into a 
hypocritical semblance even with its learned 
professors. 
when so great a variety of hypocrisies and 
false beliefs prevailed among men. 
world Lucian, witha cold, penetrating intellect, 
described with an audacity seldom paralleled. 
The ordinary method of his satire on the 
mythology of Greece and Rome consists in 
simply exhibiting the current legends as he 
finds them, stripped of the halo of awe and 
splendour with which they had habitually been 
surrounded, to the amused and critical reader. 
Sometimes his attack is more direct—as in the 
Zets Tpaywdds, Jupiter the Tragedian, where 
the plain insinuation is that the general pro- 
fession of belief in the gods was simply oc- 
casioned by the odium and alarm which a con- 
trary assertion would excite. Not sosweeping 
in extent, but still more unreserved in exposing 
the doings of the heathen deities, is the treatise 
περὶ θυσιῶν, on Sacrifices. The Ζεὺς Τραγῳδός 
shews Lucian’s disbelief in any divine govern- 
ance of the world; the treatise περὶ πένθους, 
on Mourning, his disbelief in immortality. 
But what was Lucian’s attitude towards 
Christianity, which in his age was beginning 
to be known as no inconsiderable power in all 
parts of the Roman world? Two dialogues 


| ambition, 


There probably was never a time | 


| introducing this new sect. 
Such a} 


LUCIANUS 


have to be considered in answering this 
question—’Adééavdpos ἢ Ψευδόμαντις, Alex- 
ander, or the False Prophet; and περὶ τῆς 
Ilepeyplvov τελευτῆς, Concerning the death 
of Peregrinus; for the Philopatris may be 
dismissed at once as pretty certainly no 
genuine work of its reputed author. 

The most sympathetic allusion to the 
Christians by the genuine Lucian is in the 
“* Alexander,’’ where the Christians are joined 
with the Epicureans (whom Lucian much 
admired) as persistent and indomitable op- 
ponents of that fine specimen of rascality. A 
much fuller and more interesting account of 
the Christians is contained in the other work 
named. This (together with the Philopatris) 
was placed on the Index Expurgatorius, and 
hence does not appear in the first and second 
Aldine editions of Lucian (Venice, 1503 and 
1522). Yet all that it says about the early 
Christians is very highly to their credit, ex- 
cept in attributing to them a too great εὐήθεια, 
a simplicity and guilelessness which rendered 
them liable to be deceived by worthless pre- 
tenders to sanctity. The passage contains 
one or two statements—that about the new 
Socrates, and the eating forbidden food— 
which it is difficult to think strictly accurate. 
Peregrinus Proteus was a cynic philosopher 
who flourished in the reign of the Antonines, 
and who, after a life of singularly perverted 
burnt himself publicly at the 
Olympian games, A.D. 165. We quote the 
passage from Francklin’s translation : 

“About this time it was that he learned 
the wonderful wisdom of the Christians, being 
intimately acquainted with many of their 
priests and scribes. In a very short time he 
convinced them that they were all boys to 
him; became their prophet, their leader, 
grand president, and, in short, all in all to 
them. He explained and interpreted several 
of their books, and wrote some himself, inso- 
much that they looked upon him as their 
legislator and high priest, nay, almost wor- 
shipped him as a god. Their leader, whom 
they yet adore, was crucified in Palestine for 
Proteus was on 
this account cast into prison, and this very 
circumstance was the foundation of all the 
consequence and reputation which he after- 
wards gained, and of that glory for which he 
had always been so ambitious ; for when he 
was in bonds the Christians, considering it as 
a calamity affecting the common cause, did 
everything in their power to release him, which 
when they found impracticable, they paid him 
all possible deference and respect; old women, 
widows, and orphans were continually crowd- 
ing tohim ; some of the most principal of them 
even slept with him in the prison, having 
bribed the keepers for that purpose; there 
were costly suppers brought in to them; they 


|read their sacred books together, and the 


noble Peregrinus (for so he was then called) 
was dignified by them with the title of the 
New Socrates. Several of the Christian de- 
puties from the cities of Asia came to assist, 
to plead for, and comfort him. It is incredible 
with what alacrity these people support and 
defend the public cause—they spare nothing, 
in short, to promote it. Peregrinus. being 
made a prisoner on their account, they col- 


——— π΄ «Ὁ 


Ἐπ γγγσάμυ νοι, τὸ oe 


a - 


LUCIANUS 


lected money for him, and he made a very | 
pretty revenue of it. These poor men, it) 
seems, had persuaded themselves that they 

should be immortal, and live for ever. They 

despised death, therefore, and offered up their 

lives a voluntary sacrifice, being taught by | 
their lawgiver that they were all brethren, and | 
that, quitting our Grecian gods, they must. 
worship their own sophist, who was crucified, 

and live in obedience to his laws. In com-_ 
pliance with them they looked with contempt 

on all worldly treasures, and held everything 

in common—a maxim which they had adopted 

without any reason or foundation. If any 

cunning impostor, therefore, who knew how 

to manage matters came amongst them, he 

soon grew rich by imposing on the credulity of 

these weak and foolish men. Peregrinus, 

however, was set at liberty by the governor of 

Syria, a man of learning and a lover of philo- 

sophy, who withal well knew the folly of the 

man, and that he would willingly have suffered 

death for the sake of that glory and reputation 

which he would have acquired by it. Think- 

ing him, however, not worthy of so honourable 

an exit, he let him go... . Once more, how- 

ever, he was obliged to fly his country. The 

Christians were again his resource, and, having 

entered into their service, he wanted for 

nothing. Thus he subsisted for some time ; 

but at length, having done something con- 

trary to their laws (I believe it was eating 

food forbidden amongst them), he was reduced 

to want, and forced to retract his donation to 

the city, and to ask for his estate again, and 

issued a process in the name of the emperor 

to recover it; but the city sent messages to 

him commanding him to remain where he was, 

and be satisfied.” 

It would seem from the above that com- 
munity of goods, in some degree or other, was 
practised among the early Christians to a 
later date than is generally supposed. Lucian 
confirms the general opinion as to the con- 
tinual liability to persecution of the Christians 
of those ages. Moreover, though considering 
them weak and deluded people, he charges them 
with no imposture or falsehood, though he was 
very prone to bring such charges. In fact, did 
we know nothing of the early Christians but 
what hehererecords, hisaccount would raise our 
interest in them in a very high degree; even 
their too great simplicity is not an unlovable 
trait. 

There is an excellent trans. of Lucian by 
Wieland into German (Leipz. 1788-1789, 6 vols. 
8vo), and one of great merit into Eng. by 
Dr. Francklin in 2 vols. 4to (Lond. 1780) and 
4 vols. 8vo (Lond. 1781). For other edd. and | 
trans. see D. of G. and R. Biogr.  [J.R.M.] 

Lucianus (12), priest of Antioch, martyr ; 
born at Samosata c. 240, educated at Edessa | 
under a certain Macarius, a learned expounder 
of Holy Scripture (Suidas, s.v.). | Lucianus 
went to Antioch, which held a high rank | 
among the schools of the East and was then, 
owing to the controversies raised by Paulus _ 
of Samosata, the great centre of theological | 
interest. There he was probably instructed | 
by Malchion, who seems to have been the true 
founder of the celebrated Antiochene school 


of divines, of whom Lucian, Chrysostom, 
Diodorus, Theodoret, and Theodore of Mop- 


LUCIANUS 07] 


suestia were afterwards some of the most 
distinguished. During the controversies after 
the deposition of Paulus, Lucian seems to 
have fallen under suspicion. Some have 
thought that he cherished sentiments akin to 
those of Paulus himself, which were of a Sabel- 
lian character, while others think that in 
opposing Paulus he used expressions akin to 
Arianism (cf. Newman's Arians, p. 7, and 
c. i. § 5). This latter view is supported by 
the creed presented at the council of Antioch, 
A.D. 341, and purporting to be drawn up by 
St. Lucian, which is extremely anti-Sabellian. 
He was separated from the communion of the 
three immediate successors of Paulus-—Dom- 
nus, Timaeus, and Cyrillus. During the epis- 
copate of Cyrillus he was restored, and became 
with Dorotheus the head of the theological 
school, giving to it the tone of literal, as op- 
posed to allegorical, exposition of Scripture 
which it retained till the time of Chrysostom 
and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Lucian pro- 
duced, possibly with the help of Dorotheus, a 
revised version of the LX X, which was used, 
as Jerome tells us, in the churches of Constan- 
tinople, Asia Minor, and Antioch, and met 
with such universal acceptance that it received 
the name of the Vulgate (Vulgata, Κοινή), 
while copies of the LXX in general passed 
under the title of Lucianea (Westcott, Hist. οἱ 
Canon, p. 360). He also wrote some doctrinal 
treatises, and a commentary on Job. See 
Routh, Relig. Sacr. v. 3-17- 

In the school of Lucian the leaders and sup- 
porters of the Arian heresy were trained. 
Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris 
of Chalcedon, Leontius of Antioch, Eudoxius, 
Theognis of Nicaea, and Asterius appealed to 
him as their authority (but see Arius) and 
adopted from him the party designation of 
Collucianists (De Broglie, L’ Eglise et ’ Empire, 
i. 375). Lucian became afterwards more con- 
servative, and during Diocletian's persecution 
he encouraged the martyrs to suffer courage- 
ously, but escaped himself till Theotecnus was 
appointed governor of Antioch, when he was 
betrayed by the Sabellian party, seized and 
forwarded to Nicomedia to the emperor Maxi- 
minus, where, after delivering a speech in de- 
fence of the faith, he was starved for many 
days, tempted with meats offered to idols, and 
finally put to death in prison, Jan. 7, 311 or 
312. His body was buried at Drepana in 
Bithynia, where his relics were visited by Con- 
stantine, who freed the city from taxes and 
changed its name to Helenopolis. A fragment 
of the apology delivered by the martyr has 
been preserved by Rufinus and will be found 
in Routh, l.c. Dr. Westcott, l.c., accepts it as 
genuine. ah 

As to whether Lucian the martyr and Bibli- 


| cal critic was the same person as Lucian the 


excommunicated heretic, Ceillier, Fleury, and 
De Broglie take one side, Dr. Newman the 
other. The former contend that neither 
Eusebius, Jerome, nor Chrysostom mentions 
his lapse in early life. But their notices are 
very brief, none of them are professed bio- 
graphers, and we cannot depend much upon 
mere negative evidence. On the other hand 
we have the positive statements of Alexan- 
der, bp. of Alexandria (in Theod. H. E. is. 
and Philostorg. H. E. ii. 14 and 15; see also 


672 LUCIFERUS I. 


Epiphan. Ancorat. ec. 33), which, together 
with the fact that the Arian party at Antioch 
sheltered themselves behind a creed said to 
have been ‘ written in the hand of Lucian 
himself, who suffered martyrdom at Nico- 
media ’”’ (Soz. H. E. iii. 5), outweigh the im- 
probability involved in the silence of the others. 
He may easily have been 30 years in church 
communion when he died, and with the 4th- 
cent. Christians a martyrdom like his would 
more than atone for his early fall. 

The creed of Lucian is in Hefele, Hist. of 
Councils, ii. 77, Clark’s ed.; cf. Soz. H. E. 
iii. 5, vi. 12. Bp. Bull maintains its authenti- 
city and orthodoxy (De}. of Nic. Creed, lib. iv. 
Cc. ΧΙ. vi. ὃ 5). Wright’s Syriac. Mart. Eus. 
viii. 13, ix. 6; Chrysost. Hom. in Lucian, in 
Migne, Patr. Gk. t. 1. p. 520; Gieseler, H. E. 
i. 248; Neander, H. E. ii. 498. Neander 
gives the numerous references to Lucian in 
St. Jerome’s writings. (G.T.S.] 

Lueiferus I., bp. of Calaris (Cagliari) in 
Sardinia, mentioned first in a letter of pope 
Liberius to Eusebius of Vercelli. Moved by 
great anxiety about the efforts then being 
made (A.D. 354) to procure a condemnation of 
Athanasius by the Western bishops, Lucifer 
had come from Sardinia to Rome, and Liberius 
accepted his offer to go as an envoy to Con- 
stantius to ask him to summon a council. 
The council met at Milan in 354. The Arian 
party, supported by the emperor, was strong 
in it, and a proposal to condemn Athanasius 
was immediately brought forward, but re- 
sisted by Lucifer with such vehemence that 
the first day’s meeting broke up in confusion 
and his opponents prevailed on the emperor 
to confine him in the palace. On the fourth 
day he was released. The subsequent dis- 
cussions of the council were held in the palace 
and Constantius himself apparently took part 
in them. The proceedings were irregular and 
disorderly, and after some personal alterca- 
tions the emperor sent Lucifer into exile. 
His banishment lasted from 355 to 361, and 
was mostly spent at Eleutheropolis in Pales- 
tine, subject to the persecutions of the Arian 
bp. Eutychius. During his banishment, and 
probably at Eleutheropolis, his books or 
pamphlets on the controversy were written. 
Lucifer addresses Constantius in them with 
a remarkable vigour of denunciation. He 
evidently courted persecution, and even mar- 
tyrdom. He compares the emperor to the 
worst kings that ever reigned, and regards him 
as more impious than Judas Iscariot. He 
sent his vehement invective by a special 
messenger to Constantius himself. Aston- 
ished at this audacity, the emperor ordered 
Florentius, an officer of his court, to send the 
book back to Lucifer to ask if it were really 
his. The intrepid bishop replied that it was 
and sent it back again. Constantius must be 
allowed to have shewn magnanimity in leaving 
these violent effusions unpunished. There 
may, however, have been some additional hard- 
ship in the removal of Lucifer from Palestine 
to the Thebaid, where he remained till the 
death of Constantius in 361. Hearing of his 
arrival in Egypt, Athanasius sent a letter from 
Alexandria, full of praise and congratulations, 
asking him to let him see a copy of his work. 
After receiving it, Athanasius thanked him in a 


LUCIUS 1. 


still more laudatory letter, and calls him the 
Elias of the age. 

Very soon after his accession, A.D. 361, 
Julian permitted the exiled bishops to return 
to their sees. Lucifer and Eusebius of Vercelli 
were both in the Thebaid, and Eusebius pressed 
his friend to come with him to Alexandria, 
where a council was to be held under the 
presidency of Athanasius, to attempt to heal 
aschism at Antioch. Lucifer preferred to go 
straight to Antioch, sending two deacons to 
act for him at the council. Taking a hasty 
part in the affairs of the much-divided church 
at Antioch, where the Catholic party was 
divided into two sections, the followers of 
Meletius and the followers of Eustathius, 
Lucifer ordained Paulinus, the leader of the 
latter section, as bp. of the church. When 
Eusebius arrived at Antioch, bringing the 
synodal letter of the council and prepared to 
settle matters so as to give a triumph to 
neither party, he was distressed to find himself 
thus anticipated by the action of Lucifer. 
Unwilling to come into open collision with his 
friend, he retired immediately; Lucifer 
stayed, and declared that he would not hold 
communion with Eusebius or any who adopted 
the moderate policy of the Alexandriancouncil, 
which had determined that those bishops who 
had merely consented to Arianism under pres- 
sure should remain undisturbed. 

After remaining some time at Antioch, 
Lucifer returned to Sardinia, and continued, 
it would seem, to occupy his see. Jerome 
(Chron.) states that he died in 371. To what 
extent he was an actual schismatic remains 
obscure. St. Ambrose remarks that ‘‘ he had 
separated himself from our communion ᾿᾿ (de 
Excessu Satyri, 1127, 47); and St. Augustine, 
“that he fell into the darkness of schism, 
having lost the light of charity’’ (Ep. 185, note 
47). But there is no mention of any separa- 
tion except Lucifer’s own repulsion of so many 
ecclesiastics; and Jerome, in his dialogue 
against the Luciferians (§ 20), calls him beatus 
and bonus pastor. (See a quotation from the 
Mém. de Trevoux in Ceillier, vol. iv. p. 247.) 

The substance of Lucifer’s controversial 
pamphlets consists of appeals to Holy Scrip- 
ture, and they contain a very large number 
of quotations from both Testaments. His 
writings are in Migne’s Patr. Lat. t. xiii. His 
followers, if they ever formed a distinct 
organization, disappeared in a few years. 
Jerome’s dialogue adv. Luciferianos purports 
to be the report of a discussion between an 
orthodox Christian and a Luciferian. The 
dialogue was written c. 378, seven years after 
the death of Lucifer. Five or six years later 
an appeal was made to the emperor by the 
Luciferian presbyters. [j-LL.D.] 

Luoius (1) I., bp. of Rome, after Cornelius, 
probably from June 25, 253, to Mar. 5, 254, or 
thereabouts. These dates are arrived at by 
Lipsius (Chronol. der rim. Bischdfe) after 
elaborate examination of conflicting data. 

The Decian persecution having been re- 
newed by Gallus, and Cornelius having died 
in banishment at Centumceellae, Lucius, 
elected in his place at Rome, was himself 
almost immediately banished. His banish- 
ment was of very short duration ; for Cyprian, 
in his one extant letter addressed to him, while 


LUCIUS 


alluding to his election as recent, congratulates 


him also on his return (Ep. δι). A large 
number of Roman exiles for the faith appear 
from this letter to have returned to Rome with 
Lucius. In a letter to his successor Stephen 
(Ep. 68), Cyprian calls both Lucius and Corne- 
lius ‘‘ blessed martyrs,’’ but probably uses 
the word to include confessors. For, though 
the Felician and later editions of the Liber 
Pontificalis say that Lucius was beheaded for 
the faith, the earlier Liberian Catalogue men- 
tions his death only ; andit is in the Liberian 
Depositio Episcoporum, not Martyrum, that 
his name is found. With regard to the then 
burning question of the reception of the lapst, 
on which the schism of Novatian had begun 
under his predecessor Cornelius, he continued 
the lenient view which Cornelius, in accord 
with St. Cyprian of Carthage, had maintained 
(Cypr. Ep. 68). The Roman Martyrology, the 
Felician, and other editions of the Liber Pon- 
tificalts, rightly assign the cemetery of Callistus 
as his place of burial, and De Rossi has dis- 
covered, in the Papal crypt, fragments of a 
slab bearing the inscription AOYKIC. Six 
decreta, addressed to the churches of Gaul and 
Spain, are assigned to Lucius by the Pseudo- 
Isidore, and three others by Gratian—all 
undoubtedly spurious. {j-B—y.] 
Lueius (11), the third Arian intruded into 
the see of Alexandria, an Alexandrian by birth, 
ordained presbyter by George. After the 
murder of that prelate Lucius seems to have 
been regarded as head of the Arians of Alex- 
andria ; but Socrates’s statement (iii. 4), that 
he was at that time ordained bishop, is cor- 
rected by Sozomen (vi. 5) and earlier author- 
ities. At the accession of Jovian, according 
to the Chronicon Acephalum, a Maftfeian frag- 
ment, four leading Arian bishops put him 
forward to address the new emperor at 
Antioch, hoping to divert Jovian’s favour 
from Athanasius. Records of these inter- 
views are annexed to Athanasius’s epistle to 
Jovian, and appear to have been read by 
Sozomen, who summarizes the complaints 
urged against the great hero of orthodoxy. 
The records are vivid and graphic. Lucius, 
Bernicianus, and other Arians presented 
themselves to Jovian at one of the city gates 
when he was riding into the country. He 
asked their business. They said they were 
“ Christians from Alexandria,’’ and wanted a 
bishop. He answered, ‘‘I have ordered your 
former bishop, Athanasius, to be put in pos- 
session.’’ They rejoined that Athanasius had 
for years been under accusation and sentence 
of banishment. A soldier interrupted them 
by telling the emperor that they were the 
“refuse’’ of ‘‘that unhallowed George.” 
Jovian spurred his horse and rode away. 
Lucius does not reappear until 367, when, 
having been consecrated, says Tillemont (vi. 
582), “either at Antioch, or at some other place 
out of Egypt,”’ he attempted to possess him- 
self of the bishopric, and entered Alexandria 
by night on Sept. 23, and “remained in a 
small house,’’ next the precinct of the cathe- 
dral. In the morning he went to the house 


where his mother still lived; his presence 
excited general indignation, and the people 


beset the house. The prefect Latianus and 
the dux Trajanus sent officers to expel him, 


LUCIUS 678 


who feported that to do so publicly would 
imperil his life, whereupon Tatianus and 
Trajanus, with a large τ went to the 
house, and brought him out at 1 p.m. on 
Sept. 24. On Sept. 25 he was conducted out 
of Egypt (Chron. Praevium and Acephalum). 
Athanasius died on May 2, 373, being suc- 
ceeded by Peter; but the prefect Palladius 
attacked the church, and Peter was either 
imprisoned or went into hiding. Euzofus, the 
old Arian bp. of Antioch, easily obtained from 
Valens an order to install Lucius. Accord- 
ingly Lucius appeared in Alexandria, escorted, 
as Peter said in his encyclical letter (Theod. 
iv. 25), not by monks and clergy and laity, 
but by Euzoius, and the imperial treasurer 
Magnus, at the head of a large body of sol- 
diers; while the pagan populace intimated 
their friendly feeling towards the Arian bishop 
by hailing him as one who did not worship the 
Son of God and who must have been sent to 
Alexandria by the favour of Serapis. Lucius 
surrounded himself with pagan guards, and 
caused some of the orthodox to be beaten, 
others to be imprisoned, exiled, or pillaged, for 


refusing his communion, these severities being 


actually carried out by Magnus and Palladius 
as representing the secular power. Gregory of 
Nazianzus calls him a second Arius, and lays 
to his charge the sacrileges and barbarities of 
the new Arian persecution (Orat. xxv. 12, 13). 
He took an active part in the attack on the 
monks of Egypt; finding them immovably 
attached to the Nicene faith, he advised that 
their chief ‘‘ abbats,’’ the two Macarii, should 
be banished to alittle pagan island ; but when 
the holy men converted its inhabitants, the 
Alexandrian people made a vehement demon- 
stration against Lucius, and he sent the exiles 
back to their cells (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 203). 
When the Arian supremacy came to an end 
at the death of Valens, in 378, Lucius was 
finally ejected, and repaired to Constantinople, 
but the Arians of Alexandria still regarded 
him as their bishop (Socr. v. 3). He lived for 
a time at Constantinople, and contributed to 
the Arian force which gave such trouble to 
Gregory of Nazianzus, during his residence in 
the capital as bishop of the few Catholics, 
from the beginning of 379. In Nov. 380 the 
Arian bp. Demophilus was expelled, and 
Lucius went with him. Theodoret (iv. 21) 
confounds Lucius with another Arian prelate 
of that name, also a persecutor, who usurped 
the see of Samosata (Tillem. vi. 593). [w.B.) 

Lucius (16) (Lleiwwg, Lies, Lleufer-Mawr, 
Lleurwg), a mythical character represented as 
the first Christian king in Britain. By William 
of Malmesbury (Ant. Glast. ii.), and more espe- 
cially by Geoffrey of Monmouth (Brit. Hest. iv. 
v.), besides later writers, Lucius is assigned a 
most important place in the Christianizing of 
Britain. ; 

I. As represented by Geoffrey of Mon- 
mouth, whose narrative has made the deepest 
impression on popular history, Lucius was 
descended from Brutus, the founder and first 
king of Britain, and succeeded his father 
Coillus, son of Meirig or Marius. Like his 
father, he sought and secured the friendship 
of the Romans. The fame of the Christian 
miracles inspired him with such love for the 
true faith that he petitioned pope Eleutherus 


43 


674 LUCIUS 


for teachers, and on the arrival of the two 
most holy doctors, Faganus and Duvanus, re- 
ceived baptism along with multitudes from all 
countries. When the missionaries had almost 
extinguished paganism in the island, they dedi- 
cated the heathen temples to the service of 
God, and filled them with congregations of 
Christians; they fully organized the church, 
making the flamens into bishops, and the arch- 
flamens into archbishops, and constituting 3 
metropolitans with 28 suffragan bishops. 
Lucius largely endowed the church, and, re- 
joicing in the progress of the gospel, died at 
Gloucester (Malmesbury says at Glastonbury) 
A.D. 156, without leaving any issue (Baron. 
Ann. A.D. 183 ; Cressy, Church Hist. Brit. iii.iv. 
at great length and diffuseness ; 118. Landav. 
by Rees, 26, 65, 306, 309, but much shorter). 

II. Parallel to the preceding, but without 
such minute details, is the legend in the Welsh 
Triads and genealogies, which are of very 
uncertain date and authority. Lleirwg, 
Lleurwg, or Lles, also named or surnamed 
Lleufer-Mawr (‘‘the great luminary,’ as 
all the names express the idea of brightness, 
corresponding to the Latin Lucius), son of Coel 
ap Cyllin ap Caradog or Caractacus ap Bran, 
was a Welsh chieftain of Gwent and Mor- 
ganwg inthe S. of Wales. Two of the Triads 
(Myv. Arch. ii. 63, 68) state that he founded 
the church of Llandaff, which was the first in 
Britain, and endowed it with lands and 
privileges, giving the same also to all those 
persons who first embraced the gospel. The 
Welsh Triads would place him about the mid- 
dle of the z2ndcent. (Rees, Welsh Saints, c. 4 ; 
Williams, Emin. Welsh. 276; Lib. Landav. 
by Rees, 309 n.; Lady Ch. Guest, Mabinogion, 
ii. 130; Stephens, Lit. Cymr. 69.) 

III. In tracing the rise and growth of the 
legend there is comparatively little difficulty. 
Gildas makes no allusion to it. The earliest 
English author to notice it is Bede (Chron. 


A.D. 180): ‘* Lucius Britanniae rex, missd ad 
Eleutherium Romae episcopum epistola, ut 
Christianus efficiatur, impetrat’’; and again 
ἘΠῚ ἘΠῚ: Ose 6 


The source from which Bede received the 
name of Lucius, and his connexion with 
Eleutherus, is shewn by Haddan and Stubbs 
(Counc. etc. i. 25) to have been a later inter- 
polated form of the Catalogus Pontificum Roma- 
norum (ap. Boll. Acta SS. 1 Apr. i. p. xxiii. 
Catalogi V eteres Antiquorum Pontificum). The 
original Catalogue, written shortly after 353, 
gives only the name and length of pontificate 
by the Roman consulships, but the inter- 
polated copy (made c. 530) adds to the Vita 
S. Eleutheri ‘‘ Hic accepit epistolam a Lucio 
Britanniae Rege ut Christianus efficeretur per 
ejus mandatum.’’ Haddan and Stubbs con- 
clude: ‘‘ It would seem, therefore, that the 
bare story of the conversion of a British prince 
(temp. Eleutheri) originated in Rome during 
the 5th or 6th cents., almost 300 or more years 
after the date assigned to the story itself ; that 
Bede in the 8th cent. introduced it into 
England, and that by the goth cent. it had 
grown into the conversion of the whole of 
Britain; while the full-fledged fiction, con- 
necting it specially with Wales and with 
Glastonbury, and entering into details, grew 
up between cents. 9 and 12.” 


MACARIUS MAGNES 


_ Of the dates assigned to king Lucius there 
is an extreme variety, Ussher enumerating 23 
from 137 to 190, and placing it in his own Ind. 
Chron. in 176, Nennius in 164, and Bede 
(Chron.) in 180, and again (H. F.)in 156. But 
the chronology is in hopeless confusion (see 
Haddan and Stubbs, i. 1-26). Ussher (Brit. 
Eccl. Ant. cc. iii.-vi.) enters minutely into the 
legend of Lucius, accepting his existence as a 
fact, as most other authors have done. His 
festival is usually Dec. 3. [1.α.] 
ΙΝ. A final explanation of the Lucius legend 
was given by Dr. Harnack in 1904 in the 
Sitzungsberichte der Kénigl. Preuss. Akademie 
der Wissensch. xxvi.-xxvii.. A recovered 
fragment of the Hypotyposes of Clement of 
Alexandria suggested to him that the entry 
in the Liber Pontificalis was due to a confusion 
between Britannio and Britio. Dr. Harnack 
shews that the latter word almost undoubtedly 
refers to the birtha or castle of Edessa. Bede 
probably misread Britio in the Liber Pontift- 
calis as Britannio, and referred the entry in 
consequence to Britain, whereas it relates to 
the conversion of Edessa in the time of Lucius 
Abgar IX. Harnack further shews that the 
original quotation was probably transferred 
from Julius Africanus to the Lib. Pont. See 
the review of the question in Eng. Hist. Rev. 
xxii. (1907) 769. Thus the mythic king 
Lucius of Britain finally disappears from 
history. [H.G.] 
Lupus (2). 


[GERMANUS (8).] 


M 


Macarius (1) 1., bp. of Jerusalem, the 39th 
from the Apostles, Hermon being his prede- 
cessor. His accession is placed by Tillemont 
in 311 or 312. In a list of defenders of the 
faith, Athanasius (Ovat. I. adv. Arian, p. 291) 
refers to Macarius as exhibiting ‘‘ the honest 
and simple style of apostolical men.’ A letter 
was addressed to him and other orthodox 
bishops by Alexander of Alexandria (Epiph. 
Haer. \xix. 4, p. 730). He attended the coun- 
cil of Nicaea in 325 (Soz.i.17; Theod. H. Εν 
i. 15). During his episcopate, A.D. 326 or 327, 
HELENA paid her celebrated visit to Jerusalem. 
Macarius was commissioned by the emperor 
Constantine, A.D. 326, to see to the erection of 
a basilica on the site of the Holy Sepulchre. 
The emperor’s letter is given by Eusebius (de 
Vita Const. iii. 29-32), Socrates (H. E.i. 9) and 
Theodoret (H. E. i. 17). Constantine subse- 
quently (c. 330) wrote to Macarius with the 
other bishops of Palestine about the profana- 
tion of the sacred terebinth of Mamre by 
idolatrous rites (Euseb. u.s. 52, 53). The 
emperor also presented Macarius with a vest- 
ment of gold tissue for the administration of 
the sacrament of baptism, as a token of honour 
to the church of Jerusalem (Theod. H. E. ii. 
27). The death of Macarius is placed by 
Sozomen (H. E. ii. 20) between the deposition 
of Eustathius, A.D. 331, and the council of 
Tyre, A.D. 335. He was succeeded by Maxi- 
mus. [E.v.] 

Macarius (9) Magnes, a writer of the end of 
the 4th cent. Four centuries after, his name 
had sunk into almost complete oblivion, when 
in the course of the image controversy a 


MACARIUS MAGNES 


MACARIUS MAGNES 675 


quotation from him was produced on the | certainly have regarded it as blasphemous to 


iconoclastic side. 
wards patriarch of Constantinople, had never 
heard of him, and only after long search could 
he procure a copy of the work containing 
the extract (Spicilegium Solesmense, i. 305). 
Nicephorus evidently had no knowledge of the 
author except from the book itself. The words 
Macarius Magnes may be both proper names, 
or else may be translated either as the blessed 
Magnes or as Macarius the Magnesian. 
Nicephorus understood Macarius as a proper 
name, and so he found it understood in the 
title of the extract which he discusses, but will 
not undertake to say whether Magnes is a 
proper name or a geographical term. He 
concludes that Macarius was a bishop, because 
the title described the author as ἱεράρχης and 
the very ancient MS. from which his infor- 
mation was derived contained a portrait of 
the author in a sacerdotal dress. He dates 
Macarius as 300 years later than the ‘*‘ Divine 
and Apostolic preaching,’ as could’ be 
gathered from two passages in the work. The 
work, called Apocritica, was addressed to a 
friend named Theosthenes, and contained 
objections by a heathen of the school of Aris- 
totle, together with replies by Macarius. Nice- 
phorus finds that the extract produced by the 
Iconoclasts had been unfairly used, the 
context shewing that Macarius referred only 
to heathen idolatry and not to the use of 
images among Christians. But Nicephorus 
had no favourable opinion of him on the 
whole, thinking he discerned Manichean, 
Arian, or Nestorian tendencies, and especially 
agreement with ‘‘the impious and senseless 
Origen’’ as to the non-eternity of future 
punishments. Macarius again sank into ob- 
scurity, only some very few extracts from his 
writings being found in MSS. of succeeding 
centuries. Near the end of the 16th cent. he 
became again the subject of controversy 
through the Jesuit Turrianus, who had found a 
copy of the A pocritica in St. Mark’s Library at 
Venice, which when afterwards sought for 
had disappeared. In 1867 there was found at 
Athens what there is good reason to believe 
was this copy, which, by theft or otherwise, 
had found its way to Greece. This was pub. 
by Paul Foucart (Paris, 1876). Shortly after 
Duchesne pub. a dissertation on Macarius 
(Paris, 1877), with the text of all the attain- 
able fragments of Macarius’s homilies on Gene- 
sis. The A pocritica consisted of five books: 
of these we have only the third complete ; but 
enough remains to shew that the work pur- 
ports to contain a report of a viva voce dis- 
cussion between the author and a Grecian 
philosopher. In form it is perhaps unique. 
It is not a mere dialogue ; nor does it proceed 
in the Platonic method of short questions 
and answers. Each speech of the heathen 
objector is made up of some half-dozen short 
speeches, each dealing with different objec- 
tions. To these Macarius severally replies, 
and then follow a few lines of narrative 
introducing a new set of objections. We 
doubtless have here a unique specimen of 
genuine heathen objections of the 4th cent. 
The blows against Christianity are dealt with 
such hearty goodwill and with so little re- 
straint of language that a Christian would 


Nicephorus, then or after-|invent such an attack. That Macarius did 


not invent the objections is further shewn b 
his sometimes missing their point, and by his 
answers being often very unsatisfactory. 
There is also a clear difference in style between 
the language of the objector and of the 
respondent. It has therefore been inferred 
that Macarius reproduces the language as well 
as the substance of the arguments of a heathen, 
and then arises the question, “‘Does the 
dialogue record a real viva voce discussion 
with a heathen objector, or are the heathen 
objections from a published work against 
Christianity, and if so, whose?" 

The earliest Christian apologists defended 
their religion against men who had a very 
vague knowledge of it. But towards the close 
of the 3rd cent. a systematic attack was made 
on our religion by its most formidable adver- 
sary, Porphyry, founded on a careful study of 


our sacred books. Three or four of the 
Macarian objections have been at least 
ultimately derived from Porphyry. They do 


not appear to be verbally copied from him ; 
and the Macarian objector places himself 300 
vears after St. Paul's death, which, with every 
allowance for round numbers, is too late for 
Porphyry. Again, there is scarcely any re- 
semblance between the objections in Macarius 
and what we know of those of the emperor 
Julian. Great part of these last is directed 
against the O.T., those of Macarius almost 
exclusively against the New; and the Mac- 
arian objections are not attacks of a general 
nature on the Christian scheme, but rather 
attempts to find error or self-contradiction in 
particular texts, e.g. how could Jesus say, 
** Me ye have not always,” and yet * I am with 
you always, even to the end of the world"? 
Intermediate in time between Porphyry and 
Julian was Hierocles, and Duchesne ably 
advocates the view that the discussion in 
Macarius is fictitious, and that his book 
contains a literal transcript of parts of the lost 
work of Hierocles. We are ourselves inclined 
to believe that while no doubt Macarius or the 
heathen philosophers whom he encountered 
drew the substance of their arguments, and 
even in some cases their language, from pre- 
vious heathen writings, yet on the whole the 
wording is Macarius’s own. We give a few 
specimens of the objections with Macarius’s 
solutions, with a warning that the selection is 
scarcely fair to Macarius, since it is not worth 
while printing such of his answers as an 
apologist of to-day would give. 

Ob. Jesus told His disciples " Fear not them 
who can kill the body,"’ yet when danger was 
threatening Himself, He prayed in an agony 
that the suffering might pass away. His 
words then were not worthy of a Son of God, 
nor even of a wise man who despises death. 

Sol. We must see what it was our Lord 
really feared, when He pra ved. The devil had 
seen so many proofs of His divinity that he 
dared not assault Him again, and so there was 
danger that that Passion which was to be the 
salvation of the world should never take place. 
Our Lord dissembles, therefore, and pretends 
to fear death, and thus mone ae the devil, 
hastens the hour of his assault; for when He 
prayed that His cup might pass, what He 


676 MACARIUS fAAGNES 


really desired was that it should come more 
speedily. He thus caught the devil by baiting 
the hook of His divinity with the worm of His 
humanity, as it is written in Ps. xxii., “‘I am 
a worm, and noman,”’ and in Job xli., ‘* Thou 
shalt draw out the dragon with a hook.’’—The 
doctrine that the devil was thus deceived is 
taught by many Fathers, e.g. Gregory Nyssen. 
Gregory the Great, commenting on Job xli. 1, 
uses language strikingly like that of Macarius ; 
but the common source of Macarius and the 
rest was Origen’s Comm. on Ps. xxii. 

Ob. How can Jesus say ‘‘ Moses wrote of 
Me,”’ when nothing at all of the writings of 
Moses has been preserved? All were burnt 
with the temple, and what we have under the 
name of Moses was written 1,180 years after 
his death by Ezra and his company. 

Sol. When Ezra rewrote the books of Moses, 
he restored them with perfect accuracy as they 
had been before: for it was the same Spirit 
Who taught them both. 

Ob. *‘ If they drink any deadly thing it shall 
not hurt them.’’ Ifso, candidates for bishop- 
rics ought to be tested by offering them a cup 
of poison. If they dare not drink, they ought 
to own that they do not really believe the 
words of Jesus; and if they have not faith for 
the cures promised in the same context and the 
power to remove mountains, no ordinary 
Christian is now a believer, nor even any 
bishops or presbyters. 

Sol.—Christ’s words are not to be under- 
stood literally. Working cures is no test of 
faith: for such are often performed by un- 
believers or atheists. It is not to be supposed 
Christ intended His disciples to do what He 
never did Himself, and He never moved a 
literal mountain. What He meant by moun- 
tains was demons, and we have in Jer. li. 25 
this metaphorical use of the word mountain. 
—Here we have another coincidence with 
Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi. 35 (Vulg.); Migne, i. 
1000), both no doubt being indebted to Origen. 

It is important to note that St. Mark, as 
read by the objector and by Macarius, con- 
tained the disputed verses at the end, as is 
seen also from his mentioning that out of 
Mary Magdalen had been cast seven devils (see 
Orig. Adv. Cels. ii. 55). He speaks of the 
author of Hebrews as the Apostle, no doubt 
intending St. Paul. He appears to have used 
II. Peter (see p. 180). The phrase “the 
canon of the N.T.”’ occurs p. 168. 

With respect to idolatry the heathen 
apologist argues: None of us supposes wood 
or stone to be God, or thinks that if a piece be 
broken off an image, the power of the Deity 
represented is diminished. It was by way 
of reminder that the ancients set up temples 
and images, that those who come to them 
might think of God and make prayers accord- 
ing to their needs. You do not imagine a 
picture of your friend to be your friend; you 
keep it merely to remind you of him, and to 
do him honour. Our sacrifices are not 
intended to confer benefit on the Deity, but 
to shew the love and gratitude of the worship- 
per. We make our images of Deity in human 
form as being the most beautiful we know. 

We have not space to give other answers 
of Macarius, though some are clever enough. 
Sufficient has been quoted to show the 


MACARIUS MAGNES 


allegorical style of interpretation which Macas 
rius used. Other examples could be easily 
added: e.g. the clouds by which Paul expected 
to be caught up mean angels (p. 174) ; the three 
measures of meal (Matt. xiii.) mean time, past, 
present, and future; the thong (shoe-latchet) 
which could not be loosed is the tie between 
our Lord’s humanity and divinity (p. 93) ; 
the four watches of the night (Matt. xiv. 25) 
mean the ages of the patriarchs, of the law, 
of the prophets, and of Christ; in Elijah’s 
vision the strong wind was the patriarchal 
dispensation which swept away the worship of 
idols; the earthquake was the law of Moses, 
at the giving of which the mountains leaped 
like rams ; the fire was the word of prophecy 
(Jer. xx. 9); the still small voice was the 
message of Gabriel to Mary. Macarius thus 
belonged to the Alexandrian school of alle- 
gorical interpretation, as might be expected 
from the great use he makes of Origen, not to 
the Syrian literalschoo]. [D1oporus.] Alex- 
andria might also be suggested by the fact 
that Macarius has some scientific knowledge. 
He admires extremely (p. 179) the skill of 
geometers in being able to find a square equal 
in area to a triangle; he knows the astro- 
nomical labours of Aratus, and is aware that 
in the discussion of celestial problems the 
earth is treated as a point. On the other 
hand, many indications point to the East as 
his abode. He measures distances by para- 
sangs (p. 138); when speaking (p. 7) of the 
diversities which exist among the population 
of a great city, he chooses Antioch as his 
example. Speaking of the ascetic life, he 
draws his instances not from the celebrated 
solitaries of Egypt, but those of the East. In 
a short list of heretics the Syrian Bardesanes 
is included. The woman healed of an issue of 
blood is said to have been Berenice, queen of 
Edessa, a notion likely to have been derived 
from a local tradition. In a question of lan- 
guage which became the subject of much 
dispute in the East he sides with those who 
speak of τριῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐν οὐσίᾳ μιᾷ. 

Crusius pointed out, and the suggestion has 
been adopted by Mdller (Schiirer, Theol. Lit. 
Zeit. 1877, p. 521), that at the Synod of the 
Oak in 403, one of the accusers of Heracleidas 
of Ephesus was a Macarius, bp. of Magnesia. 
His identification with our Macarius seems 
highly probable. It is not a weighty objec- 
tion that one of the charges brought against 
Heracleidas was Origenism, while Macarius, 
as we have seen, was largely indebted to 
Origen. Macarius had other grounds of hos- 
tility to Heracleidas, and we have no know- 
ledge that his own admiration of Origen was 
such as to induce him to incur the charge of 
heresy for his sake, or to refrain from bringing 
the charge of Origenism against an opponent. 
The Magnesian Macarius sufficiently satisfies 
the conditions of time and place. 

Duchesne conjectures that Macarius may 
probably have visited Rome. Of the heroes 
of the Eastern church he names only Polycarp, 
telling of him a story found elsewhere. Of 
Westerns he names Irenaeus of Lyons, Fabian 
of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage. He has 
the story told in the Latin Abdias (Fabric. 
Cod. Ap. N.T. p. 455) of flowing milk instead 
of blood from St. Paul’s headless body (p- 


MACARIUS MACEDONIUS 677 


=): The duration of St. Peter's episcopate is| Macarius (24), a Christian of Rome who (end 
made only a few months (p. 102). [G.s.] of 4th cent.) wrote on the divine providence 
arius (12), presbyter of Athanasius. | in opposition to heathen notions of fate and 
Early in bis episcopate, perhaps in 329 or 330 | astrology. Finding some difficulties, he 
(if his consecration was on pe 8, 328, as | dreamed of a ship bringing relief to his doubts. 
Hefele reckons, Councils, ii. 4), ATHANASIUS, | Rufinus just at this time arriving from Pales- 
on a visitation in Mareotis, was informed that | tine, Macarius saw in this the interpretation 
a layman named Ischyras was exercising of his dream and sought from him light from 
priestly functions. Macarius was sent to the Greek fathers. a trans. for him 
summon the offender before the archbishop, | Origen’s eulogy on the martyr Pamphilus 
but Ischyras being ill, his father was requested | (said by Jerome to be really by Eusebius) and 
to restrain him from the offence. Ischyras, | also Origen's περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν, the publication of 
recovering, fled to the Meletians, who invented | which led to violent controversy. [Himeony- 
the accusation that Macarius, by order of mus; OriGcen.] Jerome calls him ὌΛδιοι, 
Athanasius, had forced the on 84 of Ischyras, | saying, ‘Tune discipulus “OAsios, vere nominis 
overthrown his altar, broken the chalice, and | sui si in talem magistrum non impegisset " 
burnt the sacred books (Athan, A pol. c. Ar. c. | (Ep. exxvii. ad Princ. ed. Vall.) [w.ir.) 
63; Socr. i. 27; Hilar. Pict. Fragm. ii. § 18). acedonius (2), bp. of Constantinople. 
Macarius is next found at the imperial court) At bp. Alexander's death in 336 party 
at Nicomedia on a mission with another priest, | feeling ran high. His orthodox followers 
Alypius, when three Meletian clergy, Ision,| supported Paul, the Arians rallied round 
Eudaemon, Callinicus, brought their accusa- | Macedonius. The former was ordained bishop 
tion against Athanasius in reference to the put did not hold his bishopric long. The 
linen vestments. Macarius and Alypius were | emperor Constantius came to Constantinople, 
opportunely able to refute the calumny (Socr. | convened a synod of Arian bishops, banished 
i. 27; Soz. ii. 22), This may have been late | Paul, and, to the disappointment of Mace- 
in 330 or early in 331; Pagi’s date 328 seems | donius, translated Eusebius of Nicomedia to 
too early. Macarius and the three Meletians | the vacant see (A.p. 338). Eusebius's death 
were still there when Athanasius arrived (331) | in 341 restarted hostilities between the par- 
on a summons from Constantine; the Mele-/tisans of Paul and Macedonius. Paul re- 
tians brought against the archbishop the fresh | turned, and was introduced into the Irene 
charge of supplying money to Philumenus and | church of Constantinople; Arian bishops 
Macarius was charged with the breaking of | immediately ordained Macedonius in St. 
the chalice (Hefele, ii. 13). The charge was} Paul's church. So violent did the tumult 
easily disproved. Macarius again assisted| become that Constantius sent his general 
Athanasius when charged with the murder of | Hermogenes to eject Paul for a second time. 
Arsenius. When Arsenius had been found | His soldiers met with open resistance; the 
alive and John Arcaph had confessed the| general was killed and his body dragged 
fraud, Macarius was sent to Constantinople to| through the city. Constantius at once left 
inform Constantine of the collapse of the whole | Antioch, and punished Constantinople by de- 
calumny (Athan. Apol. c. Ar. cc. 65, 66). | priving the people of half their daily allowance 
Macarius was dragged in chains before the |ofcorn. Paul was expelled ; Macedonius was 
council at Tyre in 335, and when the com-|severely blamed for his part in these dis- 
mission was sent by that council to Mareotis | turbances, and for allowing himself to be 
to investigate the affair of the chalice, which | ordained without imperial sanction; but 
was still charged against Athanasius, Mac- | practically the Arians triumphed. Mace- 
arius was not allowed to accompany it, but | donius was permitted to officiate in the church 
was left in custody at Tyre. Athan. Apol. c.|in which he had been consecrated. Paul 
Ar. cc. 71, 72, 73; Mansi, ii. 1126, 1128, B, C;| went to Rome, and he and Athanasius and 
Hefele, ii. 14-23 ; Tillem. vili. 19-23. [c.H.] other orthodox bishops expelled from their 
Macarius (17). Two hermits or monks of | sees were sent back by Julius with letters re- 
this name both lived in Egypt in the 4th cent.; | buking those who had deposed them. Philip 
their characters and deeds are almost indis-| the prefect executed the fresh orders of 
tinguishable. The elder is called the Egyp-|the emperor in hurrying Paul into exile to 
tian, the younger the Alexandrine. One of)|Thessalonica, and in reinstating Macedonius, 
them was a disciple of Anthony and the master | but not without bloodshed (Socr. ii. 16). 
of Evacrius, and one of them dwelt in the Macedonius held the see for about six years, 
Thebaid. Jerome speaks of Rufinus (Ep. iii.| while letters and delegates, the pope and the 
2, ed. Vall. a.p. 374) as “ being at Nitria, and | emperors, synods anc counter-synods, were 
having reached the abode of Macarius.” Yet | debating and disputing the treatment of Paul 
Rufinus, who lived 6 years in Alexandria and |and Athanasius. In 349 the alternative of 
the adjoining monasteries, describes the resid- | war offered by Constans, emperor of the West, 
ence of Macarius (Hist. Mon. 29)—which he | induced Constantius to reinstate Paul; and 
names Scithium and says was a day and ἃ Macedonius bad to retire to a private church. 
half’s journey from the monasteries of Nitria— | The murder of Constans (A.D. 350) placed the 
from the accounts of others rather than as | East under the sole control of Constantius, and 
an eye-witness. Rufinus, however, seems to | Paul was at once exiled. Imperial edicts 
have seen both hermits (Apol. Ruf. ii. 12). | followed, which permitted the Arians to claim 
The stories about them are of a legendary char- | to be the dominant faction in the church. — 
acter. Rufinus, Hist. Mon. 28, 29, an Hist. | Macedonius is said to have Hed his 
Eccl. ii. 4, 8; Palladius, το, 20; Soz. iii. 13; | return to power by acts which, { truly re- 
Socr. iv. 18; Gennad. d. Κ΄. Ill. 11; Mar-| ported, brand him as a cruel bigot. The 
tyrolog. Rom. Jan. 5 and 15. (w.H.F.] | Novatianists suffered perhaps even more 


678 MACEDONIUS II. 


fearfully than the orthodox and some of them 
were stung into a desperate resistance: those 
of Constantinople removing the materials of 
their church to a distant suburb of the city; 
those at Mantinium in Paphlagonia daring to 
face the imperial soldiers sent to expel them 
from their home. ‘‘ The exploits of Mace- 
donius,”’ says Socrates (ii. 38), “‘ on behalf of 
Christianity, consisted of murders, battles, 
incarcerations, and civil wars.” 

An act of presumption finally lost him the 
imperial favour (A.D. 358). The sepulchre 
containing the relics of Constantine the Great 
was in danger of falling to pieces, and Mace- 
donius determined to remove them. The 
question was made a party one. The ortho- 
dox assailed as sacrilege ‘“‘ the disinterment 
of the supporter of the Nicene faith,’ the 
Macedonians pleaded the necessities of struc- 
tural repair. When the remains were con- 
veyed to the church of Acacius the Martyr, 
the excited populace met in the church and 
churchyard; so frightful a carnage ensued 
that the place was filled with blood and 
slaughtered bodies. Constantius’s anger was 
great against Macedonius because of the 
slaughter, but even more because he had 
removed the body without consulting him. 

When Macedonius presented himself at the 
council of Seleucia (A.D. 359), it was ruled that 
being under accusation it was not proper 
for him to remain (Socr. ii. 40). His op- 
ponents, Acacius, Eudoxius, and others, 
followed him to Constantinople, and, availing 
themselves of the emperor’s indignation, de- 
posed him (A.D. 360) on the ground of cruelty 
and canonical irregularities. Macedonius re- 
tired to a suburb of the city, and died there. 

He is said to have elaborated the views 
with which his name is connected in his re- 
tirement. His doctrine was embraced by 
Eleusius and others ; and Marathonius brought 
so much zeal to the cause that its upholders 
were sometimes better known as Marathon- 
ians. Their grave, ascetic manners and pleas- 
ing and persuasive eloquence secured many 
followers in Constantinople, and also in Thrace, 
Bithynia, and the Hellespontine provinces. 
Under the emperor Julian they were strong 
enough to declare in synod at Zele in Pontus 
their separation from both Arians and ortho- 
dox. In 374 pope Damasus and in 381 the 
council of Constantinople condemned their 
views, and they gradually ceased to exist as a 
distinctive sect. For authorities, consult the 
scattered notices in Socrates, Sozomen; 
Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i.; the usual 
Church histories and Hoty Guost in D. C. B. 
(4-vol. ed. 1882). [J-M.F.] 

Macedonius (3) II., patriarch of Constanti- 
nople a.D. 495. Foran account of his election 
see EupHEMIuS (4). Within a year or two 
(the date is uncertain) he assembled a council, 
in which he confirmed in writing that of 
Chalcedon, and openly professed, as he always 
did, his adhesion to the orthodox faith. In 
507 Elias, patriarch of Jerusalem, who had 
been unwilling to sanction the deposition of 
Euphemius, united himself in communion 
with Macedonius. The heterodox emperor 
Anastasius employed all means to oblige 
Macedonius to declare against the council of 
Chalcedon, but flattery and threats were alike 


MACEDONIUS II. 


unavailing. An assassin named Eucolus was 
even hired to take away his life. The pa- 
triarch avoided the blow, and ordered a fixed 
amount of provisions to be given monthly to 
the criminal. The people of Constantinople 
were equally zealous for the council of Chalce- 
don, even, more than once, to the point of 
sedition. To prevent unfavourable conse- 
quences, Anastasius ordered the prefect of the 
city to follow in the processions and attend 
at the assemblies of the church. In 510 the 
emperor made a new effort. Macedonius 
would do nothing without an oecumenical 
council at which the bp. of great Rome 
should preside. Anastasius, annoyed at this 
answer, and irritated because Macedonius 
would never release him from the engagement 
he had made at his coronation to maintain the 
faith of the church and the authority of the 
council of Chalcedon, sought means to drive 
him from his chair. Hesent Eutychian monks 
and clergy, and sometimes the magistrates of 
the city, to load him with public outrage and 
insult. This caused such a tumult amongst 
the citizens that the emperor was obliged to 
shut himself up in his palace and to have 
vessels moored near in case flight should be 
necessary. He sent to beg Macedonius to 
come and speak with him. Macedonius went 
and reproached him with the sufferings his 
persecutions caused the church. Anastasius 
pretended to be willing to alter this, but at 
the same time made a third attempt to tamper 
with the orthodoxy of the patriarch. One of 
his instruments was Xenaias, an Eutychian 
bishop. He demanded of Macedonius a de- 
claration of his faith in writing ; Macedonius 
addressed a memorandum to the emperor 
insisting that he knew no other faith than that 
of the Fathers of Nicaea and Constantinople, 
and that he anathematized Nestorius and 
Eutyches and those who admitted two Sons 
or two Christs, or who divided the two natures. 
Xenaias, seeing the failure of his first attempt, 
procured two infamous wretches, who accused 
Macedonius of an abominable crime, avowing 
themselves his accomplices. They then 
charged him with Nestorianism, and with 
having falsified a passage in an epistle of St. 
Paul, in support of that sect. At last the 
emperor commanded him to send by the hands 
of the master of the offices the authentic copy 
of the Acts of the council of Chalcedon signed 
with the autographs of the bishops. Mace- 
donius refused, sealed it up, and hid it under 
the altar of the great church. Thereupon 
Anastasius had him carried off by night and 
taken to Chalcedon, to be conducted thence to 
Eucaita in Pontus, the place of the exile of 
his predecessor. In 515 pope Hormisdas 
worked for the restitution of Macedonius, 
whom he considered unjustly deposed ; it had 
been a stipulation in the treaty of peace be- 
tween Vitalian and Anastasius that the pa- 
triarch and all the deposed bishops should be 
restored to their sees. But Anastasius never 
kept his promises, and Macedonius died in 
exile. His death occurred c. 517, at Gangra, 
where he had retired for fear of the Huns, who 
ravaged all Cappadocia, Galatia, and Pontus. 
Theod. Lect. ii. 573-578, in Patr. Gk. 1xxxvi. ; 
Evagr. II]. xxxi. xxxii. in ib. 2661; Mansi, 
viii. 186, 198; Vict. Tun. Chron. in Patr 


MACRINA 


Lat. \xviii. 948; Liberat. vii. in ib. 982; 
Theoph. Chron. 120-123, 128, 130, 132. [W.M.S.] 
Macrina (1), the Elder, the paternal grand- 
mother of Basil and Gregory Nyssen, resident 
at and probably a native of Neocaesarea in 
Pontus. Both Macrina and her husband, of 
whose name we are ignorant, were deeply 
pious Christians. Macrina had been trained 
on the precepts of the celebrated bp. of Neo- 
caesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus, by some of 
his hearers. In the persecution of Galerius 
and Maximin, Macrina and her husband, to 
save their lives, left home with a slender equip- 
ment and escaped to a hill forest of Pontus, 
where they are said to have lived in safe retire- 
ment for seven years. On the cessation of the 
persecution, A.D. 311, they returned to Neo- 
caesarea. On the renewal of the persecution 
they appear to have again suffered. Their 
goods were confiscated and Macrina and her 
husband obtained the right to be reckoned 
among confessors of the faith (Greg. Nys. de 
Vit. 5. Macr. t. ii. pp. 178, 191). In due 
time their son Basil married Emmelia, and 
became the father of ten children, the eldest 
bearing her grandmother’s name Macrina, and 
the second that of his father Basil. This boy, 
afterwards the celebrated bp. of Caesarea, 
Basil the Great, was brought up from infancy 
by his grandmother Macrina, at her country 
house at Annesi, to which she seems to have 
retired after her husband’s death (Basil. 
Ep. 204 [75], §6; 223 [79], ὃ 3). Her death 
cannot be placed before 340. [E.v.] 
Magcrina (2), the Younger, the eldest child 
of her parents Basil and Emmelia, by her 
position in the family and still more by her 
force of character, high intellectual gifts, and 
earnest piety, proved the well-spring of good 
to the whole household, and so contributed 
largely to form the characters of her brothers. 
To her brother Basil in particular she was ever 
a wise and loving counsellor. Basil was born 
c. 329, and Macrina probably c. 327. She re- 
ceived her name from her paternal grand- 
mother. She was very carefully educated by 
her mother, who was more anxious that she 
should be familiar with the sacred writers 
than with heathen poets. Macrina com- 
mitted to memory the moral and ethical por- 
tion of the books of Solomon and the whole of 
the Psalter. Before her twelfth year she was 
ready at each hour of the day with the Psalm 
liturgically belonging to it (Greg. Nys. de 
Vita S. Macr. ii. 179). Her personal beauty, 
which, according to her brother Gregory, sur- 
passed that of all of her age and country, and 
her large fortune, attracted many suitors. 
Of these her father selected a young advocate, 
of good birth and position, and when he was 
cut off by a premature death, Macrina reso- 
lutely refused any further proposals of mar- 
riage (ib. 180). After her father’s death (c. 
349) she devoted herself to the care of her 
widowed mother, the bringing up of her 
infant brother Peter, and the supervision of 
the interests of her family. Emmelia was left 
burdened with a large and extensive property, 
and the maintenance of and provision for nine 
children. Of the greater part of this load 
Macrina relieved her. They resided then, or 
soon afterwards, on the paternal estate near 
the village of Annesi, on the banks of the Iris, 


MACRINA 679 


near Neocaesarea, which Macrina never left. 
Basil returned from Athens ¢. 355 elated with 
his university successes. Macrina taught bim 
the enthusiastic love for an ascetic life which 
she herself felt (ἐν. 181). Brother and sister 
settled on their p ternal estate on opposite 
banks of the Iris. The premature death of 
her most dearly loved brother Naucratius, on 
a hunting expedition, 357, strengthened her 
resolution to separate from the world, and 
she persuaded her mother also, who was 
nearly broken-hearted at their loss, to embrace 
the ascetic life. The nucleus of the sisterhood 
was formed by their female servants and 
slaves. Devout women, some of high rank, 
soon gathered round them, while the birth 
and high connexions of Macrina and her 
mother attracted the daughters of the most 
aristocratic families in Pontus and Cappadocia 
to the community (ἐδ. 184, 186). Among its 
members were a widow of high rank and 
wealth, named Vestiana, and a virgin named 
Lampadia, who is described as the chief of the 
band (ἐδ. 197). Macrina took to her retreat 
her youngest brother Peter (tb. 186). The 
elevation of her brother Basil to the see of 
Caesarea, 370, became a stimulus to a higher 
pitch of asceticism. Peter was ordained pres- 
byter by his brother (ἐδ. 187), probably in 371. 
In 373 Emmelia died, holding the hands of 
Macrina and Peter and offering them to God 
with her dying breath, as the first-fruits and 
tenths of her womb, and was buried by them 
in her husband’s grave at the chapel of the 
“ Forty Martyrs.’’ Macrina sustained her 
third great sorrow in the death (Jan. 1, 379) of 
Basil, whom she had long regarded with 
reverential affection. Nine months after, her 
brother Gregory Nyssen paid her a visit. 
Owing to his banishment under Valens and 
other persecutions it was eight or nine years 
since they had met. He found the aged 
invalid, parched with fever, stretched on 
planks on the ground, the wood barely 
covered with a bit of sackcloth. The pallet 
was carefully arranged to face the east. On 
her brother’s approach she made a vain effort 
to rise to do him honour as a bishop ; Gregory 
prevented her, and had her placed on her bed 
(tb. 189). With great self-command Macrina, 
ἡ μεγάλη, as he delights to call her, restrained 
her groans, checked her asthmatic pantings, 
and putting on a cheerful countenance en- 
deavoured to divert him from the present 
sorrow. She ventured to speak of Basil's 
death; Gregory completely broke down ; and 
when her consolations proved unavailing, she 
rebuked him for sorrowing like those who had 
no hope for one fallen asleep in Christ. Gre- 
gory defending himself, she bid him argue out 
the point with her. After a somewhat prolix 
controversy, Macrina, as though under divine 
inspiration—xaddrep θεοφορουμένη τῷ ἁγίῳ 
Mvetuari—her words pouring out without 
stay, like water from a fountain (#5. 189), de- 
livered the long discourse on the resurrection 
and immortality of the soul which Gregory 
has recorded—more probably in his own than 
his dying sister’s words—in the de Anima 
ac Resurrectione Dialogus, entitled τὰ Μακρίνια 
(Opp. τ. iii. pp. 181-260). On the conclu- 
sion of this remarkable discourse (in which 
the purificatory nature of the fire of hell is 


680 MAGNENTIUS, FLAVIUS POPILIUS 


unmistakably set forth, the anguish being in 
exact proportion to the rootedness of the 
sinful habits—pérpov τῆς ἀλγηδόνης ἡ τῆς 
κακίας ἐν ἑκάστῳ ποσότης ἐστίν, Ῥ. 227), she 
noticed that her brother was weary and sent 
him to rest awhile in an arbour in the garden. 
Towards the close of the same day he revisited 
her bedside. She began a thankful review of 
her past life, recounting God’s mercies to her 
(ib. 191, 192). At last her voice failed, and 
only by the motion of her lips and her out- 
spread Παπᾶς---διαστολὴ τῶν xeipav—was she 
known to be praying. She signed her eyes, 
mouth, and breast with the cross. Dusk 
came on; lights were brought in; she im- 
mediately attempted to chant the ἐπιλύχνιος 
evxapioria—but ‘ silently with her hands and 
with her heart.’? She once more signed her- 
self on the face with the cross, gave a deep 
sigh, and finished her life and her prayers 
together (75. 195). Round her neck was 
found an iron cross, and a ring containing a 
particle of the true cross (7b. 198). She was 
buried by her brother in the grave of her 
parents in the chapel of the ‘‘ Forty Martyrs,” 
about a mile from her monastery. Gregory 
was assisted in carrying the bier by Araxius 
the bishop of the diocese (probably Ibora), and 
two of the leading clergy. After her death 
many miracles said to have been performed by 
her were reported to Gregory (ib. 199, 202-204). 


Tillem. Mém eccles. ix. 564-573. [E.v.] 
Magnentius, Flavius Popilius, emperor, 
350-353. He rose under Constantius to the 


rank of count ; and Constans gave him com- 
mand of the Jovian and Herculian legions 
embodied by Diocletian and Maximian I. 
On Jan. 18, 350, he was proclaimed emperor 
instead of Constans, then absent on a hunting 
expedition. Constans fled, but was murdered 
at Helena or Elve at the foot of the W. 
Pyrenees. Gaul and all the Western Empire, 
including Italy, Sicily, Spain, and Africa, 
submitted to the new emperor. Socrates 
(H. E. ii. 26) says that the general confusion 
of affairs now encouraged the enemies of 
Athanasius to accuse him to Constantius ; and 
Athanasius indignantly disclaims any corre- 
spondence or connexion with Magnentius, in 
the apology to Constantius ; some false charge 
of the kind may have been made (Athan. 
vol. i. pp. 603 seq. Migne). 

On Sept. 28, 351, the battle of Mursa on the 
Drave was fought, which deprived Magnen- 
tius of nearly all his provinces excepting Gaul. 
His last centre of operations was Lyons, and 
he fell upon his sword in Aug. 353. His coins, 
as Tillemont says (Hist. des Emp. iv. p. 354), 
prove his profession of Christianity ; and he 
employed bishops in his negotiations with 
Constantius (Athan. op. cit. p. 606). But his 
usurpation began an unbroken career of crimes, 
and Athanasins’s somewhat pithy summary of 
him (7. 603) as τὸν διάβολον Μαγνέντιον is 
confirmed after their fashion by Zosimus and 
Julian. [R.ST.J.T.] 

Majorianus, Julius Valerius, declared em- 
peror of the West Apr. 1, 457, at Columellae, 
six miles from Ravenna. Tillemont argues 
(Emp. vi. 634) that he did not become em- 
peror tillsome months later. Majorian appar- 
ently remained at Ravenna till Nov. 458, the 
year of his consulship, which was marked by 


MALCHION 


a series of remarkable laws, which may be 
found among the ‘‘ Novels”’ at the end of the 
Theodosian Code. An outline of these laws 
is given by Gibbon ; the seventh enacted that 
a curialis who had taken orders to avoid the 
duties of his position, if below the rank of a 
deacon, should be at once reduced to his 
original status, while, if he had been ordained 
deacon, priest, or bishop, he was declared 
incapable of alienating his property. The 
sixth law, intended to encourage marriage, 
forbade nuns to take the veil before the age of 
forty. A girl compelled by her parents to 
devote herself to perpetual virginity was to be 
at liberty to marry if at her parents’ death 
she was under 40. The whole of this law, 
except the restrictions on the testamentary 
power of widows, was repealed by Majorian’s 
successor, Severus. It is remarkable that the 
Catalogue of the Popes given by the Bolland- 
ists (AA. SS. Apr. i. 33) states that Leo the 
Great forbad a woman taking the veil before 
60 years of age, or according to a various 
reading 40, and that the roth canon of the 
council of Agde (Mansi, viii. 328), following 
the law of Majorian, fixes the age at 4o. 

On his arrival at Lyons, before the close of 
458, Majorian was greeted by Sidonius with a 
long panegyric (Carm. v.). At Arles, Mar. 28, 
460, he issued a law declaring ordinations 
against the will of the person ordained to be 
null; subjected an archdeacon who had taken 
part in such an ordination to a penalty of ten 
pounds of gold to be received by the informer, 
and referred abishop guilty of thesame offence 
to the judgment of the apostolic see. By the 
same law parents who compelled a son to take 
orders against his will were to forfeit to him 
a third part of their property. 

On Majorian’s return to Italy in 461 Ricimer 
excited a mutiny in the army against him at 
Tortona, forced him to abdicate on Aug. 2, 
and five days afterwards caused him to be 
assassinated on the banks of the Ira. [F.p.] 

Majorinus, a reader in the church at Car- 
thage, holding some domestic office in the 
household of Lucilla, who was, through her 
influence,chosen bp. inopposition to CAECILIAN. 
This Augustine and Optatus denounced as an 
act of rebellion, and it was undoubtedly one of 
the first steps towards definite schism, A.D. 311. 
His party afterwards became known by the 
greater name of Donatus. One of his con- 
secrators was Silvanus, Donatist bp. of Cirta, 
who was afterwards proved before Zenophilus 
to have been a “traditor.’’ Majorinus died 
c. 315. Aug. Epp. 433; 3, 16; 89; c. Parm. 
lil. ΤΥ, 18+ . Cresc. 11. 3 > 111. 30. 32: ἵν ἘΝ 
de Haer. 69; Opt. i. 14, 15, 19; Mon. Vet. 
Don. iv. ed. Oberthiir ; Tillemont, Mem. vi. 
15, 10, 24, 699, 700; Sparrow Simpson’s Aug. 
and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), p. 18. [H.w.P.] 

Malehion, a presbyter of Antioch in the 
reigns of Claudius and Aurelian, conspicuous 
for his prominent part in the deposition of the 
bp. of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, in 272. He 
was famed as a rhetorician and was a learned 
man well acquainted with heathen writers, 
from whom he was accustomed to make 
quotations (Hieron. Ep. Ixx. 4), and held, 
while a presbyter of the church, the office of 
president of the faculty of rhetoric (Eus. vil. 
29). The bishop having announced or implied 


MALCHUS 


doctrines concerning the nature of Christ 
which appeared to Malchion and most of his 
co-presbyters to be identical with the heresy 
of Artemon, he engaged him in a public dis- 
cussion, which was taken down by shorthand 
writers and published. He compelled Paul 
unwillingly to unveil his opinions, and ex- 
hibited him to the assembly as a heretic. A 
great council of bishops and presbyters having 
then been called together, and having con- 
demned Paul, Malchion was chosen to write 
the letter denouncing him as a heretic and a 
criminal to the bishops of Rome and Alex- 
andria, and through them to the world. The 
letter and the report of the discussion were 
known in the 4th and 5th cents. by Eusebius 
and Jerome; the latter enrolled Malchion in 
his list of illustrious church-writers, while the 
former cites at length the principal portions 
of the condemning letter (Eus. H. E. vii. 29, 
30 ; Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c. 71). Atrans. of the 
existing fragments of Malchion are in the 
Ante-Nic. Lib. (T. & T. Clark). [w.H.F.] 

Malehus (1), one of the earliest hermits in 
Syria, was seen in extreme old age by Jerome 
in 374 and told him the story of his life, which 
was written down by Jerome 16 years after- 
wards. He was born at Nisibis near Edessa, 
and was the only son of a proprietor of that 
district. He fled from his parents when they 
importuned him to marry, and joined one of 
the monastic establishments in the desert of 
Chalcis. As life advanced he desired to re- 
visit his home. The caravan was surprised 
by Arabs; he was made a slave, and set to 
feed flocks. He worked faithfully, and every- 
thing prospered in his hands. His master 
required him to marry a woman who was his 
companion in slavery. Malchus pretended to 
comply, but secretly told the woman that he 
would rather die by his own hand than break 
his vow of continency. He found her of the 
same mind, and indeed she had a husband 
living. The pair agreed, though living 
separately, to pass as man and wife. Aftera 
time they escaped to the Roman settlements 
in Mesopotamia. Finding the abbat of his 
monastery dead, Malchus took up his abode 
in the hamlet of Maronia, near Antioch, his 
reputed wife living with the virgins near. 
Maronia came by inheritance to Evagrius, 
afterwards bp. of Antioch, in whose company 
Jerome came from Italy in 374 ; and the story 
of the aged hermit confirmed Jerome in his 
desire for the life in the desert, on which he 
entered in 375 (Hieron. Vita Malchi, Opp. vol. 
li. 41, ed. Vall.). [W.H.F.] 

Mamertus (1), St., 18th bp. of Vienne, the 
elder brother of Claudian the poet, whom he 
ordained priest, and who is said to have 
assisted him in his episcopal labours. Our 
first authentic information about him is in 
463. The see of Die had been included by 
pope Leo in the province of Arles, but Mamer- 
tus had consecrated a bishop of it. Gundeu- 
chus, or Gundioc, king of the Burgundians, 
complained to pope Hilary, who took up the 
matter warmly, addressing a letter, Feb. 24, 
464, to various prelates, solemnly warning 
Mamertus. Mamertus was still alive at the 
death of his brother in 473 or 474 (Sid. Apoll. 
Ep. iv. 11, in Patr. Lat. lwiii. 515), but how 
long after is unknown, 


MAMERTUS 681 


Though not the inventor of Rogations or 
Litanies, Mamertus was undoubtedly the 
founder of the Rogation Days. Litanies of 
the kind were, on the evidence of Basil, in use 
in the East and, on that of Sidonius, in the 
West, but Mamertus first systematized them 
on the three days preceding Ascension Day. 
The story of their institution has been given 
by his contemporary Sidonius, by Avitus, 
Gregory of Tours, and others. Vienne, in 
some year before 474, had been terrified by 
portents and calamities. To atone for the 
sins of which these calamities were thought to 
be the penalties, Mamertus, with the joyful 
assent of the citizens, ordained a three days’ 
fast, with processions and an ordered service 
of prayer and song, which, for greater labour, 
was to take place outside the city. Its 
successful issue ensured its permanence, and 
from Vienne it spread over France and the 
West. Already in 470 or 474 Sidonius had 
established these services at Clermont, and 
looked to them as his chief hope in the threat- 
ened invasion of the Goths. In 511 the first 
council of Orleans recognized them and direct- 
ed their continuance (Mansi, viii. 355). For 
accounts of this institution see Ceillier, x. 946 ; 
Bingham, Antiquities, iv. 281 sqq. (1855); 
Smith, ἢ. C. A. art. “ Rogation Days" ; Gall. 
Christ. xvi. 15. S.A.B.] 

Mamertus (2), Claudianus clus, a 
learned writer of the last half of the 5th cent., 
one of the literary school of which Sidonius 
Apollinaris is the best-known member. He 
was a native of Gaul, and brother of the more 
famous Mamertus, archbp. of Vienne. Trained 
from his earliest years for the monastic life, 
he was educated in all the stores of Greek, 
Roman, and Christian literature. During his 
brother’s archbishopric he worked as a pres- 
byter in Vienne, and served so effectually as 
his right hand that some writers have repre- 
sented him as a “‘ bishop "’ under his brother. 
This, however, seems the result of a misinter- 
pretation (cf. Sirmondi, i. p. 539). As pres- 
byter he was specially useful in training the 
clergy, organizing the services of the church, 
and arranging the order of Psalms and Lessons 
for the year, and perhaps we may attribute to 
his influence the regular use of litanies upon 
Rogation Days established by his brother. 
He was no less eminent for intellectual power. 
When, c. 470, Faustus, bp. of Riez, published 
anonymously a treatise asserting the corpo- 
reality of the soul, Sidonius and other friends 
applied to Mamertus as best qualified to an- 
swer it, and the de Statu Animae was the 
result. Sidonius also mentions with warm 
praise a hymn he had written, and represents 
him as a great centre of intellectual discussion, 
“hominum aevi, loci, populi sui ingeniosiss- 
imus,” full of learning, eager for argument, 
patient with those who could not understand, 
and, in his work as a priest, thoughtful for all, 
open-handed, humble, not letting his bene- 
volence be known, the adviser and helper of 
his brother in all diocesan matters. He died 
c. 474, and his epitaph, composed by Sidonius, 
is the chief source of information about his 
life. (Sid. Apoll. Ep. iv. 2, 3, 1%, ν. 2; Gen- 
nadius, de Scrip. Ill. ce. 67 (?) and 81 ; and the 
Preface to his own work, de Statu Animage.) 

Besides two letters of his, we have (1) the 


082 MAMMAEA or MAMAEA, JULIA 


book mentioned above, de Statu Animae, and 
(2) some poems of doubtful authorship. 
Sidonius (u.s.) mentions with special praise a 
hymn by Claudian, but does not give its name. 
One scholiast says that it was the well-known 
“Pange lingua gloriosi,’ and one MS. of 
Gennadius (u.s.) states that that hymn was 
written by Claudian. It is, however, ordinar- 
ily found ascribed to Fortunatus (v. Daniel, 
Thes. Hymnol. iii. p. 285, iv. p. 68). 

Fabricius has also attributed to him an 
hexameter poem of 165 lines, ‘‘ contra vanos 
poetas ad collegam,’’ found in a Paris MS. 
without any author’s name. 

Possibly there should be assigned to him 
also a few smaller poems found among the 
works of the heathen poet Claudian, viz. two 
short hexameter poems entitled ‘‘ Laus 
Christi’’ and ‘‘ Carmen Paschale,’’ some short 
epigrammatic praises of the paradox of the 
Incarnation, an elegiac account of Christ’s 
miracles, an elegiac appeal to a friend not to 
criticize his verses too severely, and two short 
Greek hexameter addresses to Christ, Eis τὸν 
σωτῆρα and Εἰς τὸν δεσπότην Χριστόν. 

The works are in Migne, vol. liii. ; Bzbl. Vet. 
Pair. Lugd. 1677, vi. p. 1050; ed. Galland. 
X. p. 417, and in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. 
vol. xi. (1885) ; the poems in Fabricius, Poet. 
Christ. p. 777. The de Statu Animae has been 
separately edited, notably by Peter Mosel- 
lanus (Basil, 1504), Barth (Cycneae, 1655), 
Schulze (Dresden, 1883). [w..] 

Mammaea or Mamaea, Julia, the daughter 
of Julia Moesa, and niece of Julia Domna, the 
wife of the emperor Septimius Severus. She 
played for a short time a conspicuous part in 
Roman history, not without some interesting 
points of contact with the Christian church. 
By her marriage with the Syrian Gessius Mar- 
cianus she became the mother of Alexander 
Severus, and soon afterwards was a widow. 
With her mother and her sister Soaemias, the 
mother of ELAGABALUS, she went, at the 
command of Macrinus after the death of Cara- 
calla, to reside at Emesa. On the election of 
her nephew Elagabalus as emperor, she went 
with him and her son Alexander, then 13 years 
old, to Rome, and it speaks well for her prud- 
ence and goodness that she continued to secure 
the life of her son from the jealous suspicions 
of the tyrant and to preserve him from the 
fathomless impurity which ran riot in the 
imperial court. There are sufficient reasons 
for assigning this watchfulness to at least the 
indirect influence of Christian life and teach- 
ing. Possibly, as in the time of Nero, there 
may have been disciples of the new faith 
among the slaves of Caesar’s household, whom 
she learnt to respect and imitate. On the 
death of Elagabalus, a.p. 222, and the election 
of her son by the Praetorian Guard, she 
attained great influence. Her leanings to the 
Christian society were shewn more distinctly 
when she was with the emperor at Antioch, 
and hearing that Origen, already famous as a 
preacher, was at Caesarea, invited him to visit 
them with the honour of a military escort, 
welcomed him with all honour, and listened 
attentively as he unfolded the excellence of the 
faith of Christ (Eus. H. E. vi.21). It does not 
appear that she ever made a definite profession 
of belief, and her religion, though it won from 


MANES 


Eusebius (1.6.) the epithets of θεοσεβεστάτη 
and εὐλαβής, and from Jerome (de Script. 
Eccles. c. 54) that of religiosa, was probably 
of the syncretistic type then prevalent, which 
shewed itself, in its better form, in Alexander’s 
adoption of Christian rules of action, and in 
his placing busts of Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, 
and Apollonius of Tyana in his private 
oratory (Lamprid. Vit. Sev. c. 29, 43), and in 
its worst when Elagabalus wished to build a 
temple on the Capitol in which Jews, Samar- 
itans, Christians, and Romans were to unite 
in worshipping the Deity whose name he had 
adopted. Both mother and son, in conse- 
quence of these tendencies, came under the 
lash of Julian, who sneers at the childish 
unwisdom of the latter in submitting his own 
will to Mammaea’s and gratifying her greed 
of gain (de Caesarr. p. 315), and represents 
him as weakly bemoaning his disaster. Mam- 
maea shared her son’s fate when the troops 
rose and murdered him in Gaul, and her last 
moments were embittered by her son’s re- 
proaches for the pride and avarice which had 
wrought their common ruin (Gibbon, cc. vi. 
and vii. and authorities cited above). [E.H.P.] 

Manes (called also Mani among Oriental 
writers, Μανιχαῖος and Manichaeus among 
Greeks and Latins). The lives of all ancient 
heretics have suffered much from the mis- 
representations of their opponents. In the 
case of Manes there is the additional difficulty 
that we have two contradictory accounts in 
the Western and Eastern traditions. The 
Western story is derived from the Acts of 
Archelaus, bp. of Caschar; the Eastern from 
Persian and Arabian historians. Our earliest 
authentic notice of him is in Eusebius (H. E. 
vii. 31), where he is described ‘‘ as a barbarian 
in life, both in speech and conduct, who 
attempted to form himself into a Christ, and 
then also proclaimed himself to be the very 
Paraclete and the Holy Spirit. Then, as if he 
were Christ, he selected twelve disciples. the 
partners of his new religion, and after patching 
together false and ungodly doctrines, collected 
from a thousand heresies long since extinct, 
he swept them off like a deadly poison, from 
Persia, upon this part of the world.’ The 
Acta Archelat were forged by some romancing 
Greek between A.D. 330 and 340, as we first 
find them quoted by Cyrill. Hieros. (Catech. vi., 
written A.D. 348-350), and Eusebius in his 
history, pub. 326-330, knows nothing of them. 
If genuine, it is scarcely possible that Eusebius, 
living but a few miles from Jerusalem and with 
all the imperial resources at his back, could 
have been ignorant of a dispute which must 
have made such a noise all over Syria and 
Mesopotamia. [ARCHELAUS.] 

Upon the story told by the Syrian, Persian, 
and Arab historians and chroniclers known to 
Beausobre he places much more reliance than 
upon the Western tradition (pt. i. liv. ii. ce. 
i.-iv.). It runs thus: Manes was born 6. 240, 
and descended from a Magian family. He 
was well educated in Greek, music, mathe- 
matics, geography, astronomy, painting, 
medicine, and the Scriptures. Being very 
zealous for the faith, he was ordained priest 
while yet young, but becoming a heretic he 
went to the court of Sapor, whom he prosely- 
tized to his views, c. 267, but as soon as he 


MANES 


opened his views more fully the king resolved 
to put him to death. In fact, a real revival of 
Zoroastrian doctrine had taken place under 
his reign, and as soon as Manes disclosed his 
full pien it was seen to involve the overthrow 
of the national religion. He then fled into 
Turkestan, where he gained many disciples, 
used his talents to adorn a temple with paint- 
ings, and hiding himself in a cave for 12 
months produced his gospel in a book em- 
bellished with beautiful figures. He returned 
to Persia, and presented this to king Hormis- 
das, who protected him and embraced his 
views. This king, dying within two years, 
was succeeded by Varanes I. a.p. 273, who 
was at first favourable to Manes. The 
national priesthood, however, becoming al- 
armed at the power of his sect, challenged him 
to a disputation before the king, after which 
he was condemned to die as a heretic. Accord- 
ing to some he was crucified, according to 
others cut in two or flayed alive (Hyde, 
Rel. Vet. Pers. p. 283; Renaudot, Hist. 
Pat. Alex. pp. 40-49; Eutych. Annal. Alex. 
t. i. p. 387; Hotting. Hist. Orient. i. 3). 
Varanes instituted a general persecution of the 
'Manicheans after his death. Eutychius (l.c.) 
reports a savage jest of his on this subject. 
He put to death 200 Manicheans, and caused 
them to be buried with their heads down and 
their feet projecting above ground. He then 
boasted he had a garden planted with men 
instead of trees. The persecution was so 
severe that adherents of the sect fled into all 
the neighbouring lands—India, China, Tur- 
kestan, etc. The pretext of the persecution 
was that the spread of the sect was hostile to 
the human race through their opposition to 
marriage (Assem. Bibl. Or. iii. 220). 

Since Beausobre’s time the sources of 
Oriental knowledge have been much enlarged, 
and modern research inclines more and more 
to trust the concordant testimony of Persian, 
Arabic,and Armenian historians, as opposed to 
the Byzantines, about the affairs of W. Asia. 
According to these Eastern authorities, the 
father of Manes came originally from Persia to 
Babylon, where Manes was born. One day 
his father heard in a temple a voice saying, 
“‘Eat no flesh, drink no wine, and abstain 
from women,’”’ whereupon he founded the sect 
of the Mugtasila or the Washers, identical 
with the Sabians of the Marshes between the 
Tigris and Euphrates, still found near Bassora. 
In this sect Manes was brought up, being 
instructed in all the knowledge of his time. 
At 12 years old an angel announced to him 
that when older he should abandon that sect. 
At 24 the same angel summoned him to found 
Manicheism in these words: ‘‘ Hail, Manes, 
from me and from the Lord which has sent 
me to thee and chosen thee for his work. 
Now he commands thee to proclaim the glad 
tidings of the truth which comes from him, 
and bestow thereon thy whole zeal.” Manes, 
according to one tradition, entered on his 
office the day that Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, 
succeeded to the throne, Sun. Apr. 1, 238, as 
Fliigel determines by a lengthened calculation 
(pp. 146-149). According to another (p. 85) 
Manes appeared in the znd year of the em- 
peror Gallus, A.D. 252 (pp. 150-162). He 


claimed to be the Paraclete promised by) 


MANICHEANS 683 


Christ, and derived his dogmas from Persian 
and Christian sources. Before Manes met 
Sapor he travelled for 40 years through 
various countries. Upon his return he in- 
vited Firuz, the brother of Sapor and son of 
Artaxerxes, to accept his doctrines. Through 
him he was introduced to Sapor, who shewed 
him great respect, though he had previously 
intended to slay him. He promised reforma- 
tion of his own life and freedom to Manes‘s 
adherents to preach their views. Already the 
sect had spread into India, China, and Tur- 
kestan. Manes was put to death by Varanes 
I. (272-276), and his body, cut in two, was 
suspended over the two gates of the city 
Dschundisdbir, pp. 99, 329-334. A version 
of his history which later research has brought 
to light is in Albirdni’s Chronology of Ancient 
Nations, trans. by E. Sachau and pub. by the 
Oriental Trans. Fund in 1879. It is a most 
important document, and well deserves the 
praise the learned editor lavishes upon it in 
his introduction. In many particulars it 
strikingly confirms the narrative of an-Nadim 
iven by Fliigel, both being probably derived 
rom Manichean sources. Albirini was a 
native of Khiva, a.p. 973-1048, and lived and 
wrote near there. This work proves him to 
have possessed vast literary resources no longer 
available, but some of which may yet be found 
in Central Asia. (Cf. art. by Thomas on Recent 
Pehlvi Dectpherments in Jour. Asiat. Soc. 1871, 
p- 417.) The writings of Manes were very 
numerous. From Albirfini’s work we learn 
that some were still in existence in the rrth 
cent. They were written in Persian and 
Syriac, and, according to Muhammad ben 
Ishak, in a character peculiar to the Mani- 
cheans. Of this alphabet Fliigel in his com- 
mentary, p. 167, gives a copy. It contained 
more letters than the Syriac, and was chiefly 
used by the Manicheans of Samarkhand and 
Transoxania, where the Marcionites who still 
existed there in the roth cent. used a similar 
character. The names of his books, according 
to Beausobre, are his Gospel; his Treasure of 
Life ; Book of Chapters; Treatise about the 
Faith, which Beausobre (t. i. p. 427) believes 
identical with his Mysteries (μυστήρια, Epiph. 
Haer. \xvi. 14), of which too he gives an 
analysis, with which cf. the very different one 
by Muhammad ben Ishak in Fliigel, p. 102 ; 
Book about the Giants, known in Syriac at the 
court of Baghdad so late as the oth cent. 
(Jour. Asiat. Mar. 1835, p. 260). According to 
Epiphanius he also wrote treatises on astron- 
omy, astrology, and magic. To his Funda- 
mental Epistle Augustine replies in his treatise 
cont. Ep. Fundamenti. This last seems to 
have been specially popular in Africa. In 
Fabric. (Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. i.) will be found 
a collection of fragments from his epistles and 
a list of his works. [G.T.8.] 
Manicheans ( Maviyaia, Epiph. Haer. Ixvi., 
where they are also called 'Axovaviras from 
‘Axovas. one of their leaders, who carried the 
heresy from Mesopotamia to Eleutheropolis). 
For the personal history of Manes see last art. 
We now treat of the origin, principles, cultus, 
literature, and history of the sect called after 
him; which was, indeed, not so much a 
definite sect as a vast indefinite spiritual and 
intellectual movement, which from its very 


084 MANICHEANS 


vastness eludes, or at least renders very diffi- 
cult, definite historical treatment. 

(1) Origin and Principles of Manicheism.— 
For the fountain of the Manichean heresy we 
must turn to India (see Baur, Das Manicha- 
ische Religionssystem, Tiibingen, 1831, pp. 433- 
451, where there is satisfactory evidence that 
elements derived both from Buddhism and 
from Zoroastrism are found in the Manichean 
system). Darmester recognized the influence 
of the Zend-Avesta and Zoroastrism upon 
Manicheism: cf. Zend-Avesta in Sacred Books of 
the East, t. iv. intro. p. xxxvii. For athorough 
exposition of this system see the two large 
works of Beausobre, Baur’s vol. of 500 pp., 
and Neander’s Church Hist. (Bohn’s ed.), t. ii. 
pp- 157-195. We must content ourselves with 
sketching the leading principles of the sect. 
Manes probably at first merely desired to 
blend Christianity and Zoroastrism together. 
From Zoroastrism he took his Dualism, which 
consisted of two independent principles 
absolutely opposed to each other, with their 
opposite creations: on the one side God 
(Ahura-Mazda), the original good from whom 
nothing but good can proceed ; on the other 
side original evil (Angro-Mainyus), whose 
essence is wild, self-conflicting tumult, matter, 
darkness, a world full of smoke and vapour. 
The powers of darkness, contending in wild 
rage, approached so near in their blind 
struggle to the realm of light that a gleam from 
that hitherto unknown kingdom reached them, 
whereupon they strove to force their way into 
it. The good God, in order to guard His 
boundaries, produced the Aeon Mother of Life, 
by whom the first or spiritual man was pro- 
duced, together with the five elements, wind, 
light, water, fire, and matter, to carry on the 
struggle ; which, however, are not identical 
with the actual elements, but are the elements 
of the higher world, of which the mundane and 
actual elements are a copy framed by the 
Prince of Darkness, a view we find worked out 
by the Cathari of the 12th cent. (Gieseler, H. 
E. iii. 452). Primitive man is worsted by the 
spirits of darkness, who take from him some 
of his armour, which is his soul (ψυχή). He 
prays to the Light-King, who sends the Spirit 
of Life, who rescues him and raises him once 
more to the Light-Kingdom. Meanwhile the 
Powers of Darkness had succeeded in swallow- 
ing part of the luminous essence of the prim- 


eval heavenly man, which they proceeded to | 


shut up in material bodies, as in a prison. 
But this very violence is the means of their 
destruction. The Divine Spirit is only en- 
closed in the material prisons for a time and 
with a view to final deliverance. To illustrate 
this Manes used a parable. A shepherd sees 
a wild beast about to rush into the midst of 
his flock. He digs a pit and casts into it a 
kid ; the beast springs into the pit to devour 
his prey, but cannot extricate himself. The 
shepherd, however, delivers the kid and leaves 
the lion to perish (Disp. c. Archel. c. 25; 
Epiph. Haer. Ixvi. c. 44). The Spirit of Life at 
once began his preparations for purifying the 
souls which had been mixed up with the 
kingdom of darkness. That part of the soul 
which had not been affected by matter he 
placed in the sun and moon, whence it might 
send forth its influence to release and draw 


MANICHEANS 


back towards itself, through the refining pro- 
cesses of vegetable and animal life, kindred 
souls diffused through all nature; for the sun 
and moon play as important a part in the 
Manichean as they do in the Persian, Indian, 
and Mithraic systems (C. B. Stark, Zwet 
Mithraeen, Heidelberg, 1864, p. 43). To 
prevent this gradual despiritualization the 
powers of darkness resolve to produce a being 
in whom the soul of nature, which was ever 
striving after liberty, might be securely 
imprisoned. This is man as he is now, shaped 
after the image of the primitive man with 
whom they originally waged war. He was 
formed by the prince of darkness, and em- 
braces in himself the elements of both worlds, 
the soul springing from the Light-Kingdom, 
the body from that of darkness. The powers 
of darkness now perceive that the light-nature, 
by concentrating itself in man, has become 
powerful. They therefore seek to attach him 
by every possible enticement to the lower 
world. Here comes in the Manichean story 
of the Fall, which resembles that of the 
Ophites. The Powers of Darkness invited 
man to partake of all the trees of Paradise, 
forbidding only the tree of Knowledge. But 
an angel of light, or Christ Himself, the Spirit 
of the Sun, counteracted their artifices in the 
shape of the serpent, the parts of the Biblical 
narrative being thus reversed, God’s share 
being ascribed to the devil and vice versa. 
The Manichean standpoint with respect to the 
Fall determined their attitude towards the 
whole O.T., which they rejected as the work 
of the evil principle. Likewise their theory 
about the creation of the material part of man 
determined their view of the Incarnation, 
which they regarded as wholly Docetic; if a 
material body was a prison and a burden to 
the spirit of man, Christ could scarcely volun- 
tarily imprison His divine Spirit in the same. 
** Moreover, the Son, when He came for man’s 
salvation, assumed a human appearance, so 
that He appeared to men as if He were a man, 
and men thought He had been born ”’ (Epiph. 
Haer. \xvi. 49). This Docetic view of the 
Incarnation destroyed the reality of His life, 
His death, resurrection, and ascension, and 
struck at the root of all historical Christianity, 
so that we find at last some later Manicheans 
maintaining a distinction between the mun- 
dane or historical Christ, who was a bad man, 
and the spiritual Christ, Who was a divine 
deliverer (Gieseler, H. E. iii. 407, note 28). 
They attached a mystical signification to 
orthodox language about our Lord, whereby 
they could use it to deceive the unwary. Thus 
they could speak of a suffering son of man 
hanging on every tree—of a Christ crucified 
in every soul and suffering in matter. They 
gave their own interpretation to the symbols 
of the suffering Son of Man in the Lord’s 
Supper (cf. Petrus Sic. Hist. Man. in Bigne’s 
Bib. PP. xvi. 760). Fora thorough exposition 
of the relations between Manicheism and 
Buddhism see Baur, 1.6. pp. 433-451, where he 
points out Buddhist influence on Manichean 
doctrines as to the opposition between matter 
and spirit, upon the creation and end of the 
world, and upon moral questions. The most 
striking paints of contact are metempsychosis 
(Baur, 1.0. p. 440), and the stress laid upon 


MANICHEANS 


gnosis. The former is the outer way, whereby 
souls can return thither whence they have 
descended. The latter is the inner and 
highest way (cf. Colebrooke’s Essays, ii. 382, 
389, for the universal influence of this view in 
India). In both systems asceticism was the 
practical result of the opposition between 
matter and spirit ; the more matter could be 
crushed, the nearer the spirit came to its ori- 
ginal source (cf. Lassen, Ind. Alterthum. iii. 
408-415). 

(2) Organization.—Perhaps, however, it is 
on the practical organization of the system 
that Buddhist influence is most clearly seen. 
Manicheism differed from Gnosticism, for the 
latter did not wish to alter anything in the 
constitution of the existing church, but only 
desired to add to the Confession of Faith for 
the Yuyixol asecret doctrine for the πνευματικοί; 
while Manes, as the Paraclete, set up a new 
church instead of the old, which, even in the 
persons of the apostles, had been corrupted by 
Jewish traditions. In the Manichean church 
the gradations were similar to those among 
the Buddhists (cf. H. H. Wilson’s Opp. t. ii. 
p- 360, Essay on Buddha and Buddhism). 
There was first the great body consisting of 
the auditores, from whom a less strict course 
of life was demanded, and one of whose leading 
duties was to supply the other and higher class, 
the Elect or Perfect, with food and other 
necessaries. From these last an ascetic life 
was demanded. They should possess no pro- 
perty, were bound to a celibate and contem- 
plative life, abstaining from all strong drinks 
and animal food. They should hurt no living 
thing, from a religious reverence for the divine 
life diffused through all nature. Not only 
should they take no life, but not even pull up 
a herb or pluck fruits or flowers (Aug. cont. 
Faust. v. 6, vi. 4). Thus Epiphanius (Haer. 
Ixvi. c. 28) tells us that when their followers 
presented one of the Elect with food, he first 
addressed it thus: “1 have neither reaped 
nor ground, nor pressed nor cast thee into the 
oven. All these things another has done, and 
brought theetome. Iam free from all fault.” 
Upon which he said to his disciple, 1 have 
prayed for thee,’’ and let him go (cf. Von 
Wegnern, de Manich. Indulgent. pp. 69 seq.). 
Here is an essential Pantheism, a tendency 
which Manicheism manifestly draws from 
Buddhism (Hodgson, Jour. Roy. As. Soc. 1835, 
p- 295; Matter, Hist. du Gnostic. t. ii. 357) 
and which develops further in the course of 
its history. St. Augustine noted this point in 
his reply to Faustus, ii. 5, xii. 13; cf. Aug. 
Epp. 165, 166, c.iii.§ 7; Ep. 74 ad Deuterium 
Episcop.; Toll. Instg. p. 137; Muratorii, 
Anecd. Ambros. Biblioth.ii.112. Manesderived 
from Christianity another element of his oe 
tem. As the Paraclete promised by Christ, he, 
after Christ’s example, chose twelve apostles, in 
whom the government of the sect was placed. 
At their head there was a thirteenth, repre- 
senting Manes and presiding over all (Fligel’s 
Mani, pp. 97, 298, 316; Baur, l.c. p. 305); 
subordinate to them there were 72 bishops, 
under whom were presbyters, deacons, and 
travelling missionaries, a constitution which 
lasted to the 13th cent. and possibly may not 
be yet quite extinct. 


MANICHEANS 685 


peculiar rites, though their mystical interpre- 
tation of language enabled them to hold the 
highest position in the Christian ministry, as 
in an-Nadim's time, a.p. 987, it enabled them 
to conform externally to the Mohammedan 
system (Fliigel’s Mani, pp. 107, 404-408). 
Thus Eutychius, Pat. Alex. Annal. t. i. p. $15 
(cf. Renaudot, Hist. Patr. Alexand. p. ror), 
tells how Timotheus, Pat. Alex., discovered 
Manicheans among the Egyptian bishops at 
the council of Constantinople by permitting 
the bishops and monks to eat flesh on Sundays, 
which the Manicheans would not do. Their 
worship consisted in prayers and hymns. 
They had neither temples, altars, incense, nor 
images. They fasted on Sunday. They re- 
garded Easter lightly, as a festival which in 
their system had no meaning. They observed 
Pentecost, but not Christmas or Epiphany. 
Their great festival was that of Bema, Reid in 
March in memory of their founder's death. 
An empty chair or pulpit, richly upholstered, 
was then placed in their assembly, as a sym- 
bol of his presence, while one of his works, 
probably his Fundamental Epistle, was read, 
together with the records of his martyrdom 
(cf. Aug. Reply to Fund. Epist. c. viii.; cont. 
Faust. xviii. 5). As to their sacraments, the 
authorities vary much. Beausobre (t. ii. 
liv. ix. c. vi.) maintained strongly that they 
baptized even infants, and that in the name 
of the Trinity. On the other hand Augustine, 
de Haer. c. xlvi.; cont. Ep. Pelag. lib. ii. and 
other places cited by Beausobre, /.c. p. 714 n. ; 
Cedren. Hist. Comp., Opp. τ. i. col. 831, Migne’s 
Patr. Gk. t. cxxi., expressly assert that they 
rejected baptism with water ; and Timotheus 
C. P. in his Form. Recep. Haer. classes them 
among those heretics who must receive bap- 
tism on joining the church, a rule which seems 
to have prevailed from the 4th cent. (Bever- 
idge, Cod. Canon. Eccles. Primit. lib. ii. c. 12 ; 
Basil. Ep. clxxxviii.). Certainly their 
practice in the r2th cent. would support this 
latter view, as they then substituted their 
Consolamentum or laying on of hands—which 
they called the baptism of the Holy Ghost— 

for water baptism, which they scorned (ef. 
Gieseler, H. E.iii. 397, 410n.). For the Mani- 
cheans to admit baptism with water would 
seem inconsistent with their fundamental 
principle of the essentially evil nature of 
matter (cf. Tertull. cont. Marcion. i. 23). 
But we cannot expect perfect consistency, as 
in another respect they seem to have retained 
from the Zoroastrian system an exaggerated 
reverence for water. As to their Eucharist 
there is the same diversity of testimony and a 
similar accusation of filthy practices. They 
celebrated the communion, substituting water 
for wine, the use of which they abhorred. 
About the disgusting ceremonial of Ischas, 
which Cyril. Hier. (Cat. vi.), Augustine (Haer. 
xlvi.), and Pope Leo I. (ser. v. De Jejun. x. 
Mens.) accuse them of adding to their com- 
munion in a foul manner, see Beausobre, liv. 
ix. cc. 7-9 in t. ii. pp. 720-762. 

Manicheism has been the prolific parent of 
false gospels. (Leucitus (1); Manes.) But 
the work of forgery was due not so much to 
Manes as to his followers, and it is almost 
certain that Manicheism merely adopted many 


(3) Cultus.—The Manicheans had their own | apocryphal writings. 


686 MANICHEANS 


(4) History after Death of Manes.—(i) In the 
East, where they originated, the Manicheans 
made rapid progress, spreading, as an-Nadim 
(Fliigel’s Manzi, p. 105, cf. p. 394) tells us, 
into various lands. During their persecution 
upon the death of Manes, they fled into Trans- 
oxania, whence they maintained a constant 
communication with Babylon, their original 
seat, as the head of the sect always remained 
there till the Mohammedan invasion. They 
spread into S. Armenia and Cappadocia, where 
they found material ready to their hand in 
the Hypsistarm of that region (Matter, 
Gnosticism, ii. 392), whence they came into 
immediate contact with Europe. A proof of 
their activity in Armenia is found in the work 
of Eznig, one of the leading writers of Armenia 
in the 5th cent., pub. by the Mekhitarite 
monks at Venice in 1826 under the title Re- 
futatio Errorum Persarum et Manichaeorum. 
Their progress seems to have been intensified 
by the Mazdakite movement in the 5th cent., 
which was only a revival of Manicheism. It 
displayed the same missionary activity which 
manifested itself in an aggression upon the 
orthodox of Armenia, A.D. 590, noted by the 
Armenian historian Samuel of Ani. He gives 
us a list of Manichean works which they in- 
troduced into Armenia, including the Peni- 
tence or Apocalypse of Adam (pub. by Renan 
in the Jour. Astat. 1853, t. 11. p. 431), the 
Explanation of the Gospel of Manes, the Gospel 
of the Infancy, the Vision of St. Paul, and the 
Testament of Adam. 

(ii) In the West the first notice of an advance 
is found in an edict (given in Gieseler, H. E. 
i. 228) of Diocletian, directed to Julian, pro- 
consul of Africa, dated prid. kal. Apr. 287, 
wherein Manichean leaders are condemned to 


the stake, and their adherents punished with | 


and confiscation of all their 


decapitation 
‘““a new and unheard-of 


goods, as following 
monster, 
Persians, a hostile people, and has perpetrated 
many misdeeds.’’ The genuineness of this 
edict has been challenged, but is defended by 
Neander, H. E. ii. 195, n. The chief ground 
for disputing it is the silence of the Fathers, 
specially of Eusebius. But the argument e 
stlentio is never a safe one, and Ambrosiaster 
mentions it when commenting upon II. Tim. iii. 
7. It is addressed to the proconsul of Africa, 
where the Manicheans were making great pro- 
gress. This coincides with the fact, known 
independently, that Manes sent aspecial envoy 
to Africa, where, during the 4th cent., Mani- 
cheism flourished, both among the monks and 
clergy of Egypt and in proconsular Africa, 
ensnaring souls like St. Augustine ; and where 
they must have been very numerous and 
powerful, since, notwithstanding the severe 
and bloody laws enacted against them by 


Valentinian, a.D.372,and Theodosius, A.D. 381, | 


they assembled, taught, and debated in public 
in Augustine’s time. Yet in some places 


these laws were not empty threats, for the} 
heathen rhetorician Libanius appealed in be- | 


half of the Manicheans of Palestine (Ep. 1344). 
Probably, as in the case of the pagan per- 
secutions, the vigour with which they were 
enforced varied with the dispositions of local 
magistrates. From Africa the sect spread 
into Spain, Gaul, and Aquitaine (Philast. Haer. 


which has come to us from the | 


MARANA and CYRA 


c. 61, 84), where it may have originated Pris 
cillianism (Muratori, Anecd. ex Ambros. Bib- 
lioth. Codic. ii. 113, ed. 1698). Later we find 
the Arian king Hunneric persecuting it in 
Africa, together with the orthodox, A.D. 477 
(Vict. Vit. Hist. Persec. Wand. ii. intt.). We 
of course find the sect at Constantinople and 
at Rome. Constantine the Great commis- 
sioned a certain Strategius—who, under the 
name of Musonianus, rose to be praetorian 
prefect of the East—to report upon it (Am- 
mian. Marcell. xv. 13) ; while again, 200 years 
later, in the end of the 5th and beginning of 
the 6th cent., Manicheism in the Mazdakite 
movement made an imperial convert in An- 
astasius I. At Rome they were found from 
ancient times. Lipsius in Jahrb. Prot. Theol. 
1879, art. on Neue Stud. zur Papst-Chronologie, 
p- 438, discusses a constitution of pope An- 
astasius I. a.p. 398, enacted on account of 
their recent immigration from beyond the 
seas. After the barbarian invasion of Africa 
they fled to Rome in great numbers, and pope 
Leo I. was active in their repression. Leo 
says that the Manicheans, whom, with the aid 
of the civil magistrates, he arrested, acknow- 
ledged their dissolute practices; whereupon 
Valentinian III. published a very severe law 
against them. Notwithstanding all the papal 
efforts, renewed from age to age, we still find 
the sect at Rome in 7th cent., under Gregory 
the Great (cf. Greg. Mag. lib. ii. Ep. 37; 
Gieseler, H. E. t. ii. p. 491, Clark’s ed.). 

(5) Remains of the Sect and of its Literature.— 
In the Yezedees, or Devil-worshippers of 
Mosul, and the Ansairees of Syria, we have 
their direct representatives; while mingled 
with the doctrines of the Sabians or Hemero- 
baptistae, who still linger in the neighbour- 
hood of Harran, we have a large Manichean 
element. See Badger’s Nestorians, t. i. ce. 
ix. x.; Lyde’s Asian Mystery, and Layard’s 
Nineveh, c. ix., as confirming this view by 
several interesting facts, cf. also Notes sur les 
sectes de Kurdistan, par T. Gilbert, in Jour. 
Astat. 1873, t. 11. p. 393. Cahier maintained, 
in Mel. archéol. i. 148, that the Bogomili and 
the Massalians, branches of the same sect, 
still existed (1888) in Russia. We still possess 
some specimens of their literature, and a criti- 
cal examination of Mohammedan MSS. and a 
complete investigation of the interior state of 
Western and Central Asia would probably re- 
veal them in still larger abundance (Beausob. 
Hist. Man. t. i. p. 366, andn. 4). Renan pub- 
lished in 1853, in the Jour. Asiat. a Syriac 
document called the Apocalypse of Adam, 
which he shewed to be one of those brought by 
the Manicheans into Armenia in 590 A.D. and 
condemned in the celebrated Gelasian decree. 
See Harnack, Dogmengesch. vol. ii. (4th ed. 
1909), pp. 513-527. [GELASIUS.]  [G.T.S.] 

Mar Abaor Mar-Abas. [NESTORIANCHURCH; 
Tuomas (8).] 

Marana and Cyra, two ladies of birth and 
education of Beroea in Syria, who in their 
youth devoted themselves to a solitary life of 
the extremest austerity, which they had perse- 
vered in for 42 years when Theodoret wrote 
his Religiosa Historia. According to Theo- 
doret they left home with some female ser- 
vants whom they had inspired with the same 
ascetic fervour and built a small stone en- 


MARCELLA 


closure, open to the.sky, the door of which 
they closed up with mud and stones, their only 
means of communication with the outer world 
being a small window through which they 
took in food. Only females were allowed to 
converse with Marana, and that only at 
Easter; Cyra no one had ever heard speak. 
For their maidens a small hovel was con- 


structed within earshot, so that they could | 


encourage them by their example and by 
their words to a life of prayer and holy love. 
Theodoret often visited these recluses and in 
honour of his priestly office they unwalled 
their door and admitted him into the en- 
closure, which he found devoid of any pro- 
tection against the heat or cold, rain or snow. 
Their heads and the whole upper part of their 
bodies were enveloped in long hoods, entirely 
concealing their faces, breasts, and hands. 
They wore chains of iron round their necks, 
waists, and wrists, of such weight as to pre- 
vent Cyra, who was of weak frame, from 
raising herself upright. These they laid aside 
at Theodoret’s request, but resumed after he 
left. Their fastings equalled in length those of 
Moses and David. Fired with a desire to visit 
holy sites, they made a pilgrimage to J erusa- 
lem, not eating once on the journey nor as 
they returned, and only breaking their fast at 
Jerusalem. They practised the same rigid 
abstinence on a second pilgrimage to the tomb 


of St. Thecla at the Isaurian Seleucia. Theod. 
Hist. Relig. c. 29; Basil. Menol. Feb. 28; 
Tillem. ii. 64; Ceill. x. 63. [E.v.] 


Marcella, the friend of Jerome, from whose 
writings and memoir of her(Ep.cxxvii.ed. Vall.) 
she is chiefly known. She was descended from 
the illustrious Roman family of the Marcelli, 
and had great wealth. Her mother Albina 
was a widow when Athanasius came as an 
exile to Rome in 340. From Athanasius and 
his companions she heard of Anthony and the 
monasteries of the Thebaid, and received her 
first impulse towards the ascetic life. She 
married, but her husband died after seven 
months, and she refused a second marriage 
offered her by the wealthy Cerealis, a man of 
consular rank but advanced in years. Her 
ascetic tendency was confirmed by the coming 
to Rome of the Egyptian monk Peter in 374. 
She was the first in the city to make the 
monastic profession. She continued to live 
with her mother in their palatial residence on 
the Aventine, but with the utmost simplicity. 
She was not immoderate in her asceticism, and 
followed the counsels of her mother, from 
whose society she never departed. 

When Jerome came to Rome in 382, she 
sought him out because of his repute for 
Biblical learning, and made him, at first 
against his will, her constant companion. A 
circle of ladies gathered round her, and her 
house became a kind of convent dedicated to 
the study of the Scriptures, and to psalmody 
and prayer. Marcella was eager for informa- 
tion, and would not accept any doubtful ex- 
planation, so that Jerome found himself in 
the presence of a judge rather than a disciple. 
At times she took her teacher to task for his 
severity and quarrelsomeness (Ep. xxvii. 2, 
ed. Vall.). He wrote for her some 15 different 
treatises on difficult passages of Scripture and 
church history ; and on his departure in 385 


MARCELLINUS 687 


hoped that she might have accompanied her 
intimate friends Paula and Eustochium to 
Palestine. A letter written by those two 
ladies on their settlement at Bethlehem (in 
Jerome, Ep. xliv. ed. Vall.) invites her in glow- 
Ing terms to come and enjoy with them the 
Holy Land; but she remained at Rome. After 
her mother's death in 387 she retired to a 
little house outside the city with her young 
friend Principia and devoted her whole time 
to good works. She still had a keen interest 
in Jerome's theological pursuits, and when 
Rufinus came to Rome and disputes arose as 
to his translation of Origen’s περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν, she 
threw herself eagerly into the controversy. 
Having, in conjunction with Pammachius and 
Oceanus, ascertained Jerome's view of the 
matter, she urged the pope Anastasius (400- 
403) to condemn Origen and his defenders ; 
and, when he hesitated, went to him and 
pointed out the passages which, she contended, 
though veiled in Rufinus’s translation, de- 
manded the pope’s condemnation. Anasta- 
sius completely yielded, and like Theophilus 
of Alexandria condemned Origen and _ his 
upholders. _“* Of this glorious victory," says 
Jerome, ‘‘ Marcella was the origin.’ 

She lived till the sack of Rome by Alaric. 
The Goths, supposing her to be affecting 
poverty to conceal her wealth, used personal 
violence, but at her entreaty spared Principia, 
and at last allowed them to take sanctuary 
in St. Paul’s church. Her faith made her 
seem hardly sensible of her sufferings, but she 
only survived a few days and died in the arms 
of Principia, leaving all she had to the poor. 
Jerome, ed. Vall. Epp. 23-29, 32, 34, 37-44, 
46, 07, 127. W.H.F.] 

Marcellina (2), a sister of St. Ambrose, 
older than himself. His three books de 
Virginibus, addressed to her, were written 
by her request. From iii. 1 we learn that she 
was admitted as a consecrated virgin at Rome 
on Christmas Day, by pope Liberius, in the 
presence of a large concourse of virgins and 
others. The address then given by Liberius 
is recorded by Ambrose from what Marcellina 
had often repeated to him. Ambrose praises 
her devotion and advises her to relax the 
severity of her fasting. She is mentioned by 
him (Ep. v.) as a witness to the virginal purity 
of Indicia. A constant correspondence was 
kept up with her brother. She is his ‘‘domina 
soror vitae atque oculis praeferenda.” He 
wrote three of his most important letters to 
her: Ep. xx.describeshis conflict with Justina 
and her son the younger Valentinian; xxii. 
announces the discovery of the bodies of the 
martyrs Gervasius and Protasius ; xli. reports 
asermon inwhich he hadreproved Theodosius. 
In his discourse on the death of his brother 
Satyrus, Ambrose speaks of the warm family 
affection which bound the three together, and 
of the sister's grief (de Excessu Satyri, §§ 33, 
76). (rtt.p.| 

Marcellinus (1), bp. of Rome after Caius 
from June 30, 296, to Oct. 25 (7), 304, elected 
after a vacancy of about two months; called 
Marcellianus by Jerome, Nicephorus, and in 
the Chronogr. Syntomon (853). The above 
dates are those of the Liberian Catalogue (354) 
and appear correct. In other records bis 
chronology is very uncertain, partly, it would 


688 MARCELLINUS 


seem, owing to a confusion between him and 
his successor Marcellus. He is omitted alto- 
gether in the Liberian Depositio Episcoporum 
and Depositio Martyrum (see _ Lipsius, 
Chronol. der rom. Bisch. p. 242). The main 
question about him is his conduct with regard 
to the persecution under Diocletian. The 
Liberian Catalogue says only that it occurred 
in his time—‘‘ quo tempore fuit persecutio.”’ 
Eusebius (H. E. vii. 32) intimates that he was 
in some way implicated in it—év καὶ αὐτὸν 
κατείληφεν ὁ διωγμός. The Felician Cata- 
logue (530) says: ‘In which time was a 
great persecution: within 30 days 16,000 
persons of both sexes were crowned with mar- 
tyrdom through divers provinces; in the 
course of it Marcellinus himself was led to 
sacrifice, that he might offer incense, which 
thing he also did; and having after a few days 
been brought to penitence, he was by the 
same Diocletian, for the faith of Christ, to- 
gether with Claudius Quirinus and Antoninus, 
beheaded and crowned with martyrdom. The 
holy bodies lay for 26 days in the street by 
order of Diocletian; when the presbyter 
Marcellus collected by night the bodies of the 
saints, and buried them on the Salarian Way 
in the cemetery of Priscillain a cell (cubzculum) 
which is to be seen to the present day, because 
the penitent [pope] himself had so ordered 
while he was being dragged to execution, in 
a crypt near the body of St. Crescentio, vii. 
Kal. Maii.’? Most probably the statements 
of his having offered incense and of the place 
of his burial are true, but his martyrdom is at 
least doubtful. The charge of having yielded 
to the edict of Diocletian, which required all 
Christians to offer incense to the gods, appears 
from Augustine to have been alleged after- 
wards as a known fact by the African Dona- 
tists. True, Augustine treats it as probably 
a calumny, and saysit “15 by no means proved 
by any documentary evidence ’’ (de Unico 
Baptism. c. Petilian. c. 16, ὃ 27). Further, 
Theodoret (H. E. i. 2) speaks apparently with 
praise of the conduct of Marcellinus in the 
persecution: τὸν ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ διαπρέψαντα. 
On these grounds Bower, in his history of the 
popes, warmly maintains his innocence. But 
it is difficult to account for the introduction 
of the story into the pontifical annals them- 
selves and its perpetuation as a tradition of 
the Roman church, unless there had been 
foundation for it. Even Augustine, however 
anxious to rebut the charge, can only plead 
the absence of evidence ; he does not deny the 
tradition, or even the possibility of its truth. 
The expression of Theodoret is too vague to 
count as evidence. In the story of the mar- 
tyrdom there is nothing in itself improbable, 
and it is quite possible that Marcellinus re- 
covered courage and atoned for his temporary 
weakness. But there is such a significant ab- 
sence of early evidence of the martyrdom as to 
leave itnot only unprovedbutimprobable. His 
name does not appear in the Liberian Depositio 
Martyrum, nor in Jerome’s list, and, apart 
from the legendary complexion of the Felician 
narrative (including the statement of 16,000 
having suffered in 30 days), the addition of the 
glory of martyrdom to popes in the later ponti- 
fical annals is too frequent to weigh against 
the silence of earlier accounts. Further, the 


MARCELLINUS, FLAVIUS 


omission of his name also from the Depositio 
Episcoporum may be due to his unfaithfulness, 
if that had not really been atoned for by 
martyrdom. His burial in the cemetery of 
Priscilla instead of that of Callistus, where his 
predecessors since Zephyrinus (236) had been 
interred, may be accepted without hesitation, 
the Felician Catalogue being apparently 
trustworthy as to the burial-places of popes, 
and the place where he lay being spoken of as 
well known in the writer’s day. A reason 
for the change of place, independent of the 
alleged wish of the penitent pope himself, is 
given by De Rossi (Rom. Sotteran. il. p. 105), 
viz. that the Christian cemeteries had been 
seized during the persecution, so that it had 
become necessary to construct a new one. 
It appears (7b. i. p. 203; 11. p. 105) that the 
Christians did not recover their sacred places 
till Maxentius restored them to pope Milti- 
ades; and this accounts for the fact, that of 
the two popes between Marcellinus and Milti- 
ades, the first, Marcellus, was also buried in 
the cemetery of Priscilla, but the second, 
Eusebius, as well as Miltiades himself, again 
in that of Callistus (Catal. Felic.); though 
not in the old papal crypt, a new one having 
presumably been constructed by Miltiades. 
In recensions of the pontifical annals later 
than the Felician the cemetery of Priscilla is 
said to have been acquired from a matron of 
that name by Marcellus, the successor of Mar- 
cellinus; but in the Felician account Mar- 
cellinus himself appears as having already 
secured a place of burial there. The cemetery 
itself was, according to De Rossi, one of the 
oldest in Rome, with extensive workings in it 
at a deep level, which he supposes to have 
been made during the persecution, when the 
old burial-place of the faithful on the Appian 
Way was no longer available. The Salarian 
Way, where the cemetery of Priscilla was, lies 
far from the Appian, being on the opposite 
side of the city, towards the N. [j-B—yY.] 
Mareellinus (7), Flavius, a tribune and 


-afterwards a notary (Bécking, Not. Dig. Occ. 


p. 408), brother to Apringius, afterwards pro- 
consul of Africa, where Marcellinus appears to 
have usually resided. He was a Christian of 
high character, taking much interest in theo- 
logical matters. In 410 he was appointed by 
Honorius to preside over a commission of 
inquiry into the disputes between the Catho- 
lics and Donatists, an office for which he was 
singularly well qualified, and which on the 
whole he discharged (in 411) with great moder- 
ation, good temper, and impartiality, though 
not without giving offence to the Donatists, 
who accused him of bribery (Aug. Ep. 141; 
Cod. Theod. xvi. 11, 5). With Augustine an 
intimate friendship subsisted which the be- 
haviour of Marcellinus at the conference no 
doubt tended to strengthen; several letters 
were exchanged between them, and Augustine 
addressed to him his three books de Pecca- 
torum Meritis et Remissione, his book deSpziritu 
et Littera, and the first two books of his great 
work de Civitate Dei, which he says that he 
undertook at his suggestion (Aug. Retract. 11. 
37; de Civ. Dei. i. praef. ii. 1). Excepting 
letters about the conference (Epp. 128, 129), 
the correspondence appears to have been 
carried on chiefly during 412. It arose mainly 


MARCELLUS 


out of the anxiety of Marcellinus for his friend 
Volusianus, who, notwithstanding the efforts 
of his mother to induce him to become a Chris- 
tian, was swayed in a contrary direction by 
the worldly society in which he lived. In 
413 occurred the revolt of Heraclian, sup- 
pressed by Marinus, count of Africa, who, 
bribed by the Donatists, as Orosius insinuates, 
arrested and imprisoned Marcellinus and 
πνεῖν. _Several African bishops joined in 
a letter of intercession on behalf of the pri- 
soners, whose prayer Caecilianus affected to 
support, and he even paid an express visit to 
Augustine, giving him the strongest hope that 
they would be released, with solemn assevera- 
tions of absence of hostility on his own part. 
But on the following day, Sept. 15 or 16, they 
were both put to death. Augustine mentions 
their edifying behaviour in prison. See Dr. 
Sparrow Simpson’s S. Aug. and Afr. Ch. 
Divisions (1910), pp. 102-126. [u.w.P.] 

Marcellus (3), bp. of Rome probably from 
May 24, 307, to Jan. 15, 309, the see having 
been vacant after the death of Marcellinus, 
2 years, 6 months, and 27 days (Lipsius, 
Chronologie der rom. Bischof.). 

-This pope appears as a martyr in the Roman 
Martyrology, and in the later recensions of 
the Liber Pontificalis, a story being told that 
he was beaten, and afterwards condemned to 
tend the imperial horses as a slave. No trace 
of this legend, or indeed of his being a martyr 
at all, appears in the earlier recensions of the 
Pontifical, including the Felician. But a 
light is thrown on the circumstances which 
probably led to his title of “ Confessor’’ by 
the monumental inscriptions to him and his 
successor Eusebius, placed on their tombs by 
pope Damasus. ThattoMarcellus(Pagi, Critic. 
in Baron. ad ann. 309; im Actis S. Januar. ; 
De Rossi, Rom. Sotter. vi. p. 204) reads : 

“* Veridicus rector lapsis quia crimina flere 

Praedixit, miseris fuit omnibus hostis amarus, 

Hinc furor, hinc odium sequitur, discordia lites, 

Seditio, caedes ; solvuntur foedera pacis. 

Crimen ob alterius, Christum qui in pace negavit, 

Finibus expulsus patriae est feritate tyranni. 

Haec breviter Damasus voluit comperta referre 

Marcelli ut populus meritum cognoscere posset.”’ 


It would appear from these lines, together with 
those on Eusebius [Eusrsius (1)], that when 
persecution ceased at Rome conflicts arose in 
the Christian community as to the terms of re- 
admission of the lapst to communion; that 
Marcellus after his election had required a 
period of penance before absolution; that 
this stern discipline evoked violent opposition, 
the subjects of it being doubtless numerous 
and influential; that the church had been 
split into parties in consequence, and riots, 
anarchy, and even bloodshed, had ensued ; 
that ‘‘ the tyrant ’’ Maxentius had interposed 
in the interests of peace and banished the pope 
as the author of the discord. He was not 
really so, the inscription implies, but “ an- 
other,” for whose ‘“‘crime"’ ἊΣ 
the leader and instigator of the opposition, 
who had “ denied Christ in time of peace "' by 


condoning apostasy and subverting discipline | presb 
But Marcellus of b 
“con- | opponent already there. 


after persecution had ceased. 
was made the victim, and thus was a 


e suffered, 1.¢. | vious visit ; 


| 


MARCELLUS 680 


any rate for canonical discipline and the 
honour of Christ. The “other” referred to was 
probably the Heraclius spoken of in the in- 
scription on Eusebius as having ‘forbidden the 
lapsi to mourn for their sins,"’ and who was 
banished in the next episcopate by “the tyr- 
ant"’ as well as the pope—“Extemplo pariter 
ulsi feritate tyranni.”” As Marcellus, unlike 
usebius, is not said in the Damasine inscrip- 
tion to have died in exile, and as he was cer- 
tainly buried at Rome, like his predecessor in 
the cemetery of Priscilla on the Salarian Way 
(Catal. Felic.), he may have been allowed to 
return to his see. [).ν.---Υ.} 

Marcellus (4), bp. of Ancyra, believed to 
have been present at the synod held there in 
315; but nothing can be proved from sub- 
scriptions doubtful in themselves. St. Athan- 
asius, writing in 358 (Htst. ad Mon. 76), calls 
him an old man then; 50 that his age could 
have been no bar to his being bishop a.b. 115. 
He was certainly present, 325, at the Nicene 
council, where he obtained a good report, as 
pope Julius tells the Eusebians (Mansi, ii. 
1215), for having contended earnestly for the 
Catholic faith against the Arians. Later, 
in refuting the heterodox writings of Asterius, 
he was accused of falling into doctrines com- 
bining the errors of Sabellius and Paul of 
Samosata, but his attachment to St. Athan- 
asius and the orthodox cause may have sub- 
jected his book to unfair criticism. Anyhow 
the Eusebians, piqued at his absence from the 
synod of Tyre and afterwards the festivities 
at Jerusalem, Α.Ὁ. 335, in honour of the dedica- 
tion of the church of the Holy Sepulebre, 
called upon him to render account of the 
opinions advanced in it, and to recant them, 
and, according to Socrates, extorted a pro- 
mise that he would burn the offending book. 
For not having at once done this, he was 
deposed in the synod held, ἣν command of 
the emperor, at Constantinople by the chiefs 
of that party, in Feb. 336, when Eusebius 
of Nicomedia presided, and Eusebius of 
Caesarea was charged ΒΥ the assembled 
bishops with the task of refuting the work of 
Marcellus. Basil the semi-Arian was ap- 
pointed to the see vacated by him (Socr. 1. 36). 
Condemned at Constantinople, Marcellus be- 
took himself to Rome, apparently without 
loss of time. It must have been almost the 
first act of Julius, after his election (Feb. 6, 
337), to receive Marcellus into communion. 
Marcellus could have scarcely left Kome when 
the Eusebian deputies, Macarius and two 
deacons, arrived (A.D. 339), hoping to — 
Julius tojoin themin unseating St. Athanasius 
who had returned from exile without being 
synodically restored. This led to Athanasius 
coming to Rome about Easter 340, and to ἃ 
synod of more than 50 bishops assembled at 
Rome by pope Julius in Nov. 341. 

Marcellus was at Rome then, having been 
admitted by Julius to communion on “ὦ κα 
and Julius followed the precedent 
suggested by Marcellus at his previous visit, 
and pepe | in his case, viz. that of sending 
ters to the Eusebians with the object 
nging them to Rome to confront an 
Neither Julius nor 


> 


fessor” (or, in the wider sense of the word, his bishops ventured to restore Marcellus or 


ἃ ‘“‘martyr”’), if not strictly for the faith, 


at | St. Athanasius to their respective sees. They 


41 


690 MARCELLUS 

merely gave their collective voice for ad- 
mitting them to communion, and declared 
their innocence. It was now that Marcellus 
testified to Julius and the assembled bishops 
that his attempt toreturn to Ancyra, A.D. 338- 
339, had only provoked such flagrant scenes as 
had happened more recently at Alexandria 
when St. Athanasius was expelled (Apol. c. 
Arian. ὃ 33, cf. Hil. Frag. 111. 9). 

“© Marcellus,’’ Athanasius says, in his history 
to the monks (ὃ 6), ‘““ went to Rome, made his 
apology, and then at their request gave them 
his faith in writing, of which also the Sardican 
council approved.’ The Sardicans grounded 
their verdict in his favour on the book which 
Eusebius had maligned, but which they pro- 
nounced consistent with orthodoxy. ‘“‘ For 
he had not, as they affirmed, attributed to the 
Word of God a beginning from Mary, nor any 
end to His kingdom; but had stated His 
kingdom to be without beginning or end” 
(Apol. c. Arian. § 47). Hence they declared 
him faultless and free from taint. St. Hilary, 
who also says nothing of his profession, bears 
them out in their decision on the book; add- 
ing that Marcellus was never again tried or 
condemned in any subsequent synod (Frag. 
ii. 21-23). Against such testimony—living, 
competent, and explicit—as this, it is plainly 
not for moderns to contend, the book being no 
longer extant to speak for itself; and there- 
fore we must—in spite of all Cave may urge 
to the contrary (Hist. Lit. i. 202), and after 
him Cardinal Newman (Library of the Fathers, 
xix. 503) and the learned writer of art. 
EUSEBIUS in this work—conclude with Mont- 
faucon (Diatr. c. iii.), that, strongly as the ex- 
tracts from it may read in Eusebius, whose 
party bias betrays itselfin every line, yet ‘‘read 
by the light of what precedes and follows,”’ as 
say the Sardican fathers, they may all be in- 
terpreted in a sense not conflicting with ortho- 
doxy. St. Hilary, moreover, speaks with un- 
wonted weight, as he proclaims the fact loudly 
that Marcellus subsequently by some rash 
utterances and his evident sympathy with his 
former disciple, Photinus, the ejected from Sir- 
mium, came at last to be suspected of heretical 
leanings by all; and notably that he was, 
though privately, put out of communion by St. 
Athanasius, on which Marcellus abstained from 
church himself (Frag. ii. 23). Possibly such a 
rash utterance was in the mind of St. Hilary 
when he said to Constantius: ‘“‘Hine Marcellus 
Verbum Dei cum legit, nescit,’’ and then 
adds: ‘‘Hine Photinus hominem Jesum Chris- 
tum cum loquitur, ignorat,’’ classing them both 
in thesame category. In the work of St. Epi- 
phanius against heresies the Photinians rank 
first (71), and the Marcellians follow (72); yet 
even there the inference is, that the latter had 
been led astray by the former. St. Epipha- 
nius does not mention the work of Eusebius 
against Marcellus, but gives extracts from one 
against him by Acacius, the successor of Euse- 
bius at Caesarea, but not, as he says, because 
he thinks it any more conclusive than the 
Sardican fathers thought the work of Eusebius. 
But he criticizes the profession made by Mar- 
cellus in writing to pope Julius on the principle 
“ΟἿ s’excuse s’accuse.’? This profession, 
what both Marcellus himself and St. Athan- 
asius call his “ἔγγραφον πίστιν, which, he 


MARCELLUS 


says expressly, he gave to pope Julius before 
leaving Rome, and which St. Epiphanius gives 
at fulllength. St. Athanasius says it was ex- 
hibited to the Roman and Sardican councils as 
well; but we have no other proof of this. Itis 
but one of three different professions exhibited 
at different times on behalf of Marcellus—all 
characterized by the same suspicious surround- 
ings, as will be shewn in due course. The two 
first are given by St. Epiphanius (Haer.1xxii.); 
the third was exhumed by Montfaucon. Dr. 
Heurtley (de Fide et Symbolo, p. 24) took this 
creed of Epiphanius as the earliest specimen 
of a Western creed. It was as certainly the 
baptismal creed of the West. as it was not that 
of the local church of Rome (ib. pp. 89-133). 
For had it been the creed of the church of Rome, 
would not St. Athanasius have characterized 
it as such ; would not Julius have recognized 
and applauded the adoption of his own for- 
mula? No doubt Marcellus picked it up in 
the Danubian provinces, or at Aquileia, in 
his way to Rome. It is identical with the 
creed commented upon by St. Augustine, 
which follows it in Heurtley (op. czt.), saving in 
the expression τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος 
ἁγίου, etc., which is suspiciously peculiar, and 
may well have excited the misgivings of St. 
Epiphanius. Now this creed Marcellus never 
ventures to call the creed of his own church, 
yet must have meant that Julius should think 
it so, as he designates it ‘‘what he had been 
taught by his spiritual fathers, had learnt 
from holy Scripture, and preached in church,”’ 
and he begs Julius to enclose copies of it to 
those bishops with whom he was correspond- 
ing, that any to whom he was unknown might 
be disabused of wrong notions formed of him 
from hostile statements. By way of preface, 
he recites, to condemn them, the principal 
errors held by his enemies; and affirms 
several points on which his own faith had been 
questioned. Whether by his own contrivance 
or otherwise, this profession was never made 
public, nor appealed to by him again. It satis- 
fied Julius, and Julius may have communicated 
it to his correspondents among the Western 
bishops and to St. Athanasius on his arrival in 
Rome: but it cannot be proved to have been 
formally brought before the 50 bishops after- 
wards assembled there, and there is no proof 
that it was so much as named at Sardica. In 
dealing with Easterns, anyhow, the creed in 
which he professes his faith was that of Nicaea. 
This profession is extant as well as the other, 
and was being employed by his disciples in 
their own justification when it was placed in 
the hands of St. Epiphanius. It is headed 
“Inscription of the faith of Marcellus.’ Yet 
it can hardly be thought accidental that his 
own assent is not explicitly given by sub- 
scription either to this or the third formula, 
produced on his behalf. Montfaucon, pre- 
occupied with his own discovery, seeks to 
connect it with this second profession, with 
which it has nothing whatever to do. Evi- 
dently Marcellus aimed at being an Eastern 
to the Easterns, and a Westernto the Westerns. 

Finally, neither of these professions would 
seem to have sufficed for him in extreme old 
age, but he must construct a third, intended 
this time for St. Athanasius himself. The 
date fixed for it by Montfaucon is 372, not 


a. 


- 


MARCELLUS 


earlier, to give time for some letters that 
passed on the subject of Marcellus in 371, be- 
tween St. Athanasius and St. Basil, elected to 
the see of Caesarea the year before ; not later, 
because St. Athanasius died in 373, and Mar- 
cellus himself in 374. But if Montfaucon had 
dated it 373, he would have got rid of the very | 
difficulty which perplexed him most, viz. the | 
absence of the name of St. Athanasius amongst 
its countersigners (Diair. c. vi. 4). Far from 
having been received by St. Athanasius and | 
his colleagues, the signatures affixed to this 


*“aureum opusculum,”’ as Montfaucon in his 
enthusiasm calls it, are such as go far towards 
impeaching its genuineness, or else depriving 
it of the least weight. Surely the signatures 
to it should have been not of those to whom 
it was delivered, but from whom it emanated ! 
The document purports to be the work of a 

athering of the church of Ancyra under their 
ather Marcellus ; and it may well have been 
dictated by a man of his advanced years, re- 
capitulating and repudiating all the various 
errors amid which his chequered life had been 
passed. As no other name is given but his 
own and that of his deacon Eugenius who was 
charged with its delivery, we may well doubt 
whether any third person had a hand in it. 
‘The reference in it to the commendatory 
letters given to its bearer by the bishops of 
Greece and Macedonia seems consistent with 
its having been addressed, and expedited 
through their good offices, to St. Athanasius 
(Diatr. 1b. ὃ 2). Basil (Epp. 59, 125, 239, 265, 
ed. Ben.) is just as disgusted at Marcellus having 
been received into communion in the West 
under Julius, as at Eustathius having been 
similarly received under Liberius (Epp. 226, 
244, 263). He looked upon both as trim- 
mers, as indeed their acts prove them; and 
heterodox at heart, in spite of their repeated 
disclaimers, and undeserving of any trust. 
There was one point of which Marcellus never 
lost sight and traded upon through life, with 
whatsoever errors he was charged. ‘Se 
communione Julii et Athanasii, Romanae et 
Alexandrinae urbis pontificum, esse muni- 
tum ’’—as St. Jerome puts it (de Vir. [llust. 
c. 86). Some may, possibly, consider that he 
duped them both; and the second more, by a 
good deal, than the first. All that remains to 
be said of Marcellus is, that although restored 
at Sardica, and included in the general letter 
of recall issued subsequently by the emperor 
Constantius and preserved by St. Athanasius 
(Apol. c. Arian. § 54), he never seems to have 
regained his see. Basilius certainly was in> 


ossession of it at the second council of 
irmium A.D. 351, when he refuted Photinus ; 
and either he, or Athanasius his successor, 
with whom St. Basil corresponded in 369 
(Ep. 25), was in possession A.D. 363, and | 
joined in the petition recorded by Socrates 
(iii. 25) to the emperor Jovian. St. Athan- | 
asius, according to Cardinal Newman, upheld 
him ‘to c. 360,’’ but attacked his tenets | 
pointedly, though without naming him, in his | 
fourth oration against the Arians. The short 
essay demonstrating this is of the highest 
interest—Introd. to Disc. iv. pp. 503 seq. 
vol. xix., also vols. viii. and xiii. (p. 52, note l.), 
of Lib. of the Fathers. Cf. Montfaucon, Diatr. 
de causd Marcelli, vol. ii. collect. Nov. Pat. | 


MARCIANUS 691 


Praef. 41 seq. ; Newman's Arians ; Rettberg's 
Pref. in Migne, Patr. Gk. xviii. 1299; Wetzer's 
Restit. Ver. Chronol. ; and Larroque's Diss. de 


Phot. Haeret, [Atuanasius; Eusenius or 
CAESAREA. } [κ.5.»».} 
Marcia. In 181 a conspiracy against the 


emperor Commodus was detected and put 
down, in which the emperor's sister Lucilla and 
his cousin Quadratus had been prime movers. 
On the execution of Quadratus and the con- 
fiscation of his property, his concubine Marcia 
became the concubine of Commodus and ob- 
tained the highest favour with him. She was 
granted all the honours due to an acknow- 
ledged empress, save that of having the 
sacred fire borne before her. The emperor's 
coins displayed her figure in the garb of an 
Amazon, and he himself took the tithe Ama- 
zonius, and gave it to a month of the year. 
She was all-powerful with him, and used her 
influence on behalf of the Christians, ob- 
taining for them many benefits. This fact, 
stated by Dion Cassius (or possibly by his 
epitomizer Xiphilinus), has led to the sus- 
picion that she was a Christian herself, a 
suspicion not disproved by her position as 
concubine ; for the Christian code then dealt 
tenderly with the case of a female slave 
unable to refuse her person to her master, and, 
provided she shewed the fidelity of a wife, 
did not condemn her (Const. A post. viii. 32). 
We now know from Hippolytus that the 
eunuch who brought Marcia up, and who 
retained a high piace in her confidence, was 
a Christian presbyter. This sufficiently ac 
counts for her Christian sympathies ; and the 
epithet φιλόθεος, which Hippolytus applies 
to her, would have been different if, besides 
being friendly to the Christians, she had been 
a Christian herself. 

Marcia, whose intimacy with her fellow- 
servant Eclectus had given occasion for re- 
mark, ultimately became his wife. She ap- 
pears to have had resolution and spirit corre- 
sponding to her favourite Amazonian dress. 
She was put to death in 193 by Didius 
Julianus, to avenge the death of Commodus, 
which she had planned and carried out to 
save her own life. For the original authori- 
ties, see EcLectus. (G.s.] 

Marciani, [ucuires.] 2 

Marcianus (3), Nov. 2 (Menol. Graec. Sirlet. 
and Mart. Rom.), a celebrated solitary in the 
desert of Chalcis in Syria (Theod. Rel. Hist. 
c. 3); anative of Cyrrhus and of good family. 
In the desert he built himself within a narrow 
enclosure a cell in which he could neither 
stand upright nor lie at full length. In course 
of time he admitted to his society, but in 


|separate dwellings, two disciples—Eusebius, 


his successor in the cell, and Agapetus. At 
some distance he established an abode, under 
the care of Eusebius, for those who desired to 
pursue a monastic life under regulations 
framed by him. Agapetus retired and became 
bp. of Apamea, Towards the end of his life 

arcian allowed himself to be visited by all 
who pleased, women excepted, but only after 
the festival of Easter. About 382 he was 
visited by Flavian, the new bp. of Antioch, in 
company with four of the most eminent 
bishops of Syria—Acacius of Berrhoea, Euse- 
bius of Ghalcis, Isidore of Cyrrhus, and Theo- 


092 MARCIANUS 


dotus of Hierapolis—besides some religious 
laymen of high rank. They came to listen to 
his wisdom, but he persisted in humble silence, 
and only observed that such as he could not 
expect to profit men while the word and works 
of God were so continually appealing to men 
in vain. Living in the Arian reign of Valens, 
Marcian’s great influence was steadily exerted 
on the side of orthodoxy and he was an un- 
compromising opponent of all the prevailing 
heresies. He zealously upheld the Nicaean 
rule of Easter and broke off communion with 
the venerable solitary Abraham in the same 
desert until he gave up the old Syrian 
custom and conformed to the new one. Tille- 
mont (viii. 483, xiv. 222) places his death c. 
385 or 387. The Roman Martyrology com- 
memorates him on Nov. 2. His disciple 
Agapetus founded two monasteries, one called 
after himself at Nicerta in the diocese of 
Apamea, and another called after Marcian’s 
disciple Simeon. From them sprang many, 
all observing the rules of Marcian. His dis- 
ciple Basil erected one at Seleucobelus. Tillem. 
viii. 478, X. 533, Xi. 304, ΧΙ 20, xiv. 222, xv. 
340, 349 ; Dupin, i. 455, ed. 1722; Ceill. x. 
52; Baron. A. E. ann. 382, Ixviii. [c.H.] 
Marcianus (4), Jan. τὸ, presbyter and 
oeconomus of the great church of Constanti- 
nople. The authorities for his Life are Theo- 
dorus: Lector (A. ἘΠῚ. 13, 23; τὸ Pair; GR. 
Ixxxvi.), the Basilian Menology, Jan. 10, a 
Vita from Simeon Metaphrastes (Boll. Acta 
SS. 10 Jan. i. 609) ; and notices in the Bol- 
landist Lives of St. Auxentius (14 Feb. ii. 770), 
St. Isidore the martyr of Chios (15 Mai. iii. 
445), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (9 Mai. ii. 
401 c, note 9). Tillemont (xvi. 161) devotes 
an article to him. He was originally a layman 
of the Cathari or Novatianists (Theod. L. i. 
13), and was then intimate with Auxentius, 
who was a Catholic (V2t. Auxent. u.s.). Hewas 
appointed oeconomus by the patriarch Gen- 
nadius, therefore after 458; and made it a 
rule that the clergy of Constantinople should 
retain for their own churches the offerings 
made in them and no longer pay them over 
to the great church (Theod. L. i. 13). His 
erection of the remarkable (θαυμαστόν) 
church of the Anastasia or Holy Resurrection 
and of the church of St. Irene is mentioned in 
the Basilian Menology and by Codinus (A ed7f. 
Cp. p. 88, ed. Bekker), the latter adding that 
he also built a hospital for the sick. The 
church of Irene (transformed from an idol 
temple) was on the shore (V7t. ὃ 14) at ‘‘ the 
passage ’’ (Codin.). The Anastasia was (Co- 
din.) a refoundation of the humble oratory in 
which St. Gregory ministered, and Marcian 
bought the site (then occupied by dealers in 
materials for mosaic work) because there had 
been found St. Gregory’s commentaries 
(ὑπομνήματα), wherein he had, 50 years before, 
predicted the restoration of the building in 
greater size and beauty. The adornment of 
Marcian’s church was subsequently com- 
pleted by Basil the Macedonian, who added the 
golden ceiling. How Marcian saved his new 
church in the conflagration of Sept. 2 by his 
prayers and tears, while mounted on the roof 
with the Holy Gospels in his hands, is related 
by Theodore Lector (i. 23), the Vita, the 
Basilian Menology, Theophanes (A. C. 454), 


MARCIANUS, FLAVIUS 


and Cedrenus (p. 348, ed. Bekker, p. 610), 
The year as fixed by Clinton (Ff. R. i. 666) was 
465. Codinus’s mention of 50 years makes 
the rebuilding of the Anastasia c. 425, as the 
Bollandist Lives of St. Gregory (u.s.) and St. 
Isidore (u.s.) say, long therefore before Mar- 
cian became oeconomus. He is stated to 
have placed the relics of St. Isidore in the 
church of St. Irene (7b.). An account of the 
two churches, very full as to the Anastasia, is 
given in Du Cange (Cpolts. Chr. lib. iv. pp. 98, 
102,ed.1729). Tillemont dates Marcian’s death 
471, and has minor notices of him at ii. 231, 
lili. 354, v. 98, ix. 416, xvi. 59, 70. ΠΗ 

Marcianus (8), Flavius, emperor of the East 

450-457. For his civil history see D. of G. 
ΠῺΣ R. Biogr. 

On his accession he found the world dis- 
tracted by the Eutychian controversy. Theo- 
dosius had taken the part of Eutyches and 
upheld the decision of the ‘‘ Latrocinium ”’ of 
Ephesus. His death caused a complete revo- 
lution in the church in the East. Pulcheria 
had always been on the side of pope Leo and 
orthodoxy and naturally chose for her hus- 
band one who shared her views. Marcian, 
in his first letter to Leo (5. Leonis, Ep. Ixxiii. 
in Migne, Patr. Lat. liv. 900), speaks of the 
assembling of a council under Leo’s influence. 
For the correspondence between Marcian, 
Pulcheria, and Leo relating to the proposed 
council see Leo I. The disturbed state of 
the ecclesiastical atmosphere was probably 
the motive of Marcian’s law of July 12, 451, 
against brawling in churches and holding 
meetings in private houses or in the streets 
(Codex, lib. i. tit. xii. 5). The same year 
Eutyches was banished, though not so far 
from Constantinople as Leo (Ep. Ixxxiv.) 
wished, and orders were issued by the em- 
peror convening a council. Originally in- 
tended to meet at Nicaea on Sept. 1, pressure 
of public business prevented the emperor, 
then in Thrace, from going so far from Con- 
stantinople, so the bishops assembled at 
Nicaea were directed to repair to Chalcedon 
(Mansi, vi. 552, 558). For a detailed account 
of the proceedings of the council see Dros- 
corus and Eutycues. Marcian and Pul- 
cheria were present only at the sixth session 
on Oct. 25, when the emperor made short 
speeches in Greek and Latin to the assembled 
bishops, who received him and the empress 
enthusiastically as a new Constantine and a 
new Helena. [EuTycuHEs.] 

After the council separated Marcian pro- 
ceeded to enforce its decrees by a series of 
edicts. The first two, dated Feb. 7 and Mar. 
13, 452, confirmed the decisions of the council 
and prohibited public arguments on theo- 
logical questions that had been settled by 
them once for all, as thereby the divine 
mysteries were exposed to the profane gaze of 
Jews and pagans (Mansi, vii. 475-480). A 
third, of July 6, repealed the constitution pro- 
mulgated by Theodosius at the instigation of 
the Eutychians against Flavian and his ad- 
herents Eusebius and Theodoret (7b. 497-500). 
A fourth, dated July 28 (ἰδ. 501-506), imposed 
heavy penalties and disabilities on the Euty- 
chians. Another law, dated Aug. 1, 455, re- 
enacted the same provisions with trifling vari- 
ations and subjected the Eutychians to all 


MARCION 


os imposed upon the Apollinarists by 
rmer emperors (tb. 517-520). The emperor 
wrote to the monks of Alexandria by Joannes 
the Decurio (ἰδ. 481), exhorting them to 
abandon their errors and to submit to the de- 
creesofChalcedon. Thetroublesat Alexandria, 
however, were too great to be appeased by 
words. The arrival of Proterius, the bishop 
appointed in place of Dioscorus, led to violent 
riots (Evagr. 229, 293). 

Palestine was likewise in a disturbed state. 
Some of the monks of the defeated side, who 
had attended the council, on their return, 
headed by Theodosius, a violent monk who 
had been their leader in the council, stirred up 
an insurrection of the whole body of desert 
monks (ἐδ. 293). Juvenalis, bp. of Jerusalem, 
had, after his return, to fly for his life. Seve- 
Tlanus, bp. of Scythopolis, was killed by an 
assassin sent in pursuit of Juvenalis; Jeru- 
salem was seized by the infuriated monks; 
houses were burnt, murders were perpetrated, 
the prisons broken open and criminalsreleased, 
and finally Theodosius was elected bishop. 
Marcian, hearing of the outrages, wrote to the 
archimandrites, monks, and inhabitants of 
Jerusalem, rebuked them sharply, ordered 
the punishment of the guilty, and placed a 
garrison in Jerusalem (Mansi, vii. 487-495). 

Marcian also took measures to suppress the 
last remnants of paganism. By a law of 
Nov. 12, 451 (Codex, lib. i. tit. xi. 7), he forbade, 
under pain of death, the reopening of the 
closed temples, and the offering sacrifices, 
libations, or incense in them, or even adorning 
them with flowers, and at the end of his law 
of Aug. 1, 455, directed the strict enforcement 
of the laws against paganism. 

In Apr. 454 he passed a law granting to 
nuns, deaconesses, and widows the power of 
making testamentary dispositions in favour of 
the church or clergy and repealing all previous 
contrary enactments. In Apr. 456 he passed 
another (7b. tit. iii. 25, and tit. iv. 13), by which 
proceedings against the oeconomus or other 
clerics of the churches in Constantinople were 
to be taken at the plaintiff's desire either before 
the archbishop or the prefect of the city, and 
no oaths tendered to clerics, who were for- 
bidden to swear by the laws of the church 
and an ancient canon. 

Dying Jan. 457 (Theod. Lect. 565), aged 65, 
after a reign of δὲ years, he was buried in the 
church of the Apostles at Constantinople (Ced- 
renus, 607, in Pair. Gk. cxxi. 659). [F.D.] 

on, a noted and permanently in- 
fluential heretic of the 2nd cent. 

Life.—J ustin Martyr (A pol. cc. 26, 58) men- 
tions Simon and Menander as having been 
instigated by demons to introduce heresy into 
the church, and goes on to speak of Marcion as 
still living, evidently regarding him as the 
most formidable heretic of the day.* He 
states that he was a native of Pontus who 
had made many disciples out of every nation, 
and refers for a more detailed refutation to a 
separate treatise of his own, one sentence of 
which has been preserved by Irenaeus (iv. 6). 
This work seems to have been extant in the 
time of Photius (Cod. 154). Irenaeus also 
states that Marcion came from Pontus. He 


Φ Though the form Mapx:avoi (Trypho 35) suggests 
followers of Marcus, we think Marcion is intended. 


MARCION 603 


adds that thence he came to Rome, where 
he became an adherent, and afterwards 
the successor, of Cerdo, a Syrian teacher 
who, though he made public confession and 
was reconciled, privately continued teaching 
heretical doctrine, was betrayed by some of 
his hearers, and again separated. Irenaeus 
places the coming of Cerdo to Rome in the 
episcopate of Hyginus, which lasted four 
years, ending, according to Lipsius, 149, 140, 
or 141. Irenaeus places the activity of 
Marcion at Rome under Anicetus (“ invaluit 
sub Aniceto”), whose episcopate of 12 years 
began in 154. He says (iii. 3) that Marcion 
meeting Polycarp at Rome (probably 154 or 
155) claimed recognition, on which Polyearp 
answered, “1 recognize thee as the firstborn 
of Satan." Irenaeus contemplated (iii. 12) a 
separate treatise against Marcion. There is 
no direct evidence of his having carried out 
this design, but as its proposed method is 
stated to have been the confntation of Marcion 
by means of his own gospel, and as this is 
precisely the method followed by Tertullian, 
who is elsewhere largely indebted to Irenaeus, 
the work of Irenaeus may have been then 
written and known to Tertullian. It has 
been stated under Hiprotytus how the con- 
tents of the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus are 
inferred. It appears to have named Sinope as 
Marcion’s native city (Epiph. 42, Philast. 45), 
of which his father was sah and to have 
stated that he was obliged to leave home be- 
cause he seduced a virgin and was excom- 
municated by his father (Epiph., Pseudo- 
Tert. 17). Epiphanius tells, apparently on 
the same authority, that Marcion, his fre- 
quent entreaties for absolution having failed, 
went to Rome, where he arrived after the 
death of Hyginus, that he begged restoration 
from the presbyters there, but they declared 
themselves unable to act contrary to the 
decision of his venerated father. The men- 
tion of presbyters as then the ruling power in 
the church of Rome, and their professed in- 
ability to reverse the decision of a provincial 
bishop, indicate a date earlier than that of 
Epiphanius; but Epiphanius further states 
that Marcion’s quarrel with the presbyters was 
not only because they did not restore him to 
church communion, but also because they did 
not make him bishop. This has been gener- 
ally understood to mean bp. of Rome, and pos- 
sibly Epiphanius intended this, but he does 
not say so. His words are ὡς οὐκ ἀπείληφε 
τὴν προεδρίαν τε, καὶ τὴν εἴσδυσιν ris ἐκκλη- 
σίας. It is absurd that an excommuni- 
cated foreigner should dream of being made 
bishop of a church from which he was asking 
in vain for absolution. Epiphanius must have 
misunderstood some expression he found in 
his authority, or Marcion must have been 
already a bishop (possibly one of his father’s 
suffragans), been deposed, and was seeking at 
Rome both restoration to communion and 
recognition of his episcopal dignity. Optatus 
alone directly countenances the latter view, 
speaking of Marcion (iv. 5, p. 74) as “ex 
episcopo factus apostata.”” But there is some 
indirect confirmation in the fact which we 
learn from Adamantius (i. 15; xvi. 264, Lom- 
matz.) that Marcion was afterwards recog- 
nized as bishop by his own followers and was 


694 MARCION 


the head of a succession of Marcionite bishops 
continuing down to the writer’s own day. 
The Marcionites appear to have had no differ- 
ence with the orthodox as to the forms of 
church organization. Tertullian’s words are 
well-known, ‘‘ faciunt et favos vespae, faciunt 
et ecclesias Marcionitae’’ (adv. Marcion. iv. 
5). We may conclude that episcopacy was 
the settled constitution of the church before 
the time of the Marcionite schism, else Marcion 
would not have adopted it in his new sect, 
and it seems more likely that Marcion had 
been consecrated to the office before the 
schism than that he obtained consecration 
afterwards, or by his own authority took the 
office to himself and appointed others to it, 
a thing unexampled in the church, of which 
we should surely have heard if Marcion had 
done it. Many critics have believed that the 
statement as to the cause of Marcion’s ex- 
communication arose from the misunder- 
standing of a common figurative expression, 
and that it meant that Marcion by heresy had 
corrupted the pure virgin church. We are 
inclined to adopt this view, not on account 
of the confessed austerity of Marcion’s subse- 
quent life and doctrines, which are not in- 
consistent with his having fallen into sins 
of the flesh in his youth, but because the story 
goes on to tell of Scripture difficulties pro- 
pounded by Marcion to the Roman presbyters 
and of his rejection of their solutions. If the 


question had been whether pardon were to be_ 


given for an offence against morality, neither 
party would have been likely to enter into 
theological controversy, whereas such dis- 


cussion would naturally arise if the cause of | 


excommunication had been heresy. 
The story proceeds to say that he asked the 


Roman presbyters to explain the texts, “A | 


good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,’ and 
“No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto 
an old garment,”’ texts from which he himself 
deduced that works in which evilis to be found 
could not proceed from the good God, and 
that the Christian dispensation could have 
nothing in common with the Jewish. Re- 
jecting the explanation offered him by the 


presbyters, he broke off the interview with a | 
threat to make a schismin theirchurch. The| 


beginning of Marcionism was so early that the 
church writers of the end of the 2nd cent., 
who are our best authorities, do not them- 
selves seem able to tell with certainty the 
story of its commencement. But we know 
that the heresy of Marcion spread itself widely 
over many countries. Epiphanius names as 
infected by it in his time, Rome and Italy, 
Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cyprus, and 
even Persia. Its diffusion in the latter half 


of the 2nd cent. is proved by its antagonists | 


in numerous countries: Dionysius in Corinth 
writing to Nicomedia, Philip in Crete, Theo- 
philus in Antioch, besides Modestus (Eus. iv. 
25), Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of 
Alexandria, Rhodo, and Tertullian. Barde- 
sanes wrote in Syriac against the heresy (2b. 
iv. 30), as did Ephrem Syrus later. 

Now, Marcion would seem to have travelled 
much and probably used his journeys to pro- 
pagate his doctrines. Ephrem Syrus speaks 
of him as wandering like Cain, but possibly 
only refers to his leaving his country for Rome 


| 


MARCION 


(Hymn 56, Assemani, Bibl. Ov. i. 119) Ter- 
tullian constantly describes him as ‘‘nau- 
clerus’’; Rhodo (ap. Eus. v. 13) calls him 
ναύτης, according to a reading which we 
believe to be right, though the word is wanting 
in some MSS. His travels seem more likely 
to have preceded than to have followed his 
settling in Rome under Anicetus. Unless, 
therefore, the story of the interview with the 
Roman presbyters is to be rejected altogether, 
we think it must be taken date and all. The 
interview must be placed immediately after 
the death of Hyginus and we must suppose 
Marcion then to have left Rome on his travels 
and only to have settled there permanently 
some years later, first as a member of Cerdo’s 
school and afterwards as his successor. 

The authorities as to the chronology of his 
life are very conflicting. The statement on 
which we can most rely is that he taught in 
Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus. We 
have no good warrant to extend his activity 
later, for we can give no credit to Tertullian 
when he names Eleutherus (de Praesc. 30) in 
connexion with the excommunication of 
Marcion. If Marcion did not survive Anicetus 
he may have been bornc. 100. The Chron- 
icle of Edessa names 138 for the beginning of 
Marcionism, and with this agrees the first year 
of Antoninus given by the Fihrist (Fliigel’s 
Mani, p. 85). This date is not improbable, if 
we suppose an Oriental preaching of the heresy 
to have preceded its establishment at Rome ; 
A.D. 150 is a not unlikely date for Justin 
Martyr’s Apology, and 12 years’ growth is not 
too much for Marcionism to attain the for- 
midable dimensions that work indicates. If 
Justin Martyr’s work is dated earlier, the date 
of Marcionism will be similarly affected. 

The time of Marcion’s death is unknown, 
but he probably did not survive Anicetus. 
The only works he is known to have left are 
his recensions of the Gospel and Pauline 
Epistles; his Antitheses, in which by com- 
paring different passages he tried to shew that 
the O.T. contradicted the New, and also it- 
self; and Tertullian refers to a letter of his, 


| then extant, as proving that he had originally 


belonged to the Catholic church (adv. Mare. * 
i. r; iv. 4; de Carn. Christ. ii.). We learn 
from Rhodo (Eus. v. 13) that after his death 
his followers broke up into sects, among the 
leaders of which he names Apelles, who only 
acknowledged one first principle ; Potitus and 
Basilicus, who counted two; and Syneros, 
who counted three (Ref. vii. 31). Other 
Marcionite teachers mentioned are Prepo, an 
Assyrian, by Hippolytus, Lucanus by Ter- 
tullian; Pitho and Blastus (the latter prob- 
ably erroneously) by Theodoret (Haer. Fab. 
i. 25). Epiphanius says (de Mens. et Pond. 17) 
that Theodotion, the translator of O.T., had 
been a Marcionite before his apostasy to 
Judaism, and Jerome (de Vir. Illust. 56) 
states that Ambrosius was one before his con- 
version by Origen. These sectaries were 
formidable to the church, both from their 
numbers and the strictness of their life. 
They were very severe ascetics, refusing flesh 
meat, wine, and the married life. Unlike 
some Gnostics who taught that it was no sin 
to escape persecution by disguising their 
faith, the Marcionites vied with the orthodox 


MARCION 


in producing martyrs. Eusebius tells (iv. 15) 
that the same letter of the church of Smyrna 
from which he drew his account of the martyr- 
dom of Polycarp, told also of the martyrdom 
of a Marcionite presbyter, Metrodorus, who, 
like Polycarp, suffered at Smyrna by fire, and 
in the same persecution. When, later, the 
Montanists appealed in proof of their ortho- 
doxy to the number of their martyrs, they 
were reminded that this could be equally 
pleaded for the Marcionites (Eus. v. 16). 
Other Marcionite martyrs mentioned by Euse- 
bius are a woman who suffered under Valerian 
at Caesarea in Palestine (iii. 12), and a 
Marcionite bp. Asclepius, who in the Diocle- 
tian persecution was burned alive at Caesarea 
on the same pyre as the orthodox Apselamus 
(Mart. Pal. c. 10). The strictness of the 
Marcionite discipline is proved by the un- 
friendly testimony of Tertullian, who tries by 
their practice to convict of falsity the Mar- 


the object of fear: ‘If so, why do you not 
take your fill of the enjoyments of this life ? 
Why do you not frequent the circus, the 
arena, and the theatre? Why do you not 
boil over with every kind of lust? When the 
censer is handed you, and you are asked to 
offer a few grains of incense, why not deny 
your faith? ‘God forbid!’ you cry— 
“God forbid!’ ” 

At the end of the Diocletian persecution the 
Marcionites had a short interval of freedom of 
worship. An inscription has been found over 
the doorway of a house in a Syrian village (Le 
Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, No. 2558, 
vol. iii. p. 583) bearing a Syrian date corre- 
sponding to the year commencing Oct. 1, 318. 
This is more ancient than any dated inscrip- 
tion belonging toa Catholicchurch. With the 
complete triumph of Christianity, Marcionite 
freedom of worship was lost. Constantine 
(Eus. de Vit. Const. iii. 64) absolutely forbade 
their meeting for worship in public or private 
buildings. Their churches were to be given 
to the Catholics; any private houses used for 
schismatical worship to be confiscated. But 
the dying out of Marcionism was probably less 
the result of imperial legislation than of the 
absorption of the older heresy by the new wave 
of Oriental dualism which in Manicheism 


Code (xvi. tit. v. 65) contains a solitary men- 
tion of Marcionites. They were not extinct 
in the fifth cent., for Theodoret, writing to 
pope Leo (Ep. 113, p. 1190), boasts that he 
had himself converted more than a thousand 
Marcionites. In Ep. 145 the number of con- 
verts rises to ten thousand; in Ep. 81 they 
are said to be the inhabitants of eight villages. 
In his Church History (v.) Theodoret tells of 
an unsuccessful effort made by Chrysostom for 
their conversion. Probably this survival of 
Marcionism was but a local peculiarity. But 
as late as 692 the council in Trullo thought it 
worth while to make provision for the recon- 
ciliation of Marcionites, and there is other 
evidence of lingering remains so late as the 
roth cent. (Fliigel’s Mant, pp. 160, 167). 
Doctrine.—There is a striking difference of 
character between the ——e of Marcion 
and of others commonly c with him as 
Gnostics. The systems of the latter often 


cionite theory, that a good God could not be | 


passed over the church. The Theodosian | 


MARCION 695 


contain so many elements derived from 
heathenism, or drawn from the fancy of the 
speculators, that we feel as if we had scarcely 
any common ground with them; but with Mar- 
cion Christianity is plainly the starting-point 
and the character of his system harmonizes 
with his being the son of a Christian bishop 
and brought up as a Christian. But he has 
been perplexed by the question of the origin 
of evil, and is disposed to accept the solution, 
much prevalent in the East then, that evil is 
inextricably mixed up with matter, which 
therefore could not be the creation of the 
Supreme. He tries to fit in this solution with 
his Christian creed and with the Scriptures ; 
but naturally only by a mutilation of both can 
he force an agreement. Indeed, he sometimes 
has even to alter the text, e.g. ‘‘ 1am not come 
| to destroy the law, but to fulfil,” into “1 am 
|not come to fulfil the law, but to destroy.” 
| Still, the arbitrary criticism of Marcion has 
more points of contact with modern thought 
than the baseless assumptions of other 
Gnostics. A modern divine would turn away 
from the dreams of Valentinianism in silent 
contempt; but he could not refuse to discuss 
the question raised by Marcion, whether there 
is such opposition between different parts of 
what he regards as the word of God, that all 
cannot come from the same author. 

The fundamental point of difference between 
Marcion and the church was concerning the 
| unity of the first principle. Marcion plainly 
asserted the existence of two Gods, a good one 
and a just one. What he meant to convey by 
these words Beausobre well illustrates by a 
passage of Bardesanes, preserved by Eusebius 
(Praep. Evan. vi. 10). He says that animals 
are of three kinds: some, like serpents and 
scorpions, will hurt those who have given them 
no provocation; some, like sheep, will not 
attempt to return evil for evil; others will 
hurt those only that hurt them. These three 
may be called evil, good, and just respectively. 
Marcion then thought the infliction of punish- 
ment inconsistent with perfect goodness, and 
would only concede the title of just to the 
God of O.T., who had distinctly threatened 
to punish the wicked. The God, he said, 
whose law was ‘“‘ An eye for an eye, and a 
tooth for a tooth,” was a just God, but not the 
same as that good God whose command was, 
“ΤΕ any smite thee on the one cheek, turn to 
him the other also."” The command, “ Thou 
shalt love him that loveth thee and hate thine 
enemy "’ was that of a just God; “ Love thine 
enemy "’ was the law of the good God. Fur- 
ther, the God of O.T. had said of Himself, 
“1 create evil’’; but since from a good tree 
evil fruit cannot spring, it follows that He 
who created evil cannot Himself be good. 
He could not be the Supreme, for He was of 

limited intelligence, not being able to find 
| Adam when he hid himself, and obliged to ask, 
‘* Where are thou ? "', and also obliged to come 
down to see before He could know whether 
| Sodom had done according to its ery. Mar- 
cion's theory was that the visible creation was 
the work of the just God; the good God, 
whose abode he places in the third or highest 
heaven and whom apparently he acknow- 
|ledged as the creator of a high immaterial 
universe, neither concerned Himself with 


696 MARCION 


mankind nor was known by them, until, 
taking compassion on the misery to which 
they had been brought by disobedience to 
their Creator who was casting them into his 
hell, He interfered for their redemption. The 
Marcionite denial of the unity of the first 
principle was variously modified. Some 
counted three first principles instead of two: 
a good Being who rules over the Christians, 
a just one over the Jews, a wicked one over the 
heathen. Others, since the world was sup- 
posed to be made out of previously existent 
matter, held that matter was a fourth self- 
originated principle. Marcion himself only 
counted two dpyai, but used the word in the 
sense of ruling powers, for it does not appear 
that he regarded matter as the creation either 
of his good or his just God, and therefore it 
should rightly have been reckoned as an 
independent principle. Tertullian, indeed, 
argues that Marcion, to be consistent, should 
count as many as nine gods. 
systems the good Being was acknowledged to 
be superior to the others, so it was not a 
violent change to assume that from this prin- 
ciple the others were derived; and Apelles 
and his schoo] drew near the orthodox and 
taught that there was but one self-originated 
principle. The ascription of creation and 
redemption to different beings enabled the 
church writers to convict the Marcionite deity 
of unwarrantable interference with what did 
not belong to him. This interference was the 
more startling from its suddenness, for Mar- 
cion’s rejection of O.T. obliged him to deny 
that there had been any intimation of the 
coming redemption, or any sign that it had 
been contemplated beforehand. His God 
then suddenly wakes up to trouble himself 
about this earth ; stoops down from his third 
heaven into a world about which, for thou- 
sands of years, he had given himself no con- 
cern; there kidnaps the sons and servants of 
another, and teaches them to hate and despise 
their father and their king, on whose gifts they 
must still depend for sustenance, and who 
furnishes the very ground on which this new 
God’s worshippers are to kneel, the heaven to 
which they are to stretch out their hands, the 
water in which they are baptized, the very 
eucharistic food for which a God must be 
thanked to whom it had never belonged. 
Marcion’s rejection of O.T. prophecy did 
not involve a denial that the prophets had 
foretold the coming ofa Christ ; but the Christ 
of the prophets could not be our Christ. The 
former was to come for the deliverance of the 
Jewish people ; the latter for that of the whole 
human race. The former was to be a warrior 
—Christ was a man of peace; Christ suffered 
on the cross—the law pronounced accursed 
him that hangeth on a tree; the Christ of the 
prophets is to rule the nations with a rod of 
iron, kings are to set themselves against Him, 
He is to have the heathen for His inheritance 
and to set up a kingdom that shall not be 
destroyed. Jesus did none of these things, 
therefore the Christ of the prophets is still to 
come. Tertullian successfully shews that if 
Jesus was not the Christ of the prophets, He 
must have wished to personate Him, coming 
as He did at the time and in the place which 
the prophets had foretold, and fulfilling so 


In all these | 


MARCION 


many of the indications they had given. What 
Marcion supposed his own Christ to be has 
been disputed. Some have supposed that he 
did not distinguish him from his good God, for 
Marcion’s Gospel was said to have commenced: 


| ‘* In the 15th year of Tiberius God came down 


to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught on 
the sabbath days’”’ (Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 7); 
but we believe the true reading here is ‘‘ eum,” 
not “‘ deum,”’ and that Marcion held his Christ 
to be a saving Spirit (i. 19), but did not con- 
found him with the Supreme. Marcion’s 
Gospel told nothing of the birth of Christ, and 
Marcion’s ‘came down”’ has a very different 
meaning from what it has in the original 
passage (Luke vi. 31), in Marcion’s use 
meaning ‘“‘came down from heaven.’ In 
fact, the story of Christ’s birth would repre- 
sent Him as a born subject of the Demiurge, 
deriving from his bounty the very body in 
which He came; so it was preferred to tell 
the improbable tale of a divine teacher un- 
heard-of before making a sudden appearance 
in the synagogue. That Christ had a real 
earthly body Marcion of course could not 
admit. See Docetism for an account of Mar- 
cion’s doctrine on this subject, and that of his 
disciple Apelles, who on this point as on others 


| approached more nearly to the orthodox. It 


was an obvious argument against the Docetic 
theory that if our Lord’s body were not real 
we could have no faith that His miracles were 
real, nor in the reality of His sufferings and 
death, which Marcion was willing to regard as 
an exhibition of redeeming love; nor in the 
reality of His resurrection. Marcion, like the 
orthodox, taught that the death of our Lord 
was followed by a “‘ descent into hell’”’; but 
Irenaeus tells us that he taught that there 
Cain, the people of Sodom, and others con- 
demned in O.T. as wicked, received Christ’s 
preaching and were taken up by Him into His 
kingdom; but that Abel, Enoch, Noah, 
Abraham, the prophets, and other righteous 
men imagined that the Demiurge was tempt- 
ing them as on other occasions, and so, being 
afraid to join themselves to Christ and accept 
deliverance from Him, were left in the under- 
world. Christ’s salvation, according to Mar- 
cion, affected the soul only, and did not affect 
the body, of which he held there would be 
no resurrection. Indeed, none of those who 
regarded matter as essentially evil could 
believe that evil would be made eternal by a 
material resurrection. Tertullian points out 
that sin originates with the soul, not the body, 
and pronounces it unfair that the sinful soul 
should be redeemed and the less guilty body 
punished. On unredeemed souls no punish- 
ment would be inflicted by Marcion’s good 
God—he would merely abandon them to the 
vengeance of the Demiurge; but Tertullian 
shewed that if direct punishment were incon- 
sistent with perfect goodness, such abandon- 
ment must be equally so. 

The Marcionite system as described by 
Esnig has more of a mythic than of a rational- 
istic character, and if we accept this as the 
original form ‘of Marcionism, Marcion owed 
more to the older Gnostics than we should 
otherwise have supposed. Marcion is said 
by Esnig to have taught that there were three 
heavens: in the highest dwelt the good God, 


MARCION 


in the second the God of the Law, in the 
lowest His angels; beneath lay Hyle, or 
matter, having an independent existence of its 
own. By the help of Hyle, which played the 
part of a female principle, the God of the Law 


made this world, after which he retired to his 


heaven; and each ruled in his own domain, 
he in heaven and Hyle on earth. Afterwards 
the God of the Law, beholding how goodly this 
earth was, desired to make man to inhabit it, 
and for this purpose requested the co-opera- 
tion of Hyle. She supplied the dust from 
which man’s body was made, and he breathed 
in his spirit, and made him live. He named 
him Adam, gave him a wife, and placed him 
in Paradise. There they lived, honouring and 
obeying their Maker, in joy and childlike 
innocence, for as yet they had no children. 
Then the Lord of Creation, seeing that Adam 
was worthy to serve Him, devised how he 


might withdraw him from Hyle and unite him | 


to himself. He took him aside, and said, 


** Adam, I am God, and beside me there is no | 


other ; if thou worshippest any other God thou 
shalt die the death.’’ When Adam heard of 


death he was afraid, and gradually withdrew | 


himself from Hyle. When Hyle came after 


her wont to serve him, Adam did not listen | 


to her, but withdrew himself. Then Hyle, 
recognizing that the Lord of Creation had 
supplanted her, said, ‘“‘ Seeing that he hates 
me and keeps not his compact with me, I will 
make a number of gods and fill the world with 
them, so that they who seek the true God 
shall not be able to find him.’’ Thus she 
filled the world with idolatry ; men ceased to 
adore the Lord of Creation, for Hyle had 
drawn them all to herself. Then was the 
Creator full of wrath; and as men died he 
cast them into hell, both Adam, on account of 
the tree, and the rest. There they remained 
29 centuries. At length the good God looked 
down from the highest heaven and beheld 
what misery men suffered from Hyle and the 
Creator. He took compassion on_ those 
plagued and tortured in the fire of hell, and 
he sent his son to deliver them. ‘‘ Go down,”’ 
he said, ‘‘ take on thee the form of a servant, 
and make thyself like the sons of the law. 
Heal their wounds, give sight to their blind, 
bring their dead to life, perform without 
reward the greatest miracles of healing; then 
will the God of the Law be jealous, and will 
instigate his servants to crucify thee. Then 
go down to hell, which will open her mouth 
to receive thee, supposing thee to be one of 
the dead. Then liberate the captives whom 
thou shalt find there, and bring them up to 
me.’”’ This was done. Hell was deceived and 
admitted Jesus, who emptied it of all the 
spirits therein and carried them up to his 
Father. When the God of the Law saw this 
he was enraged, rent his clothes, tore the 
curtain of his palace, darkened his sun, and 
veiled his world in darkness. After that, 
Jesus came down a second time, but now in 
the glory of his divinity, to plead with the 
God of the Law. When the Creator saw Jesus 
thus appear, he was obliged to own that he 
had been wrong in thinking that there was no 
other god but himself. Then Jesus said, “1 
have a controversy with thee, but I will take 
no other judge between us than thine own 


MARCION 697 


law. Is it not written in thy law that whoso 
killeth another shall himself be killed; that 
whoso sheddeth innocent blood shall have his 
own blood shed? Let me, then, kill thee and 
shed thy blood, for I was innocent and thou 
hast shed my blood.’ Then he recounted 
what benefits he had bestowed on the 
Creator's children, and in return had been 
crucified; and the Creator could make no 
| defence, seeing himself condemned by his own 
law, and he said: “ I wasignorant; I thought 
thee but a man, and did not know thee to be 
a God; take the revenge which is thy due." 
Then Jesus left him and betook himself to 
Paul, and revealed to him the way in which 
we should go. All who believe in Christ will 
| give themselves to this good and righteous 
}man. Men must withdraw themselves from 
|the dominion of Hyle; but all do not know 
| how this is to be done. 

hough this mythical story differs much in 
‘complexion from other ancient accounts of 
Marcionite doctrine, we cannot absolutely 
reject it; for there is nothing in it inconsistent 
with Marcion’s known doctrines or such as 
a Gnostic of his age might havetaught. It 
is, indeed, such a system as he might have 
learned from the Syriac Gnostic Cerdo. But 
| Marcion must have given the mythic element 
little prominence, or it would not have so dis- 
appeared from the other accounts. 

Discipline and Worship.—In rites Marcion 
followed the church model. Thus (Tert. ade. 
Mare. i. 14) he had baptism with water, 
anointing with oil, a mixture of milk and 
honey was given to the newly baptized, and 
sacramental bread represented the Saviour's 
Body. Wine was absent from his Eucharist, 
for his principles entirely forbade wine or 
flesh meat. [ENcCRATITES.] Fish, however, he 

ermitted. He commanded his disciples to 
ast on Saturday, to mark his hostility to the 
God of the Jews, who had made that His day 
of rest. Marriage he condemned. A married 
man was received as a catechumen, but not 
admitted to baptism until he had agreed to 
separate from his wife (ἐδ. i. 29 and iv. 10). 
This probably explains the statement of 
Epiphanius that the Marcionites celebrated 
the mysteries in the presence of unbaptized 
ersons. The sect could not have flourished 
if it discouraged married persons from joining 
it; and if it admitted them only as catechu- 
mens, that class would naturally be granted 
larger privileges than in the Catholic church.* 
Nor need we disbelieve the statement of 
Epiphanius that a second or a third baptism 
was permitted. If a member married, or one 
who had put away his wife took her back, it is 
not incredible that on repentance a second 
baptism was necessary before restoration to 
full privileges of membership. Again, since 
the baptism of a married person was only 
permitted in articulo mortis, it would some- 
times happen that catechumens were surprised 
| by death before baptism, and it is not inered- 
| ible that in such cases the device of a vicarious 
baptism may have been resorted to, as Chry- 
sostom tells in speaking on the passage in 
Corinthians about being baptized for the 
dead. Epiphanius states that Marcion per- 
| © They ee their a by an appeal to 
Gal. vi. 6 (see Hieron, tn loc.), 


698 MARCION 
mitted females to baptize. The Marcionite 
baptism was not recognized by the church. 
Theodoret tells that he baptized those whom 
he converted. (See also Basil. Can. 47, Ep. 
199.) He tells also that he had met an aged 
Marcionite who, in his hostility to the Creator, 
refused to use his works, a principle which 
could not possibly be carried out consistently. 
Canon of Scripture.—Marcion’s rejection of 
the O.T. involved the rejection of great part of 
the New, which bears witness to the Old. He 
only retained the Gospel of St. Luke (and 
that in a mutilated form), and ten Epp. of 
St. Paul, omitting the pastoral epistles. In 
defence of his rejection of other apostolic 
writings, he appealed to the statements of St. 
Paul in Galatians, that some of the older 
apostles had not walked uprightly after the 
truth of the gospel, and that certain false 
apostles had perverted the gospel of Christ. 
Marcion’s Gospel, though substantially iden- 
tical, as far as it went, with our St. Luke’s, did 
not bear that Evangelist’s name. That it 
was, however, an abridgment of St. Luke was 
asserted by all the Fathers from Irenaeus and 
not doubted until modern times. Then it was 
noticed that in some cases where Marcion is 
accused by Epiphanius or Tertullian of having 
corrupted the text, his readings are witnessed 
by other ancient authorities. We have the 
means of restoring Marcion’s Gospel with 
sufficient exactness. Tertullian goes through 
it in minute detail ; Epiphanius also has made 
a series of minute notes on Marcion’s corrup- 
tions of the text ; some notices are also found 
in the Dialogue of Adamantius. Combining 
these independent sources, we obtain results 
on which we can place great confidence. It 
clearly appears that Marcion’s Gospel and our 
St. Luke’s in the main followed the same order 
and were even in verbal agreement, except 
that the latter contains much not found in the 
former. So that the affinity of the two forms 
is certain, and the only choice is whether we 
shall regard the one as a mutilation or the 
other as an interpolated form. The theory 
that the shorter form was the original was for 
some time defended by Ritschl and Baur, who, 
however, were obliged to yield to the argu- 
ments of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In Volk- 
mar’s Das Evangelium Marcions the differ- 
ences between the two forms of the Gospel are 
examined in minute detail, especially with 
reference to their doctrinal bearings; and it 


is found that the only theory which will | 
| confirmed by St. Jerome (Chron.), who gives 
ated form. His form exhibits a hostility to) 


explain the facts is that Marcion’s is a mutil- 


Judaism, the Mosaic law, and the work of the 
Creator, of which there is not a trace in 
genuine Pauline Christianity. Dr. Sanday 
(Gospel in the Second Cent., p. 204) has made 
a careful linguistic comparison of the portion 
of our St. Luke which Marcion acknowledges 
with that which he omits, the result being a 
decisive proof of common authorship ; the part 
omitted by Marcion abounding in all the pecu- 
liarities which distinguish the style of the 
third evangelist. The theory, therefore, that 
Marcion’s form is the original may be said to 
be now completely exploded. Dr. Sanday 
notes further that the text of St. Luke used 
by Marcion has some readings recognized by 


MARCUS 


critic now accepts. The inference is that 
when Marcion used St. Luke’s Gospel it had 
been so long in existence, and had been copied 
so often, that different types of text had had 
time to establish themselves. It has been 
argued that Marcion could not have known 
our Fourth Gospel, else he would have pre- 
ferred this, as being more strongly anti- 
Jewish. But the Fourth Gospel is not anti- 
Jewish in Marcion’s sense, and he would have 
had even more trouble in mutilating it to 
make it serve his purpose. At the very outset 
Christ’s relation to the Jewish people is de- 
scribed in the words, ‘‘He came unto His 
own’’; the Jewish temple is called His 
Father’s house ; salvation is said to be of the 
Jews; contrary to Marcion’s teaching, Christ 
is perpetually identified with the Christ pre- 
dicted in O.T.; the Scriptures are ‘‘ they 
which testify of Me,’’ ‘‘ Moses wrote of Me,”’ 
““ Had ye believed Moses ye would have be- 
lieved Με. Great importance is attached 
to the testimony of John the Baptist, who, 
according to Marcion, like the older prophets, 
did not know the true Christ ; and the miracle 
of turning water into wine would alone have 
condemned the Gospel in Marcion’s eyes. In 
short, the Fourth Gospel is strongly anti- 
Marcionite. See esp. Zahn’s Gesch. des N.T. 
Kanons, i. 587-718 and ii. 409-529. 

Marcion’s Afostolicon consisted of ten 
epistles, in the order: Gal., I. and 11. Cor., Rom. 
(wanting the last twochapters), I. and II. Thess., 
Eph. (called by Marcion the Ep. to the Lao- 
diceans), Col., Philippians, Philemon. Con- 
cerning the order of the last two, Tertullian 
and Epiphanius differ. The Acts and the 
pastoral epistles are rejected. The A postoli- 
con was known to Jerome, who notes two or 
three of its readings. The most careful 
attempt to restore it is by Hilgenfeld (Zeit- 
schrift f. histor. Theol. 1855). It becomes 
apparent that Marcion struck out from the 
Epistles which he acknowledged some passages 
which conflicted with his theory and also made 
some few additions. The arbitrary character 
of such criticism would destroy all claim to 
originality for Marcion’s text of the Gospel, 
even if that claim had not otherwise been 
sufficiently refuted. (c.s.] 

Marcus (6), bp. of Rome, probably from 
Jan. 18 to Oct. 7, 336, having been ordained 
18 days after the death of his predecessor 
Sylvester. The above dates, from the Liberian 
Catalogue and WDepositio Episcoporum, are 


him a reign of 8 months, and are consistent 
with historical events. He is said (Catal. 
Felic. and Anastasius) to have ordained that 
the bishops of Ostia should consecrate the 
bishops of Rome and bear the pallium, and to 
have been buried in the cemetery of Balbina on 
the Via Ardeatina, ‘‘in basilica quam coe- 
miterium constituit.’”’ Baronius notices this 
as the earliest mention of the pallium. The 
cemetery of Balbina, called also that of St. 
Mark from this pope’s interment there and 
variously spoken of in old itineraries as on 
the Ardeatine and Appian Ways, has been 
identified as lying between the two by De 
Rossi, who supposes the “ basilica’’ to have 
been a chapel, or cella memoriae, built by 


some other ancient authorities, but which no! Marcus at the entrance of an existing cemetery 


γὼ 
pi mee 


MARCUS 


and intended as a place of burial. Interment 
near the surface of the ground seems about this 
time to have begun to supersede the use of 
subterranean catacombs. [1.8-]σσ 7 

Marcus (14), surnamed Eremita, mentioned 
by Nicephorus Callistus as ὁ πολυθρύλλητος 
ἀσκητής, said to have lived in the reign of 
Theodosius II. and to have been a disciple of 
St. Chrysostom (Niceph. H. E. xiv. 30). 
Nicephorus speaks later of the works of a 
Μάρκος ἀσκητής. apparently the same man. 
Of.these he had seen a collection of 8 and 
another of 32, dealing with the ascetic life 
(H. E. xiv. 54). Photius (Bibl. Cod. 200) 
gives an account of 8 works of Marcus the 
monk, all of which are extant with one doubt- 
ful exception. His works, pub. in Patr. Gk. 
Ixv. 905, preceded by two disquisitions on the 
author by Gallandius and Fessler, are : 

(1) περὶ νόμου πνευματικοῦ. a collection of 
short aphorisms, inculcating especially the 
duties of humility and constant prayer. 

(2) περὶ τῶν οἰομένων ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦσθαι 
shews that as slaves of God we have no wages 
to expect. All is of grace, which is given 
τελεία in baptism, and afterwards in measure 
proportioned to our obedience. 

(3) περὶ μετανοίας shews repentance to be 
necessary for all. 

(4) ἀπόκρισις πρὸς τοὺς ἀποροῦντας περὶ τοῦ 
θείου βαπτίσματος, an important treatise 
on the doctrine of baptism, states distinctly 
that by the grace of baptism original sin is 
put away and the baptized are in exactly the 
condition Adam was before the fall. 

(5) and (9) πρὸς Νικόλαον and περὶ νηστείας 
are ascetic treatises. 

(7) ἀντιβολὴ πρὸς σχολαστικόν defends 
monastic life against a man of the world. 

(8) συμβουλία νοὸς πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν 
shews that the root of evil is in ourselves. 

(10) els τὸν Μελχισεδέκ, against heretics 
who argued from the language of Hebrews that 
Melchizedek was the Son of God. 

(6) κεφάλαια νηπτικά, generally included 
among the works of Marcus, but not mentioned 
by Photius, From external and internal 
evidence it would seem to be wrongly ascribed 
to Marcus. [M.F.A.] 

Marcus (17), a Gnostic of the school of 
Valentinus, who taught in the middle of the 
znd cent. His doctrines are almost exclu- 
sively known to us through a long section 
(i. 13-21, pp. 55-98) in which Irenaeus gives 
an account of his teaching and his school. 
Both Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 39-55, ΡΡ- 200-220) 
and Epiphanius (Haer. 34) have copied their 
account from Irenaeus; and there seems no 
good reason to think that either had any direct 
knowledge of the writings of Marcus. But 
Clement of Alexandria clearly knew and used 
them. Although Jerome describes Marcus as 
a Basilidian (Ep. 75 ad Theod. i. 449), what 
Irenaeus reports clearly shews him as a follower 
of Valentinus. Thus his system tells of 30 
Aeons, divided into an Ogdoad, a Decad, and 
a Dodecad ; of the fall and recovery of Sophia ; 
of the future union of the spirits of the chosen 
seed with angels as their heavenly bride- 
grooms. What Marcus added to the teaching 
of his predecessors is perhaps the most worth- 
less af all that passed under the name of 


MARCUS 699 


“ knowledge " in the 2nd cent. It merely 
contains magical formulae, which the disciples 
were to get by heart and put trust in, and 
puerile speculations, such as were in vogue 
among the later Pythagoreans, about mysteries 
in numbers and names. Marcus found in 
Scripture and in Nature repeated examples 
of the occurrence of his mystical numbers, 
four, six, eight, ten, twelve, thirty. If so 
great mysteries were contained in names, it 
naturally followed that to know the right 
name of each celestial power was a matter of 
vital importance; and such knowledge the 
heretical teachers promised to bestow. They 
had formulae and sacraments of redemption. 
They taught that the baptism of the visible 
Jesus was but for the forgiveness of sins, but 
that the redemption of Him Who in that bap- 
tism descended was for perfection; the one 
was merely psychical, the other spiritual. 
Of the latter are interpreted the words in 
which our Lord spoke of another baptism 
(Luke xii. 50 ; Matt. xx. 22). Some conferred 
this redemption by baptism with special in- 
vocations ; others added or substituted vari- 
ous anointings ; others held that these appli- 
cations could not procure spiritual redemp- 
tion—only by knowledge could such redemp- 
tion be effected. This knowledge included 
the possession of formulae, by the use of which 
the initiated would after death become in- 
comprehensible and invisible to principalities 
and powers, and leaving their bodies in this 
lower creation and their souls with the Demi- 
urge, ascend in their spirits to the Pleroma. 
Probably the Egyptian religion contributed 
this element to Gnosticism. Some of these 
Marcosian formulae were in Hebrew, of which 
Irenaeus has preserved specimens much cor- 
rupted by copyists. Marcus, as Irenaeus 
tells us, used other juggling tricks by which he 
gained the reputation of magical skill. A 
knowledge of astrology was among his accom- 
plishments, and apparently some chemical 
knowledge, with which he astonished and 
impressed his disciples. The eucharistic cup 
of mingled wine and water was seen under his 
invocation to change to a purple red; and 
his disciples were told that this was because 
the great Cuaris had dropped some of her 
blood into the cup. Sometimes he would 
hand the cup to women, and bid them in his 
presence pronounce the eucharistic words; and 
then he would pour from their consecrated 
cup into a much larger one held by himself, 
and the liquor, miraculously increased at his 
prayer, would be seen to rise up and fill the 
larger vessel. He taught his female disciples 
to prophesy. Casting lots at their mectings, 
he would command her on whom the lot fell 
boldly to utter the words which were sug- 
gested to her mind, and such words were 
accepted by the hearers as prophetic utter- 
ances. He abused the influence he thus ac- 

uired over silly women to draw much money 
me them, and, it is said, even to gain from 
them more shameful ye meg He is 
accused of having used philtres and love 
charms, and at least one, if not more, of his 
female disciples on returning to the church 
confessed that body as well as mind had been 
defiled by him. Some of his followers cer- 
tainly claimed to have been elevated, by their 


700 MARI 


knowledge and the redemption they had ex- 
perienced, above ordinary rules of morality. 
If we are sometimes tempted to be indulgent 
to Gnostic theories as the harmless dreams of 
well-meaning thinkers perplexed by problems 
too hard for them, the history of Marcus shews 
how these speculations became a degrading 
superstition. Everything elevating and en- 
nobling in Christ’s teaching disappeared ; 
the teachers boasted of a sham science, having 
no tendency to make those who believed it 
wiser or better; the disciples trusted in 
magical rites and charms not more respectable 
than those of the heathen ; and their morality 
became of quite heathen laxity. 

Marcus appears to have been an elder con- 
temporary of Irenaeus, who speaks of him as 
though still living and teaching. Irenaeus 
more than once tells of the resistance to Mar- 
cus of a venerated elder, from whom he quotes 
some iambic verses, written in reprobation of 
that heretic. Though we learn from Irenaeus 
that the Rhone district was much infested by 
followers of Marcus, it does not appear that 
Marcus was there himself, and the impression 
left is that Irenaeus knew the followers of 
Marcus by personal intercourse, Marcus only 
by his writings. We are told also of Marcus 
having seduced the wife of one of the deacons 
in Asia (διάκονόν twa τῶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ), and 
the most natural conclusion is that Asia 
Minor was the scene where Marcus made him- 
self notorious as a teacher, probably before 
Irenaeus had left that district; that it wasa 
leading bishop there who resisted Marcus; and 
that the heretic’s doctrines passed into Gaul 
by means of the extensive intercourse well 
known to have then prevailed between the two 
countries. The use of Hebrew or Syriac names 
in the Marcosian school may lead us to ascribe 
to Marcus an Oriental origin. [G:sa} 

Mari. [NeEsTor1AN CHURCH. ] 

Marinus (4), a military martyr in the reign 
of Gallienus, at Caesarea in Palestine, under 
a judge named Achaeus, A.D. 262. He was 
distinguished by his birth, riches, and services. 
When Marinus was about to be made a cen- 
turion, another aspirant declared him to be 
a Christian and unable therefore to sacrifice 
to the emperors. The judge granted him 
three hours to choose between death and com- 
pliance. As Marinus came out of the prae- 
torium, Theotecnus the bishop led him into the 
church. Placing him by the altar, he raised 
his cloak, and pointing to the sword by his 
side, and presenting him with the book of the 
gospels, told him to choose which he wished. 
Without hesitation he extended his hand and 
took the book. ‘‘ Hold fast then—hold fast 
to God,” said Theotecnus, ‘‘ and strengthened 
by Him mayest thou obtain what thou hast 
chosen: go in peace.’’ He was immediately 
executed, and buried by a Christian senator 
named Astyrius. The narrative of Eusebius 
was probably that of an eye-witness, perhaps 
the bishop. It is a moot question whether 
this martyrdom resulted from persecution or 
from military law. Dr. F. Go6rres, in an art. 
in Jahrb. Prot. Theologie, 1877, p. 620, on 
““Die Toleranzedicte des Kaisers Gallienus,” 
suggests that Marinus could not legally have 
suffered under Gallienus, who had already 
issued his edict of toleration, but that it must 


MARIS 


have taken place by command of Macrianus, 
who had revolted from Gallienus and taken 
possession of Egypt, Palestine, and the East, 
and was, as we learn from Eus. vii. 10, 13, 
23 (cf. Trebell. Pollio, ed. H. Peter. Scrtpit. 
Hist. Aug. t. ii. Gallieni duo. ce. i.—iii. xxx. 
Tyranni, cc. xiii. xiv.) the moral author of the 
Valerian persecution. When possessed of 
imperial authority, Macrianus vented his hate 
on the Christians whom Gallienus favoured. 
Eus. vii. 15, 16; Neander, ἢ. E. ed. Bohn, i. 
194 ; Ceill. ii. 394; Tillem. iv. 21; Pagi, Crit. 
1 ΟΣ ΠΝ. ΧΙ» [6.1.5.7 
Maris (2) (Mares, Magnus, Marius), bp. 
of Chalcedon, a prominent Arian (Le Quien, 
Or. Chr. i. 599), said to have been a disciple 
of the martyr Lucian of Antioch (Philost. 
H. E. ii. 14; Tillem. v. 770, vi. 253, 646). 
He wrote in support of Arian opinions before 
the council of Nicaea (Athan. de Syn. § 17; 
Tillem. vi. 646). At the council he joined 
with Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Ursa- 
cius, and Valens against Athanasius (Socr. i. 
8, 27), and was one of five who were unwilling 
to subscribe on account of the term ὁμοούσιον 
(i. 8). Maris at length yielded (Soz. i. 21; 
Nicet. Chon. Thesaur. v. 8; cf. Vales. note 71, 
ad Soz. i. 21). He was one of 17 who held 
out against the council and supported Arius, 
according to Gelasius (Mansi, ii. 818; cf. 
878 B). His name occurs among the’ sub- 
scribers (7b. ii. 696). Philostorgius states (in 
Nicet. Chon. Thes. v. 8) that Maris, Eusebius, 
Theognis, expressed to the emperor their 
repentance for having signed, stating that 
they had complied only through fear of him, 
and that the emperor indignantly banished 
them to Gaul. Maris assisted at the council 
of Tyre in 335, and was one of the commission 
to Mareotis (Athan. Ap. c. Ar. §§ 13, 72; Theod. 
H. E.i. 28; Mansi, il. 1125 D, 1130 B, 1143 D; 
Tillem. viii. 35, 42, 49). In 335 he was one 
of the deputies sent to Constantinople against 
Athanasius (Socr. i. 35; Tillem. vi. 290). He 
frequently wrote to pope Julius against 
Athanasius (Hilar. Frag. ii. § 2, in Patr. Lat. 
x. 632, here written Marius; Theod. H. E. 
ii.6 al.8; Tillem. vii. 270). In 341 he attend- 
ed the council of Antioch and is named in the 
Ep. of Julius (Ap. c. Ar. ὃ 20; Tillem. vi. 
312). In 342 he was of the party who secured 
the appointment of Macedonius to the see of 
Constantinople (Socr. li. 12; Tillem. vi. 323, 
493). The same year he was one of four 
bishops deputed by Constantius to Constans 
(Socr. li. 18 ; Athan. de Syn. § 25; Tillem. vi. 
326; Hefele, Conc. ii. 80, 83). Sozomen 
(ili. 10) omits Maris here. That he was pre- 
sent at the council of Sardica (343-344) appears 
certain, although his name is not among the 
signatures (Tillem. viii. 95, 686, 688; Hefele, 
ii. 92, n. 3). At the council of Philippopolis 
his name is again absent, and among the sub- 
scriptions occur Thelaphius as bp. of Chalcedon 
(Mansi, ii. 138), probably by a clerical error. 
In 359 he defended the doctrine of the Ano- 
moeans against Basil (Philostorg. iv. 12; 
Tillem. vi. 483) and was at the council of 
Ariminum (Socr. ii. 41; Soz. iv. 24), and in 
360 at the council of Constantinople (ἐδ. ; 
Hefele, ii. 271; Tillem. vi. 487). In 362 
Maris, ‘then advanced in age and blind, at an 


‘interview with Julian, severely rebuked his 


χ 
4 
i 
i 


MARIUS MERCATOR 


apostasy, whereupon the emperor tauntingly 
ο ved, “ Thy Galilean God will not heal 
thy sight.””_ 1 thank God,”’ retorted Maris, 
“for depriving me of the power of beholding 
thy face’’ (Socr. iii. 12; Soz. v. 4; Tillem. 
vil. 332). He was living in the reign of J ovian 
(Philostorg. viii. 4; Tillem. viii. 764) and 
must be the Magnus of Chalcedon at the 
council of Antioch in 363 (Soer. iii. 25 ; Mansi, 
111. 371, 372, 511). In an anonymous Life of 
Isaacius abbat of Constantinople (iii. 12 in 
Boll. Acta SS. Mai. vii. 254 8B), Maris is said 
to have been present at the council of Constan- 
tinople in 381, a statement which may safely 
be rejected. [c.H.] 

Marius (1) Mercator, a writer, of whom, 
until the last quarter of the 17th cent., nothing 
was known except indirectly through the 
writings of St. Augustine, who in his work 
de Octo Quaestionibus Dulcitii, mentions him 
as his son, 1.6. his friend or pupil, and who 
addressed to him a letter, containing a long 
passage identical with one in that work (Ep. 
193, de Oct. Quaest. Dulc. qu. 3). 

Probably a native of Africa, in Rome in 
417 or 418, and thought by Baluze to have 
outlived the council of Chalcedon, a.p. 451. 
When Julian of Eclana was lecturing at Rome 
in 418 in favour of Pelagianism, Mercator 
replied to him, and sent his reply to St. Augus- 
tine, to whom not long afterwards Mercator 
forwarded a second treatise. Whether these 
two works exist or not is doubtful, but a 
treatise called Hypognosticon, or Hypermes- 
ticon, in six books, included in vol. x. of St. 
Augustine’s works (ed. Migne, p. 1611), has 
been thought to be the one in question. Five 
of the books treat of Pelagianism, and the 
sixth of Predestination. The letter of Augus- 
tine, forwarded by Albinus, A.D. 418, ex- 
presses admiration of the learning of Marius 
and discusses points submitted for con- 
sideration. 

The works of Marius Mercator, being chiefly 
translations, some of them from his own 
writings in Greek, appear in Migne in the 
following order, together with much matter 
more or less relevant to the principal subject. 
Part I. 1. Commonitorium super nomine 
Coelestii—A memorial against the doctrines 
of Coelestius and Julian, disciples of Pelagius, 
written in Greek, and presented by Mercator 
to the emperor Theodosius II. and to the 
church of Constantinople, a.p. 429, translated 
by himself into Latin. It contains a history 
of Pelagianism and an account of its doctrines, 
and an appeal to Julian to abandon them. 2. 
A treatise, to which the Commonitorium is a 
preface, against Julian, entitled Subnotationes 
in verba Juliani, written after the death of 
Augustine, a.D. 430. 3. Translations of 
various works relating to Pelagianism, in- 
cluding the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
with a preface and a refutation of the creed 
by Mercator. Part II. Concerning the Nestor- 
ian heresy, including extracts from Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, with preface and refutations by 
Mercator. Extracts from Theodoret bp. of 
Cyrus, against Cyril, and from his letters, with 
remarks by Mercator. 

Marius Mercator appears to have been a 
layman, but an able theologian. His learning, 
zeal, and ability entitle him to a respectable 


MARTINIANUS 701 
‘lace among ecclesiastical writers. Migne, 
‘atr. Lat. xiviii.; Ceillier, viii. 36. (u.wor. 
Marius (2), St., 3rd bp. of Lausanne, whither 
he is said to have transferred the see from 
Avenches, between Chilmegisilus and Mag- 
nerius (Gams, p. 283), or Arricus (Gall. Christ. 
Xv. 329). He is better known as Marius 
Aventicensis, the chronicler. He was born 
at Autun, of parents of high rank. At about 
the age of 43 he was made bishop (a.p. 5475). 
He constructed a church at Paterniacum 
(Payerne) on his own property, and made 
various donations to it. In 585 he was pre- 
sent at the 2nd council of Micon (Mansi, ix. 
958), and after an episcopate lasting 20 years 
and 8 months died on the last day of §96, in 
his 64th year. At the council of Macon, in 
585, he signed himself ‘‘ episcopus ecclesiae 
Aventicae.”” The authors of the Gallia 
Christiana publish a metrical epitaph of un- 
known date, which represents him as fabri- 
cating with his own hands the sacred vessels 
for his church and ploughing his own glebe. 
His Chronicon is a work of some historical 
importance. Though extremely brief it 
furnishes information with reference to Bur- 
gundy and Switzerland during the period em- 
braced by it which is found nowhere else, and 
serves to correct the bias of Gregory of Tours 
against the Arians of Burgundy. It takes up 
the chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine in 455 
and carries it to 581, continuing his method of 
marking the years by consulates, and com- 
mencing the indictions with 523. An anony- 
mous author has carried it to 623. For an 
account and criticism of it see Hist. Lett. iii. 
401; Cave, i. 538; Ceillier, xi. 399, 400; 
Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, i. 
47; Richter, Annalen, p. 37 and refs. there 
given. Itisin Bouquet, Recuedl, ii. 12-19, and 
Migne, Patr. Lat. \xxii. 791-802. (S.A.B. 
Martinianus (1), legendary martyr with 
Processus at Rome. According to the Acts 
of Linus, these were the two soldiers into 
whose charge Peter had been given. They 
were converted by him in prison, and for their 
baptism, Peter, by making the sign of the 
cross, caused a fountain, still shewn in the 
Mamertine prison, miraculously to spring from 
the rock. After their baptism the two sol- 
diers give Peter as much liberty as he desires, 
and when news comes that the prefect Agrippa 
is about to put him to death, earnestly urge 
him to withdraw. Peter at first complies, but 
returns to custody in consequence of the well- 
known vision Domine quo vadis. According 
to a notice in Praedestinatus (Haer. 86), which 
has the air of being more historical than most 
of the stories of that author, their cult was 
already in vogue in the reign of the pretender 
Maximus, i.e. before the end of the 4th cent. 
According to this story, Montanists got 
temporary possession of their relics and 
claimed them as belonging to their sect. 


| Lipsius conjectures that their cult began in 


the episcopate of Damasus, when great exer- 
tions were made to revive the memory of the 
saints of the Roman church. To this period 
may be referred the Acts of Processus and 
Martinianus (Bolland. AA. SS. July i. 303). 
They are clearly later than Constantine, con- 
isicing mention of offices which did not exist 
till his time. They are evidently based on the 


102 MARTINUS 

Acts of Linus, but the story receives consider- 
able ornament. Their commemoration is 
fixed for July 2 in the Sacramentary of Gre- 
gory the Great (vol. ii. 114), who also mentions 
a church dedicated to them, and tells of a 
miraculous appearance of them (Hom.in Evang. 
ii. 32, vol. i. 1586). On the whole subject, see 
Lipsius (Petrus-Sage, pp. 137 seq.). [α.5.] 

Martinus (1), St., bp. of Tours in the latter 
portion of 4th cent. Ofall the prelates of that 
age he made the deepest impression upon the 
imagination of France and of a considerable 
part of Western Christendom. 

Authorities—The authorities practically 
resolve themselves into one, Sulpicius Severus, 
who mentions Martin in his Sacra Historia 
(lib. ii. cc. xlv. seq.), in connexion with the 
important case of Priscillian. [PRISCILLIANUS.] 
Of three dialogues composed by Sulpicius, two 
treat de Virtutibus B. Martint. An epistle, 
addressed to a presbyter named Eusebius 
(some say addressed to Desiderius), is com- 
posed contra Aemulos Virtutum B. Martini; 
and two more, written respectively to a deacon 
named Aurelius and to the author’s mother- 
in-law Bassula, narrate the circumstances of 
Martin’s death. Finally, we have a bio- 
graphy, de Beatt Martini Vita Liber. In 
Horn’s ed. of Sulpicius (Amsterdam, 1665), an 
8vo of some 570 pages, including notes, at least 
a sixth part is occupied with St. Martin. St. 
Gregory of Tours devotes 3 books out of his 
7 on miracles to those wrought by the relics of 
St. Martin, andreferencesto Martinin his Church 
History again shew the large space in the mind 
of France occupied by our saint. We possess 
two versified biographies of St. Martin. Neither 
the later, in 4 books, by Venantius Fortunatus, 
merely adapted from the writings of Sulpicius, 
nor the earlier, more elegant poem, in 6 books, 
by Paulinus, has any claim to be considered an 
independent authority. Sozomen (H. E. iii. 

16) has a brief account of Martin. 

Life-—He was born at Sabaria in that part 
of Pannonia which is now Lower Hungary. He 
apparently lived at least 80 years (316-396).* 

A.D. 316-336.—His father, a soldier in the 
Roman army, rose to be a ‘military tribune. 
Martin’s infancy was passed at Pavia in Italy, 
where his father was for some time stationed, 
and there he received his education, apparent- 
ly a pagan one. But even in boyhood his real | 
bent was made manifest, and at the age of ten 
he fled to a church and got himself enrolled as 
a catechumen against the wish of his parents. 
His father succeeded in checking for a season 
the boy’s desire for a monastic career. An 
imperial edict ordered the enrolment of the 
sons of veterans, and Martin, who had become 
a wanderer among churches and monasteries, 
was, through his father’s action, compelled to 
serve. Though living with much austerity, 
he won the affection of his fellows during his 
three years’ service. During this period, 
between Martin’s 15th and 18th year, we must 
place a well-known incident, which is thor- 
oughly characteristic. At Amiens, in a winter 


* Although some of the dates are well established, 
considerable uncertainty prevails respecting others. 
Thus though his length of life seems unquestioned, | 
its limiting dates are not quitesettled. It is difficult | 
to reconcile some of the statements of Severus with 


the chronology set forth by Gregory of Tours. 


; MARTINUS 


of unusual severity, he met at the city gate a 
poor man naked and shivering. His com- 
rades did not heed the sufferer’s petitions, and 
Martin’s purse was empty. But Martin with 
his sword divided his cloak and gave one half 
to the beggar. That night Martin, in a dream, 
saw Christ Himself clad in that half cloak. 
He regarded his dream as a call to baptism, 
which he straightway received. At the re- 
quest of his military tribune, he stayed in the 
army two years after baptism.* 

A.D. 336-360.—The next important event in 
his career was his first visit to St. Hilary of 
Poictiers. Martin was his guest for a con- 
siderable time, and Hilary was anxious to 
ordain him deacon. Martin refused on the 
plea of unworthiness, but accepted the more 
lowly office of exorcist. Soon after he con- 
ceived it his duty to visit his parents and con- 
vert them from paganism. In crossing the 
Alps Martin fell in with a band of robbers, and 
was brought with hands bound before the 
chief, who asked who he was. He answered, 
“Α Christian.” To the further query 
whether he feared, he promptly replied that 
he never felt more secure, but that he grieved 
for the condition of his captors. The robber 
is said to have been converted. Martin’s 
mother, with many more in Illyricum, became 
a convert to Christianity ; his father remained 
a heathen. Arianism was particularly pre- 
valent there, and Martin stood forth as an 
almost solitary confessor for the faith. He 
was publicly scourged and compelled to de- 
part. Gaul being in a state of confusion in 
consequence of the exile of Hilary, Martin 
went to Italy, and for a short time found a safe 
retreat at Milan. But the bp. Auxentius, a 
leader among the Arians, severely persona 
him, and at length drove him away. He re- 
tired to the island of Gallinaria (now Galinara) 
off the coast of the Riviera. 

A.D. 360-371.—Hilary being permitted to 
return home, Martin kept his promise and 
returned to Gaul, an attempt to meet Hilary 
at Rome having failed. Having settled near 
Poictiers, Martin founded, some five miles off 
at Locociagum (Lugugé), what is considered 


'the earliest monastic institution in Gaul. 


Hilary gave him the site. If, as seems to 
be implied by Sulpicius, Martin returned to 
Gaul immediately after Hilary, his monastic 
life commenced a.p. 360. After 11 years in 
his monastery, his reputation led to his 
election to the see of Tours. It required what 
is called a pious fraud to entice him from his 
monastery ; a leading citizen of Tours, having 
pretended that his wife was ill, begged Martin 
to come and visit her. A crowd of the people 
of Tours and from neighbouring cities had 
been gathered together, and the all but 
unanimous desire was for the election of 
Martin. The few opponents objected that his 
personal appearance was mean, his garments 
sordid, his hair unkempt. One of the objec- 
torswas a bishop named Defensor. At service 
that day the reader, whose turn it was to 
officiate, failed, through pressure of the 
crowd, to arrive in time. A bystander took 
| up a psalter and read the verse which in A.V. 
stands thus: ‘‘ Out of the mouths of babes 
and sucklings hast Thou ordained strength 
* The chronology is here painfully confused. 


‘ 
Υ 


MARTINUS 


because of Thine enemies, that Thou mightest 
still the enemy and the avenger.”” But in the 
version then employed in Gaul, the concluding 
words were: ‘‘ ut destruasinimicum et defens- 
orum.’’ It is characteristic of the age that at 
this point a loud shout was raised by Martin's 
friends and his enemies were confounded, the 
reader’s choice of the verse being regarded as 
a divine inspiration. Opposition thenceforth 
ceased, and Martin was duly consecrated. 
A.D. 371-396.—To a great extent thenew bp. 
of Tours continued to be the monk. He built 
a monastery two miles from the city, where 
80 scholars, some of them noble, pursued a 
severe discipline. The art of transcribing was 
cultivated by the younger brethren. In time 
several cities obtained bishops from this 


MARTINUS 703 


| Priscillianist error. The leading opponent of 
' Priscillian was the Spanish bp. Ithacius. 
Priscillian, though condemned by a local 
council, was supported by some bishops, who 
consecrated him to the vacant see of Avila. 
_The members of the council thereupon had 
recourse to the civil power; while the friends 
of Priscillian sought the aid of Damasus, bp. 
of Rome. Failing to obtain it, they betook 
themselves to Milan, where the great Ambrose 
was bishop. But St. Ambrose shewed them 
no more favour than Damasus. In 384 Ithacius 
went to Tréves to seek an interview with Maxi- 
| mus, and obtained the summoning of a council 
| at Bordeaux. This all recognized as within the 
fair limits of imperial authority. But Pris- 
cillian, on his arrival at Bordeaux, instead of 


institution. Unlike Hilary, whose contro- | defending his cause by argument, appealed to 
versies with Arians and semi-Arians formed |theemperor. The Ithacians had already com- 
his chief polemical work, bp. Martin was | mitted themselves to the permission of a con- 
especially called upon to fight paganism. The | siderableamountofstateinterference. Priscil- 
country people in Gaul were still largely | lian now came to Tréves and Ithacius followed. 
heathen. Martin, as portrayed by Sulpi-| Martin objected toa case of heresy being left to 
cius, simply lives in an atmosphere of marvels. | a secular tribunal, begged Ithacius not to press 
During the first years of his episcopate the | the charges against Priscillian before such a 
record is especially abundant, though his | court, and besought Maximus not to allow any 
biographer declares he is restricting himself to | other punishment of the accused beyond ex- 
a few specimens. |}communication. Finding that he must leave 

Martin must be regarded as the great evan- | Tréves and return home, Martin obtained a 
gelizer of the rural districts of Gaul, especially promise from the emperor that there should be 
in the considerable and not very defined πὸ bloodshed. The trial of Priscillian, which 


diocese of Tours. His work and influence 
are facts which no historian of France can 
omit. Twice he came across the path of 
emperors—namely, Valentinian I. and Maxi- 
mus. Valentinian, the ruler of the West 
(364-375), for a time (in 368) fixed his seat of 
empire at Tréves. Martin repaired thither, 
for some unspecified reason. Moved by his 


Arian wife Justina, the great opponent οἵ. 


St. Ambrose, the emperor refused an audience. 
Martin within a week made his way into the 
palace. The emperor, indignant at the intru- 
sion, declined to rise, until his chair caught 
fire and compelled him to move forward. 
Convinced of the divine aid, Valentinian 
granted all Martin’s requests and took him 
into favour. Martin accepted the royal hos- 
pitality but declined all personal presents. 

Somewhat different were the relations of 
Martin with the emperor Maximus, who, after 
the flight of Valentinian II., fixed his capital 
also at Tréves. Martin declined from Maxi- 
mus such invitations as he had accepted from 
Valentinian, declaring it impossible to banquet 
with one ‘‘ who had dethroned one emperor 
and slain another.’”’ The excuses of Maximus, 
however, induced Martin to appear at the 
imperial board. The seat assigned to him was 
among the very highest. In the middle of the 
feast the proper functionary offered, according 
to custom, a goblet to the sovereign. Maxi- 
mus ordered that it should first be given to 
Martin, expecting to himself receive it from the 
bishop. But Martin handed the goblet to his 
chaplain, holding it wrong to allow the 
emperor higher honour than a presbyter. The 
bishop’s conduct was admired, though no 
other prelate had acted thus even at the repast 
of secular dignitaries of inferior rank. 

The intercourse of Martin with Maximus 
involved the bishop in the difficulties which 
troubled the church in connexion with the 


had been delayed until Martin's departure, was 

| now eagerly pressed on, at the instance of two 
| bishops, Magnus and Rufus. The emperor 
}seems to have been sincerely convinced that 
the heretical teaching of the Priscillianists in- 
volved gross immoralities; and, accordingly, 
in 385 Priscillian was executed with several of 
his adherents, while others were exiled. 

This was the first instance of the capital 
punishment of a heretic. St. Martin and St. 
Ambrose protested, and refused communion 
with the bishops responsible for this sentence. 
| Martin paid a visit to Tréves later to plead 

that some of Gratian’s officers might be spared. 
| He found there a number of bishops gathered 
for the consecration of a new bishop, Felix, to 
the vacant see of Tréves. These prelates had, 
| with one exception, communicated with the 
|adherents of Ithacius, and had endeavoured 
unsuccessfully to prevent Martin’s entrance 
|into the city. The information that those for 
whose lives he came to plead were doomed, and 
| that a sort of raid against Priscillianism was 
|contemplated, induced Martin to change his 
|mind, especially as he feared that the charge 
|of sympathy with heresy might plausibly be 
‘imputed to himself and to others of ascetic 
life who had taken the same line. Martin 
‘evidently considered himself in a situation 
| which involved a cruel and perplexing question 
of casuistry. Felix was himself a good man 
and well fitted for the vacant see. Still, Mar- 
'tin would not have communicated, but for the 
impending danger to the lives of innocent men 
and to the cause of religion. On his journey 
homeward, which he commenced on the day 
| after his communion, he sat down in the vast 
solitude of a forest, near the village of Ande- 
lthanna, and again debated with himself 
|whether he had acted aright or not. It 
seemed to him that an angel appeared and 
‘told him that his compunction was right, but 


104 MARTINUS 


that he had had no choice. Henceforth he 
must be more careful. Martin believed that 
his power of working miracles and of relieving 
the oppressed was diminished ever after this 
unfortunate event. To escape such risks in 
the future, he never, for the remaining 16 
years of his life, attended any synod or gather- 
ing of bishops. Sulpicius believes that in due 
time he regained his supernatural powers. 
The remainder of his career was spent in the 
conversion of his diocese, amidst constant 
prayer and toil. His death was calm, pious, 
and edifying. It probably occurred in 397, 
on Nov. 11, a date well known throughout the 
N. of England as the term-day of Martinmas. 
His funeral is said to have been attended by 
2,000 monks. He is specially named among 
confessors in the Mass of pope Gregory, with 
Linus, Cletus, Hilary, Augustine, and 13 more. 
One of the oldest churches in England is that 
of St. Martin at Canterbury ; and the earliest 
apostle of Scotland, St. Ninian, having heard 
of Martin’s death while labouring in Galloway, 
dedicated to him the first stone church of the 
country, Candida Casa. 

A cheap popular Life of St. Martin of Tours 
by J. C. Cazenove is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their 
Fathers for Eng. Readers. [j-G.c.] 

Martinus (2), bp. of Dumium in Gallicia, and 
afterwards metropolitan bp. of Braga, died 
c. 580; a person of importance, about whom 
our information is scanty. 

Our chief sources are: (1) Isidore, (a) his 
Life in de Vir. Ill. c. 35, (δ) a reference in 
Hist. Suevorum, Esp. Sagr. vi. 505; (2) 
Gregory of Tours—(a) de Mirvac. Scti. Martini 
Tur. i. 11; (δ) Hist. Franc. v. 38; (3) some 
Acts of councils of Braga; (4) a letter and 
poem addressed to him by Venantius For- 
tunatus (Migne, Patr. Lat. |xxxviii.). 

Life.—According to Gregory of Tours and 
Venantius Fortunatus, Martin was a native 
of Pannonia (‘‘ Pannonia Quiritis,’’ Venan- 
tius). He had travelled to the Holy Land, 
and had in the East acquired such a knowledge 
of letters that he was held second to no 
scholar of his day. Thence (ex Orientis parti- 
bus) he came to Galicia, arriving “ ad portum 
Galliciae ’”’ (? Portucale) on the same day as 
the relics of St. Martin of Tours, for which 
Arianus or Theodoric I., king of the Suevi, had 
shortly before petitioned the guardians of the 
saint’s shrine. In 561, about eleven years 
after his arrival in the country, he attended 
the first council of Braga, presided over by 
Lucretius, metropolitan bp. of Braga. The 
Acts of the council, which are in an unusual 
and highly artificial shape, were probably 
compiled by Martin, the person of the greatest 
literary pretensions then in Gallicia. 

This council evidently marks an era of 
revival and reformation in Galicia, probably 
under the auspices of the orthodox and ener- 
getic Martin. The only mention of Arianism 
in it throughout occurs in a letter of pope 
Vigilius which was read. Probably this 
indirect handling, and the penalties decreed 
generally against intercourse with heretics, 
were all that the bishops felt themselves strong 
enough to venture against a creed which had 
been shortly before the religious confession of 
the Suevian nation, and had no doubt still 
many friends in high places. Eleven years 


MARTINUS 

later another council was held at Braga, and 
Martin now occupied the metropolitan see as 
successor to Lucretius, the bishops addressing 
him in unusually submissive terms. Eleven 
bishops were present from the two synods of 
Lugo and Braga, which here appear as two 
distinct metropolitan dioceses for the first and 
only time in authentic history. 

We may probably place the correspondence 
of Martin with Venantius Fortunatus between 
572 and 580. In 580 Martin died, greatly 
mourned bythe people of Gallicia. His memory 
is celebrated on Mar. 30. 

Works.—(1) Formula Vitae Honestae, as he 
himself calls it in the preface, otherwise de 
Differentiis Quatuor Virtutum (so 1514. l.c.), 
or de Quatuor Virtutibus Cardinalibus —a 
little tract extremely popular in the middle 
ages, and frequently printed during the 15th 
and 16th cents. The best ed. is by Hasse in 
Sen. Op. iii. 468, where he describes the 
Formula as more frequently read and quoted 
in the middle ages than any of the genuine 
works of Seneca, to whom it was ascribed in 
early editions. There is aned. by A. Weidner 


(Magdeburg, 1871). Cf. Fabricius, ΒΝ 
Med. Ae. Inf. Lat. iii., Bibl. Latina, ed. 1773, 
11. LEQ: 

(2) De Moribus, a tract consisting of 


maxims from various sources. (Haase, xx.) 

(3) De Correctione Rusticorum.—In this 
interesting tract Martin discusses the origin 
of idolatry and denounces the heathen cus- 
toms still remaining in Galicia. His theory 
is that the fallen angels or demons assumed 
the names and shapes of notoriously wicked 
men and women who had already existed, 
such as Jove, Venus, Mars; that the nymphs, 
Lamias, and Neptune are demons with power 
to harm all who are not fortified with the sign 
of the cross, and who shew their faithlessness 
by calling the days of the week after the 
heathen gods. The observance of calends, 
the propitiation of mice and moths by presents 
of bread and cloth, auguries, the observance 
of the New Year on Jan. 1 instead of on the 
March equinox, when in the beginning God 
“divided the light from the darkness’”’ by 
an equal division, the burning of wax tapers 
at stones, trees, streams, and crossways, the 
adornment of tables, the pouring of corn over 
the log on the hearth, the placing of wine and 
bread in the wells, the invocation of Minerva 
by the women at their spinning, the worship 
of Venus, the incantation of medicinal herbs, 
divination by birds and by sneezing, are all 
denounced as pagan superstitions, offensive to 
God and dangerous to him who practises 
them. The sign of the cross is to be the 
remedy against auguries and all other dia- 
bolical signs. The holy incantation, viz. the 
Creed, is the Christian’s defence against dia- 
bolical incantations and songs. 

(4) De Trina Mersione, a letter to a bp. 
Boniface on threefold immersion in baptism. 

(5-9) Pro Repellenda jactantia, de Superbia, 
Exhortatio Humilitatis, de Iva, de Pascha, 5 
small tracts, first pub. by Tamayo de Salazar 
in vol. ii. of his Wartyrol. Hisp. andrightly con- 
sidered genuine (Gams, 11. (1) 473). 

(10) De Paupertate, a short tract, con- 
sisting of excerpts from Seneca, sometimes 
attributed to Martin, but not mentioned by 


ΓῚ 
a 
» 
ὃ 
rd 
Ψ 
ἢ 
ἢ 
Ἧ 
7 


MARTYRIUS 


Florez or by Nicolas Antonio (Bibl. Vat. 
Bayer’s ed. Haase, I.c. xx. 458). 

_ Martin’s Translations.—Besides his adapta- 
tions of Latin Stoical literature, Martin pro- 
duced or superintended many translations from 
the Greek. The chief are (a) the Capitula 
Martini, a collection of 84 canons, which had 
great vogue and influence in the middle ages. 
These ‘‘capitula sive canones orientalium anti- 
quorum patrum synodis a venerabili Martino 
episcopo, vel ab omni Bracarensi synodo ex- 
cerpti,’’ were incorporated in the earliest form 
of the Spanish Codex Canonum. With it they 
passed into the pseudo-Isidorian collection, 
and so obtained widespread influence. The 
sources of the collection cannot be all ascer- 
tained, they are not exclusively from Greek 
sources. They are, jwith some corrections, in 
Brun’s Canones Apostolorum, (Berlin, 1839), 
li. 43. (δ) Interrogationes et Reponsiones Plurt- 
mae, sct. Aegyptiorum Patr., trans. from an 

own Greek source by a deacon Paschasius 
in the monastery of Dumium, with a preface 
by Martin, at whose command the work had 
been undertaken (Rosweyd, Vitae Patrum, 
lib. vii. p. 505, and Prolegomenon, xiv. ; 
Florez, Esp. Sagr. xv. 433). 

Was Martin a Benedictine?—The great 
Benedictine writers unhesitatingly answer in 
the affirmative. (So Mabillon, Annales O. S. 
B. and Bibliothéque générale de VOrdre de 
Saint Benoit, ii. 203.) But it is on the whole 
most probable that Martin adopted one of the 
various older rules still current in the con- 
temporary monasteries of S. Gaul, with some 
of which we know him to have had relations. 
About roo years later his illustrious successor 
in the sees of Dumium and Braga, St. Fructu- 
osus, drew up a monastic rule for his monas- 
tery of Compludo, which was mainly an 
abbreviation of the Benedictine rule, but con- 
tained also provisions not found in that rule. 
This is the only piece of historical evidence 
connecting the Benedictine rule with Visi- 
gothic Catholicism. (Migne, Pat. Lat. 1xxxvii. 
1096; Yepés, Chron. del Ord. de S. Benito, i. 
for the ultra-Benedictine view. On the 
general subject of monasticism in Gothic Spain 
ef. Dahn, Kénige der Germanen, vi.) 

Martin’s Personality.—That Martin played 
an important and commanding part in his 
generation all that remains of him suggests. 
His life appears to have been greatly influenced 
by the parallel so often drawn by his con- 
temporaries between him and the greater 
Martin of Tours. We may also regard him to 
some extent as a piece in a political game. 
If Martin the missionary, ex Orientis parti- 
bus, effected the Suevian conversion, his 
career is one element in a scheme of European 
politics which can betraced through the greater 
part of 6th cent., and in which the destruction 
of the Suevian kingdom by Leovigild 5 years 
after Martin’s death, and the West Gothic con- 
version to Catholicism under Reccared, are 
important incidents. (Gams, Kirchengesch. von 
Spanien, ii. (1) 471.) [M.A.W.] 

yrius (3), bp. of Jerusalem, 478-486, a 

Cappadocian by birth, who had embraced a 
solitary life in the Nitrian desert. The violent 
proceedings of Timothy Aelurus drove him and 
other orthodox monks from Egypt, and he 
took refuge, A.D. 457, together with his fellow- 


MASONA 705 


solitary Elias, also subsequently bp. of Jeru- 
salem, in the house of St. Euthymius, who 
received them with great favour (Cyrill. 
Scythop. Vit. δι Euthym. cc. 94,95). After a 
time Martyrius retired to a cave 2 miles 
W. of the laura, which became the site of a 
considerable monastery (#).). Martyrius and 
Elias were present at the death and burial of 
St. Euthymius, a.p. 473, after which Anas- 
tasius bp. of Jerusalem ordained them pres- 
byters, attaching them to the church of the 
Resurrection (ib. cc. 105, 110, 112). Anas- 
tasius dying a.p. 478, Martyrius succeeded 
him as bp. of Jerusalem (ἐδ. 113). His church 
was then rent asunder by the Eutychian 
Aposchistae, of whom Gerontius was the head. 
He succeeded in bringing back these schismatic 
monks to the unity of the church (sd. 123, 124). 
Cyrillus Scythopolitanus tells us that he died 
in the 8th year of his patriarchate, A.p. 486 
(Vit. 5. Sab. c. 19; Eutych. t. ii. p. 103). 
Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii. 171; Tillem. Mém. 
eccl. Xvi. 332 seq. [ε.ν.} 

na (Massona, Mausona, Mansi, ix. 
1000; x. 478), bp. of Merida from c. 571 to c. 606. 
Except for the de Vita et Miraculis Patrum 
Emeritensium, a series of Lives attributed to 
Paulus Diaconus, a supposed writer of the 7th 
cent. (printed by Florez, Esp. Sagr. xiii., by 
Aguirre, Coll. Max. Conc. Hisp. il. 639, and 
elsewhere), our information concerning Masona 
is extremely scanty. 

Joannes Biclarensis says under A.D. 573, the 
5th year of Leovigild, ** Masona Emeritensis 
Ecclesiae Episcopus in nostro dogmate clarus 
habetur”’ ; and at the third council of Toledo, 
the famous conversion council of 589, Masona 
presided, his signature “ Ecclesiae Catholicae 
Emeritensis Metropolitanus Episcopus Pro- 
vinciae Lusitaniae”’ being at the headof all the 
episcopalsignatures, andimmediately following 
that of Reccared. Between these two dates 16 
years of great importance to the Gothic state 
had elapsed, comprising the rebellion of Her- 
menigild and the submission of Reccared to 
Catholicism. From the notice by Joannes 
Biclarensis 9 years earlier, it is evident that 
at the outbreak of the rebellion Masona was 
one of the most prominent Catholic bishops 
in S. Spain, and therefore would have consider - 
able influence upon the position assumed by 
Merida in the contest. In 589 the great aim of 
the Catholic party was achieved, and the Visi- 
gothic state became, at least officially, Catholic. 
Eight years later a ae of bishops at 
Toledo, under the presidency of Masona, passed 
two canons, one insisting upon the celibacy 
of bishops, priests, and deacons, the other 
reserving the endowments of a church for 
the benefit of its priests and other clerks, as 
against possible exactions from the bishop. 
This assembly was perhaps a chance gather- 
ing of a number of bishops in the capital, who 
took the opportunity to formulate rules on 
two important disciplinary points. If it was 
a duly summoned national council, the Acts 
were purposely or accidentally omitted from 
the original redaction of the Spanish Codex 
Canonum made within the first 40 years of 
7th cent. Our last notice of Masona occurs 
in a letter, dated Feb. 28, 606, to him 
from Isidore in answer to an inquiry on 
a matter of discipline. In 610 his succes- 


46 


706 MATERNUS, JULIUS FIRMICUS 


sor, Innocentius, signed {the Decretum Gun- 
demart. 

The above Vita remains to be considered. 
If it be a genuine piece of 7th-cent. biography, 
it gives full and valuable information on his 
life and also on the general condition of the 
Spanish church in the 6th and 7th cents. 
But the Latin of the first three chaps. seems 
to make it impossible to refer them to 7th 
cent. The legendary and marvellous char- 
acter of the remainder, and the desire apparent 
throughout to exalt the ecclesiastical import- 
ance of Merida, is, on the other hand, no 
argument against genuineness, as contem- 
porary parallels might easily be quoted. 
The facts it gives regarding Masona are 
briefly: his Gothic extraction, his education 
in the church of St. Eulalia, his persecution at 
the hands of Leovigild, who sent two Arian 
bishops, Sunna and Nepopis, at different 
times, to undermine Masona’s influence and 
oust him from his church, his intercourse with 
Leovigild at Toledo, where his resistance to 
the king’s demand led to his exile, and his 
final restoration to his see after Leovigild’s 
various supernatural warnings. After Rec- 
cared had succeeded and publicly embraced 
Catholicism, a struggle took place in Merida 
between Masona and Sunna. Sunna joined 
with two Gothic Comes, Segga and Witteric, 
in a plot for murdering Masona which was 
miraculously frustrated, and Witteric, after- 
wards the Gothic king of that name, confessed 
all to Masona, who was not only protected by 
miracles, but by the strong arm of the Catholic 


Claudius Dux of Lusitania (known to us from | 


other sources, as are Sunna and Segga, cf. 
Isid. Hist. Goth. ap. Esp. Sagr. v. 492 ; Joann. 
Bicl. op. cit. 385, 386; and ep. Greg. Magn. ; 
Aguirre Catalani, Coll. Max. Conc. Hist. ii). 
Reccared decided that Sunna should either 
recant his Arianism or gointo exile. Hechose) 
the latter, retired into Mauritania and there 
came to a miserable end. Masona lived to an 
honoured old age, procuring in his last hours | 
the miraculous punishment of his archdeacon | 
Eleutherius, who had abused the powers en- | 
trusted to him by the failing bishop. 

It is not improbable that the Vita repre- | 
sents the 7th-cent. tradition. Isidore ex- 
pressly mentions the exile of bishops among | 
Leovigild’s measures of persecution (Hist. 
Goth. l.c. p. 491), and it is most likely that | 
Masona was exiled c. 583, after the fall of 
Merida, and restored, not during the lifetime 
of Leovigild, as his enthusiastic biographer | 
declares, but upon the accession of Reccared, 
who sought to reverse his father’s policy. | 
Dahn, Koénige der Germanen, v. 141; de | 
Castro, Biblioteca Espafioles, ii. Ρ. 348 ; Nicolas | 
Antonio, Bibl. Vet. Bayer’s ed. i. p. 373 ; note | 
by Morales to the Memoriale Sanctorum of St. 
Eulogius apud Hist. Illust. iv. 282. [M.A.W.] | 

Maternus(3), Julius Firmicus, an acute critic | 
of pagan rites and doctrines and a vigorous 
apologist for the Christian faith, known from 
his treatise de Errore Profanarum Religionum, 
composed between 343 and 350, very valuable 
for its details of the secret rites of paganism. 
It describes every leading form of idolatry 
then current and gives us information not 
found elsewhere. It discusses the idolatry of | 
the Persians, Egyptians, Assyrians, the Greek 


MAXENTIUS, JOANNES 


mysteries, the ceremonies and formulae used 
in the Mithraic worship. Some of the details 
on this last are very curious, some liturgical 
fragments being inserted. In opposition to 
the heathen orgies he presents the pure mys- 
teries of Christianity inhis preface, now almost 
completely lost, and from c. xxiv. to the end. 
He concludes with earnestly exhorting the 
emperors to suppress paganism by force ; thus 
giving one of the earliest specimens of Chris- 
tian intolerance. The work illustrates the 
small amount of philological and etymological 
science possessed by the ancients. Maternus, 
arguing against the Egyptians that Sarapis 
was originally the patriarch Joseph, derives 
the name Sarapis from Σαρᾶς ἀπό, because 
Joseph was the descendant of Sarah. The 
work is valuable for Biblical criticism, as in 
it are found quotations from the versions used 
in N. Africa in St. Cyprian’s time. There are 
probably embodied in it some fragments of the 
ancient Greek writer Evemerus, whose work 
upon paganism, now lost, was largely used by 
all the Christian apologists. In Migne’s 
Patr. Lat. t. xii. is reprinted an ed. of 
Maternus, pub. by Munter at Copenhagen in 
1826, with an introductory dissertation dis- 
cussing the whole subject. A contemporary 
| pagan Julius Firmicus Maternus, usuallystyled 
Junior, wrote a work (between 330 and 360) 
on judicial astrology, mentioned by Sidon. 
Apoll. in Ep. ad Pont. Leont. Upon this see 
the'above dissertation. Thereissome reason to 
suppose that he was converted to Christianity 
and was identical with the subject of our art. 
See C. H. Moore, Jul. Firm. Mat. der Heide 
und der Christ. (Munich, 1897). [G.T.S.] 
Maurus (2), St., founder and abbat of the 
Benedictine monastery of Glanfeuil or St. 
Maur-sur-Loire. He is better known, as Her- 
zog says, to tradition than to history, but the 
primary authority is Gregorius Mag. (Dzal. ii. 
cc. 3 seq.). His Life, written by Faustus Cas- 
| sinensis, and re-written with alterations by 
Odo or Eudes, at one time abbat of Glanfeuil, 
is given by ] Mabillon (Acta SS. O. S. B. saec. 1. 
|274 seq.) and the Bolland. (Acta SS. Jan. i. 
| 1039 seq.). [Faustus(31)]. St. Maurus, better 
| known in France as St. Maur, was when 12 
| years old entrusted by his father Equitius, an 
Italian nobleman, to the charge of St. Bene- 
| dict at Subiaco (or at Monte Cassino) and 
trained in monastic rule. By St. Benedict he 
was sent into Gaul c. 543, and established his 
monastery on the Loire by favour of King 
Theodebert. He introduced the Benedictine 
‘rule, and was the chief means of its acceptance 
| in France, but the details of his work are not 
|given. He died a.p. 584. His monastery, 
secularized in 16th cent., was in the middle 
ages one of great influence, and the ‘‘ Congre- 
gation of St. Maur” has done much from 
the 17th cent. to elevate the tone of the mon- 
astic orders. The genuineness of his life in all 
its stages has been disputed. Ceillier, Sacr. 
Aut. xi. 157, 170, 610; Herzog, Real-Encycl. ix. 
201; Cave, Lit. Hist. i. 574; Mosheim, Hist. 
Ch. Ch. cent. xvii. So spies Cenk []. G.] 
Maxentius (4), Joannes, presbyter and 
archimandrite. His monastery (Sugg. Dtose. 
in Labbe, iv. 1520) appears to have been 
situated within the jurisdiction of Paternus, 
bp. of Tomi (Késtendje), the capital of Scythia 


Sh Veh at ee eS νι 


MAXENTIUS, JOANNES 


Minor (Dobrudscha), who subscribed the 
synodical letter of the council held at Con- 
stantinople, a.p. 520, as ‘‘ Provinciae Scythiae 
Metropolitanus ᾿᾿ (Labbe, iv. 1525). About 
517 a controversy arose at Constantinople, in 
which the credit of the council of Chalcedon 
(A.D. 451) was considered to be seriously in- 
volved (Hormisd. epp. 15, 16 in Mansi, viii. 
418 and Labbe, iv. 1454, 1455). An active 
part was taken by certain Scythian monks, 
with Maxentius as their leader, who earnestly 
contended for the position ‘** unus de Trinitate 
in carne crucifixus est’ as essential to the 
exclusion of the heresy of Nestorius on the one 
hand and of Eutyches on the other (Suggestio 
Dioscurit, Labbe, iv. 1513, May 13, 519; 
Desprez, Proleg. Fulgent. Rusp. in Migne, lxv. 
109). The dispute was at its height in 510, 
when Germanus bp. of Capua, bp. Joannes, 
Blandus a presbyter, Felix and Dioscorus 
deacons, arrived at Constantinople from 
Hormisdas bp. of Rome, to negotiate a recon- 
ciliation of the two churches (Baronius, s.a. 
Ixxxvii.). At the same time the writings of 
Faustus the semi-Pelagian bp. of Riez were 
also the subject of fierce debate at Constanti- 
nople, the Scythian monks contending that 
they were heretical. Among the chief an- 
tagonists of the monks were a deacon named 
Victor, Paternus bp. of Tomi, and other 
Scythian bishops (Sugg. Germ. Joann. Fel. 
Diosc. et Bland. in Labbe, iv. 1514). Both 
parties had influential supporters in the im- 
perial court, the monks being vigorously 
upheld by Vitalian, then apparently in great 
favour with the emperor Justin, who held the 
office of magister militum (Evagr. H. E. iv. 
3; Suggest. Diosc. u.s.), and their opponents 
no less so at first by Justinian, who already 
held high office under his uncle (Vict. Tunun. 
5.4. 518; Justinian, ad Hormisd. Labbe, iv. 
1516). Soon after the arrival of the Roman 
legates at Constantinople the Scythian monks 
appealed for their help, and Maxentius, in 
their name, drew up “de Christo Professio,”’ 
explanatory of their faith, which they sent 
with the appeal (Migne, Patr. Gk. 1xxxvi. 75, 
79). They protest that it is from no dis- 
respect to the council of Chalcedon, but in 
its defence, that they contend for their position 
on the subject of the Trinity, and declare that 
they anathematize all who either oppose that 
council or hold its decisions to be imperfect. 
They also denounce the teaching of Pelagius 
and Coelestius, and the followers of Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, as ‘‘contradictory to that of 
the apostle.’”’ They further pray the papal 
legates to hear their accusations against Victor 
and Paternus (May 30, 519, Labbe, iv. 1509 ; 
Suggest. Legat. u.s. 1514, June 29, 519; 
Hormisd. Suggest. Diosc. et al. May 30, 519; 
Labbe, iv. 1519; Suggest. German. et al. 
June 29, 519; 1b. 1514; Hormisd. Ep. 67, 
ad Justinian. ; 1b. 1518). The legates, at the 
urgent request of the emperor Justin and 
Vitalian, consented to hear the case, but with- 
out pronouncing a decision. Failing to ob- 
tain satisfaction at Constantinople, the monks 
determined to send four of their number, 
Achilles, John, Leontius, Mauritius, to lay the 
whole case before Hormisdas at Rome (Jus- 
tinian, Ep. ad Hormisd. Labbe, iv. 1516). The 
four departed for the West early in May 519, 


MAXENTIUS, JOANNES 707 


and Justinian and the Roman legates duly 
notify their departure to Hormisdas, and pray 
him to reject their appeal. 

Hormisdas delaying to hear the four envo 
others were sent to join them, Maxentius 
apparently being one. Meanwhile Justinian 
changed his opinion of the monks and became 
their advocate (Justinian. ad Hormisd. ; Hor- 
misd. Ep. 66, ad Justinian. Sept. 2, 410, μ.5.Ψ 
1518). The controversy seems to have in- 
volved a considerable number of the clergy 
of the East, especially those of Jerusalem, An- 
tioch, and Syria Secunda (Justin. ad Hormisd. 
Μ..8. 1520, Jan. 19, 520; Deprec. et Supplic. ab 
Hieros. et al. u.s. 1542). An active corre- 
spondence followed between Constantinople 
and Rome, during which Possessor, an African 
bp. exiled by the Arians, wrote to Hormisdas, 
requesting his opinion as to the orthodoxy of 
the writings of Faustus and urging that 
Vitalian and Justinian were equally anxious 
to hear from Hormisdas on the subject (Pos- 
sess. Ep. Afr. Relat. Labbe, iv. 1530, received 
at Rome July 18, 520). Shortly after the 
dispatch of this letter Vitalian was put to 
death (Procop. Hist. Arc. 6, Op. ed. Bonn, iii. 
46; Vict. Tunun. s.a. 523). 

The deputation at Rome, finding the Roman 
legates at Constantinople too strong for 
them, and therefore having little hope of 
success with Hormisdas, resolved to appeal to 
the African bishops then in exile in Sardinia, 
some of whom, as Fulgentius of Ruspe, enjoyed 
a high reputation for ability as well as ortho- 
doxy. In drawing up the appeal they again 
appear to have employed Maxentius. It was 
divided into eight chapters. In the fourth 
they elaborately defend the position they had 
maintained at Constantinople. At the close 
of the fifth they solemnly protest their accept- 
ance of the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, 
Ephesus, and Chalcedon, the letters of Leo 
anathematizing the writings of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia and Nestorius his disciple, and all 
writings opposed to the Twelve Chapters of 
the blessed Cyril against Nestorius; anathe- 
matizing in addition, Eutyches and Dioscorus 
(Petr. Diac. de Incarnat. et Gratia, Migne, 
Patrol. xv. 442-451). _ This appeal was 
responded to by Fulgentius, bp. of Ruspe, in 
his well-known de Incarnatione εἰ Gratia 
Domini nostri J esu Christi, in which the exiled 
bishops express their hearty approval of the 
confession of faith which the appeal con- 
tained (Fulgent. Ep. 17, Op. π.5. 451%-493)- 
The monks, after being detained at Rome 14 
months, had now returned to the East. Be- 
fore they left they drew up a further protesta- 
tion of their faith, which they caused to be 
affixed to the statues of the emperors (Hor- 
misd. Ep. 70, ad Possess.; Labbe, iv. 1531). 
This, probably, was the ‘‘contra Nestor- 
ianos capitula” of the collected works of 
Maxentius. The title, however, hardly corre- 
sponds to the contents, which consist of 12 
anathemas, the 9th being directed against 
the Eutychians, and the remaining three 
against Pelagius and Coelestius and their fol- 
lowers (Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 86). 

Maxentius and his friends, having returned 
to Constantinople, sent a oxy of the writings 
of Faustus of Riez to Fulgentius and the other 
‘exiles in Sardinia, requesting him and his 


108 MAXENTIUS, JOANNES 


brethren to send their opinion of these (Ὁ. Ixv. 
145). Meanwhile Fulgentius wrote his de Veri- 
tate Praedestinationis, addressed to Joannes 
presbyter and Venerius deacon, two of the 
Scythian monks (ib. 603-671), speaking of the 
monks in the highest terms. On Aug. 13, 520, 
Hormisdas replied to the letter received from 
Possessor on July 18, speaking of the monks 
with unmeasured reproach. They arescatterers 
of ‘poison under the pretence of religion,’’ and 
he writes nowsothat, shouldtheyreturn toCon- 
stantinople, they might not deceive those who 
did not knowof theirconduct at Rome. He does 
not, however, commit himself to any opinion 
as to the position ‘‘ unum de Trinitate,”’ but 
refers to it in very general terms, saying, ‘‘The 
reverend wisdom of the Fathers has defined 
what is Catholic doctrine. . . what need, there- 
fore, to raise any further controversy, when 
the Christian faith is limited by canonical 
books, synodical decrees, and the constitu- 
tions of the Fathers within fixed and im- 
movable limits?’’ Nor is he much more 
explicit as to the writings of Faustus. He 
says that he does not receive him nor any one 
not approved by the authority of the Fathers, 
but adds, that if he agrees with ‘‘right faith 
and sound teaching’’ he is to be admitted ; 
if not, he is to be rejected, and concludes with 
telling Possessor that ‘‘ although what the 
Roman, that is the Catholic, church follows 
and maintains on the subject of free-will and 
the grace of God may be gathered from 
various books of the blessed Augustine, and 
especially from those addressed to Hilary and 
to Prosper; nevertheless, there are certain 
special documents preserved in the ecclesi- 
astical archives, which, if Possessor has not, 
and wishes to see, he will send him ”’ (Hor- 
misd. Ep. 70, ad Possess.; Labbe, iv. 1530- 
1532). This letter was widely circulated as an 
encyclic, and when it came into the hands of 
Maxentius he at once replied to it in his ad 
Ep. Hormisdae Responsio, Migne, lxxvii. 94-112. 
The reply is in every way a remarkable docu- 
ment. The archimandrite refuses to believe 
the letter can have been written by Hormisdas, 
but argues that whether it was so or not, its 
author was “‘ unquestionably a heretic,”’ as he 
considers that to ‘‘ maintain that Christ, the 
Son of God, is one of the Trinity is to contend 
about words.’’ He also takes the writer to 
task for having virtually decided that, al- 
though the writings of Faustus were not 
authoritative, they were still to be read. 

We hear nothing more of Maxentius and the 
Scythian monks until after Hormisdas died in 
Aug. 523. The encyclic of Hormisdas had now 
reached the exiled bishops in Sardinia, though 
there is no reason to believe that they had 
also seen the Responsio of Maxentius, and they 
had had ample leisure for consideration of 
the second appeal addressed to them from 
Constantinople. They accordingly met in 
council and sent the monks a reply in the form 
of a synodical letter. They acknowledge the 
receipt of the letter of Maxentius and his 
brethren, and say they rejoice that they 
“hold a right opinion on the grace of God, by 
whose light the free will of the human mind 
is illuminated, and by whose aid it is con- 
trolled,’ and express sorrow that any should 
question the Catholic faith on the point (c. 2). 


MAXIMIANUS 


The position for which John Maxentius and 
his brethren contended was afterwards for- 
mally approved by a council at Rome in 532 
(Labbe, iv. 1761) and elaborately defended in 
534 by John II. bp. of Rome, who argued 
that it had always been held by Catholics in 
the very form used by the Scythian monks, 
quoting Proclus patriarch of Constantinople 
and others (Ep. 3 in Labbe, iv. 1751; Jaffé, 
Reg. Pont: 73; Pagi, Crit. s.a. 533). The 
council of Constantinople of 553 anathema- 
tized all who questioned it (collat. viii. anath. 
10, Labbe, v. 575). Yet Baronius (s.a. 519 
cil.) is unsparing in his condemnation of the 
monks as impugners of the Catholic faith. 
They have found an able defender in Cardinal 
Noris (Hist. Pelagiana, 1i. 18, in Op. i. 474-596 ; 
esp. 6. 20, pp. 498-504; Hist. Controv. de 
Uni. ex Trintt. passe, cc.4-8; Op.iii.800-854), 
and Pagi (Crit. s.a. 519, vi.) accepts his vin- 
dication as conclusive. [T.W.D.] 

Maximianus (1) I., M. Aurelius Valerius 
(Herculius), emperor of Rome a.p. 286-305 
with Diocletian, 306-308 with Maxentius or 
Constantine; compelled to strangle himself 
Feb. 310, being probably 60 years old (Tillem. 
““ Diocletian,” vol. iv. p. 7, Hist. des Emp.). 
A Pannonian soldier of humble birth but great 
military ability and unresting activity, he was 
created Caesar in 285 by Diocletian, and 
Augustus in 286. (For the chief events in his 
history see DIOCLETIAN, CONSTANTINE, and 
MAXENTIUS in D. of G. and R. Biogr.) The 
Diocletian persecution began in A.D. 303, and 
Maximian joined init. He is said in the de 
Mortibus Persecutorum to have been the 
worthy brother of Diocletian, and Eusebius 
speaks of his death in the same retributive 
tone as of the other emperors except Constan- 
tius and Constantine (H. E. viii. 13). 

The military talents and activity of Maxi- 
mianus were of the greatest value to the 
Western empire and in Africa, and while under 
Diocletian’s influence or direction he seconded 
him honestly and well. He was a barbarian 
soldier without honour, principle, or educa- 
tion; crime was familiar to him, though he 
seems not to have practised cruelty for its 
own sake. He is accused of the usual sensual 
excesses, though not to the same extent as 
Maxentius. [R.ST.J.T.] 

Maximianus (2), the man from whom a 
special sect among the Donatists derived its 
name; that schism within a schism, which 
rent it asunder and helped to bring about its 
ultimate overthrow. He is said to have been 
related to Donatus the Great, and was a 
deacon at Carthage when, at the death of 
Parmenian, Primian was appointed bp. of the 
Donatists there A.D. 391. Primian found 
fault with four of his deacons, especially 
Maximian, whom he appears to have disliked 
most. He tried to persuade the ‘ Seniors ’’ 
of Carthage to condemn them all, but they 
refused, and Primian then proceeded to ex- 
communicate Maximian, who was ill and 
unable to appear. The Seniors summoned 
Primian to meet them to explain this arbitrari- 
ness, but he refused. They then wrote to the 
bishops of the district, entreating them to 
meet and inquire into the case. Forty-three 
met at Carthage; and their proceedings, not- 
withstanding the violence of the supporters of 


MAXIMIANUS 


Primian, who was himself absent, resulted in 
his condemnation. In June or July 393, at 
a second meeting of Donatist bishops at 
Cabarsussum, a town of Byzacene, Primian 
was more formally condemned, his deposition 
pronounced, and a resolution apparently 
passed that Maximian should be appointed in 
his place. He was accordingly ordained at 
Carthage by 12 bishops. But Primian was 
not crushed by this, for at a council of 310 
bishops at Bagai, Apr. 24, 394, at which he 
himself presided, the supporters of Maximian, 
of whom none were present, were condemned 
in most opprobrious language. Notwith- 
standing the defection of the Maximianists, 
who appear to have rebaptized those who 
joined them, the validity of their baptism was 
not denied by the other Donatists, a point 
which Augustine frequently uses against them. 
Unremitting persecution induced many Maxi- 
mianists to return at length to the Donatist 
community, but of Maximian himself we hear 
little or nothing subsequently; other names 
are most prominent in the party’s history. 
Aug. c. Cresc. iii. 16, 59, iv. 3, 4, 6-9, 55, 573 
En. Ps. (Vulg.) xxxvi. 19, 20, 23, 29; Ps. 
cxxiv. 5; Epp. 43, 26, 76; 44, 71; 53, 3; 
141, 6; 185, 17; de Gest. Emer. 9; c. Parm.i. 9; 
Tillem. Mém. vi. 65-72; Morcelli, Afr. Chr. 
vol. ii. pp. 310-326; Ribbeck, Aug. und Don. 
Pp. 206-236. [H.W.P.] 
Maximianus (5), archbp. of Constantinople, 
A.D. 431. The action of the council of Ephe- 
sus had thrown the churches of Constantinople 
into direst confusion. A large proportion of 
the citizens held strongly to Nestorius; the 
clergy, with one voice, agreed in theanathema; 
and when the deposition became a fact no 
longer to be disputed, the excitement was 
continued about the election of a successor. 
After four months, agreement was arrived at 
in the election of Maximian. He had led a 
monastic life and had entered presbyteral 
orders; his action in building, at his own 
expense, tombs for the remains of holy men 
had obtained for him a reputation of sanctity. 
In principles he followed the former arch- 
bishops, Chrysostom, Atticus, and Sisinnius. 
Pope Celestine wrote to him in highly com- 
plimentary terms on his elevation. The 
appointment was made by the unanimous 
vote of clergy, emperor, and people. The 
letter of Maximian announcing to the pope his 
succession is lost, but that to S. Cyril remains, 
with its high eulogium on Cyril’s constancy in 
defending the cause of Jesus Christ. It was 
the custom for occupants of the principal sees 
on election to send a synodical letter to the 
most considerable bishops of the Christian 
world, asking for the assurance of their com- 
munion. Maximian sent his synodical to the 
Easterns as to the others. Communion was 
refused by Helladius of Tarsus; and, we may 


conclude, by Eutherius of Tyana, Himerius of | 


Nicomedia, and Dorotheus of Martianopolis, 
as Maximian deposed them. John of Antioch 


MAXIMINUS I. 709 


mian spared no effort, and although he was in 
closest harmony with St. Cyril, he pressed him 
strongly to give up his anathemas, which 
seemed an insurmountable obstacle to reunion. 
He even wrote to the emperor's secretary 
Aristolaus the tribune, who was greatly 
interested in the question of peace, almost 
complaining that he did not press Cyril 
enough on the point, and to his archdeacon 
Epiphanius. Harmony being restored, Tohn 
of Antioch and the other Eastern bishops 
wrote Maximian a letter of communion 
indicating their consent to his election and to 
the deposition of Nestorius. Cyril wrote to 
him, attributing the blessed result to the force 
of his prayers. A letter to Maximian from 
Aristolaus, which Maximian caused to be read 
in his church to his people, was pronounced 
spurious by Dorotheus of Martianopolis, 
evidently because it took the side of Maximian 
so decidedly. Maximian held the see of Con- 
stantinople from Oct. 25, 431, to Apr. 12, 414. 
Of all his letters, only that to St. Cyril is ex- 
tant. Mansi, v. 257, 259, 266, 269, 271, 273, 
286, 351; Baluz. Nov. Coll. Cone. 581 seq. ed. 
1681; Socr. vii. 35, 40; Liberat. Diac. Brev. 
19; Ceill. viii. 394. [νν.Μ».5.} 

Maximinus (2) I., Roman emperor, a.p. 
235-238. (Ὁ. Julius Verus Maximinus is con- 
spicuous as the first barbarian who wore the 
imperial purple, and as one of the emperors 
whose names are connected with the ten per- 
secutions recorded by ecclesiastical historians. 
Born in Thrace of a Gothic father and an Alan 
mother, eight feet high and of gigantic 
strength, he attracted the notice of Septimius 
Severus, and rose into favour with Alexander 
Severus. When that emperor. fell into dis- 
favour with his troops, Maximinus seized his 
opportunity and organized a conspiracy which 
ended in the murder of Alexander and his 
mother at Mayence in 235. The praetorian 
guards elected him emperor, and their choice 
was confirmed by the senate. 

The hostility of Maximinus to his Christian 
subjects was probably because of the favour 
they had enjoyed from the eclectic or syncretic 
sympathies of Alexander Severus. They 
would appear to him, as to other emperors, a 
secret, and therefore a dangerous, society, the 
natural focus of conspiracies and plots. The 
persecution was limited in its range, and 
probably was effectual chiefly in removing the 
restraints which the leanings of Alexander had 
imposed on the antagonism of the populations 
and governors of the provinces. 

Pontianus, bp. of Rome, was banished with 
the presbyter Hippolytus to Sardinia, and died 
there in 235, and, according to Baronius 
(Ann. 137, 138), his successor Anteros met a 
like fate in 238. Origen thought it expedient 
to seek safety with his friend Firmilianus, bp. 
of the Cappadocian Caesarea. That province 
was under the government of Serenianus, 
whom Firmilianus describes (ap. Cyprian, Ep. 
75) as “acerbus et dirus persecutor.”’ Fre- 


approved the refusal of the bp. of Tarsus, and | quent earthquakes had roused the panic-stricken 
praised him for having declined to insert the | population to rage against the Christians as 
name of Maximian in the diptychs of his | the cause of all disasters (Orig. in Matt. xxiv. 


church. Maximian’s earnest appeal for re- 9). 


This was all the more keenly felt after the 


union continued. Pope Sixtus wrote to him | comparatively long tranquillity which they 


several times, urging him to extend his charity 
to all whom he could possibly regain. Maxi- 


had enjoyed under Alexander Severus and his 
predecessors. From his retirement Origen 


710 MAXIMINUS Ii. 


addressed two treatises On Martyrdom and On 
Prayer to his disciple Ambrosius, a deacon of 
the church of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 28), 
and Protoctetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, both 
of whom were taken as prisoners to Germany 
(Orig. Exhort. ad Mart. 41). 

The tyranny of Maximin brought about the 
revolt in Mauritania, which for three months 
raised the two Gorp1Ans to the throne of the 
Caesars. At Aquileia his troops, suffering 


from famine and disease, became disaffected. 
A party of praetorian guards rose, and he, 
| was beheaded (2b. H. E. ix. 6). 


with his son and the chief ministers of his 
tyranny, were slain in his tent. -Their heads 
were cut off and exhibited on the battlements 
to the gaze of the citizens. [E.H.P.] 
Maximinus (3) II. (Jovius), emperor, A.D. 
305-3 Galerius Valerius Maximinus, ori- 
ginally called Daza, played a somewhat pro- 
minent part in the complications following on 
the abdication of DiocLeTIAN and MAxi- 
MIANUS I. Those emperors were succeeded 
as Augusti by GALERIUS and CONSTANTIUS, | 
who appointed as Caesars Daza, under the 
name of Maximinus, and Severus. On the 
death of Constantius (A.p. 306) Galerius as- 
signed the provinces beyond the Alps to) 
Constantine, but conferred the vacant title of | 
Augustus on Severus, leaving that of Caesar 
to Constantine and Maximin. Severus was 
put to death a.p. 307, and Galerius made 
Constantine and Licinius Augusti, assigning 
Illyricum to the latter. Maximin, who was 
in charge of Syria and Egypt, jealous of this 
promotion of others to a higher position than | 
his own, assumed, under the convenient plea 
that his troops compelled him, the title of 


Augustus, and added to it the epithet Jovius, | 
which had been borne before by Diocletian | 
(Eus. H. E. viii. 13; ix. 9). On the death of | 
Galerius in 311, Maximin received the pro- | 
vinces of Asia Minor in addition to Syria and 
Egypt, and Licinius those of Eastern Europe. 
The decisive victory of Constantine at Milvian | 
Bridge in 312, and the betrothal of Constan- | 
tine’s sister to Licinius, alarmed Maximin, | 
who determined on immediate hostilities. At 
Heraclea he was encountered by the army of 
Licinius, and utterly routed. In 24 hours he 
reached Nicomedia, 160 miles from the scene 
of his defeat, and made his way to Tarsus, 
where after a few days’ despair he poisoned | 
himself. As a final insult to his memory all | 
inscriptions to his honour were destroyed, his | 
statues disfigured and thrown from their 
pedestals (ix. 11). His character is pre-eminent | 
for brutal licentiousness and ferocious cruelty. | 


The provinces of Asia, Syria, and Egypt groaned | 


MAXIMINUS 


to the gods, and on his refusal, Appian, a 
youth of twenty, was tortured and slain. 
Ulpian and his brother Aedesius were slain at 
Tyre, Agapius was thrown into the amphi- 
theatre at Caesarea to fight with a bear and 
so lacerated that he died the next day. Theo- 
dosia, a virgin of Tyre, was drowned, Silvanus 
tortured, and the confessors of Phaeno in 
Palestine sent to the mines (Eus. de Mart. 
Palest.c. 4). Silvanus, the aged bp. of Emesa, 
was thrown into a den of wild beasts. Peter, 
bp. of Alexandria, with many other bishops, 
The church of 
Antioch supplied yet more illustrious martyrs. 
On the application of an embassy from that 
city, headed by Theotecnos, which he himself 
had prompted, he forbade the Christians to 
hold their wonted meetings in its catacombs 
(ix. 2). Hesychius and Lucian, the latter a 
presbyter, famous for learning and saintliness, 
were summoned to the emperor’s presence at 
Nicomedia, half starved to death, and then 
tempted with a luxurious banquet as the price 
of their apostasy, and on their refusal to deny 
their faith were thrown into prison and put 
to death (ix. 6). Decrees, which Eusebius 
(ix. 7) copied from a pillar in Tyre, were issued, 
ascribing the famines, earthquakes, and pestil- 
ences to the wrath of the gods at the spread of 
the creed which was denounced as atheistic, 
and decreeing, at the alleged request of the 
Syrians themselves, perpetual banishment 
against all who adhered to their denial of the 
state religion. Even the Armenians, though 


outside the emperor’s dominions, and old 


allies of Rome, were threatened with war, 
because they were Christians (ix. 8), and 
this at a time when thousands were dying of 


starvation from a prolonged famine followed 


by pestilence. From Nicomediaand the neigh- 
bouring cities the Christians were banished by 


|an imperial edict, issued here as elsewhere, 


as at the request of the citizens themselves 
(ix. 9). Not till after his defeat by Licinius 
did the tyrant, in the rage of his despair, turn 
against the priests, prophets, and soothsayers 
who had urged him on, and, as a last resource, 
within less than a year after his edicts of ex- 
termination, issue a decree of toleration and 
order the restitution of property taken from 


'the Christians and brought into the imperial 


treasury (ix. 10). [E.H.P.] 
Maximinus (4), St., 5th archbp. of Tréves 
(c. 332-349), known to us from the part he 
played in the history of Athanasius. In Feb. 
336 the latter was banished by the emperor 
Constantine to Tréves, then the seat of 
government of his eldest son Constantine 11. 


for six years under him, and of all the persecu- | Maximin received him with honour, became 
tors in that last great struggle between the old | his zealous partisan and friend, and was 
and new religions none were so infamous for | thenceforth numbered among the champions 
their cruelties. Though he joined for a time, | of orthodoxy in the West (Hieron. Chron. an. 
on the advice of the dying Galerius, with Con- | 346, Migne, Patr. Lat. xxvii. 682 ; Athan. Ep. 
stantine and Licinius in a decree of toleration σά Episc. Aegypt. ὃ 8; Apologia ad Imp. 
in 311, he renewed the persecution with greater | Const. ὃ 3, ed. Benedict. i. 278, 297 ; Hilarius, 
vigour within a few months (viii. 17). The | Hist. Frag. ii. ed. Maff. ii. 634, in Patr. Lat. x. 
sufferings of the Christians in Alexandria drew | 644). For the probable influence of Athan- 
the hermit Anthony from his desert seclusion to | asius’s sojourn on the struggle between 
exhort themto steadfastness. Of the martyrsof | Arianism and orthodoxy and the growth of 
Palestine, to whom Eusebius dedicates a whole | monasticism in the West, see Rettberg, Kzir- 
book of his history, most suffered by his orders | chengeschichte, i. 187, 188. Athanasius left 
and many in his presence. Heralds were sent | Tréves in June 338, and in 340 Maximin was 
through Caesarea ordering all men to sacrifice called upon to entertain and assist Paul, the 


MO Ce es Ce 


MAXIMINUS 


banished bp. of Constantinople. His efforts 
resulted in Paul’s restoration in 341. In 342 
a deputation of four Arian bishops arrived at 
Tréves, hoping to win Constans to their views. 
They brought a creed of compromise, but 
Maximin was inflexibly hostile, refused them 
communion, and was mainly instrumental in 
securing the rejection of their proposals (Hilar. 
Hist. Frag. iii. ed. Maff. ii. 662, 663, in Patr. 
Lat. x. 674, 675). In 343 Maximin was present 
at the council of Milan (Hest. litt. de la France, 
i. B. rrr). Whether he was also at the great 
council of Sardica, 343 or 344, is not quite 
certain, but he assented to its decisions 
(Athan. A pol. contr. Artanos, ὃ 50, ed. Bene- 
dict. i. 168; Hilar. ἐδ. ii. 647, in Patr. Lat. 
659). His prominent part in the conflict 
with Arianism is shewn by the special excom- 
munication pronounced against him at the 
co council of Philippopolis (Hist. Frag. 
iii. 27). 

Maximin’s cult was established from very 
early times. The legends that collected round 
his name are embodied in two biographies, one 
by an anonymous monk of St. Maximin in 8th 
cent. (Boll. Acta SS. Mai. vii. 21-25), the other 
by a Lupus, who, in the opinion of Ceillier (xii. 
511) and others, was Lupus, bp. of Ch4lons. 
It is in Migne, Patr. Lat. cxix. 665-680. 
According to their story, Maximin was a native 
of Poitou, brother of Maxentius, bp. of 
Poictiers. Drawn to Tréves by the favour of 
St. Agricius, he was ordained by him and 
succeeded him in the see. Against the Arian 
heresy, then in the ascendant, he boldly con- 
tended and suffered much persecution. He 
summoned a council at Cologne, which con- 
demned Euphratas, the bp. of that city, who 
denied the divinity of Christ. (This council is 


now admitted to be fictitious; see Baron. 
Ann. 346, vii. sqq-; Rettberg, Kitrchen- 
geschichte Deutschlands, i. 131). He died in 


Aquitaine after an episcopate of 17 years, and 
was buried there. For the early history of 
his τὐνε ρος δον ναίει see Gall. ore xiii. 

523 sqq-; Rettberg, 1.5. i. 474. S.A.B.] 
Maximinus (6), Arian bp. of Hippo Regius, 
who came with the Gothic soldiers into Africa 
A.D. 427, 428, and held a discussion with St. 
Augustine on the Trinity. Augustine, later, 
replied in 2 books, which, with that which con- 
tains the discussion, exhibit the arguments for 
and against the Arian doctrine. The line of 
argument taken by Augustine resembles so 
strongly that expressed in our Athanasian 
creed that if this were lost it might almost be 
supplied from this treatise. August. Coll. 
cum Max. and Contra Max. i. ii. Opp. vol. viii. 
pp- 719-810, ed. Migne; Vit. Poss. 17; Ceillier, 

vol. ix. 359-361. [H.W.P.] 
us (2) Magnus, Christian emperor 

in the West, A.D. 383-388. sane 
sto- 


Authorities—Besides the regular 
rians, of whom Zosimus (iv. 35-46) gives most 
original matter, St. Ambrose has_ special 
notices, Epp. 24 (narrative of his embassies), 
20, ὃ 23, and 40, ὃ 23 ; Symmachus, Ep. ii. 31 ; 
Sulpicius Severus, almost contemporary, 
Chron. ii. 49-51, Vita 5. Martini, 20, Dialogus, 
ii. 6, iii. rx. The best modern books are De 
Broglie, L’Eglise et l'Empire au IV me stécle 
(Paris, 1866), vol. vi. and H. Richter, West- 
romische Reich (Berlin, 1865), pp- 568 ff., of. T. 


MAXIMUS, MAGNUS 11 


Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders (Oxf. 1880), 
vol. i. PP. 147-155. 

History.—Magnus Maximus was a Spaniard 
by birth (Zos. iv. 35) and a dependant of the 
family of Theodosius, with whom he served 
in Britain. In 383 he was proclaimed em- 
peror by the soldiers in Britain, where he held 
some command, apparently not a very high 
one. He landed in Gaul at the mouth of the 
Rhine, and was met by the army of Gratian 
somewhere near Paris. The troops came over 
to him, and Maximus suddenly found himself 
in possession of the western provinces. Gra- 
tian was killed at Lyons, Aug. 25, and, as 
was generally reported, by the orders of 
Maximus himself. The Western empire was 
thus in great danger, since Valentinian II. 
was a mere weak boy, and Theodosius was 
occupied in the East. It shews the position 
of St. Ambrose that he was chosen by the 
empress-mother, Justina, to treat for peace at 
this crisis (S. Ambr. Ep. 24, §§ 3, 5,7). Peace 
was made, Maximus being acknowledged as 
Augustus and sovereign of the Gauls, side by 
side with Valentinian and Theodosius. 

This state of things lasted for some years, 
during which Maximus, who had been baptized 
just before his usurpation, busied himself 
much with church affairs, being desirous to 
obtain a reputation for the strictest orthodoxy. 
Western writers, Sulpicius Severus and Oro- 
sius, though treating Maximus as a usurper, 
give him, on the whole, a good character, 
Sulpicius making exception on the score of 
his persecution of the Priscillianists and his 
love of money (Sulp. Dial. ii. 6 ; Oros. vii. 34). 
Thus Maximus was in general an able and 
popular ruler, at least in his own dominions, 
giving his subjects what they most wanted, 
some feeling of security and peace. But we 
must join in the censure passed upon his 
treatment of the Priscillianists by pope 
Siricius (synod of Turin, A.p. 401, can. 6, 
Hefele, Councils, § 113), St. Ambrose, and St. 
Martin of Tours. Ambrose, indeed, was a 
political opponent, but Maximus courted 
Siricius, and was very obsequious to Martin. 
The Priscillianist heretics, who held a mixture 
of Gnostic, Manichean, and Sabellian opinions, 
had been condemned by a synod at Saragossa 
in 380. Their opponents, Ithacius Ἦν ο 
Ossonuba, and Idacius bp. of Emerita, found 
in Maximus a ready instrument of persecution. 
The Priscillianists were ordered to appear 
before a synod at Bordeaux in 384, where one 
of their chiefs, bp. Instantius, was condemned | 
as unworthy at the episcopal office. Pris- 
cillian denied the competency of the synod, 
and appealed to the emperor. St. Martin be- 
sought him to abstain from bloodshed, and to 
remit the case to ecclesiastical judges. Itha- 
cius, their most vehement accuser, did not 
hesitate to charge Martin himself with Pris- 
cillianism, but, for a time, better influences 

revailed, and Maximus promised that no 
ives should be taken. After Martin's de- 
arture, however, other bishops persuaded 
ecinns to remit the case to a secular judge, 
Evodius, and finally the emperor condemned 
Priscillian and his companions, including a 
rich widow Euchrocia, to be beheaded. In- 
stantius and some others were exiled. A 
second synod, held at Tréves in 385, approved 


112 MAXIMUS, MAGNUS 


by a majority the conduct of Ithacius, and 
urged Maximus to further measures of con- 
fiscation. St. Martin returned to intercede 
for some of his friends, and with this purpose 
communicated with the faction of Ithacius, 
who were then consecrating a bishop. There 
can be no doubt that Maximus wished to be 
regarded as a champion of catholicity, and 
to use this merit as a political instrument. 
As early as 385 he seems to have written to 
pope Siricius, professing his ardent love of the 
Catholic faith, offering to refer the case of a 
priest Agricius, whom the pope complained 
of as wrongly ordained, to ecclesiastica] judges 
anywhere within his dominions. (This letter 
is only given at length by Baronius, s.a. 387, 
§§ 65, 66; cf. Tillemont, Les Priscillianistes, 
art. το. The part about Agricius is given by 
Hanel, 5.4. 385, from other MSS., thus con- 
firming the genuineness of the letter.) At 
the beginning of 387 the struggle about the 
basilicas gave him a pretext for interfering on 
the Catholic side with the court of Milan, a 
proceeding which he may have thought would 
gain him the sympathy of his old opponent 
St. Ambrose. He wrote a threatening letter 
to Valentinian II., which we still possess, 
bidding him desist from the persecution of the 
church (Soz. vii. 13; Theod. v. 14. This 
letter is given only by Baronius, s.a. 387, 
§§ 33-36, cf. Tillem. Saint Ambroise, art. 48. 
Its genuineness seems not absolutely certain). 
Justina, in this emergency, again used the 
political skill and intrepidity of St. Ambrose, 
whose loyalty was unshaken and whose disin- 
terestedness was universally recognized. Am- 
brose went on a second embassy to Maximus, 
of which he has left us a lively record in his 
24th epistle. He set out after that memor- 
able Easter which witnessed the baptism of St. 
Augustine, and found the emperor at Tréves. 
His high spirit and sincerity seem to have 
disappointed Maximus, who found fault with 
him for acting against his interest, accused 
count Bauto of turning barbarians upon his 
territory, and refused to restore the still un- 
buried remains of Gratian; thus clearly 
shewing that he meant war. Ambrose’s 
refusal to communicate with the Ithacians 
was the final offence, and the emperor suddenly 
commanded him to depart (cf. Ep. 24, § 3, for 
his judgment on this party). On his return 
to Milan Ambrose warned Valentinian to pre- 
pare for war, but his wise counsels were dis- 
regarded. A second ambassador Domninus 
was sent, and was entirely deceived by the 
soft words of Maximus, who persuaded him 
that Valentinian had no better friend than 
himself, and cajoled him into taking back into 
Italy a part of his army, under pretence of 
serving against the barbarians who were in- 
vading Pannonia. Having thus cleverly got 
his soldiers across the Alps, he followed rapidly 
in person, and entered Italy as an invader 
(Zos. iv. 42). Justina and her son and 
daughters fled to Theodosius at Thessalonica. 
Maximus was thus left in possession of Italy. 
The details of the campaign that followed 
belong to secular history. Theodosius de- 
feated the troops of Maximus at Siscia and 
Petovio, and seized the emperor himself at 
Aquileia, where he was put to death, after 
some form of trial (Ζοβ, iv. 46; Pacatus, 43, 


MAXIMUS, PETRONIUS 


44), on July 25 or August 28, 388, after 
a reign of rather more than five years. His 
son Victor, whom he had named Augustus, was 
put to death shortly after. Andragathius, 
his able general, who was accused of the 
murder of Gratian, threw himself into the 
Adriatic. It is not said what became of 
Marcellinus, who had been defeated at Petovio. 
Legend.—The connexion of Maximus with 
Britain is obscure, but it has given rise to a 
considerable aftergrowth of legend. He is 
called “ Rutupinus latro’’ by Ausonius, per- 
haps merely because he started from Rich- 
borough to invade Gaul. Welsh tradition has 
incorporated him into its genealogies of saints 
and royal heroes, under the name of Macsen 
Wledig, or Guledig, a title considered to be 
equivalent to imperator. (See H. Rowland’s 
Mona Antiqua Restaurata, pp. 166 ff., ed. 2, 
Lond. 1766, and cf. Skene’s Four Ancient 
Books of Wales, vol. i. pp. 45, 48, vol. ii. 405. 
He is usually called Macsen, which rather 
suggests a confusion with Maxentius, but 
Skene quotes his Welsh name also as Maxim, 
i. p. 48.) The ‘“‘ dream of Maxen Wledig ’’ in 
the Mabinogion (ed. Guest, vol. iii. pp. 263- 
294, Lond. 1849) represents him as already 
emperor of Rome, and brought to Britain by 
a dream of a royal maiden Helen Luyddawe 
or Luyddog, daughter of Eudav (= Octavius ?) 
of Caer Segont, or Carnarvon, and then re- 
turning after seven years with his brother-in- 
law Kynan to reconquer his old dominions. 
Another mythical account describes Kynan 
as raising an army of sixty thousand men, 
who afterwards settled in Armorica. The 
desolation of Britain thus left the country 
exposed to the attacks of the Picts and Saxons 
(cf. Mabinogion, 1.0. pp. 29 ff.; R. Rees, 
Essay on Welsh Saints, pp. 104, 105, Lond. 
1836; Nennius, Hist. Brit. § 23). A further 
development of the legend represents St. 
Ursula and her company of virgins as sent out 
as wives for these emigrated hosts. The term 
Sarn Helen applied to Roman roadsin N. Wales 
is explained as referring to the wife of Maximus. 
It is difficult to say what historical facts 
may be at the bottom of this. That the with- 
drawal of Roman troops by Maximus exposed 
Britain to invasion is an obvious fact, and is 
already asserted by Gildas (Historia, cc. 10, 
11). The colonization of Armorica by some 
of his auxiliaries is also possible enough. On 
the other hand, the name of Helen may merely 
be borrowed from the mother of Constantine, 
and Sarn Helen may be explained as Sarn-y- 
lleng, ‘‘ the legion’s causeway,” just as the 
story of the cutting out the tongues of the 
women of Armorica by Kynan’s soldiers ap- 
pears to be only an etymological myth to 
explain the name Llydaw applied to that 
country. For further refs., see R. Williams, 
Biogr. Dict. of Eminent Welshmen (Llandovery, 
1852), art. ‘‘Maxen Wledig.” {y-w.] 
Maximus (3), Petronius, emperor of the 
West, A.D. 455 ; a descendant of the Maximus 
who usurped the empire in the time of Gratian 
(Procopius, Bell. Vand. i. 4). He was of one 
of the noblest and wealthiest families of Rome, 
was three times prefect of Rome and twice 
consul. To avenge the insult his wife had 
received from Valentinian III. (see Procopius, 
u.s.), he caused him to be assassinated on 


RE: 


MAXIMUS 


Mar. 16 or 17, 455. Maximus then seized the 
vacant throne, and compelled Eudoxia, the 
widow of Valentinian, to marry him a few 
days after her husband’s death, his own wife 
having died shortly before. He also gave 
her daughter Eudocia to his son Palladius, 
whom he created Caesar (Idatius, Chronicon 
in Pair. Lat. li. 884). The outraged Eudoxia 
summoned Genseric king of the Vandals to 
avenge and deliver her. Genseric sailed with 
a mighty armament for Rome. Maximus 
endeavoured to fly, but the people and soldiery, 
headed by Valentinian’s officers, rose against 
him, stoned him, tore him limb from limb and 
flung his mangled body into the river, prob- 
ably on June 12, 455 (Chronicon Cuspintan- 
um); thus he reigned rather under 3 months. 
The chronology is discussed at length by Tille- 
mont in a note (Emp. vi. 628). [F.pD.] 
Maximus (9), bp. of Alexandria, r4th 
““ successor of St. Mark,”’ had been a presbyter 
under bp. Dionysius. During the Decian 
persecution, after Dionysius had been carried 
away by some Christians of Mareotis into 
Libya, Maximus with three other presbvters 
“kept themselves concealed in Alexandria, 
secretly carrying on the oversight of the 
brethren ” (Dionys. to Domitius and Didymus, 
ap. Euseb. vii. στ). It is surprising that their 
ministrations were undetected by the in- 
quisitorial severity of the local government, 
which found victims among the virgins of the 
church (see Eus. vi. 41). Seven years later, 
when Valerian’s persecution began, we find 
Maximus attending his bishop (who calls him 
his ‘‘ fellow-presbyter '’) to the tribunal of the 
prefect Aemilianus, as involved with him, and 
three deacons and a Roman lay Christian, in 
the charge of contumacious rejection of the 
gods who had “preserved the emperor’s 
sovereignty,” and whose worship was in 
accordance with ‘‘natural ᾿᾿ law. He was 
banished with Dionysius to Cephro in the 
Libyan frontier, sharing in the rough recep- 
tion the heathen inhabitants gave to the 
bishop and assisting him in the preaching 
which ere long won over “ not a few’ of them 
to ‘‘ the word then sown among them for the 
first time.”’” After a while the party were 
removed to Colluthion, much nearer to Alex- 
andria (tb. vii. 11). When Dionysius, ‘‘ worn 
out with years,’’ died early in 265 (in Mar. 
according to Le Ouien, Ortens Christ. ii. 395 ; 
Neale says Feb., Hist. Alex. i. 39, 83), Maximus 
was appropriately elected to succeed him. 
Maximus died on Sun. Apr. 9, 282 (Le Ouien, ii. 
396) and was succeeded by Theonas. [w.B.] 
Maximus (10), bp. of Jerusalem, the goth 
in succession from the apostles, succeeded 
Macarius on his death, A.p. 336. He had been 
a confessor in one of the persecutions (Theod. 
H. E. ii. 26)—according to Philostorgius 
(H. E. iii. 12) that of Maximian—in which he 
had lost one eye and had the sinews of one 
arm and one thigh severed while still serving 
as a presbyter at Jerusalem. He appears to 
have had no strength of character, being honest 
but timid, his simplicity making him the tool 
of the stronger and more designing. His 
career is consequently inconsistent. He 
attended the council of Tyre, αν. 335, being 
admitted to a seat, together with Marcellus of 
Ancyra, Asclepas of Gaza, and others, as 


MAXIMUS 713 


among those least committed to the cause of 
Athanasius, whose presence would give an 
air of impartiality to its deliberations, whom. 
also for their close vicinity, it would not have 
been decent to exclude (De Broglie, ΠΕ κε 
εἰ Empire, ii. 326). The part he took is 
variously represented. According to Sec- 
rates (H. E. ii. 8) and Sozomen (H. EF. iii. 6), 
he assented to the deposition of Athanasius. 
Rufinus, however (H. EF. i. 17), records the 
dramatic incident that the aged confessor 
Paphnutius of the Thebaid, whose mutilated 
form had attracted so much attention at 
Nicaea, when he saw Maximus vacillating, took 
him by the hand and led him over to the 
small band of Athanasius’s supporters, saying 
that it did not become those who bore the 
tokens of their sufferings for the faith to con- 
sort with its adversaries. Sozomen, who here, 
as elsewhere, is not consistent, records the 
same incident (H. E. ii. 25). We know little 
of the part taken by Maximus in the Arian 
troubles between the council of Tyre, a.p. 
335, and that of Sardica. But if he had re- 
fused complicity when the solemn recognition 
of Arius was made by the 200 bishops as- 
sembled for the dedication of Constantine's 
church at the council of Jerusalem, it could 
hardly fail to have been recorded. The 
silence of all historians throws doubt on 
Rufinus’s statement that Maximus remained 
always faithful to the cause of Athanasius. 
He, however, refused to attend the council of 
the Dedication assembled by the Eusebians at 
Antioch, A.p. 341, at which the sentence of 
the council of Tyre against Athanasius, to 
which he had been an assenting party, was 
confirmed. On this occasion he had been put 
on his guard in time; and, conscious of his 
weakness, discreetly kept away, fearing lest 
he might, as at Tyre, be carried away (συναρ- 
mayels) against his will and led to acquiesce 
in measures of which he would afterwards 
repent (Socr. H. E. ii. 8; Soz. H. E. iii. 6). 
At Sardica he was once more on the orthodox 
side and his name stands first of the Pales- 
tinian bishops who signed the synodical letters 
(Athan. Apolog. I. ad Const. p. 768). A 
little later he warmly welcomed Athanasius 
when passing through Jerusalem to resume 
his seat at Alexandria, summoning an as- 
semblage of bishops to do honour to him, by 
the whole of whom, with two or three excep- 
tions, Athanasius was solemnly received into 
communion. Congratulatory letters on the 
recovery of their chief pastor were written to 
the Egyptian bishops, and Maximus was the 
first to affix his signature (Socr. H. EF. ti. 24: 
Soz. H. E. 21, 22; Athan. Apol. I. ad 
Const. p. 775; Hist. Arian. ad Solit. § 25; 
Labbe, Concdl. ii. 92, 625, 670). Jerome states 
that Maximus died in possession of his bishop- 
ric, A.D. 350 or 351, and that Cyril was ap- 
pointed to the vacant see. [κιν. 
Maximus (11), the Cynic; the intrusive bp. 
of Constantinople, a.p. 380. A native of 
Alexandria of low parentage, he boasted that 
his family had produced martyrs. He was 
instructed in the rudiments of the Christian 
faith and received baptism, but sought to 
combine the Christian profession with Cynic 
philosophy. Gregory Nazianzen describes 
him as having had no regular occupation, but 


714 MAXIMUS 


loitering about in the streets, like a shameless 
dog, foul and greedy (κύων, κυνίσκος, ἀμφόδων 
ὑπηρέτηδ). More than once he earned a 
flogging for his misdeeds and was finally 
banished to the Oasis. We hear of him next 
at Corinth, with a high reputation for religion, 
leading about a band of females—‘‘ the swan 
of the flock’—under colour of devotion 
(Carm. cxlviii. p. 450). Soon after Gregory 
Nazianzen had begun to reside there, Maximus 
shifted to Constantinople. Gregory devotes a 
considerable number of the biting iambics of 
his poem, de Vita Sua, to this man, who, how- 
ever, before long completely gained his ear 
and heart. Maximus professed the most 
unbounded admiration for Gregory’s dis- 
courses, praising them in private and in public. 
His zeal against heretics was most fierce and 
his denunciations of them uncompromising. 
The simple-hearted Gregory was completely 
duped by Maximus, even delivering a panegy- 
rical oration, in the man’s own presence in 
full church, before the celebration of the 
Eucharist, inviting him to stand by his side 
and receive the crown of victory. Meanwhile, 
Maximus was secretly maturing a plot for 
ousting his unsuspicious patron from his 
throne. He imposed upon Peter of Alex- 
andria, who lent himself to Maximus’s pro- 
jects. Maximus found a ready tool in a pres- 
byter of Constantinople envious of Gregory’s 
talents and popularity (de Vit. p. 13). Others 
were gained by bribes. Seven unscrupulous 
sailors were dispatched from Alexandria to 
mix with the people and watch for a favour- 
able opportunity for carrying out the plot. 
When all was ripe they were followed by a 
bevy of bishops, with secret instructions from 
the patriarch to consecrate Maximus. The 
conspirators chose a night when Gregory was 
confined by illness, burst into the cathedral, 
and commenced the consecration. They had 
set the Cynic on the archiepiscopal throne 
and had just begun shearing away his long 
curls when the day dawned. The news 
quickly spread and everybody rushed to the 
church. The magistrates appeared with 
their officers; Maximus and his consecrators 
were driven from the cathedral, and in the 
tenement of a flute-player the tonsure was 
completed. Maximus repaired to Thessa- 
lonica to lay his cause before Theodosius. He 
met with a cold reception from the emperor, 
who committed the matter to Ascholius, the 
much respected bp. of that city, charging him 
to refer it to pope Damasus. We have two 
letters from Damasus asking for special care 
that aCatholic bishop maybe ordained (Migne, 
Pair. Lat. xiii. pp. 366-369; Epp. 5, 5, 6). 
Maximus returned to Alexandria, and de- 
manded that Peter should assist him in re- 
establishing himself at Constantinople. Peter 
appealed to the prefect, by whom Maximus 
was driven out of Egypt. As the death of 
Peter and the accession of Timotheus are 
placed Feb. 14, 380, these events must have 
occurred in 379. | When the second oecumeni- 
cal council met at Constantinople in 381, 
Maximus’s claim to the see of Constantinople 
was unanimously rejected, the last of its 
original four canons decreeing ‘that he 
neither was nor is a bishop, nor are they 
who have been ordained by him in any 


MAXIMUS 


rank of the clergy’’ (Labbe, Concil. ii. 947, 
954, 959)- 

Maximus appealed from the Eastern to the 
Western church. In the autumn of 381 a 
synod held either at Aquileia or at Milan 
under Ambrose’s presidency considered Maxi- 
mus’s claims. Having only his own repre- 
sentations to guide them, and there being no 
question that Gregory’s translation was un- 
canonical, while the election of Nectarius was 
open to grave censure as that of an unbaptized 
layman, Maximus also exhibiting letters from 
Peter the late venerable patriarch, to confirm 
his asserted communion with the church of 
Alexandria, it is not surprising that the 
Italian bishops pronounced decidedly in 
favour of Maximus and refused to recognize 
either Gregory or Nectarius. A letter of 
Ambrose and his brother-prelates to Theo- 
dosius (Ep. xiii. c. i. § 3) remonstrates against 
the acts of Nectarius as no rightful bishop, 
since the chair of Constantinople belonged to 
Maximus, whose restoration they demanded, 
as well as that a general council of Easterns 
and Westerns, to settle the disputed episcopate 
and that of Antioch, should be held at Rome. 
In 382 a provincial synod held at Rome, having 
received more accurate information, finally 
rejected Maximus’s claims (Hefele, Hist. of 
Councils, i. pp. 359, 378, 381, Eng. trans.). 
Jerome tells us that Maximus sought to 
strengthen his cause by writing against the 
Arians, and presented the work to Gratian at 
Milan. He appears also to have written 
against Gregory, the latter replying in a set of 
caustic iambics (Carm. clxviii. p. 250) express- 
ing astonishment at one so ignorant venturing 
on a literary composition. Theod. H. E. v. 8; 
cf. Soz. H. E. vii. 9; Greg. Naz. Orat. xxii. 
xxviii.; Carm. 1 de Vita sua ; Carm. cx\lviii. ; 
Tillem. Mém. eccl. ix. 444-456, 501-503. [E.v.] 

Maximus (15), patriarch of Antioch. After 
the deposition of Domnus II., patriarch of 
Antioch, by the ‘‘ Latrocinium ’”’ of Ephesus, 
A.D. 449, Dioscorus persuaded the weak Theo- 
dosius to fill the vacancy with one of the 
clergy of Constantinople. Maximus was 
selected and ordained, in violation of all 
canonical orders, by Anatolius bp. of Con- 
stantinople, without the official sanction of 
the clergy or people of Antioch. Maximus, 
though owing his elevation to an heretical 
synod, gained a reputation for orthodoxy in 
the conduct of his diocese and province. He 
dispatched ‘‘ epistolae tractoriae’’ through 
the churches subject to him as metropolitan, 
requiring the signatures of the bishops to Leo’s 
famous ‘“‘tome”’ and to another document 
condemning both Nestorius and Eutyches 
(Leo Magn. Ep. ad Paschas. 88 [68], June 451). 
Having thus discreetly assured his position, he 
was summoned to the council of Chalcedon in 
Oct. 451, and took his seat without question, 
and when the illegal acts of the “ Latrocinium” 
were quashed, including the deposition of the 
other prelates, a special exception was made 
of the substitution of Maximus for Domnus 
on the express ground that Leo had opened 
communion with him and recognized his epis- 


copate (Labbe, iv. 682). His most important 
controversy at Chalcedon was with Juvenal of 
Jerusalem regarding the limits of their respec- 
tive patriarchates. It was long and bitter; at 


& 
‘ 


ESE: 


πο τς “6... οἰ 


1 Cagney er re 


Pew > 


MAXIMUS 


last a compromise was accepted by the council, 
that Antioch should retain the two Phoenicias 
and Arabiaand thatthe three Palestines should 
form the patriarchate of Jerusalem (i. 614- 
618). Maximus was among those by whom the 
Confession of Faith was drawn up (ἐδ. 539-562), 
and stands second, between Anatolius of Con- 
stantinople and Juvenal of Jerusalem, in the 
signatories to the decree according metropoli- 
tical rank to Constantinople (fb. 798). 

The next notice of Maximus is in a corre- 


spondence with Leo the Great, to whom he had | 


appealed in defence of the prerogatives of his 
see. Leo promised to help him against either 
Jerusalem or Constantinople, exhorting him 
to assert his privileges as bp. of the third see 
in Christendom (#.e. only inferior to Alexandria 
and Rome). Maximus’s zeal for the orthodox 
faith receives warm commendation from Leo, 
who exhorts him as ‘‘consors apostolicae 
sedis ’’ to maintain the doctrine founded by 
St. Peter ‘‘ speciali magisterio’’ in the cities 
of Antioch and Rome, against the erroneous 
teaching both of Nestorius and Eutyches, and 
to watch over the churches of the East 
generally and send him frequent tidings. 
The letter, dated June 11, 453, closes with a 
desire that Maximus will restrain unordained 
persons, whether monks or simple laics, from 
public preaching and teaching (Leo Magn. 
Ep. 109 [92]). Two years later, A.p. 455, the 
episcopate of Maximus came to a disastrous 
close by his deposition. The nature of his 
offence is nowhere specified. We donot know 
how much longer he lived or what became of 
him. Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xv. passim; Le 
Quien, Oriens Christianus, t. ii. p. 725. [E-V.] 
Maximus (18), bp. of Turin, writer, reckoned 
as Maximus II., the third bishop, by Cappel- 
letti (Le Chtese d’Ital. xiv. 12, 14, 76), who 
puts a Maximus I. in 390 as the first bishop 
Ughelli (Ital. Sac. iv. 1022) counts them as 
one (cf. Boll. Acta SS. 25 Jun. v. 48). He was 
present at the council of Milan in 451 and 
signed the letter to pope Leo (Leo, Ep. 97 ; 
Labbe, iv. 583). He was also at the council of 
Rome in 465, where his name appears next 
after pope Hilary’s, apparently on account of 
his seniority (Labbe, v. 86). Gennadius of 
Massilia (d. 496) gives a sketch of his works, 
most of which are still extant, but strangely 
says that he died in the reign of Arcadius and 
Honorius, t.e. before 423. This has led some 
to think that there were two bishops of this 
name, but the early date given by Gennadius 
seems irreconcilable with the many allusions 
to Nestorian doctrines in the homilies on the 
Nativity, and the general opinion is that he is 
wrong (Gennad. de Scrip. Eccl. c. xl. in Patr. 
Lat. lviii. 1081). The works of Maximus are 
in vol. lvii. of Migne’s Patrologia Latina. 
They consist of 117 homilies, 116 sermons, 3 
tractates on baptism, 2 (of very doubtful 
authority) entitled respectively contra Paga- 
nos and contra Judaeos, and a collection of 
expositions de Capitulis Evangeliorum (also 
doubtful). Many of the sermons and homi 
were formerly ascribed to St. Ambrose, St. 
Augustine, St. Leo, etc. 
great church festivals. 
Points of interest in the homilies and ser- 


Several are on the |1 


the festival. 


MAXIMUS 715 


in Lent (Hom. 44); no fasting or kneeling at 
prayer between Easter and Pentecost (Hom. 
61). In Hom. 62, on the other hand, he 
mentions that the vigil of Pentecost was ob- 
served as a fast. This custom therefore prob- 
ably originated in his time. St. Leo, men- 
tioning the fast of Pentecost, makes it clear 
that he means the fast immediately following 
In Hom. 83 Maximus comments 
on the creed, which is exactly the same as the 
Roman creed given by Rufinus. Among con- 
temporary events alluded to may be noticed 


| the synod of Milan in 389, at which Jovinian 


was condemned (Hom. 9). Seven homilies 
(86-92) refer to the terror of the city at an 
impending barbaric invasion, apparently 
Attila’s inroad, 452. Another homily (94) 
refers to the destruction of the church of 
Milan on the same occasion. He several 
times refers to superstitions in his diocese, 
their observance of the Calends of Jan. (16), 
their tumults during an eclipse (roo), the 
idolatry still lurking among the lower orders 
(Serm. ror, 102). There are homilies on the 
feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 
on St. Lawrence, St. Cyprian, St. Agnes, and 
St. Eusebius of Vercelli, and several on the 
festival of SS. Peter and Paul which are 
worth particular attention. In some of these 
he uses very decided language on the supre- 
macy of St. Peter, ¢.g., speaking of him as 
the keystone of the church (Hom. 54), the 
““magister navis’’ (Serm. 114); and as en- 
trusted with ‘‘ totius Ecclesiae gubernacula "’ 
(Hom. 70). But in other places he speaks of 
St. Peter as supreme in discipline, St. Paul in 
doctrine, and remarks ‘inter ipsos quis cui 
praeponatur incertum est’’ (72). owhere 
does he allude to the church of Rome as in- 
heriting exclusively the supremacy of St. 
Peter. Gennadius mentions a work of Maxi- 
mus de Spiritali Baptismit Gratia, and three 
treatises on this subject, formerly ascribed to 
St. Augustine, are published by Migne with 
the works of Maximus, on the strength of 
three ancient MSS., one of which the church of 
Turin possesses. Nothing in their style is 
against Migne’s conclusion. The first treatise 
dwells on the significance of the anointing of 
the ears before baptism; the second gives an 
interrogatory creed identical with the one 
mentioned above in the homilies, and alludes 
to the custom of baptizing on the third day 
after the profession of faith ; the third speaks 
of the anointing of the head after baptism, by 
which is conferred the full regal and sacerdotal 
dignity spoken of by St. Peter, and of the 
custom of washing the feet at the same time, 


after the example of Christ. See F. Savio's 

Gli Antichi Veseovt d'Italia (Turin, 18499), 

Ρ- 283. [M.F.A.] 
Maximus (24), an ecclesiastical writer, 


placed by Eusebius (H. E. v. 27) in the reign 
of Severus and episcopate of Victor, #.¢. in 
the last decade of 2nd cent. Eusebius says 
the subject of his work was the origin of evil 


lies | and whether matter had been created, and else- 


where (Praep. Ev. vii. 22) entitles it, “Concern- 
ing Matter’ (περὶ τῆς Ons), and preserves a 
long extract, from which it appears to have 
been in dialogue form. Routh, whose Re- 


mons are: the notice of fixed lections (e.g. | liquiae Sacrae (ii. 87) is by far the best ed. of 
Hom. 36 and 37) ; abstinence from flesh meat | the remains of Maximus, pointed out that the 


716 MAXIMUS OF EPHESUS 


same fragment is in the dialogue on free will 
ascribed to Methodius, and that other things 
are common to the work on free will and the 
dialogue of Origen against the Marcionites, so 
that both authors probably drew from Maxi- 
mus. That the work is rightly ascribed to 
Maximus the testimony of Eusebius is decisive; 
and St. Jerome says in his Catalogue, that 
Methodius wrote on free will, while Photius has 
preserved large extracts from what he knew 
as the work of Methodius on free will, which 
clearly prove that it incorporated much of 
Maximus. Thestyle, moreover, of the opening 
of the dialogue on free will resembles Metho- 
dius, and differs from that of the part concern- 
ing matter. We leave, then, to Methodius the 
rhetorical introduction to his dialogue, but 
the context appears clearly to shew that the 
part which belongs to Maximus begins earlier 
than the portion quoted by Eusebius and 
printed by Routh. It must include the state- 
ment of the views of the speaker, who main- 
tains matter to have existed from eternity, 
destitute of qualities, and also the announce- 
ment of the presence of the third speaker, 
who afterwards takes up the controversy, on 
the hypothesis that matter had been from the 
first possessed of qualities. In Methodius, the 
defender of the eternity of matter is appar- 
ently represented as a Valentinian, for his 
speeches are marked Val.; and so also in 
Adamantius. In Maximus he seems to be no 
heretic, but a sincere inquirer after truth. 
He propounds the difficulty concerning the 
origin of evil; if evil was at any time created, 
then something came out of nothing, since 
evil did not exist before; and God Who 
created it must take pleasure in evil, which we 
cannot admit. He then offers the solution 
that, co-eternally with God, there existed 
matter, destitute of form or qualities, and 
borne about in a disorderly manner; that 
God took pity on it, separated the best parts 
from the worst, reduced the former to order, 
and left the latter behind as being of no use 
to Him for His work, and that from these lees 
of matter evil sprang. The most successful 
part of the orthodox speaker’s reply is where 
he shews that this hypothesis does not relieve 
God of the charge of being the author of evil. 
Galland conjectures that the author of the 
dialogue is the Maximus who was 26th bp. 
of Jerusalem, and whom Eusebius, in his 
Chronicle, places about the reign of Commodus. 
It does not absolutely disprove this, that Euse- 
bius, though he twice speaks of the writings of 
Maximus, does not mention that he was a 
bishop ; probably Eusebius found in the book 
he used no mention of the author’s dignity, and 
knew no more than we do whether he was the 
bp. of Jerusalem. But there seems increasing 
reason to think that Eusebius erroneously attri- 
buted to Maximus the work of Methodius: see 
Zahn in Zettschr. fiiy Kirchengesch. ix. 224-229, 
and J. A. Robinson, The Philocalia of Origen 
(Camb. 1893), pp. xl.-xlix. [c.s.] 
Maximus (25) of Ephesus. A “master 
of theurgic science,’’ commonly reckoned 
among the neo-Platonic philosophers, the in- 
terest of whose life consists merely in the 
fact that he supplied an essential link in the 
transit of the emperor Julian from Chris- 
tianity to paganism. The account given by 


MAXIMUS OF EPHESUS 


Eunapius, in his Life of Maximus, shews 
exactly how this was. Julian, while still 
under tutelage and in early youth, with the 
natural self-will of a vigorous mind, had 
rebelled in secret against his Christian instruc- 
tors and betaken himself to Greek philosophy 
as a liberal and congenial study. This bent 
was not disallowed by the emperor Constan- 
tius, who thought it safe when compared with 
political ambitions. But philosophy at that 
era indicated much more than quiet intel- 
lectual research. It was a name of power, 
to which all whose sentiments flowed with a 
strong current towards the _ traditionary 
heathenism had recourse for self-justification ; 
and it was natural that Julian, once he had 
attached himself to this study, should in- 
stinctively seek for more practical advantages 
from it than the mere increase of theoretical 
wisdom. Maximus, though flashy and meagre 
as a philosopher, was better supplied with an 
ostentatious show of practical power than any 
of his philosophic rivals. The amiable rhe- 
torician Libanius, the aged sage Aedesius, could 
please Julian, but evidently were lacking in 
the force which could move the world. But 
when Aedesius, compelled by increasing in- 
firmity, resigned Julian to the tuition of his 
two followers, Chrysanthius and Eusebius, 
Julian began to be struck with the terms in 
which these two spoke of their old fellow- 
pupil Maximus. Chrysanthius, indeed, alone 
seemed to admire him; Eusebius affected to 
depreciate him ; but this feigned depreciation 
was calculated to excite the interest of Julian. 
For what Eusebius spoke of in this slighting 
manner was a certain miraculous power pos- 
sessed by Maximus, of which he gave one or 
two casual instances. Julian had never seen 
miracles like those with which Maximus was 
credited; so he bade Eusebius stick to his 
learning and hurried off to Maximus. That 
skilful adept, after a solemn preparation of his 
imperial pupil, in which he was aided by 
Chrysanthius, described to Julian the revered 
religious authority of the hierophant of 
Eleusis, whose sacred rites were among the 
most famous in Greece, and urged him to go 
thither. He went, and was imbued with a 
teaching which combined a mysterious exalta- 
tion of the power of the Greek deities with 
hints of his own personal aggrandizement. 
By such acts as these, and by his initiation into 
the Eleusinian mysteries, he passed over to 
paganism, though his having done so was still 
unknown to the world. When, Constantius 
being dead, he became sole master of the 
Roman empire, he did not forget his instruc- 
tors. Hesent for Chrysanthius and Maximus ; 
they consulted the sacrificial omens; the 
signs were unfavourable, and dissuaded them 
from accepting the invitation. Chrysanthius 
trembled, and refused to go; the more am- 
bitious Maximus declared it unworthy of a 
wise man to yield to the first adverse sign, and 
went. He was received by Julian with ex- 
traordinary honours, but by his haughtiness 
and effeminate demeanour earned the censure 
even of the heathen, among whom was the 
partial panegyrist Eunapius. After the death 
of Julian he was severely and even cruelly 
treated by Valentinian and Valens, and though 
released for a time, was beheaded by order of 


MELANIA 


Valens in 371, on a charge of having conspired 
against him. His personal appearance is de- 
scribed by Eunapius as impressive. The four 
extant letters of Julian to him (Nos. 15, 16, 
38, 39) consist of such indiscriminate panegyric 
that they tell little of his real character or 
views. For other authorities see D. of G. and 
R. Biogr. [1.π.Μ.} 
Melania (1), a Roman lady of Spanish ex- 
traction, daughter of Marcellinus, who had 
been consul; born c. 350. Her husband died 
when she was only 22 years old, leaving her 
with three children, of whom two died im- 
mediately after their father. Full of ascetic 
enthusiasm, she rejoiced to be now more free 
to serve Christ, left her son to the charge of 
the urban praetor, and, though winter was 
beginning, sailed for the East (Hieron. Ep. 
XXXix. 4; Chron. Ann. 377, vol. viii. ed. Vall.), 
c. 372. She seems to have been acquainted 
with Jerome and his friends, who at that time 
formed an ascetic society at Aquileia. Her 
slave Hylas accompanied Jerome to Syria 
(Hieron. Ep. iii. 3), and Rufinus, from whom 
Jerome had then recently separated (7b.), was 
with her in 374 in Egypt, and possibly in 
Palestine (ἰδ. iv. 2). During their stay in 
Egypt the persecution of the orthodox by 
Valens arose. Rufinus was’ imprisoned. 
Melania, who had only been in Egypt six 
months, went with a large body of exiled 
bishops, clergy, and anchorets to a place near 
Diocaesarea in Palestine, where she supported 
them at her own expense. Apparently she 
was joined by Rufinus after a time, and they 
went together to Jerusalem. There she es- 
tablished herself at the Mount of Olives, where, 
says Jerome (Chron. a.D. 377, properly 375), 
she was such a wonderful example of virtues, 
and especially of humility, that she received 
the name of Thecla. She formed a com- 
munity of 50 virgins and was the means of 
reconciling to the church a large body of 
heretics called Πνευματομάχοι. Her house 
was open to all. Amongst those who visited 
her was EvaGrius, whom she persuaded to 
embrace the monastic life (A.p. 388). She 
knew John bp. of Jerusalem εὐ τώρ τεα ἢ and 
no doubt shared with Rufinus in the friend- 
ship of Jerome and Paula when they settled at 
Bethlehem in 386, and afterwards in his con- 
tention with them. In 397 she returned with 
Rufinus to Italy, to confirm her granddaughter 
Melania the younger (q.v.) in the practice of 
asceticism. She was received by Paulinus at 
Nola with great honour, and brought him a 
piece of the true cross set in gold, sent by John 
bp. of Jerusalem. She took up her abode at 
Rome, where she no doubt assisted Rufinus 
through the controversy as to his translation 
of Origen’s works. She lived probably with 
her son Publicola and his wife Albina and their 
two children, the younger Publicola, and the 
younger Melania, with her husband Pinianus. 
Palladius, when he came to Rome to plead the 
cause of Chrysostom, stayed with them. She 
desired to induce her granddaughter Melania 
and Pinianus to take vows of separation, and 
was much displeased that, though willing to 
vow continency, they would not separate 
from each other’s society. In her vehement 
enthusiasm she spoke of her conflicts with 
those who resisted her asceticism as “ fighting 


MELANIA 


against wild beasts.” In 408, 
threatened with the invasion of 
her son Publicola having died, she determined 
to leave Rome. Rufinus, having quitted 
Aquileia on the death of his father, went with 
her and her daughter-in-law Albina, the 
younger Publicola, Melania and Pinianus. She 
had been to Africa in 400 with a letter from 
Paulinus to Augustine (Aug. Ep. xiv.), and it 
was now determined that she should go to 
Sicily and thence to Africa, in both which 
countries she had estates. In Sicily Rufinus 
died. She passed on to Africa with the others 3 
and, after vainly attempting to induce Me- 
lania and Pinianus to embrace the monastic 
state, went on to her former habitation on the 
Mount of Olives, and 40 days after died, aged 


717 


Italy being 
Alaric, and 


60. Palladius, Hist. Laus. c. 118; Paulinus, 
Epp. 29, 31, 45, 94. (Wun. 
Melania (2), daughter of Publicola son of 


MELANIA (1); born at Rome c. 383. She 
married Pinianus when exceedingly young, 
yielding to the wish of her father, though she 
was already imbued with the ascetic teachings 
of her grandmother, then living at Jerusalem. 
The young husband and wife were induced by 
Melania the elder in 397 to take a vow of 
continence, but refused to separate. They 
accompanied the grandmother from Rome 
(A.D. 408) to Sicily and Africa; but, when she 
returned to Jerusalem, they remained at Sa- 
gaste, attaching themselves to the bp. Alypius 
and enjoying the friendship of Augustine. 
On the death of the elder Melania the still 
considerable remains of her estates became the 
property of her granddaughter. She gave 
away those in Gaul and Italy, but kept those 
in Sicily, Spain, and Africa; and this led to 
the attempt of the people of Hippo to induce 
PINIANUS to become a priest of their church. 
In the scene in which a promise was exacted 
from them to remain at Hippo, Melania shewed 
great courage. When through the rapacity 
of the rebel count Heraclian she was denuded 
of her property and thus set free from the 
promise to remain at Hippo, she accompanied 
her husband to Egypt, and, after staying 
among the monastic establishments of the 
Thebaid and visiting Cyril at Alexandria, 
eventually went to Palestine, and, together 
with her mother Albina, settled at Bethlehem 
in 414. There they attached themselves to 
Jerome, and to the younger Paula, who then 
presided over the convent. Their ascetic 
convictions had so developed that they now 
accepted that separation which the elder 
Melania had vainly urged in her lifetime. 
Pinianus became the head of a monastery and 
Melania entered a convent. By the settle- 
ment of Melania at Bethlehem the feud was 
extinguished which had separated the fol- 
lowers of Rufinus from those of Jerome; and 
although in his letter to Ctesiphon (cxxiii. 3, 
ed. Vall., date 415) Jerome still has a bitter 
expression about the elder Melania, in his last 
letter to Augustine (cxliii. 2, ed. Vall.) in 419, 
Albina, Pinianus, and Melania are joined with 
Paula in their reverential greetings. Their 
intercourse with Augustine continued, and in 
answer to their questions on the Pel n con- 
troversy he wrote his treatise On Grace and 
Original Sin, a.v. 418. Melania apparently 
lived on for many years. Photius says that 


718 MELETIUS 


she cameto Constantinople in 437 andobtained 
his conversion and baptism at the hands of 
Proclus. Palladius, Hist. Laus. 119, 121; 
Augustine, Epp. 125, 126, and de Grat. Christi, 
ii. and xxxii., aa p- 380, Dec. 31; Photius, 
Cod. 53, Ῥ- [w. H.F.] 
Meletius (ay (Melitius), bp. of Lycopolis, 
consecrated not long before the beginning of 
the Arian controversy. The see of Lycopolis 
stood next in rank to that of Alexandria, of 
which Peter, afterwards martyr, was then bis- 
hop (A.D. 300-311). Meletius took advantage 
of Peter’s flight from persecution (Soz. H. Ε. 
i. 24) to intrude into his and other dioceses, 
ordain priests, and assume the character of 
primate of Egypt. A protest against his con- 
duct by four incarcerated Egyptian bishops, 
Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodore, and Phileas, 
urged that his act was uncalled-for and carried 
out without consulting them or Peter, in- 
volving a breach of the rule which forbade one 
bishop to intrude into the diocese of another. 
Meletius ignored the protest. The bishops 
were martyred, and Meletius went to Alex- 
andria. He was received by the two elders, 
Isidore and the afterwards famous Arius; 
probably at their instigation he excom- 
municated two visitors appointed by Peter, 
and replaced them by others. The archbp. 
of Alexandria then wrote forbidding his flock 
to have fellowship with Meletius until these 
acts had been investigated. A synod of 
Egyptian bishops under Peter deposed Mele- 
tius (A.D. 306) for his irregular acts and in- 
subordination. Athanasius and Socrates 
affirm indeed that the degradation of Meletius 
was specially due to his having ‘‘ denied the 
faith during persecution and sacrificed ”’ ; 
but in this they probably express only the 
popular belief which could not otherwise 
explain why orthodox bishops were im- 
prisoned and martyred, while Meletius passed 
through the length and breadth of the land 
unhindered. The council of Nicaea in its 
comments upon, and condemnation of, Me- 
letius, takes no note of impiety; and the 
statement of Epiphanius—Meletius ‘‘ was 
orthodox in his belief, and never dissented 
from the creed of the church in a single point. 
He was the author of a schism, but not of 
alterations of belief ’’—is probably true of the 
bishop, if not of his followers. Meletius 
retorted upon his deposers by separating him- 
self and his followers. Peter preached against 
the Meletians, and rejected their baptism 
(Soz. i. xv.) ; Meletius retaliated by abusing 
Peter and his immediate successors Achillas 
and Alexander. At length the whole ques- 
tion was considered by the council of Nicaea. 
The 2nd, 4th, and 6th canons refer directly or 
indirectly to the Egyptian schism; and in a 
synodical epistle addressed by the bishops 
assembled there ‘‘to the holy and great 
church of the Alexandrians and to the beloved 
brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pen- 
tapolis,”’ the ‘‘ contumacy of Meletius and of 
those who had been ordained by him ”’ is dealt 
with (Socr. i. 9; Theod. i. 9). The line 
adopted was one of ‘‘clemency”’; although 
Meletius is described as “strictly speaking 
wholly undeserving of favour.”” He was per- 
mitted to remain in his own city and retain 
a nominal dignity, but was not to ordain or 


MELETIUS 


nominate for ordination. The council decreed 
that those who had received appointments 
from him should be confirmed by a more 
legitimate ordination and then admitted to 
communion and retain their rank and min- 
istry, but were to be counted inferior to those 
previously ordained and established by Alex- 
ander ; nor were they to do anything without 
the concurrence of the bishops of the Catholic 
and apostolical church under Alexander. 
Meletius himself was to be an exception ; ‘‘ To 
him,” said the bishops, ‘‘ we by no means 
grant thesame licence, on account of his former 
disorderly conduct. If the least authority were 
accorded to him, he would abuse it by again 
exciting confusion.”’ 

It is doubtful whether Meletius was at the 
council; but he did not resist its decrees. At 
Alexander’s request he handed in a list of his 
clerical adherents, including 29 bishops, and 
in Alexandria itself 4 priests and 3 deacons. 
Meletius retired to Lycopolis, and during 
Alexander’s lifetime remained quiet ; but the 
appointment of Athanasits to the see of 
Alexandria was the signal for union of every 
faction opposed to him, and in the events 
which followed Meletius took a personal part. 
The uncompromising sternness of Athanasius 
was contrasted with the ‘“‘ clemency ”’ of the 
council and of Alexander; Arian and Mele- 
tian, schismatic and heretic banded together 
against the one man they dreaded, and so 
pitiless and powerful was their hate that it 
wrung from him the comment on the pardon 
accorded to Meletius by the council of Nicaea 
““Would to God he had never been received!”’ 

Before his death, the date of which is not 
known, Meletius nominated, contrary to the 
decree of the Nicene council, his friend John 
as his successor (Soz. ii. 21), a rank accorded 
to him and recognized by that council of Tyre 
(A.D. 335) in which the Eusebians and others 
deposed Athanasius (7b. ii. 25). ‘‘ In process 
of time,”’ says Sozomen (ii. 21), ‘“‘ the Meletians 
were generally called Arians in Egypt.” 
Originally differences in doctrine parted them ; 
but their alliance for attack or defence grad- 
ually led the Meletians to adopt Arian doc- 
trines [Arius] and side with Arian church 
politics. The Meletians died out after the 5th 
cent. ; the monks described by Theodoret (i. 
9) being among the latest and most eccentric 
of the sect. ‘‘ They neglected sound doctrine, 
and observed certain vain points of discipline, 
upholding the same infatuated views as the 
Jews and Samaritans.’’ Consult Walch, 
Ketzerhistorie ; Neander, Bright, and the usual 
church historians. [J-M.F.] 

Meletius (3), bp. of Antioch, previously of 
Sebaste in Armenia (Soz. ἢ. E. iv. 28; Theod. 
H. E. ii. 31), or according to Socrates (H. Evils 
44), of Beroea in Syria. 

He came to Antioch (A.D. 361) when the see 
had been vacated through the disorderly 
translation of Eudoxius to Constantinople 
(A.D. 360) and the city was still a focus for 
theological rancour and dispute. The Eusta- 
thians, now under the venerated priest Paul- 
inus, represented the orthodox party with 
whom Athanasius was in communion; the 
Eudoxians were Arian or Χ semi-Arian. 
Meletius owed his appointment to the joint 
application to Constantius of both parties, and 


i 
4 


ἘΠ 


ote ae in 


es 


MELETIUS 


each counted on his support. His arrival 
was greeted by an immense concourse. It 
was reported that he maintained the doctrines 
of the council of Nicaea. He was entreated 
to give a brief synopsis of his doctrine; and 
his declaration ‘‘ the Son is of the same sub- 
stance as the Father,’’ at once and unequi- 
vocally proclaimed him an upholder of the 
essential doctrine of Nicaea. The applause 
of the Catholics was met by the cries of the 
infuriated Arians. The Arian archdeacon 
sprang forward and stopped the bishop's 
mouth with his hand. Meletius instantly 
extended three fingers towards the people, 
closed them, and then allowing only one to 
remain extended, expressed by signs what he 
was prevented from uttering. When the arch- 
deacon freed his mouth to seize his hand, Mele- 
tius exclaimed, ‘‘ Three Persons are conceived 
in the mind, but we speak as if addressing One” 
(Theod. and Soz.). Eudoxius, Acacius, and 
their partisans were furious; they reviled the 
bishop and charged him with Sabellianism ; 
met in council and deposed him ; and induced 
the emperor, ‘‘ more changeable than Aeolus,” 
to banish him to his native country and to 
appoint Euzoius, the friend of Arius, in his 
place. The Catholics repudiated Euzoius, but 
did not allsupport Meletius. The Eustathian 
section could not conscientiously unite with 
one who, however orthodox in faith, had 
received consecration from Arian bishops ; 
neither would they communicate with his 
followers who had received Arian baptism. 
Schism followed. The Meletians withdrew to 
the Church of the Apostles in the old part of the 
city ; the followers of Paulinus met in a small 
church within the city, this being allowed by 
Euzoius out of respect for Paulinus. 

The death of Constantius (Nov. 361) and the 
decrees of toleration promulgated by Julian 
permitted the banished bishops toreturn. An 
effort was at once made, especially by Athan- 
asius and Eusebius bp. of Vercelli, to estab- 
lish unity in order to resist the pagan emperor ; 
and this was one of the principal objects of a 
council held at Alexandria in 362 (Hefele, 
Conctliengeschtchte, i. 727), where it was 
ordered that Paulinus and his followers should 
unite with Meletius, and that the church, thus 
united, should in the spirit of fullest toleration 
receive all who accepted the Nicene creed and 
rejected the errors of Arianism, Sabellianism, 
Macedonianism, etc. Eusebius of Vercelli and 
Asterius of Petra were commissioned to pro- 
ceed to Antioch, taking with them the synodal 
letter (Tomus ad Antiochenos), which was prob- 
ably the work of Athanasius. The prospects 
of peace had, however, been fatally imperilled 
pers the commissioners reached the city. 
Lucifer, bp. of Calaris, had gone direct to 
Antioch instead of to the council of Alexandria. 
He appears to have repeatedly exhorted both 
Meletians and Eustathians to unity; but his 
sympathies were strongly with the latter; and, 
when the former opposed him, he took the 
injudicious step of consecrating Paulinus as 
bishop. ‘‘ This was not right,” Theodoret 
justly protests (iii. 5). When Eusebius reached 
Antioch, he found that ‘the evil had, by 
such unwise measures, been made incurable." 


The long connexion of Athanasius with the 
Eustathians made him unwilling to disown 


MELITO 719 


Paulinus, who accepted the synodal letter ; 
and attempts at union were suspended. 

During the short reign of Julian Meletius 
remained at his post. Jovian's death (a.p. 
364) and the edict of Valens re-expelling the 
bishops recalled by Julian once more drove 
Meletius into exile. Two devoted Antio- 
chians, Flavian and Diodorus, rallied the per- 
secuted who refused to communicate with the 
Arian Euzojus and assembled them in caverns 
by the river side and in the open country. 
Paulinus, ‘‘ on account of his eminent piety " 
(Socr. iv. 2), was left unmolested. Jurin 
the 14 years which followed, bitterness ant 
alienation were rife amongst the followers of 
Meletius and Paulinus. Basil (Ep. 89) recom- 
mended Meletius to write to Athanasius, who, 
however, would not sever the old ties between 
himself and the Eustathians. The death of 
Athanasius (A.D. 373) did not improve matters. 
His successor Peter, with Damasus of Rome, 
spoke in 377 of Eusebius and Meletius as 
Arians (Basil, Ep. 266). The Western bishops 
and Paulinus suspected Meletius and the 
Easterns of Arianism ; the Easterns imputed 
Sabellianism to the Westerns. 

Gratian, becoming sovereign of the whole 
empire in 378, at once proclaimed toleration 
to all sects, with a few exceptions (Socr. v. 2), 
amongst which must have been the Arians of 
Antioch (Theod. v. 2). Sapor, a military 
chief, went there to dispossess the partisans 
of Euzoius and to give the Arian churches to 
the orthodox party. He pacified the Meletians 
by handing the churches over to them, and the 
animosity of the two parties was for the time 
allayed by the six principal presbyters binding 
themselves by oath to use no effort to secure 
consecration for themselves when either 
Paulinus or Meletius should die, but to permit 
the survivor to retain the see undisturbed. 

In 379a council at Antioch under Meletiusac- 
cepted the synodalletterof Damasus (a.p. 378), 
which, known as δ the Tome of the Westerns,” 
was sent in the first instance to Paulinus; 
and two years later (381) Meletius—though 
disowned by Rome and Alexandria—was 
appointed to preside at the council of Con- 
stantinople. He was greeted by the emperor 
Theodosius with the warmest affection (ἐδ. v. 
6, 7)- During the session of the council, 
Meletius died. His remains finally rested by 
those of Babylas the Martyr at Antioch. 

The schism ought now to have ended. 
Paulinus was still alive, and should have been 
recognized as sole bishop. The Meletian 
party, however, irritated by his treatment of 
their leader, secured the appointment of 
FLAVIAN; and a fresh division arose, 
“ grounded simply on a preference of bishops "’ 
(Socr. v. 269). ‘The history of the Meletians 
now merges into that of the Flavianists. The 
schism was practically ended in Flavian's life- 
time, 85 years after the ordination of Paulinus 
by Lucifer. [..μ.ν.} 

Melito, bp. of Sardis, held in the middle of 
the 2nd cent. a foremost place among the 
bishops of Asia as regards personal influence 
and literary activity. Shortly before the end 
of that cent. his name is mentioned by Poly- 
crates of Ephesus in his letter to Victor of 
Rome (Eus. H. Ε. v. 24) as one of the lumin- 
aries of the Asiatic church by whose authority 


720 MELITO 


its Quartodeciman practice had been com- 
mended. The next extant mention of him 
some 20 years later is in the Little Labyrinth 
(Eus. v. 28). He is there appealed to as one 
of the writers, older than Victor of Rome, who 
had spoken of our Lord as being God as well 
as man. A reference to him in a lost work 
of Tertullian, known to us through a citation 
by Jerome in the art. s.v. in his Catalogue 
(c. 24), Shews his high reputationin Tertullian’s 
time. Our fullest information is from the 
notices in Eusebius (H. £. iv. 13, 26), who 
gives a list of Melito’s works with which he 
was acquainted, together with 3 extracts. 

His A pology presented tothe emperor Marcus 
Aurelius may have been his latest work. It 
is placed under a.D. 170 in Jerome’s transla- 
tion of the Chronicle of Eusebius, but the date 
may be more safely inferred from a passage 
preserved by Eusebius. Melito, addressing 
Marcus Aurelius, and speaking of Augustus, 
says, “ΟἹ whom you have become the much- 
wished-for successor, and shall be so with your 
son if you keep that philosophy which took 
its beginning with Augustus,” etc. That he 
here says ‘‘ with your son,” not ‘‘ with your 
brother,” is evidence that the date is later than 
the death of Lucius Verus, in 169. Commodus 
was associated in the empire with his father in 
176. The passage quoted does not shew 
whether this association had already taken 
place or was only anticipated. In 177 per- 
secutions of Christians were raging violently 
all over the empire. Melito’s memorial seems 
to have been written at the very first begin- 
ning of that persecution. The Christians 
seem to be suttering more in their property 
than in their persons, and Melito is able to 
express a doubt whether the emperor had 
sanctioned the cruelties, and a belief that, when 
he had examined the case, he would interfere 
in their favour. Melito declares that Nero and 
Domitian were the only emperors who had 
sanctioned persecutions of Christians, and 
probably from this passage Tertullian derived 
his argument that only bad emperors had 
persecuted the Christians. On the other side, 
as forbidding interference, Melito quotes the 
letter of Hadrian to Fundanus, and letters of 
Antoninus, at a time when Aurelius himself 
was associated in the government, to the 
people of Larissa, of Thessalonica, and of 
Athens. One extract from the Apology pre- 
served in the Paschal Chronicle (p. 483, Din- 
dorf) gave rise to some discussion in the early 
Socinian controversy. ‘‘ We are not wor- 
shippers of senseless stones, but adore one 
only God, Who is before all and over all, and 
{over] His Christ truly God the Word before 
all ages.’”’ The second ‘‘over”’ given in 
Rader’s ed. of the Chronicle does not appear 
in the latest ed. (Dindorf’s). 

An Apology is extant in a Syriac trans. in 
one of the Nitrian MSS. in the Brit. Mus., 
which bears the heading, ‘‘ The oration of 
Melito the Philosopher held before Antoninus 
Caesar, and he spoke to Caesar that he might 
know God, and he shewed him the way of 
truth, and began to speak as follows.’”’ Prob- 
ably the Syriac translator, finding in his 
Greek original that the Apology was ‘‘ ad- 
dressed ’’’ to the emperor, made a blunder in 
supposing it delivered viva voce. It was 


MELITO 


printed in Syriac, with English trans. by 
Cureton (Spicileg. Syr.) and by Pitra, with a 
Latin trans. by Kenan (Spzcil. Solesm. vol. ii.) 
which has been revised in Otto’s A pologists, 
vol. ix. Although this Syriac Apology 
appears complete, it contains none of the 
passages cited by Eusebius, and its character 
seems entirely different from that of the work 
known to Eusebius. The latter was mainly 
intended to induce the emperor to stop the 
persecution by shewing that the Christians did 
not deserve the treatment inflicted. The 
Syriac Apology is a calm argument against the 
absurdities of polytheism and idolatry, such 
as might have been written with the hope of 
making a convert of the emperor, but does not 
exhibit any of the mental tension of one 
suffering under unjust persecution. The 
Syriac Apology is, therefore, probably not the 
same as that from which Eusebius made 
extracts. Did, then, Melito write two 
apologies ? The Paschal Chronicle records an 
Apology of Melito under both a.p. 164 and 
169, but this is clearly only a double mention 
of one Apology, probably caused by the 
double mention in Eus. iv. 13, 26. The 
ascription of the Syriac Apology to Melito is 
probably an error, though the document is 
perhaps not much later. There are slight, 
but we think decisive, traces of the use of 
Justin Martyr’s Apology: it must therefore 
be later than that. It is addressed to an 
emperor Antoninus, who might have been 
Pius, Aurelius, Caracalla, or Elagabalus. 
Probably one of the latter two is intended. 
The writer’s point of view seems to be Syrian. 
In enumerating heathen idolatries he omits 
(as we should not expect from Melito writing 
in Asia Minor) Cybele and the Ephesian 
Diana; while he speaks in much detail of 
Syrian objects of worship, and seems to be 
personally acquainted with the city of Mabug, 
the Syrian Hierapolis. The admonition, “1 
they wish to dress you in a female garment, 
remember that you are a man,” suggests 
Elagabalus rather than any of the other 
emperors mentioned. One other passage sup- 
ports a presumption of Syrian authorship. 
The writer speaks of the world as destined to 
suffer from three deluges—one of wind, one 
of water, one of fire; the first two already 
past, the third still to come. The deluge of 
wind is that by which the tower of Babel was 
supposed to have been destroyed (see the 
Sibylline verses quoted by Theophilus, ad 
Autol. ii. 31, and also Abydenus, quoted by 
Eus. Praep. Evan. ix. 14). ‘‘ Flood of wind” 
occurs in the work called The Cave of Treasures 
(Cureton, Spicil. Syr. p. 94), and in the 
Ethiopic book of Adam (Ewald’s Jahrbiicher 
der Bibl. Wiss. 1853). It has been contended 
that the reference to the deluge of fire shews 
acquaintance with 11. Peter; but it seems to 
us that this can by no means be positively 
asserted. On N.T. allusions in this Apology 
see Westcott (N. 71. Canon, p. 219). A- 
gainst placing it so late as Elagabalus it may 
be urged that its conclusion, if interpreted 
naturally, speaks of the emperor as having 
children ; and though the apologist might be 
merely expressing a wish on behalf of the 
emperor’s unborn successors, it is simpler to 
refer the work to the time of Caracalla, who 


MELITO 


spent some time in Syria. There seem also 
traces that Tertullian, who was acquainted 
with the Eusebian Apology of Melito, also 
used this one. Such perhaps may be the 
identification of Serapis with Joseph and the 
remark that the old heathen gods were prac- 
tically less honoured than the emperors, since 
their temples had to pay taxes. 

Of other works of Melito the περὶ rod πάσχα 
is first in the list of Eusebius. The date is 
limited by the opening sentence which 
Eusebius quotes: ‘‘ In the proconsulate over 
Asia of Servilius Paulus, at the time that 
Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there took place 
much dispute at Laodicea about the Paschal 
celebration ἐμπεσόντος κατὰ καιρόν in those 
days, and these things were written.” Rufin- 
us here reads ‘* Sergius Paulus,’’ and this 
appears from other authorities to have been 
the real name of the proconsul in question, 
probably within the limits 164-166. 

The appeal of Polycrates to the authority 
of Melito makes it clear that the latter, in his 
work on Easter celebration, took the Quarto- 
deciman side. Eusebius says that the work 
of Melito drew forth another, no doubt on the 
opposite side, from Clement of Alexandria. 
It has been conjectured that Melito was the 
Ionian whom Clement (Eus. H. E. v. 11) 
enumerates as among his teachers. It should 
be noticed that the extant fragments of Melito 
refute the notion that Quartodecimanism was 
inconsistent with the reception of the Fourth 
Gospel. Melito speaks of our Lord’s three 
years’ ministry after His baptism, which he 
could not have learned from the Synoptists. 
He accounts for the fact that a ram, not a 
lamb, was substituted as a sacrifice for Isaac, 
by the remark that our Lord, when He suffered, 
was not young like Isaac, but of mature years. 
Possibly here may be an indication that 
Melito held the same theory concerning our 
Lord’s age as Irenaeus and other Asiatics, 
derived no doubt from John viii. 57. The 
whole passage shews that Melito believed 
strongly in the atoning efficacy of Christ’s 
death, and looked on Him as the sacrificial 
lamb. The word he uses is ἀμνός, as in the 
Gospel, not ἀρνίον, as in the Apocalypse. 

The next work of Melito from which Euse- 
bius has given an extract is called Selec- 
tions, addressed to a friend named Onesimus, 
who had asked Melito to make selections from 
the law and the prophets of passages concern- 
ing our Saviour, and concerning all our faith, 
and also to give him accurate information as 
to the number and order of the O.T. books. 
Melito relates that he had gone up to the East 
to the place where the things were preached 
and done, and had accurately learned the 
books of the O.T. He enumerates the five 
books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four 
of Kings, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, 


Proverbs of Solomon, also called Wisdom, | 


Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the 
Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve Minor 
Prophets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, 
Esdras. The last, no doubt, includes Nehe- 
miah and possibly Esther, which is otherwise 
omitted. This list gives the Hebrew canon 
adopted by the Church of England ; but 
gives a different order of the books from that 
of Josephus, and does not attempt to make 


MELITO 721 


the number of books 22. The expressions “‘ the 
Old Books,” “τὰς Books of the O.T.," shew 
clearly that the church of Melito’s time had a 
New Testament canon. 

Eusebius enumerates other works of Melito 
as being known to him. The titles enable us 
imperfectly to guess at their contents, and 
sometimes the titles themselves are uncertain. 
(4) τὰ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ προφητῶν, very likely 
two separate works ‘‘ on Christian Conversa- 
tion’’ and ‘‘on the Prophets" coupled to- 
gether by Eusebius, because contained in the 
same volume in the Caesarean Library. (5) 
περὶ ἐκκλησίας. It has been conjectured that 
the breaking out of Montanism may have made 
it necessary to insist on the authority of the 
church. (6) περὶ κυριακῆς. Possibly the 
Quartodeciman controversy led to discussion 
about the Lord’s Day. This word κυριακή, 
used in Rev. i. 10, is found also in Ignatius's 
Ep. to the Magnesians, c. 9, and in the letter 
of Dionysius of Corinth to Soter (Eus. iv. 33). 
(7) περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου. (8) περὶ πλάσεως. 
This book on the formation of man, and (7) 
on the nature of man, if that be the reading, 
are conjectured to have been directed against 
Gnostic theories. (9) περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως 
αἰσθητηρίων. What was the subject of a 
treatise on the obedience of faith of the senses 
has perplexed ancient as well as modern 
readers of this list. Jerome thinks that a repi 
may have dropped out of the text, and that 
there were two treatises, one on the Obedience 
of Faith, one on the Senses. (10) περὶ ψυχῆς 
kal σώματος καὶ νοός, probably on Human 
Nature. (11) περὶ λουτροῦ. (12) περὶ ἀλη- 
θείας, perhaps an apologetic work in commen- 
dation of Christianity. (13) περὶ κτίσεως καὶ 
γενέσεως Χριστοῦ. Ancient writers with one 
consent apply to our Lord the Κύριος ἔκτισέ 
με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ of Prov. viii. 22. Fora 
full discussion of this verse see Athan. Or. 
Cont. Ar. li. 44. (14) περὶ προφητείας. A 
work with the same title written, or intended 
to be written, by Clement of Alexandria, was 
directed against the Montanists (Strom. iv. 13, 
p. 605), and this may also have been the design 
of this work of Melito, if the Montanist con- 
troversy had broken out before his death. 
(15) περὶ φιλοξενίας. (16) ἡ κλείς. What 
was the nature of this work we have no inform- 
ation. A Latin work entitled Melitonts Clavis 
Sanctae Scripturae mentioned by Labbe in 
1653 as preserved in the library of the Cler- 
mont College is a medieval Latin composition. 
(17) (18) τὰ περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύ- 
yews 'Iwdvvov. The form of expression would 
indicate that both subjects were discussed in 
a single treatise. (19) περὶ ἐνσωμάτου θέεου. 
It would be natural to translate this, On God 
Incarnate, and we have other evidence that 
Melito wrote on the Incarnation. When he 
speaks of the two natures which our Lord 
combined, there is no trace of anthropomor- 
phism in the attributes which he ascribes to 
the Divine nature. On the other hand Origen, 
commenting on Gen. i. 26 (vol. viii. 49, Lomm.) 
and arguing against the Anthropomorphites, 
says ‘* of whom is Melito, who has left a certain 
treatise, περὶ τοῦ ἐνσώματον εἶναι τὸν θεόν." 
Probably Origen made a mistake, and that the 


46 


722 MELLITUS 


subject of Melito’s treatise was the Incarna- 
tion. But it is not impossible that a writer as 
orthodox as Melito may have held the opinions 
which Origen imputes to him. 
The list given shews Melito’s great activity 
as a writer, and the wide range of his writings. 
Of spurious writings ascribed to Melito, we 
need only mention a commentary on the 
Apocalypse, the ascription to Melito appar- 
ently having been made by the fraud or 
ignorance of some transcriber, and not intend- 
ed in the work itself, which is a compilation 
from various writers, some as late as the 13th 
cent. Through two works, de Passione S. 
Joannis and de Transitu ὃ. Mariae, with which 
Melito’s name was connected, it became widely 
known in the West, though with various dis- 
guises of form, such as Mileto, Miletus, and 
Mellitus, the last being the most common. 
The remains of Melito are given by Routh 
(Rel. Sac. i. 113-153), and more fully by Otto 
(Corp. Apol. Chr. ix. 375-478). See also Piper 
(Stud. und Krit. 1838, p. 54), Westcott (N. T. 
Canon, p. 218), Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev. Feb. 
1876). Cf. esp. Harnack, Die Uberlieferung der 
Apologeten (Text. und Untersuch. I. 240), and 
Gesch. der Alt. Chr. lib. i. 246 ff. [c.s.] 
Mellitus, the first bp. of London and third 
archbp. of Canterbury. He was not one of the 
original missionaries who accompanied Augus- 
tine to Britain, but was sent by St. Gregory 
in 601 to strengthen the hands of the newly 
consecrated archbishop and to convey to him 
the pall. Mellitus, accompanied by Lauren- 
tius, whom Augustine had sent to Rome, and 
by Justus, Paulinus, and Rufinianus, left 
Rome ὁ. July 22, 601. They carried letters of 
commendation to the bps. of Vienne, Arles, 
Lyons, Gap, Toulon, Marseilles, Chdlons on the 
Sadne, Metz, Paris, Rouen, and Angers; to 
Theodoric, Theodebert, and Clothair, kings of 
the Franks, and also to queen Brunichild. 
These names probably indicate the route of 
the missionaries, and there is no evidence to 
support Ussher’s conjecture that they visited 
Columbanus at Luxeuil on the way. To 
Augustine Mellitus brought also the answers 
which Gregory sent to the questions laid 
before him by Laurentius, and a supply of 
church furniture, ‘‘ all things which were 
needed for worship and the ministry of the 
church, sacred vessels, altar-cloths, church 
ornaments, priestly and clerical robes, relics 
of saints and martyrs, and several books”’ 
(Bede, H. E. i. 29). Some account of the 
remains of St. Gregory’s benefaction, pre- 
served at Canterbury in the 15th cent., is given 
by Elmham (ed. Hardwick, pp. 96 seq.). 
Augustine, having received from the pope 
authority to consecrate bishops for the newly 
converted nation, chose Mellitus for the see of 
London. That city, properly the capital of 
the East Saxons, was then under Ethelbert, 
king of Kent, who had prevailed on the 
dependent kings of the East Saxons to receive 
Christianity, and who now founded the church 
of St. Paul as the cathedral of the new bishop- 
ric. No distinct date is given by Bede for the 
consecration of Mellitus, but it must have 
occurred some time between the winter of 601 
and the early summer of 604, the most prob- 
able date for the death of Augustine. 
Mellitus continued undisturbed in his see 


MENANDER 


during the reign of Ethelbert. He joined in 
the letter addressed by Laurentius to the Irish 
bishops (Bede, H. E. ii. 4), and in 609 went to 
Rome to treat with pope Boniface IV. on 
matters necessary for the welfare of the 
English church. The precise object of this 
journey is not mentioned by the historian, 
who, however, tells us that Mellitus was pre- 
sent at a council on Feb. 27, 610, subscribed to 
the decrees, and subsequently carried them to 
the English church. The purpose of this coun- 
cil was to secure the peace of the monastic order 
and two versions of a decree are extant (Labbe, 
Cone. v. 619; Mansi, Conc. x. 504; Haddan and 
Stubbs, ili. 64, 65). Bede adds that Mellitus 
also brought letters from the pope to Ethelbert, 
Laurentius, and the whole clergy and people of 
the English (W. Malmesb. 6. P. lio. i.; Haddan 
and Stubbs, iii. 65). The monks of St. Augus- 
tine’s also shewed a bull of Boniface IV., dated 
Feb. 27, 611, addressed to Ethelbert, mention- 
ing the request presented by Mellitus, and 
confirming the privileges of St. Augustine’s 
(Elmham, 1.5. pp. 129-131 ; Thorn, ap. Twys- 
den, c. 1766 ; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 67-69). 
On the death of Ethelbert the newly-founded 
church was in danger of dissolution. Mellitus 
and Justus fled to Gaul, and Laurentius was 
only saved by a miracle from the disgrace of 
following them. Bede tells very circumstan- 
tially the story of Mellitus’s flight. The sons 
of the Christian king Sebert had continued to 
be pagans. Seeing the bishop celebrate the 
holy communion and give the Eucharist to the 
people, they presumptuously asked, ‘‘ Why 
do you not give us the white bread which you 
used to give to Saba our father and still give 
to the people ἢ The bishop replied that if 
they would be baptized they should have the 
bread. They refused the sacrament of initia- 
tion, but still demanded the bread. On 
Mellitus’s persistence in refusing it, they 
banished him. He fled to Kent and after- 
wards to Gaul, whence he was recalled by 
Laurentius after the conversion of Eadbald. 
He probably remained at Canterbury until the 
death of Laurentius in 619, when he succeeded 
to the vacant see, which he held till 624. That 
his activity was impaired by gout is nearly all 
that is preserved about him. Bede mentions 
that he consecrated a church to the Blessed 
Virgin within the precincts of St. Augustine’s 
monastery, and that, a great fire at Canterbury 
occurring in a place termed the ‘‘ martyrdom 
of the four crowned martyrs,’”’ he was carried 
there and at his prayer a wind drove the flames 
southwards and saved the city (H. E. ii. 16, 


τς ὶ [51] 

enander, a Samaritan false teacher in the 
early part of the 2nd cent. Our knowledge 
of him is probably all derived, either directly 
or indirectly, from Justin Martyr. What he 
tells directly (A pol. i. 26, 56) is, that Menander 
was a native of the Samaritan town Cappar- 
atea, and a disciple of Simon, and, like him, 
had been instigated by the demons to deceive 
many by his magic arts; that he had had 
success of this kind at Antioch, where he had 
taught, and had persuaded his followers that 
they should not die; and that, when Justin 
wrote, some of them survived, holding this 
persuasion. Justin wrote a special treatise 
against heresies, and from this, in all prob- 


yi 
τ 
ἑ 


OM 


MENNAS 

ability, was derived the somewhat fuller 
account given by Irenaeus (i. 23, p. 100). 
According to this, Menander did not, like 
Simon, declare himself to be the chief power, 
but taught that that power was unknown to 
all. He gave the same account as Simon of 
the creation of the world—viz. that “it had 
been made by angels"’ who had taken their 
origin from the Ennoea of the supreme power. 
He put himself forward as having been sent 
by the invisible powers to mankind as a 
Saviour, enabling men, by the magical power 
which he taught them, to get the better of 
these creative angels. He taught that 
through baptism in his own name his disciples 
received a resurrection, and should thence- 
forward abide in immortal youth. Irenaeus 
evidently understood this language literally, 
and the history of heretical sects shews that 
it is not incredible that such promises may 
have been made; but the continuance of a 
belief which the experience of the past must 
have disproved indicates that ἃ spiritual 
interpretation must have been found. Cyril 
of Jerusalem (C. I. 18) treats the denial of a 
literal resurrection of the body as a specially 
Samaritan heresy. 

Irenaeus (iii. 4, p. 179), having spoken of 

Valentinus and Marcion, says that the other 

-Gnostics, as had been shewn, took their be- 

ginnings from Menander, the disciple of 
Simon ; and there is every probability that it 
was from the ‘‘Samaritan’’ Justin that 
Irenaeus learned his pedigree of Gnosticism, 
viz. that it originated with the Samaritan 
Simon, and was continued by his disciple 
Menander, who taught at Antioch, and that 
there Saturninus (and, apparently, Basilides) 
learned from him. 

The name Menandrianists occurs in the list 
of Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22). Tertullian 
evidently knows only what he has learned 
from Irenaeus (de Anim. 23, 50; de Res. 
Carn. 5). The same may be said of all later 
writers, and it is scarcely worth while to men- 
tion the imaginary condemnation of these 
heretics by Lucius of Rome, invented by 
“* Praedestinatus.”’ {c.s.] 

Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople, 536- 
552. Onthe deposition of ANTHIMus, Mennas, 
superior of the great convent of St. Samson at 
Constantinople, was elected to the see. Pope 
Agapetus was then at Constantinople, having 
presided at the council there which dealt with 
the case of Anthimus, and himself consecrated 
Mennas. Mennas accepted the councilof Chal- 
cedon ; he was a Catholic, well known for his 
knowledge and integrity. On May 2, 536, he 
presided at a council assembled by Justinian 


at Constantinople at the request of 11 bishops | 


of the East and of Palestine, and of 33 other 
ecclesiastics, to finish the case of Anthimus, 
and to decide those of Severus of Antioch, 
Peter of Apamea, and the Eutychian monk 
Zoara. The request had been made to pope 
Agapetus, who had died on Apr. 22, before the 
council could be held. The result of the coun- 
cil was that, Anthimus having been sought for 
in vain, he was forbidden to resume his episco- 
pate of Trapezus and deposed from his rank ; 
the others were anathematized. Mennas ob- 
tained from Justinian the passing of a law, 
dated Aug. 6, 536, confirming the Acts of this 


MERLINUS 723 


| council. He alsosent them to Peter of Jerusa- 
lem, who held a council to receive them. On 
| Sept. 13, 540, pope Vigilius wrote to Mennas 
and to the emperor Justinian, by the hands 
οὐ Dominicus the patrician. He endeavoured 
| to carry on the influence which Agapetus had 
over the affairs of the church of Constantinople, 
He confirmed the anathemas pronounced by 
Mennas against Severus of Antioch, Peter of 
Apamea, Anthimus, and other schismatics 
offering communion again to all who should 
come to a better mind. Mennas died on 
Aug. 5, 552, just before the second great 
council of Constantinople, called the fifth 
general. It was in the midst of the angry 
discussions about the ‘Three Chapters.” 
Mennas had signed the declaration of faith 
addressed to pope Vigilius by Theodore of 
Corsaria and others to satisfy his protests and 
to preserve the peace of the church. 

In the controversies which gave rise to the 
Lateran council in 649, a Monothelite writing 
was brought forward by Sergius patriarch of 
Constantinople as a genuine work of Mennas, 
supposed to be addressed to pope Vigilius. 
But in the third council of Constantinople, 
Nov. το, 680, this document was proved to be 
the composition of the monk George, who 
confessed himself its author. 

Mansi, viii. 869, 870, 960, ix. 157, etc., x. 
863, 971, 1003, xi. 226, etc.; Liberatus, Brev. 
xxl. in Patr. Lat. \xviii. 1039 (see also the dis- 
sertations at the end of that volume) ; Vigil. 
Pap. Ep. in Patr. Lat. Ἰχῖχ. 21, 25; Agapet. 
Pap. Ep. in Patr. Lat. xlviii.; Evagr. iv. 36 in 
Patr. Gk. \xxxvi. pt. 2, 416, etc.; Ceillier, xi. 
I2I, 194, 968, xii. 922, 947, 953- [W.M-S.] 

Merlinus. The prophecies of Merlin, which 
had great influence in the middle ages, re- 
presented the enduring hate of the Welsh for 
the English conquerors, and were probably 
the composition of Merddin, son of Morvryn, 
whose patron, Gwenddolew, a prince in Strath- 
clyde, and an upholder of the ancient faith, 
perished a.p. 577 at the battle of Arderydd, 
fighting against Rhydderch Hael, who had 
been converted by St. Columba to Christianity. 
When the northern Kymry were driven into 
Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany, they re- 
localized the story of Merlin in their new 
abodes. Merddin is now represented as a 
Christian, and said to be buried in Bardsey, 
the island of the Welsh saints; but much of 
rhis career is passed in Cornwall, which was 
long under the same dynasty as South Wales, 
even after the English got possession of the 
coast at Bristol, and broke the connexion by 
land between the two districts. As the mass 
of tradition grew into the shape in which we 
find it in Nennius, and later on in Geoffrey, 
| Merlin becomes a wholly mythical character, 
| the prophet of his race. It is not till Geoffrey 
| of Monmouth that we find the boy called Mer- 
| lin and made the confidant of Utherpendragon 
| and of Arthur, and able to bring the stones of 
| Stonehenge from Ireland. Nennius does not 
|mention Merlin among the early bards, and 
| the poems attributed to him were really com- 
posed in the r2th cent., when there was a great 
outburst of Welsh poetry (Stephens, Literature 
of the Kymry, ὃ 4). Among these poems there 
[15 a dialogue between Merddin and his sister 
| Gwenddydd (‘‘ The Dawn"'), which contains 


724 MESROBES 


prophecies as toa series of Welsh rulers. The 
story of Merlin made an impression abroad as 
wellasinEngland. Layamonalludes to several 
of his prophecies and they soon gained popular 
fame. A Vita Merlini in Latin hexameters, 
also attributed, though wrongly, to Geoffrey 
of Monmouth, was printed by the Roxburghe 
Club, 1830; the later English forms of the 
story by the Early English Text Society. The 
one fact embodied in the legend is the long- 
continued enmity of the Kymry to the English 
invaders; but even this almost disappeared 
when the story became part of the great 
romance of Arthur. [c.W.B.] 
Mesrobes, one of the most celebrated pa- 
triarchs and historians of Armenia, born in 
354 at the town of Hasecasus, now Mush 
(Tozer’s Turkish Armenia, p. 286) and edu- 
cated under Nerses Magnus, the fourth 
patriarch of Armenia from St. Gregory the 
Illuminator, to whom also Mesrobes acted as 
secretary, an office which he likewise filled in 
the court of king Varaztad till dethroned by 
the Romans A.D. 386 (Langlois, Fragm. Hist. 
Graec. t. v. pt. ii. pp. 297-300). He then took 
holy orders and sought a solitary life. He be- 
came coadjutor to the patriarch Sahag in 390, 
when he devoted himself to the extirpation of 
the remains of idolatry still existing in Ar- 
menia. Under him a great revival of Arme- 
nian literature took place. From the intro- 
duction of Christianity Syriac had become the 
dominant language, a knowledge of it being 
deemed a necessary qualification for holy 
orders (cf. Agathang. Hist. Tivibat.; Zenob. 


Hist. Daron. in Langlois, 1.0. pp. 179, 335, 
Disc. Prelim. Ὁ. xiv.; Goriun, Hist. de 5. 
Mesrop; Vartan, Hust. d’Arménie, p. 51, 


Venice, 1862). Mesrobes devoted himself to 
revive the ancient Armenian culture, some 
fragments of which can yet be traced in Moses 
Chorenensis. He was an accomplished Greek, 
Persian, and Syriac scholar, but wished to 
revive a national literature. His tirst step 
was to restore, if not to invent, an alphabet 
for the Armenian tongue instead of depending 
on the Syriac character. He induced the 
patriarch Sahag, alias Isaac, to convoke a 
national council at the city of Vagharschabad 
to consider the question, at which the king 
Vram-Schapouh assisted. Learning that a 
Syrian bishop, one Daniel, possessed an 
ancient Armenian alphabet, Mesrobes sent a 
priest named Abel to him, who brought it 
back. It is supposed to have consisted of 
22 or 27 letters. With this as a basis and 
with the help of various persons who pos- 
sessed some traditionary knowledge of ancient 
Armenian, as Plato chief librarian at Edessa 
and two learned rhetoricians, Epiphanius and 
Rufinus, he composed the alphabet which the 
Armenians adopted in 406, the seven vowels 
having been made known, it was said, by 
direct revelation from heaven (cf. Langl. 1.6. 
Disc. prélim. p. xv.; Moses Choren. Hist. 
Armeén. lib. 111. cc. 52, 53, and forminutedetails 
of the whole question, Karékin, Hizst. de la 
litt. Armén. pp. 8seq. Venice, 1865; Jour. 
Asiat. 1867, t. I, p. 200). Mesrobes attracted 
great numbers to his schools and sent the 
ablest pupils to study at Edessa, Athens, 
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and even 
Rome, whence they brought back the most 


METHODIUS 

authentic copies of the Scriptures, the Fathers, 
Acts of the councils, and the profane writers. 
These young scholars endeavoured to adapt 
the Armenian tongue to the rules of Greek 
grammar, translating into Armenian the gram- 
mar of Dionysius the Thracian, an ed. of which 
with a French trans. was pub. at Paris in 1830. 
This Hellenizing movement among them in 
cent. 5 was analogous to similar ones in cents. 
6, 7, 8, among the Persians and Monophysites, 
and in cent. 9 among the Arabs, movements 
to which we owe the preservation of some of 
the most precious monuments of antiquity, as 
Tatian’s long-lost Diatessaron, pub. at Venice 
out of the Armenian in 1875, cf. Qtly. Rev. 
Apr. 1881, art. on the ‘‘Speaker’s Commentary 
on N.T.” (cf. Renan, Hzst. des lang. sémit. p. 
297). Among the disciples of Mesrobes were 
all the leading writers of Armenia, including 
Leontius presb. and mart., Moses Taronensis, 
Kioud of Arabeza, afterwards patriarch, Mam- 
prus lector, Jonathan, Khatchig, Joseph of 
Baghin, Eznig, Knith bp. of Terchan, Jere- 
miah, Johannes of Egegheats, Moses Chorenen- 
sis, Lazarus of Barb, Gorium biographer of 
Mesrobes, Elisaeus (Langl. J.c.; Neumann’s 
pref. to Hist. of Vartan in Public. of Orient. 
Trans. Fund, London, 1830). The Armenian 
church through their labours possessed a ver- 
nacular edition of the Bible in 410. Mesrobes 
also invented an alphabet for Georgia similar 
to the Armenian but containing 28 letters. 
Both alphabets had the letters arranged after 
the Greek order. The Armenians attribute 
to him the settlement of their liturgy. Sahag 
died Sept. 9, 440, and was succeeded as bishop 
by Mesrobes, until he died on Feb. 19, 441. 
The Life of Mesrobes by Goriun, pub. by the 
Mekhitarite Fathers at Venice in 1833, was 
trans. into German and pub. by Dr. B. Welte 
(Tiibingen, 1841). See Moses Choren. Hist. 
Armén. lib. iii. cc. xlvii. lii.-liv. lvii. lviii. Ix. 
lxi. Ixvi. Ixvii. for copious details of his life, 
and anart. by Petermann s.v. in Herzog’s Real 
Encyklop. [α.1.5.] 

Methodius (called also Eubulius), com- 
memorated June 20 (Basil, Menol.) and Sept. 
18 (Mart. Rom.), a Lycian bp. highly distin- 
guished as a writer, bp. first of Olympus, after- 
wards of Patara, early in 4th cent. Jerome 
(Cat. 83), Socrates (vi. 13), and Maximus (im 
Schol. Dionys. Areop. 7) state that he was bp. 
of Olympus. Leontius of Byzantium calls 
him bp. of Patara, and he is thus known to all 
later Greek authorities. Jerome’s unsupported 
statement that he was translated to Tyre was 
probably due to a transcriber’s errorfor Patara 
in the authority which Jerome followed. 

Jerome states that ‘‘ he was crowned with 
martyrdom at the end of the last [7.e. Dio- 
cletian’s] persecution; or as some affirm 
under Decius and Valerian, at Chalcis in 
Greece.” 
with the facts that Methodius wrote against 
Porphyry and that Eusebius speaks of him as 
a contemporary (ap. Hieron. A pol. adv. Rufin. 
Ls νοοῖ 11}. The martyrdom οὗ a Lycian 
or Phoenician bp. at a place so remote as 
Euboea must also be pronounced incredible. 
The places were not then even under the same 
ruler, Greece being under Licinius and the 
Eastern provinces under Maximin. Accord- 
ingly Sophronius, the Greek translator of St, 


The earlier date is inconsistent. 


METHODIUS 


erome, substitutes for Chalcis ‘‘ in Greece," 
‘in the East,’’ whence some modern critics 
have concluded that Methodius suffered at 
alcis in Syria. But no weight can fairly be 
attached to this correction of Sophronius ; 
and it is more probable that a Methodius 
whose name tradition had preserved as a 
martyr at Chalcis under Decius was wrongly 
identified with the better-known Lycian 
bishop. The evidence that the latter was a 
martyr at all is weak, and the silence of Euse- 
bius is a difficulty ; but Theodoret calls him 
bishop and martyr, as do the late Greek 
writers, while the Menaea make the mode 
of death decapitation. 

Methodius wrote much, and his works were 
widely read and highly valued. Jerome 
several times refers to him: Epiphanius calls 
him ἀνὴρ λόγιος καὶ σφόδρα περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας 
ἀγωνισάμενος ; Gregory Nyssen or Anastasius 
Sinaita (for the authorship is disputed), ὁ 
πολὺς ἐν σοφίᾳ; Andrew of Caesarea, ὁ μέγας ; 
Eustathius of Antioch, ὁ τῆς ἁγίας ἄξιος μνήμης. 
and he is quoted by Theodoret, besides many 
later writers. Photius has preserved copious 
extracts (Codd. 234-237); other shorter ex- 
tracts are to be found in Catenae, and others 
are given in the Nitrian MSS. (see Wright, 
Cat. MSS. Syr. in Brit. Mus.). The works of 
which we have knowledge are: 

(1) The only one extant entire is the Sym- 
postum, or Banquet of the Ten Virgins. It 
reveals Methodius as an ardent admirer of 
Plato, from whom he probably derived his 
preference for dialogue form. In the present 
case he has not only imitated him in several 
passages, but has taken from him the whole 
idea of his work. As in Plato’s Symposium 
the praises of Love are celebrated, so here are 
proclaimed the glories of Virginity. The 
imitation of the form of Plato’s work is even 
kept up in not presenting the dialogue directly, 
but as reported by one present at it. Eubu- 
lius, or Eubulium, receives from ἃ virgin 
Gregorion an account of a banquet in the 
gardens of Areté, not under Plato’s plane-tree, 
but under an agnus-castus, in which ten virgin 
guests, at their hostess’s command, pronounce 
ten successive discourses in praise of chastity. 
At the end of the banquet the victor Thecla 
leads off a hymn, to which the rest standing 
round as a chorus respond. But Methodius 
has caught very little of Plato’s style or spirit. 
He has little dramatic power, and there is often 
little to distinguish one speaker from another. 
Of his general soundness on our Lord’s Divin- 
ity there can be no doubt; and we have not 
found anything in the writings ascribed to him 
which an orthodox man might not have writ- 
ten, especially before the Arian disputes had 
made caution of language necessary. Else- 
where (Cod. 162) Photius mentions Methodius 
with Athanasius and other great names as one 
from whose writings Andrew had produced | 
extracts garbled and falsified so as to teach | 
heresy. ἢ 

(2) In the Catalogue of Jerome he gives the 
first place to the writings of Methodius against 
Porphyry. He elsewhere refers to them (in 
Comm. in Dan. Pref. c. 13, vol. v. pp. 618, 730 ; 
Apol. ad Pammach. vol. i.; Ep. 70 ad Mag- 
num, i. 425), stating in Ep. 70 that they ran_ 
to 10,000 lines. Philostorgius (viii. 14) rates 


METHODIUS 725 
the reply of Apollinarius to Porph as far 
superior to either that by Eusebius or by 


Methodius. All three replies have perished. 

(3) On the Resurrection.—This work has 
been lost, but large extracts have been pre- 
served by Epiphanius, Maer. 64, and by 
Photius, Cod. 234, see also Johan. Damase. 
de Imag. Orat. 2. The text as given by Com- 
befis and reprinted by Migne suppresses the 
heretical portions of the E iphanian extracts, 
This work also is in the fomm of a Platonic 
dialogue, and is in refutation of Origen. The 
Origenist speakers deny the materiality of the 
resurrection body, and urge that it is enough 
if we believe that the same form shall rise 
again, beautified and glorified. In heaven 
our bodies will be spiritual; and so St. Paul 
teaches: “It is sown a natural body; it is 
raised a spiritual body "'; “ Flesh and blood 
shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Man 
had been originally in Paradise, that is, in the 
third heaven (II. Cor. xii.), having there none 
but a spiritual body; having sinned he was 
cast down to earth, where God made him 
“coats of skins,”’ that is to say, for a punish- 
ment clad him in our present gross material 
bodies, which clog and fetter the soul and out 
of which spring our temptations to sin; for 
without the body the soul cannot sin. When 
we rise therefore to dwell where sin cannot 
be, we shall be like the angels, liberated from 
the flesh which has burdened us here. In 
reply, Methodius acutely points out the in- 
consistence of teaching that the soul cannot 
sin without the body, and at the same time 
that the body had been imposed on the soul 
as a punishment for sins previously com- 
mitted; and in truth the body is an instru- 
ment for good as wellasforevil. Paradise and 
the third heaven are not identified (11. Cor. 
xii.) ; two distinct revelations are spoken of. 
It is said that we shall hereafter be as the 
angels, that is, like them, not subject to 
change or decay; but not that we shall be 
angels or without earthly bodies. God does 
not make mistakes; if He had meant us to 
be angels He would have made us so at first. 
His creatures are diverse: besides angels, 
there are thrones, principalities, and powers. 
By death He does not design to turn us into 
something different in kind from what He at 
first meant us to be; but only as an artificer, 
when a work of his is polluted with stains 
which cannot otherwise be removed, melts it 
down, and makes it anew; so by death we 
shall be remade free from the pollution of sin. 
Similarly the world will not be destroyed, but 
made into a new and purer earth, fit for the 
risen saints. 

(4) De Pythonissa.—J crome tells us that this 
work, now lost, was directed against Origen. 
We may presume, therefore, that its scope 
was the same as that bearing the same title by 
Eustathius of Antioch, viz. to refute the 
opinion held by Origen after Justin Martyr 
that the soul of Samuel was under the power 
of Satan, and was evoked by the magical art 
of the witch of Endor. ethodius’s view, 
however, could not have been the same as 
that of Eustathius, for a passage at the close 
of Photius’s extracts from the treatise on the 
Resurrection implies a belief that the appear- 
ance of Samuel was real. 


120 MILTIADES 


(5) Xeno.—Socrates (vi. 13), expressing his 
indignation against the reviling of Origen by 
worthless writers who sought to get into 
notice by defaming their betters, names 
Methodius as the earliest of Origen’s assail- 
ants ; adding that he had afterwards by way 
of retractation expressed admiration of him 
in a dialogue entitled Xeno. We believe the 
dialogue referred to by Socrates to be iden- 
tical with (6). There is nothing in Metho- 
dius’s confutations of Origen inconsistent 
with his having felt warm admiration for the 
man; and he has certainly followed him in 
his allegorical method of interpretation. 

(6) Περὶ τῶν yevnrdv.—This work 


ae on 


things created’’ is only known by extracts | 


preserved by Photius (Cod. 235). It is a 
refutation of Origenist doctrine as to the 
eternity of the world, the principal arguments 
with which Methodius deals being that we 
cannot piously believe that there ever was a 
time when there was no Creator, no Almighty 
Ruler, and that there cannot be a Creator 
without things created by Him, a Ruler with- 
out things ruled over, a παντοκράτωρ without 
κρατούμενα. Further, that it is inconsistent 
with the unchangeableness of God to suppose 
that, after having passed ages without making 
anything, He suddenly took to creating. The 


orthodox speaker deals with his opponent by | 


the Socratic method of question and answer. 
Photius’s extracts begin with a discussion of 


the text, ‘‘ Cast not your pearls before swine ”’; | 


and we have near the commencement the 
phrase, μαργαρίτας τοῦ SevGvos. It is hard 
to get good sense by translating ‘“ pearls of 
the guest-chamber ’’ ; and with the knowledge 
we have that one of Methodius’s dialogues 
was called Xeno, we are disposed to think that 


Xeno was one of the speakers in this dialogue, | 


and that we are to translate ‘‘ Xeno’s pearls,” 
t.e. pearls which Xeno presumably had men- 
tioned, or else that the words τοῦ Ξενῶνος 
have got transposed and ought to be prefixed 


to the extract, the whole being taken from a | 
Photius says | 


speech by this interlocutor. 
that Methodius calls Origen a centaur, and 


interpreters have puzzled as to what he could | 
In the extracts preserved the | 
orthodox speaker addresses his Origenist inter- | 


have meant. 


locutor as ὦ Kévraupe without the slightest air 

of uttering a sarcasm, so that we should be 

disposed to think that the name of the Origen- 

ist speaker in this dialogue was Centaurus. 
(7) On Free Will.—[Maxtimus (24)]. 


For the works of Methodius see Migne, vol. | 


Xviii.; Eng. trans. in Schaff’s Ante-Nicene 
Fathers ; Jahn; 
Method. Platonizans, Halis. Sax. 1865. 

Miltiades (1), an active Christian writer of 
the 2nd cent. 
that, besides leaving other records of his dili- 


gent study of the divine oracles, he composed | 


a treatise “‘against the Greeks,” another 
“against the Jews,’ and an ‘“ Apology” 


addressed to the rulers of this world on behalf | 


of the school of philosophy to which he be- 
longed. It is a natural inference from the 
plural ‘“‘rulers’’ that there were, when Mil- 
tiades wrote, two emperors, probably Aurelius 
and Verus. The Apology may be supposed to 
have been a learned plea for toleration of 
Christianity, the purity of whose doctrines may 


S. Methodii opera, and S. | 
[6.5.7 


Eusebius tells us (Η. E. ν. 17) | 


MILTIADES 


have been favourably contrasted with the 
teaching of heathen philosophy. It is not 
extant, but seems to have had at the time a 
high repute. The writer of the “ Little Laby- 
rinth’’ (Eus. v. 28) names Miltiades in com- 
pany with Justin, Tatian, and Clement among 
the writers in defence of the truth or against 
contemporary heretics who, before Victor’s 
episcopate, had _ distinctly asserted the 
divinity of Christ. Tertullian (adv. Valentin. 
5) names him with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus 
as a writer against heresy, giving him the 
appellation, evidently intended in an honour- 
able sense, ‘‘Sophista Ecclesiarum.’’ St. 
Jerome twice mentions him (Catal. 39; Ep. 
ad Magnum, vol. i. p. 427), but gives no clear 
indication that he knew more of him than he 
had learned from Eusebius. 

Great obscurity hangs over his relation to 
Montanism, owing to a strange confusion, 
either on the part of Eusebius or of his 
copyists, between the names Miltiades and 
Alcibiades. In H. E. v. 2 Eusebius tells a 
story about one of the Lyons confessors named 


Montanism, mentions an Alcibiades as among 
its leaders. After the death of Montanus, 
his sect seems to have been known in Phrygia 
by the name of its leader for the time being ; 
and in an anti-Montanist document preserved 
by Eusebius, v. 16, the sect is called the party 
of Miltiades. This is the reading of all the 
MSS. ; yet having regard to the earlier passage, 
editors are disposed here to substitute Alci- 
biades for Miltiades. If we are not permitted 
to think that there might have been Mon- 
tanists of both names, it would seem more 
natural to make the opposite correction. In 
c. 16 there was nothing to lead copyists 
astray; in c. 2 Eusebius, having named an 
| Alcibiades just before, might easily by a slip 
of the pen have repeated the same name. 
| This view is strengthened by the fact that at 
the close of the Muratorian fragment, a name 
transcribed as ‘‘ Mitiades’’ occurs as that of 
one the ecclesiastical use of whose writings 
was totally rejected by the church. This 
would be explained by the supposition that a 
Miltiades had written records of Montanist 
prophesyings or some other document, which 
that sect had regarded as inspired and ad- 
mitted to church use. But the case is com- 
plicated further in c. 17 of Eusebius. He 
begins by saying that the anti-Montanist docu- 
ment mentioned Miltiades as having written 
against Montanus; and then, having given 
extracts from the document, goes on to give 
the account we have already used of the other 
works of Miltiades. But the extract, accord- 
ing to the reading of all the MSS., names not 
Miltiades but Alcibiades as the author of an 
anti-Montanist treatise, ‘‘that a prophet ought 
not to speak in ecstasy.’’ Here editors are 


compelled to correct the Alcibiades of the ex- 


tract into Miltiades to make Eusebius con- 
| sistent; yet this leaves it unexplained why 
|transcribers should go so strangely wrong. 
| Cf. Otto, Corpus Apol. ix. 364. {c.s.] 

| _Miltiades (2) (Melchiades), bp. of Rome 
after Eusresius, from July 2, 310, to Jan. 10 
| or 11, 314, the see having been vacant for 10 
|months and 14 days. The long vacancy is 
/accounted for by the circumstances of his 


Alcibiades, and, going on to speak about. 


| 
ΐ 
ἑ 


MILTIADES 


predecessor’s death in exile and the divided 
state of the Roman church at the time. 
The pontificate of Miltiades was marked by 
the accession, and so-called conversion, of Con- 
stantine the Great, and the definite termina- 
tion of Diocletian’s persecution. To Miltiades 
the possessions of the Christians at Rome, 
including the cemeteries, were at length re- 
stored by Maxentius: ‘‘ Melchiades was re- 
corded to have sent deacons with letters from 
the emperor Maxentius and from the prefect 
of the etorium to the prefect of the city, 
that they might recover possession of what 
taken away in the time of persecu- 
tion, and which the aforesaid emperor had 
ordered to be restored’’ (Augustine, Brevic. 
Collat. cum Donat. ; die iii. c. 34). Constan- 
tine, after the defeat and death of Maxentius 
(Oct. 28, 312), promulgated at Milan in 313 
with Licinius the full edict of toleration 
known as “ the Edict of Milan,’’ which Licin- 
ius proclaimed in June 313 at Nicomedia in 
the East. All these important events were 
during the episcopate of Miltiades, who would 
be a personal witness of Constantine's entry 
into Rome after the battle of the Milvian 
bridge, with the labarum borne aloft, and the 
monogram of Christ marked upon the shields 
of his soldiers. But the pope’s name does 
not become prominent until the complica- 
tions which soon arose in connexion with the 
African Donatists. Constantine, according to 
Optatus, was greatly annoyed at being called 
upon to settle disputes among the clergy, but 
he complied with the request, nominating 
three Gallic bishops whom he commanded to 
go speedily to Rome to adjudge the matter 
in conjunction with Miltiades. He wrote a 
letter preserved by Eusebius, addressed to 
Miltiades and an unknown Marcus. There is 
no evidence, in this or other acts of Constan- 
tine, that he regarded the bp. of Rome as the 
sole or necessary judge of ecclesiastical causes 
on appeal. He was, indeed, careful to refer 
spiritual cases to the spirituality, and he 
naturally and properly referred the chief 
cognizance of a case arising in W. Africa to the 
Roman see, though not to the pope singly, 
but to him assisted by assessors whom he 
named himself. The three bishops of Gaul 
are named in the letter as colleagues of Mil- 
tiades and Marcus, and it appears from Opta- 
tus that 15 Italian bishops were added to the 
conclave, summoned, we may suppose, by 
Miltiades himself, so that he might hear the 
case canonically in synod with the assistance 
of the Gallic assessors. The decisions of the 
conclave were duly transmitted to Constan- 
tine, whom they fully satisfied (Ep. Con- 
stant. ad vicar. Africae; ejusd. ad Epise. 
Syrac.—Labbe, i. p. 1445; Eus. H. E. x. 5). 
Moved, however, by the continued complaints 
of Donatus and his party, he summoned the 
general synod of Arles (A.D. 314) with a view to 
a final settlement. In these further proceed- 


i to have | 
ings the bp. of Rome does not appear to have | a tine”: but ft seems clear that Jerome 


been consulted by the emperor, or regarded 
as possessing an osition of supremacy. 
Constantine, professing great reverence for 
the episcopate in general, and recognizing 
the right of the clergy to settle cases purely 
ecclesiastical, himself set 


in motion and) 


regulated ecclesiastical proceedings, delegated | 


MINUCIUS FELIX, MARCUS 727 


their administration to such ecclesiastics as 
he chose, and certainly shewed no peculiar 
deference to the Roman see. Nor do we 
find any protest on the part of the church 
of his day against his mode of procedure. 

The fact that the conclave under Miltiades 
met in the Lateran palace (in the house of the 
empress Fausta) is adduced by Baronius (a.p. 
312) as proving the tradition true that Con- 
stantine had made over that palace to the 
pope asaresidence. But it is not known with 
any certainty when the popes came into per- 
manent possession of the Lateran. 

Miltiades was, in the time of St. Augustine, 


}accused by African Donatists of having, as 


one of the presbyters of pope Marce.tnus, 


|with him given up the sacred books and 


offered incense under the persecution of 
Diocletian. Augustine treats the whole 
charge as unsupported by documentary 
evidence, and probably a calumny; and we 
find no mention of any such charge against 
Miltiades during his life, when the party of 


| Donatus was likely to have made a strong 


point of it had it been known of them. 
Further, in the conference with the Donatists 
held a.p. 411 by order of the emperor Hon- 
orius the charge was alleged, but all proof of 
it broke down (Augustine, u.s.). 

Miltiades was buried, as his predecessors 
since Pontianus till the commencement of 
persecution had been, in the cemetery of St. 
Callistus on the Appian Way. There also he 
had deposited the remains of his immediate 
predecessor Eusebius (Depos. Epise. Ltber.). 
Yet neither of these two popes (according to 
early recensions of the Pontifical) lay in the 
old papal crypt of that cemetery, but each 
in a separate cubiculum apart from it. De 
Rossi ya the approaches to the old 
crypt to have been blocked up by the Chris- 
tians to save it from profanation; and the 
state in which the passages leading to it have 
been found confirms this supposition. He 
has identified positively the cubiculum of 
Eusebius, but that of Miltiades only con- 
jecturally (see Northcote and Brownlow, 
Rom. Sotter. p. 146). Miltiades was the last 
pope buried in this cemetery. [1.5--Ὑ 

Minuctus Felix, Marcus, one of the earliest 
and most pleasing of the Latin Christian 
apologists. His personal history can only be 
gathered from his own book. The earliest 
writer to mention him by name is Lactantius 
(Institut. v. 1), who describes him as a lawyer, 
‘non ignobilis inter causidicos loci,’ but 
Lactantius may be merely drawing a natural 
inference from the introduction to the book 
itself, where Minucius tells how he had taken 
advantage of the court holidays to leave Rome 


‘for Ostia, ‘ad vindimeam feriae judiciariam 


curam relaxaverant.” St. Jerome three 
times mentions Minucius (Ep. 48 ad Pammach. 
vol. i. p. 221; Ep 70 ad Magnum, vol. 1. 
p. 427; de Vir. [llust. c. 58, vol. ii. p. 884), 
and describes him as “insignis causidicus 


drew this description from Lactantius, whom 
he quotes. It has been attempted to deduce 
the date of Minucius from the place which 
Jerome assigns him in his list of illustrious 
men; but there is no evidence that Jerome 
really knew more than we know ourselves. 


728 MINUCIUS FELIX, MARCUS 


Still more may the same be said of Eucherius, 
who speaks of Minucius (Ep. ad Valer. in 
Patr. Lat. 1. 719). The gens Minucia was 
widely spread at Rome, and an inscription 
(Gruter, p. 918) shows among its families one 
with the cognomen Felix. 

The only extant work of Minucius is a 
dialogue entitled ‘‘ Octavius,’ modelled on 
the philosophical works of Cicero, whose 
writings, particularly de Natura Deorum and 
de Divinatione, Minucius has carefully studied. 
Minucius recalls a conversation of his lately 
deceased friend Octavius which resulted in 
the conversion to Christianity of their common 
friend Caecilius. He tells how Octavius had 
come to Rome, and gives a charming descrip- 
tion of the morning walk on the beach taken 
by the three friends after they had gone from 
Rome to Ostia, until at last they sat down for 
rest and serious discussion on large stones 
placed for protection of the baths. At the 
beginning of the walk the heathen Caecilius, 
as they were passing an image of Serapis, had 
saluted it, as was customary, by kissing hands, 
whereupon Octavius charged Minucius with 
culpable negligence in having allowed his 
friend to continue in such degrading super- 
stition. Caecilius challenges Octavius to a 
formal dispute. The little treatise then 
divides itself into two parts, containing first 
a lively attack by Caecilius on the Christian 
doctrines and practices, then a reply, about 
twice as long, by Octavius, refuting and re- 
torting the heathen arguments. Each point of 
the attack is dealt with in order.  Caecilius 
confesses himself vanquished, gladly ranging 
himself on the conquering side. 

The following is an abstract of the argu- 
ments used by Caecilius on the heathen side. 
He censures the presumption of the Christians, 
who, though unlettered men, venture to pro- 
nounce positively on questions about which 
the greatest philosophers have doubted; he 
denies that there is any good ground for be- 
lieving in the existence of a God, since the 
chance concourse of atoms will sufficiently 
account for the origin of the world, while the 
prosperity of the wicked and the misfortunes 
of the good shew that the world is governed 
by no Providence. Then shifting his ground, 
he urges the duty of worshipping the gods 
whom their ancestors had worshipped, and the 
folly of rejecting what universal experience 
and the consent of all nations had found to be 
salutary. Each nation had its peculiar god: 
the Romans, the most religious of all, wor- 
shipped gods of all nations, and so had attained 
the highest prosperity. The power of their 
deities had been exhibited in many oracles 
and prodigies; only one or two philosophers 
had ventured to deny their agency, and one 
of these, Protagoras, had in consequence been 
banished by the Athenians. Was it not then 
deplorable that the gods should be assailed by 
men of the dregs of the people, who, collect- 
ing credulous women and silly men, banded 
them in a fearful conspiracy, cemented by 
secret and detestable rites? Tales are re- 
peated, for some of which the authority of 
Fronto is cited, of the initiation of Christian 


neophytes by ‘partaking of the blood of a} 


slaughtered infant, and other customary 
charges. If these things were not true, at 


MINUCIUS FELIX, MARCUS 


least the obscurity in which they shrouded 
their rites shewed that they were such as they 
had cause to be ashamed of. These members 
of an illegal society dreaded to bring their 
doctrines into the light of day; they had no 
altars, no temples, no images, and were not 
even in their manner of worship like the Jews, 
the only people besides themselves who wor- 
shipped that wretched lonely God Who had 
not been able to save His own people from 
captivity ; yet wished to meddle with every- 
thing and pry into every thought and every 
action. Nor was this the only absurdity of 
Christian doctrine. They threatened destruc- 
tion to the world, which always had lasted 
and was bound together by fixed laws, and 
said that one day it would be burnt up. Yet 
for themselves, who were not eternal like the 
world, but were seen to be born and die, they 
dared’ to hope for immortality, and “expect 
that their dust and ashes would live again. In 
the prospect of this imaginary life they gave 
up all enjoyment of their real present life, 
trusting in a God Whose impotence was ex- 
hibited in their daily sufferings from which 
He was unable to save His worshippers. In 
fine, if the Christians had any modesty, let 
them give up philosophy, of which their want 
of education had made them incapable; or 
if they must philosophize, let them follow 
that greatest of philosophers, Socrates, whose 
maxim was, ‘‘ What is above us we have 
nothing to do with,” otherwise the result will 
be either the destruction of all religion or the 
adoption of anile superstition. 

Octavius replies that a hearing shall not be 
refused to the arguments of Christians because 
of their low worldly condition. Reason is the 
common property of all men. It is the rich 
who, intent on their wealth, are too often un- 
able to lift their eyes to things divine. Some 
of those afterwards recognized as the greatest 
philosophers were at first despised as poor 
and plebeian. He then establishes, by the 
ordinary arguments from the order of the 
universe, the existence and providence and 
unity of God, confirming his conclusions by 
the authority of various philosophers, whose 
opinions respecting the Deity he extracts 
from Cicero’s treatise. In proof how natural 
is the belief in God’s unity, he appeals to the 
common use of the singular Deus, both in 
common speech and in the writings of the 
poets. He shews that the gods whom the 
heathen worshipped were but deified men, 
and exposes the absurdity of the fables com- 
monly told of them, the folly of image-wor- 
ship, and the cruelty and licentiousness of the 
rites by which the gods were honoured. He 
shews that it is false that the Romans owed 
their prosperity to their religion, since it was 
by a multitude of irreligious acts that their 
empire grew, and because their original native 
gods, to whom, if to any, must be ascribed the 
origin of their greatness, had been deposed 
from their position by the adoption of gods of 
the conquered peoples. He traces the source 
of all idolatry to the operation of the demons 
who, having lost their first estate, desired to 
draw others into the same ruin as themselves, 
who inspired oracles, wrought fictitious cures 
and other pretended ‘miracles to deceive men, 
and were also the inventors and instigators of 


parse 


MINUCIUS FELIX, MARCUS 


the calumnies against Christianity. All this 
was attested by their own confession when 
exorcised by Christians. Turning to the 
charges made against the Christians, Octavius 
not only denies and refutes them, but retorts 
them on the heathen, who had been the more 
ready to believe that others had been guilty 
of them because they had done the like them- 
selves. If the Christians had not temples, or 
images, or altars, it was because they would 
not degrade the majesty of the infinite God by 
limiting Him to a narrow place. Man him- 
self was God’s best image, a holy life the best 
sacrifice that could be offered Him. God is 
invisible, but so is the wind whose effects we 
witness ; so is our own soul; the sun itself, 
the source of all light, we cannot look αἴ. As | 
for the Christian doctrines which Caecilius had 
represented as absurd and incredible, different 
heathen philosophers had taught a future 
destruction of the world by fire or otherwise ; 
some of them had taught a transmigration of 
souls, a doctrine quite as difficult as that of 
the resurrection of the body and less natural. 
The doctrine of a future life is recommended 
by countless analogies of nature; and though 
men whose lives are bad dislike to believe in 
future retribution, and prefer to think that 
death ends all, yet the current popular belief 
in Pyriphlegethon and Styx, a belief derived 
from information given by demons and from 
the Jewish prophets, shews how deep-seated is 
the conviction that the time will come when it 
shall not be well with the wicked. Nor is it 
to be thought that God deals ill with His 
worshippers because He does not give them a 
larger share of prosperity in this life: the 
Christians do not covet earthly riches; they 
look on trials as their discipline, persecutions 
as their warfare, in which they are not deserted 
by their God, but combat under Hiseye. The 
Romans honour with their praises such 
sufferers as Mucius Scaevola and Regulus, 
yet the heroism of these men has been re- 
peatedly surpassed by that of Christian women 
and children. Lastly, we need not be dis- 
turbed by the failure of sceptical philosophers 
to arrive at any certain knowledge of truth. 
These men’s lives gave the lie to their pro- 
fessions of wisdom ; we, whose excellence is in 
life and not merely in word, may boast that 
we have succeeded in finding what the 
sought in vain, and have only cause for grati- 
tude that a revelation was reserved for our 
hands which was denied to them. 

It will be seen how meagre Minucius is in 
his exposition of Christian doctrine, thus 
differing from all the other apologists. The 
doctrines of the unity of God, the resurrection 
of the body, and future retribution make up 
nearly the whole of the system of Christian 
doctrine which he sets forth. The doctrine 
of the Logos, so prominent in the apologies of 
Justin, Athenagoras, and Tertullian, is absent ; 
our Lord’s name is not mentioned, and though 
from the manner in which Octavius repels the | 
charge that the Christians worshipped a man 
who had been punished for his crimes, it may | 


’ reasonably be inferred that he believed pa] 


_Lord to be more than man, yet this is not 
plainly stated. Minucius clearly shews that 
the topics he omits are excluded, not from 
disbelief in, or ignorance of, them, but from a 


MINUCIUS FELIX, MARCUS 729 


designed limitation of the objects of his work, 
because at the end, when Caecilius has de- 
clared himself satisfied on the main questions 
of the existence of God and of Providence and 
of the general truth of the Christian religion, 
he asks for another conversation, not because 
of remaining doubts, but because he desires 
to be taught other things still necessary to 

erfectinstruction. It cannot be accident that 

finucius does not imitate the entire unreserve 
with which J ustin speaks of Christian doctrines 
and Christian rites. The work of Minucius 
was doubtless intended mainly to influence 
intelligent heathen ; and we must infer that 
in the West at least the feeling prevailed when 
Minucius wrote which made Christians fear to 
cast their pearls before swine. One striking 
difference between Minucius and Justin is the 
former’s complete omission of the argument 
from prophecy, yet the inspiration of the 
Jewish prophets is incidentally recognized 
(c. 35). Minucius never mentions the writings 
of either O. or N. T., and has searcely any 
coincidence of language with them. There is 
(c. 29) an echo of Jer. xvii. 5, and perhaps 
(c. 34) of I. Cor. xv. 36, 42. 

His date is generally agreed to have been 
before 250, somewhere about which time 
Cyprian published his de Idolorum Vanitate, 
in which large use is made of Minucius. A 
nearer limit depends on settling the relation of 
Minucius to Tertullian. His dialogue and the 
apology of Tertullian have in common so 
many arguments, sometimes in nearly the 
same words, that one of the two undoubtedly 
used the work of the other, but as to which 
was the follower critics have held opposite 
opinions. The difficulty is mainly caused by 
the excellent use both writers have made of 
their materials, whencesoever obtained, and 
the thoroughness with which they have incor- 
porated them. We have already shewn the 
perfect workmanship of the dialogue of Minu- 
cius. Tertullian’s Apology is equally excellent, 
though its plan is entirely different. It is an 
advocate’s speech, written for presentation to 
heathen magistrates to convince them that 
Christians did not deserve persecution. It is 
more loosely constructed, and evidently more 
hastily written, than that of Minucius, but 
bears a strong stamp of originality. Many 
points briefly touched on in Minucius are 
expanded in Tertullian, so that either Minucius 
has abridged Tertullian or Tertullian has used 
and developed the suggestions of Minucius. 
This has furnished the best argument for the 
priority of Tertullian. Tertullian, it has been 
said, is one of the most original of writers, 
Minucius quite the reverse. We have already 
mentioned his obligations to Cicero ; his wor 
is also largely indebted to Seneca, besides 
containing traces of Juvenal and other writers. 
Is it not, then, most natural to believe that as 
he has drawn his arguments for Theism from 
Cicero, he has taken his defence of Christianity 
from Tertullian? In the common matter 
there are considerable differences as to 
arrangement and form of expression. If 
Tertullian were the original, Minucius would 
have a change of arrangement forced on him 
by the plan of his work, while the changes in 
form of expression either improve the Latinity 
or make the sentence more pointed ; whereas 


730 MIRO 


if Minucius were the original, Tertullian’s 
changes can hardly have any other object than 
to disguise his obligation. Notwithstanding, 
a very careful comparison of the common 
matter led Ebert (K. Sdchs. Ges. der Wissen- 
schaften; philol.-histor. Classe, Bd. v.) to 
consider Minucius the original, and Ebert’s 
ability in arguing the case obtained for a time 
general acceptance of his opinion. But re- 
cently new evidence has been obtained. The 
dialogue would seem to describe Minucius as a 
native of Cirta and fellow-townsman of Fronto, 
of whom he speaks as “ Cirtensis noster,”’ 
while Octavius refers to him as “ Fronto 
tuus.’’ Now at Cirta (Constantine in Algeria) 
the French have found six inscriptions con- 
taining the name of Caecilius Natalis (Momm- 
sen, Lat. Insc. viii. 6996 and 7094-7098). This 
Caecilius was chief magistrate of Cirta in 210, 
and on the completion of five years of office 
raised at his own expense a triumphal arch in 
honour of Caracalla, brazen statues in honour 
of ‘“Indulgentia domini nostri,’ exhibited 
“ludos scenicos’’ for seven days, and in other 
ways exhibited munificence. See an art. by 
Dessau (Hermes, 1880, p. 471). We see no 
good reason for refusing to identify this 
Caecilius Natalis with the Caecilius of the 
dialogue. He is not likely to have been a 
Christian when discharging the functions just 
described ; the conversation related by Minu- 
cius would therefore have occurred somewhat 
later than 215; and the composition itself 
might be a score of years later. We thus fall 
back on the opinion held by the best critics 
before the publication of Ebert’s memoir, that 
the work of Minucius was written in the peace- 
ful days of Alexander Severus, say A.D. 234. 

A useful ed. is in Gersdorf’s Bibl. Pat. Ecc. 
(Leipz. 1847), one with variorum notes in vol. 
iii. of Migne’s Patr. Lat., an excellent one by 
Holden (Camb. 1853), andoneby Halm (Vienna, 
1867) founded on a new collation of the MS., 
which may therefore be regarded as the best 
authority for the text, but contains only 
critical notes. See also Waltzing, Bibliogra- 
phie rvaisonnée de Min. Fel. in Muséon Belge 
(1902), vi. pp. 216 ff.; also G. Bossier in La fin 
du Paganisme, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1898), i. 26r. 
There is an English trans. in the Lib of Ante- 
Nic. Fathers. [6.5.] 

Miro (Mirio, Mirus), king of the Suevi in 
Spain, 570-583. 

Authorities.—Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. v. 42, 
vi. 43; Joannes Bicl. ap. Esp. Sagr. ν. 377, 
380, 383 ; Isid. Hist. Suev. ib. 506 ; Acts of the 
second council of Braga; Tejada y Ramiro, 
Colecc. de Lan. de la Igl. Esp. ii. 620; Formula 
Honestae Vitae, by Martin of Braga; Pref. 
Esp. Sagr. xv. 383. 

Miro represents a period in the history of the 
Suevian kingdom of Gallicia, when, having 
renounced the Arianism imposed upon them 
in the 5th cent. by their then existing relations 
to the Visigoths, the Suevi entered into alliance 
with the Franks on the one hand and probably 
the Eastern empire on the other, with the 
view of checking the power of the Arian West- 
Gothic king LEoviciILp, which at the begin- 
ning of Miro’s reign threatened the absorption 
of the Suevian state in the kingdom of Toledo, 
a result actually achieved two years after 
Miro’s death. The known facts of his reign, 


MODESTUS 


which although few in number are often 
contradictorily given by the authorities, are 
as follows. In 572 the second council of 
Braga, a kind of supplementary council to the 
more important gathering of 561 [MARTINUS 
(2)] was held, and the king is specially men- 
tioned as contributing to its assembly. In 
the same year Miro conducted an expedition 
against the Ruccones in Cantabria, one of the 
restless Basque tribes, with whom Suevi and 
Goths alike were perpetually at war. Four 
years later Miro’s great West-Gothic contem- 
porary Leovigild appeared on the borders of 
Gallicia. Miro sued for peace, and obtained 
it for a short time. In 580 the Catholic re- 
bellion of HERMENIGILD against his father 
Leovigild broke out, and the rebellious son 
became the centre of Frankish, Suevian, and 
Byzantine policy in the peninsula. In 580 we 
hear of envoys sent by Miro to Guntchramn 
of Burgundy, Leovigild’s worst enemy, and 
intercepted and detained on the way by Leo- 
vigild’s ally, Chilperic of Soissons. In 583 
Miro set out from Gallicia at the head of an 
army destined to raise the siege of Seville, then 
closely invested by Leovigild. He was met 
on the way by Leovigild, and, according to 
Gregory of Tours, who is evidently best in- 
formed on the matter, withdrew homewards, 
and died shortly after from the effects of the 
bad air and water of S. Spain. The two 
Spanish sources, Joannes Biclarensis and 
Isidore, say that he died before Seville, and 
describe him as assisting Leovigild in the 
siege of the town. On the reconciliation of 
these conflicting accounts, cf. Dahn, Kdnige 
der Germanen, vi. 571; and Gorres, Kritische 
Untersuch. iiber den Aufstand und das Mar- 
tyrium der Westgoth. Kénigssohnes Herment- 
gild, in Zeitschrift fiir Hist. Theol. 1873, I. 
Miro’s relations to Martin of Braga, the 
Catholic leader and organizer of Gallicia during 
his reign and that of his father, seem to have 
been intimate and friendly. Martin’s prin- 
cipal work, Formula Vitae Honestae, is dedi- 
cated to him, and the Exhortatio Humilitatis, 
printed among Martin’s works, is also prob- 
ably addressed to him (Esp. Sagr. xv. Appen- 
dix). [M.A.W.] 
Modestus (3), prefect of the Praetorium, 
persecutor of the Catholics under the emperor 
Valens (Socr. iv. 16; Soz. vi. 18; Theod. 
H. E. iv. 18; Tillem. vi. 510, 555, 562, 574), 
who commissioned him to offer Basil the 
choice between deposition and communion 
with the Arians. A severe sickness having 
supervened, which he regarded as a judgment 
for his insolent behaviour, he entreated Basil 
to visit his sick-bed, humbly asked pardon, and 
commended himself to his prayers. Attri- 
buting his recovery to St. Basil's intercessions, 
he regarded him with the greatest reverence 
(Greg. Naz. pp. 352, 353). From this time 
Basil’s influence with Modestus was so great 
that persons came from a great distance to 
request letters from him to the prefect. Six 
of these remain (Basil. Epp. 104 [279], 110 
[277], 111 [276], 279 [274], 280 [275], 281 
[278]), in which Basil claims immunity from 
taxes for all ministers of the church, begs for 
a lessening of the taxes for the impoverished 
inhabitants of the Taurus range, commends to 
him a friend summoned to the capital by legal 


MONNICA 


charges, etc. Basil addresses Modestus with 
the respect due to his high official position, 
and expresses much gratitude for his readiness 
to listen to his requests. {e.v.] 

Monnica, St. The name of this most 
celebrated of Christian mothers is spelt thus 
(not Monica) in the oldest MSS. of the writings 
of St. Augustine. 

Her birthplace, nowhere explicitly named, 
may be assumed to be Tagaste, the home of 
her husband, Patricius. Her family was, 
probably, like his in point of social grade, 
curtalis (Possidit Vita Aug. c. 2)—41.¢. contri- 
buted a member or members to the senate of 
the colonia. Her parents’ names are not 
known. They were consistent Christians; 
their home was (Conf. ix. 8) ‘‘ domus fidelis, 
bonum membrum Ecclesiae.’’ Monnica was 
born 331 or 332. Her early domestic 
training was pure and severe, under the strong 
hand of an aged and trusted Christian nurse, 
who had once carried the child’s father in her 
arms. By her Monnica and her sisters (no 
brothers are mentioned) were taught to ab- 
stain entirely from drinking even water 
between meal-times, with the aim of guarding 
them beforehand against habits of intemper- 
ance when, after marriage, they should become 
“* dominae apothecarum et cellariorum "’ (#b.). 
Yet Monnica, when scarcely past her early 
childhood, was on the verge of a confirmed love 
of wine, as she confessed long after to her son 
(b.). She was married, at what age we know 
not, to Patricius of Tagaste, ‘‘ vir curialis”’ ; a 
man passionate (‘‘ferox’’), immoral, and not 
formally amember of the church; perhaps what 
would now be called an “‘ adherent.’””* With 
him Monnica lived patiently and faithfully, till 
at the age of 40 she was left a widow, tenderly 
attached to his memory, and longing to be laid 
at death in his grave (7b. ix. 11). He was rough 
and eager, but not ungenerous ; and she was 
permitted to win him to the Saviour before 
his end. A curious picture of the manners of 
that time and region appears (ib. ix. 9) when 
Monnica, surrounded by her married female 
friends, and seeing on some of them, ‘‘ quarum 
viri mansuetiores erant [Patricio],’’ the marks 
of blows, inflicted even on their faces, coun- 
selled them to adopt, for protection, her own 
method of calm and unwavering submission. 
The mother of Patricius was an inmate of the 
home, and her also Monnica completely won 
to respect and affection, in spite of the slanders 
of the female slaves, by a union of filial obe- 
dience with vigour as a mistress. 

She bore children more than once, for 
Augustine not only mentions a brother ex- 
pressly (ib. ix. 11, etc.) but was the uncle of 
many nephews and nieces (Vita Benedictina 
Aug. c.i.). Augustine was born when Mon- 
nica was 23 years old, and when, as we gather 
from his language about her whole influence, 
she was already a Christian in the noblest 
sense, strong in the power of spiritual holiness, 
and ardently prayerful for the salvation of her 
child, and therefore for his personal acceptance 
of the faith. It is a sign of the popular Chris- 
tian opinion and usage at the time that she 
did not bring him as an infant to baptism but 
merely to the initiation of a catechumen (Conf. 


* Conf. vi. 16 states that both rom gator bn par- 
entes procured his initiation as an infant ca 


techumen, | 


MONNICA 731 


i. rx; vi. 16), the sign of the cross and the 
salting with salt. She evidently thought that 
baptism required evidence of a previous true 
change of will. In early boyhood, in extreme 
illness, he implored to be baptized, and she 
hastened to procure it; but on his sudden 
recovery again resolved to delay (ἐδ. i. σα), 

Monnica joined cordially with Patricius in 
securing the highest education for Augustine 
and in stimulating his studies; and even 
during her widowhood made every effort to 
maintain him in them. But his impurity and 
unbelief caused her agonizing distress, aggra- 
vated by his cynical conduct. For a time she 
declined his presence beneath her roof and at 
her table, “ aversans et detestans blasphemias 
(filii] (sb. iii. rr); but a memorable dream 
altered her decision. She saw a radiant being 
(‘‘juvenum splendidum, hilarem, atque arri- 
dentem αἰ Οἱ} approach her as she stood on a 
wooden beam (“ regula "') bewailing her son's 
spiritual ruin ; and he bade her be consoled, 
for where she was, there too her son should be. 
Augustine suggested that this might portend 
his mother’s unbelief; but she instantly 
rejoined that the words were not ‘* Where he 
is, there thou shalt be.’’ This was snine years 
before his conversion. About the same time 
she received the well-known consolation from 
a bishop, wearied (‘‘substomachans taedio"') 
with her entreaties that he would reason with 
her son: ‘‘Go, prythee; the son of those 
tears cannot perish "’ (ἐδ. 12). 

She sorely bewailed Augustine's resolve to 
migrate to Italy, and would not leave his side ; 
and when he escaped her, affecting to bid a 
friend good-bye on board ship and persuading 
her to spend the night in a chapel dedicated 
to Cyprian, she would not givehimup. Beside 
herself with grief (ἐδ. v. 8), she took ship and 
followed him, and on a stormy voyage con- 
soled the terrified sailors, assuring them that 
she had seen a vision which promised safety 
(ἐδ. vi. 1). Augustine arrived before her at 
Milan, and was already under the influence of 
Ambrose, but not yet won to the orthodox 
faith (‘‘non manichaeus, sed neque catholicus 
christianus”’); but she calmly assured him of 
her certainty that she should see him a be- 
liever before she died (#.). 

The ministrations of Ambrose she attended 
with great and reverent delight {“ diligebat 
illum virum sicut angelum Dei"), and gave a 
striking proof of her feeling in submitting at 
once to his judgment on a point that must 
have touched her nearly. She had been used 
to bring oblations of vegetables, bread, and 
wine to the shrines of the African martyrs, 
and began the like practice at Milan. But 
Ambrose had forbidden the usage, partly 
because it was much abused to intemperance, 
partly (a significant fact) because it so closely 
resembled the pagan parentalia. Augustine 
owns that probably his mother would have 
obeyed none but Ambrose in such a case; to 
him, however, she yielded without a murmur. 
Ambrose fully understood Monnica’s strength 
of Christian character and delighted to praise 
her to her son (#. vi. 2). At Milan she was a 


* We do not ignore the discussions upon this inct- 
dent; see ¢.g. Wallon Infant Baptiam, pt. il. c. i. 

tr. Butwe think the Con/ettion nol imply that 

atricius interfered to defer Augustine's baptiae. 


732 MONNICA 


most devoutand diligent worshipper; liberal in 
alms ; daily attending the Eucharist (‘‘ nullum 
diem praetermittebat oblationem ad altare 
[Domini]’’), and was twice daily in the church, 
not to gossip there (‘‘non ad vanas fabulas et 
aniles loquacitates’”’) but to hear the word and 
pray (δ. v. 9). During the struggle of Ambrose 
with the Arian empress-mother Justina (385) 
Monnica was the most devout among the host 
of worshippers who gathered for vigils and 
prayers in the church (2b. ix. 7). The hymns 
of Ambrose she greatly loved, and treasured in 
her memory ; the dialogue de Beata Vita closes 
with some noble words from Monnica, intro- 
duced by a quotation from the hymn ‘“‘ Fove 
precantes, Trinitas.’’ 

The final crisis of her son’s conversion was 
instantly reported to her by Augustine and 
Alypius, to her extreme delight (2b. vili. 12), 
though it involved not onlyhis baptism but his 
acceptance of a life of celibacy. Between his 
conversion and baptism she retired with him to 
Cassiciacum, the campagna of his friend Vere- 
cundus. The dialogues de Ordine and de Beata 
Vita give acharming picture of this retirement, 
spent in holy intercourse and in lofty thought 
lighted up with eternal truth. Monnica appears 
asan interlocutorin both dialogues, conspicuous 
for strength of native sense, and occasionally 
speaking with a vigour and spirit evidently 
reported from the life; a woman who might 
have shone at any period for intellectual gifts. 
“* We fairly forgot her sex, and thought that 
some great man was in our circle”’ (de B. Γ΄. 
§ Io). At the close of the dialogue she 
speaks of the bliss of the Eternal Vision : 
“*This beyond dispute is the blessed life, the 
perfect ; at which we must look to be enabled 
to arrive, hastening on in solid faith, joyful 
hope, and burning love ”’ (δ. ad fin.). In the 
dialogue de Ordine Augustine speaks of his 
mother’s ‘‘ingenium, atque in res divinas 
inflammatus animus”? (ii. § 1). 

She was now near the end. Her son, an 
orthodox believer, was about to return with 
her to Africa. They were lodging at Ostia, 
and making the last preparations for the 
voyage (Conf. ix. 10). Augustine records a 
conversation with his mother as they sat at 
a window looking on the viridarium of the 
house—a delightful colloquy (‘‘ colloquebamur 
soli valde dulciter’’), rising from theme to 
theme of subtle but holy thought to the height 
of the beatific vision. The ‘‘ colloquy’”’ was 
surely no mere monologue on Augustine’s part, 
if he has drawn his mother truly in his two 
dialogues. It closed with a solemn utterance 
from her: ‘‘she had done with the wish to 
live; her son was a believer, and fully conse- 
crated; what did she there?”’ (7b.).. Five days 
later she was taken ill (‘‘decubuit febribus’’), 
and at once recognized the end. Her long- 
cherished wish to lie in the grave of Patricius 
was gone. ‘‘ Nothing,”’ she said, ‘‘ is far from 
God. There is no fear lest He, at the last day, 
should not know whence to raise me up.” 
“* So on the ninth day of her illness, in the 56th 
year of her age, and in the 33rd of my own, 
that devout and saintly soul was released from 
the body.’’ She died in the presence of Augus- 
tine, of another son, of her grandson Adeo- 
datus, so soon to follow her, and of many 
others (‘‘omnes nos’’) (7b. 11, 12). 


MONNICA 


Augustine’s grief was great. The burial was 
tearless (‘‘cum ecce corpus elatum est, imus 
redimus sine lacrymis’’), but another time of 
anguish followed, and a vain effort for relief 
at the bath. Then sleep came and a calmer 
waking, and now Augustine, like his blessed 
mother, found help in an Ambrosian hymn, 
““Deus creator omnium,’’ and at last could 
weep calmly. He records his prayers for the 
departed soul, and begs those of the reader. 

Monnica’s character was equally strong, 
lively, and tender by nature and refined by 
grace to extraordinary elevation. Augustine 
lavishes his unique eloquence upon her heaven- 
ly tone of life and influence and the intensity 
of her longings for the salvation of the souls 
she loved. He calls her his mother both in the 
flesh and in the Lord. His whole being was 
due, under God, to Monnica. Christians who 
knew her ‘‘ dearly loved her Lord in her, for 
they felt His presence in her heart’ (δ. 10). 
She was an eager student of the Scriptures 
(de Ord. i. ὃ 32). In Brieger’s Zeitschrift fir 
Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. p. 228, is printed (from 
Riese’s Anthologia Latina, fasc. ii. p. 127) an 
epitaph on Monnica, bearing the name of 
Bassus, ex-consul; probably Anicius Bassus, 
consul A.p. 408, and therefore a contemporary 
of Augustine’s. The lines are: 

In tumulo Monicae. (sic.) 
Hic posuit cineres genetrix castissima prolis 
Augustine tui altera lux meriti, 
Quiservans pacis caelestia jura sacerdos 
Commissos populos moribus instituis. 
Gloria vos major gestorum laude coronat 
Virtutum mater felicior subolis. 
In the last couplet Monnica and her son are, 
apparently, addressed together. The penta- 
meter apostrophizes Monnica as ‘‘ Mother of 
Virtues,’ and Augustine as her yet ‘‘ happier 
offspring ’’; happier, it may be, as a celibate 
saint. This epitaph is an interesting proof of 
the religious reverence accorded from the first 
to Monnica. Brieger’s Zeitschrift also men- 
tions the tvanslation of the bones of Monnica 
from Ostia to Rome, in 1430, in the reign of 
Martin V., and at the expense of Mapheus 
Veghius. The relics were deposited in a 
chapel dedicated on the occasion to Augustine, 
and on the sarcophagus were inscribed the 
following lines, a curious and instructive 
advance upon the older epitaph in their 
ascription of mediatorial powers to Monnica : 
Hic Augustinisanctam venerare parentem, 
Votaque fer tumulo, quo jacet illa, sacro. 
Quae quondam gnato, toti nunc Monica mundo 
Succurrit precibus, praestat opemque suis.* 
This translation is dated, in the Roman 
Martyrology, April 9. Monnica appears as a 
saint in the Roman calendar, Sancta Monica 
vidua, Apr. 4, and not infrequently as a 
figure in medieval art. Scheffer’s picture, 
painted 1845, ‘‘St. Augustin et sa mére,”’ 
gives a noble modern realization of Monnica. 
Together ‘neath the Italian heaven 
They sit, the mother and her son, 
He late from her by errors riven, 
Now both in Jesus one: 
The dear consenting hands are knit, 
And either face, as there they sit, 
Is lifted as to something seen 
Beyond the blue serene. 


Ἂν 1, sibi, as the epitaph appears in Papebroch, 
Acta Sanctorum Maiti, t. i. p. 491. 


ol 


MONOIMUS 


Such, we believe, is the ordinary interpretation 


of the picture ; as ifit represented the colloquy | 


at Ostia. But an interesting passage in Mrs. 
Jameson’s Sacred and Legendary Art, p. 314, 
seems to shew that Scheffer had in view some 
moment before Augustine’s conversion ἢ per- 
haps that recorded Conf. vi. 1, when Monnica 
assures Augustine that she should yet see him 
a believer. [H.C.G.M.] 

Monoimus (a form, possibly representing the 
Jewish name Menaham), an Arabian Gnostic 
of 2nd cent. His name had been only pre- 
served by a brief notice in Theodoret (Haer. 
Fab. i. 18) until the recovery of the lost 
work of Hippolytus against heresies shewed 
that from this work Theodoret derived his 
knowledge. Hippolytus gives a short abstract 
of the doctrine of Monoimus and an extract 
from a letter of his to one Theophrastus. The 
system described might at first seem one of 
mere pantheism ; but a closer examination 
shews Christian elements in it, so that it is 
rightly classed as a heresy, and not as a form 
of heathenism. There is an express quotation 
from Colossians and a probable reference to the 
prologue of St. John’s Gospel. The starting- 
point of the speculation is the ascription in 
N.T. of the work of creation to the Son of 
Man, whence it was inferred that the first 
principle was properly called Man. It follows 
that it is a mistake to look for God in creation; 
we must seek Him in ourselves, and can best 
find him by the study of the involuntary 
operations of our own soul. The relation 
between the ‘‘Man”’ and “Son of Man” 
exists from beyond time. The latter is 
derived from the former, but, it would seem, 
by an immediate and eternal necessity of His 
nature, just as from fire is necessarily derived 
the light which renders it visible. Thus, 
concerning the first principle, the Scriptures 
speak both of a “‘ being’ and a “* becoming ”’ 
(ἦν καὶ éyévero), the first word properly apply- 
ing to the ‘‘ Man,”’ the second to the ‘‘ Son of 
Man.” The speculations of Monoimus, as 
reported to us, relate only to the creation ; 
we are told of none as to redemption. 

His use of the phrases ‘‘ Man”’ and ‘‘ Son 
of Man”’ reminds us of the system of the 
Naassenes (Hippol. Ref. ὃ 7; see also our art. 
Gnosticism), and a closer examination shews 
that Monoimus is really to be referred to that 
sect, although Hippolytus has classed them 
separately ; for Monoimus describes his first 
principle as bisexual, and applies to it the 
titles ‘‘ Father, Mother, the two immortal 
names,” words taken out of a Naassene 
hymn. But there is a common source of this 
language in the ᾿Απόφασις μεγάλη of Simon, 
this passage also being clearly the original of 
the description given by Monoimus of the 
contradictory attributes of his first principle. 
Further traces of the obligations of Monoimus 
to Simon are found in the reference to the six 
powers instrumental in creation, which answer 
to Simon’s six “‘ roots,’’ while a similar indebt- 
edness to Simon on the part of the Naassene 
writer in Hippolytus is found on comparing the 
anatomical speculations connected with the 
name Eden (v.9; vi. 14). It is more doubtful 
whether there is any relation of obligation 
between Monoimus and the Clementine Hom- 
ilies ; both contrast “‘ the Son of Man”’ with 


MONOPHYSITISM 733 


| those ‘* born of women " (Hom. ii. 17). Mono- 
imus has mysteries in connexion with the 
number 14, shewing that he attached import- 
ance to Paschal celebration. [ο.5.} 
Monophysitism. The passionate protest 
raised in Egypt against the heresy of Nrs- 
TORIUS, supported as it was by court influence, 
was carried so far that it led to a strong 
reaction. The Nestorian heresy was con- 
demned because it tended to separate Christ 
into two beings, one God and the other man, 
and to regard the inhabitation of the latter 
by the former as differing in degree only 
from the inhabitation by the Deity of the 
patriarchs and prophets of the Old Dispensa- 
tion. The cruel persecution of Nestorius hime 
self (who, though he undoubtedly went too 
far in some of his statements, was willing to 
qualify many of ae the harsh treatment 
of the learned and holy Theodoret, and the 
forcible suppression of the teaching of the 
Syrian school, produced great indignation, 
and when the emperor Theodosius 11. died, 
and was succeeded in 450 by Marcian, the 
reaction against Monophysitism broke out all 
the more fiercely in consequence of the vio- 
lence and long duration of these measures of 
repression. Cyril had died in 444, and had 
been succeeded by Dioscorus, a man of 
equally violent passions and uncharitable 
spirit, but of far less self-control and diplo- 
matic skill. Cyril had himself been guilty of 
confounding the divine and human natures 
of Christ as completely as Nestorius had been 
guilty of dividing them, and as long as he 
and Theodosius II. survived, what was after- 
wards condemned as Monophysite heresy was 
in the ascendant. Extremes very frequently 
meet, and it was not unfairly contended that 
Cyril, when he insisted on the rsonal 
supremacy of the Logos over the Manhood, 
had practically divided the Person of Christ 
as much as Nestorius had, when he taught 
that the human nature was no more than a 
mere adjunct to the Godhead (Dorner, On the 
Person of Christ, 1. div. ii. pp. 67-71, where, 
however, there seems some ‘‘ confusion of sub- 
stance” in the way in which the author treats 
the question whether the Godhead could itself 
suffer pain, augmentation, or diminution 
through association with the manhood). 
History of the Controversy.—When Theodo- 
sius and Cyril, with the aid of Rabbulas, en- 
deavoured altogether to suppress the Syrian 
school in the East, considerable resistance was 
offered. As early as 435 Cyril had begun to 
resume his attacks on the reputation of 
Diodorus and Theodore. Even the patriarch 
| Proclus [Nestorius] endeavoured to moderate 
‘the violence of Cyril’s methods. John of 
Antioch informed the latter that the Syrian 
bishops would rather be burned than con- 
demn their great teacher Theodore. The 
| emperor was prevailed upon to forbid further 
| proceedings, and Cyril himself found it 
|necessary to yield. But he kept up the 
‘irritation by writing a treatise on the oneness 
| of Christ's Person, to which Theodoret felt 
bound to reply, so that though repressive 
| measures were abandoned, the controversy 
/continued. Dioscorus, Cyril's successor, was 
‘not inclined to let it drop. He intrigued at 
Constantinople, and encouraged two monks 


734 MONOPHYSITISM 


named Eutycues and Barsumas to insist on 
something which approached very near to the 
absorption of the Manhood by the Godhead of 
Christ. Theodoret came forward once more 
(447) with his Eranistes (contributor to a club 
repast), a work in which he contended that the 
Logos was ἄτρεπτος (unchangeable), ἀσυγχύτος 
(t.e. His two natures were incapable of being 
confounded), and ἀπαθής (i.e. the Godhead was 
incapable of suffering). Dioscorus next wrote 
to the patriarch of Antioch accusing Theodoret 
of Nestorianism; and when Theodoret de- 
fended himself with temper and moderation, 
pointing out that he had condemned those 
who had denounced the term θεοτόκος and 
divided the Person of Christ, and appealing 
to the authority of Alexander, Athanasius, 
Basil, and Gregory, Dioscorus encouraged his 
monks to anathematize Theodoret openly 
in the church (448). By imperial decree 
Theodoret was ordered to keep in his own 
diocese, and not to cause synods to be sum- 
moned at Antioch or elsewhere. Just then 
a synod was held at Constantinople (448), 
under the patriarch Flavian (who had lately 
succeeded Proclus, and who is sometimes 
confounded with Flavian of Antioch, who 
died c.'408), for the dispatch of general busi- 
ness, and Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum in 
Phrygia, brought a complaint against the 
abbot Eutyches as a disturber of the public 
peace. Flavian bade him visit Eutyches; 
for Eutyches, like Dalmatius, had gained 
great credit for piety by never leaving his 
cell. Eusebius declined to do this, and 
Eutyches, when summoned, refused to come 
forth. When he found that he was about to 
be condemned for contumacy, he came forth, 
but brought a large assembly of monks, 
notables, and even soldiers in his train. By 
this means he secured a safe return to his 
monastery, but his adversaries continued to 
attack him, and to charge him with calling 
Christ’s Body God’s Body, and with asserting 
that It was not ὁμοούσιον with other bodies. 
When questioned, he denied that our Lord 
possessed two natures after His Incarnation. 
He was therefore deposed and excommuni- 
cated. The party of Eutyches had recourse to 
court intrigue, and the empress Eudocia con- 
trived to deprive her sister-in-law Pulcheria, 
who favoured Flavian, of all her influence with 
theemperor. Eutyches next demanded a new 
trial, but though the emperor granted his re- 
quest, Flavian refused to revise the sentence. 
Eutyches then, relying on the support of Dios- 
corus andtheemperor, and alsoof Leo of Rome, 
whose predecessor had condemned Nestorius, 
appealed to an oecumenical council. But he 
tried tosecurehis safety by declaring his willing- 
ness toconfessthetwo natures in theone Christ, 
if Dioscorus and Leo of Rome should require 
it. Flavian wished the matter to remain as 
it had been settled at Constantinople, but he 
was overruled, and a synod called together 
at Ephesus in 449. 

Of this synod Dioscorus, not Flavian, was 
appointed president, and Flavian was present 
rather as an accused person than as a judge. 
The violence displayed at it by Dioscorus 
and his party caused it to be universally 
rejected by the Catholic church. It obtained 
the name of the Synod of Brigands, or Robber 


MONOPHYSITISM 
Synod (Latrocinium), which it has ever since 
retained. By trickery and tumult the bishops 
were forced to declare that there was but one 
nature in Christ, and the patriarch Flavian 
was so roughly handled at the council that 
he died shortly after of the injuries he had 
received. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum 
were deposed. Domnus of Antioch yielded 
to the clamour, in spite of the warnings of 
Theodoret, but he also wasafterwards deposed. 
Theodoret was exiled to the monastery in 
which he had been brought up. For fuller de- 
tails of this synod see Dioscorus ; EUTYCHEs. 
Within a few months, however, the situation 
underwent a great change. Theodosius died 
(450), and was succeeded by Marcian. The 
new emperor had previously espoused Pul- 
cheria, who had contrived to regain her 
influence over the deceased emperor before 
his death, and who had already honoured the 
remains of the martyred patriarch Flavian 
with a public funeral. The bishops who had 
disgraced themselves by their craven sub- 
mission to the decrees of the ‘‘ Robber 
Synod ’’—‘‘ chameleons,’’ as Theodoret calls 
them—now further disgraced themselves by 
as sudden a recantation. Leo, who had sent 
four representatives to Ephesus, had by this 
time learned from them the true history of 
the proceedings there. One of them, Hilary 
the deacon, had made a formal protest 
against these proceedings. Hilary had 
also taken with him from Ephesus the appeal 
of Flavian for a rehearing of the case in 
Italy. Leo now determined, if possible, to 
decide the question himself. As in the Arian, 
so in the Nestorian and Monophysite con- 
troversies, the West displayed a marked 
capacity for seizing on the salient points of the 
question at issue, which the Easterns often 
failed to grasp in consequence of their taste 
for metaphysical subtleties. Leo himself was 
a man ‘‘of strong character, undaunted 
courage, and clear, practical understanding,” 
though ‘‘ more skilled in liturgical than in 
theological questions ’’’ (Dorner). He was also 
by no means averse from making these con- 
troversies a means for increasing the prestige 
of his see. Socrates (H. E. vii. 7, 12) has re- 
marked on the use which the patriarchs of 
Rome and Alexandria alike were making at 
this period of all opportunities of adding to 
their secular importance. Accordingly Leo 
held several synods at Rome in which the 
decrees of the ‘‘ Robber Synod”’ were re- 
jected. And even before the assembling of 
that synod he had written his celebrated 
letter to Flavian which, though suppressed at 
Ephesus, was afterwards read at Chalcedon, 
and accepted as an accurate statement of the 
doctrine handed down from the first in the 
church. He now made use of Flavian’s 
appeal to him to procure the assembling of a 
council at Rome. But the emperor was too 
politic to permit this, and sent out letters 
for a council to be held at Nicaea. Such 
serious riots, however, broke out there that 
the emperor ultimately resolved to assemble 
it at Chalcedon, on the opposite side of the 
Bosphorus to Constantinople, where he could 
more easily prevent disturbances. There 630 
bishops assembled. Leo now pretended that 
it was not only contrary to ecclesiastical 


MONOPHYSITISM 


custom, but derogatory to his dignity, for him 
to be present at the council. He further 
claimed to exercise the presidency through 
his five delegates, but his claim was not ad- 
mitted, and Anatolius, the new patriarch of 
Constantinople, was associated with the 
absent Leo in the office of president. The 
delegates of Leo protested against Dioscorus 
being allowed to sit with his brother-pa- 
triarchs, considering the very serious impu- 
tations under which he lay, and they stated 
that unlesstheir demands wereacceded to, they 
would withdraw from the council. It should 
be remarked in passing that the presence and 
action of Leo’s delegates dispose of the ob- 
jections some theologians and historians have 
made against the oecumenical character of the 
synod. Eusebius of Dorylaeum now demanded 
that his petition against Dioscorus should 
be read. It was couched in the following 
striking terms (so Evagr. H. E. ii. 4): ‘‘ I have 
been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has 
been wronged; the bishop Flavian has been 
murdered, and, together with myself, unjustly 
deposed by him. Give directions that my 
petition is to be read.”” It was read accord- 
ingly. Eusebius is further declared by 
Evagrius (ii. 2) to have accused Dioscorus to 
the emperor of having personally inflicted 
the injuries of which Flavian died. Dioscorus 
was convicted of having suppressed Leo’s 
letter to Flavian at the ‘“‘ Robber Synod ”’ ; 
he was deposed ; the bishops deposed by him 
—Theodoret and Ibas among them—were 
reinstated; and Leo’s letter to Flavian 
accepted by the council amid loud shouts of 
“Peter has spoken by Leo; Cyril and Leo 
teach alike.’’ Dioscoius was deposed, but 
permission was given to the Egyptian bishops 
to defer their subscription to the Acts of the 
synod until their new patriarch had been con- 
secrated. Eutyches also was condemned. The 
proceedings of the council were decidedly 
tumultuous. One day Theodoret was howled 
down by the Egyptian bishops ; the day after 
Dioscorus met with a similar reception from 
the Syrian bishops. Some of the laity who 
were present as representatives of the em- 
peror openly remarked on the unseemliness 
of such conduct on the part of bishops. The 
treatment of the venerable Theodoret was 
especially unseemly. The reason for which he 
was howled down was his refusal to anathe- 
matize Nestorius until he had an opportunity 
of explaining his position, though this was the 
position eventually accepted by the Catholic 
church at large—namely, the rejection at once 
of the doctrine of two hypostases, and of the 
doctrine of only one nature, in Christ. 
only in consequence of the emperor's interven- 
tion that the reception of Theodoret by the 
council was secured. 

The resolution first proposed to the synod 
was not adopted, it being considered too 
favourable to the party of Dioscorus. The 
Roman delegates threatened to leave the 


council unless Leo's letter were accepted 4 
‘the human intellect has been unable to un- 


an authoritative statement of doctrine. 
this were not done, they intimated that the 
question should be settled at Rome. As 
many points of importance connected with 
the relations between the churches of the 
East and of the West remained unsettled, 


It was | 


MONOPHYSITISM 735 


especially the question of the status of the 
atriarch of Constantinople, some of the 
Eastern prelates feared the prolongation of 
these disputes which would result from the 
retirement of Leo's representatives. There- 
fore, though not without many energetic pro- 
tests, Leo's letter was recognized, at the 
request of the emperor, and a definition of 
doctrine in accordance with that letter was 
drawn up. The synod first recognized the 
creed put forth at Nicaea (325), and next 
the enlarged form of it adopted at Con- 
stantinople (381). Whether such a creed was 
actually promulgated at Constantinople has 
been disputed of late. But much of the evi- 
dence existing in 451 has disappeared, and 
it seems hardly safe to conebuda from the 
silence of contemporary writers that the 630 
bishops at Chalcedon had been misinformed 
on so vital a point. The synod went on to 
condemn the vain babblings («evogwrias) of 
those who denied to the Virgin the title of 
θεοτόκος, as well as those who, on the other 
hand, affirmed a confusion and mixture 
(σύγχυσιν καὶ κρᾶσιν) in Christ, under the fool- 
ish impression that there could be one nature 
(consisting) of the Flesh and the Deity in Him, 
and who, in consequence of (this) confusion, 
resorted to the amazing suggestion that the 
divine nature of the Mag ἔξω. κυ am was 
capable of suffering. After having formally 
accepted Leo's treatise as in conformity with 
this statement, the decree went on to declare 
that Jesus Christ was *‘ Perfect in Godhead 
and Perfect in Manhood, truly God and truly 
Man; that He was possessed of a reasonable 
or rather rational (λογικῆ) soul and body, 
of the same substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the 
Father according to His Godhead, and of the 
same substance with us as regards His Man- 
hood”; and that He is “ to be recognized as 
existing in two natures, without confusion, 
without change, indivisibly, and inseparably 
(ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, dywplorws), 
the distinction of the natures being in no way 
removed by their union, but rather the 
speciality (léérys) of each nature being 
preserved, coalescing (συντρεχούσητ) in one 
Person (πρόσωπον) and one hypostasis, not 
divided nor separated into two Persons, but 
being one and the same Son, and Only- 
begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus 
Christ.” There can be no doubt that the 
decision thus promulgated was a sound one, 
and that, as Leo did not fail to remark 
pertinently more than once, the doctrines 
condemned at the two councils of Ephesus 
and Chalcedon pointed out two rocks on 
which the doctrine of Christ might be ship- 
wrecked. ‘“ The Catholic church,” he goes 
on to say, “could not teach the Humanity 
of Christ apart from His true Divinity, nor 
His Divinity without His true Humanity" 
(Letter to Flavian, c. 5). Yet he did not feel 
compelled, as Dorner observes, to explain 
‘the internal relations of the two natures." 
That was, and has remained, a mystery which 


ravel. All he had to do was to lay down the 
particular propositions which, when enunci- 
ated by too daring theologians, were in plain 


‘conflict with the express teaching of God's 


736 MONOPHYSITISM 


Word, and must therefore tend to mislead 
mankind on points essential to their salvation. 
The general reception of the via media laid 
down by the council, emphasised as it was at 
two subsequent councils held at Constanti- 
nople [see below and NestTortus], leaves no 
doubt that it represents the mind of Christen- 
dom upon the point. This conclusion is further 
accentuated bythe fact that, though some Nes- 
torian and Monophysite communities continue 
to exist, even they are no longer unwilling to 
hold communion with those who receive the 
doctrines promulgated by the council on the 
questions at issue. 

The resistance against the decrees of the 
council of Chalcedon has nevertheless been 
even more formidable than against those 
of Ephesus, and the communities still in 
existence which are separated from the 
church at large on the question of the decrees 
of Chalcedon are more numerous, less scat- 
tered, and more thoroughly organized than 
those called into existence by the decrees of 
Ephesus. Yet this can hardly be attributed 
to the more harmless character of Monophy- 
sitism, because as a fact the opinions advo- 
cated by Dioscorus and Eutyches were 
pushed to far greater extremes and far less 
carefully qualified than those expressed by 
theologians so competent as Theodore of 
Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus. The sur- 
vival, in forms so fully organized, of Mono- 
physitism seems rather due to the break-up of 
the Roman empire, and the progressive decline 
of its political power, as well as to the spread 
of Mohammedanism in N. Africa and Armenia. 
In both cases the attempt at translation of 
Greek ideas into the Syrian and Egyptian 
vernacular had been an additional reason for 
the long continuance of the controversy. 

A violent controversy at once sprung up, 
and a schism was organized, followed by 
violent disturbances. But it is notable that 
Dioscorus disappears from history after his 
deposition. His adversaries did not subject 
him to the same severities as those under 
which Nestorius perished. He had reason to 
be thankful that the fair-minded and gentle- 
hearted Theodoret was the leader of his 
opponents, and not the hard, intolerant, and 
relentless Cyril. Marcian contrived to restore 
order. But on his death fresh tumults arose. 
A rival patriarch, Timotheus Aelurus, was 
nominated, and Proterius, who had succeeded 
Dioscorus, was slain. Thenew emperor, Leo, 
deposed Timotheus. Butthe schismcontinued. 
The emperor Zeno next (482) issued his famous 
HENOTICON, in which, while Nestorius and 
Eutyches were anathematized, twelve chapters 
(or selections) from the works of Cyril were ac- 
cepted. But Zeno’smanner of lifeevokedno en- 
thusiasm, and Philoxenus—favourably known 
to us as the patron of the Philoxenian-Syriac 
version of theScriptures—‘“‘ Peter the clothier,”’ 
and Severus, organized a formidable Monophy- 
site party in Syria, Egypt, and Constantinople 
respectively. Justinian, emperor from 527- 
565, did his utmost to support the decrees of 
Chalcedon, while his consort, the famous, or, 
as some historians prefer to put it, the in- 
famous, Theodora, did her best to thwart 
her husband, at the instance of some ecclesias- 
tical intriguers who had contrived to worm 


MONOPHYSITISM 


themselves into her confidence. For the con- 
troversy of the ‘‘Three Chapters’’ see NESTOR- 
us. Itsresult wastoencourage Monophysitism, 
and that form of Christian belief rooteditself in 
Armenia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and ultimately 
in Abyssinia. The Coptic (the word Coptic is 
etymologically the same as Egypiian) church 
hasremained asa separate bodyin Egyptto the 
present day. The Maronites in Armenia form 
another community which owes its existence 
to the Monophysite controversy. The Mono- 
physites called their orthodox opponents 
Melchites, on the ground that they had 
accepted their opinions from the civil govern- 
ment and its head, the emperor ; while the or- 
thodox bestowed on their opponents the name 
of Jacobites, from Jacob of Edessa, an enthu- 
siastic disseminator of Monophysite views. 

It is unnecessary to follow out in full detail 
the history of the Monophysite schism. It 
only remains to mention that a reaction 
dating from the condemnation of the ‘‘ Three 
Chapters’’ issued in Monotheletism, or the 
assertion of only one will in Christ. This 
controversy led to the summoning of a sixth 
oecumenical council at Constantinople in 
680, in which Monotheletism was condemned, 
after having been anathematized at Rome, 
under Martin I., in 649. Communion be- 
tween the East and the West had been broken 
off for some time on this point, and pope 
Honorius, like his predecessors Liberius and 
Vigilius, fell into suspicion of heresy in the 
course of the controversy. But the decision 
of the above-mentioned council restored the 
interrupted communion, and more friendly 
relations between the East and the West 
continued to subsist for above 300 years. 
The Coptic church, persecuted first by its 
orthodox sister, and afterwards by the Mo- 
hammedans, has obstinately maintained a 
precarious and downtrodden existence from 
the 6th cent. to the present moment. It has 
practically ceased to be heterodox, and in 
1843 proposals for union with the Orthodox 
church would have been carried into effect, 
but that when the Moslem Government heard 
of them, the Coptic patriarch was invited to 
take coffee with a prominent Government 
official, and went home to die of poison. Since 
the British occupation in 1882 the Coptic 
church has begun toemergefrom itslong period 
of depression. The lay Copts have become 
educated and even wealthy. Though but a 
seventh of the population, they own one-fifth of 
the property of their country. One of their 
number became prime minister—the first Coptic 
prime minister for a very long period—but was 
unfortunately murdered in an outburst of poli- 
tical and religious fanaticism early in Igtro. 
Though the Coptic clergy are still ignorant and 
fanatical, and the aged patriarch refuses to 
take any steps towards their better education, 


the laity have extorted a permission from > 


him for the appointment of a certain number 
of laity authorized to give instruction to their 
co-religionists on the truths of the Christian 
religion. The educated laity are decidedly 
friendly towards the Anglican church. Two 
missions to the Copts have been sent of late 
years from England, one in 1843 and the 
other in the last decade of the 19th cent. 
Neither of them were successful, and the 


τ 


MONOPHYSITISM 
Copts will probably be allowed for the future 


to carry out the much-needed reforms in. 


their system in their own way. The Maron- 
ites of the Lebanon have remained apart from 
the Orthodox church of the East up to the 
eam _time, but the French political in- 

uence in the Lebanon since 1860 has caused 
a considerable number of them to join the 
church of Rome. The church of Abyssinia, 
though its Liturgy shows some beautiful 
traces of the purer ages of Christianity, has 
fallen into many superstitions and corruptions. 
Yet that church has had sufficient vitality to 
claim representation among the numerous 
churches and denominations which now gather 
at the cradle of Christianity, and not the least 
imposing religious edifice to be seen at Jeru- 
salem is the Abyssinian church. 

General Effect of the Controversies about the 
Person of Christ.—It may not be out of place, in 


conclusion, to endeavour to arrive at some esti- | 


mate of the influence of these prolonged and 
bitter controversies upon the history of the 
Christian church. On the surface that influence 
appears unfavourable. Not only was the 
church of Christ broken up into antagonistic 
sections which mutually hated each other, 
but a divided Christendom fell an easy victim 
to the Mohammedan invader. Western 
theology, when deprived of the balance 
afforded by the more purely intellectual 
characteristics predominant in the East, 
crystallized into a Roman mould. Not even 
the revival of letters cured this evil, and we 
find that even post-Reformation theology has 
not altogether escaped from the long domina- 
tion of purely Western forms of thought. But 
to stop short here would be one-sided and 
superficial. The effect of these prolonged 
controversies has undoubtedly been to clear 
up the confusion which long existed in the 
Christian mind about the relations of the 
three Persons (or distinctions) in the Trinity, 
and of the two natures in the one Christ. 
The two conflicting tendencies at work in the 
Nestorian and Monophysite heresies were (1) 
the disposition to divide the Redeemer into 
two separate beings, united to one another for 
God’s purpose of salvation, and (2) the 
disposition either (a) to make the Redeemer 
a Being compounded out of two other beings, 
God and Man, being Himself neither one nor 
the other, or (6) to regard the Humanity of 
Christ as swallowed up by His Divinity. Of 
these two forms of Monophysite doctrine the 
former is ultimately unthinkable. An Infinite 
Being and a finite one cannot possibly 
coalesce into a third being, which is neither 
the one nor the other. The second view, 
though in itself by no means inconceivable, 
has been felt to contradict the definite state- 


ments of Scripture on the nature of the union | 


between God the Word and the Man Christ 
Jesus, and is therefore inadmissible. The 
controversy, pursued with great virulence for 
about a century and a half, ended by the 
definite establishment of a mean between 
the two extremes, namely, that Christ con- 
sisted of two separate natures, the Godhead 
and the Manhood, conjoined into one Person- 


ality or Individuality, 1.e. one ultimate source |tailed and careful summary. 
Not that there was| Theodoret, and the collection of the letters 


of thought and action. 


| the fiat of the Divine and Higher Will. 


| tion of the one by (or into) the other. 


MONOPHYSITISM 737 


underlying these two natures, but that the 
action of the lower will was confined within 
certain limits, and ultimately determined by 
If 
it was permitted to the theologian to speak 
of a communicatio idiomatum (transter of 
attributes), this involved no confusion nor 
amalgamation of the two natures, no absorp- 
Each 
remains separate and complete. But some 
attributes of the one nature may be spoken 
of as transferred to the other, by reason of 
the inseparable conjunction of both in the 
One Person (ὑπόστασις or πρόσωπον), Thus 
if, as is sometimes the case, God is spoken of 
as suffering or dying, it is not to be supposed 
that the Godhead, as such, is capable of 
suffering or of death. The expression is only 
permissible in consequence of the inseparable 
conjunction of Christ's Godhead ro Man- 
hood in one Personality. The same caution 
must be borne in mind when the Blessed 
Virgin is spoken of as θεοτόκος, God cannot 
be brought forth into this world as man 
is brought forth. Yet the Divine Word and 
the Man Christ Jesus are inseparably one. 
Another point must not be lost sight of. In 
the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies 
the word Hypostasis is applied to the Personal 
Mind and Will which separates the Being thus 
indicated from any other existence. But 
when, as in the Arian controversy, the word 
Hypostasis is applied to the so-called Persons 
in the Godhead, it is not used to indicate 
separate sources of thought and action, but 
is employed to denote certain eternal dis- 
tinctions declared in Holy Scripture to exist 
within the Godhead Itself, where there can be 
only one Mind and Will. We confess that 
the Father’s sole prerogative is to originate, 
the Son’s to reveal, the Spirit's to guide, 
direct, inspire. But all these prerogatives 
co-exist harmoniously in Him, Who is above 
all, and through all, and in us all. The de- 
cisions of the four great oecumenical councils 
are thus a standing witness to the fact that 
the church, from the beginning till now, 
has taught consistently that Jesus Christ was 
(1) ἀλήθως (truly), (2) τελέως (completely), 
(3) ἀδιαιρέτως (indivisibly), and (4) ἀσυγχύτωτ 
(without confusion [of nature]) the Word, or 
Son of the Eternal God, Who in the last times, 
‘* for us men and for our salvation,” took upon 
Him our flesh, and manifested Himself to the 
world ‘‘ in the form of a bond-slave," and that 
His two natures remained separate and 
uncombined. And so, being at once Perfect 
God and Perfect Man, He is able, not only to 
reconcile God and Man, and to destroy the 
empire of sin in the latter, but can in the 
end present us, reconciled and saved, as 
erfect and unblamable before the God and 
ather of us all. . 
Bibliography.—Our authorities are nearly 
the same as those given under Nestoatus. 
We have no longer the help of Socrates, but 


Evagrius is vivid, and nog accurate, 
though often very credulous. He accepts 


implicitly the decisions of Ephesus and 
Chalcedon, and of the latter he gives a de- 
The letters of 


only one mind, or one will, in the Personality | of other men of mark in his day, found in 


41 


738 MONOTHELITISM 


many editions of his works [NESTORIUS] are 
full of information on the Monophysite con- 
troversy. In later times Monophysitism does 
not seem to have attracted the attention of 
writers to the same extent as Nestorianism 
has done. There is no work on the former 
corresponding to those of Assemani and 
Badger on the latter. Neander, Dorner, Canon 
Bright, and, more recently, Mr. Bethune Baker 
are as useful here ason Nestorianism. Canon 
Bright has also translated and edited Leo’s 
Sermons on the Incarnation. Gieseler is 
strangely brief on the controversy in the 5th 
cent., but has more information on its later 
developments. Mr. Wigram’s Intro. to the Hist. 
of the Assyrian Church (S.P.C.K. τοῖο) has 
some chapters on the later developments of 
Monophysitism in the East. [J-J-L.] 

Monothelitism. [Monopuysitism.] 

Montanus (1), a native of Ardabau, a village 
in Phrygia, who, in the latter half of the 2nd 
cent., originated a widespread schism, of 
which traces remained for centuries. 

I. Rise of Montanism.—The name Mont- 
anus was not uncommon in the district. It is 
found in a Phrygian inscription (Le Bas, 755) 
and in three others from neighbouring pro- 
vinces (Boeckh—3662 Cyzicus, 4071 Ancyra, 
4187 Amasia). Montanus had been originally 
a heathen, and according to Didymus (de 
Trin. iii. 41) an idol priest. The epithets 
“‘abscissus ἢ and ‘‘ semivir’’ applied to him 
by Jerome (Ep. ad Marcellam, vol. i. 186) 
suggest that Jerome may have thought him 
a priest of Cybele. That after his conversion 
he became a priest or bishop there is no 
evidence. He taught that God’s supernatural 
revelations did not end with the apostles, but 
that even more wonderful manifestations of the 
divine energy might be expected under the dis- 
pensation of the Paraclete. It is asserted that 
Montanus claimed himself to be the Paraclete; 
but we believe this to have merely arisen out of 
thefact that he claimed to be an inspired organ 
by whom the Paraclete spoke, and that conse- 
quently words of his were uttered and accepted 
as those of that Divine Being. We are told that 
Montanus claimed to be a prophet and spoke in 
a kind of possession or ecstasy. He held that 
the relation between a prophet and the Divine 
Being Who inspired him was the same as 
between a musical instrument and he who 
played upon it; consequently the inspired 
words of a prophet were not to be regarded as 
those of the human speaker. In a fragment 
of his prophecy preserved by Epiphanius he 
says, “1 have come, not an angel or am- 
bassador, but God the Father.’ See also 
Didymus (u.s.). It is clear that Montanus 
here did not speak in his own name, but 
uttered words which he supposed God to have 
put into his mouth ; and if he spoke similarly 
in the name of the Paraclete it does not follow 
that he claimed to be the Paraclete. 

His prophesyings were soon outdone by two 
female disciples, Prisca or Priscilla and Maxi- 
milla, who fell into strange ecstasies, delivering 
in them what Montanus and his followers 
regarded as divine prophecies. They had been 
married, left their husbands, were given by 
Montanus the rank of virgins in the church, and 
were widely reverenced as prophetesses. But 
very different was the sober judgment formed 


MONTANUS 


of them by some of the neighbouring bishops. 
Phrygia was a country in which heathen devo- 
tion exhibited itself in the most fanatical form, 
and it seemed tocalm observers that the frenzied 
utterances of the Montanistic prophetesses were 
far less like any previous manifestation of the 
prophetic gift among Christians than they were 
to those heathenorgiasms which the church had 
been wont to ascribeto theoperationof demons. 
The church party looked on the Montanists as 
wilfully despising our Lord’s warning to be- 
ware of false prophets, and as being in con- 
sequence deluded by Satan, in whose power 
they placed themselves by accepting as divine 
teachers women possessed by evil spirits. The 
Montanists looked on the church leaders as 
men who did despite to the Spirit of God by 
offering the indignity of exorcism to those 
whom He had chosen as His organs for com- 
municating with the church. It does not 
appear that any offence was taken at the 
substance of the Montanistic prophesyings. 
On the contrary, it was owned that they had 
a certain plausibility ; when with their con- 
gratulations and promises to those who 
accepted them they mixed a due proportion of 
rebukes and warnings, this was ascribed to 
the deeper art of Satan. What condemned 
the prophesyings in the minds of the church 
authorities was the frenzied ecstasy in which 
they were delivered. 

The question as to the different character- 
istics of real and pretended prophecy was the 
main subject of discussion in the first stage of 
the Montanist controversy. It may have been 
treated of by Melito in his work on prophecy ; 
it was certainly the subject of that of Mil- 
tiades περὶ rod μὴ δεῖν προφήτην ἐν ἐκστάσει 
λαλεῖν ; it was touched on in an early anony- 
mous writing against Montanism [ABERCIUS], 
of which large fragments are preserved by 
Eusebius (v. 16, 17). Some more of this 
polemic is almost certainly preserved by 
Epiphanius, who often incorporates the 
labours of previous writers and whose section 
on Montanism contains a discussion which is 
clearly not Epiphanius’s own, but a survival 
from the first stage of the controversy. We 
learn that the Montanists brought as Scripture 
examples of ecstasy the text ‘‘the Lord sent 
a deep sleep (ἔκστασιν) upon Adam,’’ that 
David said in his haste (ἐν ἐκστάσει) “all 
men are liars,’’ and that the same word is 
used of the vision which warned Peter to 
accept the invitation of Cornelius. The ortho- 
dox opponent points out that Peter’s ‘‘ not 
so’”’ shews that in his ecstasy he did not lose 
his individual judgment and will. Other 
similar instances are quoted from O.T. 

The same argument was probably pursued 
by Clement of Alexandria, who promised to 
write on prophecy against the Montanists 
(Strom. iv. 13, p. 605). He notes it as a 
characteristic of false prophets ἐν ἐκστάσει 
προεφήτευον ws ἂν ᾿Αποστάτου διάκονοι (i. 17, 
p- 360). Tertullian no doubt defended the 
Montanist position in his lost work in six 
books on ecstasy. 

Notwithstanding the condemnation of Mon- 
tanism and the excommunication of Montan- 
ists by neighbouring bishops, it continued to 
spread and make converts. Visitors came 
from far to witness the wonderful phenomena ; 


MONTANUS 


and the condemned prophets hoped to reverse 
the first unfavourable verdict hi the sentence 


of a er tribunal. But the leading 
a Asia Minor declared against it. At 
en 


overrule the ju ent of Asiatic Christians 


an attempt was made to influence or 
by the opinion i 


their brethren beyond the 
sea. We cannot be sure how long Montanus 
had been teaching, or how long the excesses of 
his prophetesses had continued; but in 177 
Western attention was first called to these 
disputes, the interference being solicited of the 
martyrs of Lyons, then suffering imprisonment 
and expecting death for the testimony of 
Christ. They were informed of the disputes 
by their brethren in Asia Minor, the native 
country no doubt of many of the Gallic Chris- 
tians. Eusebius in his Chronicle assigns 172 
for the beginning of the prophesying of Mon- 
tanus. A few years more seems necessary for 
the growth of the new sect in Asia before 
it forced itself on the attention of-foreign 
Christians, and the Epiphanian date 157 
appears more probable, and agrees the vague 
date of Didymus, ‘‘ more than roo years ea 
the Ascension.” Possibly 157 may be the 
date of the conversion of Montanus, 172 that 
of his formal condemnation by the Asiatic 
church authorities. 

Were the Gallic churches consulted by the 
orthodox, by the Montanists, or by both? 
and what answer did the Gallic Christians 

ive? Eusebius only tells us that their 
judgment was pious and most orthodox, and 


that they subjoined letters which those who. 


afterwards suffered martyrdom wrote while 

et in prison to the brethren in Asia and 

hrygia and also to Eleutherus, bp. of Rome, 
pleading (or negotiating, πρεσβεύοντες) for 
the peace of the churches. If, as has been 
suggested, the last expression meant entreat- 
ing the removal of the excommunication from 
the Montanists, Eusebius, who begins his 
account of Montanism by describing it as a 
device of Satan, would not have praised such 
advice as pious and orthodox. 

We think that the Montanists had appealed 
to Rome; that the church party solicited the 
good offices of their countrymen settled in 
Gaul, who wrote to Eleutherus representing 
the disturbance to the peace of the churches (a 
phrase probably preserved by Eusebius from 
the letter itself) which would ensue if the 
Roman church approved what the church on 
the spot condemned. We have no reason to 


MONTANUS 739 


| beginning of 178. This hypothesis relieves 
us from the necessity of supposing this wper- 
᾿ βεία to have been unsuccessful, while it fully 
/ accounts for the necessity of sending it. 
| The Asiatic churches laid before the Chris- 
tian world justification for their course. Their 
case was stated by one of their most eminent 
bishops, Claudius Apolinarius of Hierapolis. 
| Apolinarius gives the signatures of different 
bishops who had investigated and condemned 
the Montanist prophesyings. One of these, 
_ Sotas of Anchialus, on the western shore of the 
Black Sea, was dead when Apolinarius wrote ; 
| but Aelius Publius Julius, bp. of the neigh- 
bouring colony of Debeltus, gives his sworn 
|testimony that Sotas had tried to cast the 
| demon out of Priscilla but had been hindered 
by the hypocrites. We learn from a later 
writer that Zoticus of Comana and J ulianus of 
_Apamea similarly attempted to exorcise Maxi- 
milla, and were not permitted to do so. An- 
| other of Apolinarius’s authorities adds weight 
| to his signature by appending the title martyr 
|then commonly given to eras who braved 
‘imprisonment or tortures for Christ. The 
result was that the Roman church approved 
the sentence of the Asiatic bishops, as we 
| know independently from Tertullian. 
| Il. Montanism in the East, second stage.—For 
the history of Montanism in the East after its 
_ definite separation from the church, our chief 
| authorities are fragments preserved by Euse- 
δίας of two writers, the anonymous writer 
already mentioned and Apollonius of Ephesus. 
The date of both these writings is ecasiderabis 
| later than the rise of Montanism. Apollonius 
| places himself 40 years after its first beginning. 
| In the time of the Anonymous the first leaders 
|of the schism had vanished from the scene. 
/Montanus was dead, as was Theodotus, an 
/early leader in the movement, who had pro- 
_bably managed its finances, for he is said to 
have been towards it a kind of ἐπίτροπον, 
|The Anonymous states that at the time he 
| wrote 13 full years had elapsed and a 14th had 
| begun since the death of Maximilla. Priscilla 
must have died previously, for Maximilla 
| believed herself to be the last prophetess in the 
| church and that after her the end would come. 
| Themiso seems to have been, after Mon- 
‘tanus, the head of the Montanists. He was 
‘at any rate their leading man at Pepuza; and 
| this was the headquarters of the sect. There 
Necker esd Montanus had taught ; there the 
prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla resided ; 


think of Rome as then enjoying such suprem- | there Priscilla had seen in a vision Christ come 
acy that its reversal of an Asiatic excommuni- in the form of a woman in a bright garment 


cation would be quietly acquiesced in. Yet 
the Asiatic bishops might well be anxious how > 
their decision would commend itself to the 
judgment of a stranger at adistance. Tosuch | 
a one there would be nothing incredible in 
special manifestations of God's Spirit display-_ 
ing themselves in Phrygia, while the sugges- | 
tion that the new prophesying was inspired by — 
Satan might be repelled by its admitted 
orthodoxy, since all it professed to reveal 
tended to the glory of Christ and to the in- | 
crease of Christian devotion. To avert, then, 
the possible calamity of a breach between the 
Eastern and Western churches, the Gallic. 
churches, it would appear, not only wrote, but 
sent Irenaeus to Rome at the end of 177 or the 


who inspired her with wisdom and informe 
her that Pepuza was the holy place and that 
there the New Jerusalem was to descend from 
heaven. Thenceforth Pepuza and the neigh- 
bouring village Tymium became the Montanist 
holy place, habitually spoken of as Jerusalem. 
There Zoticus and J ulianus visited Maximilla, 
and Themiso was then at the head of those 
who prevented the intended exorcism. 
Montanus himself probably did not live long 
to preside over his sect, and this is perhaps 
why it is seldom called by the name of its 
founder. The sectaries called themeclves 
πνευματικοί, spiritual, and the adherents of 
the church ψνχικοί, carnal, thus following the 
usage of some Gnostic sects. In Phrygia 


740 MONTANUS 


itself the Catholics seem to have called 
the new prophesying after its leader for the 
time being. Elsewhere it was called after 
its place of origin, the Phrygian heresy. In 
the West the name became by a solecism the 
Cataphrygian heresy. 

Apparently after Themiso MILTIADES pre- 
sided over the sect; the Anonymous calls it 
the heresy τῶν κατὰ Μιλτιάδην. One other 
Montanist of this period was Alexander, who 
was honoured by his party as a martyr, but 
had, according to Apollonius, been only 
punished by the proconsul, Aemilius Frontinus, 
for his crimes, as the public records would 
testify. We cannot, unfortunately, fix the 
date of that proconsulship. 

Taking the Eusebian date, 172, for the rise 
of Montanism, Apollonius, who wrote 40 years 
later, must have written c. 210. The Epi- 
phanian date, 157, would make him 15 years 
earlier. The Anonymous gives us a clue to his 
date in the statement that whereas Maximilla 
had foretold wars and tumults, there had been 
more than 13 years since her death with no 
general nor partial war, and the Christians had 
enjoyed continual peace. This, then, must 
have been written either before the wars of the 
reign of Severus had begun or after they had 
finished. The latest admissible date on the 
former hypothesis gives us 192, and for the 
death of Maximilla 179. It is hardly likely 
that in so short a time all the original leaders 
of the movement would have died. 

Before the end of the znd cent. Mon- 
tanist teachers had made their way as far as 
Antioch; for Serapion, the bishop there, 
wrote against them, copying the letter of 
Apolinarius. It is through Serapion that 
Eusebius seems to have known this letter. 

Early in the 3rd cent. the church had made 
converts enough from Montanists born in the 
sect for the question to arise, On what terms 
were converts to be received who had had no 
other than Montanist baptism? Matter and 
form were perfectly regular; for in all essen- 
tial points of doctrine these sectaries agreed 
with the church. 
council held at Iconium, to recognize no 
baptism given outside the church. This we 
learn from the letter to Cyprian by Firmilian 
of Caesarea in Cappadocia, when the later 
controversy arose about heretical baptism. 
This council, and one which made a similar 
decision at another Phrygian town, Synnada, 
are mentioned also by Dionysius of Alexandria 
(Eus. vii. 7). Firmilian speaks as if he had 
been present at the Iconium council, which 
may be dated c. 230. 


So entirely had the Catholics ceased to) 


regard the Montanists as Christian brethren 


that, as stated by the Anonymous, when per- | 


secution by the common enemy threw con- 
fessors from both bodies together, the ortho- 
dox persevered till their final martyrdom in 
refusing to hold intercourse with their Mon- 
tanist fellow-sufferers; dreading to hold any 
friendship with the lying spirit who animated 
them. 
the sect had many adherents in Phrygia, 
Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia, and a con- 
siderable number in Constantinople. 


III. Montanism in the West.—If we set aside | 
is no| 


the worthless Praedestinatus, there 


But it was decided, at ἃ. 


Epiphanius states that in his time | 


MONTANUS 


evidence whatever that any Roman bp. before 
Eleutherus had heard of Montanism, and the 
history of the interference of the Gallic con- 
fessors in 177 shews that it was then a new 
thing in the West. The case submitted to 
Eleutherus no doubt informed him by letter 
of the events in Phrygia; but apparently no 
Montanist teachers visited the West at this 
time, and after the judgment of Eleutherus 
the whole transaction seems to have been for- 
gotten at Rome. It was in a subsequent 
episcopate that the first Montanist teacher, 
probably Proclus, appeared at Rome. There 
was no reason to regard him with suspicion. 
He could easily satisfy the bishop of his 
perfect orthodoxy in doctrine ; and there was 
no ground for disbelieving what he might tell 
of supernatural manifestations in his own 
country. He was therefore either received 
into communion, or was about to be so and to 
obtain authority to report to his churches in 
Asia that their commendatory letters were 
recognized at Rome, when the arrival of an- 
other Asiatic, Praxeas, changed the scene. 
Praxeas could shew the Roman bp. that the 
Montanist pretensions to prophecy had been 
condemned by his predecessors, and probably 
the letter of Eleutherus was still accessible in 
the Roman archives. The justice of this 
previous condemnation Praxeas could confirm 
from his own knowledge of the Montanist 
churches and their prophesyings; and his 
testimony had the more weight because, 
having suffered imprisonment for the faith, he 
enjoyed the dignity of a martyr. The Mon- 
tanist teacher was accordingly put out of 
communion at Rome. This story, which has 
all the marks of probability, is told by Ter- 
tullian (adv. Prax.), who probably had per- 
sonal knowledge of the facts. The bishop 
could only be Zephyrinus, for we cannot go 
later ; and as predecessors in the plural num- 
ber are spoken of, these must have been 
Eleutherus and Victor. The conclusion which 
we have reached, that Montanism made no 
appearance in the West before the episcopate 
of Zephyrinus, is of great importance in the 
chronology of this controversy. 

The formal rejection of Montanism by the 
Roman church was followed by a public dis- 
putation between the Montanist teacher Pro- 
clus, and Caius, a leading Roman presbyter. 
Eusebius, who read the record of it, says it 
took place under Zephyrinus. The Montanist 
preachers, whatever their failures, had one 
distinguished success in the acquisition of 
Tertullian. Apparently the condemnation of 
the Roman bishop was not in his mind decisive 
against the Montanist claims, and he engaged 
in an advocacy of them which resulted in his 
separation from the church. His writings are 
the great storehouse of information as to the 
peculiarities of Montanist teaching. The 
Italian Montanists were soon divided by 
schism arising out of the violent Patripassian 
controversy at Rome at the beginning of the 
3rd cent. Among the Montanists, Aeschines 
was the head of the Patripassian party, and 
in this it would appear from an extract in 
Didymus that he followed Montanus himself ; 
Proclus and his followers adhered to the 
orthodox doctrine on this subject. 

IV. Montanism and the Canon.—The most 


MONTANUS 


fundamental innovation of Montanist teaching 
was the theory of an authorized development 
of Christian doctrine, as opposed to the older 
theory that Christian doctrine was preached 
in its completeness by the apostles and that the 
church had merely to preserve faithfully the 
tradition of their teaching. The Montanists 
did not reject the apostolic revelations nor 
abandon any doctrines the church had learned 
from its older teachers. The revelations of 
the new prophecy were to supplement, not to 
displace, Scripture. They believed that while 
the fundamental truths of faith remained un- 
shaken, points both of discipline and doctrine 
might receive correction. ‘‘A process of 
development was exhibited in God's revela- 
tions. It had its rudimentary principle in the 
religion of nature, its infancy in the law and 
the prophets, its youth in the gospel, its full 
maturity only in the dispensation of the 
Paraclete. Through His enlightenment the 
dark places of Scripture are made clear, 
parables made plain, those passages of which 
heretics had taken advantage cleared of all 
ambiguity ’’ (Tert. de Virg. Vel. i.; de Res. 
Carn. 63). Accordingly Tertullian appeals to 
the new revelations on questions of discipline, 
é.g. second marriages, and also on questions of 
doctrine, as in his work against Praxeas and 
his treatise on the Resurrection of the Flesh. 
Some have thought it a thing to be regretted 
that the church by her condemnation of Mon- 
tanism should have suppressed the freedom 
of individual prophesying. But each new 
prophetic revelation, if acknowledged as 
divine, would put as great a restraint on 
future individual speculation as words of 
Scripture or decree of pope or council. If 
Montanism had triumphed, Christian doctrine 
would have been developed, not under the 
superintendence of the church teachers most 
esteemed for wisdom, but usually of wild and 
excitable women. Thus Tertullian himself 
derives his doctrine as to the materiality and 
the form of the soul from a revelation made 
to an ecstatica of his congregation (de Anima, 
9). Tothe Montanists it seemed that if God’s 
Spirit made known anything as true, that 
truth could not be too extensively published. 
It is evident from quotations in Epiphanius 
and Tertullian that the prophecies of Maxi- 
milla and Montanus were committed to 
writing. To those who believed in their divine 
inspiration, these would practically form 
additional Scriptures. Hippolvtus tells that 
the Montanists “ have an infinity of books of 
these prophets whose words they neither 
examine by reason, nor give heed to those who 
can, but are carried away by their undis- 
criminating faith in them, thinking that they 
learn through their means something more 
than from the law, the prophets, and the 
gospels.”’ Didymus is shocked at a propheti- 
cal book emanating from a female, whom the 
apostle did not permit to teach. It would be 
a mistake to suppose that the Montanistic dis- 
putes led to the formation of a N.T. canon. 
On the contrary, it is plain that when these 
disputes arose Christians had so far closed 
their N.T. canon that they were shocked that 
any modern writing should be made equal to 
the inspired books of the apostolic age. The 


MONTANUS 7H 


lists recognized by particular churches, and 
we consider that it was in opposition to the 
multitude of Montanist prophetic books that 
Caius in his disputation gave a list recognized 
by his church. The controversy also made 
Christians more scrupulous about paying to 
other books honours like those given to the 
books of Scripture, and we believe that it was 
for this reason that the Shepherd of Hermas 
ceased to have a place in church reading. 
But still we think it plain from the history 
that the conception of a closed N.T. canon 
was found by Montanism and not then 
created. 

V. Montanist Doctrines and Practices.—The 
church objected, as against Montanism, to any 
addition being made to the teaching of Serip- 
ture. What, then, was the nature of the 
additions actually made by the Montanists ? 

(1) New Fasts.—The prophetesses had 
ordained that in addition to the ordinary 
Paschal fast of the church two weeks of what 
was called Xerophagy should be observed. 
In these the Montanists abstained, not only 
from flesh, wine, and the use of the bath, but 
from all succulent food, ¢.g. juicy fruit, except 
on Saturday and Sunday. The weekly 
stations also, or half fasts, which in the church 
ended at three p.m., were by Montanists 
usually continued till evening. The church 
party resisted the claim that these two new 
weeks of abstinence were divinely obligatory. 
The real question was, Had the prophetess 
God’s command for instituting them? This 
particular revelation only came into promin- 
ence because at recurring intervals it put a 
marked difference between Montanists and 
Catholics, similar to that which the Paschal 
fast put between Christians and heathen. 

(2) Second Marriages.—On this subject 
again the difference between the Montanists 
and the church really reduces itself to the 
question whether the Paraclete spoke by 
Montanus. Second marriages had before 
Montanus been regarded with disfavour in 
the church. Tertullian deprecates them with 
almost as much energy in his pre-Montanist 
work ad Uxorem as afterwards in his Mon- 
tanist de Monogamia. But however un- 
favourably such marriages were regarded, 
their validity and lawfulness were not denied. 
St. Paul had seemed to declare that such 
marriages were not forbidden (Rom. vii. 3; 
I. Cor. vii. 39), and the direction in the pastoral 
epistles that a bishop should be husband of 
one wife seemed to leave others free. 

(3) Church Discipline. —The treatise of Ter- 
tullian (de Pudicitia) shews a controversy of 
Montanists with the church concerning the 
power of church officers to give absolution. 
The occasion was the publication, by one 
whom Tertullian sarcastically calls Pontifex 
Maximus” and “ Episcopus Episcoporum,” 
of an edict of pardon to persons guilty of adul- 
tery and fornication on due performance of 
penance. Doubtless a bp. of Rome is in- 
tended, and as Hippolytus tells (ix. 12) of 
Callistus being the first to introduce such 
laxity in granting absolution, it seems plain 
that Callistus was referred to. Tertullian 
holds that for such sin absolution ought never 
to be given. Not that the sinner was to 


Montanist disputes led to the publication of | despair of obtaining God's pardon by repent- 


742 MONTANUS 
ance; but it was for God alone to pardon; 
man might not. 

We refer to our art. TERTULLIAN for other 
doctrines which, though advocated by Ter- 
tullian in his Montanist days, we do not feel 
ourselves entitled to set down as Montanistic, 
in the absence of evidence that Tertullian had 
learned them from Montanus, or that they 
were held by Eastern Montanists. The bulk 
of what Tertullian taught as a Montanist he 
probably would equally have taught if Mon- 
tanus had never lived; but owing to the 
place which Montanism ascribed to visions 
and revelations as means of obtaining a know- 
ledge of the truth, his belief in his opinions 
was converted into assurance when they were 
echoed by prophetesses who in their visions 
gave utterance to opinions imbibed from their 
master in their waking hours. 

VI. Later History of Montanism.—We gather 
from Tertullian’s language (adv. Prax.) that 
it was some time before his persistent ad- 
vocacy of Montanism drew excommunication 
on himself. 
Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, in the editor of 
which we may perhaps recognize Tertullian 
himself. Both martyrs and martyrologist 
had clearly been under Montanist influences: 
great importance is attached to visions and 
revelations, and the editor justifies the com- 
position of new Acts, intended for church 
reading, on the grounds that the ‘‘ last days”’ 
in which he lived had witnessed, as had been 
prophesied, new visions, new prophecies, new 
exhibitions of the mighty working of God’s 
Spirit, as great as or greater than in any pre- 
ceding age. Yet the martyrs are evidently 
in full communion with the church. The 
schism which soon afterwards took place 
appears to have been of little importance 
either in numbers or duration. We hear 
nothing of Montanists in the writings of 
Cyprian, whose veneration for Tertullian 
would scarcely have been so great if his church 
were still suffering from a schism which Ter- 
tullian originated. In the next cent. Optatus 
(1. 9) speaks of Montanism as an extinct heresy, 
which it were slaying the slain to refute. Yet 
there were some who called themselves after 
Tertullian in the 4th cent. Augustine (Haer. 
86) at Carthage heard that a well-known 
church which formerly belonged to the Ter- 
tullianists had been surrendered to the Catho- 
lics when the last of them returned to the 
church. He had evidently heard no tradition 
as to their tenets, and set himself to search in 
Tertullian’s writings for heresies which they 
presumably may have held. Elsewhere in 
the West Montanism entirely disappears. 

In the East, we have already mentioned 
the councils of Iconium and of Synnada. 
There is a mention of Montanism in the Acts 
of Achatius (Ruinart, p. 152). Though these 
Acts lack external attestation, internal evid- 
ence strongly favours their authenticity. 
Their scene is uncertain; the time is the Decian 
persecution A.D. 250. The magistrate, urging 
Achatius to sacrifice, presses him with the 
example of the Cataphrygians, ‘‘ homines 
antiquae religionis,’’ who had already con- 
formed. Sozomen (ii. 32) ascribes the ex- 
tinction of the Montanists, as well as of other 
heretical sects, to the edict of Constantine 


To this interval we refer the! 


| other to a certain Turibius, a 


MONTANUS 


depriving them of their places of worship and 
forbidding their religious meetings. Till then, 
being confounded by-heathen rulers with other 
Christians, they could meet for worship, and, 
even when few in number, keep together; 
but Constantine’s edict killed all the weaker 
sects, and among them the Montanists, every- 
where except in Phrygia and neighbouring 
districts, where they were still numerous in 
Sozomen’s time. Hesays (vii. 18) that, unlike 
Scythia, where one bishop ruled over the whole 
province, among these Phrygian heretics every 
village hadits bishop. At last the orthodox zeal 
of Justinian took measures to crush out the 
remains of the sect in Phrygia, and the Mon- 
tanists in despair gathered with wives and 
children into their places of worship, set them 
on fire, and there perished (Procop. Htst. Arc. 
11). In connexion with this may be taken 
what is told of John of Ephesus in the same 
reign of Justinian (Assemani, Bzbdl. Or. ii. 88), 
that A.D. 550 he had the bones dug up and 
burned of Montanus and of his prophetesses 
Carata, Prisca, and Maximilla. What is 
disguised under the name Carata we cannot 
tell. It is hardly likely that Montanism sur- 
vived the persecution of Justinian. Besides 
Cataphrygians they were often called from 
their headquarters, Pepuzans, which Epipha- 
nius counts as a distinct heresy. The best 
monograph on Montanism is by Bonwetsch 
(Erlangen, 1881). See also Zahn, Forschanger 
zur Gesch. des N.T. Kanons, etc. (1893). ν. 3 ff., 
on the chronology of Montanism. {c.s.] 

Montanus (3), bp. of Toledo, c. 523-c. 531. 

Authorities.—(1) His Life by Ildefonsus (de 
Vir. Ill. c. 3). (2) Two letters printed by 
Loaysa (Conc. Hisp. p. 88), Aguirre (Coll. 
Max. Conc. Hisp. ii. 159), and Florez (Esp. 
Sagr. ν. 409, 415). (3) The Acts of the second 
council of Toledo (Tejada y Ramiro, Coll. de 
Can. de la Igl. Esp. 11. 701). 

His Life.-—The facts related by Ildefonsus 
are meagre. We are told that Montanus was 
the successor of Celsus in the “‘ prima sedes ”’ 
of the province of Carthaginensis; that he 
defended and maintained his office; that he 
wrote two letters on points of church disci- 
pline, one to the inhabitants of Palencia, the 
‘* religious ”’ ; 
and that he rebutted a scandalous accusation 
by the help of a miracle wrought in his favour. 
These Acts of the second council of Toledo 
are curious and important, and have been 
suspected of at least containing interpolations, 
if not of being altogether supposititious, but 
there seems no sufficient reason for doubting 
their genuineness. The council opened on 
May 17 in the 5th year of Amalaric (A.D. 527) 
according to the reckoning generally adopted 
since Florez’s day, 531 according to the older 


|reckoning. The bishops began by expressing 


their intention of adding to the Codex Canonum 
certain provisions not already contained in 
the ancient canons on the one hand, and of 
reviving such prescriptions as had fallen into 
disuse on the other. The material of these 
canons is common to most of the various 
Spanish councils of the first half of 6th cent. 
It is the concluding passage of the Acts which 
makes the council of special interest in Spanish 
ecclesiastical history. ‘‘ According to the 
decrees of ancient canons, we declare that, 


MOSES 


God willing, the council shall be held in future 
‘apud ' our brother, the bishop Montanus, so 
that it will be the duty of our brother and 
co-bishop Montanus, who is in the metropolis, 
to forward to our co-principals, bishops of the 
Lord, letters convening the synod when the 
proper time shall arrive.’’ An expression of | 
thanks “to the glorious king Amalaric,"’ with 
regard to whom the bishops pray that 
“throughout the unnumbered years of his 
reign he may continue to afford us the licence 
of carrying through all that pertains to the 
cultus fidei,’’ concludes the Acts. In the 
words in italics is contained the first mention 
of Toledo as the ecclesiastical metropolis of 
Carthaginensis, the first indication of that 
commanding position to which the see was 
to attain under its 7th-cent. bishops. The 
passage also indicates the relations of Mon- 
tanus with king Amalaric. Relying upon 
his support, upon the physical advantages of 
Toledo, and upon an ecclesiastical tradition 
capable of various interpretations, Montanus 
sought permanently to exalt the power and 
position of his see. But the time was not 
yet come, and the question still remained an 
open one in 589 when Leovigild fixed the seat 
of the consolidated Gothic power at Toledo, 
and practically settled the long-vexed question. 
Cartagena was in the hands of Byzantium, 
whereas the bp. of Toledo was the bishop of 
the urbs regia. It took some time to accom- 
plish, but the Decretum Gundemari as a first 


step, and the Primacy Canon of the rath 
council of Toledo as a second, were the in- 
evitable ecclesiastical complements of physical 
and political facts. Hefele, Conc. Gesch. ii. 
700; Esp. Sagr. v. 131, ¢. iii. [M.A.w.] 
Moses (3) (Moyses), Roman presbyter (? of 
Jewish origin), a leading member of an in- 
fluential group of confessors in the time of 
yprian, about the commencement of the 
Novatianist schism. The others were Maxi- 
mus, Nicostratus, Rufinus, Urbanus, Sidonius, 
Macarius, and Celerinus. They wrote early 
in the persecution, urging the claims of dis- 
cipline on the Carthaginian confessors (Ep. 27) 
(cf. Tillem. t.iii. Notess. Moyse, t.iv., S. Cyp. 
a. xv., Lipsius, Chr. d. rém. Bisch. p.200), and 
Moyses signed thesecond letter of the Roman 
clerus (viz. Ep. 30), drawn up by Novatian 
according to Cyprian (Ep. 55, iv.), and he 
wrote with the other confessors Ep. 31 to 
Cyprian (Ep. 32). When they had been a 
year in prison (Ep. 37), or more accurately 
11 months and days (Liberian Catalogue, 
Mommsen, Chronogr. v. Jahre 354, Ρ. 635), 
t.e. c. Jan. 1, 251, Moyses died and was ac- | 
counted a confessor and martyr (Ep. 55). 
Shortly before his death he refused to com-— 
municate with Novattan and the five presbyters 
who sided with him (ἀποσχίσασιν) because he 
saw the tendency of his stern dogma (Cornelius 
to Fabius of Antioch, Eus. vi. 43, κατιδών). 
Moyses’ severance was not because Nova- 
tian had already left the Catholics, which he 
did not do till June 4, after the election of | 
Cornelius ; and Novatus, who induced it, did 
not leave Carthage for Rome until April 
or May (Rettberg, p. 109). Moyses’ great. 
authority remained a strong point in Corne- 
lius’s favour, when the rest of the confessors 
(Ep. 51) after their release threw their ἰη- 


MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 743 


fluence on the side of Novatian as re nting 
the stricter discipline against Cornelius. The 
headship of the party belonged after Moyses’ 
death to Maximus (8). (e.wen.] 
Moses (δ), of Khoren (Moses Khorenensts) 
—called by his countrymen the Father of 
History—the poet, grammarian, and most 
celebrated writer of Armenia, was the nephew 
and disciple of St. Mesrob, the founder of 
Armenian literature. [Mrsrones.] Born at 


| Khoren or Khorni, a town of the province of 


Darou, he was one of a band of scholars sent 
by Mesrob to study at Edessa, Constantinople, 
Alexandria, Athens, and Rome. There he 
accumulated very wide historical knowledge 
(cf. Hast. Armen. iii. 61, 62). Returning to 
Armenia, he assisted St. Mesrob in translating 
the Bible into his native language, a work 
which was accomplished between 407 and 433. 
This fixes his birth in the early part of cent. v. ; 
though some place it in the latter part of cent. 
iv. Beyond his literary activity we do not 
know much about his life. He succeeded 
Eznig as bp. of Pakrevant, where he dis- 
played great spiritual activity. According to 
the medieval Armenian chronicler, Samuel of 
Ani, he died in 488, aged 120. The following 
works attributed to him are extant : (1) Hest. of 
Armenia, (2) Treatiseon Rhetoric, (3) Treatsse on 
Geography, (4) Letter on Assumption of B.V.M., 
(5) Homily on Christ's Transfiguration, (6) 
Oration on πὰρ Pano an Armenian Virgin 
Martyr, (7) ymns used in Armenian 
Church Worship. He wrote also 2 works 
now lost, viz. Commentaries on the Armenian 
Grammarians, of which fragments are found 
in John Erzengatzi, an Armenian writer of 
cent. xiii., and Explanations of Armentan 
Church Offices, of which we have only some 
fragments in Thomas Ardzrouni (cent. vii.). 
The Hist. of Armenia is perhaps the work 
of a later writer, but it is in some respects one 
of the most important historical works of anti- 
quity. It embodies almost our only remains 
of pre-Christian Armenian literature and pre- 
serves many songs and traditions retained at 
that time in popular memory. For special 
studies of it see Dulaurier in Journ. Assat. 
Jan. 1852. It is also very valuable because 
it preserves extensive remains of Assyrian, 
Chaldean, Syrian, and Greek writers. Moses 
had studied long at Edessa, where the library 
was very rich in ancient Assyrian chroniclers. 
This work also throws much light on the 
history of the Roman empire in cents. iv. and 
v., and its struggles against the renewed Per- 
sian empire and the efforts of Zoroastrianism. 
It has been translated into Italian by the 
Mechitarite Fathers (Venice, 1841); into 
French by V. Langlois in Histortens anciens 
de ' Arménie (Paris, 1867). See also AL. Car- 
riére, Moise de Khoren, etc. (Paris, 189%); Id., 
Nouvelles sources de Motsede Kh. (Vienna, 1894); 
Id., La. légende d’ Abgar, dans hist. de Moise de 
Kh.; also F. C. Conybeare in Byszant. Zeit- 
schr. (1901), x. 489 56η. [α.τ.5.} 
urato t, a very ancient list 
of the books of N.T. first pub. in 1740 by 
Muratori (Ant. Ital. Med. Aew. iii. 851) and 
found in a 7th or 8th cent. MS. in the Ambro- 
sian Library at Milan. The MS. had come 
from the Irish monastery of Bobbio, and the 
fragment seems to have been a copy of a loose 


744. MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 

leaf or two of a lost volume. It is defective 
in the beginning, and breaks off in the middle 
of a sentence, and the mutilation must have 
taken place in the archetype of our present 
copy. This copy wasmade by anilliterate and 
careless scribe, and is full of blunders; but is 
of the greatest value as the earliest-known 
list of N.T. books recognized by the church. 
A reference to the episcopate of Pius at Rome 
(“‘nuperrime temporibus nostris”’) is usually 
taken to prove that the document cannot be 
later than c. 180, some 20 years after Pius’s 
death (see infra). This precludes Muratori’s 
own conjecture as to authorship, viz. that it 
was by Caius the presbyter, c. 196; and 
Bunsen’s conjecture that Hegesippus wrote it 
has nothing to recommend it. It is generally 
agreed that it was written in Rome. Though 
in Latin, it bears marks of translation from the 
Greek, though Hesse (Das. Mur. Frag., Giessen, 
1873) and others maintain the originality of 
the Latin. 

The first line of the fragment evidently con- 
cludes its notice of St. Mark’s Gospel; for 
it proceeds to speak of St. Luke’s as in the 
3rd place, St. John’s in the 4th. A notice of 
St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s must have come 
before, but we have no means of knowing 
whether the O.T. books preceded that notice. 
The document appears to have dealt with the 
choice of topics in the Gospels and the point 
where each began (cf. Iren. iii. 11). It is 
stated that St. Luke (and apparently St. Mark 
also) had not seen our Lord in the flesh. For 
its story as to the composition of St. John’s 
Gospel see LEuctus. The document goes on 
to say that by one and the same sovereign 
Spirit the same fundamental doctrines are 
fully taught in all concerning our Lord’s 
birth, life, passion, resurrection, and future 
coming. At the date of this document, 
therefore, belief was fully established in the 
pre-eminence of the four Gospels, and in their 
divine inspiration. Next comes the Acts, 
St. Luke being credited with purposing to 
record only what fell under his own notice, 
thus omitting the martyrdom of St. Peter 
and St. Paul’s journey to Spain. Thirteen 
epistles of St. Paul are then mentioned. (a) 
epistles to churches, in the order: I. and II. 
Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., I. and II. Thess., 
Rom. _ It is observed that St. Paul addressed 
(like St. John) only seven churches by name, * 
shewing that he addressed the universal 
church. (6) Epistles to individuals: Phile- 
mon, Titus, and two to Timothy, written from 
personal affection, but hallowed by the Cath- 
olic church for the ordering of ecclesiastical 
discipline. Next follow words which we 
quote from Westcott’s trans.: ‘‘ Moreover 
there is in circulation an epistle to the Laodi- 
ceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged 
under the name of Paul, bearing on [al. 


* T.e. ‘“‘nomination,” which might suggest the 
acknowledgment us St. Paul’s of Hebrews as not 
addressed to a church by name. But no mention of 
that epistle follows, as we should in that case expect. 
Cyril’s mention of Paul's Epp. to Seven Churches 
(de Exhort. Mort. τι, cf. Tert. adv. Jud.and Optatus, 
de Schism. Don. ii. 3) and the language of Augustine 
(de Civ. Dei. xvii. iv. 4), Victorinus of Padua (in 
Apoc. τὴ and Pseudo-Chrys. (Op. imperf. in Matt. 
i. 6, pp. Vi. xvii. Bened. ed.) suggest the acquaintance 
of those writers with our document. 


MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 


‘ favouring’) the heresy of Marcion, and 
several others, which cannot be received into 
the Catholic church, for gall ought not to be 
mingled with honey. The epistle of Jude, 
however, and two epistles bearing the name 
of John, are received in the Catholic [church] 
(or, are reckoned among the Catholic[epistles]). 
And the book of Wisdom, written by the 
friends of Solomon in his honour [is acknow- 
ledged]._ We receive, moreover, the Apoca- 
lypses of St. John and St. Peter only, which 
latter some of our body will not have read in 
the church.”” Marcion entitled his version of 
Eph. ‘‘to the Laodiceans,” and there is a 
well-known pseudo-Pauline epistle with the 
same title. It has been generally conjectured 
that by the epistle ‘‘to the Alexandrians,” 
Hebrews is meant ; but it is nowhere else so 
described, has no Marcionite tendency, and is 
not “‘under the name of Paul.” The frag- 
ment may refer to some current writing which 
has not survived, or the Ep. of Barnabas 
might possibly be intended. Though only 
two Epp. of John are mentioned, the opening 
sentence of I. John had been quoted in the 
paragraph treating of the Gospel, and our 
writer may have read that epistle as a kind 
of appendix to the Gospel, and be here speak- 
ing of the other two. The mention of Wisdom 
in a list of N.T. books is perplexing. Perhaps 
we should read ‘‘ut”’ for ‘‘et’’; and the 
Proverbs of Solomon and not the apocryphal 
book of Wisdom may be intended. There 
may be an inaccurate reference to Prov. xxv. I 
(LXX). The fragment next says that the 
Shepherd was written ‘‘ very lately, in our 
own time”’ in the city of Rome, his brother- 
bishop Pius then occupying the chair of the 
Roman church; that, therefore, it ought to 
be read, but not in the public reading of the 
church. The text of the last sentence of the 
document is very corrupt, but evidently 
names writings which are rejected altogether, 
including those of Arsinous, Valentinus, and 
Militiades, mention being also made of the 
Cataphrygians of Asia. 

Westcott has shewn that no argument can 
be built upon the omissions (Ep. of James, 
both Epp. of Peter, and Hebrews) of our 
fragment, since it shews so many blunders of 
transcription, and some breaks in the sense. 
Certainly I. Peter held, at the earliest date 
claimed for the fragment, such a position in 
the Roman church that entire silence in re- 
spect to it seems incredible. Of disquisitions 
on our fragment we may name Credner, N. T. 
Kanon, Volkmar’s ed. 141 seq. 341 seq.; Routh, 
Rell. Sac. i. 394; Tregelles, Canon Murat- 
ortanus; Hesse, op. cit.; Westcott, N. T. 
Canon, 208 seq. 514 seq. ; and esp. Zahn, Gesch. 
der N.T. Kanons, ii. 1 (1890), pp. 1-143; also 
Lietzman’s Das Mur Frag. (Bonn, 1908), be- 
sides countless arts. in journals, 6.5. Harnack, 
in Text und Unters. (1900); Overbeck, Zur 
Geschichte des Kanons (1880); Hilgenfeld, 
Zeitschrift (1881), p. 129. Hilgenfeld (Kanon, 
p- 44), and Bétticher (De Lagarde) in Bunsen’s 
Hippolytus i. 2nd ed. Christianity and Mankind, 
attempted its re-translation into Greek; an ed., 
with notes and facsimile by 5. P. Tregelles, is 
pub. by the Clar. Press. The present writer 
expressed in 1874 (Hermathena i.) an opinion 
which he now holds with more confidence that 


" 
4 
> 
᾿ 
i 
ἢ 


ον" 


κὰν ο 5» 
it AIR 2 
hw ter). Ar ee 


ey 


MUSONIUS 


the fragment was written in the episcopate of 
Zephyrinus. The words “‘ temporibus nostris"’ 
must not be too severely pressed. We have 
no evidence that the writer was as careful 
and accurate as Eusebius, who yet speaks 
(iii. 28, cf. v. 27) of a period 50 or 60 years 
before he was writing as his own time. There 
are also indications from the history of the 
varying position held by the Shepherd that 
the publication of our fragment may have been 
between Tertullian's two tracts de Oratione 
and de Pudicitia (see D. C. B. 4-vol. ed. 
s.v.); and if it be true that MonTANISM only 
became active in the Roman church in the 
episcopate of Zephyrinus, the date of the 
Muratorian document is settled, for it is 
clearly anti-Montanist. If we regard it as 
written in the episcopate of Zephyrinus, 
Muratori’s conjecture that Caius wrote it 
becomes possible; and we know from Euse- 
bius that the disputation of Caius with Proclus, 
written at that period, contained, in opposition 
to Montanist revelations, a list of the books 
reverenced by the Catholic church.  [c.s.] 
Musonius (1), bp. of Neocaesarea, on whose 
death in a.p. 368 Basil wrote a long letter of 
consolation to his widowed church (Ep. 28 
{62]), lauding him greatly and designating 
him no unworthy successor of Gregory Thau- 
maturgus. He describes him as a rigid 
supporter of old customs and the ancient 
faith, endeavouring to conform his church in 
all things to the primitive model. His 
watchful care had preserved his church from 
the storms of heresy ravaging all neighbouring 
churches. In so great reverence was he held 
that, though by no means the oldest of the 
bishops, the presidency in council was always 
his. He must have attained the episcopate 
comparatively young, for, though he ruled the 
church of Neocaesarea many years, he was not 
very aged when he died. Though Musonius 
had been prejudiced against Basil, and re- 
garded his election to the episcopate with no 
triendly eyes, so that, though they were united 
in faith and in opposition to heresy, they were 
unable to co-operate for the peace of the 
church, Basil mentions him in a second letter 
to the Neocaesareans as the ‘‘ blessed Muso- 
nius,” the follower of the traditions of Gregory 
Thaumaturgus, ‘‘ whose teaching was still 
sounding in their ears’’ (Ep. 210[64)). [E-V-] 


N 


Narcissus (1), bp. of Jerusalem. Clinton 
(Fasti Romant) accepts the date a.p. 190 for 
the commencement of his episcopate. He 
was the 15th of the Gentile bishops of Jeru- 
salem, reckoning from Marcus, A.D. 136, an 
the 30th in succession from the apostles (Eus. 
H. E. v. 12). According to the Synodicon, 
Narcissus presided over a council of 14 bishops 
of Palestine held at Jerusalem a.p. 198, on the 
Paschal controversy, and took part in that at 
Caesarea on the same subject under the pre- 
sidency of Theophilus, bp. of the city (Labbe, 
Concil. i. 600). Eusebius speaks of the 
synodical letter of these bishops as still extant 
in his time (Eus. H. E. v. 23). Narcissus was 
conspicuous in the church of his day (Neale, 
Patriarch. of Antioch, p. 34; Eus. H. E. v. 12). 


NEBRIDIUS 745 


Eusebius records a miracle traditionally 
ascribed to him, whereby water was converted 
into oil one Easter Eve, when the oil required 
for the great illumination had failed (Eus. 
H. E. vi. 9). The sanctity of his life raised 
against him a band of slanderers. Narcissus, 
stung by their calumny, abdicated his bishop. 
ric, and retired to the remotest part of the 
desert, where for several years he lived the 
ascetic life he had long coveted, no one know- 
ae oe place of his concealment. 

— been sought for in vain, the neigh- 
bouring bishops declared the see vacant, and 
ordained Dius as his successor, who was 
succeeded by Germanicus, and he by Gordius, 
During the episcopate of Gordius, Narcissus 
reappeared. Shortly after his disappearance 
the falsity of the charges against him, Sonstiae 
tells us, had been proved by the curses impreca- 
ted by the false accusers having been fearfully 
made good. This, having eventually reached 
Narcissus’s ears, probably led to his return. 
He at once resumed the oversight of his see 
at the earnest request of all (ἐδ. 9, τὸ). In the 
2nd year of Caracalla, a.p. 212 (Eus. Chrons- 
con), Alexander, a Cappadocian bishop, a 
confessor in the persecution of Severus, visit- 
ing the holy city in fulfilment of a vow, was 
selected by the aged Narcissus as his coadjutor 
and eventual successor. Eusebius preserves 
a fragment of a letter written by Alexander 
to the people of Antinous, in which he speaks 
of Narcissus as being then in his 116th year, 
and as having virtually retired from his 
episcopal office (Eus. H. Ε. vi. 11). Epipha- 
nius states that he lived ten years after 
Alexander became his coadjutor, to the reign 
of Alexander Severus, A.D. 222 (Epiph. Haer. 
Ixvi. 20). This, however, is very improbable. 
Tillem. Mém. eccl. iii. 177 ff. {e.v.]} 

Nebridius (4), an intimate friend of St. 
Augustine, and probably of about the same 
age, described by him as very good and of a 
very cautious disposition. While Augustine 
was at Carthage under the influence of Mani- 
chean doctrine, it was partly through Nebri- 
dius and Vindicianus that he was induced to 
give up his belief in astrology, or, asit was then 
called, mathematics. Nebridius had already 
abandoned Manicheism and delivered lectures 
against it, a.p. 379 (Aug. Conf. iv. 3 ; vii. 2, 6). 
When Augustine removed from Rome to 
Milan as a lecturer in rhetoric, A.D. 354, 
Nebridius, out of love for him, determined to 
leave his home and mother, and take up his 
abode with Augustine and Alypius there, “ for 
no other reason,” says Augustine, " than that 
he might live with me in most ardent pursuit 
of truth and wisdom" (ἐδ. vi. 7, 10). By 
and by Nebridius undertook to assist Vere- 


d|cundus in his grammar lectures at his earnest 


request and that of Augustine. This duty he 
performed with great care and discretion (sb. 
viii. 6). Soon after Nebridius appears to have 
taken up the notion of the Docetae, that our 
Lord took human nature not in reality but 
only in outward appearance, an error which, 
after a period of unknown length, he re- 
canted. Soon after the conversion of Augus- 
tine he died, a true Catholic, having induced 
his household to join him in the change. 
“ He is now,” says Augustine with confidence, 
“in the bosom of Abraham "' (ἐν, ix. 3, 4). 


740 NECTARIUS 

Though a much-loved friend, Nebridius was 
a troublesome correspondent, most persever- 
ing in his inquiries, which were sometimes very 
difficult to answer, and not satisfied with 
brief replies or always ready to make allowance 
for his friend’s occupations (Aug. Ep. 98, 8). 
Of the 12 letters which remain of their corre- 
spondence, two only are addressed by Nebri- 
dius to Augustine. Those of Augustine are 
very long, chiefly on metaphysical subjects of 
extreme subtlety. [H.W.P.] 

Nectarius (4), archbp. of Constantinople 
A.D. 381-397 or 398, successor to St. Gregory 
of Nazianzus. When Gregory resigned, Nec- 
tarius was praetor of Constantinople. He was 
of noble family, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, an 
elderly man, widely known for his admirable 
character, still only a catechumen. Pre- 
paring for a journey to Tarsus, he called on the 
bp. of Tarsus, Diodorus, who was attending 
the council, to ask if he could take letters for 
him. The appearance and manners of his 
visitor struck Diodorus so forcibly that he at 
once determined that he should be advanced 
as a candidate; and, alleging some other 
business, took the praetor to call on the bp. of 
Antioch, who, though laughing at the idea of 
such a competitor, asked Nectarius to put off 
his journey a short time. When the emperor 
Theodosius desired the bishops at the council 
to suggest candidates, reserving to himself 
the right of choosing one of them, the bp. of 
Antioch put at the bottom of his list, in 
compliment to the bp. of Tarsus, the name of 
the praetor. The emperor, reading the lists, 
declared his choice to be Nectarius. The 
Fathers were amazed. Who and what was 
this Nectarius? He was not even baptized. 
Astonishment at the emperor’s unexpected 
choice was great. Even the bp. of Tarsus 
seems not to have known this disqualification. 
The startling information did not move Theo- 
dosius. The people of Constantinople were 
delighted at the news. The whole council 
agreed. Nectarius was baptized. The dress 
of a neophyte was changed for the robes of the 
bishop of the imperial city. The praetor, a few 
days previously a catechumen, became at once 
president of the second general council. He 
ruled the church upwards of 16 years, and 
made an admirable prelate. His name 
heads the 150 signatures to the canons of the 
second general council. The 3rd canon de- 
clares that “‘the bp. of Constantinople shall 
hold the first rank after the bp. of Rome, 
because Constantinople is new Rome.” 

The bishops of the West were not disposed 
to accept the election, and asked for a common 
synod of East and West to settle the succession. 
Accordingly the emperor Theodosius, soon 
after the close of the second general council, 
summoned the bishops of his empire to a fresh 
synod—not, however, as the Latins wished, at 
Alexandria, but at Constantinople. There 
were assembled here, early in the summer of 
382, very nearly the same bishops who had 
been at the second general council. On 
arriving they received a letter from the synod 
of Milan, inviting them to a great general 
council at Rome. They replied that they 
must remain where they were, because they 
had not made preparations for so long a 
journey, and were only authorized by their 


NECTARIUS 


colleagues to act at Constantinople. They 
sent three of their number—Syriacus, Euse- 
bius, and Priscian—with a synodal letter to 
pope Damasus, archbp. Ambrose, and the 
other bishops assembled in council at Rome. 

The Roman synod to which this letter was 
addressed was the 5th under Damasus. No 
certain account remains of its proceedings, nor 
of how its members treated the question of 
Nectarius. Theodosius, however, sent com- 
missaries to Rome in support of the statements 
of his synod, as we learn from the letters of 
pope Boniface. In his r5th letter (to the 
bishops of Illyria) he shews that the church 
in Rome had finally agreed to recognize both 
Nectarius and Flavian. St. Ambrose, in his 
63rd letter, adduces the election of Nectarius 
as an approval of his own by the East. 

Six graceful letters from Nectarius remain 
in the correspondence of his illustrious pre- 
decessor Gregory. In the first he expresses 
his hearty good wishes for hisepiscopate. The 
last is of great importance, urging him not to 
be too liberal in tolerating the Apollinarians. 

In 383 a third synod at Constantinople was 
held. In spite of the decrees of bishops and 
emperor, the Arians and Pneumatomachians 
continued to spread their doctrines. Theo- 
dosius summoned all parties to the imperial 
city for a great discussion in June, hoping to 
reconcile all differences. Before the pro- 
ceedings, he sent for the archbishop and told 
him of his intention that all questions should 
be fully debated. Nectarius returned home, 
full of profound anxiety, and consulted the 
Novatianist bp. Agelius, who agreed with him 
in doctrine and was held in high personal 
esteem. Agelius felt himself unsuited for so 
grave a controversy ; but he had a reader, 
Sisinnius, a brilliant philosopher and theo- 
logian, to whom he proposed to entrust the 
argument with the Arians. Sisinnius sug- 
gested that they should produce the testi- 
monies of the old Fathers of the church on the 
doctrine of the Son, and first ask the heads of 
the several parties whether they accepted these 
authorities or desired to anathematize them. 
The archbishop and the emperor gladly agreed 
to this scheme. When the bishops met, the 
emperor asked: Did they respect the teachers 
who lived before the Arian division? They 
said, Yes. Hethen asked: Did they acknow- 
ledge them sound and trustworthy witnesses 
of the true Christian doctrine ? The divisions 
this question produced shewed that the 
sectaries were bent on disputation. The 
emperor ordered each party to draw up a 
written confession of its doctrine. When this 
was done, the bishops were summoned to the 
imperial palace, Nectarius and Agelius for the 
orthodox, Demophilus (formerly bp. of Con- 
stantinople) for the Arians, Eleusius of Cyzicus 
for the Pneumatomachians, and Eunomius for 
the Anomoeans. The emperor received them 
with kindness and retired into a room alone 
with their written confessions. After praying 
God for enlightenment, he rejected and de- 
stroyed all except that of the orthodox, be- 
cause the others introduced a division into 
the Holy Trinity. The sectaries thereupon 
sorrowfully returned home. The emperor 
now forbade all sectaries, except the Nova- 
tianists, to hold divine service anywhere, to 


NEMESIUS 


publish their doctrines or to ordain 
under threat of severe civil penalties. 

In 385 died Pulcheria, the emperor's 
daughter, and his wife Placilla. The arch- 
bishop asked Gregory of Nyssa to preach the 
funeral sermons on both occasions. 

Towards the close of his episcopate Nec- 
tarius abolished the office of presbyter peni- 
tentiary, whose duty appears to have been to 
receive confessions before communion. His 
example was followed by nearly all other 
bisho The presbyter penitentiary was 
added to the ecclesiastical roll about the time 
of the Novatianist schism, when that party 
declined to communicate with those who had 
lapsed in the Decian persecution. Gradually 
there were fewer lapsed to reconcile, and his 
duties became more closely connected with 
preparation for communion. A disgraceful 
occurrence induced Nectarius to leave the 

ticipation in holy communion entirely to 
individual consciences and abolish the office. 

Nectarius died in 397 or 398, and was suc- 
ceeded by St. John Chrysostom. (Theod. 
H. E. v. viii. εἴς. ; Socr. H. E. v. viii. ete.; Soz. 
H. E. vii. viii. etc.; Theoph. Chronogr. 59, 
etc.; Nectarii Arch. CP. Enarratio in Patr. 
Gk. xxxix. p. 1821; Mansi, Concil. t. iii. p. 
521, 599, 633, 643, 694, etc.; Hefele, Hest. 
Christ. Councils, tr. Oxenham (Edinb. 1876), 
vol. ii. pp. 344, 347, 378, 380, 382, etc. [w.M.s.] 

Nemesius (4), bp. of Emesa in the latter half 
of 4th cent., of whom nothing is certainly 
known but that he wrote a rather remarkable 
treatise, περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου. de Natura 
Homints, of which cc. ii. and iii. wrongly 
appear as a separate work, entitled περὶ 
ψυχῆς. de Anima, among the writings of Greg- 
ory Nyssen. Le Quien (Or. Christ. ii. 839) 
places Nemesius fifth among the bishops of 
Emesa, between Paul I., who attended the 
council of Seleucia, A.D. 359, and Cyriacus, the 
friend of Chrysostom. The date of his writing 
is tolerably certain from his mentioning the 
doctrines of Apollinaris and Eunomius and 
the Origenists, but not those of Nestorius, 
Eutyches, or Pelagius. He could hardly have 
avoided mentioning Pelagius if his teaching 
had been known to him, in the part of his 
treatise relating to free will. That he was bp. 
of Emesa is stated in the title of his treatise 5 
the various MS. copies, and by Maximus (ii. 
153, ed. Combefis) and Anastasius Sinaita 
(Quaest. xviii. and xxiv.) in quoting his work. 
He is also quoted, though without his name, 
HA Joannes Damascenus, Elias Cretensis, 

eletius, Joannes Grammaticus, and others. 
The treatise is an interesting work which will 
well reward perusal, and has received much 

raise from able judges of style and matter. 

emesius establishes the immortality of the 
soul against the philosophers, vindicates free 
will, opposes fatalism, defends God's provid- 
ence, and proves by copious examples the 
wisdom and goodness of the Deity. ¢ gives 
indications that he was not ignorant of the 
circulation of the blood and the functions of 
the bile (cc. xxiv. xxviii. pp. 242, 260, ed. 
Matthaei). The best ed. is by C. F. Matthaei 
(Halae, 1802), reprinted by Migne in Patr. Gh. 
The treatise has been translated into most 
modern E n languages, into Italian by 
Pizzimenti (no date), English, G. Wilkes (1636 


NERO, CLAUDIUS CAESAR 747 


, | and 1657), German by Osterhammer (Saleburg, 


1819), and French by J. R. Thibault (Paris, 
1844). Cf. M. Evangelides, Nemeeme wand 
seine Quellen (Berlin, 1882). [«-ν. 

Nero (1), us , emperor (Oct. 
13, $4, to June 9, 68). For our purpose the 
interest of Nero's life centres in his persecution 
of the Christians. For his general history sce 
Merivale, cc. lii-lv. During his carly reign 
Christianity was unmolested and seems to 
have spread rapidly at Rome. No doubt it 
received a great impetus from the preaching 
of St. Paul during the two vears after his 
arrival, probably early in 61. But before long 
a terrible storm was to burst on the infant 
church. On the night of July 16, 64, a fire 
broke out in the valley between the Palatine 
and the Aventine. That απὸ of the city was 
crowded with humble dwellings and shops full 
of inflammable contents. The lower parts of 
the city became a sea of flame. For six days 
the fire raged till it reached the foot of the 
Esquiline, where it was stopped by pulling 
down a number of houses. Soon after a 
second fire broke out in the gardens of Tigel- 
linus near the Pincian, and raged for three 
days in the N. parts of the city. Though the 
loss of life was less in the second fire, the 
destruction of temples and public buildings 
was more serious. By the two fires three of 
the 14 regions were utterly destroyed, four 
escaped entirely, in the remaining seven but 
few houses were left standing. Nero was at 
Antium when the fire broke out, and did not 
return to Rome till it had almost reached the 
vast edifice he had constructed to connect his 
palace on the Palatine with the gardens of 
Maecenas on the Esquiline. 

The horrible suspicion that Nero himself was 
the author of the fire gained strength. This 
is asserted as a positive fact by Suetonius 
(c. 38), Dion (Ixii. 16), and Pliny the Elder 
(xvii. 1), the last being a contemporary, but 
Tacitus alludes to it only as a prevalent 
rumour. Whether well founded or not, and 
whether, supposing it true, the emperor's 
motive was to clear away the crooked, narrow 
streets of the old town in order to rebuild it 
on a new and regular plan, or whether it was 
a freak of madness, need not be discussed here. 
At any rate Nero found it necessary to divert 
from himself the rage of the people and put the 
blame upon the Christians. 

The only author living near the time of the 

rsecution who gives an account of it ts 

acitus. After describing the origin of Chris- 
tianity he proceeds: “ First were arrested 
those who confessed, then on their informa- 
tion a vast multitude was convicted, not so 
much on the charge of arson as for their hatred 
of the human race. Their deaths were made 
more cruel by the mockery that accompanied 
them. Some were covered with the skins οἵ 
wild beasts and torn to pieces by dogs; others 
perished on the cross or in the flames; and 
others again were burnt after sunset as torches 
to light up the darkness. Nero himself 
granted his gardens (on the Vatican) for the 
show, and gave an exhibition in the circus, 
and, dressed as a charioteer, mixed with the 
people or drove his chariot himself. Thus, 
guilty and deserving the severest punishment 
as they were, yet they were pitied, as they 


748 NERO, CLAUDIUS CAESAR 


seemed to be put to death, not for the benefit 
of the state but to gratify the cruelty of an 
individual’? (Ann. xv. 44). This narrative 
has been the subject of very various interpre- 
tations. Lightfoot (Phil. 24-27) considers 
that the Christians were at this time suffici- 
ently numerous and conspicuous to attract 
the fury of the populace. The ambiguity of 
Tacitus leaves it doubtful whether those first 
arrested ‘‘confessed Christianity ’’ or ‘‘ con- 
fessed they were guilty of the burning.” 
Schiller (Geschichte des rom. Kaiserreichs unter 
Nero, 435) argues that “‘ fateri’’ in Tacitus is 
always used of the confession of a crime. 
According to his view, as many of the shops 
near the circus where the fire originated were 
occupied by Jews, suspicion would fall upon 
them, which would be strengthened by the 
fact that the Transtiberine, the Ghetto of that 
time, was one of the few quarters that had 
escaped the fire. At that time Jews and 
Christians lived in the same part of the town 
and in the same manner. Weiszacker (Jahr- 
biicher ftir Deutsche Theologie, xxi. 269, etc.) 
considers, with much probability, that Nero 
and his advisers having selected the Christians 
as the victims of the popular indignation, 
those first seized were conspicuous members 
and were charged as incendiaries, and from 
them the names of others were ascertained 
and these treated in the same way. Thus a 
vast number were arrested, so many that all 
could not have been guilty of arson. Why 
Nero selected the Christians must remain un- 
certain. The Jews, who at first sight would 
seem more likely scapegoats, as being more 
conspicuous and probably more unpopular, 
were strong enough to make Nero hesitate to 
attack them. A Jewish persecution in Rome 
might excite a dangerous revolt in Judea. 
The Christians, however, were conspicuous 
and numerous enough to furnish a plentiful 
supply of victims, but too few and weak to be 
formidable. From the allusions of St. Cle- 
ment (Ep. to Cor. c. 6), a little more informa- 
tioncanbeobtained. Like Tacitus, he speaks of 
the vast multitude, and mentions that women 
underwent terrible and unholy tortures. 

The persecution was probably confined to 
Rome. There is little evidence of it extending 
to the rest of the empire. The Acts of the 
saints mentioned by Tillemont (Mém. eccl. 
il. 73-89) are all more or less fabulous, and 
even if authentic there seems little or no 
ground for placing them in the reign of Nero. 
The accounts in Acts of the journeys of St. 
Paul shew how easily an outbreak of popular 
fury might be excited by Jews or heathens, 
who, either on religious or private grounds, 
were hostile to the new doctrine, and how 
easily in such an outbreak a conspicuous 
Christian might be murdered without any 
state edict against Christianity, or without 
the public authorities interfering at all, and 
it is not unreasonable to suppose that, when 
Nero set the example of persecution, many 
provincial magistrates would take a harsher 
view than previously of the case of any Chris- 
tian brought before them. 

The question of the connexion between 
Nero and Antichrist was brought into pro- 
minence by M. Renan. The significance of 
the Neronian persecution lies in the fact that 


NERVA 


it was the first: Hitherto the attitude of 
state officials to Christianity had on the whole 
been favourable; at worst they treated it 
with contemptuous indifference. All this was 
now suddenly changed. The head of the 
state had made a ferocious attack on the in- 
fant church. Henceforth the two powers 
were in more or less violent antagonism till 
the struggle of 250 years was closed by the 
conversion of Constantine. Whatever the 
date of the Apocalypse, it can hardly be 
doubted that the Neronian persecution with all 
its horrors was vividly present to the mind of 
theauthor. To have perished obscurely by his 
ownhand seemedboth to pagans and Christians 
too commonplace an end for a monster who 
for 14 years had filled such a place in the eyes 
and the minds of men. Few had witnessed 
his death, so that the notion easily arose that 
he was still alive, had taken refuge with the 
Parthians, and would reappear. Tacitus men- 
tions (Hist. i. 2; ii. 8, 9) the appearance of 
two false Neros, and Suetonius (c. 56) alludes 
to another. In the days of his prosperity 
diviners had predicted his fall andthat hewould 
gain a new dominion in the Eastand Jerusalem 
and at last regain the empire (7b. c. 40). 
According to the theory of M. Reuss (Hist. 
de la théol. chrétienne, i. 429-452), adopted 
by Renan, the Apocalypse was written during 
the reign of Galba, 1.6. at the end of 68 or 
beginning of 69, when men’s minds were 
agitated, especially in Asia Minor, by the 
appearance of a false Nero in the island of 
Cythnus (Tac. Hist. ii. 8). M. Reuss inter- 
prets the first six heads of the first beast as 
the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, 
Claudius, Nero, and Galba, of whom the first 
five were dead, while the sixth, Galba, was 
then reigning. As he was 73 years old his 
reign must soon terminate ; a seventh was to 
follow and reign for a short time, after which 
one of the emperors supposed to be dead was 
to reappear as Antichrist. The first four 
emperors had not been hostile to the Chris- 
tians, and none of them, except Caius, had 
died a violent death. Nero therefore alone 
answers the description. Finally M. Reuss 
interprets the number of the beast as the 
numerical value of the letters of the words 
Νέρων Καῖσαρ when written in Hebrew, and 
explains the existence of the ancient variant 
reading 616 by supposing it due to a Latin 
reader who had found the solution, but pro- 
nounced the name Nero and not Neron. 
Whether this theory be well founded or not, 
the opinion that Nero would return as Anti- 
christ certainly continued for centuries. 
Commodianus, who probably wrote ec. 250, 
alludes to it (xli. in Migne, Patr. Lat. v. 231), 
and even in the 5th cent. St. Augustine (de 
Civ. Det, xx. 19, in 7b. ΧΙ. 686) mentions that 


some then believed he wouldrise again and re-- 


appear as Antichrist, and that others thought 
he had never died, but would appear at the ap- 
pointed timeand recoverhis kingdom. Another 
view was that Nero would be the precursor of 
Antichrist (Lact. Mortes 2, Sulp. Sev. ταὶ. 
ii. 14 in Patr. Lat. vii. 197; xx. 211.) [F.D.] 
Nerva, Roman emperor, A.D. 96-98. M. 
Cocceius Nerva was the third in succession of 
a family conspicuous for legal and administra- 
tive power in the first century of the empire. 


NESTORIAN CHURCH NESTORIAN CHURCH 749 
On the assassination of Domitian by Stephan- | added that St. Thomas the Apostle, passin 
us, the freedman and agent of Domitilla, he | through this country on his warte In wal 
was elected as emperor by the soldiers, the co-founder of the church with them. 
τὰ τ and the senate, and reversed the policy| The Church under the Arsacids and Sas- 
of his predecessor. _The connexion of Ste- sanids.—Under Parthian rule, which was 
_ with Domitilla, if she and Flavius tolerant, and where the state religion was an 
lemens were indeed Christians, may indicate | outworn and eclectic paganism, the new faith 
that the movement that placed Nerva on the spread rapidly and easily. There was no 
throne was in part, at least, designed to) persecution by the government, though con- 
further a more tolerant system of government | verts from one special religion, Zoroastrianiam 
than that of Domitian. Such, at any rate, had sometimes to face it, from the powerful 
was its effect. St. John was recalled from his hierarchy of that faith, the Magians. Thus 
exile in Patmos (Eus. H. Ε΄ iii. 20). The | the church had more than 20 bishops, and 
crowd of delatores, who had preferred accusa- | these were distributed over the whole country 


tions of treason, atheism, an erp which 

fell most heavily on the Christians, were 

banished, and those who had been sent to 

prison or exile on these charges were recalled 
and set at liberty. Other measures of the 
emperor, though not distinctly Christian, 

tended in the same direction. [F.H.P.] 

Nestorian Chureh. This is the name given 
in modern times to those whom 5th-cent. 
writers called simply ‘‘ Easterns "ἢ; by which | 
they meant the church that existed to the east _ 
of them, outside the boundary of the Roman | 
empire, in the kingdom that was at first Par- | 
thian, and later Sassanid Persian. The body 
is also called ‘‘ east Syrian ’’ (the term Syrian | 
implying use of the Syriac language rather 
than residence in ‘‘ Syria"’), and sometimes 
also “ Chaldean”’ or ‘* Assyrian.” | 

Foundation of the Church.—During the) 
course of the rst cent. Christianity spread from | 
Antioch, not only to the west but also east- 
wards, and in particular it extended to Edessa, 
then the capital of the little ‘‘ buffer state”’ 
of Osrhoene, situated between the Roman and 
Parthian empires. The political independ- 
ence of the state ended in 216, but it had lasted 
long enough to give a definite character to the 
local church, which was marked off by its 
Syriac vernacular and Oriental waysof thought 
from the Greek Christianity to the west of it. 
Missionaries went out from Edessa to the east 
again, and founded two daughter-churches, 
one in Armenia and one in what was then 
Parthia, the latter of which is the subject of 
this article. 

The first two ‘‘ apostles ’’ and founders of 
this church were Adai (= Thaddeus) and Mari. 
Tradition identified the former with either the 
disciple of Christ—a statement hard to recon- 
cile with the recorded fact that he was still 
able to travel in the year 100—or with one of 
“the Seventy.’’ He is known to have 
preached in Assyria and Adiabene before the 
close of the rst cent., and to have consecrated 
his disciple Paqida as first bishop of the latter 
province, in a.p. 104 (Hist. of Mshikha-zca) ; 


while the statement of the “" doctrine of Adai”’ | 
that the apostle died in peace at Edessa has_ 
the ring of truth in it. The later history of | 
the church in that place is outside our subject. | 

Of Mari, his companion, little is known | 
certainly (his life is a mere piece of hagio- 
graphy), but he appears to have penetrated | 
into the southern provinces of the Parthian 
kingdom, to have preached without much 
success at the capital, Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and | 
to have died in peace at Dor-Koni. There) 
seems no reason to doubt the historic character 
of both these teachers; and later tradition | 


when, in 225, the and Persian replaced the 
Parthian kingdom, and the Arsacid dynasty 
gave way to the Sassanid. This revolution 
was to its authors a revival of the old king- 
dom destroyed by Alexander, and the Persian 
nation rose again with a national religion, that 
of Zoroaster. It made no effort to destroy 
the Christianity that it found existing, but, 
like Islam later, tolerated it as the religion of 
a subject race, and so put it into the position 
that it still occupies in those lands, though the 
dominant religion has changed. Christians 
became a melet (a subject race organized in a 
church), recognized by the government, but 
despised by it. For them to proselytize from 
the state faith was a crime, punishable with 
death, though they were allowed to convert 
pagans. Apostasy from Christianity to the 
established faith meant worldly prosperity, 
but there was no persecution, though there 
was often oppression, by the government, until 
the adoption of Christianity by the Roman 
emperor (the standing enemy of the shah- 
in-shah) made every Christian politically 
suspect. Thus Persiacontinued to be a refuge 
for many Christians from Roman territory 
during the ‘“ general’’ persecutions of the 
3rd cent., and the church grew, both by con- 
versions and by the advent of “ captivities,”’ 
largely Christian in faith, brought by con- 
querors like Sapor I. from Roman territory. 

Episcopate of Papa.—Though it extended 
rapidly elsewhere, the church made little 

rogress in the capital, and there was no 
Ciakon there, and only a few Christians, till late 
in the 3rd cent. In 270 Akha d’Abuh’, bp. of 
Arbela, joined with others in consecrating 
Papa to that see, and this man became its first 
bishop since the days of Mari. In later days 
legend supplied the names of earlier holders of 
what had then become a patriarchal throne, 
and indeed made Akha d'Abuh' himself one 
of the series, and told how in a.p. 170 he was 
recognized by the four ‘ western patriarchs " 
as the fifth of the band. 

Papa, as bp. of the capital, soon claimed to 
be the chief bishop of the church, its catho- 
licos; the claim was favoured by the circum- 
stances of the time, as in his days all the 
* greater thrones "' were obtaining jurisdiction 
over the lesser sees within their sphere of 
attraction, and the patriarchates so formed 
were soon to be recognized at Nicaea. The 
conditions of melet life also tend to produce 
some one head, through whom the — 
can deal with the people. Papa, however, so 
claimed the honour as to produce irritation, 
and a council met in 41§ to judge his claim. 
It was very adverse to Papa, who refused in 


NESTORIAN CHURCH 


anger to bow to its decision. ‘‘ But is it not 
written, ‘ He that is chief among you...’ ?”’ 
said one bishop, Miles of Susa. ‘‘ You fool, I 
know that,” cried the catholicos. ‘‘ Then be 
judged by the Gospel,”’ retorted Miles, placing 
his own copy in the midst. Papa, in fury, 
struck the book with his fist, exclaiming, 
‘« Then speak, Gospel !—speak!”’ and, smitten 
with apoplexy or paralysis, fell helpless as he 
did so. After such a sacrilege and such a 
portent his condemnation naturally followed, 
and his archdeacon Shimun bar Saba’i was 
consecrated in his room. 

Papa, on recovery, appealed for support to 
“the Westerns,”’ z.e. not to Antioch or Rome 
(the ‘‘ Nestorian’’ church never deemed her- 
self subject to either of them), but to the 
nearest important sees to the west of him, 
Nisibis and Edessa. These supported him on 
the whole, but their advice did not, apparent- 
ly, go beyond recommending a general recon- 
ciliation and submission to the see of Seleucia- 
Ctesiphon, on the ground that it would be for 
the good of the whole church that it should 
have acatholicos. This recommendation was 
carried out, all parties being a little ashamed 
of themselves. Papa was recognized as 
catholicos, with Shimun as colleague, cum 
jure successionis, and the right of the throne 
concerned to the primacy has never since been 
disputed. Papa survived these events for 12 
years, and so was ruling during the council of 
Nicaea, though neither he nor any bishop of 
his jurisdiction (which did not then include 
Nisibis) was present at that gathering. Arian- 
ism passed by this church absolutely, and the 
fact is both a testimony to its isolation and a 
merciful dispensation. Church history might 
have been very different had that heresy found 
a national point d’apput. 

Persecution of Sapor IJ.—Shimun succeeded 
Papa, and in his days the church had to face 
the terrible ‘‘ forty years’ persecution’ of 
Sapor II. The acceptance of Christianity by 
the Roman empire meant terrible suffering for 
the church outside it, in that any outbreak of 
the secular rivalry of the two empires meant 
thereafter persecution for the church in one of 
them. This was inevitable, and the same 
dilemma exists to-day. Given a state pro- 
fessing a certain variety of militant religion 
(Zoroastrianism or Islam), how can loyalty to 
it be compatible with profession of the religion 
of its rivals? Constantine, like some Czars, 
liked playing the general protector of Chris- 
tians; and Christians looked to him as 
naturally as, in the same land, they have since 
looked to Russia. 

Thus, when Sapor made war on Constantius 
in 338, persecution commenced almost as a 
matter of course. Shimun the catholicos 
was one of the first victims, 100 priests and 
clerics suffering with him; and the struggle 
thus inaugurated continued until the death of 
Sapor in 378, in which time 16,000 martyrs, 
whose names are recorded, died for their faith. 

This greatest of persecutions was not, of 
course, uniformly severe at all times in all 
provinces, and both it and others after it were 
rather the releasing of the ‘‘ race-hatred ”’ of 
Zoroastrianism against Christianity than the 
ordered process of law against a reltgio illicita. 
Thus, it resembled both in outline and detail 


750 


NESTORIAN CHURCH 


the “‘ Armenian massacres’’ of a later age. 
Clergy, of course, and celibates of both sexes, 
who were numerous, were specially marked, 
and so were the Christian inhabitants of the 
five provinces about Nisibis, when their sur- 
render by the emperor Jovian in 363 handed 
them over to a notorious persecutor. 

Practically, though not absolutely, the trial 
ended with the death of Sapor; but the 
exhausted church could do little to reorganize 
herself until a formal firman of toleration had 
been obtained. The influence of Theodosius 
II. secured this in 410 from the then shah- 
in-shah, Yezdegerd I. 

Council of Isaac.—The church was then 
formally put into the position that it had, 
previously to the persecution, occupied prac- 
tically : it was made a melet in the Persian 
state, under its catholicos, Isaac; it was 
allowed to hold a council, under his presidency 
and that of the Roman ambassador, Marutha ; 
and it now for the first time accepted the 
Nicene Creed. Canons were also passed for 
the proper organization of the body, and some 
of these are based on Nicene rules. The 
church shewed its independence, however, by 
dealing very freely with the canons even of 
that council. 

Seemingly, the council of Constantinople 
was accepted also at this time, but it was not 
thought to deserve special mention. 

A period of rapid growth followed the 
enfranchisement and organization of the 
church that had proved its power to endure, 
and 26 new sees were added in 15 years to the 
40 existing in 410, these including Merv, Herat, 
Seistan, and other centres in central Asia. 
Internal troubles arose, however, caused by 
the quarrels of Christians, and by their habit 
of ‘‘ using pagan patronage ’’—1.e. applying to 
non-Christians of influence—in order to escape 
censure, to gain promotion, etc. The habit 
was, of course, destructive of all discipline. 
A council held in 420 to deal with this, under 
the catholicos Yahb-Alaha, and another 
Roman ambassador, Acacius of Amida, could 
only suggest the acceptance of the rules of 
several Western councils—Gangra, Antioch, 
Caesarea—without considering whether rules 
adapted for the West would for that reason 
suit the East. Persecution soon recommenced, 
Magian jealousy being stirred by Christian 
progress, and raged for four years (420-424, 
mainly under Bahram V.) with terrible sever- 
ity. As usual, a Perso-Roman war coincided 
with the persecution, and the end of the one 
marked the end of the other also. With the 
return of peace another council was allowed, 
the catholicos Dad-Ishu presiding. This man 
had suffered much, both in the persecution 
and from the accusations of Christian enemies, 
and was most anxious to resign his office. 
There was, however, a strong feeling among 


Christians that their church must be markedly | 


independent of ‘‘ Western”’ Christianity (1.6. 
that of the Roman empire), as too much con- 
nexion spelt persecution. Thus they insisted 
that the catholicos should remain, and styled 
him also ‘‘ patriarch,’ and specially forbade 
any appeal from him to ‘‘ Western ’”’ bishops. 
The fact that Acacius of Amida, though 
actually the guest of the king at the time, was 
not at the council is another indication of 


b 


; 
Ι 
| 


γ. 
lj 


NESTORIAN CHURCH 


their feelings. This declaration of independ- 


ence is the first sign of the approaching schism, 
though the remainder of the catholicate of 
Dad-Ishu was peaceful, and the Nestorian 
controversy, at the time of its arising, was no 
more heard of in the East than the Arian 
controversy before it had been. 

The Work of Bar-soma.—Another persecu- 
tion fell on this much-tried church in 448, but 
otherwise we know little of its history till 480, 
when the Christological controversy reached 
it for the first time. 

In the Roman empire at that period 
Chalcedon was past, and the Monophysite 
reaction that followed that council was at its 
height; the ‘‘ Henoticon of Zeno" was the 
official confession, accepted by all the patri- 
archs of the empire with the exception of the 
Roman. The church in Persia, however, was 
emphatically ‘‘ Dyophysite,’’ and thus there 
was a theological force at work that hardened 
the independence already found necessary 
into actual separation. 

The protagonist of the movement was Bar- 
soma of Nisibis, a very typical son of his 
nation ; a quarrelsome and unscrupulous man, 
who yet had a real love both for his church and 
for learning. He was a favourite with the 
shah-in-shah, Piroz, who employed him as 
warden of the marches on the Romo-Persian 
frontier, and he was practically patriarch of 
the church. The real patriarch, Babowai, 
had just been put to death for supposedly 
treasonable correspondence with Rome, and 
Bar-soma had rather gone out of his way to 
secure that this prelate (his personal enemy) 
should not escape the consequences of his 
own imprudence. Bar-soma easily persuaded 
Piroz that it would be better that “his 
rayats’’ should have no connexion with the 
subjects of the Roman emperor, and under his 
influence a council was held at Bait Lapat, a 
““Dyophysite’’ (or perhaps Nestorian) con- 
fession published, and separation brought 
about. By another canon of this council 
marriage was expressly allowed to all ranks 
of the hierarchy. 

Some say that the church was simply 
dragooned into heresy, but the mass of Chris- 
tians seem to have at least acquiesced in the 
work of Bar-soma, and it must be remembered 
that they separated from a church that was 
Monophysite at the time. There was, more- 
over, a better side to the work of Bar-soma. 
He was a lover of learning, and when the 
imperial order brought the theological school 
at Edessa to an end (this had hitherto been the 
sole means of education open to sons of the 
‘* church of the East ’’), he took a statesman’s 
advantage of the opportunity by founding at 
Nisibis a college that was a nursery of bishops 
to his church for 1,000 years. 

Bar-soma’s power ended with the death of 
Piroz (484), and Acacius became patriarch. 
His reign saw the breach with the ‘‘ Westerns” 
healed more or less, as the council of Bait 
Lapat was repudiated (though the canon on 
episcopal marriage was allowed to stand) and 
another confession of faith was drawn up. 
This was not Nestorian, but was indefinite, 
designedly, and Acacius was received as 
orthodox during a visit to Constantinople, on 
condition of his anathematizing Bar-soma. 


NESTORIAN CHURCH 751 


As they were already at open feud on a minor 
matter, the patriarch readily agreed to this, 
but the memory of the schism was of evil 
omen for the future. 

Mar Aba.— A period of confusion (490-540) 
followed. The whole country of Persia was 
disturbed by the communism preached by 
Mazdak, to which even the king, Kobad, was 
converted for a while. The strange move- 
ment was stamped out in blood, but it left 
indirect effects on the church, and Bar-soma 
also bequeathed them a bad tradition of 
quarrelsomeness. This culminated in an open 
schism in the patriarchate, lasting for 14 
years, with open disorder in the whole church, 
a state of things that only terminated with the 
accession of Mar Aba to the patriarchate in 


| 540. 


Meantime, Monophysite supremacy in the 
Roman empire had ended with the accession 
of the emperor Justin in 518, and friendly 
relations between the church there and that 
in Persia had been resumed: the advantage 
had to be paid for by the latter, in that it 
implied a renewal of persecution. 

Mar Aba, the greatest man in the series of 
patriarchs of the East, reformed the abuses 
in the church, going round from diocese to 
diocese with a‘ peramhulatory synod,"’ which 
judged every case on the spot with plenary 
authority—a precedent so excellent that it is 
surprising that it has never been followed. 
He was able to establish rules for the election 
of the patriarch which still hold good in theory, 
and founded schools and colleges (in particular, 
one at Seleucia), in addition to the one at 
Nisibis. His table of prohibited degrees in 
matrimony—a most necessary thing for 
Christians in a Zoroastrian land—is still the 
law of his church. 

In his days the monastic life, which had 
wilted under Bar-soma and during the period 
of disorder, was revived, and was provided 
with a body of rules by Abraham of Kashkar, 
a pupil of Aba, while the friendship of the 
church in Persia with that in the empire led 
also (though dates are here rather uncertain) 
to the definite acceptance, by this “ Nes- 
torian’’ church, of the council of Chalcedon, 
which stands among the ‘‘ Western synods” 
received by these “ Easterns."" This accept- 
ance was certainly previous to 544. 

Mar Aba’s great work for his church was 
done in the teeth of great difficulties. He 
was a convert from Zoroastrianism, and as 
such was legally liable to be pe to death, and 
therefore lived in daily peril from the Magians. 
The shah-in-shah, Chosroes 1., would never 
allow his execution, but feared also to protect 
him efficiently, and for 7 of the 9 years of his 
tenure of office he was in prison, ruling his 
flock thence. Though he was released at last, 
and passed his last days in honour at court, 
there is no doubt that his sufferings hastened 
his death. 

Position of the Church in the 6th Cent.—In 
the following half-century (550-600) there was 
no special incident. A series of patriarchs of 
the three stock eastern types (court favourite, 
respectable nonentity, and strict ascetic) 
ruled the church, and the services were 
arranged much in their present form. In 
particular the ‘ Rogation of the Ninevites,” 


752 NESTORIAN CHURCH 


still annually observed, was either instituted 
or remodelled by the patriarch Ezekiel, during 
an outbreak of plague. 

The anomalous relation of the church in 
Persia with other parts of the Catholic church 
cannot be fitted into any defined theory. 
Several Christological confessions were issued 
by these so-called ‘‘ Nestorians’’ which are 
certainly not unorthodox, and individual 
patriarchs were readily received to communion 
when they happened to visit Constantinople 
(e.g. Ishu-yahb, 585). Nevertheless, there 
was a growing estrangement, and a conviction 
on either side that the other was somehow 
wrong, which was strengthened as the church 
in Persia slowly realized that the man whom 
they called ‘‘ the interpreter’’ par excellence, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, had been condemned 
at Constantinople. 

In Persia the church was a stationary 
melet, though beyond the frontier it was a 
missionary force among Arabs, Turks, and 
Chinese. It was numerous enough to make 
the king anxious not to offend it, the mer- 
cantile and agricultural classes being largely 
of the faith. On the other hand, the feudal 
seigneurs were very seldom of it, and soldiers 
practically never. In ‘the professions ’”’ 
doctors were generally Christian, and indeed 
are largely so to this day, while each faith 
had its own law and lawyers. 

The clergy were usually married, but there 
was a growing feeling in favour of celibate 
bishops, though the law passed by Bar-soma 
was never repealed. 

Monophysite Controversy—The bulk of 
Persian Christians were Dyophysite in creed, 
but there was a Monophysite minority, 
organized under bishops (or a bishop) of their 
own, and including many monks. This body 
was recruited by the enormous “‘ captivities ”’ 
brought from Syria in 540 and 570. In 612 
they were strong enough to make a daring and 
nearly successful attempt to capture the 
church hierarchy. The patriarchate was then 
vacant (Chosroes had been so annoyed by the 
substitution of another Gregory for the Gre- 
gory whom he had nominated to that office, 
that he had refused to allow any election when 
that man died in 608), and when petition was 
made for the granting of a patriarch, the 
Monophysites, whose interest at court was 
powerful, petitioned for the nomination of a 
man of their own. They had formidable 
supporters, for Shirin, the king’s Christian 
wife, and Gabriel, his doctor, were both of 
that confession. 

A deputation of Dyophysites came to court 
to endeavour to secure a patriarch of their 
own colour, and a most unedifying wrangle 
over the theological point followed, Chosroes 
sitting as umpire. Of course, neither side 
converted the other, but the occasion was 
important, for from it dates the employment 
of the Christological formula now used by this 
church, viz. “ two Natures, two ‘ Qnumi,’ and 
one Person in Christ,’’ the repudiation of the 
term ‘‘ Mother of God”’ as applied to the 
B.V.M., and the acceptance of the nickname 
“Nestorian ’’’ now given them by the Mono- 
physites. Ultimately the Dyophysites saved 
themselves from the imposition of a Mono- 
physite patriarch, at the cost of remaining | 


NESTORIUS 


without a leader till the death of Chosroes, and 
the Monophysites organized a hierarchy of 
their own. 

During the long wars between Chosroes and 
Heraclius, and the anarchy that followed in 
Persia, the ‘‘ Nestorian ”’ church has naturally 
no recorded history, yet at their conclusion 
it was once more to have formal relations with 
the patriarchate and church of Constantinople. 

Drift into Separation.—In the year 628 its 
patriarch, Ishu-yahb II., was sent as ambas- 
sador to Constantinople, and he was there 
asked to explain its faith, and was admitted 
as orthodox. He was, however, attacked on 
his return home, on suspicion of having made 
unlawful concessions, and not all the efforts 
of men like Khenana and Sahdona could 
shake the general conviction on each side that 
“those others’’ were somehow wrong. The 
two men named laboured to shew the essential 
identity, under a verbal difference, of the 
doctrines of the two churches, but the only 
visible result was the excommunication of both 
peacemakers. 

Then the flood of Moslem conquest drifted 
the two churches apart, and the bulk of 
organized Monophysitism between them hid 
each from the other. 

The separation of ‘‘ Nestorians’”’ from 
“orthodox’’ was a gradual process, com- 
menced before 424, and hardly complete 
before 640. In that period, however, it was 
completed, and the ‘‘ church of the East” 
commenced her marvellous medieval career 
in avowed schism from her sister of Con- 
stantinople. Whether her doctrine, then or 
at any time, was what the word “‘ Nestorian ” 
means to us, and what is the theological status 
of a church which accepts Nicaea, Constanti- 
nople, and Chalcedon, but rejects Ephesus, 
are separate and difficult questions. [Mono- 
PHYSITISM ; NESTORIUS (8).] 

Authorities for the History of the Church.— 
History of Mshikha-zca. (ed. Mingana); Acta 
Sanct. Syr. (ed. Bedjan, 6 vols.) ; Hist. de 
Jabalaha et de trois patriarches nestoriens 
(Bedjan) ; Synodicon Orientale (ed. Chabot) ; 
Bar - hebraeus, Chron. Eccles. pt. ii.; John 
of Ephesus, Eccl. Hist. pt. iii. (Cureton); 
Amr and Sliba, Liber Turris; the Guidi 
Chronicle (ed. Noldeke) ; Zachariah of Mity- 
lene (ed. Brooks) ; Socr., Soz., Theod., Evagr., 
Eccles. Histories ; Book of Governors (Thomas 
of Marga, ed. Budge) ; Babai, de Unione (MS. 
only); Ishu-yahb III., Letters (ed. Duval) ; 
Tabari, Gesch. der Sassaniden (ed. Noldeke) ; 
Assemani, Bibl. Orient. iii. 

Books and Pamphlets—Labourt, Chris- 
tianisme dans la Perse; Chabot, Ecole de 
Nisibe; De S. Isaact vita; Duval, Histoire 
d’ Edesse ; Goussen, Martyrius-Sahdona ; Hoft- 
mann, Aussuge aus Syrische Martyrer; 
Bethune Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching ; 
Wigram, Doctrinal Position of Assyrian 
Church; Introd. to Hist. of Assyrian Church ; 
Rawlinson, Seventh Oriental Empire; Christian- 
sen, L’Empire des Sassantdes. [w.A.W.] 

Nestorius (1), St. (Nestor), the first known 
bp. of Side in Pamphylia Prima (Le Quien, i. 
997), a martyr in the Decian persecution, A.D. 
250. He was arrested by the local Irenarch, 
required to sacrifice, and on refusing dis- 
patched in charge of two lictors to the court 


NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 


of the president Pollio, who tortured and 
then crucified him. The martyr's answer to 
the “Ser ment queries sufficiently indicate 
his theological position. Pollio said to him, 
“* Are you willing to take part with us or with 
Christ ?"" To which Nestor replied, ‘Cum 
Christo meo et eram, et sum, et ero"; to 
which the president replied that as he was 
devoted to Jesus Who was crucified under 
Pontius Pilate, he should be crucified like his 
God. The Acts say his martyrdom was on the 
5th day of the week at the third hour, Le 
Blant (Actes des Martyrs, p. 46) points out the 
accuracy of the details. [ο.1.5.} 
Nestorius (3) and Nestorianism, One of 
the most far-reaching controversies in the 
history of the church is connected with the 
name of Nestorius, who became patriarch of 
Constantinople in a.p. 428, in succession to 
Sisinnius. So protracted has it been that even 
to the present day Nestorian churches, as they 
are called, exist in Assyria and India, and their 
members are not in communion with those 
of the other Christian churches in the East. 
The history of the form of thought which 
produced such far-reaching results must be 
interesting to every student of theology. 
Nestorius himself was brought up in the 
cloister, and had, as Neander remarks, im- 
bibed the tendencies to narrowness, partisan- 
ship, impatience, and ignorance of mankind 
which are not unfrequently found among 
those who have been educated apart from 
their fellows. He was brought from Antioch, 
we are told—a fact of which the significance 
will presently be seen. He appears to have 
been eloquent and sincere, and his austerity 
of life had won for him the admiration of 
man. Socrates, a specially well-informed 
contemporary, and a layman of judgment 
and fairness, speaks with some severity of his 
first steps after he became patriarch (H. E. 
vii. 29). He is described as addressing the 
emperor (Theodosius II.) immediately after 
his appointment, ‘‘ before all the people,” 
with the words, ‘‘Give me, O prince, a country 
purged of heretics, and I will give you heaven 
as a recompense. Assist me in destroying 
heretics, and I will assist you in vanquishing 
the Persians.””’ Such language was more 
enthusiastic than wise. It was no doubt 
pleasing to the multitude, but (Socr. /.c.) it 
made a very bad impression on thoughtful 
hearers. ‘‘ Before he had tasted of the waters 
of the city,”’ the historian proceeds, using a 
proverbial phrase, he had flung himself head- 
long into acts of violence and persecution. On 
the fifth day after his consecration, he resolved 
to destroy the oratory in which the Arians 
were wont to celebrate their worship, and 
thereby he not only drove them to desperation, 
but, as Socrates adds, he alienated —— 
men of hisowncommunion. He next attacke 


the Quartodecimans and the Novatianists with | 


equal violence, although neither sect was 
involved in heresy by its schism from the 
church, and the Novatianists had steadily sup- 
ported the church in its controversy with the 
Arians. He then turned his attention to the 
Macedonians. [Maceponivus.] For his treat- 


ment of this sect there is more excuse. The ! 


bp. of Germa, on the Hellespont, had treated 
them with such severity that, driven to 


NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 753 


| desperation, they had sent two assassins to 
— him. For this rash act they were 
|deprived of their churches in Constantinople 
and the neighbourhood. It was at least un- 
wise to convert the members of four “" denom- 
inations,"’ as we should now call them, into 
| bitter antagonists, and it was not very long 
| before an occasion arose for them to display 
| their hostility. 
| The development of theology in Syria had 
| for some time taken a different direction from 
| that which it had taken in Egypt, where the 
| tendency had been to lay stress on the divine, 
and therefore mysterious, side of Christianity. 
But in Syria a school had arisen, of which Dio- 
dorus of Tarsus and the celebrated Theodore 
of Mopsuestia were the leaders, which devoted 
itself to the critical interpretation of Scripture, 
and favoured the application of logical inves- 
tigation to the facts and doctrines of Chris- 
tianity. These two tendencies were certain 
some day to come into collision, and when 
reinforced by the personal jealousy felt by 
successive patriarchs of Alexandria at the 
elevation in 381 of Constantinople, as New 
Rome, to the second place among the pa- 
triarchates, over the head of a church which 
could boast of St. Mark as its founder, there 
was plenty of material for a conflagration. 
Already premonitions of the approaching 
conflict between Alexandria and Constanti- 
nople had appeared in the successful intrigues 
of THeopuitus, patriarch of Alexandria, 
against the renowned Joun Cnrrysostom, 
ΠΣ of Constantinople. The violence of 
estorius and his supporters set fire to the 
material already provided; the immediate 
occasion being the sermon of a presbyter 
named Anastasius, whom Nestorius had 
brought with him from Antioch, and in whom 
he reposed much confidence. Anastasius is 
said to have used the words (Socr. H. E. vii. 
32), ‘““ Let no man call Mary @eord«os, for 
Mary was human, and it is impossible that 
God could be born from a human being.” 
This utterance naturally caused amazement 
and distress, for the word θεοτόκος had been 
applied to the Virgin by authorities as high 
as Origen, Athanasius, and Eusebius of 
Caesarea, and it was insisted on with some 
vehemence by Gregory of Nazianzus. It is 
also found in the letter of Alexander of 
Alexandria to Alexander of Constantinople. 
[Arius.] Nestorius supported his protegé, 
and delivered several discourses, in which he 
maintained the thesis of his subordinate with 
ability and energy, and with some heat. He 
| was promptly charged with having involved 
| himself in the heresies of Photinus or Paul 
of Samosata. Socrates denies that this was 
the case. But he remarks on the unreason- 
able antipathy of Nestorius to a wordto which 
orthodox churchmen were well accustomed. 
This antipathy may partly, perbaps, be ex- 
plained by a dislike on the part of Nestorius 
ito the tendency to undue honour to the 
Virgin which had already displayed itself. 
| But it was still more due to the teaching of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia and his school, which 
had laid undue stress on the humanity of 
Christ, and had not shrunk from representing 
| the inhabitation of the Man Christ Jesus by the 
| Divine Logos asdiffering rather in degree than 


45 


754 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 


in kind from that by which God was pleased 
to dwell in the prophets and other holy men 
of old. If, they contended, there were any 
union of natures in Christ, it was not a 
personal union, but an ἕνωσις σχετική (an 
union of things diverse in a close relation). 
Such teaching had a dangerous tendency to hu- 
manitarianism, and to the division of Christ 
into two hypostases [ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF], 
as well as implying the existence in Him of 
two separate and possibly antagonistic sources 
of will and action. 

The ferment caused by these injudicious 
utterances spread far and wide, and soon 
reached Alexandria. Cyril, the patriarch, 
who had succeeded his uncle Theophilus, was 
by no means disinclined to lower the credit 
of a rival whose elevation he at once envied 
and despised. We must not suppose, how- 
ever, that Cyril had no convictions of his own 
on the point, for, as Dorner very properly 
reminds us, he had already published his 
opinions on it. Not content, however, with 
assailing with rare theological ability the 
opinions of Nestorius, he condescended to 
less worthy expedients. Not only did he 
exaggerate and misrepresent the language of 
his antagonist, but he tried to involve him 
in charges of Apollinarianism [APOLLINARIS] 
and Pelagianism [Prxacius]. Theodore, 
from whom Nestorius had imbibed his 
theology, was in the most direct antagonism 
to Apollinaris, whose teaching, while insisting 
strongly on the Godhead of Christ, involved 
the denial of His Perfect Manhood. And the 
divines of all schools of thought in the East, 
in the opinion of the disciples of Augustine, 
were more or less tinged with Pelagianism. 
As Nestorius had shewn some kindness to 
Pelagians who had fled to him from the West, 
the accusation of Pelagianism suited Cyril’s 
purpose. 

Before entering into the history of the 
controversy, we must pause for a moment 
and endeavour to understand the questions in- 
volved, and the different aspects from which 
they were approached by the disputants. 
The Syrian school, as we have seen, approached 
these questions from the human side, and 
favoured inductive methods. The starting- 
point of Theodore was man, in the sphere of 
the visible and tangible. The starting-point 
of Cyril was God, in the sphere of the mys- 
terious and unknown. The development 
(for of such a development Scripture un- 
questionably speaks) of the Manhood of 
Christ when inhabited by the Godhead seems 
to have been the prominent idea on the part 
of the Syrian school. It inquired whether 
the indwelling of the Godhead in Jesus Christ 
was one of Nature or simply of energy, and 
it undoubtedly leaned too much toward the 
assertion of a dual personality in Christ. 
The watchword (as Neander calls it) of the 
Alexandrians, on the other hand, was the in- 
effable and (to human reason) inconceivable 
nature of the inhabitation of the Man Christ 
Jesus by the Divine Logos. We must not 
forget that the Syrians, though not of course 
unacquainted with Greek, habitually thought 
in Syriac, and used a Syrian version of the 
Scriptures, which had been in existence in their 
churches in one form or another ever since the 


NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 


2nd cent. The use of the term θεοτόκος had 
been approved by Theodore himself, under 
certain limitations, which makes the passionate 
protest of Nestorius against it the more unfor- 
tunate. Nestorius, unfortunately for himself, 
was not a clear thinker or reasoner, and was 
therefore no match for his antagonist Cyril. 
Great confusion, it should be remarked in 
passing, has been caused by the inaccurate 
translation of θεοτόκος into modern languages 
by the words Mother of God. Whether the 
soul of an infant is derived from its parents 
is an old and still debated question. But the 
term ‘‘mother’’ unquestionably involves in 
many minds the idea of transmission of 
essence, whereas the title θεοτόκος, as 
Theodoret does not fail to point out in his 
reply to Cyril’s anathemas, simply means 
that she to whom it was applied was the 
medium through which a Divine Being was 
introduced into this world in human form. 
The controversy raised the question whether 
the term συνάφεια (connexion or conjunction) 
or ἕνωσις (union) were the better fitted to 
denote the nature of the relation between 
the Godhead and the Manhood in Christ. 
The Syrians inclined to the former, the 
Alexandrians to the latter. Some confusion 
of thought continued to exist about the use 
of the terms πρόσωπον and ὑπόστασις to 
signify what we in English express by the 
one inadequate word ‘‘ person.’’ These two 
Greek words [Artus, FOLLOWERS OF] were, 
from the council of Constantinople onward, 
usually understood to signify respectively the 
appearance, as regarded by one outside it, 
and the imward distinction, or, as Gregory 
of Nazianzus puts it, “speciality” (ἰδιότης), 
which distinguishes one individual of a genus 
or species from another. But when the word 
ὑπόστασις is applied to the conditions of 
Being in God, the caution of our own Hocker 
is very necessary (Eccl. Pol. V. vi. 2), that 
the Divine Nature is ztself unique. It seems 
pretty plain that even so clear a thinker as 
Cyril, in his defence of his anathemas as 
well as elsewhere, does not distinguish 
sufficiently between the use of the word 
ὑπόστασις at Nicaea, and the signification 
which had come to be attached to it in 
the first council of Constantinople. Nor 
should it be forgotten that though many 
modern divines are wont to represent Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia as a dangerous heretic, 
he was rather, like Origen at an earlier period, 
a pioneer of theological inquiry [Arius], and 
that, like Origen, he lived and died in the 
communion of the church, though some of 
the propositions laid down by him were 
afterwards shewn to be erroneous. It may 
not be amiss to sum up these remarks on the 
question at issue in the words of Canon Bright, 


who certainly cannot be charged with undue - 


tenderness for Nestorius, on the title θεοτόκος. 
“Tt challenged objection; it was open to 
misconstruction ; it needed some theological 
insight to do it justice; it made the percep- 
tion of the true issue difficult ; it stimulated 
that ‘cultus’ which has now, in the Roman 
church, attained proportions so portentous.” 
History of the Controversy.—There was 
considerable ferment in Constantinople in 


, 


NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 


NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 755 


consequence of the utterances of Nestorius | over the church of God, must be left un- 


and his followers, even before the intervention | decided. 


of Cyril. One Proclus, who had been ap- 
Pointed bp. of Cyzicus but had not been 
accepted by the church there, was residing 
in Constantinople, and raised a storm by 
inveighing not a little indecently, in the very 
presence of the patriarch, against the doctrines 
promulgated by him. Proclus was probably 
giving expression to real convictions, but was 
clearly not in a position which justified him 
in undertaking the task. Nestorius replied, 
and attacked the extravagant laudation of 
the Virgin by Proclus, describing it as dero- 
gatory to the honour of her Son. But, as 
was usual with him, he deprecated all noisy 
applause on the part of his hearers—therein 
displaying better taste than most of his con- 
temporaries—and went on to declare that he 
did not object to the term θεοτόκος, provided 
Mary were not made into a goddess. The 
dispute grew warm. Placards were affixed to 
the walls of the churches in Constantinople, 
and sermons preached against the patriarch. 
The opportunity thus given was not one 
which Cyril was likely to neglect. Though a 
man of ability and a theologian far above the 
average, he was ambitious, violent, and un- 
scrupulous. Socrates does not conceal his 
sense of Cyril’s unfairness toward Nestorius, 
strongly as he animadverts on the lack of 
judgment and self-control displayed by the 
latter. Cyril wrote to the monks of Con- 
stantinople commenting severely on 
action of Nestorius, and insisting strongly 
that the union of the Godhead and Manhood 
in Jesus Christ was a real union, and not a 
mere conjunction. When he learned that 
his letter was resented, he wrote one to Nes- 
torius himself. He complained that the 
unfortunate language of Nestorius had 
reached Celestine of Rome, and was thus 
throwing the whole church into confusion. 
The affected moderation of his language did 
not deceive Nestorius, who defended himself 
with spirit and moderation, and maintained 
that χριστότοκος would be a more suitable 


appellation for the Virgin than @eordxos. 


Approached by an Alexandrian presbyter 
named Lampon, who came to Constantinople 


in the interests of peace, Nestorius professed | 


himself much touched by Lampon’s tone, and 
wrote to Cyril in a more friendly spirit. But 
it was too late. Cyril had already taken 
action against Nestorius, and when the latter 
suggested a council at Constantinople, took 
measures to undermine still further the in- 
fluence of his antagonist. He wrote two 


treatises on the controversy, one addressed to | 


the emperor and empress (Eudocia), and the 
other to Pulcheria and the other sisters of 
the emperor. Then he wrote to Celestine of 
Rome an unfair account of what had occurred. 
He contended that Nestorius had represented 
the Logos as two separate beings, knit closely 
together. Nestorius complained that Cyril 
garbled his quotations. He was, however, 


pronounced a heretic by two synods held | 


at Rome and Alexandria (430). Whether 
Cyril acted as craftily as Neander supposes, 
or whether Nestorius maintained too lofty a 
tone in his letter to Celestine, and thus offended 
one who was anxious to secure his supremacy 


the | 


Certain it is that the high-handed 
action of Celestine in requiring that Nes 
torius should at once readmit to communion 
|the presbyters whom he had repelled from it, 
jand that he himself should sign a written 
recantation within τὰ days, was quite un- 
| precedented in the history of the church. 
|}Another patriarch, John of Antioch, now 
| appears on the scene, Cyril had endeavoured 
[τὸ intimidate him by representing that the 
‘whole West was united in condemnation of 
| Nestorius, and John wished to act as a 
mediator. Cyril next issued 12 anathemas 
‘against the teaching of Nestorius. In one of 
πόθο he seems to unite the flesh of Christ 
with the Logos, according to His Person («ad 
ὑπόστασιν), and in the 3rd he appears to 
speak of the union of the two hypostases in 
Him. Nestorius replied by 12 counter: 
| anathemas. It is unfortunate for our full 
}comprehension of the position that these are 
only to be found in a Latin translation by 
Marius Mercator, a layman from N. Africa, 
who was at Constantinople while the con- 
|troversy was going on. But, as usual in 
theological controversy, each of the dispu- 
tants re lies rather to the inferences he 
himself draws from the propositions of his 
|antagonist than to the propositions them- 
selves. The famous Theodoret, bp. of Cyrus, 
now (430) came forward, at the request of 
John of Antioch, in defence of Nestorius. 
He laid his finger on the weak spot of Cyril's 
anathemas—his union of two hypostases in 
Christ ; and condemned them as “ foreign to 
Christianity.’’ Cyril seems also to have con- 
tended that nothing could be unknown to the 
humanity of Christ which was known to Him 
as God. The doctrine, too, of the frac 
φυσική (natural union) maintained by Cyril 
seemed perilously near to Monophysitism. 
On the other hand, it should not be forgotten 
that Nestorius publicly stated that he had no 
objection to the word θεοτόκος provided it 
was properly explained. The emperor at 
last resolved to call a council. Ephesus was 
chosen as the place of meeting (probably 
because of the excitement prevalent at Con- 
stantinople), and the meeting was fixed for 
Whitsuntide 431. The assembly was con- 
fined to the bishops of the more important 
8665 (metropolitans, as they were now called), 
and the emperor sent a warning letter to 
Cyril, condemning his intemperate proceed- 
lings. Nestorius came at the gee time, 
but fearing the violence of his adversary, 
‘requested a guard from the emperor. His 
request was granted. Cyril and his adherents 
were also present. But some 40 Syrian 
bishops were detained by floods, famine, and 
the riots consequent on the latter. Cyril, 
seizing the opportunity, and supported by 
Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, opened the synod, 
which consisted of some 200 metropolitans, 
land proceeded to condemn and depose 
| Nestorius in the absence of the Syrian con- 
tingent. This sentence of deposition was 
| affixed to the public buildings and proclaimed 
\by the heralds. Meanwhile Cyril had con- 
trived to remove from the emperor's mind 
the unfavourable impression bis previous 
‘action had produced. Nestorius lined, 


756 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 


though thrice summoned, to attend the synod 
in the absence of his Syrian supporters, and 
sent a complaint to the emperor of the 
illegality and unfairness of Cyril’s proceedings, 
which was supported by ten bishops and the 
imperial commissioner. (Socrates, however, 
says that Nestorius attended one meeting, 
and left it after having expressed himself 
in somewhat unfortunate language.) Cyril 
pretended that the Syrian bishops had pur- 
posely stayed away. But this is neither 
probable in itself nor consistent with the 
subsequent conduct of the patriarch John. 
When John and the Syrian bishops arrived, 
they, though only between 30 and 40 in 
number, held a counter-synod, which was 
ridiculed by Cyril and his party for its great 
inferiority in numbers. John, however, per- 
sisted, alleging that the rest of the bishops 
were simply creatures of Cyril and Memnon. 
John’s party then excommunicated Cyril and 
Memnon, posted up their sentence and trans- 
mitted their report to the emperor. A letter 
had meanwhile arrived from Celestine in 
condemnation of Nestorius. This letter was 
read by Cyril to the bishops of his party, but 
Nestorius replied that it had only been ob- 
tained by gross perversions of his language. 
Cyril now resorted to other means of attaining 
his purpose. 
the emperor, a task which was only too easy. 
He contrived to bring the ladies of the court, 
including Pulcheria, over to his side. To 
attain this end, there is evidence extant— 
though Canon Bright has failed to notice it— 
(in a letter from Epiphanius, Cyril’s arch- 
deacon and syncellus, to the patriarch Maxi- 
mian, see below), that he made a lavish use of 
money and presents of other kinds. He also 
stirred up the monks at Constantinople to 
tumult through an agent of his, one Dalma- 
tius, who had immured himself in his cell for 
48 years, and was in high repute for his 
ascetic practices. Dalmatius now _ repre- 
sented himself as drawn from his retirement 
by a voice from heaven, in order to rescue the 
church from the peril of heresy. A_torch- 
light procession to the emperor was organ- 
ized. The excitement in Constantinople was 
general. The emperor was terrified at the 
furious riots which broke out, in which many 
persons were injured. So the influence of the 
court was now openly exerted in favour of 
Cyril, and the Oriental bishops began to 
waver. Nestorius himself lost heart. Even 
at the council he had gone so far as to say, 
“Let Mary be called θεοτόκος, and let all 
this tumult cease.’’ He had throughout been 
less illiberal than his antagonists, and he was 
probably terrified at their violent and un- 
scrupulous proceedings. He may also have 
discovered, when it was too late, that he had 
rushed into controversy without having been 
sufficiently sure of his ground. Therefore, 
although a deputation of 8 bishops from each 
side were sent to Constantinople, the result 
Was a foregone conclusion. A compromise 
was arrived at. Cyril and Memnon were 
reinstated in their sees. John of Antioch 
signed a condemnation of Nestorius, while 
Cyril consented in 432 to sign an Antiochene 
formulary which had been submitted by 
Theodoret to the Syrian bishops at Ephesus 


He endeavoured to gain over | 


NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 


and was afterwards transmitted to the em- 
peror. It is worth noting that this for- 
mulary contains the ἕνωσις φυσική (see 
above), but guards it by a definite assertion 
of both the divinity and humanity of Christ. 
The sentence on Nestorius was carried out. 
He was deposed, and Maximian became 
patriarch in his stead, but soon died, and was 
succeeded by Proclus, the old antagonist of 
Nestorius. The controversy continued to 
rage, Rabbulas, bp. of Edessa, went so far 
as to attack Theodore of Mopsuestia, and 
raised a storm of opposition in the East by 
so doing. Cyril, writing to Acacius of Meli- 
tene (not to be confounded with the aged 
Acacius of Beroea), declared that though it 
was possible theoretically (ἐν évvolas) to 
conceive of the two natures in Christ as 
distinct, yet after their union in His Person 
they became but one nature. This doctrine, 
essentially Monophysite as it was, he did not 
scruple to attribute to his Syrian opponents 
in order to magnify the concessions he made 
to them (Neander, iv. p. 176). Meanwhile 
Theodoret still held out, though he offered 
to condemn those who denied the divinity of 
Christ, or divided Him into two Sons. And 
he implored John of Antioch and count 
(comes) Irenaeus, a friend of the emperor, 
to accept the word @eoréxos. But he main- 
tained that to condemn Nestorius would be 
unjust. Yet even he had become weary of the 
controversy, and was at last prevailed upon 
to exert himself in favour of a reconciliation. 
He had great difficulty in bringing over the 
Oriental bishops. So he went so far as to 
beseech Nestorius to yield for the sake of 
peace. It has been felt that the extent to 
which he carried his submission has left a 
stain on his otherwise high character. In his 
Commentary on the Psalms (written c. 433) 
he calls Nestorius δυσσέβης, and a worshipper 
of a foreign and new God, and classes his 
followers with Jews, Arians, and Eunomians ; 


| but he earnestly begged that the venerable age 


of Nestorius might be exempt from violence 
or cruelty, and besought the patriarch John 
to use his influence to prevent this; and 
(MonopuysitisM] he retrieved by his later 
conduct his reputation for courage and im- 
partiality. 

John, however, was not to be softened. He 
had thrown his influence on the side of the 


|court, and he was determined to persevere 


in his policy. Nestorius was banished to a 
convent just outside the gates of Antioch, and 
Meletius of Mopsuestia, Alexander of Hiera- 
polis, and Helladius of Tarsus, strong sup- 
porters of the school of Theodore, were in- 
volved in the fate of Nestorius. In 435 it was 
thought that Nestorius was nearer the patri- 
arch ef Antioch than was convenient, so his 
exile to Petra in Arabia was decreed, though he 
was actually taken to Egypt instead. An 
assault was made on his place of residence by a 
horde of Libyan barbarians, who carried him 
off. When released, he made his way to the 
Thebaid, and gave himself up to the prefect, 
begging for kindness and protection. This 
modest request was not granted. He was 
dragged about from place to place, with every 
sign of contempt and hatred. The historian 
Evagrius, who loses no opportunity of loading 


΄ 


NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 


his memory by the use of opprobrious lan- 
νας, ge and represents his fate as a ju ent of 
analogous to that which befel Arius, gives 
us a sketch of a second and most pathetic 
letter addressed by Nestorius to the prefect. 
and known as his “ le er a In this he 
implores the protection of the Roman la 
and enlarges on the reproach which would fall 
on the Roman name if he received better 


NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 757 


their later exponents, did not contain the 
“seeds of oternity.”’ The spread of Moham- 
medaniam ultimately destroyed the once 
flourishing Nestorian churches outside the 
limits of the Roman empire, though the Arab 
caliphs, as distinguished from the Turks, 
shewed them some favour. At present only 
a few down-trodden communities in Assyria 
to the assistance of which the Anglican church 


treatment from barbarians than when | has lately sent a mission), and the so-called 
the protection of the Roman government. Christians of St. Thomas on the Malabar 
He gives a moving sicture of the hardships to coast, remain to represent the church once 
which, though “ afflicted by disease and age,"’ | dominant in the far East. The latter were 
he had been subjected. But all was in vain. harassed and all but destroyed in the 16th 
He obtained no mercy, and only death released | cent. by Portuguese Romanists, with the aid 


him from his suff 

Though his enemies might remove him from | 
this world, they could not so easily destroy his 
influence. The extent of his error had ome 
much exaggerated. His opponents went ulti- 
mately to greater extremes than he had ever 
done, though it must be confessed that his 
utterances were often ill-considered, as when 
he denied without qualification that the Son 
could be said to have suffered. For the his- 
tory of the immediate results of their victory 
see Monopuysitism. Cyril, in his Ep. to 
Acacius of Melitene, had, before his death 
in 444, committed himself to the doctrine 
that the two natures (φύσει) of Christ be- 
came one after the union had been effected. | 


of the Inquisition; and the object of the 
Anglican mission to the struggling churches of 
Assyria—a purely educational one—has been 
very seriously hindered by the political pro- 
tection promised, and often afforded, by 
Roman Catholic powers on the one hand, and 
by adherents of the Orthodox Russian church 
on the other. (Nestoatax Cuvee.) 

The revival of the persecution of the New 
torian churches still existing in the Eastern 
empire in the reign of Justinian (427-464) 
must be briefly mentioned. The empress 
Theodora favoured Monophysitism ; the em- 

eror inclined to the doctrines of Origen. 
he two parties, after having been in conflict 
for some years, agreed to put an end to their 


This doctrine, in the days of his successor, | mutual hostility, and to turn their efforts 
brought about a strong reaction in favour of | against the remnant of the Nestorians. In 
the Syrian interpretation of the word θεοτόκος. | 544 Justinian issued an edict against what 
Meanwhile the party of Nestorius was very | were called the Three Chapters, a serics of 


rigorously treated by the emperor. In 435) 
laws were enacted ordaining that the Nes- 
torians should be called Simonians (their own | 
name for themselves was Chaldeans); that 
the writi of Nestorius should be burnt; 
that all bishops who defended his opinions 
should be deposed ; punishments were decreed 
against any onewho should copy, keep, or even | 
read his writings or those of his supporters ; | 
and all meetings of Nestorians for public wor- 
ship were rigorously proscribed. 
The after-history of Nestorianism is ex- 
tremely interesting, but cannot be treated in 
detail here. The rigorous measures above. 
mentioned were fiercely resisted in Syria and 
Babylonia, and when Rabbulas sought to pro- | 
hibit the reading of the works of Diodorus and 
Theodore, the Nestorian teachers crossed the 
border into Persia. Barsumas, bp. of Nisibis 
from 435 to 489, did muchtospread Nestorian- | 
ism in the far East, and his work received an > 
additional impulse from the policy of the 
emperor Zeno, who uted Nestorians 
προ βθροα οὐ λοη alike. ΓΜΟΝΟΡΗΥΒΙΤΙΒΜ 
Thence Nestorianism spread to Chaldea, 
India, and even China. It has even been 
stated that there was a time when the dis- 
ciples of Nestorius outnumbered the members 
τῇ all the other communions in the Christian 
church. Of the progress of Nestorianism in- 
China there can be no doubt, for the Jesuits. 
found a monument there, recording the fact. 
Their statement has been disputed, but it is- 
hardly likely that they would have pretended | 
to have made a discovery which tended to. 
φὰς what they regarded as a deadly heresy. 
he Nestorian doctrines, however, in the ex- 
treme form they assumed when interpreted by | 


extracts from the writings of Theodore, 
Theodoret, and Ibas. This step led to a pro- 
longed controversy, which in $47 brought 
Vigilius, bp. of Rome, to Constantinople. 
Justinian ordered him to take an oath con- 
demning the Three Chapters. He consented 
to do this, but afterwards retracted his con- 
sent. In 551 the relations between Vigilius 
and the emperor had become so strained that 
the former, who had for some time been 
detained in Constantinople, was compelled to 


| take sanctuary inachurch. A council, known 


as the fifth oecumenical council, was sum- 
moned at Constantinople, in which the Three 
Chapters were condemned. Vigilius refused 
to submit to the decision on the grounds (1) 
that Theodore had died in full communion 
with the church, and (2) that the doctrines of 
Theodoret and Ibas had been approved by the 
council of Chaleedon. He afterwards yielded 
to pressure, submitted to the decrees of the 
council, and was released from captivity, but 
died on his way back to Rome. This was the 
last attack on Nestorianism on the part of 
members of the Christian church. As in the 
original controversy, a strong reaction fol- 
lowed, and Monotheletism, an offshoot of 
Mosxoruyarrism, was condemned at another 
council held at Constantinople, and Nes 
torianism henceforth ceased to attract the 
attention of the rulers of the Catholic church. 

Bibliography.—Ol contemporary writers 
the historians Socrates and Evagrius may be 


mentioned. The former is thoughtful, im 
artial, and generally accurate, 4 his 
History was 


ublished while Nestorius was 
still living. mae πα published his ον 
in the rath year of the reign of the emperor 


758 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 


Maurice, 1.6. in 594. He is painstaking and 
accurate, and a devout believer in the deci- 
sions both of Ephesus and Chalcedon. But 
his language is often violent, and he is credu- 
lous as regards the miraculous. Cyril and 
Theodoret, who were actively engaged in the 
controversy, have left abundant details of 
what took place; their own letters are 
especially valuable, and with the writings 
of Theodoret are pub. a collection of im- 
portant letters from most of the principal 
persons concerned in it. Marius Mercator, 
who was at Constantinople when the conflict 
was at its height, has left an account of it in 
Latin. Of later authorities Mansi, Hardouin, 
and Hefele have handed down the proceedings 
of the council of Ephesus, and commented 
upon them. Assemani’s learned work, pub. 
in the 18th cent., is a mine of information on 
Nestorianism. Neander and Dorner [ARIUsS, 
FoLLoweErs OF] give full accounts of the 
struggle. Gieseler passes over the events 
more briefly. Mr. Percy Badger published a 
useful work on Nestorians and their ritual in 
1852. Loof’s Nestoriana (Halle, 1905) should 
also be consulted. Canon Bright’s Age of the 
Fathers gives a most valuable account of the 
controversy, though he is somewhat inclined 
to favour Cyril. Mr. Bethune-Baker’s recent 
work on the early heresies contains much 
useful information, imparted with great clear- 
ness and impartiality. 

[Since these words were written, the Editor 
has called the attention of the writer to a work 
by Mr. Bethune-Baker, entitled Nestorius and 
his Teaching, pub. in 1908. It is strange that 
the discovery which it has made public has 
not elicited the enthusiasm which greeted the 
previous discoveries of the Teaching of the 
Twelve Apostles and the Apology of Aristides. 
It is nothing less than a resurrection of Nes- 
torius from the dead to plead his cause before 
a fairer tribunal than that which pronounced 
upon him when living. A treatise has lately 
come to light called the Bazaar (or more 
properly Emporium or Store, t.e. a collection 
of merchandize) of Heracleides. This treatise 
appears to have been written in Greek, and 
translated into Syriac. It is this Syrian 
translation which has recently been recovered. 
The work is evidently that of the patriarch 
Nestorius himself, and its somewhat strange 
title is explained by the fact that all copies of 
the works of Nestorius were ordered to be 
seized and destroyed. The treatise has a 
peculiar interest for us, because it shews, as 
Mr. Bethune-Baker puts it, and as has been 
suggested in the above article, that ‘‘ Nes- 
torius was not a Nestorian.” Thus the 
doctrinal decision reached at Ephesus is vin- 
dicated, while its personal application to the 
patriarch himself is shewn to be unfair. In 
his preface Mr. Bethune-Baker expresses the 
same respect for the decisions of the four 
great oecumenical councils which has been 
expressed by the writer in his summary of 
their general doctrinal bearing at the end of 
the art. MonopHysiTISM—namely, that they 
were “‘ more likely to give us a true theory of 
the relation between God and man than are 
the reflexions of any individual thinker or 
school of theologians.’’ They do this because 
they ‘“‘express the communis sensus fide 


NICETIUS 


licun,’”’ and ‘‘ their decisions need to be con- 
firmed by subsequent acceptance by the 
church as a whole.’’] [J-J-L-] 
Nicarete (Nixapérn), a lady of one of the 
noblest and richest families of Nicomedia, who 
devoted herself to perpetual virginity in con- 
nexion with the church of Constantinople. 
She was warmly attached to Chrysostom and 
was punished for her devotion to his cause by 
the confiscation of most of her property in 
the troubles that followed his expulsion. 
She was then advanced in life and had a 
large household dependent on her, but man- 
aged her lessened resources with such economy 
that she had enough for their wants and her 
own, and also to give largely to the poor. 
Skilled in the compounding of medicines, she 
often succeeded in curing where physicians 
failed. Her humility and self-distrust would 
never allow her to become a deaconess, and 
she declined the office of lady superior of the 
consecrated virgins when Chrysostom earnestly 
pressed it on her. She retired from Con- 
stantinople to avoid the persecution in 404 
(Soz. H. E. viii. 23). [E.v.] 
Nicetas (3) (Niceta, Nicaeas, Niceas, Nictas), 
bp. of Romaciana (Remesiana) in Dacia. Our 
knowledge of him is derived from the epistles 
and poems (Nos. 17 and 24) of Paulinus of Nola, 
whom he visited, A.D. 398 and 402. He was 
probably a native of Dacia. He evangelized 
theScythae, Getae, Daci, Bessi, and Riphaei, but 
settled specially among the Daci, reducing the 
wild manners of the barbarians to meekness 
and honesty. He was noted for eloquence and 
learning, honoured by the Romans when he 
visited them, and specially beloved by Paul- 
inus at Nola, but we cannot define the extent 
of his see or the dates of his episcopate. 
Boll. Acta SS. Jan. i. 365, and Jun. iv. 243; 
Tillem. H. E. x. 263 seq.; Fleury, H. E. xxi. 
c. 31; Ceill. Aut. Sacr. v. 458; villi. 84. For 
the latest view of the subject of this art. see 
Burn, Niceta of Remesitana, his Life and Works 


(Camb. Univ. Press). [α.τ.5.] 
Nicetius (3) (Nicet, Nicesse), St., 25th 
archbp. of Tréves, c. 527-566. In his day 


the bishop was already beginning to pass 
into the baron, and Nicetius was a territorial 
lord (Freeman, Augusta Treverorum, Histor. 
Essays, 3rd ser. p. 111). Our principal know- 
ledge of him is from Gregory of Tours, who 
received his information from St. Aredius, an 
abbat of Limoges, Nicetius’s disciple (Vitae 
Patrum, c. xvii.) At Tréves his position was 
a difficult one. The Franks around him were 
little else than barbarians, rioting in licence, 
and scarcely more than nominal converts to 
Christianity. Their respect Nicetius won by 
personal asceticism, an inflexible temper and 
fearless demeanour in the face of the strong, 
activity in good works, and uncompromising 
orthodoxy (ib.). He used excommunication 
freely against princes and nobles in cases of 
oppression or flagrant immorality (cf. Rettberg, 
Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, i. 462-464). 
His orthodoxy is illustrated by two extant 
letters: one from him to Clodosinda, the 
wife of Alboin the Lombard, urging her to 
turn her husband to Catholicism ; the other 
to the emperor Justinian, whose lapse in 
his latter days into a form of Eutychianism, 
Nicetius declares, is lamented by all Italy, 


NICOLAITANES 


Africa, Spain, and Gaul (Pair. Lat. lxviii. 
5-380; Hontheim, ἐδ. 47-51). Nicetius set 
Rist to restore the ch es which had 
suffered in the storms of the previous genera- 
tions and partly rebuilt the metropolitan 
church of Tréves (Venant. Fort. Mise. iii, 11, 
Patr. Lat. \xxxviii. 134). His alterations and 
additions are descri by Wilmowsky, Der 
Dom der Trier, pp. 37 sqq., and Freeman, 1. 
p. 113. For his own defence he built a castle | 
on a lofty hill overlooking the Mosel. The | 
walls, with 30 tow stretched down to the | 
river banks, and the bishop's hall, with marble 
columns, occupied the highest point (Venant. 
Fort. iii. 12, Patr. Lat. ib. 135). It is the first 
recorded building of a class which later was 
tly multiplied, but its site is unknown 
Freeman, p. 112). For his architectural 
undertakings he summoned workmen from 
com (Rufus, Ep. Hontheim, ἐδ. p. 37). He 
died c. 566, and was buried in the church of 
St. Maximin, where his tomb still is. Even 
in Gregory’s time it was famous for its miracles 
(de Glor. Conf. 94; Vitae Patr. xvii.; Gall. 
Christ. xiii. 382). Nicetius also wrote two 
treatises called de Vigilits Servorum Det and 
de Psalmodiae Bono, slight works of a didactic 
character, to be found in the Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 
365-376, and, with the letters, discussed at 
some ae by Ceillier, xi. 203-206. [s.a.B.] 
Nicolaltanes. The mention of this name in 
the Apocalypse (see Murray's Illus. B. D. s.v.) 
has caused it to appear in almost all lists of 
heresies ; but there is no trustworthy evidence 
of the continuance of a sect so called after 
the death of St. John. Irenaeus in writing 
his great work used a treatise against heresies 
by Justin Martyr; and that Justin's list 
began with Simon Magus and made no mention 
of Nicolaitanes may be conjectured from the 
order in which Irenaeus discusses the heresies, 
viz. Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, 
ates, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, the 
Nicolaitanes. So late a place is inconsistent 
with chronological order, and the most plausible 
explanation is that Irenaeus followed the order 
of an older list, and added the Nicolaitanes 
to it. About them he has nothing to say 
(I. xxvi. 3) but what he found in the Apo- 
calypse ; for the words “ qui indiscrete 
vivunt,”’ which alone have the appearance 
of an addition, seem only an inference from 
Rev. ii. 13, 14, and 20-22. In a later book 
(III. x. 6) Irenaeus incidentally mentions 
them as a branch of the Gnostics and seems 
to ascribe to them the whole body of Ophite 
doctrine. HippoLtytus aca derived his 
view of them from Irenaeus. In his earlier 
treatise, as we gather from comparing the lists 
of Epiphanius, Philaster, and Pseudo-Ter- 
tullian, he brings them into an earlier, though 
still too late a place in his list, his order being 
Simon Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Nico- 
laitanes ; and he ascribes to them the tenets 
of a fully developed Ophite system. There 
is no sufficient evidence that the Ophites 
called themselves Nicolaitanes. In the later 
work of Hippolytus, Nicolaus the deacon is 
made the founder of the Gnostics; but the 
notice is short, and goes little beyond what 
is told in Irenaeus, bk. i. It is needless to 
notice the statements of later writers. 
Stephen Gobar (cf. Phot. Bsbl, 232) says. 


NILUS 759 


that Hippolytus and Epiphanius make Nicolas 
the deacon of Acts vi. 4 answerable for the 
errors of the sect cal after him; whereas 
Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, 
and Theodoret condemn the sect, but impute 
none of the blame to Nicolas himself. (ὁ.5.} 
Nicolaus (1), bp. of Myra in Lycia at the 
time of Diocletian's ution, and one of 
the most popular saints both in the East and 
West. His Acts, which may embaxly some 
historical elements, are filled with well-known 
legends and miracles. He is said to have 
been present at the council of Nice, where 
he waxed so indignant with Arius that he 
inflicted a box on the heretic’s ear. Dean 
Stanley (Eastern Church, pp. t1o, 142) τὶ υ 
sents Nicolaus as occupying the central place 
in all traditional pictures of the council. 
Tozer in his notes to Finlay's Hist. of Greece, 


t. i. p. 124, observes that Nicolaus has 
taken the place of Poseidon in Oriental Chris- 
tianity. hus, in the island of Eletinsa, a 


temple of Poseidon has been ch into 
the church of St. Nicolaus. In England 476 
churches are dedicated to him. His αν 
was formerly connected in Salisbury Cathe- 
dral, Eton, and elsewhere with the curious 
ceremonial of choosing a boy-bishop, who 
presided till the following Innocents’ Day 
over his fellow-choristers, arrayed in full epis- 
copal attire (cf. Amtig. of Cath. Church of 
Salisbury, A.D. 1723, pp. 72-80, where the 
ritual of the feast is given). We can trace his 
fame back to the 6th cent., when Justinian 
built a church in his honour at Constantinople 
(Procop. de Aedif. i. 6). His relics were trans 
lated in the middle ages to Barri in Italy, 
whence he is often styled Nicolaus of Barri. 
His Acts are given at length in Surii, Hest. 
Sanct., and his legends and treatment in art 
in Jameson's Sacred Art, τ. ti. p. 450. The 
figure of St. Nicolaus is a leading one in the 
celebrated Blenheim Raphael in the National 
Gallery. σον 
Nilus (3), a famous ascetic of Sinai, probably 
born in Galatia, as he speaks of St. Plato 
martyr of Ancyra as his countryman. He 
became prefect at Constantinople, married, 
and had two children, when he determined ¢. 
to retire to Sinai with his son Theodulus. 
itis epistles are very curious, detailing assaults 
by demons, and replying to various queries, 
doctrinal, disciplinary, and even political. 
Gainas, the Gothic general, discussed with 
him the Arian controversy, but without 
changing his opinions (Epp. lib. i. 70, 79, 114}. 
Nilus boldly took the side of St. Chrysostom 
when banished from Constantinople in 404. 
The story of his ordination is a curious one. 
The Saracens invaded the desert of Sinat 
and captured some of the solitaries, including 
Nilus and Theodulus. They dismissed Nilus 
and the older men but retained the young 
men, intending to offer them next day as 
sacrifices to the Morning Star. They over- 
slept themselves, however, and then, as the 
ropitious time was past, sold Theodulus, who 
fell into the hands of a hbouring bishop. 
There he was found by his father. The piety 
of both so struck the bishop that he com- 
pelled them to accept ination. They 
returned to Sinai, and distinguished them- 
selves by a yet severer piety. Nilus died « 


760 NINIAN 


430. His writings throw much light on mon- 
asticism and Christian society generally at 
the end of 4th cent. Epp. 61 and 62, lib. iv., 
most interestingly illustrate the church life 
at that period. Olympiodorus, an eparch, 
desired to erect a church and to decorate it 
with images of saints in the sanctuary, to- 
gether with hunting scenes, birds, and animals 
in mosaic, and numerous crosses in the nave 
and on the floor—a scheme of decoration 
which we find carried out some time later in 
the churches of Central Syria, depicted in 
De Vogué’s Civil and Ecclestastical Archttec- 
ture of Syria. Nilus condemns the mosaics 
as mere trifling and unworthy a manly Chris- 
tian soul. He rejects numerous crosses in 
the nave, but orders the erection of one cross 
at the east end of the sanctuary, “‘ Inasmuch 
as by the cross man was delivered from 
spiritual slavery, and hope has been shed on 
the nations.’’ Good pictures from Ὁ. and 
N. T. meet with his approval. They serve as 
books for the unlearned; teach them Scrip- 
ture history, and remind them of God's 
mercies. The church was to have numerous 
chapels. 
erected therein. 


Each chapel may have. 8 cross | 
Ep. 62 proves that his pro- | 


hibition of mosaics only extended to hunting | 
scenes and probably did not include the images | 


of saints. 


It was written to exalt the fame | 


of his favourite martyr, Plato of Ancyra, and | 


conclusively proves that the invocation of 
saints was then practised in the East [cf. 
FIpENTIvus (2)]. Nilus did not approve of the 
extraordinary forms which monasticism was 
assuming. Epp. 114 and 115, lib. ii. are 
addressed to one Nicander, a Stylite, who 
must have set the fashion which St. Simeon 
followed. Nilus tells him his lofty position 
is due simply to pride, and shall find a fulfil- 
ment of the words ‘‘ He that exalts himself 
shall be abased.’’ In the second epistle he 
charges him with light and amorous conver- 
sation with women. Monastic discipline 
seems to have been then very relaxed, as the 
charges are repeated in his letters and works. 
We often find in them the peculiar practices 
of the monks or of the early church explained 
with mystical references. Cf. Fessler-Jung- 
mann, Jnst. Patrol. (1896), li.2, p. 108. [G.T-.s.] 

Ninian, British missionary bishop. The 
general facts of his life and work present com- 
paratively few points for dispute, there being 
but one tradition, and that not materially 
departed from. 

The primary authority is Bede (H. E. iii. 4), 
who, however, only incidentally alludes to St. 
Ninian in connexion with St. Columba, yet 
touches therein the chief points embodied in 
the later Life—his converting the southern 
Picts a long time before St. Columba’s day, 
his being ‘‘de natione Brittonum,”’ but in- 
structed in the Christian faith and mysteries 
at Rome; his friendship with St. Martin of 
Tours, in whose honour he dedicated his epis- 
copal see and church at Candida Casa in the 
province of the Bernicii, and his building the 
church there of stone “‘insolito Brittonibus 
more’’ (M. H. B. 176). This is repeated in 
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a.D. 565 (ib. 303). 
Ailred’s Vita S. Niniant seems little more than 
an expansion of these details, but whether he, 
in the r2th cent., had authentic evidence of an 


NOETUS 


earlier date to assist him we do not know, 
except that he specially refers to Bede’s in- 
formation and also to a “liber de vita et 
miraculis ejus, barbario [barbarice] scriptus,” 
of the value of which we are ignorant. The 
chief Life is Vita Niniani Pictorum Australium 
apostoli, auctore Ailredo Reivallenst, first 
printed by Pinkerton (Vit. Ant. SS. 1 seq. ed. 
1789) and reprinted with trans. and notes, by 
Bp. Forbes (Historians of Scotland, vol. v. 1874). 
(See also Hardy, Descript. Cat. i. 44 seq. 853 ; 
Bp. Forbes, Lives of SS. Kent. and Nin. 
Introd. ; Grub, Eccl. Hist. Scot. i. c. 2 et al. ; 
Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 3, 444; Haddan and 
Stubbs, Counc. i. 14, 35; Pinkerton, Enquiry, 


11. 263 seq. ; Pryce, Anc. Brit. Ch. 104 seq.) 


Ailred’s Life is of the usual unhistoric 
character, fuller of moralizings than of facts, 
and having only one fixed point to suggest a 
date. St. Ninian was of royal birth and be- 
longed to the valley of the Solway ; his father 
was probably a regulus in the Cumbrian king- 
dom, and, being a Christian, had his son 
baptized. The youth soon manifested a 
desire to visit Rome, and appears to have 
reached it in the time of pope Damasus (A.D. 
366-384), perhaps in 370. After devoting 
several years there to the Scriptures and holy 
learning, he was raised to the episcopate, A.D. 
394, by the pope himself, probably Siricius 
(A.D. 385-399) and sent as bp. to the W. 
of Britain, where the Gospel was unknown, 
corrupted, or misrepresented by the teachers. 
Calling on St. Martin at Tours and receiving 
from him masons to build churches according 
to the Roman method, he returned to his 
native shores and built his church at Witerna, 
now Whithern in Wigtonshire, but whether 
near the site of the later abbey or on the 
island near the shore is uncertain. While 
building the church the news reached him of 


| St. Martin’s death (A.D. 397), in whose honour 


he dedicated it; this at the latest must have 
been in the spring of 398. We have no other 
landmark for ascertaining his dates. The 
chief field of his missionary labours was in the 
central district of the E. of Scotland among 
those barbarians who had defied the Roman 
power in the days of Agricola and who were 
separated from the Roman province of Valen- 
tia by the rampart of Antoninus; but the 
veneration attached to his name is shown by 
his dedications being found over all Scotland. 
(See Bp. Forbes, Kals. 424.) 

His monastic school, known variously as 
Magnum Monasterium, Monasterium Rosna- 
tense, Alba, and Candida Casa, was famous 
through Cumbria and Ireland, and was one of 
the chief seats of early Christian learning to 
which Welsh and Irish saints resorted, till 
both school and see were destroyed by the 
irruptions of the Britons and Saxons. The 
see was revived for a time in the 8th cent., 
under Saxon influence from York (Haddan and ~ 
Stubbs, Counc. ii. pt. i. 7, 8, 56 seq. ; Stubbs, 
Reg. Sac. Ang. 184 et al.), to be again restored 


|in the r2th cent. by King David I. of Scot- 


land. The date usually assigned for his death, 
though on no definite data, is Sept. 16, 432, and 
Bede (H. E. iii. c. 4) says he was buried in his 
church at Candida Casa, which in the middle 
ages becamemuch frequented by pilgrims. [J.G.] 

Noetus, a native of Smyrna according to 


Hippolytus ; of Ephesus according to Epiph- 
Mies (Haer. 57), probably by a mistake, as 
his narrative is in other respects wholly derived 
from Hippolytus. From Asia Minor also 
Praxeas, some years before, had imported into 
Rome the views which Noetus taught. Hip- 
bg traces the origin of the Patripassian 
eresy at Rome to Noetus, who in his opinion 
derived it from the philosophy of Heraclitus 
(Refutation, lib. ix. cc. 3-5, cf. x. 23). Noetus 
came to Rome, where he converted Epigonus 
and Cleomenes. He was summoned before 
the council of Roman presbyters, and inter- 
rogated about his doctrines. He denied at 
first that he had taught that “‘ Christ was the 
Father, and that the Father was born and 
suffered and died,"’ but his adherents increas- 
ing in number, he acknowledged before the 
same council, when summoned a second time, 
that he had taught the views attributed to 
him. ‘The blessed pate caHed him 
again before them and examined him. But 
he stood out against them, μα ἐς , ‘What 
evil am I doing in glorifying one od? ’ And 
the presbyters replied to him, ‘We too know 
in truth one God, we know Christ, we know 
that the Son suffered even as He suffered, 
and died even as He died, and rose again on 
the third day, and is at the right hand of the 
Father, and cometh to judge the living and 
the dead, and these things which we have 
learned we allege.’ Then after examinin 
him they expelled him from the church. An 
he was carried to such a pitch of pride, that 
he established a school.” Cf. Routh's Relig. 
Sac. t. iv. 243-248. As to his date, Hip- 
polytus tells us “he lived not long ago,” 
Lipsius and Salmon think this very treatise 
was used by Tertullian in his tract against 
Praxeas [H1ppotytus Romanus], while Hil- 
genfeld and Harnack date Tertullian’s work 
between a.p. 206 and 210. This would throw 
the treatise of Hippolytus back to c. 205. 
From its language and tone, we conclude that 
Noetus was then dead, a view which Epiphan- 
ius (Haere 57, c. 1) expressly confirms, saying 
that he and his brother both died soon after 
their excommunication and were buried with- 
out Christian rites. The period of his teaching 
at Rome must then have been some few years 
previous to 205. But Hippolytus in his Re- 
futation of Heresies gives us a farther note of 
time, telling us in ix. 2 that it was when 
Zephyrinus was managing the affairs of the 
church that the school of Noetus was firmly 
established at Rome and that Zephyrinus con- 
nived at its establishment through bribes. 
We cannot, however, fix the date of his excom- 
munication and death more closely than c. 200. 
Hippolytus (x. 23) tells us that some Mon- 
tanists adopted the views of Noetus. He 
seems to have written some works, from which 
Hippolytus often quotes. (G.T.s.] 
omus, a leading personage at Constanti- 
nople in the latter years of Theodosius IL, 
with whom he was all-powerful—ra τῆς 
οἰκουμένης ἐν χερσὶν ἔχων es (Labbe, 
Concil. iv. 407). Nomus filled in succession 
all the highest offices in the state. In 443 he 
was “ magister officiorum "’ (Cod. Theod. Nov. 
p- 14, 1); consulin 445; patrician in 449, the 
year of the infamous “ Latrocinium.” He 
was the confidential friend of Chrysaphius the 


NONNUS 761 


σα and shared var tyr the government 
ο © emperor and the empire. Through 
them Dioscorus of Alexandria and the Euty- 
_ chian doctrines he supported were brought into 
favour at court. rough Nomus the feeble 
Theodosius was induced to publish a decree 
in 448 confining Theodoret to his own diocese. 
The interesting series of letters, to the prin 
cipal men of the empire, in which Theodoret 
| While observing the mandate, protest 
against its arbitrary character, contains 
| several addressed to Nomus. With the death 
| of Theodosius and the accession of Marcian 
| and Pulcheria, Nomus's power sensibly waned. 
| He took, however, a leading position as a high 
| State official at the council of Chaleedon 
| (Labbe, iv. 77, 475, ete.), where a libel or peti- 
| tion against him was presented by a nephew 
of Cyril, Athanasius by name, a presbyter of 
Alexandria, accusing him of violence and ex- 
| tortion which had reduced Athanasius and bis 
relatives to beggary and caused his brother to 
die of distress (1b. 407-410). [κ.ν.] 
Nonna (1), mother of Gregory Nazianzen : 
ἃ lady of good birth, the child of Christian 
| parents, Philtatius and Gorgonia, brought up 
in the practice of the Christian virtues, of 
which she was so admirable an example. Her 
son describes in glowing terms the holiness of 
| her life and the beautiful conformity of all ber 
| actions to the highest standards of Christian 
}excellence. To her example, aided by her 
rayers, he ascribes the conversion of bis 
ather from the strange medley of paganism 
and Christianity which formed the tenets of 
the Hypsistarian sect, to which by birth he 
belonged (Greg. Naz. Or. 11, 19; Carm. 1, 2). 
_ We know of twoother children of the marriage, 
| a sister named Gorgonia, probably older than 
| Gregory, and a brother nam Caesarius. 
Nonna’s death probably occurred on Aug. 5 (on 
| which day she is commemorated both by the 
Greek and Latin churches) in 374 (Orat. 19, p. 
315; Carm.1,p.9). Tiller. Mésm. eccl. t. ix. 
PP. 309-311, 317, 318, 322, 385, 397. [κ.ν.} 

Nonnus (2) of Panopolis. The name is very 
common, being properly an Egyptian title 
equivalent to Saint. Consequently confusion 
has arisen between this writer and others of the 
same name. He has been identified, with 
some probability, with a Nonnus whose son is 
mentioned by Synesius (Ep. ad Anastas. 42, 
ad Pyl. 102) ; and, with very little probability, 
with the deacon Nonnus, secretary at the 
council of Chalcedon, a.p. 451; with Nonnus, 
the bp. of Edessa, elected at the synod of 
Ephesus, a.p. 449; and with Nonnus the 
commentator on Gregory Nazianzen (wide 
Bentley, Phalaris, ad in.). 

Life—He was a native of Panopolis in 
Egypt; cf. Eudoxia, s.v. Agathias, iv. p. 128; 
| and an epigram in Anth. Graeca, i. p. 140. He 
| is classed by Agathias among of γέοι ποιηταί, 
,and this, supported by a comparison of his 

poems with other late epic writers, makes it 
probable that he wrote at the end of the 4th 
and ne rag J of the 5th cents. a.p. Bevond 
| this nothing is known for certain. His Dsomy- 
| siaca shews frequently a knowledge of astrono- 
ΤΥ (cf. vi. 60; xxv.; xxxviil. 4), and a special 
jinterest in Berytus (xli.), Tyre (xl), and 
| Athens (xlvii.), but whether from a personal 
| acquaintance with these towns is uncertain. 


762 NONNUS 


In iv. 250 the discoveries of Cadmus are traced 
to Egypt, but otherwise there is no reference 
to his native country. The whole tone of the 
Dionysiaca, with its delight in the drunken 
immoralities of Dionysus, makes it hard to 
believe the poem written by a Christian. 
Probably it was written early in life, and 
Nonnus converted to Christianity after it, and 
the paraphrase of St. John written after his 
conversion, possibly, as has been suggested, 
as acontrast to the Dionystaca, portraying the 
life and apotheosis of one more worthy than 
Dionysus of the name of God. Possibly too, 
as has also been suggested, Nonnus may have 
been one of the Greek philosophers who 
accepted Christianity when the heathen 
temples were destroyed by decree of Theo- 
dosius (Socr. H. E. v. 16). 

Works.— Of his literary position it is possible 
to speak with more certainty. He was the 
centre, if not the founder, of the literary 
Egyptian school, which gave to Greek epic 
poetry a new though short-lived brilliancy, 
and to which belonged Quintus of Smyrna, 
John of Gaza, Coluthus, Tryphiodorus, and 
Musaeus. This school revived the historical 
and mythological epic, treating it in a peculiar 
style of which Nonnus is the best representa- 
tive. While frequently proclaiming himself 
an imitator of Homer, and shewing traces of 
the influence of Callimachus and later writers, 
he yet created new metrical rules, which 
gave an entirely new effect to the general 
rhythm of the poem—that of an easy but 
rather monotonous flow, always pleasant, but 
never rising or falling with the tone of the 
narrative. The style is very florid, marked 
by a luxuriance of epithets and original com- 
pounds (often of very arbitrary formation), 
elaborate periphrasis, and metaphors often 
piled together in hopeless confusion; and 
many unusual forms are invented. 


The Dionysiaca attributed to Nonnus by | 


Agathias (u.s.) is a history of the birth, con- 
quests and apotheosis of Dionysus, spun out 


“as an allegory of the march of civilization 
across the ancient world ’’; but it would be 
simpler, and we hope truer, to describe it as 
“the gradual establishment of the cultivation 
of the vine and the power of the Wine-god.’’ 

The chief modern editions of the Dionystaca 
are Graefe (1819-1826) ; Passow (1834); Le 
Comte de Marcellus, with interesting intro- 
duction, French trans. and notes, in Didot’s 
Bibl. Graeca (1856); Kochly with apparatus 
criticus (1857), cf. Ouwarow (1817); Kohler, 
Ueber die Dion. des Nonnus (1853). 

The Paraphrase (Μεταβολή) of St. John’s 
Gospel, attributed to Nonnus by Eudocia (Viol. 
311), isa fairly faithful paraphrase of the whole 
of the Gospel. The text of the Gospel that 
lies behind the paraphrase has been reproduced 
by R. Jannsen (Texte und Untersuchungen, 
N. F. viii. 4, 1903). The text is faithfully 


treated. The omissions, except when he has | 


MSS. authority (e.g. v. I, 4, vil. 53 sqq-), are 
rare (v. I, 29, iv. 27, 41, 42, Vi. 41, 53, Vili. 
38, xviii. 16, 18). The additions are chiefly 
those of poetical expansion. Homeric epi- 
thets form a strange medley with the Pales- 
tinian surroundings, and in many cases the 
illustrations are drawn out into insipid de- 


NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 


tails (cf. iv. 26, vii. 21, xviii. 3, xx. 7). At 
other times we have interpretations sug- 
gested, in most of which he agrees with the 
Alexandrine tradition as represented by Cyril 
and Origen cf. i. 16, 24, 42 (Peter’s name) ; 
vi. 71 (the motive of Judas); vii. 19 (the 
reference to the sixth commandment) ; viii. 
40 (the hospitality of Abraham); xii. 6, 10; 
Xviii. 15 (ἰχθυβόλον παρὰ réxvys); xix. 7. 
In some he seems obviously wrong, e.g. ii. 12 
(δυωδεκάριθμος) ; ii. 20, x. 12 (the reference to 
Solomon) ; vii. 28 (ὑψῶν) ; xi. 44, covddpiov 
explained as a Syrian word; while in ii. 4, 
τί μοι γύναι ἠὲ καὶ αὐτῇ looks like an attempt 
to avoid a slight to her who is constantly 
called Θεοτόκος. He shews, too, a looseness in 
using theological terms (cf. i. 3, μύθος Σ 1, 50, 
xi. 27, λόγος) which, with the luxuriance of 
periphrasis, forms a striking contrast to the 
simplicity and accuracy of St. John. The 
chief modern editions are Passow (1834); Le 
Comte de Marcellus, with French trans. and 
notes (1860) ; A. Scheindler (1881), with text 
of the Gospel and criticus apparatus ; Migne, 
vol. xliii. (with the notes of Heinsius and of 
Le Comte de Marcellus); Mansi, Bibl. Patr. vi. 
(ed. 1618), ix. (ed. 1677). See also a series 
of arts. in Wiener Studien for 1880-1881 and 
Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1891, where the 
authorship is attributed to Apollinaris. [w.t.] 

Novatianus and Novatianism (Novatianus, 


| Cyprian, Ep. xliv.; Noovaros, Eus. H. E. vi. 


43; Navdros, Socr. H. E. iv. 28. Lardner 
(Credibility, c. 47, note) seeks to prove that 
Eusebius and the Greeks in general were cor- 
rect in calling the Roman presbyter Novatus, 
not Novatianus. He attributes the origin of 
the latter name to Cyprian, who called the 
Roman presbyter Novatianus, as being a 
follower of his own rebellious priest, Novatus 
of Carthage. Novatian, the founder of Nova- 
tianism, is said by Philostorgius to have been 
a Phrygian by birth, a notion which may 


| have originated in the popularity of his system 
at great length. The poem has been regarded | 


in Phrygia and its neighbourhood (Light- 
foot’s Colosstans, p. 98). He was, before his 
conversion, a philosopher, but of what sect 
we cannot certainly determine, though from a 
comparison of the language of Cyprian in Ep. 
lv. § 13, ad Antonian., with the Novatianist 
system itself, we should be inclined to say the 
Stoic. The circumstances of his conversion 
and baptism are stated by pope Cornelius in 
his letter to Fabius of Antioch (Eus. /.c.), but 
we must accept his statements with much 
caution. His narration is evidently coloured 
by his feelings. The facts of the case appear 
to be these. He was converted after he had 
come to manhood, and received clinical bap- 
tism, but was never confirmed, which furnishes 
Cornelius with one of his principal accusations. 


He was, nevertheless, admitted to the clerical . 


order. His talents, especially his eloquence, 
to which even Cyprian witnesses (Ep. Ix. 3), 
rapidly brought him to the front, and he be- 
came the most influential presbyter of the 
Roman church. In this character, the see 
being vacant, he wrote Ep. xxx. to the 
Carthaginan church, touching the treatment 
of the lapsed, while the anonymous author of 
the treatise against Novatian, written A.D. 
255 and included by Erasmus among Cyprian’s 


e 


NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 


NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 763 


works, describes him as “having been ἃ said about God indeed, but they are not to be 


recious vessel, an house of the Lord, who, as | imputed to God but to the people. 


ong as he was in the church, bewailed the 
faults of other men as his own, bore the burdens 
of his brethren as the apostle directs, and by 
his exhortations strengthened such as were 
weak in the faith.”” This testimony sufficiently 
disposes of the accusation of Cornelius that 
Novatian denied the faith in time of persecu- 
tion, declaring himself ‘tan admirer of a dif- 
ferent philosophy.” In 250 he approved of a | 
moderate policy towards the lapsed, but later | 
in the year changed his mind and took such 
extreme views that the martyr Moses, who 
probably suffered on the last day of 250, con- 
demned them. In Mar. 251 Cornelius was) 
consecrated bp. (Lipsius, Chron. ἃ. rom. Bisch. | 
p- 205). 
action (Cyp. Ep. xlvi.). Novarus, the Car- 
thaginian agitator, having meanwhile arrived 
at Rome, joined them and urged them to 
set up an opposition bishop. He made a 
journey into distant parts of Italy, and 
brought back 3 bishops who consecrated 
Novatian. After his consecration Novatian | 
dispatched the usual epistles announcing it to 
the bishops of the chief sees, to Cyprian, 
Dionysius of Alexandria, Fabius of Antioch. 
Cyprian rejected his communion at once. 
Dionysius wrote exhorting him to retire from 
his schismatical position (Eus. H. E. vi. 45). 
Fabius, however, so inclined to his side that 
Dionysius addressed him a letter on the sub- 
ject ; and two bishops, Firmilianus of Cappa- 
docia and Theoctistus of Palestine, wrote to 
Dionysius requesting his presence at the 
council of Antioch, to restrain tendencies in 
that direction (ἐδ. 44, 46). In the latter part 
of 251 Novatian was formally excommunicated 
by a synod of 60 bishops at Rome. He then 
began to organize a distinct church, rebaptiz- 
ing all who came over (Cyp. Ep. Ixxiii. 2) and 
dispatching letters and emissaries to the most 
distant parts of the East and West (Socr. 
H. E. iv. 28). [Cyprian; Novatus.] His 
subsequent career is unknown, save that 
Socrates informs us that he suffered martyr- 
dom under Valerian (#b.). He was a copious 
writer, as we learn from Jerome (de Vir. Ill. 
c. Ixx.), who gives as his works, ‘‘de Pascha, 
de Sabbato, de Circumcistone, de Sacerdote, de 
Oratione, de Instantia, de Alttalo, de C this 
Judaicis, et de Trinitate,’ only the last two 
being now extant. (An ed. of de Trin. by 
W. Y. Fausset was pub. in 1909 in the Camb. 
Patr. Texts.) His work on Jewish meats was 
written at some place of retreat from perse- 
cution. The Jewish controversy seems to 
have been then very hot at Rome, and Nova- 
tian wrote to refute their contention about 
distinction of meats. Jerome describes his 
work on the Trinity as an epitome of Tertul- 


This roused the stricter party to|G 


lian’s, and as attributed by some to Cyprian 
(Hieron. A pol. cont. Rufin. lib. ii. Opp. t. iv. 
p- 415). It proves Novatian to have been a 
diligent student, as its arguments are identical | 
with those of Justin Martyr in his Dialog. cum | 
Tryph. c. cxxvii.; Tertull. adv. Prax. cc. Xiv.- 
xxv.; Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. τό, ν. II, 12. 
He deals first with the absolute arcane of 
the Father, His invisibility, etc., then discusses 
the anthropomorphic expressions of the Scrip- 
tures, laying down that “ὁ such things were | 


| 


: It is not 
God Who is limited, but the perception of the 
people.” Inc. vii. he declares that even the 
terms Spirit, Light, Love, are only in an 
imperfect degree applicable to God. In ce. 
ix.-xxviii. he discusses the true doctrine of the 
Incarnation, explaining, like Clement and 
others, the theophanies of O.T. as manifesta- 
tions of Christ, and refuting the doctrine of the 
Sabellians, or Artemonites, according to Nean- 
der (H. E. ii. 298), which had just then been 
developed. He ends by explaining the doc- 
trine of the Holy Spirit, wherein he is thought 
by some to have fallen into error. He was 
quoted by the Macedonians of the next cent. 
as supporting their view (cf. Fabric. Bd. 
raec. xii. 565 and references noted there ; 
Bull’s Def. of Nicene Creed, ii. 476, Oxf. 
1852 ; Judg. of Cath. Ch. pp. 9, 137, 291, Oxf. 
1855). Lardner (Credtb. c. 47, t. tii, p. 242) 
shews that Novatian did not accept Hebrews 
as Scripture, since he never quotes any texts 
out of it, though there were several which 
favoured his cause, notably Heb. vi. 4-8 His 
followers, however, in the next cent. did use 
them. Some have even thought Novatian to 
be the author of the Re/utation of all Heresies 
(Bunsen, Christ. and Mankind, i. 480). A 
trans. of his works is in the vol. of Clark's 
Ante-Nicene Lib. which contains pt. ii. of 
St. Cyprian’s writings (Edinb. 1869). Jack- 
son’s ed. is the best. 

Novatianism.—The members of this sect 
called themselves Ka@apoi (Eus. H. Ε. vi. 44). 
They were called by others Novatiani (Pacian. 
Ep. i. § 1). 

Novatianism was the first great schism in 
the church on a pure question of discipline. 
In Montanism questions of discipline were 
involved as side issues, but did not constitute 
its essential difference. All sects previous to 
Novatianism had erred on the doctrine of the 
Trinity. The Novatianists alone were ortho- 
dox thereupon. The church therefore bap- 
tized even Montanists, but admitted Nova- 
tianists by imposition of hands (Conc. Laodic. 
can. vii. viii. ; Hefele, Counctls, ed. Clark, τ. ii. 
303, 332; Conc. CP. can. vii. in Hefele, Le. ; 
Pitra, Jur. Eccles. Graec. Hist. i. 430, $76). 

The principles which Novatian formulated 
into a system, and to which he gave a name, 
existed and flourished long before him. The 
origin of the Novatianist schism must be 
sought in the struggle which, originating with 
the Shepherd of Hermas (Baur, Church Hest, 
trans. Menzies, 1879, t. li. p. $0 note; ef. 
Ritschl, Entstehung der Althath. Kirche, 2nd 
ed. p. §29), had been raging at Rome for 70 

ears, at first with the Montanists and the 
itotners of Tertullian, and then between 
Hippolytus and Callistus. Every one of the 
Stetnative principles of Novatianism will be 
found advocated by some or all of them (Baur, 
Le. p. 270, note). The Montanists rejected the 
lapsed, and in fact all guilty of mortal sins, 
Tertullian rejected second marriages, as also 
did the strict discipline of the and cent. 
(Ambr. de Viduis, c. li.; Lumper, Hest. SS. 
PP. iii. 95; de 5. Athenag.; Aug. Ep. ad 
Julian. de Vidust.). Hippolytus held, in a 
great degree, the same stern views. This 
identity in principle between Montanism and 


764 NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 


Novatianism has been noted by many, both 
ancients and moderns, 6.5. Epiph. Haer. 59; 
Hieron. Opp. Migne, Patr. Lat. t. i. 188, Ep. 
ad Marcellam, 457, Ep. ad Oceanum,; t. vii. 
697 cont. Jovinian. lib. ii.; Gieseler, H. E. 
t. i. pp. 213-215, 284, ed. Clark; Neander, 
Anti-Gnostic, t. ii. p. 362 ; Bunsen, Christ. and 
Mankind, t. i. 395, 428; Pressensé, Life and 
Pract. of Early Ch. lib. i. cc. 6, 7; Baur, 10. 
pp. 124-126. With Donatism Novatianism is 
also allied, for the treatment of the lapsed 
underlay that schism too. Other points of 
similarity between the three may be noted. 
They all sprang up, or found their most 
enthusiastic supporters, in Africa. Each 
arose simultaneously with great persecutions. 
The two earliest, at least, proved their essen- 
tial oneness, uniting their ranks in Phrygia in 
the 4th cent. Novatianism may be regarded 
as a conservative protest on behalf cf the 
ancient discipline against the prevalent 
liberalism of the Roman church (Baur, l.c. p. 
271). The sterner treatment of the lapsed 
naturally found favour with the more enthu- 
siastic party, who usually give the tone to any 
religious society. Thus Eleutherus, bp. of 
Rome, in the latter part of 2nd cent. was 
inclined to take the Puritan view (Eus. H. E. 
lib. v. c. 3). Ozanam (Hist. of Civilization in 
5th Cent. t. ii. p. 214, Eng. trans.) has noted an 
interesting proof of the prevalence of this 
view in Rome. Archaeologists have often 
been puzzled by the symbol of a Good Shep- 
herd carrying a kid, not a lamb, on his shoul- 
ders, found in the cemetery of St. Callistus. 
Ozanam explains it as a reference by the 
excavators of the cemetery to the prevalent 
Montanist doctrine, which denied the possibi- 
lity of a goat being brought back in this life. 
Novatianism thus fell upon ground prepared 
for it, and found in every quarter a body of 
ready adherents. But Novatian was the first 
to make the treatment of the lapsed the ex- 
press ground of schism. In fact, many con- 
tinued to hold the same view within the 
church during the next 150 years (cf. Hefele, 
Councils, τ. i. p. 134, Clark’s ed. ; Innocent I. 
Ep. iii. ad Exuperium, in Mansi, ili. 1039). 
This fact accounts for the rapid spread of the 
sect. In Africa they established themselves 
in many cities within the course of the two 
years subsequent to Novatian’s consecration 
in the spring of 251. [CypriAn.] In 5. Gaul 
Marcian, bp. of Arles, joined them (Cyp. Ep. 
Ixviii.; Greg. Turon. Hist. Francor. lib. i. in 
Migne, Patr. Lat. Ἰχχὶ. 175). In the East they 
made great progress. Between A.D. 260 and 
the council of Nice we hear scarcely anything 
about them. The controversies about Sabel- 
lianism and Paul of Samosata, together with 
the rising tide of Arianism, occupied the 
church during the concluding years of the 3rd 
cent., while the peace it enjoyed prevented the 
question of the lapsed becoming a practical 
one. During this period, however, Novatian- 
ist doctrine became harder and _ sterner. 
Obliged to vindicate their position, they drew 
the reins tighter than Novatian had done. 
With him idolatry was the one crying sin 
which excluded from communion. During 
the long peace there was no temptation to this 
sin, therefore his followers were obliged to 
add all other deadly sins to the list (Socr. 


NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 


H. E. vii. 25; Ambr. de Poenit. lib. i. cc. 2, 3; 
Ceill. v. 466, 467). At the council of Nice we 
find them established far and wide, with a 
regular succession of bishops at the principal 
cities of the empire and of the highest reputa- 
tion for piety. The monk Eutychian, one of 
their number, was a celebrated miracle- 
worker, reverenced by Constantine himself, 
who also endeavoured to lead one of their 
bishops, AcEsius, to unite with the Catholics 
(Socr. H. E. i. το, 13). During the 4th cent. 
we can trace their history much more clearly 
in the East than in the West, for Socrates 
gives such copious details as to lead some 
(Nicephorus, Baronius, and P. Labbaeus) to 
suspect that he was a member of the sect. In 
the East their fortunes were very varying. 
Under Constantine they were tolerated and 
even favoured (Cod. Theod. ed. Haenel, lib. 
Xvi. tit. v. p. 1522). Under Constantius they 
were violently persecuted, together with the 
rest of the Homoousian party, by the patriarch 
Macedonius. Socrates (ii. 38) mentions seve- 
ral martyrs for the Catholic faith whom they 
then furnished, especially one Alexander, a 
Paphlagonian, to whose memory they built a 
church at Constantinople existing in his own 
day. Several of their churches, too, were 
destroyed at Constantinople and Cyzicus, but 
were restored by Julian upon his accession, 
and Agelius their bishop was banished. ‘‘ But 
Macedonius consummated his wickedness in 
the following manner. Hearing there was a 
great number of the Novatian sect in the 
province of Paphlagonia, and especially at 
Mantinium, and perceiving that such a 
numerous body could not be driven from their 
homes by ecclesiastics alone, he caused, by 
the emperor’s permission, four companies of 
soldiers to be sent into Paphlagonia that, 
through dread of the military, they might 
receive the Arian opinion. But those who 
inhabited Mantinium, animated to despera- 
tion by zeal for their religion, armed them- 
selves with long reaping-hooks, hatchets, and 
whatever weapons came to hand, and went 
forth to meet the troops, on which, a conflict 
ensuing, many indeed of the Paphlagonians 
were slain, but nearly all the soldiers were 
destroyed.”’ This persecution well-nigh 
brought about a union between the Catholics 
and the Novatianists, as the former frequented 
the churches of the latter party during the 
Arian supremacy. The Novatianists, how- 
ever, as in Constantine’s time, obstinately 
refused to unite with those whose church- 
theory was different from their own, though 
their faith was alike. Under Valens, seven 
years later, A.D. 366, they suffered another 
persecution and Agelius was again exiled. 
Under Theodosius their bp. at Constanti- 
nople, Agelius, appeared in conjunction with 
the orthodox patriarch Nectarius as joint 
defenders of the Homoousian doctrine at the 
synod of 383, on which account the emperor 
conferred on their churches equal privileges 
with those of the establishment (Socr. H. E. 
v. 10, 20). John Chrysostom’s severe zeal 
for church discipline led him to persecute 
them. When visiting Ephesus toconsecrate a 
bishop A.D. 401, he deprived them of their 
churches, an act to which many attributed 
John’s subsequent misfortunes. Anexpression 


+ 


NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 


uttered by Chrysostom in reference to their 
peculiar views about sin after baptism, 
* Approach Seer altar) though you may have 
repented a thousand times," led to a literary 
controversy between him and the learned and 
witty Sisinnius, Novatianist bp. of Constanti- 
nople (vi. 21, 22). About 374 a schism oc- 
curred in their ranks concerning the true 
time of Easter. Hitherto the Novatianists 
had strictly observed the Catholic rule. A 
few obscure Phrygian bishops, however, con- 
vened a synod at Pazum or Pazacoma, and 
to celebrate the same day as that on 
which the Jews keep the Feast of Unleavened 
Bread. his canon was passed in the absence 
of Agelius of Constantinople, Maximus of Nice, 
and the bishops of Nicomedia and Cotyaeum, 
their leading men (iv. 28). Jewish influence 
was also at work, as Sozomen (vii. 18) tells us 
that a number of priests, converted by the 
Novatianists at Pazum during the reign of 
Valens, still retained their Jewish ideas about 
Easter. To this sect was given the name 
Protopaschitae (Cod. Theod. u.s. p. 1581, 
where severe penalties are denounced against 
them as worshippers of a different Christ 
because observing Easter otherwise than the 
orthodox). This question, when raised by a 
presbyter of Jewish birth named Sassatius, 
some 20 years later, caused a further schism 
among the Novatianists at Constantinople, 
under the episcopate of Marcian, a.p. 391; 
whence the name Sabbatiani. These finally 
coalesced with the Montanists, though we 
can trace their distinct existence till the 
middle of the 5th cent. (Socr. H. E. v. 21; 
Soz. H. E. vil. 16; Cod. Theod. u.s. pp. 
1566, 1570, 1581.) Many particulars of the 
customs of the Eastern Novatianists and 
as to their reflex influence on the church as 
regards auricular confession are in Socr. 
H. E. v. 19, 22, who in c. 19 ascribes the 
original establishment of the office of peniten- 
tiary presbyter and secret confession to the 
Novatianist schism. [Nectarius (4).] The 
succession of Novatianist patriarchs of Con- 
stantinople during the 4th cent. was Acesius, 
Agelius, Marcianus, Sisinnius (Socr. H. E. v. 
21, vi. 22; Soz. H. E. vii. 14). During the 
sth cent. 
flourish notwithstanding occasional troubles. 


In Constantinople their bishops during the_ 


first half of the cent. were Sisinnius, d. 412, 
Chrysanthus, d. 419, Paul, d. 438, and Marcian. 
They lived on amicable terms with the ortho- 
dox patriarch Atticus, who, 
their οὐκ i 
protected them from their enemies. Paul 
enjoyed the reputation of a miracle-worker, 


and died in the odour of universal sanctity, all” 
sects and parties uniting in singing psalms at | 


his funeral (Socr. ἢ. E. vii. 46). In Alex- 
andria, however, they were persecuted b 
Cyril, their bp. Theopemptus and their 


churches plundered; but they continued τὸ 


exist in large numbers in that city till the 7th 

cent., when Eulogius, Catholic patriarch of 

Alexandria, wrote a treatise against them 

tree Cod. 182, 208; Ceill. xi. 589). Even 
Scythia their churches existed, 


Marcus, a bp. from that country, present at 
the death of Paul, Novatianist bp. of Con- 
stantinople, July 21, 438. In Asia Minor they 


NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 765 


were as widely di as the Catholics. 
arts of it, in , the orthodox party seem 
or long to have been completely absorbed by 
those who took the Puritan view, ¢¢. Epipha- 
nius tells us that there were no Catholics for 
112 years in the city of Thyatira (Maer. li. ; 
Lumper, Hist. SS. PP. viii. 249). They had 
established a regular parochial system. Thus 
(in Boeckh, Corp. Gr. Inseriptt. iv. g268) we 
find at Laodicea in Lycaonia an inscription on 
a tombstone erected by one Aurelia Domna 
to her husband Paul, deacon of the holy 
church of the Novatianists, while even to- 
wards the end of the preceding century St. 
Basil, though hesitating on grounds similar to 
those of Cyprian to recognize their baptiem 
concludes in its favour on the express ground 
that it was for the advantage and profit of the 
populace that it should be received (Basil, Ep. 
clxxxviii. ad Amphiloch.; cl. R. T. Smith's 
Basil the Great, p. 119). {ter the close of the 
sth cent. we find few notices of their history. 
Their protest about the lapsed became obseo- 
lete and their adherents fell away to the 
church or to sects like the Montanists. A 
formal notice of their existence in the East 
occurs in the 95th canon of the Trullan (Quini- 
sext) council a.p. 692. In the West we have 
no such particular details of their history as 
in the East. Yet there is clear evidence of 
their widespread and long-continued influence. 
Already we have noted their extension into 
S. cankand Africa in their very earliest days. 
In Alexandria also we have noted its last 
historical manifestation. Between the middle 
of 3rd cent., when it arose, and the close of the 
sth, we find repeated indications of its exist- 
ence and power. Constantine's decree (Cod. 
Theod. XVI. v. 2, with Gothofred’s comment), 
giving them a certain restricted liberty, was 
directed to Bassus, probably vicarius of Italy. 
Towards the close of the 4th cent. we find a 
regular succession of Novatianist bishops 
existing—doubtless from Novatian's time— 
at Rome, and held in such high repute for 
iety that the emperor Theodosius granted his 
lite to the celebrated orator Symmachus on the 
prayer of the Novatianist pope Leontius, a.p. 
388. Early in the sth cent., however, pope 


the Novatianists continued to | Celestine persecuted them, deprived them of 


their churches, and compelled Rusticula their 
bishop to hold his meetings in private, an act 
which Socrates considers another proof of the 
overweening and unchristian insolence of 
the Roman see (H. E. vii. 11). In the Code 


remembering | several severe edicts were directed about the 
under the Arian persecution, same time against the Novatianists (Cod. Theod, 
| ed. Haenel, lib. xvi. tit. v. lege. $9, 


ὅς, ef. vi. 6). 
In S. Gaul, N. Italy, and Spain the sect seems 
to have taken as firm root as in Phrygia and 
central Asia Minor, Whether the original re- 
ligious teaching of the people whose C bristianity 


_ may have been imported from Africa but a short 
| time before by 


ARCELLINUS, οὐ the physical 
features, ¢.g. the mountainous character of 
these countries, may not have inclined them 
towards its stern discipline is a fair question. 


The treatises which Pacian of Barcelona and 
| Ambrose 
as we find against them are couched in language which 
| proves the sect 
πὸ and a real danger to 
‘assertion of its superior sanctity and purity. 


of Milan felt necessary to direct 


to have been then an aggressive 
the church by the 


766 NOVATUS 

Ambrose evidently wrote in answer to some 
work lately produced by them (de Poenit. lib. 
ii. c. x.). The Separatist tendency begotten 
of Novatianism in this district and continued 
through Priscillianism, Adoptionism, and 
Claudius of Turin (Neander, H. E. t. vi. 119- 
130, ed. Bohn; cf. esp. note on p. 119) may 
be a point of contact between the Novatianists 
of primitive times and the Waldenses and 
Albigenses of the middle ages. Their wide 
spread in Africa in Augustine’s time is attested 
by him, cont. Gaudent. in Opp. ed. Bened. 
(Paris), ix. 642, 794. 

The principal extant controversial works 
against the sect beside those of Cyprian are 
the epistles of St. Pacian of Barcelona, the de 
Poenitentia of St. Ambrose, and the Quaes- 
tiones in Nov. Testam. No. cii. wrongly attri- 
buted to St. Augustine and found in the 
Parisian Ben. ed. t. iii. pars. ii. 2942-2958, 
assigned by the editor to Hilary the deacon 
who lived under pope Damasus. The work 
of Pacian contains many interesting historical 
notices of the sect. From it we find they 
refused to the Catholics the name of a church, 
calling them Apostaticum, Capitolinum, or 
Synedrium, and, on their own behalf, rejected 
the name Novatianists and styled themselves 
simply Christians (Ep. ii. ὃ 3). The following 
were some of the texts relied on by them, 
to the consideration of which the writers 
on the Catholic side applied themselves: 
Isami. 11: 25): 9 Matt. x 335 exitaeqn xii 
47-49; I. Cor. vi. 18; II. Tim. ii. 20; Heb. vi. 
4-7; I. John v.15. Novatianism in the tests 
which it used, its efforts after a perfectly 
pure communion, its crotchety interpreta- 
tions of Scripture, and many other features, 
presents a striking parallel to many modern 
sects. In addition to authorities already 
quoted, see Ceillier, ii. 427, et passim; Walch, 
Ketzerhist. ii. 185; Natal. Alex. ed. Mansi, 
5860. iii. c. iii. art. iv. ; Tillem. Mém.; Bingham, 
Opp. t. vi. 248, 570, viii. 233 (ed. Lond. 1840); 
Gieseler, H. E. i. 284 (ed. Clark); Neander, 
H. E. (ed. Bohn), i. 330-345. For an account 
of recent literature on the subject see Barden- 
hewer’s Patrology, p. 220. [α.τ.5.] 

Novatus (1), presbyter of Carthage, seems 
to have been an original opponent of Cyprian’s 
election, but is first mentioned by him in Ep. 
xiv. ὃ 5, with three other presbyters—Donatus, 
Fortunatus, and Gordius—as having written 
about some question to Cyprian then in retire- 
ment. This was, doubtless, touching the re- 
quest of the confessors, to have peace granted 
to certain of the lapsed which, in Ep. 1., 
Cyprian refuses until he has consulted the 
presbyters and faithful laity. Cyprian re- 
proves certain presbyters, evidently Novatus 
and his companions, who, ‘ considering 
neither the fear of God nor the honour of the 
bishop,’’ kad already granted peace to the 
lapsed. In Ep. xliii., writing to the church 
of Carthage, he compares Novatus and his 
associates to the five chief commissioners 
entrusted with the conduct of the persecution, 
and, as it seems, intimates that they threat- 
ened to raise a riot upon his appearance from 
his place of retirement. In Ep. lii. 3 Cyprian, 
writing to Cornelius, gives a very bad char- 
acter of Novatus. Cyprian’s feelings may 
have here coloured his judgment, as such a 


OLYMPIAS 


bishop as he was could scarcely have tolerated 
such a bad man in the presbyterate. Cyprian 
describes Novatus as having made his follower 
Felicissimus a deacon, and then ‘‘ at Rome 
committing greater and more grievous crimes. 
He who at Carthage made a deacon against 
the church, there made a bishop,” 1.6. that he 
brought about the ordination of both the 
deacon and bishop. Ep. xliii. 2 proves that 
Cyprian’s wrath was, however, specially stirred 
by some anti-episcopal innovations of Novatus 
and his party. After the consecration of 
Novatian, Novatus was sent by him to organize 
his party in Africa (Cyp. Ep. 1.). After this 
he disappears from sight. Cf. Dr. Pusey’s 
note upon him, appended to Cyprian, Ep. lii. 
in Oxf. Lib. of Fathers. Milman, Lat. Christ. 
t. i. pp. 60-62 (ed. Lond. 1867). [α.τ.5.] 


O 


Oceanus, a Roman of noble birth, connected 
with Fabiola and the Julian family ; a friend 
of Jerome, Augustine, and Pammachius. He 
probably became known to Jerome during his 
stay in Rome in 383-385. He first appears as 
making a public protest against Carterius, a 
Spanish bp. who, having married before his 
baptism and lost his wife, had, as a Christian, 
married a second wife. Jerome points out 
that there is no law condemning such marri- 
ages and urges silence; c. 397. Either in 397 
or 396 Oceanus, with Fabiola, visited Jerome 
at Bethlehem, whence they were driven by 
fear of Hunnish invasion. While there, he 
apparently met Rufinus, who, according to 
Jerome’s insinuation (adv. Ruf. 111. 4), had 
an Origenistic document placed in Oceanus’s 
room in Fabiola’s house, hoping to identify 
him with that tendency. Rufinus having 
gone to Rome (397) and having published 
shortly afterwards his edition of Origen’s Περὶ 
᾿Αρχῶν, Oceanus and Pammachius watched his 
actions with critical eyes, and, on the appear- 
ance of the work, wrote to Jerome (Hieron. 
Ep. 83) asking him to deny the insinuation of 
Rufinus that he was only completing a work 
begun by Jerome, and to furnish them with a 
true translation of Origen’s work. Oceanus, 
no doubt, took part in the subsequent pro- 
ceedings which led to the condemnation of 
Origenism at Rome. On the death of Fabiola, 
c. 399, Jerome wrote to Oceanus her Epita- 
phium (Ep. 77), accompanied by his exposi- 
tion, which had been intended for her, of the 
42 resting-places of the Israelites in the desert. 
In 411 Oceanus, who had maintained his 
correspondence with Jerome, and possessed 
his books against Rufinus and other of his 
works, interested himself specially in the 
Pelagian controversy on the origin of souls. 
Jerome writes to Marcellinus and Anapsy- 
chius (Ep. 126) who had consulted him on 
this, referring them to Oceanus as one 
thoroughly “ learned in the law of the Lord” 
and capable of instructing them. Augustine 
writes to Oceanus in 416 on the same subject, 
and on the reproof of St. Peter by St. Paul at 
Antioch. [w.H.F.] 

Olympias (2), the younger, widow, a cele- 
brated deaconess of the church of Constan- 


OLYMPIAS 


tinople, the most eminent of the band of holy 
and high-born women whom Chrysostom 
gathered round him. Her family was of high 
rank, but pagan. Her birth is placed by 
Tillemont c. 368. She was left at an early 
age the orphan heiress of an immense fortune. 
Happily for her, her uncle and guardian, Pro- 
copius, was a man of high character, an in- 
timate friend and correspondent of Gregory 
Nazianzen. She was equally fortunate in her 
instructress, Theodosia, the sister of St. Am- 
philochius of Iconium, whom Gregory desired 
the young girl to set before her constantly as 
a pattern. During Gregory's residence at 
Constantinople, 379-381, he became much 
attached to the bright and beautiful maiden, 
then probably about 12 years old, calling her 
“his own Olympias,’’ and delighted to be 
called “ father'’ by her (Greg. Naz. Ep. 57; 
Cann. 57, pp. 132, 134). Olympias had many 
suitors. The one selected by her guardian, 
Procopius, was Nebridius, a young man of 
high rank and excellent character, whom she 
married in 384. There can be little doubt 
that her married life was not a happy one 
(Pallad. Dial. p. 164). In less than two years 
she was left a widow without children. She 
regarded this early bereavement as a declara- 
tion of the divine will that she was unsuited 
to the married life, and ought not again to be 
married. Theodosius desired her to wed 
Elpidius, a young Spanish kinsman of his. 
But Olympias steadily refusing to listen to his 
suit, Theodosius commissioned the prefect of 
the city to take the whole of her property into 
‘public custody until she attained her 30th 
year. The imperial orders were carried out 
with so much harshness that she was even 
forbidden to go to church for her devotions, 
or to enjoy the congenial society of the lead- 
ing ecclesiastics. Theodosius soon restored 
to her the management of her estates (#b.), 
and thenceforward she devoted herself and 
her wealth entirely to the service of religion, 
practising the greatest austerities. Her 
whole time and strength were given to minis- 
tering to the wants of the poor and sick, and 
to the hospitable entertainment of bishops and 
other ecclesiastics visiting the imperial city, 
who never left her roof without large pecuniary 
aid, sometimes in the form of a farm or an 
estate, towards their religious works. Among 
these Palladius enumerates Amphilochius, 
Optimus, the two brothers of Basil, Gregory 
Nyssen (who dedicated to her the Commentary 
on a portion of the Song of Solomon, which he 
had written at her request, Greg. Nys. in 
Cant. t. i. p. 468), Peter, Epiphanius of 
Cyprus, and the three who pe 7, ead be- 
came the unwearied persecutors of Chrysostom 
and even of Olympias herself, Acacius, Atticus, 
and Severianus. Her house was the common 
home of the clergy, and of the monks and 
virgins who swarmed from all parts of the 
Christian world to Constantinople. She was 
the victim of much imposition and her charity 
was grievously abused. Indeed, her liberality 
was so unrestricted and inconsiderate that 
Chrysostom interposed his authority to limit 
it, saying that her wealth was a trust from 
God which she was bound to use in the most 


OLYMPIAS 767 


opulent and covetous (Soz. H. Ε. will. 9). 
Olympias followed Chrysostom'’s advice, 
which brought upon her the ill-will of those 
who had apres her lavish generosity. 

When still under 30 years of age Olympias 
was appointed by Nectarius deaconess of the 
church of Constantinople. The courtly old 
»relate consulted her on ecclesiastical matters, 
in which he was a novice, and was guided by 
her advice (Pallad. p. 166; Sox. H. B. vill. 9). 
She retained this position under Chrysostom 
and became his chief counsellor and active 
agent in all works of piety and charity, not 
only in Constantinople, but in distant pro- 
vinces of the church. 

On the arrival of the Nitrian monks known 
as the Tall Brothers in Constantinople in 401, 
Olympias received them hospitably (Pallad. 
Ῥ. 153), careless of the indignant remon- 
strances of Theophilus (ἐδ. p. 155). On Chry- 
sostom’s final expulsion from Constantinople, 
be 3 20, 404, Olympias was the chief of the 

and of courageous women who assembled in 
the baptistery of the church to take a last 
farewell of their deeply loved bishop and 
friend, and to receive his parting benediction 
and commands (ἐδ. 89, 90). Suspicion of 
having caused the fire in the cathedral which 
immediately followed the departure of Chry- 
sostom from its walls fell on Olympias and 
the other ladies. Olympias was brought 
before the prefect Optatus, who bluntly de- 
manded why she had set the church on fire. 
He proposed that on condition of her entering 
into communion with Arsacius, as some other 
ladies had done, the investigation should be 
dropped and she freed from further annoy- 
ance. Olympias’s proud spirit indignantly 
rejected the base compromise. A false charge 
had been publicly brought against her, of 
which her whole manner of hfe, which the 
prefect could not be ignorant of, was a sufh- 
cient refutation. The trouble brought on 
Olympias a severe and almost fatal illness. 
On recovering her health, in the spring of 405, 
she left Constantinople. Sozomen seems to 
speak of a voluntary retirement to Cyzicus. 
But the language of Chrysostom (Fp. 16, 
p. 603 c) leads us to believe that she was 
never allowed to remain long in one spot, ber 
ersecutors hoping that thus her spirit might 
e broken and she induced to yield. This 
hope being frustrated, Olympias was once 
again summoned before Optatus, who, on her 
renewed refusal to communicate with Arsacius, 
imposed a heavy fine of 200 pounds of gold 
(Soz. H. E. viii. 24; Pallad. p. 28). This was 
readily paid, and the news of Olympias’s 
heroic disregard of all worldly losses and 
sufferings for truth’s sake gave intense joy 
to Chrysostom in his banishment. He wrote 
‘congratulating her on her victory, calling 
upon her to glorify God Who had enabled her 
Ι τὸ acquire such great spiritual gain (Chrys. 
| Ep. τὰ, Ρ. 604 a). We know nothing very 
definitely of the remainder of her life. Our 
only trustworthy information is from Chry- 
sostom’s 17 letters to her, some of which are 
long religious tracts, the composition of which 
| relieved the tedium of bis exile and made him 
almost forget his miseries. We gather from 


them that Olympias was subject to frequent 


dent r for the relief of the r 
oP aeati€ate, not ἢ ἡ" and severe attacks of , and that the 


and destitute, not in making presents to the 


768 OPTATUS 


persecution of the party of Arsacius and 
Atticus was violent and unsparing. The 
compulsory dispersion of the society of young 
females of which she was head, and who, like 
her, had refused to hold communion with the 
intruding bishops, was a great sorrow to her 
(tb. 4, p. 577 A). But the dates of these 
letters are uncertain. The style in which she 
is addressed in this correspondence is “ αἱ 
once respectful, affectionate, and paternal’’ 
(Stephens, 5. Chrysostom, p. 383), ‘‘ but it ex- 
hibits a highly-wrought complimentary” tone, 
full of ‘‘ bold and lavish praise ”’ of her many 
signal virtues which is ‘‘ too widely remote 
from the mind and taste of our own times to 
be fairly estimated by us.’’? Chrysostom 
wrote for her consolation a special treatise on 
the theme that ‘No one is really injured 
except by himself’’ (t. iii. pp. 530-553); as 
well as one ‘‘to those who were offended by 
adversities’’ (7b. pp. 555-612). To both of 
these he refers in his 4th letter to her (Ep. 4, 
p- 576 c). The date of her death cannot be 
determined. She was living when Palladius 
pub. his Dialogue in 408, but not when the 
Lausiac History was pub. in 420. [E.v.] 

Optatus (6), bp. of Milevis, or Mileum 
(Milah), in Numidia, 25 m. N.W. of Cirta 
(Shaw, Trav. p. 63), a vigorous opponent of 
the Donatists. He himself says that he wrote 
about 60 years, or rather more, after the per- 
secution under Diocletian. St. Jerome speaks 
of him as having written during the reigns of 
Valentinian and Valens, a.p. 365-378. But 
in bk. ii. of his treatise Siricius is mentioned 
as bp. of Rome, ‘‘ qui est noster socius.”’ As 
Siricius did not succeed Damasus until 384, 
he may have outlived the period mentioned by 
St. Jerome and himself inserted these words 
later. The date of his death, however, is un- 
known. St. Augustine mentions him once in 
the same sentence as St. Ambrose, and else- 
where as a church-writer of high authority, 
even among Donatists. (Opt. c. Don. i. 13, 
ll. 3; Hieron. Vir. Illustr. c. 110, vol. ii. 
p. 706; Aug. c. Don. ep. (de Unit. Eccl.) το, 
50; 6. Parm. i. 3, 5; Brevic. Coll. 20, 38; 
Doctr. Christ. ii. 40, 61; Baronius, Ann. vol. 
lv. p. 243; Morcelli, 4fr. Chr. ii. 275 ; Dupin, 
Optatus Praef. τ.) 

His treatise against the Donatists is in the 
form of a letter to Parmenian, Donatist bp. 
of Carthage, in six books, with a seventh of 
doubtful authenticity. 

Bk. i. opens with a eulogy of peace, which 
he complains that the Donatists set at nought 
by reviling the Catholics. He adds some 
compliments to Parmenian, as the only one 
of his party with whom he can communicate 
freely, and regrets being compelled to doso by 
letter because they refuse to meet for confer- 
ence. Five points put forward by Parmenian 
call for discussion, to which Optatus adds a 
sixth. (1) In accusing Catholics of ‘“ tradi- 
tion,” particulars ought to be specified of time 
and place. (2) The true church ought to be 
defined. (3) Which side was really respon- 
sible for calling in the aid of the soldiers. (4) 
What Parmenian means by “ sinners’ whose 
“oil and sacrifice’? God rejects. (5) The 
question of baptism. (6) The riotous andrash 
acts of the Donatists. Optatus finds fault 
with Parmenian for his inconsiderate language 


OPTATUS 


about our Lord’s baptism, to the effect that 
His flesh required to be ‘‘ drowned in the 
flood”’ of Jordan to remove its impurity. If 
the baptism of Christ’s body were intended to 
suffice for the baptism of each single person, 
there might be some truth in this, but we are 
baptized, in virtue not of the flesh of Christ, 
but of His name, and moreover we cannot 
believe that even His flesh contracted sin, for 
it was more pure than Jordan itself. The 
purpose of Optatus is to shew that it was not 
the church which cast off the Donatists, but 
they who separated from the church, follow- 
ing the example of Korah and his company. 
When they disclaim the right of princes to 
interfere in the affairs of the church they con- 
tradict their forefathers, who, in the matter 
of Caecilian, petitioned Constantine to grant 
them judges from Gaul instead of from Africa. 

In bk. 11. Optatus discusses what the church, 
the dove and bride of Christ, is (Cant. vi. 9). 
Its holiness consists in the sacraments and is 
not to be measured by the pride of men. It 
is universal, not limited, as Parmenian would 
have it, to a corner of Africa, for if so where 
would be the promises of Pss. ii. 8, Ixxii. 8 ? 
And the merits of the Saviour would be re- 
stricted, Pss. cxiii. 3, xcvi. 7. The church 
has five gifts: (1) The chair of Peter. (2) The 
angel inseparably attached to that chair, 
apparently the power of conferring spiritual 
gifts, which resides in the centre of episcopal 
unity. Parmenian must be aware that the 
episcopal chair was conferred from the be- 
ginning on Peter, the chief of the apostles, that 
unity might be preserved among the rest and 
no one apostle set up arival. This chair, with 
whose exclusive claim for respect the little 
Donatist community can in no way compete, 
carries with it necessarily the ‘‘ angel”’ (‘‘ducit 
adseangelum’’), unless the Donatists have this 
gift enclosed for their own use in a narrow 
space, and excluding the seven angels of St. 
John (Rev. i.), with whom they have no com- 
munion; or if they possess one of these, let 
them send him to other churches: otherwise 
their case falls to the ground. (3) The holy 
spirit of adoption, which Donatists claim ex- 
clusively for themselves, applying to Catholics 
unjustly the words of our Lord about pro- 
selytism (Matt. xxiii. 15). (4) The fountain 
(probably faith) of which heretics cannot par- 
take, and (5) its seal, ‘‘ annulus” (probably 
baptism) (Cant. iv. 12). A want of clearness 
in the language of Optatus renders his mean- 
ing here somewhat doubtful. The Donatists 
add a sixth gift, the ‘‘ umbilicus’”’ of Cant. 
vii. 2, which they regard as the altar; but 
this, being an essential part of the body, can- 
not be a separate gift. These gifts belong to 
the church in Africa, from which the Donatists 
have cut themselves off, as also from the 
priesthood, which they seek by rebaptism to 


annul, though they do not rebaptize their own’ 


returned seceders. But these gifts belong to 
the bride, not the bride to them. They re- 
gard them as the generating power of the 
church instead of the essentials (viscera), viz. 
the sacraments, which derive their virtue 
from the Trinity. Parmenian truly com- 
pares the church to a garden, but it is God 
Who plants the trees therein, some of which 
Donatists seek to exclude. In offering the 


OPTATUS 


sacrifice to God in the Eucharist, they profess | 
to offer for the one church, but by their re- | 
baptism they really make two churches. | 
Thanking Parmenian for his language about. 
the church, which, however, he claims as_ 
applicable to the Catholic church alone, he 
challenges him to point out any act of perse- 
cution on its part. Constantine took pains 
to restore peace and suppress idolatry, but 
another emperor, who declared himself an 
apostate, when he restored idolatry allowed 
the Donatists to return, a permission for the 
acceptance of which they ought to blush. It 
was about this time that the outrages broke 
out in Africa [Fexix (185) ; UrsBanus], of 
which when Primosus complained, the Dona- 
tist council at Theneste took no notice. They 
compelled women under vows to disregard 
them and perform a period of penance, and 
deposed from his office Donatus bp. of Tysedis. 
Yet they speak of holiness as if Christ gave it 
without conditions, and take every oppor- 
tunity of casting reproach on church ordin- 
ances, fulfiling the words of Ezek. xiii. 20. 

In bk. iii., after going over some of the 
former ground, laying the blame of the schism 
on the Donatists, Optatus applies to them 
several passages of Scripture, esp. Pss. Ixxxvii., 
exlvii.; Isa. ii. 3, xxii. 1, 9. 

In bk. iv., disclaiming all unfriendly feeling 
and appealing to the common possessions of 
both parties, Optatus charges them with in- 
fraction of unity by appointment of bishops, 
proselytism, forbidding social intercourse, and 
perversely applying to Catholics Scripture 
aye ee directed against obstinate heretics, 
as I. Cor. v. 11, II. John ro. 

In bk. v. Optatus returns to the oft-re- 
peated subject of rebaptism. The repetition 
of baptism, he says, is an insult to the Trinity, 
worse than the doctrines of Praxeas and the 
Patripassians. Three elements are requisite: 
μὴ) the Trinity, (2) the minister, (3) the faith- 
ul receiver; but of these the Donatists exalt 
the second above the other two. They use 
as a quotation words not found in Scripture, 
“How can a man give what he has not re- 
ceived ?’’ (see I. Cor. iv. 7); but in baptism 
God alone is the giver of grace. As it 185 not 
the dyer who changes the colour of his wool, | 
so neither does the minister of himself change 
the operation of baptism. Of two candidates | 
for baptism, if one refused to renounce while 
the other consented, there can be no doubt 
which of them received baptism effectually. | 
By rebaptizing, Donatists rob Christians of 
their marriage-garment, which suits all ages 
and conditions of life. The rebaptized will 
rise no doubt at the last day, but will rise. 
naked, and the voice of the Master will be 
heard, “‘ Friend, I once knew thee, and gave 
thee a marriage-garment. Who has despoiled 
thee of it? Into what trap, amongst what 
thieves hast thou fallen?” ; 

In bk. vi. he repeats some previous charges, - 
and adds others, how they destroyed altars, 
the ‘‘ seats of Christ’s Body and Blood," at 
which they themselves must have offered. | 
They have broken up chalices and sold them 
to women and even to pagans, yet they quote 
Hagg. ii. 14; but even impurity of men does | 
not profane the vessels of service (see Num. 


xvi. 37, 38). 


ORIGENES τοῦ 


Bk. vii., which is not mentioned by St. 
erome, but which may on good MS. grounds 
ascribed to Optatus, is supplementary and 
answers a fresh Donatist complaint, that if 
they are the children of “ traditors,”’ as Op- 
tatus says, they ought to be let alone, and no 
attempt made to “reconcile them; but, 
says Optatus, though their fathers deserved 
to be excluded, there is no reason why they 
should be so, for the church repels no baptized 
persons. Christ allows two sorts of seed to 
grow in His field, and no bishop has power to 
do what the apostles could not, viz. separate 
them. They might have refused to communi- 
cate with Peter because he denied his Lord, 
yet he retained the keys given him by Christ. 
The work of Optatus is more important 
historically than doctrinally. As a theo- 
logical treatise it is often loose and rambling, 
with frequent repetition ; but it exposes with 
clearness and force the inconsistency of the 
Donatists, and of all who, like them, fix their 
attention exclusively on the ethical side of 
religion, estimated by an arbitrary standard 
of opinion, to the disregard of other conditions 
of the greatest importance in the constitu- 
tion of a church. How perversely and incon- 
sistently the Donatists applied this principle 
in the matter of rebaptism Optatus again 
and again demonstrates. That there was a 
doctrine of rebaptism in the African church, 
to which Cyprian had lent the weight of his 
authority, there can be no doubt; but with 
him it was directed against heretics, on the 
rinciple that the followers of Marcion, 
raxeas, and the like, were in fact not truly 
Christians and thus their baptism was value- 
less. But Optatus is never weary of urgin 
that though by their own act Donatists had 
incurred the charge of schism, the church did 
not regard them as heretics, and that they 
ought not to treat as heretical their brethren. 
Dupin's ed. (1702, fol.) is the groundwork of 
all subsequent editions. It has been re- 
printed in vol. xi. of Migne’s Patr. Lat., but the 
map is smaller and less clear than in Dupin's 
folio, and all documents previous to 362 are in 
vol. viii. of the Pair. Lat. An accountof Optatus 
and his writings will be found in Ceillier, vol. v. 
The latest ed. is by Ziwsa (1893), in Corpus 
Ser. Eccl. Lat. xxvi. (Vienna). See Sparrow 
Simpson's St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions 
(1910), pp. 42 ff. (uw...) 
mes. Sources.—The main authority 
for the details of Origen'’s Life is Eusebius 
(H. E. vi.), who collected upwards of 100 
letters of Origen (ἐδ. 36). These, together 
with official documents (1). 23, 11) and in- 
formation from those acquainted with Origen 
(1b. 2, 33), formed the basis of his narrative. 
His account of the most critical period of 
Origen’s life, his retirement from Alexandria, 
was given in bk. ii. of his Apology, which he 
composed with the help of Pamphilus (#6, 25). 
This unhappily has not been preserved. 
Origen’s own writings give but few details 
of his life. But the loss of his letters is ir- 
reparable. They would have given a fuller 
picture of the man, even if they gave little 
additional information on the outward cir- 
cumstances of his life. 
Of modern authorities, see Tillemont, 
fémoires; Lardner, Credibslity; Ceillicr, 


4υ 


770 ORIGENES 


Auteurs sacrés; Lumper, Hist. Patrum Theol. 
Critica; Walch, Gesch. d. Ketz.; Du Pin, 
Nouvelle bibliothéque des auteurs ecclés. 

His life and doctrine have been discussed, 
with special reference to his historical position 
in the development of Christian thought, by 
Guericke, de Schola Alex. Catech. (1825); 
Neander, Kirch. Gesch.; Thomasius, Origenes 
(1837); Redepenning, Origenes (1841-1846) ; 
Moehler, Patrol. (1840); Huber, Philos d. Kir- 
chenvater (1859); Schaff, Church Hist. (1867) ; 
De Pressensé, Hist. des trois premiers siécles 
(1858-1877); Boehringer, Kirchengesch. in 
Biogr. Klemens u. Origenes (1869, 2‘* Aufl.). 

Life-—Origen was probably born at Alex- 
andria (Eus. H. Ε. vi. 1), but whether of 
Egyptian, Greek, or mixed descent is not 
known. The loose phrase of Porphyry, that 
he ‘‘ was a Greek and reared in Greek studies ”’ 
(ib. 19), is in itself of little value, but the name 
of his father (Leonides) points in the same 


direction. His mother’s name has not been 
preserved. May she have been of Jewish 
descent ? He is said to have learnt Hebrew 


so well that in singing the psalms “ he vied 
with his mother’’ (Hieron. Ep. 39 [22], ὃ 1). 

Origen’s full name was Origenes Adamantius. 
Origenes was the name of one contemporary 
philosopher of distinction, and occurs else- 
where. Adamantius has commonly been 
regarded as an epithet describing Origen’s 
unconquerable endurance, or for the invin- 
cible force of his arguments. -But the langu- 
age of Eusebius (H. EF. vi. 14) and of Jerome 
(de Vir. Ill. 54, ‘‘Origenes qui et Adamantius’’) 
shews that it was a second name, and not a 
mere adjunct. His father, Leonides, suffered 
martyrdom in the persecution of the roth 
year of Severus (202), and Origen had not 
then completed his 17th year (Eus. H. E. vi. 2). 
He must have been born therefore a.p. 185- 
186, a date consistent with the statement (2b. 
vii. 1) that he died in his 69th year, in the 
reign of Gallus (A.D. 251-254). In Origen we 
have the first record of a Christian boyhood, 
and he was ‘‘ great from the cradle.’’ His 
education was superintended by his father, 
who especially directed him to the study of 
Scripture. The child’s eager inquiries into 
the deeper meaning of the words he committed 
to memory caused perplexity to his father, 
who, while openly checking his son’s pre- 
mature curiosity, silently thanked God for the 
promise he gave for the future. Origen be- 
came the pupil of Pantaenus (after his return 
from India) and Clement, in whose school he 
met Alexander, afterwards bp. of Jerusalem 
(ib. vi. 14), with whom he then laid the foun- 
dation of that life-long friendship which 
supported him in his sorest trials. 

When Leonides was thrown into prison, 
Origen wished to share his fate, but was 
hindered by his mother. He addressed a 
letter to his father—his first recorded writing, 
still extant in the time of Eusebius—in which 
he prayed him to allow no thought for his 
family to shake his resolution. This shews 
the position of influence which Origen already 
enjoyed in his family. Leonides was put to 
death and his property confiscated. Upon 
this the young Origen seems to have fulfilled 
the promise his wordsimplied. Partly by the 
assistance of a pious and wealthy lady, and 


of his friends. 


ORIGENES 


partly by teaching, he supported himself and 
(as may be concluded) his mother and brothers. 
Already he collected a library. At first he 
gave lessons in literature ; but as the Christian 
school was without a teacher, all having been 
scattered by the persecution, he was induced 
to give instruction in the faith. Thus in his 
18th year he was, at first informally, the head 
of the Christian school in Alexandria in a 
season of exceptional danger. He was so 
successful that Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria, 
soon definitely committed to him the office. 
The charge decided the tenor of his life. 
Origen henceforth devoted himself exclusively 
to the office of a Christian teacher, and to 
ensure his independence sold his collection of 
classical writers for an annuity of four oboli 
(sixpence) a day, on which he lived for many 
years, refusing the voluntary contributions 
his friends offered him (7b. 3). His position is 
a remarkable illustration of the freedom of the 
early church. He was a layman and yet 
recognized as a leading teacher. His work 
was not confined to any district. Numbers of 
men and women flocked to his lectures, 
attracted partly by his stern simplicity of life, 
which was a guarantee of his sincerity. For 
he resolved to fulfil without reserve the pre- 
cepts of the Gospel. For many years he went 
barefoot, wore only a single robe (Matt. x. 10), 
and slept upon the ground. His food and 
sleep were rigorously limited (7b.). Nor did 
his unmeasured zeal stop here. In the same 
spirit of sacrifice he applied to himself literally 
the words of Matt. xix. 12, though wishing to 
conceal the act from most of his friends. 
Origen’s own comment on the words of the 
Gospel which he had misunderstood is a most 
touching confession of his error (in Matt. 1. 
xv. 1ff.). But for the time the purpose of 
the act was accepted as its excuse. 

For 12 or 13 years he was engaged in these 
happy and successful labours; and it was 
probably during this period that he formed 
and partly executed his plan of a comparative 
view of the LXX with other Greek versions 
of O.T. and with the original Hebrew text, 
though the work was slowly elaborated as 
fresh materials came to his hands (Eus. 
H. E. vi. 16). A short visit to Rome in the 
time of Zephyrinus, to see ‘‘ the most ancient 
church of the Romans” (7b. 14), and an 
authoritative call to Arabia (7b. 19) alone 
seem to have interrupted his labours. Perse- 
cution tested the fruit of his teaching. He 
had the joy of seeing martyrs trained in his 
school; and his own escapes from the violence 
of the people were held to be due to the special 
protection of Providence (ib. 4, f. 3). | During 
the same period he devoted himself with re- 
newed vigour to the study of non-Christian 
thought, and attended the lectures of Am- 
monius Saccas (cf. Porphyry, ap. Eus. H. E. 
vi. 19; Theod. Graec. Affect. Cur. vi. p. 96). - 
Heretics and Gentiles attended his lectures, 
and he felt bound to endeavour to understand 
their opinions thoroughly that he might the 
better correct them (cf. c. Cels. vi. 24). This 
excited ill-will, but he was able to defend 
himself, as he did in a letter written at a later 
time (Ep. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 19), by the 
example of his predecessors and the support 
His work grew beyond his 


lll ORIGEN 


strength, and Heraclas joined him in the 
catechetical school. Heraclas had been one 
of his first converts and scholars, and the 
brother of a martyr (Eus. H. FE. vi. 3). He 
was a fellow-student with Origen under “ his 
teacher of philosophy "’ (Ammonius Saccas) ; 


and when he afterwards became bp. of Alex-. 


andria he did not med aside the dress or the 
reading of a philosopher (ἐδ. 19). 

ΑἹ length, c. 215, a tumult of unusual 
violence (ἐδ. 19; Clinton, Fasté Romani, i. 
224 f.) forced Origen to withdraw from Egypt 
to Caesarea in Palestine. 
tion brought him into a prominence which 
occasioned his later troubles. His fellow- 
pupil Alexander bp. of Jerusalem, and Theoc- 
tistus (Theotecnus; Photius, Cod. 118) bp. 
of Caesarea, begged him to expound the 
Scriptures in the public services of the church, 
though he had not been ordained. Deme- 


trius of Alexandria expressed strong dis-_ 


approbation of a proceeding he described as 
unprecedented. Alexander and Theoctistus 
produced precedents. Demetrius replied by 
recalling Origen to Alexandria, and hastened 
his return by special envoys, deacons of the 
church (Eus. H. E. vi. το). Origen’s stay in 
Palestine was of somelength, andit was prob- 
ably during this time he made his famous 
visit to Mamaea, the mother of the emperor 
Alexander (ἰδ. 21), herself a native of Syria. 
Some time after his return to Alexandria 


(c. 219), Origen began his written expositions | 


of Scripture, largely through the influence of 
Ambrose, whom he had rescued not long 
before from the heresy of Valentinus, or as 
Jerome says of Marcion (Hieron. de Vir. Jil. 
56). Ambrose provided him with more than 
seven shorthand writers (ταχυγράφοι) to take 
down his comments and other scribes to make 
fair copies (Eus. H. E. vi. 23). 


These literary occupations threw Origen’s| 


work in the catechetical school yet more upon 
Heraclas. At the same time the first parts of 
Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of St. John 
marked him out more decisively than before 


as a teacher in the church even more than in| 


the school. But the exhibition of this new 


power was accompanied by other signs of ἃ. 


bold originality which might well startle those 


unfamiliar with the questionings of philo-. 


sophy. The books On First Principles, which 
seem to have been written spontaneously, 
made an epoch in Christian speculation, as the 
Comm. on St. John did in Christian interpreta- 
tion. Under such circumstances it is not 
surprising that Demetrius yielded, in the 
words of Eusebius, to the infirmity of human 
nature (7b. 8) and wished to check the boldness 
and influence of the layman. It became clear 
that Origen must seek elsewhere than in 
Alexandria free scope for his Scriptural studies. 
After he had laboured there for more than 25 
years, the occasion came in an invitation to 
visit Achaia for the purpose, as it seems, of 
combating some false opinions which had 
arisen there (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 54). The 
exact date is uncertain, but probably between 
226 and 230. On the way Origen visited 
Caesarea, and sought counsel from his oldest 
friends as to his future course. No record 
remains of their deliberations, but Origen was 
ordained presbyter “‘ by the bishops there ”’ 


Here his reputa- 


ORIGENES 771 


| (Bus. H. E. vi. 23), Theoctistus of Caesarea and 
Alexander of Jerusalem (Hieron. de Vir. 111. 
44: Phot. Cod. 118). Origen then visited 
Ephesus (Ep. Fragm. ap. Ruf. Apol., Delarue, 
|i. p. 6), and stayed some time at Athena. 
| During this stay he probably heard some of the 
teachers of philosophy there (Epiph. Haer. 
Ixiv. τὴ. At length, having completed his 
mission, he returned to Alexandria, where he 
could not have been unprepared for the 
reception which awaited him from Demetrius. 
Demetrius had probably shewn clear un- 
willingness to admit him to the priesthood. 
| At any rate, the fact that Origen received 
orders from Palestinian bishops without his 
| consent might be construed as a direct chal- 
lenge of his authority. Origen at once per- 
ceived that he must retire before the rising 
storm. The preface to bk. vi. of the Comm, 
on St. John shews how deeply he felt the 
severance of old ties and the hostility of former 
|colleagues. In 2341 he left Alexandria never 
[ἴο return; and his influence to the last is 
shewn by the fact that he “ left the charge of 
the catechetical school" to his coadjutor 
Heraclas (Eus. H. E. vi. 26). It is difficult 
to trace the different stages in the condemna- 
tion which followed. Photius (Cod. 118), 
following the Apology of Pamphilus and 
Eusebius, gives the most intelligible and con- 
sistent account. According to him Demetrius, 
completely alienated from Origen by his 
ordination, collected a synod of ** bishops and 
a few presbyters,"’ which decided that Origen 
should not be allowed to stay or teach at 
Alexandria. Demetrius afterwards excom- 
municated Origen. Jerome describes with 
greater severity the spirit of Demetrius’s 
proceedings, and adds that ‘‘ he wrote on the 
subject to the whole world" (de Var. Ill. 54) 
and obtained a judgment against Origen from 
Rome (Ep. 33 bol § 4). So far the facts 
are tolerably clear, but in the absence of 
trustworthy evidence it is impossible to tell 
on what points the condemnation really 
turned. Demetrius unquestionably laid great 
stress on formal irregularities (Eus. H. &. vi. 
| 8), and the sentence against him may have 
been based on these. Origen's oe were 
probably displeasing to many, and no ieee δ 
was made to reverse the judgment after the 
death of Demetrius, which followed very 
shortly, and perhaps within three years, when 
Heraclas, the pupil and colleague of Origen, 
succeeded to the episcopate. Nor again was 
anything done by Dicayslus, the successor of 
Heraclas, another devoted scholar of Origen, 
| who still continued his intercourse with bis 
former master (ἐν. 46). Whatever the 
grounds of Origen's condemnation, the judg- 
ment of the Egyptian synod was treated with 
absolute disregard by the bishops of Palestine, 
| Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaea (Hieron. Ep. 
33), and Origen defended himself w y 
(Hieron. Apol. adv. Ruf. li. 18). He soon 
| afterwards settled at Caesarea, which became 
'for more than 20 years, up to his death, the 
lcentre of his labours. It had indeed not a 
‘few of the advantages of Alexandria, as a 
| great seaport, the civil capital, and the 
ecclesiastical metropolis of its district. 

Here Origen found ungrudging sympathy 
and help for his manifold labours. Alexander 


772 ORIGENES 


of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea 
remained devoted to him; and Firmilian of 
Caesarea in Cappadocia was no less zealous in 
seeking his instruction (Eus. H. E. vi. 27; 
Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 54). Ambrose was with 
him to stimulate his literary efforts. He 
formed afresh something of ἃ catechetical 
school, with a continual succession of distin- 
guished students. He was unwearied in the 
public exposition of Scripture, which he 
explained popularly to mixed congregations 
in the church, to Christians and to catechu- 
mens (Hom. in Ezech. vi. 5), as a rule on 
Wednesdays and Fridays (Socr. H. E. v. 22), 
but often daily, and even oftener than once a 
day. His subjects were sometimes taken from 
the lessons (Hom. in Num. xv. 1; tn I. Sam. 
ii. § 1), sometimes specially prescribed by an 
authoritative request (Hom. in Ezech. xiii. 1). 
His aim was the edification of the people 
generally (Hom. in Lev. vil. 1; tn Jud. viii. 
3); and not unfrequently he was constrained 
to speak, as he wrote, with some reserve, on 
the deeper mysteries of the faith (Hom. in 
Num. iv. 3; tm Lev. xiii. 3; im Ezech. i. 3; 
4n) ROM. Vile τ, ΡῈ τά) ΠΤ ep. 12720 
cf. Hom. in Jos. xxiil. 4 s.f.; in Gen. xii. I, 4). 

These labours were interrupted by the per- 
secution of Maximin (235-237). Ambrose 
and Protectetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, were 
among the victims. Origen addressed to 
them in prison his Exhortation to Martyrdom. 
He himself escaped (Eus. H. E. vi. 28). Dur- 
ing part of the time of persecution he was 
apparently with Firmilian in Cappadocia, and 
is said to have there enjoyed the hospitality 
of a Christian lady Juliana, who had some 
books of Symmachus, the translator of O.T. 
(cf. Hieron. l.c.; Pallad. Hist. Laus. 147). 

In 238, or perhaps 237, Origen was again 
at Caesarea, and Gregory (Thaumaturgus) 
delivered the Farewell Address, which is the 
most vivid picture left of the method and 
influence of the great Christian master. The 
scholar recounts, with touching devotion, the 
course along which he had been guided by 
the man to whom he felt he owed his spiritual 
life. He had come to Syria to study Roman 
law in the school of Berytus, but on his way 
met with Origen, and at once felthe had found 
in him the wisdom he wasseeking. The day of 
that meeting was to him, in his own words, the 
dawn of a new being: his soul clave to the 
master whom he recognized and he surren- 
dered himself gladly to his guidance. As 
Origen spoke, he kindled within the young 
advocate’s breast a love for the Holy Word, 
and for himself the Word’s herald. ‘* This 
love,’’ Gregory adds, ‘‘ induced me to give up 
country and friends, the aims which I had 
proposed to myself, the study of law of which 
I was proud. I had but one passion, philo- 
sophy, and the godlike man who directed me 
in the pursuit of it’ (c. 6). 

Origen’s first care, Gregory says, was to 
make the character of a pupil his special study. 
In this he followed the example of Clement 
(Clem. Strom. i. 1, 8, p. 320 P.). He ascer- 
tained, with delicate and patient attention, 
the capacities, faults, and tendencies of those 
he had to teach. Rank growths of opinion 


were cleared away; weaknesses were laid 
open; every effort was used to develop | 


ORIGENES 


endurance, firmness, patience, thoroughness. 
“Τῇ true Socratic fashion he sometimes over- 
threw us by argument,’’ Gregory writes, “‘ if 
he saw us restive and starting out of the 
course. ... The process wasat first disagreeable 
to us and painful; but so he purified us... 
and... prepared us for the reception of 
the words of truth . . . by probing us and 
questioning us, and offering problems for our 
solution’’ (c. 7). Thus Origen taught his 


¥. 


scholars to regard language as designed, not 


to furnish material for display, but to express 
truth with exact accuracy; and logic as 
powerful, not to secure a plausible success, 
but to test beliefs with the strictest rigour. 
Origen then led his pupils to the “‘ lofty and 
divine and most lovely”’ study of external 
nature. He made geometry the sure and im- 
movable foundation of his teaching, and rose 
step by step to the heights of heaven and 
the most sublime mysteries of the universe 
(c. 8). Gregory’s language implies that 
Origen was himself a student of physics; as, 
in some degree, the true theologian must be. 
The lessons of others, he writes, or his own 
observation, enabled him to explain the con- 
nexion, the differences, the changes of the 
objects of sense. Such investigations served 
to shew man in his true relation to the world. 
A rational feeling for the vast grandeur of the 
external order, ‘‘ the sacred economy of the 
universe,’’ as Gregory calls it, was substituted 
for the ignorant and senseless wonder with 
which it is commonly regarded. 

But physics were naturally treated by 
Origen as a preparation and not as an end. 
Moral science came next; and here he laid 
the greatest stress upon the method of experi- 
ment. His aim was not merely to analyse and 
to define and to classify feelings and motives, 
though he did this, but to form a character. 
For him ethics were a life, and not only a 
theory. The four cardinal virtues of Plato, 
practical wisdom, self-control, righteousness, 
courage, seemed to him to require for their 
maturing diligent introspection and culture. 
Herein he gave a commentary upon his 
teaching. His discipline lay even more in 
action thanin precept. His own conduct was, 
in his scholar’s minds, a more influential per- 
suasive than his arguments. 

So, Gregory continues, Origen was the first 
teacher who really led me to the pursuit of 
Greek philosophy, by bringing speculation 
into a vital union with practice. In him I 
saw the inspiring example of one at once wise 
and holy. The noble phrase of older masters 
gained a distinct meaning for the Christian 
disciple. In failure and weakness he was 
able to see that the end of all was “ to be- 
come like to God with a pure mind, and to 
draw near to Him and to abidein Him”’ (c. 12). 

Guarded and guided by this conviction, 
Origen encouraged his scholars in theology 
to look for help in all the works of human 
genius. They were to examine the writings 
of philosophers and poets of every nation, the 
atheists alone excepted, with faithful candour 
and wise catholicity. For them there was to 
be no sect, no party. In their arduous work 
they had ever at hand, in their master, a 
friend who knew their difficulties. If they 
were bewildered in the tangled mazes of con- 


flicting opinions, he was ready to lead them 
with a firm hand; if in danger of being swal- 
lowed up in the quicksands of shifting error, 
he was near to lift them up to the sure resting- 
place he had himself found (c. 14). 

The hierarchy of sciences was not com- 
pleted till theology with her own proper gifts 
crowned the succession followed 
logic, tt ethics. Origen found in the 
Holy ptures and the teaching of the Spirit 
the final and absolute spring of Divine Truth. 
In this region Gregory felt his master's power 
to be supreme. Origen’s sovereign command 
of the mysteries of ‘ the oracles of God" gave 
him perfect boldness in dealing with all other | 
writings. ‘‘ Therefore,"’ Gregory adds, “ there 
was no subject forbidden to us, nothing hidden 
or inaccessible. We were allowed to become 


hitherto, | 


acquainted with every doctrine, barbarian or) 
Greek, on things spiritual or civil, divine and | 
human; traversing with all freedom, and. 
investigating the whole circuit of knowledge, | 
and satisfying ourselves with the full enjoy-. 
ment of all the pleasures of the soul"’ (c. 15). 
Such was, Gregory tells us, Origen’s method. 
He describes what he knew and what his 
hearers knew. There is no parallel to the 
picture in ancient times. With every allow- 
ance for the partiality of a pupil, the view it 
offers of asystem of Christian training actually 
realized exhibits a type we cannot hope to 
surpass. The ideals of Christian education 
and of Christian philosophy were fashioned 
together. Under that comprehensive and 
loving discipline Gregory, already trained 
in heathen schools, first learnt, step by step, 
according to his own testimony, what the 
ursuit of philosophy truly was, and came to 
ow the solemn duty of forming opinions 
not as the amusement of a moment, but as 
solid foundations of life-long work. 

From Caesarea Origen visited different 
parts of Palestine: Jerusalem, Jericho, the 
valley of the Jordan (t. vi. im Joh. § 24); 
Sidon, where he made some stay (Hom. in 
Josh. xvi. § 2), partly at least to investigate 


| save one’ (Eus. H. 


ORIGENES 773 


his wife Severa (i+. 46). Such Intercourse 
marked Origen out for attack to Philip's 
conqueror and successor, His friend Alex- 


ander of Jerusalem died in prison. He him- 
self suffered a variety of tortures, probably at 
Tyre—chains, the iron collar, at the rack; 


but his constancy baffled all the efforts of bis 
enemies (ib. 39). He was threatened with the 
stake, and a report gained currency in later 
times that his sufferings were crowned by 
death (Phot. Cod. 118, p. 149). During this 
sharp trial his former pupil Dionysius, now 
bp. of Alexandria, addressed him a letter on 


|; martyrdom (Eus. H. E. vi. 46), shewing the 


old affection still alive, in spite of long separ- 
ation. Origen described his sufferings and 


/consolations in letters which Eusebius char- 


acterizes “‘ as full of help to those who need 
encouragement "’ (1). 49). The death of 
Decius (251, Clinton, F.R. i. 270), after a reign 
of two years, set Origen free. But his health 
was broken by his hardships. He died at 
Tyre in 253, “" having completed seventy years 
E. vii. 1; Hieron. — 65 
ad Pammach.). He was buried there (William 
of Tyre, c. 1180, Hist. xiii. 1: “ haee (Tyrus] 
et Origenis corpus occultat sicut oculata fide 
etiam hodie licet inspicere "'), and his tomb 
was honoured as long as the city survived. 

Of the later fortunes of his teaching it is 
enough to say here that his fate after death 
was like his fate during life: he continued to 
witness not in vain to noble truths. His 
influence was sufficiently proved by the per- 
sistent bitterness of his antagonists, and there 
are few sadder pages in church history than the 
record of the Origenistic controversies. But 
in spite of errors easy to condemn, his char- 
acteristic thoughts survived in the works of 


Hilary and Ambrose and Jerome, and in his 
own homilies, to stir later students in the 
West. His homilies had a very wide circula- 


tion in the middle ages in a Latin translation ; 
and it would be interesting to trace their effect 
upon medieval commentators down to Eras- 
mus, who wrote to Colet in 1504: ὦ“ Origents 


* the footsteps of Jesus, and of His disciples, | operum bonam partem evolvi; quo praeceptore 
and of the prophets”’ (in Joh. I.c.). He also| mihi videor non-nullum fecisse operae pre- 
went again to Athens and continued there | tium ; aperit enim fontes quosdam et rationes 
some time, being Sten Me on his Commentaries indicat artis theologicae.” 
(Eus. H. E. vi. 32). In the first of two visits Writincs.—Epiphanius says (Haer. Ixiv. 
to Arabia he went to confer with Beryllus of 63) that in popular reports no less than 6,000 
Bostra, who had advanced false views on the works were aseri to Origen. Jerome 
Incarnation (ib. 33); in the second to meet denies this (Ep. Ixxxti. 7) and brings down 
some errors on the doctrine of the resurrection | the number to a third (adv. Ruf. ti. δ. 22 ef, 
(ib. 37). In both cases he was specially in- 6. 13). His works will be noticed in the follow- 
vited and persuaded those whom he contro- ing order : Exegetical, Dogmatical, Apologetic, 
verted to abandon their opinions. | Practical, Letters, Philocalia. ᾿ 

His energy now rose to its full power. Till, A. Execeticar W niTiINnGs.—Epiphanius 
he was 60 (A.D. 246) he had forbidden his states that Origen undertook to comment on 
unwritten discourses to be taken down. Ex- all the books of Seripture (Maer. Ixiv. 1) and 
perience at length enabled him to withdraw though his sole statement might be of very 
the prohibition, and most of his homilies are little value, independent and exact evidence 
due to reports made afterwards. The Books | goes far to confirm it. 
against Celsus and the Commentaries on St. His exegetical writings are of three kinds : 
Matthew, belonging to the same period, shew, detached Notes (Σχόλια, enucdeour, in the 
in different directions, the maturity of his | narrower sense, excerpla, commaticum inter- 
vigour. Thus his varied activity continued | pretands genus), Homilses addressed to popular 
till the persecution of Decius in 250. The audiences (Ὁμιλίαι, Tractatus), and complete 
preceding reign of Philip had favoured the and elaborate Commentartes (Τόμοι, σημειώσειν 
growth of Christianity; and there is πὸ in the wider sense, volumina). Cf. Hieron, in 
sufficient reason to question the fact of Ori- Exech. Prol.; Praef. Comm. in Matt.; Ruin. 
gen's correspondence with the emperor and Prae/. in Num. 


114 ORIGENES 


i. THE PENTATEUCH. GENESIS.—Origen, 
according to Eusebius, wrote twelve books of 
Commentaries (Téuo) on Genesis, besides 
Homilies. Of these writings there remain : 
Greek: (1) On Gen. i. 2; Fragm. of Tom. iii. 
on Gen. i. 14; i. 16f. (2) Fragm. of Tom. iii. 
(Eus. H. E. iii. 1); notes from Catenae; 
Fragm. of Hom. ii. (3) Additional notes. 
Latin: Seventeen Homilies, of which the last 
is imperfect, translated by Rufinus. 

One of the fragments of the Commentary on 
Genesis contains a remarkable discussion of 
the theory of fate in connexion with Gen. i. 16 ; 
and in the scattered notes there are some 
characteristic remarks on the interpretation 
of the record of Creation. For Origen all 
Creation was ‘‘one act at once,’’ presented 
to us in parts, in order to give the due con- 
ception of order (cf. Ps. cxlviii. 5). The 
Homilies deal mainly with the moral appli- 
cation of main subjects in the book. They 
contain little continuous exposition, but 
many striking thoughts. Among the passages 
of chief interest are the view of the Divine 
image and the Divine likeness as expressing 
man’s endowment and man’s end (i. §§ 12, 
13), the symbolism of the ark (ii. §§ 4 ff.), 
the nature of the Divine voice (iii. § 2), the 
lesson of the opened wells (xiii. § 4), the poverty 
of the Divine priesthood (xvi. § 5). 

Exopus and Lerviricus.—Of the Books, 
Homilies, and Notes he wrote on these books, 
no detailed account remains. (Cf. in Rom. 
ix. § 1, p. 283 L.; Ruf. Apol. ii. 20; Hieron. 
Ep. 33-) The following remain: Exopus.— 
: (1) On Ex. x. 27 (several fragments). 
(2) Notes from Catenae. Two short frag- 
ments of Hom. viii. (3) Additional notes. 
Latin: 13 Homilies, trans. by Rufinus. 

The main fragment of the Commentary on 
Exodus (Philoc. 27 [26]) deals with inter- 
pretation of the ‘‘ hardening of Pharaoh’s 
heart’’ (Ex. x. 27), which Origen (to use 
modern language) finds in the action of moral 
laws, while Pharaoh resisted the divine teach- 
ing. The Homilies, like those on Genesis, 
were translated by Rufinus from the reports of 
Origen’s sermons, which he supplemented with 
interpretative additions. Throughout Origen 
dwells upon the spiritual interpretation of the 
record. ‘‘ Not one iota or one tittle is,” in his 
opinion, ‘‘ without mysteries”? (Hom. i. 4). 
The literal history has a mystical and a moral 
meaning (e.g. Hom.i. 4 f., ii. 1, iii. 3, iv. 8, 
vii. 3, X. 4, xiii. 5). Some of the applica- 
tions he makes are of great beauty, e.g. in 
regard to the popular complaints against 
religious life and the troubles which follow 
religious awakening (Ex. v. 4 ff., Hom. iii. 3) ; 
the difficulties of the heavenward pilgrimage 
(Ex. xiv. 2, Hom. v. 3); the believer as the 
tabernacle of God (Hom. ix. 4) ; turning to the 
Lord (Ex. xxxiv. 34, coll. II. Cor. iii. 16, Hom. 
xii. 2); the manifold offerings of different be- 
lievers (Ex. xxxv. 5, Hom. xiii. 3). 

Leviticus.—Greek: (τὴ Fragm. of Hom. 2 
(5). (2) Notes from Catenae. (3) Additional 
notes. (4) A fragment (cf. Hom. in Lev. viii. 
6), Mai, Class. Auct. t. x. p. 600. Latin: 
16 Homilies (trans. by Rufinus). 

In the interpretation of Leviticus Origen 
naturally dwells on the obvious moral and 
spiritual antitypes of the Mosaic ordinances. 


ORIGENES 


‘Not infrequently the use he makes of them is: 


impressive and ingenious, e.g. his view of 
man’s soul and body as the deposit which he 
owes to God (Lev. vi. 4, Hom. iv. 3); of the 
office of the Christian priest foreshadowed in 
that of the Jewish priest (Lev. vii. 28 ff., Hom. 
v. 12); of the priesthood of believers (Lev. 
viii. 7 ff., Hom. vi. 5; cf. Hom. ix. 9); of the 
Saviour’s sorrow (Lev. x. 9, coll. Matt. xxvi. 9, 
Hom. vii. 2), of purification by fire (Lev. xvi. 
12, Hom. ix. 7). Throughout Christ appears: 
as the one Sacrifice for the world, and the one 
Priest (Hom. 1. 2, ἅν! 8, Vv. 3, ix. 2, ΣΙΝ 
though elsewhere He is said to join with Him- 
self apostles and martyrs (Hom. in Num. x. 2). 

NumBers.—No mention is made of ‘“‘Books”’ 
on Numbers. Of Notes and Homilies (cf. 
Hom. in Jer. xii. § 3) the following remain: 
Greek; (τὴ Notes from Catenae. Small Frag- 
ment of Hom. xiii. (2) Additional notes. 
Latin: 28 Homilies, trans. by Rufinus, which 
follow the whole course of the narrative. 

One main idea is prominent throughout. 
The struggles of the Israelites on the way to 
Canaan are the image of the struggles of the 
Christian. The entrance on the Promised 
Land foreshadows the entrance on the heaven- 
ly realm (Hom. vii. 5). The future world will 
even, in Origen’s judgment, offer differences 
of race and position corresponding to those of 
the tribes of Israel and the nations among 
whom they moved (ib. i. 3, ii. 1, xi. 5, 
Xxvili. 4). The interpretation of the record. 
of the stations (ib. xxvii.) is a very good ex- 
ample of the way he finds a meaning in the 
minutest details of the history. Of wider. 
interest are his remarks on man’s spiritual 
conflict (ἐδ. vil. 6), the wounds of sin (7b. viii. 1), 
advance in wisdom (ib. xvii. 4), the festivals 
of heaven (7b. xxiii. 11), self-dedication (ἐδ. 
Xxiv. 2), and the stains of battle (7b. xxv. 6). 

DEUTERONOMY.—Cassiodorus (de Instit. 1) 
mentions four Homilies of Origen on Deut. 
(‘‘in quibus est minuta nimis et subtilis ex- 
positio”’), and doubtless it was these (oratiun- 
culae) Rufinus proposed to translate if his 
health had been restored. The scanty re- 
mains are: (1) Notes from Catenae. (2) 
Additional notes. One interesting note at 
least among (1) appears to be a fragment of 
a homily (zm Deut. viii. 7). 

It is probable (Hieron. Ep. 84, 7) that con- 
siderable fragments of Origen’s comments on 
the Pentateuch are contained in Ambrose’s 
treatise on the Hexaemeron, but the treatise 
has not yet been critically examined. 

JosHua-II. Kincs.—Origen appears to have 
treated these historical books in homilies only, 
or perhaps in detached notes also. There 
remain of the several books: JosHua.— 
Greek: (1) Fragm. of Hom. xx. (2) Notes 
from Catenae. (3) Additional notes. Latin: 
26 Homilies, trans. by Rufinus. ᾿ 

The homilies on Joshua, belonging to the 
latest period of Origen’s life, perhaps offer the 
most attractive specimen of his popular in- 
terpretation. The parallel between the leader 
of the old church and the Leader of the new 
is drawn with great ingenuity and care. The 
spiritual interpretation of the conquest of 
Canaan, as an image of the Christian life, never 
flags. Fact after fact is made contributorv 
to the fulness of the idea; and the reader is 


ORIGENES ORIGENES 775 
forced to acknowledge that the fortunes of | anent effects of actions on the doer may 
Israel can at least speak to us with an intel- fe specially noticed (Hom. ti. 6 2). The Greek 
ligible voice. Rufinus himself may have felt οὶ προ reserved in the Catense offer 
the peculiar charm of the book, for he selected nuferous close coincidences with the Latin 
it for translation in answer to a general re- Homilies, and no doubt represent the general 
ne of Chromatius to render something from | sense of Origen's comments. Cl. Comm. ἐπ 

reek literature for the edification of the | Rom. iv. § « (‘cum de Pealmis per ordinem 
church. The homilies cover the whole narra- dictaremus"); ἐπ. § αὐ; Hom. om Jer. xv. 6 
tive up to the settling of the land (c. xxii.). There remain: Greek: (1) Fragments trom 

Among —— special interest are those the Τόμοι and Homilies. (2) Additional trag- 
on the help we gain from the old fathers (ἐδ. ments and notes fromCatenac. (4) Additional 
iii. 1); the broad parallel between the Chris- notes. Latin: 9 Homilies on Pos. xuxvi. 
tian life and the history of the Exodus (1). xxxvii. xxxviii. (trans. by Rufinws). 
iv. 1); the Christian realizing Christ's victory Proverns.—There remain: Greek: (1) 


(ἐδ. vii. 2) ; wing wisdom (ἐδ. xii. 2). Fragments. (2) Notes from Catenac. Latin, 
JUDGES. eck: (1) Notes from Catenaec. Fragments. 

(2) Additional notes. Latin: 9g Homilies, Ecciestastes.—Notes on iil. 4, 7, 166 

trans. by Rufinus. LAMENTATIONS.—Origen wrote commen- 
Rutu.—Greeck: A note oni. 4. taries on the Lamentations before 241, of 


The Homilies on Judges are of much less | which five books had come down to the time 
interest than those on Joshua. A passage on | of Eusebius (MH. Ε, vi. 24). The Greek notes 
martyrdom—the baptism of blood—is worthy are probably derived from these. 
of notice (Hom. vii. 2). In Hom. ix. 1 Origen! Cawnticies.—Jerome speaks of the work on 
seems to refer to the persecution of Maximin, |Canticles with enthusiasm: “In his other 
which was but lately ended. books Origen,” he says, “ surpassed every one 

I. and 11. Samvet, I. and II. Kincs (1.-IV. | else, in this he surpassed himself" (Prof. om 
Kings). Greek: (1) Hom. on 1. Sam. xxviii. Hom. in Cant.). There remain: Greeks (1) 
(2) Notes from Catenae and Fragments. (3) Fragments of his early work. (2) Extracts 
Additional notes. Latin: Homily on I. Sam. by Procopius. Latin; Two Homilies (trans. 
i. 2 (de Helchana et Fenenna), delivered αἱ by Jerome). Prologue and four books on 
Jerusalem (§ 1: nolite illud in nobis requirere Canticles, trans. by Rufinus. 
quod in papa Alexandro habetis). Thetrans-| Tue Prornets. Isatan.—Origeninterpreted 
lator is not known. The remains of Origen’s | Isaiah in each of the three forms which be used ; 
writings on the later historical books are very | in Books (réuo), in Notes, and in Homilies. 
slight. The homily on the witch of Endor | Thirty books of his Commentaries remained 
provoked violent attacks. In this Origen | when Eusebius wrote his History extending to 
maintained, in accordance with much early | c. xxx. 6 (Bus. H. FE. vi. 42). Some of these 
Christian and Jewish opinion, that the soul) had perished in the timeof J erome, who speaks 
of Samuel was truly called up from Hades. | of the work as abounding in allegories and in- 
Among others Eustathius of Antioch assailed | terpretation of names (Prot. sm Lib. v. om Ee). 
Origen in unmeasured terms. There remain: Latin: Two fragments of the 

THe HaciocraPHa. Jos.—Origen com- |‘ Books." Nine Homilies. The Homilies 

many homilies on Job (Eustath. were addressed to a popular audience, in- 
Antioch, de Engastr. 391), which were rendered cluding catechumens, but ry lack the ease 
freely into Latin = ilary of Poictiers (Hier. | of the latest discourses and follow no exact 
de Vir. Ill. 100; Ep. adv. Vigil. 61, 2). The |The Subjects: The call of the prophet; 


scattered Notes which remain are not suffi- | The virgin’s son; The seven women; The 

cient to enable us to estimate their value. | vision of God; The mission of the prophet; 

Thereremain: Greek : (1) Notes from Catenae. |The prophet and his children. In ἃ passage 

(2) Additional notes. Latin: Fragment of characteristic excellence (Hom. vi. 4) Origen 
uoted from a homily of Hilary by August. describes the “greater works’’ of Christ's 
ib. ii. c. Jul. § 27, and assumed to be trans- | disciples. 

lated from Origen. Jeremian.—Cassiodorus enumerates 45 

THe Psatms engaged Origen'’s attention homilies of Origen on Jeremiah “in Attic 
before he left Alexandria. At that time he style"’ (de Insti. Dio. Lett. § 4). They were 
had written commentaries on Pss. i.-xxv.| written in a period of tranquillity, and there 
(Eus. H. E. vi. 24). He completed the book fore probably after the close of the persecu- 
afterwards. Jerome expressly states that he tion of Maximin, ἐς. 245 (Hom. tv. 5). There 
“left an explanation of all the Psalmsin many remain: Greek: (1 τὸ. Homilies (with 
volumes” (Ep. cxii. §20) ; and his extant books Jerome's version of 12). Fragment of Hom. 
contain numerous references to his commen- xxxix. (2) Notes from Catenar, Latin: 
-taries on psalms (cf. Hier. Ep. xxxiv. § τῇ Two Homilies, trans. by Jerome. 

Besides these detailed commentaries, he| The Homilies generally give a full inter 
illustrated the Psalter by short Notes HS age of the text, accommodating the 
handbook ”’: ‘‘enchiridion ille vocabat,” Auct. language of the prophet to the circ umestances 
ap. Hier. Tom. vii. App.), and by Homilies. | of the Christian church. But Origen’s total 

The Homilies which are preserved in Rufi- want of historical feeling makes itecl{ felt 
nus’s Latin trans. belong to the latest period | perhaps more in his treatment of this book 
of en’s life, c. 241-247(Hom. 1 in Ps.xxxvi. than elsewhere, for the teaching of Jeremiah 
§2; Hom. 1 in Ps. xxxvii. § 1). They give a is practically unintelligible without a true 
continuous practical interpretation of the 3 sense of the tragic is in which he wae 

Ims (v. inf.), and are a very good example placed. There are, however, many separate 
of this style of exposition. One passage on the | passages of the Homilies of considerable 


776 ORIGENES 


beauty, e.g. on the fruitful discipline of God 
(Hom. iii. 2), the ever-new birth of Christ 


(ib. ix. 4), the marks of sin (ib. xvi. 10). Cf. 
Hom. in Josh. xiii. § 3. 

EzEKIEL.—There remain: Greek: (1) 
Fragments. (2) Notesfrom Catenae. Latin: 


14 Homilies. The Homilies only cover a 
small portion of the book, and do not offer 
many features of interest. The passages on 
the responsibility of teachers (Hom. v. 5, 
vii. 3) are perhaps the most striking. 

DANIEL.—Origen commented upon the 
histories of Susanna and of Bel (Dan. 4 pocr. 
xiii. xiv.) in bk. x. of his Miscellanies (Στρω- 
warets), and Jerome has preserved a brief 
abstract of his notes as an appendix to his 
commentary on Daniel (Delarue, i. 49 f.; 
Lommatzsch, xvii. 70 ff.). 

Tue Minor Propuets.—Origen wrote ex- 
tensive commentaries on the twelve minor 
prophets, of which 25 books remained in the 
time of Eusebius (H. E. vi. 36). The fragment 
on Hosea xii., preserved in the Philocalia, ο. 
viii., is all that now remains. [Two books on 
Hos. (one on Ephraim); 2 on Joel; 6 on 
Amos; 1 on Jon.; 2 on Mic.; 2 on Nah.; 3 
on Hab.; 2 on Zeph.; 1 on Hagg.; 2 on Zech. 
(principio) ; 2 on Mal.—n.c.]. 

WRITINGS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.—Euse- 
bius states that Origen wrote 25 Books (τόμοι) 
on St. Matthew (H. E. vi. 36). The commen- 
taries seem to have been written c. 245-246. 
[25 Books; 25 Homilies.—n.c.] 

Bk. x. gives a continuous exposition of 
Matt. xiii. 36-xiv. 15. The most interesting 
Passages are where Origen discusses char- 
acteristically the types of spiritual sickness 
(c. 24) and the doubtful question as to “‘ the 
brethren of the Lord” (c. 17). On internal 
grounds he favours the belief in the perpetual 
virginity of the mother of the Lord. In the 
account of Herod’s banquet he has preserved 
definitely the fact that “πὸ daughter of 
Herodias’’ bore the same name as her mother 


(c. 22), in accordance with the true reading in | 


Mark vi. 22 (τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ ‘Hpwéiddos) ; 
but he strangely supposes that the power of 
life and death was taken away from Herod 
because he executed the Baptist (c. 21). 

Bk. xi. (c. xiv. 15-xv. 32) contains several 
pieces of considerable interest on the discip- 
line of temptation (c. 6), Corban (c. 9), the 
conception of things unclean (c. 12), the 
healing spirit in the Church (c. 18), and per- 
haps, above all, that on the Eucharist (c. 14), 
which is of primary importance for under- 
standing Origen’s view. 

The most important passages in bk. xii., 
which gives the commentary on c. xvi. I- 
Xvii. 9, are those treating of the confession 
and blessing of St. Peter (cc. τὸ ff.) and the 
Transfiguration (cc. 37 ff.). He regards St. 
Peter as the type of the true believer. All 
believers, as they are Christians, are Peters 
also (c. II: παρώνυμοι πέτρας πάντες οἱ 
μιμηταὶ Χριστοῦ... Χριστοῦ μέλη ὄντες παρώνυ- 
μοι ἐχρημάτισαν Χριστιανοί, πέτρας δὲ πέτροι). 
His ignorance οὗ the Hebrew idiom leads him, 
like other early commentators, to refer the 
‘* binding and loosing ”’ to sins (c. 14). 

BK. xiii. (c. xvii. 10-xviii. 18) opens with an 
argument against transmigration, and con- 


ORIGENES 


tains an interesting discussion of the influence 
of planets upon men (c. 6). Other character- 
istic passages deal with the circumstances 
under which the Lord healed the sick (c. 3), 
the rule for avoiding offences (c. 24), and esp. 
the doctrine of guardian angels (cc. 26 f.). 

Bk. xiv. (c. xviii. 19-xix. 11) contains a 
characteristic examination of the senses in 
which the ‘‘ two or three’”’ in Matt. xviii. 20 
may be understood (cc. 1 ff.) and a discussion 
of points regarding marriage (cc. 16 ff. ; 23 ff.). 

ΒΚ. xv. (xix. 12-xx. 16) has several pieces of 
more than usual interest : the investigation of 
the meaning of Matt. xix. 12f. with (as it 
appears) clear reference to his own early error 
(c. 2); a fine passage on the goodness of God 
even in His chastisements (c. 11) ; and some 
remarkable interpretations of the five send- 
ings of labourers to the vineyard (Matt. xx. 
1 ff.), in one of which he likens St. Paul to one 
who had wrought as an apostle in one hour 
more perhaps than all those before him (c. 35). 

Bk. xvi. (xx. 17-xxi. 22) gives some striking 
pictures of the darker side of Christian society, 
the growing pride of the hierarchy, the faults 
of church officers, the separation between 
clergy and laity (cc. 8, 22, 25). In discussing 
the healing of Bartimaeus Origen holds that a 
choice must be made between supposing that 
the three evangelists have related three in- 
cidents, if the literal record is to be main- 
tained, or that they relate one and the same 
spiritual fact in different words (c. 12). 

Bk. xvii. (xxi. 23-xxii. 33) contains inter- 
pretations of the parables of the two sons 
(c. 4), the vineyard (6 ff.), and the marriage 
feast (15 ff.), which are good examples of 
Origen’s method; and his explanations of the 
questions of the Herodians (cc. 26 ff.) and the 
Sadducees (c. 33) are of interest. 

The old Latin translation continues the 
commentary to Matt. xxvii. 63. Passages in 
it of chief interest are: the application of the 
woes (Matt. xxiii. 1 ff.), §§ 9-25; the legend 
of the death of Zachariah the father of the 
Baptist, § 25; the danger of false opinions, 
§ 33; the gathering of the saints, § 51; the 
limitation of the knowledge of the Son (Matt. 
xxiv. 36), ὃ 55; the administration of the re- 
venues of the church, § 61; the duty of using 
all that is lent to us, § 66; the eternal fire, im- 
material, § 72 ; the supposition of three anoint- 
ings of the Lord’s feet, § 77; the passover of 
the Jews and of the Lord, § 79; on the Body 
and Blood of Christ, § 85; the lesson of the 
Agony, § 91; tradition of the different appear- 
ance of the Lord to men of different powers 
of vision, § 100; the reading Jesus Barabbas to 
be rejected, § 121; tradition as to the grave 
of Adam on Calvary, § 126; on the darkness 
at the crucifixion, § 134. F 

St. Mark.—A Latin commentary attri- 
buted to Victor of Antioch, pub. at Ingold- 
stadt in 1580, is said to contain quotations 
from Origen on cc. i. xiv. (Ceillier, p. 635). 
These, if the reference is correct, may have 
been taken from other parts of his writings. 
{15 Books; 39 Homilies.—un.c.] 


St. Luxke.—There remain: Greek: (1) 
Fragments. (2) Notes from a Venice MS. 
(xxviii.). (3) Additional notes, Mai, Class. 


(4) Additional notes 


Auct. t. x. pp. 474 ff. ot 
᾿ Latin: 39 ΗΠΟΡΗ 65. 


from Cod. Coislin. xxiii. 


a nl 


Pett tote four Books on St. Luke (Hieron. 
ad Hom.) from which the detached notes 
were probably taken. The short Homilies on 
St. Luke, an early work of Origen, abound in 
characteristic thoughts. The most interesting 
Passages are those dealing with the four canoni- 
cal Gospels (Hom. 1), spiritual manifestations 
(ἐδ. 3), the nobility and triumph of faith (ἐδ. 
7), spiritual growth (ἰδ. 11), shepherds of 

urches and nations (ἐδ. 12), spiritual and 


visible co-rulers of churches (ἐδ. 13), infant tions of life and li 


baptism (ἐδ. 14), second marriages (ἐδ. 17) 
baptism by fire (15. 24), man as the object of 
a spiritual conflict (ἐδ. 35). Besides these 
homilies 


wrote other homilies upon the | 


ORIGENES 777 


taken absolutely (ὁ @ede, ὁ λόγοι) from God 
and Reason used as predicates (@ed1, λόγου). 
The Father is the foundation of Deity, the 
| Son of Reason" (( 4). Afterwards he discusses 
} the sense of the words “came into being 
| through Him (δι αὐτοῦ!" and the relation of 
the Holy Spirit to the Son (4.6); and further, 
what “all things," and what that is which is 
jcalled “ nothing" (ie evil) which became 
| without Him but is not (§ 7). The cone 
ht, of darkness and deat 
are then examined (§§ 11 ff). In treating οἱ 
the mission of John (§§ 24 ff.) Origen questions 
whether he may not have been an angel who 
sought to minister on earth to his Lord (§ 24); 


en 
Gospel which are now lost, but referred to im and characteristically remarks that he was 


Matt. t. xiii. 29, xvi. 9; im Joh. t. xxxii. 2. 
St. Joun.—{32 Books ; some Notes.—un.c. } 
The remains of the Commentary on St. John 


| 


| blames those who, like Heracleon (t. vi. § 2), 


“the voice" preceding the Word" (§ 26). 
Perhaps it is not less characteristic that he 


are in many respects the most important of hold that John i. 16-18 are the words of the 


Origen's exegetical writings. There are left 
Τόμοι i. ii. (iv. v. small fragments), vi. x. xiii. 


: “evangelist and not of the Baptist. 


In bk. vi., after describing with calm dignity 


xix. (nearly entire), xx. xxviii. xxxii. These the circumstances which had interrupted bis 


remains extend over the following portions of 
the Gospel: T. i. (John i. ra), il. (i. rb-7Aa), 
vi. (i. 19-29), x. (ii. 12-25), xiii. (iv. 13-44), 
xix. (part) (viii. 19-24), xx. (viii. 37-52), 
XXVill. (xi. 39-57), XXXii. (xiii. 2.33). A re 
vised text with critical intro. by A. E. Brooke 
has been pub. in 2 vols. by the Camb. Univ. 


The Commentary on St. John was under- 
taken at the request of Ambrose (im Joh. t. 
i. §§ 3, 6), and was “the first-fruits of his 
labours at Alexandria" (ἐδ. § 4). It marks an 
epoch in theological literature and thought. 
Perhaps the earlier work of HERACLEON may 
have suggested the idea, but Origen implies 
that the Gospel, by its essential character, 
claimed his first efforts as an interpreter. 

Bk. i. deals mainly with the fundamental 
conceptions of ‘‘ the Gospel’’ (§§ 1-15), “* the 
beginning"’ (§§ 16-22), and ‘‘the Logos” 
(§§ 19-42). 


John is the first-fruits of the Gospels (§ 6). As 
the Law had a shadow of the future, so too has 
the Gospel: spiritual truths underlie historical 
truths (§9). The Gospel in the widest sense is 
** for the whole world,” not for our earth only, 
but for the universal system of the heavens 
and earth (§ 15). The discussion of the title 
Logos marks a critical stage in the history of 
Christian thought. In what sense, it is asked, 
is the Saviour called the Logos? It had 
come to be a common opinion “ that Christ 
was as it were only a ‘ word’ of God" (§ 23). 
To meet this view Origen refers to other titles, 
Light, Resurrection, Way, Truth, etc. (§§ 24- 
41), and by analogy comes to the conclusion 
that as we are illuminated by Christ as the 
Light, and quickened by Him as the Resur- 
rection, so we are made divinely rational by 
Him as the Logos, t.e. Reason (§ 42). He 
thus preserves the personality of the Lord 
under the title of Logos, which πὰ ποστι one 
aspect of His being and not His being itself 
(as a word); but recognizes that Christ may 
also be called the heen eet of God as 
giving expression to H ". 

In bk ii. he continues his discussion of the 
meaning of the Logos, ao eo | in a 
remarkable passage (§ 2), God and Keason 


The Gospels are the first-fruits | 
(ἀπαρχή) of the Scripture, the Gospel of St._ 


work, he examines in detail John i. 19-29. 
The question, Art thow Elias? leads to a re- 
markable discussion on the pre-existence of 
souls, and the entrance of the soul into the 
body, “ a vast and difficult subject,"’ which he 
reserves for special investigation ({ 7). The 
words of the Baptist (i. 26) give occasion for a 
minute comparison with the parallels in the 
other Gospels (§§ 16 ff.), in the course of which 
(§ 17) Origen strikingly contrasts the baptisms 
of John and Christ, and explains Christ's pre- 
sence “in the midst of the Jews" (e. 26) of 
His universal presence as the Logos (§ 22). 
The mention of Bethany (νυ. 28) leads him to 
hastily adopt the correction ‘ Bethabara ™ 
(§ 24), which he justifies by the frequent errors 
}as to names in the LXX. His brief exposi- 
tion of the title of Christ “as the Lamb of 
God" (§§ 35 ff.) is full of interest; and in 
connexion with this he notices the power of 
the blood of παρὸν ἐνε to overcome evil (§ 36). 
Bk. x. deals with the history of the first 
lcleansing of the temple and its immediate 
jresults (ii. 12-25). igen thinks the dis- 
crepancy between the evangelists as to the 
re at Capernaum (Ὁ. 12) is such that its 
solution can Ὁ found only in the spiritual 
| Sense (§ 2), to which every minute point con- 
tributes, though in itself outwardly trivial and 
unworthy of record (§§ 2 ff.). The phrase 
“the passover of the Jews’ leads to an ex- 
osition of Christ as the true Passover (ἢ τι ff). 
he cleansing of the temple is shewn to have 
lan abiding significance in life (§ 16); and 
Origen thinks that the sign Christ offered is 
| fulfilled in the raising of the Christian church, 
| built of living stones, out of trials and death, 
i“ after three days "'—the first of present 
\ suffering, the second of the consummation, 
| the third of the new order (ἢ 20). 
| Bk. xiii. is occupied with the interpreta 
| thon of part of the history of the Samaritan 
woman and the healing of the nobleman’s son 
(iv. 14-54). It is chiefly remarkable for the 
| number of considerable quotations from Hera- 
‘cleon's Commentary it contains, more than 
\twice as many as the other books. These 
‘still require careful collection and criticism. 
_Lommatzsch failed to fulfil the promise of his 
preface (I. p. xlii.). Passages of interest in 


778 ORIGENES 


regard to Origen’s own views and method are 
those on the relation of Christ’s personal 
teaching to the Scriptures (§ 5), the five 
husbands as representing the senses (δ 9), the 
incorporeity of God (§ 25), the joy of the 
sower and reaper, and the continuity of work 
(§§ 46f.), the unhonoured prophet (§ 54), 
spiritual dependence (§ 58),and the distinction 
between signs and wonders (§ 60). 

Of bk. xix., which is imperfect at the be- 
ginning and end, a considerable fragment 
remains (viii. 19-25). The remarks on the 
treasury (John viii. 20) as the scene of the 
Lord’s discourses (§ 2), and on the power of 
faith (§ 6), are characteristic. 

Bk. xx. (vill. 37-53) has much that is of 
importance for Origen’s opinions. It begins 
with an examination of some points in con- 
nexion with the pre-existence and character 
of souls; and, in a striking passage (§ 29), 
Origen illustrates the inspiration’ of evil pas- 
sions. Other interesting passages treat of 
love as ‘‘the sun’”’ in the life of Christians 
(§ 15); the ambiguities in the word ‘‘ when ”’ 
(§ 24); the need of help for spiritual sight 
(§ 26) ; and spiritual influences (§ 29). 

The most remarkable passage in bk. xxviii. 
(John xi. 39-57) is perhaps that on the power 
of self-sacrifice among the Gentiles illustrating 
the vicarious sufferings of Christ (§ 14). Other 
remarks worthy of special notice are on the 
lifting up of the eyes (John xi. 41) (§ 4), the 
lesson of the death of Lazarus (§ 6), the duty 
of prudence in time of persecution (§ 18), and 
the passover of the Jews and of the Lord (§ 20). 

Bk. xxxii. (John xiii. 2-33) treats of St. 
John’s record of the Last Supper. Origen 
discusses the feet-washing at length, and says 
that it is not to be perpetuated literally 
(§§ 6 f.); he dwells on the growth of faith (ὃ 9), 
the difference of ‘‘ soul’”’ and “‘ spirit ’’ (§ 11), 
the character of Judas and moral deteriora- 
tion (§ 12), and the sop given to Judas (§ 16). 

Origen’s Commentary is for us the beginning 
of a new type of literature. It has great 
faults of style, is diffusive, disproportioned, 
full of repetitions, obscure and heavy in form 
of expression, wholly deficient in historical 
insight, and continually passing into fantastic 
speculations. But it contains not a few 
ΚΕ jewels five words long,’’ abounds in noble 
thoughts and subtle criticisms, grapples with 
great difficulties, unfolds great ideas, and, 
above all, retains a firm hold on the human 
life of the Lord. 

Acts.—[17 Homilies.—n.c.] Greek: (τ) 
A single fragment from ‘‘ the fourth homily 
on the Acts” is preserved in the Philocalia. 
(2) A few notes are given in Cramer’s Catena, 
col. iii. 184, on Acts Iv. 32, vii. 3, 53, xxi. 38. 

Romans.—[15 Books.—n.c.] Greek: (τ) 
Fragments from the first and ninth books 
contained in the Philocalia. (2) A number of 
important notes are contained in Cramer’s 
Catena, t. iv. (1844), on the following passages: 
121. Or dS. 16: 272 411..21.2:)»9, 15. τῦ, 21. 25: 
27, 28, 30, 31; iv. 2. Latin: Ten books of 
Commentaries, translated and compressed 
from the fifteen books of Origen, by Rufinus, 
at the request of Heraclius. 

The Commentary on Romans gives a con- 
tinuous discussion of the text, often discur- 
sive, but still full of acute and noble concep- 


ORIGENES 


tions. Origen’s treatment of Rom. viii. as 
represented by Rufinus, is, on the whole, dis- 
appointing. It might have been expected to 
call out his highest powers of imagination 
and hope. His silence, no less than his rash 
conjectures as to the persons named in Rom. 
Xvi., is a singular proof of the complete 
absence of any authoritative tradition as to 
the persons of the early Roman church. For 
the passage (x. 43) which refers to Marcion’s 
mutilation of the epistle by removing the 
doxology (xvi. 25-27) and (though this is dis- 
puted) the last two chapters, see the papers 
by bp. Lightfoot and Dr. Hort in Jour. of 
Philology, 1869, ii. 264 ff.; 1871, iil. 51 ff., 
193 ff. ; 

I.-II. CortntH1ans.—[11 Homilies on II. 
Cor.—n.c.] Greek : Jerome mentions (Ep. ad 
Pammach. xlix. § 3) that Origen commented 
on this epistle at length; and Origen himself 
refers to what he had said on I. Cor. i. 2 (Hom. 
in Luc. xvii.s.f.). A very important collection 
of notes on I. Cor. is given in Cramer’s Catena, 
vol. v. 1844. Some of the notes contain 
passages of considerable interest, as those on 
the vicarious death of Gentile heroes (I. Cor. i. 
18; cf. Hom. in Joh. t. xxviii. § 14), the 
sovereignty of believers (I. Cor. iii. 21), evan- 
gelic ‘‘ counsels ”’ (vii. 25), the public teaching 
of women (xiv. 34, with reference to Montan- 
ism). Origen gives the outline of a creed (i. 
9, 20), and touches on baptism (i. 14) and 
holy communion (vii. 5). He describes the 
Jewish search for leaven (v. 7) ; and supposes 
that many books of O.T. were lost at the 
Captivity (ii. 9). 

GALATIANS.—[15 Books; 7 Homilies.— 
H.C.] Jerome, in the Prologue to his Com- 
mentary on Galatians, mentions that Origen 
wrote five Books on this epistle, as well as 
various Homilies and Notes (tractatus et ex- 
cerpta), and that he interpreted it with brief 
annotations (commatico sermone) in his Stro- 
matets, bk. x. (Proem. in Comm. ad Gal.; Ep. 
ad August. cxi. §§ 4, 6). Three fragments of 
the Commentary are contained in the Latin 
translation of Pamphilus’s Apology. 

EPHESIANS.—[3 Books.—n.c.]  Origen’s 
Commentary on the Ephesians may still be 
practically recovered. Jerome, in the Pro- 
logue to his own Commentary, says that “‘ his 
readers should know that Origen wrote three 
books on the epistle, which he had partly 
followed.”’ The extent of his debt could only 
be estimated by conjecture, till the publica- 
tion of the Paris Catena (Cramer, 1842). This 
contains very large extracts from Origen’s 
commentary, sometimes with his name and 
sometimes anonymous, and in nearly all cases 
Jerome has corresponding words or thoughts. 
A careful comparison of the Greek fragments 
with Jerome’s Latin would make it possible 
to reconstruct a very large part of Origen’s 


work. The corresponding notes on the des-- 


cription of the Christian warfare (vi. 11 ff.) 
well illustrate Jerome’s mode of dealing with 
his archetype. Origen’s comments are almost 
continuous. A fragment on Eph. v. 28 f., not 
found in the Greek notes, is preserved in the 
Latin trans. of the Apology of Pamphilus. 
PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, Titus, PHILE- 
MON.—[I Book on Philippians; 2 on Colos- 
sians ; I on Titus; ton Philemon; 1 Homily 


| 


ORIGENES 779 


on Titus.—u.c.] Short fragments from bk.) the trained eye could see its harmonies the 


iii. on Col. and the Comm. on Philemon, | most. 


and more considerable fragments from Book 
on Titus (Tit. iii. ro, rx), are found in the 
trans. of Pamphilus’s Apology. No Greek 
notes on these Epp. have been preserved. 

I. THESSALONIANS. [3 Books; 2 Homilies. 
—n.c.] <A considerable fragment from the 


third book of the Commentary on I. Thess. is | 


preserved in Jerome's trans.: Ep. ad Minerv. 

εἰ Alex. ο (1. Thess. iv. 15-17). 
Hesrews.—([18 Homilies.—H.C.}] Origen 

wrote Homilies and Commentaries on Heb- 


rews. Two fragments of the Homilies are. 


τὸ cr by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 25), in which 
rigen gives his opinion on the composition 
of the epistle. Some inconsiderable frag- 
ments from the “ Books"’ are found in the 
trans. of Pamphilus's Apology. 

Catuotic Ertsttes.—The quotations from 
ar tat given in Cramer’s Catena on the 
Catholic epistles, are apparently taken from 
other treatises, and not from commentaries on 
the books themselves: Jas. i. 4, 13; I. Pet. 


Fresh wants made fresh truths visible. 
He who found much had nothing over: he 
who found littl had no lack. 

The book is the earliest attempt to form a 


| system of Christian doctrine, or rather a philo- 


}an epoch in Christian thought, but no ε 


sophy of the Christian faith, and thus marks 


᾿- “- 


in the contents of the Christian ereed. 


lelements of the dogmatic basis are assumed 


i. 4 (ἐκ τῆς ἑρμηνείας εἰς τὸ κατὰ wpdyrwow 
Beod) ; I. John ii. 14 (ἐκ τοῦ ἄσματος ray 


ἀσμάτων T. A’.). 

APOcALYPsE.—Origen purposed to com- 
ment upon the Apocalypse (Comm. Ser. in 
Matt. § 49), but it is uncertain whether he 
carried out his design. 

B. Docmatic WritinGs.—Origen’s writings 
On the Resurrection were violently assailed by 
Methodius, and considered by Jerome to 
abound in errors (Ep. Ixxxiv. 7). Probably 
they excited opposition by assailing the gross 
literalism of the popular view of the future 
life. The extant fragments are consistent 
with the true faith and express it with a wise 
caution, affirming the permanence through 
death of the whole man and not of the soul 
only. Thus Origen dwells rightly on St. 
Paul’s image of the seed (Fragm. 2), maintains 
a perfect correspondence between the present 
and the future, and speaks very happily of the 
“ratio substantiae corporalis’’ as that which 
is permanent. 

The book On First Principles is the most 
complete and characteristic expression of 
Origen’s opinions. It was written while at 
Alexandria, when he was probably not much 
more than 30 years old and still a layman, 
but there isno reason to think that he modified, 
in any important respects, the views he un- 
folds in it. It was not written for simple 
believers but for scholars—for those who 
were familiar with the teaching of Gnosticism 
and Platonism ; and with a view to questions 
which then first became urgent when men 
have risen to a wide view of nature and life. 
Non-Christian philosophers moved in a region 
of subtle abstractions, ‘‘ ideas"’: Origen felt 
that Christianity converted these abstractions 
into realities, persons, facts of a complete 
life ; and he strove to express what he felt in 


the modes of thought and language of his own | 


age. He aimed at presenting the highest 
knowledge (γνῶσι5) as an objective system. 
But in doing this he had no intention of 
fashioning two Christianities, a Christianity 
for the learned and a Christianity for the 
simple. 


}on the authority of the church. The author's 


object is, he says, to shew how they can be 
arranged as a whole, by the help either of the 
Statements of Scripture or of the methods of 
exact reasoning. However strange or start- 
ling the teaching of Origen may seem to us 
we must bear in mind that this is his own 
account of it. He takes for granted that all 
he brings forward is in harmony with received 
teaching. He professes to accept as final the 
same authorities as ourselves. 

The treatise consists of four books. Digres- 
sions and repetitions interfere with the sym- 
metry of the plan. But to speak generally, 
bk. i. deals with God and creation (religious 
Statics); bks. ii. and iii. with creation and 
providence, man and redemption (religious 
dynamics) ; and bk. iv. with Holy Scripture. 
The first three books contain the exposition 
of a Christian philosophy, gathered round the 
three ideas of God, the world, and the rational 
soul, and the last gives the basis of it. Even 
in the repetitions (as on “ the restoration of 
things"’) each successive treatment corre- 
sponds with a new point of sight. 

In bk. i. Origen sets out the final elements 
of all religious philosophy, God, the world, 
rational creatures. After dwelling on the 
essential nature of God as incorporeal, in- 
visible, incomprehensible, and on the charac- 
teristic relations of the Persons of the Holy 
Trinity to man, as the authors of being, and 
reason, and holiness, he gives a summary view 
of the end of human life, for the elements of a 
pipers cannot be really understood until we 

ave comprehended its scope. The ἐπα οἱ life, 
then, according to Origen, is the progressive 
assimilation of man to God by the voluntary 
appropriation of His gifts. Gentile philo- 
sophers had proposed to themselves the idea 
of assimilation to God, but Origen adds the 
means. By the unceasingaction of the Father, 


| Son, and Holy Spirit towards us, renewed at 


each successive stage of our advance, we shall 
be able, he says, with difficulty perchance, at 


|some future time, to look on the holy and 


blessed life; and when once we have been 
enabled to reach that, after many struggles, 
we ought so to continue in it that no weariness 
may take hold on us. Each fresh enjoyment 
of that bliss ought to deepen our desire for 
it; while we are ever receiving, with more 
ardent love and larger grasp, the Father and 


τῆς Son and the Holy Spirit (i. 3, δ), 


But it will be said that this condition of pro- 
gress, effort, assimilation, involves the μονα» 
bility of declension, indolence, the obliteration 
of the divine image. If man can go forward 
he can go backward. Origen aceepts the 


| consequence, and finds in it an explanation 


of the actual state of men and angels. The 


The faith was one, one essentially | present position of each rational being corre. 


and unalterably, but infinite in fullness,so that sponds, in his judgment, with the use he has 


780 ORIGENES 


made of the revelations and gifts of God. No 
beings were created immutable. Some by 
diligent obedience have been raised to the 
loftiest places in the celestial hierarchy ; 
others by perverse self-will and rebellion have 
sunk to the condition of demons. Others 
occupy an intermediate place, and are capable 
of being raised again to their first state, and 
so upward, if they avail themselves of the 
helps provided by the love of God. “Οἱ 
these,’’ he adds, ‘‘ I think, as far as I can form 
an opinion, that this order of the human race 
was formed, which in the future age, or in the 
ages which succeed, when there shall be a new 
heaven and a new earth, shall be restored to 
that unity which the Lord promises in His 
intercessory prayer... . Meanwhile, both in the 
ages which are seen and temporal, and in 
those which are not seen and eternal, all 
rational beings who have fallen are dealt with 
according to the order, the character, the 
measure of their deserts. Some in the first, 
others in the second, some, again, even in the 
last times, through greater and heavier suffer- 
ings, borne through many ages, reformed by 
sharper discipline, and restored... stage by 
stage ...reach that which is invisible and 
eternal...’’ Only one kind of change is im- 
possible. There is no such transmigration of 
souls as Plato pictured, after the fashion of the 
Hindoos, in the legend of Er the Armenian. 
No rational being can sink into the nature of a 
brute (i. 8, 4; cf. c. Cels. iv. 83). 

The progress of this discussion is interrupted 
by one singular episode characteristic of the 
time. How, Origen asks, are we to regard 
the heavenly bodies—the sun and moon and 
stars? Are they the temporary abodes of 
souls which shall hereafter be released from 
them? Are they finally to be brought into 
the great unity, when ‘‘ God shall be all in 
all’? ? The questions, he admits, are bold; 
but he answers both in the affirmative, on what 
he held to be the authority of Scripture (i. 7 ; 
cf. c. Cels. v. to f.). 

In bk. ii. Origen pursues, at greater length, 
his view of the visible world, as a place of dis- 
cipline and preparation. He follows out asa 
movement what he had before regarded as a 
condition. The endless variety in the situa- 
tions of men, the inequality of their material 
and moralcircumstances, their critical spiritual 
differences, all tend to shew, he argues, that 
the position of each has been determined in 
accordance with previous conduct. God, in 
His ineffable wisdom, has united all together 
with absolute justice, so that all these creatures 
most diverse in themselves, combine to work 
out His purpose, while “‘ their very variety 
tends to the one end of perfection.’ All 
things were made for the sake of man and 
rational beings. Through man, therefore, 
this world, as God’s work, becomes complete 
and perfect (cf. c. Cels.iv.g9). The individual 
is never isolated, though never irresponsible. 
At every moment he is acting and acted upon, 
adding something to the sum of the moral 
forces of the world, furnishing that out of 
which God is fulfilling His purpose. The 
difficulties of life, as Origen regards them, 
give scope for heroic effort and loving service. 
The fruits of a moral victory become more 
permanent as they are gained through harder 


ORIGENES 


toil. Obstacles and hindrances are incentives 
to exertion. Man’s body is not a ‘“‘ prison,”’ 
in the sense of a place of punishment only: 
it is a beneficent provision for discipline, fur- 
nishing such salutary restraints as are best 
fitted to further moral growth. ss 
This view of the dependence of the present 
on the past—to use the forms of human 
speech—seemed to Origen to remove a diffi- 
culty which weighed heavily upon thoughtful 
men then asnow. Very many said then that 
the sufferings and disparities of life, the con- 
trasts of law and gospel, point to the action of 
rival spiritual powers, or to a Creator limited 
by something external to Himself (ii. 9, 5). 
Not so, was Origen’s reply; they simply re- 
veal that what we see is a fragment of a vast 
system in which we can only trace tendencies, 
consequences, signs, and rest upon the historic 
fact of the Incarnation. In this respect he 
ventured to regard the entire range of being 
as ‘‘ one thought ’’ answering to the absolutely 
perfect will of God, while ‘“‘ we that are but 
parts can see but part, now this, now that.” 
This seems to be the true meaning of his 
famous assertion, that the power of God in 
creation was finite and not infinite. It would, 
that is, be inconsistent with our ideas of per- 
fect order, and therefore with our idea of the 
Divine Being, that the sum of first existences 
should not form one whole. ‘‘ God made all 
things in number and measure.’”? The omni- 
potence of God is defined (as we are forced to 
conceive) by the absolute perfections of His 
nature. ‘‘ He cannot deny Himself’’ (ii. 9, 
I, iv. 35). It may be objected that our diffi- 
culties do not lie only in our present circum- 
stances; the issues of the present, so far as 
we can see them, bring difficulties no less over- 
whelming ; even if we allow this world to be 
a fit place of discipline for fallen beings cap- 
able of recovery, it is only too evident that 
the discipline does not always work amend- 
ment. Origen admits the fact, and draws 
the conclusion that other systems of penal 
purification and moral advance follow. World 
grows out of world, so to speak, till the con- 
summation is reached. The nature, position, 
or constitution of the worlds to come he does 
not attempt to define. It is enough to believe 
that, from first to last, the will of Him Who is 
most righteous and most loving is fulfilled ; 
and that each loftier region gained is the 
entrance to some still more glorious abode 
above, so that all being becomes, as it were, in 
the highest sense a journey of the saints from 
mansion to mansion up to the very throne of 
God. To make this view clear Origen follows 
out, in imagination, the normal course of the 
progressive training, purifying, and illumina- 
tion of men in the future. He pictures them 
passing from sphere to sphere, and resting in 
each so as to receive such revelations of the 
providence of God as they can grasp; lower 
phenomena are successively explained to them, 
and higher phenomena are indicated. As they 
look backward old mysteries are illuminated ; 
as they look forward unimagined mysteries 
stir their souls with divine desire. Every- 
where their Lord is with them, and they 
advance from strength to strength through the 
perpetual supply of spiritual food. This food, 
he says, is the contemplation and understand- 


‘ 
" 


ORIGENES 


ing of God, according to its proper measure in 
each case, and as suits a nature which is made 
and created. And this measure—this due 
harmony and proportion between aim and 
power—it is right that every one should re- 
gard even now, who is beginning to see God, 
that is, to understand Him in purity of heart 
i. xx, 6 f.). But Origen goes on to shew 
that Scripture concentrates our attention upon 
the next scene, summed up in the words, 
resurrection, judgment, retribution. Nowhere 
is he more studiously anxious to keep to the 
teaching of the Word than in dealing with 
these cardinalideas. For him the resurrection 
is not the reproduction of any particular 
organism, but the preservation of complete 
identity of person, an identity maintained 
under new conditions, which he presents 
under the apostolic figure of the growth of 
the plant from the seed: the seed is com- 
mitted to the earth, perishes, and yet the-vital 
power it contains gathers a new frame answer- 
ing to its proper nature. Judgment is no 
limited and local act, but the unimpeded 
execution of the absolute divine law by which 
the man is made to feel what he is and what he 
has become and to bear the inexorable conse- 
quences of the revelation. Punishment is no 
vengeance, but the just severity of a righteous 
King, by which the soul is placed at least on 
the way to purification. Blessedness is no 
sensuous joy or indolent repose, but the open- 
ing vision of the divine glory, the growing 


insight into the mysteries of the fulfilment of | 


the divine counsels. 

In bk. iii. Origen discusses the moral basis 
of his system. This lies in the recognition 
of free will as the inalienable endowment of 
rational beings. But this free will does not 
carry with it the power of independent action, 
but only the power of receiving the help which 
is extended to each according to his capacity 
and needs and therefore justly implying re- 
sponsibility for the consequences of action. 
Such free will offers a sufficient explanation, 
in Origen’s judgment, for what we see and 

ives a stable foundation for what we hope. 
it places sin definitely within the man him- 
self, not without him. It preserves the 
possibility of restoration, while it enforces 
the penalty of failure. ‘‘‘ God said,’ so he 
writes, ‘let us make man in our image after 
our likeness.’ Then the sacred writer adds, 
‘and God made man: in the image of God 
made He him.’ This therefore that he says, 
‘in the image of God made He him,’ while 
he is silent as to the likeness, has no other 
meaning than this, that man received the 
dignity of the image at his first creation: 
while the perfection of the likeness is kept in 
the consummation (of all things); that is, 
that he should himself gain it by the efforts of 
his own endeavour, since the possibility of 
perfection had been given him at the first .. ."’ 
(iii. 6, 1). : 
a deep solemnity to the moral conflicts of life. 
We cannot, even to the last, plead that we are 
the victims of circumstances or of evil spirits. 
The decision in each case rests with ourselves, 
yet so that all we have and are truly is the 
gift of God. Each soul obtains from the 
ee of its love the power to fulfil His will. 
“ t 


Such a doctrine, he shews, gives | 


ORIGENES 7a 


| another place, " the Word of God in pot 
} tion to its capacity and faith. Aad when 
Souls have drawn to themselves the Word of 
| God, and have let Him penetrate their senses 
and their understandings, and have perceived 
| the sweetness of His fragrance .. . filled with 
| Vigour and cheerfulness they speed after 
him" (in Cant. i). Such a doctrine, so far 
from tending to Pelagianism, is the very re- 
| futation of it. It lays down that the essence of 
| freedom is absolute self-surrender; that the 
power of right action is nothing but the power 
of God. Every act of man is the act of a free 
being, but not an exercise of freedom ; if done 
without dependence upon God, it is done in 
despite of freedom, responsibly indeed, but 
under adverse constraint. The decision from 
| moment to moment rests with us, but not the 
jend. That is determined from the first, though 
the conduct of creatures can delay, through 
untold ages, the consummation of all things. 
| The gift of being, once given, abides for ever. 
| The rational creature is capable of change, 
| of better and worse, but it can never cease to 
be. What mysteries lie behind; what is the 
nature of the spiritual body in which we shall 
be clothed ; whether all that is finite shall be 
gathered up in some unspeakable way into 
the absolute,—that Origen holds is beyond our 
minds to conceive. 

Bk. iv. deals with the dogmatic basis of 
Origen’s system. For this to follow the moral 
| basis is unusual and yet intelligible. It moves 
from the universal to the special; from the 
most abstract to the most concrete; from 
the heights of speculation to the rule of 
authority. ‘* In investigating such great sub- 
jects as these,’ Origen writes, “‘ we are not 
content with common ideas and the clear 
evidence of what we see, but we take testi- 
monies to prove what we state, even those 
which are drawn from the Scriptures which 
we believe to be divine" (iv. 1). Therefore, 
in conclusion, he examines with a reverence, 
insight, humility, and grandeur of feeling 
never surpassed, the questions of the inspira- 
tion and interpretation of the Bible. The 
intellectual value of the work may best be 
characterized by one fact. A single sentence 
from it was quoted by Butler as containing 
the germ of his Analogy. 

Before he left Alexandria Origen wrote ten 
books of Miscellanies (Zrpwyareis: ci. Eus. 
H.E.vi.18). In these he apparently discussed 
various topics in the light of ancient philoso- 

hy and Scripture (Hieron. Ep. ad nae 
xx. 4). The three fragments which remain, 
in a Latin translation, give no sufficient idea 
of their contents. The first, from bk. vi., 
touches on the permissibility of deflection 
from literal truth, following out a remark of 
Plato (Hieron. adv. Ruf. i. § 18: cf. Hom, xix. 
in Jer. § 7; Hom. im Lev. iil. § 4). The 
second, from bk. x.,contains brief notes on the 
history of Susanna and Bel (Dan. xii. xiv.) 
) added by Jerome to his Comm. on Dan. The 
| third, also from bk. x., gives an interpretation 
of Gal. v. 13, which is referred to the spiritual 
understanding of the Scripture narratives 
(Hieron. ad loc.; cf. in Jer. iv. xxi. 24 ff), 

The Letter to Julies Africanus on the History 
of Susanna (Dan. xiii.) contains a reply to 


draws and takes to itself,” he says in, objections which Julius urged against the 


782 ORIGENES 


authenticity of the history of Susanna and 
offers a crucial and startling proof of Origen’s 
deficiency in historical criticism. Africanus 
pointed out, from its plays upon words among 
other things, that the writing must have been 
Greek originally, and that it was not con- 
tained in the ‘‘ Hebrew’’ Daniel. To these 
arguments Origen answers that he had in- 
deed been unable (φίλη yap ἡ ἀλήθεια) to find 
Hebrew equivalents to the paronomasias 
quoted, but that they may exist; and that 
the Jews had probably omitted the history to 
save the honour of their elders. It must be 
allowed that right lies with the aged Africanus, 
who could address Origen as “ἃ son,’ and 
whose judgment was in the spirit of his own 
noble saying: ‘‘ May such a principle never 
prevail in the church of Christ that falsehood 
is framed for His praise and glory” (Fragm. 
ap. Routh, R. S. ii. 230). 

C. Tue E1cut Books AGAINST CELSUS.—The 
earlier apologists had been called upon to 
defend Christianity against the outbursts of 
popular prejudice, as a system compatible 
with civil and social order. Origen, in this 
work, entered a far wider field. It was his 
object to defend the faith against a compre- 
hensive attack, conducted by critical, histori- 
cal, and philosophical, as well as by political, 
arguments. He undertook the work very un- 
willingly, at the urgent request of Ambrose, 
but, once undertaken, he threw into it the 
whole energy of his genius. CELSUS Was a 
worthy opponent, and Origen allows him to 
state his case in his own words, and follows 
him step by step in the great controversy. 
At first Origen proposed to deal with the 
attack of Celsus in a general form; but after 
i. 27 he quotes the objections of Celsus, in the 
order of their occurrence, and deals with them 
one by one, so that it is possible to recon- 
struct the work of Celsus, in great part, from 
Origen’s quotations. It would be difficult to 
overrate the importance both of attack and 
defence in the history of religious opinion in 
the 2nd and 3rd cents. The form of objec- 
tions changes; but every essential type of 
objection to Christianity finds its representa- 
tive in Celsus’s statements, and Origen suggests 
in reply thoughts, often disguised in strange 
dresses, which may yet be fruitful. No outline 
can convey a true idea of the fullness and 
variety of the contents of the treatise. Speak- 
ing broadly, the work falls into three parts— 
the controversy on the history of Christianity 
(bks. i. ii.), the controversy on the general 
character and idea of Christianity (bks. iii.-v.), 
the controversy on the relations of Christianity 
to philosophy, popular religion, and national 
life (bks. vi.-viii.). There are necessarily many 
Tepetitions, but in the main this appears to 
represent the course of the argument. The 
lines were laid down by Celsus: Origen 
simply followed him. 

After some introductory chapters (i. I-27), 
dealing with a large number of miscellaneous 
objections to Christianity as illegal, secret, of 
barbarous origin, inspired by a demoniac 
power, an offshoot of Judaism, Origen meets 
Celsus’s first serious attack, directed against 
the Christian interpretation of the gospel 
history. In this case Celsus places his argu- 
ments in the mouth of a Jew. The character, 


ORIGENES 


as Origen points out, is not consistently main- 
tained, but the original conception is ingeni- 
ous. A Jew might reasonably be supposed to 
be the best critic of a system which sprang 
from his own people. The chief aim of the ob- 
jector is to shew that the miraculous narra- 
tives of the Gospels are untrustworthy, incon- 
clusive in themselves, and that the details of 
the Lord’s life, so far as they can be ascertained, 
furnish no adequate support to the Christian 
theory of His person. The criticism is wholly 
external and unsympathetic. Can we sup- 
pose, Celsus asks, that He Whowas God would 
be afraid and flee to Egypt (i. 66)? could 
have had a body like other men (i. 69, ii. 36) ? 
would have lived a sordid, wandering life, 
with a few mean followers (i. 62) ? have borne 
insults without exacting vengeance (ii. 35) ? 
have been met with incredulity (ii. 75) ? have 
died upon the cross (ii. 68)? have shewn 
Himself only to friends if He rose again (ii. 
63)? He repeats the Jewish story of the 
shameful birth of Christ, and of His educa- 
tion in Egypt, where Celsus supposes that He 
learned magical arts by which He imposed 
upon His countrymen. These illustrations suf- 
ficiently shew the fatal weakness of Celsus’s 
position. He has no eye for the facts of the 
inner life. He makes no effort to apprehend 
the gospel offered in what Christ did and was, 
as a revelation of spiritual power ; and Origen 
rises immeasurably superior to him in his vin- 
dication of the majesty of Christ’s humiliation 
and sufferings (i. 29 ff.). Heshews that Christ 
did *“‘ dawn as a sun’”’ upon the world (ii. 30), 
when judged by a moral and not by an ex- 
ternal standard (ii. 40) ; that He left His dis- 
ciples the abiding power of doing “‘ greater 
works’”’ than He Himself did in His earthly 
life (ii. 48) ; that the actual energy of Chris- 
tianity in regenerating men, * was a proof that 
He Who was its spring was more than man 
(ii. 79). In bk. iii. and following books Celsus 
appears in his own person. He first attacks 
Christianity as being, like Judaism, originally 
a revolutionary system, based upon an idle 
faith in legends no more credible than those 
of Greece (iii. I-43); then he paints it in 
detail as a religion of threats and promises, 
appealing only to the ignorant and sinful, 
unworthy of wise men, and, in fact, not 
addressed to them, even excluding them 
(iii. 44-81). Here again Origen has an easy 
victory. He has no difficulty in shewing that 
no real parallel can be established between 
the Greek heroes (iii. 22), or, as Celsus sug- 
gested, Antinous (iii. 36 ff.) and Christ. On 
the other side he can reply with the power of 
a life-long experience, that while the message 
of the gospel is universal and divine in its 
universality, ‘‘ education is a way to virtue,” 
a help towards the knowledge of God (ili. 45, 
49, 58, 74), contributory, but not essentially 
supreme. But he rightly insists on placing 
the issue as to its claims in the moral and not 
in the intellectual realm. Christians are the 
proof of their creed. They are visibly trans- 
formed in character: the ignorant are proved 
wise, sinners are made holy (iii. 51, 64, 78 ff.). 

Bks. iv. and v. are in many respects the 
most interesting of all. In these Origen meets 


* Seen, for example, in one like St. Paul, of whom 


| Celsus took no notice (i. 63). 


ORIGENES 


Celsus’s attack upon that which is the central | 
idea of Christianity, and indeed of Biblical | 
revelation, the Coming of God. This neces- 
sarily includes the discussion of the Biblical 
view of man’s relation to God and nature. | 
The contentions of Celsus are that there can | 
be no sufficient cause and no adequate end for 
““a coming of God” (iv. 1-28); that the 
account of God's dealings with men in the O.T. 
is obviously incredible (iv. 29-50); that 
nature is fixed, even as to the amount of evil 
(iv. 62); and that man is presumptuous in 
claiming a superiority over what he calls irra- 
tional animals (iv. 54-99). In especial he 
dwells on the irrationality of the belief of a 
coming of God to judgment (v. 1-24); and 
maintains that there is a divine order in the 
distribution of the world among different 
nations, in which the Jews have no preroga- 
tive (v. 25-50). On all grounds therefore, he 
concludes, the claims of Christianity to be a 
universal religion, based on the coming of 
God to earth, are absurd. In treating these 
arguments Origen had a more arduous work 
than hitherto. The time had not then come 
—probably it has not come yet—when such 
far-reaching objections could be completely 
met; and Origen was greatly embarrassed by 
his want of that historic sense which is essen- 
tial to the apprehension of the order of the 
divine revelations. His treatment of the 
O.T. narratives is unsatisfactory; and it is 
remarkable that he does not apply his own 
views on the unity of the whole plan of being, 
as grasped by man, in partial explanation at 
least of the present mysteries of life. They 
underlie indeed all he says; and much that 
he urges in detail is of great weight, as his 
remarks upon the conception of a divine 
coming (iv. 5 ff., 13 f.), the rational dignity of 
man (iv. 13, 23 ff., 30), the anthropopathic 
language of Scripture (iv. 71 ff.), and on the 
resurrection (v. 16 ff.). 

In the last three books Origen enters again 
upon surer ground. He examines Celsus’s 
parallels to the teaching of Scripture on the 
knowledge of God and the kingdom of heaven, 
drawn from Gentile sources (vi. 1-23); and 
after a digression on a mystical diagnosis of 
some heretical sect, which Celsus had brought 
forward as a specimen of Christian teaching 

vi. 24-40), he passes to the true teaching on 
atan and the Son of God and creation (vi. 
41-65), and unfolds more in detail the doctrine 
of a spiritual revelation through Christ (vi. 
66-81). This leads to a vindication of the 
O.T. prophecies of Christ (vii. 1-17), the com- 
patibility of the two dispensations (vii. 18-26), 
and the Christian idea of the future life (vii. 
27-40). Celsus proposed to point Christians 
to some better way, but Origen shews that he 
has failed: the purity of Christians puts to 
shame the lives of other men (vii. 41-61). 

The remainder of the treatise is occupied 
with arguments as to the relations of Chris- 
tianity to popular worship and civil duties. 
Celsus urged that the “ demons,” the gods of | 
polytheism, might justly claim some worship, — 
as having been entrusted with certain offices 
in the world er 62-viii. 32); that the cir- 
cumstances of life demand reasonable con- 
formity to the established worship, which 
includes what is true in the Christian faith | 


ORIGENES 783 


(viii. 33-68); that civil obedience is para- 
mount (Vili, 69-75). Origen replies in detail ; 
and specially he shews that the worship of one 
God is the essence of true worship (vill. 12 6) ; 
that Christianity has a consistent certainty οἱ 
belief, with which no strange opinions can be 
put into comparison (vill. 43 ff.) ; that Chrie- 
tians do, in the noblest sense, support the civil 
powers by their lives, by their prayers, by 
their organization (viii. 74). 

The — of the arguments on both sides is 
essentially modern ; in the mode of treatment 
much is characteristic of the age in which the 
writers lived. Two points of very different 
nature will πον strike the student. 
First, the peculiar stress which Origen, in 
common with other early writers, lays upon 
isolated passages of the prophets and the O.T,. 
generally ; secondly, the unquestioning belief 
which he, in common with Celsus, accords to 
the claims of magic and augury (i. 6, 67, 
iv. 92f., vii. 67, viii. 58). But when every 
deduction has been made, it would not be 
easy to point to a discussion of the claims of 
Christianity more comprehensive or more rich 
in pregnant thought. Among early apologies 
it has no rival. The constant presence of a 
real antagonist gives unflagging vigour to the 
debate; and the conscious power of Origen 
lies in the appeal which he could make to the 
Christian life as the one unanswerable proof 
of the Christian faith (cf. Prae/. 2; i. 27, 67). 

There are many other passages of great 
interest and worthy of study apart from the 
context. Such are Origen’s remarks on the 
spirit of controversy (vii. 46); the moral 
power of Christianity, its universality, and its 
fitness for man (ii. 64, iii. 28, 40, 44, 62, 
iv. 26, vii. 17, 35, 42, 59); foreknowledge 
(ii. 19 ff.); the anthropomorphism of Serip- 
ture (vi. 60 ff.) ; the beauty a the ideal hope 
of the Christian (iii. 81); the ideal of worship 
(viii. 17 f., vii. 44); the divisions of Chris- 
tians (iii. 12 f., v. 61); spiritual fellowship 
(viii. 64); and future unity (viii. 72). 

Ὁ. Practica, Works.—Origen's essay On 
Prayer was addressed to Ambrose and Tatiana 
(φιλομαϑέστατοι καὶ γνησιώτατοι ἐν θεοσεβείᾳ 
ἀδελφοί, c. 33), in answer to their inquiries as 
to the efficacy, manner, subject, and circum- 
stances of prayer. No writing of Origen is 
more free from his characteristic faults or 
more full of beautiful thoughts. He examines 
first the meaning and use of εὐχή (§ 4), and 
the objections urged against the efhcacy of 
prayer, that God foreknows the future, and 
that all things take place according to His 
will (§ 5). Divine foreknowledge does not, he 
points out, take away man's responsibility ; 
the moral attitude of prayer is in itself a 
sufficient blessing upon it (§§ 6ff.). Prayer 
establishes an active communion between 
Christ and the angels in heaven ( 101); 
and the duty of prayer is enforced by the 
example of Christ and the saints (§§ 131). 


| Prayer must be addressed to God only, " our 


Father in heaven,’ and not to Christ the Son 
as apart from the Father, but to the Father 
through Him (§ 15). 

The Exhortation to Martyrdom.—In the 
persecution of Maximin (235-237), Ambrose 
and Theoctetus, a presbyter of Cacsarea, were 
thrown into prison. Origen them 


, 


784 ORIGENES 


in a book written from his heart : as a boy and 
as an old man he looked face to face on martyr- 
dom. Their sufferings, he tells them, are a 
proof of their maturity (c. 1), and in some 
sense the price of future blessedness (2), for 
which man’s earthly frame is unfitted (3 ff.). 
The denial of Christ, on the other hand, is the 
most grievous wrong to God (6 ff.). Believers 
are indeed pledged to endurance, which will 
be repaid with unspeakable joys (12 ff.). 
Moreover, they are encouraged in their trials 
by the thought of the unseen spiritual wit- 
nesses by whom they are surrounded in the 
season of their outward sufferings (18 ff.), and 
by the examples of those who have already 
triumphed (22 ff.) By martyrdom man can 
shew his gratitude to God (28 f.), and at the 
same time receive afresh the forgiveness of 
baptism, offering, as a true priest, the sacrifice 
of himself (30; cf. Hom. vii. in Jud. 2). So 
he conquers demons (32). The predictions 
of the Lord shew that he is not forgotten 
(34 ff.), but rather that through affliction is 
fulfilled for him some counsel of love (39 ff.), 
such as the union of the soul with God when 
freed from the distractions of life (47 ff.). 
Perhaps, too, the blood of martyrs may have 
gained others for the truth (50, τάχα T τιμίῳ 
αἵματι τῶν μαρτύρων ἀγοραθήσονταί τινες : cf. 
Hom. in Num. x. 2; 6. Cels. viii. 44). 

E. Critica, Writincs. [HEXAPLA.] 

F. Letrers.—Eusebius, as already stated, 
had made a collection of more than 100 of 
Origen’s letters (H. F. vi. 36, 2). Of these 
two only remain entire, those to Julius Afri- 
canus (already noticed) and Gregory of Neo- 
Caesarea, and of the remainder the fragments 
and notices are most meagre. In one frag- 
ment (Delarue, i. p. 3, from Suidas, s.v.) 
he gives a lively picture of the incessant 
labour which the zeal of Ambrose imposed 
upon him. Another fragment of great interest, 
preserved by Eusebius, contains a defence of 
his study of heathen philosophy (H. F. vi. 19). 
An important passage of a letter to friends at 
Alexandria, complaining of the misrepresenta- 
tions of those who professed to recount con- 
troversies they had held with him, has been 
preserved in a Latin trans. by Jerome and 
Rufinus (Delarue, i. p. 5). 

Gregory was as yet undecided as to his pro- 
fession when the letter to him was written 
(c. 236-237: cf. pp. rorf.). Origen expresses 
his earnest desire that his ‘‘son”’ will devote 
all his knowledge of general literature and the 
fruits of wide discipline to Christianity (c. 1). 
He illustrates this use of secular learning by 
the “‘ spoiling of the Egyptians” (c. 2); and 
concludes his appeal by a striking exhortation 
to Gregory to study Scripture. 

G. THe PuiLtocatia.—To this admirable 
collection of extracts from Origen’s writings 
the preservation of many fragments of the 
Greek textisdue. A revised text with critical 
intro. by Dr. J. A.. Robinson is pub. by the 
Camb. Univ. Press. The collection was made, 
it appears, by Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil. 
The former sent it to Theodosius, bp. of Tyana, 
c. 382, with a letter (Greg. Naz. Ep. cxv.) in 
which he says: ‘‘ That you may have some 
memorial from us, and at the same time from 
the holy Basil, we have sent you a small 
volume of the ‘choice thoughts’ of Origen 


ORIGENES 


(πυκτίον τῆς ᾿Ωριγένους Φιλοκαλίας), contairi- 
ing extracts of passages serviceable for scholars 
(τοῖς @idoddyots). Be pleased to accept it, 
and to give us some proof of its usefulness 
with the aid of industry and the Spirit.” The 
Philocalia is of great interest, not only from 
the intrinsic excellence of passages in it, but 
as shewing what Catholic saints held to be 
characteristic thoughts in Origen’s teaching. 
The book consists of xxvii. chaps., treating 
of the following subjects: (1) The Inspiration 
of divine Scripture. How Scripture should 
be read and understood. (2) That divine 
Scripture is closed and sealed. (3) Why the 
Inspired Books [of O.T.] are 22. (4) The 
solecism and poor style of Scripture. (5) What 
is ‘‘much-speaking,’? and what are ‘‘ many 
books’’; and that inspired Scripture is one 
Book. (6) That divine Scripture is one in- 
strument of God, perfect and fitted (for its 
work). (7) Thespecial character (τοῦ ἰδιώματος) 
of the persons of divine Scripture. (8) The 
duty of not endeavouring to correct the in- 
accurate (σολοικοειδῆ) phrases of Scripture 
and those not capable of being understood 
according to the letter, seeing that they con- 
tain deep propriety of thought for those who 
can understand. (9g) What is the reason that 
divine Scripture often uses the same term in 
different significations, and (that) in the same 
place. (το) Passages in divine Scripture which 
seem to involve difficulties. (11) That we 
must seek the nourishment supplied by all 
inspired Scripture, and not turn from the 
passages (ῥητά) troubled by heretics with ill- 
advised difficulties (δυσφήμοις ἐπαπορήσεσν), 
nor slight them, but make use of them also, 
being kept from the confusion which attaches 
to unbelief. (12) That he should not faint in 
the reading of divine Scripture who does not 
understand its dark riddles and parables. 
(13) When and to whom the lessons of philo- 
sophy are serviceable to the explanation of the 
sacred Scriptures, with Scripture testimony. 
(14) That it is most necessary for those who 
wish not to fail of the truth in understanding 
the divine Scriptures to know the logical prin- 
ciples or preparatory discipline (μαθήματα ἤτοι 
προπαιδεύματα) which apply to their use. (15) 
A reply to the Greek philosophers who dis- 
parage the poverty of the style of the divine 
Scriptures and maintain that the noble truths 
in Christianity have been better expressed 
among the Greeks. (16) Of those who malign 
Christianity on account of the heresies in the 
church. (17) A reply to those philosophers 
who say that it makes no difference if we call 
Him Who is God over all by the name Zeus, 
current among the Greeks, or by that used 
by Indians or Egyptians. (18) A reply to the 
Greek philosophers who profess universal 
knowledge, and blame the simple faith (τὸ 
ἀνεξέταστον τῆς mlorews) of the mass δὲ 
Christians, and charge them with preferring 
folly to wisdom in life; and who say that no 
wise or educated man has become a disciple 
of Jesus. (19) That our faith in the Lord has 
nothing in common with the irrational, super- 
stitious faith of the Gentiles. . . . And in reply 
to those who say, How do we think that Jesus 
is God when He had a mortal body? (20) A 
reply to those who say that the whole world 


ORIGENES 


was made, not for man, but for irrational 
creatures . . . who live with less toil than 
men... and foreknow the future. Wherein 
is an argument against transmigration and 
on augury. (21) Of free will, with an explana- 
tion of the sayings of Scripture which seem to 
deny it. (22) What is the dispersion of the 
rational or human souls indicated under a 
veil in the building of the Tower, and the con- 
fusion of tongues. (23) On Fate, and the re- 
conciliation of divine foreknowledge with 
human freedom ; and how the stars do not 
determine the affairs of men, but only indicate 
them. (24) Of matter, that it is not uncreated 
(ἀγέννητοτ) or the cause of evil. (25) That 
the separation to a special work (Rom. i. 1) 
from foreknowledge does not destroy free will. 
(26) As to things good and evil. (27) On the 
phrase, ‘‘ He hardened Pharaoh's heart." 
View oF Curistian Lire.—The picture of 
Christian life in Origen’'s writings is less com- 
plete and vivid than we might expect. It 
represents a society already sufficiently large 
powerful, and wealthy to offer examples οἱ 
popular vices. Origen contrasts the Chris- 
tians of his own with those of an earlier time, 
and pronounces them unworthy to bear the 
name of “ faithful"’ (Hom. in Jer. iv. 3; cf. 
in Matt. xvii. 24). Some Christians by birth 
were unduly proud of their descent (in Matt. 
xv. § 26). Others retained their devotion to 
pagan superstitions—astrology, auguries, ne- 
cromancy (in Josh. v. 6, vii. 4; cf. in Matt. 
xiii. § 6) and secular amusements (Hom. in 
Lev. ix. 9, xi. 1). There were many spiritual 
“* Gibeonites,’’ men who gave liberal offerings 
to the churches but not their lives (in Josh. x. 
I, 3). The attendance at church services was 
infrequent (in Josh. i. 7; Hom. in Gen. x. τ, 8). 
The worshippers were inattentive (Hom. in Ex. 
xiii. 2) and impatient (Hom. in Jud. vi. 1) 
Commercial dishonesty (in Matt. xv. 13) and 
hardness (Sel. in Job. p. 341 L) had to be re- 
proved. Such faults call out the preacher's 
denunciations in all ages. An evil more 
characteristic of his age is the growing am- 
bition of the clergy. High places in the 
hierarchy were sought by favour and by gifts 
(Hom. in Num. xxii. 4; cf. in Matt. xvi. 22; 
Comm. Ser. §§ 9, 10, 12). Prelates endeav- 
oured to nominate their kinsmen as their 
successors (ib. xxii. 4); and shrank from 
boldly rebuking vice lest they should lose the 
favour of the people (in Josh. vii. 6), using the 
powers of discipline from passion rather than 
with judgment (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 14), 50 
that their conduct already caused open scan 
(Hom. in Num. ii. 17). They too often forgot 
humility at their ordination (Hom. in Exzech. 
ix. 2). They despised the counsel of men of 
lower rank, “ποῖ to speak of that of a layman 
or a Gentile’ (Hom. in Ex. xi. 6). Origen in 
particular denounces the pride of the leading 
men in the Christian society, which already 
exceeded that of Gentile tyrants, especially 
in the more important cities (in Matt. xvi. 8). 
Traces still remained in his time of the 
miraculous endowments of the apostolic 
church, which he had himself seen (¢. Cels. 
ii. 8, iii. 24; im Joh. t. xx. 28, ἴχνη καὶ 
λείμματα ; cf. c. Cels. i, 2). Exorcism was 
habitually practised (Hom. in Jos. xxiv. 1). 
Demons were expelled, many cures wrought, 


- | Ex. iv. 9). 


al| the Chinese. 


ORIGENES 785 


| future events foreseen by Christians through 
the help of the Spirit (ς, Cels. 1. 46; οἱ. 4. 25, 
iii. 36, vill. 58); and he says that the " name 
of Jesus"’ was sometimes powerful against 
demons, even when named by bad men (ce, Cede. 
|i. 6; of. ν᾿ 45). But this testimony must 
|be taken in conjunction with the belief ina 
j}magic which he shared with his contem- 
poraries. He appeals unhesitatingly to the 
efficacy of incantations with the use of sacred 
names (c. (εἰς, i. 22, iv. 93 f1.; εἰ. in Maat. 
Comm. Ser. § 110), and otherwise according 
to secret rules (c. Gels. i. 24; Hom. in Num, 
xiii. 4; in Jos. xx. fragm. ap. Philo. c. xii.). 
Origen says little of the relations of Chris 
tians to other bodies in the state. The inter- 
penetration of common life by paganiam 
necessarily excluded believers from most 
ene ceremonies and from much social inter- 
course. It also made them ill-disposed to- 
|wards art, which was devoted to the old 
religion (c. (εἰς. iii. 56; de Orat. 17), and bad 
}not yet found any place in connexion with 
Christian worship (c. Cels. vii. δὲ f.). It is 
remarkable that while Origen was pre-emin- 
ently distinguished for his vindication of the 
claims of reason (ἐδ. i. 13) and of Gentile philo- 
sophy, as being the ripest fruit of man’s 
natural powers (cf. Hom. in Gen. xiv. 4; in 
Ex. xi. 6) and not their corruption (Tertullian) 
he still very rarely refers to the literature οἱ 
secular wisdom in his general writings as 
ancillary to revelation. He even in some 
cases refers its origin to “ the princes of this 
world "’ (de Princ. iii. 3, 2); and, in an inter- 
esting outline of the course of Gentile educa- 
tion, remarks that it may only accumulate 
a wealth of sins (Hom. iii. in Ps. xxxvi. 6). 
But his directions for dealing with unbelievers 
are marked by the truest courtesy (Hom. in 
In spite of his own courageous 
enthusiasm, he counselled prudence in times 
of persecution (in Matt. x. 23). Occasions 
for such self-restraint arose continually. For 
Origen notices the popular judgment, active 
from the time of Tertullian to that of Augus- 
tine, which referred ‘ wars, famines, and 
pestilences"’ to the spread of the faith (ἐν 
Matt. Comm. Ser. § 39); especially he dwells 
upon the animosity of the Jews, who " would 
rather see a criminal acquitted than convicted 
by the evidence of a Christian’ (ἰδ, § 16). 
Of the extension of Christianity he speaks in 
eneral terms, rhetorically rather than exactly. 
ft was not preached among all the Ethiopians, 
especially “ those beyond the river,"’ or among 
“What,” he continues, " shall 
we say of the Britons or Germans by the 
Ocean, Dacians, Sarmatians, Scythians, very 
many of whom have not yet heard the word?" 
(ἐδ. § 39). But some inhabitants of Britain 
and Mauritania held the faith (Hom. im Lue. 
vi.). Christians generally declined public 
offices, not from lack of loyalty, but feeling 
that they could serve their country better 
through their own society (¢. (εἰς. vill. 74, 75)- 
The church, according to Origen, is the 
whole body of believers animated by Christ, 
Who, as the Divine Logos, stirs cach member, 
so that without Him it does nothing {ἐν vi. 44). 
In the widest sense it has existed even from 
the Creation (in Cant. ii. p. 418 L.). Such a 
\view, which makes the church coextensive 


6 


786 ORIGENES 


with the existence of divine fellowship, carries 
with it the corollary, that ‘‘ without the church 
there is no salvation”? (Hom. in Jos. iii. 6). 
Origen, as has been seen, shewed practically 
his respect for the see of Rome, but he recog- 
nized no absolute supremacy in St. Peter (im 
Matt. xii. 11). He held indeed that he had 
a certain pre-eminence (in Joh. t. xxxii. 5) 
and that the church was founded on him 
(Hom. in Ex. v. 4), but every disciple of 
Christ, he affirms, holds in a true sense the 
same position (Comm. in Matt. xii. 10). 
Origen lays great stress upon the importance 
of right belief (in Matt. t. xii. 23; Comm. 
Ser. in Matt. § 33; de Orat. 29). Asa young 
man he refused every concession to a mis- 
believer in the house of his benefactress (Eus. 
H. E. vi. 2). In later years he laboured suc- 
cessfully to win back those who had fallen 
into error. But his sense of the infinite great- 
ness of the truth made him tolerant (c. Cels. 
v. 63). Varieties of belief arose from the very 
vastness of its object (7b. ili. 12); and his 
discussion of the question, Who is a heretic ? 
is full of interest (Fragm. in Ep. ad Tit.). 
Casual notices in Origen’s writings give a 
fairly complete view of the current religious 
observances. He speaks generally of stated 
times of daily prayer, ‘‘ not less than three”’ 
(de Orat. 12), of the days they kept—‘ the 
Lord’s days (cf. Hom. in Ex. vii. 5; in Num. 
xxiii. 4), Fridays, Easter, Pentecost ”’ (c. Cels. 
viii. 22; cf. Hom. in Is. vi. § 2)—and of the 
Lenten, Wednesday, and Friday fasts (Hom. 
in Lev. x. 2). Some still added Jewish rites 
to the celebration of Easter (Hom. in Jer. xii. 
13) and other traces remained of Judaizing 
practices (7b. x. ὃ 2). Jewish converts, Origen 
says without reserve, ‘‘ have not left their 
national law ’”’ (c. Cels. ii. 1, cf. § 3); though 
he lays down that Christ forbade His disciples 
to be circumcised (ἐδ. i. 22 ; cf. v. 48). Chris- 
tians, however, still abstained from ‘“‘ things 
strangled”? (δ. viii. 30) and from meat 
offered to idols (7b. 24). Outward forms had 
already made progress; and the religion of 
some consisted in ‘‘bowing their head to 
priests, and in bringing offerings to adorn the 
altar of the church” (Hom. in Jos. x. 3). 
Baptism was administered to infants, “‘ in 
accordance with apostolic tradition ”’ (7m Rom. 
v. §9, Ρ- 397 L. ; Hom. in Lev. viii. § 3 ; τη Luc. 
xiv.), in the name of the Holy Trinity (1m Rom. 
v. § 8, p. 383 L.; cf. in Joh. t. vi. 17), with 
the solemn renunciations ‘‘ of the devil and of 
his pomps, works, and pleasures”? (Hom. in 
Num. xii. 4). The unction (confirmation) does 
not appear to have been separated from it (in 
Rom. v. ὃ 8, p. 381: ‘‘ omnes baptizati in 
aquis istis visibilibus et in chrismate visibili’’). 
The gift of the Holy Spirit comes only from 
Christ, and Origen held that it was given 
according to His righteous will: ‘‘ Not all 
who are bathed in water are forthwith bathed 
in the Holy Spirit’? (Hom. in Numi. iii. 1). 
Cf. also Sel. in Gen. ii. 15 ; Hom. in Luc. xxi. ; 
de Princ. i. 2; and for the two sacraments, 
Hom. in Num. vii. 2. Adult converts were 
divided into different classes and trained with 
great care (c. Cels. 111. 51). 
Of the Holy Communion Origen speaks not 
infrequently, but with some reserve (Hom. in 
Lev. x. 10; im Jos. iv. 1). The passages 


ORIGENES 


which give his views most fully are in Joh. 
xxxii. § 16; in Matt. xi. ὃ 14; in Matt. Comm. 
Ser. §§ 85 ἘΞ Hom. in Gen. xvii. 8; in Ex. 
xiii. § 3; im Lev. ix. 10; in Num. xvi. 9. 08 
c. Cels. viil. 33, 57 ; Hom. in Jud. vi.2; Hom. 
ii. in Ps. xxxvii. 6 ; Sel. in Ps. p. 365 L.. The 
ruling thought of his interpretation is sug- 
gested by John vi.: “ corpus Dei Verbi aut 
sanguis quid aliud esse potest nisi verbum 
quod nutrit et verbum quod laetificat ?”’ (im 
Matt. Comm. Ser. § 85); ‘‘bibere autem 
dicimur sanguinem Christi non solum sacra- 
mentorum ritu sed et cum sermones ejus re- 
cipimus in quibus vita consistit, sicut et ipse 
dicit, Verba quae locutus sum spiritus et vita 
est”? (Hom. in Num. xvi. ὃ 9; cf. xxili. § 6). 
The passage which is often quoted to shew 
“ἃ presence of Christ in the sacrament extra 
usum,”’ indicates nothing more than _ the 
reverence which naturally belongs to the con- 
secrated elements (‘‘consecratum munus,”’ 
Hom. in Ex. xiii.3). The kiss of peace was 
still given “‘ at the time of the mysteries ’’ (in 
Cant. i. p. 331 L.) “after prayers ”” (in Rom. 
x. § 33) ; and the love-feast (’Ayd7rn) was suffi- 
ciently notorious for Celsus to attack it (ο. 
Cels.i. 1) ; but the practice of “"" feet-washing,”’ 

if it ever prevailed, was now obsolete (in Joh. 
xxxii. ὃ 7; Hom. in Is. vi. ὃ 3). His use of 
Jas. v. 14, in Hom. in Lev. ii. 4, does not give 
any support, as has been affirmed, to the 
practice of extreme unction. 

The treatise On Prayer gives a vivid picture 
of the mode and attitude of prayer. It was 
usual to turn to the east (de Orat. 31; Hom. 
in Num. v. § 1). Standing and kneeling are 
both recognized (de Orat. l.c.; Hom. in Num. 
xi. § 9; cf. in Sam. Hom. i. § 9). Forms of 
prayer were used (Hom. in Jer. xiv. § 14) and 
prayers made in the vernacular language of 
each country (c. Cels. viii. 31). 

Origen frequently refers to confession as 
made to men and not to God only (Hom. in 
Luc. xvii.; de Orat. 28; Hom. ii. in Ps. 
XxxXvii. ὃ 6) ; and reckons penitence completed 
by such confession to a “‘ priest of the Lord” 
as one of the modes for forgiveness of sins 
(Hom. ii. in Lev. ὃ 4). He speaks of public 
confession (ἐξομολόγησις) to God as efficacious 
(Hom. i. in Ps. xxxvi. ὃ 5), a form of penitence 
to be adopted after wise advice (1b. xxxvii. 
§ 6); and he supposes that the efficacy of 
‘“the power of the keys’’ depends upon the 
character of those who exercise it (in Matt. 
t. xii. §14). Discipline was enforced by exclu- 
sion from common prayer (in Matt. Comm. 
Ser. § 89); and for more serious offences 
penitence was admitted once only (Hom. in 
Lev. xv. ὃ 2). Cf. also what is said on “sin 
unto death” (7b. xi. 2). Those who had 
offended grievously after baptism were looked 
upon as incapable of holding office (c. Cels. 
111. 51). 

the threefold ministry is treated as uni- 
versally recognized; and Origen speaks of 
presbyters as priests, and deacons as Levites 
(Hom. in Jer. xii. 3). The people were to be 
present at the ordination of priests (Hom. in 
Lev. vii. 3) and he recognizes emphatically the 
priesthood of all Christians who ‘‘ have been 
anointed with the sacred chrism ”’ (1b. ix. 9; 
cf. Hom. in Num. v. 3; tn Jos. vii. 2; cf. Exh. 
ad Martyr. 30). Widows are spoken of as 


ORIGENES 


veg a definite place in the church organiza- 
tion (Hom. in Is. vi. § 3; Hom. in Luc. xvii.) ; 
et not apparently combined in any order (sn 

‘om. x. §§ 17, 20). 

As yet no absolute rule existed as to the celi- 
bacy of the cl . Origen himself was in- 
clined to sup 
tn Lev. vi. ὃ 6). ‘* No bishop, however, or 
presbyter or deacon or widow could marry a 
second time’’ (Hom. in Luc. xvii.): such 


Origen held to be in a second class, not “ of | 


the church without spot’ (.c.; but cf. note 
on I. Cor. vii. 8). It wasa sign of the diffi- 
culties of the time that some “rulers of the 
church "’ allowed a woman to marry again 
while her husband (presumably a Gentile who 
had abandoned her) was still living (in Matt. 
t. xiv. § 23). Origen’s own example and 
ing were strongly in favour of a strict 
and continent life (cf. c. Cels. vii. 48; Hom. 
in Gen. v. 4), while he condemns false as- 
ceticism (sm Matt. Comm. Ser. § 10). He 
- enforces the duty of systematic almsgiving 
(ἐδ. ὃ 61); and maintains that the law of 
offering the firstfruits to God, that is to the 
priests, is one of the Mosaic precepts which 
is of perpetual obligation (Hom. in Num. xi. 1 ; 
cf. c. Cels. viii. 34). Usury is forbidden (Hom. 
iii. in Ps. xxxvi. ὃ 11). The rule as to food 
laid down in Acts xv. 29 was still observed (in 
Rom. ii. § 13, p. 128 L; c. Cels. viii. 30). 

The reverence of Christian burial is noticed 
(Hom. in Lev. iii. § 3; ἐς. Cels. viii. 30). 
Military service Origen thinks unlawful for 
Christians (c. Cels. v. 33, viii. 73), though he 
seems to admit exceptions (1b. iv. 82). 

ORIGEN AS CRITIC AND INTERPRETER.— 
Origen regarded the Bible as the source and 
rule of truth (Hom. in Jer. i. ὃ 7). Christ is 
“‘the Truth,” and they who are sure of this 
seek spiritual knowledge from His very words 
and teaching alone, given not only during His 
earthly presence, but through Moses and the 
prophets (de Princ. Praef. 1). The necessary 
ὄν of doctrine were, Origen held, comprised 

y the apostles in a simple creed handed down 
by tradition (ib. ii.), but the fuller exhibition 
of the mysteries of the gospel was to be sought 
from the Scriptures. He made no sharp 
division between O. and N. T. They must 
be treated as one body, and we must be care- 
ful not to mar the unity of the spirit which 
exists throughout (in Joh. x. 13; cf. de Princ. 
1. 4). 
seen through Christ (de Princ. iv. 1, 6). 

(1) The Canon of Scripture.—In fixing the 


contents of the collection of sacred books | 


Origen shews some indecision. In regard to 
O.T. he found a serious difference between 
the Hebrew canon and the books commonly 
found in the Alexandrine Greek Bible. In 
his Comm. on Ps. i. he gives a list of the 
canonical books (ai ἐνδιάθηκοι βίβλοι) ac- 
cording to the tradition of the Hebrews, 22 
in number (ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25). In the 
enumeration the Book of the Twelve (minor) 
Prophets is omitted by the error of Eusebius 
or of his transcriber, for it is necessary to make 
up the number; and the “ Letter" (Baruch 
vi.) is added to J eremiah, because (apparently) 
it occupied that position in Origen’s copy of 
the LXX., for there is no evidence that it was 
ever included in the Hebrew Bible. The 


rt it by his own judgment (Hom. | 
ο 


The divinity of the O.T. is indeed first | 


ORIGENES 787 


Books of the Maccabees, which (1. Mace.) bore 
a Hebrew title, were not included (ἔξω τούτων 
ἐστῇ. But while Origen thus gives a primary 
᾿ place to the books of the Hebrew Canon, he ex- 
pressly defends, in his letter to Africanus, the 
use of the additions found in the Alexandrine 
LXX. (cf. p. 122). He was unwilling to 
sacrifice anything sanctioned by custom and 
tending to edification. His own practice 
reflects this double view. He never, so far as 
we know, publicly expounded any apocryphal 
books of O.T., while he habitually quotes ον 
as having authority, though he frequent! 
/notes that their authority was challenged. 
He quotes the Book of Enoch (ec. Cels. ν. $5; 
rinc. iv. 35; Hom. in Num. xxviii. 2), 
(the Prayer of Joseph (in Joh. ii. 25, εἴ σις 
προσίεται), the Assumption of Moses (Hom. 
in Jos. ii. 1), and the Ascension of Isaiah (ib. ; 
| de Prine. iii. 2, 1; cf. in Matt. t. x. 18); and 
|it is probably to books of this class that his 
interesting remarks on “ apocryphal" books 
in Prol. in Cant. p. 325 L. refer. 

How far Origen was from any clear view of 
the history of O.T. may be inferred from the 
importance he assigns to the tradition of 
Ezra’s restoration of their text from memory 
after the Babylonian captivity (Se. in Jer. 
mag 5 L.; Sel. in Ps. id. Ὁ. 371). 

is testimony to the contents of N.T. is 
more decided. He notices the books which 
were generally acknowledged as possessing 
| unquestionable authority: the Four Gospels 
{the Acts *], 1. Peter, 1. John, thirteen Epistles 
|of St. Paul. To these he adds the A pocalypse, 
for he seems to have been unacquainted with 
its absence from the Syrian Canon (ap. Eus. 
H. E. vi. 25). In another passage, preserved 
only in the Latin trans. of Rufinus (Hom. ἐπ 
Jer. vii. 1), he enumerates all the books of the 
received N.T., without addition or omission, 
as the trumpets by which the walls of the 
spiritual Jericho are to be overthrown (the 
our Gospels, I. and 11]. Peter, James, Jude, 
the Epistles and Apocalypse of St. John, the 
Acts by St. Luke, fourteen Epistles of St. Paul). 
This enumeration, though it cannot be 
lreceived without reserve, may represent his 
popular teaching. In isolated notices he 
speaks of the disputed books as received by 
some but a | all (Hebrews ; ap. Eus. H. Ε. 
vi. 25; Ep. Afric. § 9; James; in Joh. 
xix. 6; 11. Peter; Hom. in Lev. iv. 4; Jude; 
in Matt. τ. x. 17, xvii. 10); and he apparently 
limited doctrinal authority to the acknow- 
| ledged books (Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 25). 

Origen quotes frequently and with the 
greatest respect the Shepherd of Hermas (eg. 
\de Princ. i. 3, 3, iv. 11; ἐμ Matt. t. xiv, 
§ 21; in Rom. x. 31, p. 437 L.).t He quotes 
or refers to the Ep. (i.) of Clement,“ a disciple 
of the apostles" (de Princ. ti. 5, ὁ; 1” Phos 
it. vi. 36; Sel. in Ex. viii. 9); “ the Catholte 

Ep. οἱ Barnabas" (c. Cels. i. 63; de Prime. iit. 

, 4; cf. Comm. in Rom, i. § 18), the Gospel 

according to the Hebrews (in Joh. τ. ih. 6, 


9 Not specially mentioned, but Or . ts 
| decisive as to the position he pam gh i the 
tacit omission well Ulustrates the danger of trusting 

| to tive evidence. 


statement of Tarinus (Philec. p. 685) Uhat 
“orkgen rote commen on Shepherd is a lalee 
Ι uction from the word διηγούμεδια (ἐδ. bp. 57, ε1}. 


788 ORIGENES 


ἐὰν προσίεταί τις; Hom. in Jer. xv. 43 in 
Mait. t. xv. 14, Vet. int. Lat.; cf. Hieron. 
de Vir. Ill. 2), the Gospels ‘‘ according to the 
Egyptians,” and ‘‘according to the XII. 
A posiles,’’ “‘ according to Thomas,” and “ after 
Matthias’? (Hom. τ in Luc., ‘‘ Ecclesia quatuor 
habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, e quibus 
...,’ the Gospel according to Peter, the Book of 
James (in Matt. x. 17, τοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένου 
κατὰ Πέτρον εὐαγγελίου ἢ τῆς βίβλου ᾿Ιακώβου), 
Peter’s Preaching (in Joh. xiii. 17; de Princ. 
Praef. 8, Petri doctrina), the Acts of Paul (in 
Joh. xx. 12; de Princ. i. 2, 3), the Clementines 
(Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 77; in Gen. iii. § 14, 
ai περίοδοι), some form of the Acts of Pilate 
(in Matt. Comm. Ser. ὃ 122), the Testaments of 
the XII. Patriarchs (in Joh. xv. 6), the Teach- 
ing of the Apostles (?) (Hom. in Lev. xi. 2). 

Sayings attributed to the Lord are given in 
Matt: Ἐς xii. § 2; xvi.-§ 28 (Sel..in Ps. 
p- 432 L and de Orat. δὲ 2, 14, 16; cf. Matt. 
Vie 559), EXVils δι τι: 22 Jossive 53: Av few 
traditions are preserved : 1m Matt. Comm. Ser. 
§ 126 (Adam buried on Calvary); 7b. ὃ 25 
(death of the father of John Baptist) ; c. (εἰς. 
i. 51 (the cave and manger at Bethlehem) ; 
1b. vi. 75 (the appearance of Christ); Hom. 
tn Ezech.i. 4(thebaptism of Christin January). 

Anonymous quotations occur, Hom. in Luc. 
xxxv.; Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 61; Hom. in 
Ezech. i. 5; im Rom. ix. ὃ 2. 

(2) The Text.—Origen had very little of the 
critical spirit, in the modern acceptation of the 
phrase. This is especially seen in his treat- 
ment of Biblical texts. His importance for 
textual criticism is that of a witness and not 
of a judge. He gives invaluable evidence as 
to what he found, but his few endeavours to 
determine what is right, in a conflict of 
authorities, are for the most part unsuccessful 
both in method and result. Generally, how- 
ever, he makes no attempt to decide on the 
one right reading. He would accept all the 
conflicting readings as contributing to edifica- 
tion. Even his great labours on the Greek 
translations of O.T. were not directed rigor- 
ously to the definite end of determining the 
authentic text, but mainly to recording the 
extent and character of the variations. He 
then left his readers to use their own judgment. 

This want of a definite critical aim is more 
decisively shewn in his treatment of N.T. 
Few variations are more remarkable than 
those in Heb. ii. 9: χάριτι θεοῦ and χωρὶς 
θεοῦ. Origen was acquainted with both, and 
apparently wholly undesirous to choose be- 
tween them ; both gave a good sense and that 
was a Sufficient reason for using both (in Joh. 
t. 1. 40: εἴτε δὲ χωρὶς θεοῦ. .. εἴτε χάριτι. - . 
7b. Xxviil. 14: the Latin of Comm. in Rom. 
ili. ὃ 8, v. ὃ 7, sine Deo, is of no authority for 
Origen’s judgment). 

His importance as a witness to the true 
text of N.T.is, nevertheless, invaluable. Not- 
withstanding the late date and scantiness of 
the MSS. in which his Greek writings have 
been preserved, and the general untrust- 
worthiness of the Latin translations in points 
of textual detail, it would be possible to deter- 
mine a pure text of a great part of N.T. from 
his writings alone (cf. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. 
t. 11.). In some respects his want of a critical 


ORIGENES 


spirit makes his testimony of greater value 
than if he had followed consistently an in- 
dependent judgment. He reproduces the 
characteristic readings which he found, and 
thus his testimony is carried back to an 
earlier date. At different times he used copies 
exhibiting different complexions of text; so 
that his writings reflect the variations faith- 
fully. But great care is required in using 
the evidence which Origen’s quotations 
furnish. He frequently quotes from memory ; 
combines texts; and sometimes gives re- 
peatedly a reading which he can hardly have 
found in any MS. (e.g. I. John iii. 8, γεγέννηται). 
Illustrations of this perplexing laxity occur 
in Hom. in Jer. i. 15 (Matt. iii. 12, xiii. 39) ; 
ἐδ. iv. 2, v. 1 (Acts xiii. 26, 46); 2b. iv. 4 
(Luke xviii. 12) ; 2b. v. 1 (Tit. iii. 5 f.). 

(3) Interpretation.—Origen has been spoken 
of as the founder of a new form of literature 
in Biblical interpretation, and justly ; though 
others, conspicuously Heracleon, preceded 
him in expositions of Scripture more or less 
continuous. Origen constantly refers to 
previous interpretors, esp. to Heracleon. 

Origen’s method of interpreting Scripture 
was a practical deduction from his view of the 
inspiration of Scripture. This he developed 
in the treatise On First Principles, bk.iv. He 
regarded every ‘‘ jot and tittle’? as having 
its proper work (Hom. in Jer. xxxix. fr. ep. 
Philoc. c. x.). Allis precious; not even the 
least particle is void of force (in Matt. t. 
Xvi. 12). Cf. Ep. ad Greg. §3; in Joh. t. i. 
§ 4. Minute details of order and number veil 
and yet suggest great thoughts (e.g. Sel. in 
Pss. xi. 370, 377 L). It follows that in inter- 
pretation there is need of great exactness and 
care (in Gen. t. 111. p. 46 L.; Philoc. xiv.) 
and scrupulous study of details (im Joh. xx. 
29). Origenillustrates his principles by count- 
less subtle observations of great interest. 
His skill in combining passages from different 
parts of Scripture in illustration of some 
particular phrase or detail is specially notice- 
able. Each term calls up far-reaching associ- 
ations ; and all Scripture is made to contribute 
to the fullness of the thought to be expressed. 

Though Origen’s critical knowledge of He- 
brew was slight, he evidently learnt much 
from Hebrew interpreters and not unfrequent- 
ly quotes Hebrew traditions and ‘‘ Midrash.” 
He gives also an interpretation of ‘‘ Corban” 
(in Matt. t. xi. 9) and of ‘‘ Iscariot’ (in Matt. 
Comm. Ser. 78) from Jewish sources. 

To obviate the moral and historical diffi- 
culties of O.T. he systematized the theory of 
a ‘‘spiritual sense,’’? which was generally if 
vaguely admitted by the church (de Princ. 1, 
Praef. 8). There is, he taught, generally, a 
threefold meaning in the text of the Bible, 
literal (historical), moral, mystical, corre- 
sponding to the three elements in man’s con- 
stitution, body, soul, and spirit (de Princ. iv. 
11; Hom. in Lev. v. §§ 1, 5). Thus Scripture 
has a different force for different ages and 
different readers, according to their circum- 
stances and capacities (in Rom. ii. § 14, P. 
150 L.). But all find in it what they need. 

This threefold sense is to be sought both 
in O. and N. T. The literal interpretation 
brings out the simple precept or fact; the 
moral meets the individual want of each 


believer; the πὶ illuminates features 
in the whole work of Redemption (Hom, im 
Lev. i. $5 4. ii. § 4; de Princ. iv. 12, 14, 22). 
There is then manifold instruction for all be 
lievers in the precise statement, the definition 
of practical duties, the revelation of the divine 
lan, which the teacher must endeavour to 
ened out in his examination of the text. 
Origen steadily kept this object in view. 

It is easy to point out serious errors in detail 
in his interpretation of Scripture. On these 
there is no need to dwell. His main defect 
and the real source of his minor faults was his 
lack of true historic feeling. For him pro- 
phecy ceased to have any vital connexion with 
the trials and struggles of a people of God; 
and psalms (e.g. Ps. 1.) were no longer the 
voice of a believer's deepest personal experi- 
ence. In this Origen presents, though Ὡ a 
modified form, many of the characteristic 
defects of Rabbinic interpretation. He may 
have been directly influenced by the masters 
of Jewish exegesis. Just as they claimed for 
Abraham the complete fulfilment of the Law, 
and made the patriarchs perfect types of legal 
righteousness, Origen refused to see in the 
Pentateuch any signs of inferior religious 
knowledge or attainment. He deemed the 
patriarchs and prophets as wise by God's gifts 
as the σε). vi. 3); and the deepest 
mysteries of Christian revelation could be 
directly illustrated from their lives and words 
(sb. ii. 28), though sometimes he seems to feel 
the difficulties of this position (ἐδ. xiii. 46; 
cf. c. Cels. vii. 4 ff.). 

While this grave defect is distinctly acknow- 
ledged, it must be remembered that Origen 
had a special work to do, and did it. In his 
time powerful schools of Christian speculation 
disparaged the O.T. or rejected it. Christian 
masters had not yet been able to vindicate 
it from the Jews and for themselves. This 
task Origen accomplished. From his day 
the O.T. has been a part of our Christian 
heritage, and he fixed rightly the general 
spirit in which it is to be received. The O.T., 
he says, is always new to Christians who 
understand and expound it spiritually and in 
an evangelic sense, new not in time but in 
in retation (Hom. in Num. ix. § 4; cf. 
c. Cels. ii. 4). If in pressing this he was led 
to exaggeration, the error may be pardoned 
in regard to the greatness of the service. 

His method was fixed and consistent. He 
systematized what was before tentative and 
inconstant (cf. Redepenning, de Princ. pp. 


56f.). He laid down, once for all, broad out- 
lines of interpretation; and mystical mean- 
ings were not arbitrarily de to meet 


particular emergencies. The influence of his 
views is a sufficient testimony to their power. 
It is not too much to say that the medieval 
interpretation of Scripture in the West was 
inspired by Origen; and through secondary 
channels these medieval comments have 
passed into our own literature. 

He was indeed right in principle. “ He 
felt that there was something more than a 
mere form in the Bible; he felt that * the 
words of God’ must have an eternal signifi- 
cance, for all that comes into relation with 
God is eternal; he felt that there is a true de- 


velopment and a real growth in the elements of own goodness” ( 


ORIGENES 789 


divine revelation, if not in divine communi 
cation, yet in human apprehension; he felt 
the power and the pry of the spirit of Serip: 
ture bursting forth from every part"’ No 
labour was too great to bestow upon the teat 
in which priceless treasures were enshrined ; 
no hope too lofty for the interpreter to cherish. 

ORIGEN AS A THEOLOGIAN. —Origen was 
essentially the theologian of an age of transi 
tion. His writings present principles, ruling 
ideas, tendencies, but are not fitted to supply 
materials for a system of formulated dogmas, 
after the type of later contessions, Every 
endeavour to arrange his opinions according 
to the schemes of the 16th cent. can only 
issue in a misunderstanding of their general 
scope and proportion. The whole structure 
of his treatise Om First Principles, «ὦ, pre 
sents a connected view of his intellectual 
apprehension of Christianity, widely different 
from medieval and modern expositions of 
the faith. Starting from a clear and deeply 
interesting exposition of what were acknow- 
ledged to be the doctrines held generally b 
the church, corresponding in the main with 
the Apostles’ Creed (de Princ. Praet.), Origen 
endeavours to determine, by the help of 
Scripture and reason, subjects yet unexplored. 
But his inquiries and results cannot be judged 
fairly when taken out of their connexion with 
contemporary thought. The book contains 
very little technical teaching. It is silent as 
to the sacraments; it gives no theory of the 
atonement, no discussion of justification; 
yet deals with ~~ of thought and life 
which lie behind these subjects. 

Origen found himself face to face with 
powerful schools which, within and without 
the church, maintained antagonistic views on 
man, the world, and God, in their extremest 
forms. There was the false realism, which 
found expression in Montanism; the false 
idealism, which spread widely in the many 
forms of Gnosticism. Here the Creator was 
degraded into a secondary place; there God 
Himself was lost in His works. Some repre- 
sented men as inherently good or bad from 
their birth; others swept away moral dis 
tinctions of action. Origen sought to main- 
tain two great truths: the unity of all creation, 
as answering to the thought of a Creator 
infinitely good and infinitely just; and the 

wer of moral determination in rational 
σεως The treatment and apprehension of 
these truths are modified by the actual fact of 
sin. he power of moral determination has 
issued in present disorder; the divine unity 
of creation has to be realized hereafter 

(1) Finite Beings, Creation, Man, Spirits. 
Origen endeavours to pass from the outward 
to the inward, from the temporal to the 
eternal. He thinks that we shall best realize 
the fact of creation, according to our present 
powers, by supposing a vast succession of 
orders, one springing out of another (d¢ Prine. 
ii. 1, 4)- ὁ present order, which began 
and will end in time, must be one only in the 
succession of corresponding orders (9. iil. 4, 5). 
“In the inning,” then, be writes, " when 
God created what He was pleased to create, 
that is rational natures, He bad no other 
cause of creation beside Himself, that is His 
ib. ti. g, 6; εἰ. iv. 35). This 


790 ORIGENES 


creation answered to a definite thought, and 
therefore, Origen argues, was definite itself. 
God “‘ could ’’ not create or embrace in thought 
that which has no limit (ἐδ. ii. fragm. Gr. 6; 
ii. 9, 1; iv. fragm. Gr. 4). The rational crea- 
tures He made were all originally equal, 
spiritual, free. But moral freedom, including 
personal self-determination, led to difference. 
Finite creatures, once made, either advanced, 
through imitation of God, or fell away, 
through neglect of Him (16. ii. 9, 6). 

Evil, it follows, is negative—the loss of good 
which was attainable, the shadow which marks 
the absence or rather the exclusion of light. 
But as God made creatures for an end, so He 
provided that they should, through whatever 
discipline of sorrow, attain it. He made 
matter also, which might serve as a fitting 
expression for their character, and become, 
in the most manifold form, a medium for their 
training. So it was that, by various de- 
clensions, ‘‘spirit’’ (πνεῦμα) lost its proper 
fire and was chilled into a “‘soul”’ (ψυχή), and 
“souls”? were embodied in our earthly 
frames in this world of sense. Such an em- 
bodiment was a provision of divine wisdom 
which enabled them, in accord with the 
necessities of the fact, to move towards the 
accomplishment of their destiny (7b. i. 7, 4). 

Under this aspect man is a microcosm. 
(Hom. in Gen. i. 11 ; in Lev. v. 2: tntellige te et 
alium mundum esse parvum et intra te esse 
solem, esse lunam, etiam stellas.) He stands in 
the closest connexion with the seen and the 
unseen; and is himself the witness of the 
correspondences which exist between visible 
and invisible orders (Hom. in Num. xi. 4, Xvii. 
4, XXiv. I, XXViii. 2; Hom.i. in Ps. xxxvii. 1; 
in Joh. t. xix. 5, xxiii. 4; de Prine. iv. 
fragm. Gr. p. 184 R.). Η is made for the 
spiritual and cannot find rest elsewhere. 

As a necessary consequence of his deep view 
of man’s divine kinsmanship, Origen labours 
to give distinctness to the unseen world. He 
appears already to live and move in it. He 
finds there the realities of which the phenomena 
of earth are shadows (cf. im Rom. x. ὃ 39). 
External objects, peoples, cities, are to him 
veils and symbols of invisible things; and 
not only is there the closest correspondence 
between the constitution of different orders of 
being, but also even now a continuation of 
unobserved intercourse between them (cf. de 
Princ. ii. 9, 3). Angels (ib. i. 8, iii. 2, passim) 
preside over the working of elemental forces, 
over plants and beasts (in Num. Hom. xiv. 2 ; 
in Jer. Hom. x. 6; ο. Cels. viii. 31 ; de Princ. iii. 
3, 3), and it is suggested that nature is affected 
by their moral condition (in Ezech. Hom. iv. 2). 
More particularly men were, in Origen’s 
opinion, committed to the care of spiritual 
‘““rulers,’’ and deeply influenced by changes in 
their feeling and character (in Joh. xiii. ὃ 58 ; 
cf. de Princ. i. 8, 1). Thus he recognized 
guardian angels of cities, provinces and nations 
(Hom. in Luc. xii.; de Prince. iii. 3, 2), a belief 
which he supported habitually by the LXX 
version of Deut. xxxii. 8 (tn Mait. t. xi. ὃ 16; 
in Luc. Hom. xxxv. ; in Rom. viii. ὃ 8 ; in Gen. 
Hom. xvi. 2; in Ex. Hom. viii. 2; in Ezech. 
Hom. xiii.1 f., etc.). Individual menalso had 
their guardian angels (im Matt. t. xiii. 27 ; in 
Luc. Hom. xxxv.;1n Num. Hom. Xi. 4, XX. 3; 


ORIGENES 


tn Exzech. Hom. i. 7; in Jud. vi. 2; de Prince. iii. 
2, 4); and angelsin the assemblies of Christians 
assisted the devotions of the faithful (de Orat. 
xxxi. p. 283 L.; Hom. in Luc. xxiii.; c. Cels. 
viii. 64). But while Origen recognizes most 
fully the reality and power of angelic ministra- 
tion, he expressly condemns all angel-worship 
(c. Cels. v. 4, 11). 

On the other hand, there are spiritual hosts 
of evil corresponding to the angelic forces and 
in conflict with them (in Matt. t. xvii. 2; 
in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 102; Hom. in Jos. xv. 
5). He even speaks of a Trinity of evil (in 
Matt. xi. ὃ 6, xii. ὃ 20). An evil power strives 
with the good for the sway of individuals (in 
Rom. i. ὃ 18); thus all life is made a struggle 
of unseen powers (e.g. notes on Ps. xxxvil. ; 
in Joh. xx. §§ 29, 32; Hom. xx. in Jos. Fragm.). 

One aspect of this belief had a constant and 
powerful influence on daily life. Origen, like 
most of his contemporaries, supposed that evil 
spiritual beings were the objects of heathen 
worship (c. Cels. vii. 5). There was, for him, 
a terrible reality in their agency. Within 
certain limits they could work so as to bind 
their servants to them. 

Origen believed also that the dead, too, in- 
fluenced the living. The actions of men on 
earth last, in their effects, after the actors 
have departed (in Rom. ii. 4, p. 80 1... Dis- 
embodied (or unembodied) souls are not idle 
(in Matt. xv. 35). So the ‘‘soul’’ of Christ 
preached to ‘‘ souls ”’ (c. Cels. iii. 43) ; and the 
saints sympathize with man still struggling on 
earth with a sympathy larger than that of 
those who are clogged by conditions of mor- 
tality (de Ovat. xi.; in Matt. t. xxvii. 30; 
in Joh. t. xiii. 57; iii. tn Cant. 7). 

Without extenuating the effects of man’s 
sin, Origen maintained a lofty view of the 
nobility of his nature and destiny (c. Cels. iv. 
25, 30); held that the world had been made 
by divine wisdom a fitting place for the puri- 
fication of a being such as man (de Prince. ii. 1, 
I; 2,2: 3,1; ¢. Cels. vi. 44; cf. in Rom. viii. 
10, p. 261); and that everything has been so 
ordered by Providence from the first as to 
contribute to this end (de Princ. ii. 1, 2). Man 
can, if he will, read the lesson of his life: he 
has a spiritual faculty, by which he can form 
conclusions on spiritual things, even as he is 
made to form conclusions on impressions of 
sense. The body, so to speak, reflects the 
soul; the ‘‘ outer man’’ expresses the “ inner 
man’’ (in Rom. ii. 13, p. 142 L.). There is 
imposed upon us the duty of service (in Matt. 
Comm. Ser. § 66), and the offices are many 
(in Joh. t. x. 23), room being made even for 
the meanest (Hom. in Num. xiv. 2, p. 162 L.). 

The visible creation thus bears, in all its 
parts, the impress of a divine purpose; and 
the Incarnation was the crowning of the crea- 
tion, by which the purpose was made fully 
known, and provision made for its accomplish-" 
ment (de Prine. iii. 5, 6). 

(2) The Incarnation. The Person of Christ. 
The Holy Trinity. The Work of Christ.—On 
no subject is Origen more full or suggestive 
(de Princ.i. 2; ii. 6; iv. 31). No one perhaps 
has done so much to vindicate and harmonize 
the fullest acknowledgment of the perfect 
humanity of the Lord and of His perfect 
divinity in one Person. His famous image of 


the “ glowing ἴσοι (ἐδ. ii. 6, 6) made an epoch 
in tology. Here and there his language 
is liable to misconception, or even 
erroneous by later investigations, but 
down outlines of the faith, on the basis of 
Scripture, which remain unshaken. He main- 
tained the true and perfect manhood of Christ, 
subject to the conditions of natural growth, 
against all forms of Docetism ; and, on the other 
hand, the true and perfect divinity of the " God- 
Word" (θεὸς Adyos), so united with “ the man 
Christ Jesus" through the human soul as to 

one person, against all forms of Ebionism 
and Patripassionism (ἐδ. ii. 6, 3). 

His doctrine of the Incarnation of the God- 
Word rests in part upon his doctrine of the 
Godhead. ‘“ All,"’ he held, “‘ who are born 
again unto salvation have need of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit, and would not obtain 
salvation unless the Trinity were entire" 
(ἐδ. i. 3, 5). Hence he speaks of baptism as 
“the beginning and fountain of divine gifts 
to him who offers himself to the divinity of 
the power of the invocations of the adorable 
Trinity" (τῶν τῆς προσκυνητῆς τριάδος ἐπι- 
κλήσεων) (im Joh. vi. 17). But there is, 
in his judgment, a difference in the extent of 
the action of the Persons in the Holy Trinity. 
The Father, ‘holding all things together, 
reaches (φθάνει) to each being, imparting 
being to each from that which is His own, for 
He is absolutely (ὧν yap ἔστιν). The Son is 
less than the Father (ἐλάττων παρὰ τ. π.), 
reaching only to rational beings, for He is 
second to the Father; and, further, the Holy 
Spirit is less (ἧττον), and extends (διικνούμενον) 
to the saints only. So that in this respect 
(xara τοῦτο) the power of the Father is 
greater in comparison with {παρά} the Son and 
the Holy Spirit ; and that of the Son more in 
comparison with the Holy Spirit ; and, again, 
the power of the Holy Spirit more aneeting 
(διαφέρουσα μᾶλλον) in comparison with a 
other holy beings.’’ To rightly understand 
this passage it is necessary to observe that 
Origen is not speaking of the essence of the 
Persons of the Godhead, but of their mani- 
festation to creatures (cf. de Princ. i. 3, 7). 
Essentially the three Persons are of one God- 
head, and eternal. The subordination which 
Origen teaches is not of essence but of person 
and office. His aim is to realize the Father as 
the one Fountain of Godhead, while vindicat- 
ing true deity for the Son and the Holy Spirit. 
In this respect he worked out first the thought 
of ‘‘ the eternal generation ᾿" of the Son, which 
was accepted from him by the Catholic church 
as the truest human expression of one side of 
the mystery of the essential Trinity. — 

The peculiar connexion which Origen re- 
cognizes between the Son (the God Word) and 
rational beings establishes (so to speak) the 
fitness of the Incarnation. The Son stood in 
a certain affinity with rational souls; and the 
human soul with which He was united in the 
Incarnation had alone remained absolutely 
pure, by the exercise of free choice, in its pre- 
existence (ἐδ. ii. 6, 5). Through this union all 
human nature was capable of being glorified, 
without violating its characteristic tations 
(cf. c. Cels. iii. 41 f.). The body of Christ was 
perfect no less than His soul (+). i. 32 f.), 


α laid f 


ORIGENES 79! 

The work of Christ was, omphatically 
maintained, for all men a for the whole 
of man (cf. sb, iii. 17; iv. gO). Tt was there 


Ore so revealed that it could be a 

according to the several powers and wants of 
believers (im Mat. t. xii. 96, 41, mv. agt, xvi, 
ιν: e. Οεἰκ. iv. το, vi. 68; im Joh. i. 42). 
Christ became, in a transcendent sense, “ i 
things to all men’ (de Prime. iv. τὰ; 1m Joa. 
t. xix. 1, xx. 28; of. ς. (δίς. iii, 79), 

Origen thus insists on the efficacy of Christ's 
work for the consummation of humanity and 
of the individual, as a victory over every 
power of evil. He dwells no less earnestly 
upon the value of the life and death of Christ 
as a vicarious sacrifice for sin. He secks 
illustrations of the general idea of the power 
of vicarious sufferings in Gentile stories of self- 
sacrifice (c. Cels. i. 41), and extends it to the 
case of martyrs (Exh. ad Mart. c. 42: εἴ. ἐν 
Joh, t. vi. 36; xxviii. 14). Though he does 
not attempt to explain how the sacrifice of 
Christ was efficacious, he frequently presents 
it as a ransom given to redeem man from 
Satan, to whom sin had made man a debtor. 
Christ, in His own person, freely paid the debt, 
by bearing the utmost punishment of sin, and 
so set man free, “ giving His soul (ψυχὴ) as a 
ransom for him "' (in Matt. t. xvi. 8; sm Rom. 
ii. 13, p. 140 L. ; Comm. Ser. ἐπ Matt. § 145). 
| t other times he regards it as a propitiation 
for the divine remission of sins (Hom. in Nam. 
xxiv. 1; ἐν Lev. i. 3; cf. ¢. Cels. vii. 17). 

Origen held that the death of Christ was 
of avail for heavenly beings, if not for the 
expiation of sin yet for advancement in 
blessedness (Hom. im Lev. Ly ii. 3; 1m Rom. 

v. s.f., Ὁ. 409 L.; ἐδ. i. 4; Hom. sm Lue. x.). 
Thus in a true sense angels themselves were 
disciples of Christ (sm Matt. t. xv. 7). At 
times indeed Origen speaks as if he supposed 
that the Word was actually manifested to 
other orders of being in a manner correspond- 
ing to their nature, even as He was revealed 
as soul to the souls in Hades (Sel. tm Ps. iii. ς, 
xi. p. 420L.). In this sense also he thinks 
that “ He became all things to all," an angel 
to angels (in Joh. t. i. 34); and he does not 
shrink from allowing that His passion may 
be made available, perhaps in some other 
shape, in the spiritual world (de Prine. iv. 


. Gr.2; cf. iv. 25, L.). 
Wet Holy Spirit, according to 


The work of the 
Origen, is fulfilled in believers. His office is 
specially to guide to the fuller truth, which is 
the inspiration of nobler life. Through Him 
revelation comes home tomen. He lays open 
the deeper meanings of the word. Through 
Him, “* Who proceeds from the Father,” all 
things are sanctified (de Prime. iti. §, δ). 
Through Him every divine gift, wrought by 
the Father and ministered by the Son, gains 
its individual efficiency (im Joh. τ. ti. 6). bus 
there is a unity in the divine operations, which 
tends to establish a ea? in created beings. 
| (For the doctrine of the Holy Spirit generally 
sec de Princ. i. 4, lil. 73 ἐν J t. ih, 6.) 

(3) The Consummation of Being —These 
characteristic lines of speculation lead to Ori- 

"ὁ view of the consummation of things. All 
anne thought must fail in the endeavour to 
give distinctness to a conception which ht 
to embrace the ideas of perfect rest and ect 


792 ORIGENES 


life. Origen’s opinions are further embar- 
rassed by the constant confusion which arises 
from the intermingling of ideas which belong 
to the close of the present order (αἰών) and the 
close of all things. It is again impossible to 
see clearly how the inalienable freedom of 
rational beings, which originally led to the 
Fall, can be so disciplined as to bring them 
at last to perfect harmony. This, however, 
Origen holds; and though he is unable to 
realize the form of future purification, through 
which souls left unpurified by earthly exist- 
ence will be cleansed hereafter, he clings to 
the belief that ‘‘ the end must be like the be: 
ginning ’’ (de Princ. i. 6, 2), a perfect unity in 
God. From this he excludes no rational 
creature. The evil spirits which fell have not 
lost that spirit by which they are akin to God, 
which in its essence is inaccessible to evil (in 
Joh. xxxii. 11, ἀνεπίδεκτον τῶν χειρόνων τὸ 
πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), though it can be over- 
grown and overpowered (cf. de Prine. i. 8, 3). 
And, on the other hand, freedom remains 
even when perfect rest has been reached, and 
in this Origen appears to find the possibility of 
future declensions (7b. ii. 3, 3, frag. Gr. ii. 2). 
Whether matter, the medium through which 
rational freedom finds expression (1b. iv. 35), 
will at last cease to be, or be infinitely spiri- 
tualized, he leaves undetermined. The ques- 
tion is beyond man’s powers (tb. i. 6, 4; il. 2; 
ii. 3, 3; lil. 6, 1), though man cannot but ponder 
upon it (7b. i. 6, 1 ἘΠ; iii. 4, 5 s.f.). So he pre- 
sents, in imaginary outlines, the picture of 
the soul’s progress through various scenes of 
chastisement or illumination (7b. i. 6, 3; iii. 6, 
6; ill. 5, 6 ff., and Redepenning’s note), till he | 
can rest in the thought of a restoration in| 
which law and freedom, justice and love, are | 
brought to a perfect harmony (cf. de Orat. ὃ 27, 

p. 227 L.). This thought assists Origen in 

forming a theory of future punishments. All 

future punishments exactly answer to indi- 

vidual sinfulness (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 16), 

and, like those on earth, are directed to the 

amendment of the sufferers (c. Cels. iv. 10; 

Hom. in Ezech. v. 1). Lighter offences can be 

chastised on earth; the heavier remain to be 

visited hereafter (Hom. tn Lev. xiv. 4). In 

every case the uttermost farthing must be 

paid, though final deliverance is promised (in 

Rom. v. 2f.). 
fiery ordeal, through which men should pass 

in the world to come. Every one already 

baptized with water and Spirit would, he 

thought, if he needed cleansing, be baptized 

by the Lord Jesus in a river of fire, and so 

purified enter into paradise (Hom. in Luc. 

xxiv.). In this sense also he looked forward 

to a (spiritual) conflagration of the world, by 

which all beings in need of such discipline 

should be at once chastised and healed (c. 

Gels. Ve 15; ἴον. 153) 

On the other hand, since the future state is 
the direct fruit of this, there are, so Origen 
held, varieties of blessedness in heaven (in | 
Rom. iv. 12), corresponding to the life of 
saints (7b. ix. 3, p. 303), and foreshadowed by 
the divisions of Israel (Hom. in Num. i. 3; 
XXvili. 2; Hom. in Jos. xxv. 4). Speaking 
generally, the believer after death enters δ᾽ 
state of fuller knowledge and loftier progress | 
(de Princ. ii. 11, 6). The resurrection of the | 


Origen looked forward to a) 


ORIGENES 


body completes the full transfiguration, with- 
out loss, of all that belongs to his true self; 
and he begins a nobler development of body 
and soul—moral, intellectual, spiritual—by 
which he is brought nearer to the throne of 
God (cf. ἐδ. i. 3, 8; tm Matt. Comm. Ser. ὃ 51; 
Hom. i. in Ps. xxxviii. ὃ 8). The relationships 
of earth come to an end (in Matt. t. xvii. 33: 
on this point Origen is not consistent). The 
visible ceases, and men enjoy the eternal, for 
which now they hope (im Rom. vii. 5). Thus 
human interest is removed from the present 
earth toits heavenly antitype. It is probably 
due to this peculiarity of his teaching that 
Origen nowhere dwells on the doctrine of 
Christ’s return, which occupies a large place 
in most schemes of Christian belief. The 
coming of Christ in glory is treated as the 
spiritual revelation of His true nature (de 
Princ. iv. 25), though Origen says that he by 
no means rejects ‘‘the second presence 
(ἐπιδημία) of the Son of God more simply 
understood ”’ (in Matt. τ. xii. 30). 
CHARACTERISTICS.—It cannot be surprising 
that Origen failed to give a consistent and 
harmonious embodiment to his speculations. 
His writings represent an aspiration rather 
than a system, principles of research and hope 
rather than determined formulas; and his 
enthusiasm continually mars the proportion 
of his work. His theorizing needs the dis- 
cipline of active life, without which there 
can be no real appreciation of history or of 
the historical development of truth. Yet 
even in regard to the practical apprehension 
of the divine education of the world it is only 
necessary to compare him on one side with 
Philo and on the other with Augustine, to feel 
how his grasp of the significance of the In- 
carnation gave him a sovereign power to 
understand the meaning and destiny of life. 
While ready to fully acknowledge the 
claims of reason (cf. Hom. in Luc. i. p. 88 L.), 
Origen lays stress on the new data given by 
revelation to the solution of the problems of 
philosophy (de Princ. i. 5, 4). He points out 
repeatedly the insufficiency of reason, of the 
independent faculties of man, to attain that 
towards which it is turned. Reason enables 
man to recognize God when He makes Him- 
self known, to receive a revelation from Him 
in virtue of his affinity with the Divine Word, 
but it does not enable the creature to derive 
from within the longed-for knowledge. The 
capacity for knowing God belongs to man as 
man, andnot tomanasa philosopher. Origen 
therefore acknowledges the nobility of Plato’s 
saying that “‘it is a hard matter to find out 
the Maker and Father of the Universe, and 
impossible for one who has found Him to 
declare Him to all men.’’ But he adds that 
Plato affirms too much and too little (c. Cels. 
vii. 43). As Christians “να declare that 


human nature is not in itself competent in any 


way to seek God and find Him purely without 
the help of Him Who is sought, of Him Who 
is found by those who confess after they have 
done all in their power that they have yet 
need of Him...’’ (cf. Clem. Al. Cohort. ὃ 6). 

In the endeavour to fashion a Philosophy of 
Christianity Origen did not practically recog- 
nize the limits and imperfection of the human 
mind which he constantly points out. His 


tal 


gravest errors are attempts to solve the in- 
soluble. The question of the origin of the 
soul, ¢.g., is still beset by thedifficulties Origen 
τος οὶ to meet, but they are ignored. So too 
with regard to his speculations on an endless 
succession of worlds. Thought must break 
down soon in the attempt to co-ordinate the 
finite and the infinite. But with whatever 
errors in detail, Sa laid down the true 
lines on which the Christian apologist must 
defend the faith against Polytheism, J udaism, 
Gnosticism, Materialism. These forms of 
opinion, without the church and within, were 
living powers of threatening proportions in his 
age, and he vindicated the Gospel against 
them as the one absolute revelation, prepared 
through the discipline of Israel, historical in 
its form, spiritual in its destiny; and the 
rinciples which he affirmed and strove to 
illustrate have a present value. They are 
fitted to correct the Africanism which, since 
Augustine, has dominated Western theology ; 
and they anticipate many difficulties which 
have become prominent in later times. In 
the face of existing controversies, it is invigor- 
ating to feel that, when as yet no necessity 
forced upon him the consideration of the prob- 
lems now most frequently discussed, a ὦ hris- 
tian teacher, the master and friend of saints, 
taught the moral continuity and destination 
of all being, interpreted the sorrows and sad- 
nesses of the world as part of a vast scheme of 
purificatory chastisement, found in Holy Scrip- 
ture not the letter only but a living voice 
eloquent with spiritual mysteries, made the 
love of truth, in all its amplitude and depth, 
the right and end of rational beings, and 
reckoned the fuller insight into the mysteries 
of nature one of the joys of a future state. 
Such thoughts bring Origen himself before 
us. Of the traits of his personal character 
little need be said. He bore unmerited suffer- 
ings without a murmur. He lived only to 
work. He combined in a signal degree sym- 
pathy with zeal. As a controversialist he 
sought to win his adversary, not simply to 
silence him (cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 33). e had 
the boldest confidence in the truth he held 
and the tenderest humility as to his own 


OROSIUS, PAULUS 793 


| bis nephew C. V. Delaruc, who was not able 
τὸ issue it till 2759. The service the two 
|Delarues rendered was great; but their 
edition is very far from satisfying the uire- 
/ments of scholarship. The collations of MSS. 
are fragmentary and even inaccurate; the 
text is only partially revised; the notes are 
inadequate. Later edd., particularly that of 
| Lommatsch, have added littl. This ts the 
πότ to be regretted, as large additions have 
been, and are being, made to the Origentan 
fragments. These materials have been cither 
wholly neglected or only partially used in the 
latest edd.; and practically nothing has been 
done toimprove or illustrate the text. Migne’s 
reprint of Delarue, in bis Patr. Gk. τι xi-xvil. 
(Paris, 1857), has the additions from Galland, 
most of those from Mai, and one fragment trom 
Cramer asa ne. An ed. of the Philoso- 
phumena (¢ codice Parisino), od. by E. Miller, is 
pub. by the Clar. Press. A new ed. of Origen’s 
works is now being pub. in the Berlin collection 
of early eccl. Gk. writers ; Origen's Werke, iil. 
| von P. Koetshau (Leipz. 1899), vol. iii. ed. by 
Klostermann, and vol. iv. ed. by Preuschen 
(Berlin, 1903). A trans. of the de Principsss, 
the books against Celsus and the letters, with a 
life of Origen, is in 2 vols. of the Ante-Nicene 
Lib. of the Fathers. {w.] 

_ Orosius, Paulus, was a native of Tarragona 
}in Spain, as he himself says (Hist. vii. 22), 
though an expression in a letter of Avitus may 
be thought to connect him with Braga (Ep. 
Aviti, Aug. Opp. vol. vii. p. 806; Baronius, 
| vol. v. p. 435, A-D. 415). When the Alani and 
Vandals were introduced into Spain, a.p. 409, 
Orosius, though his language is somewhat rhe- 
torical, appears narrowly to have escaped their 
violence (Hist. iii. 20; v.2; vii. 40). But a 
danger, more serious in his opinion, soon 
|threatened to disturb the church in Spain, 
viz. the heresies of the Priscillianists and of 
the book by Origen, περὶ ἀρχῶν, lately trans- 
lated by St. Jerome and brought from Jeru- 
salem by Avitus, presbyter of Braga in Portu- 
gal, at the same time as a book by Victorinus 
was brought by another Avitus from Rome. 
Both books condemned the doctrines of Pris 
\cillian, but contained errors of their own. 


weakness (in Joh. t. xxxii. 18; im Matt. τ. | That by Victorinus attracted little notice, but 
xvi. 13). When he ventures freely in the | Origen’s was widely read, both in Spain and 
field of interpretations, he asks the support of elsewhere; and Orosius, in his zeal against 
the prayers of his hearers. His faith was error, proceeded, not commissioned by the 
catholic, and therefore he welcomed every church of Spain but on his own account, to 
kind of knowledge as tributary to its fullness. | Africa, to consult St. Augustine as to how 
It was living, and therefore he knew that πὸ best to refute these heretical doctrines, a.p. 


age could seal any one expression of it as com- 
plete. This open-hearted trust kept un- 
chilled to the last the passionate devotion of 
his youth. He was therefore enabled to leave 
to the church the conviction, attested by a 
life of martyrdom, that all things are its 
heritage because all things are Christ's. 


415. Augustine speaks of him as young in 
ears, but a presbyter in rank, zealous, alert 
n intellect, ready of speech, and fitted to be 
useful in the work of the Lord. He gave ἃ 
partial reply to this appeal in his treatise 

| contra Priscillianisias εἰ Origentsias, saying 

but little on the subject which forme its title. 


Epitions.—Through the labours of the | He referred Orosius to bis books against 
great Benedictines of St. Maur the first two Manicheism, and recommended him to go to 
vols. of a complete edition of Origen (Origenis Palestine, the seat of the errors in question, to 
opera omnia quae Gracce vel Latine tantum consult St. Jerome. (Peracivs.) Orosius was 
extant et ejus nomine circumferuntur) ek Pope | kindly received by St. Jerome at Bethlehem ; 
at Paris in 1733, under the editorship of but being summoned by the clergy, he attend- 
Charles Delarue, a priest of that society. ed a synod at Jerusalem on July 24, in which 
Vol. iii. appeared at Paris in 1740, a few he took his seat under the direction of John 
months after the death of the editor (Oct. | the bishop, and informed the assembly that 
1739), who left, however, vol. iv. to the care of Coelestius had been condemned by a council 


191 OROSIUS, PAULUS 


in Africa, A.D. 412 (Aug. Epp. 175, 176), and 
had abruptly departed from the country ; 
that Augustine had written against Pelagius 
and had sent a letter to the clergy in Sicily, 
treating of this and other heretical questions, 
which letter Orosius read at the request of 
the members. He also quoted the judgment 
of St. Jerome on the Pelagian question, ex- 
pressed in his letter to Ctesiphon and his 
Dialogue against the Pelagians (Hieron. vol. i. 
Ep. 133; vol. ii. p. 495). On Sept. 13, the 
feast of the dedication of the church of the 
Holy Sepulchre, Orosius, on offering to assist 
bp. John at the altar, was attacked by him as 
a blasphemer, a charge which Orosius refuted, 
saying that as he spoke only in Latin, John, 
who only spoke Greek, could not have under- 
stood him. At the council of 14 bishops at 
Diospolis (Lydda), Dec. 415, Orosius was not 
present (Aug. de Gest. Pelag. c. 16), but re- 
turned to Africa early in 416, bearing the 
supposed relics of St. Stephen, discovered the 
previous December, which at the request of 
Avitus he was to convey to the church of Braga 
in Portugal (Tillem. vol. xiii. 262.) About 
this time, on the request of Augustine, Orosius 
undertook his history, chiefly in order to con- 
firm by historical facts the doctrine maintained 
by St. Augustine in his great work de Civitate 
Dei, on the 11th book of which he was then 
employed. These facts we gather from c. i., 
and from a passage in bk. v., where Orosius 
says that he wrote his history chiefly if not 
entirely in Africa. It could not have been 
begun earlier than 416, and must have been 
finished in 417, for it concludes with an ac- 
count of the treaty made in 416 between 
Wallia, the Gothic king, and the emperor 
Honorius (Oros. Hist. v. 2, vii. 43; Clinton, 
F. Κ᾿). Orosius then proceeded towards 
Spain with the relics of St. Stephen. Being 
detained at Port Mahon in Minorca by ac- 
counts of the disturbed state of Spain through 
the Vandal occupation, he left his precious 
treasure there and returned to Africa, and 
nothing more is known of his history (Ep. 
Severi, Aug. Opp. vol. vii. App. Baronius, 418. 
4). The work of Orosius is a historical treatise 
rather than a formal history, which indeed 
it does not pretend to be, though as it includes 
a portion of the subject belonging to Scrip- 
ture and to Jewish affairs, its area covers 
wider space than any other ancient epitome. 
Besides the O. and N. T., he quotes Josephus, 
the church historians and writers, as Tertullian, 
Hegesippus, and Eusebius, besides the classic 
writers Tacitus, Suetonius, Sallust, Caesar, 
Cicero, and he was no doubt largely indebted 
to Livy. For Greek and Oriental history he 
made use of the works of Justin, or rather 
Trogus Pompeius, and Quintus Curtius; for 
Roman affairs, Eutropius, Florus, and Valerius 
Paterculus, together with others of inferior 
value, as Valerius Antias, Valerius Maximus, 
and Aurelius Victor. Written under the ex- 
press sanction of St. Augustine, in a pleasing 
style and at convenient length, and recom- 
mended by church authorities as an orthodox 
Christian work, it became during the middle 
ages the standard text-book on the subject, 
and is quoted largely by Bede and other 
medieval writers. Orosius is for the last 
few years of his history a contemporary and 


PACHOMIUS 


so an original authority, and supplies some 
points on which existing writers are deficient 
(e.g. v. 18, p. 339, the death of Cato; vi. 3, 
376, the acquittal of Catiline), but his work is 
disfigured by many mistakes, both as to facts 
and numbers, and by a faulty system of 
chronology. The general popularity it enjoyed 
as the one Christian history led to its trans- 
lation into Anglo-Saxon by Alfred the Great, 
of which a portion was published by Elstob 
in 1690, and the whole, with an English ver- 
sion, in 1773, under the superintendence of 
D. Barrington and J. R. Foster. This was 
reprinted in 1853 in Bohn’s Antiquarian 
Library, under Mr. B. Thorpe. The latest ed. 
of the Hist. and the Lib. Apol. is by Zange- 
meister in Corp. Scr. Eccl. Lat. v. (Vienna, 
1882), and a smaller ed. by the same editor in 
the Biblioth. Teubner. (Leipz. 1889). [H.w.P.] 


Ρ 


Pachomius (1), St., founder of the famous 
monasteries of Tabenna in Upper Egypt; one 
of the first to collect solitary ascetics together 
under a rule. Beyond a brief mention in 
Sozomen, who praises his gentleness and 
suavity (H. E. iil. 14), the materials for his 
biography are of questionable authenticity. 
Athanasius, during his visit to Rome, made 
the name Pachomius familiar to the church 
there through Marcella and others, to whom he 
held up Pachomius and his Tabennensian 
monks as a bright example (Hieron. Ep. 127, 
ad Princtpium). Rosweyd gives a narrative 
of his life in Latin, being a translation by 
Dionysius Exiguus, in the 6th cent., of a bio- 
graphy said to be written by a contemporary 
monk of Tabenna (Vit. Patr. in Pat. Lat. 1xxiii. 
227). If we may trust this writer, Pacho- 
mius was born of wealthy pagan parents in 
Lower Egypt, before the council of Nicaea. 
He served in his youth under Constantine in 
the campaign against Maxentius, which placed 
Constantine alone on the throne. The kind- 
ness shewn by Christians to him and his com- 
rades in distress led him to become a Christian. 
He attached himself to a hermit, celebrated Ὁ 
for his sanctity and austerities. He and 
Palaemon supported themselves by weaving 
the shaggy tunics (cilicia), the favourite 
dress of Egyptian monks. He became a monk, 
and many prodigies are related of his power 
over demons, and in resisting the craving for 
sleep and food (Vit. cc. 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 
etc., ap. Rosw. V. P.). His reputation for 
holiness soon drew to him many who desired 
to embrace the monastic life, and without, 
apparently, collecting them into one monas- 
tery, he provided for their organization. The 
bishop of a neighbouring diocese sent for him 
to regulate the monks there. Pachomius 
seems also to have done some missionary work 
in his own neighbourhood. Athanasius, 
visiting Tabenna, was eagerly welcomed by 
Pachomius, who, in that zeal for orthodoxy 
which was a characteristic of monks generally, 
is said to have flung one of Origen’s writings 
into the water, exclaiming that he would 
have cast it into the fire, but that it contained 
the name of God. He lived to a good old age 
(Niceph. H. E. ix. 14). The Bollandists (Acta 


PALLADIUS 


SS. 14 Mai. iii. 287) give the Acta of Pachomius 
by a nearly contemporary author, in a Latin 
trans. from the original Greek MSS., with and make a personal investigation into the 
notes and commentary by Papebroch. Pa- charges (Pallad. Dial. pp. 141-193). When 
chomius died (Acta, § 77), aged $7, about the | Chrysostom, at the νι κα of 401, resolved 
time Athanasius returned to his see under to go to Ephesus himself, Patiadins was one 
Constantius, #.¢. A.p. 4p» as computed by | of the bishops to accompany him (9. p. 144). 
Papebroch. Miraeus (Schol. to Gennad. Ser. Palladius was one of the first to suffer from 
Eccl. c. 7) makes him flourish in 340; Tri- | the persecution which after 404 fell upon the 
themius in 390, under Valentinian and Theo- | adherents of Chrysostom. The magistrates 
dosius. Sigebert (Chron. ann. 405) puts his having decreed that the house of any who 
death in 405 at the age of 110. Portus harboured bishop, priest, or layman who 
Veneris, now Porto Venere, a small town on communicated wah Chrysostom should be 
the N.W. coast of Italy, near Spezia, claims | confiscated, Palladius, with many other ecelesi- 
that his body rests there. Cf. Amélineau, | astics, fled to Rome, arriving about the middle 
Etude historique sur 5. Pach. (Cairo, 1887); | of 405, with a copy of the infamous deeree 
also Griitzmacher, Pachomius und das Alteste which had driven him from Constantinople 
Klosterleben (Freiburg, 1896). {1.-G.s.] (ἐδ. pp. 26, 27). The refugees were hospitably 

Palladius (7), bp. of Helenopolis, the trusted entertained by one Pinianus and his wife and 
friend of Chrysostom, whose misfortunes he | by some noble ladies of Rome, a kindness 
fully shared, was born 6. 367, perhaps in/which Palladius gratefully mentions (Mest. 
Galatia. He embraced an ascetic life in his | Laus. c. 121), and for which Chrysostom wrote 
2oth year, c. 386. The ascetic career of Pal- letters of thanks from Cucusus. He was 


PALLADIUS 795 


accused by Eusebius, and he was one of three 
bishops deputed by Chrysostom to visit Asia 


ladius can only be conjecturally traced from 
scattered notices in the Lausiac History (but 
see infra). He never remained long in one 
place, but sought the acquaintance of the 
leading solitaries and ascetics of his day to 
learn all that could be gathered of their manner 
of life and miraculous deeds. Tillemont thinks 
his earliest place of sojourn was with the abbat 
Elpidius of Cappadocia in the cavernous re- 
cesses of the mountains near Jericho (Hist. 
Laus. c. 106), and that he, c. 387, visited Beth- 
lehem, where he received a very unfavourable 
impression of Jerome from the solitary 
Posidonius (ἐδ. c. 78), and passing thence to 
Jerusalem formed the acquaintance of Melania 
the elder and Rufinus, the latter of whom he 
highly commends (ib. c. 5; c. 118). In 388 
Palladius paid his first visit to Alexandria 
(tb. c. 1). Having visited several monasteries 
near Alexandria, and the famous Didymus, he 
retired (c. 390) to the Nitrian desert, whence, 
after a year, he plunged still deeper into the 
district known as the Cells, τὰ κελλία, where 
he mostly remained for 9 years (#b.). Here, 
for 3 years, he enjoved the intercourse of 
Macarius the younger and subsequently of 
Evagrius of Pontus. Palladius appears during 
this period to have traversed the whole of 
Upper Egypt as far as Tabenna and Syene, 
and to have visited all its leading solitaries. 
Ill-health Jed him to return to the purer air of 
Palestine, whence he soon passed to Bithynia, 
where he was called to the episcopate (1b. c. 43)- 
Palladius tells us neither when nor where he 
became bishop. If it is right to identify 
the author of the Lausiac History with the 
adherent of Chrysostom, his see was Heleno- 

olis, formerly called sg oe in ee γτῸ 
fe was consecrated by Chrysostom, and the 
Origenistic opinions he was charged with 
having imbibed from Evagrius became a 
handle of accusation against his consecrator 
(Phot. Cod. 59, p- 57). This accusation of 
Origenism is brought against Palladius by 
Epiphanius (Ep. ad Joann. Jerus. Hieron., 
Op. i. col. 252, ed. Vallars.) and Jerome (Proem. 
in Dial. adv. Pelagianos), though Tillemont 
argues that this was another Palladius. 
Palladius was at the synod at Constantinople, 


May 400, at which Antoninus of Ephesus was from one Lausus or Lauson, 


honourably received by pope Innocent, and 
his testimony gave the pope full knowledge of 
the transaction (Soz. Ἡ a viii. 26). On the 
departure of the Italian deputation sent by 
Honorius to his brother Arcadius, 

that the whole matter should be subjected to 
la general council, Palladius and the other 
| refugees accompanied them (Pallad. Dial. p. 
31). On their arrival the whole party were 
forbidden to land at Constantinople. Pal- 
ladius and his companions were shut up io 
separate chambers in the fortress of Athyre on 
the coast, and loaded with the utmost con- 
tumely, in the hope of breaking their spirit 
and compelling them to renounce communion 
with Chrvsostom, and recognize Atticus (15. 
p. 32). All threats and violence proving vain, 
the bishops were banished to distant and 
opposite quarters of the empire; Palladius to 
Syene, on the extreme border of Egypt (14. 
pp. 194, 199). Tillemont considers that on 
the death of Theophilus in 412 Palladius was 
permitted to leave his place of exile, but not 
to return to his see. etween 412 and 420 
Tillemont places his residence of four years 
near Antinoopolis in the Thebaid, of which 
district and its numerous ascetics the Must. 
Laus. gives copious details (cc. 96-100; cc. 
137, 138), as well as of the three years which 
the writer spent on the Mount of Olives 
with Innocent, the presbyter of the church 
there. During this time he may also have 
visited Mesopotamia, Syria, and the other 
portions of the eastern world which he speaks 
of having traversed. The peace of the church 
being re-established in 417, Palladius was 
perhaps restored to his see of Helenopolis. If 


ia. |so, he did not remain there long, for Socrates 


informs us that he was translated from that 
see to Aspuna in Galatia Prima (Socr. H. &. 
vii. 36). He had, however, ceased to be bp. 
of Aspuna in 431, when Eusebius attended the 
council of Ephesus as bp. of that see (Labbe, 
Concil. iii. 450). The Historia Laustaca was 
composed ¢. 420. It is now, however, gener- 
ally considered (vide works by Preuschen and 
Butler, «.#n/.) that the author of this History is 
not to be identified with the bp. of Helenopolis, 
his contemporary. The work takes its name 
chief chamberlain 


796 PALLADIUS 


in the imperial household, at whose request 
it was written and to whom it is dedicated. 
The writer describes Lausus as a very excellent 
person, employing his power for the glory of 
God and the good of the church, and devoting 
his leisure to self-improvement and study. 
Though the writer is credulous, his work is 
an honest and, except as regards supposed 
miraculous acts, trustworthy account of the 
mode of life of the solitaries of that age, and 
a faithful picture of the tone of religious 
thought then prevalent. It preserves many 
historical and biographical details which later 
writers have borrowed; Sozomen takes many 
anecdotes without acknowledgment. Socrates 
refers to Palladius as a leading authority on 


the lives of the solitaries, but is wrong in | 
| He was a fellow-student of Jerome at Rome 


calling him a monk and stating that he lived 
soon after the death of Valens (H. E. iv. 23). 
The Historia Lausiaca was repeatedly printed 
in various Latin versions, from very early 
times, the first ed. appearing soon after the 
invention of printing. The latest and best 
authorities are E. Preuschen, Palladius and 
Rufinus (Giessen, 1897); C. Butler, The Laustac 
History of Palladius (vol.i. critical intro. Camb. 
1898; vol. ii. Gk. text with intro. and notes, 
1904) in Texts and Studies; see also C. H. 
Turner, The Laustac Hist. of Pallad. in Jnl. 
of Theol. Stud. 1905, vi. p. 321- 

The question whether the Dialogue with 
Theodore the Deacon is correctly assigned to 
Palladius of Helenopolis has been much de- 
bated. It is essentially a literary composition, 
the characters and framework being alike 
fictitious. 
one who took an active part in the events he 
describes. No one corresponds so closely in 
all respects to the ideal presented by the nar- 
ration as Palladius of Helenopolis, nor is there 
any really weighty objection to his author- 
ship. For the closing days of Chrysostom’s 
episcopate it is, with all its faults, simply 
priceless. Tillem. Mém. Eccl. t. xi. pp. 500-530, 
pp- 638-646; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 376; 
Du Pin, Auteurs eccl. t. iii. p. 296; Cotelerius, 
Eccl. Graec. Monum. t. 111. p. 563. [E.v.] 

Palladius (11), July 6, the first bp. sent to 
Ireland and the immediate predecessor of St. 
Patrick. Facts known about him are few, 
though legends are numerous. His birthplace 
is placed by some in England, by others in 
Gaul or Italy ; some even make him a Greek 


(see Ussher, Eccles. Britann. Anttq.t. vi. c. xvi. | 
the poor (Paulinus, Ep. xiii 11 ; see also Pall. 


of Elrington’s ed.). His ecclesiastical position 
has also been disputed. He seems to have 


been an influential man in the earlier part of | 


the 5th cent., as Prosper of Aquitaine, a con- 
temporary, mentions him twice, affording the 
only real record of his life which we possess. 


Under 429 Prosper writes in his Chronicle: | 


““ By the instrumentality of the deacon Pal- 
ladius, pope Celestinus sends Germanus, bp. 


of Auxerre, in his own stead, to displace the | : 
and on his publication of a translation of 


heretics and direct the Britons to the Catholic 
faith.’’ Prosper’s words under 431 are, ‘“‘ Ad 
Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa 
Celestino Palladius et primus Episcopus mit- 
titur.’’ This mission of Palladius is referred 
to in the Book of Armagh, where Tirechan 
(Analect. Boll. t. ii. p. 67), or more probably 
some writer towards A.D. 900, calls him Patri- 
cius as hissecondname. Rev. J. F. Shearman, 


It was undoubtedly written by | 


| cont. Joannem Hterosol. 


ἯΙ 


a 
AG 


PAMMACHIUS 


in his Loco Patriciana, p. 25 (Dubl. 1879), has 
discussed with vast resources of legendary lore 
the different localities in Wicklow and Kildare 
where Palladius is said to have preached and 
built churches, but his authorities have little 
historical value, being specially the Four 
Masters and Jocelyn. His work contains, 
however, much interesting matter for students 
of Irish ecclesiastical history and antiquities, 
its accuracy being guaranteed by his extensive 
knowledge of the localities. [G.T.S.] 
Pammachius, a Roman senator of the 
Furian family (Hieron. Ep. lxvi. 6, ed. Vall.), 
cousin to Marcella (δ. xlix. 4), and said by 
Palladius (Hist. Laus. c. 122) to have been 
related to Melania. He was a friend of 
Jerome, Paulinus, and afterwards Augustine. 


(Ep. xlviii. 1), but apparently not specially 
connected with church affairs in early life. 
During Jerome’s stay in Rome in 382-385 
they probably met, since in 385 Pammachius 
married Paulina, the daughter of Paula who 
went with Jerome to Palestine. Pammachius 
was learned, able, and eloquent (Ep. Ixxvii. 1; 
xlix. 3). After his marriage, he seems to have 
occupied himself much with scriptural studies 
and church life. The controversy relating to 
Jovinian interested him, and he is thought to 
have been one of those who procured the 
condemnation of Jovinian from pope Siricius 
(Tillem. x. 568). But Jerome’s books against 
Jovinian (pub. in 392) appeared to Pamma- 
chius to be too violent. He bought up the 
copies and wrote to Jerome asking him to 
moderate his language. Jerome refused, but 
thanked Pammachius for his interest, hailed 
him as a well-wisher and defender, and pro- 
mised to keep him informed of his future 
writings (Epp. xlviii., xlix.). Thenceforth their 
intercourse was constant. 

Pammachius is said by Jerome (xlix. 4) to 
have been designated for the sacerdotium at 
this time by the whole city of Rome and the 
pontiff. But he was never ordained. His 
growing convictions and those of his wife, the 
fact that all his children died at birth and that 
his wife died in childbirth (A.D. 397, see 
Hieron. Ep. |xvi., addressed to him 2 years 
later), led him to take monastic vows. He, 
however, still appeared among the senators 
in their purple in the dark dress of a monk 
(ib. Ixvi. 6). He showed his change of life by 
munificent gifts and a great entertainment to 


Hist. Laus. 122). With Fabiola he erected a 
hospital at Portus, which became world- 
famous (Hieron. Ep. Ixvi. 11). 

At the commencement of the Origenistic 
controversy, Jerome wrote (in 395) to Pam- 
machius his letter de Opt. Genere Interpretandt 
(Ep. lvii. ed. Vall.). On Rufinus coming to 
Rome Pammachius, with Occanus and Mar- 
cella, watched his actions in Jerome’s interest, 


Origen’s Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν wrote to Jerome to 
request a full translation of the work (Epp. 
Ixxxiii., lxxxiv.). These friends also procured 
the condemnation of Origenism by pope Anas- 
tasius in 401, and to them Jerome’s apology 
against Rufinus was addressed, and the book 
During the Donatist 
who had 


schism in Africa Pammachius, 


PAMPHILUS 


a in that province, wrote to the people 
of πῶς ἐνμὴ where the on te had begun, ex- 


horting them to return to the unity of the 
church. This letter brought him into rela- 
tions with Augustine, who wrote (in 401) to 
him (Ep. lviii.) congratulating him on an 
action likely to help in healing the schism, and 
desiring him to read the letter to his brother- 
senators, that they might do likewise. After 
this we hear of Pammachius only in connexion 
with the Bible-work of Jerome, who dedicated 
to him his commentaries on the Minor Pro- 
phets (406) and Daniel (407), and at his request 
undertook the commentaries on Is. and Ezek. 
(prefaces to Comm. on Am. Dan. Is. and 
παν Before the latter was finished, Pam- 
machius had died in the siege of Rome by 


Alaric, A.D. 409. [ν.".Ὲ.} 
‘ lus (1), presbyter of Caesarea, the 
intimate friend (Hieron. de Seript. Eccl. 75) 


and liter guide of Eusebius the church 
historian, who adopted his name as asurname, 
calling himself Εὐσέβιος Παμφίλου. Eusebius 
composed his friend's biography in three books. 
The work is entirely lost, and our only know- 
ledge of this chief among the Biblical scholars 
of his age is derived from a few scattered 
notices in the existing writings of Eusebius, 
Jerome, and Photius. Pamphilus was a native 
of Phoenicia, and, if we accept the doubtful 
authority of Metaphrastes, born at Berytus, 
of a wealthy and honourable family. Having 
received his earlier education in his native 
city, he passed to Alexandria, where he 
devoted himself to theological studies under 
Pierius, the head of its catechetical school 
(Routh, Rel. Sacr. iii. 430; Phot. Cod. 118). 
Pamphilus afterwards settled at Caesarea, of 
which church he became a presbyter, prob- 
ably during the episcopate of Agapius. Here 
he commenced the work of his life, hunting 
for books illustrative of Holy Scripture from 
all parts of the world. The library thus 
formed was subsequently repaired, after its 
injuries during the persecution of Diocletian, 
by Acacius and Euzoius, the successors of 
Eusebius in the see of Caesarea (Hieron. Ep. 
xxxiv. vol. i. p. 155. Eusebius had cata- 
logued it (H. &. vi. 32). It was especially 
rich in codices of the Scriptures, many tran- 
scribed or corrected by Pamphilus’s own hand. 
In this Eusebius was a zealous coadjutor 
(Hieron. de Script. Eccl. c. 81). Jerome 
speaks of Palestinian manuscripts of the LXX 
current in the Syrian church, which, having 
been carefully prepared by Origen, were pub- 
lished by the two friends (Hieron. Prae/. in 
Paralip. ; adv. Rufin.ii.27,t.ii. p.522). Among 
other priceless literary treasures now lost was 
a copy of the so-called Hebrew text of the 
Gospel of St. Matthew (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. 
c. 3) and the Tetrapla and Hexapla of Origen 
in the original copy (Hieron. in ΤῊ iii. 9, t. 
vii. p. 734). In the catechetical school of 
Alexandria Pamphilus had conceived a most 
ardent admiration for Origen, with whose 
works he made it his special object to enrich 
his library, copying the greater part himself 
Hieron. de Script. Eccl.c.75). Jerome gloried 
in the possession of Origen’s commentaries on 
the Minor Prophets in 25 volumes in Pam- 
philus’s autograph. Pamphilus proved his 
affection for the memory and fame of Origen 


PANTAENUS 797 


by devoting the last two years of his life to 
Smpceng, in pote yap Boe assistance of 

use an , or Defence of Ἃ 
ΩΣ to the “ Confessor con to 
the mines in Palestine.” Five books were 
completed before his death, the sixth being 
added by Eusebius (Photius, Cod. 114). 
Photius gives a brief summary of the work, 
of which we have bk. i. alone in the inaccurate 
Latin version of Rufinus (Routh, Re. Sac, 
a 339, 392). What Pamphilus knew and 
ha —e he regarded as the common pro- 

rty of those who desired to share it. Euse- 

ius describes him as ever ready to help all 
in need, cither in the matters of the body, the 
mind, or the soul. The copies of the Scrip- 
tures he caused to be made by his students 
he distributed gratuitously, while he liberally 
supplied the temporal wants of those in dis 
tress (Eus. de Martyr. Palaest. c. 11; Hieron. 
adv. Rufin. i. 9, τ. il Ρ. 465). 

In 307 Pamphilus was committed to prison 
by Urbanus, the persecuting governor of the 
city, and for two years was closely σον 
cheered by the companionship of his secon 
self, Eusebius (Hieron. ad Pammach. ef Ocean, 
Ep. 84). Pamphilus sealed his life-long con- 
fession of his Master with his blood—" the 
centre of a brave company, among whom he 
shone out as the sun among the stars "—in 
309, when Firmilianus had succeeded Urbanus 
as governor. The library he collected was 
destroyed when Caesarea was taken by the 
Arabs in the 7th cent. [κ.ν.] 

cratius (1), (St. Pancras), martyr at 
Rome on the Via Aurelia, a.p. 304; ἃ Phry- 
gian by birth, but baptized at Rome by the 
pope himself. He suffered when only 14 years 
of age with his uncle Dionysius. His martyr- 
dom was very celebrated in the carly ages. 
His church still gives a title to a cardinal, and 
to a well-known parish church in London. 
Gregory of Tours (de Glor. Marit. i. 49) tells 
us that his tomb outside the walls of Rome 
was so sacred that the devil at once seized 
those who swore falsely before it. Gregory 
the Great mentions the martyr in his Epp. 
(iv. 18 and vi. 49), and in ony (xxvil.) on 
St. John (Ceill. iii. 29; Tillem. Mém. ν, 260; 
AA. SS. Boll. Mai. ii. 17; Ruinart. AA. Sone. 
p. 407: Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuard.). [G.1.%.) 

Panteenus, chief of the catechetical school 
of Alexandria, in the latter part of the and 
cent. and perhaps the early years of the rd. 
Of his previous life little is known with cer- 
tainty. We are not informed whether he was 
originally a Christian or became one by con- 
version. Our authorities agree, however, 
that he was trained in the Greek philosophy, 
and owed to this training much of his eminence 
as a teacher. Origen, in a passage preserved 
by Eusebius (H. Ε΄. vi. 19), names him as an 
example—the earliest, apparently, that be can 
adduce—of a Christian doctor who availed 
himself of his heathen learning. Eusebius 
tells us (sd. v. 10) that in his zeal for the faith 
he undertook the work of an evangelist in the 
East, and trated as far as India; where 
he found that St. Bartholomew had already 
preached the Word and had left there a copy 
of St. Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew characters, 
which was still treasured by the Christians 
there. Jerome (de Vir. Jil, 36) adds (but 


798 PANTAENUS 


probably without authority) that Pantaenus 
brought this to Alexandria. He also repre- 
sents that the people of India had heard his 
fame as a teacher and sent a deputation to 
solicit this mission. This is by no means 
incredible, considering the celebrity of Alex- 
andria as a seat of learning. But Jerome 
raises a difficulty when he names Demetrius as 
the bishop by whom he was sent. For Euse- 
bius places the accession of Demetrius to the 
patriarchate in the roth year of Commodus 
(H. E. ν. 22; cf. Chron.), A.D. 189; while he 
represents Pantaenus as head of the Alex- 
andrian school in his 1st year (H. E. v. 9, ro) 
and distinctly conveys that this appointment 
was after his return from his Indian mission. 

There is a like conflict of authority con- 
cerning the relation of Pantaenus to Clement 
of Alexandria. Eusebius (v. 11) unhesitat- 
ingly assumes that Pantaenus is the unnamed 
master whom Clement in his Stromateis (i. p. 
322, Potter) places above all the great men 
by whose teaching he was profited, ‘‘ last met, 
but first in power,’’ in whom he “ found rest.” 
To this authority we may add that of Pam- 
philus, who was principal author of their joint 
A pology for Origen; for Photius (Bibl. cxviii.) 
states on the authority of that work (now 
lost) that Clement ‘‘ was the hearer of Pantae- 
nus and his successor in the school.’’ This 
information Pamphilus no doubt had from his 
master Pierius, himself head of the same 
school, a follower of Origen and probably less 
than 50 years his junior. Maximus the Con- 
fessor (Scholia in S. Greg. Naz.) styles Pan- 
taenus “‘ the master ’’ (καθηγητὴν) of Clement. 
But Philip of Side (c. 427) in his Hist. Chrts- 
liana, as we learn from a fragment first pub. 
by Dodwell, made ‘‘ Clement the disciple of 
Athenagoras, and Pantaenus of Clement.” 
We unhesitatingly prefer the witness of Euse- 
bius. Dodwell’s attempts to discredit it are 
ineffectual. This contradiction, however, 
and the difficulty as to the chronology of 
Pantaenus, may be solved, or at least ac- 
counted for, if we suppose that Pantaenus 
was head of the school both before and 
after his sojourn in India, and Clement in 
his absence. Origen afterwards thus quitted 
and resumed the same office. If Pantaenus 
was the senior, Clement was the more 
brilliant ; and at the close of the 2nd cent. 
it may well have seemed a _ question 
which was master and which disciple. This 
hypothesis agrees with the probable date of 
Clement’s headship; and likewise with the 
note in the Chronicon of Eusebius, under year 
of Pertinax, or 2nd of Severus (c. 193), where 
we read that Clement was then in Alexandria, 
““a most excellent teacher (διδάσκαλος) and 
shining light (διέλαμπε) of Christian phil- 
osophy,’’ and Pantaenus “‘ was distinguished 
as an expositor of the Word of God.’’ Thus 
also Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem (ap. Eus. 
H. E. vi. 14), in a letter to Origen, couples the 
names of Pantaenus and Clement (placing, 
however, Pantaenus first), as ‘‘ fathers,” and 
speaks of both as recently deceased. This 
letter shows, further, that this Alexander and 
the illustrious Origen himself were almost 
certainly pupils of Pantaenus. 

We do not know the date of his death, but 
the Chronicon (vid. sup.) confirms Jerome in 


PANTAENUS 


prolonging his activity into the reign of 
Severus (193-211), and not improbably, as 
Jerome states, he lived into the following reign 
—a statement repeated in the (later) Roman 
Martyrology. Photius is thus wrong in be- 
lieving that Pantaenus was a hearer not only 
“‘of those who had seen the apostles”’ (which 
he may well have been), but also ‘‘ of some of 
the apostles themselves.’’ Aman alive after193 
and not the senior of Clement by more than 
a generation could not possibly have been born 
so early as to have been a hearer even of St. 
John. Photius was probably misled by a too 
literal construction of Clement’s statement 
(Strom. u.s.)—that his teachers ‘‘ had received 
the true tradition of the blessed doctrine 
straight from the holy apostles Peter, James, 
John, and Paul.” 

Eusebius tells us that Pantaenus ‘“‘ inter- 
preted the treasures of the divine dogmas ”’ ; 
Jerome, that he left ‘‘ many commentaries on 
the Scriptures.’’ Both however indicate that 
the church owed more to his spoken utterances 
than to his writings. The two extant frag- 
ments (see Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 378) appear 
to be relics of his oral teaching. One bears 
the character of a verbal reply to a question; 
it is preserved by Maximus the Confessor 
(Scholia in 5. Greg. Naz.), who, in illustration 
of the teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite 
concerning the divine will, tells us that Pan- 
taenus when asked by certain philosophers, 
‘“‘in what manner Christians suppose God to 
know things that are?” replied, ‘“‘ Neitherby 
sense things sensible, nor by intellect things 
intelligible. For it is not possible that He Who 
is above the things that are, should apprehend 
the things that are according to the things 
that are. But we say that He knows the ~ 
things that are, as acts of His own will (ws tia 
θελήματα) ; and we give good reason for so 
saying ; forif by act of His will He hath made 
all things (which reason will not gainsay), and 
if it is ever both pious and right to say that 
God knows His own will, and He of His will 
hath made each thing that hath come to be; 
therefore God knows the things that are as 
acts of His own will, inasmuch as He of His ~ 
will hath made the things that are.’’ The 
other, contained in the Eclogae e Propheticts 
appended to the works of Clement, is intro- 
duced by ‘‘Our Pantaenus used to say” 
(ἔλεγε), and lays down as a principle in inter- 
preting prophecy that it “‘ for the most part 
utters its sayings indefinitely [as to time], 
using the present sometimes forthefutureand 
sometimes for the past.’’ Anastasius-of Sinai 
(7th cent.), in his Contemplations on the 
Hexaémeron (quoted by Routh, i. p. 15), twice 
cites Pantaenus as one authority for an inter- 
pretation according to which Christ and his 
church are foreshewn in the history of the 
creation of Paradise (I. p. 860; VII. cont. p. 
893 in Bibl. Max. PP. t. ix. ed. Lyons, 1677); 
the true inference from these references 
apparently being that Pantaenus led the way 
in that method of spiritual or mystical inter- 
pretation of O.T., usually associated with his 
more famous followers, Clement and Origen. 

Anastasius describes him as ‘“‘ priest of the 
church of the Alexandrians (τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρέων 
ἱερεύς)"; which is noteworthy in the ab- 
sence of all direct information concerning the 


ὶ 
: 
ἱ 


τη 


ῬΑΡΑ 


time and place, or even the fact, of his ordina- 
tion. That he was a priest may be inferred— 
not indeed from his headship of a school, for 
Origen was a layman, but—from the fact that 
he was sent by his bishop to evangelize India, 
Besides authors quoted, see Baronius, Ann., 
5.4. 183; Cave, Primitive Fathers, Ὁ. 185 
(1677) ; Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 51 (1688); Du Pin, 
Auteurs ecclés. τ. i. pt. i. p.184; Lardner, Creds- 
bility, c. xxi. ; Le Quien, Ortens Chr. τ᾿ ii. coll. 
382, 391 ; Tillem. Mém. t. iii. p. 170. [j.Gw). 
Papa. [Nestorian Cuurcn.) 

Us (2), bp. in Upper Thebias, who 
suffered mutilation and banishment for the 
faith (Socr. H. E. i. τὰ; Theod. H. E. i. 7). 
At the council of Nicaea a.p. 325, he was 
much honoured as a confessor, specially by 
Constantine (Socr. w.s.), and earnestly opposed 
the enforcement of the law of clerical fe acy, 
on the groundof both oe and expediency, 
and prevailed (#b.). He closely adhered to the 
cause of St. Athanasius, and attended him at 
the council of Tyre, a.p. 335. Rufinus (H. Ε. 
i. 17), followed by Sozomen (H. E. ii. 25), tells 
a dramatic story of his there reproaching 
Maximus of Jerusalem for being in Arian com- 
pany and ex oc ag him the exact position 
of affairs. Fleury, H. E. xv. c. 26; Ceill. Aut. 
Sacr. iii. 420, 450; Boll. Acta SS. Sept. 11, iii. 
778. . 1.0.} 

Paphnutius (5) (Pa/nutius, Pynuphius, sur- 
named Bubalus, and Cephala), an anchoret 
and priest in the Scetic desert in Egypt. 
Cassian’s words (Coll. iv. c. 1) regarding his 
promotion of abbat Daniel to the diaconate 
and priesthood have been held to prove that 
a presbyter had the power of ordaining, but 
Bingham (Ant. bk. il. 3, 7) will not admit 
that Cassian is to be so understood. When 
Cassian visited him in 395, he was 90 years 
old, but hale and active (Coll. iii. c. 1). He 
seems to have fled twice from the Scetic into 
Syria for greater solitude and perfection 
(Cass. de Coen. Inst. iv. cc. 30, 31), and with 
some others had in 373 already found refuge 
at Diocaesarea in alestine (Tillem. vi. 
250, 251, ed. 1732). In the anthropomorphic 
controversy between Theophilus bp. of Alex- 
andria and the monks of the Egyptian desert, 
Paphnutius took the side of the bishop and 
orthodoxy (Cass. Coll. x. c. 2); his attempt to 
convert the aged Serapion and his failure, till 
Photinus came, is very curious (1b. 3). [J.G.] 

Paplas (1), bp. of Hierapolis in Phrygia 
(Eus. H. E. ili. 36) in the first half of 2nd cent. 
Lightfoot says (Coloss. p. 48), ‘* Papias, or (as 
it is very frequently written in inscriptions) 
Pappias, is a common Phrygian name. It is 
found several times at Hierapolis, not only in 
inscriptions (Boeckh, 3930, 3912 a, add.), but 
even on coins (Mionnet, iv. p. 301). This is 
explained by the fact that it was an epithet 
of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh, 3912 A, 
Παπίᾳ Act cwrjp).’’ The date of Papias used 
to be regarded as determined by a notice in 
the Paschal Chronicle, which was thought to 
record his martyrdom at Pergamus under 
A.D. 163. But we have no ground for assert- 
ing that Papias lived so late as 163, and we 
shall see reason for at least placing his literary 
activity considerably earlier in the century. 


PAPIAS 709 


Oracles of the Lord (Λογίων Κυριαεῶν ἐξηγήσειε), 
which title we shall discuss presently. The 
object of the book seems to have been to 
throw light on the Gospel history, especially 
by the a of oral traditions which Papias had 
collected from those who had met members 
of the apostolic circle. That Papias lived 
when it was ened tae to meet such persons 
has given great importance to his testimony, 
though only some very few fragments of his 
work remain. Every word of these fragments 
has been rigidly scrutinized, and, what is lees 
reasonable where so little is known, arguments 
have been built on the silence of Papias about 
sundry matters which it is supposed he ought 
to have mentioned and assumed that he did 
not. We give at length the first and most 
important of the fragments, a portion of the 
preface preserved by Eusebius (iii. 49), from 
which we can infer the object of the work and 
the resources which Papias claimed to have 
available. ‘‘ And I will not scruple also to 
give for thee a place along with my inter- 
ἄν to whatsoever at any time | well 
earned from the elders and well stored up in 
memory, guaranteeing its truth. For 1 did 
not, like the generality, take pleasure in those 
who have much to say, but in those who teach 
the truth; nor in those who relate their 
strange commandments, but in those who 
record such as were given from the Lord to the 
Faith and come from the Truth itself. And if 
ever any one came who had been a follower 
of the elders, I would inquire as to the dis- 
courses of the elders, what was said by An- 
drew, or what by Peter, or what by Philip, or 
what by Thomas or James, or what by ἴω 
or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the 
Lord; and the things which Aristion and the 
elder J ohn, the disciples of the Lord, say. For 
I did not think that I could get so much profit 
from the contents of books as from the utter- 
ances of a living and abiding voice.” 

The singular ‘“‘for thee"’ in the opening 
words implies that the work of Papias was 
inscribed to some individual. The first sen- 
tence of the extract had evidently followed one 
in which the writer had spoken of the “ inter- 
pretations ’ which appear to have been the 
main subject of his treatise, and for joining bis 
traditions with which he conceives an apology 
necessary. Thus we see that Papias is not 
making a first attempt to write the life of our 
Lord or a history of the apostles, but assumes 
the previous existence of a written record, 
Papias enumerates the ultimate sources of bis 
traditions in two classes: Andrew, Peter, and 
others, of whom he speaks in the pes tense ; 
Aristion and John the Elder, of whom he 
speaks in the present. As the passage is 
generally understood, Papias only claims a 
second-hand knowledge of what these had re- 
lated, but had inquired from any who had 
conferred with elders, what Andrew, Peter, 
etc., had said, and what John and Aristion 
were saying ; the last two being the only ones 
then μὴ και ὦ ϑῤ But considering that there 
is a change of pronouns, we are dis to 
think that there is an anacoluthon, and that 
his meaning, however il] expressed, was that 
he learned, by inquiry from others, things 
that Andrew, Peter, and others had said, and 


His name is famous as the writer of ἢ 


treatise in five books called Expositions of also stored up in bis memory things which 


800 PAPIAS 


at 


PAPIAS 


Aristion and John said in his own hearing. | giving a connected account of the Lord’s dis- 


Eusebius certainly understands Papias to 
claim to have been a hearer of this John and 
Aristion. The word ‘‘ elders”? is ordinarily 
used of men of a former generation, and would 
be most naturally understood here of men of 
the first generation of Christians, if it were 
not that in the second clause the title seems 
to be refused to Aristion, who is nevertheless 
described as a disciple (by which we must 
understand a personal disciple) of our Lord ; 
and as those mentioned in the first group are 
all apostles, the word “ elder,’’ as Papias used 
it, may have included, besides antiquity, the 
idea of official dignity. As to whether the 
John mentioned with Aristion is different from 
John the apostle previously mentioned, see 
JOHANNES (444) PRESBYTER. 

The fragment quoted enables us to fix with- 
in certain limits the date of Papias. He is 
evidently separated by a whole generation 
from the apostolic age; he describes himself 
as living when it was not exceptional to meet 
persons who had been hearers of the apostles, 
and (if we understand him rightly) he had met 


two who professed to have actually seen our | 


Lord Himself. 
apostle (some suppose that he ought to have 
said Philip the deacon) came to reside at 
Hierapolis with his daughters; and that 
Papias, on the authority of these daughters, 
tells a story of Philip raising a man from the 
dead. Eusebius certainly understood Papias 
to describe himself as contemporary with those 
daughters and as having heard the story from 
them. If these were they whom St. Luke 
describes as prophesying at Caesarea in 58, 
and if they were young women then, they 
might have been still alive at Hierapolis be- 
tween 100 and 11o. But as Papias speaks of 
his inquiries in the past tense, a considerable 
time had probably elapsed before he published 
the results. On the whole, we shal] not be 
far wrong in dating the work c. 130. 

Papias evidently lived after the rise of 
Gnosticism and was not unaffected by the 
controversies occasioned by it. Strong as- 
ceticism was a feature of some of the earliest 
Gnostic sects; and their commandments, 
“Touch not, taste not, handle not,’’ may well 
have been ‘* 
which Papias refers. Lightfoot is probably 
right in thinking that the sarcasm in the phrase 


Eusebius tells that Philip the | 


the strange commandments ”’ to | 


“those who have so very much to say’’ may | 


have been aimed at the work on the Gospel 
by Basilides in 24 books, and some similar 
productions of the Gnostic schools of which 
the later book Pistis Sophia is a sample. 

Of the traditions recorded by Papias, what 
has given rise to most discussion and has been 
the foundation of most theories is what he 
relates about the Gospels of SS. Matthew and 
Mark, which he is the first to mention by name. 
Concerning Mark he says, ‘“* This also the elder 
[John] said: Mark having become the inter- 
preter of Peter wrote accurately everything 
that he remembered of the things that were 
either said or done by Christ; but however 
not in order. For he neither heard the Lord 
nor had been a follower of His; but after- 
wards, as I said, was a follower of Peter, who 
framed his teaching according to the needs 
{of his hearers], but not with the design of 


| have rendered “‘ oracles.” 


courses [or oracles]. Thus Mark committed 
no error in thus writing down some things as 
he remembered them. For he took heed to 
one thing: not to omit any of the things he 
had heard, or to set down anything falsely 
therein.’ Concerning Matthew, all that re- 
mains of what Papias says is, “50 then 
Matthew composed the oracles in Hebrew, 
and every one interpreted them as he could.” 
For a long time no one doubted that Papias 
here spoke of our Gospels of SS. Matthew and 
Mark; and mainly on the authority of these 
passages was founded the general belief of the 
Fathers, that St. Matthew’s Gospel had been 
originally written in Hebrew, and St. Mark’s 
founded on the teaching of Peter. But 
some last-century critics contended that our 
present Gospels do not answer the descrip- 
tions given by Papias. There is a striking re- 
semblance between the two as we have them 
at present; but Papias’s description, it is 
said, would lead us to think of them as very 
different. St. Matthew’s Gospel, according to 
Papias, was a Hebrew book, containing an 
account only of our Lord’s discourses ; for so 
Schleiermacher translates τὰ λόγια, which we 
St. Mark, on the 
other hand, wrote in Greek and recorded the 
acts as wellas the words of Christ. Again, St. 
Mark’s Gospel, which in its present state has 
an arrangement as orderly as St. Matthew’s, 
was, according to Papias, not written in order. 
The conclusion which has been drawn is, that 
Papias’s testimony relates not to our Gospels 
of SS. Matthew and Mark, but to their un- 
known originals; and accordingly many con- 
stantly speak of ‘‘ the original Matthew,”’ the 
‘* Ur-Marcus,’’ though there is no particle of 
| evidence beyond what may be extracted from 
| this passage of Papias that there ever was 
any Gospel by SS. Matthew or Mark different 
from those we have. Renan even undertakes 
| to give an account of the process by which the 
|two very distinct works known to Papias, 
St. Matthew’s collection of discourses, and 
St. Mark’s collection of anecdotes, came into 
their present similar forms. In the early times, 
| every possessor of anything that purported to 
be a record of our Lord desired to have the 
story complete; and would write into the 
| margin of his book matter he met elsewhere, 
and so the book of St. Mark’s anecdotes 
was enriched by a number of traits from St. 
Matthew’s “‘ discourses ’’’ and vice versa. 

If this theory were true, we should expect 
to find in early times a multitude of gospels 
differing in their order and selection of facts. 
Why we should have now exactly four ver- 
sions of the story is hard to explain on this 
hypothesis. We should expect that, by such 
mutual assimilation, all would in the end 
have been reduced to a single gospel. The 
solitary fact to which Renan appeals in sup- 
port of his theory in reality refutes it—the 
fact, z.e., that the pericope of the adulteress 
(John vii. 53-viii. 11) is absent from some 
MSS. and differently placed in others. Such 
an instance is so unusual that critics have 
generally inferred that this pericope cannot 
be a genuine part of St. John’s Gospel; but 
if Renan’s theory were true, the phenomena 
present in a small degree in this case ought to 


PAPIAS 


be seen in a multitude of cases. There ought 
to be many parables and miracles of wh 

we should be uncertain whether they were 
common to all the ev ts or special to 
one, and what place in that one they should 
= y- Further, according to Renan's hypo- 


hensive thanSt. Matthew's. St. Matthewonly 


related our Lord's discourses; St. Mark, 4 


“things said or done by Christ," s¢. both 
discourses and anecdotes. St. Mark's Gospel. 
would thus differ from St. Matthew's by excess | 
and St. Matthew's read like an αὐτὶ ent of 
St. Mark’s. Exactly the opposite is the case. | 
We count it a mere blunder to translate 
λόγια “ discourses" as if it were the same as 
λόγους. InN.T.(Acts vii. 38; Rom. iii. 2; Heb. 
v. 12; I. Pet. iv. 11) the word has its classical 
meaning, “ oracles,"’ and is applied to the in- 
spired utterances of Godin O.T. Nor is there 
reason to think that when St. Paul, δι κ., says 
that to the Jews were committed the oracles 
of God, he confined this epithet to those parts 
of O.T. which contained divine sayings and 
refused it to those narrative parts from which 
he so often drew lessons (Rom. iv. 3; 1. Cor. x. 
I, xi. 8; Gal. iv. 21). Philo quotes as a λόγιον 
the narrative in Gen. iv. 15, ‘‘ The Lord set a 
mark upon Cain,” etc., and the words (Deut. 
x.), ‘““The Lord God is his inheritance.” 
Similarly the Apostolic Fathers. In Clement 
(I.Cor. 53) τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ is used as equiva- 
lent to τὰς ἱερὰς γραφὰς, (See also c. τῷ, 
Polyc. ad Phil. 7.) As Papias’s younger con- 
temporary Justin Martyr tells us that the 
reading of the Gospels had in his time become 
part of Christian public worship, we may 
safely pronounce the silentsubstitution of one 
Gospel for another a thing inconceivable; and 
we conclude that, as we learn from J ustin that 
the Gospels had been set on a level with the 
O.T. in the public reading of the church, so 
we know from Papias that the ordinary name 
τὰ λόγια for the O.T. books had in Christian 
use been extended to the Gospels which were 
called τὰ κυριακὰ λόγια, the “oracles of our 
Lord.”’ There is no reason to imagine the 
work of Papias limited to an exposition of our 
Lord’s discourses; we translate therefore its 
title Κυριακῶν λογίων ἐξηγήσεις͵ * Expositions 

of the Gospels.”’ ; : 
The manner in which Papias speaks of St. 
Mark’s Gospel quite agrees with the inspired 
authority, which the title, as we understand it, 
implies. Three times in this short fragment 
he attests St. Mark’s perfect accuracy. ‘‘ Mark 
wrote down accurately everything that he re- 
membered.” ‘* Mark committed no error.” 
“« He made it his rule not to omit anything he 
had heard or to set down any false statement 
therein.”’ Yet, for some reason, Papias was 
dissatisfied with St. Mark’s arrangement and 
thought it necessary to apo for it. No 
account of the passage is satisfactory which 
does not explain why, if Papias reverenced 
St. Mark so much, he was dissatisfied with his 
order. Here the hypothesis breaks down at 
once, that Papias only two docu- 
ments unlike in kind, the one a collection of 
discourses, the other of anecdotes. Respect- 
St. Mark’s accuracy as he did, Papias 
would certainly have accepted his order unless 


PAPIAS 801 


he bed vom other document to whieh, in this 
respect, he attac more Value, going over 
the same ground as St. Mark's but ξ ἃ differ- 
entorder. Lf, then, Papias held that St. Mark's 
Gospel was not written in the ht order 


what, in his opin 
St. Mark's design was more compre- 9 opinion, was the right order } 


trauss considers and rejects three answers 
to this question, as being all irreconcilable at 
least with the supposition that the Gospel 
known to Papias as St. Mark's was that which 
we receive under the name: (1) that the right 
order was St. John's; (2) that it was St. 
Matthew's ; (3) that Papias meant to deny to 
St. Mark the merit, not only of the right 


| order, but of any orderly arrangement at all. 


Lightfoot defended (1) with great ability 
(Contemp. Rev. Oct. 1875, p. 548). But there 
remains another answer which we believe 
the true one—viz. that Papias regarded St. 
Luke's as the right order. The reason this 
solution has been generally set aside is that 
St. Luke's Gospel is not mentioned in any 
extant fragments of Papias, from which it 
has been assumed that he was unacquainted 
with Luke's writings. If we had the whole 
work of Papias the argument from his silence 
might be reasonable; but we have no right to 
assume his silence merely because Eusebius 
included no statement about St. Luke in 
the few brief extracts from Papias which he 
gives. Lightfoot has shewn (Coloss. p. §2) 
that Eusebius is not wont without some special 
reason to copy references made by his pre- 
decessors to undisputed books of the Canon. 
Hilgenfeld finds in the preface of Papias 
echoes of the preface to St. Luke's Gospel 
which induce him to believe that Papias knew 
that gospel. To us this argument does not 
carry conviction, but there is every appear. 
ance that Papias was acquainted with the Acts. 
In one fragment he mentions J ustus Barsabas; 
in another he gives an account of the death of 
Judas Iscariot which seems plainly intended to 
reconcile the story in St. Matthew with that 
in the Acts. One extant fragment appears to 
have been part of a comment on our Lord's 
words preserved by St. Luke," | beheld Satan 
as lightning fall from heaven." 

But if Papias knew St. Luke's Gospel, his 
language with respect to St. Mark's is at once 
explained, St. Luke's preface declares his 
intention to write in order, ypayai καδεξνε; 
but his order is neither St. Mark's nor St. 
Matthew's. On this difference we conceive 
Papias undertook to throw light by his tra- 
ditional anecdotes. His account is that Mark 
was but the interpreter of Peter, whose teach- 
ing he accurately reported; that Peter had 
not undertaken at any time to give an orderly 
account of our Lord's words and deeds, but 
had merely related some of them from time to 
time as the immediate needs suggested; that 
Mark therefore faithfully reported what he 
had heard, and if his order was not always 
accurate it was because it had been πὸ part 
of his plan to aim at accuracy in this respect. 
With regard to St. Matthow's Gospel, his solu- 
tion seems to be that the church had not 
then the as St. Matthew had written 
it; that the Greek Matthew was but an un- 
authorized translation from a Hebrew original 
which individuals had translated, each for 
himself ashe could. Thus, so far from it being 


δι 


802 PAPIAS 

true that Papias did not use our present 
Gospels, we believe that he was the first to 
harmonize them, and to proclaim the principle 
that no apparent disagreement between them 
affects their substantial truth. Remembering 
the solicitude Papias here displays to clear the 
Gospels from all suspicion of error, and the 
recognition of inspired authority implied in 
the title λόγια, we cannot admit the inference 
which has been drawn from the last sentence 
of the fragment, that Papias attached little 
value to the Gospels as compared with the viva 
voce traditions he could himself attest ; and we 
endorse Lightfoot’s explanation, that it was 
the Gnostic apocryphal writings which Papias 
found useless in his attempts to illustrate the 
Gospel narrative accepted by the church. 

As we have seen, the extant fragments of 
Papias do not mention the Gospels of SS. Luke 
or John by name. Eusebius says, however, 
that Papias uses testimonies from St. John’s 
first epistle. There is therefore very strong 
presumption that Papias was acquainted with 
the Gospel, a presumption strengthened by the 
fact that the list of the apostles in the frag- 
ment of the preface contains names in the 
order in which they occur in St. John’s Gospel, 
placing Andrew before Peter, and includes 
some, such as Thomas and Philip, who outside 
that Gospel have little prominence in theGospel 
record, and that it gives to our Lord the 
Johannine title, the Truth. Irenaeus (v. 36) 
has preserved a fragment containing an express 
recognition of St. John’s Gospel; and though 
Irenaeus only gives it as a saying of the elders, 
Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., u.s.) has given con- 
vincing reasons for thinking that Papias is his 
authority, a conclusion which Harnack accepts 
as highly probable. An argument prefixed 
to a Vatican (gth cent.) MS. of St. John’s 
Gospel quotes a saying of Papias about that 
Gospel and speaks of Papias as having been 
John’s amanuensis. On the latter statement, 
see Lightfoot, u.s. p. 854; but the evidence 
seems good enough to induce us to believe 
that the work of Papias contained some 
notices of St. John’s Gospel which Eusebius 
has not thought it worth while to mention. 
Papias belonged to Asia Minor, where the 
Fourth Gospel according to all tradition was 
written, and where its authority was earliest 
recognized ; and he is described by Irenaeus 
as a companion of Polycarp, of whose use of 
St. John’s Gospel we cannot doubt. Euse- 
bius does not mention that Papias used the 
Apocalypse; but we learn that he did from 
other trustworthy authorities, and on the 
subject of Chiliasm Papias held views most 
distasteful to Eusebius. We learn from 
Irenaeus (v. 33) that Papias, in his fourth 
book, told, on the authority of ‘‘ the Elder ’”’ 
{J ohn], how our Lord had said that “‘ the days 
will come when there shall be vines having 
10,000 stems, and on each stem 10,000 
branches, and on each branch 10,000 shoots, 
and on each shoot 10,000 clusters, and in each 
cluster 10,000 grapes, and each grape when 
pressed shall give 25 measures of wine. And 
when any of the saints shall take hold of a 
cluster, another shall cry out, I am a better 
cluster, take me, and bless the Lord through 
me.” The story tells of similar predictions 
concerning other productions of the earth, and 


PAPIAS 


relates how the traitor Judas expressed his 
unbelief and was rebuked by our Lord. The 
ultimate original of this story of Papias was a 
Jewish apocryphal book made known by 
Ceriani, Monumenta Sac. et Profan., in 1866. 
See the Apocalypse of Baruch, c. 29, in 
Fritzsche, Libri Apoc. Vet. Test. p. 666. To 
this, and possibly other similar stories, Euse- 
bius no doubt refers when he says that Papias 
had related certain strange parables and 
teachings of the Saviour and other things of a 
fabulous character. Amongst these Eusebius 
quotes the doctrine that after the resurrection 
the kingdom of Christ would be exhibited for 
a thousand years in a sensible form on this 
earth; and he considers that things spoken 
mystically by the apostles had wrongly been 
understood literally by Papias, who “ was a 
man of very poor understanding as his writings 
shew.’’ The common text of Eusebius else- 
where (iii. 26) calls him a very learned man, 
deeply versed in the Holy Scriptures; but the 
weight of evidence is against the genuineness 
of the clause containing this encomium, which 
probably expresses later church opinion. 

Eusebius tells nothing as to Papias’s use of 
St. Paul’s Epistles, and, though the silence 
of Eusebius alone would not go far, Papias 
may have found no occasion to mention them 
in a work on the gospel history. In looking 
for traditions of our Lord’s life, Papias would 
naturally inquire after the testimony of those 
who had seen Him in the flesh. The very 
gratuitous inference from the assumed fact 
that Papias does not quote St. Paul, that he 
must have been Ebionite and anti-Pauline, is 
negatived by the fact that, as Eusebius testi- 
fies, he used St. Peter’s Epistle, a work the 
teaching of which, as all critics allow, is com- 
pletely Pauline. If the silence of Eusebius as 
to the use by Papias of St. John’s Gospel and 
St. Paul’s Epistles affords any presumption, 
it is that Papias gave no indication that his 
opinion about the undisputed books differed 
from that which, in the time of Eusebius, was 
received as unquestioned truth. For Eusebius 
thought meanly of Papias and, if he had known 
him to have held wrong opinions about the 
Canon, would have been likely to have men- 
tioned it in disparagement of his authority in 
support of Chiliasm. 

Eusebius says that Papias tells a story of a 
woman accused before our Lord of many sins, 
a story also to be found in the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews. There is a reasonable prob- 
ability that this story may be that of the 
woman taken in adultery, now found in the 
common text of St. John’s Gospel. Eusebius 
does not say that Papias took this story from 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the 
presumption is that Papias gave it as known to 
him by oral tradition and not from a written 
source. Ifso, Papias need have had no direct 
knowledge of the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews. Papias has a story about Justus 
Barsabas having taken a cup of poison without 
injury. If Papias’s copy of St. Mark contained 
the disputed verses at the end, this story might 
appropriately have been told to illustrate the 
verse, ‘‘ If they drink any deadly thing it shall 
not hurt them,’’ a promise instances of the 
fulfilment of which are very rare, whether in 
history or legend. A story of the kind is told 


PAPYLUS 


of the apostle John, but is 
Papias, or we should have 

of it here. 

rgius Hamartolus quotes Papias as 
saying, in his second book, that the apostle 
John had been killed by the Jews. That 
there is some blunder is clear; but Lightfoot 
has made it very probable from comparison 
with a passage in Origen παῖ ἃ real say 
of Papias is quoted, but with the omission o 
a line or two. Papias, in commenting on 
Matt. xx. 22, may very well have said, as does 
Origen, that John had been condemned by the 


James had been killed by the Jews. 
authorities (including Irenaeus) who speak of 


He is called by Anastasius of Sinai ὁ πάνυ and 
ὁ πολύς and passed in the church as an 
authority of the highest rank. Jerome (Ep. 
ad Lucinium, 71 Vallars.) contradicts a report 
that he had translated the writings of Papias 
and Polycarp, declaring that he had neither 
leisure nor ability for such a task. He does 
not, in his writings, shew ~~ signs that he 
knew more of the work of Papias than he 


latest trace of the existence of the work of 
Papias is that an inventory, A.p. 1218, of the 

ions of the cathedral of Nismes (Menard. 
Hist. civil. ecclés. et littér. de la ville de Nismes) 
contains theentry “‘ Item inveni in claustro— 
librum Papie librum de verbis Domini.” No 
trace of this MS. has been recovered. The 
fragments of Papias have been assembled in 
various collections, Με Grabe (Spicilegium), 
Galland and Routh (Rel. Sac.), but can best 
be read in Gebhardt and Harnack’s A post. 
Fathers, pt. ii.; a trans. is in the vol. of A post. 
Fathers in Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). 
Dissertations on Papias are very numerous ; 
we may mention important articles in the 


Roman emperor to exile at Patmos and that. 
In JOANNES PRESBYTER We quote several 


Papias as a disciple of John the Evangelist. 


could have learned from Eusebius. The 


robably later than | inserts the words “ sub id tempus," which have 
ae likely to have The 


no equivalent in the Gr original. 
Acts of Papylus contained in Moetaphrastes 
assign his martyrdom to the Decian persecu- 
tion. These Acts, Aubé thinks 
utterly worthless, Inthe Rerwe are , 
Dec. 1881, p. 440, he published a Greek MS. 
containing Acts which he thinks may be those 
seen by Eusebius. Aubé seems to agree in 
pane the martyrdom of Papylus in the 
Jecian persecution. But Lightfoot points 
out (/gnatius, i. 625) that in the Acts mention 
is made of emperors in the plural, thence he 
infers that this rather points to the reign of 
M. Aurelius or of Severus. [α.τ.κ.} 
eg ag successor to Donatus the 
Great, who followed Majorinus as Donatist 
bp. of Carthage. Optatus calla him “ pere- 
grinus,"’ ἐν δ. probably not a native of Africa. 
| Having adopted Donatist opinions, he suc- 
| ceeded Donatus ¢. 350, was banished a.p. 454, 
| and returned under the decree of Julian a.p. 
| #02 (Aug. Retract. ii. 17; Evus. Chron. ap. 
ieron. Opp. vol. iii. p: 657). About this time, 
if not earlier, he published a work, not now 
extant, in five parts, in defence of Donatism, 
to which the treatise of Optatus is a reply. 
About 372 Tichonius, a Donatist, well versed 
in Scripture, becoming sensible of the narrow 
and exclusive views of the sect, wrote a book 
to condemn them, but without abandoning 
his party. Parmenian replied, condemning 
the doctrine of Tichonius as tending to connect 
the true church, that of the Donatists, with 
the corrupt one, the Catholic, especially its 
African branch. A council of 270 Donatist 
bishops was convened at Carthage, which 
sat for 75 days and at last resolved that 
“ traditors,”’ even if they refused rebaptiam, 
should be admitted to communion (Aug. 
Ep. 93, 43)- : “" 
The time of this council ἰ5 not known. Par- 
menian died and was succeeded by Primian 


however, 


Theol. Studien und Kritiken by Schleiermacher, ¢. 392; but his book against Tichonius fell 
1832, Zahn, 1867, Steitz, 1868; an essay by | into the hands of St. Augustine, who, at the 
Weiffenbach (Giessen, 1876), areply by Leim- | request of his friends, discussed it in a treatise 
bach (Gotha, 1878), and a rejoinder by Weiffen- | in three books, ¢. 402-405 (Tillem. xiii. 128 
bach, Jahrbuch f. prot. Theol. 1877 ; Hilgenfeld and note 32). For a full account of the 
inhis Journal, 1875, 1877, 1879; Lightfoot, Con- | treatise, with a list of Scripture quotations, 
temp. Rev. 1867, 1875 ; Harnack, Chronologie. | see Ribbek, Donatus und Augustinus, pp. 348- 
Others of the name of Papias are—a martyr | 366. (See also Aug. Refract. ii. 17.) (wow.r.) 
with Victorinus (Assemani, Act. Mart. Or. et _ ( tius (1), steward or controller of 
Occ. ii. 60) ; a martyr with Onesimus at Rome, imperial property in Africa, comes domus 
Feb. 16; a physician at Laodicea (Fabric. Bibl. | regiae, severe in the execution of his office, an 
Gr. vii. 154) ; and a grammarian Papiasin the Arian and a bitter opponent of the Catholic 
11th cent., a note of whose on the Maries of | faith, very troublesome to the simple-minded 
the Gospel was published by Grabe among the and perhaps not very highl : educated clergy 
fragments of Papias of Hierapolis and ac- of Carthage. (Possidius, Vit, Aug. ©. 17; 
* cepted as such until Lightfoot established Bocking, Not. Dign. c. 11, vol. il. Pp. 174 191. 
the true authorship. {c.s.]) | He requested St. Augustine to confer with 
ylus (Papirius or Papyrius, as Rufinus, him at Carthage on the subject of religion, a.p. 
ey Oy after him, write), April 13. In 1881 | 406, but refused to allow written notes of the 
Aubé brought some new facts to light respect- discussion to be made, and asserted that 
ing this martyr from the Greek MSS. in the | Augustine was afraid to declare his opinions. 
Bibliotheque Nationale. Papylus is mentioned Augustine therefore wrote two letters in suc- 
by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 15) at the end of his cession to give Pascentius an opportunity of 
account of Polycarp’s martyrdom. Ruinart reply. Augustine, compelled his oppo- 
(p. 27), in his preface to the Acts of Polycarp, nent's repeated evasions to deckere his own 
ἢ d | belief, exhibits this in terms closely resembling 


ccording to Eusebius Papylus an ; 
hiseompanions Carpus and Agathonicesuflered the Athanasian Creed, its method of illus- 


the same time as Polycarp. This is ἃ tration, and sometimes its very words 
Ganaks of the Bollandist Henschenius, ye | (Aug. Ep. 2 38, 299), Aug. 5 My lag ἐν 
out of the Latin version of Eusebius, which pp. 1153-1162, ed. Migne; T vol, 


| 
᾿ 


804 PASCHASINUS 


xiii. 164, 165 and note 41; Ceill.,, vol. ix. pp. 
185, 186, 194. [H.W.P.] 
Paschasinus (2), bp. of Lilybaeum in Sicily, 
c. 440, when that country was devastated by 
Vandal raids (Leonis Magni, Ep. iii. c.i. Migne’s 
ed., note δὴ. Lro the Great, sending him 
pecuniary assistance, consulted him about the 
Paschal cycle (A.D. 443). He replies in favour 
of the Alexandrian computation against the 
Roman, but in an abject strain of deference 
to his patron. He relates in confirmation of 
his view a miracle which used to occur in the 
baptistery of an outlying church on the 
property of his see on the true Paschal Eve 
every year, the water rising miraculously in 
the font (ἐδ. c. 3). In 451 he received another 
letter from Leo desiring him to make inquiries 
as to the Paschal cycle (Ep. Ixxxviii. c. 4) and 
sending him the Tome to stir up his energies 
in the cause of orthodoxy. Immediately after 
he was sent as one of Leo’s legates to the 
council of Chalcedon (Ep. 1xxxix.) and pre- 
sided on his behalf (Labbe, Cone. vol. iv. 
p- 5808, etc. The phrase ‘‘synodo prae- 
sidens,’’ however, does not occur in the Acta 
of the council, but only in the signatures of the 
prelates representing Rome.) [C.G.] 
Paschasius (3), deacon of Rome, called by 
Gregory the Great in his Dialogues, bk. iv. 
c. 40, “8 man of great sanctity.”’ He was a 
firm supporter of the antipope Laurentius to 
his death, and his adhesion was a great source 
of strength to the opponents of Symmachus 
(cf. Baronius, ann. 498). There is extant a 
work of his in two books, de Sancto Spiritu 
(Patr. Lat. \xii. 9-40), which Gregory (u.s.) 
calls ‘‘ libri rectissimi ac luculenti.’’ The date 
of his death was ὃ. 512. [G.W.D.] 
Pastor (1). This name is connected with 
traditions of the Roman church, which, 
though accepted as historical by Baronius and 
other writers, including Cardinal Wiseman 
(Fabiola, p. 189), must be rejected as mythical. 
These traditions relate to the origin of two of 
the oldest of the Roman ἐμ, those of St. 
Pudentiana and St. Praxedis, which still give 
titles to cardinals, and the former of which 
claims to be the most ancient church in the 
world. Thestoryis that Peter when at Rome 
dwelt in the house of the senator Pudens in 
the vicus Patricius, and there held divine 
service, his altar being then the only one at 
Rome. Pudens is evidently intended as the 
same who is mentioned II. Tim. iv. 21. His 
mother’s name is said to have been Priscilla, 
and it is plainly intended to identify her with 
the lady who gave to an ancient cemetery 
at Rome its name. The story relates that 
Pudens, on the death of his wife, converted 
his house into a church and put it under the 
charge of the priest Pastor, from whom it was 
known us ‘‘ titulus Pastoris.’”’ This tztulus is 
named in more than one document, but in all 
the name may have been derived from the 
story. Thus in the Acts of Nemesius, pope 
Stephen is said to have held a baptism there 
(Baronius, A.D. 257, n. 23). Our story relates 
that the baptistery had been placed there by 
pope Pius I., who often exercised the episcopal 
functions in this church. Here the two 
daughters of Pudens, Pudentiana and Praxe- 
dis, having given all their goods to the poor, 
dedicated themselves to the service of God. 


PATRICIUS 


This church, under the name of Ecclesia Pu- 
dentiana, is mentioned in an inscription of 
A.D. 384, and there are epitaphs of priests 
titult Pudentis of A.D. 489 and 528 (de Rossi, 
Bull. 1867, n. 60; 1883, p. 107). The original 
authority for the story appears to be a letter 
purporting to be written by Pastor to Timothy 
(see Boll. AA. SS. May το, iv. 299). He 
informs Timothy of the death of his brother 
Novatus, who, during his illness, had been 
visited by Praxedis, then the only surviving 
sisters. He obtains Timothy’s consent to the 
application of the property of Novatus to 
religious uses according to the direction of 
Praxedis; and baths possessed by Novatus 
in the vicus Lateritius are converted into a 
second titulus, now known as of St. Praxedis. 
This titulus is mentioned in an epitaph of a.p. 
491 (de Rossi, Bull. 1882, p. 65); and priests 
of both titulisign in the Roman council of 499. 
On this letter are founded false letters of pope 
Pius I. to Justus of Vienna, given in Baronius 
(Ann. 166, i.), a forgery later than the Iso- 
dorian Decretals. Those who maintain the 
genuineness of the letter of Pastor are met 
by the chronological difficulty of connecting 
Pudens with both St. Pauland Pius I. It has 
been argued that such longevity is not im- 
possible; and it has been suggested that 
Praxedis and Pudentiana were not grand- 
daughters of Pudens. But the spuriousness 
of the whole story has been abundantly shown 
by Tillemont (ii. 286, 615). [G.s.] 

Patricius (10) (St. Patrick), Mar. 17, the 
national apostle of Ireland, has been the sub- 
ject of much controversy. His existence has 
been doubted, his name ascribed to 7 different 
persons at least, and the origin and authority 
of his mission warmly disputed. 

I. The Documents.—The materials for St. 
Patrick’s history which have a claim to be 
regarded as historical are, in the first place, 
the writings of the saint himself. We have 
two works ascribed to him, his Confession and 
his Epistle to Coroticus. Both seem genuine. 

We have a copy of the Confession more than 
1,000 years old preserved in the Book of 
Armagh, one of the great treasures of the 
library of Trinity College, Dublin. This copy 
professes, in the colophon appended to it, to 
have been taken from the autograph of dt. 
Patrick. ‘‘ Thus far the volume which St. 
Patrick wrote with his own hand.’’ Dr. Todd, 
in his Life of St. Patrick (p. 347), sums up the 
case for the Confession of St. Patrick: “1 
is altogether such an account of himself as a 
missionary of that age, circumstanced as St. 
Patrick was, might be expected to compose. 
Its Latinity is rude and archaic, it quotes the 
ante-Hieronymian Vulgate; and contains 
nothing inconsistent with the century in which 
it professes to have been written. If it bea 
forgery, it is not easy to imagine with what 
purpose it could have been forged.’”’ This 
strong testimony might have been made 
stronger and applies equally clearly to the Ep. 
to Coroticus. There are two lines of evidence 
which seem conclusive as to the early date. 
The one deals with the State Organization, the 
other with the Ecclesiastical Organization 
there alluded to and implied. They are both 
such as existed early in the 5th cent., and 
could scarcely be imagined afterwards. 


ΟΡΑΤΕΙΟΙΌΒ 


To take the State Organization first. 
the Ep. 
thus: ὁ" 
rione patre nascor."’ We now know that 
decurions—who were not magistrates but 
town councillors rather, and members of the 
local senates—were found all over the Roman 
empire to its extremest bounds by the end of 
the 4th cent. Discoveries in Spain last cen- 
tury showed that decurions were established 
by the Romans in every little mining village, 
a with the care of the games, the water 
supply, sanitary arrangements, education, and 
the local fortifications ; while Hiibner in the 
Corp. Insc. Lat. t. vii. num. §4 and 180, showed 
that decurions existed in Britain (cf. Mar- 

uardt and Mommsen, Handbuch der rémis- 
n Alterthiimer, t. iv. pp. 501-516 and Ephem. 
Epigraph. t. ii. p. 137; t. iii. p. 103): This 
institution necessarily vanished amid the bar- 
barian invasions of the sth cent. Now, St. 
Patrick's writings imply the existence of 
decurions. Again, the Confession calls Eng- 
land Britanniae, et the plural, which 2 
strictly accurate and in accordance with the 
ical usage of the Roman empire at the 
close of the 4th cent., which then divided 
Britain into five provinces, Britannia prima 
and secunda, Maxima Caesariensis, Flavia 
Caesariensis and Valentia, which were col- 
lectively called Britanniae (cf. Bdécking’s 
Notitia Dig. τ. ii. c. iii. pp. 12-14). Further, 
the Ecclesiastical Organization implied is such 
as the years about A.p. 400 alone could supply. 
St. Patrick tells us in the opening words of his 
Confession that his father was Calpurnius, a 
deacon, his grandfather Potitus, a priest. A 
careful review of the councils and canons will 
shew that in Britain and N. Gaul there 
existed no probibition of clerical marriage in 
the last quarter of the 4th cent. Exuperius, 
bp. of Toulouse, wrote in 404 to pope Inno- 
cent I. asking how to deal with married priests 


In 
to Coroticus he describes himself 


PATRICIUS 805 


(See his Life in Pez. Seriptores Rerum A wstria- 
carum, ἃ. i, and in Perts, Monuments.) By 


Ingenuus fui secundum carnem, decu- the end of the sth cent. the Franks been 


converted, and Clovis was the one orthodox 
(Sovereign of Christendom, the ally and cham- 
pion of Catholic bishops. The redemption of 
| captives would be then no longer necessary. 
| This passage could only have been written 
) about the middle of the sth cent. at the latest. 
| These instances will show how capable St. 
_ Patrick's own writings are of standing the 
tests of historical eriticiam. 
| Next in importance stand the collection of 
| Patrician documents contained in the Book 
of Armagh. The contents of the book are : 
tst, Patrician documents, including the oldest 
copy of the Confession: and, the N.T. in 
Latin; 93rd, the Life of St. Martin of Tours. 
| The N.T. is remarkable as the only complete 
copy which has come down from the ancient 
Celtic church. “ The collections,” says Mr. 
Gilbert (Nat. MSS. of Ireland), " concerning 
St. Patrick in the first part of the Book of 
Armagh constitute the oldest writings now 
extant in connexion with him, and are also 
the most ancient cy Braap known of narrative 
jcomposition in Irish and Hiberno-Latin.” 
These documents are all now accessible in 
print, though a critical edition of them, and 
indeed of the whole Book of Armagh, is a 
desideratum in Celtic literature. 

Il. Life and History.—The story of St. 
Patrick's life may be derived from the primary 
authorities, his own writings and the Patrician 
documents which really belong to the 7th and 
8th cents. He was born probably at Kil- 

atrick, near Dumbarton in Scotland. St. 
atrick, in the Confession, names Bannavem 
Taberniae as the residence of his parents, a 
name which cannot now be identified. (Ct 
archbp. Moran in Dublin Rev., Apr. 1880, pe 
291-326.) He was carried captive into An- 
trim when 16 years old, in one of those raids 


who had begotten children since their or- | which Roman writers like Ammianus Marcel- 
dination. Innocent’s reply, dated Feb. 20, linus and Irish Annalists like the Four Masters 
405, shews, first, that the prohibition of mar- | shew were so prevalent during the 2nd half 
riage was only a late innovation, as he refers of the 4th cent. He became the slave of 
to the decree of pope Siricius, not quite 20 | Milchu, the king of Dalaradia, the commence- 
years before (Mansi, iii. 670; Hefele, ii. 387, ment of whose reign the Four Masters assign 
Clark’s ed.); secondly, that Innocent per- to 388, so that the very earliest year for St. 
mitted the clergy of Toulouse to live with | Patrick's birth would be 472. Dalaradia was 
their wives if they had contracted marriage the most powerful kingdom of ΝΕ. Ireland. 


in ignorance of papal legislation. 

e aspect of the political horizon, and the 
consequent action of the church as depicted 
in these writings, correspond with their 
alleged age. In the Ep. to Coroticus Patrick 
says, ‘It is the custom of the Roman Gallic 
Christians to send holy men to the Franks and 
other nations with many thousand solidi, to 
redeem baptized captives." The term Roman 
was then used to express a citizen of the 
Roman empire wherever he dwelt; and the 
custom itself is one of the strongest evidences 


It extended from Newry, in the S. of co. Down, 
| to the hill of Slemish, the most conspicuous 
/mountain of central Antrim. In the 7th cent. 
traditions about his residence there were 
}abundantly current in the locality, as indeed 
they are still. He lived near the village of 
Broughshane, 5 or 6 miles E. of Ballymena, 
where a townland, Ballyligpatrick, the town 
| of the hollow of Patrick, probably comme#mor- 
ates the position of the farm where he fed 
Milchu's swine (cf. Dr. Reeves's Antig. of 
| Down and Connor, pp. 78, δι, δα, 344-544). 


as toage. The writings of Z us, Salvian, | After 7 years he escaped, went to Gaul 

and Sidonius Apollinaris prove the ravages studied under Germanus of Auxerre. He γον 
of the Franks in Gaul about the middle of the | mained for a very long period, some say τὸ, 
5th cent. Salvian mentions the rescue of a others 40 years, in Gaul, where he was or- 
captive taken at Cologne in Ep. 1. Sevextnus, | dained priest and bishop. He then returned 
the apostle of Austria, a little later in the to Ireland, visiting Eng on his way. He 
century, devoted his life to the same work in landed where the river Vartry flows into the 
another neighbourhood, and introduced the sea at Wicklow, as Palladius had done before 
payment of tithes for this special object. him. It was a very natural point for mariners 


806 PATRICIUS 

in those days to make, though now a port 
diligently avoided by them. Wicklow head 
offers shelter along a coast singularly destitute 
of harbours of refuge. The Danes three cen- 
turies later learned its advantage, and founded 
a settlement there, whence the modern name 
of Wicklow. The nature of the harbour was 
attractive to navigators like Palladius and 
Patrick. Its strand and murrough, or com- 
mon, extending some miles N. from the Var- 
try, offered special opportunities for dragging 
up the small ships then used. St. Patrick 
was received in a very hostile manner by the 
pagans of Wicklow on landing. A shower of 
stones greeted them, and knocked out the 
front teeth of one of his companions, St. 
Mantan, whence the Irish name of Wicklow, 
Killmantan, or Church of Mantan (Joyce’s 
Irish Names, p. 103; Colgan, AA. SS. p. 451; 
Reeves’s Antiquities, p. 378). St. Patrick 
then sailed N., compelled with true missionary 
spirit to seek first of all that locality where he 
had spent seven years of his youth and had 
learned the language and customs of the Irish. 
We can still trace his stopping-places. Dublin 
only existed in those days as a small village 
beside a ford or bridge of hurdles over the 
Liffey, serving as a crossing-place for the 
great S.E. road from Tara to Wicklow, a 
bridge, like those still found in the bogs of 
Ireland, composed of branches woventogether, 
which serve to sustain very considerable 
weights. St. Patrick landed, according to 
Tirechan, at an island off the ’N. coast of co. 
Dublin, still called Inispatrick (in 7th cent. 
Insula Patricii), whence he sailed to the 
coast of co. Down, where his frail bark was 
stopped by the formidable race off the mouth 
of Strangford Lough. He sailed up this 
lough, which extends for miles into the heart 
of co. Down, and landed at the mouth of the 
Slaney, which flows into the upper waters of 
the Lough, within a few miles of the church 
of Saul, a spot successfully identified by Mr. 
J. W. Hanna in a paper on the “True Landing- 
place of St. Patrick in Ulster’? (Downpatrick, 
1858). There he made his first convert Dichu, 
the local chief, and founded his first church 
in a barn which Dichu gave him, whence the 
name Sabhall (Celtic for barn) or Saul, which 
has ever since continued to be a Christian 
place of worship (cf. Reeves, Antig. pp. 40, 
220). From Dichu he soon directed his steps 
towards Central Antrim and king Milchu’s 
residence, where he had spent the days of his 
captivity. His fame had reached Milchu, 
whose Druids warned him that his former 
servant would triumph over him. So Milchu 
set fire to all his household goods and perished 
in their midst just as St. Patrick appeared. 
St. Patrick now (A.D. 433), determining to 
strike a blow at the very centre of Celtic 
paganism, directed his course towards Tara. 
He sailed to the mouth of the Boyne, where, 
as the Book of Armagh tells us, he laid up 
his boats, as to this day it is impossible for the 
smallest boats to sail up the Boyne between 
Drogheda and Navan. Patrick proceeded 
along the N. bank of the river to the hill of 
Slane, the loftiest elevation in the country, 
dominating the vast plain of Meath. The 
ancient Life in the Book of Armagh is here 
marked by touches of geographical exactness 


PATROCLUS 


which guarantee its truth. Being determined 
to celebrate Easter on the hill of Slane, he, 
according to the custom of the early Chris- 
tians, lit his Paschal fire on Easter Eve, a 
custom which we know from other sources 
was universal at that time (cf. Martene, de 
Antiq. Ritib. t. iii. lib. iv. c. 24, pp. 144, 145, 
and arts. on “ Easter, Ceremonies of,’ and 
“Fire, Kindling of,” in D. C. A. 

This fire was at once seen on Tara, where 
the king of Ireland, Laoghaire, was holding 
a convention of the chiefs of Ireland. The 
ritual of the convention demanded that no 
fire should be lit in his dominions on this night 
till the king’s fire was lit on Tara. St. Pat- 
rick’s act directly challenged the edict of the 
king, who proceeded to Slane to punish the 
bold aggressor. The narrative of the conflict 
between St. Patrick and king Laoghaire and 
his priests is marked by a series of miracles 
and legends, terminating, however, with the 
defeat of paganism and the baptism of great 
numbers of the Irish, including Laoghaire 
himself, who yielded a nominal adhesion to 
the truth. (See Mr. Petrie’s great work on 
the Hill of Tara, where the subject has been 
exhaustively discussed.) 

The Paschal controversy, about which Cum- 
mian wrote (A.D. 634), throws an interesting 
light upon the date of the introduction of 
Christianity into Ireland. The Irish have been 
accused of Quartodeciman practices as to 
Easter, which is quite a mistake. They sim- 
ply adhered to the old Roman cycle, which 
was superseded in 463 by the Victorian cycle. 
[‘‘Easter,” in D. C. A. vol. i. p. 594.] The in- 
vasions of the barbarians then cut off the 
Celtic church from a knowledge of the more 
modern improvements in the calendar, which 
they afterwards resisted with a horror natural 
to simple people. The English surplice riots 
of bp. Blomfield’s time shew how a much 
shorter tradition may raise a popular commo- 
tion. This fixes the introduction of Christian- 
ity into Ireland in the first half of 5th cent. 
The alleged connexion of the Irish church 
with Egypt and the East, as shewn in art, 
literature, architecture, episcopal and mon- 
astic arrangements, would afford material for 
an interesting article on the peculiarities of 
the Irish church. (See Butler’s Coptic 
Churches of Egypt, Oxf. 1885.) 

See Sir Samuel Fergusson’s treatise on the 
Patrician Documents in the Transactions of the 
Royal Irish Academy (Dec. 1885),and Benjamin 
Robert’s Etude critique sur la vie de St. Patrice 
(Paris, 1883), where a diligent use has been 
made of modern authorities, and, pp. 3-7, a 
convenient summary given of the literature. 
A cheap popular Life by E. J. Newell is pub. 
by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, 
who also pub. the Epp. and Hymns, including 
the poem of Secundinus in his praise, in Eng. 
ed. by T. Olden. Cf. esp. The Tripartite Life 
of Patrick, with other documents, etce., by 
Whitley Stokes in Rolls Series, No. 89, 2 vols. 
(Lond. 1887); also W. Bright, The Roman 
ἐξέ im the Early Church, pp. 367- fe ee 


96). 
τὰ αὐ τωθ αν (2) (St. Parre), Jan. 21, ἃ martyr 
supposed to have suffered under Aurelian, and 
commemorated by Greg. Turon. Glor. Mart. 
c. 64. His Acts are fully told by the Bolland- 


PATROCLUS 


ists, AA. SS Jan. ii. 342-349. A curious 
story told by Gregory (i.c.) shews how his Acts 
originated. Patroclus had a chapel in Gaul 
served by a solitary priest. The populace 
despised this chapel because it no 
Acts of his passion, and a traveller came to 
the priest one day and shewed him a book 
which proved to be the Acts of his own saint. 


then returned the book to the traveller, who 
went his way. The priest at once shewed his 
bishop the Acts. The prelate was suspicious, 
taxed him with forgery, and, according to the 
stern discipline of the Gallic church, flogged 
him on the spot. An army, however, shortl 
afterwards invaded Italy, and brought πρὸς 
an identical copy of the Acts, thus proving 
the good faith of the priest. The people 
thereupon built a splendid church in honour 
of Patroclus. og τ 
Patroclus (3), bp. of Arles, between SS. 
Heros and Honoratus (A.p. 412-426). In 412 
the people of Arles drove out Heros and elected 
Patroclus, a creature of Constantius (Prosper 
Aquit. Chronicon, Migne, Patr. Lat. li. 590). 
As bishop he is said to have sold ecclesiastical 
offices (Prosper Tyro, Chronicon, in Bouquet i. 
638) and hoarded up stores of ill-gotten wealth 
(cf. the funeral sermon of Hilary of Arles upon 
St. Honoratus, c. vi. Patr. Lat. 1. 1265). He 
seems, however, to have commended himself 
to pope Zosimus, who conferred upon him 
unprecedented privileges of jurisdiction, and 
his history illustrates the relations of the 
French dioceses. On the ground that Arles 
was the fountain-head of Gallic Christianity, 
the pope confirmed to the see all parishes 
it had ever held, whether within the province 
or not, and gave Patroclus exclusive rights of 
ordination over the independent provinces of 
Vienne, Narbonensis Prima, and Narbonensis 
Secunda, and deposed Proculus, bp. of Mar- 
seilles, for infringing these privileges by 
ordaining in his own diocese. On the ground 
of Patroclus’s personal merits, the pope, in a 
letter addressed to all the Gallic bishops, 
forbade any cleric of whatever rank to visit 
Rome without first obtaining /sterae formatae, 
or letters of identification and recommenda- 
tion, from the bp. of Arles. See the pope's 
correspondence from Mar. 22, 417, to Feb. 5, 
418, which is chiefly occupied with Arles, Epp. 
i. v. vi. vii. x. xi. Migne, Patr. Lat, xx. 643, 
665, 666, 668, 673, 674. These privileges were 
productive of great dissatisfaction in the 
neighbouring provinces and, in the matter of 
the jurisdiction, Zosimus’s orders were vir- 
tually rescinded by his successor, Bonifacius L., 
who, in a letter written Feb. 9, 422, asserted 
the right of Hilary, bp. of Narbonne, to con- 
secrate the bp. of Lodéve in his province, as 
against Patroclus, who had usurped it (Ep. 
xii. Patr. Lat. xx. 772-774). In 425 Patroclus 
was ordered by Theodosius to assemble for 
discussion the Gallic bishops who professed 
the Pelagian and Celestian heresies, the 
emperor decreeing exile for such as should 
not recant within 20 days. Patroclus was 
murdered in 426 by a barbarian officer (Chron- 
tcon, Patr. Lat. li. 593-594)- [5...5.} 
Patrophilus (1) of ythopolis, one of the 
iginal Arian party, took a leading part in all 
their principal acts and was one of the most 


The priest sat up all night copying them, and | bish 


PATROPHILUS 807 


relentless opponents of Athanasius, by whom 
he is designated as a wremarduayor (ade. 
Serap. iv. 7, p. p%) He enjoyed consider- 
able reputation for theological learning, and 
trained Eusebius of Emesa in the exposition 
of Scripture (Socr. H. Ε. ti. 9). When Arius, 
driven from Alexandria, took refuge in Palee- 
tine, Patrophilus was one of the Palestinian 
ops who warmly espoused his cause, wrote 
in sup of his teaching (Athan. de Synod. 
p. 886), and in a.p. Ewen with Paulinus 
of Tyre and Eusebius of Caesarea in summon- 
ing a local synod, which granted Arius per- 
mission to hold private religious assemblies 
(Soz. H. EB. i. 15). At Nicaea he was one of 
the 17 Tape ay partisans of Arius, and 
united with them in drawing up a creed which 
was indignantly rejected by the council 
(Theod. H. E. i. 7). Embittered by defeat, 
he became one of the most relentless perse- 
cutors of Athanasius. In 330 he took part in 
the synod at Antioch by which Eustathias 
was deposed (ἰδ. i. 21). At the synod of 
Tyre (A.D. 335) he was one of the most active 
in bringing about the condemnation of 
Athanasius (Labbe, ii. 436; Athan. Apol. ¢. 
Arian. cc. 73, 74, 77), and the same year he 
attended the abortive synod of the Dedication 
at Jerusalem (Socr. H. E. i. 41; Soz. H. Ε. 
ii. 26; Theod. H. E. i. 31). Passing thence 
to Constantinople at the empress’s command, 
he denounced Athanasius as having threat- 
ened the ne city with starvation by 
preventing the sailing of the Alexandrian 
corn-ships, and procured his banishment to 
Tréves (Socr. H. E.i. 35; Theod. H. E. i. 31; 
Theophan. p. 26; Athan. Apol. ες. Arian. c. 
87). In 341 be took part in the ambiguous 
council of Antioch, in Encaeniis (Sox. H. B. 
iii. 5). He was one of the ordainers of George, 
the violent heterodox intruder into the see of 
Alexandria in 353 (ἐδ. iv. 8), and with his 
leader Acacius kept entirely aloof from 
Athanasius when Maximus of Jerusalem 
welcomed him on his return from banishment 
in 346, and before long contrived to establish 
Cyril in Maximus’s place as their own nominee 
(Theophan. p. 34; Gwatkin, Studies of 
Arianism, p. 145). He was one of the few 
Eastern bishops who attended the council of 
Milan in 355 this name appearing erroneously 
in the lists as Stratophilus), and he took part 
in the condemnation and deposition of Euse- 
bius of Vercelli, on whose banishment to 
Scythopolis, Patrophilus, “his jailer,” as 
Eusebius calls him, vented his annoyance by 
studied insults and ill-treatment (Eus. Vercell. 
Ep. apud Baronium Amnal. 356, No. 93) 
According to Philostorgius (H. &. iv. & 10) 
Patrophilus poisoned the mind of Constantius 
against Basil of Ancyra, who had at one time 
exercised unbounded influence over him, and 
was the proposer of the scheme of breaking 
up the proposed general council into two. 
When the Eastern division met at Seleucia, 
Sept. 27, 359, Patrophilus was ἃ leading 
member of the shifty Acacian party pledged 
to the Homoiousion. Finding the majority 
of the synod against them, he and his party 
refused to take part in the later sessions, and 
at the fourth sitting, Oct. 1, he shared in the 
sentence of tion passed on Acacius and 
his followers ( .H. EB. ti. 40; Sow. Η. E. 


808 PAULA 
iv. 23). He immediately returned home, 
where he was kept informed by Aecacius of the 
course events were taking in the synod held 
at Constantinople (Jan. 360), when Aetius and 
the Anomoeans were condemned, several 
leading semi-Arians deposed, the Ariminian 
creed imposed, and Eudoxius enthroned bp. 
of Constantinople (Socr. H. E. ii. 43). He 
died very soon afterwards, for his grave was 
desecrated during the temporary pagan 
reaction under Julian in 361, when his remains 
were scattered and his skull mockingly used 
as a lamp (Theoph. p. 40; Niceph. x. 13; 
Chron. Pasch. (ed. Ducange, 1688), p- 295; 
Tillem. Mém. ecclés. t. vi. vii.; Le Quien, 
Or. Christ. iii. 683). [Ε.ν.] 
Paula (2), a noble and wealthy Roman lady, 
who accompanied Jerome to Palestine in 385, 
and lived the rest of her life at Bethlehem, 
dying in 404. The chief facts of her life were 
given in Jerome’s Epitaphium of her ad- 
dressed to Eustochium (Hieron. Ep. 108, ed. 
Vall.). She was born in 347, and while quite 
young was married to the senator Toxotius, 
of the Julian family, which traced its descent 
from Aeneas. Through her mother Blaesilla 
she was connected with the Scipios and the 
Gracchi, through her father Rogatus with a 
Greek family, which traced its descent from 
Agamemnon. Her family was connected with 
the Aemilian gens, and her name taken from 
that of the illustrious Paulus. Jerome re- 
cords these ancestral glories in her epitaph, 


Scipio quam genuit, Pauli fudere parentes, 
Gracchorum soboles, Agamemnonis inclyta proles. 


She was possessed of great wealth, owning, 
amongst other properties, the town of Nico- 
polis or Actium. During her early married 
life, though always without reproach in her 
character, she lived in the usual luxury of 
Roman patricians. She gave birth to four 
daughters, BLAESILLA, who married, but lost 
her husband and died early in 384 ; PAULINA, 
wife of PamMMaAcuHius; Julia, called Eusto- 
CHIUM, and Ruffina, who died early, probably 
in 386; and one son, called after his father 
Toxotius. After the birth of a son she 
appears to have adopted the practice of con- 
tinency (Hieron. Ep. cviii. 4), but to have 
still lived with her husband, whose death 
(probably in 380) she deeply lamented. In 
382, during the synod held at Rome (following 
on the council of Constantinople), she enter- 
tained the bps. Epiphanius of Salamis and 
Paulinus of Antioch, and by them her ascetic 
tendencies, already considerable, were height- 
ened. Through them Jerome, who had come 
to Rome with them, became her friend. She 
imbibed through him her love for the study 
of Scripture, and, with her daughter Eusto- 
chium, attended his readings at the palace of 
Marcella. She gave vast sums to the poor, 
spending her own fortune and that of her 
children in charity. She assumed a coarse 
dress and a sordid appearance, and undertook 
all sorts of menial duties in the relief of dis- 
tress. But her mind was set upon the mon- 
astic life and upon the country of the Eastern 
hermits. After the death of Blaesilla she 
determined to quit Rome, and, early in 385, 
disregarding the tears of her son Toxotius, 
then a child, who was left to the wardship of 


PAULA 


the praetor, and the entreaties of Ruffina, then 
a girl of marriageable age, who begged her 
mother to wait till she was married, she sailed 
for the East. After visiting Epiphanius in 
Cyprus, she rejoined Jerome and his friends 
atAntioch. With him she braved the winter’s 
journey through Lebanon to Palestine 
{H1rERoNYMuUs] and Egypt, from whence 
returning the whole party settled in Bethlehem 
in the autumn of 386. 

Their life there is related under H1ERony- 
Mus, and only personal details need here be 
given. Her letter to Marcella inviting her to 
come to Palestine (Hieron. Ep. 46) shows her 
enthusiastic delight in every sacred place and 
association in the Holy Land. Paula and 
Eustochium lived at first in a cottage till 
their convent and hospice (dtversorium) were 
built. They then founded a monastery for 
men, and a convent of three degrees for 
women, who lived separately, though having 
the same dress, and met for the services. 
Paula’s capacity of management, her patience 
and tact, are warmly praised by Jerome (Ep. 
ΟΥ̓]. c. 19). She is said by Palladius (Hist. 
Laus. 79) to have had the care of Jerome and 
to have found it a difficult task. Her scrip- 
tural studies, begun in Rome, were carried on 
earnestly at Bethlehem. She had (through 
her father’s family) a good knowledge of 
Greek, and she learnt Hebrew to be able to 
repeat and sing the Psalms in the original (c. 
26). She read constantly with Jerome, and 
they went through the whole Bible together 
(tb.). In his account of his writings in the 
catalogue (de Vir. Ill. 135) written in 392, 
Jerome says, ‘‘Epistolarum ad Paulam et 
Eustochium, quia quotidie scribuntur, in- 
certus est numerus.’’ She was remarkably 
teachable, and when doubts were suggested to 
her by Origenistic teachers, she was able at 
once, with Jerome’s help, to put them aside. 
Her charities were so incessant that Jerome 
states that she left Eustochium with a great 
debt, which she could only trust the mercy of 
Christ would enable her to pay (c. 15). It is 
believed that Jerome, who had in vain 
counselled prudence and moderation (7b.), gave 
her pecuniary help in her later years. Her 
health was weak ; her body slight ; her morti- 
fications, against many of which Jerome 
remonstrated and which gave occasion to 
some scandals, and her frequent illnesses had 
worn her away; and in her 57th year (404) 
she sank under a severe attack of illness. 
Jerome describes with deep feeling the scene 
at her death, the personal attention of her 
daughter to all her wants, the concern of the 
whole Christian community. The bishops of 
the surrounding cities were present. John of 
Jerusalem, who only four years before had 
been at strife with the convents of Bethlehem, 
wasthere. Her funeral wasa kind of triumph, 
the whole church being gathered together to 
carry her to her resting-place in the centre of 
the cave of the Nativity. Sheis reckoned asa 
saint by the Roman church, her day, that of 
her death, being Jan. 26. [w.H.F.] 

Paula (3), granddaughter of foregoing, 
daughter of Toxotius, and of Laeta the 
daughter of Albinus, a heathen and a priest. 
Laeta embraced Christianity and wrote to 
consult Jerome as to Paula’s education, who 


PAULINA PAULINUS 


replied in Ep. τον, written in gor. He desires | his Feclestastical History (BE Rit 

that she should lead the ascetic life and pre- | speaks with great άπ ελο - “ee ὌΝ 
pare to consecrate herself to Christ in vir- founded charges brought against him by Mareel- 
ginity ; and begs that, if she could not carry | lus, with the view of fixing on him theimptous 
out at Rome the system of instruction in tenet that our blessed Lord ie no more than 


scriptural knowledge which he preseribed, she | 
might be sent to Bethlehem. She was prob- | 
ably sent there while still a child, though not 

till after her grandmother's death. Several | 
of Jerome's commentaries are dedicated to her 
with her aunt Eustochium, and she is men- 


tioned by both hae and Augustine in their | 


correspondence in 416 (Hieron. Epp. 134, 143, 
both to Augustine). WHF.) 
Paulina 


| crated in 140. 


a created being (im Marcell. ws.) (ew) 
Paulinus (4), St., 6th bp. of Tréwes, between 
St. Maximinus and St. Ronosus, one of the 
foremost Gallic champions of orthodoxy 
against Arianism. He was probably conse- 
In 441, at the council of Sir- 
mium, Paulinus seems to have boldly cham- 
pioned the orthodox cause. The letter of 
condemnation of Athanasius tendered for his 


(1), daughter of Paula the friend | signature he scornfully rejected, exclaim 


of Jerome, and wife of Pammacnius. She 
married about the time when her mother and 
her sister Eustochium went with Jerome to 
Palestine in 385. Her children died at birth 
and she herself probably died in childbirth in 
307. Her merits are described in consolatory 
letters to Pammachius from Jerome (Ep. 66, 
ed. Vall.) and Paulinus (Ep. 13, Migne’s Patr. 
Lat. vol. 61). [w.u.r.] 
Pa anus, younger brother of Jerome. 
He was still young in 385 (‘‘ adolescens," 
Hieron. c. Ruf. iii. 22) when he left Rome with 
his brother and their friend Vincentius, and 
he was under 30 when ordained in 104 
(Hieron. adv. Joan. Hier. § 8). He shared 
his brother's journeys in Palestine and settled 
with him in Bethlehem, where he probably 
remained to the end of his life. He was 
modest, only desiring to help his brother in 
the monastery. But Epiphanius, coming to 
Jerusalem in 394, and finding (or rather pro- 
moting) a schism between the monasteries 
of Bethlehem and bp. John of Jerusalem, 
took him to the monastery which he had 
founded at Ad, and there, against the pro- 
tests and even resistance of Paulinian, or- 
dained him priest. (See in Hieron. Ep. li. 
x, ed. Vall. the trans. of Epiphanius’s ex- 
planatory letter to John of Jerusalem.) 
Paulinian may perhaps have acted as pres- 
byter in the monasteries for a time, but he felt 
it prudent during the vehement controversy 
which sprang up between Jerome and am 
John of Jerusalem to go to Epiphanius in 
Cyprus. Jerome declares (contra Joannem § 41) 
that his brother was in Cyprus. (w.u.F.] 
Paulinus (3), bp. of Tyre and afterwards of 
Antioch, A.p. 328-329 (Clinton, F. R.). He 
was apparently a native of Antioch, and, 
according to his friend and panegyrist Euse- 
bius (Eus. in Marcell. i. 4, p- 19), filled the 
office of bp. of Tyre with great splendour, and 
after the cessation of the persecution rebuilt 
with great magnificence the cathedral ela- 
borately described by the historian in the 
inaugural oration delivered by him at its 
dedication (ib. H. E. x. 4). Paulinus was 
“ claimed by the church of the Antiochenes as 
their own property,” 
ποιηθῆναι. and chosen their bishop. Accord- 
ing to Philostorgius, he eee held his new 
dignity forhalfa year before his death (Philost. 
H. E. iii. 15). Paulinus, like his friend Euse- 
bius of Caesarea, was an Arianizer, claimed by 
Arius in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia as 
one of his sympathizers (Theod. H. E. i. 5). 
Eusebius of Caesarea lavishes unstinting 
praise on his fellow-partisan, dedicates to him | 


that he would sign the condemnation 
Photinus and Marcellus, but not of Athan- 
asius (Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Saer. ti. 47. 
Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 140). At the council of 
Arles in 353 Paulinus’s fate wasdecided. The 
emperor Constantius there decreed the banish- 
ment of bishops who should refuse to subseribe 
the condemnation of Athanasius. Paulinus 
remained steadfast, and, after being con- 
demned by the bishops, was driven into exile 
in Phrygia, to parts inhabited by heathen and 
heretics. This occurred in 343 or, at latest, 
in 354, not 356, as Tercssanteestt He died in 
358 or 359. The church of his name outside 
the walls was one of the earliest at Trévwes 
(Wilmowsky, Der Dom tu Trier, p. 11). 

For his life see, further, the passages from 
the works of Athanasius collected, Boll. Ada 


lib. i.; Lib. contra Const. Imp. 11; 
Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 562, $88, 631. 
Paulinus (5) (Paulonas), a Ρ 
disciple of Ephraem Syrus. 
Script. Eccl. c. iii. in Patr. Lat. \wiii. 1062) gives 
a short account of him, speaking of his great 
talent, knowledge of Scripture, and power as 
a preacher. After his master’s ath he 
“* separated from the church, and wrote much 
against the faith,” being of an ambitious 
temperament and eager for renown. [συν Ὁ. 
Paulinus (6), bp. of the Eustathian or old 
Catholic party at Antioch, 362-388, a man 
highly esteemed for piety. He was one of 
Eustathius's presbyters, and, subsequently to 
the death of Eustathius, was recognized as 
the head of the Eustathians, who, refusing to 
hold communion with Meletius, with whom 
they were doctrinally agreed, in consequence 
of his having been appointed ahd consecrated 
by Arians, remained some time without a 
bishop, holding their meetings for worship in 
a small church within the walls of Antioch, 
the use of which had been granted by the 
Arian bp. Evagrius, out of respect for Pauli- 
nus’s high character. Lucifer of Calarts, on 
his way home from his banishment in Upper 
Egypt, αὖ. 362, went straight to Antioch, 
where, finding it impossible to reconcile the 


ὡς οἰκεῖον ἀγαθοῦ pera-| two contending parties he took the fatal step 


of ordaining Paulinus bp. of the Eustathian 
Catholics. This rendered union impossible, 
and the church had to lament the consequent 
schism at Antioch for more than half a cen- 
tury. The controversy between the churches 
of the West and of Egypt which sw ed 
Paulinus, and that of the East which ὃ od 
to Meletius, was not finally healed till Alex- 
ander became bp. of Antioch, a.p. 413. For 


810 PAULINUS 


the history of this protracted schism see 
LuciFerus of Calaris; Eustatuius (8) of 
Antioch ; MEvettIus (8) of Antioch ; EusEBIuS 
(93) of Vercelli; FLAviANus (4). The death 
of Paulinus may be dated 388. [E.v.] 

Paulinus (7), writer of the Life of St. Am- 
brose, a work which he says he undertook at 
the request of St. Augustine. He was well 
qualified for his task by his intimate acquaint- 
ance with St. Ambrose and attendance upon 
him in his last illness, and by information 
gathered from well-informed persons, espe- 
cially his sister Marcellina. He seems to call 
himself the bishop’s secretary (notartus) and 
he was certainly with him at his death (cc. 33, 
35, 38, 42, 47). In his introduction he ex- 
presses his great anxiety to adhere strictly to 
the truth and to deliver what he has to say 
impartially, and this he appears to have done. 
After the death of St. Ambrose he went to 
Africa, where he was well received by the 
church, and distinguished himself by defend- 
ing the memory of his friend and patron 
against an attack upon him by Muranus, bp. 
of Bollita. It was perhaps this which led to 
his acquaintance with St. Augustine, and his 
becoming the biographer of St. Ambrose. He 
took a prominent part in the proceedings of 
the council of Carthage, a.pD. 412, against 
Celestius. Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii. pp. 57, 80; 
Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 402; Ceillier, vol. vii. 
P- 533, Vili. 549, ix. 453- [H.w.P.] 

Paulinus (8), St., bp. of Nola, one of a 
patrician family of whom some had been 
Christians (Ausonius, Ep. xxiv. 103; Paulin. 
Ep. xl. Prudentius, Symm. i. 558, 560; Baro- 
nius, 394, 78, 79). They had property in 
Aquitania, and probably resided there habi- 
tually (Ambros. Ep. lviii. 1). His father was 
praefectus praetorio of Gaul, had large posses- 
sions in the province in which he lived, and 
was the founder of the town of Burgus (Bourg) 
on the Dordogne, and, as well as his wife, 
appears to have been a Christian. 

I. First Period (353-394)-—Besides Paulinus, 
his parents had an elder son and a daughter. 
He was probably born at Bordeaux, A.D. 353 
or 354, andhistutor was Ausonius, who thought 
very highly of him as a pupil, regarded him 
with warm affection, and addressed to him 
many of his poetical epistles. The affection 
of Ausonius was fully returned by his pupil, 
who declares that he owed to him all the dis- 
tinction he had attained. 

Whatever merit his Latin compositions 
possess, he was by his own admission not 
strong in Greek, and in a letter to Rufinus, 
A.D. 408, regrets his inability to translate 
accurately an epistle of St. Clement (Ep. xlvi. 
2). He entered early into public life, became 
a member of the senate, and filled the office of 
consul for part of the official year in the place 
of some one who had vacated it ; in what year 
is not known, his name not appearing in the 
Fasti, but before 379 when Ausonius held 
the office and says that his pupil attained the 
dignity earlier than himself (Aus. Ep. xx. 4, 
xxv. 60). Paulinus has been supposed also 
to have been prefect of New Epirus, a sup- 
position consistent with his own mention of 
frequent and laborious journeys by land and 
sea, but of which there is no direct evidence, 
though an edict of the joint emperors Valen- 


PAULINUS 


tinian, Valens, and Gratian undoubtedly 
exists, addressed to a prefect of that province 
of his name, A.D. 372. He certainly held a 
judicial office, for in one of his poems he 
expresses satisfaction at having condemned 
no one to death during his tenure of it. 
Lebrun conjectures that after his consulship 
he became consularis of Campania and resided 
at Nola (Carm. xxi. 396; Tillem. vol. xiv. 
Ρ- 8). Possessed of easy fortune and enjoying 
the best society, he lived a life free from 
outward reproach, but one for which he after- 
wards found great fault with himself. His 
health was never good, and he suffered much 
from fatigue in his journeys (Carm. x. 134; 
ΧΙ]. 2, 10; Ep. v. 4). In the course of them 
he fell in with Victricius bp. of Rouen and 
Martin bp. of Tours at Vienne in Gaul, and 
ascribed to the latter the restoration of his 
sight, the loss of which was threatened, appar- 
ently by cataract (Ep. xviii. 9; Sulpic. Sev. 
Vit. S. Mart. xix. 3, ed. Halm.). He also 
regarded St. Ambrose with great veneration, 
calling him ‘‘father”’ (Ep. iii. 4). But his 
chief object of veneration was Felix of Nola, 
to whom he devoted himself specially when 
he visited Nola at about 26 or 27 years of age, 
A.D. 379 (Carm. xili. 7, 9; xxi. 350, 382). 
About this time, but not later than 389, he 
and his brother received baptism at Bordeaux, 
from Delphinus, the bishop there (Epp. iii. 4; 
Xx. 6; XXXV.; Xxxvi.). Not long after he began 
to think of retiring from the world, and in 389 
or 390 went to Spain, residing chiefly at 
Barcelona. During this time he married a 
Spanish lady of good fortune and irreproach- 
able character, named Therasia, and a son was 
born to them, who died after a few days 
(Prudentius, Peristeph. v. 41, 44; Dexter, 
Chron. A.D. 296; Carm. v. 66; XXi. 400; XXXV. 
599, 610). There seems good reason for 
placing the violent death of his brother about 
this time, when not only his brother’s pro- 
perty was in danger of confiscation, but that 
of Paulinus himself and even his life (Carm. xxi. 
414-427; Buse, vol. i. p. 157). It was per- 
haps partly due to these events that during 
his stay in Spain he was led to give up the 
senate and worldly business and refused to 
take any further interest in ‘“ profane” 
literature (Ep. iv. 2; xxii. 3; Carm. x. 304, 316). 
But he continued to write verses on sacred 
subjects to the end of his life. Determined to 
renounce the world, he parted with a large 
portion of his property and his wife’s, spend- 
ing some of the money in redeeming captives, 
releasing debtors, andthelike. In compliance 
with a sudden popular demand, he was or- 
dained priest, but without any especial cure 
of souls, by Lampius, bp. of Barcelona, on 
Christmas Day, 393 (Epp.i. 10; ii. 2; ili. 4). 
He appears to have been already well ac- 
quainted with some of the most eminent, 
African clergy, Alypius, Augustine, Aurelius, 
and others. In a letter to St. Augustine he 
mentions his work against the Manicheans, 
i.e. probably his de Doctrina Christiana, to- 
gether with the single volumede Vera Religtone, 
in which Manichean doctrine is discussed 
(Aug. Ep. xxvii. 4). In the same letter 
Paulinus speaks of his own abandonment of 
the world, and requests Augustine to instruct 
and direct him. 


PAULINUS PAULINUS ait 


11. Second Period (394-409).—In 494 he | suspended b 
y ch was coiled with mosaic 
determined to retire to Nola, where he had representing the Trinity symbolically, and 
rary) including a house. On his way he | also the twelve apostles, with an inseription in 
a t. Ambrose, probably at Florence, and | verse describing the subjects represented. Of 
ag letter to Sulpicius, whom he begs to visit | this mosaic some remains were visible in ἐπι. 
is at Nola, he — of much jealousy 7 | All the buildings, both churches and cloisters, 

wn him at Rome by pope Siricius and were adorned with pictures representing 
others of the clergy, probably on account of | Scripture subjects, in the older church trom 
the unusual circumstances of his ordination ; | the N.T. and in the newer one from O.T., for 
whereas at Nola, where not long after his the introduction of which Paulinus apologizes 
arrival he had a serious illness, he was visited | on the score of their utility in cecupying the 


by nearly all the bishops of Campania, either 
in person or by ce gees ΟΥ̓ clergymen and 
some laymen, and recei friendly letters 
from many African bishops who sent mes- 
sengers to him. At Nola he entered with his 
wife at once upon the course of life he had 
marked out, and which he pursued as far as 
ible until his death, a.p. 431. SS. Am- 
Augustine, and Jerome regarded the 
self-sacrifice of him and his wife with high 
respect and admiration (Ambros. Ep. viii. 1-3; 
Hieron. ae Iviii. 6; cxviii. 5). Augustine 
writes to him in terms of warm admiration 
and affection (Aug. Ep. xxvii.), andin a second 
letter announces his appointment as coad- 
utor to Valerius, bp. of Hippo, and urges 
aulinus to visit him in Africa(Aug. Ep. xxxi.). 
St. Jerome exhorts him and Therasia to perse- 
vere in their self-denial, and praises highly his 
pan ic on the emperor Theodosius, a work 
which he himself mentions but which has 
perished (Hieron. Ep. lviii.; Paul. Ep. xxviii. 
6; Gennadius, c. 48). In reply to Augustine 
and to letters of the African bishops, Paulinus 
writes to Augustine's friend Romanianus, 
congratulating the African church on the 
appointment of Augustine and hoping that 
his ‘‘ trumpet" may sound forcibly in the 
ears of Romanianus’s son Licentius, to whom 
also he addressed a letter ending: 


Vive precor, sed vive Deo, nam vivere mundo 
Mortis opus, vera est vivere vita Deo. 


When Paulinus settled at Nola, the burial- 
lace of Felix, called in the Martyrology of 
in Pincis or in Pineis, about a mile from 

the town, had become the site of four churches 
(bastlicae), one built by pope Damasus, and 
also a chapel. Probably none of these were 
of any great size. Paulinus added a fifth. 
The church whose dedication he mentions in 
Ep. 32 is described by him as having a triple 
apse (trichorum, t.¢. τρίχωρον). (Ep. xxxii. 
17; Isid. p> xv. 8, 7.) It was perhaps on 
the site of the one built by Damasus, and 
contained not only the tomb of Felix, but 


beneath the altar (alfaria) remains of various 


saints and martyrs, including SS. — δος 
Andrew, Luke, Thomas, and others of less 
note, including St. Nazarius, of whom some 
relics were sent to him by Ambrose (Ep. xxxii. 
17; Carm. xxvii. 436, 439), but above all the 


precious fragment of the true cross, brought | 


from Jerusalem by Melania and presented by 
her to Paulinus a.p. 398, and of which he sent 


a chip (astula) enclosed in a tube of gold to) 


Sulpicius, as ἃ 5 off from Therasia 
and himself to Bassula, his friend's mother- 
in-law, to honour the churches built by him 
at Primuliacum (Ep. xxxi.). The pavement, 
walls, and columns of this apse were marble, 
and the vaulted roof, from which lamps were 


attention of the illiterate people who flocked 
to the grave of Felix in large numbers at all 
times, and sometimes spent whole nights there 
in the winter, watching and fasting, having 
brought torches with them. With these pic- 
tures Paulinus hoped to employ their minds 
and prevent them from excess in eating of 
drinking (Carm. xxvii. 442-404). 
Paulinus also devoted much pains and cost 
to the erection of a new church at Fundi, a 
place endeared to him by early recollections 
jand at which he possessed property. He 
enriched it with relics of martyrs and apostles, 
including St. Andrew, St. Luke, SS. Nazarius, 
Gervasius, and Protasius (Ep. xxxii. 17). 
| His own fesidence was a house he had for- 
merly built or enlarged as an asylum for the 
oor. He added a second story for the use of 
imself, his associates, and his visitors, re- 
serving the ground-floor for the or, 80 that 
by their ascending prayers the buildings above 
might be strengthened (Ep. xxix. 13; Carm. 
xxi. 390). His mode of life was monastic in 
the fullest sense, and he calls bis house a 
monastery (Ep. v. 15). The inmates dressed 
themselves in hair cloth with a rope girdle, 
cut their hair in a manner studiously unbecom- 
ing, were perhaps not careful as to personal 
cleanliness, observed strict rules of silence and 
fasting, even during Easter-tide did not eat 
until about 3 p.m., and used mostly a veget- 
able diet, lying down to sleep on the ground, 
wrapped only in a coarse cloak or patch-work 
blanket, and abridging the time usually de- 
voted to sleep (Epp. xv. 4; xxii. 1, 2, 3,6; 
xxix. i. 13; Carm. xxxv. 445-497)- 
| He seldom, if ever, left Nola, except to visit 
| Rome once a year to join in the fest val of SS. 
| Peter and Paul, on June 29, the day of their 
|martyrdom (‘beatorum apostolorum nata- 
| lem"") (Epp. xvii. 2; xviii. sy χα. 2; SUT; 
xlv. 1; Carm, xxi. 132-166; Aug. Ep. xev. 6). 

The event of all the year which was the 
chief interest for him and bis littl com- 
munity at Nola was the festival of St. Felix, 
fon Jan. 14. For many years he always com- 
posed a poem in honour of the day. In one 
‘of the earlier poems Paulinus tells how multi- 
‘tudes came from all parts of S. Italy, to be 
| cured of their ailments or relieved of troubles, 
lor to thank God for cures of relief already 
| granted ; how even Rome sent forth thousands 
on the Appian road, which became enc umbered 
| by the crowds of pilgrims, and how Nola, fora 
short time, became almost as populous δὲ 
Rome (Ep. xiv.). 

Ill. Third Period (ad. © 409431) 
Paulinus became bp. of Nola before the au- 
tumn of 410, when Alaric laid waste Campania, 
for St. A tine speaks of him as being then 
‘bp. of Nola. Therasia’s death perhaps took 
lace in the latter part of 408, thoug Tille- 


812 PAULINUS 
mont and Buse seem to place it a year or two 
later. The diocese of Paulinus was a small 
one, and appears, at any rate formerly, to have 
been notorious for drunkenness and immor- 
ality (Ep. xlix. 14; Carm. xix. 164-218). 
Without adopting all the glowing panegyric 
applied by Uranius to his behaviour as bishop, 
we may well believe that he shewed himself in 
this, as in other matters, a faithful, devout, 
humble, and munificent follower of his Master; 
and when Campania was laid waste by Alaric, 
A.D. 410, Paulinus devoted all he had to the 
relief of the sufferers and captives. The bar- 
barian occupation did not last long, and from 
this time until his death, in 431, there are few 
events to record in the life of Paulinus. A 
letter from St. Augustine, probably in 417, 
seems to hint at a tendency on the part of 
Paulinus to adopt some, at least, of the erro- 
neous doctrines of Pelagius, with whom he 
had been on friendly terms (Aug. Ep. 186 i. τ, 
and xii. 41). After the death of Zosimus, in 
Dec. 418, the appointment of his successor in 
the see of Rome becoming a matter of dispute, 
the emperor Honorius summoned a council 
of bishops at Ravenna, and afterwards at 
Spoletum, and invited Paulinus to attend, but 
he excused himself on the first occasion on the 
ground of ill-health and was probably pre- 
vented by the same cause from appearing on 
the second (Baronius, 419, 19, 20). After re- 
siding 36 years in retirement at Nola, a period 
devoted both by himself, and during her life- 
time. by his wife, to unsparing self-denial, 
religious observances, and works of piety and 
charity without stint, he died June 22, A.p. 
431, aged 77 or 78. An account of his last 
illness and death has been left by Uranius in a 
letter addressed to Pacatus. ‘‘ Three days 
before his death he was visited by two bishops, 
Symmachus (of Capua) and Acyndinus, by 
whose conversation he was much refreshed. 
He desired the sacred mysteries to be ex- 
hibited before his bed, so that the sacrifice 
having been offered in their company, he 
might commend his own soul to the Lord, and 
at the same time recall to their former peace 
those on whom, in the exercise of church dis- 
cipline, he had pronounced sentence of exclusion 
from communion. When this was over, he 
called for his brothers, by whom the by- 
standers thought that he meant the bishops 
who were present ; but he said that he called 
for Januarius bp. of Naples and Martin of 
Tours (both of them deceased), who, he said, 
had promised to be with him. He then raised 
his hands to heaven, and repeated Psalm cxx. 
{cxxi.], ‘ I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills,’ 
etc. . . . Later in the day, as if the hour for 
vespers were come, he recited slowly, with 
outstretched hands, the words, ‘I have pre- 
pared a lamp for my anointed,’ Ps. cxxxi. 17 
[exxxii. 17]. At about the fourth hour of the 
night, while all were watching, the cell was 
shaken by an earthquake, which was felt no- 
where else, and during this he expired.’”’ He 
was buried in the church of St. Felix, in 
Pincis, and his funeral was attended even by 
Jews and pagans (Uran. de ob. S. Paul ap. 
Migne, Patr. Lat. vol. liii.). 

Writings—He has left behind 51 letters 
and 36 poems. (a) Prose.—Of his letters, 13, 
some very long, are addressed to Sulpicius 


PAULINUS 


Severus, the first in 394, and the Jast in 403; 
5 to Delphinus, bp. of Bordeaux, 6 to Aman- 
dus his successor, 4 to Augustine, 3 to Aper 
and Amanda, 2 to another Amandus and 
Sanctus, 2 to Rufinus, 2 to Victricius, 3 to 
persons unknown, and single letters to 
Alethius, Alypius, Desiderius, Eucherius and 
Gallus, Florentius, Jovius, Licentius, Maca- 
rius, Pammachius, Romanianus, Sebastianus, 
besides the account of the martyrdom of 
Genesius which is a sort of postscript to the 
letter to Eucherius and Gallus (Ep. 51). It 
does not appear that he ever saw Sulpicius 
after his visit to Spain, but the love of the 
two for each other never failed. His letters 
to Delphinus and Amandus exhibit his deep 
humility and cheerful humour, but are chiefly 
remarkable for the earnest request made to 
both, that they will offer their prayers on 
behalf of his deceased brother, of whom he 
speaks with great affection but with deep 
regret for his neglect in spiritual matters, 
hoping that by their prayers he may obtain 
some refreshment in the other world (Epp. 
XXXV.; Xxxvi.). Of those to St. Augustine the 
third is chiefly occupied with remarks on the 
grief of Melania for the loss of her only son 
Publicola, and a reply to Augustine on the 
condition of the soul in celestial glory, which 
he thinks will be one of highly exalted powers 
and beauty resembling the condition of our 
Lord after His resurrection. He asks Augus- 
tine’s opinion on the subject (Ep. xiv.). In 
the 4th letter Paulinus asks for Augustine’s 
opinion as a doctor of Israel on various Scrip- 
ture passages according to the Latin version. 
(1) Ps. xv. 3 [ xvi. 4], ‘‘sanctis...multiplicatae 
sunt infirmitates eorum, postea accelerave- 
runt’’: who aremeant by the “‘saints,’”’ andhow 
are their infirmitiesmultiplied? (2) Ps. xvi.15, 
16[xvil. 14]: whatis meant by “‘de absconditis 
tuis adimpletus est venter eorum,”’ and ‘‘satur- 
atisunt porcina,’’ or, as he hears isread bysome, 
“filiis.” (3) Ps. Iviii. rz [lix. rr], ‘ne unquam 
obliviscantur legis tuae’’(Vulg. ‘*populitui’’): 
he cannot understand how knowledge of the 
law can be sufficient without faith in Christ. 
(4) Ps. lxvii. 23, 25 [Ixviii. 21, 23], “‘Deus 
conquassabit capita inimicorum suorum, ver- 
ticemcapilli,”’ etc.: thelast expression he thinks 
void of sense; though he could understand 
‘‘verticem capitis,”’ who are the ‘‘dogs,”’ v.25, 
and what is the meaning of ‘‘abipso’”’? Some 
questions follow on passages in St. Paul’s 
Epistles. (1) Eph.iv. 11: what are the special 
functions of each order named by St. Paul ? 
what difference is there between “‘ pastors ”’ 
and ‘‘teachers’’? (2) I. Tim. 11. 1, 2: what 
difference between ‘“‘ prayers’’ and ‘“‘sup- 
plications,” etc. ? (3) Rom. xi. 28: how can 
the people of Israel be at the same time friends 
and enemies—why enemies for the sake of 
Christians, friends for that of the fathers ? 
(4) Col. ii. 18, ‘‘nemo vos seducat in humilitate 
et religione angelorum.’’ Whatangels does St. 
Paul mean ?—if bad angels, how can there be 
any ‘‘humilitas”’ or “religio’’ connected with 
them? Paulinus thinks that heretics must be 
intended. (5) Col.ii. 18,21. Heasks Augus- 
tine to explain these two passages, which seem 
to contradict each other: what ‘‘shew of wis- 
dom”’ (‘‘ratio sapientiae”’’) can there be in “‘will 
worship”’ (‘‘ superstitio’’), and how can “ neg- 


PAULINUS 


lect of the body” (‘non parcendum ΕΝ) 
with ‘‘satisfying of the flesh" (“‘saturitas 
carnis’’), which seems contrary to St. Paul's 
own practice as mentioned I. Cor. ix.27? He 
Augustine to explain why our Lord 
was and was not recognized by the womea and 
disciples on the Day of Resurrection, how He 
came to be known by the latter in the “ἡ break- 
ing of bread "’; what did He mean by bidding 
Mary not touch Him until after His ascension 
(John xx. 17)? He supposes He meant that 
He was to be touched by faith hereafter, 
though not then by the hand. Again what 
did Simeon mean by his words to the Virgin 
Mother (Luke ii. 34, 35)? What “sword” 
was to pierce her soul? Was it the word of 
God ? and how could this cause the ** thoughts 
of many hearts "’ to be “revealed"'? These 
questions he doubts not that Augustine will 
be able to explain to him (Ep. 1.). The letter 
of Paulinus to Pammachius ts a very long one 
of condolence and exhortation on the loss of 
his wife Paulina, daughter of Paula, and sister 
of Eustochium. Feeling ony for him in 
his loss, he nevertheless doubts whether he 
ought not to write more in thankfulness for 
the faith Pammachius has shewn in honouring 
her funeral, not with ostentatious pomp or 
gladiatorial shows, but with alms and good 
works, first presenting the sacred oblation to 
God and the pure libation (‘‘ sacras hostias et 
casta libamina’’) with commemoration of her 
whom he had lost, and then providing a meal 
for the poor of Rome in great numbers in the 
church of St. Peter, following in this the exam- 
le or Scripture saints, Christ Himself, and the 
ἔτει Christians. Faith is a greater comfort 
than any words of his; by its means we can 
walk in Paradise with the souls of the departed. 
Relying on the truth of Scripture we cannot 
doubt the resurrection, his only doubt is as to 
his own claim to admission into the heavenly 
kingdom. Yet the door, he knows, is open 
to all, and the departed wife of his friend is a 
pledge to himself of the future in Christ (Ep. 
xiii. ; see Hieron. Ep. Ixvi.). The letters of 
Paulinus are generally clear and intelligible, 
leasing as regards style, remarkable for 
Srodtlixy of mind, an affectionate disposition, 
and a cheerful, playful humour, free trom all 
moroseness or ascetic bitterness. Many of his 
remarks on Scripture and other subjects show 
ood sense and sound judgment, and, though 
ee from any pretension to learning, prove 
him an industriousstudent and careful inquirer 
into the sacred writings in the Latin version. 
(b) Verse.—Paulinus wrote much in verse 
throughout his life, and sent many of his 
to his friends. Seventeen are more or 
ess directly in praise of Felix, all of them 
dated Jan. 14, the day of his death, and con- 
sequently called Natalitia, though not by 
Paulinus himself. The 1st (Carm. xii.) was 
written in Spain, but when fully intending to 
retire to Nola, a.p. 394, the 2nd shortly after 
his arrival there (ἐδ. xiii.). The 3rd describes 
the concourse from all parts to the tomb of 
Felix, and the power he manifested of casting 
out devils and curing diseases (1b. xiv. 21-43). 
The 15th and 16th relate the legend of Fettx. 
The 17th is a Sapphic ode to Nicetas, who was 
about to return to his see after his visit to 
Nola, A.D. 398 (ib. xvii.). He came a second 


PAULINUS 8183 


time, a.p. 402, and his visit is mentioned with 
much satisfaction in the 7th poem. The 
t8th poem, 6th in honour of Felix, describes 
in hexameters the discovery of his tomb, 
mentions the five churches built around it, 
and how the country people came themselves 
and brought their animals to be cured of 
maladies by the saint's influence. 

A poem of 730 lines describes how the relies 
of martyrs had been transferred to other places 
than those where they died, especially the 
more notable among them; how Nola was 
honoured and benefited by the grave of 
Felix; and how a thief who had stolen an 
ornament in the church containing a figure of 
the cross was discovered, partly by the agency 
of Felix, and ΝΥ by the miraculous opera- 
tion of the sacred emblem (ἐδ. xix.) The 
poem last in order is dedicated to a friend 
whom he calls Antonius, by which name be 
has been thought to denote Ausonius, and 
consists of a discourse of the insufficiency of 
the old mythological systems and of the 
advantages of the true faith he has adopted, 
whose doctrines on the Trinity, final judg- 
ment, and redemption through Christ he has 
described, and he invites his friend to con- 
sider the blessing of eternal life open to all 
who accept the offer (ἐδ. xxxvi.). 

As Bose remarks, the laws of versification 
and prosody were undergoing a great change 
in his day, and either of this or of intentional 
neglect of those laws, the verses of Paulinus 
afford abundant evidence. Nor can it be said 
truly that they shew much poetic power, 
though many are graceful and pleasing, 
especially his letters to Ausonius and his 
address to Nicetas. He wrote with facilityand 
great pleasure to himself, and frequently wrote 
well, but his poems cannot justly claim a high 
rank as poetry. Ozanam, however, expresses 
a very favourable opinion of them (Crvilisa- 
tion au cinguieme siccle, vol. ii. pp. 238-247). 
Of his amiable and affectionate disposition, 
love for his friends, profound humility, entire 
abnegation of self, earnest piety, and devotion 
to the service of God, sufhcient evidence has 
been given. He was studiously orthodox on 
the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity, 
which he states clearly on many occasions, but 
seems in one letter to favour the views of the 
semi-Pelagians (Ep. xxix. 7). He believed 
devoutly in the power and influence of de- 
gem saints, including their relics ; his whole 
ife from the time of his retirement to Nola 
may be said to turn 4 ἀτ this belief, which he 
carried, as the stories in his poems shew plain- 
ly, to the utmost bound of human cresullt 
(Ampére, Revue des deux mondes, 1847, v 
xii. p. 66, and Littérature chrétienne au cin- 
quieme siecle, vol. i. p. 288). 

The ed. of his works pub. by the abbé 
Migne, Patr. Lat. vol. Ixi., contains the 
matter of most of the former edd. It 
however, in all matters of reference edit 
carelessly, and its index is exceedingly in- 
accurate. An account of Paulinus is given 
by Cave, Hist. Litt. i. p. 288; Dupin, Mest. 
Eccl. vol. iii.; Tillemont, vol. xiv.; and 
Ceillier, vol. vill. Dr. Gilly (Vigiantius and 
his Times, Lond. 1844) describes his mode 
of life, blaming greatly both it and his 
theology, though giving him full credit for 


814 PAULINUS 


his piety. In the Revue des deux mondes for 
1878, vol. xxviii, is an art. by M. Gaston 
Boissier on a Life of Paulinus by the abbé 
Lagrange, pub. in 1877. Dr. Adolf Buse, 
professor at the Seminary of Cologne, has 
written a book in two vols., Paulin und seine 
Zeit (Regensburg, 1856), which answers fully 
to its title, containing all or nearly all known 
about him, and written with great care, 
moderation, and critical judgment. He 
avoids most of the legends, and shews that the 
use of bells in churches, an invention credited 
to him by tradition, is not due to him, nor 
even to the town of Nola. The latest ed. of 
his works is by Hartel (Vienna, 1894, 2 vols.) 
in the Corpus Scr. Eccl. Lat. xxix.-xxx.; see 
also Hartel, Patristische Studien (Vienna, 1895), 
Vv. Vi. [H.W.P. ] 
Paulinus (12), son of a prefect (probably a 
vicarius) of Illyricum; born at Pella. His 
father soon afterwards went to Carthage as 
proconsul, and Paulinus was before long sent 
to Bordeaux to be brought up by his grand- 
father. In his 84th year (probably c. 460) he 
wrote a poem called ‘‘ Eucharisticon Deo sub 
Ephemeridis meae textu,”’ in which he returns 
thanks to God for his preservation and for 
many blessings throughout a long and rather 
eventful life. The poem throws some light 
on the history of his time, particularly on the 
movement of the northern nations. It has 
been erroneously attributed to St. Paulinus 
of Nola. It is in De la Bigne, Bibl. Patr. 
(App. col. 281, Paris, 1579), and was ed. by 
Daumius (Lips. 1686). Hist. Litt. de la France, 
ii. 363, where the events of his life are traced 
in some detail, from the account given in 
the poem itself; Alzog, Handb. der Patrol.; 
Ebert, Gesch. der Chr. Lat. Lit.; Cave, Hist. 


Tht. 1.2200); Leutiely vol 1.) Cf. also: 
Rocafort, De Paul Pell. vita et euv. (Bordeaux, 
1890). [H.A.W. | 


Paulinus (13) of Périgueux (Petrocorius), 
a poet of the 2nd half of the 5th cent., to 
whom properly belong certain works some- 
times attributed to St. Paulinus of Nola, viz. 
Vita Martini in six books, apoem, “ de Visita- 
tione Nepotuli Sui,’’ and a short poem com- 
posed as a dedicatory inscription for the 
basilica of St. Martin at Tours. Nothing can 
be clearly made out concerning his life or 
parentage, save the inference, from the name 
Petrocorius, that he was probably a native of 
Perigueux. The poem on St. Martin was 
probably written c. 470, certainly during the 
episcopate of Perpetuus of Tours (who pre- 
sided at the council of Tours in 461), since it 
is dedicated to that bishop, and is partly 
based on a document drawn up by him. It 
is mainly a rather rough versification of the 
Life of St. Martin by Sulpicius Severus and 
of parts of the dialogues of the same writer ; 
the last book is especially interesting, as repre- 
senting a formal account by the bp. of Tours 
of the miracles wrought at his predecessor’s 
tomb. Theshort dedication poem for the new 
basilica was written later, at the request of Per- 
petuus. The poem ‘‘de Visitatione Nepotuli 
Sui’’ records a miraculous cure of the author’s 
grandson, by the joint agency, as he appears 
to consider, of St. Martin and Perpetuus. 

His works are, under the name of St. Paul- 
inus of Nola, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxi. (Ebert, 


PAULINUS 


Gesch. der Chr. Lat. Lit. 385 ; Cave, Hist. Litt. 
i. 449; Teuffel, vol. ii.; Greg. Turon. de Min 


2 


B. Mart., and Ruinart’s note in the Benedic- © 


tine ed.) Cf. A. Huber, Die poetische Bear- 
bietung der Vita 5. Mar. durch Paul von 
Périgueux (Pamplon. 1901). [H.A.W.] 

Paulinus (20), the first Christian missionary 
from Rome to Northumbria, and the bishop 
who begins the recognized succession in the 
archiepiscopal see of York. 

He was sent from Rome by Gregory in 601, 
with Mellitus, Justus, and Rufinianus. They 
joined Augustine in Kent, and would take an 
active part in evangelizing that kingdom. 

In 625 Edwin, king of Northumbria, wished 
to marry Ethelburga, daughter of Eadbald, 
king of Kent, who objected to a pagan son- 
in-law. A second embassy revealed Edwin’s 
eagerness. He promised to allow the princess 
and her suite entire freedom in their religious 
worship, and even that he himself would 
adopt her faith, if his wise men should con- 
sider it right and just. Here was an oppor- 
tunity for evangelizing Northumbria, and 
Eadbald sent his daughter. Paulinus accom- 
panied the princess as her religious adviser, 
and, to add dignity and importance to his 
mission, Augustine consecrated him bishop 
before he set out, on July 21, 625. 

At first, however, Paulinus found the king 
quiescent though respectful, and that the 
people paid no attention ; while his own little 
party was in danger from the taint of heathen- 
ism. At the feast of Easter, 626, an attempt 
was made upon Edwin’s life. That act 
probably accelerated the birth of Ethelburga’s 
first child, a daughter, and Paulinus thanked 
God for the preservation of his master and 
mistress with such fervour that Edwin, 
touched at last, promised to become a Chris- 
tian if he could be avenged upon those who 
had sent forth the assassin, and, to shew he 
was in earnest, permitted Paulinus to baptize 
the new-born princess, with eleven courtiers 
who chose to accompany her to the font. 

Edwin obtained his revenge, but loitered 
over the fulfilment of his promise. Paulinus 
reminded the hesitating monarch of what had 
taken place twelve years before at Redwald’s 
court. He laid his hand upon Edwin’s head, 
and asked him if he remembered that sign and 
his pledge. Now was the time for its fulfil- 
ment. Whether Paulinus was the stranger 
himself, or had gathered from the queen, or 
some courtier, that Edwin had seen and heard 
all this in a dream, is a matter of doubt. A 
national gathering took place at Goodman- 
ham, near York, to consider the subject, and 
resulted in the king, court, and many of the 
people becoming Christians. 

Northumbria was now opened to the mis- 
sionary work of Paulinus, and his time fully 
occupied. He made a convert of Blecca, the 
reeve of Lincoln, and through his means a 
church was erected on the summit of its 
hill in which Paulinus consecrated archbp. 
Honorius in 627. He is said soon after to 
have founded Southwell minster, and his 
appearance was described to Beda as he stood 
in the river baptizing convert after convert in 
king Edwin’s presence. 

Mark him, of shoulders curved, and stature tall, 

Black hair, and vivid eyes, and meagre cheek, 


PAULUS OF SAMOSATA 


At Ane probably the modern Doncaster, 
was a Christian basilica with a stone altar, 
which may be ascribed to Paulinus. At 
Dewsbury was a stone cross with an inserip- 
tion stating that he preached there ; whilst at 


nected with his name. He is said to have 
ggg very many at Brafferton and Cat- 
terick. In Bernicia a streamlet called Pallins- 
burn in the N. of Northumberland retains the 
say preacher’s name. He is said to have 
occupied in instructing and baptizing for 
6 consecutive days at Adgebrin or Yeavering. 
here would yet be very few churches, and 
these at first chiefly baptisteries on river 
banks. There the catechumens were taught, 
and thence went down with their instructor 
πῶσ = en below. 

3, after six years of unceasing and 
incesstal exertion, the labours of Paulinus 
in the north came abruptly toaclose. Edwin 
fellin battle at Hatfield, near Doncaster, and 
the disaster was so complete that the new- 
born Christianity of the north seemed utterly 
overwhelmed by the old idolatry. Paulinus 
thought that he owed his first duty to the 
widowed queen who had come with him into 
Northumbria, and he took her back, with her 
children and suite, to Kent. There he was 
made bp. of Rochester, which see had been 
vacant some time. In the autumn of 633 
he received from the pope, who had not heard 
of the great disaster in the north, a pall 
designed for his use as archbp. of York. 
Whether or no, by virtue of the gift of this 
pall, he has a just claim to be considered an 
archbishop, he never went back to North- 
umbria. He is said to have been a benefactor 
to the monastery of Glastonbury, rebuilding 
the church and covering it with lead, and to 
have spent some time within its walls. He 
died Oct. 10, 644, and was buried in the 
chapter-house at Rochester, of which place he 
became the patron saint. Lanfranc trans- 
lated his remains into a silver shrine, giving a 
cross to hang over it. Among the relics in 
York minster were a few of his bones and two 
teeth, but nothing else to commemorate his 

t work in the north, save an altar which 
e his name and that of Chad conjoined. 
His life has been carefully related in Dr. 
Bright’s Chapters of Early English Church 
History, and in the Lives of the Archbishops of 
York, vol. i., for which see a full statement and 
sifting of the authorities. [..κ.} 
Paulus (9) of Samosata, patriarch of An- 
tioch, A.D. 260-270. Acelebrated Monarchian 
heresiarch, ‘‘ the Socinus of the 3rd century " 
(so Bp. Wordsworth), deposed and excom- 
municated for heretical teaching as to the 
divinity of our Blessed Lord, a.p. 269. His 
designation indicates that he was a native of 
Samosata, the royal city of Syria, where he 
may have become known to Zenobia, queen of 
Palmyra, through whom Cave and others 
ascribe his advancement to the highest post 
in the Syrian church. Dr Newman points 
out that the nning of Paul's episcopate 
synchronizes with the commencement of the 
successes of Zenobia’s husband Odenathus 
against Sapor (Arians of the Fourth Cent. p. 4, 


Whalley in Lancashire and near Easingwold, 
close to ¥ork, there were other crosses con- 


| being the presi 


PAULUS OF SAMOSATA = 816 


n. 6). Athanasius distinctly calls her Paul's 


6 remains of the Roman camp, there | patroness (Athan. Must. Ar. ©. γι}. 


Our only knowledge of his career and char- 
acter is from the encyclical letter of the τς “- 
and clergy who condemned him. 
picture of him is most unfavourable there. He 
is described as haughty, ostentatious, vain- 
glorious, worldly-min a lover of and 
parade, avaricious, rapacious, seit indul t 
and luxurious; as one whose manner of life 
laid him o to grave suspicions of immor- 
ality; and as a person originally of humble 
birth, who had adopted the ccclesiastical 
career as a lucrative speculation, and, by the 
abuse of its op unities and the secular 
office obtained by favour of Zenobia, had 
amassed a large fortune. In public he affected 
the pomp and parade of a secular magistrate 
rather than the grave and modest bearing of 
a Christian bishop. He stalked through the 
forum “Ἔτσι by attendants, who made 
a way for him through a crowd of itioners 
whose memorials he made a display of dis- 
patching with the utmost celerity, dictating 
the replies without halting a moment. In his 
ecclesiastical assemblies he adopted an almost 
imperial dignity, sitting on a throne raised on 
a lofty tribunal (Sua), with a cabinet (edepy- 
ror) for private conferences screened from the 
public gaze. He is said to have suppressed 
the ms which were sung to Christ as God, 
which had ever proved a great bulwark to the 
orthodox faith, as modern novelties not half 
a century old (cf. Caius ap. Routh, Kel. Saer. 
ii. 129), and to have introduced others in 
praise of himself, which were κα in full 
church on Easter Day by a choir of women, 
causing the hearts of the faithful to shudder 
at the impious language which extolled Paul 
as an angel from heaven. By his flatterics 
and gifts, and by his unscrupulous use of his 
power, he induced neighbouring bishops and 
presbyters to adopt his form of teaching and 
other novelties. is private life is described 
in equally dark colours. He indulged freely 
in the pleasures of the table, and enjoyed the 
society of two beautiful young women, as 
spiritual sisters, “* subintroductae,” and en- 
couraged other clergymen to follow his ex- 
ample, to the scandal of all and the moral ruin 
of many. Yet, disgraceful as bis life was, he 
had put so many under obligations and in- 
timidated others by threats and violence, so 
that it was very difficult to persuade any to 
witness against him (Eus. H. &. vil. so). 

However great the scandals attach to 
Paul's administration of his episcopal 
it was his unsoundness in the faith which, 
chiefly by the untiring exertions of the vener- 
able Dionysius of Alexandria, led to the 
assembling of the synods at Antioch, a 
which his name and character have chiefly 
become known to us. The first was held in 
264, Firmilian of the Ca Cacsarea 
dent. The mons (the date 
is not isely known) was also presided over 

by cation wht, on his way to the third 
synod, in 269, was suddenly taken ill and died 
at Tarsus, the bishop of that ay Oly sera 
| tak his place as t. Inthe first two 
| synods Paul, ieee perry eI | 

cealment . vii. 
escaped tion. The members of the 


810 PAULUS OF SAMOSATA 


second synod heard from all quarters that his 
teaching was unaltered, and that this could 
be easily proved if the opportunity were 
granted. A third synod, therefore, was con- 
vened at Antioch, towards the close of 269. 
The leading part was taken by Malchion, a 
presbyter of Antioch, at one time president 
of the school of rhetoric there. Athanasius 
says that 70 bishops were present (Athan. de 
Synod. vol. i. p. ii. p. 605, ed. Patay.), Hilary 
says 80 (Hilar. de Synod. p. 1200). Malchion, 
as a skilled dialectician, was chosen by them to 
conduct the discussion. Paul’s heresy being 
plainly proved, he was unanimously con- 
demned, and the synod pronounced his de- 
position and excommunication, which they 
notified to Dionysius bp. of Rome, Maximus 
of Alexandria, and the other bishops of the 
church, in an encyclical letter, probably the 
work of Malchion, large portions of which are 
preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vii. 30). In it 
the assembled fathers announced that they 
had of their own authority appointed Domnus, 
the son of Paul’s predecessor Demetrianus, to 
the vacant chair. The sentence of deposition 
was easier to pronounce than to carry out. 
Popular tumults were excited by Paul’s parti- 
sans. Zenobia supported her favourite in his 
episcopal position, while the irregularity of 
Domnus’s appointment alienated many of the 
orthodox. For two years Paul retained pos- 
session of the cathedral and of the bishop’s 
residence attached to it, asserting his rights as 
the ruler of the church of Antioch. On the 
defeat of Zenobia by Aurelian towards the end 
of 372, the Catholic prelates represented to 
him what they termed Paul’s “ audacity.” 
Aurelian relegated the decision to the bp. of 
Rome and the Italian prelates, decreeing that 
the residence should belong to the one they 
recognized by letters of communion (7b.). The 
Italian bishops promptly recognized Domnus, 
Paul was driven with the utmost ignominy 
from the temporalities of the church, and 
Domnus, despite his irregular appointment, 
generally accepted as patriarch (7b.; Cyril Alex. 
Hom. de Virg. Detp.; Routh, iii. 358). 

The teaching of Paul of Samosata was a 
development of that of Artemon, with whose 
heresy it is uniformly identified by early 
writers. Like the Eastern heresiarch, Paul 
held the pure humanity of Christ, “‘ He was 
not before Mary, but received from her the 
origin of His being ” (Athan. de Synod. p. 919, 
C. ili. 5. 10). His pre-existence was simply in 
the divine foreknowledge. He allowed no 
difference in kind between the indwelling of 
the Logos in Christ and in any human being, 
only one of degree, the Logos having dwelt 
and operated in Him after a higher manner 
than in any other man. This indwelling was 
not that of a person, but of a quality. There 
is no evidence that he denied the supernatural 
conception of Christ. Athanasius distinctly 
asserts that he taught Θεὸν ἐκ παρθένου, Θεὸν 
ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ὀφθέντα (Athan. de Salut. adv. 
Apoll. t. i. p. 635); but he laid no particular 
stress upon it. His inferior Being was éx 
παρθένου; his superior Being was penetrated 
by the Logos, Whose instrumentality by it was 
continually advancing itself towards God, 
until the ‘‘ Jesus Christ from below ” (κάτωθεν) 
became worthy of union with God (ἐκ προκοπῆς 


PAULUS II. 


τεθεοποιῆσθαι). Therefore, although he called 
Christ God, it was not as God by His nature, 
but by progressive development. The Deity 
of Christ grew by gradual progress out of 
the humanity. He was convicted, according 
to Eusebius, of asserting that Christ was 
mere man deemed specially worthy of divine 
grace (Eus. H. E. vii. 27). He taught also 
that as the Logos is not a Person, so also the 
Holy Spirit is impersonal, a divine virtue 
belonging to the Father and distinct from 
Him only in conception. 

It deserves special notice that Paul’smisuse, 
“ σωματικῶς et crasso sensu,” of the term 
ὁμοούσιος, ‘‘ consubstantial,’’ which after- 
wards at Nicaea became the test word of 
orthodoxy, is stated to have led to its rejec- 
tion by the Antiochene council (Athan. de 
Synodis, t.i. in pp. 917, 922). This is allowed 
by Athanasius, though with some hesitation, 
and only on the testimony of his semi-Arian 
opponents, as he said he had not seen the 
original documents (7b. pp. 918-920) by 
Hilary (de Synod. ὃ 81, p. 509; ὃ 86, p. 513) 
on the ground that it appeared that ‘ per 
hanc unius essentiae nuncupationem soli- 
tarium atque unicum sibi esse Patrem et 
Filium praedicabat’”’ (in which words he 
seems mistakenly to identify the teaching of 
Paul with that of Sabellius), and still more 
emphatically by Basil (Ep. 52 [30]). 

Dr. Newman regards Paul of Samosata as 
‘the founder of a school rather than of a 
sect’’ (Arians, p. 6). A body, called after 
him Paulianists, or Pauliani, or Samosaten- 
sians, existed in sufficient numbers at the 
time of the council of Nicaea for the enact- 
ment of a canon requiring their rebaptism and 
the reordination of their clergy on their return 
to the Catholic church, on the ground that 
orthodox formulas were used with a heterodox 
meaning (Canon. Nic. xix. Hefele, i. 43). The 
learned presbyter Lucian, who may be con- 
sidered almost the parent of Arianism, was a 
friend and disciple of Paul, and, as being 
infected with his errors, was refused com- 
munion by each of the three bishops who suc- 
ceeded the heresiarch. The many references 
to them in the writings of Athanasius show 
that for a considerable period after the Nicene 
council it was felt necessary for Catholics to 
controvert the Samosatene’s errors, and for 
semi-Arians to disown complicity in them 
(Athan. u.s.). The Paulinians are mentioned 
by St. Augustine as still existing (Aug. de 
Haer. 44), though pope Innocent spoke of the 
heresy as a thing of the past in 414 (Labbe, 
ii. 1275), and when Theodoret wrote, 6. 450, 
there did not exist the smallest remnant of 
the sect (Haer. ii. 11). Cf. Epiphan. Haer. 65; 
Tillem. Mém. eccl. τ. iv. pp. 289-303. [E-V-] 

Paulus (10) Π., patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 
519-521 (Clinton, F. R.). Onthe expulsion of 
the Monophysite Severus by Justin, Paulus, 
a presbyter of Constantinople, warden of the 
hospice of Eubulus, was nominated by the 
emperor to the vacant see, and was canonically 
ordained at Antioch. He strictly attended to 
Justin’s commands to enforce the decrees of 
Chalcedon, and by inserting in the diptychs 
the names of the orthodox bishops of that 
synod caused a schism in his church, many of 
the Antiochenes regarding the council with 


PAULUS 


suspicion, as tending to Nestorianism. , 
laity, and resident τελέαν κα τ τον γε βοὴ 
him before the papal legates, who were at 
that time in Ysa ὦ of a un- 

a op. ey departed without 
coming to any conclusion, and the ch was 
repeated before Justin. Paulus, unable to 
clear himself, obtained leave of the emperor 
to retire from his bishopric, a.p. $21. He was 


succeeded by Euphrasius. Evagr. H. B.iv. ας 


Theophan. p. 141; Joann. Malal. lib, xvii. 


- 411; Eutych. ii. 152; Ep. Justiné, Labbe, | 


Ν. 1555; Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. γ42. [κὰν 

Paulus (11), surnamed The Black, Jacobite 
patriarch of Antioch from about the middle 
of 6th cent. to 578, was a native of Alex- 
andria (Assem. B. QO. ii. 331) and, like most 
‘Syptians, ope a ar fore he became 
bishop he maintained at Constantinople a 
successful public dispute in the patriarchal 
epee with the Tritheites Conon and Eugenius 
ib. 329). Either Mennas or Eutychius must 
then have been patriarch. Paul was probably 
then syncellus to Theodosius, the Jacobite 
patriarch of Alexandria, who was in nominal 
exile at Constantinople, but exercising full 
authority over the Jacobite congregations 
there and in Egypt. Paul's connexion with 
Theodosius, and his success as a disputant, 
marked him out for the titular see of Antioch 
and the patriarchate of the whole Mono- 
hysite body, then beginning to be called 
Tunchttes, and he was consecrated by Jacob 
Baradaeus himself who originated the name. 
We cannot feel sure that this was before 450. 
Paul appears in alist of celebrities flourishing 
in 571. All we hear of him afterwards is 
disastrous. The great persecution of the 
Monophysites by the patriarch J ohn Scholas- 
ticus broke out at Constantinople, if the year 
is right, on Mar. 20, 571, and Paul was one 
of four bishops (another being Pautus (18) ) 
barbarously treated by him. He was induced 
to leave the monastery of the Acoemetae in 
Constantinople for the patriarch’s palace, 
whither the three others were also brought, 
under pretence of conferring on the unity of 
the church. The four were kept in close 
custody, and cruelly used until they agreed 
to communicate with the persecutor on his 
promise to eject the synod of Chalcedon from 
the church (John of Eph. H. Ε. p. 42). They 
twice communicated with him, loudly anathe- 
matizing the obnoxious synod; but the 
patriarch put off his part of the compact with 
the excuse that he must first obtain the 
consent of the bp. of Rome. Thus they 
‘fell into communion" with the deceitful 
** synodite,” and on their loading him with 
reproaches the severity of their treatment was 
increased and they were thrown into prison 
in the monastery of Beth Abraham in Con- 
stantinople, where their sufferings continued. 
After a time Paul was allowed to escape 


made his way to Syria, where J acob Bar us 


received him with great displeasure, but, after 


keeping him 3 years in suspense, restored him 
to communion, probably in 575. 
new patriarch of Antioch, Peter of C us, 
was appointed, and Paul withdrew into con- 
cealment at Constantinople, where he died in 
582, as detailed by John of Ephesus. [c.m.) 

Paulus (13), surnamed of Asia, Jacobite 


and been in 118. 


In 578 a) 


PAULUS ai7 


bp. of Aphrodisias and metropolitan of Caria 
in the of Justia Il, We owe our know 
ledge of him to the Beclentastical ym of 
John of Ephesus (Dr. KR. Payne ths 
trans.). As his persecution by John Scholae 
ticus, patriarch of Constantinople, marks ἃ 
| period in the history of the Monophysite body, 
Cis important to fix ite date, which in all prob- 
ability was 571. The persecution tell chiefly 
on the numerous Monophysite monaster 
lof both sexes, which had sprung up ta 
around Constantinople wh the empress 
Theodora lived, These were burst inte te 
admit the “synodite" clergy bearing the 
consecrated bread, of which the inmates were 
compelled to partake, though it was neoessary 
in some cases to bind their hands and 
force it into their mouths. The chief dit- 
culty was with the bishops, and Paul of 
Aphrodisias was led out for the first ex- 
pny τα (p. τ). The historian describes him as 
an honest and simple-minded old man, dwell- 
ing quictly in his monastery in Caria, when the 
palsies had him brought to Constantinople 
and imprisoned in his own palace, until, over- 
come by harsh treatment, he was compelled 
to receive the communion at his hands, be- 
sides signing an act of submission, which be 
was not allowed to read (given by the his 
torian), to the effect that he accepted the 
decrees of Chalcedon and the jurisdiction of 
the patriarch of Constantinople. He was then 
sent back, but the “ synodite " bp. of Aphro- 
disias had instructions to depose him from the 
episcopal office and consecrate him afresh to 
the see of the Carian Antioch, on the Meander, 
at the far east of the province and not very 
distant from Aphrodisias. All this was done, 
to the extreme grief and indignation of the 
venerable bishop, whom soon “ death overtook, 
and his old age descended in affliction and 
misery to the grave" (p. 16). [ς.".} 

Paulus (18) 1., 6th bp. of Constantinople 
elected a.p. 336 (or 340), died after three 
exiles and two restorat ¢. 351, four or five 
years after the council of Sardica. He was a 
native of Thessalonica, a presbyter of Com- 
stantinople, and secretary to the aged bp. 
Alexander, his predecessor in the tee. No 
sooner had Alexander breathed bis last than 
the two parties came into open conflict. The 
orthodox party prevailed; Paulus was 
elected and consecrated by bishops who hap- 
pened to be at Constantinople in the Church 
of Peace, close to what was afterwards the 
Great Church of St. Sophia. 

The emperor Constantius had been away 
during these events. On his return he was 
angry at not having been consulted. He 
summoned a synod of Arian bishops, declared 
Paulus quite unfit for the bishopric, banished 
him, sad translated Eusebius trom Nicormedia 
to Constantinople. This is thought to have 

“Eusebius died in μι. Paulus 
was at once restored by the people to his see. 
But the Arians seized the occasion ; Theognis 
‘of Nicaea, Theodorus of Meracien, sad other 

heterodox bish« consecrated Macedonius 


in the church of St. Paul; and again the city 
| became the prey of a civil war, The a! 


exasperated emperor was at Antioch, 


ordered H his general of cavalry, 
to see that Paulus was again expelled. The 
52 


818 PAULUS EDESSENUS 

people would not hear of violence being done 
to their bishop ; they rushed upon the house 
where the general was, set fire to it, killed 
him on the spot, tied a rope round his feet, 
pulled him out from the burning building, 
and dragged him in triumph round the city. 

Constantius was not likely to pass over this 
rebellion against his authority. He rode on 
horseback at full speed to Constantinople, 
determined to make the people suffer heavily 
for their revolt. They met him, however, on 
their knees with tears and entreaties, and he 
contented himself with depriving them of half 
their allowance of corn, but ordered Paulus 
to be driven from the city. 

Athanasius was then in exile from Alex- 
andria, Marcellus from Ancyra, and Asclepas 
from Gaza; with them Paulus betook himself 
to Rome and consulted bp. Julius, who 
examined their cases severally, found them 
all staunch to the creed of Nicaea, admitted 
them to communion, espoused their cause, 
and wrote strongly to the bishops of the East. 
Athanasius and Paulus recovered their sees ; 
the Eastern bishops replied to bp. Julius 
altogether declining to act on his advice. 

Constantius was again at Antioch, and as 
resolute as ever against the choice of the 
people of Constantinople. Philippus, prefect 
of the East, was there, and was ordered to 
once more expel Paulus and to put Macedonius 
definitely in his place. Philippus was not 
ready to incur the risks and fate of Hermo- 
genes; he said nothing about the imperial 
order. At a splendid public bath called 
Zeuxippus, adjoining a palace by the shore of 
the Hellespont, he asked the bishop to meet 
him, as if to discuss some public business. 
When he came, Philippus shewed him the 
emperor’s letter, and ordered him to be quietly 
taken through the palace to the waterside, 
placed on board ship, and carried off to Thes- 
salonica, his native town. He allowed him 
to visit Illyricum and the remoter provinces, 
but forbade him to set foot again in the East. 
Paulus was afterwards loaded with chains and 
taken to Singara in Mesopotamia, then to 
Emesa, and finally to Cucusus in Armenia, 
where he died. Socr. ἢ. E. ii. 6, etc.; Soz. 
H. E. iii. 3, etc.; Athan. Hust. Arian. ad 
Monach. 275; Mansi, Conctl.i. 1275. [w.M.s.] 

Paulus (28) Edessenus, Monophysite bp. of 
Edessa; consecrated A.D. 510 in succession 
to Peter. In the first year of his episcopate 
he took part with Gamalinus, bp. of Perrha, 
against certain sectarians who refused the use 
of bread, water, and wine, except in the 
Eucharist. Justin, becoming emperor, under- 
took to force the decrees of Chalcedon on 
Severus of Antioch and his followers, and 
committed the task to Patricius, who came 
in due course to Edessa (Nov. 519), and 
ordered Paul either to subscribe the council 
or resign. Paul refused, and took sanctuary 
in his baptistery; whence he was dragged 
by Patricius and sentenced to be exiled to 
Seleucia. Justin, however, hoping to over- 
come the bishop’s resistance, reinstated him 
after 44 days. But Paul still refused to sub- 
mit, and was at length deposed and banished 
to Euchaita in Pontus, July 522. A later 
imperial order placed Asclepius in the see. 

Paul translated, no doubt in his days of 


PAULUS 


exile, the Greek hymns of Severus and other 
Monophysite writers, and arranged them so 
as to form a Syriac hymnal. A MS. of this 
collection as corrected by his famous successor 
Jacob—dated in the lifetime of that prelate 
(A.D. 675), and probably written by his hand— 
is in the Brit. Mus. (Add. MS. 17134). Onthe 
death of Asclepius (June 525), Paul “re- 
pented’’ (as the orthodox author of the 
Chronicon Edessenum states) and made sub- 
mission to Justinian, then acting for Justin. 
From him he obtained a letter supporting the 
petition he addressed to Euphrasius, then 
patriarch, praying to be restored to his see. 
He was accordingly permitted to return to 
Edessa as bp. in Mar. 526. He survived this 
his third inauguration less than 8 months, 
dying on Oct. 30, less than a year before Justin 
died. The Jacobites, however, cannot have 
regarded him as a renegade, for he is com- 
memorated in their calendar on Aug. 23, as 
‘““Mar Paulus, bp. of Edessa, Interpreter of 
Books,” a title likewise given to Jacob of 
Edessa. 

His hymnal consists of 365 hymns; 295 
being by Severus, the rest by his contemporary 
John Bar-Aphtunaya, abbat of Kinnesrin, 
John Psaltes his successor there, and others. 
Though the trans. is no doubt mainly Paul’s 
work, it includes a few hymns of obviously 
later date. Bp. Lightfoot (Ignatius, vol. 1. 
p. 185) gives the hymns of this collection ‘‘On 
Ignatius’? at length, withatrans. [J.Gw.] 

Paulus (30), bp. of Emesa, one of the most 
deservedly respected prelates of the period of 
the Nestorian controversy, the contemporary 
of Cyril and John of Antioch, the peacemaker 
between the patriarchs of Alexandria and 
Antioch after the disastrous close of the 
council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. He reached 
Ephesus together with John of Antioch and 
the other Oriental bishops, and joined in the 
deposition of Cyril and Memnon (Labbe, iii. 
597) and in all the proceedings of the Oriental 
party. He was one of the eight Oriental 
deputies despatched to the emperor with 
plenipotentiary powers (7b. 724). His moder- 
ation in these difficult and delicate negotia- 
tions was condemned by the uncompromising 
Alexander of Hierapolis as proceeding from a 
mean desire for reconciliation at the cost of 
the truth (Baluz. Concil. Nov. Collect. 800). 
Paul was a sincere lover of peace, and above 
all things anxious to put an end to the disputes 
on points of faith, the mutual violence of which 
was a disgrace to the church, a scandal to the 
faithful, and a stumbling-block to unbelievers. 
He was a man of vast experience in ecclesias- 
tical matters, an accomplished theologian, 
possessed of great tact and courtesy, and one 
who—for unblemished holiness as well as for 
his advanced age—enjoyed the confidence and 
reverence of both parties. 
and anxious to obtain peace, John of Antioch 
despatched Paul as his ambassador to Alex- 
andria to confer with Cyril on the terms of 
mutual concord, A.D. 432. Paul presented 
in his own name and John’s a confession 
of faith originally drawn up by Theodoret. 
The formulary was accepted by Cyril as 
orthodox, and he exhibited a formulary of 
faith which Paul approved as consonant with 
the creed of the Orientals (Labbe, iii. 1090). 


See ae 


Weary of conflict - 


PAULUS 


Paul was then received into communion by 
Cyril on exhibiting a written document 
acquiescing in the deposition of Nestorius, 
anathematizing his writings, and recognizing 
his successor Maximian (Cyrill. Epp. 32, 40, 
t. ii, pp. 100-102, 152). _ Paul was invited by 
Cyril to preach on the Sunday before Christ- 
mas Day and on Christmas Day itself. On 
the festival the chief church of the city was 
crowded, and Paul, having commenced with 
the “Gloria in excelsis Deo,”’ passed on to 
Is. vii. r4, and concluded his exordium with 
words decisive of the whole controversy, 
“Mary the mother of God brings forth Em- 
manuel.’’ The test title was received with 
loud acclamations by the congregation, ‘* This 
is the true faith’’; “‘This is the gift of God,” 
which were repeated when he proceeded to 
enunciate the doctrine of ‘‘ the combination 
of two perfect natures in the one Christ,”’ with 
shouts of ‘‘ Welcome, orthodox bishop, the 
worthy to the worthy” (Labbe, iii. 1095). 
Paul preached a third time the following 
Sunday, New Year’s Day, 433, with equal 
acceptance. Portions of all these sermons 
are still extant (ἰδ. 1091, 1095, 1097). To 
quicken John’s delay in accepting the terms 
of peace proposed by Cyril, Paul accompanied 
Aristolaus and a deputation of two of Cyril’s 
clergy to Antioch, to lay before John for his 
signature a document recognizing Nestorius’s 
deposition and the anathematizing of his 
teaching. This, eventually, was signed by 

ohn, and brought back with great joy by 

aul to Alexandria (tb. 1091). The happy 


reunion of the long-divided parties was pub- | 


lished by Cyril, in the chief church of Alex- 
andria, Apr. 23, 433- Cyril acknowledged the 
receipt of John’s formulary in a well-known 
letter—conveyed to him by the aged peace- 
maker—commencing with the words of Ps. 
xevi. 11: “‘ Laetentur caeli,’’ etc., by which it 
was subsequently known (ib. 1106; Baluz. 
786). The time of Paul’s death is uncertain. 
Tillem. Mém. eccl. xiv. (index); Cave, Hist. 
Lit. i. 419; Coteler. Mon. Eccl. Graec. i. 48 ; 
Clinton, Fast. Rom. 11. 240; Migne, Patr. Gk. 
Ixxvii. 1433; Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Clark's 
trans. iil. 127-137. [Ε.ν.] 
Paulus (73), St. (called Thebaeus ; ὁ Θήβηθεν. 
Niceph.), Jan. 10; called by Jerome the 


founder of the monastic life (‘‘auctor vitae. 


monasticae,” Ep. 22, ad Eustoch; ‘* princeps 
vitae monasticae,” Vit. 5. Pauli, Prol.), and 
said to have been the first, in Egypt at 


least, to lead the life of a hermit, preceding | 


even the celebrated Anthony (Rosweyd, Vitae 
Patrum, in Patr. Lat. \xxiii. 105 and notes). 
He lived in the desert of the Thebaid, whither 
he fled in youth from the terrors of the Decian 
persecution, and where he died, at an extra- 
ordinary age, hale and hearty to the last 
(Hieron. Ep. 21, ad Paul. Concordiens.). The 

alm-tree at the mouth of his cave supplied 
fin with food and clothing (Vita Pauli, c. 6). 
The ravens are said to have brought him 
bread, and two lions dug his grave (1). ce. 9, 
13). Anthony is said to have paid him a visit 
shortly before his death, and ever afterwards 
to have worn his tunic of palm leaves on 
great festivals. Jerome adds (c. 13), with 
characteristic fervour, that such a garment, 
the legacy of so great a saint, was more 


PELAGIA 


ong than the purple of a king. Niceph. 
all. H. E. ix. 14; Boll. Acta SS. τὸ Jan. |. 
603; Butler, Jan. 15. [t.G.8.] 
ulus (110), sometimes called “ the 
Silentiary,"’ from his position as an officer of 
Justinian’s court, wrote several epigrams pre- 
served in the Anthologia Palatina, and some 
other works of minor importance ; his poetical 
account of the buildings and dedication of the 
Great Church of Constantinople must, as the 
evidence of a contemporary, always be an 
important authority on the greatest effort of 
Byzantine church architecture. It is written 
in Homeric hexameters, with a dedication in 
iambic verse. Its vividness is much praised 
by Agathias, but, from his necessary avoid- 
ance of technical terms, it is not easy to 
follow his description of the building. Together 
with the ἔκφρασις τοῦ duSwros, it was edited 
by Graefe (Lips. 1822). Some assistance to 
its better understanding in relation to church 
architecture is given by Neale, Hist. of Holy 
Eastern Church (Intro.). [11.A.W. 
Pegasius (1), bp. of Troas c. 350-360. His 
name was found in a previously unknown 
letter of the emperor Julian, first published 
in Hermes (1875), pp- 257-266. This letter 
gives a very interesting description of a visit 
paid by Julian to Troy before he became 
emperor. It describes the graves of Hector 
and Achilles, and the temple of Minerva as 
being still honoured with sacrifices ; while the 
bishop of the place Pegasius seems to have 
acted as custodian of the temple and of the 
images which were in their places and in good 
order. He had evidently discerned Julian's 
tendency to paganism. Julian, upon enterin 
the temple, recognized traces of sacrifices, ἐπα 
asked if the people still sacrificed to the gods. 
The bishop defended the practice on the 
analogy of the honour paid by Christians to 
the martyrs. The bishop turned pagan on 
the accession of Julian, whose letter was 
written to plead his cause on the ground that 
such converts needed encouragement. This 
letter is of great interest in view of modern 
explorations of the site of Troy. Cf. Boissier’s 
art. on Julian in Revue des deux mondes, July 
1880, pp. 106-108. [α.τ.5.} 
Pelagia (3), surnamed Margarita, Marina, 
and Peccatrix, an actress of Antioch about 
the middle of 5th cent., celebrated for her 
repentance. Her history is discussed at 
length in the AA. SS. Boll. Oct. iv. 245-268, 
where she is distinguished from two other 
Pelagias of Antioch, and Pelagia of Tarsus, 
martyr under Diocletian. The story of our 
Pelagia has been told by Jacobus, a deacon 
and eyewitness of her conversion. Nonnus, 
bp. of Edessa and successor of Ibas in that 
see, was once preaching at Antioch when 
present at a synod of eight bishops. Pelagia 
was then the favourite actress and dancer of 
Antioch, whose inhabitants had poured riches 
upon her and surnamed her Margarita from 
the number of pearls she wore. She came 
into the church during the sermon, to the 
astonishment and horror of the other bishops. 
Nonnus had been an ascetic of the severe 
order of Pachomius of Tabenna, and he 
addressed Pelagia with such plainness and 
sternness touching her sins and the future 
judgments of God, that she at once repented, 


81Ὁ 


820 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


and with many tears desired baptism, which, 
after some delay, was granted, the chief 
deaconess of Antioch, Romana, acting as 
sponsor for her. She finally left Antioch for 
a cell on the Mount of Olives, where she lived 
as a monk in male attire, and died some three 
years afterwards from excessive austerities. 
Jacobus the deacon, recounting a visit he 
paid to her there, gives a very interesting 
description of an anchorite’s cell, such as 
can still be seen in many places in Ireland. 
She was living as an enclosed anchorite, in a 
cell with a window as the only communica- 
tion with the external world. Her whole 
history is full of interesting touches, describing 
the ancient ritual of baptism and other 
ecclesiastical usages. [6.1.5.] 

Pelagianism and Pelagius (2). The details 
of the early career of Pelagius, whose name is 
identified with the prominent subject of theo- 
logical controversy of Latin Christendom in 
the 5th cent., are very imperfectly known from 
contemporary history. He is said by Augus- 
tine, Prosper, Gennadius, Orosius, and Mer- 
cator to have been a Briton. Jerome’s words 
(‘“‘habet progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britan- 
norum vicinia,”’ Pref. lib. 3 in Hieron.) may 
imply that he was an Irishman, the Scoti being 
then settledin Ireland. Hisname undoubtedly 
looks like a Grecized version of some earlier 
name; but the tradition that the original 
name of the heresiarch was Morgan (Marigena, 
Πελάγιος), and that he came from Bangor in 
N. Wales, rests on late and untrustworthy 
authority. His birth probably occurred c. 
370. Both Orosius and pope Zosimus speak 
of him as alayman. He came to Rome very 
earlyinthe 5thcent. If Mercator’s statement 
is accepted, that he imbibed his opinions from 
Rufinus the Syrian in the episcopate of Anas- 
tasius, we must fix his arrival in Rome not 
later than 401. His personal character at 
this period is spoken of with the utmost 
respect by his contemporaries. His great 
opponent St. Augustine describes him as 
being generally held to be a good and holy 
man, and of no mean proficiency as a Chris- 
tian (de Pecc. Mer. iii. 1). Paulinus, bp. of 
Nola, who was much attached to him, es- 
teemed him a special servant of God. Pela- 
gius was actuated at Rome by a strong moral 
purpose, enforcing the necessity of a strict 
Christian morality as against a laxity of life 
content with external religious observances. 
To this period must be assigned his earliest 
3 works: the first, in 3 books, on the Trinity; 
the second a collection of passages from Scrip- 
ture, all bearing on Christian practice, called 
by Gennadius Eulogiarum Liber, by Augustine 
and Orosius Testimoniorum Liber; the third 
an exposition of the Epp. of St. Paul. 

At Rome Pelagius became acquainted with 
Coelestius, whose name was so intimately 
associated with his in the subsequent contro- 
versy. Coelestius, originally an advocate, 
was led by Pelagius to a strict religious life, 
and very soon became an ardent disciple and 
a propagandist of his master’s views. De- 
spite the imputations of later opponents, it is 
evident that during his long residence at Rome 
Pelagius was animated by a sincere desire to 
be amoral reformer. The consciousness of the 
need of a pure and self-denying morality as 


PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


an element in religion led him to lay exag- 
gerated stress upon the native capacity of the 
free will of man, to form a wrong estimate of 
the actual moral condition of human nature, 
and to overlook or fatally undervalue the 
necessity of divine aid in effecting the restor- 
ation of man to righteousness. The first 
signs of his antagonism to the Augustinian 
theories, which were then developing and 
obtaining general acceptance in the Western 
church, are exhibited in an anecdote related 
by St. Augustine himself (de Dono Persev. 
c. 53). Pelagius was violently indignant on 
hearing a bishop quote with approbation the 
famous passage in the Confessions of St. Augus- 
tine, where he prays, ‘‘Give what Thou dost 
command, and command what Thou wilt.’ 
This language appeared to Pelagius to make 
man a mere puppet in the hands of his 
Creator. About the same time, apparently 
(A.D. 405), Pelagius wrote to Paulinus (Aug. de 
Grat. Christi, 38). The letter is not extant, but 
St. Augustine, who had read it, declared that 
it dwelt almost entirely upon the power and 
capacity of nature, only referring most cur- 
sorily to divine grace, and leaving it doubtful 
whether by grace Pelagius meant only the 
forgiveness of sins and the teaching and 
example of Christ, or that influence of the 
Spirit of God which corresponds to grace 
proper and is an inward inspiration. Pela- 
gius remained at Rome till c. 409, when, as 
Alaric’s invasion threatened the city, he 
withdrew with Coelestius to Sicily, and shortly 
after to Africa. He visited Hippo Regius, 
from which Augustine was then absent, and 
seems to have remained quiet at Hippo, but 
shortly afterwards repaired to Carthage, 
where he saw Augustine once or twice. 
Augustine was then deeply involved in the 
Donatist controversy, but learned that Pela- 
gius and his friends had begun to advocate 
the opinion that infants were not baptized for 
the remission of sins, but for the sake of 
obtaining a higher sanctification through 
union with Christ. This novel doctrine ap- 
peared to Augustine to deny the teaching 
of the church, as it virtually involved the 
denial of any guilt of original sin which needed 
forgiveness. Augustine, pre-occupied with 
the Donatist errors and not ascribing much 
weight to the chief upholders of the new 
heresy, did not then write in defence of 
the doctrine assailed. Pelagius, after a short 
interval, sailed for Palestine, leaving Coeles- 
tius at Carthage. In Palestine he was intro- 
duced to Jerome in his monastery at Bethle- 
hem. Coelestius at Carthage openly dis- 
seminated Pelagius’s views, and on seeking 
ordination as a presbyter was accused of 
heresy before bp. Aurelius. A council was 
summoned at Carthage in 412. Augustine 
not being present, the accusation was con-. 
ducted by Paulinus the deacon and biographer 
of Ambrose. The charges against Coelestius 
were that hetaught that: (1) Adamwas created 
liable to death, and would have died, whether 
he had sinned or not. (2) Thesin of Adam hurt 
himself only, and not the human race. (3) 
Infants at their birth are in the same state as 
Adam before the fall. (4) Neither by the 
death nor the fall of Adam does the whole 
race of man die, nor by the resurrection of 


PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


Christ rise ss (5) The Law introduces 
men into the kingdom of heaven, just in the 
same way as the Gospel does. (6) Even 
before the coming of Christ there were some 
men sinless, #.¢. men as a matter of fact 
without sin. (7) Infants, even though not 
baptized, have eternal life. 

oelestius endeavoured to explain away 
some of his assertions; but his explanations 
were judged evasive and his doctrines con- 
demned as unscriptural and contrary to the 
Catholic faith. A sentence of excommunica- 
tion was passed upon him and his followers. 
He shortly afterwards sailed to Ephesus. 
The prevalence of these opinions and the 
efforts made to diffuse them led Augustine to 
denounce them. In three or four sermons 
delivered at this time (170, 174, 175) he 
devoted himself to refuting the innovating 
doctrines, though he does not mention their 
chief upholders by name. His first written 
treatise on the controversy was called forth 
by a letter from his friend Marcellinus, who 
was troubled by daily assaults of Pelagian 
disputations. The work originally consisted 
of two books. 
positions that death in man was the penalty 
of sin, and not a mere condition of his natural 
constitution; that the whole offspring of 
Adam was affected by his sin, and th 
tism of infants was for the remission of 
original sin, the guilt of which they bear from 
their birth. In the second book Augustine 
argued that the first man might have lived 
without sin by the grace of God and his own 
free will; that as a matter of fact no living 


man is wholly free from sin, for no man wills | 


all that he ought to do, owing to his ignorance 
of what is right or his want of delight in doing 
it; that the only man absolutely without sin 
is Christ, the God-man and Mediator. Augus- 
tine added to this treatise as a third book a 
letter he wrote to Marcellinus when, a very 
few days after the compilation of the two 
books, he became acquainted with some fresh 
arguments against original sin advanced in 
the exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul 
by Pelagius, who, however, put the arguments 
in the mouth of another and did not avowedly 
express them as his own. In bks. i. and il. 
Augustine never mentions Pelagius or Coeles- 
tius by name, possible hoping they might yet 
be won back to orthodoxy ; in bk. iii., while 
arguing strongly against the views of the 
nature of original sin propounded by Pelagius, 
he speaks of Pelagius with marked respect, 
calling him a signally Christian man, a highly 
advanced Christian (‘‘vir ille tam egregie 
Christianus,”’ de Pecc. Mer. iii. 6; ‘‘non parvo 
provectu Christianus,” ἐδ. iii. 1). 


Pelagianism continued to propagate and) 


assert itself and found many upholders in 
Carthage. It claimed the authority of the 
Eastern churches, whose tendency had always 
been to lay stress on the power of the human 


will, and, boldly retorting the accusation of in- 


novation, it declared that the views of Augustine 
and the dominant party in Africa were a de- 
parture from the old orthodoxy. This roused 
the indignation of Augustine. In a sermon 

reached June 27, 413, he dealt with infant 
baptism and refuted some new phases of Pela- 
glanopinion. From it we learn that the Pela- 


The first established the) 


at bap- | 


PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 52! 


gians now taught that infants were baptised, 
not because they needed any remission of the 
guilt of original or actual sin, from which they 
were wholly free, but that they might enter 
the kingdom of God and thereby obtain 
salvation and eternal life. The critical pas- 
sage in Rom, v. τῷ, “ By one man sin entered 
into the world,"’ they interpreted to mean that 
Adam sinned by an act of free choice and so 
caused all his descendants to sin by the 
imitation of his example. If, they scoffingly 
asked, men are born sinners from a sinful 
arent, why are not men born righteous from 
ieving parents who have been justified by 
baptism? If Adam's sin hurt those who had 
not sinned, why, by parity of consequence, 
should not the death of Christ profit those 
who have not believed on Him ? Towards the 
close of his sermon Augustine read to the 
congregation from the epistle of their mar- 
tyred bishop St. Cyprian, written A.p. 255, a 
passage in which the judgment of the church 
of his day was emphatically pronounced that 
baptism was administered to infants for the 
remission of sin which they had contracted 
through their birth, and ended by making 
an earnest appeal to his opponents not to 
continue to maintain opinions which, being 
hostile to such a fundamental point of church 
doctrine and practice as infant baptism, must 
be disowned by the church as heretical. He 
entreated them, as friends, to see the error 
jinto which they were drifting and not to 
provoke a formal sentence of condemnation. 
About the same time he received a letter from 
Pelagius, who was stillin Palestine, and replied 
in friendly and affectionate terms. This 
letter is preserved in Augustine's treatise de 
Gestis Pelagti (c. 52), where Augustine points 
out the unfair use which Pelagius endeavoured 
to make of it at the synod of Diospolis. 
The condemnation of Pelagianism by the 
synod of Carthage deterred its more prominent 
upholders from the continued open assertion 
| of its doctrines, but a quiet and secret circula- 
| tion of them continued. Adherents increased 
so greatly that Augustine professed alarm as 
o where the evil might break out afresh (Ep. 
/157). Tidings of such a fresh outbreak came 
lin 414 from Sicily, where one Hilary wrote to 
him that some Christians at Syracuse were 
| asserting that man can be without sin and 
easily keep the commandments of God, if be 
jwill; that an unbaptized infant overtaken 
| by death cannot possibly perish deservedly, 
las he is born without sin. Other opinions 
| mentioned by Hilary as held by these Syra- 
| cusans exhibit a fresh development of Pelagian 
‘thought, if they really originated from the 
same source. These were that a rich man 
cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he 
sell all he has, and that it cannot avail him 
to keep the commandments of God if he still 
retains and uses bis riches. Such an assertion 
of the need of renouncing private property as 
a condition of religious life was probably an 
exaggeration of the real teaching of the monks, 
| Pelagius, and Coclestius. Augustine elab- 
orately replied to Hilary, repeating many of 
|the arguments he had before employed. 
About the same time he learnt that two 
| young men of good birth and liberal educa- 
tion, Timasius and James, bad been induced 


822 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


by Pelagius to renounce the world and adopt 
the monastic life and had adopted many of 
the peculiar opinions of their master. They 
had, however, been powerfully impressed by 
the arguments of Augustine on the nature of 
Christian grace, and forwarded him a book of 
Pelagius, to which they requested a detailed 
answer. This Augustine gave in his treatise 
de Natura et Gratid. The book of Pelagius, 
if we may rely upon the fairness of Augustine’s 
quotations, which there is no reason to dis- 
trust, advocated in the interests of morality 
the adequacy of human nature for good 
action. It affirmed it possible to live without 
sin by the grace or help of God. But the 
grace thus recognized was the natural endow- 
ment of free will, itself the gift of God, though 
sometimes the conception of it was enlarged 
so as to include the knowledge of right con- 
veyed by the Law. Sin was pronounced 
avoidable if men were to be truly accounted 
responsible moral agents, and sin being rather 
a negation than a positive entity could not 
vitiate human nature. When man _ has 
actually sinned, he needs forgiveness. Nature 
was magnified, as if the admission of a sub- 
sequent corruption was derogatory to the 
goodness of the original creation. All the 
O.T. worthies who are described as having 
lived righteously were quoted as proofs of the 
possibility of living without sin. The con- 
tinuance of controversy was obviously leading 
Pelagius to a more formal and systematic 
development of his theory. 

The same tendency to systematization is 
seen in a document of definitions or arguments 
attributed to Coelestius, which was communi- 
cated to Augustine by two bishops, Eutropius 
and Paul, as having been circulated in the 
Sicilian church. A series of 16, or as some 
condense them 14, questions is designed to 
point out the difficulties of the Augustinian 
theory and to establish the contrary theory 
by one ever-recurring dilemma, that either 
man can live entirely free from sin, or the 
freedom of the human will and its consequent 
moral responsibility must be denied. Augus- 
tine replied to this early in 415, in his treatise 
de Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, addressed 
to Eutropius and Paul. 

The scene of the controversy now changed 
from Africa to Palestine, where Pelagius had 
been resident for some years. In the begin- 
ning of 415 Paulus Orosius, a presbyter from 
Tarragona in Spain, came to Africa to consult 
Augustine as to certain questions, connected 
with Origenism and Priscillianism, which were 
rife in his native land. He had conceived an 
intense admiration for Augustine and became 
one of his most devoted disciples. Augustine 
describes him as quick in understanding, fluent 
in speech, and fervent in zeal. After giving 
him the instruction he required, he sent him 
to Jerome at Bethlehem, ostensibly to obtain 
further instruction, but really to watch the 
proceedings of Pelagius, and announce to 
the church in Palestine the steps taken in the 
African church to suppress the rising heresy. 
Orosius reached Palestine in June and spent 
a few weeks with Jerome, who was then writ- 
ing his Dialogue against the Pelagians. He 
was invited to a synod at Jerusalem on July 
28, and was asked what he could tell as to 


PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


Pelagius and Coelestius. He gave an account 
of the formal condemnation of Coelestius by 
the council of Carthage in 412, and mentioned 
that Augustine was writing a treatise in an- 
swer to a work of Pelagius, and read a copy of 
the letter from Augustine to Hilary. There- 
upon bp. John desired Pelagius himself to be 
sent for to have an opportunity of defending 
himself from any charges of unsound doctrine 
alleged. Pelagius was asked by the presbyters 
whether he had really taught the doctrines 
against which Augustine protested. He 
bluntly replied, ‘“‘And who is Augustine to 
me?’’ This bold and contemptuous rejection 
of the name and authority of the great bishop 
whose influence was paramount in the West 
owing to his signal services in the Donatist 
controversy, roused the indignation of the 
presbyters, but, to the amazement of Orosius, 
the presiding bishop admitted Pelagius, layman 
and alleged heretic as he was, to a seat among 
the presbyters, and exclaimed, ‘‘I am Augus- 
tine here.’? He proceeded to hear charges 
against Pelagius. Orosius said that Pelagius, 
according to his own confession, had taught 
that man can be without sin and can easily 
keep the commandments of God, if he will. 
Pelagius acknowledged that he had used such 
language. Orosius claimed that such doctrine 
should be at once denounced as untenable on 
the authority of the recent council at Carthage, 
and of the writings of Augustine, and the 
judgment of their own venerated neighbour 
Jerome recently expressed in a letter to 
Ctesiphon. The bishop quoted the scriptural 
instances of Abraham, who was bidden “‘ to 
walk before God and be perfect,’ and of 
Zacharias and Elizabeth, who were described 
as ‘‘ walking in all the commandments and 
ordinances of the law blameless,”’ as affording 
a prima facie justification of Pelagius, and 
argued, If Pelagius said that man could fulfil 
the commands of God without the aid of God, 
his doctrine would be wicked and worthy of 
condemnation, but as he maintained that man 
could be free from sin not without the aid of 
God, to deny this position would be to deny 
the efficacy of divine grace. Orosius pro- 
ceeded to anathematize the notion of such a 
denial of grace, and, seeing that John was 
unwilling to admit a charge of heresy against 
Pelagius, appealed to another tribunal. De- 
claring the heresy to be of Latin origin and 
most formidable in the Latin churches, he 
demanded that the whole question should be 
referred to pope Innocent, as the chief bishop 
of Latin Christianity. This compromise was 
accepted. The whole account of the pro- 
ceedings of this synod at Jerusalem is derived 
from the Apology of Orosius, and must be 
received with some deductions, having regard 
to the fiery and intemperate invective which 
the impassioned Spaniard lavishes upon 
Pelagius and all his followers. 

A renewed effort to quell Pelagianism, the 
result, Pelagius says, of the influence of Jerome 
and a small knot of ardent sympathizers at 
Bethlehem, was made towards the end of 415, 
when two deposed Western bishops, Heros of 
Arles and Lazarus of Aix, laid a formal accusa- 
tion against Pelagius before a synod at Dios- 
polis (the ancient Lydda), at which Eulogius, 
bp. of Caesarea and metropolitan, presided. 


PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


Fourteen bishops attended it—Eulogius, 
John, Ammonianus, Eutonius, two Porphy- 
rys, Fidus, Zomnus, Zoboennus, Nymphi- 
dius, Chromatius, Jovinus, Eleutherius, and 
Clematius. The two accusers were absent 
from the hearing owing to the illness of 
one of them, but a document (libellus) was 
handed in containing the principal charges. 
Some of the propositions it attributed to Pe. 
lagius were capable of being explained in an 
orthodox sense, and he did so explain them. 
It was objected to him that he had said that 
no one could be without sin unless he had the 
knowledge of the law. He acknowledged that 
he had said this, but not in the sense his 
opponents attached to it; he intended by it 
that man is helped by the knowledge of the 
law to keep free from sin. The synod ad- 
mitted that such teaching was not contrary 
to the mind of the church. It was charged 
again that he had affirmed that all men are 
governed by their own will. He explained 
that he intended by this to assert the respon- 
sibility of man’s free will, which God aids in 
its choice of good; the man who sins is him- 
self in fault as transgressing of his own free 
will. This too was pronounced in agreement 
with church teaching, for how could any one 
condemn the recognition of free will or deny 
its existence, when the possibility of God’s aid 
to it was acknowledged ? It was alleged that 
Pelagius had declared that in the day of 
judgment the wicked and sinners would not 
be spared, and it was inferred that he had 
intended thereby to imply that all sinners 
would meet eternal punishment, even those 
who had substantially belonged to Christ— 
it was probably implied that such teaching 
was a denial of the temporary purgatorial fire 
which was to purify the imperfectly righteous. 
Pelagius replied by quoting our Lord's words 
(Matt. xxv. 46), and declared that whoever 
believed otherwise was an Origenist. This 
satisfied the synod. It was alleged that he 
wrote that evil did not even enter the thought 
of the good Christian. He defended himself 
by saying that what he had actually said was 
that the Christian ought to study not even 
to think evil. The synod naturally saw no 
objection to this. It was alleged that he had 


PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 825 


as heretics but as fools. The bishops were 
satisfied with this acknowledgment that man 
by the help of God and by grace can be with- 
out sin. Other propositions alleged against 
him, such as those condemned by the synod 
of Carthage in 412, he declared were not his 
own, but made by Coelestius and others; yet 
he was willing freely to disavow them. It is 
hard to believe that in so doing Pelagius was 
not pronouncing condemnation on views he 
had himself on other occasions maintained. 
Finally, Pelagius professed his belief in the 
doctrine of the Holy Trinity and in all the 
teaching of the holy Catholic church, and 
the synod acknowledged him as a Catholic and 
in full communion with the church. Party 
feeling evidently ran very high. Jerome was 
regarded as a chief mover in the prosecution 
of Pelagius, and apparently by way of ven- 
geance a violent baa outrageous assault was 
made upon his monastery at Bethlehem, which 
was ascribed to some of the Pelagian party, 
with what justice it is not easy to ascertain, 
As Neander remarks, it is not likely that 
Pelagius had any share in the tumultuous 
proceedings, as in that case evidence of the 
outrage would doubtless have been laid before 
the Roman bp. Innocent in the subsequent 
proceedings. Jerome, suspecting the ortho- 
doxy of many of its members, spoke of the 
synod of Diospolis as a “ miserable synod." 
Augustine, in his treatise de Gestis Pelagii, 
written after he had received a full official 
record of the synod, argued that Pelagius had 
only escaped by a legal acquittal of little moral 
worth, obtained by evasive explanations and 
by his condemning the very dogmas he had 
before professed. 

The controversy once more returned to the 
West. A synod of more than 69 bishops 
assembled at Carthage towards the close of 
416. Orosius produced the accusations which 
had been presented against Pelagius by Heros 
and Lazarus. They recognized in them the 
same heretical opinions previously condemned 
at Carthage in 412, and determined to appeal 
to Innocent, bp. of Rome, on the great ques- 
tions at issue. Granting that the synods of 

erusalem and Diospolis might have been 
justified in the acquittal of Pelagius on the 


disparaged the grace of N.T. by saying that | ground of his explanations, evasions, and dis- 


the kingdom of heaven is promised even in| claimers of res 
It was supposed that by this he had | positions alleged, 


O.T. 


nsibility for some of the 
they called attention to the 


proclaimed a doctrine that salvation could be | continued prevalence of doctrines which 
obtained by the observance of the works of the affirmed the sufficiency of nature for the avoid- 


Law. He explained it as a vindication of the ance of sin and fulfilment of the command- 
divine authority of the O.T. dispensation, and ments of God (thus virtually ἐκ ἀρ νον, the 


its prophetic character. 
he had said that man can, if he will, be without 
sin, and that in writing a letter of commenda- 
tion to a widow who had assumed the ascetic 


life. he used fulsome and adulatory language Numidia in 416, attended Ἢ δι 
' as | wrote a letter to Innocent to t 


which glorified her unexampled piety 
superlatively meritorious. He explained that 
though he might have admitted the abstract 
possibility of sinlessness in man, yet he had 
never maintained that there had existed any 
man who had remained sinless from infancy 
to old age, but that a man on his conversion 
might continue without sin by his own efforts 
se the grace of God, though still liable to 
temptation, and those who held an o posite 
opinion he begged leave to anathematize not 


It was alleged that | need of divine grace), and whic 


denied the 
necessity of baptism in the case of infants, as 
the way of obtaining deliverance from guilt 
and eternal salvation, A synod at Mileum in 
bishops, 
δ same effect, 
and with these two synodical letters was sent 


‘a letter from Augustine and four brother- 


bishops, Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, and 
Possidius, in which they sought to discount 
the acquittal of Pelagius in the East at Dios- 
polis by saying that the result had only been 
obtained by the accused concealing his real 
sentiments and acknowledging the orthodox 
faith in ambiguous language, calculated to 
deceive the Eastern prelates, ignorant as they 


824 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


were of the full force of Latin words, and at 
the mercy of an interpreter. They demanded 
that Pelagius should be summoned to Rome 
and examined afresh, to see whether he 
acknowledged grace in the full scriptural 
sense. To enable the Roman bishop to judge 
dispassionately of the case they forwarded the 
book of Pelagius, on which Timasius and 
James had sought the judgment of Augustine, 
and the book (de Natura et Gratid) which 
Augustine had written in reply. They speci- 
ally marked some passages in Pelagius, from 
which they thought Innocent must inevitably 
conclude that Pelagius allowed no other grace 
than the nature with which God had originally 
endowed man. Innocent answered this three- 
fold appeal in three letters written Jan. 27, 
417. He began each with a strong assertion 
of the supreme authority of his see and many 
expressions of satisfaction that the contro- 
versy had been referred to him for final 
decision. He expressed doubt whether the 
record of the proceedings at Diospolis he had 
received was authentic. The book of Pelagius 
he unhesitatingly pronounced blasphemous 
and dangerous, and gave his judgment that 
Pelagius, Coelestius, and all abettors of their 
views ought to be excommunicated. 
Innocent died Mar. 12, 417, and was suc- 
ceeded by Zosimus, whose name seems to 
indicate his Eastern origin. Coelestius left 
Ephesus, whither he had gone on his expulsion 
from Africa and obtained ordination as pres- 
byter, and proceeded to Constantinople, 
whence, as he began disseminating his peculiar 
opinions, he was driven by its bishop, Atticus. 
He went at once to Rome to clear himself of 
the suspicions and charges urged against him. 
He laid before Zosimus a confession of his 
faith, which, after a minute and elaborate 
exposition of the chief articles of the Catholic 
faith, dealt with the controverted doctrines 
of grace. Treating them as really lying out- 
side the articles of faith, he submitted himself 
to the judgment of the apostolic see, if in any 
way he had gone astray from scriptural truth. 
He professed his belief that infants ought to 
be baptized for the remission of sins in accord- 
ance with church practice, as the Lord had 
appointed that the kingdom of heaven could 
not be bestowed save upon the baptized. But 
he did not admit that infants derived sin by 
propagation ; sin is not born with man, but 
is his own act of choice. To impute evil to 
human nature antecedently to any exercise 
of the will he held injurious to the Creator, 
as making Him the author of evil. Zosimus 
held a synod in the basilica of St. Clement. 
He asked Coelestius whether he condemned 
all the errors ascribed to him. Coelestius 
answered that he condemned all that Innocent 
had condemned, and was ready to condemn 
all that the apostolic see deemed heretical. 
Zosimus declined to pronounce a definitive 
sentence, but deprived and excommunicated 
the bps. Heros and Lazarus, who had not 
appeared to substantiate the charges made 
against the Pelagians, and after an interval of 
two months wrote to Aurelius and other 
African bishops, censuring them for the 
premature condemnation of Coelestius. He 
refused to decide upon the merits of the case 
until the accusers appeared before him, whilst 


PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


he informed the African bishops that he had 
admonished Coelestius and his followers to 
abstain from these nice and curious questions 
which did not tend to edification. After the 
despatch of this letter Zosimus received one 
from Praylius, the new bp. of Jerusalem, 
speaking favourably of Pelagius, and with it 
a letter from Pelagius and a confession of 
faith, which he had drawn up for Innocent, 
but which, reaching Rome after Innocent’s 
death, were now delivered to his successor. 
This letter of Pelagius is lost, and known only 
by quotations in Augustine. The confession 
of faith is extant. Like that of Coelestius, it 
recapitulates the great articles of the Christian 
faith. In it he declared that he recognized 
free will in such a way as that man always 
needs the aid of God, and charged with error 
both those who say with the Manicheans that 
man cannot avoid sin, and those who assert 
with Jovinian that man cannot sin. He was 
willing to amend his statements if he had 
spoken incautiously, and to conform them to 
the judgment of the prelate ‘‘ who held the 
faith and see of Peter.’’ Zosimus had the 
letter and creed read in public assembly, and 
pronounced them thoroughly Catholic and 
free from ambiguity. He even spoke of the 
Pelagians as men of unimpeachable faith 
(‘‘absolutae fidei’’) who had been wrongly de- 
famed. He wrote afresh to Aurelius and the 
African bishops, upbraiding them vehemently 
for their readiness to condemn men without 
a proper opportunity of defence, strongly de- 
nouncing the personal character of Heros and 
Lazarus as rendering them untrustworthy 
witnesses, and gratefully acknowledging that 
Pelagius and his followers had never really 
been estranged from Catholic truth—a con- 
clusion strikingly different from that of his 
immediate predecessor. Augustine generally 
passes over in silence this action of Zosimus, 
speaking of it as an instance of gentle dealing 
with the accused, and rather implying that 
Zosimus, with an amiable simplicity, had 
allowed himself to be deceived by the specious 
and subtle admissions of the heretics. The 
African bishops were not willing to accept 
without remonstrance this judgment in favour 
of opinions which long study had taught them 
to regard as inimical to the faith and destruc- 
tive of all true spiritual life. Meeting at 
Carthage, they drew up a long letter to Zosi- 
mus, defending themselves from the charges 
of hastiness and uncharitableness, justifying 
the condemnation of Pelagianism pronounced 
by Innocent, and entreating Zosimus to in- 
quire afresh into the doctrines of Coelestius. 
The subdeacon Marcellinus was the bearer of 
this letter. Zosimus replied in a letter, Mar. 
21, 418, extolling extravagantly the dignity 
of his own position as the supreme judge of 
religious appeals, but declaring that he had 
not taken any further steps, hinting also at 
a possible reconsideration. On May 1, 418, 
a full council of the African church, composed 
of 214 (others say 224) bishops, held in the 
basilica of Faustus at Carthage, Aurelius 
presiding, was unwilling to wait for a theo- 
logical determination from the see of Rome, 
but asserted its own independence and for- 
mulated nine canons anathematizing the 
principal Pelagian dogmas, some of them prob- 


a tr tn ne a oe 


Ll 


PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


ably being a republication of canons passed 
at former minor councils. Anathemas were 
pronounced on the doctrine that infants 
derive no original sin from Adam which needs 
expiation in baptism, and that there is some 
middle place of happiness in the kingdom of 
heaven for infants who die unbaptized. A 
strong protest was made against the views 
that the grace of God by which we are justified 
through Jesus Christ avails only for the for- 
giveness of past sin and not for aid against the 
commission of sin, or that grace is only the 
revelation of the will of God and not an in- 
spiring principle of righteousness, or that 
grace only enables us to do more easily what 
God commands. The two concluding canons 
point to a peculiar application of Pelagian 
doctrine, which was a curious anticipation of 
the teaching of some modern sectaries. They 
reject the idea that the petition in the Lord’s 
Prayer, ‘‘ Forgive us our sins,”’ is inappropriate 
for Christian men and can only be regarded 
as a prayer for others, and that it can only 
be used as a fictitious expression of humility, 
not as a true confession of guilt. 

Appeal was now made to the civil power. 
The emperors Honorius and Theodosius issued 
a decree banishing Pelagius and Coelestius 
from Rome, and pronouncing confiscation 
and banishment against all their followers. 
An imperial letter communicated this decree 
to the African bishops. Zosimus, whether 
in vacillation or in alarm at the strong force 
of dominant Catholic opinion now supported 
by the state, proceeded to investigate the 
subject afresh, and summoned Coelestius for 
fuller examination. Coelestius, seeing the 
inevitable result, withdrew from Rome. 
Zosimus thereupon issued a circular letter 
(epistola tractoria) confirming the decisions of 
the N. African church. He censured as con- 
trary to the Catholic faith the tenets of Pela- 
gius and Coelestius, particularly selecting for 
reprobation certain passages from Pelagius’s 
Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, 
which since his former consideration of the 
case had been laid before him, and ordered all 
bishops acknowledging his authority to sub- 
scribe to the terms of his letter on pain of 
deprivation. This subscription was enforced 
through N. Africa under the protection of the 
imperial edict by Aurelius the bishop and pre- 
sident of the council at Carthage, and in Italy 
under the authority of the prefect. In Italy 
18 bishops refused, and were immediately 
deprived. The ablest and most celebrated 
was Julian, bp. of Eclanum in Apulia, who 
entered into controversy with Augustine with 
much learning, critical power, and well- 
controlled temper. He complained, not 
without some justice, that the anti-Pelagian 
party sought to suppress their opponents by 
the strong hand of imperial authority rather 
than convince them by an appeal to reason. 
He charged the Roman bishop and clergy with 
a complete departure from their former con- 
victions, and, complaining that subscription 
to the letter of Zosimus was being enforced 
on individual bishops in isolation and not at 
a deliberate synod, demanded further discus- 
sion in a fresh council, refusing to acknowledge 
the dogmatic authority of the N. African 
church. A letter commonly supposed to be 


PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 5590 


written by him was circulated in Rome, the 
professed object of which was to shew the 
mischievous consequences of the dominant 
anti-Pelagian doctrine; and another letter, 
written in the name of the 18 deprived bishops 
of Italy to Rufus, bp. of Thessalonica, and 
remonstrating against their condemnation, 
was probably drawn up by Julian. The two 
letters reached Boniface, who at the end of the 
year succeeded Zosimus as bp. of Rome, and 
were communicated by him through Alypius 
to Augustine, who replied in his treatise 
contra μας Epistolas Pelagianorum, addressed 
to Boniface, and subsequently pursued the 
argument against Julian, first in a treatise 
contra Julianum in six books, written in 421, 
and then in the closing years of his life in a 
work of which six books only were completed. 
Julian throughout his writings sought to cast 
a prejudice upon the Augustinian doctrine by 
raising forcible objections to its more un- 
guarded assertions and exaggerations. He 
boldly challenged it as a revived form of 
Manicheism, implying that the early educa- 
tion of Augustine might still be moulding his 
doctrine. He objected that the Augustinian 
system denied the goodness of the original 
creation of God—represented marriage, al- 
though a divine institution, as necessarily evil 
—disparaged the righteousness of the O.T. 
saints—denied free will and its consequent 
moral responsibility—and nullified belief in 
the forgiveness of all sins at baptism. Augus- 
tine shewed that these were unfair deductions 
from his statements, maintaining that the 
original goodness of man’s nature is not 
incompatible with the recognition of its 
corruption after Adam's fall, that the O.T. 
did not assert the sinlessness or freedom from 
temptation of the saints; that free will was 
so vitiated by the fall that it was powerless 
for righteousness without the prevenient and 
co-operating grace of God; and that even after 
the forgiveness conveyed in baptism there 
remained the sinful element of concupiscence. 
Augustine could confidently and successfully 
appeal to the popular consciousness of Chris- 
tendom, as bearing witness to man's moral 
impotence and his need of redemption. The 
experience of the human heart was, after all, 
a better judge of such spiritual facts than the 
most subtle arguments of reason and con- 
flicting interpretations of the meaning of N.T. 

The tendency of Pelagianism to underrate 
the necessity of the divine redemption, and to 
disparage the dignity of the ——- of the 
Redeemer by denying His sinless humanity, 
is manifested in the case of Leporius, a monk 
and presbyter of S. Gaul who, coming into 
Africa, had been reclaimed from Pelagian 
views by Augustine. In recanting he ac- 
knowledged that he had taught that Jesus 
Christ as a mere man was liable to sin and 
temptation, but by His own efforts and exer- 
tions without divine aid had attained to per- 
fect holiness. J esus had not come into the world 


᾿ἴο redeem mankind from sin, but to set them 


an example of holy living (Cassian, de Incarn. 
i. 234; Gennad. de Seript. Eccles. $9). Thus 
Leporius’s peculiar anthropology coloured 
his theological conception of the God-Man. 
Annianus, a deacon of Celada, wrote at the 


same time in defence of Pelagian views, and, 


826 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


at the suggestion of Orontius, one of the de- 
posed bishops, translated the homilies of John 
Chrysostom on St. Matthew in the interest, 
he alleged, of a high morality. He claimed 
Chrysostom as a powerful upholder of evan- 
gelical perfection, of the integrity of human 
nature against any Manichean notions of its 
essentially evil character, and of the free will 
which it was the glory of Christianity to 
recognize in opposition to pagan ideas of 
fate and necessity ; and as giving co-ordinate 
prominence to grace and free will. 

Pelagianism was not wholly extinguished 
even in Italy by the forcible measures adopted 
against it both by the civil and ecclesiastical 
authorities, for pope Leo, writing c. 444, de- 
sired the bp. of Aquileia not to receive into 
communion any in his province suspected of 
the heresy before they subscribed a formal 
renunciation. The letters of pope Gelasius 
also refer to occasional outbreaks of the 
heresy in Dalmatia and elsewhere towards the 
end of the 5th cent. 

Pelagianism came under the formal con- 
demnation of the Eastern church in an 
incidental way. Several deposed Pelagian 
bishops repaired to Constantinople, where 
they found Coelestius. Atticus, the patriarch, 
had refused to receive them, but his successor 
Nestorius gave them a patient hearing. He 
wrote to Coelestinus, bp. of Rome, for infor- 
mation about the reasons of their condemna- 
tion and the nature of their peculiar doctrines, 
but received no answer. When Nestorius 
himself fell into disgrace because of his own 


heresy about the person of Christ, he was | 


disposed to sympathize with Coelestius and 
his followers as the objects of persecution by 


a dominant party. The East had apparently | 


not specially discussed the Pelagian contro- 
versy; its leading rulers and writers re- 
cognized the co-operation of grace and free 
will without narrowly determining their 
limits. But the general council at Ephesus 
in 431 joined, under the influence of Cyril, in 
one condemnation the tenets of Nestorius and 
Coelestius, while refraining from specifying 
them. It pronounced sentence of deposition 
upon any metropolitan or cleric who had 
held or should hereafter hold their views. 
The personal history of Pelagius after the 
condemnation of his views by Zosimus is 
obscure. He is said to have died in some 
small town in Palestine, being upwards of 


zo years old. Coelestius similarly disappears | 


after the council of Ephesus ; 
place of his death are unknown. Julian is 
said to have died c. 454 in an obscure town of 
Sicily, where he maintained himself by teach- 


the time and | 
|human will, or an arrogant self-trust, which 


| 


ing. There isa story that in a time of famine | 


he relieved the poor by parting with all he 
had. There is a tradition that in the 9th cent. 
the inscription was still visible on his tomb: 
“‘Hererestsin peace J ulian, a Catholic bishop.” 

A modified form of Pelagianism, called by 
later scholastic writers semi-Pelagianism, 
arose in the closing years of Augustine’s life. 
Its advocates were spoken of at the time of 


its introduction as Massilienses, as they were | 
Its | 


connected with the church of Marseilles. 


| 529. 


PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 


Bethlehem, and after living some time with 
the monks of Egypt, went to Marseilles, where 
he founded two monasteries, one for men 
and one for women. He differed widely from 
Pelagius, for he acknowledged that the whole 
human race was involved in the sin of Adam 
and could not be delivered but by the right- 
eousness of the second Adam; that the wills 
of men are prevented by the grace of God, and 
that no man is sufficient of himself to begin 
or to complete any good work. But though 
he admitted that the first call to salvation 
sometimes comes to the unwilling and is the 
direct result of preventing grace, yet he held 
that ordinarily grace depends on the working 
of man’s own will. Augustine, at the sug- 
gestion of two lay-friends, Prosper and 
Hilary, in two treatises, one on the predes- 
tination of the saints, the other on the gift 
of perseverance, defended the doctrines of an 
arbitrary election and of a will determined 
wholly by grace, but failed to satisfy the 
objections felt by the church of Marseilles, 
and the Gallic theologians continued after the 
death of Augustine to regard his predestin- 
arian views as essentially fatalistic and in- 
jurious to moral progress. The monastery of 
Lerins was a principal centre of opposition to 
ultra-Augustinian views. At length the con- 
troversy was closed in the time of CAESARIUS, 
bp. of Arles, an ardent admirer of St. Augus- 
tine, at a council at Arausio (Orange) in July 
Of its 25 canons the first two, in opposi- 
tion to Pelagian doctrine, declare that by the 


|sin of Adam not only his own soul but those 


of his descendants were injured. The next six 
expound the functions of grace, affirming that 
the initial act of faith is not from man but 
from God’s grace, and that we cannot without 
grace think or choose any good thing per- 
taining to salvation. Others develop the doc- 
trine on similar lines, but not one touches the 
disputed question of predestination. An ad- 
dress appended by the prelates to the canons 
repudiates indignantly the belief that any are 
predestined to evil and asserts that without 
any preceding merits God inspires men with 
faith and love, leads them to baptism, and 
after baptism helps them by the same grace to 
fulfil His will. Pope Boniface II., who had 


| succeeded Felix, confirmed the decrees of this 


Gallican councilin a letter written to Caesarius. 


| The moderation and good sense of the fathers 


of Orange, and their earnest desire to avoid 
the extravagance either of extreme pre- 
destinarianism, which would annihilate the 


would claim to be independent of divine grace, 
had their reward. Their decrees met with 
general acquiescence, and both Pelagianism 
and semi-Pelagianism ceased to be dominant 
forces in Western Christendom. 
Semi-Pelagianism held man in his original 


| state to have had certain physical, intellectual, 


and moral advantages which he no longer 
enjoys. In the beginning his body was not 
subject to death, he had extraordinary know- 
ledge of external nature and apprehension of 
the moral law, and was sinless. The sin of 
the first man entailed physical death and a 


originator was John Casstan, commonly called | moral corruption which was propagated to 
a Scythian but probably a native of Gaul. | his posterity. Freedom of will to do good 
He had been brought up in a monastery at was not lost, but greatly impaired. The im- 


PELAGIUS I. 


PELAGIUS I. 827 


putation of original sin is removed in baptism, | Moved by these entreaties, Totila forbade any 


and baptism is essential to salvation. 


Man | further slaughter of the Romans. He also 


needs the aid of divine grace for the perform- | employed Pelagius, together with a layman 
ance of good works and the attainment of | Theodorus, in an embassy to Constantinople 
salvation. The free will of man works in co- | for concluding peace with the emperor, bind- 


operation with divine grace. 
thing as an unconditional decree of God, but 
predestination to salvation or damnation de- 
pends upon the use which man makes of his 
freedom to good. Election is therefore con- 
ditional. 
however, to be ascribed to God, because, with- 
out God’s grace, man’s efforts would be 
unavailing. Wiggers has forcibly observed 
that Augustinianism represented man as 
morally dead, semi-Pelagianism as morally 
sick, Pelagianism as morally sound. 

The full theory of Augustinianism in all its 
strong asseverations of an unconditional elec- 
tion and a total corruption of human nature 
did not retain its hold on the theology of the 
Western church during the succeeding cen- 
turies, nor was it ever acknowledged in the 
Eastern church. Men like popes Leo I. and 
Gregory I., in the 5th and 6th cents., and Bede 
in the 8th, were Augustinian, but the general 
tendency of the West turned in another 
direction, while it sternly rejected Pelagianism 
proper. The famous history of the monk 
Gottschalk, in the latter part of the 9th cent., 
proves how distasteful unqualified predestin- 
arianism had become, but this lies beyond 
the assigned limits of this Dictionary. 

Pelagianism never developed into a schism 
by setting up any organization external to the 
Catholic church. 
rites, it accepted all the traditional ecclesi- 
astical discipline. It freely retained the 
practice of infant baptism, though it formed a 
different opinion on the moral and spiritual 
significance of the act. It was a mode of 
thought which strove to win acceptance 
within the church, but which was successfully 
cast out. [AuGusTINE, §10.] Cf. Zunnier, 
Pelagius in Irland (Berlin, 1902). (w.1.] 

Pelagius (8) I., bp. of Rome after Vigilius, 
in the reign of Justinian I., a.p. 555-560. A 
native, and deacon, of Rome, he had been ap- 
pointed by pope AGAPETUS (A.D. 536) as his 
apocrisiarius at Constantinople. Under Vigil- 
ius he again held the same office, and joined 
with the patriarch Mennas in moving Jus- 
tinian to issue his edict for the condemnation 
of Origenism. After this he returned to 
Rome, where he was one of the two deacons of 
Vigilius who applied to Ferrandus of Carthage 
for advice after the issue of the imperial edict 
“ de Tribus Capitulis”’ (c. 544). 


in the matter of the Three Chapters, Pelagius 


remained as the archdeacon and chief ecclesi- | 
astic at Rome; and occupied this position | 


when the Gothic king Totila (Dec. 546) entered 
Rome as a conqueror and went to pay his de- 
votions in the church of St. Peter. There 
Pelagius, bearing the gospels, met him, and 
falling on his knees said, “ Prince, spare thy 
people.” The conqueror answered with a 
significant smile, ‘‘ Hast thou now come to 
supplicate me, Pelagius?"’ ‘* Yes,”’ he re- 
plied, “‘inasmuch as the Lord has made me thy 
servant. But now withhold thy hand from 
these who have passed into servitude to thee.” 


There is no such | ing them with an oath to do their best in his 


behalf and to return without delay to Italy. 
They executed their commission and brought 
back Justinian’s reply that Belisarius was in 
military command, and had authority to 


The merit of man’s salvation is, | arrange matters (Procop. de Bell. Goth. L. 4). 


Pope Vicitius having proceeded from 
Sicily on his voyage to Constantinople in the 
early part of 547, Pelagius joined him, and 
appears to have acted with him in his changing 
attitudes of submission or resistance to the 
emperor's will. He proceeded to Rome after 
the death of Vigilius at Syracuse, and was 
there consecrated pope, being supported by 
Narses, at that time in command of Rome, 
who acted under the emperor's orders. The 
appointment was not welcome to the Romans, 
and there was difficulty in getting prelates to 
consecrate him. The real cause of his un- 
popularity was his consenting to condemn the 
Three Chapters and to support the decisions 
of the Constantinopolitan council. A great 
part of the western church still, and for many 
years afterwards, resolutely rejected these 
decisions, and the chief recorded action of 
Pelagius as pope is his unavailing attempt to 
heal the consequent schism. 


It practised no distinctive | 


Vigilius being | 
summoned by the emperor to Constantinople | 


In Gaul Pelagius was accused of heresy. 
Consequently the Frank king Childebert sent 
to him an ambassador, by name Rufinus, re- 
Ning ἡ him to declare his acceptance of the 
tome of pope Leo, or to express his belief in 
his own words. He readily did both, asserting 
his entire agreement with Leo and with the 
four councils, and appending a long orthodox 
confession of faith. But he made no mention 
of the fifth council, or of the necessity of 
accepting its decrees. He praised the king 
for his zeal in the true faith, and expressed the 
hope that no false reports about himself might 
occasion any schism in Gaul (Ep. xvi. ad 
Childebertum; Ep. xv. ad Sapaudum). He 
showed anxiety to conciliate Sapaudus, bp. of 
Arles, fearing, we may suppose, the possible 
defection of the Gallican church from Rome. 
He sent him a short friendly letter (£/. viii.), 
and afterwards the pall, and conferred on him 
the vicariate jurisdiction over the churches of 
Gaul which former popes had committed to 
metropolitans of Arles (Epp. xi. Xt. Xiil.). 
He speaks of ‘‘the eternal solidity of that 
firm rock on which Christ had founded His 
church from the rising to the setting of the 
sun, being maintained by the authority of his 
| (2. Peter's) successors, acting in person, or 
through their vicars.’ And, as his pre- 
decessors had, by the grace of God, ruled the 
universal church of God, he commits to the bp. 
of Arles, after their example, and according to 
ancient custom, supreme and exclusive juris- 
diction over Gaul, as vicar of the apostolic see. 
It cannot but strike readers of church history 
during the reign of Justinian I., and especially 
of the proceedings of the sth council, how 
little the theory of universal spiritual dominion 
thus enunciated agreed with facts. Indeed 

Pelagius himself was really throughout his 
|popedom acting as the creature of the em- 


828 PELAGIUS II. 
peror, who had defied and overruled the 
authority of the Roman see. [j-B—yY.] 

Pelagius (9) II., bp. of Rome after Bene- 
dict I., under the emperors Tiberius, Con- 
stantine, and Mauricius, from Nov. 578 to 
Feb. 590. He was a native of Rome, the son 
of Winigild, and supposed from his father’s 
name to have been of Gothic extraction. At 
the time of Benedict’s death the Lombards, 
already the masters of a great part of N. Italy, 
were besieging Rome. Consequently the new 
pope was consecrated without the previous 
sanction of the emperor (required since the 
reign of Justinian). Partly, perhaps, to 
excuse this informality, as well as to solicit aid 
against the Lombards, the new pope, as soon 
as possible after his accession, sent a deputa- 
tion to Tiberius, who had become sole emperor 
on the death of Justin II. in Oct. 578. It was 
doubtless now that Gregory, afterwards pope 
Gregory the Great, was first sent to Con- 
stantinople as apocrisiarius of the Roman see. 
On Oct. 4, 584, Pelagius sent him a letter to 
represent the lamentable condition of Italy 
and the imminent danger of Rome from the 
Lombard invasion; Longinus, the exarch at 
Ravenna, having been appealed to in vain. 
Gregory is directed to press on the emperor 
the urgent need of succour. He returned to 
Rome probably a.p. 585 (Joan. Diac. 7b.). 

The emperor Mauricius had engaged the 
Frank king, Childebert II., for a large pecu- 
niary reward to invade Italy and drive out 
the Lombards. The invasion (probably a.p. 
585) resulted in a treaty of peace between the 
Franks and Lombards (Greg. Turon. vi. 42; 
Paul. Diac. de Gest. Longob. iii. 17). 

On the retirement of Childebert from Italy, 
it appears that Smaragdus exarch of Ravenna 
had also concluded a truce with the Lombards 
(Epp. Pelag. ii.; Ep. i. ad Episcopos Istriae). 
Pelagius took advantage of it to open negotia- 
tions with the bishops of Istria, who still re- 
mained out of communion with Rome in the 
matter of the Three Chapters. In the first of 
his three letters he implores them to consider 
the evil of schism, and return to the unity of 
the church. He is at pains to vindicate his 
own faith, and to declare his entire acceptance 
of the four great councils and of the tome of 
pope Leo, by way of shewing that his accept- 
ance of the 5th council, and his consequent 
condemnation of the Three Chapters, involved 
no departure from the ancient faith. He does 
not insist on condemnation of the Three 
Chapters by the Istrian bishops themselves. 
He only begs them to return to communion 
with Rome, notwithstanding its condemnation 
of the same; and this in a supplicatory rather 
than imperious tone. In his second letter he 
declares himself deeply grieved by their un- 
satisfactory reply to his first, and by their 
reception of his emissaries. He quotes St. 
Augustine as to the necessity of all churches 
being united to apostolic sees, but further 
cites Cyprian de Unitate Ecclesiae (with inter- 
polations that give the passages a meaning 
very different from their original one) in support 
of the peculiar authority of St. Peter’s chair. 
Finally he calls upon the Istrians to send 
deputies to Rome for conference with himself, 
or at any rate to Ravenna for conference with 
a representative whom he would send; and 


PEREGRINUS 


mentions (significantly, as appears in the 
sequel) that he has written to the exarch 
Smaragdus on the subject. Another, called 
his third, letter to Elias and the Istrian 
bishops, is a treatise on the Three Chapters, 
composed for him by Gregory (de Gest. Longob. 
iii.20). Appeals and arguments proving of no 
avail, Pelagius seems to have called on the 
civil power to persecute; for Smaragdus is 
recorded to have gone in person to Grado, to 
have seized Severus, who had succeeded Elias 
in the see, together with three other bishops, 
in the church, carried them to Ravenna, and 
forced them to communicate there with the 
bp. John. They were allowed after a year 
(Smaragdus being superseded by another ex- 
arch) toreturn to Grado, where neither people 
nor bishops would communicate with them till 
Severus had recanted in a synod of ten bishops 
his compliance at Ravenna (Paul. Diac. 1b. 
ili. 27; cf. Epp. S. Greg. 1. 1, Ep. 16). 
Towards the end of the pontificate of Pela- 
gius (probably a.p. 588), a council at Constan- 
tinople, apparently a large and influential one, 
and not confined to ecclesiastics, dealt with 
Gregory patriarch of Antioch, who being 
charged with crime, had appealed ‘‘ad impera- 
torem et concilium”’ (Evagr. H.E. vi. 7). This 
council is memorable as having called forth 
the first protest from Rome, renewed after- 
wards more notably by Gregory the Great, 
against the assumption by the patriarch of 
Constantinople of the title ‘‘ oecumenical.” 
The title itself was not a new one; as an 
honorary or complimentary one it had been 
occasionally given to other patriarchs; and 
Justinian had repeatedly designated the pa- 
triarch of Constantinople “ the most holy and 
most blessed archbishop of this royal city, and 
oecumenical patriarch ”’ (Cod. i. 7; Novell. iii. 
v. vi. vii. xvi. xlii.). Nor do we know of any 
previous objection, and at this council it may 
have been ostentatiously assumed by the then 
patriarch, John the Faster, and sanctioned by 
the council with reference to the case before 
it, in a way that seemed to recognize juris- 
diction of the patriarchate of Constantinople 
over that of Antioch. In Nov. 589 a de- 
structive inundation of the Tiber at Rome 
was followed by a plague, described as 
‘*Pestis inguinaria,’’ of which Pelagius II. 
was one of the earliest victims, being attacked 
by it in the middle of Jan. 590 (Greg. Turon. 
l. x. c. 1). According to Anastasius he was 
buried on Feb. 8 in St. Peter’s. [J-B—yY.] 
Peregrinus (1), called Proteus, an apostate 
from Christianity and a Cynic philosopher of 
the 2nd cent., whose history has been satir- 
ically told by Lucian. That Lucian’s work is 
not a romance is amply shown by the account 
of Peregrinus in Aulus Gellius, Noct. Atttc. viil. 
3, and xii. τι. Other writers, pagan and 


Christian alike, of the same age, mention him: . 


e.g. Tatian, Ovat. adv. Graec. c. 25; Athena- 
goras, pro Christian. c. 26, who tells us of his 
statue at Parium ; Maximus Tyrius, Diss. ili. ; 
Tertull. ad Mart. c. 4; and Eusebius in his 
Chronicon (ii. 178 seq. ed. Sch6ne); cf. also 
I. Sérgel, Lucian’s Stellung zum Christenthum, 
(1875); Schiller’s Geschichte der Katserzeit, 
p- 685; and Bernays’ tract Lucian u. die 
Kyniker (Berlin, 1879). The story of Pere- 
grinus is therefore a very valuable illustration 


it 


PERPETUA 


of the life of the 2nd cent. He was born at 
Parium on the Hellespont, where he com- 
mitted various crimes, including parricide. 
He escaped justice by transferring his property 
to the municipality and then passed over to 
Palestine, where he became a Christian, and, 
according to Lucian’s account, a bishop or at 
least a presbyter. He was imprisoned for the 
faith, and Lucian’s words are a valuable and 
truthful description of the conduct of the 
Christians towards confessors generally. 
Crowds attended at the prison and ministered 
to Peregrinus, bribing the gaolers to obtain 
admission. The ‘Teaching of the Twelve 
Apostles ’’ takes elaborate precautions against 
wandering apostles and prophets, who desired 
only to make gain of the gospel. Such a false 
apostle was Peregrinus. His real character 
was, however, discovered, and he was excom- 
municated. He then became a Cynic phil- 
osopher, a sect which Lucian specially ab- 
horred, and resided at Rome. He made use 
of the licence permitted them to abuse the 
emperor himself, but was speedily expelled 
by the prefect Urbis. He next passed into 
Greece, and there, to obtain a greater notor- 
iety, burned himself alive at the Olympic 
games at the 236th Olympiad a.p. 165. 
Strabo, xv. i. 73; Dion Cassius, liv. 9; and 
Lightfoot On Colossians, p. 394. Dr. Light- 
foot has elaborately discussed the relations 
between the stories of Peregrinus and St. 
Ignatius (SS. Ignatius and Polycarp, t. i. pp. 
129, 133, 331, 450, li. pp. 206, 213, 306, 356; 
cf. Salmon’s Introd. to the N.T. pp. 522, 650). 
{Luctan.] (G.T.s.] 
Perpetua (1), martyr. Her full name was 
Vibia Perpetua. She was well born, and had 
a father, mother, and two brothers living, one 
of whom was a catechumen. When 22 years 
old, married, and having lately borne a son, 
she was arrested. Her fatherrepeatedly strove 
to induce her to recant. She and her fellow- 
martyrs were baptized after their arrest, 
possibly before their transference to the public 
prison (cf. Le Blant, Actes des Mart. v. 9, Ῥ. 
48). They were attended in prison, according 
to the ancient discipline of the Carthaginian 
church, by the deacons Tertius and Pomponius 
(Cypr. Ep. 15 ad Mart.). Perpetua now had 
her first vision, indicative of her future pas- 
sion. She saw a ladder reaching to heaven 
guarded by a dragon. Saturus mounted first 
and then Perpetua followed. They came to 
a large garden, where was a shepherd clad in 
white, feeding sheep, while thousands in white 
robes stood around. The shepherd gave 


Perpetua a piece of cheese, which she received | 


**junctis manibus ’’ and consumed, the atten- 
dants saying ‘‘ Amen.”’ Their trial came soon 
after. The procurator Hilarianus condemned 
the martyrs to the beasts. After her con- 
demnation Perpetua saw a vision of her 
brother Dinocrates, who had died when 7 
years old, in punishment, but after continuous 
prayer for him it was revealed to her that he 
was removed into a place of refreshment and 
peace. This vision is a clear proof that 
prayers for the dead were then used by that 
party in the church which claimed to adhere 
most closely to apostolic usages. Some, sup- 
posing Dinocrates unbaptized, have claimed 
it as sanctioning the view that the unbaptized 


PERPETUA 820 


dead are helped by prayer, a view which Au- 
gustine combated in de Orig. Animae, lib. i. 
c. 10, and lib. iii. c. 9, where he maintains that 
Dinocrates was in punishment for sins com- 
mitted after baptism. The day before her 
passion Perpetua saw another vision, wherein 
she triumphed over an Egyptian, representing 
the devil, and was rewarded with a golden 
branch. When the hour of execution arrived 
the tribune attempted to array the men as 
priests of Saturn, the women as priestesses of 
Ceres, but yielded to the indignant protest of 
Perpetua. She suffered by the sword, after 
being tossed by an infuriated cow, but, like 
Blandina at Lyons in a like trial, was uncon- 
scious of any pain (cf. Dodwell's Diss. in 
Tren. ii. §§ 43, 46; Routh's Rel. Sacr. i. 460). 

The precise year of the martyrdom is un- 
certain, the succession of African proconsuls 
being very imperfectly known. We know that 
they suffered in the year when Minucius Timi- 
nianus was proconsul. One circumstance 
would seem to fix the date as 202, or at farthest 
203. There was as yet no general persecution 
of the Christians, such as soon after developed 
itself. The freedom enjoyed by the clergy and 
Christians in ministering to the martyrs is 
sufficient proof of this. Why, then, did they 
suffer? OnJan. 1,202, Severus was at Antioch, 
where he appointed himself and Caracalla 
consuls for the ensuing year. During the 
month he proceeded by easy stages through 
Palestine to Egypt, exercising severities upon 
the Jews which, according to Renan, have 
left their mark on the Talmud (Mission de 
Phénicte, pp. 775, 776). He published an 
edict forbidding any fresh conversions from 
Paganism to Judaism or Christianity, while 
imposing no penalties on original Jews or 
Christians. Now all our martyrs were fresh 
converts, and as such seem to have suffered 
under this edict. 

Some have maintained that Tertullian 
wrote the Acts of these martyrs. The style 
is in many places very similar to his. The 
documents themselves profess to have been 
written mainly by Perpetua and Saturus, and 
completed for publication by a third party, 
who cannot now be identified. Tertullian 
certainly knew the Acts, as he refers to the 
vision of Perpetua in de Animd, c. 55. 

All our MSS. are in Latin; yet Aubé (Les 
Chrét. dans Emp. Rom. p. 615) thinks they 
may have been originally written in Greek. 
One MS. represents Perpetua as τς τοι 
Greek to bp. Optatus in Paradise. The Acts 
contain very many Greek words in Latin 
characters, whence we may at least conclude 
that the martyrs were bi-lingual, and that 
Greek was then very current at Carthage. 
The Acts contain some interesting illustrations 
of ancient church customs. The kiss of peace 
is given (c. x.). The Trisagion is sung, and in 
Greek (c. xii.). In the language of the visions 
we can clearly see the influence of the Apoca- 
lypse (cf. specially c. xii.). The Acts were 
doomed and pub. by Lucas Holstenius in 
17th cent. They arein Ruinart's Aca Sincera ; 
Acta SS. Boll. Mart. i. p. 630; Munter, 
Primord. Eccles. Afric. p. 226; and trans. in 
Clark's Ante-Nicene Series, Cyprian's works, 
t. ii, p. 276. Aubé, Le. p. 521, has pub. 
another version from a Parisian MS. The 


830 PERPETUUS 


best ed. of all three texts is ed. by J. A. 
Robinson, The Passion of St. Perpetua, with 
intro., notes, and original Lat. text of the 
Scillitan martyrdom, in Camb. Texts and 
Studies, i. 2 (1901). ({G.T.S.] 
Perpetuus, St., 6th archbp. of Tours, be- 
tween St. Eustochius and St. Volusianus, both 
of whom were his relatives, belonged to one of 
the great senatorial families of the Auvergne. 
He possessed considerable wealth (Greg. Tur. 
Hist. Franc. x. 31), was a student of sacred 
literature and a friend of the two poets 
Sidonius Apollinaris and Paulinus of Péri- 
gueux (Sid. Apoll. Ep. vii. 9; Paul. Petr. de 
Vita S. Mart. vi.; Ep.ad Perpet. Migne, Pair. 
Lat. |xi. 1064. sqq., 1071). Consecrated in 460 
or 461, he presided in 461 over the council of 
Tours, convoked to check the worldliness and 
profligacy of the Gallic clergy (Mansi, vii. 
943 sqq-). The council of Vannes, c. 465, 
over which apparently he also presided, had 
the same object (ἐδ. 951 sqq.). His principal 
work was the construction of the great church 
of St. Martin at Tours. The one built by 
Briccius had become too small for the fame 
and miracles of the saint. Of the new one 
which replaced it at 550 paces from the city, 
and to which the saint’s body was translated 
with great ceremony (c. July 4, 473), we have, 
owing to its being Gregory the historian’s 
own church, full and interesting details and 
measurements. (See Hist. Franc. ii. 143; de 
Mirvac. 5. Mart. i. 6.) A good many other 
churches were built by Perpetuus, notably one 
in honour of St. Peter and St. Paul, which he 
constructed to receive the roof of St. Martin’s 
old church, as it was of elegant workmanship. 
Perpetuus also bestowed much care on the 
services. Gregory recounts the fasts, vigils and 
regulations for divine service instituted by 
him for different seasons of the year and still 
observed in Gregory’s own time (Hist. Franc. 


X. 31; cf. Hist. Litt. ii. 626-627: Ceillier, x. | 


438, 441). Perpetuus died in 490 or 401, 
after an episcopate of 30 years (Hist. Franc. 11. 
26; x. 31), and, as he had asked in his will, 


was buried in the church he had built, at the | 


feet of St. Martin (Epitaphium in Migne, Patr. 

Lat. lviii. 755, and elsewhere)- [S.A.B.] 
Petilianus, an eminent Donatist bishop, 

probably a native of Constantina or Cirta, 


chief town of Numidia, born of parents who | 


were Catholics ; but while still a catechumen 
carried off against his will by the Donatists, 
received by baptism into their community, 
and subsequently made, between 395 and 400, 
their bishop in Cirta. (Aug. ὁ. Lit. Petil. ii. 
104, 238; Serm. ad pleb. Caesar. de Emerito, 
8.) He had practised as a lawyer with great 
success, so as to obtain the name of the 
Paraclete, the identity of which name with 
that of the Holy Spirit, if we may believe St. 
Augustine, was flattering to his vanity (c. 
Lit. Petil. iii. 16, 19). He took a prominent 
part in the Conference, A.D. 411, as one of the 
seven managers on the Donatist side, but after 
this we hear no more of him. (Aug. Refract. 
11 5.412 ¢. Ltt. Pel. τὰς 40, 055.11 57. δὺς 
Optatus, Opp. Mon. Vet. Don. liii.) About 
398 or 400, Augustine in a private letter 
invited some of the leaders of the Donatist 
sect in Cirta to discuss the questions at issue 
between them and the church, an invitation 


PETILIANUS 
rejected by them with contempt. But when 
he was in the church of that place, together 
with Absentius (Alypius) and Fortunatus its 
Catholic bishop, a letter addressed by the 
Donatist bp. (Petilianus, but without a name) 
to his own clergy, proposing to cut off com- 
munion with the Catholic church, was put 
into Augustine’shands. This proposal seemed 
50 monstrous as to make him doubt whether 
the letter could have proceeded from a 
man of Petilian’s reputation, until he was 
assured that this was the case. Lest his 
silence should be misunderstood, he under- 
took at once to reply to it, though it was 
plainly imperfect and ought to be presented 
in a complete state. The writer accuses the 
Catholics of making necessary a repetition of 
baptism, because, he says, they pollute the 
souls of those whom they baptize. The 
validity of baptism in his view depends on the 
character of the giver, as the strength of a 
building depends on that of the foundation. 
He quotes Ecclus. xxxiv. 30 [25], applying to 
his own sect the words “ wise men” (Matt. 
Xxili. 34), and interpreting the word ‘‘dead”’ 
to mean an ungodly person; he charges the 
Catholics with persecution and “ tradition,” 
and makes an insinuation about Manicheism. 
To these charges, Augustine replied in his 
first book against Petilian. 

In his second book, for the benefit of the 
less acute among his brethren (tardiores 
patres) he takes one by one the charges of 
Petilian, whose letter had by that time been 
received in acomplete state. The statements, 
to8 in number, including applications of 
Scripture passages, and an appeal to the 
Catholics, are answered by Augustine seriatim. 
The arguments used by Petilian come under 
two principal heads, but are much intermixed, 
and contain much coarse vituperation. (1) 
The inefficacy of baptism by ungodly persons. 
(2) The iniquity of persecution. In his reply 
Augustine shews, (1) The true nature of 
baptism. Those who fall away after baptism 
must return, not by rebaptism, but by re- 
pentance. (2) As to persecution. Augustine 
denies the charge, and retorts it upon his 
adversary, whose partisans, the Circumcel- 
lions and others, were guilty of persecution. 
(3) In near connexion with the last question 
comes that of appeal to the civil power; Au- 
gustine shews that the Donatists themselves 
appealed to Constantine, and took advantage 
of the patronage of Julian. (4) Language of 
Scripture and of the church perverted. 

Of a second letter from Petilian only some 
passages quoted by Augustine are extant, but 
it appears from Augustine’s reply to have 
contained no new arguments but much per- 
sonal abuse (Possidius, Idiculus, iii.). 

In close connexion with these letters is the 
treatise of St. Augustine on the Unity of the 
Church, written between the second and 
third of them, and intended to answer the 
question, ‘‘ Where is the church ? ” 

In the inquiry of 411 at Carthage Peti- 
lian took a leading part and was chiefly re- 
markable for ingenious quibbling and minute 
subtlety on technical details of procedure— 
using, in short, as Augustine said afterwards, 
every artifice in order to prevent real discus- 
sion; and on the third day losing his temper 


PETRONILLA 


and insulting Augustine personally in a coarse 
and vu manner ; appearing throughout as 
pe φάω ας advocate, adroit but narrow, 
onest and suspicious of dishonesty in 
others; spinning out the time in matters of 
detail, taking every advantage he could, fair 


or unfair, and postponing, though with much 


ostentatious protest to the contrary, the real 
matters in dispute. See Sparrow Simpson, 
St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), pp. 
64 ff. (H.W.P. 
Petronilla (1), saint and virgin. According 
to the legend related in the letter attributed 
to Marcellus, son of the prefect of the city, 
and incorporated in the apocryphal Acts of SS. 
Nereus and Achilleus, she was the daughter 
of St. Peter, was struck with palsy by her 
father and afterwards restored to health by 
him. Her great beauty led count Flaccus to 
fall in love with her and come with soldiers to 
take her by force as his wife. She rebuked 
him for coming with an armed band, and 
desired him, if he wished her as his wife, to 
send matrons and virgins on the third day to 
conduct her to his house. He agreed, and she 
passed the three days in prayer and fasting 
with her foster-sister Felicula, and on the 
third day died, after receiving the sacrament, 
and the women brought by Flaccus to escort 
her home celebrated her funeraJ. She was 
buried on the estate of Flavia Domitilla, on 
the road to Ardea, a mile and a half from 
Rome (Acta SS. May, iii. 10, 11, vii. 420-422). 
The legend seems to have originated (see 
Lightfoot, S. Clement, 259-262) from the com- 
bination of two elements: (i) the Manichean 
a hal story mentioned by St. Augustine 
(c. Adimantum, xvii. Op. vili.in Migne, Pair. 
Lat. xlii. 161) that St. Peter by his prayers 
caused his daughter to be struck with palsy 
(the account in St. Augustine implies also her 
restoration to health by her father); (ii) the 
existence in the Christian cemetery of Flavia 
Domitilla of a sarcophagus inscribed with the 
words AURELIAE (Or AUREAE) PETRONILLAE 
FILIAE DULCISSIMAE. Petronilla was assumed 
to be a diminutive of Petros; the inscription, 
it was imagined, had been engraved by the 
apostle himself. Later writers, ¢.g. Baronius, 
felt the supposition that St. Peter had a 


daughter to be a difficulty, and explained filia | 


as a spiritual daughter, as St. Peter speaks 
of St. Mark as hisson. Petronilla, however, is 
really derived from Petronius or Petro; and 
the founder of the Flavian family, the grand- 
father both of the emperor Vespasian and his 


brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, the head of that | 


branch of the Flavii to which the supposed 
converts to Christianity belonged, was 
Flavius Petro of Reate. Petronilla there- 


fore was probably one of the Aurelian gens. 


several of whom are shewn by the inscriptions 
discovered by De Rossi to have been buried 
in the same cemetery, and was by the mother's 
side a scion of the Pisvian family, and there- 
fore related to Flavia Domitilla, the owner of 
the land over the cemetery, and was probably, 
like her, a Christian convert. 

Probably on account of her assumed rela- 


tionship to St. Peter she was held in high | 


veneration. Though the subterranean basil- 
ica constructed by pope Siricius between 391 
and 395 contained the tombs of the martyrs 


PETRUS I. 831 


| SS. Nereus and Achilleus, it was in her honour 
it was dedicated, and there her body remained 
) in its πὸ τιν γι till in 757 it was translated 
by pope Paul [. to the Vatican and placed in 
what had been the mausoleum of the Christian 
emperors, close to St. Peter's (Liber Pontificalas 
in Patr, Lat. exxviii. 1139). 

Cav. de Rossi discovered and excavated the 
ancient basilica of St. Petronilla, determined 
_ the original eae of her sarcophagus and 
πὸ tombs of SS. Nereus and Achilleus, and 
| found a fresco, probably of the first half of the 
41} cent. (Bull, 1875, 16), which represents 
| St. Petronilla, designated in it a martyr, 
conducting one of her votaries to Paradise. 

A chamber was discovered (Athenaeum, Mar. 
| 4, 1882) in these catacombs, its style of decor- 
jation, akin to the Pompeian, shewing its 
great antiquity. The inscription which had 
|} been over the door, written in characters 
οὗ the Flavian era, is Amrtiati, which sug- 
| gests that this might be the tomb of the 
|} Ampliatus to whom St. Paul alludes (Rom. 
|xvi. 8). An interesting account of these dis- 
/coveries and a discussion of the legend of St. 

Petronilla and the history of her cultus is in 
| Cav. de Rossi's papers (Bullettino di Archeo- 
| logia Christiana, 1865, 46; 1874, 1, 68, 122; 
| 1875, 1-77; 1878, 125-146; 1879, 1-20, 149- 

160; 1880, 169), and in vol. iv. of Koma 
| Sotterranea. {r.p.] 
| Petrus (4) 1., St., archbp. of Alexandria, 
| succeeded Theonas, a.p. 300. He had three 

years of tranquil administration, which he so 

/used as to acquire the high reputation indic- 

ated by Eusebius, who calls him a wonderful 

‘teacher of the faith, and ‘‘an admirable 
specimen of a bishop, alike in the excellence 
of his conduct and his familiarity with Serip- 
ture’ (Eus. viii. 13; ix. 6). Then came the 
Diocletian persecution, and in the early part 
of 306 Peter found it necessary to draw up 
conditions of reconciliation to the church, and 
of readmission to her privileges, for those who 
through weakness had compromised their 
fidelity. The date is determined by the first 
words of this set of 14 “‘ canons”"’ or regula- 
'tions, ‘‘ Since we are approaching the fourth 
| Easter from the beginning of the persecution,” 
\¢.¢. reckoning from the Lent of 303. (This is 
‘overlooked in Mason's Persecution of Dioele- 
lian, p. 324, where these “canons” are 
assigned to 311.) The substance of these 
remarkable provisions (given at length in 
|Routh's Reliquiae Sacrae, iv. 23 ff.) 15. as 
follows. (1) Those who did not give way until 
extreme tortures had overstrained their 
powers of endurance, and who had been for 


T. three years already “ mourners” without 


being admitted to regular penance, might com- 
municate after fasting 40 days more with 
special strictness. (2) Those who, as Peter 
phrases it, bad endured only the “ siege of 
imprisonment,” not the “ war of tortures,’ 
and therefore deserved less pity, yet gave 
themselves up to suffer some affiction for “the 
Name,” although in prison they were much 
relieved by Christian alms, may be received 
after another year’s penance. (1) Those who 
endured nothing at all, but lapsed under sheer 
terror, must do penance for four — (4) 
is not, strictly speaking, a canon, but a lam- 
entation over lapsi who had not repented 


832 PETRUS i. 

(Neale, i. 98). Peter cites the cursing of the 
fig-tree, with Is. Ixvi. 24; lvii.20. (5) Those 
who, to evade trial of their constancy, feigned 
epilepsy, promised conformity in writing, or 
put forward pagans to throw incense on the 
altar in their stead, must do penance for six 
months more, although some of them had 
already been received to communion by some 
of the steadfast confessors. (6) Some Chris- 
tian masters compelled their Christian slaves 
to face the trial in their stead; such slaves 
must ‘‘ shew the works of repentance’’ for a 
year. (7) But these masters who, by thus 
imperilling their slaves, shewed their disregard 
for apostolic exhortations (Eph. vi. 9; Col. 
iv. 1), must have their own repentance tested 
for three more years. (8) Those who, having 
lapsed, returned to the conflict, and endured 
imprisonment and tortures, are to be ‘‘ joy- 
fully received to communion, alike in the 
prayers and the reception of the Body and 
Blood, and oral exhortation.’ (9) Those who 
voluntarily exposed themselves to the trial 
are to be received to communion, because they 
did so for Christ’s sake, although they forgot 
the import of ‘‘ Lead us not into temptation, 
but deliver us,’”’ etc., and perhaps did not know 
that Christ Himself repeatedly withdrew from 
intended persecution, and even at last waited 
to be seized and given up; and that He bade 
His disciples flee from city to city (Matt. x. 
23), that they might not enhance their enem- 
ies’ guilt. Thus Stephen and James were 
arrested; so was Peter, who “‘ was finally 
crucified in Rome’”’; so Paul, who was be- 
headed in the same city. (10) Hence, clerics 
who thus denounced themselves to the authori- 
ties, then lapsed, and afterwards returned to 
the conflict, must cease to officiate, but may 
communicate ; if they had mot lapsed, their 
rashness might be excused. (11) Persons who, 
in their zeal to encourage their fellow-Chris- 
tians to win the prize of martyrdom, volun- 
tarily avowed their own faith, were to be 
exempted from blame; cf. Eus. vi. 41, fin. 
Requests for prayer on behalf of those who 
gave way after imprisonment and torture 
ought to be granted: ‘‘no one could be the 
worse ”’ for sympathizing with those who were 
Overcome by the devil or by the entreaties of 
their kindred (cf. Passio 5. Perpet. 3; 5. Iren. 
Sirm. 3; Eus. viii. 9). (12) Those who paid 
for indemnity are not to be censured; they 
shewed their disregard for money; and Acts 
Xvii. 9 is here quoted. (13) Nor should those 
be blamed who fled, abandoning their homes 
—as if they had left others to bear the brunt. 
Paul was constrained to leave Gaius and 
Aristarchus in the hands of the mob of 
Ephesus (Acts xix. 29, 30); Peter escaped 
from prison, and his guards died for it; the 
Innocents died in place of the Holy Child. 
(14) Imprisoned confessors in Libya and 
elsewhere had mentioned persons who had 
been compelled by sheer force to handle the 
sacrifices. These, like others whom tortures 
rendered utterly insensible, were to be regard- 
ed as confessors, for their will was steadfast 
throughout ; and they might be placed in the 
ministry. These ‘‘ canons” were ratified by 
the council in Trullo, c. 2, A.D. 692, and so 
became part of the law of the Eastern church. 
(Cf. Eus. Mart. Pal. 1; Passto SS. Tarachs 


PETRUS I. 


et Probt, c. 8, in Ruinart, Act. Sinc. p 467; 
CyAneyrnc-.35) 

Very soon after these ‘* canons’ were drawn 
up the persecution was intensified by the 
pagan fanaticism of Maximin Daza. Peter 
felt it his duty to follow the precedents he had 
cited in his 8th canon and the example of his 
great predecessor Dionysius by ‘‘ seeking for 
safety in flight’’ (Burton, H. E. ii. 441). 
Phileas, bp. of Thmuis, and three other bishops 
were imprisoned at Alexandria; and then, 
according to the Maffeian documents, Meletius, 
being himself at large, held ordinations in 
their dioceses without their sanction “ or that 
of the archbishop,’’ and without necessity 
(Hist. Writings of St. Athanasius, Oxf. 1881, 
Introd. p. xxxix). Peter, being informed of 
this lawless procedure, wrote to the faithful 
in Alexandria: ‘‘ Since I have ascertained 
that Meletius, disregarding the letter of the 
martyred bishops, has entered my diocese, 
taken upon himself to excommunicate the 
presbyters who were acting under my author- 
ity ... and shewn his craving for pre-eminence 
by ordaining certain persons in prison; take 
care not to communicate with him until I 
meet him in company with wise men, and see 
what it is that he has in mind. Farewell” 
(Routh, Rel. Sac. iv. 94). 

Maximin, besides presiding over martyr- 
doms in Palestine (A.D. 306, 307, 308), prac- 
tised other enormities at Alexandria (Eus. viii. 
14; Burton, ii. 451). During Peter’s retire- 
ment his habits had become more strictly 
ascetic. He continued to provide ‘‘in no 
hidden way”’ for the welfare of the church 
(Eus. vii. 32). The phrase οὐκ ἀφανῶς is 
Significant, as it points to the well-understood 
system of communication whereby a bp. of 
Alexandria, although himself in hiding, could, 
as did Athanasius, make his hand felt through- 
out the churches which still owned him as 
their ‘‘father.’’ Probably Peter’s return to 
Alexandria, and the formal communication of 
the Meletians above mentioned, took place 
after a toleration-edict, which mortal agony 
wrung from Galerius in Apr. 311. This edict 
constrained Maximin to abate his persecuting 
energy; but he soon again harassed his 
Christian subjects, and encouraged zealous 
heathen municipalities to memorialize him 
“that no Christians might be allowed to dwell 
among them ”’ (zb. ix. 2). Thus at the end of 
Oct. 311 ‘‘ the Christians found themselves 
again in great peril’? (Burton); and one of 
the first acts of Maximin’s renewed persecu- 
tion was to smite the shepherd of the flock at 
Alexandria. Peter was beheaded (Eus. vil. 
32), “‘in the ninth year of the persecution ”’ 
(311), by virtue of a ‘‘sudden”’ imperial 
order, ‘‘ without any reason assigned ”’ (ix. 6). 

Johnson and Routh reckon as a “‘ fifteenth ”’ 
canon what is, in fact, a fragment of a work 
on the Paschal Festival. In it Petrus says it 
is usual to fast on Wednesday, because of the 
Jews ‘‘ taking counsel for the betrayal of the 
Lord’’; and on Friday, “‘because He then 
suffered for our sake.’’ ‘‘ For,’’ he adds, ‘‘ we 
keep the Lord’s day as a day of gladness, 
because on it He rose again ; and on it, accord- 
ing to tradition, we do not even kneel.’’ The 
custom of standing at prayer on Sunday was 
again enforced by the Nicene council (c. 20; 


one 


a 


PETRUS Il. 


Bright, Notes on the Canons of the First Four 
Councils, p. 73). [νν.8.} 
Petrus (5) 11., archbp. of Alexandria, suc: 
ceeded Athanasius in May 373. To promote 
the peaceful succession of an orthodox bishop, 
Athanasius, being requested to recommend 
one who could be elected by anticipation, 
named Peter, whom Gregory Nazianzen 
describes as honoured for his wisdom and grey 
hairs (Orat. 25. 12), ““who had beenacompanion 
of his labours ’’ (Theod. iv. 20), and, in Basil's 
phrase, his spiritual “ἡ nursling"’ (Ep. 133); 
and who, in conjunction with another pres- 
byter, when they were passing through Italy 
to Egypt in 347, had accepted from the 
notorious Arian intriguers Valens and 
Ursacius a written attestation of their desire 
to be at peace with Athanasius, when his 
cause was for the time triumphant (Athan. 
Hist. Ar. 26). The clergy and magistrates 
assented to the nomination; the people in 
general applauded ; the neighbouring bishops 
came together to attend the consecration, in 
which, according to a “fragment” of Alex- 
andrian history, the dying archbp. took the 
principal part (cf. Theod. I.c.; and Hist. 
Aceph. ap. Athan.). Five days afterwards 
(May 2) Athanasius died, and Peter took 
possession of ‘‘ the evangelical throne.’’ But 
the Arians seized the opportunity for which 
they had been waiting, and employed, as in 
340, the agency of a pagan prefect. Palladius, 
by means of bribes, assembled a “‘ crowd of 
pagans and Jews” and beset that same 
church of Theonas within which Syrianus had 
all but seized Athanasius in 356. Peter was 
commanded to withdraw; he refused; the 
church doors were forced, and the brutal 
orgies described in Athanasius’s Encyclical 
were repeated: a youth in female dress 
danced upon the altar; another sat naked 
on the throne, and delivered a mock sermon 
in praise of vice (cf. Peter ap. Theod. iv. 22 
with Greg. Naz. Orat.l.c.). At this point Peter 
quitted the church; Socrates says that he 
was seized and imprisoned (iv. 21), but his 
own narrative points the other way. It 
proceeds to describe the intrusion of the Arian 
Lucius. Peter tells us that the pagans 
esteemed Lucius as the favourite of Serapis, 
because he denied the divinity of the Son; 
and dwells on the brave confessorship (1) of 
19 priests and deacons whom Magnus, after 
vain attempts to make them Arianize, trans- 
ported to the pagan city of Heliopolis in 
Phoenicia, sending also into penal servitude 
23 monks and others who expressed their 
sympathy ; (2) of 7 Egyptian bishops exiled 
to Diocaesarea, a city inhabited by Jews, 
while some other prelates were ‘‘ handed over 
to the curia,” their official immunity from 
onerous curial obligations being annulled in 
requital of their steadfastness in the faith. 
Damasus of Rome, hearing of this new 
persecution, sent a deacon with a letter of 
communion and consolation for Peter; the 
messenger was arrested, treated as a criminal, 
savagely beaten, and sent to the mines of 
Phenne. Peter adds that children were tor- 
tured, and intimates that some persons were | 
actually put to death or died of cruel usage, 
and that, after the old usage in pagan per- 
secutions, their remains were deni burial. 


. 


PETRUS II. 833 


The narrative illustrates at once the theology, 
ritual, and electoral customs of the Egyptian 
church. Peter puts into the mouth of the τὸ 
confessors an argument, quite Athanasian in 
tone, from the eternity of the Divine Father- 
hood (cf. Athan. de Deer. Nie. 12}: like 
Athanasius, he there insists that God could 
never have existed without His " Wisdom" 
(cf. Orat. c. Ar. i. 14); disowns a materialistic 
conception of the γέννησις (cf. de Deer, Nie. ταὶ 
Orat. c. Ar. i. 21); Quotes the Arian formula 
ἣν ὅτε οὐκ ἣν (“once the Son was not,” ef, 
Orat. c. Ar. i. 5, οἷο); and represents the 
Homoousion as summarizing the purport of 
many texts (cf. de Deer. Nic. 20). 

Peter refers to the invocation of the Holy 
Spirit at the Eucharistic consecration, and 
intimates that monks used to precede a newly 
arrived bishop, chanting the Psalms. When 
describing the uncanonical intrusion of Lucius, 
he refers to the three elements of a proper 
episcopal election, as fixed by “ the institu- 
tions of the church "'—(1) the joint action of 
the assembled bishops of the province, (2) the 
vote (Widw) of “genuine” clergy, (3) the 
request of the people (αἰτήσει, the Latin 
suffragium, as Cyprian uses it, Ep. 45. 7, 
speaking of the same threefold process, “ de 
clericorum testimonio, de plebis . . . su/ffragto, 
et de sacerdotum ... collegio "’; and for the 
“requests ᾿ of the people, sometimes urgently 
enforced, see Athan. Apol. c. Ar. 6). Peter 
remained for some time in concealment, 
whence he wrote his encyclical (Tillem. vi. 
582); he afterwards went to Rome, and was 
received by Damasus, as Julius welcomed 
Athanasius in 340. He remained at Rome 
five years, gave information as to Egyptian 
monasticism (Hieron. Ep. cxxvii. 5), A was 
present, as bp. of Alexandria, at a council held 
by Damasus, probably in 377, for the con- 
demnation of the Apollinarians. Timotheus, 
whom Apollinaris had sent to Rome, and 
Vitalis, bishop of the sect in Antioch, were 
included in the sentence pronounced against 
their master (cf. Soz. vi. 25 with Theod. v. 
10) ; and Facundus of Hermiane, in his De- 
fence of the Three Articles, quotes part of a 
letter addressed by Peter to the exiled Egyp- 
tian confessors at Diocaesarea. “I ask your 
advice,” he writes, “under the trouble that 
has befallen me: what ought I to do, when 
Timotheus gives himself out for a bishop, that 
in this character he may with more boldness 
injure others and infringe the laws of the 
Fathers? For he chose to anathematize me, 
with the bps. Basil of Caesarea, Paulinus, 
Epiphanius, and Diodorus, and to communt- 
cate with Vitalis alone" (Pro Defens. Trium. 
Capit. iv. 2). Here Peter treats Paulinus, not 
Meletius, as the true bp. of Antioch, this being 
the Alexandrian view. His relations with 
Basil were very kindly; their common love 
and reverence for Athanasius drew them into 
a correspondence (Basil, Ep. ται, written tn 
373); and a letter of Basil's in 177 has an 
interest for the church-history of the time 
(Ep. 266). It appears that the Egyptian 
** confessors " had hastily received into their 
communion the gravely-suspected disciples 
of Marcellus of Ancyra. This had troubled 
Basil. Peter had heard of it, but not from 
Basil; and had remonstrated with his exiled 


os 


834 PETRUS 
subordinates. Moreover, Basil’s enemy Dor- 
otheus, visiting Rome to enlist Western 


sympathies in favour of Meletius as against 
Paulinus, met Peter in company with Dam- 
asus. Peter fired up at the name of Meletius, 
and exclaimed, ‘‘ He is no better than an 
Arian.’’ Dorotheus, angered in his turn, said 
something which offended Peter’s dignity ; 
and Peter wrote to Basil, complaining of this 
and of his silence in regard to the exile’s con- 
duct. Basil answers in effect: ‘‘ As to the 
first point, I did not care to trouble you, and 
I trust it will come right by our winning over 
the Marcellians ; as to the second, I am sorry 
that Dorotheus annoyed you, but you who 
have suffered under Arians ought to feel for 
Meletius as a fellow-sufferer, and I can assure 
you that he is quite orthodox.” 

Peter’s exile ended in the spring of 378. 
The troubles of Valens with the Goths encour- 
aged the prelates he had banished to act for 
themselves. Fortified by a letter of com- 
mendation from Damasus, Peter returned to 
Alexandria; the people forthwith expelled 
Lucius, who went to Constantinople; and 
Peter was thenceforth undisturbed in his 
see. Jerome taxes him with being too easy in 
receiving heretics into communion (Chron.) ; 
and in one celebrated affair of another kind, 
his facility brought him no small discredit. 
Early in 379 he had not only approved of the 
mission of Gregory of Nazianzus to act as a 
Catholic bishop in Constantinople, but had 
formally authorized it, had ‘honoured’ 
Gregory “‘ with the symbols of establishment ” 
(Carm. de Vita Sua, 861), and thereby appar- 
ently claimed some supremacy over Constan- 
tinople (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 206). Yet ere 
long he allowed himself to become the tool of 
the ambitious Maximus, who pretended to 
have been a confessor for orthodoxy, and thus 
perhaps reached Peter’s weak side. He aimed 
at ‘‘ securing the see of Constantinople; and 
Peter, contradicting himself in writing,’ as 
Gregory words it (de Vita Sua, 1015), commis- 
sioned some Egyptian prelates to go to Con- 
stantinople and consecrate Maximus. The 
scheme failed disgracefully : Maximus had to 
leave Constantinople, and after attempting 
in vain to propitiate Theodosius, went back 
to Alexandria and tried to intimidate Peter, 
“putting the old man into a difficulty ” (ib. 
tor8), but was expelled by secular force. 
Peter reconciled himself to Gregory, who 
panegyrized him as ‘‘a Peter in virtue not 
less than in name, who was very near heaven, 
but temained in the flesh so far as to render 
his final assistance to the truth,”’ etc. (Ovat. 34. 
3). Peter died Feb. 14, 380. In ignorance 
of this event, Theodosius, a fortnight after- 
wards, named him with Damasus as a standard 
of Catholic belief in the famous edict of Thes- 
salonica (Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, 2; see Gibbon, 
iii. 363). He was succeeded by his brother 
Timotheus. W.B.] 

Petrus (6), surnamed Mongus (Stammerer), 
Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, or- 
dained deacon by Dioscorus, and said to have 
taken part in the outrages against Flavian at 
the Latrocinium (Mansi, vi. 1017). On the 
death of the Monophysite patriarch Timo- 
theus Aelurus in 477, and in the absence of the 
orthodox Salofaciolus whom he had displaced, 


PETRUS 


the Monophysites determined to place Petef 
in the see. The emperor Zeno, indignant at 
the boldness of the Monophysites (Neale, Hist. 
Alex. ii. 17), ejected Peter, and ordered his 
expulsion from Alexandria (Mansi, vii. 983- 
985). Accordingly, Peter was driven out of 
Egypt; John, surnamed Talaia, steward of 
the great church, was chosen patriarch, but 
neglected to announce his accession to Acacius, 
who, piqued by this omission, prevailed on 
Zeno to expel John, and to restore Peter on 
condition that he should support an attempt 
to promote doctrinal unity without enforcing 
the authority of the council of Chalcedon. 
Zeno ordered Talaia to be expelled from 
Alexandria and Peter Mongus enthroned after 
accepting the HENoTIcOoN, or instrument of 
unity (A.D. 482). This was addressed to 
the bishops, clergy, monks, and laymen of 
the Alexandrian patriarchate; it recognized 
the creed of ‘‘ the 318’’ at Nicaea as “‘ con- 
firmed by the 150’’ at Constantinople, the 
decisions of the council of Ephesus, together 
with the 12 articles of Cyril; it employed 
language as to Christ’s consubstantiality with 
man which Cyril had adopted in his ‘‘ reunion 
with the Easterns’’; it rejected the opposite 
theories of a ‘‘ division’’ and a “‘ confusion ”’ 
in the person of Christ, and included Eutyches 
as well as Nestorius in its anathema. Instead 
of renewing the explicit censure directed by 
Basiliscus in a previous circular against the 
council of Chalcedon, Zeno employed an am- 
biguous phrase, ‘‘ We anathematize every one 
who thinks or ever has thought differently, 
either at Chalcedon or at any other synod,” 
words which might be explained as pointed at 
those who were admitted to communion at 
Chalcedon after disclaiming Nestorianism, 
while, as their adversaries alleged, they were 
still Nestorians at heart. At the same time 
all recognition of that council was omitted 
(Evagr. iii. 14; Liberat. c. 18, and note 
thereon; Galland. Bibl. Patr. xii. 149). 
Peter was accordingly enthroned amid a great 
concourse, at Alexandria. His instructions 
were to unite all parties on the basis of the 
Henoticon. This, for the time, be effected 
at a public festival, when as patriarch he 
preached to the people, and caused it to be 
read (Evagr. iii. 13; Liberat. c. 18). In 
letters to Acacius, the patriarch of Constanti- 
nople, and pope Simplicius, he professed to 
accept the council of Chalcedon (Liberatus) ; 
and by playing the part of a time-server 
(κόθορνος, Evagr. iii. 17) disgusted the 
thorough-going Monophysite John, bp. of 
Zagylis in Libya, and various abbats and 
monks of Lower Egypt, who raised a tumult 
in the Caesarean basilica (Liberat. w.s.). 
Peter could not afford to quarrel with them, 
and probably thought himself secure enough 
to shew his hand. (See Valesius on Evagr. 
iii. 16.) He accordingly anathematized the ᾿ 
council of Chalcedon and the Tome of pope 
Leo, substituted the names of Dioscorus and 
Timotheus Aelurus for those of Proterius 
and Timotheus Salofaciolus on his diptychs, and 
gratified his own vindictiveness by taking the 
body of Salofaciolus from its place among 
the buried patriarchs and ‘“‘casting it outside 
the city”’ (Liberat.; cf. Felix. ap. Mansi, vii. 
1076). This caused a great excitement; the 


U 


PETRUS 


earnest Catholics renounced Peter's commu- 
nion; and tidings of this turn of events dis- 
turbed the mind of Acacius, who sent to 
Alexandria for an authentic account. Peter 
tben surpassed himself in an evasive letter, 
which Evagrius has preserved. Acacius was 
glad to accept his explanations, as he could 
not afford to break with Mongus; but he had 
now to deal with the clear head and resolute 
will of pope Felix II. (or IIL), the successor of 
Simplicius, who listened readily to the com- 
plaints of the exiled Talaia and other Egyptian 
bishops (Evagr. iii. 20) against Peter, and sent 
two bishops, Vitalis and Misenus, to Constanti- 
nople to denounce Peter and summon Acacius 
to defend himself before a council at Rome. 
The legates were partly coaxed and partly 
frightened into communicating with the 
resident agents of Peter at Constantinople, 
and brought back to Rome letters in which 
Zeno and Acacius assured Felix that Peter 
was an orthodox and meritorious prelate 
(Evagr. iii. 20; Mansi, vii. 1055, 1065, 1081). 
Their weakness was punished by deposition ; 
and Felix, with his synod, proceeded not only 
to anathematize Peter as an ‘“ Eutychian”’ 
usurper, but even to excommunicate the bp. 
of Constantinople as his patron (July 28, 484). 
He then wrote again to Zeno, desiring him to 
“* choose between the communion of Peter the 
apostle and that of Peter the Alexandrian”’ 
(Mansi, vii. 1066). Nothing daunted, Acacius 
broke off communion with Rome and upheld 
Peter to the last, although he must have felt 
his conduct highly embarrassing, for Peter 
again anathematized the proceedings of 
Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, and those 
who would not accept the writings of Dios- 
corus and Timotheus Aelurus (Evagr. iii 22). 
He expelled certain orthodox bishops, and, 
from one named John, transferred the abbacy 
or hegumenate of Diolchos to his friend 
Ammon (Liberat.). These proceedings being 
reported to Zeno, he sent Cosmas to rebuke 
Peter andrestore peace. Peter again modified 
his tone, and wrote to Acacius, as if acknow- 
ledging Chalcedon. This double-dealing, be- 
coming known in Egypt, provoked some 
Monophysite clerics, monks, and laymen to 
disown him and to meet for worship apart, 
omitting his name in their diptychs (Liberat. 
18), and these uncompromising dissentients 
became known as “‘ Acephali’’ (Leontius, de 
Sectts, v. 2), and obtained as their bishop 
one Esaias from Palestine (Liberat.). When 
Fravitas, or Flavitas, succeeded Acacius in 
489, he wrote to both Felix (Liberat. 18) and 
Peter (Evagr. iii. 23) ; but after four months 
he died, and was succeeded by Euphemius, 
who, on discovering Peter’s real position in 
regard to the council of Chalcedon, indignantly 
broke off all relations with him (Evagr. iii. 23). 
A new strife between Constantinople and 
Alexandria was imminent, when Peter Mon- 
gus, respected by none, died at the end of 
Oct. 490 (Le Quien, ii. 422), leaving behind 
numerous works (Neale, ii. 24). [νν.8.} 
Petrus (10) (surnamed Fullo, “the Ful- 
ler”), intruding patriarch of Antioch, 471-488, 
a Monophysite, took his surname from his 
former trade as a fuller of cloth. Tillemont 
shews considerable skill in harmonizing 
various statements of his earlier life (Em- 


PETRUS 835 


ereurs, ἃ. vi. p. 404). He considers that 

‘eter was originally a member of the convent 
of the Acoimetae. which he places in Bithynia 
on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, and 
being expelled thence for dissolute life and 
heretical doctrine, passed over to Constanti- 
nople, where he became a parasite to persons 
of distinction, by whom he was introduced to 
Zeno, the future emperor, the son-in-law of 
Leo, whose favour he secured, obtainin 
through him the chief place in the chure 
of St. Bassa, at Chalcedon. Here his true 
character having speedily become known, he 
fled to Zeno, who was then setting out for 
Antioch as commander of the East. Arriving 
at Antioch a.p. 463, Peter’s unbridled am- 
bition soared to the patriarchal throne, then 
filled by Martyrius, and having gained the ear 
of the rabble, he adroitly availed himself of 
the powerful Apollinarian element among the 
citizens and the considerable number who 
favoured Eutychian doctrines, to excite sus- 
picions against Martyrius as a concealed 
Nestorian, and thus caused his tumultuous 
expulsion and his own election to the throne. 
This was in 469 or 470 (Theod. Lect. p. 554; 
Labbe, iv. 1009, 1082). When established as 
patriarch, Peter at once declared himself 
openly against the council of Chalcedon, and 
added to the Trisagion the words ** Who wast 
crucified for us,’’ which he imposed as a 
test upon all in his patriarchate, anathema- 
tizing those who declined to accept it. Ac- 
cording to the Synodicon, he summoned a 
council at Antioch to give synodical authority 
to this novel clause (Labbe, iv. 1009). The 
deposed Martyrius went to Constantinople to 
complain to the emperor Leo, by whom, 
through the influence of the patriarch Genna- 
dius, he was courteously received; a council 
of bishops reported in his favour, and his 
restoration was decreed (Theod. Lect. p. 554; 
Liberat. c. 18, p. 122). But notwithstanding 
the imperial authority, Peter's personal in- 
fluence, supported by the favour of Zeno, was 
so great in Antioch that Martyrius’s position 
was rendered intolerable and, wearied by 
violence and contumely, he soon left Antioch, 
abandoning his throne again to the intruder. 
Leo was naturally indignant at this audacious 
disregard of his commands, of which he was 
apprised by Gennadius, and he despatched an 
imperial decree for the deposition of Peter and 
his banishment to the Oasis (Labbe, iv. 1082). 
According to Theodorus Lector, Peter fled, 
and Julian was unanimously elected bishop in 
his room, A.D. 471, holding the see until Peter's 
thirdrestoration by Basiliscusin 475(Theopban. 
p- 99; Theod. Lect p. 533). During the inter- 
val Peter dwelt at Constantinople, in retire- 
ment in the monastery of the Acoimetae, his 
residence there being connived at on a pledge 
that he would not create further disturbances 
(Labbe, iv. 1009, 1082; Theophan. p. 104). 
During the short reign of the usurper Basiliscus 
(Oct. 475-June 477) the fortunes of Peter 
revived. Under the influence of his wife 
Basiliscus declared for the Monophysites, re 
called Timothy Aclurus, patriarch of Alexan- 
dria, from exile, and by his persuasion issued an 
encyclical letter to the bishops calling them 
to anathematize the decrees of Chalcedon 
(Evagr. H. E. iii. 4). Peter gladly complied, 


836 PETRUS 


and was rewarded by a third restoration to the 
see ot Antioch, A.D. 476 (ἐδ. 5). Julian was 
deposed, dying not long after. Peter on his 
restoration enforced the addition to the 
Trisagion, and behaved with great violence 
to the orthodox party, crushing all opposition 
by an appeal to the mob, whom he had secured 
by his unworthy arts, and who confirmed the 
patriarch’s anathemas by plunder and blood- 
shed. Once established on the patriarchal 
throne, he was not slow to stretch its privi- 
leges to the widest extent, ordaining bishops 
and metropolitans for all Syria. The fall of 
Basiliscus, A.D. 477, involved the ruin of all 
who had supported him and been promoted by 
him. Peter was one of the first to fall. In 
485 for the last time Peter was replaced on his 
throne by Zeno on his signing the Henoticon 
(Theophan. p. 115; Theod. Lect. p. 569; Labbe, 
iv. 1207; Evagr. H. E. iii. 16). He at once 
resumed his career of violence, expelling ortho- 
dox bishops who refused to sign the Henoticon 
and performing uncanonical ordinations, 
especially that of the notorious Xenaias 
( Philoxenus) tothe see of Hierapolis (Theophan. 
p- 115). He was condemned and anathe- 
matized by a synod of 42 Western bishops at 
Rome Α.Ὁ. 485, and separated from Christian 
communion (Labbe, iv. 1123-1127). He re- 
tained, however, the patriarchate at Antioch 
till his death, in 488, or according to Theo- 
phanes, 499 or 491. One of his latest acts was 
the unsuccessful revival of the claim of the 
see of Antioch to the obedience of Cyprus as 
part of the patriarchate. After long debate 
the council of Ephesus in 431 had declared 
the church of Cyprus autocephalous. Tillem. 
Les Empereurs, t. vi. pp. 404-407; Mém. 
eccl. t. xvi. passim. ; Clinton, F. R. vol. ii. app. 
Ρ- 553: {E.V.] 
Petrus (12), bp. of Apamea, the metropolis 
of Syria Secunda, under Anastasius, c. 510; a 
Monophysite, a warm partisan of Severus the 
intruding patriarch of Antioch, the leader of 
the Acephali, and charged with sharing in the 
violent and sanguinary attempts to force the 
Monophysite creed on the reluctant Syrian 
church. Peter was accused of having taken 
forcible possession of his see, in violation of all 
ecclesiastical order, not having received 
canonical ordination either as monk or pres- 
byter (Labbe, v. 120). The first formal com- 
plaint against him was made before count 
Eutychianus, governor of the province, by 
the clergy of Apamea, substantiated by their 
affidavits (7b. 219, 243). In these he is charged 
with declaring himself the enemy of the Chal- 
cedonian decrees, erasing from the diptychs 
the names of orthodox bishops and fathers, 
and substituting those of Dioscorus, Timothy 
Aelurus, and other heresiarchs. Evidence is 
given of insulting language and overbearing 
conduct toward his clergy, acts of violence and 
grossness, and intercourse with females of 
loose character. He was accused with Severus 
of having hired a band of Jewish banditti, who 
slew, from an ambuscade, a body of 350 
orthodox pilgrims and left their corpses by the 
roadside (7b. 119). Clergy were violently 
dragged from the altar by his emissaries and 
ruthlessly butchered if they refused to ana- 
thematize the Chalcedonian faith. On the 


accession of Justin, A.D. 518, the bishops of | 


PETRUS 


Syria Secunda laid their complaints against 
Peter and Severus before the council as- 
sembled at the imperial city, July 518, asking 
the emperor to deliver them from so intoler- 
able a tyranny (7b. 215). Their prayer was 
granted; Peter was deposed and sentenced 
to exile as a Manichee—as the Monophysites 
were popularly designated (Theoph. p. 142). 
Nothing seems known of Peter between his 
banishment and reappearance at Constanti- 
nople with Severus, on the temporary revival 
of the fortunes of the Monophysites, through 
the influence of the empress Theodora. In 
536 Mennas was appointed to the patriarchal 
chair, and lost no time in summoning a council 
to pronounce the condemnation of Mono- 
physitism and its chief leaders, Peter and 
Severus being cut off from communion as men 
who had ‘“ voluntarily chosen the sin unto 
death,’’ and ‘‘ shown no signs of repentance 
and a better mind ”’ (7b. 253). Justinian con- 
firmed this sentence. Peter was forbidden to 
reside in or near Constantinople, or any other 
important city, commanded to live in complete 
retirement, and abstain from association with 
others lest he should poison them with his 
heresy (7b. 267). Nothing more is known of 
him. Letters to him from Severus exist 
among the Syriac MSS. of the Brit. Mus. 
(Wright, Catal. p. 559, No. 5, No. 20). Le 
Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 913; Fleury, Hist. eccl. 
livre xxxi., 40, 44; livrexxxil., 52, 54, 57. [E.v.] 

Petrus (20), bp. of Edessa, succeeded Cyrus 
on his death, June 5, 498. During his episco- 
pate Mesopotamia was ravaged by Cabades, 
king of Persia, in his endeavour to wrest the 
province from Anastasius. Of the horrors of 
this terrible time of war, pestilence, and 
famine, in which Edessa had a full share, being 
more than once besieged by Cabades, we have 
a moving account from a contemporary wit- 
ness in the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite. 
Peter signalized his entrance on the episcopate 
by several ritual reforms. He was the first to 
institute the feast of Palm Sunday in the 
church of Edessa, as well as the benediction of 
water on the eve of the Epiphany, and the 
consecration of chrism on Maundy Thursday, 
and he regulated the observance of other fes- 
tivals (Jos. Stylit. c. 32). An earthquake 
occurring at Edessa A.D. 500, he instituted 
public processional litanies of the whole popu- 
lation (ἐδ. 36). The same year, the city and 
province suffering grievously from famine, he 
visited Constantinople to petition Anastasius 
personally for a remission of taxes, but was 
only partially successful (7b. 39). The famine 
returning A.D. 505, Peter made a second ap- 
plication to the emperor, who received him 
with frowns and rebuked him for leaving his 
distressed flock at such a time, but, feeling 
the justice of the request, remitted the taxes 


for the whole province, sending the order. 


without informing Peter (ib. 78). Peter died 
on Easter Eve, A.D. 510. Asseman. Bzbl. 
Orient. t. i. pp. 268 ff., 279, 406 ff. [E.v.] 


Petrus (28), patriarch of Jerusalem, a.D. 
524-544 (Clinton, F. R.; Niceph. Chron. p. 410), 
born at Eleutheropolis, succeeded John II. 
(omitted by Evagr. H. E. iv. 37) in 524. He 
manifested the same reverence as his pre- 
decessors for the celebrated ascetic St. Sabas, 
and frequently visited him in the desert, 


Ss. 


PETRUS 


During his episcopate occurred the sanguinary 
insurrection against the Christians of the 
Samaritans, goaded to madness by the perse- 
cution of Justinian, offering only the alter- 


native of baptism or rebellion (Gibbon, c. 48). | 


Many Christians were reduced to beggary. 
Peter therefore begged St. Sabas to go to 
Constantinople and lay before Justinian a 
petition for the remission of the taxes. His 
mission was successful and he was received 
with much joy on his return by Peter and his 
flock (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. 5. Sab. No. 70-76). 
On the deposition of Anthimus, the Mono- 
physite patriarch of Constantinople, by the 
single authority of pope Agapetus, then 
present on state business at the imperial city, 


and the appointment of Mennas as his suc- | 


cessor, Agapetus issued a synodical letter 
dated Mar. 13, 536, announcing these facts, 
and calling on the Eastern church to rejoice 
that for the first time a patriarch of New 
Rome had been consecrated by the bp. of Old 
Rome, and, together with the errors of 
Anthimus, stating and denouncing those of 
Severus of Antioch, Peter of Apamea, and 
the monk Zoaras. On receiving this docu- 
ment Peter summoned a synod at Jerusalem 
and subscribed the condemnation, Sept. ro, 
536, Agapetus having died on Apr. 21 (Labbe, 
V. 47, 275, 283). The rapid spread of Origen- 
istic opinions in some monasteries of Palestine 
under the influence of Nonnus was vehem- 
ently opposed by other monastic bodies and 
caused serious troubles which Peter was un- 
able to allay. The Origenists were supported 
by a powerful court party, headed by the 
abbats Domitian and Theodore Ascidas 
(Evagr. H. E. iv. 38). The dignity and au- 
thority of Peter, a decided enemy of Origen- 
istic doctrines, being seriously weakened, he 
made concessions which compromised his 
position. His predecessor in the patriarchal 
chair, Ephraim, had issued a synodical letter 
condemning Origen, and the Origenistic party 
clamoured to have his name removed from the 
diptychs. Peter was convinced that Jus- 
tinian had been hoodwinked by the powerful 
abbats and was ignorant of the real character 
of these doctrines. He therefore instructed 
two of his own abbats, Gelasius and So- 
phronius, to bring before him a formal com- 
plaint, setting forth the heresies of Origen in 
detail. This document he forwarded to J us- 
tinian, with a letter describing the disturb- 
ances created by the Origenistic monks and 
beseeching him to take measures to quell 
them. The emperor, flattered by this appeal 
at once to his ability as a theologian and his 
authority as a ruler, the petition being sup- 
ported by a Roman deputation, headed by 
Pelagius, then at Constantinople on ecclesi- 
astical business, granted the request and 


issued a decree condemning the heresies of | 


Origen, and ordering that no one should here- 
after be created bishop or abbat without first 
condemning him and other specified heretics. 
The emperor’s edict was confirmed by a synod 
convened by Mennas, and was sent for signa- 
ture to Peter and the other patriarchs, a.p. 
541 (Vit. 5. Sab. No. 84; Liberat. Brevtar. c. 
23; Labbe, v. 635; Vit. S. Euthym. p. 365) 
The object, however, was thwarted by the 
Origenist leaders subscribing the edict, thus 


PETRUS 837 


| sacrificing truth to self-interest. Theodore 
| maintained his position at court and threat- 
}ened Peter with deposition if he continued to 
| refuse to receive back the expelled Origenistic 
monks (Vist. S. Sab. No. 85). To divert the 
emperor's attention an attack was craftily 
organized by Theodore Ascidas and others 
against writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
Theodoret, and Ibas of Edessa, supposed to 
}savour of Nestorianism. They had little 
difficulty, backed by the powerful influence of 
| the empress Theodora, an avowed favourer of 
| 


Monophysitism, in persuading the emperor to 
issue an edict condemning these writings, 
which, from the three points on which it 
| specially dwells, obtained the name of  Edic- 
tum de Tribus Capitulis,”” or κ᾽ The Three 
Chapters,” by which the whole controversy 
|became subsequently known. This edict 
being published on the sole authority of the 
emperor, without synodical authority, great 
stress was laid on its acceptance by the 
bishops, especially by the four Eastern pa- 
triarchs. No one of them, however, was dis- 
posed to sign a document which seemed to 
disparage the conclusions of Chalcedon. 
Mennas yielded first; Peter's signature was 
obtained after a longer struggle. On the first 
publication of the edict he solemnly declared, 
before a vast crowd of turbulent monks 
clamouring against its impiety, that whoever 
signed it would violate the decrees of Chalee- 
don. But Justinian’s threats of deposition 
outweighed Peter's conscientious convictions, 
and, with the other equally reluctant pa- 
triarchs, he signed the document (Facundus, 
lib. iv. c. 4). He did not long survive this 
disgrace, and died, a.p. 544, after a 20 years’ 
episcopate. Vict. Tunun. ap. Clinton, 
F. R. ii. 557; Fleury, Hist. eccl. livre 33; 
Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 264 ff.; Le 
Quien, Or. Christ. vol. ii. 189 seq. {e.v.] 
Petrus (35), first bp. of Parembolae in Pales- 
tine, t.c. of the military stations of the Sara- 
cens in Palestine. He was originally a Greek 
in the service of the Persians under Izdegird. 
The Christians being persecuted by the Magian 
party, Aspebetus, as Peter was then called, 
was commissioned to close the passes against 
the fugitives. Being sorry for the innocent 
victims of religious intolerance, he executed 
his duty remissly, and even assisted them in 
their flight. This being reported to ledegird, 
Petrus in fear for his life deserted to the Ro- 
mans with his son Terebo, his relatives, and 
all his property. Anatolius, then prefect of 
| the East, gladly welcomed him, stationed bim 
in Arabia, and put him in command over all 
the tributary Saracen tribes in those parts. 
Terebo, still a boy, had before his father's 
flight lost by paralysis the entire use of one 
side. After reaching Arabia the boy was 
warned in a dream to apply to Euthymius for 
cure. The application was successful, the 
boy recovered, and the grateful father, bis 
| brother-in-law Maris, and all his Saracen 
| followers received baptism (Cyrill. Seythop. 
Vit. 5. Euthym. cc. 18-24; Coteler. Feel. Grae. 
Monum. ii. pp. 216-222). The new disciple 
devoted himself to a religious life; and the 
i/number of Arabian converts having become 
| so large as to require a bishop of their own, he 
| was recommended by Euthymius to J uvenal, 


838 PETRUS 


bp. of Jerusalem, by whom, in defiance of the 
canonical rights of the old metropolitan chair 
of Caesarea, the new see was created, and 
Peter appointed its first bishop (Vzt. S. 
Euthym.c. 39; Cotel. p.231). Tillemont gives 
reasons for placing this event before 428 (Mém. 
eccl. xv. 196). Peter attended the council 
of Ephesus in 431. His name appears among 
those subscribing the deposition of Nestorius 
and the decrees of the council (Labbe, 111. 541, 
692). Peter's death must be placed before 451, 
when his second successor John attended the 
council of Chalcedon, his immediate successor 
Auxolaus, a Eutychian, having had a very 
brief episcopate Le Quien, Or. Christ. iil. 
767; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xiv. 378, 392, 432, 
451; xv. 196, 203. [E.v.] 
Petrus (41), bp. of Sebaste, the youngest 
brother of Basil the Great and Gregory Nys- 
sen, and the last of the ten children of Basil the 
elder and Emmelia. His father died almost 
immediately after his birth, which must be 
placed before a.p. 349 (Greg. Nys. de Vit. 5. 
Macr. ii. 185). His sister Macrina, more than 
20 years his senior, adopted her infant brother 
as her special charge, proving herself, in 
Gregory Nyssen’s words, “‘ not only his sister, 
but his father, mother, tutor, and warder”’ 
(παιδαγωγός). When Macrina and her mother 
retired to their religious retreat on the banks 
of the Iris, Peter accompanied them, where, 
according to his brother, he proved all in all 
to them, working with them towards the 
angelical life. He shared the high physical 
and mental endowments of the family. His 
acquirements were very varied, and he had a 
natural gift for handicrafts, in which, without 
any direct instruction, he excelled as much 
as in intellectual pursuits (7b. 186). He 
assisted by manual labour to support his 
mother and sister, and the large crowds at- 
tracted in time of scarcity by their reputation 
for charity. For some years his brother Basil 
was his near neighbour on the other side of 
the Iris, where he had established a monas- 
tery for male ascetics, in the presidency of 
which Peter succeeded him when in 365 
he was finally recalled to Caesarea by bp. 
Eusebius. He was ordained presbyter by 
Basil, c. 370 (tb. 187). He was present with 
Macrina at their mother’s death-bed, A.D. 373, 
and was offered by her as her tenth to God 
(tb. 186). He continued to reside in his 
monastery till after Basil and Macrina died 
in 379. In 380 he was ordained bishop, 
probably of Sebaste in Lesser Armenia, on 
the death or deposition of Eustathius. That 
Peter was bp. of Sebaste is accepted without 
question by Tillemont (Mém. eccl. ix. 574). 
Nicephorus, however, a somewhat untrust- 
worthy authority, is the first writer who 
names his see (H. E. xi. 19). Theodoret (H.E. 
v. 8) and Suidas (sub voc. Βασίλειος, i. 539) 
simply style him a bishop, without naming 
his diocese. He took part in the council 
of Constantinople, A.D. 381 (Theod. w.s.). 
Olympias, the deaconess, the friend of Chry- 
sostom, entrusted large funds to him for 
distribution to the poor (Pallad. p. 166). 
Tillemont places his death between 391 and 
394. The genius of Peter seems to have been 
Tather practical than literary. MRufinus, 
instituting a comparison between the three 


PETRUS 


brothers, says that the two younger combined 
equalled Basil; Gregory in word and doc- 
trine, and Peter in the works of faith (Rufin. 
ii. 9). Theodoret remarks that, though Peter 
had not received such a training in classical 
literature as his brothers, τῆς θύραθεν 
παιδείας οὐ μετειληχὼς σὺν ἐκείνοις, he was 
equally conspicuous in the splendour of his 
life (H. E. iv. 30). But though undistin- 
guished in theological literature himself, 
several of his brother Gregory’s most import- 
ant works were written at his instigation ; 
6.5. as we learn from the proems, the two 
treatises supplementary to his brother Basil’s 
Hexaemeron, the Explicatio Apologetica and 
the de Hominis Opificio (Greg. Nys. Opp. 
i. 1, 44). The latter treatise was sent to 
Peter as an Easter gift. Gregory’s great 
doctrinal work against Eunomius was due to 
his brother’s entreaties that he would employ 
his theological knowledge to refute that here- 
tic, and disprove the charges brought by him 
against Basil (δ. 11. 265, 266). Gregory’s 
original intention was to limit his refutation 
to the first of Eunomius’s two books. But 
Peter wrote a letter to him, his only extant 
literary production (δ. 268), entreating him 
to strike with the zeal of a Phinehas both the 
heretical books with the same spiritual sword, 
which he knew so well how to wield. The 
language and style of this letter shew Peter as 
not intellectually inferior to the more cele- 
brated members of his family (Tillem. Mém. 
eccl. ix. 572-580). [E.v.] 
Petrus (64), a solitary commemorated by 
Theodoret in his Religiosa Historia. By birth 
a Galatian, he embraced a monastic life when 
7 years old, and lived to the age of 99. After 
visiting the holy places at Jerusalem and 
Palestine, he settled at Antioch, living in an 
empty tomb on bread and water, and keeping 
a strict fast every other day. His companion 
and attendant, named Daniel, he had delivered 
from an evil spirit. Theodoret relates that 
his mother, when a beautiful young woman 
of 23, failing to obtain relief from a malady 
in her eye from any oculist, was induced by 
one of her female servants to apply to Peter. 
Going to him dressed richly and resplendent 
with gold ornaments and gems, the solitary 
upbraided her for presuming to attempt to 
improve on the handiwork of her Maker, and 
having thus cured her of the malady of vanity 
and love of dress, signed her eye with the 
cross and she was speedily healed. Other 
members of her household he cured in a similar 
manner. When, seven years after, she be- 
came the mother of Theodoret and was given 
up by the physicians, Peter, having been 
summoned, prayed over her with her attend- 
ants and she speedily revived. She was ac- 
customed to bring her child once every week 
toreceive the old man’s blessing. Petermade 
the young Theodoret a present of half his 
linen girdle, which was believed to have the 
miraculous property of relieving pain and 
curing sickness. The amulet was frequently 
lent, till kept by one of its borrowers, and so 
lost to the family. Theod. Hist. Rel. c. ix. ; 
Tillem. Mém. eccl. xv. 209-213. [E.v.] 
Petrus (72), first abbat of the monastery 
of SS. Peter and Paul, commonly called St. 
Augustine’s, Canterbury. He was probably 


PHILASTER 


one of the monks who accompanied Augustine 
on his first journey, and therefore probably 
a monk of the monastery of St. Andrew at 
Rome. He is first mentioned by Bede (H. EF. 
i. 25) as joined with Laurentius in the mission 
which Augustine after his consecration sent 
to Rome to announce that the Gospel had 
been accepted by the English, and that he 
had been made bishop, and to put before the 
pope the questions which drew forth the 
amous “‘ Responsiones Sancti Gregorii."". He 
must have returned some time before the 
death of Augustine and been appointed or 
designated by him and Ethelbert as the 
future head of the monastery, which at his 
request Ethelbert was building outside the 
walls of Canterbury. The building was not 
finished when Augustine died, but Laurentius, 
his successor, consecrated the new church and 
Peter became the first abbat. If the Canter- 
bury computation be accepted, and on such 
a point it may not be baseless, Peter must 
have perished in the winter of 606 or of 607 
at the latest. There is a notice of him in 
Mabillon’s Acta SS. O.S.B. saec. i. pt. i. p. 1; 
and the Bollandist Acts, Jan. t. i. pp. 335, 336. 
See Gotselinus, de Translatione Sti. Augus- 
tins, ap. Mab. Acta SS. 0.5.8. τ. ix. p. 760; 
Elmham, ed. Hardwick, pp. 92-126; Thorn, 
cc. 1761, 1766; Hardy, Catalogue of Materials, 
etc. i. 206, 207; Monasticon Angl. i. 120. [s.] 
laster (Philastrius), of of Brixia 
(Brescia), in the latter part of the 4th cent. 
His successor in the see, Gaudentius, used 
every year to preach a panegyrical sermon on 
the anniversary of his death (July 18). One 
of these (preached on the 14th anniversary) 
is extant, and from its vague laudatory state- 
ments we have to extract our scanty infor- 
mation concerning his life and work. We learn 
from it that he was not a native of Brescia. 
From what country he came we are not told ; 
Spain or Africa has been conjectured. He is 
commended for zeal in the conversion of J ews 
and heathen, and in the confutation of here- 
sies, especially of Arianism; and is said to 
have incurred stripes for the vehemence of his 
opposition to that then dominant sect. He 
travelled much; at Milan he withstood bp. 
Auxentius, the Arian predecessor of St. 
Ambrose; at Rome he was highly successful 
in his defence of orthodoxy. Finally he 
settled down at Brescia, where he is said to 
have been a model of all pastoral virtues. _ 
The only details we have for dating his 
episcopate or the duration of his life are that 
he took part as bp. of Brescia in a council at 


Aquileia in 381 (see its proceedings in the) 


works of Ambrose, ii. 802, or Ῥ. 935, Migne) ; 
and that he must have died before 397, the 
ear of Ambrose’s death, since that bisho 
interested himself in the appointment of h 
successor. St. a mentions having 
seen Philaster at Milan in company with St. 
Ambrose; this was probably some time 
during 384-387. Possibly Philaster had been 
commended to the church of Brescia by 
Ambrose, who would know of his opposition 
to Auxentius. The notices of Philaster in 
ecclesiastical writers are collected in the Bol- 
landist Life (AA. SS. July 18, vol. iv. p. 299). 
He is now chiefly interesting as the author 


of a work on heresies, portions of which, having | 


PHILASTER 3830 


been copied by St. Augustine, became stock 
materials for hacresiologists, Augustine hav- 
ing been asked by Quodvultdeus to write a 
treatise on heresies, refers him in reply (Ap. 
222) to the works of Epiphanius ond Paitas. 
trius, the former of whom had enumerated so 
heresies before our Lord's coming and 60 since 
the ascension, the latter 28 before and 124 
after. Augustine refuses to believe that 
Epiphanius, whom he accounts far the more 
learned of the two, could have been ignorant 
of any heresies known to Philaster, and 
explains the difference of enumeration as 
arising from the word heresy not being one of 
sharply defined application, thus leading one 
to count opinions as heresies which were not 
so reckoned by the other. As a matter of 
fact, Philaster, in his excessive eagerness ta 
swell his list of heresies, has included many 
items which must be struck out unless we 
count every erroneous opinion as a heresy; 
and when he has completed his list of heretical 
sects called after their founders, he adds a 
long list of anonymous heresies, apparently 
setting down all the theological opinions with 
which he disagreed, and branding those who 
held them as heretics. Thus those are set 
down as heretics who imagined, as many 
excellent Fathers did, that the giants of Gen. 
vi. 2 were the offspring of angels (c. 108); 
thought that any uncertainty attached to the 
calculation of the number of the years since 
the creation of the world (c. 112); denied the 
lurality of heavens (c. 94) or asserted an 
nfinity of worlds (c. 115), or imagined that 
there are fixed stars, being ignorant that the 
stars are brought every evening out of God's 
secret treasure-houses, and as soon as they 
have fulfilled their daily task are conducted 
back thither again by the angel who directs 
their course (c. 133). It is to be feared he 
regards those as heretics (c. 113) who call the 
days of the week by their heathen names, 
instead of the scriptural names first day, 
second day, etc. ; and some of his transcribers 
have rebelled on being asked to write down 
those as heretics who believe (c. 154) that the 
ravens brought flesh as well as bread to Elijah, 
who surely would never have used animal 
food. But it is not true that all heresies 
enumerated by Philaster, but unnoticed by 
Epiphanius, are such as can be thus accounted 
for. When Augustine, at length yielding to 
his correspondent’s request, wrote a short 
treatise on heresies, he first gives an abstract 
of the 60 post-Christian heresies discussed by 
Epiphanius, and then adds a list of 25 more 
from Philastrius, remarking that this author 
gives others also, but that he himself does not 
regard them as heresies. 
he relation between Philaster and Epiph- 
anius is important because of the theory of 
Lipsius, now generally accepted [see Hirroty- 
tus], that both writers drew from a common 
source, namely, the earlier treatise of Hippoly- 
tus against heresies. To establish this theory 
it is necessary to exclude the supposition of a 
direct use of Epiphanius by Philaster, which 
might seem the more obvious way of account- 
ing for coincidences between the two. 
It is chronologically possible for Philaster 
to have read the omer. of Epiphanius which 
appeared in 376 or 377. At what period of 


840 PHILASTER 

his life Philaster’s work was written we cannot 
tell. The notes of time in it are confusing. 
He, or his transcriber, places his own date 
(c. 106) over 400 years after Christ, and (c. 
112) about 430. In c. 83 he speaks of the 
Donatists, “‘ qui Parmeniani nunc appellantur 
a Parmenione quodam qui eorum nuper 
successit erroribus et falsitati.”’ Parmeni- 
anus became Donatist bp. of Carthage c. 368, 
and died in 391; and the ‘‘nuper”’ would lead 
us to think that Philaster wrote early in this 
episcopate. But the form Parmenio, if not 
a transcriber’s error, seems to shew that 
Philaster knew little of African affairs. Lip- 
sius suggests that Philaster mentions Praxeas 
and Hermogenes as African heretics (c. 54), 
because he got their names from Tertullian. 
Philaster’s anonymous heresy (c. 84) seems 
plainly identified by Augustine (Haer. 70) 
with Priscillianism, the breaking out of which 
is dated in Prosper’s Chronicle a.p. 379. But 
Philaster’s silence as to the name Priscillian 
seems to indicate an earlier date. 

However, the complete independence of his 
treatment shews that Philaster did not use 
the work of Epiphanius. Eager as he was to 
swell his list of heresies, he does not mention 
the Archontici, Severiani, Encratitae, Pepu- 
ziani, Adamiani, Bardesianistae, and others, 
with whom Epiphanius would have made him 
acquainted; and in the discussion of all 
heresies later than Hippolytus, which are 
common to Epiphanius and Philaster, the two 
agree neither in matter nor in order of ar- 
rangement. Hence Lipsius inferred that the 
agreements as to earlier heresies must be 
explained by the use of a common source. 
This also accounts for a striking common 
feature, viz. the enumeration by both of pre- 
Christian heresies. Hegesippus (see Eus. 
H. E. iv. 22) had spoken of seven Jewish sects 
(τῶν ἑπτὰ αἱρέσεων) and had given their 
names; and it would seem from the opening 
of the tract of Pseudo-Tertullian that Hip- 
polytus began his treatise by declining to 
treat of Jewish heresies. His two successors 
then might easily have been tempted to 
Improve on their original by including pre- 
Christian heresies. 

Concerning the N.T. canon, Philaster states 
(c. 88) that it had been ordained by the 
apostles and their successors that nothing 
should be read in the Catholic church but the 
law, the prophets, the Gospels, the Acts of 
the Apostles, 13 Epistles of St. Paul, and the 
seven other epistles which are joined to the Acts 
of the Apostles. The omission of the Apoc- 
alypse and Hebrews seems intended only to 
exclude them from public church reading. 
In c. 60 he treats as heretical the denial that 
the Apocalypse is St. John’s, and in c. 69 the 
denial that the Ep. to the Hebrews is St. 
Paul’s. He accounts for difficulties as to the 
reception of the latter as arising from its 
speaking of our Lord as ‘“‘ made”’ (c. iii. 2), 
and from the apparent countenance given to 
Novatianism in vi. 4; x. 26. Consequently the 
public reading of this epistle is not universal : 

(leguntur] tredecim epistolae ipsius, et ad 
Hebraeos interdum.” 

The first printed ed. of Philaster appeared 
at Basle in 1539; the most noteworthy subse- 
quent edd. are by Fabricius in 1721, containing 


PHILIPPUS 


an improved text and a valuable commentary, 
and by Galeardus in 1738, giving froma Corbey 
MS. now in St. Petersburg chapters on six 
heresies, omitted in previous eds., but which 
arerequired to make the total of 156 mentioned 
by St. Augustine. This complete text has 
been reprinted by Oehler in his Corpus 
Haeresiologum, vol. i. The latest ed. is by 
F. Marx, in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. 
(Vienna, 1898). See also Zahn, Gesch. der 
N.T. Kanons (1890), ii. τ, Ρ. 233. [G.s.] 
Philippus (1), of Tralles, asiarch at the time 
of the martyrdom of Potycarp. The historic 
reality of this Philip has been confirmed by an 
inscription found at Olympia, and Lightfoot 
(Ignatius, i. 613) printed two new inscriptions 
relating to him, and also by means of his full 
name, Caius Julius Philippus, there given, 
has assigned to him three other previously 
known inscriptions. Philip is thus proved to 
have been a well-known man of great wealth 
and munificence. Lightfoot (u.s.) shews that 
the date of his tenure of office indicated by 
these inscriptions is quite reconcilable with 
the date, otherwise determined, of Polycarp’s 
martyrdom, without need of recourse to the 
perfectly admissible supposition, that Philip 
held the office of asiarch more than once. 
Concerning the office, see Lightfoot, ii. 990, 
where it is shewn that the holder was “ high- 
priest of the province of Asia’’ and his tenure 
of office to be probably four years. [6.5.] 
Philippus (5), ‘‘the Arabian,’ emperor, a 
native of Bostra in Trachonitis and a man 
of low birth. Having been made pretorian 
prefect he supplanted the younger Gordian 
in the affections of the soldiers, and caused 
him to be deposed and put to death in Mar. 
244. After making peace with Sapor the 
Persian king, he proceeded to Rome. In 248 
the games to commemorate the thousandth 
anniversary of the foundation of Rome were 
celebrated with great splendour. In the 
summer of 249 Philip was defeated by Decius 
near Verona and slain. The authorities for 
his reign are most meagre and conflicting. 
The only thing that makes it important is 
the report that he was the first Christian 
emperor. The chief foundation for this is the 
narrative which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 34) gives 
without vouching for its truth, namely, that 
Philip being a Christian wished at Easter to 
join in the prayers with the congregation, but 
that on account of the many crimes he had 
committed the bishop of the place refused to 
admit him until he had confessed and taken 
his place among the penitents, and that he 
willingly obeyed. The name of the bishop is 
supplied by Leontius, bp. of Antioch c. 348 
(quoted in Chron. Pasch. 270, in Migne, Patr. 
Gk. xcii. 668), who says it was St. Babylas 
of Antioch. We are also told that Origen 
wrote to Philip and the empress (Eus. H. E. © 
vi. 36), but the letters are not preserved, nor 
do we know their contents. St. Jerome also 
(Chronicon and de Vir. Ill. 54) calls Philip the 
first of all Christian emperors, in which he is 
followed by Orosius ; and Dionysius of Alex- 
andria (Eus. H. E. vii. 10) speaks of emperors 
before Valerian who were reputed to be 
Christians, but does not mention names. 
Against this doubtful testimony must be set 
the following: (1) Constantine is called by 


PHILIPPUS 


Eusebius (Vit. Cons. i. 3) the first Christian 
emperor. (2) No event, except his alleged 
penitence at Antioch, is recorded of Philip 
that implies he was a Christian. (3) He 
celebrated the millennial games with heathen 
rites. (4) He deified his predecessor, and was 
himself deified after death. (5) No heathen 
writer mentions that he was a Christian. (6) 
A year before Decius issued his edict against 
the Christians, and therefore while Philip was 
still reigning, a violent persecution had broken 
out at Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 41), which 
would not have been allowed to go on had the 
emperor really been a Christian. It seems, 
therefore, safer to conclude with Clinton 
(Fasti Rom. ii. 51) that Philip was not a 
Christian. Is there, then, any foundation for 
the story of Philip and St Babylas? Philip 
may very possibly have been at Antioch at 
Easter, A.D. 244, on his return to Rome after 
Gordian’s death, and perhaps feeling remorse 
for the way he had treated Gordian and 
believing that Babylas was able to purify him 
from his guilt, may have made some applica- 
tion to him, and this may be the origin of the 
story; but it seems impossible to say with 
any certainty what parts of it, if any, are 
genuine and what fictitious. Philip was the 
first emperor who tried to check the grosser 
forms of vice at Rome (Lampridius, V. Helio- 
gabali, 31; V. Severt, 23), though his efforts 
were unsuccessful (Victor, de Caesartbus, c. 28). 
Zosimus, i. 18-22; Vita Gordiani Terlit, cc. 
28-33; Tillem. Mém. eccl. iii. 262; Gibbon, 
cc. 7, 10, 16. [F.D.] 
Philippus (6), bp. of Heraclea in Thrace and 
martyr in the Diocletian persecution c. 304 
with Severus, a presbyter, and Hermes, a 
deacon. His Acts present one of the most 
vivid and minute pictures we possess of that 
persecution, and are often quoted by Le Blane 
in his Actes des Martyrs—e g. pp. 12, 41, 52, 
54, etc.. where many incidental marks of 
authenticity are pointed out. The various 
steps in the persecution can be clearly traced, 
the arrest of the clergy, the seizure and de- 
struction of the sacred writings and vessels, 
and finally the torture and death of the mar- 
tyrs. Philip was arrested and examined by 
a president Bassus, who then committed him 
to the free custody of one Pancratus (c. vii.). 
Bassus was soon succeeded by a certain Jus- 
tinus, who was much more stern towards the 
Christians than his predecessor, whose wife 
was a Christian. After some time Justinus 
brought them to Adrianople, and there burned 
Philip and Hermes on the same day (Ruinart, 
Acta Sincera, p. 4.42). [ο.τ.5.} 
Philippus (9), of Side, an ecclesiastical 
historian at the commencement of 5th cent., 
a native of the maritime town of Side in 


Pamphylia, the birthplace of Troilus the} 


sophist, whose kinsman he was proud of 
reckoning himself. We find Philip at Con- 
stantinople enjoying the intimacy of Chry- 
sostom, by whom he was admitted to the 
diaconate. Tillemont says that he was the 
imitator of Chrysostom’s eloquence rather 
than of his virtues, and that the imitation was 
a very poor one. On the death of Atticus, 
A.D. 425, by whom he had been ordained 
presbyter, Philip was a candidate for the 
vacant see, and found a number of influential 


PHILO Sil 


supporters (Socr. H. EF. vil. 27). The prefer- 
ing of Sisinnius caused him extreme mortifi- 
cation, which he exhibited in his Christian 
History, introducing a violent tirade against 
the character both of elected and electors, 
more gh ng the lay supporters of 
Sisinnius. The bitterness and rashness of the 
charges are noticed by Socrates, who thought 
them undeserving mention in his history (9. 
26). Philip, when again a candidate, both 
after the death of Sisinnius, a.p. 428 and on 
the deposition of Nestorius in 431, had a con- 
siderable and energetic following (ἐν. vii. 20, 
35), but was unsuccessful, and died a pres- 
byter. His chief work, entitled A Chris- 
tian History, was divided into τὸ books and 
about a thousand chapters. It ranged from 
the creation to his own times. Except one 
or two fragments, the whole is lost. The 
descriptions of it given by Socrates (#). 27) 
and Photius (Cod. 35) shew that its loss is not 
to be regretted on literary grounds. Socrates 
describes it as a medley of theorems in geome- 
try, astronomy, arithmetic, and music, with 
descriptions of islands, mountains, and trees, 
and other matters of little moment. The 
chronological order of events was constantly 
disregarded. Photius’s estimate is equally 
low: ‘diffuse; neither witty nor elegant; 
full of undigested learning, with very little 
bearing on history at all, still less on Christian 
history.” A fragment relating to the school 
of Alexandria and the succession of the 
teachers has been printed by Dodwell at the 
close of his dissertations on Irenaeus (Oxf. 
1689). Of this Neander writes: ‘‘ The known 
untrustworthiness of this author; the 
discrepancy between his statements and other 
more authentic reports, and the suspicious 
condition in which the fragment has come 
down to us, render his details unworthy of 
confidence" (Ch. Hist. vol. ii. p. 460, Clark's 
trans.). Another considerable fragment is 
reported to exist in the Imperial Library at 
Vienna, entitled de Christi Nativitate, εἰ de 
Magis, giving the acts of a disputation held 
in Paste concerning Christianity between 
certain Persians and Christians, at which 
Philip was himself present. Tillem. Mém. ecel. 
xii. 431; Hist. des empereurs, vi. 130; Cave, 
Hist. Lat. i. 395; Fabric. Bibl. Graee. vi. 
112, lib. v. c. 4, § 28. fev) 
Philo (2), deacon. Among the proofs of the 
genuineness of the Ignatian letters ([Ionatius)} 
is the fact that we obtain a thoroughly con- 
sistent story on piecing together scattered 
notices about obscure persons. Thus two 
deacons are mentioned, Philo from Cilicia and 
Rheius Agathopus from Syria (Philadelph. ti., 
Smyrn. τὸ, 13). We find that these deacons 
had not started with Ignatius, but had followed 
afterwards, taking the same route; that at 
Philadelphia, where Ignatius himself had 
encountered heretical opposition, some had 
treated them also with contumely ; that they 
| had been too late to overtake the saint at 
Smyrna, but had been kindly entertained i 
‘the church there. Finally, they were wit 
| Ignatius at Troas, and from them doubtless 
| he received the joyful news of the peace which 
the church of Syria had obtained since his 
departure. The clearness with which the 
whole story comes out from oblique inferences 


842 PHILOGONIUS 


is evidence that we have here a true history 
(Lightfoot’s Ignatius, i. 334, ii. 279). 

It was no doubt the mention in the genuine 
epistles of this Philo from Cilicia that sug- 
gested to Pseudo-Ignatius to forge a letter in 
the name of the martyr to the church of Tar- 
sus, and to specify that city as the place where 
Philo served as deacon. [G.s.] 

Philogonius, bp. of Antioch, 22nd in suc- 
cession, following Vitalis c. 319. He affords 
an example of a layman, a husband, and a 
father being raised at once, like Ambrose at 
Milan, to the episcopate of his city. He had 
been an advocate in the law courts, and gained 
universal esteem by his powerful advocacy of 
the poor and oppressed, ‘‘ making the wronged 
stronger than the wronger.’’ The few facts 
known of his history are gathered from a 
homily delivered at Antioch by Chrysostom 
on his Natalitia (Chrys. Orat. 71, t. v. p. 507, 
ed. Savile). Chrysostom comments upon the 
great difficulties (δυσκολία!) Philogonius met 
with at the commencement of his episcopate 
from the persecution which had so recently 
ceased, and says that his highest eulogy is the 
pure and flourishing condition in which he 
left the church. The earliest ecclesiastical 
building in Antioch, ‘‘ the mother of all the 
churches in the city,’’ traditionally ascribed 
to apostolic times, the rebuilding of which had 
been begun by Vitalis, was finished by him 
(Theod. H. E. i. 3). He was denounced by 
Arius as one of his most determined oppo- 
nents (7b. 5). He was succeeded by Paulinus, 
the Arianizing bp. of Tyre, c. 323. Heiscalled 
Philonicus by Eutychius (p. 431), who assigns 
him 5 years of office (Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. vi. 
p- ΤῊ Neale, Patr. of Ant. p. 84). [Ἑ.ν.] 

Philostorgius, a Cappadocian, born c. 368, 
and author of a church history extending from 
300 to 425. The greater part has perished, 
but some fragments have been preserved by 
Photius. They were published by Godefrid 
at Geneva in 1642, and by Valesius, with a 
Latin trans. and notes, at Paris in 1673. An 
English trans. by Walford appeared in 1855. 
Photius regarded both author and book with 
worse than contempt. The style he allows to 
be sometimes elegant, though more frequently 
marked by stiffness, coldness, and obscurity. 
The contents he treats as unworthy of reliance, 
often beginning his extracts by denouncing 
the author as an ‘‘enemy of God,’ an 
“impious wretch,’ an ‘‘impudent liar.” 
Even Gibbon, naturally inclined as he was to 
accept the statements of a heretic in preference 
to those of an orthodox theologian, is com- 
pelled to allow that ‘‘ the credibility of Philos- 
torgius is lessened, in the eyes of the orthodox, 
by his Arianism; and, in those of rational 
critics, by his passion, his prejudice, and his 
ignorance”’ (Hist. c. xxi.). Gibbon thinks 
that he appears to have obtained ‘‘ some 
curious and authentic intelligence’ (c. xxv.), 
yet was marked in making use of it by “‘ cau- 
tious malice ”’ (c. xxiii.). These unfavourable 
opinions are shared by Tillemont (Hist. vol. iv. 
p- 281), and, though with some just expres- 
sions as to what might have been the value 
of his history had it been preserved, by Jortin 
(Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 122) and Schréckh (vol. 
i. p. 148). All existing evidence leads to the 
belief that the history of Philostorgius was 


PHILOXENUS 


less a fair statement of what he had seen and 
known than a panegyric upon the heretics of 
his time. [w.M.] 
Philoxenus (4) (Xenaias), a conspicuous 
leader of the Monophysites at the beginning 
of 6th cent. He shares with Severus of 
Antioch, the true scientific head of the pre- 
viously leaderless party of the Acephali, the 
reputation of having originated the Jacobite 
form of Monophysitism, which was long 
supreme in Egypt and is still adopted by the 
Copts. Our knowledge of Philoxenus comes 
almost exclusively from his theological 
opponents, against whom he was engaged in a 
determined and not very scrupulous warfare. 
Much that is stated to his discredit admits 
of reasonable doubt. Some stories we may 
absolutely reject. We know him as an acute 
dialectician, a subtle theologian, and a zealous 
and uncompromising champion of the unity 
of the nature of Christ against what he re- 
garded as the heresy of the two natures, and 
as one to whose desire for a faithful rendering 
of N.T. the church is indebted for what is 
known as the ‘‘ Philoxenian Syriac Version.”’ 
We soon find him in Syria, where, having 
accepted the Henoticon and the Twelve 
Chapters of Cyril, he proved an active op- 
ponent of all Nestorianizers and a zealous 
propagator of Monophysite views in the coun- 
try villages round Antioch. Calandio, the 
patriarch of Antioch, expelled him from 
his diocese. He was recalled by Peter the 
Fuller, who ordained him bp. of Hierapolis 
(Mabug) in place of the more orthodox Cyrus, 
c. 485. During Peter’s turbulent rule Philo- 
xenus actively supported his measures for 
suppressing the Nestorianizing section of the 
church and establishing Eutychian or Mono- 
physite doctrines in his patriarchate and 
generally in the East. The accession in 498 
of the vacillating Flavian to the throne of 
Antioch, and his change of front from opposi- 
tion to support of Chalcedon, led Philoxenus 
to adopt a more active line of conduct (Evagr. 
H. E. iii. 31), pursuing Flavian with untiring 
animosity, endeavouring to force him to 
accept the Henoticon, on his refusal denounc- 
ing him as a concealed Nestorian, demanding 
that he should repudiate not only Nestorius 
but all who were regarded as sympathizing 
with him, Diodorus, Theodorus, Theodoret, 
and many others, repeatedly denouncing him 
to the emperor Anastasius, and at last accom- 
plishing his deprivation and expulsion. [FLa- 
VIANUS OF AnTIOcH.] In pursuance of his 
object Philoxenus more than once visited 
Constantinople. The first time was at the 
summons of Anastasius, A.D. 507. His 
arrival caused a great disturbance among the 
clergy, laity, and monastic bodies. To con- 
sult the peace of the city, the emperor was 
compelled to remove him secretly (Theophan. 
p. 128; Victor. Tunun. sub. ann. 499). Un- 
able in any other way to secure the deposition 
of Flavian and his supporter Elias of Jeru- 
salem, Philoxenus obtained from Anastasius 
an order for convening a synod ostensibly to 
define more exactly the points of faith, but 
really to remove the two obnoxious prelates. 
This synod of about 80 bishops met at Sidon 
early in 512, under the joint presidency of 
Philoxenus and Soterichus of the Cappadocian 


PHILOXENUS 


Caesarea. Feeling ran so high and so much 
endangered the public peace that the synod 
was broken up by the emperor's command 
without pronouncing any sentence (Labbe, iv. 
1413; Theophan. p. 131; Wit. 5. Sab. ap. 
Coteler, Mon. Eccl. Graec. iii. 297 ff.). In the 
subsequent proceedings, when rival bodies of 
monks poured down from the mountain 
ranges into the streets of Antioch, and were 
joined by different parties among the citizens, 
converting the city into a scene of uproar and 
bloodshed (Evagr. H. E. iii. 32), Philoxenus 
was left practically master of the field. 
Flavian was banished, and the Monophysite 
Severus, the friend and associate of Philo- 
xenus, was put in his place towards the close 
of 512 (ἐδ. 111. 33). The triumph of Philo- 
xenus, however, was but short. In 518 
Anastasius was succeeded by the more 
orthodox Justin, who immediately on his 
accession, declaring himself an adherent of 
Chalcedon, restored the expelled orthodox 
bishops and banished the heterodox. Philo- 
xenus is said to have been banished to Philip- 
popolis in Thrace (Asseman. Bibl. Orient. 1i. 
19; Theophan. p. 141; Chron. Edess. 87), 
and thence to Gangra in Paphlagonia, where 
he died of suffocation by smoke (Bar-heb. ii. 
56). He is commemorated by the Jacobites 
in their liturgy as a doctor and confessor. 
The Syriac translation of N.T. known as 
the ‘‘ Philoxenian Version,’”’ subsequently 
revised by Thomas of Harkel, in which form 
alone we possess it, was executed in 508 at 
his desire by his chorepiscopus Polycarp 
(Moses Agnellus, ap. Asseman. Bibl. Ortent. 
ii. 83; 1b. i. 408). It is extremely literal ; 
“the Syriac idiom is constantly bent to suit 
the Greek, and everything is in some manner 
expressed in the Greek phrase and order ”’ 
(Westcott in Smith’s D. B. vol. iii. p. 1635 B). 
Philoxenus and Severus were the authors 
of the dominant form of Monophysite doctrines 
which, while maintaining the unity of the 
natures of Christ, endeavoured to preserve a 
distinction between the divine and the human. 


This doctrine is laid down in eight proposi- | 


tions at variance with the tenets of the early 
Christians, whom he stigmatized as Phan- 
tasiasts. Christ was the Son of Man, t.e. Son 
of the yet unfallen man, and the Logos took 
the body and soul of man as they were before 
Adam’s fall. The very personality of God the 
Word descended from heaven and became 
man in the womb of the Virgin, personally 
without conversion. Thus He became a man 
Who could be seen, felt, handled, and yet as 
God He continued to possess the spiritual, 
invisible, impalpable character essential to 
Deity. Neither the deity nor the humanity 
was absorbed one by the other, nor converted 
one into the other. Nor again was a third 
evolved by a combination of the two natures 
as by chemical transformation. They taught 
one nature constituted out of two, not simple 
but twofold, ula φύσις σύνθετος, or μία φύσις 
διττή. The one Person of the Incarnate Word 
was not a duality but a unity. The same Son 
Who was one before the Incarnation was 
equally one when united to the body. In all 
said, done, or suffered by Christ, there was 
only one and the same God the Word, Who 
became man, and took on Himself the condi- 


PHOCAS 843 


tion of want and suffering, not naturally but 
voluntarily, for the accomplishment of man's 
redemption. It followed that God the Word 
suffered and died, and not merely a bod 
distinct from or obedient to Him, or in aw | 
He dwelt, but with which He was not one. 
Their view as to the personal work of Christ 
is briefly summed up in the Theopaschite 
formula, ‘‘unus ὁ Trinitate descendit de 
coelo, incarnatus est, crucifixus, mortuus, 
resurrexit, ascendit in caclum." Philoxenus 
held that “ potuit non mori,"’ not that “ non 
potuit mori."’ It followed that he affirmed 
a single will in Christ. In the Eucharist he 
held that the living body of the living God 
was received, not anything belonging to a 
corruptible man like ourselves. He was 
decidedly opposed to all pictorial representa- 
tions of Christ, as well as of all spiritual 
beings. No true honour, he said, was done 
to Christ by making pictures of Him, since 
His only acceptable worship was that in spirit 
and in truth. To depict the Holy Spirit as a 
dove was puerile, for it is said economically 
that He was seen in the likeness, not in the 
body, of a dove. It was contrary to reason 
to represent angels, Se spiritual beings, 
by human _ bodies. e acted up to these 
opinions and blotted out pictures of angels, 
removing out of sight those of Christ (Joann. 
Diaconus, de Eccl. Hist. ap. Labbe, vii. 369). 
He was a very copious writer, and described 
by Assemani as one of the best and most 
elegant in the Syrian tongue (Bibl. Orsent. 
i. 475; ii. 20). Assemani gives a catalogue 
of 23 of his works. To these may be added 
13 homilies on Christian life and character 
(Wright, 764); 12 chapters against the 
holders of the Two Wills (ἐδ. 730, 749); τὸ 
against those who divided Christ (#5. 730). 
Evagr. H. E. iii. 31, 32 ; Theod. Lect. fragm. 
p. 569; Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 115, 128, 
129, 131, 141; Labbe, iv. 1153, vii. 55, 368 ; 
Tillem. Mém. eccl. xvi. 677-681, 701-706; Nean- 
der, H. E. iv. 255, Clark's trans. ; Gieseler, 
H. E. ii. 94; Schréckh, Kirch. Geschich. xviii. 
526-538; Dorner, Person of Christ, div. ii. 
vol. i. pp. 133-135, Clark's trans. {z.v.] 
Ph of Sinope, a celebrated martyr, of 
whom very little is actually known and whose 
real date is uncertain. Combefis places his 
martyrdom in the last years of Trajan, but 
Tillemont considers a later persecution, 
either that of Decius or that of Diocletian, 
more probable. Our sole knowledge of Phocas 
is from an oration in his honour by Asterius 
of Amasea. He states that Phocas was an 
honest and industrious gardener at Sinope, 
a convert to Christianity, and exceedingly 
hospitable to strangers. Being denounced as 
a Christian and sentenced to death, a party 
of soldiers was despatched to Sinope to carry 
the sentence into execution. Phocas hospit- 
ably entertained them, and on discovering 
their mission forbore to escape, as he might 
easily have done, and, on their asking b 
where they could find Phocas, made himself 
known to them and was at once decapitated. 
His trunk was buried in a grave he had dug 
for himself, over which a church was subse- 
quently built. His relics were so fruitful in 
miracles that he obtained the name of Than- 
maturgus. His body was transferred to 


844 PHOTINUS 


Constantinople with great magnificence in 
the time of Chrysostom, who delivered a 
homily on the occasion (Hom. 71, t. i. p. 775). 
A monastery was subsequently built on the 
spot, in which his relics were deposited, the 
abbats of which are often mentioned in early 
times (Du Cange, Constant. Christ. lib. iv. 
p- 133). Gregory Nazianzen mentions Phocas 
as a celebrated disciple of Christ (Carm. 52, 
t. li. p. 122). That he was bp. of Sinope is a 
late invention. Some of his relics were said 
to be translated to the Apostles’ Church at 
Vienne. He was the favourite saint of the 
Greek sailors, who were in the habit of making 
him a sharer at their meals, the portion set 
apart for him daily being purchased by some 
one, and the money put aside and distributed 
to the poor on their arrival at port. He is 
commemorated by the modern Greeks on 
two days, July 22 and Sept. 22. The former 
day may be that of his translation les: 
Μέρη. eccl. v. 581). [E.v.] 
Photinus, a Galatian, educated by Mar- 
cellus of Ancyra and afterwards deacon and 
presbyter of his church, perhaps too (during 
the time when Marcellus, expelled from his 
own see, A.D. 336, Was wandering about 
between Rome and Constantinople) trans- 
ferred to the see of Sirmium. He made no 
secret of the doctrines he had imbibed from 
his master, and succeeded in obtaining a 
hearing forthem. The Eusebians at Antioch, 
in their lengthiest formula, three years after 
the Encoenia, were the first to attack him, 
classing him with his preceptor. He was next 
attacked at Milan, then the imperial capital ; 
by the same party soon after at Sardica 
(D. C. A. “Councils of Milan ᾿᾿ and ‘‘Councils 
of Sirmium’’); and two years later another 
and larger synod decreed his deposition. 
Moderns are not agreed where this synod met, 
but St. Hilary, beyond any reasonable doubt, 
fixes it at Sirmium (Fragm. ii. n. 21; οἵ. 
Larroque, Diss. i. de Phot. pp. 76 seq.), being 
the first of the councils held there, a.p. 349 
(Larroque says 350). Constantius being 
absent when sentence was first passed on 
Photinus in his own city, the popularity he 
had gained there stood him in good stead, in 
spite of his avowed opinions, which Socrates 
tells us he would never disclaim. He re- 
mained in possession till 351, when a second 
council having assembled there by order of 
the emperor, then present in person, he was 
taken in hand by Basil, the successor of his 
master at Ancyra, and having been signally 
refuted by him in a formal dispute, was put 
out of his see forthwith. Hefele thinks he 
may have regained it under Julian for a short 
time, but was again turned out under 
Valentinian, to return no more; and dates 
his death a.pD. 366 (Cownce. ii. 199). For a 
collection of authorities on the chronological 
difficulties in connexion with his history, see a 
note to Hefele’s Councils (Oxenham’s trans. 
ii. 188-189). [E.S.FF. ] 
Photius, bp. of Tyre, and metropolitan, 
elected on the deposition of Irenaeus, Sept. 9, 
448. Heis unfavourably known for cowardly 
tergiversation in the case of IBAs of Edessa. 
Under the powerful influence of Uranius of 
Himera, he and his fellow-judges first acquitted 
Ibas at Tyre and Berytus, and the next year 


PINIANUS 


at the “ Robber Synod ”’ of Ephesus zealously 
joined in his condemnation (Martin, Le Bri- 
gandage d’Ephése, pp. 118-120, 181). At the 
same synod he accused Acylinus, bp. of Byblos, 
of Nestorianism and with refusing to appear 
before him and Domnus, the real ground 
of offence being manifestly that he had been 
appointed by Irenaeus. On Photius’s state- 
ment alone Acylinus was at once deposed. 
Photius at the same time undertook to clear 
Phoenicia of all clergy tainted with Nestori- 
anism (Martin, w.s. p. 183; Actes du bri- 
gandage, pp. 86-89). With easy versatility 
Photius took his place among the orthodox 
prelates at Chalcedon, regularly voted on the 
right side, signed the decisions of the council, 
voted for the restoration of Theodoret to his 
bishopric, presented a résumé of the pro- 
ceedings at Berytus favourable to Ibas, and 
signed the 28th canon conferring on Constan- 
tinople the same primacy, πρεσβεῖα. as that 
enjoyed by Rome (Labbe, iv. 79, 328, 373, 
623, 635, 803). At the same time, after asic 
senting a petition to Marcian (7b. 541), 
obtained a settlement of the controversy bel 
tween himself and Eustathius of Berytus as 
to metropolitical jurisdiction, in favour of the 
ancient rights of the see of Tyre, together with 
a reversal of Eustathius’s act of deposition of 
the bishops ordained by Photius, within the 
district claimed by the former (1b. 542-546; 
Canon. Chalc. 29). Photius was no longer bp. 
of Tyre in 457, when Dorotheus replied to the 
encyclical of the emperor Leo. Labbe, iv. 
921; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 443; Ceillier, Aut. 
eccl. xiv. 271, etc.; Tillem. Mém. eccl. vol. xv. 
index ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. x. 678; Le Quien, 
Or. Christ. ii. 808). [E.v.] 
Pierius (Hierivs). An eminent presbyter 
of Alexandria, famous for voluntary poverty, 
philosophical knowledge, and public expo- 
sitions of Holy Scripture. He ruled the cate- 
chetical school of Alexandria under bp. 
Theonas, A.D. 265, and afterwards lived at 
Rome. He wrote several treatises extant in St. 
Jerome’s time, and some were known as late 
as that of Photius. One was a homily upon 
Hosea, which herecited on Easter Eve, wherein 
he notes that the people continued in church 
on Easter Eve till after midnight. Photius 
mentions a work on St. Luke’s Gospel as part 
of a volume by him, divided into 12 books. 
From his eloquence he was called the younger 
Origen. Photius declares that he was ortho- 
dox about the Father and the Son, though 
using the words substance and nature to 
signify person. But his manner of speaking 
about the Holy Ghost was unorthodox, be- 
cause he said that His glory was less than that 
of the Father and the Son. In the time of 
Epiphanius there was a church at Alexandria 
dedicated in his honour. Some have there- 


fore thought that he suffered martyrdom in 


Diocletian’s persecution. Eus. vii. 32; Hieron. 
Vir. Ill. c. 76; id. Ep. 75 al. 84, § 4, p. 429; 
id. Praefat.in Osee: Photius, Cod. 119; Niceph. 
Gall AE. vil 355" DuvPiny be ΒΑ. ΠῚ 
Ceillier, ii. 462 ; Tillem. Mém. iv. 582. [G.T.s.] 

Pinianus (2), the husband of Melania the 
younger. Palladius speaks of him as son of 
a prefect (Vit. Patr. 119). He and his wife 
entertained Palladius of Helenopolis when he 
came to Rome on Chrysostom’s affairs (Hist. 


--- 


o™- Oye 


PIONIUS 


They left Rome in 408, when the 
aric was impending. Melania the 


Laus. 121). 
siege by 


elder having died at Bethlehem, they inherited | Sincera, p. 
her vast estates. _ They were intent on doing | certainly 
good and are said to have liberated 8,000 | gives a « 


slaves (δ. 119). After the sack of Rome in 
410 they settled in Africa at Tagaste with bp. 
Alypius and desired to meet Augustine. 
immediately wrote to welcome them (Ep. 124), 
but was unable to come to them, so they went 
with Alypius to Hippo. There the strange 
scene, so instructive as to the church life of 
the period, occurred, which is recounted by 
Augustine (Ep. 126). The clergy and people 
of Hippo, knowing their wealth, determined 
that they should, by the ordination of Pini- 
anus, become attached to their church and 
city. A tumult was raised in the church, and 
though Augustine refused to ordain a man 
against his will, he was unable, or not firm 
enough, to resist the violence of the people, 
who extracted from Pinianus a promise that 
he would not leave Hippo nor be ordained in 
any other church. Next day, however, fear- 
ing further violence, he, with Melania and her 
mother Albina, returned to Tagaste. Some 
rather acrimonious correspondence ensued be- 
tween them and Augustine (Ep. 125-128). 
Alypius considered that a promise extorted by 
violence was not valid, Augustine demanded 
that it should be fulfilled; and the con- 
troversy lasted until, by the rapacity of the 
rebel count Heraclian, Pinianus was robbed 
of his property, and the people of Hippo no 
longer cared to enforce the promise. Being 
now free, though poor, Pinianus, with his wife 
and mother-in-law, went to Egypt, saw the 
monasteries of the Thebaid, and thence to 
Palestine, settling at Bethlehem. On the ap- 
pearance of the Pelagian controversy, their 
letters to Augustine induced him to write 
(A.D. 417) his book on grace and original sin. 
We only hear of Pinianus after this in a letter 
of Jerome in 419, in which he, Albina, and 


Melania, salute Augustine and Alypius. 
Hieron. Ep. cxliii. 2, ed. Vall.; Aug. de 
Grat. Christi, ii. and xxxii. [W.H.F.] 


Pionius, martyr at Smyrna, in the Decian 
persecution, Mar. 12, 250. It was probably 
this Pionius who revived the cultus of Pory- 
CARP in Smyrna, by recovering an ancient MS. 
martyrdom of that saint and fixing the day of 
commemoration in accordance with it. 

When taken to prison, Pionius and his 
companions, Asclepiades and Sabina, found 
there already another Catholic presbyter, 
named Lemnus, and a Montanist woman 
named Macedonia. The divisions of the 
Christian community were now well known to 
their persecutors for in the examinations of 
the martyrs those who owned themselves 
Christians were always further interrogated as 
to what church or sect they belonged. The 
Acts give a long report of exhortations de- 
livered by Pionius to his fellow-prisoners. 
With Pionius suffered a Marcionite presbyter 
Metrodorus, the stakes of both being turned 
to the east, Pionius on the right, Metro- 
dorus on the left. The Acts are important 
on account of their undoubted antiquity. We 
only know them by a Latin translation, of 
which two types are extant—one which seems 
more faithfully to represent the original, 


He. 


| 


Pius 1. 845 


ublished by Surius and reprinted by the Bol- 

andists (Feb. 1); the other by Ruinart (Ada 
137). The common original was 
read by Eusebius, who (H. &. iv. 14) 
escription of the Acts of Pionius which 
agrees too often with those extant for different 
Acts to be intended. Eusebius, however, 
represents Pionius as suffering at the same 
time as Polycarp, while the extant Acts place 
him a century later, a date attested by the 
Paschal Chronicle, which makes Pionius suffer 
in the Decian persecution, and confirmed by 
internal evidence. On the Life of Polycarp 
ascribed to Pionius, see Potycarr. Cf. Zabn, 
Forschungen sur Gesch. der N.T. Kanons, 
iv. 27%. [6.5.} 

Pius I., bp. of Rome after Hyginus in the 
middle part of 2nd cent. The dates cannot 
be fixed with certainty, the traditions bei 
contradictory. The Liberian Catalogue an 
the Felician both name Antoninus Pius (148. 
161) as the contemporary emperor, as does 
Eusebius (H. E. iv. τ. Lipsius (Chronol 
der rom. Bischéj.), after full discussion of the 
chronology, assigns from 139 to 154 as the 
earliest, and from 141 to 156 as the latest, 
tenable dates. The absence of distinct early 
records of the early Roman bishops is further 
shewn by the fact that both the Liberian and 
Felician Catalogues place Anicetus between 
Hyginus and Pius. So also Optatus (ii. 48) 
and Augustine (Ep. 51, ordo novus). But that 
the saat order was Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, 
may be considered certain from the authority 
of Hegesippus (quoted by Eus. H. Ε. iv. 22), 
who was at Rome himself in the time of 
Anicetus, and, when there, made out a suc- 
cession of the Roman bishops. Irenaeus, who 
visited Rome in the time of Eleutherus, gives 
the same order (adv. Haer. iii. 3; ef. Eus. iv. 
Ir; v.24; Epipb. adv. Haer. xxvii. 6). 

The episcopate of Pius is important for the 
introduction of Gnostic heresy into Rome 
The heresiarchs Valentinus and Cerdo had 
come thither in the time of Hyginus and con- 
tinued to teach there under Pius (Iren. i. 27, 
ii. 4; cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 11). Marcion of 
Pontus, who took up the teaching of Cerdo 
and developed from it his own peculiar system, 
arrived there after the death of Hyginus 
(Epiph. Haer. xlii. 1; cf. Bus. H. B. iv. rt). 

Pius, according to the MURATORIAN FRac- 
MENT (c. 170) and the Liberian Catalogue, was 
brother to Heras, the writer of the Shep- 
herd. Lipsius (op. cit.) considers this re- 
lationship established. Westcott (Canon of 
N.T. pt. i. c. 2) accepts it, and adduces in- 
ternal evidence in the work of Hermas itself. 

Those who maintain the view of the presby- 
terian constitution of the early Roman Poona ἃ 
and of the earliest so-called bishops having 
been in fact only leading presbyters, to whom 
a distinct episcopal ofhce was afterwards 
assigned by way of tracing the succession, 
would attribute the development of the 
later episcopal system to the age of Pius. 
Thus Lipsius speaks of him as the first 
bishop in the stricter sense (" Bischof im engeren 
Sinn"). He supposes both + ome and Pius 
to have presided over the college of presby- 
ters, though only as prims inter pares, and the 
need of a recognized head of the church to 
resist Gnostic teachers to have led to the 


846 PLACIDIA 


latter obtaining a position of authority which, 
after his time, became permanent. The ad- 
vocates of this view adduce passages from 
the Shepherd of Hermas, in which messages 
are sent in rebuke of strifes for precedence 
among the Christians at Rome (Vis. iii. 9; 
Mandat. ix. ; Simil. viii. 7). These strifes are 
assumed to denote the beginning of struggles 
for episcopal power in the supposed later sense. 
But there is no evidence in the passages of 
the strifes having anything to do with such 
struggles. [HERMAS.] 

More cogent is the fact that, in the account 
given by Epiphanius of Marcion’s arrival in 
Rome, he is represented as having applied for 
communion to the presbyters, without men- 
tion of the bishop. Those to whom he applied, 
and who gave judgment, are called “the 
seniors (πρεσβῦται), who, having been taught 
by the disciples of the apostles, still survived ”’ 
(adv. Haer. xlii. 1); also ‘“‘ the presbyters 
(πρεσβύτεροι) of that time’”’ (7b. c. 2); also 
ἐπιεικεῖς Kal πανάγιοι πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διδά- 
σκαλοι τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας. But these ex- 
pressions do not disprove the existence of ἃ 
presiding bishop, acting in and through his 
synod, who would himself be included in the 
designation πρεσβύτεροι. For it was not 
till some time after the apostolic period that 
the names ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος were 
used distinctively to denote two orders of 
clergy. Even Irenaeus, though enumerating 
the bishops of Rome from the first as distinct 
from the general presbytery, still speaks of 
them as presbyters; using in one place (iii. 2, 
2) the phrase ‘‘ successiones presbyterorum,”’ 
though in another (iii. 3, 1 and 2) ‘‘ succes- 
siones episcoporum.”’ Cf. iv. 26, 2, 3, 5; V: 
20,2; and Ep. ad Victorem (ap. Eus. v. 24) ; 
where the bishops before Soter are called 
πρεσβύτεροι ol προστάντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας. Ter- 
tullian also (Apol. c. 39) calls bishops and 
presbyters together seniores. Moreover, the 
omission by Epiphanius of any mention of a 
head of the Roman presbytery at the time of 
Marcion’s visit may be due to a vacancy in the 
see. For it is said to be after the death of 
Hyginus, with no mention of Pius having suc- 
ceeded. In such circumstances the college of 
presbyters would naturally entertain the case. 
Certainly very soon after the period before us, 
both Pius and his predecessors from the first 
were spoken of as having been bishops (how- 
ever designated) in a distinctive sense, and 
Anicetus, the successor of Pius, appears his- 
torically as such on the occasion of Polycarp’s 
visit to Rome (Iren. ap. Eus. H. E. v. 24). 

Four letters and several decrees are assigned 
to Pius, of which the first two letters (to all 
the faithful and to the Italians) and the 
decrees are universally rejected as spurious. 
The two remaining letters, addressed to 
Justus, bp. of Vienne, are accepted as genuine 
by Baronius, Binius, and Bona, but have no 
real claims to authenticity. [J-B—yY.] 

Placidia (1), empress. [GALLA.] 

Poemen (1), ([Ποιμήν, Pastor), a famous 
anchorite of Egypt. He retired very young 
into the monasteries of Scete c. 390, and con- 
tinued there 70 years, dying c. 460. His Life 
occupies much space in Rosweyd’s Vitae 
Patrum, v. 15, in Patr. Lat. t. lxxiii. and in 


POLYCARPUS 


Cotelerii Monum. Eccl. Graec. t. i. pp. 585-637« 
The anecdotes in the last-mentioned authority 
give the best idea of the man. He treated his 
aged mother with neglect, refusing to see her 
when she sought him. His solitary life des- 
troyed all feelings of human nature. His 
story is concisely told in Ceillier, viii. 468-470, 
and Tillemont, Mém. xv. 147. [α.τ.5.] 

Polycarpus (1), bp. of Smyrna, one of the 
most prominent figures in the church of the 
2nd cent. He owes this prominence less to 
intellectual ability, which does not appear to 
have been pre-eminent, than to the influence 
gained by a consistent and unusually long life. 
Born some 30 years before the end of the 1st 
cent., and raised to the episcopate apparently 
in early manhood, he held his office to the age 
of 86 or more. He claimed to have known at 
least one apostle and must in early life have 
met many who could tell things they had 
heard from actual disciples of our Lord. The 
younger generation, into which he lived on, 
naturally recognized him as a_ peculiarly 
trustworthy source of information concerning 
the first age of the church. During the later 
years of his life Gnostic speculation had be- 
come very active and many things unknown to 
the faith of ordinary Christians were put forth 
as derived by secret traditions from the 
apostles. Thus a high value was attached to 
the witness Polycarp could give as to the 
genuine tradition of apostolic doctrine, his 
testimony condemning as offensive novelties 
the figments of the heretical teachers. Ire- 
naeus states (iii. 3) that on Polycarp’s visit 
to Rome his testimony converted many dis- 
ciples of Marcion and Valentinus. Polycarp 
crowned his other services to the church by 
a glorious martyrdom. When, at the ex- 
tremity of human life, it seemed as if he could 
do no more for the church but continue his 
example of holiness, piety, and orthodoxy, a 
persecution broke out in which he, as the 
venerated head of the Christian community 
in Asia Minor, was specially marked out for 
attack. He gave a noble exhibition of calm 
courage, neither courting nor fearing martyr- 
dom, sheltering himself by concealment while 
possible, and when no longer so, resolutely 
declaring in defiance of threats his unshaken 
love for the Master he had served so long. 
Such a death, following on such a life, made 
Polycarp’s the most illustrious name of his 
generation in Christian annals. 

Irenaeus states (III. iii. 4) that Polycarp had 
been instructed by apostles and conversed 
with many who had seen Christ, and had also 
been established ‘‘ by apostles’’ as bishop in 
the church at Smyrna; and doubtless Tertul- 
lian (de Praescrip. 32) is right in understanding 
this to mean that he had been so established 
by St. John, whose activity in founding the 


episcopate of Asia Minor is spoken of also. 


by Clem. Alex. in his well-known story of St. 
John and the robber (Quits. div. Salv. p. 959)« 
The testimony of Irenaeus conclusively shews 
the current belief in Asia Minor during the 
old age of Polycarp, and it is certain that 
Polycarp was bp. of Smyrna at the time of the 
martyrdom of Ignatius, 1.6. c. 110. Ignatius, 
journeying from Antioch to Rome, halted first 
at Smyrna, where, as at his other resting- 
places, the Christians flocked from all around 


POLYCARPUS 


to receive his counsels and bestow attentions 
on him. From the city where he next halted 
he wrote separate letters to the church of 
Smyrna and to τ es 5 its bishop. A later 
Stage was og and to the church there 
Polycarp wrote afterwards a letter still extant, 
sending them copies of the letters of Ignatius 
and inquiring for information about Ignatius, 
the detailed story of whose martyrdom appears 
not yet to have reached Smyrna. 

The question as to the genuineness of the 
extant Ep. of Polycarp is very much mixed up 
with that of the genuineness of the Ignatian 
letters. The course of modern investigation 
has been decidedly favourable to the genuine- 
ness of the Ignatian letters [IGnatius], and 
the Ep. of Polycarp is eee per by ex- 
ternal testimony of exceptional goodness. It 
is mentioned by Polycarp'’s disciple Irenaeus 
(III. iii, 4), and an important passage is 
quoted by Eusebius. Further, as Lightfoot 
has conclusively shown (Contemp. Rev. May 
1875, Ρ. 840), it is impossible that Polycarp's 
letter and those of Ignatius could have had 
any common authorship. Some of the topics 
on which the Ignatian letters lay most stress 
are absent from that of Polycarp; in par- 
ticular, Polycarp’s letter is silent about 
episcopacy, of which the Ignatian letters 
speak so much, and it has consequently been 
thought probable either that episcopacy had 
not yet been organized at Philippi, or that the 
office was then vacant. The forms of ex- 
pression in the two letters are different ; N.T. 
quotations, profuse in Polycarp’s letter, are 
comparatively scanty in the Ignatian ones ; 
and, most decisive of all, the Ignatian letters 
are characterized by great originality of 
thought and expression, while Polycarp’s is but 
a commonplace echo of the apostolic epistles. 
When we compare Polycarp’s letter with the 
extant remains of the age of Irenaeus, the 
superior antiquity of the former is evident, 
whether we attend to their use of N.T., their 
notices of ecclesiastical organization, their 
statements of theological doctrine, or observe 
the silence in Polycarp’s letter on the questions 
which most interested the church towards the 
close of the 2nd cent. The question has been 
raised whether, admitting the genuineness of 
Polycarp’s epistle as a whole, we may not 
reject as an interpolation c. xiii., which speaks 
of Ignatius. The extant MSS. of Polycarp’s 
letter are derived from one in which the 
leaves containing the end of Polycarp’s letter 
and the beginning of that of Barnabas were 
wanting, so that the end of Barnabas seemed 
the continuation of Polycarp’s epistle. The 
concluding chapters of Polycarp are only 
known to us by a Latin translation. The 
hiatus, however, in the Greek text begins not 
at c. xiii. but at c. x.; and the part which 
speaks about Ignatius is exactly that for which 
we have the Greek text assured to us by the 
quotation of Eusebius. There is therefore ab- 
solutely no reason for rejecting c. xiii. unless 
on the supposition that the forgery of the 
Ignatian letters has been demonstrated. 

Though ning γὲ- ἜΝ is remarkable for 
its copious use of N.T. language, there are 
no formal quotations, but it is mentioned that 
St. Paul had written to the church of ee Ἢ 
to which Polycarp’s epistle is addressed. e 


POLYCARPUS 841 


language in which St. Paul's letters are spoken 
of, both here and in the epistles of Ignatius, 
d vely refutes the theory that there was 
gee between the schools of John and 

aul. It illustrates the small solicitude of 
Eusebius to produce testimony to the wee of 
N.T. books undisputed in his time, that 
though he notices (iv. 14) Polyearp’s use of 
I. Peter, he is silent as to this express mention 
of St. Paul's letters. Polycarp's Pauline quota- 
tions include distinct recognition of Eph. and 
I. and II. Tim., and other passages clearly shew 
a use of Rom., 1. Cor., Gal, Phil, IL. Thess. 
The employment of 1. Peter is especially fre 

uent. There is one unmistakable coinei- 
dence with Acts. The use of 1. and 1]. John 
is probable. The report of our Lord's sayings 
agrees in substance with our Gospels, but may 
or may not have been directly taken from 
them. The coincidences with Clement's 
epistle are beyond what can fairly be con- 


sidered accidental, and probably the celebrity 


gained by Clement's epistle set the example 
to bishops elsewhere of writing to fore 
churches. Polycarp states, however, that his 
own letter had been invited by the church of 
Philippi. Some church use of Polyecarp's 
epistle seems to have continued in Asia until 
Jerome's time; if we can lay stress on his 
rather obscure expression (Ca/al.) " epistolam 
— usque hodie in conventu Asiae legitur.” 

he chief difference between Clement's and 
Polycarp’s letters is in the use of the O.T., 
which is perpetual in the former, very rare in 
the latter. There is coincidence with one 
passage in Tobit, two in Ps., and one in Is. ; 
and certainly in one of the last 4 cases, possibly 
in all three, the adopted words are not taken 
directly from the O.T., but from N.T. This 
difference, however, is explained when we bear 
in mind that Clement had probably been 
brought up in Judaism, while Polycarp was 
born of Christian parents and familiar with 
the apostolic writings from his youth. 

Our knowledge of Polycarp's life between 
the date of his letter and his martyrdom comes 
almost entirely from 3 notices by κενά κι, 
The first is in his letter to Frominus; the 
second in the treatise on Heresies (IIT. ti. 4); 
the third in the letter of Irenaeus to Victor, of 
which part is preserved by Eusebius (v. 24). 
Irenaeus, writing in advanced life, tells how 
vivid his recollections still were of having 
been a hearer of Polycarp, then an old man ; 
how well he remembered where the aged bishop 
used to sit, his personal appearance, his — 
of going out and coming in, and how frequently 
he used to relate bis intercourse with Joba and 
others who had seen our Lord, and to repeat 
stories of our Lord's miracles and teaching, all 
in complete accord with the written record. 
The reminiscences of lrenacus are in striking 

cement with Polycarp'’s extant letter in their 
picture of his attitude towards heresy. He 
seems not to have had the qualifications for 
successfully conducting ἃ controversial dis 
cussion with erroneous teachers, nor perhaps 
the capacity for fecling the difficulties which 


rompted their speculations ; but he could not 
Pelp strongly feeling how unlike these ula- 
tions were to the doctrines he had learned 


from apostles and their immediate disciples, 
and so met with indignant reprobation theis 


848 POLYCARPUS 


attempt to supersede Christ’s gospel by fictions 
of their own devising. Irenaeus tells how, 
when he heard their impiety, he would stop 
his ears and cry out, ‘‘O good God! for what 
times hast Thou kept me that I should endure 
such things!’’ and would even flee from the 
place where he was sitting or standing when 
he heard such words. In so behaving he 
claimed to act in the spirit of his master John, 
concerning whom he told that once when he 
went to take a bath in Ephesus and saw 
Cerinthus within, he rushed away without 
bathing, crying out, ‘‘ Let us flee, lest the bath 
should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the 
truth, is within’’ ; and when Marcion meeting 
Polycarp asked him, ‘‘ Do you recognize us ? ”” 
he answered, ‘‘I recognize thee as the first- 
born of Satan.”’ This last phrase is found 
in the extant letter. He says, ‘‘ Every one 
who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has 
come in the flesh is antichrist ; and whosoever 
doth not confess the testimony of the Cross is 
of the devil; and whosoever perverteth the 
oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and saith 
that there is neither resurrection nor judg- 
ment, this man is a first-born of Satan.” 
This coincidence has, not very reasonably, 
been taken as a note of spuriousness of the 
letter; the idea being that a writer under 
the name of Polycarp who employs a phrase 
traditionally known as Polycarp’s betrays 
himself as a forger striving to gain acceptance 
for his production. It might rather have 
been supposed that a coincidence between 
two independent accounts of Polycarp’s mode 
of speaking of heretics ought to increase the 
credibility of both. Irenaeus, whoreports the 
anecdote, was acquainted with the letter, 
and, if we cannot accept both, it is more 
conceivable that his recollection may have 
coloured his version of the anecdote. 

One of the latest incidents in Polycarp’s 
active life was a journey which, near the close 
of his episcopate, he made to Rome, where 
Anicetus was then bishop. We are not told 
whether the cause of the journey was to settle 
points of difference between Roman and 
Asiatic practice; those existed, but did not 
interrupt their mutual accord. In particular 
Asiatic Quartodecimanism was at variance 
with Roman usage. We cannot say with 
certainty what kind of Easter observance was 
used at Rome in the time of Anicetus, for the 
language of Irenaeus implies that it was not 
then what it afterwards became; but the 
Asiatic observance of the 14th day was un- 
known in Rome, although Polycarp averred 
the practice of his church to have had the 
sanction of John and other apostles, and 
therefore to be what he could by no means 
consent to change. Anicetus was equally 
determined not to introduce into his church 
an innovation on the practice of his pre- 
decessors; but yet shewed his reverence for 
his aged visitor by ‘‘ yielding to him the 
Eucharist in his church.’’ This phrase seems 
capable of no other interpretation than that 
generally given to it, viz. that Anicetus per- 
mitted Polycarp to celebrate in his presence. 

The story of the martyrdom of Polycarp is 
told in a letter still extant, purporting to be 
addressed by the church of Smyrna to the 
church sojourning (παροικούσῃ) in Philome- 


POLYCARPUS 


lium (atown of Phrygia) and to all the παροικίαὶ 
of the holy Catholic Church in every place. 
This document was known to Eusebius, who 
transcribed the greater part in his Eccl. Hist. 
(iv. 15). A trans. of this and of Polycarp’s Ep. 
appears in the vol. of Apost. Fathers in Ante- 
Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). The occurrence 
of the phrase ‘‘ Catholic Church ’’ just quoted 
has been urged as a note of spuriousness ; 
but not very reasonably, in the absence of 
evidence to make it even probable that the 
introduction of this phrase was later than 
the death of Polycarp. We know for cer- 
tain that the phrase is very early. It is 
used in the Ignatian letters (Smyrn. 8), by 
Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii. 17), in the Mura- 
torian Fragment, by Hippolytus (Ref. ix. 12) 
and Tertullian. Remembering the warfare 
waged by Polycarp against heresy, it is highly 
probable that in his lifetime the need had 
arisen for a name to distinguish the main 
Christian body from the various separatists. 
The whole narrative of the martyrdom bears 
so plainly the mark of an eye-witness, that 
to imagine, as Lipsius and Keim have done, 
some one capable of inventing it a century 
after the death of Polycarp, seems to require 
great criticalcredulity. With our acceptance 
of the martyrdom as authentic Hilgenfeld 
(Zeitschrift, 1874, p. 334) and Renan (Eglise 
chrét. 462) coincide. We see no good reason 
to doubt that the narrative was written, as it 
professes to be, within a year of the martyr- 
dom, by members of the church where it 
occurred and who had actually witnessed it ; 
and we believe it to have been written spe- 
cially to invite members of other churches to 
attend the commemoration on the anniversary 
of the martyrdom. It is deeply tinged by a 
belief in the supernatural, but it is uncritical 
to cast doubts on the genuineness of a docu- 
ment on the assumption that Christians of the 
2nd cent., under the strain of a great perse- 
cution, held the views of their rgth-cent. 
critics as to the possibility of receiving super- 
natural aid or consolation. 

The story relates that Polycarp’s martyr- 
dom was the last act of a great persecution 
and took place on the occasion of games held 
at Smyrna, eleven others having suffered before 
him. These games were probably held in 
connection with the meeting of the Asiatic 
diet (τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ᾿Ασίας), which met in rota- 
tion in the principal cities of the province. 
If more information were available as to this 
rotation and as to the seasons when these 
meetings were held, we should probably be 
able to fix the date of Polycarp’s martyrdom 
with more certainty. The proconsul came 
from Ephesus, the ordinary seat of govern- 
ment, to preside. It may have been to pro- 
vide the necessary victims for the wild beast 
shows that the Christians were sought for 
(some were brought from Philadelphia) and’ 
required to swear by the fortune of the em- 
peror and offer sacrifice. The proconsul 
appears to have discharged his unpleasant 
duty with the humanity ordinary among 
Roman magistrates, doing his best to persuade 
the accused to save themselves by compliance, 
and no doubt employing the tortures, of which 
the narrative gives a terrible account, as a 
merciful cruelty which might save him from 


POLYCARPUS 


sa: to the last extremes. In one case 
is persuasion was successful. Quintus, a 
Phrygian by nation, who had presented him- 
self voluntarily for martyrdom, on sight of the 
wild beasts lost courage and yielded to the 
roconsul’sentreaties. The Christians learned 
m his case to condemn wanton courting of 
danger as contrary to the gospel teaching. 
The proconsul lavished similar entreaties on a 
youth named Germanicus, but the lad was 
resolute, and instead of shewing fear, pro- 
voked the wild beasts in order to gain a 
speedier release from his persecutors. The 
act may have been suggested by the language 
of Ignatius (Rom. v. 2); and certainly this 
language seems to have been present to the 
mind of the narrator. At sight of the 
bravery of Germanicus, a conviction seems to 
have seized the multitude that they should 
have rather chosen as their victim the teacher 
who had inspired the sufferers with their 
obstinacy. A cry wasraised, “Away with the 
atheists! Let Polycarp be sought for!" 
Polycarp wished to remain at his post, but 
yielded to the solicitations of his people and 
retired for concealment to a country house, 
where he spent his time, as was his wont, in 
continual prayer for himself and his own 
people and for all the churches throughout 
the world. Three days before his appre- 
hension he saw in a vision his pillow on fire, 
and at once interpreted the omen to his 
friends: ‘‘I must be burnt alive.”’ The 
search for him being hot, he retired to another 
farm barely escaping his pursuers, who seized 
and tortured two slave boys, one of whom 
betrayed the new place of retreat. Late on 
a Friday night the noise of horses and armed 
men announced the pursuers at hand. There 
seemed still the possibility of escape, and he 
was urged to make the attempt, but he re- 
fused, saying ‘‘ God’s will be done.’’ Coming 
down from the upper room where he had been 
lying down, he ordered meat and drink to be 
set before his captors and only begged an 
hour for uninterrupted prayer. This was 
granted; and for more than two hours he 
pores mentioning by name every one whom 
e had known, small or great, and praying for 
the Catholic church throughout the world. 
At length he was set on an ass and conducted 
to the city. Soon they met the irenarch 
Herod, the police magistrate under whose 
directions the arrest had been made, in whose 
name the Christians afterwards found one of 
several coincidences which they delighted to 
trace between the arrest of Polyearp and that 
of his Master. Herod, accompanied by his 
father Nicetes, took Polycarp to sit in his 
carriage, and both earnestly urged him to save 
his life: ‘‘ Why, what harm was it to say 
Lord Caesar, and to sacrifice, and so on, 
and escape all danger?” sh he at first 
silent, at last bluntly answered, ‘I will not 
do as you would have me."” Annoyed at the 
old man’s obstinacy, they thrust him out of 
the carriage so rudely that he scraped his shin, 
the marks no doubt being visible to his friends 
when he afterwards stripped for the stake. 
But at the time he took no notice of the hurt 
and walked on as if nothing had happened. 
At the racecourse, where the multitude was 
assembled, there was a prodigious uproar 


; forth that the flame 


POLYCARPUS s49 


but the Christians could distinguish a volee 
which cried, "" Be strong, Polycarp, and play 
the man!"' Under the protection of the 
tumult the speaker remained undiscovered ; 
and the Christians believed it a voice from 
heaven. The ger ye pressed Polycarp to 


have pity on his old age: ‘Swear by the 
fortune of Caesar, say ‘Away with the 
atheists!'"' The martyr, sternly lookin 


round on the assembled heathen, groaned, ar 
looking up to heaven said, “ Away with the 
atheists!" ‘Swear then, now," said the 
proconsul, “and I will let you go; revile 
Christ... Then Polycarp made the memorable 
answer, ‘‘ Eighty and six years have | served 
Him, and He has never done me wrong ; how, 
then, can I blaspheme my King and my 
Saviour!"" The 86 years must clearly count 
from Polycarp's baptism; so that if we are 
not to ascribe to him an improbable length of 
life, we must infer that he was the child of 
Christian parents and had been baptized, if 
not in infancy, in very early childhood. The 
magistrate continuing to urge him, Polye 
cut matters short by plainly declaring himself 
a Christian and offering, if a day were assigned, 
to explain what Christianity was. “ Obtain 
the consent of the people,” answered the pro- 
consul. ‘ Nay," replied Polycarp, “1 count 
it your due that I should offer my defence to 
because we have been taught to give due 
onour to the powers ordained of God; but as 
for these people, 1 owe no vindication to 
them.” The proconsul then had recourse to 
threats, but finding them unavailing, ordered 
his crier thrice to proclaim in the midst of 
the stadium, " Polycarp has confessed himself 
a Christian.” Then arose a furious outery 
from heathen and Jews against this “ father 
of the Christians,"’ this teacher of Asia, this 
destroyer of the worship of the gods. Philip 
the asiarch, or president of the games, was 
called on to loose a lion on Polycarp, but re- 
fused, saying the wild beast shows were now 
over. Then with one voice the multitude 
demanded that Polycarp should be burnt 
alive; for his vision must needs be fulfilled. 
Rushing to the workshops and baths the 
collected wood and faggots; the Jews, as usual, 
taking the most active part. We have evi- 
dence of the activity of the Jews at Smyrna at 
an earlier period, Rev. ii. 9, and at a later 
in the story of the martyrdom of Piontus. 
When the pile was ready Polycarp proceeded 
to undress himself ; and here the story has an 
autoptic touch, telling how the Christians 
marked the old man’s embarrassment as he 
tried to take off his shoes, it having been many 
years since the reverence of his disciples had 
permitted him to perform that office for him- 
self. When he had been bound (at his own 
request, not nailed) to the stake, and had 
offered up a final prayer, the pile was lit, but 
the flame bellied out under the wind like the 
sail of a ship, behind which the body could 
be seen, scorched but not consumed. The 
fumes seemed fragrant to the Christians, 
whether as the effect of imagination of be- 
cause sweet-scented woods had been seized for 
the hasty structure. Seeing that the flame 
was dying out, an executioner was sent in 
to use the sword, when so much blood gushed 
was nearly extinguished, 


δά 


850 POLYCARPUS 
The Christians were about to remove the body ; 
but Nicetes, here further described as the 
brother of Alce, interfered and said, ‘“‘ If you 
give the body, the Christians will leave the 
Crucified One and worship him,’’ anidea deeply 
shocking to the narrator of the story, who 
declares it was impossible for them to leave, 
for any other, Christ the Holy One Who died 
for the salvation of the world. Him, as the 
Son of God, they worshipped ; martyrs they 
loved on account of the abundance of their 
zeal and love for Him. The Jews eagerly 
backing up Nicetes, the centurion had the 
body placed on the pyre and saw it com- 
pletely’ consumed, so that it was only the 
bones, ‘ ‘more precious than jewels, more tried 
than gold,” which the disciples could carry 
off to the place where they meant on the anni- 
versary to commemorate the martyr’s “ birth- 
day.” The epistle closes with a doxology. 
Euarestus is named as the writer; Marcion 
[or Marcianus] as the bearer of the letter. 
Then follows by way of appendix a note, 
stating that the martyrdom took place on the 
2nd of the month Xanthicus, the 7th before 
the calends of March [there is a various 
reading May], on a great sabbath at the 8th 
hour; the arrest having been made by|ja 
Herod; Philip of Tralles being chief priest, 
Statius Quadratus proconsul, and Jesus Christ 
King for ever. A second note states that 
these Acts were transcribed by Socrates (or 
Isocrates) of Corinth, from a copy made by 
Caius, a companion of Polycarp’s disciple 
Irenaeus. A third note states that this again 
had been transcribed by Pionius from a copy 
much decayed by time, the success of his 
search for which was due to a revelation made 
by Polycarp himself, ‘‘ as will be shewn in 
what follows,’’ from which we infer that the 
martyrdom was followed by a Life of Polycarp. 
The first chronological note may be accept- 
ed as, if not part of the original document, at 
least added by one of its first transcribers, 
and therefore deserving of high confidence. 
The name of the proconsul Statius Quadratus 
indicates best the date of the martyrdom. 
Eusebius in his chronicle had put it in the 6th 
year of Marcus Aurelius, 7.e. A.D. 166. M. 
Waddington (Mémoires de l Académie des 
Inscriptions, 1867, Xxvi. 235) shewed that 
Eusebius’s date was doubtful. Eusebius 
seems to have had no real knowledge of the 
date, and to have put it down somewhat 
at random, for he places Polycarp’s martyr- 
dom and the Lyons persecution under the 
same year, though the Lyons martyrdoms 
were aslateas177. At this time the ordinary 
interval between the consuiship and procon- 
sulate ranged between 12 and 16 years. 
Quadratus we know to have been consul a.p. 
142. We are at once led to reject Eusebius’s 
date as placing the inadmissible interval of 
24 or 25 years between the consulship and 
proconsulate. Waddington made out a prob- 
able case for A.D. 155, and an additional argu- 
ment appears decisive. The martyrdom is 
stated to have taken place on Sat. Feb. 23, 
and among the possible years 155 is the only 
one in which Feb. 23 so fell. The reading of 
this chronological date is not free from 
variations. The ‘‘ great sabbath’’ would in 
Christian times be thought to mean the Sat. 


POLYCARPUS 


in Easter week, and as Easter could not occur 
in Feb. there was an obvious temptation to 
alter Mar. into May, but none to make the 
opposite change, and we have independent 
knowledge that Feb. 23 was the day on which 
the Eastern church celebrated the martyr- 
dom. But we do not know why Feb. 23 
should be a “‘ great ’’ sabbath. We believe 
the true explanation to be that the Latin date 
in this note is not of the same antiquity as the 
date by the Macedonian month. Probably 
Pionius, when he recovered the very ancient 
copy of the martyrdom, translated the date 
znd Xanthicus into one more widely intelli- 
gible and thus determined the date of sub- 
sequent commemorations. We accept, then, 
the 2nd Xanthicus as an original note of time 
faithfully preserved by a scribe who did not 
understand its meaning, because he inter- 
preted according to the usage of his own day. 
When we have abandoned the date Sat. Feb. 
23 we lose one clue to fixing the exact date of 
the martyrdom, but we gain another. Since 
Nisan 2nd was Sat. the year must be one in 
which that lunar month commenced on a 
Friday. Theonlysuch years within the neces- 
sary limits were 155 and 159, and 155 again 
agrees best with the usual interval between 
consulship and proconsulate. The date Apr. 8, 
which A.D. 159 would require, is likely, more- 
over, tobetoolate. The chief difficulty raised 
by the date 155 is that if we adopt it the chron- 
ology of the Roman bishops obliges us to put 
Polycarp’s visit in the last year of his life and 
the first of the episcopate of Anicetus. 
For the literature connected with Polycarp 
see bp. Lightfoot’s ed. of Ignatius and Poly- 
carp. An ed. of Polycarp’s remains by ἃ. 
Jacobsonis in Patr. A post. (Clar. Press, 2 vols.). 
A small popular treatise on St. Polycarp by 
B. Jackson is pub. by S.P.C.K. Cf. also Zahn, 
Forschungen, iv. 249; Harnack, Gesch. der 
Alt.-Chr. Lat. 1897 (ii. 1, 334). [G.s.] 
Polyearpus (5). Moyses of Aghel (c. 550), in 
a Letter to Paphnutius prefatory to his Syriac 
version of the Glaphyra of Cyril of Alexandria, 
prepares his readers to find variations from 
the Peshitto in Cyril’s citations of Scripture 
after the Greek, by referring them to ‘‘ the 
translation of the N.T. and of David into 
Syriac’’ from the Greek, which ‘‘ the Chor- 
episcopus Polycarpus made for Xenaias 
[Philoxenus] of Mabug”’ (Assem. ii. p. 82; 
see also Dr. Ign. Guidi in Rendiconti della R. 
Academia dei Lincet, 1886, p. 397). Now we 
know from Gregory Bar-hebraeus (Prooem. in 
Horr. Mystt.) that, “‘ after the Peshitto, the 
N.T. was more accurately translated again 
from the Greek at Mabug im the days of 
Philoxenus.’’ The same facts are stated in a 
note purporting to be written by THOMAS OF 
HARKEL in 616, appended in slightly varying 
forms to many MSS. of the version of the 
N.T. known as the Harklensian, one of which 
(Assem. xi., now Cod. Vat. 268) is probably 
(Bernstein, Das Heil. Evang. des Joh. p. 2) of 
the 8th cent. In this MS., and others, the 
note gives also the date of this Philoxenian 
version, A.D. 508. In all of them it proceeds 
to describe the Harklensian version as based 
on this—in fact a revision of it ; and the same 
description in more direct terms is given by 
Bar-hebraeus in two places in his Chronicon 


POLYCARPUS 


Eccl. (i. 49, ii. 22; Assem. ii. pp. 334, 411). 
We may safely infer that this earlier version 
was made by the Polycarp named by Mo 
(and by no other writer) at the instance of his 
bishop, Philoxenus, the great Monophysite 
leader (485-522). The aim of Philoxenus in 
having the version made was probably, as the 
remark of Moyses suggests, to enable Syriac- 
speaking Monophysites to read the Scriptures 
as they were read by those Greek Fathers 
whom he owned as authorities and by their 
Greek-speaking brethren within the Antioch- 
ene Patriarchate. It does not appear that the 
translation shewed, or was ever impugned as 
shewing, a doctrinal bias. 

Of the Philoxenian N.T. as it was before 
Thomas of Harkel revised it, we only know with 
certainty the few small fragments of St. Paul 
recovered by Wiseman from the margin of his 
MS. of the Karkaphensian Syriac, and pub. 
by him in Horae Syriacae (p. 178, n. 11). 

It seems highly probable that we have a 
considerable portion of this original Philoxe- 
nian, in the version of the four minor Catholic 
Epistles (II. Peter, II. and III. John, gor on 
not included in the Peshitto though printe 
with it in the Polyglotts and in most Syriac 
New Testaments—first published by Pococke 
(1630) from a MS. of no great age (Bodl. Or. 
119). These four Epistles in the version in 
question are found also in a few Paris MSS. 
(see Zotenberg’s Cafal.), in one (formerly 
Wetstein’s) at Amsterdam, in Lord Craw- 
ford’s MS. in the Cambridge MS. (Oo. i. 1, 2), 
and in several MSS. in Brit. Mus.; one of 
which, Add. 14623 (7), written 823, is the oldest 
extant copy of this version. It is included 
also in the ‘‘ Williams MS.” of the N.T. 
Epistles, whence Prof. Hall issued it in 
photographic facsimile. This version is dis- 
tinct from the Harklensian rendering of the 
same Epistles, which, however, though more 
servilely exact and grecised, is unmistakably 
founded on it. As then we have in this ver- 
sion the unmistakable basis of the Harklen- 
sian, and as the Harklensian is known to have 
been a revision of the Philoxenian, the iden- 
tity of this version with the Philoxenian 
proper (as distinguished from the Philoxenian 
usually so-called, viz. the Harklensian revi- 
sion) follows. We have then the materials 
for judging of Polycarp’s merits as a trans- 
lator, and we find reason to estimate them 
highly. The translation is in the main 
accurate and close without being servile. Dr. 
Scrivener (Intro. to N.T. p. 646, ed. 3) justly 
describes it as one which “ well deserves 
careful study .. . of great interest and full of 
valuable readings,”’ siding as it does frequently 
with the oldest Greek uncials. Here also we 
have material to determine the mutual rela- 
tion between his work and Thomas's revision 
of it, and we conclude that the latter work 
is not (as has been taken for granted by many) 
a merely corrected re-issue of the earlier one, 
with merely linguistic alterations in the text 
and variants inserted on its margin; but is 
substantially a new version, proceeding on the 
lines of the former, but freely quitting them 
when the translator saw fit. 

We are not informed what O.T. books were 
included in the work of Polycarp. ΜΟΥ 
mentions only his version of the Psalrms, 


POLYCHRONIUS 851 


which is lost. But we have conclusive evid- 
ence that a Philoxenian Isaiah also existed ; 
for a rendering of Is. ix. 6, differing from the 
Hexapla and from the Hebrew, but closel 

πον ng with a reading found in several MSS. 
of the LXX. (Holmes's 22, 16, 48, $1, 62, 90, 
93, 106, 147, 233), is inserted on the margin 
of the Ambrosian Syro-Hexapla (8th cent.), 
and is there introduced as being “ from the 
other text which was rendered into Syriac by 
the care of Philoxenus, bp. of Mabug," the 
word being the same as in the first citation 
(above) from the Chron. Eccl, of Bar-hebracus. 
That the LXX. was in the hands of Syriac 
writers and translators before the time of 
Philoxenus is certain. Yet internal evidence 
conclusively proves that the Hebrew and not 
the LXX. is the main basis of the Peshitto 
Psalter. [j.ow.] 

Polychronius (4), brother of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia and bp. of Apamea on the Orontes 
in Syria Secunda. He belonged to a wealthy 
family of position at Antioch, and the literary 
character of his remains indicates that his 
early education was liberal and many-sided. 
A Polychronius was among the correspondents 
of Libanius (Epp. 27, 207, 228, etc.), but that 
he was the same is more than doubtful. That 
our Polychronius fell more or less directly 
under the influence of Diodore seems certain. 
Polychronius was probably younger than 
Theodore ; at any rate his consecration as bp. 
was some ten years the later. In the see of 
Apamea he must have followed Agapetus, who 
succeeded Marcellus a.p. 398 (Theod. H. Ε. 
v. 27; Hist. Relig. § 3). e was still wane 4 
when his brother died, a.p. 428 (cf. Theod. 
H. E. v. 40). But within the next three years 
he had died or otherwise vacated the see, for 
in the records of the council of Ephesus 
Alexander is bp. of Apamea (Mansi, iv. 1245, 
1270). Both Le Quien (Oriens Christ. ii. 911) 
and Gams (Series Episc. p. 436) strangely 
omit Polychronius from their lists of the 
bps. of Apamea. The testimony of Theo- 
doret, however, is unequivocal, and is that of 
the contemporary bishop of a neighbouring 
see. The city of Apamea was raised by 
Theodosius Il. to metropolitan rank (Joh. 
Malal. Chronogr. xiv. ; Migne, Pair. Gh. xevii. 
543) and the see attained a corresponding 
dignity. In the history of the church, how- 
ever, the name of ot thes ἐς occupies a 
comparatively insignificant place. Our know- 
ledge of himis drawn almost exclusively from 
the scanty encomiums of Theodoret re-echoed 
by Cassiodorus and Nicephorus. We must be 
content to learn that, as bishop, he was 
characterized by the excellence of his rule, 
grace of oratory, and conspicuous purity of 
life (Theod. H. E. v. 40; cf. Cassiod. Hist. 
Tripart. x. 34; Niceph. xiv. 30). 

It has been generally assumed that the bp. 
of Apamea is identical with the recluse of the 
same name in Theodoret'’s Keligtous History 
(§ 24). But such evidence as we possess 
points in an opposite direction. 

As a disciple of the school of Antioch, Poly- 
chronius would naturally apply himself to 
Biblical exegesis. No traces occur of any 
comments by him on N.T., but the catenae 
teem with scholia upon O.T. bearing his name. 
The following have been ascribed to him: (1) 


852 POLYCRATES 


Scholia on the Pentateuch in the catena of 
Nicephorus. (2) Prologue and fragments of 
a commentary on Job. (3) Scholia on the 
Proverbs. (4) A MS. exposition of Eccle- 
siastes, said to be preserved in several Euro- 
pean libraries. (5) Scholia on the Canticles. 
(6) Scholia on Jeremiah. (7) An exposition 
of Ezekiel, cited by Joannes Damascenus 
(De Imag. iii.; Migne, Patr. Gk. xciv. 1380, 
Πολυχρονίου ἐκ τῆς εἰς τὸν ᾿Ιεζεκιὴλ ἑρμηνείας). 
This work happily survives in an almost com- 
plete form, and has been published by Mai 
(Nov. Patr. Bibl. vii. p. 2, pp. 92 seq.). (8) 
A commentary on Daniel, quoted in gth cent. 
by Nicephorus (Pitra, Spic. Solesm. i. p. 352). 
Of these remains the scholia on Proverbs, 
Canticles, and Jeremiah are of more than 
doubtful genuineness. Those on Proverbs 
and Canticles are in some MSS. ascribed to 
““Polychronius the Deacon,’”’ and all these 
collections are characterized by a partiality 
for allegorical and mystical interpretations 
quite alien to the instincts of the Antiochenes. 
The style of Polychronius has been described 
(Bardenhewer, Polychronius, p. 36) as clear 
and concise, contrasting favourably with the 
loose and complex manner of his brother 
Theodore, a criticism which agrees with the 
verdict of Theodoret (supra). As an ex- 
positor Polychronius follows the _historico- 
grammatical method of his school, condemn- 
ing expressly the Alexandrian tendency to 
convert history into allegory. ‘‘ His manner 
of exposition is scholarly and serious, breath- 
ing at the same time an air of deep piety.” 
So Mai, who points out the fulness of historical 
illustration in his commentary on Daniel. 
His comments are based (the book of Daniel 
excepted) on the LXX., but he calls in the 
aid of Symmachus and Theodotion ; and the 
frequency of his references to the Hebrew, as 
well as the remarkable fragment on the 
“Obscurity of Scripture’’ among the extant 
fragments of his commentary on Job, shew 
some acquaintance with that language. With 
regard to the canon, Polychronius assumes 
an independent attitude. Against his brother 
he stoutly maintains the historical character 
of the narrative of Job, but discriminates 
between the Heb. Daniel and the Greek addi- 
tions, refusing tocomment upon the Song of the 
Three Children as not being in the original. 
Of his doctrinal standpoint little can be 
learnt from his published remains. His 
temper was not controversial, and he has no 
place in the history of polemical theology— 
a circumstance which has saved him from the 
stigma of heterodoxy, but consigned his life and 
works to comparative obscurity. [Η.8.5.] 
Polyerates (1), bp. of Ephesus in the last 
decade of 2nd cent. When Victor of Rome 
sought to unify the practice of the whole 
Christian world in the matter of Easter 
celebration, he first asked for meetings of 
bishops in different places to report on the 
practice of their localities. This request was 
made in the name of his church, as we learn 
from the use of the plural in the reply of 
Polycrates. From every other place, as far 
as we can learn, the answer was that they 
celebrated the feast of our Lord’s Resur- 
rection on no other day than Sunday; but 
Polycrates, writing in the name of the bishops 


PONTIANUS 


of Asia, declared that they had preserved 
untampered the tradition to celebrate only on 
the 14th day of the month, the day when the 
Jewish people put away their leaven. He 
appeals to the authority of the great lumin- 
aries which the Asian church could boast, and 
whose bodies lay among them, Philip, one of 
the twelve apostles, and his three daughters, 
John, who lay on our Lord’s breast, a priest 
Who wore the πέταλον, Polycarp of Smyrna, 
Thraseas of Eumenia, Sagaris, Papirius, 
Melito, all of whom had observed the 14th day, 
according to the Gospel, walking according to 
the rule of faith. Polycrates himself had 
followed the traditions of his kindred, seven 
of whom had been bishops before him, and 
had been confirmed in his view by his own 
study of the whole Scripture and by conference 
with brethren from all the world. Although 
his letter bore no signature but his own, he 
claims that it had received the assent of a 
great number of bishops (Eus. H. E. v. 24). 
For the sequel see IRENAEUS. [G.s.] 
Pomponia Graecina, one of the earliest and 
most distinguished Roman converts. Tacitus 
(Annals, xiii. 32) tells us, referring to A.D. 57 or 
58, that Pomponia Graecina, a distinguished 
lady, wife of the Plautius who returned from 
Britain with an ovation, was accused of some 
foreign superstition and handed over to her 
husband’s judicial decision. Following an- 
cient precedent, he heard his wife’s cause in 
the presence of kinsfolk, involving, as it did, 
her legal status and character, and reported 
that she was innocent. She lived a long life 
of unbroken melancholy. After the murder 
of Julia, Drusus’s daughter, by Messalina’s 
treachery, for 40 years she wore only the attire 
of a mourner. For this, during Claudius’s 
reign, she escaped unpunished, and it was 
afterwards counted a glory to her. This is 
the only notice of her in ancient literature. 
She came into prominence through De Rossi's 
discoveries in the catacomb of Callistus (Roma 
Sotterranea, ii. 360-364). De Rossi identified 
her with St. Lucina (cf. Aubé, Htst. des perséc. 
t.i.p. 180). Cf. for other notices Brownlow 
and Northcote’s Roma Sott. t. i. pp. 82, 83, 
278-282. De Rossi (op. cit. t. i. pp. 306-351) 
discusses the crypt and family of St. Lucina 
at great length (cf. also his Bullettino di 
Archeol. Crist. passim). (G.T.S.] 
Pontianus (3), bp. of Rome from July (?) 21, 
230, to Sept. 28, 235. These dates, given in 
the Liberian Catalogue, are probably correct, 
though later recensions of the Pontifical give 
them differently. The same record states 
that he was, with Hippolytus a presbyter, 
banished to Sardinia, which it describes as 
‘“nociva insula,” implying possibly that he 
was sent to the mines there. His banishment 
doubtless took place under Maximinus, who 
succeeded Alexander after the assassination 
of the latter in May 235. The date, Sept. 28 
235, was probably that of his deprivation only. 
His only episcopal act of which anything 
needs to be said is his probable assent to the 
condemnation of Origen by Demetrius of 
Alexandria. Jerome (Ep. ad Paulam, xxix. 
in Benedict. ed.; Ep. xxxili. in ed. Veron.) 
says of Origen: ‘‘ For this toil what reward 
did he get? He is condemned by tne bp. 
Demetrius. Except the priests of Palestine 


ἐξ - 


PONTITIANUS 


Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia, the world 
consents to his condemnation. Rome herself 
assembles a senate [meaning apparently a 
synod) against him."" The condemnation of 
Origen by Demetrius being supposed (though 
not with certainty) to have been c. 231, the 
Roman bishop who assembled the synod was 
most probably Pontianus. Two spurious 
epistles are assigned to him. Sarak 
Pontitianus, a soldier, perhaps of the prae- 
torian guard, an African by birth and a 
Christian, who indirectly contributed much 
towards the conversion of St. Augustine, who 


relates in his Confessions how one day, while | 


he was at Milan with Alypius, Pontitianus 
came, as it seemed by accident, to visit his 
countrymen, and found on the table a book 
containing the writings of St. Paul, and having 
expressed some surprise, informed the friends 
that he was a Christian and constantly prayed 
to God both in public worship and at home. 
The conversation then turned upon Anthony 
the Egyptian monk, of whose history Ponti- 
tianus knew much more than they did. He 
told them how, when he was at Tréves, in 
attendance on the emperor, with three com- 
rades he went to the public gardens. Having 
separated, two of them met again at the 
dwelling of a recluse, and found there an 
account of St. Anthony, which one read to the 
other until he was stirred to relinquish his 
military life and enlist in the service of God 


as a monk, and prevailed on his companion | 


to join him. Pontitianus and the fourth 
member of the party coming up, the other 
two endeavoured to persuade them to follow 
their example, but without success. They 
returned to the palace while the disciples of 
St. Anthony remained behind. We hear no 
more of Pontitianus; for the sequel see 
AvuGUSTINE (Aug. Conf. viii. 6, 7). [H.w.P.] 
Pontius (2), Mar. 8, a deacon of Carthage. 
We know him only from his Vita Cypriant, 


prefixed to all editions of St. Cyprian’s works. | 


He was chosen by Cyprian to accompany him 
into exile to Curubis (cc. xi. and xii.; cf. 
Dodwell’s Dissertationes Cyprianicae, iv. 21). 
The Vita is evidently an authentic record. 


Its style is rugged, and in places very obscure ; 


yet presents all internal marks of truth and 
antiquity. It uses all the correct technical 
terms of Roman criminal law, and refers to 
all the usual forms observed in criminal trials. 
Jerome, in his Liber de Vir. Ill. c. 68, describes 
the Vita of Pontius as ‘ egregium volumen 
vitae et passionis Cypriani.”’ [ο.τ.5.} 
Porphyrius (4), patriarch of Antioch, a.p. 
404-413, succeeded Flavian (Socr. H. E. vii. 9), 
and is described in the dialogue which goes 
under the name of Palladius as a man of in- 
famous character, who had disgraced the 
clerical profession by intimacy with the scum 
of the circus (Pallad. Dial. p. 143). Although 


his character was notorious, by his cleverness | 


and adroit flattery he obtained considerable 
influence with the magistrates, and gained 
the confidence of some leading bishops of the 
province. Flavian’s death having occurr 
almost contemporaneously with Chrysostom's 
exile, it became vitally important to the anti- 
Flavian cabal to have the vacant throne of 
Antioch filled with a man who would carry 
out their designs for the complete crushing 


PORPHYRIUS a3 


| of Flavian's adherents. Porphyry was chosen. 
Be clear the field Constantius, the trusted 
friend of Chrysostom, whom the people of 
| Antioch marked out as Flavian's successor, 
| Was accused at Constantinople as a disturber 
of the ublic peace. By his powerful influence 
_ with the party then dominant about the court, 
| Porphyry obtained an imperial reseript 
banishing Constantius to the Oasis. Constan- 
tius anticipated this by fleeing to Cyprus (4s. 
.145). Porphyry then managed to get into his 
| hands Cyriacus, Diophantus, and other pres- 
| byters of the orthodox party who were likely 
to be troublesome, and seized the opportunity 
of the Olympian festival at Antioch, when the 
population had poured forth to the spectacles 
;of Daphne, to lock himself and his three 
| consecrators, Acacius, Antiochus, and Sever- 
ianus, whom he had kept hiding at his own 
|house, with a few of the clergy, into the 
chief church, and to receive consecration at 
| their hands. The indignant Antiochenes next 
morning attacked the house of Porphyry, 
| Seeking to burn it over his head. The influ- 
ence of Porphyry secured the appointment of 
a savage officer as captain of the oity guards, 
who by threats and violence drove the people 
to the church (ἐδ. 147). Forewarned of his 
real character, pope Innocent received Por- 
phyry’s request for communion with silence 
(ἐδ. 141). Porphyry was completely deserted 
by the chief clergy and all the ladies of 
rank of Antioch, who refused to approach his 
church and held their meetings clandestinely 
(tb. 149). In revenge Porphyry obtained a 
decree, issued by Arcadius Nov. 18, 404, 
sentencing all who refused communion with 
Arsacius, Theophilus, and Porphyry to be 
expelled from the churches, and instructing 
the governor of the province to forbid their 
holding meetings elsewhere (Soz. H. EF. viii. 
24; Cod. Theod. 16, τ. iv. p. το). His efforts 
to obtain the recognition of the Antiochenes 
proving fruitless, while Chrysostom’s spiritual 
power in exile became the greater for all his 
efforts to crush it, Porphyry’s exasperation 
drove him to take vengeance on Chrysostom. 
|'Through his machinations and those of 
Severianus, orders were issued for the removal 
of Chrysostom from Cucusus to Pityus, during 
the execution of which the aged saint's 
troubles ended by death (Pallad. Dial. p. 97). 
Porphyry’s own death is placed by Clinton 
| (Fast. Rom. ii. 552) in 413 (cf. Theod. H. &. 
ἀπ. 5). He was succeeded by Alexander, Ὁ 

| whom the long distracted church was united. 
\It is a misfortune that the chief and almost 
‘only source for the character of Porphyry is 
τῆς violent pamphlet of Palladius, whose 
j}warm partisanship for Chrysostom unduly 
| blackens all his opponents, and refuses them 
la single redeeming virtue. That Porphyry 
was not altogether the monster this author 
represents may be concluded from the state- 
ment of the calm and amiable Theodoret, that 
he “left behind him" at Antioch “ many 
memorials of his kindness and of his remark- 


| 


ed | able prudence "' (Theod. H. &. ν. 55), as well 


}as by a still stronger testimony in his favour 
ἴῃ Theodoret's letter to Dioscorus, when he 
calls him one “ of blessed and holy memory, 
who was adorned both with a brilliant lite 
}and an acquaintance with divine doctrines " 


854 PORPHYRIUS 


(Theod. Ep. 83). Fragments of a letter 
addressed to Porphyry by Theophilus of 
Alexandria, recommending him to summon a 
synod, when some were seeking to revive the 
heresy of Paul of Samosata, are found in 
Labbe (Concil. p. 472). [E.v.] 
Porphyrius (5), bp. of Gaza, A.D. 395-420. 
According to his biographer Mark, he was 
born at Thessalonica c. 352, of a good family. 
His parents were Christians, and took care to 
have him instructed in the Scriptures as well 
as in secular learning. When about 25 he 
retired to the desert of Scete in Egypt, which, 
at the end of 5 years, he left for Jerusalem, 
and passed another 5 years in a cavern near 
the Jordan. A painful disease, brought on 
by his austerities, compelled him to revisit 
Jerusalem, where he made the acquaintance 
of Mark, who became his devoted disciple and 
companion. By Porphyry’s desire Mark 
visited Thessalonica, and turned the proceeds 
of Porphyry’s share of his paternal property 
into money, the whole of which, on his re- 
turn, Porphyry distributed to the poor and to 
various monasteries, supporting himself by 
manual labour. About his 4oth year he 
reluctantly received ordination from John, 
bp. of Jerusalem, who committed to his 
guardianship thesacred relic of the True Cross. 
After a presbyterate of three years, in 395 on 
the death of Aeneas he with still greater re- 
luctance became bp. of Gaza, being consecrated 
by John of Caesarea, who had sent for him on 
the pretext of consulting him on some scrip- 
tural difficulty. The people of Gaza were 
then almost all pagan, and the position of a 
zealous Christian bishop was one of no small 
difficulty and even danger. The cessation of 
a severe drought at the beginning of the 2nd 
year of his episcopate, Jan. 326, was attributed 
to his prayers and those of the Christians, and 
caused the conversion of a number of the 
inhabitants. This was succeeded by other 
conversions, arousing great exasperation 
among the heathen population, which vented 
itself in a severe persecution. Porphyry 
endured their ill-treatment with the utmost 
meekness. At the same time he despatched 
his deacon Mark and his minister Borocas to 
Constantinople, who, through the powerful 
advocacy of Chrysostom, obtained the em- 
peror’s order to destroy the idols and close the 
temples. This was carried out by an imperial 
commissioner, who, however, it was asserted, 
was bribed to spare the principal idol named 
Marnas, and to wink at the entrance of the 
worshippers into the temple by a secret pas- 
sage. To these events Jerome refers in a 
letter to Laeta (Hieron. Ep. vii. p. 54). The 
idolaters still remained the dominant section, 
and were able to shut out Christians from all 
lucrative offices and to molest them in the 
enjoyment of their property. Porphyry took 
this so much to heart that he exhorted his 
metropolitan, John of Caesarea, to allow him 
toresign. John consoled him, and went with 
him to Constantinople to obtain an order for 
the demolition not of the idols alone, but of 
the temples themselves, arriving Jan. 7, 401. 
Chrysostom was then high in the empress 
Eudoxia’s favour, and their suit was success- 
ful. The bishops reached Majuma, the port of 
Gaza, on May 1, and were followed in ten 


POSSIDIUS 


days by a commissioner named Cynegius, 
accompanied by the governor and a general 
officer with a large body of troops, by whom 
the imperial orders for the destruction of the 
temples were executed. In ten days the whole 
were burnt, and finally the magnificent temple 
of Marnas, and on the ground it occupied the 
foundations of a cruciform church were laid 
according to a plan furnished by Eudoxia, 
who also supplied the funds for its erection. 
The church was 5 years building, and was 
dedicated by Porphyry on Easter Day, 405 
or 406, being called ‘‘ Eudoxiana”’ after its 
foundress. Jerome refers to its erection 
(Hieron. in Esaiam, xvii. 1. vii. t. v. p. 86). 
The heathen population, irritated at the 
destruction of their sacred buildings and at 
the spread of Christianity in Gaza, raised a 
tumult, in which several Christians were 
killed, and Porphyry himself barely escaped 
with his life. We may certainly identify him 
with one of the two bishops of his name who 
attended the anti-Pelagian synod at Diospolis 
in 415 (Aug. in Julian. lib.i. c. 15). He died 
Feb. 26, 419 or 420. He is said to have been 
indefatigable in instructing the people of Gaza 
in a simple and popular style, based entirely 
on Holy Scripture. Migne, Pair. Lat. xlv. pp. 
1211 ff.; Ceillier, Aut. eccl. vi. 329; Tillem. 
Mém. eccl. x. pp. 703-716. [E.v.] 
Possidius, bp. of Calama, a town of Numidia, 
S.W. of Hippo, between it and Cirta, but 
nearer Hippo (Aug. c. Petil. ii. 99; Kalma, 
Shaw, Trav. p. 64). His own account repre- 
sents him as a convert from paganism, be- 
coming on his conversion an inmate of the 
monastery at Hippo, probably c.390. Thence- 
forward he lived in intimate friendship with 
St. Augustine until the latter’s death in 430 
(Possid. Vita Aug. praef. and cc. 12, 31). 
About 400 he became bp. of Calama. He 
seems to have established a monastery there, 
and, probably early in his episcopate, con- 
sulted Augustine on (4) the ornaments to be 
used by men and women, and especially ear- 
rings used as amulets; (δ) the ordination of 
some one who had received Donatist baptism 
(Aug. Epp. 104, 4, and 245). In 401 or 402 
a council was held at Carthage, at which 
Possidius was present, and challenged in vain 
Crispinus, Donatist bp. of Calama, to discuss 
publicly issues between the two parties. 
After this Possidius, though he modestly 
conceals his own name, while going to a place 
in his diocese called Figulina, was attacked 
by CrRISPINUS, a presbyter, and narrowly 
escaped alive (Aug. Ep. 103; Possid. Vit. 12). 
In 407 he was one of a committee of seven 
appointed by Xanthippus, primate of Nu- 
midia, at the request of Maurentius, bp. of 
Tubursica, to decide a question, of whose 
nature we are not informed, but which was 
at issue between himself and the seniors of 
Nova Germania (Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii. 34; 
Hardouin, Cone. ii. 922; Bruns, Cone. i. 185). 
In 408 Possidius was again in trouble and 
personal danger, in consequence of the 
disturbances at Calama described above. In 
409, on June 14, a council was held at Car- 
thage, and a deputation of four bishops, 
Florentinus, Possidius, Praesidius, and Benan- 
tus, was appointed to request the protection 
of the emperor against the Donatists. On 


POSTHUMIANUS 


this occasion Possidius conveyed a letter from 
Augustine to Paulinus of Nola, but nothing 
more is known as to the journey of the depu- 
tation or their interview, if any, with the 
emperor, who was then at Ravenna. In 410, 
however, an edict was issued by Honorius on 
or about the day on which Rome was taken 
by Alaric, viz. Aug. 26, to Heraclian, count 
of Africa, to restrain by penalties all enemies 
of the Christian faith, and another of a similar 
nature on Oct. 14, 410, to Marcellinus, the 
president of the conference in 411 (Aug. Ep. 
95, i.; 105, 1.; Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 51, and ti. 
3; Baron. 410, 48, 49). At the conference 
Possidius was one of the seven Catholic man- 
agers (Coll. Carth. ap. Mon. Vet. Don. liii. 1 ; 
li. 29; iii. 29, 148, 168, ed. Oberthiir). He 
was with Augustine at Hippo in 412 (Aug. Ep. 
137, 20) and in 416 signed at the council of 
Mileum the letter sent to pope Innocent 
concerning the Pelagian heresy (Aug. Ep. 176). 
He also joined with Augustine, Aurelius, Aly- 
pius, and Evodius in a letter to the same on 
the same subject (ἐδ. 181, 182, 183). He was 
at the meeting or council of bishops held at 
Caesarea on Sept. 29, 418. St. Augustine men- 
tions that Possidius(c. 425) brought to Calama 
and placed in a memorial building there some 
relics of St. Stephen, by which many cures 
were wrought (Civ. D. xii. 8, 12, 20). When 
.the Vandals invaded Africa, he took refuge in 
Hippo with other bishops, and there attended 
on St. Augustine in his last illness until his 
death, A.p. 430, in the third month of the 
siege. He has left a biographical sketch of 
Augustine, whose unbroken friendship he 
enjoyed for 40 years, being his faithful ally 
and devoted admirer. This sketch gives 
many particulars of great interest as to 
Augustine’s mode of life, and a description, 
simple but deeply pathetic and impressive, of 
his last days and death. Though few men’s 
lives are written in their own works more fully 
than that of Augustine, yet history and the 
church would have greatly missed the simple, 
modest, and trustworthy narrative, gathered 
in great measure from Augustine himself, 
which Possidius has left us. It was apparent- 
ly published, not immediately after the death 
of Augustine, but before 439, as he speaks of 
Carthage and Cirta as still exempt from 
capture by the barbarians, and in Oct. 439 
Carthage was taken by Genseric (Possid. c. 28 ; 
Clinton, F. R.). Possidius has also left a list 
of Augustine’s works which, though very ful] 
and compiled with great care, does not 
pretend to be complete and of which some 
have not yet been discovered. It is given in 
the last vol. of Migne’s ed. of Augustine’s 
works. Prosper relates in his Chrontcle that 
Possidius, together with Novatus, Severianus, 
and other bishops of less note, resisted the 
attempts of Genseric to establish Arian 
doctrine in Africa, and was driven with them 
from his see A.D. 437. Baron. 437, i.; Morcelli, 
Afr. Chr. iii. 140; Ceillier, ix. 564; Tillem. 
vol. xiii. 354- {H.W.P.) 
Posthumianus (2), a friend of Sulpicius 
Severus of Gaul and Paulinus of Nola, was a 
native of Aquitania, and made at least two 
journeys to the East. After the first, when 
he made the acquaintance of Jerome at Beth- 
lehem, he appears to have visited Campania to 


PRAEDESTINATUS 855 


see Paulinus (S. Paulini, Epp. 16 in Migne. 
Patr. Lat. \xi. 227). He sailed from Narbonne 
in 401 or 402 on his second voyage, of which a 
full and interesting account is in bk. i. of the 
Dialogues of Sulpicius Severus (Pair. Lat. xx. 
183), in which Posthumianus with Severus and 
Gallus are the speakers. In five days he 
reached Carthage, where he visited the tomb 
of St. Cyprian. Detained between Africa and 
Cyrene by bad weather, he landed to explore 
the country, which was inhabited by a very 
primitive tribe, who, however, were Chris- 
tians, and was hospitably entertained by a 
priest. Alexandria was then convulsed by 
the quarrel between the patriarch Theophilus 
and the monks about the writings of Origen, 
and Posthumianus went on by land to Bethle- 
hem, where he spent six months with Jerome, 
whom he praises highly both for virtue and 
learning. Posthumianus then returned to 
Alexandria, and thence went to the Thebaid, 
spending a year and seven months visiting its 
monasteries and hermitages. He penetrated 
into the Sinaitic peninsula, saw the Red Sea, 
and ascended Mount Sinai. After three 
years’ absence he returned, taking 30 days 
from Alexandria to Marseilles. He may have 
been the priest of that name who was present 
at the death of Paulinus (Uranius, Ep. in 
Patr. Lat. \iii. 861). ({r.p.] 
Potamiaena (June 28), one of the most 
celebrated martyrs at Alexandria in the perse- 
cution of Severus, being a virgin distinguished 
alike for her beauty, chastity, and courage. 
Eusebius (H. E. vi. 5) relates how she was 
cruelly tortured, and death finally inflicted by 
burning pitch poured slowly about her from 
feet to head. Her story is also given by Pal- 
ladius (Hist. Laus. 3). [ο.τ.5.] 
Pothinus (Photinus, Greg. Tur. Fotinus), 
martyr, first bp. of Lyons in the 2nd cent. 
Who consecrated him, and in what year, is un- 
known, though a desire to find an apostolic 
foundation has suggested to different writers 
the names of SS. Peter, John, and Polycarp. 
His name suggests that he was a Greek. Of 
his episcopate we have no record beyond the 
account of his martyrdom by pagans, with 47 
others, contained in the letter of the Christians 
of Lyons and Vienne to the churches of Asia 
and Phrygia, which Eusebius preserves. Op- 
pressed with infirmities and more than 90 years 
old, he was dragged by soldiers before the 
tribunal, where he comported himself with 
dignity. To the question of the president 
what the Christians’ God might be, he replied, 
“Tf thou wert worthy, thou shouldst know.” 
The blows and ill-usage of the crowd as he 
was carried back to prison caused his death 
two days later. His successor was St. Irenacus. 


Eus. H. E. v. 1; Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. i. 27; 
Mirac. lib. i. ; de Glor. Mart. 49, 50 546. ; Gall. 
5...8. 


Christ. iv. 4. 

Praedestinatus. The author known by this 
name wrote an anonymous work, first pub. in 
1643 from a MS. in the Cathedral Library of 
Rheims by Sirmond, who somewhat inappro- 
priately gave it its title from those agasmst 
whom it was directed, and several times re- 
printed, ¢.g. by Migne (Patr. Lat. liii.), and 
bk. i. by Oehler in his Corpus Haerestologicum. 

The author complains that men were 
passing themselves off as of the household of 


856 PRAEDESTINATUS 


faith who really were most treacherous 
enemies of the church. These men taught 
that certain were by God’s foreknowledge so 
predestined to death that neither Christ’s 
passion nor baptism, faith, hope, nor charity 
could help them. They might fast, pray, and 
give alms, but nothing could avail them, be- 
cause they had not been predestined to life. 
On the other hand, those who had received 
this predestination might neglect and despise 
all righteousness, yet the gate of life would 
be opened to them without knocking, while 
against others who knocked, nay shouted, for 
admission, it would remain firmly closed. 
A work by one of these heretics had lately 
fallen into the writer's hands, and it was 
necessary to drag it to light and completely 
refute it. This accordingly is done in the 
present treatise, consisting of three books. 
In bk. i. the author clears himself of all sus- 
picion of sympathy with heresy of any kind 
by enumerating and reprobating the 90 
heresies by which up to his time Christ’s truth 
had been perverted, the last and worst being 
that of the Predestinarians. It determines 
limits for the date of the book that in this list 
the last but one is the Nestorian heresy. 
From this and the silence about Eutychianism 
we may infer that it was written between 431 
and 449, just the period when the semi- 
Pelagian controversy was most active. The 
author professes that his heretical catalogue 
was epitomized from Hyginus, Polycrates, 
Africanus, Hesiodus, Epiphanius, and Phil- 
aster, who, he tells us, wrote against different 
heresies in this chronological order. 
remarkable that the first four of these con- 
futations of heresy are not mentioned by any 
one else, but still more remarkable that the 
writer is silent as to his obligations to the tract 
on heresies which Augustine addressed to 
Quodvultdeus, although his list of 90 heresies 
agrees, article by article, with Augustine’s list 
of 88, with the addition of the two later here- 
οἷος, Nestorianism and Predestinarianism, 
while the substance of each article is mani- 
festly taken from Augustine. These un- 
favourable suspicions of the writer’s literary 
morality are confirmed as we proceed. It is 
the author’s plan to mention with each heresy 
the name of the orthodox writer who refutes 
it. We are thus told of a number of person- 
ages whom no one else mentions—Diodorus 
of Crete who refuted the Secundians, Philo 
the Alogi, Theodotus of Pergamus the Color- 
basians, Crato, a Syrian bishop, who refuted 
the Theodotians, Tranquillus the Noetians, 
Euphranon of Rhodes the Severians, and a 
host of others of whom we should expect to 
hear elsewhere if they were not imaginary 
personages. Moreover, when Praedestinatus 
ascribes the confutation to real persons his 
assertions are usually chronologically im- 
possible. Thus he makes the apostle Thomas 
confute Saturninus, Barnabas in Cyprus the 
Carpocratians ; he makes Alexander, who was 
bp. of Rome at the very beginning of the 2nd 
cent., write against Heracleon, who lived in 
the latter half of the century; the Tertul- 
lianists are condemned by Soter, who must 
have been dead 30 years before Tertullian 
separated from the church; the imaginary 
heresiologist, Hesiod of Corinth, is made to be 


It is| 


PRAXEAS 


the bishop who first opposed Arius, and in 
answer to whose prayers that heretic died. 
We have thus before us, not inaccurate history 
but unscrupulous and unskilful invention, and 
it can only be from want of acquaintance with 
his character as a writer that he is ever cited 
as an historical authority. [G.s.] 
Praxeas, a somewhat mysterious heretic 
about whom various theories have been held. 
He was a Monarchian and Patripassian. Ter- 
tullian wrote a treatise against him and places 
his scene of activity first of all at Rome, but 
never mentions Noetus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, 
Sabellius or Callistus. On the other hand, 
Hippolytus, who denounces these in his con- 
troversial works for the very same tenets, 
never once mentions Praxeas as teaching at 
Rome or anywhere else. Some have regarded 
Praxeas as simply a nick-name. Thus De 
Rossi (Bullet. 1866, p. 70) identifies him with 
Epigonus, Hagemann (Gesch. der rom. Kirche. 
§ 234) with Callistus. Ddllinger however (Hip- 
pol. u. Kallist. § 198) and Lipsius (Chronolog. 
der rom. Bisch. ὃ 175) maintain that Praxeas 
was a real person who first of all started the 
Monarchian and Patripassian heresy in Rome, 
but so long before the age of Hippolytus that 
his name and memory had faded in that city. 
They fix his period of activity in Rome during 
the earliest years of Victor, A.D. 189-198, or 
even the later years of his predecessor Eleu- 
therus. This explanation, however, seems to 
ignore the fact that Hippolytus must have 
been a full-grown man all through Victor’s 
episcopate, as he expressly asserts (Refut. ix. 6) 
that he and Callistus were about the same age. 
Praxeas remained but a short time in Rome, 
and the shortness of his stay offers a better 
explanation of Hippolytus’s silence. He then 
proceeded to Carthage, where he disseminated 
his views. Tertullian (adv. Prax.) attacks the 
heresy under the name of Praxeas, the local 
teacher, but was really attacking Zephyrinus 
and Callistus. The facts of his life we gather 
from Tertullian’s notices in c. 1. He was a 
confessor from Asia Minor, where he had been 
imprisoned for the faith. Asia Minor was 
then the seed-plot of Monarchian views. He 
came to Rome when the Montanist party had 
just gained over the pope. Praxeas con- 
verted the pope back to his own opinion, which 
was hostile to the Montanists. Most critics 
agree that the pope so converted by Praxeas 
was Eleutherus: cf. Bonwetsch’s Montanismus, 
§ 174; Hilgenfeld’s Ketzergeschichte, p. 569. 
Dr. Salmon, however, maintains that it was 
Zephyrinus. [MontTanus.] By this, says Ter- 
tullian, Praxeas did a twofold service for the 
devil at Rome, “ he drove away prophecy and 
he introduced heresy. He put to flight the 
Paraclete and he crucified the Father.’’ He 
then went to Carthage, where he induced some 
to adopt his opinions. Tertullian opposed 
him prior to 202, according to Hilgenfeld 
(l.c. p. 618), and converted Praxeas himself, 
who acknowledged his error in a document 
extant among the Catholic party when Ter- 
tullian wrote. Praxeas then seems to have 
disappeared from Carthage, while Tertullian 
joined the Montanists. The controversy 
some years later broke out afresh, spreading 
doubtless from Rome, and then Tertullian 
wrote his treatise, which he nominally ad- 


PRIMASIUS 


dressed against Praxeas as the best known 
expositor of these views at Carthage, but 
really against the Patripassian system in 
general. Hilgenfeld (i.c. p. 619) dates this 
work c. 206; Harnack c. 210, #.¢. about 25 
years after the first arrival of Praxeas in Rome; 
while Dr. Salmon dates it after the death of 
Callistus in 222: so great is the uncertainty 
about the chronology of the movement. Har- 
nack’s article on ‘‘ Monarchianismus”’ in t. x. 
of Herzog’s Real-Encyclopadie contains a good 
exposition of the relation of Praxeas to the 
Patripassian movement; cf. Lipsius Tertul- 
lian’s Schrift wider Praxeas in Jahrb. fiir 
deutsche Theolog. t. xiii. (1869) ὃ 701-724. 
Among patristic writers the only ones who 
mention _ Praxeas are  pseudo-Tertullian ; 
August, de Haer. 41; Praedestinat. 41; and 
Gennad. de Eccles. Dog. 4. [α.τ.5.} 
asius, bp. of Adrumetum or J ustiniano- 
polis, in the Byzacene province of N. Africa. 
He flourished in the middle of 6th cent., 
and exercised considerable influence on the 
literary activity of the celebrated theological 
lawyer JuNtLius, who dedicated to him his 
Institutes, which spread the views of Theodore 
of Mopsuestia in the West. Primasius first 
comes before us in a synod of his province in 
541, the decrees of which are known only 
through Justinian’s decrees confirming them, 
as given in Baronius, An. 541, ἢ. 10-12. He 
was sent to Constantinople in connexion with 
the controversy on the Three Chapters ¢. 551. 
He assisted in the synod which pope Vigilius 
held against Theodore Ascidas and was still 
in Constantinople during the session of the 
fifth general council, but took no part in it, 
notwithstanding repeated solicitations (Mansi, 
ix. 199 seq.). He was one of 16 bishops who 


signed the Constitutum of pope Vigilius, | 


May 14, 553- When, however, Vigilius ac- 
cepted the decrees of the fifth council, Prima- 
sius signed them also. According to Victor 
Tunun. (Migne’s Patr. Lat. τ. Ixvili. col. 959), 
other motives conspired to bring about this 
change. He was at first exiled to a convent, 
and then the death of Boethius primate of 
the Byzacene aroused his ambition to be his 
successor. He gained his point, but, returning 
home, his suffragans denounced him as guilty 
of sacrilege and robbery. He died soon after- 
wards. His writings (1b. pp. 407-936) embrace 
commentaries on St. Paul’s Epp. and the 
Apocalypse; likewise a treatise (now lost), de 
Haeresibus, touching on some points which 
Augustine did not live to treat with sufficient 
fullness (Isid. Hispal. Vir. 1. xxii. in 1b. 1xxxiii. 
1095; Cave, i. 525; Tillem. xiii. 927, xvi. 21). 
Our Primasius is sometimes confounded with 
bp. Primasiusof Carthage. The best accountof 
Primasius of Adrumetum is in Kihn’s Theodor 
von Mopsuestia, pp. 248-254, where a critical 
estimate is formed of the sources of his 
exegetical works. [Cuittasts.] Cf. also Zahn, 
Forschungen, iv. 1-224 (1891). [G.T.S.] 
Primianus, Donatist bp. of Carthage, suc- 
cessor to Parmenian, A.p. 392. Among many 
things charged against him by the Maxi- 
mianists, they alleged that he admitted the 
Claudianists to communion and, when some 
of the seniors remonstrated with him, en- 
couraged, if he did not even originate, a 
riotous attack upon them in a church in which 


PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM 857 


some lost their lives. Further, that he was 
guilty of various acts of an arbitrary and 
violent kind, superseding bishops, excom- 
municating and condemning clergymen with- 
out sufficient cause, closing his church doors 
against the people and the imperial officers, 
and taking possession of buildings to which he 
had no right. (Aug. En. in Ps. 36, ao; δ, 
Cresc. iv. 6, 7, and 7, 9, also 48, §8, and 40, 
60; Mon. Vet. Don. xxxv. ed Oberthiir.) 
At the proceedings before the civil magistrate, 
_ arising out of the decision of the council of 
| Bagaia, Primian is said to have taunted his 
opponents with relying on imperial edicts, 
while his own party brought with them the 
Gospels only (Aug. Post Coll. xxxi. § 41). 
When the conference was proposed, he resisted 
it, remarking with scornful arrogance that “ it 
was not fit that the sons of martyrs should 
confer with the brood of traditors" (Carth. 
Coll. iii. 116; Aug. Brevic. Coll. iii. 4, 4). As 
one of the seven managers at the conference, 
A.D. 411, on the Donatist side, he helped to 
delay the opening of the proceedings and to 
obstruct them during their progress, but 
showed no facility in debate (Brevic. Coll. 
ii. 30; Carth. Coll. i. 104). He passed a just 
sentence of condemnation on Cyprian, Dona- 
tist bp. of Tubursica, for an act of scandalous 
\immorality (Aug. c. Petil. iii. 34, 40). See 
| Dr. Sparrow Simpson, St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. 
| Divisions (1910), p. 52. [u.w.P.) 
__ Priscillianusand Priscillianism. The Priscil- 
lianists, whose doctrines were Manichean and 
| Gnostic in character, were organized as a sect 
by their founder Priscillian. The spread of 
|the heresy was not wide either in time or 
space. The sect sprang up and flourished in 
| Spain during the last third of the 4th cent. in 
the reigns of the emperors Gratian and Maxi- 
mus. After the synod of Saragossa, 381, it 
ramified into Aquitaine, but never took deep 
root beyond the Pyrenees. Where the heresy 
first appeared in Spain is unrecorded. There 
it spread through most provinces, especially 
in cities. The agitation at Cordova, Merida, 
Avila, Astorga, Saragossa, Toledo, Braga, 
sufficiently indicates its prevalence and popu- 
larity. The council of Bordeaux, 384, fol. 
lowed by the violent measures of Maximus, 
intensified for a while the enthusiasm of Pris- 
cillian’s adherents. But in 390, at the synod 
of Toledo, many leading Priscillianists re- 
canted and were admitted to church com- 
munion. The sect continued to diminish in 
number. Pope Leo I. exerted himself vigor- 
ously to repress it. It lingered in Spain till 
the middle of the 5th cent. After the council 
of Toledo, 447, and that at Braga in Galicia, 
448, especially held against them, they dis- 
|appear from history.  Priscillianism became 
a remembrance and a suspicion. 

| Marcus, a native of Memphis in Egypt, 
introduced the Gnostic and Manichean here- 
|sies. Nothing is known of his life beyond bis 
Egyptian origin, his coming to Spain, and his 
ienation Two of his followers were Agape, 
a Spanish lady, and Helpidius, a rhetorician. 
Their convert was the layman Priscillian, 
whose place of birth or residence is unknown. 
He was of good family, wealthy, and well 
jeducated. He became at once an ardent prose- 
\lyte; an apostle of the Oriental doctrines. His 


858 PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM 


character is described by the contemporary 
historian Sulpicius Severus, in his Sacred H1s- 
tory (ii. 46). Eloquent, learned, pious, sincere, 
austere, ardent, and zealous, Priscillian was 
well fitted to be the apostle and founder of a 
sect. Modifying and framing the Oriental 
doctrines into a system of his own, he soon 
became their able exponent and advocate. 
Attracting a large following, he organized 
them into a religious society. Many of the 
wealthy and noble, and a great number of the 
people, received his teaching. Some bishops, 
as well as clergy and laity, became his dis- 
ciples. The Gnostic mysticism spread rapidly 
and widely in all Spain. 

Among Priscillian’s first and most devoted 
followers were two bishops, Instantius and 
Salvianus, in the S. of Spain. Adyginus, bp. 
of Cordova, was the first to oppose the rising 
sect. He reported the matter to Idatius, bp. 
of Emerita (Merida), and took counsel with 
him. Their conference led to an organized 
movement against the new errors. All S. 
Spain became agitated by the controversy. 
Idatius is blamed as too rough and violent. 
By intolerant severity he promoted rather 
than prevented the spread of the sect. Ady- 
ginus, dissatisfied with his colleague, became 
rather the protector of the Priscillianists and 
incurred thereby much reproach and odium. 
At length a synod was to be held at Caesar- 
Augusta (Saragossa) on the Ebro, a site 
sufficiently far north from the localities where 
the Priscillianists and the orthodox were 
in hostility to be neutral ground, and also 
having the advantage of nearness to Gaul. It 
was proposed to gather there the bishops of 
Spain and Aquitaine. The synod was held in 
380. The Priscillianists did not venture to 
appear. In their absence their opinions were 
condemned. The four leaders, Instantius and 
Salvianus the bishops, Helpidius and Pris- 
cillian the laymen, were excommunicated. 
The bp. of Cordova fell under the lash of the 
leaders of the synod. He had received into 
terms of communion some of the heretics. 
The council anathematized all who shared 
or connived at the new errors of faith and 
practice. The task of promulgating the 
decrees and executing the ecclesiastical 
sentences was given to Ithacius, bp. of Sossuba. 
The important and lamentable result of the 
synod was the assumption by Ithacius of the 
leadership of the persecuting party. 

Α preconcerted counter-movement now 
began on the part of the Priscillianists. At 
the hands of Instantius and Salvianus, Priscil- 
lian received episcopal ordination. His see 
was Avila (Abila) on the Adaja, a tributary of 
the Douro, midway between Salamanca and 
Madrid (Hieron. de Script. Eccl.). This 
measure of defiance shewed the strength of his 
party. It led to further progress towards 
persecution. On behalf of the church au- 
thorities, Idacius and Ithacius applied to the 
secular government. Aid was brought against 
the heretics. Powers were asked for execu- 
tion of the decree of the synod, and in 381 
Gratian granted a rescript, excluding all 
heretics from the use of the churches and 
ordering them to be driven into exile. The 
Priscillianists were thus cut off from civil pro- 
tection. Vigorous defensive measures were 


PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM 


necessary to their very existence. An appeal 
was proposed by them to the two most eminent 
bishops of the West, Damasus of Rome and 
Ambrose of Milan. Their influence, it was 
hoped, might lead to a rescinding of the 
imperial decision. Instantius, Salvianus, and 
Priscillian went to Rome to clear themselves 
and their party in the papal court. On their 
way they penetrated into Interior Aquitaine, 
perhaps to try measures of conciliation among 
the bishops of that province, who had con- 
demned them unseen and unknown at Sara- 
gossa. The seeds of the heresy were sown by 
them as they travelled. Elusa (Eluso) near 
Eauze, a town on the Gelise near Auch, is 
especially mentioned. All the church centres 
were, however, hostile to them. They were 
vigorously repulsed from Bordeaux (Burde- 
gala), by the vigilance of bp. Delphinus. On 
their journey they were joined by many from 
Gaul whom they had infected with their 
errors. Euchrocia and her daughter Procula, 
amongst these, ministered of their substance 
to Priscillian and his colleagues. A promis- 
cuous crowd of others, especially women, are 
mentioned. In consequence, injurious re- 
ports, probably calumnies, were vigorously 
circulated against Priscillian and his retinue. 

On their arrival at Rome the Priscillianists 
were repulsed by pope Damasus. They re- 
traced their steps to Milan, and found Am- 
brose, whose power and reputation were at 
their height, steadily opposed to them. 

The Priscillianists put on a bold front and 
began aggressive measures against their assail- 
ants. The wealth of Priscillian and his 
followers was liberally employed. ‘‘ The 
silver spears’’ were now in the hands of 
the partisans on both sides. Macedonius, the 
master of the offices (magister officiorum), was 
won over to the interests of Priscillian and his 
party. By his powerful influence a rescript 
from Gratian protecting them was obtained. 
The Priscillianists were to be restored to their 
churches and sees. Instantius and Priscillian, 
returning to Spain, regained their sees and 
churches. All things seemed turned in their 
favour. Idacius and Ithacius, though for the 
moment powerless, had not ceased to make a 
show ofresistance. The Priscillianists charged 
them with causing divisions and disturbing the 
peace of the church, and Ithacius wascompelled 
tofly. At Tréves resided the Caesar whoruled 
Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Ithacius escaped 
thither from Spain. Gregory, the prefect 
there, warmly espoused his cause and strove 
to bring the complaints of the orthodox bishops 
again before Gratian. The Priscillianists had, 
however, friends at court powerful enough to 
ward off the danger. The cause was taken 
out of the hands of Gregory and transferred to 
the court of Volventius the vicar of Spain. 

An unlooked-for political change now came. 
The overthrow and assassination at Paris of 
the unpopular Gratian, the usurpation of the 
purple by Clemens Maximus, his proclamation 
as emperor by his soldiers in Britain, his 
triumphant entrance into Gaul, with the con- 
sequent officialchanges, destroyed all the bright 
hopes of the Priscillianists. The fortunes of 
their adversaries revived. On the arrival of 
Maximus at Tréves in 384 Ithacius brought a 
formal accusation with heavy charges against 


PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM 


Priscillian and his followers. Maximus, a Span- 
iard by birth, listened to the S bishops 
and reversed the vacillating policy of Gratian, 
treating the matter not as one of ecclesiastical 
rivalry, but as one of morality and society. 
In his letter afterwards to Siricius, who suc- 
ceeded Damasus in 384 in the see of Rome, he 
expressly dwells upon these points and glories 
in the part he had consequently taken against 
the heresy of Priscillian. Both parties were 
summoned to a synod at Bordeaux in 385. 
Instantius and Priscillian were the first to 
appear. Instantius was declared to have for- 
feited his bishopric. Priscillian resolved to 
forestall the expected hostile judgment and 
κε appeal unto Caesar."’ No protest was made. 
The appeal was allowed. purely spiritual 
offence was remitted for criminal trial to a 
secular tribunal. In due course both parties 
appeared before Maximus at Tréves. 

At Tréves there was one at this crisis of the 


church whose prophetic insight saw the real with mercy. 


significance of the issues at stake, Martin, bp. 
of Tours, whose influence was then at its 
height. Through his mediation between the 
contending parties, the trial of Priscillian was 
delayed, Maximus for a while yielding to his 
protests, even consenting to promise him that 
no life should be sacrificed. But at last St. 
Martin, at the call of other duties, was obliged 
to withdraw from Tréves. The emperor was 
now surrounded by other influences. By 
Idacius and Ithacius, eS βαρε οὐρα by two 
bishops of a like stamp, Magnus and Rufus, 
powerful at court, Maximus was unremittingly 
urged to take severe measures. 

The trial of the Priscillianists, once resolved 
upon, was soon brought about and they became 
a defenceless prey to their enemies. Their 
‘* appeal unto Caesar "’ was truly an appeal to 
a pitiless Nero. As a stroke of state policy 
nothing could be wiser in the eyes of the 
adherents of Maximus than their destruction. 
Both pagan and Christian authorities attri- 
bute mercenary motives to the emperor and 
state that the possessions of the rich Priscil- 
lian and of his followers excited his cupidity 
(Sulp. Sev. Dialog. iii. 9 ; Panegyr. of Lat. Pac. 


Drep. on Theodosius, Panegyr. Vet. xvi. 20). (Libra), wherein I 
At the same time there could not be a more | expounded and advocated. 


brilliant inauguration of the new reign than a 
vigorous assertion of orthodoxy on the lines 
of the now famous Theodosian decrees. 


Priscillian and his chief followers were con- ing the apocryphal 
ial consistory at | 
Tréves. Several others, after confiscation of years later 
Scilly Isles, | 
recorded as | 
the first of those who suffered death (‘‘gladio | 
With him died two presbyters, | to 


demned to death by the im 


their goods, were banished to the 
others into Gaul. Priscillian is 
erempti '’). tw 
tely become disciples, Felicissimus and Ar- 


menius, and Latronianus a poet and —— 448, where 
n- 
stantius, deposed from his bishopric by the 
| bination with the Arians, in the Acts 


the rich and noble matron of Bordeaux. 


synod of Bordeaux, and Tiberianus were ban- 


PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM 859 


oo on the merits of Priscillian’s execution. 
eognistes, a bishop of independent mind, 
boldly led the non-contents, refusing church 
communion to Ithacius and the others guilt 
of the judicial bloodshed. In Spain the Prise 
lianist enthusiasm was for a while intensified. 
The number of followers grew. The bodies of 
those who had suffered at Tréves were brought 
to Spain and their obsequics celebrated with 
great pomp. Priscillian, before revered as a 
saint, was now, says Sulpicius, worshipped as 
amartyr. Signs were not wanting, and terrified 
the orthodox, that the Priscillianist society 
aimed at shrouding themselves under the guise 
of a secret religious association. 

Additional severities were proposed. Maxi- 
mus resolved to send military tribunes to 
Spain with unlimited powers. They were to 
investigate charges of heresy, examine here- 
tics, take life and property from the guilty. 
They were men little likely to tem ustice 

At this juncture Martin of 
Tours returned to Tréves. No efforts could 
induce him to be reconciled to the promoters 
and abettors of the late executions. The 
persuasion and threats of the emperor failing 
to move him, he was dismissed the im 1 
presence in anger. Tidings reached Martin 
that the tribunes had been really sent to Spain. 
He hurried to the palace, though it was night, 
and agreed to unite with the bishops in church 
fellowship. The emperor yielded to his impor- 
tunity and Martin's firmness and zeal on the 
side of humanity were rewarded. The tribunes 
were recalled and the peninsula spared the 
horrors of a religious proscription. 

The schism continued some time between 
those that approved and those that condemned 
the severities against Priscillian. For 15 
years the contention was extreme, and the 
merits of the controversy long continued to be 
canvassed. The violent means had certainly 
not extinguished the heresy, which seemed 
even to take deeper root in Spain. In 400 at 
a council at Toledo many Priscillianists came 
over and were readmitted to Catholic com- 
munion. Amongst these was Dictinnius, a 
Priscillianist bishop, author of The Scales 

iscillianist opinions were 
In 415 a Spanish 
presbyter, Orosius, wrote to Augustine con- 
cerning the sect. A long letter of Augustine is 
extant, written to Ceretius, a wy respect. 
Priscillianist Scriptures, 
especially a hymn attributed to Christ. Forty 
urribius, bp. of Astorga, wrote 
in sorrow and perplexity to pope Leo L., — 
advice for dealing with these insidious 
dangerous adversaries. Two councils pursuant 
ΓΝ recommendation were held: one at 
Toledo in 447, the other at Braga in Galicia ta 
Priscillianism was condemned with 
the usual anathemas. A last contemporary 
mention of the Priscillianists comes in Fy 
ott 


ished to the desolate Scilly Isles. Asarinus | council of Braga, in $64. 


and Aurelius, two deacons, were executed. 


No ancient writer has given an accurate 


Tertullus, Potamius, and Johannes, a5 meaner account of the Priscillianist doctrine. Our 


followers who turned king's evidence, were 


temporarily banished within Gaul. 
The immediate consequences were 


not re- 
assuring to the persecuting party. At γόνον. 
a violent strife arose between the bishops, 


ence of eminent men of the t 
canons of councils, the church histories, and 
a few verbal allusions in contemporary pagan 


860 PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM 


writers. The Priscillianist system, already 
sufficiently dark and perplexed, has had new 
obscurity added by unstinted misrepresenta- 
tion. The general outline may be made out 
of their opinions, fantastic allegories, daring 
cosmogonies, astrological fancies, combined 
with the severest asceticism. It is easier to 
compare the general resemblances of their 
doctrine to Cabalism, Syrian and Egyptian 
Gnosticism, Manicheism, Persian and Indian 
Orientalism, than to detect, analyse, and 
assign the differences. 

There are no authentic extant records of 
the Priscillianist writers. A fragment of a 
letter of Priscillian himself has come down to 
us in quotation (Orosii Common. in Aug. Op.). 
There are allusions to a multitude of apoery- 
phal scriptures which they used, thus differing 
from most heretical sects in accepting all 
apocryphal and canonical books as scripture, 
explaining and adapting them to their purpose 
in a mystical manner. 

Our clearest account of their tenets is in 
the controversial correspondence slightly later 
than Priscillian, between Leo the Great and 
Turribius, bp. of Astorga. The latter summed 
up the doctrines in 16 articles. Leo replied in 
a lengthy epistle, commenting seriatim on each 
proposition (Leo, Ep. xv.). 

(1) Their wild cosmical speculations were 


based on the bold Gnostic and Manichean | 
conceptions of a primeval dualism. The two. 


opposite realms of light and darkness, in 
eternal antagonism, were their basis. 
(2) Their anti-materialism led them very far 


Perplexed by the insoluble problem of the 
origin of sin, they indulged in most fantastic 
dreams and myths. 

(3) The astrological fatalism which pope 
Leo condemned so sternly as subversive of 
all moral distinctions was a striking peculiar- 
ity (Leo, Ep. xv. 11-12). They believed the 12 
signs of the Zodiac to have a mysterious supre- 
macy over the members of the body. 

(4) Their Christology is difficult to gather. 
If they held a Trinity at all, it was but a 
Trinity of names. Their adversaries accused 
them of Arianism and Sabellianism. Leo 
sharply criticizes their application and inter- 
pretation of the Scripture attributive of the 
Redeemer, ‘‘ the Only-begotten.” 

(5) Their rigid asceticism resulted directly 
from their idea of the innate evil of matter. 
Marriage was proscribed ; austerities of all 
sorts required. 

(6) Their moral system plainly deserves the 
charge of dissimulation. Holding an esoteric 


and exoteric doctrine, they, with some other | 


theosophic sects, affirmed falsehood allowable 
for a holy end; absolute veracity only binding 
between fellow-members. To the unenlight- 
ened they need not always and absolutely state 
the whole truth. This looseness of principle 
they supported by Scripture, distorting, 6.8., 
Eph. iv. 25 insupport of their practice. It was 
a Priscillianist habit to affect to agree with 
the multitude, making allowance for what they 
considered their fleshly notions, and to conceal 
from them what they regarded them as incap- 
able of comprehending (Dictinnius in Libra). 
In the agitation of controversy some church 
ecclesiastics were in favour of fighting the 


PRIVATUS 


Priscillianists with their own weapons. Augus- 
tine’s treatise de Mendacio was expressly 
written against such laxity. It is easy to see 
how such practice arose from their principles. 
We may illustrate it by their Gnostic ideas 
about Scripture. The Christian Scripture was 
to them an imperfect revelation. What the 
Jewish religion was to Christianity, that the 
Priscillianists considered Christianity was with 
regard to their own speculations. As the O.T. 
was full of types and shadows of Christianity, 
so the N.T. in their hands became a figurative 
and symbolical exposition and veil of Priscil- 
lianism. The outer form was for the ignorant 
and profane; the inner truth for the wise and 
initiated. The grace of faith was fitted only 
for the rude mass of men; to know was the 
vocation of the privileged, the spiritual, the 
elect. A step further led the Priscillianist to 
disregard moral distinctions and believe him- 
self entitled to prevaricate, which often led 
to things still worse, in his dealings with the 
common herd (cf. Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 
lect. xii. p. 196; ix. p. 135; Neander, Ch. 
Hist. ii. p. 26). See Priscill. qua Supersunt, ete. 
accedit Orostt Commonitorum, etc. (Vienna, 
1880), in Corpus Scr. Eccl. Lat. xviii. [M.B.c.] 

Priscus (11), St., 30th archbp. of Lyons, 
has been the subject of much controversy. 
Gregory of Tours, the historian, his contem- 
porary, brings against him the gravest charges. 
According to the Hist. Franc. (iv. 36), he set 
himself, with his wife Susanna, to persecute 


| and destroy those who had been the friends 
¢ οὗ his predecessor St. Nicetius, out of malice 
from the sublime simplicity of Scripture. | 


and jealousy, and never wearied of declaiming 
against his memory. The Vitae Patrum (viii. 
5) also has an instance of his contempt for the 
same prelate, whose chaplain he is said to 
have been. On theother hand, he is numbered 
by the church among the saints. He was 
present at numerous councils, the 4th of Paris 
in 573, Chalons in 579, Macon in 581 or 583, 
3rd of Lyons in 581, another at Lyons in 583, 
Valence in 584 or 585, and the 2nd of Macon 
in 585, at some of which he presided, and at 
the last was honoured in the preface with the 
dignified title, very rare in the West, of 
patriarcha (Mansi, ix. 949; Ceillier, xi. 896). 
For these and other reasons the Bollandists 
(Acta SS. Jun. vi. 120-127) refuse credence 
to Gregory’s charges. [S.A.B.] 

Privatus (2), once bp. of the important 
but shortlived city of Lambaesis in Numidia, 
the present Tazztit or Tezzulot (Momms.). He 
was condemned for heresy and multa et gravia 
delicta, by 90 bishops at a council under 
Donatus, bp. of Carthage (Cypr. Ep. 59, xiii. ; 
10), and apparently under the Roman bishopric 
of Fabian (A.D. 240, Morcelli). Apparently 
the council was held at Lambaesis, and after- 
wards Donatus and Fabian issued letters 
condemnatory of Privatus and his opinions. 

In 250 Privatus visited Rome, and Cyprian, 
apprehensive of his influence, warned the 
clergy against him. Theyreplied (Ep. xxxvi. 
4) that they had already detected him in an 
attempt to obtain litterae (communicatoriae) 
from them fraudulently. 

He presented himself (vetus haereticus) and 
desired to be heard on behalf of the party 
who took the lax view as to the lapst, at the 
2nd council Id. Mai., 252, and, on being re- 


5 
i 


PROBUS 


jected, consecrated Fortunatus pseudo-bishop 
( £p.lix. 13), assisted by a pseudo-bishop, Felix 
of his own consecration, and by Jovinus and 
Maximus, and a lapsed bishop, Repostus 
Suturnicensis. {shales 
Probus (4), Sextus Anioius Petronius 
(Corp. Inscrsp. vi. 1, n. 1752), ἃ member of one 
of the most illustrious families in Rome, con- 
sul with Gratian in a.p. 371, and four times 
pretorian prefect of Italy, Illyricum, the 
Gauls, and Africa. He had also been pro- 
consul in Africa in 358 (Cod. Theod. xi. 36; 
xiii.). He was appointed pretorian prefect 
of Italy and Illyricum in 368 (Ammian. xxvii. 
1). During his tenure of office he chose St. 
Ambrose, then a young advocate, as one of 
his council, and afterwards appointed him 
governor of Liguria and Areata with the 
rank of consular. On this occasion Probus 
uttered | the words, afterwards considered 
prophetic, ‘‘Go, act not as a judge but as a 
bishop”; and many years later he sent one 
of his servants, who was possessed with a 
devil, to be healed by him (Paulinus, Vita 
Ambr. 5, 8, 21, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xiv. 28, 
29, 34). Probus continued prefect of Italy 
until Valentinian died in 374. He appears as 
pretorian prefect of Italy in 380, and as 
pretorian prefect in 383-354 (Cod. Theod. 
vi. 28 ii.; xi. 13 i.; vi. 30 vi.) After the 
murder of Gratian in 383 he acted as regent 
to Valentinian II. in Italy, accompanying him 
and his mother Justina in their flight to 
Thessalonica on the invasion of Maximus in 
387 (Socr. H. E. v. 11; Soz. H. E. vii. 13). 
He died before the end of 394 (Claudian. in 
Prob. et Ol. Cons. 31) at the age of nearly 60, 
after having received baptism (Corp. Inscrip. 
vi. I, p. 389). It may be owing to his Chris- 
tianity that Ammianus (xxvii. 11) paints him 
in such unfavourable colours, a remarkable 
contrast to the glowing panegyric of Claudian 
and Ausonius (Ep. 16). All agree as to his 
immense wealth and boundless liberality. 
His wife Anicia Faltonia Proba belonged to 
the Anician house, and their sons Probinus 
and Olybrius had the unique honour of being 
consuls together in 395. Six letters of 
Symmachus, who was his intimate friend 
(Epp. i. 56-61), are addressed to him (Tillem. 
Emp. v. 42, 72). (F-p.] 
Prochorus (Πρόχορος), the name of one of 
the seven deacons in Acts vi. 5. Later tradi- 
tion makes him one of the 70 disciples, and 
afterwards bp. of Nicomedia in Bithynia (cf. 
the list of the 70 in the so-called Dorotheus). 
Under his name has been preserved an 
apocryphal History of the Apostle John, first 
published in the Greek text by Michael 
Neander in the appendix to the 3rd ed. of his 
Graeco-Latin version of Luther's Short 
Catechism, along with a Latin trans. by 
Sebastian Castalio (Catechesis Martini Luthert 
ale gracco-latina postremum 
asileae, 1567, pp. 526-663). 
The narrative i a with the parting of the 
apostles and St. John’s mission into Asia. In 
punishment for a first refusal to go by sea John 
suffers shipwreck, but arrives safely at Ephesus, 
accompanied by Prochoros his disciple. Here 


he takes service in a public bath; restores to_ 


life the owner’s son, who has been slain by a 
demon, destroys the image of Diana (Artemis) 


recognula, 


PROCHORUS 801 


and expels the demon which had harboured 
there; is banished himself, but soon returns 
to be again exiled to Patmos by command 
of the emperor. On the voyage thither he 
restores a drowned man tolife, stills a tempest, 
and heals a sick guardsman. The greater part 
of the subsequent narrative is occupied with 
the wondrous deeds of the apostle in his 
banishment, his victorious encounters with 
demons and sorcerers, his refutation of a 
learned Jew in a public dispute, numerous 
miracles of healing and raising from the dead, 
and triumphant issues out of every conflict 
in which “τοὶ mpeg mag: enemies involve him. 
After a residence in Patmos of 15 years he 
has converted almost the whole island. Re- 
ceiving permission to return to Ephesus, he 
first retires to a solitary place in the island 
(xardwaveis) and there dictates his gospel to 
Prochoros, and when finished leaves it behind 
as a memorial of his workin Patmos. He then 
goes by ship to Ephesus, and dwells there in 
the house of Domnus, whom he had formerly 
in his youth raised to life. After residing 26 
a more at Ephesus he buries himself alive. 
ochoros and six other disciples dig his grave, 
and when he has laid himself in it, cover him 
with earth. On the grave being subsequently 
reopened, the apostle has mag toe 
his writing of the alleged Prochoros is, in 
its main contents at least, in no way ἃ recen- 
sion of the old Gnostic Acts of John, but the 
independent work of some Catholic author. 
Though the writer makes some use of the 
Gnostic Acts, he can hardly have known them 
in their original text. Its purpose seems to 
be to supplement the Ephesian histories of 
the piers ἴ- which already existed in a Catholic 
recension by a detailed account of his deeds 
and adventures in Patmos. The author can 
have had no local interest in its composition. 
His notions of the situation, size, and general 
characteristics of the island, which he certainly 
never saw, are most extraordinary. In con- 
structing his narrative he has made only par- 
tial use of older materials. By far the most 
of these narrations of the pretended Prochoros 
are free inventions of his own. None betray 
any leaning towards Gnosticism. The author 
shews no tendency to ascetic views except 
where he draws from older sources ; and even 
in discourses attributed to the apostle the 
theological element is quite subordinate. He 
takes no notice of the Apocalypse, and, in 
opposition to the older tradition, places the 
}composition of the gospel in Patmos. The 
account given of this is certainly not derived 
from the Gnostic Περίοδοι. 
| The date of composition cannot be later than 
| the middle of 5th cent., since it is made use of, 
not only in the Chronicon Paschale (pp. 761, 
470, ed. Bonn; ct. Zahn, pp. 162 sqq-), but 
also in the accounts of the apostles attributed 
to Dorotheus, Hippolytus, and others. The 
terminus a quo is the end of the 4th or begin: 
ning of the sth cent., since, from that time 
onwards and not before, Catholic writers 
appear to have known the Gnostic histories of 
the apostles. With this, moreover, agrees the 
‘fact that the author can assume a universal 
diffusion of apres | in Ephesus and the 
Aegean τὶ ig t is more dificult to 
determine the p of composition. 


802 PROCLUS 


author is certainly not a native of Asia Minor, 
but rather perhaps of Antioch, or the coast 
region of Syria and Palestine. He is better 
acquainted with the topography of those parts 
than with the neighbourhood of Ephesus. Of 
his personal circumstances we can only say 
that he certainly was not a monk; perhaps 
he was a married cleric, possibly a layman. 
Cf. Zahn, Acta Joannis (Erlangen, 1880) ; 
Lipsius, Die Apocryphen A postelgeschichten, i. 
355-408. [R.A.L.] 

Proclus (1) (Proculus), a Montanist teacher, 
and probably the introducer of Montanism 
into Rome at the very beginning of the 3rd 
cent. For the account given by Tertullian 
(adv. Prax. 1) of the apparently favourable 
reception the new prophesying at first met 
with at Rome, and its subsequent rejection, 
see MontTanismM. Proclus was publicly op- 
posed by Caius, commonly called a Roman 
presbyter, and the record of their disputation, 
though now lost, was read by Eusebius, and 
is mentioned by several other writers. [Catus.] 
Pseudo-Tertullian states (Haer. 21) that the 
Montanists were divided into two sections by 
the Patripassian controversy, Proclus leading 
the section whose doctrine on that subject 
agreed with that of the church, and Aeschines 
the opposite section. This schism among the 
Montanists is mentioned also by Hippolytus 
(Ref. viii. 19). 

We can scarcely be wrong in identifying 
Proclus the Montanist with the Proculus whom 
Tertullian in his tract against the Valentinians 
(c. 5) calls ‘‘ Proculus noster, virginis senectae 
et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas.’”’ He 
there refers to him as one who, like Justin 
Martyr, Miltiades, and Irenaeus, successfully 
confuted heresy. He is also named as a leader 
of the Montanists by Pacian (Ep.ad Sympron.), 
and no doubt it is his name which is disguised 
as Patroclus in the MSS. of Theodoret (Haer. 
Fab. iii. 2). [α.5.] 

Proelus (2), St., patriarch of Constantinople. 
The friend and disciple of Chrysostom, he 
became secretary to Atticus the patriarch, 
who ordained him deacon and priest. Sisin- 
nius, the successor of Atticus, consecrated him 
bp. of Cyzicus, but the people there refused 
to receive him, and he remained at Constanti- 
nople. On the death of Sisinnius, the famous 
NESTORIUS succeeded, and early in 429, on a 
festival of the Virgin, Proclus preached the 
celebrated sermon on the Incarnation inserted 
in the beginning of the Acts of the council of 
Ephesus. When Maximianus died on Thur. 
before Easter, 434, Proclus was, by the per- 
mission of Theodosius, immediately enthroned 
by the bishops at Constantinople. His first 
care was the funeral of his predecessor, and he 
then sent both to Cyril and John of Antioch 
the usual synodical letters announcing his 
appointment, both of whom approved of it. 
In 436 the bishops of Armenia consulted him 
upon certain doctrines prevalent in their 
country and attributed to Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, asking for their condemnation. 
Proclus replied (437) in the celebrated letter 
known as the Tome of Proclus, which he sent 
to the Eastern bishops asking them to sign it 
and to join in condemning the doctrines 
arraigned by the Armenians. They approved 
of the letters, but from admiration of Theodore 


PROCOPIUS OF CAESAREA 


hesitated to condemn the doctrines attributed 
to him. Proclus replied that while he desired 
the extracts subjoined to his Tome to be con- 
demned, he had not attributed them to 
Theodore or any individual, not desiring the 
condemnation of any person. A rescript from 
Theodosius procured by Proclus, declaring his 
wish that all should live in peace and that no 
imputation should be made against any one 
who died in communion with the church, 
appeased the storm. The whole affair shewed 
conspicuously the moderation and tact of 
Proclus. In 438 he transported to Constan- 
tinople from Comana, and interred with great 
honour in the church of the Apostles, the 
remains of his old master St. Chrysostom, and 
thereby reconciled to the church his adherents 
who had separated in consequence of his 
condemnation. In 439, at the request of a 
deputation from Caesarea in Cappadocia, he 
selected as their new bishop Thalassius, who 
was about to be appointed pretorian prefect of 
the East. Inthe time of Proclus the Trisagion 
came into use. The occasion is said to have 
been a time when violent earthquakes lasted 
for four months at Constantinople, so that the 
people were obliged to leave the city and en- 
camp in the fields. Proclus died most prob- 
ably in July 446. He appears to have been 
wise, moderate, and conciliatory, desirous, 
while strictly adhering to orthodoxy himself, 
to win over those who differed from him by 
persuasion rather than force. 

His works (Migne, Patr. Gk. lxv. 651) consist 
of 20 sermons (some of doubtful authenticity), 
5 more pub. by Card. Mai (Spic. Rom. iv. xliii. 
Ixxviii.), of which 3 are preserved only in a 
Syriac version, the Greek being lost ; 7 letters, 
along with several addressed to him by other 
persons; and a few fragments of other letters 
and sermons. Socr. H. E. vii. xxvi., and 
passim; Theophan. sub an. 430 ; Tillem. Mém. 
eccl. xiv. 704; AA. SS. Act. x. 639. [F.D.] 

Procopius (8) Gazaeus, Christian sophist, 
temp. Justin and Justinian (518-565). Of his 
life we know only that he was the preceptor 
of Choricius the sophist. His fame rests on 
his Scripture commentaries. These, though 
diffuse, are but abridgements of the collections 
he had made (see his Prolog. to the commentary 
on Gen.); his profession of belief as to the 
nature of the Triune God, and the importance, 
authority, and interpretation of Scripture, is 
very satisfactory. His style is highly polished 
and concise. He must be distinguished from 
his contemporary sophist, PRocopius (9) OF 
CAESAREA. His collected works are pub. by 
Migne, Patr. Gk. \xxxvii. in 3 parts, but his 
commentaries have also appeared separately. 
Of more doubtful authenticity and probably 
belonging to Procopius Caesarensis, though 
commonly attributed to P. Gazaeus is Pane- 
gyricus in Imp. Anastasium (Gk. and Lat.) in 
Corp. Script. Hist. Byz. (Bonnae, 1829), pp. 
489 seq. and Migne w.s. pt. ili. ; Descriptio Bast- 
licae Sanctae Sophiae (Gk. and Lat.) Migne, 
ib.; and Menodia in 5. Sophiam terraemotu 
collapsum (Gk. and Lat.) in Migne, 7b. pt. ii. 
(Cellier, Aut. Sacr. xi. 176 seq.; Cave, Hist. 
Lit. i. 504; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vi. 258; 
vii. 535; Vili. 375; ix. 447; L. Eisenhofer, 
Procopius von Gaza, Freiburg i/Br. 1897.) [J.G.] 

Procopius (9) of Caesarea, Byzantine his- 


PROCOPIUS OF CAESAREA 


torian, Born at Caesarea in Palestine, he | castles, bridges, monasteries, and structures 


went during the rei 
stantinople, where τ 
pleaded in the courts. 

We meet him first c. 527, when he was sent 
by Justinian to accompany Belisarius, as 
secretary and privy councillor, in his expedi- 
tions against the Persians. In 533 he was 
with him in Africa, warring against the 
Vandals, and, after their subjection, was left 
behind to reduce the conquered into order. 
A mutiny of the soldiers drove him in 536 to 
Sicily, which Belisarius was then engaged in 
reducing, and he accompanied the latter into 
Italy in his campaign against the Goths. In 
542 Procopius returned to Constantinople, 
where he seems to have remained to the end 
of his life, devoting himself mainly to writin 
a history of the expeditions, in which he ha 
borne no unimportant part. 

It is a question whether he was a Christian 
or a heathen. He speaks of the church of 
St. Sophia at Constantinople as the temple of 
the great Christ of God (rd ἱερὸν τοῦ μεγάλου 
Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, de Bell. Vandal. i. 6). He 
describes Jesus as the Son of God Who went 
about clothed with a human body, shewing 
that He was the Son of God both by His 
sinless life and His superhuman d (de 
Bell. Pers. ii. 12). Christians are in his eyes 
those who have right opinions respecting God 
(de Bell. Vandal. i. 21). The Virgin Mary is 
often mentioned under the name θεοτόκος 
(e.g. de Aedif. v. 7). The Hellenic religion is 
alluded to as impiety (ἐδ. vi. 4). 


taught rhetoric and 


heretics as if he occupied a calm position 
superior to them both (de Bell. Pers. i. 18). 
The controversies of the church had done 
much to alienate him from doctrinal Christian- 
ity; and, though he does speak at times as if 
he had embraced some of its distinct tenets, 
it is hardly possible to think that he had done 
so in the sense of regarding them as an express 
revelation of divine truth to man. 

His works consist of a history of the Persian 
war from 408 to 549; a history of the war 
with the Vandals in Africa from 395 to 545; 
a history of the Gothic wars in Italy from 487 
to 574; a work de Aedifictis J ustiniani Imp. ; 
and a work entitled Anecdota or a secret 
history of Justinian, the empress Theodora, 
Belisarius, his wife Antonina, and others of the 
court. This last, intended for publication 
only after the author's death, is described by 
Cave in the strongest terms of reprobation, as 
written to shew the court of Justinian as no 


better than a diabolorum lerna, and as exhibit-— 


ing such audacity, falsehood, calumny, and 
charges of unheard-of crimes, that it has been 
doubted whether Procopius really wrote it. 
(See Schréckh, vol. xvi. p. 168, etc.) 

As to the value of the three works first 
mentioned there can be no doubt. Procopius 


had enjoyed most favourable opportunities | 


of acquainting himself with the events he 
describes. Gibbon draws largely on the 
“sober testimony of Procopius,’’ and also 
describes him as “ the gravest historian of the 
times’”’ (c. xxxviii.). 

De Aedificiis is throughout a tribute to the 
glory of Justinian. It is devoted to a de- 
scription of the great buildings, temples, forts, 


On the other | 
hand, he often alludes alike to Christians and 


of Anastasius to Con- | of every description erected by Justinian in 


all the different parts of the Roman empire. 
The works of Procopius may be consulted 
| with advantage for information on such ts 
} as the condition of the nations and tri of 
(the Abasgi, Bruchi, Alani, Franks, Gothe, 
σης, Persians, Vandals; the wars of Beli- 
sarius, his character and life; geographical 
| notices of towns, rivers, seas, mountains, and 
| countries over a widespread area; the names 
of the bishops, and the ecclesiastical oceur- 
| rences of his time, ete. The best ed. is that of 
Dindorf in the Corpus Seript. Hust. Bys., with 

| the Latin trans. of Maltritus. {wom.] 

| Proculus, Montanist. [(Procits. 

Proculus (7), bp. of Marseilles, at the council 
of Aquileia, a.p. 381, where he joined in con- 
| demning the errors of Palladius and Secun- 
dinianus (Ambros. Ep. viii. pp. 916 (786), 
935 (802), 939 (805), ed. Migne). At the 
council of Turin, a.p. 399, or more probably 
401, though Fleury places it as late as 404, 
Proculus claimed the primacy as metropolitan 
| over the churches not only of his own pro- 
| vince, but also of Nabonensis Secunda. The 
council, while ruling that the bishop of the 
civil metropolis of a province should be 
regarded as the metropolitan, sanctioned the 
claim of Proculus for his own life, in considera: 
tion of his age and high reputation (Bruns, 
| Conc. ii. 114; Baron. vol. v. 397, 43; Fleury, 
Η. E. xxi. §2). His high character is acknow- 
ledged by St. Jerome in his letter to Rustieus, 
A.D. 411 (Ep. 125, 20); but pope Zosimus 
seems to have had a strong feeling against 
him, andin 417 decreed that Patroclus, bp. of 
Arles from 412, was entitled to rank as metro- 
litan. Whether our Proculus was the Gallic 
p. of that name to whom St. Augustine wrote 
in 427 is not quite clear. Tillem. vol. x. pp. 
698, ; Ceillier, vii. pp. 28-537. [.w.r.] 
us, a Gnostic teacher of and cent., 
concerning whom trustworthy information ts 
very scanty. He is not mentioned by the 
rincipal writers on heresies, lrenaeus, Hippo- 
ytus, Epiphanius, or Philaster. Tertullian 
twice mentions him (Scorpiace 15; adv. Pras. 
3), both times in company with Valentinus, in 
such a way as to suggest that he regarded the 
two heretics as of the same school. In the 
‘first passage Prodicus and Valentinus are 
τ αψτι of as teaching that Christ did not wish 
is disciples to confess Him publicly if that 
would expose their lives to ger; in the 
second they are described as introducing in 
opposition to the Creator, not a single rival 
god like Marcion, but a multiplicity of σον 
Our only other trustworthy information about 
Prodicus is in three notices by Clement of 
Alexandria. The first (Strom. i. 14, p. 347) 
states that those who followed the heresy of 
Prodicus boasted of possessing secret books 
of Zoroaster. Apparently in Clement's time 
Prodicus was dead, but a sect founded by him 
still in existence. Strom. vii. 7, p. 854 states 
that his followers objected to the practice of 
prayer. Clement does not state their grounds 
of objection. The most characteristic notice 
of the sect is (sd. iii. 4, p. $25) that his followers 
who claim to be Gnostics (falsely τὸ called) 
‘declare that they are by nature children of the 
‘first god, and privileged by their noble birth 


804 PROSPER 

to live as they choose, being ‘‘lords of the 
sabbath,” and ‘‘ as king’s children above the 
law’’; and living ‘‘as they chose’? meant 
living very licentiously. 

For further information we have to come 
down to the 5th cent. to Theodoret (Haer. 
Fab. i. 6), who seems to have no knowledge 
of Prodicus except from Clement, whom he 
quotes, mixing up, however, some of the 
things which Clement says about other licen- 
tious Gnostic sects ; e.g. it seems an unauthor- 
ized combination of Theodoret’s to connect 
Prodicus with Carpocrates, and we may reject 
as equally arbitrary Theodoret’s assertion that 
he founded the sect of the Adamites, of which 
Theodoret would have read in Epiphanius 
(Haer. 52). [G.s.] 

Prosper (4), St., a native of Aquitaine, not 
certainly known to have been in holy orders ; 
probably born c. 403. About 426-429 he 
removed to Marseilles, where he lived as a 
monk until 440. Some time between 420 and 
427 John Cassian put forth in his Collationes 
a doctrine concerning grace and free will con- 
trary to that taught by St. Augustine. This 
doctrine was taken up warmly by many 
monks at Marseilles, and both Prosper and 
Hilary (as to whom see further on), afraid lest 
a doctrine they believed erroneous should 
become prevalent among the monks, were 
thinking of writing to Augustine to request 
him to explain some of his statements. In 
the meantime came out Augustine’s Correp- 
tione et Gratia, by which Prosper hoped all 
doubts would be settled. But those who 
thought differently only became more obstin- 
ate in their opposition. Although Prosper 
had never seen Augustine, he had written to 
him by Leontius, a deacon, and received a 
reply, but neither letter nor reply has survived. 
He now wrote again to him in 428, as also did 
Hilary, and his reply to these letters is con- 
tained in the consecutive treatises de Prae- 
destinatione Sanctorum and de Dono Persever- 
antiae, written either in 428 or 429 (see Aug. 
Epp. 225, 226; and Opp. vol. x. pp. 947-1034, 
ed. Migne). [AuGusTINE.] Augustine died 
A.D. 430, and the opponents of his doctrine in 
Gaul professing willingness to abide by the 
decision of the Roman pontiff, Hilary and 
Prosper went to Rome and brought back a 
letter from Celestine I. to the Gallic bishops, 
Venerius of Marseilles, Marinus, Leontius of 
Fréjus, Auxentius of Nice, Auxonius of Vi- 
viers, and Arcadius of Venice. In this he 
speaks of Hilary and Prosper as men ‘‘ quorum 
circa Deum nostrum solicitudo laudanda est,”’ 
and reproved, but without effect, the indis- 
cretion and ill-informed zeal of their opponents 
(Coelest. Ep. xxi. 1, 2). To this letter are 
subjoined in some editions a series of so-called 
decisions of the apostolic see concerning grace 
and free will, which, however, cannot be 
regarded as authentic. When Leo I. returned 
from his mission into Gaul, a.p. 440, to be 
made pope, he persuaded Prosper to accom- 
pany him to Rome, and employed him as his 
secretary (notfartus). Photius says that he 
confuted the Pelagians at Rome in the time 
of Leo, and a MS. of the monastery of Corbey 
adds, but without mention of authority, that 
he was sent by him on a similar errand into 
Campania to oppose Julian of Eclanum. 


PROSPER 


Gennadius says that he was the real author of 
the epistle of Leo against Eutyches concerning 
the incarnation of Christ. The chronicle of 
Marcellinus shews him alive in 463. Fulgen- 
tius (ad. Mon. i. c. 30) speaks of him as 
““eruditus et sanctus’’; Photius (Biblioth. 54) 
as one who was truly a man of God, but with 
no other title than Πρόσπειρός Tis, who confuted 
the Pelagians in the time of Leo. Gennadius, 
no friend to him, speaks of him (de Scr. Ecc. 
84) as “‘sermone scholasticus et assertionibus 
nervosus ’’ (Butler, Lives of Saints, June 25; 
Ceillier, vol. x. p. 278). The letter of Prosper 
to Augustine describes the view taken at 
Marseilles and elsewhere concerning predesti- 
nation. Those who adopted it, he says, 
believe that mankind has sinned in Adam, and 
that without God’s grace there can be no 
salvation for any one. God offers salvation 
to all, so that they who attain faith and re- 
ceive baptism are in the way of being saved. 
But before the creation of the world God fore- 
knew who would believe and be saved, and 
predestined them to His kingdom, being called 
by grace and worthy of being chosen and of 
going out of life sound in faith. No man, 
therefore, need despair of salvation, but this 
selection on God’s part makes human exertion 
needless either for recovery from sin or for 
progress in holiness. Thus a doctrine of fatal 
necessity is introduced. They also think 
that men can by their own merit, by praying, 
beseeching, knocking, attain that state of 
grace in which we are born anew unto Christ. 
Infants dying without baptism will be saved 
or not according as God foreknows what their 
conduct would have been if they had grown 
up. Christ died for the whole race of man- 
kind, but some miss this salvation because 
they are known beforehand to have no incli- 
nation to receive it. They also deny that the 
merits of saints proceed from divine grace, 
and that the number of the elect can be either 
increased or diminished, and they assert that 
the only way in which a man is called either 
to repentance or to progress in holiness is by 
the exercise of his own free will. They thus 
place obedience before grace, and the first step 
towards salvation in him who is to be saved, 
not in Him Who saves. Great difficulties 
arise, Prosper says, in his attempts to convince 
the holders of these opinions of their errors, 
from his own want of ability and from the 
great and acknowledged sanctity of their lives, 
a remark which he probably intends especially 
of Cassian; and also from the elevation of 
some of them to the highest office in the 
church. He therefore begs Augustine to ex- 
plain (a) how Christian faith can escape 
division through these disputes; (δ) how free 
will can be independent of prevenient grace ; 
(c) whether God’s foreknowledge is absolute 
and complete; (d) whether foreknowledge 
depends in any way on human purpose, and 
whether there can be any good which does not 
proceed from God ; (6) how those who despair 
of their own election can escape carelessness 
of life. Heasks him to explain all this in a 
way consistent with God’s previous ordinance 
of vessels of honour and dishonour. One of 
these men, Hilary, bp. of Arles, is known to 
Augustine as an admirer of his doctrine and 
as wishing to compare his own view with his 


0 ee ee 


ς »“π:9»..χΧὺ 


PROSPER 


by writing to him, but whether he will do so 
or not Prosper does not know (Aug. Ep. 225). 

The letter of Prosper was accompanied or 
very soon followed by one on the same subject 
by Hilary, concerning whom three chat wat 
have been held: (1) That he was the bp. of 
Arles mentioned by Prosper; (2) that he was 
a lay monk of Gaul; (3) that he was the 
Hilary who wrote to Augustine from Syracuse, 
A.D. 414. That he was a lay monk appears 
tolerably clear. Augustine replied in the de 
Praed. and de Don. Peua, which are really 
consecutive volumes of one work. 

About the same time Prosper wrote an 
answer on the same subject to a friend named 
Ruffinus or Rufinus, about whom nothing is 
known except that Prosper addresses him as 
Sanctitas tua, perhaps ee a member of 
a religious community. e wrote partly to 
vindicate himself from unfavourable reports 
as to his doctrine, partly to direct his attention 
to the writings of Augustine and clear them 
from the accusation of denying free will and 
setting up Manichean doctrine. The line of 
argument against Pelagian or semi-Pelagian 
views is much the same as in the letter to 
Augustine, but he also mentions the cases of 
Cornelius and Lydia as instances of persons 
who had been led by God's grace into the way 
of eternal life, and as not by any means 
favouring the Pelagian theory. Why all men 
are not saved is a mystery of God's, not 
explicable by human understanding, and of 
which we may be thankful to be ignorant 
(Ep. ad Rufin.; for a long account of which 
see Ceillier, vol. x. 279-284). 

Prosper also wrote or compiled several 
works in prose and verse. 

I. VerseE.—The longest is the poem de 
Ingratis, a term by which he describes those 
who teach erroneous doctrine about grace, viz. 
the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. It is 
explained clearly in v. 685: 

“* Vos soli Ingrati, quos urit gratia, cujus 

Omne opus arbitrio vultis consistere vestro."’ 


It consists of 1002 lines with a short elegiac 
preface, and is divided into four parts. A 
theological treatise in verse ratherthan a poem, 
it describes accurately the history of the 
Pelagian doctrine, whose author it calls ** colu- 
ber Britannus,’’ and mentions the treatment 


his opinions met at Rome, in the Eastern |; 


church and in Africa through the influence 
mainly of Augustine, ‘‘ the light of the age.” 
The manner in which the Roman church is 
spoken of is worthy of notice, v. 40: 


“. . . pestem subeuntem prima recidit 


Sedes Roma Petri, quae toralis honoris 
Facta caput mundo, quidquid non possidet armis 
Religione tenet.’ 


Though without any claim to high rank as 
poetry, and exhibiting, though in a less degree 
than does Paulinus, the degenerate standard 
of its age in language and versification, it 
treats its subject with well-sustained vigour 
and generally with clearness, and now and 
then expresses theological truths, though 
perhaps with severity, yet with remarkable 
force and terseness. Ampére condemns what 
he considers its violence, its hard, melancholy, 
and desponding tone, amounting sometimes 
“to a pale reflection of hell.” He also points 


PROSPER 865 


out a similarity in its sentiment to some works 
of Pascal and the Port-Royalists, which he 
contrasts unfavourably with the tone of 
Bossuct in his essay on the fear of God (Mist. 
bith. de France, vol. ii. ς. 16, pp. 98-58). 

There are other poems of an epigrammatic 
kind, generally regarded as genuine works of 
Prosper, though doubted by some editors. 
Two of them, doubted by Garnier, are ad- 
dressed to a maligner (obtrectatorem) of St. 
Augustine. Another, entitled Conjugus ad 
Uxorem, is in some edd. of Paulinus's works, 
but is quoted by Bede in his treatise de Arte 
Metrica as the work of Prosper Tiro. It con- 
sists of 16 lines of Anacreontic metre, followed 
Li 98 elegiac lines, describing the glory of the 
Christian life and having some passages of 
considerable force and beauty both of thought 
and expression. It was evidently composed 
during the confusion and disaster caused by 
the barbarian invasions, hence ¢. 407, but 
there is no evidence to shew that Prosper of 
Aquitaine was ever married, and if not besides 
the improbability arising from its date, the 
poem is not likely to be his composition. 

II. Prose.—(1) Responsiones pro Augustino 
ad Capitula Gallorum. A statement under 15 
heads of the objections of the Gallic bishops 
to the doctrines of St. Augustine on Predestin- 
ation, with answers toeach. (2) Responsiones 
ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum. A 
similar work in 16 chapters. The objections 
express, in a manner harsh, revolting, and 
unfair, the possible results of predestinarian 
doctrine carried to its extreme point. (3) 
Responsiones ad Excerpta Genuensium.—Some 
clergymen of Genoa had misunderstood vari- 
ous passages from the two treatises of St. 
Augustine, de Praedestinatione Sanctorum, and 
de Dono Perseverantiae, and to them pin δὶ 
addresses a courteous explanation, quoting 
passages cited by them and adding his own 
replies, gathered in some cases from the words 
of Augustine, and in one case pointing out an 
egregious blunder made by them in quoting 
as his opinion words intended to express an 
opponent's objection. (4) Contra Collatorem, 
tone Cassian had written a book entitled 
Spiritual Conferences (Collationes), 17 in 
number, in the 13th of which, entitled de 
Protectione Dei, he condemned severely 
Augustine's doctrine on predestination. This 
is defended by Prosper partly by arguments 
drawn from Scripture and the nature of the 
case, and partly by the authority of the 
churches of Rome, the East, and Africa. He 
warns his adversary of his near approach to 
the precipices of Pelagianism, and expresses 
the hope that his doctrine may be condemned 
by the present pontiff Sixtus (432-440), as it 
had been by those before him. he book 
must have been published between those 
dates. (5) An Exposition of Pss. ¢. to εἰ. 
(omitting evil. (eviii.)), taken substantially and 
often verbally, though much abridged, from 
St. Augustine's Enarrationcs in Psalmos, not 
a mere servile curtailment, but a fair and 
judicious representation, executed with great 
skill, of the Augustinian work, together with 
some additions of Prosper's own, probably 
published ¢. 435. (6) Book of Sentences fahen 


from the Works of St. Augustine, 102 in number, 
put together, probably, originally as ἃ manual 
59 


866 PROTERIUS 


for his own use. They are very short, and are 
a sort of compendious index to the opinions 
of St. Augustine. Other works are assigned 
to Prosper, but on insufficient authority. 

(6a) The Chronicle, probably the best known 
of the works of Prosper, is attributed to him 
without hesitation by Cassiodorus, Gennadius 
of Marseilles, Victorius, and Isidore, though 
Pithou and Garnier doubted it. It extends 
from the earliest age to the capture of Rome 
by the Vandals, A.D. 455, and consists of three 
parts: (1) To A.p. 326, founded, asit states, on 
that of Eusebius, and though much abridged, 
treating the subject with some independence. 
(2) From 326 to 378, which uses similarly 
Jerome’s continuation of Eusebius, with both 
additions and omissions. (3) From 378 t0 455. 
As might be expected, predominance is given to 
ecclesiastical events, especially such as concern 
the rise and fall of heretical doctrines. The 
Chronicle arose out of an endeavour to fix the 
date of Easter, for which purpose Prosper 
constructed a Paschal cycle now lost. 

(b) Chronicle of Tivo Prosper. Besides the 
Chronicle just described, another much shorter 
and relating to the latest period only, bearing 
the name of Prosper, was edited by Pierre 
Pithou in 1588 from MSS. in the library of the 
monastery of St. Victor at Paris. It is difficult 
to believe that the two Chronicles could be by 
the same writer, or if they were, to understand 
why he published both, as must have been the 
case, about the same time. It is much more 
probable that Prosper of Aquitaine and Tiro 
Prosper, despite an apparently mistaken 
statement of Bede, were different persons. 

The best ed. of Prosper’s collected works, 
by Desprez and Desessarts (Paris, 1711), con- 
tainsall the worksrightly attributed to Prosper, 
together with others not belonging to him, and 
various pieces relating to the semi-Pelagian 
controversy. It is revised and reprinted in 
Migne’s Patr. Lat. vol. li. See L. Valentin, 
St. Prosper d’ Aquitaine (Paris, 1900). [H.W.P. Ἰ 

Proterius, St., patriarch of Alexandria, was 
presbyter and ‘church-steward under Dios- 
corus, and left in charge of the church when 
Dioscorus went to the council of Chalcedon. 
After Dioscorus was deposed by that council, 
the emperor Marcian ordered a new election 
to the see. The suffragan bishops, except 13 
detained at Constantinople by a resolution of 
the council (Chalced. c. 30), were assembled 
in synod; and the chief laymen of Alexandria 
came as usual to express their mind and assent 
to the prelate’s choice (cf. Liberat. Brevzar. 
c. 14, and Evagr. ii. 5). There was great 
difficulty in reaching a conclusion; for the 
majority of the Alexandrian church people 
were profoundly aggrieved by the action of the 


council. Intheir eyes Dioscorus was still their 
rightful ‘‘ pope,’ the representative of Cyril 
and of Athanasius. Ultimately, however, 


opposition to the imperial mandate was felt 
impracticable. It was resolved to elect, and 
then all favoured Proterius, who was con- 
secrated and enthroned (A.D. 452); but the 
passions of the Dioscorian and anti- Dioscorian 
parties broke out at once into tumultuous 
dissension, which Evagrius likens to the 
surging of the sea. Proterius sending Leo 
the usual announcement of his elevation, Leo 


asked some definite assurance of his orthol | 


PROTERIUS 


doxy (Leo, Ep. 113, in Mar. 453), and received 
a letter which he regarded as “fully satis- 
factory,’’ shewing Proterius to be a “‘ sincere 
assertor of the Catholic dogma,”’ inasmuch as 
he had cordially accepted the Tome (Epp. 127, 
130). Thereupon (Mar. 454) he wrote again 
to Proterius, advising him to clear himself 
from all suspicion of Nestorianizing, by read- 
ing to his people certain passages from ap- 
proved Fathers, and then shewing that the 
Tome did but hand on their tradition and 
guard the truth from perversions on either 
side. Leo took care, in thus addressing the 
“successor of St. Mark,’’ to dwell on that 
evangelist’s relation to St. Peter as of a dis- 
ciple to a teacher; and he bespeaks the 
support of the Alexandrian see in this resist- 
ance to the unprincipled ambition of Con- 
stantinople, which in the 28th canon, so 
called, of Chalcedon had injured the “ dig- 
nity ’’ of the other great bishoprics (Ep. 129). 
Another question prolonged the correspond- 
ence. The Nicene Fathers were believed to 
have commissioned the Alexandrian bishops 
to ascertain and signify the right time for each 
coming Easter. Leo had consulted Cyril as 
to the Easter of 444; and he now, in 454, 
applied to Proterius, through the emperor, for 
his opinion as to the Easter of 455, which the 
Alexandrian Paschal table appeared to him 
to place too late (Epp. 121, 127). Proterius 
replied to Leo at some length (Ep. 133, Apr. 
454) that Egypt and the East would keep 
Apr. 24 as Easter Day, and expressed his 
belief that all Christians everywhere would 
“‘observe one faith, one baptism, and one 
most sacred paschal solemnity.” 

Proterius had troubles with his own clergy. 
Not long after the council a priest named 
Timotheus and a deacon named Peter (nick- 
named Mongus) refused to communicate with 
him, because in his diptychs he ignored Dios- 
corus and commemorated the council of 
Chalcedon. He summoned them to return 
to duty; they refused, and he pronounced in 
synod their deposition (Liberat. c. 15 ; Brevic. 
Hist. Eutych. or Gesta in causa Acacwti, in 
Mansi, vii. 1062). Four or five bishops and 
a few monks appear to have actively supported 
them, and to have been included in their 
condemnation and in the imperial sentence of 
exile which followed (Ep. Aegypt. Episc. ad 
Leonem Aug. in Mansi, vii. 525). The monks 
in Egypt, as elsewhere, were generally attached 
to the Monophysite position, which they 
erroneously identified with the Cyrilline. They 
took for granted that the late council had been 
practically striking at Cyril through Dios- 
corus; and that Christ’s single personality 
was atstake. Thus, besides those monks who 
had overtly taken part with Timotheus and 
Peter, others apparently had suspended com- 
munion with the archbishop; and Marcian 
had addressed them in gentle ‘and persuasive 
terms, assuring them that the doctrine of ‘* one 
Christ, ” symbolized by the term Theotokos, 
had been held sacrosanct at Chalcedon, and 
exhorting them therefore to join with the 
Catholic church of the orthodox, which was 
one (Mansi, vii. 481). But the schism, once 
begun, was not thus to be abated ; the zealous 
seceders raised a cry, which has practically 
never died out, that the Egyptian adherents 


- of the council of Chalcedon were a mere state- 
made church, upheld by the court against the 
convictions of the faithful. To this day the 
poor remnant of orthodoxy in Egypt bears a 
name which is a stigma, Melchites, or “ adher- 
ents of the king.” (Cf. Renaudot, Hist. Patr. 
Alex. p. το; Neale, Hist. Patr. Alex. ii. 7. They 
both add that the orthodox accepted the term.) 


Even after Dioscorus died in exile Proterius was | Th 


ignored and disclaimed, and knew that he was 
the object of a hatred that was biding its time, 
and “during the greater part of his tifi- 
cate,” as Liberatus tells us, depended for 
safety on a military guard. At last, in Jan. 
457, Marcian died, and the Monophysites 
thought they saw their opportunity. Some 
malcontent Egyptian bishops renewed their 
outcry against the council (Eulogius, in Phot. 
Bidl. 130, p. 283, ed. Bekk.) ; and Timotheus, 
returning to Alexandria, began those intrigues 
which won him his title of ‘the Cat." [Timo- 
THEUS AELURUS.] The “dux" Dionysius 
being absent in Upper Egypt, Timotheus 
found it the easier to gather a disorderly 
following and obtain irregular consecration. 
Dionysius, returning, expelled Timotheus; and 
the latter's partisans in revenge rushed to the 
house of Proterius, and after besetting him for 
some time in the adjacent church of Quirinus, 
ran him through with a sword in its baptistery, 
and he died under many wounds with six of 
his clerics. His corpse was dragged by a cord 
across the central place called Tetrapylon, and 
then through nearly the whole city, with 
hideous cries, ‘‘ Look at Proterius!"’ Beaten 
as if it could still suffer, torn limb from limb, 
and finally burnt, its ashes were “ scattered 
to the winds."" The day was Easter Day, 
Mar. 31,457. See also Evagr. ii. 8; Le Quien, 
ii. 412; Neale, Hist. Alex. ii. 12. w.B.] 
Prudentius, Marcus (7) Aurelius Clemens, 
the chief Christian poet of early times, born 
A.D. 348 (Praef. 24, cf. Apotheosts, 449), some- 
where in the N. of Spain, near the Pyrenees 
(Peristeph. vi. 146). His name, education, 
and career imply that he was of good family ; 
he was educated in rhetoric and law, and his 
poems shew an exact knowledge of the Latin 
classical poets, especially Virgil, Ovid, Horace, 
and Juvenal; he seems to have known little 
Greek and no Hebrew. He speaks of his early 
life as stained with much sinfulness, but must 
have been heldin high respect, for after practis- 
ing as an advocate, he twice held an important 
civil office, and was at last raised to some high 
position at the emperor's court (cf. Kayser, 
p- 254 n.; Brockhaus, p. 16n.; Faguet, p. 
17). Late in life he received some dee 
religious impression, in consequence of whic 
he gave up public life. Some expressions of 
his seem to imply that he joined a religious 
society (Cath. ii. 45; iii. 56; cf. Psych. 551- 
573). He has no longer any money to relieve 
the poor; the only offering he can make to 
God is his poetry (Epil. 10). To this and to 
prayer he devoted his life, seeking to spread 
among the educated classes a correct know- 
‘ledge of Christianity, or, like a ‘* Christian 
Pindar,” to sing the triumphs of the martyrs 
on their festal days and so win them 


| 
| 


] 


eater this 

. At some od of great anxiety to | The lyrical s shew 
bimeclf he visited δ sao as he passed Imola he | metres el. and are 
poured out his soul in prayer before the picture | and phrase by Horace, 


of St. Cassian in the chureh (Perist. x. 104, τοι}. 
At Rome his anxiety was increased by Ἢ 
and he implored the intercession of St. Hippo- 
lytus (xi. 127) His ny A was answered. 

t Rome he was deeply impressed with the 
memorials of the martyrs in the catacombs 
and churches (xi.) and composed his 
on the deaths of SS. Peter and Paul (xii. 

ere he probably became acquainted with 
the poems of pope Damasus, which influenced 
some ofhisown. Returning to Spain, he wrote 
his poems on St. Cassian (ix.) and St. Hippo- 
lytus, na yey | his bishop to introduce the 
observance of the latter saint's festival into 
Spain (xi.). In 403 οὐ 404 he wrote the 
second book contra Symmachum; and in 405 
published an edition of his poems, with a 
preface shewing that all his extant works, 
except the Ditlochacon and perhaps the Pry- 
chomachia, were then written. Of his later 
life and death nothing is known. 

His character, judging from his writings, 
was very lovable. He was a loyal Roman, 
proud of the empire, seeing in its past con- 
quests and capacity for government a pre- 
paration for the kingdom of Christ, and look- 
ing for greater conquests under the banner of 
the cross (Perist. ii. 1-45, 413-484, x. om; 
c. Symm. i. 415-505, li. 577-771). He has a 
great fondness for art, wishing to keep even 
pagan statues if regarded only as ornaments 
(c. Symm. i. 505). He had an intellectual 
horror of heresy, though with a personal ten- 
derness for heretics (ἐδ. ii. Pre/.). He was loyal 
to all church customs and ordinances, and had 
a strong appreciation of spiritual truth; see 
his lofty conception of the Nature of God 
(Cath. iv. 7-15; Apoth. 84-90; Ham. 27 seq. ; 
c. Symm. i. 325; Perist. x. 310), of the True 
Temple (Cath. iv. 16-21; ἔς. Symm. ii. 249; 
A poth. 516), the True Worship (Perist. x. 441), 
the True Nobility of Birth (15. 123), the True 
Riches (ἐδ. ii. 203), the True Fast (Cath. vi. 
201-220), the True Rew ard (c. Syme. ii. 740). 
He shews a pious tenderness of spirit (ef. 
Apoth. 393), kissing the sacred books 
(ib. 598) and the altar (Perist. ix. τοῦ), and 
a deep personal humility which does not 
venture to contend with Symmachus (i. 609) ; 
which offers his verses to Christ, though they 
are but the “earthen vessel " (Epil. 29) of a 
“rustic poet " (Perist. ii. $74, %. 1); which 
has no merit in itself, but pleads for the 
intercession of the saints that he may be 
transferred from Christ's left hand to His right 
on the judgment day (sd. li. $74, Vi. 162, 
x. 1136), content if he be saved from the fires 
of hell and gently purified for the lowest place 
among the saved (Ham. 931). (Authorities 
his own works, especially the Preface, and 
Gennadius, de Vir. IM, ©. 1.1}. 

W orks. —His extant works are (4) lyrical, 
(Ὁ) apologetic or didactic, (¢) allegorical ; thetr 
most remarkable characteristic being their 
variety. All the poems have a able 
literary value; they are written on the whole 
in good classical Latin, with many new words 
needed for church purposes and with a touch 
of archaic forms and words characteristic of 
period. The prosody is fairly correct. 
cat originality in the 
venced both in form 
Ambrose, and Dam- 


868 PRUDENTIUS 


asus. The hexameter poems are much in- 
debted to Virgil, and in a less degree to 
Lucretius and Juvencus. All shew great 
fluency, relieved by dramatic vividness (e.g. 
Perist. v.; c. Symm. ii. 654 sqq.), rhetorical 
vigour of. description (e.g. Apoth. 450-503; 
c. Symm. i. 415), considerable power of satire 
(Apoth. 186-206; Ham. 246) and humour 
(Perist. li. 169, 407, ix. 69, 82), and much 
epigrammatic terseness of expression ; but he 
dwells on unpleasant details in the accounts 
of martyrdoms (6.5. 7b. x. gor) and of the 
coarsenesses of heathen mythology (Cath. vii. 
115 sqq.). They are full of typical adapta- 
tions of Bible history (e.g. prefaces to Ham., 
Psych., and i. ii. Symm.). In this way, and 
in the substance of their arguments, they have 
a theological value, as shewing the tone of 
thought common at the time. Their lack of 
originality of thought makes them even more 
valuable for this purpose. (For the substance 
of the theology v. Brockhaus, c. vii.) But 
perhaps their historical value is the greatest. 
They give considerable information about 
heathen antiquities, ¢.g. the kinds of torture 
in use (Perist. i. 42), methods of writing (1b. 
ix. 23), the corn supplies of Rome (c. Symm. 


ii. 920), the gladiatorial shows hee 1. 384, ii. 
1909), the religious rites (ἐδ. i. 11. passim; 
Perist. x.), and still more Bote: Christian 
antiquities: the luxury and avarice of the 


times (Ham. 246; Apoth. 183, 210, 450), the 
position of deacons and archdeacons at Rome 
(Perzst. ii. 37, v. 29), the times and details of 
fasting (Cath. iii. 57, vii. viii. 9), the use of 
anointing (ἰδ. vi. 125, ix. 98; Apoth. 357, 
493; Psych. 360), the sign of the cross (Cath. 
Vi. 129, ix. 84; Apoth. 493; c. Symm. ii. 
712), lights in churches, especially on Easter 
Eve (Cath. v.), funeral rites (7b. x. 49), and the 
veneration for the saints (Perist. passim. esp. i. 
10-21, ii. 530 sqq., x. ad fin., xi. ad 1m. xii.). 
Especially do they illustrate the art of the 
time. We have mention of the Lateran 
church (c. Symm. i. 586), that of St. Laurence 
(Perist. xi. 216), of buildings over the tombs 
of SS. Peter and Paul (xii.) and of the 
catacombs (xi. 153) at Rome; of a church at 
Merida (iii. 191), and a baptistery apparently 
at Calahorra (viii.); of a picture of the 
martyrdom of St. Cassian in the church at 
Imola (ix.), of St. Hippolytus in the cata- 
combs (xi. 123), and of St. Peter (xii. 38). 
The Dittochaeon consists of titles for pictures, 
and nearly all the symbols which he uses (the 
Dove, the Palm, the Good Shepherd, etc.), as 
well as the Bible scenes illustrating his poems, 
are found on gems or on the walls of the 
catacombs, so that he may have derived his 
use of them from thence (Brockhaus, c. ix.). 

From the first his poems were held in great 
honour; they are quoted with high praise by 
Sidonius Apollinaris, Avitus, Leo, Isidore, 
Rabanus Maurus, Alcuin, etc. In the middle 
ages the Psychomachia and the Cathemerinon 
were special favourites, and the MSS. of them 
are very numerous. The best eds. of the 
poems are those of Areval, 1788 (reprinted in 


Migne, lix., lx.); Chamillard (in the Delphin 
classics, with useful index), 1687; Obbar, 
1845; Dressel, 1860. The Apotheosts is 


separately printed in Hurter, Patrum Opuscula 
Selecta, xxxiii. Translations of selected poems 


PRUDENTIUS 


were made by F. St. J. Thackeray (1890); a 
study of the text by E. O. Winstedt in Class. 
Rev. 1903; a metrical study by E. B. Lease 
(Baltimore, 1895); and an excellent mono- 
graph by Brockhaus, A Prudentius tns einer Be- 
deutung fiir die Kirche seiner Zett (Leipz. 1872). 
We give a fuller account of each poem. 

A. Lyrical. (a) Cathemerinon (1.6. καθημε- 
pivwy ὕμν ωνὴ, described in the Pref. 37, 38; a 
collection of hymns for the hours of the day 
and for church seasons. Though necessarily 
too long for public worship, extracts were 
made at least as early as 9th cent., and are 
found frequently in the Mozarabic Liturgy 
(cf. v. vi. vii. ix. x.), and a few in the Roman 
and Salisbury breviaries; on Tues., Wed., 
Thurs. at Lauds (i. ii.), Compline at Christmas 
(ix.), Compline on Good Friday (vi.), Easter 
Eve (v.), Epiphany, the Holy Innocents, and 
the Transfiguration (xii.). (Daniel, i. 119, and 
Kayser, Gesch. d. Kirchenhymnen, 275-336.) 

(b) Peristephanon (1.6. περὶ στεφάνων, de 
Coronts Martyrum), described in Pref. 42; a 
collection of 14 lyrical poems, all (except viii. 
which is an inscription for a baptistery) in 
honour ofmartyrs. The choice of the martyrs 
is inspired by circumstances of the poet’s life ; 
the details perhaps taken from existing Acta 
Martyrum. Half are connected with his own 
native church of Spain (i. ii. (?) iii.-vi. xiii.), 
the rest are saints whom he found specially 
honoured at Rome (ii. vii. x. (?) xi. xii.) or on 
his journey thither (ix.). 

B. Apologetic (referred to in Pref. 39). (a) 
A potheosis=aroféwots, perhaps The Detfica- 
tion of Human Nature in Christ (cf. Pref. 8, 9, 
and 176, 177; c. Symm. ii. 268). The writer 
deals with Patripassian, Sabellian, Ebionite, 
and Docetic errors on our Lord’s Nature. 

(b) Hamartigenia = auaprryevela. A treat- 
ise on the origin of sin; discussed in a polemi- 
cal argument against Marcion. The poem 
falls into two parts. (1) 1-639. God is not 
the creator of Evil. The existence of good and 
evil does not justify Marcion’s theory of two 
Gods, for unity is essential to our conception 
of God. (2) 640-931. God permits evil but 
does not sanction it. The whole object of the 
Incarnation was to save man from evil (640- 
669). The cause of evil is man’s free will, but 
this was needed to secure moral goodness and 
his power of ruling creation. The thought is 
mainly based on Tertullian, adv. Marcionem. 
The language shews reminiscences of Vergil, 
Persius (384), and Juvenal (763). Like the 
other poems, it is full of O.T. illustrations, 
mystically applied (Pref. 409, 564, 723). The 
full description of hell and paradise, and also 
the graphic portraiture of Satan, are especially 
noteworthy as the earliest in Christian litera- 
ture, and so probably of great influence upon 
later art and literature. Both Dante and 
Milton may indirectly be indebted to them. 

(c) Libri c. Symmachum (described in Pref. 
40, 41). In 384 Symmachus had presented a 
petition to Valentinian II. for the restitution 
of the altar of Victory in the senate-house, 
which had been removed by Gratian, and also 
of the incomes of the vestal virgins. Through 
the influence of St. Ambrose (Epp. 17, 18) this 
had been refused. In 392 the altar was re- 
stored by Eugenius; in 394 again removed 
by Theodosius. After his death the heathen 


PSEUDO-CHR YSOSTOMUS 


pany encouraged by the invasion of the 
oths, which they attributed to the neglect of 
heathenism, again attempted to have it restored 
by Arcadius and Honorius. Prudentius wrote 
these books to counteract their influence. 
The date of bk. ii. is fixed, as after the battle 
of Pollentia in a.p. 403, and before the aboli- 
tion of the gladiatorial games, A.p. 404 (ii. 
710, 1114). Bk. i. deals generally with the 
history and character of heathenism (cf. ii. 


PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMUS 560 


that he would rather have this imperfect work 
perfect than be lord of all Paris. Yet the 
author, far from being Chrysostom or any 
other orthodox divine, was undoubtedly a 
bitter Arian. Much of its heresy was hidden 
from many of its readers by the expurgations 
of successive transcribers and editors, and 
some parts may have been so deeply tainted 
with heresy that only total excision would 
suffice. Some early critics, indeed, defended 


1-3). Bk. ii. also has a preface, with a prayer | the genuineness of the expurgated fe 

to Christ to help the poet as He once helped contending that the somneek τοὶ στ᾿ in some 
St. Peter on the water. The poet then deals | copies, where the doctrine of our Lord's 
in detail with the arguments of Symmachus. | equality with the Father is formally combated, 
The poem is very interesting and of great had been but scribblings by an Arian in the 
historical value for the circumstances of the | margin of an orthodox writer, which through 
time and for the details of Roman mythology | mistake had crept into the text. Some of the 
and religious rites. The prefaces consist of heretical passages can be cut out without 
the sf yr use of Scripture, but there is no injury to the context, but there remain man 
scope for it in the body of the books. They | passages of undisputed genuineness in whic 
are full, however, of a sense of Rome's majesty, the author unmistakably defines his position, 
of vigorous description, and of high moral and reveals himself as a member of a small 
scorn. The lengasge recalls Vergil (passim), | persecuted sect which condemned the domin- 
Ovid, Juvenal, Horace, and Claudian (ii. 704). | ant church as heretical, and was in turn de- 
Plato is quoted in i. 30. The subject-matter | nounced as heretical by the state and as such 
is influenced in parts by Tertullian (i. 396) and | visited with temporal penalties ἢ and be marks 
Minucius Felix (i. 48), but mainly by St. 


Ambrose, whose arguments are at times repro- 
duced almost verbally. 

C. Allegorical.— Psychomachia = Ψυχομαχία, 
De Compugnantia Animi (Gennadius) (the 
Spiritual Combat). The Preface consists 
of a mystical application of Gen. xiv. As 
Abraham with his 318 servants freed Lot, 
was blessed by Melchizedek, then begat Isaac ; 


so the Christian, with the aid of Christ's cross | 


(7m, 318=the cross (τ) of ᾿Ιησοῦς), frees his 
soul, wins Christ’s blessing, and brings forth 
good works. The poem opens with a prayer to 
Christ to shew how the soul is aided in its 
conflict (1-20), which is then described. 

D. The Dittochaeon, διττόχαιον, (?) dirros, 
6x7, the double food, or double Testament, 
stands by itself, and can scarcely be called a 
poem. It comprises 49 sets of 4 verses on 
scenes from O. and N. T. They are dry and 
jejune, and chiefly interesting as apparently 
composed to describe a series of paintings. 
See Lanfranchi, Aur Prud. Clem. Opp. 1896, 
1902, 2 vols. (Turin). ok 

Pseud tomus. Opus Imperfectum 
in Matthacum.—Among the works which have 
been ascribed to Chrysostom is a commentary 
It is divided into 


as I. (Respons. ad 
and 


Aquinas it is largely employed ; and Fabricius 
quotes 

* In the references the first 
Homily ; the second the Benedictine page. 


It is quoted | 


the reign of Theodosius as the time when 
orthodoxy was overwhelmed and when what 
he calls the heresy of the Homoousians became 
triumphant (48, 199; 49, 20). It being clear 
that the author was not a member of the 
Catholic church, it is unreasonable to doubt 
the genuineness of the passages where he 
exhibits his Arianism, ¢.g. where he explains 
that our Lord called heretics ‘“‘spinas et 
tribulos,"’ because, foreseeing that heresy 
would prevail above all others, He called them 
‘tribulos, quasi trinitatis professores et trian- 
gulam bajulantes impietatem."" We must 
therefore regard the expurgation of the pas- 
sages as probably due to their heterodoxy. It 
was not only the Arian passages which were 
expurgated. E.g. where the writer speaks 
(19, 93) of “* offering the sacrifice of bread and 
wine,” he is made to say “the sacrifice of 
Christ’s body and blood"; and a passage ts 
cut out altogether where he argues that if it 
be dangerous to transfer to private uses the 
consecrated vessels “ which contain not the 
Lord’s real body, but the mystery of His 
body,”” how much more to profane the vessels 
of our own body which God has prepared for 
His dwelling-place. 

When the controversial passages had been 
expurgated, there was nothing to excite ortho- 
| dox suspicions in our writer's language about 
four Lord's divinity. The Arians were not 


| 


| -yerns Ged). 
is eager to argue t 
things were delivered by the Father,’ can 
‘neither be identical with the Father nor equal 

to Him, he is equally energetic in repelling the 
|doctrine that Tie was mere man; and the 

heresy of the Homoousians is not more repro- 


870 PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMUS 


bated than that of Photinus, who, in his recoil 
from Arian ditheism, completely separated the 
Saviour’s manhood from the one supreme 
Divinity. The Third Person of the Trinity is 
comparatively seldom mentioned, but on this 
head the writer’s doctrine is even more dis- 
tinctly heretical. The Holy Spirit is evidently 
regarded as a third Being, as much inferior to 
the Son as the Son is to the Father (34, 146). 
This is the representation also of the Ascension 
of Isaiah, a work quotedin the present treatise. 

Naturally a better side of Arianism is ex- 
hibited in this work than elsewhere, in the 
main not controversial but exegetical and 
practical, written when all court favour had 
long been lost, and when the sect met from 
the state with nothing but persecution. How 
much there was to recommend the book to a 
religious mind is evident from the fact that it 
passed so long as Chrysostom’s. The work 
itself makes no claim to such authorship; the 
writer is evidently addressing persons who 
knew him, and to whom he had no motive for 
trying to pass himself off as other than he was. 
He had also written commentaries on St. 
Mark (49, 211) and St. Luke (1, 23; 9, 56). 
Fragments of ancient Arian homilies on St. 
Luke have been published by Mai (Bzb. Nov. 
Vet. Pat. iii.), but they have no resemblance 
to this work. Many favourable extracts from 
this commentary could be given to justify the 
estimation in which it was so long held: e.g. 
the whole comment on the text ‘“‘ Seek and ye 
shall find’’ (Hom. 17). But possibly the book 
was commended to medieval readers less by 
its merits than by what most modern readers 
would count its faults, for, utterly unlike 
Chrysostom, this writer constantly follows the 
mystical and allegorical method commonly 
connected with Alexandria. In this style he 
shews remarkable ingenuity. E£.g. the name 
Bathsheba, or, as he reads it, Bersabee, he 
finds in Hebrew denotes ‘‘seven wells.’”?’ He 
deduces from Prov. v. 15 that “‘ well’’ denotes 
“ἐᾷ wife.’’ Bathsheba was the seventh wife 
the literal David; but we learn spiritually 
that Christ is the spouse of seven churches, for 
so the one church is designated on account of 
the seven Spirits by which it is sustained, and 
accordingly both Paul and John wrote to 
seven churches. This last remark may sug- 
gest the writer’s acquaintance with the work 
of which the Muratorian Fragment is a part. 

The writer shews a strong preference for the 
ascetic life. He remarks (24, 135) that when 
the disciples said ‘‘ If the case of the man be 
so with his wife it is not good to marry,”’ our 
Lord did not contradict them or say it was 
goodtomarry. He holds (1,24), thatconjugal 
union is bad and in itself a sin; and although 
on account of God’s permission it ceases to 
be sin, yet it is not righteousness. In the 
beginning of the world men married sisters— 
a sin excusable at the time on account of the 
fewness of men. Afterwards this was for- 
bidden, but a man was allowed to have more 
wives than one ; then, as population increased, 
this too was forbidden, but a man was allowed 
to have one wife; ‘‘now that the world has 
grown old we know what is well-pleasing in 
God’s sight, though on account of incontinent 
men we dare not say it.’” Some hard language 
concerning women will be found (24, 135). 


PSEUDO-CHR YSOSTOMUS 


Yet to those who will not take his counsel he 
gives advice concerning the choosing and 
ruling of a wife. He regards the apostle’s 
permission of a second marriage as but licence 
given on account of the hardness of men’s 
hearts, a second marriage in itself being but 
““honesta fornicatio.”’ This is quoted as 
Chrysostom’s in the Decretum of Gratian (par. 
2, Caus. 31, quaest. 1, 9). The writer owns 
there was more continence in the dominant 
church than in his own sect, but is not any 
more disposed therefore to condone that 
church’s heresy. A heretical sect is no more 
a church than an ape isa man. If you see a 
man who does not worship God in truth doing 
what seem to you good works, do not believe 
your eyes and say he is a man of good life, but 
believe God, Who says ‘‘ An evil tree cannot 
bring forth good fruit.”’ If you call him good 
you make Christ a liar; you only see the 
outside, God sees the heart. The works of a 
man who does not care to believe rightly can 
spring from no good motive, for it is better to 
believe rightly than to act rightly. Faith 
without works is dead, but still it is some- 
thing ; works without faith are nothing at all. 
The foolish virgins had the lamps of right 
faith, but not the oil of good works to burn in 
them; but what avails the oil of good works 
to Jews or heretics who have no lamps wherein 
tolightit ? He will not even own the baptism 
of heretics as valid. 

It has been questioned whether the original 
language of this commentary were Greek or 
Latin, but it appears to us that it was certainly 
Latin. A translator may conceivably, in- 
deed, have modified the language ‘‘ Jesse 
latino sermone refrigerium appellatur ’’ (p. 16), 
or ‘‘in graeco non dicit ‘ beati pauperes ’’ sed 
‘ beati egeni’ vel ‘beati mendici’’”’ (9, 56). 
But there are other passages where the argu- 
ment turns on the use of Latin, e.g. (53, 223) 
money passing from hand to hand—“‘ usu ipso 
multiplicatur, unde dicitur usura ab usu,”’ or 
(7, 53) where an explanation is suggested 
why, at the call of the apostles, Peter and his 
brother are described as ‘‘ mittentes retia,” 
John and his brother ‘‘ retia componentes,”’ 
““quia Petrus praedicavit evangelium et non 
composuit, sed Marcus ab eo praedicata com- 
posuit ; Joannes autem et praedicavit evan- 
gelium et ipse composuit.’”’ The commenta- 
tor, however, clearly uses Greek authorities. 
From such he must have derived his explan- 
ation (49, 205) why the commandments are 
ten—‘‘secundum mysterium nominis Jesu 
Christi quod est in litera iota, id est perfec- 
tionis indicio’’ (see also 1, 23). He knew no 
Hebrew, though he lays great stress on the 
interpretation of Hebrew names, making use 
for this purpose of a glossary which we cannot 
identify with that used by any other writer. 
It must have been from the work of some 
Oriental writer that he came by the name of 
Varisuas as that of a heretic (48, 199), for 
Barjesus seems plainly intended. He does 
not use Jerome’s Vulgate, but a previous 
translation. Thus (Matt. v. 22) he has “sine 
causa,” which Jerome omits, and he anti- 
cipates bp. Butler in his observations as to the 
uses of anger—‘‘ Justa ira mater est discip- 
linae, ergo non solum peccant qui cum causa 
irascuntur sed e contra nisi irati fuerint 


ad 


PSEUDO-CHR YSOSTOMUS 


peccant.” In the Lord's Pra he has 
‘quotidianum,”’ not ‘pepereabetadtielen” 
He has the doxology at the end ; in this differ- 
ing from the usage of Latin versions but 
τι ie with the ese oe Constitutions (iii. 
18), a work he highly valued. In the beati- 
tudes he follows the received text in placing 
““Blessed are they that mourn" before 
‘Blessed are the meek,”’ contrary to Jerome 
and the bulk of the tin versions. Both 
here, however, and in the case of the doxology, 
he agrees with the Codex Brixianus. fhe 
reads ‘‘ neque filius’’ (Matt. xxiv. 36); he 
distinctly omits Luke xvii. 36 (50, 213). 
Besides the Scriptures he uses the é hepherd 
of Hermas (33, 142), but acknowledges that 
it was not universally received; the Clem- 
entine Recognitions (20, 94; 50, 212; 51, 
214), the Apostolic Constitutions or Canons as 
he calls them (13, 74; 53,221). The first of 
these passages does not appear in our present 
text of the Constitutions ; the second 15 from 
bk. viii., which Krabbe gives good reason for 
thinking an Arian addition to the previously 
known work. In the latter half of the 4th 
cent. the Arians appear to have made active 
use of literary forgery. In their interests was 
made the longer edition of the Ignatian ep- 
istles, which Zahn has conjecturally attributed 
to Acacius of Caesarea. Interpolations of 
Arian tendency were also made in the Clem- 
entine Recognitions. Our writer used Jo- 
sephus. He had also, besides the Ascension 
of Isaiah, another O.T. apocryphal book (not 
the book of Jubilees), from which he learned 
the names of Cain and Abel's sisters, fuller 
details about the sacrifice of Isaac, was 
enabled to clear Judah from the guilt of incest 
in his union with Tamar, etc. He had further 
N.T. Apocrypha, which, though not absolutely 
authoritative, might, in his opinion, be read 
with pleasure. These related in full detail the 
story of the Magi, compendiously told by St. 
Matthew, telling how they had learned to 
expect the appearance of the star from a book 
preserved in their nation, called the book of 
Seth, and had in consequence for generations 
kept a systematic look-out for this star. 
Probably the same book told him that Joseph 
was not present when the angel appeared to 
Mary, and related how our Lord conferred His 
own baptism on John the Baptist. Directly 
or indirectly the writer was much indebted to 
Origen, and there may be traces of acquaint- 
ance with two or three other anti-Nicene 
fathers. His fanciful interpretations of Scrip- 
ture, though including some few of what may 
be called patristical commonplaces, seem to 
be mostly original. With reference, however, 
to the question of authorship, it is important 
to determine whether his coincidences with 
St. Augustine are purely accidental. He is 
certainly no follower of Augustine. He has 
little in common with that father’s comments 
on the same passages of St. Matthew, and 
differs in various details, ¢.g. (49, 205) he follows 
Origen’s division of the Commandments, 
making ‘‘Honour thy father and mother" 
the fifth, and (p. 218) counting it as belonging 
to the first table; yet he appears to have been 
acquainted with Augustine's Enarratsones on 
the Psalms, as he has scarcely a quotation 
from the Psalms which does not shew some 


PUBLIUS 871 


resemblance to Augustine's comment on the 
same παχιὰ ἐκ. (4, 43) in Ps. vill. 4, "Το 
heavens, the work of Thy fingers” mean 
the Holy Scriptures; (5, 37) on Pa. xe. εἰ 
the remark “" Portatur non quasi infirmus sed 
ar re honorem potestatis ἡ verbally agrees 
with Augustine's “ἢ Obsequium angelorum non 
ad infirmitatem domini pertinet sed ad illorum 
honorificentiam."” There is a striking verbal 
similarity (7, 42) between the comment on 
**mittentes retia’’ and Augustine's remarks 
on that subject in Ps. Ixiv. 4. The interpre- 
tation that the “ mountains ” to which Chris- 
tians are to flee are the Holy Scriptures may 
have been suggested by Augustine in Ps. παν. 
2; see also the sermon (46) ‘ de Pastoribus.” 
Our author lays claim to no great antiquity. 
He says (42,218) that the time since our Lord's 
ascension had been nearly as long as the life 
of an antediluvian patriarch. Accordingly 
Mill (Prae/. N.T.) fixes his date A.p. 961. In 
favour of the late date there is the use of the 
medieval word “‘ bladum" for corn, though 
we do not know the exact date when such 
words crept into popular language. But a 
very strong argument for an earlier date is 
that the author's studies appear all to have 
lain in Christian literature earlier than the 
middle of the 5th cent.; and that he appears 
to know nothing of any of the controversies in 
the Christian church after that date. Making 
all allowance for the narrowing influence of a 
small sect, we find it hard to believe that the 
type of Arianism which existed at the time 
specified could have been preserved in such 
complete purity two or three centuries later. 
Our author does not appear to have lived in 
an Arian kingdom outside the limits of the 
Roman empire. He draws illustrations (50, 
130) from the relative powers of the offices 
praefectus, vicarius, consul; from the fact 
that a ‘‘solidus"’ which has not the “ char- 
agma Caesaris"’ is to be rejected as bad 
(38, 160). When he wrote, heathenism was 
not extinct, as appears from the end of 
Hom. 13 and from what he says (10, 13) as to 
the effect on the heathen of the good or bad 
conversation of Christians. All things con- 
sidered, we are not disposed to date the work 
later than the middle of the sth cent., which 
would allow it time to grow into such repute 
in an expurgated form as to pass for Chry- 
sostom’s with Nicolas I. If so early a date 
can be assigned to it, we have at once a claim- 
ant for its authorship in the Arian bp. Maxi- 
minus, who held a conference with St. Augus- 
tine. The Opus Imperfectum was written by 
an Arian bishop at a distance from his people, 
as Maximinus then was. The doctrine of the 
two writers is identical, and there are points 
of agreement in what Maximinus says as to 
the temporal penalties to which the expression 
of his opinions was liable, and as to the duty, 
notwithstanding, of confessing the truth be- 
fore men. Maximinus, while in Africa, could 
hardly help making some acquaintance with 
the writings of St. Augustine, and might very 
conceivably adopt his exegesis of particular 
passages, though on the whole slightly 
regarding his authority. (o.8.] 
us (3), a solitary, commemorated by 
Theodoret in his KXeligiosa Historia, c. v., born 
at Zeugma, on the Hellespont, of a family of 


872 PULCHERIA 


senatorial rank. His person and mental 
endowments were equally remarkable. On 
his father’s death he sold all he inherited from 
him, and distributing it to those in need, built 
for himself a small hut on high ground about 
7 miles from his native town, where he passed 
the remainder of his days. He devoted 
his whole time to psalmody, reading the 
Scriptures, and prayer, together with the 
labour necessary for his maintenance and 
the entertainment of strangers, and latterly 
for the government of his brotherhood. His 
reputation for sanctity attracted many, whom 
he lodged in small huts near his own. He 
exercised a very strict oversight, imposing on 
them a very severe rule of abstinence and 
nightly prayer. After a while, on the advice 
of one of these fellow-ascetics, he erected a 
common house, or coenobium, that they might 
derive profit from their companions’ virtues, 
and all be more immediately under his eye. 
At first all his fellow-coenobites were Greeks ; 
but the native Syrians having expressed a 
desire to join the society, he built another 
house for them, and between the two erected 
a church common to both, where each might 
attend matins and evensong, singing alter- 
nately in their own language. This double 
coenobite establishment remained to Theo- 
doret’s time, who gives a record of its succes- 
sive provosts. [E.v.] 
Pulcheria (2), Sept. 10, daughter of the 
emperor Arcadius and sister and guardian of 
Theodosius II. She practically ruled the 
eastern empire for many years. For her 
secular history see D. of G. and R. Biogr. She 
was only two years older than her brother, 
whose education she superintended, having 
been born Jan. 19, 399. She was declared 
Augusta and empress July 4, 414, and at once 
entrusted with the management of affairs. 
She was learned and vigorous, could speak and 
write Latin and Greek, personally investigated 
the affairs of state, directed much attention to 
religion, and brought up her brother in the 
strictest orthodoxy (Soz. H. E. iv. 1). She 
was a correspondent of St. Cyril during the 
Nestorian controversy, and two letters are 
still extant from him written in 430, requesting 
her assistance (see Mansi, iv. 618-883). In 
450 she had a long correspondence with pope 
Leo and his archdeacon Hilarius on the subject 
of Eutyches and the Monophysite heresy. 
We possess also an epistle of hers addressed 
to the Palestinian monks and another to one 
Bessa, abbess of a convent at Jerusalem, both 
in defence of thecouncilof Chalcedon. Bishops 
and clergy from every part of the empire 
appealed to her and on every subject. Theo- 
doret (Ep. 43) wrote in 445 about the taxation 
of his episcopal city of Cyrrhus; the clergy of 
Ephesus, in 448, concerning the episcopate of 
Bassianus. She had in early life taken a vow 
of virginity in conjunction with her sisters 
Arcadia and Marina. In 450 she was obliged 
to assume the government of the empire, and 
feeling herself incompetent for the task 
married Marcian, an eminent general. She 
reigned till her death, Feb. 18, 453. She 
convoked and assisted at the fourth general 
council of Chalcedon. Her devotion to the 
culture of relics was very great. She trans- 
ported to Constantinople those of St. Chrysos- 


QUADRATUS 


tom with great pomp in 438, and of the 40 mar- 
tyrs of Sebaste in 446(Soz. H. E.ix.2). Ceillier 
(viii. 471, 533, X- 20, 67, 213-226) gives fully 
her religious history. Hefele’sCounctls(Clark’s 
trans. t. ili.) gives details of her action against 
Nestorius and Eutyches. (G.T.s.] 
Purpurius, bp. of Limata, or Liniata, some 
place in Numidia, a truculent ruffian, men- 
tioned both by Optatus and Augustine as a 
sample of the leaders of the Donatists (Mor- 
celli, Afr. Chr. i. 205). For some cause un- 
known he murdered his own nephews in the 
prison of Mileum, and when taxed with the 
crime threatened the same to any who stood 
in his way (Opt. i. 13; Aug. Brevic. Coll. iii. 
15, 27; ὃ. Gaud.i.16) 17 ; c: Crese. iil. 27,30). 
This had taken place before the council of 
Cirta, A.D. 305. Purpurius was also dishonest, 
for of the money distributed by Lucilla in 
bribes (A.D. 311) his share amounted to 100 
folles. At some time, perhaps soon after 313, 
when Christian worship was made legal and 
heathenism became unpopular, advantage 
appears to have been taken by some of the 
‘‘baser sort’’ of Christians to plunder the 
heathen temples, and Purpurius carried off 
some cups from the temple of Serapis, prob- 
ably of Carthage. This theft was brought to 
light at the inquiry held by Zenophilus, Α.Ὁ. 
320. But the result of the inquiry is unknown, 
as the MS. is imperfect (Mon. Vet. Don. iv. 
ῬΡ. 172, 173, ed. Oberthiir). [H.w.P.] 


Q 


Quadratus (3), the author of an apology for 
the Christians, presented to the. emperor 
Hadrian (vegn. 117-138). Eusebius (H. E. iv. 
3) says the work was still in circulation in his 
time and that he himself was acquainted with 
it. He quotes one sentence which proves, as 
he observes, the great antiquity of the work. 
Quadratus remarks that the Saviour’s mir- 
acles were no transient wonders, but had 
abiding effects. Those who had been cured 
or raised from the dead did not disappear, but 
remained for a considerable time after the 
Saviour’s departure, some even to the times 
of Quadratus himself. Accordingly Quad- 
ratus is called a disciple of the apostles by 
Eusebius in his Chronicle, under the 8th year 
of Hadrian according to the Armenian, the 
roth according to the Latin. 

St. Jerome twice (de Vir. Ill. 19; Ep. 70, 
ad Magnum) identifies the apologist with 
Quadratus, bp. of Athens, and states that the 
apology was presented when Hadrian visited 
Athens and was initiated in the Eleusinian 
mysteries. On chronological grounds we 
must reject this identification. For it is 
improbable that any one contemporary with 
subjects of our Lord’s miracles should survive 
to 170. We may doubt also whether the 
apologist resided at Athens. A writer against 
the Montanists (ap. Eus. H. E. v. 17) contrasts 
the behaviour of the Montanist prophetesses 
with that of those recognized in the church as 
prophets, e.g. the daughters of Philip, Ammia, 
and Quadratus. Eusebius evidently under- 
stood the reference to be a Quadratus of whom 
he speaks (H. E. iii. 37) under the reign of 
Trajan, and who is apparently the apologist. 


RABBOLAS 


But since the author whom Eusebius quotes 
wrote in Asia Minor, it was probably there 
that Quadratus enjoyed the reputation of a 
nanan tag did the daughters of Philip in 
ierapolis, and Ammia in Philadelphia. 

His Apology seems to have survived until 
6th cent., for several passages were quoted 
in controversy between the monk Andrew and 
Evusesivus (86) (Phot. Cod. 162). Cf. Zahn, 
Forschungen (1900), vi. 41; Harnack, Gesch. 


der Alt.-Chr. Lit. 1. 95; ii. 1, 269-271. [G.8.] 
R 
Rabbilas, bp. of Edessa, 412-435. Chief 


authorities: (1) a panegyric in Syriac, compiled 
soon after his death by a contemporary ot 
himself a native of Edessa, extant in a MS. of 
6th cent., of which Bickell has furnished a 
an trans. in Thalhofer’s Ausgewdhite 
Schriften der Kirchenvater (vol. x. pp. 56-68) ; 
(2) the later and less trustworthy Rb ds 
of Alexander, the founder of the Acoimetae. 
According to the panegyrist, Rabbilas was 
born in Kenneschrin, known by the Greeks as 
Chalcis in Osrhoene, of rich and noble paren- 
tage. His father was a heathen priest, his 
mother a Christian. He received a liberal 
education, and was well versed in pagan 
literature. From his father he inherited a 
considerable fortune, and was chosen prefect 
of his native city. He was still a heathen 
and for a long time resisted his mother’s 
entreaties to become a Christian. He took, 
however, a Christian wife. Various instru- 
mentalities contributed to his conversion. 
The panegyrist attributes it to his intercourse 
with Eusebius of Chalcis and Acacius of 
Beroea, and to two remarkable miracles wit- 
nessed by him. The sarang τοι of Alexander 
ascribes it to Alexander's influence and teach- 
ing. Both accounts probably are substan- 
tially true. On his conversion he went on 
pilgrimage to Jerusalem and was baptized in 
the Jordan, having previously renounced his 
property and manumitted his slaves. His 
wife, daughters, and all the females of his 
household embraced the religious life, and 
Rabbilas retired to the monast of St. 
Abraham at Chalcis. The see of Edessa 
being vacant in 412 by the death of Diogenes, 
Rabbilas was appointed by a synod meeting 
at Antioch. Edessa was famous for its 
intellectual activity. Rabbiilas became the 
leading prelate of the Oriental church, re- 
garded, according to the exaggerated language 
of the biographer of Alexander, as 1] 
common master of Syria, Armenia, Persia, 
nay of the whole world.”” The panegyrist 
describes him as having seer τ opposed the 
doctrines of Nestorius from the very first. 
The church of Edessa, with the East generally, 
followed the teaching of Diodore of Tarsus and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, in which those doc- 
trines were grag d contained, and Ibas, a 
presbyter of his church, who would have 
personal knowledge, says that Rabbilas was 
no exception. By degrees, however, Rabba- 
las veered round, and ended as the most un- 
compromising opponent of Theodore's teach- 
ing, using his utmost endeavours to brin 
about the suppression of his works. [Ipas. 


RABBULAS ΑἹΔ 


(Ep. ad Marium, Labbe, iv. 666; Liberat. 
Breviar. c. 10, Labbe, v. 742.) His separation 
from Theodore's school of doctrine was strong. 
ly exhibited in the winter preceding the 
council of Ephesus, 430-431, in a letter to 
Andrew of Samosata, upbraiding him for 
having attacked Cyril, a fragment of which is 
printed by Overbeck among the Syriac docu- 
ments in his ed. of Ephrem Syrus (Oxf. 1864). 
From Andrew's reply and from Theodorus 
Lector (lib. il. p. $65) we learn that Rabbdlas’s 
fiery zeal for orthodoxy had led him to 
anathematize Andrew before his congregation 
at Edessa; and according to the panegyrist, 
Rabbilas, when visiting Constantinople 
preached in the presence of Nestorius and 
denounced his doctrine. After this it is sur- 
rising to find Rabbdlas at the council of 
sphesus, joining the Orientals in their opposi- 
tion to Cyril. His signature appears to the 
letter to the clergy and laity of Hierapolis 
(Baluz. col. 705) and to that addressed to the 
deputies of the Orientals to Constantinople 
(ἐδ. 725), in both of which the heretical nature 
of Cyril's teaching is asserted. From this 
vacillation Rabbdlas s lily recovered. A 
visit to Constantinople in the winter after the 
council, 431-432, enabled him to confer with 
Nestorius’s successor, the wise and pious 
Maximian, and confirmed him in opposition to 
the Nestorian doctrine, which he returned to 
his diocese determined to eradicate. This was 
no easy task. The defenders of Nestorius 
claimed to be disciples of Diodore of Tarsus and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose names were 
revered throughout the East. To denounce 
Nestorianism and accept Cyril's anathemas 
was to repudiate the theologians whom they 
had been taught to venerate as infallible 
guides. Rabbilas saw clearly that the evil 
must be attacked at his source in the works of 
Diodore and Theodore. He called to his aid 
the strong will and unscrupulous pen of Cyril. 
We have a letter from Rabbdilas to Cyril 
(Labbe, v. 469), denouncing Theodore as the 
author of the heresy of Nestorius, which 
denied that Mary was truly the mother of God. 
Cyril, in his reply, of which a fragment is 
reserved (1b.), lauded Rabbdlas for his seal 
in expelling the blasphemy of Nestorius, and 
indicated Theodore, though guarding himeeclf 
from mentioning so revered a name, as “* the 
Cilician,"’ from whose root this impiety pro- 
ceeded. The suppression of these writings, 
so fatal to his own system of doctrine, became 
a chief object with Cyril. An extension of the 
imperial decree was obtained which included 
‘the sacrilegious books" of Diodore and 
Theodore under the condemnation previous. 
ly passed on the writings of Nestorius (1. ν, 
471, cf. ili, 1209). The letter of Ibas to 
Maris describes the violent conduct of Rab- 
bilas, ὁ wdyra τολμῶν. in Lapeer anathema- 
tizing Theodore and ΤῊΣ. out his works for 
destruction (1). iv. 665). abbdalas’s ν 
is also described in a letter of Andrew of 
Samosata to his metropolitan, Alexander of 
Hierapolis, shortly after Easter, 432, com- 
— that Rabbdlas was dealing with a high 
and in E 


Edewa, ery anathemmatizing 
Theodore’s teaching of one nature in Christ, 
and excommunicating all who refused toaccept 


the Cyrillian dogmas or who read Theodore 's 


874 RADEGUNDIS 


books, which he was everywhere committing 
to the flames. A synod summoned at Antioch 
by the patriarch John despatched letters to 
the bishops of Osrhoene desiring them, if the 
reports were true, to suspend communion with 
Rabbilas (Baluz. xliv. col. 749). Meanwhile 
Rabbtlas was corresponding with Cyril on the 
terms of reconciliation between himself and 
the East; and the two prelates were agreed 
that nothing short of complete submission on 
the part of the Orientals and the withdrawal 
of the condemnation of Cyril’s anathemas 
would satisfy them. A letter of Cyril to 
Rabbulas (2). cviii. col. 812) in 432 expresses 
the impossibility of his repudiating all he had 
written on the subject. The reconciliation 
was effected in the spring of 433. Andrew of 
Samosata, becoming convinced of Rabbtlas’s 
orthodoxy by perusing his manifesto, at once 
left his diocese for Edessa to make reparation 
to his antagonist. Alexander’s anger having 
been aroused, Andrew wrote to the oeconomi 
of Hierapolis to justify himself. He had not 
yet seen Rabbilas, but he accepted communion 
with him and Cyril, and embraced the peace 
of the church (ἐδ. ci. ον]. coll. 807-810). 
Rabbiulas, also, with Acacius of Melitene, 
wrote to warn the Armenian bishops of the 
Nestorian heresy in the writings of Diodore 
and Theodore. In their perplexity they sum- 
moned a synod, and dispatched two presby- 
ters to Proclus (whoin Apr. 434 had succeeded 
Maximian as patriarch of Constantinople), 
entreating him to indicate which was the 
orthodox teaching. Proclus replied in his 
celebrated ‘“‘Tome’’ on the Incarnation, 
wherein he condemned Theodore’s opinions 
without naming him, a precaution counter- 
acted by the officiousness of the bearers of the 
document (Liberat. Breviar. c. 10, ap. Labbe, 
v. 752; Garnerii Praef. in Mar. Merc. p. lii. 
ed. Par. 1673). The fiery Rabbtilas did not 
long survive this letter. His death is placed 
Aug. 7, 435, after an episcopate of 23 years. 
Nearly all his few surviving works were 
printed by Overbeck in the original Syriac 
text, in his ed. of Ephrem Syrus (Oxf. 1865), 
Pp- 210-248, 362-378. They include the 
scanty remains of the 640 letters which, 
according to his biographer, he wrote to the 
emperor, bishops, prefects, and monks. See 
also Bickell’s: Ausgewahlte Schriften, pp. 153- 
271. [E.v.] 
Radegundis, St., born in 519, queen of 
Clotaire I. and founder of the nunnery of 
Sainte-Croix, at Poictiers. Her father was a 
Thuringian prince named Bertharius. Her 
austerities were so incessant that it was com- 
monly said the king had wedded a nun 
(Venant. Fort. Acta 5. Rad. c.i.). Abhorring 
the married state from the first, she seems to 
have finally decided to escape from it upon her 
husband’s treacherous murder of her brother. 
Withdrawing to Noyon on the pretext of some 
religious observance, her urgency overcame 
the hesitation of bp. Medardus to make her a 
deaconess. She then escaped from her hus- 
band’s territory to the sanctuary of St. Martin 
of Tours, and thence to St. Hilary’s at Poictiers. 
Here she founded her monastery within a mile 
or two of the city; finally, with the consent 
of Clotaire, clerks were sent to the East for 
wood of the true cross to sanctify it, and the 


RECCARED 


rule of SS. Caesarius and Caesaria of Arles was 
adopted. Here the rest of her life was spent, 
first as abbess, then as simple nun under the 
rule of another. We have full information 
about the beginnings of this institution from 
the two Lives of Radegund, one by Venantius 
Fortunatus, her intimate friend (Patr. Lat. 
Ixxii. 651), the other by one of her nuns called 
Baudonivia (ib. 663); and also from the fact 
that in Gregory’s time, after Radegund’s 
death, the attention of all France was drawn 
to the spot by the scandalous outbreak of a 
body of the nuns, headed by Chrodieldis, a 
natural daughter of king Charibert I. After 
a residence of about 37 years she died Aug. 13, 
587, and was buried by Gregory of Tours (de 
Glor. Conf. c. cvi.). [s-A.B.] 
Recoared (the uniform spelling in coins and 
inscriptions), younger son of LEoviGILD by his 
first marriage. For his parentage and life till 
the death of his father see Leovicitp and 
HERMENIGILD. Between Apr. 12 and May 8, 
586 (Hiibner, Insc. Hisp. n. 155; Tejada 
y Ramiro, ii. 217), he succeeded his father 
without opposition, having been already 
associated with him in the kingdom. He 
first allied himself to his stepmother Gois- 
vintha, the mother of Brunichild and grand- 
mother of Childebert II. By her advice he 
sent ambassadors to Childebert and to his 
uncle GUNTRAMNUs (2), the Frankish king of 
Burgundy, proposing peace and a defensive 
alliance. The former alone were received. 
Then followed the great event of Reccared’s 
reign, his conversion from Arianism to Catho- 
licism. We can only conjecture whether, as 
Dahn supposes, his motives were mainly politi- 
cal, or whether he yielded to the influence of the 
Catholic leaders such as Leander or Masona. 
In Jan. 587he declared himself aCatholic, and, 
convening a synod of the Arian bishops, in- 
duced them and the mass of the Gothic and 
Suevic nations to follow his example. Some 
Arians did not submit quietly, and 587-589 
saw several dangerous risings, headed by coali- 
tions of Arian bishops and ambitious nobles. 
Perhaps, from the geographical situation, the 
most formidable was that of Septimania, 
headed by bp. Athaloc, who, from his ability, 
was considered a second Arius. Amongst the 
secular leaders of the insurrection the counts 
Granista and Wildigern are named. They 
appealed for aid to Guntram, whose desire for 
Septimania was stronger than his detestation 
of Arianism, and the dux Desiderius was sent 
with a Frankish army. Reccared’s army 
defeated the insurgents and their allies with 
great slaughter, Desiderius himself being slain 
(Paul. Em:*ro:° J. Bicl: τ Greg: Te ἴα ΤῊ 
The next conspiracy broke out in the West, 
headed by Sunna, the Arian bp. of Merida, and 
count Seggo. Claudius, the dux Lusitaniae, 
put down the rising, Sunna being banished 
to Mauritania and Seggo to Galicia. In the 
latter part of 588 a third conspiracy was 
headed by the Arian bp. Uldila and the queen 
dowager Goisvintha, but they were detected, 
and the former banished. ; 
Reccared, after his conversion, had again 
sent to Guntram and Childebert in 587. The 
implacable Guntram refused his embassy, 
asking how could he believe those by whose 
machinations his niece Ingunthis had been 


RECCARED 


imprisoned and banished and her husband 
slain? Childebert and his mother Brunichild 
accepted the present of 10,000 solidi, and were 
satisfied with Reccared’s declarations that he 
was guiltless of the death of Ingunthis. In the 
spring of 589 Guntram, perhaps in concert 
with Goisvintha, made one more attempt on 
Septimania. It was defeated with great loss 
by the Goths under Claudius. The rest of his 
reign was peaceful, except for some expeditions 
against the Romans and Basques. 

_ Third Council of Toledo.—This, the most 
important of all Spanish councils, assembled 
by the king’s command in May, 589. On 
May 4 the king shortly declared his reasons for 
convening them, and the next three days were 
spent in prayer and fasting. Reccared’s ad- 
dress, read to the assembly by a notary, con- 
tained an orthodox confession of belief. He 
declared that God had inspired him to lead the 
Goths back to the true faith, from which they 
had been led astray by false teachers. Not 
only the Goths but the Suevi, who by the fault 
of others had been led into heresy, he had 
brought back. These noble nations he offered 
to God by the hands of the bishops, whom 
he called on to complete the work. He then 
anathematized Arius and his doctrine, and de- 
clared his acceptance of Nice, Constantinople, 
Ephesus, Chalcedon, and all other councils 
that agreed with these, and pronounced an 
anathema on all who returned to Arianism 
after being received into the church by the 
chrism, or the laying on of hands; then fol- 
lowed the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople 
and the definition of Chalcedon, and the tomus 
concluded with the signatures of Reccared 
and Baddo his queen. It was received with 
general acclamation. Its praises of Reccared, 
its numerous scriptural quotations, and the 
clearness with which the Catholic and Arian 
doctrines are defined shew that it was com- 
posed by a theologian, probably bp. Leander 
or abbat Eutropius, who had the chief manage- 
ment of the council (Jo. Bicl.). One of the 
Catholic bishops then called on the bishops, 
clergy, and Gothic nobles who had been con- 
verted to declare publicly their renunciation of 
Arianism and their acceptance of Catholicism. 
They replied that though they had done so 
already when with the king they had gone 
over to the church, they wouldcomply. Then 
followed 23 anathemas directed against Arius 
and his doctrines, succeeded by the creeds of 
Nice and Constantinople and the definition 
of Chalcedon, the whole being subscribed by 
8 Arian bishops with their clergy, and by all 
the Gothic nobles. The bishops were Ugnas 
of Barcelona, Ubiligisclus of Valencia, Murila 
of Palencia, Sunnila of Viseo, Gardingus of 
Tuy, Bechila of Lugo, Argiovitus of Oporto, 
and Froisclus of Tortosa. The names of at 
least six shew their Gothic descent. Five 
come from sees within the former Suevic king- 
dom, probably shewing that Leovigild, after 
his conquest, had displaced the Catholic by 
Arian bishops. Reccared then bid the council 
with his licence to draw up any requisite 
canons, particularly one directing the creed to 
be recited at the Holy Communion, that hence- 
forward no one could plead ignorance as an 
excuse for misbelief. - Then followed 23 canons 
with a confirmatory edict of the king. The 


REMIGIUS a75 


tst confirmed the decrees of previous councils 
and synodical letters of the popes; the and 
directed the recitation of the creed of Constan- 
tinople at the communion; by the 4th the 
Arian bishops, priests, and deacons, who had 
been converted, were forbidden to live with 
their wives; the 7th directed the Seriptures 
should be read at a bishop's table during 
meals; by the oth Arian churches were 
transferred to the bishops of their dioceses ; 
the 13th forbade clerics to proceed against 
clerics before lay tribunals; the 14th forbade 
Jews to have Christian wives, concubines, of 
slaves, ordered the children of such unions to 
be baptized, and disqualified Jews from any 
office in which they might have to punish 
Christians—Christian slaves whom they had 
circumcised, or made to share in their rites, 
were ipso facto free; the 2151 forbade civil 
authorities to lay burdens on clerics or the 
slaves of the church or clergy; the zand for- 
bade wailing at funerals; the σιγά forbade 
celebrating saints’ days with indecent dances 
andsongs. The canons were subscribed firs 
by the king, then by 5 of the 6 metropolitans, 
of whom Masona signed first ; 62 bishops signed 
in person, 6 by proxy. All those of Tarra- 
conensis and Septimania appeared personally 
or by proxy; in other provinces several were 
missing. The proceedings closed with a homily 
by Leander on the conversion of the Goths. 
The information for the rest of Receared’s 
reign is most scanty. He is praised by Isidore 
for his peaceful government, clemency, and 
generosity. He restored various properties, 
both ecclesiastical and private, confiscated by 
his father, and founded many churches and 
monasteries. Gregory the Great, writing to 
Reccared in Aug. 599 (Epp. ix. 61, 4r2t), 
extols him for embracing the true faith and 
inducing his people to do so, and for refusing 
the bribes offered by Jews to procure the 
repeal of a law against them. He sends him 
a piece of the true cross, some fragments of the 
chains of St. Peter, and some hairs of St. John 
Baptist. Reccared died at Toledo in 601, 
after reigning 15 years, having publicly con- 
fessed his sins. He was succeeded by his son 
Leova II., a youth of about 18. Dahn, Konige 
der Germanen, v.; Helflerich, Entsichung und 
Geschichte des Westgothen-Rechis; Gams, 
Kirchengeschichle von Spanien, ii. (2). ΟΣ 
Re us (2) (Rems), St., archbp. of Rheims 
and called the Apostle of the Franks (¢. 457: 
530), holds an important position in Western 
history and is honoured as one of the 5 great 
patron-saints of France. His exact part in 
winning Clovis and his Franks to orthodox 
Christianity, and so probably deciding the 
belief of Western Europe, is not easy to ne, 
since Gregory's account, written considerably 
later than the events, is plainly not to be 
trusted for details, and an carlier Life which 
apparently existed (see Greg. Tur. Mest. 
Franc. ii. 31) was lost before the oth cent. 
Some think that Clovis was convineed by 
the exhortations of Remigius or Clotilda, or 
both, some that he saw his advantage in the 
partizanship of the orthodox clergy in his 
struggle with the Arian Burgundians and 
Visigoths. [Crovis.) At any rate, it was ἃ 
happy event for orthodoxy that a man with 
force of character to impress a barbarian like 


876 RHODO 


Clovis was stationed in the pathway of his 
conquests. Few details are known of Remi- 
gius’s life. He was born c. 435, and conse- 
crated in his 22nd year (c. 457). We first hear 
of his intercourse with Clovis in the campaign 
against Syagrius (c. 486). About 492 the king 
married the Catholic Clotilda, who proved a 
powerful ally for the bishop. The story of his 
baptism on Christmas Eve, 496, with his 
sisters Albofledis and the Arian Lanthechildis 
and more than 3,000 Franks, is well known. 
““Mitis depone colla, Sicamber, adora quod 
incendisti, incende quod adorasti,’’ are the 
words put by Gregory into Remigius’s mouth 
(ib. 27). His episcopate is said to have lasted 
70 or more years, his death occurring c. 530. 
His literary remains are 4 letters (one, to 3 
bishops, presents a curious picture of con- 
temporary manners), a spurious will, and a few 
verses ascribed to him (Patr. Lat. lxv. 961-976; 
cf. Hist. litt. de la France, iii. 158 sqq.). 

The references in Gregory of Tours (Hist. 
Franc. ii. 27, 31, Vili. 21, ix. 14, x. 19; Hist. 
Epit. xvi.; de Glor. Conf. \xxix.), Sidonius 
Apollinaris (Ep. ix. 7), and Avitus (Collat. 
Episc. sub init. ; Patr. Lat. lix. 387), comprise 
all that is historical about him. History and 
myth are mingled in the exhaustive notice of 
the Bollandists (Oct. 1, 59-187). [s.A.B.] 

Rhodo (1), a Christian writer of the end of 
the 2nd cent., our knowledge of whom now 
exclusively depends on the account of his 
writings, and some extracts from them in 
Eusebius (H. E. v. 13). He was a native of 
Asia, converted to Christianity at Rome by 
Tatian, as he himself says in a treatise against 
Marcion addressed to Callistion. In it he 
tells of the sects into which the Marcionites 
split up after Marcion’s death, and gives an 
interesting account of an oral controversy held 
by him with the Marcionite APELLES, then an 
old man. He mentions a book of ‘‘ Problems ”’ 
published by Tatian, intended to exhibit the 
obscurity of the Holy Scriptures, and promises 
to give the solutions; but Eusebius does not 
seem to have met with this work. He also 
wrote a treatise on the Hexaemeron. Through 
a lapse of memory Jerome (de Vir. Ill.) speaks 
of him as author of the anonymous treatise 
against the Montanists from which Eusebius 
makes extracts (H. E. ν. 16). [c.s.] 

Romanianus, a wealthy citizen of Tagaste, 
possessing there and at Carthage a house and 
other property. He shewed great kindness 
towards Augustine in his early life, which he 
did not fail in later days gratefully to acknow- 
ledge. In a passage of the second book 
against the heathen philosophers Augustine 
relates with pathetic simplicity how when he 
was but a boy and in poverty, arising no doubt 
from his father’s ‘‘spirited’’ disregard of 
expense, he found in Romanianus a friend 
who provided him a home and pecuniary help 
in his studies at Carthage, and shewed him— 
what he valued more than these—friendship 
and kindly encouragement. After the death 
of Augustine’s father in 371, Romanianus 
received him into his house at Tagaste as his 
honoured guest, and though, in a patriotic 
spirit, he tried to dissuade him from returning 
to Carthage, when he saw that his youthful 
ambition desired a wider range than his native 
town could afford, he supplied him with the 


ROMANUS 


necessary means. Nor, as Augustine mentions 
with special gratitude, was he offended at a 
neglect to write, but passed over it with 
considerate kindness (Aug. Conf. ii. 3, vi. 
14; 6. Acad. ii. 2; Ep. 27, 4). Romanianus 
had a son Licentius, who may have been a 
pupil under Augustine while he was teaching 
rhetoric at Carthage, but of this there is no 
evidence, though he undoubtedly was 10 or 
12 years later at Milan. Romanianus appears 
to have had another son, Olympius, frequently 
mentioned in the various discourses composed 
by Augustine at Cassiciacum near Milan, who 
received baptism at the same time as Augus- 
tine, and who afterwards became bp. of Ta- 
gaste, of which place he was certainly a native, 
and of a rank in life agreeing entirely with that 
of Romanianus (Aug. Conf. vi. 7). Like 
Augustine himself, perhaps in some degree 
through his influence, Romanianus fell into 
the prevailing errors of Manicheism, which, 
however, he appears to have cast off, though 
without adopting as yet the true philosophy 
of the gospel, by the time when, as we gather 
from the description of Augustine, he visited 
him at Milan in 385. He had gone thither on 
important business, and entered with some 
warmth into the scheme of a life in common 
of 10 members. In 386, while Augustine was 
with his friends in the house of Verecundus 
at Cassiciacum, and meditating the great 
change of life which he made in 387, he 
composed 4 discourses, dedicating to Ro- 
manianus the one against the academic 
philosophers, entreating him to abandon 
their doctrines, and declaring his own inten- 
tion to abide by the authority of Christ, 
‘* For,’’ says he, ‘‘I find none more powerful 
than this’ (c. Acad. i. 1; iii. 20; Retract. 1. 
1-4). Some time during the 3 years follow- 
ing the conversion of Augustine Romanianus 
became a Christian, thus drawing still closer 
the intimacy between Augustine and himself 
and his family. The same year Augustine 
addressed to Romanianus his book on true 
religion (c. Acad. ii. 3, 8; de Ver. Rel. 12; 
Ep. 27, 4; 31, 7). We find Augustine also 
writing, A.D. 395, to Licentius, entreating 
him in the most affectionate manner to shake 
off the bonds in which he was held by the 
world, to visit Paulinus at Nola and learn 
from him how this was to be accomplished 
(Aug. Ep. 26, 3). This letter he followed up 
by one to Paulinus, introducing to him 
Romanianus, the bearer of the letter, and 
commending Licentius to his attention (Ep. 
27, 3, 4,6). In 396 Paulinus wrote to Romani- 
anus congratulating the church of Africa on 
the appointment of Augustine as coadjutor- 
bp. of Hippo, and expressing the hope that the 
trumpet of Augustine may sound in the ears 
of Licentius, to whom he wrote both in prose 
and in verse, exhorting him to devote himself 
to God (Paulin. Epp. vii. viii.). [H.w.P.] 
Romanus (7), a solitary, born and brought 
up at Rhosus, who retired to a cell on the 
mountains near Antioch, where he lived to 
extreme old age, practising the utmost auster- 
ities. Theodoret describes him as conspicu- 
ous for simplicity and meekness, attracting 
to his cell by the beauty of his character large 
numbers, over whom he exercised a salutary 
influence (Theod. Hist. Relig. c. xi.). [E-V-] 


Romanus (9), St., a celebrated hymn- 
writer of the Eastern church, who is saul $0 
have written more than 1,000 hymns, of the 
kind called κοντάκια, a form which he prob- 
ably invented. It perhaps derives its some- 
what disputed name from the legend as to its 
origin, found in the Synaxasion of St. Rom- 
anus’s day (Menaea, Oct. 1), which says that 
the Blessed Virgin appeared to him, and com- 
manded him to eat a roll (xorrdxior) which she | 
gave him, and that, obeying, he found himself 
endowed with the power of composing hymns. 
If he was the first who wrote κοντάκια, it is 
an argument in favour of placing bim (as do 
Pitra and the Bollandists) in the reign of 
Anastasius I. (491-518) rather than of Seow 
tasius 11. (713-719). ᾿ (t.a.w.] 

ufinus (3), Tyrannius, of Aquileia, the 


RUPFINUS 877 


is no trace of other than Christian associations 
in his writings. His mother did not die ull 
his sojourn in Rome in y98 (Hieron. Bp. lexxi. 
1). He was not baptized tille. 371. That he 
made the cngumntenss of Jerome in early life 
is shewn by his request to him when about to 
go into Gaul, ¢. 368, to copy out for him the 
works of Hilary upon the Psalms and upon the 
councils of the church (Ap. v. 2) Hither 
before or about the time of the return of 
Jerome from Gaul, Kufinus had gone to 
Aquileia and embraced a monastic life ("' in 
monasterio positus,"’ RKufin. Apol. Lb 4). 
There, about 30 years before he wrote his 
Apology against the attacks of his former 
friend, Rufinus was baptized (15.) by Chroma- 
tius and his brother Eusebius (then respectively 
presbyter and deacon), and Jovinus the arch- 


translator of Origen and Eusebius, the friend | deacon, all of them ascetic friends, and all 
of Jerome and afterwards his adversary ; ἃ subsequently bishops. This must have been 
Latin ecclesiastical writer of some merit, and | at the close of his stay at Aquileia (" Ile modo 


highly esteemed in his own time; born c. 345 | 
at Concordia in N. Italy ; baptized at Aquileia | 
c. 371; lived in Egypt some 8 years and in| 
Palestine about 18 (371-397); ordained at 
Jerusalem c. 390 ; in Italy, mostly at Aquileia, 
397-408; died in Sicily, 4ro. 

Sources.—The works of Rufinus himself, 
especially his Apology (otherwise Invectives), 
two books, against Jerome; Hieron. Apology 
against Rufinus, three books; Id. Chronicle, 
Ol. 289, An. 1, A.D. 378; Id. Epp. 3-5, 51, 
57, 80-84, 97, 125, 133; Id. Pref. to Comm. 
on Ezk. and Jer. bk. i; Paulin. ck 28, 40, 
46, 47; Aug. Epp. 63, 156; Pallad. δι. 
Laus. 118; Gennad. de Script. Eccl. c. 17; 
Sid. Apoll. lib. iv. Ep. 3; Gelasius in Concil. 
Rom. (Patr. Lat. lix. col. 173). 


Literature—Rufinus's career has usually) 


been treated as an appendage to that of 
Jerome. There is a full Life of Rufinus by 
Fontanini (Rome, 1742), reprinted by Migne 
in his ed. of Rufinus (Pair. . Xxi.)}—minute 
and exhaustive in details and in fixing dates; 
a shorter account by Schoenemann, Btblio- 


theca Historico-Literarta Patrum Lat. (Lips. 
1792), is also reprinted by Migne. 
Works.—The genuine original works of 


se lavit,”” Hieron. Ep. 4, a.p. 374}. 

Life in the East; Egypt.—We do ποῖ know 
how long the company of friends lived to- 
gether at Aquileia, nor what caused its dissolu- 
tion. But when the "subitus turbo drove 
Jerome to the East, Rufinus left Italy in the 
company of Melania for Egypt and visited 
the monasteries of Nitria (Pallad. Hist. Laws. 
118; Hieron. Ep. iii. 2), where Rufinus 
ΘΟ intended to remain. But the 
church of Alexandria was then in a state of 
trouble. Athanasius died in 372, and his 
successor, the Arian Lucius, acting with the 
successive governors of Alexandria, came as 
a wolf among the sheep (Ruf. H. &. il. 4; 
Socr. iv. 21-23; Soz.vi.19). Rufinus himself 
was thrown into prison, and afterwards, with 
many other confessors, banished from mad 
(H. E. ii. 4; Apol. ad Anasiasium, 2, "in 
carceribus, in exiliis"’), but must have re- 
turned as soon as the stress of the u- 
tion abated. In Egypt he saw and heard 
Didymus, who wrote for him a book on 
the questions suggested by the death of in- 
fants (Hieron. Apol. iii. 28), and whom he 
praises in his Ecclesiastical History (ii. 7). He 
also was a pupil of Theophilus, afterwards bp. 


Rufinus still extant are: A Dissertation on | of Alexandria (Hieron. Apol. iii. 18). He saw 
the Falsification by Heretics of the Works of also the hermits, whose teaching he prized 
Origen, prefixed to his trans. of Pamphilus’s | still more—Serapion and Menites and Paulus ; 
Apology for Origen; A Commentary on the Macarius the disciple of Anthony, and the 
Benedictions of the Twelve Patriarchs (Gen. lother Macarius, Isidore, and Pambas. On 
xlix.); the Apology for himself against the | their πεν he says he attended carnestly 
attacks of Jerome, in two books; a shorter and frequently ; and he afterwards described 
one addressed to pope Anastasius; two books them in his Historia Monachorum. After 
6 years he went to Jerusalem. Whether 


of Eccl. Hist., being a continuation of Euse- ᾿ 
Melania had been with bim in Egypt is not 


bius; a History of the Egyptian Hermits; 
and an Exposition of the Creed. Besides these certain, though Palladius implies that he was 
there are several prefaces to the translations her companion throughout. Certainly he 
from Greek authors, on which his chief labour | now settled with her on the Mount of Olives. 
was expended, and which include The Monastic | But it would seem that, Ἢ after a short inter- 
Rule of Basil, and his 8 Homilies; the Apology ναὶ," he returned to Egypt again for ἃ 
for Origen, written by Pamphilus and Eusebius; years (A pol. il. 22). Melania’s settlement at 
Origen’s Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν and many of his commen- Jerusalem is pla ed by Jerome in his (γον είς 
taries; 10 works of Gregory Nazianzen ; the 379, 1.¢. according to the present of Dion y- 
Sentences of Sixtus or Xystus; the Sentences sian computation in 177. We may place 
of Evagrius, and his book addressed to Vir- | Rufinus’s final settlement there with ber in 
gins; the Recognitions of Clement; the τὸ 370. There is, however, some reason to 
books of Eusebius’s History; the Paschal ¢ they made one more journey to 
Canon of Anatolius of Alexandria. Egypt; for Palladius states, as a fact he had 

Early Life: Concordia and Aquileia.—His heard from Melania, that she had been preseat 
parents were probably Christians, since there at the death of Pambas, which occurred after 


878 RUFINUS 


the accession of Theophilus in 385 (Fontanini, 
Vita Rufini, i. c. ii. § 7). 

Palestine.—For 18 or 20 years, reckoning 
either from 377 or 379 to 397, Rufinus lived on 
the Mount of Olives. He was ordained either 
by Cyril or more probably by John (made 
bishop 385). He built cells at his own expense 
(‘‘ meis cellulis,” Apol. ii. 84) for monks, who 
occupied themselves in ascetic practices and 
learned pursuits. Palladius, who was at 
Jerusalem and Bethlehem for some time 
before he went to Egypt in 388, says of 
Rufinus: ‘‘ He was a man of noble birth and 
manners, but very strong in following out his 
own independent resolutions. No one of the 
male sex was ever gentler, and he had the 
strength and calmness of one who seems to 
know everything’’; and tells us that, in 
common with Melania, Rufinus exercised an 
unbounded hospitality, receiving and aiding 
with his own funds bishops and monks, virgins 
and matrons. ‘‘So,” he says, “they passed 
their life, offending none, and helping almost 
the whole world.” Jerome also, early in their 
stay at Jerusalem, spoke of Rufinus with 
highest praise, mentioning in his Chronicle 
(sub ann. 378) that ‘‘ Bonosus of Italy, and 
Florentius and Rufinus at Jerusalem, are held 
in special estimation as monks’’; and when 
he settled in Palestine in 386 had frequent 
literary intercourse with Rufinus and his 
monks. Rufinus records that Jerome was 
once his guest at the Mount of Olives (7b.); 
and Jerome acknowledges (2b. ili. 33) that, up 
to 393, he had been intimate with him. 

In 394 Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis, came to 
Jerusalem, and in the dissension which arose 
between him and John, bp. of Jerusalem, 
Rufinus was the leader of the clergy who sup- 
ported John, Jerome siding with Epiphanius, 
the consequence being an alienation between 
Jerome and Rufinus. This estrangement was 
but temporary. Jerome speaks frequently 
of their ‘‘reconciliatas amicitias ’’ (Ep. ΙΧΧΧΙ. 
1; Apol. iii. 33). In 397, the year when 
Rufinus quitted Palestine, they met (probably 
with many friends on both sides) at a solemn 
communion service in the Church of the 
Resurrection, joined hands in renewal of 
friendship, and, on Rufinus’s setting out for 
Italy with Melania, Jerome accompanied him 
some little way, perhaps as far as Joppa. 

Italy, 397-409.—Melania returned to Italy 
in order to promote ascetic practices in her 
family. Rufinus, whom Paulinus speaks of 
as being to her ‘“‘in spiritali vid comitem,” 
returned in her company. His mother was 
still living, and he wished to see his relations 
and Christian friends again (Hieron. 1xxxi. 1 ; 
Apol. ii. 2). After a voyage of 20 days they 
arrived at Naples in the spring of 397. Thence 
they went to visit Paulinus at Nola, all the 
nobles of those parts and their retinues accom- 
panying them in a kind of triumph (Paulin. 
Ep. xxix. 12). Melania, who was connected, 
probably, by ties of property with Campania, 
since Palladius speaks of her successors Pini- 
anus and Melania living there (Hist. Laus. 
119), after staying with Paulinus some time, 
went on to Rome, where her son Publicola and 
his wife Albina and her granddaughter Melania 
with her husband Pinianus were living. Ru- 
finus went to the monastery of Pinetum near 


RUFINUS 


Terracina, of which his friend Ursacius or 
Urseius was the abbat, and there stayed 
probably for a year, from early spring 397 
till after Lent 398. 

He had brought many works of the Eastern 
church writers which were but little known 
in Italy; and his friends were eager to know 
their contents. Rufinus, having used Greek 
more than Latin for some 25 years, at first 
declared his incompetence (A pol. i. 11), but 
by degrees accepted the task of translation, 
which occupied almost all the rest of his life. 
He began with the Rule of Basil, which 
Urseius desired for the use of his monks. 
Next, probably, he translated the Recogni- 
tions of Clement. [CLEMENTINE LITERATURE. ] 
Paulinus begged his assistance in the inter- 
pretation of the blessing upon Judah in Gen. 
xlix., and, some months later, of the rest of 
the blessings on the patriarchs. His reply is 
extant. Meanwhile he had a scholar named 
Macarius, who at Pinetum had been much 
exercised by speculations on Providence and 
Fate and in controversy with the many 
Mathematici (astrologists and necromancers) 
then in Italy. About the time Rufinus 
arrived he dreamed he saw a ship coming from 
the East to Italy which would bring him aid, 
and this he interpreted of Rufinus. He 
expected help from the speculative works of 
Origen, and besought Rufinus to translate 
some of them. Rufinus, though knowing 
from the recent controversy at Jerusalem that 
his orthodox reputation would be imperilled 
by the task, yet undertook it (Apol. i. 11; 
prefaces to bks. i. and iii. of the Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν). 
He began, however, by translating the Apo- 
logy for Origen written by the martyr Pam- 
philus in conjunction with Eusebius, adding 
a treatise on the corruption of Origen’s works 
by heretics, and a profession of his own faith 
which he held in common with the churches of 
Aquileia and Jerusalem and the well-known 
bishops of those sees. Then he translated the 
Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν itself, adding to the first two 
books, which he finished during Lent 398, a 
very memorable preface, in which he speaks 
of the odium excited by the name of Origen, 
but asserts his conviction that most of the 
passages which have given him the reputation 
of heresy were inserted or coloured by the 
heretics. He therefore felt at liberty to leave 
out or soften down many expressions which 
would offend orthodox persons, and also, 
where anything was obscure, to give a kind 
of explanatory paraphrase. He pointed out 
also that he was not the first translator of 
Origen, but that Jerome, whom he did not 
name but clearly indicated, and of whom he 
spoke in high praise, had in the time of 
Damasus translated many of Origen’s works, 
and in the prefaces (especially that to the Song 
of Songs) had praised Origen beyond measure. 
Two questions gaverise to great controversy : 
First, was this reference to Jerome justifiable ? 
Secondly, was Rufinus’s dealing with the book 
itself legitimate ? The reference to Jerome 
was hardly ingenuous. If the praises he 
bestows are not, as Jerome called them, 
‘* fictae laudes,’’ they are certainly used for a 
purpose to which Jerome would not have 
given his sanction, and their use in view of 
the controversy at Jerusalem, without any 


RUFINUS 


allusion to Jerome's altered attitude towards 
Origen, was ungenerous and misleading. The 
second point is obscured by the loss of the 
chief part of the Greek of the Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν, 
but we have enough upon which to form a 
judgment. Some passages, vouched for and 
translated by Jerome (Ep. exxiv. 13), were, 
with much that leads up to them, omitted by 
Rufinus, who also carried the licence of para- 
phrasing difficult expressions to an extreme 
length. But the texts of Origen weresomewhat 
uncertain ; the standard of literary honesty 
was not then what is it now; and then 
Jerome himself had in his letter de Opt. Gen. 
Interpretandi (Ep. 57) sanctioned a mode of 
interpretation almost as loose as that of 
Rufinus. (See also his words to Vigilantius, 
Ep. \xi. 2, ““Quae bona sunt transtuli, et mala 
vel amputavi vel correxi vel tacui. Per me 
Latini bona ejus habent et mala ignorant."’) 
We may acquit Rufinus of more than a too 
eager desire, unchastened by any critical 
power, to make the greatest exponent of 
Oriental Christianity acceptable to Roman ears. 
Rome.—The first two books Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν, 
with the preface, were first published probably 
in the winter of 397-398; the other two, 
having been translated during Lent 398, were 
carried by Rufinus to Rome, whither Macarius 
had already gone, when he went to stay with 
Melania and her family. During his stay 
Apronianus, a noble Roman, was converted, 
partly through Rufinus, who addresses him 
as ‘‘ mi ἢ}1. The friends of Melania were, no 
doubt, numerous. Pope Siricius also (elected 
in 385 when Jerome had himself aspired to the 
office) was favourable to Rufinus. But the 
expectations formed by Rufinus in his preface 
were realized at once. Many were astonished 
at the book of Origen, some finding even in 
Rufinus’s version the heresies they connected 
with the name of Origen; some indignant 
that these heresies had been softened down. 
Jerome’s friends at first were dubious. Euse- 
bius of Cremona, who came to Rome from 
Bethlehem early in 398 (Hieron. Ap. iii. 24), 
lived at first on friendly terms with Rufinus 
and communicated with him (Ruf. A pol. i. 20). 
But Jerome's friends Pammachius, Oceanus, 
and Marcella resented the use made of their 
master’s name and suspected Rufinus’s sin- 
cerity. According to his account, Eusebius, 
or some one employed by him, stole the trans- 
lation of the last two books of the Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν, 
which were still unrevised, from his chamber, 
and in this imperfect state had them copied 
and circulated, adding in some cases words 
he had never written (Ap. i. 19; ii. 44). But, 
being in uncertainty as to the value of the 
translation, Pammachius and Oceanus sent 
the books and prefaces to Jerome at Bethle- 
hem, who sat down at once, made a literal 
translation of the Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν, and sent it to 
his friends with a letter (84) written to refute 
the insinuations through which, as he con- 
sidered, Rufinus’s preface had associated him — 
with Origenism. I : 
(81) to Rufinus, Ἰώ ρὸν against his “ fictae 
laudes,’’ but refraining ᾿ 
friendship. | When these documents arrived 
in Rome, affairs had changed. Rufinus had 
gone; pope Siricius had died (date in Fagius 


Nov. 29, 398); the new pope Anastasius was |many difficulties. It 


e sent them also a setae | 


RUFINUS 879 


ready to listen to friends of Jerome; Rufinus 
the Syrian, Jerome's friend, had arrived in 
Rome (Hieron. Ap. iii. 24) and with Euse- 
bius of Cremona had bg through the chief 
cities of Italy (Ruf. Ap. i. 21) pointing out 
all the heretical passages in Origen. Rufinw 
a little before the death of pope Siricius, ha 
obtained from him letters of πὶ βλνοούσσ ὅν 
(“literae formatae "'), to which he appealed 
afterwards as shewing he was in communion 
with the Roman church (Hieron. Ap. ili, 21). 
At Milan he met Eusebius in the presence of 
the bishop, and confronted him when he read 
heretical passages from a copy of the Περὶ 
᾿Αρχῶν received from Marcella and purporting 
to be Rufinus’s work (Ruf. Ap. i. το). He 
then went to Aquileia, where bp. Chromatius, 
who had baptized him 27 years before, re- 
ceived him. 

A quileia.—Here he soon heard that Jerome's 
translation of the Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν, though intended 
only for Pammachius and his friends, had 
been published, and that Jerome's letter 
against him was in circulation. Of this letter 
he received a copy from Apronianus (A pol. i. 
1); but Pammachius kept back the more 
friendly letter addressed to Rufinus himself. 
This act of treachery, which Jerome subse- 
quently in his anger at Rufinus’s Apolog 
brought himself to defend (Hieron. A pol. tf 
28), caused Rufinus and Jerome to assail each 
other with fierce invectives. For that con- 
troversy and for the letters of pope Anastasius 
to Rutinus and John of Jerusalem, and 
Rufinus'’s letter of apology, see Jerome. We 
pass on to the last decade of Rufinus’s life. 

His friends at Aquileia were eager as those 
at Pinetum had been for a knowledge of the 
Christian writers of the East; and Rufinus’s 
remaining years were almost entirely occupied 
with translation, though several of his original 
works belong also to this period. The 
translations have no great merit, but on the 
whole are accurate, with no need for omis- 
sions and paraphrases as in the Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν. 
They were undertaken in no distinct order, 
but according to the request of friends. 
Rufinus wished to translate the Commentaries 
of Origen on the whole Heptateuch, and only 
Deuteronomy remained untranslated when 
he died. The Commentary on the Romans, 
however (see preface), and several others, 
besides other works, intervened. 

The Exposition of the Creedis of importance, 
as a testimony to the variations in the creeds 
of the various churches (that of Aquileia 
having “ Patrum invisibilem εἰ impassibilem,”’ 
‘in Spirituw Sancto,"’ and δ hujus carnis resur- 
rectionem "' as distinctive peculiarities), and 
from its intrinsic merits and as shewing the 
influence of Eastern theology, harmonized by 
a sound judgment, on Western theology. 

The History is on a ps with those of Soc- 
rates and Sozomen, exhibiting no conception 
of the real functions of history nor of the 
relative proportion of different classes of 
events, yet dealing 1 sag with the facts 
within the writer's view. It was trans. into 


om any breach of | Greek, and valued in the East, as his trans. of 


Eusebius, of which it is a continuation, was 

in the West (Gennad. de Seript. Eccl. xvii.). 
The History of the Egyptian monks presents 
f distinctly attributed 


880 RUFINUS 


to Rufinus by Jerome (Ep. cxxxiii. 3), but not 
included in the list of his works given by 
Gennadius, who says that it was commonly 
attributed to Petronius, bp. of Bologna 
(Gennad. op. cit. xli.). The preface says it is 
written in response to repeated requests of the 
monks on the Mount of Olives. Fontanini 
(Vita Rufini, lib. ii. c. xii. § 4) grounds upon 
this with much reason the theory that Pet- 
ronius, having been in the East, and having 
received the request of the Olivetan monks, 
but having himself, as Gennadius testifies, but 
little skill in composition, on his return to the 
West begged Rufinus to write the history. 
The adventures recorded would thus be those 
of Petronius, not of Rufinus. The Hzstoria 
Lausiaca of Palladius is in many of its sections 
identical with the Historia Monachorum. It 
is, however, more probable that Palladius, 
who did not leave the solitary life in Egypt 
till 400, and wrote his History for Lausus at 
Constantinople apparently some time after- 
wards (he lived till 431), was indebted to 
Rufinus rather than the contrary. 

Rufinus had not, like Jerome, any large 
range of literary knowledge, and his critical 
powers were defective. He quotes stories like 
that of the Phoenix (de Symbolo, 11) without 
any question. He had no doubt of the Recog- 
nitions being the work of Clement, and he 
translated the sayings of Xystus the Stoic 
philosopher, stating, without futher remark, 
that they were said to be those of Sixtus, the 
Roman bishop, thus laying himself open to 
Jerome’s attack upon his credulity. 

The Apology is well composed and more 
methodical than that of Jerome. Its reason- 
ing is at least as powerful, though its resources 
of language and illustration are fewer. His 
efforts for peace and refusal to reply to 
Jerome’slast invectives, thoughthe temptation 
offered by a violent attack in answer to a 
peaceful letter was great, shews a high power 
of self-restraint and a consciousness of a secure 
position. 

Last Years.—The years at Aquileia were un- 
eventful. The letter of Anastasius which told 
him of the rumours against him at Rome and 
requested him to come there to clear himself, 
drew from him the Apologia ad Anastasium, a 
short document of self-defence not lacking in 
dignity. He enjoyed the friendship of Chroma- 
tius, at whose request he consented to cease 
his strife with Jerome, though Jerome, adjured 
by the same bishop, refused to do so (Hieron. 
Apol. iii. 2). He enjoyed the friendship of the 
bishops near him, Petronius of Bologna, 
Gaudentius of Brixia, Laurentius, perhaps of 
Concordia, for whom he wrote his work upon 
the Creed. Paulinus of Nola continued his 
friendship ; and Augustine, in his severe reply 
to Jerome, who had sent him his work against 
Rufinus, treats the two men as equally 
esteemed, and writes: “1 grieved, when I 
read your book, that such discord had arisen 
between persons so dear and so intimate, 
bound to all the churches by a bond of affec- 
tion and of renown. Who will not in future 
mistrust his friend as one who may become 
his enemy when it has been possible for this 
lamentable result to come to pass between 
Jerome and Rufinus?”’ (Aug. Ep. 73 ad 
Hieron.). 


RUFINUS 


_Last Journey and Death.—Chromatius had 
died in 405, and Rufinus’s thoughts turned 
again to Melania and to Palestine. He joined 
Melania in Rome in 408 or 409, Anastasius 
having been succeeded in 403 by Innocent, 
who had no prejudice against him. Owing 
to Alaric’s invasion, they left Rome, with 
Albina, Pinianus, and Melania the younger 
(Pallad. Hist. Laus. 119), and resided in Cam- 
pania and Sicily. Rufinus records that he 
was in the “΄ coetus religiosus ’’ of Pinianus on 
the Sicilian coast, witnessing the burning of 
Rhegium across the straits by the bands of 
Alaric, when he wrote the preface to the trans- 
lation of Origen’s Commentary on Numbers. 
Soon after writing this he died. 

The cloud on the reputation of Rufinus due 
to Jerome’s attacks has unduly depressed the 
general estimation of his character. In the 
list of books to be received in the church 
promulgated by pope Gelasius at the Roman 
council, in 494 (Migne’s Patr. lat. lix. col. 175), 
we read: ‘‘ Rufinus, a religious man, wrote 
many books of use to the church, and many 
commentaries on the Scripture ; but, since the 
most blessed Jerome infamed him in certain 
points, we take part with him (Jerome) in this 
and in all cases in which he has pronounced a 
condemnation.’’ With this official judgment 
may be contrasted that of Gennadius in his 
list of ecclesiastical writers (c. 17): “‘ Rufinus, 
the presbyter of Aquileia, was not the least 
among the teachers of the church, and in his 
translations from Greek to Latin shewed an 
elegant genius. He gave to the Latins a very 
large part of the library of Greek writers. ... 
He also replied in two volumes to him who 
decried his works, shewing convincingly that 
he had exercised his powers through the 
insight given him by God and for the good of 
the church, and that it was through a spirit 
of rivalry that his adversary had employed his 
pen in defaming him.’’ See Ruf. Comm. in 
Symb. Apost. ed. by Rev. C. Whitaker, Lat. 
text, notes, and trans. with a short hist. of 
Ruf. and his times (Bell). A trans. by Dean 
Fremantle of the works of Rufinus is in the L1b. 
of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. [w.u.F.] 

Rufinus (4), a Roman presbyter at the end 
of 4th cent.; an admirer of Jerome he espoused 
his cause in the Origenistic controversy and 
against Rufinus of Aquileia. Eusebius of 
Cremona, sent by Jerome to Rome in 398, re- 
ported the kindness of Rufinus, who wrote to 
Jerome to ask an explanation of the judgment 
of Solomon. This Jerome gives him, making 
the false and true mothers to be the Synagogue 
and the Church. Jerome speaks of him with 
gratitude and respect, hoping he may not only 
publicly defend him, but in private judge him 
favourably (Ep. 74, ed. Vall.). [w.H.F. ] 

Rufinus (5), a friend of Jerome; known as 
the Syrian, to distinguish him from (3) and (4), 
both his contemporaries. He was one of the 
company of Italians settled at Bethlehem with 
Jerome ; and in 390 was sent by him to Rome 
and Milan in the cause of their friend Claudius, 
who was accused of a capital offence (Hieron. 
Ep. \xxxi. 2; cont. Ruf. 111. 24). 

This Rufinus is doubtless the one mentioned 
by Celestius (Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 3) as having 
been known by him at the house of Pam- 
machius at Rome and having asserted there 


Males ΤΣ 


SABAS 


SABELLIANISM 881] 


that sin was not inherited. Marius Mercator | called after him Sabbatiani, whose baptiem 
says that it was this Rufinus who instilled | was recognized in the 7th canon of the and 


into the mind of Pelagius the views known as 
Pelagian (Mar. Mere. Lib. Subnotationum in 
Verba Juliani, c. 2). (w.u.r.] 


5 


Sabas (2), a Gothic martyr under Athan- 
aric, king of the Goths towards the end of 4th 
cent. His Acts seem genuine, and contain 
many interesting details of Gothic life in the 
lands bordering onthe Danube. Thus village 
life, with its head men and communal respon- 
sibility, appears inc. ii. After various tortures 
he was drowned in the Musaeus, which flows 
into the Danube. The Acts are in the form 
of an epistle from the Gothic church to that 
of Cappadocia, whither Soranus, who was 
*“dux Scythiae,"’ had sent his relics (Ruinart. 
Acta Sincera, p- 670; AA. SS. Boll. Apr. ii. 88; 
Ceill. iv. 278; Ὁ. A. A. Scott, Ulfilas, Apostle 
of the Goths, 1885, p. 80). The topography of 
the region where he suffered is exhaustively 
treated in the Sitzungsberichte der Wiener 
Akad. 1881-1882, t. xcix. pp. 437-492, by Prof. 
Tomaschek, of Graz University. (G.T.s.] 

Sabas (6), St., abbat in Palestine and 
founder of the laura of St. Sabas; born in 
439, near Caesarea in Cappadocia. When 8 
years old he entered a neighbouring mon- 
astery, and at 18 went a pilgrimage to the holy 
places at Jerusalem, where he entered the 
monastery of St. Passarion. At 30 he estab- 
lished himself as an anchorite in a cavern in 
the desert. Several persons joining him, he 
laid the foundations of his monastery on a 
rock on the Kidron river, where it still re- 
mains. (Cf. Murray's Handbook for Syria, p. 
229.) He was ordained priest by Sallustius, 
patriarch of Constantinople, in 491. 
Armenians united themselves soon after to 
this community, which led to Sabas ordaining 
that the first part of Holy Communion should 
be said in Armenian, but the actual words of 
consecration in Greek. In 493 the monastery 
had increased so much that he built another 
at a short distance. He was sent as an 
ambassador to Constantinople in A.p. 511, by 
the patriarch Eras, to counteract the influ- 
ence of Severus and the Monophysites with 
the emperor Anastasius; and again by Peter, 
patriarch of Jerusalem, in 531, to ask from the 
emperor remission of the taxes due by Pales- 
tine and help to rebuild the churches ruined 
by invasion. He died Dec. 5, 531, aged οἱ 
ον His Life was written by Cyril of 

cythopolis. [Cyrittus (13).] Copious ex- 
om it are in Ceillier, xi. 274-277, and 
Fleury, H. E. lib. vii. §§ 30-32. The whole 
Life is in Coteler, Monument. t. iii. [ὁ.τ.5.} 

Sabbatius (2), ordained by Marcianus as 
Novatianist bp. of Constantinople, seceded, 
before 380, from the main body of that sect, 
with two others, Theoctistes and Macarius, 
maintaining that Easter ought to be celebrated 
on the same day and in the same manner as 
by the Jews. He also complained that un- 
worthy persons were admitted to the Nova- 
tianist communion, thus finding the same fault 
with the Novatianists that they did with the 
church, 


tracts 


Several 


He became bishop of a small sect, — 


general council. Sozomen (H. Ε΄ vil. 18) gives 
a long account of his secession. [α.τ.5.} 
Sabell » the Eastern name for the 
movement designated Patripassianiem in the 
West. It formed a portion of the great 
Monarchian movement, and can only be 
rightly understood in connexion therewith, 
6 can trace its rise back to the age of Justin 
Martyr. In his Apol. i. § 63 he refers to those 
“who affirm that the Son is the Father," and 
condemns them—a condemnation which he 
repeats in his Dialogue with Trypho, ἢ 128 (εἰ. 
Bull's Defence of Nic. Creed, τ. i. 148, t ib 
626; Judgm. Cath. Ch. iii. 198). the and 
cent. was the age of Gnosticism, of which one 
of the essential principles was the emanation 
theory, which places a number of aeons, 
emanations from the Divine Being, inter- 
mediate between God and the Creation. The 
champions of Christian orthodoxy were led, in 
opposition, to insist strenuously upon the 
Divine Monarchy, God's sole, independent, 
and absolute existence and being. hus we 
find Irenaeus writing a treatise περὶ μοναρχίαν 
c. 190, addressed to a Roman presbyter, 
Florinus, who had fallen away to Gnosticism. 
Asian Gnosticism regarded the Son and the 
Holy Ghost as aeons or emanations (cf. Ter- 
tull. cont. Prax. c. 8). Christians had to shew 
that the existence of the Son and the Holy 
Ghost could be reconciled with the Divine 
Monarchy. Some therefore adopted the 
view which Dorner calls Ebionite Monarch- 
ianism, defending the ἜΡΟΝ by denying 
the deity of Christ. Others identified the 
Persons of the Godhead with the Father, a 
theory which was called Sabellianism, though 
that name is not derived from the original 
inventor of this view. Sabellianism, in fact, 
was one of the mistakes men fell into while 
groping their way to the complete Christo- 
ogical conception. It was in the and cent. 
an orthodox reaction against Gnosticism, as 
in the 4th cent. the Sabellianism of Marcellus 
of Ancyra was a reaction against Arianism. 
Tertullian expressly asserts, in the opening 
of his treatise against Praxeas, that this 
heresy had sprung out of a desire to maintain 
orthodoxy. The Roman church was one of 
the chief stages whereon the controversial 
struggle was waged. The visit of Origen to 
Rome, some time in 211-217, must have intro- 
duced him to the controversy, as abundant 
references to it and refutations of it are in 
his writings. The materials for tracing the 
development of Sabellian views during the 
3rd cent. are very defective. Novatian on 
the Trinity (cc. 12, 18, 21, 22) treats 1 as an 
acknowledged heresy, using the same Scripture 
arguments as Justin Martyr in his Dial. cum 
Tryph. §§ 126-129. Novatian ts the earliest 
author who distinctly calls this view the 
Sabellian heresy. The controversy next 
emerges into the full light of day in N. Africa 
c. 260. It permeated very largely the district 
of Penta lis in Libya, under the leadership 
of two bishops of that district, Ammon and 
Evrnranor. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote 
against their teaching, whereupon he was 
accused of heresy to Dionysius of Rome. The 
documents bearing on the dispute between 


οὔ 


882 SABELLIANISM 

these two fathers are in Routh’s Rel. Sacr. 
111. 370-400; for a discussion of the contro- 
versy see Dionysius (6). In 4th cent. it again 
burst forth when Marcellus of Ancyra, in op- 
posing Arianism and the subordination theory 
of Origen, was led to deny any personal dis- 
tinction between the First and Second Persons 
of the Trinity. Marcellus was probably only 
guilty of loose expressions, but his disciple 
Photinus worked out his system to its logical 
conclusions and boldly proclaimed Sabellian 
views. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote against 
Marcellus, and from the extracts in his two 
treatises, cont. Marcell. and de Ecclesiast. 
Theolog. we derive most of our information 
concerning Marcellus (cf. Epiph. Haer. 1xxii.). 
Athanasius, Basil, Hilary, Chrysostom, all 
condemned Marcellus and his teaching. 
Basil’s letters are a repertory of information 
about the controversy during the latter half 
of 4th cent. Basil first called Sabellius an 
African, solely, it would seem, because of the 
prevalence of Sabellianism in the Pentapolis, 
under Dionysius of Alexandria, when probably 
SABELLIUuS himself was long dead. The interest 
in the controversy ceased by degrees as the 
great Nestorian and Eutychian discussions of 
the 5th cent. arose. Yet Sabellianism lin- 
gered in various quarters. Epiphanius (Haer. 
lxii.) says that in his time Sabellians were still 
numerous in Mesopotamia and Rome—a fact 
confirmed by an inscription discovered at 
Rome in 1742, which runs: ‘‘ Qui et Filius 
diceris et Pater inveniris,’’ evidently erected 
by Sabellian hands (Northcote’s Epitaph. of 
Catacombs, p. 102). Augustine speaks of 
them, however, as practically extinct in 
Africa (cf. Ep. ad Dioscorum, cx.). 

We add a brief exposition of this heresy. 
One section of the Monarchian party (see 
supra) guarded the Monarchy by denying any 
personal distinctions in the Godhead, and thus 
identifying the Father and the Son. But 
Christ is called the Son of God, and a son 
necessarily supposed a father distinct from 
himself (Tertul. cont. Prax. c. 10). They 
evaded this difficulty by distinguishing be- 
tween the Logos and the Son of God. The 
Logos was itself eternally identical with God 
the Father. The Son of God did not exist till 
the Incarnation, when the Eternal Logos 
manifested its activity in the sphere of time 
in and through the man Christ Jesus. ‘‘In 
O.T.,” says Sabellius, “πὸ mention is made 
of the Son of God, but only of the Logos” 
(Athan. Orat. iv. ὃ 23). The Sonship is a mere 
temporary matter, however (cf. Greg. Nys. 
cont. Sabell. in Mai’s Coll. Nov. Vett. Scriptt. 
t. vili. pt. 11. p. 4), and when the work of 
man’s salvation is completed the Logos will 
be withdrawn from the humanity of Christ 
into that personal union and identity with the 
Father which existed from eternity, while the 
humanity will be absorbed into the original 
Divine nature. All this was summed up in 
the distinction drawn between the λόγος 
ἐνδιάθετος and the λόγος mpopopixds. Here 
Sabellianism merged into Pantheism. The 
ultimate end of all things, according to 
Sabellius, was the restoration of the Divine 
Unity; that God, as the absolute Moras, 
should be all in all. If, then, the absorption 
of Christ’s humanity into the absolute Movds 


SABINA, POPPAEA 


was necessary, much more the absorption of 
all inferior personal existences. Neander 
points out that this system presents many 
points of resemblance to the Alexandrian- 
Jewish theology. Epiphanius, indeed, ex- 
pressly asserts (Haer. |xii. c. 2) that Sabellius 
derived his system from the apocryphal Gospel 
of the Egyptians, which stated that Christ had 
taught His disciples, as a great mystery, the 
identity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
This Gospel insisted upon the element of 
Sabellianism most akin to Pantheism, viz. 
that all contrarieties will be finally resolved 
into unity. Thus, according to it, Christ 
replied to the question of Salome when His 
kingdom should come, ‘‘ When two shall 
be one, and the outer as the inner, and the 
male with the female; when there shall be 
no male and no female.” Neander (H. E. 
t. ii. pp. 317-326, Bohn’s ed.) gives the clearest 
exposition of this heresy and its connexion 
with kindred systems. [α.1.5.] 
Sabellius, heretic, after whom the sect of the 
Sabellians was called (see preceding art.). 
The known facts of his history are but few. 
All 4th-cent. writers follow Basil in saying 
that he was born in Africa. The scene of 
Sabellius’s activity was Rome, where we find 
him during the episcopate of pope Zephyrinus, 
A.D. 198-217. From thestatement of Hippo- 
lytus, he was apparently undecided in his 
views when he came to Rome, or when he 
first began to put forward his views at 
Rome, for the silence of Hippolytus about 
his birthplace suggests that it may have 
been Rome. In Refut. ix. 6, Hippolytus 
says that Callistus perverted Sabellius to 
Monarchian views. Hippolytus argued with 
him and with Noetus and his followers (7b. 
iii.). | Sabellius, convinced for a time, was 
again led astray by Callistus. In fact, during 
the episcopate of Zephyrinus, Callistus, Sabel- 
lius and the pope seem to have united in 
persistently opposing Hippolytus. Soon after 
his accession Callistus (A.D. 217) excommuni- 
cated Sabellius, wishing to gain, as Hippolytus 
puts it, a reputation for orthodoxy and to 
screen himself from the attacks of his persis- 
tent foe. Sabellius thereupon disappears 
from the scene. He seems to have written 
some works, to judge from apparent quota- 
tions by Athanasius in his 4th treatise against 
Arianism. [G.T.s.] 
Sabina (1), Poppaea, empress, 2nd wife of 
Nero. Like certain members of the Flavian 
family, it is very highly probable, though not 
absolutely certain, that Poppaea was a Chris- 
tian. She was almost certainly a Jewish 
proselyte, as the language of Josephus, 
θεοσεβὴς yap ἣν (Ant. xx. 8, 11) almost 
implies. The fact that her body was em- 
balmed and not burnt after the Roman custom 
(Tac. Ann. xvi. 6) has been urged to shew 
that she had embraced a foreign religion. Cer- 
tainly at least twice (Jos. /.c., and Vita, 3) she 
exerted her influence with Nero in favour of 
the Jews (see Lightfoot, Philipp. 5 note). It 
has even been conjectured that it was through 
her that the Christians and not Jews were 
selected as the victims to suffer for the burning 
of Rome. A romantic theory was put forward 
by M. Latour St. Ybars of a rivalry between 
the Jewish Poppaea and Acte the former 


= μὲ 
ΥΩ 


-- fl ARG cri x: ex 


SABINUS 


mistress of Nero, who, on the strength of a 
passage in St. Chr tom (Hom. in Acta xlvi. 


in Migne, Patr. Gk. 1x. 325), is conjectured to 


have been a Christian. Schiller, Gesch. d. rom. 
Kaiserreichs unter Nero, 436 n., and Aubé, Hist. 
des perséc. 421 ἢ. For the general history of 
Poppaea see Merivale, c. liii. [ν.Ὁ.} 
Us (10), bp. of Heraclea in Thrace, and 
a leader of the party and sect of Macedonius. 
He was the author of a collection of the Acts 
of the councils of the church from the council 
of Nicaea to his own time, which was much 
used by Socrates in his Eccl. Hist., who speaks 
of it as untrustworthy, because Sabinus was 
an unscrupulous partisan, and omitted, and 
even wilfully altered, facts and statements 
adverse to his views and interests (cf. Socr. 
op. cit. i. 8; ii. 15). ates shews how 
Sabinus tries to disparage the fathers of 
Nicaea in the face of the contrary evidence of 
Eusebius, and makes no mention whatever 
of Macedonius, lest he should have to describe 
his evil deeds. Baronius (ad ann. 325, xxxix., 
ad ann. 344, iii. etc.) speaks strongly of Sabi- 
nus’s unscrupulous handling of history, calls 
him ‘‘homo mendacissimus,’’ and suggests 
that Sozomen gives a garbled account of the 
election of Athanasius, ‘‘ ex officina Sabini." 
Cave (Hist. Lit. i. 411) fixes the date at which 
Sabinus flourished as c. 425. (G.w.p.] 

; es (2), a solitary of Capersana, a 
village on the right bank of the Euphrates, 
who shut himself up in a cell on the opposite 
bank, having neither door nor window. Once 


a year he dug himself out, obtained food for 


the next year, and returned, having spoken 
with none. His diocesan, desiring to confer 
orders on so distinguished an ascetic, had the 
cell wall broken down and laid his hands upon 
him, Salamanes neither consenting nor dis- 
senting. With equal passiveness he allowed 
himself to be transferred to another cell across 


the river by the inhabitants of the village, | 
and to be taken back again by his former neigh- | 


bours (Theod. Hist. Relig. c. xix.). [E.v.] 
Salvianus (3), priest of Marseilles, a writer 
whose works illustrate most vividly the state 
of Gaul in 5th cent. The one external 
authority for his Life is Gennadius, de Script. 
Eccles. c. 67, who gives a list of his writings. 
In 429 St. Hilary of Arles, in a sermon on St. 
Honoratus, describes him as ‘“‘the most 
blessed man Salvianus the presbyter.’ His 
own expressions (de Gub. Det, vi. 72) indicate 
that he was born in Gaul, probably at Tréves, 
the manners and customs of which place he 
knew intimately and reproves sharply. He, 


or at least some of his relations, resided at. 


Cologne, occupying a respectable position in 
that city. When a young man he married 
Palladia, daughter of Hypatius, and had one 
daughter Auspiciola, after whose birth Sal- 
vianus and his wife adopted the monastic life. 
This greatly incensed Hypatius, who retired to 
a distant region, anchnagg any communication 
with them for 7 years. Ep.iv.isa ig Aaa Soot 
appeal by Salvianus, his wife, and daughter, 
for a renewal of the love and friendship of 
Hypatius, with what success we are not told. 
Salvianus was in extreme old age when 
Gennadius wrote, and was held in the highest 
honour, being expressly t “Episcoporum 
Magister,”’ and regarded as the very type of a 


SALVIUS 883 


monk and a scholar. His writings are impor- 
tant from a social, political, and ecclesiastical 
int of view. In the de Gud. Des he gives a 
cite picture of the social changes in the 
empire due to the iniquitous fiscal system in 
| vogue. Thus lib. v. cc. 4-9 shew clearly the 
/cause of brigandage, the origin of the serf 
System, and the evils of vast estates. In iv. 
| 14 he refers to the crowds of Syrian merchants 
in all the cities of pc a fact which the dis- 
covery of Syrian, Assyrian, and other Oriental 
inscriptions in France has amply confirmed 
(cf. Le Blant’s Ins. chrét. de Gaule, diss. 
| Nos. 225, 557, and 613). He helps us to under- 
| Stand the interruption of intercourse between 
Roman and British Christianity in — and 
6th cents. The empire was gradually sur- 
rounded by a ring fence of hostile states, all 
barbarous, and several of them heretica 
which served as a retreat from the power, an 
a barrier to the religion, of Rome. For a cent. 
and a half the new kingdoms of the Franks 
and Burgundians afforded ample employment 
for Rome's missionary zeal without troubling 
with the regions beyond. The treatise against 
avarice is a laudation of the ascetic life and of 
almsgiving ; he even in bk. i. seriously dis- 
cusses whether a man should leave any pro- 
|}perty at all to his sons. Ceillier (x. 150) 
| devotes a lengthened notice to Salvianus, with 
ἃ full analysis of his writings. 
| The latest ed. of his works is that in the 
Corp. Eccl. Scriptorum of the Vienna Academy, 
| t. viii.(Vindob. 1883), ed. by Fr. Pauly. (G.1.s.} 
Salvina (Silvina), daughter of the Moorish 
chief Gildo, count of Africa. The Christian 
| virtues which, according to Jerome and Chry- 
sostom, distinguished the ladies of Gildo’s 
| family, were in strong contrast with brutal and 
| Savage vices which rendered his name detest- 
8016. While still a girl, Salvina was trans- 
ferred by Theodosius to his own court, as a 
pledge of the loyalty of her father and of the 
province of Africa which he governed. She 
was brought up with the ΤῸ members of 
the imperial famil , and married ¢. 390 
Nebridius, the son of the empress’s sister, who 
had been educated with his cousins, the future 
emperors, Arcadius and Honorius. Nebridius, 
dying soon after, left her with ason, Nebridius, 
and a daughter (Hieron. Ep. ix.). She devoted 
herself to God's service, and, as her husband 
had done, protected the Oriental churches and 
ecclesiastics at the court of Arcadius. Her 
fame having spread to Palestine, Jerome, 
though a stranger, wrote her a letter-—the 
arrogant tone of which might well have 
offended, if the coarseness had not shocked 
|her. The young widow and her children then 
formed one household with her mother, Gildo's 
widow (he had died a.p. 398), and her paternal 
aunt at Constantinople (Hieron. Ep. οἱ de 
Serv. Virg.; Ep. 11 ad Geront. ad fin.). Sale 
vina’s ardent ΒΡ Saeeeny attached her to 
Chrysostom. She ame one of his deacon- 
esses, equalling Olympias and Pentadia in 
devotion to him. She remained with him to 
the last, and, together with the above-named 
and Procula, took a final farewell of bim in 
‘the baptistery of the cathedral the night of bis 
final expulsion (Pallad. p. 90). {e.v.] 
| Salvius (3), Donatist bp. of Membrasa 
|(Medjex εἰ Bab), one of the 12 ordainers of 


884 SALVIUS 


Maximian. He is mentioned as one who 
practised rebaptism (Aug. Parm. iii. 22). 
Refusing to return to the party of Primian, he 
was displaced, and Restitutus appointed in his 
stead. Salvius believed that his opponents 
could not take advantage of the laws against 
heretics without implicating themselves in its 
operation (Aug. c. Cresc. iv. 57, 58, 60, 82; 
Ep. 108. 14; En. Ps. 57. 18; Cod. Theodos. 
Xvi. 5, 22, 25, 26). The action appears to 
have been brought during the proconsulate 
of Herodes, a.D. 394, but not to have been 
decided until that of Seranus, A.D. 398. When 
the judgment was published, the people of 
Membresa, by whom Salvius, now an old man, 
was greatly beloved, appear to have supported 
him in opposition to the edict; but the people 
of Abitina, a neighbouring town, took upon 
themselves, without any official sanction, to 
execute it, and having attacked Salvius, 
maltreated him cruelly and ignominiously. 
Whether this attack caused the death of Sal- 
vius we know not, nor do we hear of him again, 
but his case is often quoted by Augustine when 
retorting on the Donatists their charge against 
the Catholics of persecution. [H.w.P.] 
Salvius (5) (Sauve), St., bp. of Alby, an 
intimate friend of Gregory of Tours, who gives 
the story of his early life from his own lips. 
He had been an advocate, and had led an 
active and worldly life though unstained by 
the passions of youth. After his conversion 
he entered a monastery to embrace a new life 
of poverty, austerity, and worship. In time 
the monks made him abbat, but craving for 
still higher sanctity, he withdrew to a solitary 
cell, where, after a fever, he fell into a sort of 
trance, and was laid out for dead. While 
unconscious he was conducted by two angels 
to heaven, and shewn the glory of it, but not 
permitted to remain, as work still awaited him 
on earth. The account of this Dantesque 
vision, which Gregory calls God to witness he 
heard from the bishop’s own lips, is interesting 
(Hist. Franc. vii. 1). The authenticity of this 
chapter has, however, been questioned (see 
Boll. Acta SS. Sept. iii. 575, 576). As bishop 
Salvius indignantly scouted the heretical and 
somewhat crude views on the Trinity which 
king Chilperic wished to force upon the church 
(18. v. 45). Hewas at the council of Braine 
in 580, and while bidding farewell to Gregory 
there, he pointed to the king’s palace and 
asked him if he saw aught above it. Gregory 
could see nothing but the upper story just 
built at Chilperic’s command. Then Salvius, 
drawing a deep sigh, said: ‘‘ Video ego evagi- 
natum irae divinae gladium super domum hance 
dependentem,’’ and after 20 days the two sons 
of the king were no more (v. 51). When Mum- 
molus carried off some of the flock of Salvius 
as prisoners, he followed and ransomed them 
at his own cost ; and when Alby was almost 
depopulated by a plague that ravaged S. 
France, he refused to desert the city (vii. 1). 
He died c. 584, being succeeded by Desider- 
atus (vii. 22). [S.A.B.] 
Samson (1) (Sampson), Welsh saint, bp. of 
Dé}. His legend is obscured by the admixture 
of several traditions. The materials for his 
Life are of their kind very abundant. 
Taking the Life in Lib. Land. as a type of 
the British tradition as distinguished from the 


SARBELIUS 


Gallican, Samson was son of Amwn Ddu, 
prince of Armorica in the 5th cent. Born in 
Glamorganshire, educated by St. Illtyd at 
Llantwit Major, ordained deacon and priest 
by St. Dubricius, he became for three and a 
half years abbat of St. Peirio or Piro’s mon- 
astery on an island near Llantwit ; some say 
at Llantwit. Afterwards he lived in a desert 
near the Severn, was consecrated by St. 
Dubricius and others to the episcopate, 
though, according to the common Celtic 
custom, without reference to a specific see, 
and in course of time proceeded to Armorica, 
where he became the deliverer of the captive 
prince Judual, and died at 6] (Lib. Land. 
305). Thus far, and excluding the miraculous 
elements, the tradition is generally consistent 
and complete, though some Welsh traditions 
bring him back to die at Llantwit. To this 
are added several fictions, probably of the 
12th cent., traceable to Geoffrey of Monmouth 
and to Girald. Cambr. The monumental 
inscribed stones to SS. Illtyd and Samson 
found in the churchyard of Llantwit Major 
cannot be of this early date ; the Samson there 
mentioned must have lived in the gth cent., and 
the lettering would agree with that date. 
Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 626-628 ; Rees, 
Welsh SS. 181, 255). [1.6.] 

Sarbelius (1) (Sharbil). Syriac Acts of 
Sarbelius and other Edessan martyrs are in 
Cureton’s Antig. Mon. Syr. (1864), and a Latin 
trans., with abundant illustrative matter, was 
pub. by Moesinger (Innsbruck, 1874). Accord- 
ing to them, Sarbelius was chief priest of the 
idol-worship of Edessa. Trajan, in the 15th 
year of his reign (also described as the 3rd 
of Abgarus, the 7th king, and the 416th of 
the era of Alexander the Great), commanded 
the rulers of the provinces to see that sacri- 
fices and libations were renewed and in- 
creased in every city, and to punish with 
torture those who refused to take part. 
Barsimaeus, the bp. of the Christians, accom- 
panied by a priest and deacon, thereupon 
waited on Sarbelius and warned him of his 
responsibility in leading so many to worship 
gods made with hands. They briefly told him 
of the doctrine concerning our Lord’s Incar- 
nation and death, taught by Paluth, the dis- 
ciple of Addai the apostle, and believed in by 
the earlier king Abgarus. Sarbelius was at 
once converted, baptized that night, and made 
his appearance next day clad in his baptismal 
robes. A great multitude, including some 
chief men of the city, were converted with him. 
The Acts then relate how the governor Licinius 
brought Sarbelius before him and commanded 
him to sacrifice. As each form of torture was 
tried without success, Licinius ordered a new 
and more severe one, 18 being described. Finally, 
Sarbelius was put to death with new tortures, 
being partially sawn asunder and then be- 
headed, his sister Barbea being martyred with 
him. There are separate Acts of Barsimaeus, 
evidently by the same hand. They relate 
how he, after the martyrdom of Sarbelius, was 
brought before the tribunal and similarly tor- 
tured. But a letter, ordering persecution to 
cease, arrived from Trajan, who had been con- 
vinced of the excellence of Christian morality 
and of the general agreement of their laws of 
conduct with the imperial laws. 


SATURNINUS 
These Edessan Acts acquired v 


SATURNINUS 885 


consider: | of life; and these angels say, as in Geneal 
able celebrity. M er published an ‘Let us make man after pid image.” We 
Armenian translation, and Sarbelius is com- | may count Saturninus as the originator of the 
memorated in the Greek Menaea and the Latin myth, for the Ophite version has marks of less 
Martyrologies under Jan. 29 and Oct. 15. There | simplicity and originality. 
is also a Thathuel, commemorated Sept. 4, aturninus further taught that the God of 
whose story is identical with that of Sarbelius. | the Jews was one of the seven creator angels. 
oesinger argued that the extant Acts were | He and his company were in constant warfare 
written by a contemporary of Sarbelius and | with Satan and a company of evil angels. So, 
were historically trustworthy ; but his argu- | likewise, there were two distinct species of 
ments are too weak to deserve serious refuta- | men, the bad ever aided by the demons in 
tion. Two marks of fiction are obvious: the their conflicts with the good. Then the 


extravagant amount of tortures alleged, and 
the familiarity of Sarbelius with NE. which 
would have been noteworthy in a Christian of 


long standing in a.p. 105, but is incredible in | 


a newly-made convert. Heis made to quote 
the Gospels several times, the Psalms, and 
Romans. We may ascribe the Acts to the 
latter part of 4th cent. 
later than Eusebius, who shews no knowledge 
of the story; but are largely employed in a 


sermon, printed by Moesinger, by James of | 


Sarug (d. 522). There is a stron 
likeness between the Acts of Sarbelius and 
those of Habibus, and of Samona and Guria, 
also given in Cureton’s work. Since the latter 
martyrs are said to have suffered under Dio- 
cletian, the former Acts, which seem to have 
the same origin, are at least no earlier. [G.s.] 

Saturninus (1). In the section of his work 
commencing I. 22 Irenaeus gives a list of 
heretics, apparently derived from Justin 
Martyr. The first two are the Samaritan 
heretics, Simon and Menander; the next, as 
having derived their doctrines from these, 
Saturninus and Basilides, who taught, the 
former in the Syrian Antioch, the latter in 
Egypt. Irenaeus says that Saturninus, like 
Menander, ascribed the ultimate origin of 
things to a Father unknown to all; and 
taught that this Father made angels, arch- 
angels, powers, authorities, but that the 
world and the things therein were made by a 
certain company of seven angels, in whom no 
doubt we are to recognize the rulers of the 
seven planetary spheres. He taught that 
man was the work of the same angels. They | 
had seen a brilliant image (εἰκών) descend from 
the Supreme Power, and had striven to detain | 
it, but in vain; for it immediately shot back | 
again. So they encouraged each other: “ Let | 


They are probably | 


family | T 


| shockin 


| Supreme Father sent a Saviour to destroy the 
| power of the God of the Jews and the other 
Archons; and to save those who had the 
ark of life in them—that is to say, the good. 
his Saviour had no human birth or human 
body, and was only a man in appearance. 
Saturninus ascribed the Jewish prophecies, 
some to the creator angels and some to Satan. 
This is one of several points of coincidence 
between the reports given by Irenaeus of the 
teaching of Saturninus and of the Ophites. 
hese do not ascribe any of the prophecies to 
Satan, but Irenaeus (§ 11) gives the scheme 
|according to which they distributed them 
among the several angels. Saturninus does 
not appear to have left any writings. His sect 
/is named by Justin Martyr (Trypho, 35) and 
by Hegesippus (Eus. H E. iv. 22). No later 
heresiologist appears to know anything about 
him beyond what he learned from Irenaeus ; 
and Irenaeus probably derived all his know- 
ledge from Justin Martyr. [ο.5.} 
δί us (2) (Sernin), St., martyr, first 
bp. and patron of Toulouse. According to 
his Acta, published by Surius (Nov. 29) and 
by Ruinart after careful revision in his Acta 
Sincera (pp. 128-133), Saturninus came to 
Toulouse in the pea ἐπ ἡ of Decius and 
Gratius (A.D. 251), apparent ὺ from Rome (cf. 
Venant. Fort. Misc. 1i. 12, Migne, Patr. Lat. 
Ixxxviii. ror). Here his preaching so exas- 
perated the people that they put him to a 
death by binding him to a bull, 
y infuriated by goads. There were 


which the 


/two other traditions current in early times— 


one that Saturninus was sent into France by 


δε, Clement at the end of the rst cent., the 


other that bis mission was from the apostles 
themselves. The former is in Gregory of 
Tours (de Glor. Mart. i. 48), and the latter is 


us make man after the image and after the | as old as Venantius Fortunatus, if the Passio 


likeness ᾿᾿ (κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν. Gen. 
i. 25). 
feeble to give him power to stand erect, and 
he lay on the ground wriggling like a worm 
(ὡς σκώληκος oxapifovros) until the Upper 
Power, taking compassion on him because he 
had been made “‘in Its likeness,” sent a spark 
of life which raised him and made him live. 
Saturninus taught that after man's death this 
spark runs back to its kindred, while the rest 
of man is resolved into the elements whence 
he was made. 

The same creation myth is reported by 
Irenaeus (I. xxx. 5) to have been included in 
the system commonly known as Ophite ; and 
literary dependence of the two stories is clear 
from the common use of the word σκαρίζω 
But according to the Ophite story it is not the 
Supreme Power, but laldabaoth, the chief of 
the creative company, who bestows the breath 


| 


They made the man, but were too 4.5. 579), and appears in many other ancient 


S. Dionysii is rightly ascribed to him (Migne, 


sources (see Ceillier, ii. 111 n.). Sidonius Apol- 
linaris celebrated his martyrdom in Sapphic 
stanzas (Ep. ix. 16). Venantius Fortunatus has 
some verses on the same event, the wonder- 
working virtues of his tomb (Muése. ii. ταὶ 
Migne, μ.5. 99), and on the beautiful church 
built towards the close of 6th cent. by Launi- 
| bodes on the spot where he was bound to the 
bull and which came to be known as du Taur 
or du Taureau (ii. 12, col. 100). [5...5. 
| us (21), 8th bp. of Arles, a pil 
lof Arianism in the West. In the winter of 
353 he presided at the council of Arles, which, 
in the presence of Constantius, condemned 
| Athanasius and sentenced Paulinus of Tréves 
‘to deprivation and exile. About this time 
Hilary, bp. of Poictiers, appeared on the scene, 
/and was ξ ceforth in the West the champion 


886 SCAPULA 


of orthodoxy against Saturninus, Ursacius, 
Valens, and the emperor. In 356 Saturninus 
presided at the council of Béziers, which 
decreed the exile of Hilary; and it seems 
probable from allusions in Hilary’s writings 
that he was also at the council of Rimini in 
359, and was one of the legates dispatched 
thence to the emperor at Constantinople (Hil. 
ad Const. Aug.ii. 3 ; Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 565). 
This seems to have been the zenith of the 
bishop’s fortune. Hilary, not long after, re- 
turned to Gaul; and Saturninus, still unbend- 
ing in his opposition, was deprived of his see, 
and even excommunicated, as is thought, at 
the 1st council of Paris in 362. [s.a.B.] 

Seapula, a proconsul of Africa, with whom 
Tertullian remonstrated for his persecution of 
the Christians; mot because the Christians 
feared martyrdom, but solely because their 
love for their enemies made them desire to 
save them from the guilt of shedding innocent 
blood. Tertullian recounts the temporal 
calamities which had overtaken former per- 
secutors of the Christians, and denounces the 
injustice of punishing men pure in life and 
loyal, and whose innocence the magistrates 
fully acknowledge by their evident unwilling- 
ness to proceed to extremities and by their ex- 
ertions to induce the accused to withdraw their 
confession. 
province, the Christians of Carthage were to 
present themselves in a body before the 
proconsul’s tribunal, the magistrate, he says, 
would find before him thousands of every age, 
sex, and rank, including many leading per- 
sons, and probably relations and intimates of 
his own friends, and might well shrink from 
severities which would decimate the city. 
The tract is later than the emperor Severus, 
of whom it speaks in the past tense. 

The Scapula addressed was probably Sca- 
pula Tertullus, one of the ordinary consuls in 
195. The usual interval between consulship 
and proconsulship was 15 to 20 years; this 
also would place the proconsulship not very 
long after Severus died on Feb. 9,211. [G.s.] 

Scillitan Martyrs, 12 martyrs at Carthage 
(one of them Felix) from the African town of 
Scillita. According to their Acta, one of the 
women, Donata, when they were called upon 
by the consul, Saturninus, to sacrifice, replied, 
‘““We render honour to Caesar as Caesar, but 
worship and prayers to God alone.” On 
receiving their sentence they thanked God. 
It was Ruinart’s theory that the Scillitan 
Martyrs suffered under Sept. Severus between 
198 and 202. M. Léon Renier, an eminent 
French archaeologist, however, noticed that 
the first line of the received codices of the Acts 
of these martyrs gave the names of the consuls 
for the year of the martyrdom very variously, 
a fragment published by Mabillon (Vet. 
Analect. t. iv. p. 155) reading, ‘‘ Praesidente 
bis Claudiano consule.’”’ He therefore sug- 
gested that the word “bis”’ ought to follow 
a proper name indicating a second consulship, 
and that the word ‘‘consule”’ ought to be 
replaced by ‘“‘consulibus.’’ Finding, more- 
over, in the Fasti the names Praesens II. and 
Condianus as consuls for 180, he proposed that 
the first line of our Acts should be read, ‘‘ Prae- 
sente bis et Condiano Consulibus.”” Then in 
1881 Usener, a Bonn professor, published a 


If, as had been done in another | 


SECUNDUS 


hitherto unknown text of these Acts from a 
Greek MS. in the Bibl. Nat. of Paris, dating 
from the end of gth cent., and explicitly nam- 
ing the very two consuls Renier suggested, 
Praesens II. and Condianus. There is no 
mention of Severus. It quite correctly speaks 
of one emperor, since Commodus on July 17, 
180, was sole emperor. The proconsul of 
Africa is Saturninus. He continues the policy 
of the previous reign, which is not yet 
modified by the domestic influences which 
led Commodus to favour the Christians. In 
177 persecution had raged at Lyons. It was 
now the turn of Africa. Usener regarded the 
Gk. text discovered by him as a translation 
from Latin. Aubé, viewing the Gk. text of 
Usener as an original document and the source 
of all the Latin texts, replied to Usener’s 
arguments, pointing out that Greek was large- 
ly spoken at Carthage in the latter half of 2nd 
cent., and urging many critical considerations 
from a comparison of the Latin and Greek 
texts which seem to support his view. For a 
further discussion of the question see Aubé and 
Usener. To the Biblical critic these Acts in 
both shapes are interesting, as indicating the 
position held by St. Paul’s Epp. in 180 in 
the N. African church. The proconsul asked 
the martyr Speratus what books they kept 
laid up in their bookcases? He replied, 
Our books, or, as the Latin version puts it, 
the four Gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
in addition the Epistles of Paul the holy man. 
Etude sur un nouveau texte des Actes des 
Martyrs Scillitains (Paris, 1881); cf. Light- 
foot’s Ignatius, t. i. p. 507. [G.T.s.] 
Sebastianus (2), Jan. 20, military martyr 
at Rome under Diocletian. He was of Milan, 
where he commanded the first cohort. He 
confessed Christ, and was shot (apparently) 
to death with arrows in the camp. He was 
celebrated in the time of St. Ambrose (Enarr. 
in Ps. 118, No. 44), and is the favourite saint 
of Italian women, and regarded as the pro- 
tector against the plague. His symbol is an 
arrow. [G.T.S.] 
Secundinus (11), a poet, a contemporary 
and correspondent of Sidonius Apollinaris (Ep. 
v. 8) who apparently highly esteemed Secun- 
dinus as a writer of hexameter verse on minor 
subjects, such as royal hunting parties and 
marriages. Secundinus afterwards attempted 
satire, and Sidonius highly commends a 
composition in hendecasyllabic metre, urging 
him to continue this kind of composition. It 
appears (Ep. ii. 10) that some of his hexa- 
meters were inscribed upon the wall of the 
basilica built at Lyons by Patiens (bishop c. 
451-491), and he may have been one of the 
many minor poets who flourished at Lyons 
in the latter half of 5th cent. [H.A.W. ] 
Secundus (1), Gnostic of 2nd cent., a disciple 
of Valentinus, and apparently one of the 
earliest of that teacher’s successors, since he 
is the first of that school of whom Irenaeus 
gives an account (I. xi. 2). Irenaeus reports 
two things as peculiar in his teaching: (1) he 
divided the primary Ogdoad into two Tetrads, 
a right-hand and a left-hand one, the one being 
called light, the other darkness; (2) he did 
not allow the Sophia out of whose passions, 
according to the Valentinian theory, the ma- 
terial world took its origin to have been one 


we δσιναωι.. “«ὠνμμω«. μα 


SECUNDUS 


of the 30 primary Aeons. The short notice 
in Irenaeus seems the ultimate source of all 
authentic information about Secundus. [6.5.} 

Secundus (4), bp. of Tigisis, a fortified town 
of Numidia, in the neighbourhood of Lambese 
and Thamagada (Procop. Vandal. ii. 13). 
The persecution under Diocletian appears to 
have reached its height in Feb. 304, and on 
May 19 Paulus, bp. of Cirta, committed the act 
of ‘tradition ’’ which partly gave rise to the 
proceedings in which Secundus became con- 
spicuous. Paulus soon died, and some rr or 
12 bishops met at Cirta on Mar. 5 (according 
to Optatus May 8), 305, under the presidency 
of Secundus, as primate of Numidia, to 
appoint a successor. Although persecution 
had virtually ceased, the churches were not 
“i restored, and the assembly met in the 

ouse of Urbanus, where they ordained Sil- 
vanus. Optatus says that amid the uproar of 
mutual incrimination [DonatismM] Purpurius 
of Limata taxed Secundus with tradition, 
because, instead of leaving his post of duty 
before the inquisition, he remained until dis- 
missed in safety, which would not have been 
the case unless he had purchased his safety by 
act of surrender. On this a murmur arose in 
the assembly, and Secundus, in alarm, ac- 
cepted a method of escape suggested by his 
nephew Secundus the younger, that such 
questions as this of personal conduct ought to 
be left to the judgment of the Almighty, a 
judicious evasion received with acclamation 
by all (Opt. i. 14; Aug. Ep. 43. 6). 

When, on the death of Mensurius, bp. of 
Carthage, a.p. 311, Caecilian was appointed 
to succeed him, Secundus was sent for 
in haste to preside at a meeting of 70 mal- 
contents at Carthage, and their factious 
opposition resulted in the schismatic appoint- 
ment of Majorinus (Opt i. 19; Aug. Parm. 
i. 5). The case was brought up afresh at the 
conference of 411. Tillem. vi. 5-14 ; Morcelli, 
Afr. Chr. ii. 194-207; Ribbek, Aug. und Don. 
ΡΡ. 52-57, 69; Sparrow Simpson, St. Aug. and 
Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), Ρ. 32. {H.w.P.] 

Sedulius (1), a 5th-cent. poet, of whose life 
very few details are known. The only trust- 
worthy information is given by his two letters 
to Macedonius, from which we learn that he 
devoted his early life, perhaps as a teacher of 
rhetoric, to heathen literature. Late in life 
he became converted to Christianity, or, if a 
Christian before, began to take a serious view 
of his duties. Thenceforward he devoted his 
talents to the service of Christ, living as a 
priest (cf. i. 7-9), in close intercourse with a 
small body of religious friends (pref.). He 
gives us a charming account of this group: 
Macedonius, the father and life of the whole ; 
Ursinus, the reverent priest spending his life 
in the service of the King of Heaven ; Laur- 
ence, the wise and gentle, who has spent all 
his money on the poor; Gallicanus, another 
priest, not learned, but a model of goodness 
and loyalty to church rule; Ursicinus, com- 
bining the wisdom of age with the brightness 
of youth ; the deaconess Syncletica, of noble 
birth and nobler life, a worthy temple of God, 

urified by fasting, prayer, and charity, 

earned and liberal; and lastly Perpetua, the 


oung pure matron, tual in fame and 
pects a in name. gedulius, too, longed to 


SEDULIUS 887 


devote his talent to God and to strengthen his 
own spiritual life by exhorting others. He 
yearned to tell the heathen of the wonders of 
the Gospel, and wrote the Carmen Paschale 
to invite then to share the Gospel feast. This 
was dedicated to Macedonius, and afterwards, 
at his request, was translated into prose (Opus 
Paschale). The works shew a character of 
much humility (cf. i. ad fin.), of tenderness of 
heart (v. 96), of warm gratitude (Carm. Pasch. 
pref.), and of keen susceptibility to criticism 
ef Pasch. pref.). 
hese are the cay certain facts. Even his 
date is uncertain. He refers to St. Jerome as 
a well-known student, and his work is praised 
by a decree of pope Gelasius in 495 or 406. 
Syncletica may have been a sister of Eusta- 
thius, who lived early in sth cent. Hence the 
date of Sedulius must be c. 450. A mass of 
information about him is in later writers, but 
much of it arises from a confusion with Sedu- 
lius the Scotchman. The best authenticated 
account makes him a native of Rome who 
studied philosophy in Italy, became an an- 
tistes (t.¢. probably a presbyter) and wrote his 
book in Achaia. The internal evidence as to 
these details is very slight: his friends bear 
Latin names almost entirely; he is in the 
presence of educated idolaters and takes 
special pains to argue against sun-worship ; 
but these indications are very vague. His 
works became popular very soon. They were 
edited by an editor of Vergil, T. Rufius Asterius 
(consul A.D. 494)—perhaps in consequence of 
the importance attached to them by the 
pope’s decree. They are mentioned with 
raise by Venantius Fortunatus (viii. 1) and 
heodulf of Arles; were commented on, 
haps by Remi of Auxerre (9th cent.), and 
requently quoted and imitated by the writers 
of the middle ages. Areval quotes 16 MSS. 
dating from cents. vii. to xvi.; since then 
more than 40 editions have been printed, 
and special prominence was given to him 
by German writers last century. 

(1) Carmen Paschale, “" ἃ min honour of 
Christ our Passover,”’ consists of five books. 
Bk. i. is an introductory appeal to the heathen 
to give up idolatry and listen to the deeds of 
the true God. ks. ii.-v. describe in full 
detail the miracles of the Gospel and the Lord's 
Prayer. In the earlier part the narratives of 
SS. Matthew and Luke are pieced together in 
chronological order. Throughout the ministr 
to the final entry into Jerusalem Sedulius fol- 
lows St. Matthew, with a few insertions from 
SS. John and Luke ; then adds a succession of 
miracles from SS. Mark and Luke, without 
regard to years 4 (iv. 59-221), and the chief 
incidents of St. Jo chess χεὶ from the entry 
into Jerusalem to the end he mainly follows 
St. cae As a rule the details of the 
scenes are given slightly and followed by 
frequent comment, sometimes dogmatical 
(e.g. on the Nature of the Trinity, 1. 16-20, 
281 sqq., ii. 171, the Fatherhood of God, fi. 
234, the Priesthood of Christ, iv. 207, ete.), at 
other times pointing out the typical meaning 
of Scripture, both of O.T. (i to2-109, 127, 
142, 152, iii. 202, iv. 170) and N.T.; 4. the 
number of the evangelists and of the apostles 
(Prol. to lib. ii; ili, 172), the number and 
nature of the gifts of the Magi (ii. 95), the dove 


888 SENOCHUS 


(ii. 170), and all the details of the passion (v. 
1ΟΙ, 169, 190, 243, 257, 275, 402). More often 
still they consist of moral warnings or of 
explanations of our Lord’s teaching (cf. ii. 
106, iii. 321, iv. 16, 163, etc.). 

The style is rhetorical but pleasant, with 
considerable terseness and power of antithesis ; 


and fairly correct in prosody, shewing 
considerable acquaintance with classical 
authors. The reference to Origen (Opus 


Pasch. pref.) and the play on Elias and ἥλιος 
(i. 170) imply some knowledge of Greek; of 
Latin authors he knew Terence, Juvenal, and 
specially Vergil, from whom he frequently 
borrows ; possibly, too, the poem of Juvencus. 
There is a growing frequency in the use of 
leonine rhymes. For an analysis with a dis- 
cussion of its sources and theology see Leim- 
bach, Ueber den Christlichen Dichter Sedulius 
(Goslar, 1879). 

(2) Opus Paschale.—This prose translation 
mainly follows the Carmen faithfully, but adds 
illustrations and fills up gaps. It is preceded 
by another interesting letter to Macedonius. 

(3) Elegia.—An elegiac poem of 110 lines, 
corresponding in subject to the Carm. Pasch. 
It describes the effect of the Incarnation in 
contrast to the work of Adam, and Christ as 
the antitype of the types of O.T. 

(4) Hymn.— “‘ A solis ortus cardine.’’ This 
may be called a lyrical expression of the 
Carmen. It is a call to praise Christ with a 
description of the chief facts of His birth, life, 
and death. It is an alphabetical hymn in 
iambic dimeters with four-lined strophes. It 
shews a growing tendency to rhyme and a 
careful attempt to avoid any conflict between 
accent and quantity. Two extracts have been 
widely used in church services, viz. A-G in 
Lauds for Christmas week; and H, I, L, N, 
which celebrate the adoration of the Magi, the 
baptism, and the miracle at Cana, on the feast 
of Epiphany. These sections are in Daniel 
Thes. i. p. 143, and with a full German com- 
mentary in Kayser, pp. 347-383. 

(5) Cento Virgilianus *“‘de Verbi Incarna- 
tione ’’ is sometimes ascribed to Sedulius (e.g. 
by Bahr), but is only found in one Corbey 
MS., and there only follows the other poems 
without being ascribed to Sedulius. It is in 
Martene, Vett. Scr. Coll. ix. p. 125. 

The most available edd. are Migne, Patr. 
Lat. xix.; a text of the poetical works by 
J. Looshorn (Munich, 1879); of the Carm. 
Pasch. in Hurter’s Op. Selecta, xxxiii.; and 
Huemer’s ed. of thew hole(Vienna, 1885). ne Es] 

Senochus (1), St., a presbyter of great 
reputation for sanctity near Tours; born c. 
536 in a district near Poictiers called Theiph- 
alia, which had been for many years settled 
by a Scythian or Tartar race, to which he 
belonged. He became a Christian, and in 
some ruined buildings by Tours built himself 
a cell, at a spot where an old oratory existed, 
in which St. Martin, according to tradition, 
had been wont to pray. St. Euphronius, then 
bp. of Tours, consecrated it afresh, and or- 
dained Senoch a deacon. Here with a little 
company of three he practised the greatest 
austerities, but aspiring to higher sanctity, 
afterwards shut himself in a solitary cell. In 
573 Gregory became bp. of Tours, and received 
a visit from him. Soon after Senoch went to 


SERAPION 


see his kinsfolk in Poitou, and came back, 
according to Gregory, so puffed up with 
spiritual pride that the bishop had to reprove 
him. He consented, at Gregory’s persuasion, 
to forego his absolute solitude, that the sick 
might be healed by his virtues. He died, 
aged about 40, c. 576. He had redeemed 
many from captivity or healed or fed them, 
and miracles were attributed to his corpse. 
Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. v. 7; Vitae Patrum, 
c. xv.; de Glor. Conf. c. xxxv.; Boll. Acta 
SS. Oct. x. 764 sqq. (S.A.B.] 
Senuti, an anchorite whose history was 
investigated by E. Revillout in a paper on the 
Blemmyes (Mém. de l’ Acad. des Inscr. 1874, 
sér. I, t. vili. p. 395), and still more elaborately 
in a series of articles in the Revue de I’ hist. des 
religions (1883), Nos. 4 and 5. He was born 
about the middle of 4th cent. His father was 
a farmer in Egypt, and Senuti fed his sheep 
in boyhood. But it was an age when every 
enthusiast devoted himself to the monastic 
life. He attached himself to the monastery 
of Panopolis near Athrebi in Upper Egypt, 
where he soon attained such fame for sanctity 
and orthodoxy that Cyril would only set out 
for the council of Ephesus if he had the com- 
pany of Senuti and Victor, archimandrite of 
Tabenna. Zoega, Cat. MSS. Coptic Mus. 
Borg. p. 29, gives us Cyril’s account of this 
affair. Senuti’s conduct at the council of 
Ephesus, as described by his disciple and 
successor Besa, fully justifies the charges of 
outrageous violence brought by the Nestorian 
party against their opponents. ἃ lofty 
throne was in the centre of the hall with the 
four gospels on it. Nestorius entered with 
pomp, flung the gospels on the floor, and 
seated himself on the throne. This enraged 
Senuti, who, snatching up the book, hurled it 
against the breast of Nestorius with vigorous 
reproaches. Nestorius demanded who he 
was, and what brought him to the council, 
being “‘ neither a bishop, nor an archimandrite, 
nor a provost, but merely a simple monk.” 
‘*God sent me to the council,’”’ replied Senuti, 


|**to confound thee and thy wickedness.” 


Amid the plaudits of his adherents Cyril at 
once invested him with the rank and robe 
of an archimandrite. His career was now 
marked by miracle. He was wafted on a 
cloud to Egypt. His fame was everywhere 
established, and Roman commanders sought 
his assistance. Thus c. 450 the dux of Upper 
Egypt, Maximin, hurrying to repel a terrific 
invasion of the Blemmyes, before he would 
advance sought the presence of Senuti, who 
gave Maximin his girdle to wear whenever he 
joined battle. According to the Coptic MSS. 
Senuti followed Nestorius with bitter perse- 
cution to the last, even offering him personal 
violence when he lay dying in Egypt. 

Senuti lived to be a heretic in the opposite 
extreme from Nestorius. After the council 
of Chalcedon he became a Monophysite and a 
violent partisan of the patriarch Dioscorus of 
Alexandria, dying under Timotheus Αβίασμα 
aged 118 years. [α.τ.5.] 

Serapion (1), bp. of Antioch, ἘΠ 8th 
in succession, A.D. 190-203 (Clinton), succeed- 
ing Maximin in the 11th year of Commodus 
(Eus. H. E. vi. 12; Chron.), was a theologian 
of considerable literary activity, the author 


SERAPION 


of works of which Eusebius had no certain 
knowledge besides those enumerated by him. 
Of the latter Jerome gives an account (de 
Script. Eccl. c. 41) borrowed from Eusebius 
(H. E.v. 19; vi. 12). They are—(r) a letter 
to Caricus and Pontius against the Cataphry- 
gian or Montanist heresy, containing a copy 
of a letter of Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and 
substantiated as to the facts by the signatures 
of several other bishops, pet fi some of 
Thrace; (2) a treatise addressed to Bistaieen 
who during the persecution of Severus had 
fallen away to the Jewish ‘ will-worship " ; 
and (3), the most important, directed against | 
the Docetic gospel falsely attributed to St. 
Peter, addressed to some members of the | 
church of Rhossus, who were being led away 
by it from the true faith. Serapion recalls | 
the permission to read this apocryphal work 
given in ignorance of its true character and 
expresses his intention of speedily visiting the 
church to strengthen them in the true faith. 
Dr. Neale calls attention to the important 


SERAPION 580 


its restored form it is a valuable argument 
against Manicheism. Two letters by him 
were pub. by Cardinal Mai—one a consolatory 
letter to bp. Eudoxius, who had been tortured; 
| the other censuring some monks of Alexand- 
τί. In Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipz. 


| 1898) Wobbermin published a dogmatic letter 


“‘on the Father and the Son,"’ and 10 litur- 
gical prayers, the rst and rsth of which are 
the work of Serapion. They have been 
reprinted, with valuable notes and discussions, 
by F. E. Brightman in the Oxf. Journ. of 
Theol. Studies, 1899-1910, under the title of 
The Sacramentary of Serapion of Thmuis, and 
an English trans., ed. by bp. Wordsworth of 
Salisbury, has been pub. by S.P.C.K. [ὁ.τ.5.} 

rapion (11), surnamed Sindonites from 
the linen or cotton clothing he always wore ; 
an Egyptian monk in the time of Palladius. 
Though uneducated, he knew the Scriptures 
by heart. Some of his sayings are recorded 
in the Verba Seniorum (Rosweyd, Vit. Pat. 
lib. ν libell. vi. § 12, libell. xi. 31), and in the 


evidence here furnished to “the power yet 
possessed by individual bishops of settling the 
canon of Scripture’ (Patriarch. of Anttoch, | 
p- 36). Socrates refers to his writings, as an 
authority against Apollinarianism (H. E. iii. 7). 
Jerome mentions sundry letters in harmony 
with his life and character. Tillem. Mém. eccl. 
iii. 168, §9; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 86; Le Quien, 
Or. Christ. ii. 702. [E.v-] 
Serapion (3), a penitent of Alexandria, who 
fell during the Decian persecution. Diony- 
sius of Alexandria uses his case as an argu- 
ment against the Novatianist schism, to which 
his correspondent, Fabius of Antioch, was 
inclined. Serapion lived a long life without 
blame, but had sacrificed at last. He often 
begged for admission to the church, but was 
refused. He was then taken sick, being three 
days without speech. When he awoke to 
consciousness he dispatched his grandson for 
a presbyter, who was sick and unable to come, 
but sent a portion of the consecrated Euchar- 
ist, telling the boy to moisten it and drop it 
into Serapion’s mouth, who then died in 
peace. Reservation of the Sacrament must 
then have been practised in Alexandria. No 
argument, however, for communion in one 
kind can be drawn from this, as doubtless the 
bread had been dippedin the Eucharistic wine, 
according to Eastern fashion (see Bingham’s 
Antiq. lib. xv. c.v.). Eus.H.E.vi.44. [0.1.5.] 
Serapion (9), surnamed Scholasticus, bp. ot 
Thmuis in Egypt. He was a friend of St. 
Athanasius and St. Anthony of the desert, and | 
occupied a position of some importance in 
4th-cent. theological struggles. Anthony be- | 
queathed one of his sheepskin cloaks to Sera- 
pion and the other to Athanasius (Vita 5... 
Anth. in Opp. 5. Athan., Migne, Patr. Lat. | 
t. xxvi. col. 971). Serapion’s literary activity | 
was considerable. St. Jerome (Catal. No. 99) 
mentions several of his writings, as his treatise 
contra Manichaeos, his de Psalmorum Titulis 


| naming Serapion. 


Apophthegmata Patrum (Coteler. Gr. Ece. 
Monum. 1. 685, 686) there is an account of his 
visit to a lewd woman, whom he brought to 
repentance. His missionary zeal led him to 
travel, but in more than apostolic poverty, 
and he even sold his volume of the gospel to 
relieve a destitute person, a circumstance 
alluded to by Socrates (iv. 23), though without 
Once he sold himself as a 
slave to a theatrical company, and once to a 
Manichean family, with a view to converting 
them from their errors. He visited Athens 
and Sparta. At Rome he met Domninus, a 
disciple of Origen (Pallad. Laus Hist. 83, 84; 
Vit. Joan. Eleemos. 6. 22 in Rosweyd, lib. i.). 
He died, aged 60, c. 400, not at Rome as stated 
in the Latin version of the Lausiac History, 
but in the desert, as in Heraclides (Paradss. 
c. 24) and the Greek of Palladius. The Greeks 
honoured his memory on May 21, the Menaca 
erroneously calling him ὁ ἀπὸ eldovos, be- 
longing to Sidon. He may be the Serapion 
of Mar. 21 in the Latin Martyrologies (esd. 
D. C. A.), though the Roman Martyrology 
makes this one bp. of Thmuis. [ς.".} 
Serapion (14), a solitary οἵ Scete, and 
leader of the Anthropomorphites against the 
festal epistle of Theophilus, patriarch of Alex- 
andria. The monks of Scete, with the one 
exception of Paphnutius, an abbat, rejected 
the orthodox view as to God's nature. 
Serapion, however, was converted by the 
efforts of Photinus, an Oriental deacon. 
Cassian tells us that an abbat Isaac explained 
to him in connexion with Serapion’s conver- 
sion that the Anthropomorphite heresy was 
simply a relic of paganism. Pious men like 
Serapion had been so long accustomed to an 
image that without a material notion of God 
their prayers seemed objectless. (os 


Collat. x. 16; Ceill. viii. 176. G.T.4. 
dained deacon by Chrysostom 


(now lost), and some epistles. His work 
against the Manicheans, described by Jerome 
as ‘“Egregium librum,"’ and noticed by 
Photius (Cod. 85), was for the first time 
printed in its original form by Brinkmann 
in 1894. It had previously been mixed up 
with a similar work by Titus of Bostra. In 


Seraplion (16), bp. of Heraclea, an Egyptian 
by birth, or 
|(Socr. H. E. vi. 4), and by him made arch- 
deacon of the church of Constantinople (Soz. 
H. E. viii. 9). His character as drawn by 
contemporary historians is most unfavourable. 
| Presuming on his official power, he treated 


“others with contempt and exhibited an 
‘intolerable arrogance (Socr. H. E, vi. τα; 


890 SERAPION 


Soz. u.s.). His unbounded influence over Chry- 
sostom tended continually to widen the breach 
between the bishop and his clergy which the 
stern line of action originally adopted at 
Serapion’s instance had opened early in his 
episcopate. Socrates records, as a character- 
istic speech, that Chrysostom, having vainly 
endeavoured to enforce his strict notions of 
discipline on his worldly and luxurious clergy, 
Serapion exclaimed in their hearing, ‘‘ You 
will never be able to master these men, bishop, 
unless you drive them all with one rod” 
(Socr. H. E. vi. 4). Chrysostom mistakenly 
regarded Serapion’s harshness as proof of his 
holy zeal (7b. vi. 17). 

On Chrysostom’s leaving Constantinople 
early in 401 to regulate the affairs of the 
church of Asia, he deputed SEVERIAN, bp. of 
Gabala, to act as his commissary, but the real 
management of the diocese and its clergy was 
left to Serapion. Severian was ambitious and 
devoid of a high sense of honour, and Serapion 
had soon to report, probably with exaggera- 
tions, that he was undermining Chrysostom’s 
influence with the court and aristocracy, and 
seeking to outdo him as a preacher. Chry- 
sostom hastened back to Constantinople, and 
Serapion greeted him with the astounding 
intelligence that Severian had denied the In- 
carnation. The grounds of this charge were 
the following : Serapion having ostentatiously 
refused to rise to pay Severian as he passed the 
accustomed homage of a deacon to a bishop, 
with the express intention, declared to the 
clergy around, of shewing ‘‘how much he 
despised the man.’’ Severian, at this studied 
insult, indignantly exclaimed, ‘‘If Serapion 
dies a Christian, then Jesus Christ was not 
incarnate.’’ Serapion repeated the latter 
clause alone, and delated Severian as a denier 
of the chief article of the Christian faith. The 
report was confirmed by bystanders and 
readily credited by Chrysostom, who expelled 
Severian from the city as a blasphemer (Soz. 
Ht Ee Will. πο; ‘Socrs Ἦ, Ἐ i. i137) An 
account favourable to Serapion is found in a 
fragment (unwarrantably embodied in some 
Eng. translations of Socrates’s Hist.) printed 
as an appendix to Socr. vi. 11. According to 
this, Serapion’s act of disrespect was brought 
before a synod, which, on Serapion affirming 
on oath that he had not seen Severian pass, 
acquitted him of intentional rudeness, while 
Chrysostom, hoping to soothe Severian’s 
ruffled feelings, suspended Serapion from his 
ecclesiastical functions for a short time. 
Severian, however, insisted on his deposition 
and excommunication. Chrysostom, annoyed 
at his pertinacity, quitted the synod, leaving 
the decision to the bishops, by whom his mild 
sentence was immediately confirmed. Chry- 
sostom then broke off all intimacy with 
Severian and recommended him to return to 
his own diocese, which he had neglected too 
long. For the remainder of this unhappy 
transaction see SEVERIANUS (2). Chrysostom 
rewarded the supposed fidelity of Serapion by 
raising him to the priesthood, and returning 
from the brief expulsion which followed the 
synod of the Oak, gave Serapion the metro- 
politan see of Heraclea in Thrace (ib. 17). On 
Chrysostom’s second and final banishment 
Serapion, taking refuge in a convent of Gothic 


SERGIUS 


monks known as the Marsi (Chrys. Ep. 14), 
was discovered, dragged from his hiding-place, 
brought before Chrysostom’s enemies, deposed 
from his bishopric, banished to Egypt, and left 
at the mercy of the patriarch Theophilus 
(Pallad. p. 195; Soz. H. E. viii. 9). [Ε.ν.] 
Serenus (4), solitary in the Nitrian desert, 
who, when visited by Cassian, A.D. 395, dis- 
cussed de Animae Mobilitate et Spiritalibus 
Nequitits (Coll. vii.), and de Principatibus seu 
Potestatibus (Coll. viii. See Migne, Patr. Lat. 
t. xlix. 667 seq.). In the former he treats 
mostly of the nature of the soul, the rapid 
movement of the thoughts, the influence of 
evil spirits upon them, and the duty of fixing 
the desire on God. In the latter he declares 
the nature of evil spirits, their fall, subordina- 
tion, and occupation. His Life, without 
details, isin Vitae Patrum,c.50. Migne, Patr. 
Lat. τ. Ixxiii. 844 seq.; Ceill. Aut. sacr. viii. 
170 seq.; Fleury, H. E. xx. c. 7. [1-6.] 
Serenus (5), roth bp. of Marseilles c. 595-600, 
known from the letters of Gregory the Great. 
To his good offices were commended St. Augus- 
tine on his mission to England in 596 (Greg. 
Magn. Ep. vi. 52; Migne, Patr. Lat. \xxvii. 
836), and, three years later, the monks dis- 
patched to help him (xi. 58, Patr. Lat. 1176). 
Two other letters from Gregory are preserved. 
Serenus in an excess of iconoclastic zeal had 
entered the churches of Marseilles and broken 
and cast forth the images. Gregory, com- 
mending his fervour against idolatry, reproved 
his violence, since the use of representations 
in a church was that the unlearned might read 
on the walls what they were unable to read 
in the Scriptures (ix. 105, Patr. Lat. 1027). 
Serenus, disregarding the warning and even 
affecting to believe the letter a forgery, re- 
ceived a severe rebuke and a reiteration of the 
pope’s views (xi. 13, Patr. Lat. 1128, written 
Nov. 1, 600). Gall. Christ. i. 639; Ricard, 
Evéques de Marseille, 24, 25; Vtes des saints 
de Marseille, S. Serenus, Bayle. [s-A.B.] 
Sergius (2), a very celebrated military saint 
and martyr of the Eastern church. His Acts 
call him ‘‘ Amicus Imperatoris.” He and 
Bacchus were regarded as the patron saints 
of Syria. Sergius suffered at Sergiopolis, or 
Rasaphe, in Syria, early in the 4th cent. Their 
united fame soon became widespread. Le Bas 
and Waddington (Voy. archéol. t. ili. No. 2124) 
notice a church of E. Syria dedicated in their 
honour in 354 as the earliest case of such cons 
secration to saints, and (ἐδ. No. 1915) describe 
one dedicated in 512 to SS. Sergius, Bacchus, 
and Leontius, and offer reasons for regarding 
Leontius as a martyr under Hadrian when 
ruling Syria during the last years of Trajan. 
Theodora, wife of Justinian, presented a 
jewelled cross to a church of St. Sergius, which 
Persian invaders carried off. Chosroes, king 
of Persia, returned it to Gregory, patriarch of 
Antioch, in 593. (Cf. Evagr. H. E. iv. 28; vi. 
21, where Chosroes is represented as a convert 
to the cult of Sergius.) The fame of Sergius 
and Bacchus spread to France, where Le Blant 
(Christ. Lat. Inscrip. of France, t. i. p. 305) 
notices a church at Chartres dedicated in their 
honour. Le Blant (Actes des mart. p. 77) 
notes the marks of genuineness in his Acts as 
told in AA.SS. Boll.; cf. Tillem. v. 491. [G.T.s.] 
Sergius (12), the name of the two Monophy- 


SEVERIANUS 


site priests persecuted with John of Ephesus 
at Constantinople. He relates the sufferings 
of the ii, one of whom was his syncellus, 
the other his disciple. While John was im- 
prisoned in the penitentiary of the hospital 
of Eubulus the two priests were seized, and, 
as they would not yield, were publicly scourged 
and then imprisoned in a “" diaconate,”’ or hos- 
pital, attended by deacons and laymen, for 
40 days. The syncellus was finally sent to the 
monastery of Beth-Rabula, where he was 
kindly treated, the monks there “ having no 
love for the council of Chalcedon nor even 
proclaiming it in their worship "’ (John of Eph. 
H.E. p. 110, trans. Payne Smith). {c.H.] 
Severianus (2), bp. of Gabala on the sea- 
board of Syria, c. 400; described by Genna- 
dius (Ill. Eccl. Scriptt. c. 21) as “in Divinis 
Scripturis eruditus, et in Homiliis declamator 
admirabilis."" He repaired to Constantino- 
ple, and was kindly received by Chrysostom, 
who often selected him to preach on import- 
ant occasions. In spite of a rough provincial 
accent, he obtained considerable popularity 
with the people in general and with the 
emperor and empress, who often appointed 
him to preach (Gennad. u.s.). When early in 
401 Chrysostom left Constantinople for the 
visitation of Asia Minor, he deputed his 
official authority to Severian as commissary, 
all real power being invested in his archdeacon 
Serapion. Severian, in Chrysostom’s absence 


undermined his influence with the court, and | 


fostered the dislike of the worldly and luxu- 
rious clergy of Constantinople, whom Chry- 
sostom’s severity had greatly alienated. His 
conduct was reported in the darkest colours 
to Chrysostom by his jealous and artful rival 
Serapion. 
Severian to leave for his own 
SERAPION. 


diocese see 


pelled Chrysostom to allow his return. But 


Chrysostom steadily refused to readmit {πε 


offender to friendly intercourse. The em- 
press carried her infant son, 
emperor Theodosius, in her arms, into the 
church of the Apostles, and casting him 
in Chrysostom’s lap, conjured him with 
solemn imprecations to be reconciled with 
Severian. Chrysostom consented, and ex- 
horted his congregation to submit, as nt ha 
subjects and good Christians, to the wishes 
of those in authority (Homul. de 4 tog 
Severian. t. iii. p. 422, ed. Migne). The re- 
quest was acceded to with applause. Seve- 
rian next day delivered a short rhetorical 
eulogy on the blessings of peace (Sermo ipsius 
Severiani de Pace, ib. p. 493). 
ness of the reconciliation was soon proved. 
Severian joined in a plot, under the inspiration 
of the empress and the powerful female influ- 
ence of the court, for Chrysostom’s humilia- 
tion, which ultimately proved only too success- 
ful (Pallad. Dial. pp. 35, 48, 72). At the 
assembly of the Oak, Severian took a leading 
part (Pallad. p. 72; Phot. Cod. 59, p- 53), and 
on Chrysostom’s deposition, mounted the 
pulpit and publicly ex ressed approbation of 
the act, which he said Chrysostom had well 
merited for his haughtiness alone. 
“‘barefaced attempt to justify injustice "’ 
rendered the people furious, and 


For the events which compelled | 


Severian had barely crossed the | 
Bosphorus when the imperious Eudoxia com- | 


the future | 


The hollow- | 


they were | Life is in AA. SS. Boll. (Jan. 1, 


SEVERINUS 891 


only restrained from summary measures b 

Chr tom's speedy recall. Severian aaa 
his brother-intriguers fled (Soer. H. FE. vi. 16, 
17; Soz. H. E. viii. 19; Pallad. Dial. p. 16). 
We find them at Constantinople seconding 
new designs for the destruction of Chrysostom 
set on foot by Eudoxia and the court party, 
and securing his final condemnation (Pallad. 
Dial. pp- 79, 88; Soz. H. E. viii. 22). Seve- 
rian’s malice did not cease with Chrysostom's 
expulsion. He is charged by Palladius with 
using his influence to obtain the removal of 
the aged invalid from Cucusus, where the 
|climate had not proved so fatal as the malice 
| of his enemies desired, to the more bleak and 
| inaccessible town of Pityus (Dial. 97). Seve- 
}rian’s death may be placed under Theodo- 
sius II. between 408 and 430. 

Very few of his numerous writings are 
extant. Some homilies printed in Chry- 
sostom’s works have been attributed to him 

| with more or less probability. The following 
| are regarded on satisfactory grounds as his : 
de Creatione Mundi, de Nativitate Christi, de 
| Sigillis Librorum, de Serpente Aenco, de Nativr- 
tate. We may add de Morte Innocentium, and 
| de Cruce Homilia, pub. by Combefis with some 
of Chrysostom's. Du Pin attributes to Se- 
| verian, from internal evidence, a large number 
of homilies which pass under Chrysostom’s 
name. Severian is said to have composed 
a large number of commentaries on Holy 
Scripture, the whole being lost except for 
ca, age in the Catenae. Gennadius read 
with pleasure treatises of his on Baptism and 
the Epiphany. A work contra Novatum 
is quoted by Gelasius, de Duabus Christs 
Naturis ; and one contra Judacos by Cosmas 
Indicopleustes, vii. 292. According to Mabil- 
}lon (Mus. Ital. i. pp. 13, 124), 88 homilies 
bearing his name exist in MS. in the Am- 
brosian library and others in the Coislinian. 
Fabr. Bibl. Graec. ix. 267; Cave, Hist, Lit. i. 
378; Dupin, H. E. [e.v.] 
verinus (4), monk and apostle of Noricug 
(Austria) in the 5th cent. δ was assisted by 
Evoiepius, who afterwards presided over a 
monastery dedicated to his memory, and there 
wrote his Life c. 511, describing Severinus as 
coming from the East to preach in Pannonia 
and Noricum, about the time that Attila’s 
death was followed by contests among his 
sons, which wrought havoc and destruction 
in these provinces. Severinus lived a life of 
the sternest asceticism in a small cell where 
| he could barely stand erect. His Life is full 
of the wonders wrought and predictions 
uttered by him, but is important as illustrat- 
ing the social life of the outlying provinces 
of the empire when the foundations of the 
| modern European system were beginning to 
| be laid. Thus c. vi. tells of the influence he 
exercised in introducing the payment of tithes. 
He was a most devoted missionary, reverenced 
by Roman and barbarian alike. Odoacer 
| sought him out and desired his blessing when 
\about to invade Italy. “ Pursue,’ said the 
saint, “* your design; proceed to Italy; you 
| will soon cast away this coarse garment of 
| skins, and your wealth will be adequate to 


This | your liberality of mind" (Gibbon, c. xxxvi.). 


| Severinus died a.p. 482, near Vienna. His 
453) and Pez, 


892 SEVERUS, L. SEPTIMIUS 


Scriptt. Res Austr. 1.62. Herzog’s Encyclop. 
has a very exhaustive article upon him. [G.T.s.] 

Severus (1), L. Septimius, emperor, born 
at Leptis in Tripoli in Apr. 146. His family 
were of equestrian rank, and two of his 
uncles had been consuls. His early life at 
Rome was a mixture of study and dissipation, 
his talents attracting the attention of M. 
Aurelius, who conferred various offices upon 
him. In one capacity or another he held 
office in nearly all the western provinces. In 
193 he was in command of Pannonia and 
Illyricum. When the news arrived of the 
murder of Pertinax and the sale of the empire 
to Didius Julianus, it aroused great indigna- 
tion in the Pannonian army, and Severus, 
taking advantage of this feeling, got himself 
saluted emperor by them at Carnuntum in 
Apr. or May, and immediately marched on 
Rome. Julian was abandoned by the prae- 
torians, and put to death by order of the 
senate on June 1 or 2. Severus left Rome 
after 30 days, to fight his most formidable 
rival Pescennius Niger, who had assumed the 
purple at Antioch a few days before himself, 
and overthrew him in 194. Albinus, who had 
assumed the title of emperor, was defeated 
and slain on Feb. 19, 197, in the plain of 
Trevoux near Lyons. In the autumn of 204 
the secular games were celebrated with great 
magnificence for the last time. In 208 
Severus set out for Britain, and marched 
through Caledonia to the extreme N., cutting 
down forests and making roads. He added 
a new rampart to the wall built by Hadrian 
from the Tyne to the Solway. He died at 
York on Feb. 4, 211. Of all emperors from 
Augustus to Diocletian, Severus was probably 
the man of greatest power. Crafty, ambi- 
tious, and unscrupulous, he allowed no con- 
siderations of humanity to stand in his way. 
Yet he did not delight in cruelty for its own 
sake, and any weakness on his part would 
have been fatal to himself and have plunged 
the Roman world again in the anarchy from 
which he had rescued it. Disorder and 
brigandage throughout the empire were put 
down with a firm hand. He was an adept in 
astrology and magic. ΐ : 

In the earlier part of his reign he favoured 
the Christians. He believed he had been 
cured of an illness by oil administered by a 
Christian named Proculus, whom till his death 
he maintained in the palace; and the nurse 
and some of the playmates of CARACALLA were 
Christians. No Christians took a prominent 
part on the side of Niger or Albinus, and it is 
even probable that those who tried to hold 
Byzantium for Niger ill-treated the Christians 
there during the siege. The number of 
councils held in the early years of Severus on 
the time of observing Easter proves that the 
church was then unmolested. The first 
change for the worse appears to have been at 
the emperor’s entry into Rome, A.D. 197, after 
the defeat of Albinus. The Christians excited 
the fury of the mob by refusing to join in the 
rejoicings, an act they considered inconsistent 
with their religion. But Severus used his 
influence to protect Christian men and women 
of rank against the fury of the mob (ad Scap. 
4). But in 202 he issued an edict forbidding 
future conversions to Judaism or Christianity 


SEVERUS, L. SEPTIMIUS 


(Vita Severt, 17). His motives are unknown. 
Probably, as a stern statesman of the old 
Roman school, he foresaw the peril to the 
national religion and the constitution of the 
state that lay in the active Christian pro- 
paganda, and though personally friendly to 
some among them, thought it time to check 
the further progress of the religio illicita. 

Though the edict applied only to new con- 
verts, and catechumens were accordingly the 
greatest sufferers, yet there were numerous 
victims among the Christians of long standing. 
In the East, the Christians suffered most in 
Egypt, perhaps because the emperor had 
visited it immediately after the promulgation 
of his edict. So terrible was the outbreak 
that Judas, a Christian writer, made the 70 
weeks of Daniel expire with the roth year of 
Severus, and thought the advent of Antichrist 
at hand. Laetus the prefect and his successor 
Aquila were merciless enemies of the Chris- 
tians, who were dragged from all parts of 
Egypt to their tribunal at Alexandria. 
Among the most notable martyrs was Leoni- 
das, the father of Origen, who was only pre- 
vented by a stratagem of his mother from 
sharing his father’s fate. By a strange incon- 
sistency Origen was allowed to visit the mar- 
tyrs in prison and to be present at their trial, 
and even to accompany them on their way to 
execution, apparently without being molested 
by the government, though several times in 
great danger from mob violence. 

In Africa the persecution began with a 
violation of the cemeteries, and a bad harvest 
following, the rage of the people against the 
Christians increased (ad Scap. 3). [SCILLITAN 
Martyrs.] In the spring of 203, under 
Hilarianus the procurator, who had assumed 
the government on the death of the proconsul, 
the famous group of martyrs among whom St. 
Perpetua was most conspicuous, suffered. Yet 
here again we find the same inconsistency as at 
Alexandria. Deacons were allowed to visit 
the imprisoned Christians, unmolested, to 
alleviate their sufferings, and even to procure 
their removal to a better part of the prison. 
In 205 or 206, under the milder government 
of Julius Asper, the persecution seems to have 
abated, after raging for 3 years (de Pallio, 
2). Many Christians had sought refuge in 
flight, while others tried to escape by bribing 
the Roman officials, and in some cases the 
Christian community as a whole seems to have 
done so. These subterfuges were regarded 
with scorn and abhorrence by the more enthu- 
siastic, but no trace is to be found of the 
Libellatici so notorious in later persecutions. 
The abatement seems to have continued till 
near the close of the reign, but in 210 and 211 
the persecution broke out again in its sharpest 
form under the proconsul Scapula and 
extended to Mauritania. There the sword 
was the instrument of execution, whilst the 
cruel Scapula burnt his victims alive or flung 
them to the wild beasts of the amphitheatre. 

Of persecution in other parts of the empire 
we have only a few isolated notices. The 
aged Irenaeus and his companions suffered at 
Lyons in this reign, but no details are pre- 
served, and even the date is uncertain. In 
Syria, Asclepiades, afterwards bp. of Antioch, 
was a confessor (Eus. H. E. vi. 11). Cruel as 


SEVERUS, AURELIUS ALEXANDER SEVERUS, AURELIUS ALEXANDER 405 


it was, and severer than any previous on 
1 ¢, the | and killed 
coger ase pend ΑἹ ποῖ τ 8 sore | leon. The Meters Dee Dion by ery od τα 4 
ἷ of Decius an δ. Pannonia so excited the hatred 
tian. Except Irenaeus, no bishops or - adh Bo ot 
~ pro- | torians that Alexander was dri he 
minent members seem to have been executed ; | humiliat muasting bias 
many, like Tertullian and Origen, who mighi | to come te Rone Owing Neem then 
have been thought certain victims, were ας “1  λγυγλ τ ee 
ie βνικοδ: e Pha rem of the martyrs. i. - iis csign wihaciesh ἐν ΣΥΝ revolt 
; erings cau many conver- under Artaxerxes ai he 
sions. Eus. H. E. vi. 1-12 ; Tillem. Mém. ecel. | which ag 5. Pectinam 
lii.; Gérres, in Jahrbticher fiir Protest. Theol. | which the Fortean naan a My Fin 
ΡΥ Io ened a tae cher ig Tertullian, | pletely broke the Parthian power, and by the 
: res ; fationes ; ad | most extraor , ; 
Spectnigees ἃ de F uga ; de Corona Militis ; Aubé, | established ἐδ τανε αι or οἶδ ine ‘ie 
yn istorique, xi. 241. [F.p.] heir of the ancient monarchy he claimed all 
x verus (2), Aurelius Alexander, emperor, the Asiatic provinces of Rome. Such on: 
rm at Arca Caesarea in Syria, Oct. 1, 205 | sions naturally produced a war. At the end 
(Lampridius) or 208 (Herodian). For an | of 23 or the beginning of 232 the emperor 
oT of his family see Etacanatus. Like | accompanied by his mother, left Rowe to 
oa he was made in childhood a priest of the | fight the Persians, but returned without any 
un at Emesa, and when his cousin became | decisive results to Europe, being summoned 
emperor he and his mother Julia Mammaea | by news of the movements of the Germans on 
accompanied him to Rome. Mammaea took | the Rhine and Danube. After a triumph at 
the utmost pains to educate her son and to Rome on Sept. 25, 233 (Clinton), he proceeded 
preserve him uncontaminated by the mon- to the Rhine frontier, where he was slain in 
ΠΕ excesses of his cousin. Created Caesar his tent, and his mother with him, near May- 
y the emperor in 221; on Feb. 1,222 (Clinton), ence, at the beginning of 235 (Clinton) by the 
he became emperor on the death of Elagabalus mutinous soldiery. R 
and his mother Soaemis at the hands of the} Thus perished one of the most virtuous of 
indignant soldiery. Being then at most not|the emperors. Apparently his only faults 
yet 17, the administration rested with his | were an excessive deference to his mother and 
mother and grandmother Julia Mammaea and ἃ certain want of energy. He was frugal 
Julia Maesa, the _latter of whom, till πὸ temperate, and chaste. He was fond of 
ear c. 225, enjoyed the greater power. | reading, preferring Greek to Latin authors. 
Their chief minister or regent was the famous | His favourite works were the Republic of Plato 
jurist Ulpian, whose appointment appears to | and the de Offictis and de Republica of Cicero. 
have been due to Maesa's influence, though | He was also fond of Vergil and Horace. He 
Mammaea afterwards acquiesced in it (Lamp. | was acquainted with geometry, was able to 
50). He was assisted by a council of at | paint, and could sing and play on various 
least 70 members, 16 to 20 eminent jurists of | instruments. Though he attended the tem- 
whom formed a sort of inner cabinet (cf. ples regularly and visited the Capitol every 
Herodian, vi. i. with Lamp. 15); separate seventh day, and though he rebuilt and 
committees of this council administering | adorned the shrines of various deities, by a 
different departments of the state. curious anticipation of Comtism, the objects 
The first step of the new administration was | of his peculiar veneration were not the gods 
to reverse the acts of Elagabalus. The οὗ the various po ular religions, but deified 
images of the gods he had collected at Rome | heroes and men. The private chapel in which 
from all parts of the eee were restored to| he performed his devotions every morn 
their former shrines. is creatures were | contained no images of gods, but statues ὁ 
removed from offices obtained by disgraceful | canonized men, including the best of his 
means. The senate, knights, tribes, and army | predecessors, Alexander the Great, who might 
were purged of the infamous persons appointed | be called his patron saint, en Apollonius 
by Elagabalus, and the imperial establish- | of Tyana, Abraham, and Christ. In a smaller 
ment reduced as low as possible. chapel were images of Achilles, Vergil (whom 
The praetorians and the army did not easily | he used to call the Plato of ts), Cicero, and 
acquiesce in these reforms. Probably in| other great men. From his mother’s inter- 
order to check their mutinous spirit their| course with Origen (Bus. HW. &. vi. 2%) he 
prefects Flavianus and Chrestus were put to | would naturally have better means of learning 
death and Ulpian made sole prefect. From | the doctrines and practices of Christianity 
some trifling cause a riot broke out between than any of his predecessors. It is said that 
the praetorians and the people, lasting for | he contemplated erecting a temple to Christ 
three days. The soldiers, getting the worst and placin Him among the gods. At any 
of it, set fire to the city and thus checked their | rate, though he did not give Christianity the 
assailants. They could not endure the firm | status of a religto liesia, ¢ Christians during 
rule of Ulpian. Several times he had to take | his reign enjoyed a de facto toleration. In the 
refuge in the palace, and was saved with diffi- | famous suit between the ld of cooks and 
culty by the emperor from their ἐπ" At | the Christians for a piece of land, which accord- 
last, probably in 228, he was killed by the ing to tradition is the site of St. Maria in 
soldiers in the presence of Alexander and his | Trastevere, he decided in favour of the Chris 


mother, who were only able 4 a stratagem | tians on the bron ΨΆΝΘΝ that it was better 
to punish the ringleader. Throughout the | God should be ipped there under what- 
ever form than that it should be given to the 


empire the same insubordinate spirit pre- 
wae. The troops in Mesopotamia mutinied This decision implies a certain recog- 


ee 


894 SEVERUS 


nition of the right of the Christians as such to 
hold property, which is also implied by the 
life of CaLiistus. Consistently with this, it 
is in the reign of Alexander that edifices set 
apart for Christian worship begin to appear— 
at any rate in some parts of the empire (cf. 
the letter of Firmilian to Cyprian (in Migne, 
Patr. Lat. iii. 1163) with Origen, Hom. 28 
on St. Matthew (quoted in contra Celsum, viii. 
755, in Migne, Pair. Gk. xi. 1539)}. A form 
of the golden rule of Christian morality (‘‘ Do 
not do to another what you would not have 
done to yourself’’?) was so admired by the 
emperor that he caused it to be inscribed on 
the palace and other buildings. A curious 
anecdote of Lampridius (44) shews the 
emperor’s acquaintance with Christian usages 
and also the antiquity of the practice of pub- 
lishing to the congregation the names of those 
who sought ordination. In imitation of this 
the emperor caused the names of persons he 
was about to appoint to be published before- 
hand, exhorting any who had charges against 
them to come with proofs. 

Strange to say, in later tradition the em- 
peror, whom all writers near his time represent 
as a friend, nay almost a convert, to Christian- 
ity, whose chapel contained an image of Christ 
and whose household was filled with Christians 
(Eus. H. E. vi. 28), appears as a cruel perse- 
cutor. It is said that pope Callistus with 
many companions, St. Caecilia and her com- 
rades, pope Urban I., and many others suffered 
in his reign, and that he personally took part 
in their martyrdom. On the other hand, no 
Father of the 3rd, 4th, or 5th cents. knows 
anything of such a persecution, but on the 
contrary agree in representing his reign as a 
period of peace. Firmilian (/.c.) testifies that 
before the persecution of Maximin the church 
had enjoyed a long peace, and Sulpicius 
Severus (ii. 32 in Patr. Lat. xx. 447) includes 
the reign of Alexander in the long peace 
lasting from Septimius Severus to. Decius, 
broken only by the persecution of Maximin. 
Against this can be set only the evidence of 
late authors, such as Bede, Ado, and Usuard 
and unauthentic Acts of martyrs. The most 
famous of the alleged martyrs of this reign, 
St. Caecilia and her companions, are placed 
by other accounts in the reigns of M. Aurelius 
or Diocletian. All are given up by Tillemont 
except Callistus. His chief ground for con- 
sidering him a martyr is that in the Depositio 
Martyrum, written in 354 (in Patr. Lat. cxxvii. 
123), a Callistus is mentioned as martyred 
on Oct. 14, the day on which the pope is 
commemorated. Lipsius (Chronol. d. rom. 
Bischofe, 177) acutely conjectures that this 
notice refers, not to the martyrdom, but to the 
confession of Callistus before Fuscianus men- 
tioned by Hippolytus, as up to the Decian 
persecution the word ‘‘ martyr” was still used 
in the wider sense. We may therefore conclude 
that all these accounts of persecutions and 
martyrdoms, so inconsistent with the known 
character of the emperor and passed over in 
silence by all authors for more than two cents. 
afterwards, are fictions of a later date. [F.pD.] 

Severus (3) and Severians. [ENCRATITES.] 

Severus (12) Sanctus (Endelechius). Per- 
haps identical with the rhetorician mentioned 
in the subscription of the Cod. Flor. of Apu- 


SEVERUS, SULPICIUS 


leius, as teaching at Rome in 395. He is the 
author of a Christian idyll, in Asclepiad metre, 
upon the subject of a great cattle-plague ; 
possibly that mentioned by St. Ambrose 
(Comm. in Luc. x. 10). This plague occurred 
c. 376, which fact, together with the date 
assigned for Endelechius’s teaching, and the 
possibility that he was the correspondent of 
St. Paulinus of Nola (Ep. xxviii. 6), would fix 
the date of the poem at the end of the 4th 
or beginning of the 5th cent. The poem is 
entitled ‘‘de Mortibus Boum,” and written 
with some taste and a good deal of vigour. 
It represents certain herdsmen—apparently 
Aquitanians—discussing their fortunes in the 
general affliction. One of them asserts that 
his herds have been protected by the sign of 
the Cross and by his own belief in Christ. The 
others resolve to adopt a religion which, ac- 
cording to his account, is at once profitable 
and easy. The poem has been often edited : 
first by Pithoeus (Paris, 1586). It is in Werns- 
dorf, Poetae Lat. Min. ii.; Migne, xix. Cave, 
Hist. Litt. i. 290; Ebert, Gesch. der Chr.-Lat. 
Lit.; Fabric. Bibl. Graeca, x. 626, 2nd ed. ; 
Teuffel, vol. ii. [H.A.w.] 
Severus (18), Sulpicius, ecclesiastical his- 
torian in Gaul, belonging to a noble family of 
Aquitaine, born after a.p. 353. He became 
an advocate and married a woman of consular 
rank and wealth, who did not long survive the 
marriage. While yet in the flower of his age, 
c. 392, caressed and praised by all and eminent 
in his profession (Paulinus, Ep. v., Migne, Patr. 
Lat. \xi. 169-170), he braved his father’s anger 
and the flouts of worldly acquaintances (7b. 1. 
col. 154), and retired from the world. Thence- 
forth with a few disciples and servants he led 
a life of ascetic seclusion and literary activity. 
Where he abode is not quite certain, but 
probably at Primuliacum, a village between 
Toulouse and Carcassonne, where he built two 
churches (7b. Ep. xxxii.). It was probably an 
estate of his wife or mother-in-law, his father 
apparently having disinherited him (cf. Ep. 
ad Bassulam). According to Gennadius he 
was a priest, but this has been questioned, and 
his tone towards the bishops and clergy, 
against whom he constantly inveighs as vain, 
luxurious, self-seeking, factious foes of Chris- 
tianity and envious persecutors of his hero 
St. Martin, lends countenance to the doubt 
(Hist. Sacr. ii. 32 ; Vita 5. Martini, 27; Dial. 
I, 2, 9, 21, 24, 26). Later authors have 
believed him a monk, some of Marmoitiers, 
Martin’s foundation at Tours, others of 
Marseilles, whither he may have been driven 
by the Vandalinvasion. This seems probable 
from c. i. of Dial. 1 (cf. also ii. 8). Gennadius 
asserts that in his old age he was deceived into 
Pelagianism, but recognizing the fault of 
loquacity, remained mute till his death, in 
order by penitential silence to correct the sin 
he had committed by much speaking. Others, 
from a passage in St. Jerome (in Ezech. c. 
xxxvi., Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 85), have accused 
him of Millenarianism. At the Roman 
council held by pope Gelasius in 494 the 
Dialogi, under the name of Opuscula Pos- 
tumiant et Galli, were certainly placed among 
the libri apocryphi (Mansi, viii. 151). The 
charge rested on Dial. ii. 14, where a strange 
theory as to the imminent appearance among 


a 


SEVERUS. SULPICIUS 


men of Nero and Antichrist is put into the 
mouth of St. Martin. The chapter has been 
expunged in many italian SS. (Halm. 
Sulpic. Sev. Praefatio). Various years between 
406 and 429 have been suggested for his death. 
The principal authorities for his Life are 
the short biography of Gennadius (de Seriptt. 
Eccles. xix., Migne, Patr. Lat. \viii. 1071), the 
letters of his friend Paulinus of Nola, with 
whom between 394 and 403 he constantly 
interchanged gifts and letters, though only 
one letter of Sulpicius, and that probably a 
forgery, survives (Epp. i. v. xi. xvii. xxii.- 
XXIV. XXvii.-xxxii., Migne, Patr. Lat. xi. 


153-330; Ceillier, vii. 55 sqq.), allusions in | 


his own writings, esp. the Vita S. Martini, the 
Epistolae, and the Dialogi, and a panegyric 
by Paulinus of Périgueux (de Vita S. Martini 
lib. v. Patr. Lat. \xi. 1052). A modern and 
exhaustive notice is by Jacob Bernays, Die 
Chronik des Sulp. Sev. (Berlin, 1861). 

His works consist of the Historia Sacra or 
Chronica, a Life of St. Martin of Tours, 3 
letters, and 3 dialogues. An Eng. trans. is 
in Schaff and Wace’s Lib. of Post-Nicene 
Fathers. The Historia, written c. 403, was an 
attempt to give a concise history of the world 
with dates from the creation to his own times, 
the consulship of Stilicho in 400. His sources 
are the LXX, the ancient Latin version of the 
Scriptures, the Chronicles of Eusebius, and the 
Historicit Ethnict, as he calls the non-Christian 
authors (Herbert, Notice, p.7). Bk. i. and part 
of ii. are occupied with universal history down 
to the birth of Christ. Then, omitting the 
period covered by the Gospels and Acts, he 
adds some details to Josephus’s narrative of 
the siege of Jerusalem, recounts persecutions 
of the Christians under 9 emperors, and 
describes the Invention of the Cross by St. 
Helena, as he had heard it from Paulinus. 
His account of the Arian controversy (ii. 35- 
45) is inaccurate and of little value; but of 
more importance is that of the Priscillianist 
heresy, which had arisen in his time and with 
the details of which he was familiar. 

The Vita S. Martini, the earliest of his 
writings, is very important as containing, with 
the Dialogues and 3 letters, practically every- 
thing that is authentic about that popular 
saint of Western Christendom. He tells us 
that, having long heard of the sanctity and 
miracles of Martin, he went to Tours to see 
him, asked him all the questions he could, 
and got information from eyewitnesses and 
those who knew (c. 25). This visit, probably 
c. 394, was followed by many others. The 
book was pub. during Martin’s lifetime. 

In the Bialogi. written c. 405, the inter- 
locutors are his friend Postumianus, just back 
from a three years’ stay in the East, Gallus, 
a disciple of St. Martin, now dead, and Sul- 
picius himself. Twenty-two chapters of Dial. 
i. contain interesting pictures of the contro- 
versy at Alexandria between archbp. Theo- 
philus and the monks concerning Origen, St. 
Jerome at his church in Bethlehem, and the 
monks and hermits of the Thebaid. Postu- 
mianus asks about St. Martin, and bears 
witness to the enormous popularity of the Life 
in almost every country. Paulinus had in- 
troduced it at Rome, where the whole city had 
fought for it. All Carthage was reading it, the 


SEVERUS 895 


Alexandrians knew its contents almost better 
than the author, and it had penetrated into 
Egypt, Nitria, and the Thebaid. All were 
clamouring for those further wonders which 
Sulpicius had omitted (c. 23, ef. Vita, prol.) 
and with which the remainder of the Dialogues 
is almost entirely occupied. 

The Epistles are also about St. Martin, the 
first giving the story of his death and burial. 
Seven more letters have been published under 
Sulpicius’s name; several have been gener- 
ally suspected (Ceillier, 119-120), but all are 
pronounced spurious by Halm (Pref. xi.-xiii.). 

The best ed. of the collected works is that 
of C. Halm (Sulpictt Severi Libri qui supersunt, 
Vindob. 1866). His works have been several 
times translated into French, κα. by M. 
Herbert (Paris, 1847). 

Apart from the unique History of St. Martin 
(which, however, is the worst of his writings 
from a literary point of view), Sulpicius’s chief 
title to fame rests on his beauty and purity of 
style, in respect of which he is pre-eminent, if 
not unique, among ecclesiastical authors, and 
well merits his appellation of the ‘ Christian 
Sallust.” He seems to have taken this 
historian as his model, but his writings shew 
familiarity with Vergil, Livy, Tacitus, and 
most classical authors. Perhaps his work is 
somewhat lacking in vigour, and not entirely 
free from the affectations and bad taste of his 
time. The credulity and superstition of the 
narrative had, as regards Martin's Miracles, 
evidently excited scepticism even among the 
Christians in Sulpicius’s own time (see Dial. 
iii.6). [Martin (1)]. For an estimate of Sul- 
picius’s works see Ceill. viii. 121-122. [S.A.8.] 

Severus (19), bp. of Mileum or Mileus, a 
native of the same place as Augustine, and a 
fellow-student, lifelong friend, and member 
of the same monastic community. Early in 
his episcopate, probably in 401, Augustine, 
Alypius, and Samsucius had to explain their 
conduct in the matter of Timotheus and to 
call on Severus to accept their explanation 
(Aug. Epp. 62, 63), but this temporary mis- 
understanding did not interrupt his friendship 
with Augustine, nor cause any ill-will on his 
part towards Timotheus (Aug. En. Ps. 95. 0; 
de Civitate Dei,xxi. 4). In a letter somewhat 
later, perhaps a.p. 406, addressed to Novatus, 
Augustine regrets being not often able to see 
his old friend, who wrote seldom, and then 
chiefly on business, not from want of goodwill 
but from necessity (Aug. Ep. 84). Severus 
exchanged letters and friendly messages with 
Paulinus of Nola (ib. 31. 9 and 12. 1), and ¢. 
409 wrote to Augustine expressing his great 
delight in his writings, as leading him to greater 
love of God, and begging him to write in return 
(Epp. 109). Augustine replied, insisting that 
he himself was the debtor. Severus appears 
to have joined in the address to Innocentius 
concerning Pelagianism, a.p. 416 (Aug. Epp. 
175, 176). He probably died ¢. 426. {π|νν.».} 

Severus (22), bp. of Minorca, known by his 
encyclical letter referred to in the book de 
Miraculis S. Stephani, com by order of 
| Evodius of Uzalis (Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 731). 
Orosius had deposited some recently dis- 
covered relics of St. Stephen in the church at 

Magona (Port Mahon), where there were ἃ 
large number of Jews, one of whom, the rabbi 


896 SEVERUS 
Theodorus, was defensor civitatis. The arrival 
of the relics caused great religious excitement 
among Minorcan Christians, which led to 
constant arguments between them and the 
Jews, ending in riots in which the synagogue 
was set on fire and burnt to the bare walls. 
The conversion of a great number of Jews, 
including Theodorus himself, followed. On 
the site of the destroyed synagogue the Jews 
erected a church. These events occurred in 
the last week of Jan. 418. Gams, Kircheng. 
von Sp. ii. (1) 406. [F.D.] 
Severus (27), Monophysite patriarch of 
Antioch, A.D. 512-519, a native of Sozopolis 
in Pisidia, by birth and education a heathen, 
baptized in the martyry of Leontius at Tri- 
polis (Evagr. H. E. iii. 33; Labbe, v. 40, 120). 
He almost at once openly united himself 
with the Acephali, repudiating his own bap- 
tism and his baptizer, and even the Catholic 
church itself as infected with Nestorianism 
(Labbe, u.s.). On embracing Monophysite 
doctrines he entered a monastery apparently 
belonging to that sect between Gaza and its 
port Majuma. Here he met Peter the Iberian, 
a zealous Eutychian, who had been ordained 
bp. of Gaza by Theodosius, the Monophysite 
monk, during his usurpation of the see of 
Jerusalem (Evagr. 1... About this time 
Severus apparently joined a Eutychian 
brotherhood near Eleutheropolis under the 
archimandrite Mamas, who further  con- 
firmed him in his extreme Monophysitism 
(Liberat. Brev. c. xix. ; Labbe, v. 762 ; Evagr. 
l.c.). Severus rejected the Henoticon of 
Zeno, applying to it contumelious epithets, 
such as κενωτικόν, “the annulling edict,’’ and 
διαιρετικόν, ‘‘the disuniting edict” (Labbe, 
v. 121), and anathematized Peter Mongus, the 
Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, for 
accepting it. We next hear of him in an 
Egyptian monastery, of which one Nephalius 
was abbat, who, having been formerly a 
Monophysite, had embraced the faith of 
Chalcedon. Nephalius with his monks ex- 
pelled Severus and his partizans (Evagr. L.c., 
cf. iii. 22). Severus is charged with having 
stirred up a fierce religious war among the 
excitable population of Alexandria, resulting 
in bloodshed and conflagrations (Labbe, v. 
121). To escape the punishment of his tur- 
bulence he fled to Constantinople, supported 
by a band of 200 Monophysite monks (ἰδ. iv. 
1419). Anastasius, who had succeeded the 
emperor Zeno, the author of the Henoticon, in 
491, was a declared favourer of the Euty- 
chians, and by him Severus was received with 
honour. His advent was an unhappy one for 
the peace of Constantinople, where a san- 
guinary tumult was stirred up by rival bands 
of monks, orthodox and Monophysite, chant- 
ing in their respective churches the opposing 
forms of the ‘‘ Trisagion.’? This tumult re- 
sulted, A.D. 511, in the humiliation of Anas- 
tasius, the temporary triumph of the patriarch 
Macedonius, and the depression of the Mono- 
physite cause (Theophan, p. 132). Severus 
was eagerly dispatched by Anastasius to 
occupy the vacant throne of Antioch A.D. 511. 
He was ordained, or, in the words of his adver- 
saries, ‘‘ received the shadow of ordination ”’ 
(Labbe, v. 40), and enthroned on the same day 
in his patriarchal city (ἰδ. iv. 1414; Theod. 


SEVERUS 


Lect. ii. 31, pp. 563, 567; Theophan. p. 134), 
and that very day solemnly pronounced in 
his church an anathema on Chalcedon, and 
accepted the Henoticon he had previously 
repudiated. He caused the name of Peter 
Mongus to be inscribed in the diptychs ; 
declared himself in communion with the 
Eutychian prelates, Timotheus of Constanti- 
nople and John Niciota of Alexandria; and 
received into communion Peter of Iberia and 
other leading members of the Acephali (Evagr. 
H. E. ili. 33; Labbe, iv. 1414, ve 121) 762). 
Theod. Lect. /.c.). Eutychianism seemed now 
triumphant throughout the Christian world. 
Proud of his patriarchal dignity and strong in 
the emperor’s protection, Severus despatched 
letters to his brother-prelates, announcing his 
elevation and demanding communion. In 
these he anathematized Chalcedon and all who 
maintained the two natures. They met with 
a very varied reception. Many rejected them 
altogether, nevertheless Monophysitism was 
everywhere in the ascendant in the East, and 
Severus was deservedly regarded as its chief 
champion (Severus of Ashmunain apud 
Neale, Patr. Alex. ii. 27). Synodal letters 
were interchanged between John Niciota and 
Severus ; the earliest examples of that inter- 
communication between the Jacobite sees of 
Alexandria and Antioch, which has been kept 
up to the present day (Neale, l/.c.). The 
triumph of Severus was, however, short. His 
sanguinary tyranny over the patriarchate of 
Antioch did not survive his imperial patron. 
Anastasius was succeeded in 518 by Justin, 
who at once declared for the orthodox faith. 
The Monophysite prelates were everywhere 
replaced by orthodox successors. Severus 
was one of the first to fall. Irenaeus, the 
count of the East, was commissioned to arrest 
him. Severus, however, escaped, and in Sept. 
518 sailed by night for Alexandria (Liberat. 
Brev. l.c.; Theophan. 141; Evagr. H. E. iv. 
4). Paul was ordained in his room. Severus 
and his doctrines were anathematized in 
various councils. At Alexandria his recep- 
tion by his fellow-religionists was enthusiastic. 
He was gladly welcomed by the patriarch 
Timotheus, and generally hailed as the cham- 
pion of the orthodox faith against the cor- 
ruptions of Nestorianism. His learning and 
argumentative power established his authority 
as ‘‘os omnium doctorum,”’ and the day of his 
entrance into Egypt was long celebrated as a 
Jacobite festival (Neale, u.s. p. 30). Alex- 
andria speedily became the resort of Mono- 
physites of every shade of opinion, who formed 
too powerful a body for the emperor to molest. 
But fierce controversies sprang up among 
themselves on various subtle questions con- 
nected with Christ’s nature and His human 
body. A vehement dispute arose between 
Severus and his fellow-exile Julian of Hali- 
carnassus as to the corruptibility of our 
Lord’s human body before His resurrection. 
Julian and his followers were styled ‘‘ Aph- 
thartodocetae ’’ and ‘‘ Phantasiastae,’’ Sever- 
us and his adherents ‘‘ Phthartolatrae’’ or 
‘*Corrupticolae,’’ and ‘‘ Ktistolatrae.” The 
controversy was a warm and protracted one 
and no settlement was arrived at. The 
Jacobites, however, claim the victory for 
Severus (Renaudot, p. 129). After some 


SEVERUS 


years in Egypt spent in continual literary and 
polemical activity, Severus was unexpectedly 
summoned to Constantinople by Justin's 
successor Justinian, whose consort T eodora | 
warmly favoured the Eutychian party. The 
emperor was utterly weary of the turmoil 
caused by the prolonged theological discus- 
sions. Severus, he was told, was the master 
of the Monophysite party. Unity could onl 
be regained by his influence. At this aol oe § 
A.D. 535, Anthimus had been recently ap- 
pointed to the see of Constantinople by 
Theodora’s influence. He was a concealed 
Eutychian, who on his accession threw off the 
orthodox mask and joined heartily with | 
Severus and his associates, Peter of Apamea 
and Zoaras, in their endeavours to get Mono- 
physitism recognized as the orthodox faith. 
This introduction of turbulent Monophysites 
threw the city into great disorder, and large 
numbers embraced their pernicious heresy 
(Labbe, v. 124). For the further progress of 
this audacious attempt to establish Mono- 
physitism in the imperial city see Τ USTINIAN- 
us; AGAPETuS. Eventually, at the instance 
of pope Agapetus, who happened to visit 
Constantinople on political business at this 
time, the Monophysites Anthimus and Timo- 
theus were deposed, and Severus again sub- 
jected to an anathema. The orthodox Mennas, 
succeeding Anthimus (Liberat. Breviar. c. xxl.; 
Labbe, v. 774), summoned a synod in May and 
June 536 to deal with the Monophysite 
question. Severus and his two companions 
were cast out “‘ as wolves "’ from the true fold, 
and anathematized (Labbe, v. 253-255). The 
sentence was ratified by Justinian (7b. 265). 
The writings of Severus were proscribed; any 
one possessing them who failed to commit 
them to the flames was to lose his right hand 
(Evagr. H. E. iv. 11; Novell. Justinian. No. 
42; Matt. Blastar. p. 59) Severus returned 
to Egypt, which he seems never again to have 
left. The date of his death is fixed variously 


in 538, 539, and 542. According to John of 
Ephesus, he died in the Egyptian desert (ed. 
Payne Smith, i. 78). 

He was a very copious writer, but we pos- 
sess little more than fragments. An account | 
of them, so far as they can be identified, is 
given by Cave (Hist. Lit. vol. i. pp. 499 ff.) and 
Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 36, vol. x. | 
pp. 614 ff., ed. Harless). A very large number 
exist only in Syriac, for which consult the 
catalogue of the Syriac MSS. in the Brit. Mus. 
by Prof. Wright. “Te 

Severus was successful in his great aim of | 
uniting the Monophysites into one compact 
body with a definitely formulated creed. For 
notwithstanding the numerous subdivisions 
of the Monophysites, he was, in Dorner’s 
words, “strictly speaking, the scientific leader 
of the most compact portion of the party, 
and regarded as such by the Monophysites and | 
their opponents. He was the chief object of | 
attack in the long and fierce contest with the | 
orthodox, by whom he is always designated as | 
the author and ringleader of the heresy. | 
His opinions, however, were far from con: | 
sistent, and his opponents apparently had 
much difficulty in arriving at a clear and 
definite view of them, and constantly asserted | 
that he contradicted himself. This was partly | 


| ap. 


SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS πο] 


forced upon him by the conciliatory position 
he aimed at. Hoping to embrace as many 
as possible of varying theological colour, he 
followed the traditional formulas of the church 
as closely as he could, while affixing bis own 
sense upon them (Dorner, Pers. of Christ, div. 
ii. vol. 1. p. 136, Clark's trans.). In 1904 the 
Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, in 
the Syriac version of Athanasius of Nisibis, 
were ed. by G. E. W. Brooks (Lond.). For a 
full statement of his opinions see the great 
work of Dorner, and art. “* Monophysiten" 
in Herzog’s Encye. [κ.ν.] 

Severus (31), patriarch of Aquileia, succeed- 
ing Elias c. 586. Like his predecessors, he was 
a strenuous champion of the Three Chapters. 
Soon after his consecration the exarch Smar- 
agdus seized him in his basilica at Grado, 
where the bishops of Aquileia had taken re- 
fuge, and carried him off to Ravenna with 
three other bishops—Severus of Trieste, John 
ot Parenzo, and Videmius of Ceneda. There 
he was imprisoned a whole year and subjected 
to personal ill-treatment till heconsented with 
those three suffragans, and two others, to 
communicate with John, archbp. of Ravenna. 
He was then allowed to return to Grado, but 
the ΒΡ refused to communicate with him 
till he had acknowledged his fault in com- 
municating with those who condemned the 
Three Chapters and had been received by a 
synod of ten bishops at Marano, c. 589 (Paulus 
Diac. Hist. Lang. iii. 26). 

Gregory the Great, at the end of §90 or 
beginning of 591, wrote to him expressing his 
regret at his relapse into schism, and summon- 
ing him by the emperor's orders to Rome, with 
his followers, that a synod might decide the 
matter (Epp. i. ind. ix. 17 in Migne, Patr. Lat. 
Ixxvii. 461). Three separate appeals were 
presented to the emperor Maurice, the third 
(and only one extant) being by the bishops of 
the continental part which was in the hands 
of the Lombards. In it the bishops urge the 
injustice of the pope, from whose communion 
they had separated, being judge in his own 
cause. They profess willingness, when peace 
is restored, to attend and accept the decisions 
of a free council at Constantinople, and point 
out that the clergy and people of the suffra- 

ans of Aquileia are so zealous for the Three 
hapters that, if the patriarch is compelled to 
submit by force, when future vacancies occur 


| among his suffragans the new bishops would 
be compelled to seek consecration 
| 


rom the 
bishops of Gaul, and the province of Aquileia 
would thus be broken up (Mansi, x. 463). 
Maurice accordingly directed the pope to 
leave Severus and his suffragans alone for the 
present. Gregory submitting, Severus main- 
tained his position through Gregory's life, and 
died in 606 or 607 (Paulus Diac. iv. 43), after 
an episcopate of 21 years and a month. He 
bequeathed all his property to his cathedral 
at Grado (Chr. Patr. Grad. in Seript. Rer. 


Lang. 394). [».0.]} 
Sidonius (2) Apollinaris, St. His grand- 
father Apollinaris had been praecfectus prac- 
torio of Gaul under the rival emperor Con- 
stantine, A.p. 408 (Zos. vi. 4; Olympiodorus, 
Phot. Bibl. Ρ. 57, ed. Bekker), and was the 
first of the family to become a Christian. An 


epitaph written by his grandson for his tomb 
o7 


898 SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS 


near Lyons speaks of him in the highest terms, 
especially on this account. His great-grand- 
father held a high official situation (Sid. Ep. 
iii. 12, i. 3); his father was a tribune and a 
notary or secretary under Honorius, and under 
Valentinian III. became praefectus praetorio of 
Aquitania I. a.p. 449 (ib. iii. 1, v. 9, viii. 6). 
First Period, 431-471.—Sidonius was born 
Nov. 5, 431 or 432, probably at Lyons (Carm. 
xx. 1). He was apparently educated at that 
then famous seat of education, in the same 
school as his cousin Avitus. Soon after he 
Was 20 years old he married Papianilla, only 
daughter of Flavius Eparchius Avitus, a 
native of Auvergne, who was praefectus prae- 
torio at Arles from 439 to 443. Avitus, a 
soldier, diplomatist and lover of nature and 
literature, retired after 451 to his own house 
and patrimonial estate at Avitacum, near the 
modern Clermont (7b. vii. 230, 316, 339, 460, 
etc.). Avitus had two sons, Ecdicius and 
Agricola, with whom, after his marriage, 
Sidonius lived on most friendly and affection- 
ate terms. He had ason Apollinaris and two 
daughters, Roscia and Severiana. A letter is 
extant, addressed to Apollinaris when almost 
16 years old, commending his blameless 
behaviour, and warning him against the bad 
example and vicious society of some profli- 
gates at Lyons, where he was studying (Ep. 
111. 13). There is also a letter to Agricola, 
mingling tender feeling with quiet humour, 
excusing himself from joining a fishing excur- 
sion as his daughter Severiana was alarmingly 
ill, on whose behalf, aswell as his own, he begs 
Agricola’s prayers. He expresses his firm 
trust in Christ as his best support (Ep. ii. 12). 
On the death of Maximus, Avitus was pro- 
claimed emperor at Toulouse and at Beau- 
caire, A.D. 455, and was followed to Rome by 
his son-in-law, who pronounced on him a 
panegyric poem of 602 hexameter lines on 
Jan. 1, 456 (Carm. vii. 369-404, 510-572), and 
as a reward received the honour of a brazen 
statue in the basilica of Trajan, in a space 
between the two libraries. The reign of 
Avitus ended in 456. Majorian, who became 
emperor, crossed the Alps, defeated the 
Burgundian invaders, captured Lyons, impos- 
ing hard conditions and heavy taxes on the 
citizens, which he was induced to remit (Mar. 
459) by a florid panegyric in 603 hexameters 
pronounced by Sidonius and some elegiac 
verses addressed to him and to his principal 
secretary Peter, a man ambitious of literary 
renown, whom Sidonius calls his Maecenas. 
Sidonius obtained also, perhaps somewhat 
later, the office of count of the Palace (Ep. i. 
τι; Carm. ili. iv. v. xiii.). In 460, when the 
emperor was holding his court at Arles, and 
had gathered round him the most eminent 
literary men of Gaul, Domnulus, Lampridius, 
and Severianus, Sidonius distinguished him- 
self by an improvised poem in praise of a book 
by secretary Peter. From 461 to 465 Sido- 
nius appears to have lived in retirement from 
public business, but fulfilling his part as a 
great landed proprietor at Avitacum of a 
possession into which he came in right of his 
wife on the death of Avitus, and which he 
describes enthusiastically, in a letter written 
in the style of Pliny to his friend Domitius. 
His description of the house and grounds is 


SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS 


very pleasing and picturesque, its trees and 
underwood, its lake, fountains, and cascade. 

Several letters to friends belong to this 
period, especially one to Eriphius, a citizen 
of Lyons, perhaps a.D. 461, describing a 
church gathering in commemoration of St. 
Justus at Lyons on Sept. 2, the procession 
before daybreak, the large congregation of 
both sexes, the psalms sung antiphonally by 
monks and clerks, the Eucharistic celebration, 
the great heat caused by the crowd and the 
number of lights, cooled after a time by the 
autumnal morning. 

When Anthemius became emperor, A.D. 
467, he sent for Sidonius to Rome, on business 
which the people of Auvergne deputed him to 
manage on their behalf. Under the favour of 
Christ, as he says, he undertook the mission, 
his expenses being provided by the imperial 
treasury. At Rome he stayed at the house 
of Paulus, a man of prefectorian rank, possess- 
ing literary and scientific ability, who per- 
suaded him, as likely to promote his own 
interests, to celebrate the inauguration of 
Anthemius the new consul by a poem. The 
result was a panegyric in 548 hexameters. 
This was rewarded by the high office of prefect 
of the senate and of the city of Rome, of which 
he writes in a tone of gratified ambition to 
Philimatius. Heremained at Rome until 469, 
and then retired to Gaul, residing partly at 
Lyons and partly at Avitacum. Towards the 
end of that year or the beginning of 470, the 
province of Lugdunensis I. was surrendered 
by Anthemius to the Burgundians as the price 
of their assistance against the Visigoths 
(Tillem. Emp. vi. p. 357). These barbarians 
Sidonius describes as less ferocious than other 
German races, but complains of their perverse 
ways, revolting and odious to those over 
whom they domineered. Of their ruler 
(tetrarches) Chilperic II., and his wife Agrip- 
pina, he speaks more favourably (Ep. v. 7; 
Carm. xii.). About this time a new church 
was erected at Lyons through the exertions 
of bp. Patiens, for whom Sidonius had the 
most affectionate reverence. He was present 
at the dedication, which he describes in hen- 
decasyllables (Ep. ii. 10). At the request of 
bp. Perpetuus he wrote an elegiac inscription 
for the church of St. Martin at Tours, which 
Perpetuus had enlarged (Ep. iv. 18). 

Second Period, 471-475.—Threatened by 
invasion and surrounded by enemies political 
and religious (for Euric, the Visigothic king, 
whose capital was Toulouse, was a zealous 
supporter of Arian doctrine and persecuted 
the Catholics with great severity), the people of 
Clermont, when their bishop, Eparchius, died, 
A.D. 471, united in a clamorous demand that 
Sidonius should succeed him. He was not in 
holy orders, but had shewn himself without 
ostentation a devout Christian, though a 
somewhat flexible and elastic politician. His 
ability was beyond question; as a man of 
letters he stood in the foremost rank ; he held 
a high place, probably the highest, among the 
landed proprietors of his province, whose 
interests he was firm and patriotic in uphold- 
ing, and had taken an active part more than 
once on behalf of its inhabitants, in which also 
he had been ably and zealously supported by 
his friends, of whom, both in military and civil 


SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS 


affairs, Ecdicius, his wife's brother, held the | 
chief place in the district (Greg. Tur. ii. 21). 
Fully aware of his own deficiencies, he accepted 
the office unwillingly, begging his friends, 
among them Fonteius bp. of Vaison, Euphro- 
nius bp. of Autun, Leontius bp. of Arles, and 
Lupus bp. of Troyes, who wrote to congratu- 
late him on his appointment, to pray for him 
(Epp. v. 3; vi. 1, 3, 7; vii. 8,9; ἰχ. 2). From 
this time he gave up writing verses of a light 
kind, as ill-suited to his time of life and the 
gravity of his office (Ep. ix. 12). But at his 
friends’ requests he criticized compositions and 
wrote hymns in honour of martyrs. With his 
wife Papianilla, though there is no doubt of 
his undiminished affection for her, he prob- 
ably, as is assumed by Sirmond, Tillemont, 
and others, lived on terms not of connubial 
but of fraternal intimacy ; no evidence of this 
appears from his own writings. That they 
continued to live together is plain from the 
story told by Gregory of Tours, that she found 
fault with him for parting with his plate to 
give to the poor (Greg. Tur. ii. 22). He be- 
came a diligent student of Scripture, though 
disclaiming earnestly any ability as a commen- 
tator, and also of ecclesiastical writers, as 
Augustine, Jerome, Origen, etc. (Epp. viii. 
4 323x: 2): 

From 471 until 474, when Auvergne was 
first attacked formally by the Visigoth, it is 
not easy to fix accurately all the dates of 
events or of letters. 

After he came to the throne of Toulouse in 
466 Euric lost no opportunity of increasing 
his dominions by aggression upon the Roman. 
During 473, or early in 474, the province of 
Berry fell to him, and he took advantage of 
the weakness of the Roman empire after the 
death of Anthemius to extend his dominion 
towards the Rhone and the Loire; Auvergne 
being now the only province remaining to the 
Romans W. of the Rhone and in constant 
danger of invasion. No formal attack, how- 
ever, took place until the autumn of 474. At 
some time in 474, as it seems, Avitus, brother- 
in-law of Sidonius, endowed the see of Cler- 
mont with a farm called Cuticiacum (Cunhiae), 
not far from the city, and in the letter men- 
tioning this Sidonius speaks also of the 
threatened invasion and of his confidence in 
Avitus in case of negotiation (Ep. iii. 1). 
Meanwhile, as the autumn advanced, the 
Visigoths entered the territory of Auvergne, 
and communication with distant places 
became more difficult. In preparations to | 
resist the enemy Sidonius acted as a leader of | 
the people, and was greatly assisted by his 
brother-in-law Ecdicius, who with a handful of 
cavalry attacked and defeated a large force 
ofthe enemy. They retired at the endof 474 or 
beginning of 475, but not so completely as 
to remove the apprehension of future attack 
or the necessity for watch to be kept on the 
walls during the snowy days and dark nights | 
of winter (Ep. iii. 7). A brief truce with the | 
Visigothic king appears to have been arranged 
early in 475, perhaps through the agency | 
of Epiphanius, bp. of Pavia. During this | 
temporary cessation of hostilities a report | 
became current that Euric had invaded the | 
Roman territory of Auvergne, and Sidonius— 
summoned his people to join in acts of fasting | 


SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS 890 


and prayer conducted like the Rogations 
instituted, or rather revived and reorganized 
some years previously by Mamertus, bp. of 
Vienne, and of which, in a letter to him, he 
recounts the history. He also be the 
prayers of the bishop and his flock for the 
people of Auvergne, and as a claim upon their 
attention mentions the transfer to Vienne at 
some previous time of the remains of Ferreolus 
and the head of Julian, both of them martyrs 
and natives of Auvergne. He also wrote to 
his friend Aper, entreating him as a citizen of 
Clermont to leave his warm baths at Aquae 
Calidae and come to Clermont to take part in 
the solemn service (Epp. v. 14; vii. 1; Greg. 
Tur. Hist. Fr. ii. 1, de Mirac.ii. 1, 2; “Roga- 
tion Days,"’ Ὁ. C. A. vol. ii. p. 1809; Baron. 
ann. 475, xii.-xxi.; Tillem. vol. xvi. pp. 247, 
248). No actual invasion of Auvergne ap- 
pears to have occurred, and negotiations, fa 
which bps. Basilius of Aix, Faustus of Riez, 
Graecus of Marseilles, and Leontius of Arles, 
were among the acting counsellors, ultimately 
resulted in the surrender of Auvergne to the 
Visigoths. It was probably during these 
negotiations that Euric, a zealous partisan of 
the Arian heresy, whose hostility in this 
direction, Sidonius says, he feared more than 
his attacks on Roman fortifications, deprived 
of their sees, and in many cases put to death 
or banished, many bishops in the regions 
subject to him, allowing no successors to be 
appointed. Churches were overthrown, their 
sites overrun by animals, Christian discipline 
destroyed; and writing to Basilius, Sidonius 
implores him, as in touch with the political 
negotiators, to obtain permission for the 
exercise of episcopal ordination (Ep. vii. 6). 
The surrender of Auvergne, marking as it 
did the utter prostration of Roman influence, 
was a heavy blow to Sidonius, and he wrote 
to Graecus, bp. of Marseilles, recounting the 
unswerving loyalty of the Auvergnians and 
their sufferings een the siege, and inveigh- 
ing bitterly against the selfish policy which, 
to secure for a time only the districts in which 
the negotiators were interested, had handed 
over the faithful province of Auvergne for 
punishment to the enemy. The remonstrance 
was fruitless, and Auvergne passed to the 
Visigoth. It was placed under a governor 
named Victorius, with the title of Count, who 


| appears at first to have behaved with real or 


affected moderation (Greg. Tur. Hest. Fr. il. 
20; Sid. Ep. vii. 17; Chaix, ii. 290). 

Third Period, a.v. 475-489.—Sidonius was 
soon banished for a time to a fort named Livia, 
probably Capendu, about ten miles from 
Carcassonne on the road to Narbonne (Epp. 
viii. 3; ix. 3; Vaissette, Hust. de Languedoc, 
V. vol. i. p. 501). Some of the inconveniences 
he suffered there are described in his letters 
to Faustus, bp. of Riez, and to a friend, Leo, 
a native of Narbonne and of Roman origin, 
but filling a high office under Euric. They 
consisted chiefly in the annoyance caused by 
his neighbours, two quarrelsome drunken old 
Gothic women (Ep. viii. 3). Through Leo's 
influence he soon obtained release from con- 
finement, but his return to Clermont was 
delayed by an enforced sojourn at Bordeaux, 
whither he went to seek from Euric authority 
for recovering the inheritance belonging to 


900 SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS 


him in right of his mother-in-law. Two 
months passed before Euric would grant him 
an interview, nor do we know its result. 

In no letter does he speak of opposition or 
personal ill-treatment, and the tone of his 
later letters is cheerful, and he appears from 
the last of them to have met with no hindrance 
in his episcopal duties except from weather. 
Gregory of Tours relates that, in the later 
years of his life, he was much annoyed by two 
priests, probably of Arian opinions, whose 
names he does not mention, but said by 
Chaix, though without citing any authority, 
to have been Honorius and Hermanchius. 
These men, Gregory says, succeeded in pre- 
venting him exercising his episcopal functions 
and even in reducing him to extreme poverty ; 
but after the death of Honorius he was restored 
to his office, and being attacked by fever, 
desired to be carried into the church of St. 
Mary, and there, after speaking words of love 
to his people, and pointing out Aprunculus, 
bp. of Langres, as fit to be his successor, he 
died, though not, apparently, in the church, 
Aug. 489. He was buried in the chapel of 
St. Saturninus, in the centre of Clermont, 
beside his predecessor Eparchius, and an 
epitaph in hendecasyllabic verse by an un- 
known author was placed near his tomb with 
the date, ‘‘ x11. Kal. Sept. Zenone imperatore.”’ 
This has disappeared, but a copy is preserved 
in a MS. of the abbey of Cluny. 

A gentleman of easy fortune living in the 
country, Sidonius entered eagerly into its 
employments and active amusements, but was 
also keenly sensible of the more refined and 
tranquil pleasures derived from natural 
objects. He exerted without scruple a lordly 
influence over his own dependants in the 
province, sometimes in a high-handed and 
peremptory manner, but usually with kindness 
and consideration. Affectionate and con- 
stant to his friends, he loved to give and 
receive hospitality, and some of his most 
agreeable letters describe such social gather- 
ings. His eulogies were poured forth without 
stint or discrimination, alike on Avitus, 
Majorian, and Anthemius, and even Nepos 


did not fail to obtain a small share. He has 
compliments at fitting seasons, direct or 
indirect, for Euric and his wife. A _ poet 


laureate by nature, he must be regarded as a 
pliant politician, but he never forgot his duty 
as a patriotic citizen. Faithful to his country- 
men, whether by birth as of Lyons, or of 
adoption as in Auvergne, he never failed to 
plead their cause, uphold their interests, 
denounce their oppressors, and stand by them 
against injustice or hostile invasion, nor need 
we wonder that his memory should be revered 
by them as that of asaint. Invested against 
his will, and without previous preparation, 
with the episcopate, he laboured hard to repair 
the deficiencies of which he was conscious. 
He shrank from no duty, personal trouble, or 
responsibility, and in times of extreme diffi- 
culty shewed courage, prudence, and discre- 
tion. His character and abilities commanded 
the respect and cordial affection of the best 
men of his time, as Basilius, Felix, Graecus, 
Lupus, Patiens, Principius, Remigius, as well 
as Leo and Arbogastes, and many others ; and 
though he did not shrink from remonstrating 


SIGEBERT I. 


gravely and even bitterly with some of them, 
especially Graecus, he does not appear to have 
forfeited their esteem and affection. A man 
of kindly disposition, he treated his slaves with 
kindness and took pains to induce others to 
do likewise. He was friendly to Jews, em- 
ployed them, and recommended them to the 
good offices of his friends. 

Literary Character.—Though he shewed him- 
self a sincere and devout Christian, both before 
and after he became bishop, it is as a man of 
letters that he will always be best known, for, 
as it has been observed, his writings are the 
best-furnished storehouse we possess of infor- 
mation as to the domestic life, the manners and 
habits of public men, and in some points the 
public events of his period. Gifted with a 
fatal facility of composition, his longer poems 
are remarkable more for adroit handling of 
unpoetical material than for poetry in its true 
sense, and deserve to a great extent the con- 
temptuous judgment of Gibbon. Yet some 
of the shorter compositions, especially those 
in hendecasyllabic metre, are more successful, 
and touch scenes and characters with a light 
and discerning hand. His letters, though 
often turgid and pedantic, defaced by an 
artificial phraseology and abounding in 
passages of great obscurity, often describe 
persons, objects, and transactions in a very 
lively and picturesque manner. 

The ed. of his works by M. Eugéne Baret 
(Paris, 1879) has an extremely valuable intro- 
duction, containing remarks on the times and 
state of society, and lists of grammatical 
forms, words, and phrases used by Sidonius, 
illustrating the transition state of the Latin 
language, and some peculiar to himself; also 
an attempt to settle the chronology of the 
letters, a task of great difficulty. The best ed. 
is by Liitjohann, in Monum. Germ. Hist. Auct. 
Antiquiss.( Berlin, 1887), viii., and a smaller ed. 
is by P. Mohr (Leipz. 1895). [H.W.P.] 

Sigebert (1) I., king of the Austrasian 
Franks (561-575), son of Clotaire I. by In- 
gundis (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. iv. 1). Scarcely 
had the four brothers buried their father 
at Soissons when Chilperic the youngest 
began the civil wars which desolated France. 
Seizing the royal treasure at Braine, near 
Soissons, and purchasing the support of the 
Franks, he occupied Paris. His three half- 
brothers leagued together and compelled him 
to make a fair division. To Sigebert fell the 
kingdom which had belonged to Theodoric L., 
i.e. the country occupied by the Ripuarian 
Franks and a part of Champagne, with Rheims 
for his capital, which division was now begin- 
ning to be known as Austrasia (Greg. Tur. iv. 
21, 22; Hist. Epitom. lv.; Marius Aventic. 
ann. 560). To Sigebert fell also, on the death 
of Charibert I., as far as can be gathered from 
later events (see Greg. Tur. ix. 20), athird share 
of the city of Paris, the coast of Provence with 
Avignon, the former possessions of Theodoric I., 
in Aquitaine, the N. part of Brie, Beauce, 
Touraine, and Poitou (Richter, Annalen, 68 ; 
Bonnell, Anfange des Karolingischen Hauses, 
Beilage, pp. 206sqq.; Fauriel, Hist. de la Gaule 
Mérid. il. 175-177). About this time he mar- 
ried the famous Brunichild (Brunehaut), a 
daughter of Athanagild, the Visigothic king 
in Spain she having first renounced Arianism 


SIGISMUNDUS 


for orthodoxy (Greg. Tur. iv. 27; Venant. 
Fort. vi. 2, 3, Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixxxviii. 204- 
209. For the character and accomplishments 
of this queen, who in later life became almost 
supreme in France, see also Fauriel, ii. 166sqq.). 


miserable civil wars between the brothers, in 
which Chilperic strove to capture parts of Sige- 
bert’s dominion; Tours and Poictiers, with their 
respective districts, being his principal object 
of attack. Two years running (A.D. 574-575) 
his armies overran those districts (Greg. Tur. 
iv. 46, 48). On the second occasion Gregory, 
after depicting the churches burnt and 
plundered, clergy killed, monasteries in ruins, 
and nuns outraged, uses these memorable 


words: ‘“‘fuitque illo in tempore pejor in 
ecclesiis gemitus quam tempore persecutionis 
Diocletiani” (iv. 48. See too his outburst 


of indignation in c. 49). Sigebert recruited 
his forces with pagan Germans from beyond 
the Rhine (iv. 50, 51), and finally in 575, with 
the assistance of Guntram, carried his arms 
to Paris and Rouen, and while Chilperic was 
shut up in Tournay, was raised by his subjects 
on the shield and declared king in his place. 
At that very moment, however, he was struck 


down by assassins, probably emissaries of | 
Fredegund (Greg. Tur. iv. 52; Marius Avent. | 


Chronicon.; Venant. Fort. Miscell. ix. 2, 
Migne, #.s. 298 544.) He left a son of five 
years, Childebert 11. 


Sigebert was much the best of the sons of | 


Clotaire. In happier circumstances he might 
have been a humane and enlightened king, 
but his misfortune was to reign at perhaps the 
darkest period of French history. His clem- 
ency towards Chilperic’s son Theodebert, who 
had invaded his territory (Greg. Tur. iv. 23), 
his motives in seeking Brunichild’s hand in 
marriage, as described by Gregory (iv. 27), and 
his intrepid attempts to restrain his barbarian 


trans-Rhenish allies from plundering (iv. 30), | 
throw light upon his character. He was true | 
to the orthodoxy of his race (iv. 27), and | He was decapitated, according to the Roman 
recalled St. Nicetius of Tréves from exile and | martyrology, on May 4, 308. Theoph. p. 9; 


appointed Gregory to Tours. [5...8.] 


igismundus, St., 


influence of Avitus, the orthodox archbp. of 


Vienne, who succeeded in winning him, with | 


two of his children, from the Arianism of his 
nation and family (Avitus, Epp. 27, 29, 
Migne, Patr. Lat. lix. 243, 246; Agobardus, 


adv. Leg. Gund. xiii. Patr. Lat. civ. 124), and | 


sought to lead his inclinations towards the 
Roman empire (see Mascou, Annotation ii., 
where the passages are collected, and Fauriel, 
Hist. de la Gaule Mérid. ii. 100). He married 
Ostrogotha, the daughter of Theodoric the 
Ostrogothic king of Italy (Jornandes in 
Bouquet, ii. 28). While his father was still 


| Le 
martyr, 5th king of the | 
Burgundians (516-524), brought up under the | 


SILVANUS 01 


be the present Iene on the Rhone ; “ Epaon,” 
D. C. A. 4 Hist. litt. iii. 9). Uf the extent of 
his dominion may be inferred from the sees 


(of the bishops present, Burgundy then in- 


| cluded, besides the lat ᾿ 
The remainder of the reign was taken up with | aa Gaver, the cli tad hee 


Dauphiny and Savoy, the city and dominion 
of Lyons and the Valais, besides a part of the 
present Switzerland (Mascou, xi. ro, 11). In 
§23 Clodomir, Clotaire, and Childebert, three 
of the four sons of Clovis, stirred up by their 
mother the widowed Clotilda, invaded Bur- 
undy. Sigismund was defeated and fled to 
St. Maurice, where he was betrayed by his 


| own subjects to Clodomir and carried prisoner 


| their leaning towards the Franks (see 


in the garb of a monk to Orleans. Shortly 
afterwards, with his wife and two children, 
he was murdered at the neighbouring village 
of Coulmiers, by being cast alive, as was said, 
into a well (Marius, ἐδ. ; Greg. Tur. iii. 6). 
His brother, Godemar, succeeded him as 6th 
and last king of the Burgundians. 

Sigismund was well-intentioned but weak. 
He apparently yielded too much to the influ- 
ence of Roman ideas and habits for the king 
of a barbarian people, neighboured on one side 
by the powerful Ostrogothic monarchy and 
on others by the fiercely aggressive Franks. 
His partisanship for the orthodox faith, while 
it harmed him with his subjects, was not 
thorough-going enough to win the = from 

auriel, 
ii. roo sqq.)- [s.A.B.] 

Silvania. [Sytvta.] 

Silvanus (2), bp. of Gaza, a martyr in the 
persecution of Maximin, c. 305. He was a 
presbyter at its outbreak, and from the very 
beginning he endured many varied sufferings 
with the greatest fortitude. Not long before 
his martyrdom, which was one of the last in 
Palestine, he obtained the episcopate. Euse- 
bius speaks with high admiration of his Chris- 
tian endurance, saying that he was “ reserved 
to the last to set the seal, as it were, to the 
conflict in Palestine” (Eus. H. E. viii. 7, 13). 


uien, Or. Christ. iii. 605. {e.v.] 
Silvanus (3), bp. of Emesa. In extreme old 
age, after 40 years’ episcopate, he was thrown 
to the wild beasts in Diocletian's persecution. 
Eus. H. E. viii. 13: ix. 6; Theophan. p. 9; 
Le ani Or. Christ. ii. 837. {e.¥.] 
Silvanus (4), bp. of Cirta, subdeacon under 
Paulus, bp. of that see during the persecution 
under Diocletian, and, as well as he, guilty of 
‘*tradition.”’ These facts were elicited at the 


|inquiry under Zenophilus, A.D. 320, at which 


it was proved, by ample evidence, that Sil- 
vanus was guilty of this charge, and also that 
with others he had appropriated plate and 


‘ornaments from the heathen temple of Sera- 


living, Sigismund was invested with regal 


dignity and held his court at Geneva (Avit. 
Epp. 29, 30; Greg. Tur. Epttom. xxxiv.). I 
515 he founded or (Hist. litt. de la France, iii. 


In | 


89, 91) refounded the monastery of St. Maurice | 


at Agaunum, where tradition placed the 
martyrdom of the Legio Thebaea (Marius 
Avent. Chronicon, Patr. Lat. \xxii. 796). In 
516 he succeeded his father (Marius, 1b.), and 
in 517 convened a council, under the pre- 
sidency of Avitus, at Epaunum (supposed to 


pis; and after he became a bishop received as 
a bribe for ordaining Victor, a fuller, to be a 
presbyter, money which ought to have been 
given to the poor. After the inquiry he was 
banished for refusing to communicate with 
Ursacius and Zenophilus, at the time of the 
mission of Macarius, a.p. 345. Aug, Petil.t. 25, 
iii. 69, 70 ; de Gest. Emer. 5; ¢. Cres. iil. 32, 
3, 34, iv. 66; de Unico Bapt. yo. 31; Aug. 
ep. 53. 4; Mon. Vet. δι γον, 178, 180, 182, ed. 
Oberthiir; pp. 167-171, ed. Dupin. [".w.r.] 
Silvanus (6), bp. of Tarsus and metropolitan, 


902 SILVANUS 


one of the most excellent of those semi-Arians 
whom Athanasius described as ‘‘ brothers who 
mean what we mean, and differ only about 
the terms’’ (Ath. de Synod. 41). He suc- 
ceeded Antonius in the reign of Constantius. 
He was one of the 22 Oriental bishops who, at 
the council of Sirmium, in 351, joined in the 
deposition of Photinus (Hilar. Synod, p. 
129; fragm.i. p. 48). On the deposition and 
banishment of Cyril from Jerusalem, early in 
358, Silvanus received him hospitably at 
Tarsus, despite the remonstrances of Acacius 
(Theod. H. E. 11. 22). That year he took part 
in the semi-Arian council of Ancyra (Labbe, 
ii. 790), and in 359 in that of Seleucia, at 
which he vociferously advocated (μέγα avéxpaye) 
the acceptance of the Lucianic dedication 
creed of Antioch (Socr. H. E. ii. 39), the mere 
mention of which made the Acacian party 
leave the place of assembly as a protest. 
Silvanus was among the semi-Arian leaders 
who, first of the rival church parties, memori- 
alized Julian on his arrival at Antioch after 
becoming emperor, requesting him to expel 
the Anomoeans and call a general council to 
restore peace to the church, and declaring 
their acceptance of the Nicene faith (Socr. 
H. E. iii. 25). In 366 he was, with Eustathius 
of Sebaste and Theophilus of Castabala, a 
deputy to Liberius. He returned with the 
letters of communion of Liberius and the 
Roman synod (Basil. Ep. 67 [50]). His death 
is placed by Tillemont in 373 (Mém. eccl. t. vi. 
p- 592; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 872). [E.v-] 
Silvanus (12), solitary of Sinai, a native of 
Palestine. ‘‘ He founded at Geraris near the 
great torrent a very extensive establishment 
for holy men, over which the excellent 
Zachariah subsequently presided ”’ (Soz. H. E. 
vi. 32). He trained his followers to industrial 
pursuits. A wandering ascetic seeing all the 
brethren working very diligently said to them, 
““Labour not for the meat which perisheth ; 
Mary chose the better part.’ Silvanus over- 
hearing this said, ‘‘ Give a book to the brother 
and lead him to an empty cell.”” When the 
ninth hour came, no one came to call the 
stranger toeat. At last, wearied and hungry, 
he sought Silvanus, and said, ‘‘ Father, the 
brethren have not eaten to-day.’’ ‘‘ Oh yes,” 
replied the abbat, ‘‘ they have eaten.’ ‘*‘ And 
why,” said the other, ‘‘did you not send 
for me?” ‘‘ Because,’”’ responded Silvanus, 
“thou art a spiritual man, and dost not re- 
quire food; but we are carnal and wish to eat, 
and therefore are compelled to work. Thou, 
however, hast chosen the better part and con- 
tinuest in study the whole day, nor art willing 
to consume carnal food.’’ The stranger con- 
fessed his fault and was forgiven, Silvanus 
playfully saying, ‘‘Martha is evidently 
necessary to Mary.’ Cotelerius tells stories 
of his prolonged trances. On one occasion 
he awoke very sad because he had been in the 
eternal world and seen many monks going to 
hell and many secular persons to heaven 
(Monument, t. 1. p. 679). [G.T.s.] 
Silvanus (14), first known bp. of Calahorra. 
We know of him from 2 letters of Ascanius, 
bp. of Tarragona, and the bishops of his pro- 
vince to pope Hilary, and Hilary’s reply dated 
Dec. 30, 465 (in Migne, Patr. Lat. lviii. 14). 
The first letter shows that Silvanus had, 7 or 


SILVERIUS 


8 years before, consecrated a bishop without 
any request from the places comprised in his 
see or the approval of Ascanius. The other 
bishops of the province were satisfied with ad- 
monishing him, and received the new bishop ; 
but the see in question being again vacant 
Silvanus had lately repeated the act, with the 
aggravation that the priest consecrated be- 
longed to the diocese of another bishop, and 
the other bishop at the instance of the bishops 
of Saragossa having refused to join, Silvanus 
had performed the consecration alone. In the 
second letter the bishops express their surprise 
at the pope’s delay in answering. His reply 
was temarkablv favourable, in consequence 
probably of letters from people of rank and 
property at Calahorra, Tarazona, and neigh- 
bouring towns, which alleged in excuse for 
Silvanus that his were not the only irregulari- 
ties, bishops having been consecrated for other 
cities without the previous approval of the 
metropolitan. The pope in consideration of 
the troubled times granted an amnesty for 
the past, while enjoining strict observance of 
the canons for the future. As the first letter 
was written some time before Hilary’s reply, 
Silvanus probably became bp. c. 455. Esp. 
Sag. xxxill. 128; Gams, Kirchg. von Sp. ii. 
(1) 430. [F.D.] 

Silverius, bp. of Rome during the reign of 
Justinian I. Agapetus having died at Con- 
stantinople when about to return to Italy (on 
April 22, according to Anastasius) in 536, 
Liberatus tells us (Breviar.) that on the news 
of his death reaching Rome, Silverius, a sub- 
deacon and son of pope Hormisdas, was 
elected and ordained, doubtless in the same 
year. According to Anastasius (Lib. Ponttf. 
im Vit. Silverit) the election of Silverius was 
forced upon the Romans by the Gothic 
king Theodatus, who then held the city, 
the presbyters assenting for the sake of 
unity. Silverius did not long enjoy his 
dignity. Belisarius, having got possession 
of Naples, entered Rome in the name of 
Justinian on Dec. 10, 536. Vitiges, the 
successor of Theodatus, commenced a siege 
of Rome, now in the possession of Belisarius, 
in Mar. 537. Belisarius, after entering 
Rome, is said in the Hist. Miscell (lib. 16 in 
Muratori, t. i. pp. 106, 107) to have been 
reproved and subjected to penance by Sil- 
verius for cruel treatment of the Neapolitans; 
whereas the contemporary historian Pro- 
copius (Bell. Goth. lib. i.) commends the 
peculiar humanity of Belisarius after the 
capture of Naples. 

Vigilius, one of the deacons of Agapetus at 
Constantinople, had, on that pope’s death 
there, been sent for by the empress Theodora 
and promised the popedom through the 
agency of Belisarius on condition of his dis- 
allowing, after his elevation, the council of 
Chalcedon, and supporting the Monophysites 
whom she favoured. Vigilius, on his arrival 
in Italy, found Belisarius at Naples, to whom 
he communicated the commands of Theodora 
(Liberatus, Breviar.). Belisarius having gained 
possession of Rome, Vigilius followed him 
there and measures were taken to carry out 
the wishes of the empress. Accusations were 
laid against Silverius of having been in com- 
munication with the Goths who were besieging 


SILVESTER 


Rome, and having written to Vitiges offeri 
to betray the city. Summoned mori Beli: 
sarius, with whom was his wife Antonina, who 
was the spokeswoman and real agent in these 
pr t gS, he was charged with the crime, 
and banished to Patara and then to Greece. 
The emperor, on hearing the facts, asserted 
himself, ordering his recall to Rome and 
investigation to be made. But the empress 
succeeded somehow in keeping her husband 
ulet. For, on the arrival of Silverius at 
ome (as we are informed by Liberatus), 
Vigilius represented to Belisarius that he 
could not do what was required of him unless 
the deposed pope were delivered into his 
hands. He was thereupon given up to two 
dependants of Vigilius, under whose custody 
he was sent to Palmaria in the Tyrrhene sea 
(or Pontia, according to Martyrol. Rom. and 


Anastasius), where he died from famine, 
according to Liberatus and Anastasius. 
Procopius (Hist. Arcan.) speaks of one 


Eugenius, a servant of Antonina, as having | 


been her instrument in bringing about his 
death, the expression used seeming to imply 
ἃ death by violence. Allemann (note on 
Hist. Arcan.) argues that the account of Pro- 
copius, who was living at Rome at the time 
and likely to know the facts, is preferable ; 
and attributes the implication of Vigilius to 
prejudice on the part of Liberatus. 

Silverius died June 20 (xii. Kal. Jul. al. Jun. 
Anastas.), most probably A.D. 538, his depo- 
sition certainly occurring in 537. [J-B—yY-]| 

Silvester (1), bp. of Rome after Miltiades, 
Jan. 31, 314, to Dec. 31, 335- Though his 
time was important in church history, we 
have few genuine records of any personal 
action of his, but a great store of legend. 

In his first year of episcopate Constantine 
the Great summoned the first council of Arles 
to reconsider the decision against the African 
Donatists of the synod held at Rome by his 
order in 313 under pope Miltiades. At the 
council of Arles Silvester was represented by 
two presbyters, Claudianus and Vitus, and 
two deacons, Eugenius and Cyriacus, whose 
names appear in his behalf fifth among the 
signatures. Whoever presided, the general 
conduct of the council seems to have been 
committed by the emperor to Chrestus, bp. 
of Syracuse (see a letter to him from Constan- 
tine preserved by Eusebius, E. x. 5). 
Certainly Silvester did not preside, nor did 
any representative in his place. Constantine, 
in making arrangements for the council, evi- 
dently takes no account of him, not even 
mentioning him in writing to Chrestus. 

There is indeed a letter of the bishops of 
the Arles council to Silvester. It opens: 
“Τὸ the most beloved pope Silvester,” and 
concludes in reference to the decrees: ‘* We 


have thought it fit also that they should be | 
all through you, who | 
The phrase, ‘ qui | 


especially made known (to 
hold the greater dioceses.” 
majores dioceses tenes,”’ with the consequent 
desire expressed that the pope should promul- 
gate the decrees, has been used in proof of the 
pope’s then acknowledged patriarchal juris- 
diction over the great dioceses (i-¢. exarch- 
ates) of the western empire. For the word 
διοίκησις denoted the jurisdiction of a patri- 
arch, larger than that of metropolitans, the 


SILVESTER 903 
word for a diocese in the modern sense being 
παροικία. But it is highly im- 


eo tee 

probable that diocese was used eccclesiastic- 
ally in this sense so carly as 314. Hence 
Bingham contended (Ané. ix. i. 12, and ti. 2) 
that if the passage, ‘' by all acknowledged to 
be a very corrupt one," be accepted, διοίκησιν 
must be taken in the sense then generally 
expressed by wapoxia; and he adduces in- 
| stances of its use in this sense in canons of 
Carthaginian councils. But probably the 
whole epistle (note its general anachronism of 
tone) is a forgery intended to magnify the 
Roman see. 

_ To the more memorable council of Nicaea 
in 325 Silvester was invited, but excusing 
himself on account of age, sent two presbyters, 
Vitus and Vincentius, as his representatives 
(Eus. V. C. iii. 7; Soer. H. E. i. 14; Sozs. 
H.E.i.17; Theod. H. £.i.6). The view that 
they presided in his name, or that (as Baronius 
maintains) Hosius of Cordova did so, is with- 
out foundation. In the subscriptions to the 
decrees Hosius signs first, but simply as bp. 
of Cordova, not as in any way representin 
Rome; after which come those of Vitus —, 
Vincentius, who sign “pro venerabili viro 
papa et episcopo nostro, sancto Sylvestro, ita 
credentes sicut scriptum est.’ The earliest 
and indeed only authority for Hosius having 
presided in the pope's name is that of Gelasius 
of Cyzicus (end of 5th cent.), who says only 
that Hosius from Spain, ‘* qui Silvestri epis- 
copi maximae Romae locum obtinebat,” 
together with the Roman presbyters Bito and 
Vincentius, was present (Gelas. Hust. Conesl. 
Nic. 1. ii. c. 5, in Labbe, vol. ii. p. 162). 
Equally groundless is the allegation first made 
by the 6th oecumenical council (680), that Sil- 
vester in concert with the emperor summoned 
the Nicene fathers. The gradual growth of 
this idea appears in the pontifical annals. 
The catalogue of popes called the Felician 
(A.D. 530) says only that the synod was held 
with his consent (‘‘cum consensu ejus"’); 
some later MSS. improve this phrase into 
**cum praecepto ejus.’"’ It is evident from all 
authentic documents that the synod of Nicaea, 
as that of Arles, was convened by the sole 
authority of the emperor, and that no pecu- 
liarly prominent position was accorded to the 
pope in either case. 

But the most memorable fable about Sil- 
vester is that of the baptism of Constantine 
by him, and the celebrated ‘* Donation.” It 
is, though variously related, mainly as follows : 
The emperor, having before his conversion 
authorized cruel persecution of the Christians, 
was smitten with leprosy by divine judgment. 
He was advised to use a bath of infants’ blood 
for cure. A great multitude of infants was 
accordingly collected for slaughter; but the 
emperor, moved by their cries and those of 
their mothers, desisted from his purpose. 
He was thereupon visited in night visions by 
SS. Peter and Paul, and directed to seek and 
| recall Silvester from his exile in Soracte, who 
| would shew him a pool by immersion in which 
|he would be healed. He recalled the Pope, 
was instructed by him in the faith, cured o 

his leprosy, and baptized. Moved bY grati- 
tude, he made over to the pope and his suc- 
| cessors the temporal dominion of Rome, of the 


904 SILVIA 


greatest part of Italy, and of other provinces, 
thinking it unfit that the place where the 
monarch of the whole church and the vicar of 
Christ resided should be subject to earthly 
sway. (See Lib. Pontif. in Vit. Sylvestri, and 
the Lections in Fest. S. Sylvestri in the Bre- 
viaries of the various uses). The earliest 
known authority for the whole story appears 
to be the Acta Sylvestri (see below). 

The attribution of Constantine’s conversion 
and baptism to Silvester is as legendary as 
the rest. His profession and patronage of 
Christianity were anterior to the time spoken 
of, and he was not actually baptized till long 
afterwards, at the close of his life. There is 
abundant testimony that he did not seek 
baptism, or even imposition of hands as a 
catechumen, till in a suburb of Nicomedia, 
as death drew near, he received both from 
Eusebius, the Arian bishop of that see. (Eus. 
V. C. iv. 61, 62; Theod. i. 32 ; Soz. ii. 34, iv. 
18; Socr. i. 39; Phot. Cod. 127; Ambrose, 
Serm. de obit. Theodos.; Hieron. Chron. an. 
2353; Council of Rimini.) 

The Acta 5. Sylvestri, which seem to have 
furnished the materials for most of the le- 
gends—including the banishment to Soracte, 
the leprosy of Constantine, his lustration by 
Silvester, and his Donation—are mentioned 
and approved as genuine in the Decretum de 
Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis, common- 
ly attributed to pope Gelasius (492-496), but 
probably of a later date. They are quoted 
in the 8th cent. by pope Hadrian in a letter to 
Charlemagne, where the Donation is alluded 
to, and in another to the empress Irene and 
her son Constantine on the occasion of the 2nd 
Nicene council in 787. The original Acts 
have not been preserved. The extant edi- 
tions of them, given in Latin by Surius (Acta 
SS. Dec. p. 368), and in Greek by Combefis 
(Act. p. 258), purport to be only compilations 
from an earlier document. 

Silvester died on Dec. 31, 335, and was 
buried in the cemetery of St. Priscilla. [J.B—y.] 

Silvia. [Gorp1Anus (7).] 

Simeon (1), 2nd bp. of Jerusalem, succeed- 
ing James, the Lord’s brother. According 
to the statement of Hegesippus preserved by 
Eusebius, Simeon was the son of Clopas 
““mentioned in Holy Scripture’’ (John xix. 
25), the brother of Joseph, and therefore, 
legally, the uncle of our Lord, while Simeon 
himself—6 ἐκ τοῦ θείου τοῦ Kupiov—was, leg- 
ally, his cousin, ὄντα ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, and 
of the royal line of David (Eus. H. E. iii. 11, 
32; lv. 22). The language of Hegesippus 
(H. E. iv. 82) evidently distinguishes between 
the relationship of James and Simeon to our 
Lord. Dr. Mill, however, follows Burton 
(Η. E. i. 290) in regarding Simeon as a brother 
of James and also of Jude, though perhaps by 
another mother (Mill, Pantheistic Princtples, 
PP- 234, 253). Such an interpretation of 
Hegesippus’s language is very unnatural and 
at variance with the statement of Epiphanius 
that Simeon was the cousin—dadveyids—of 
James the Just (Epiph. Haer. |xxvii. c. 14, 
pe 1046; cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 262). 

p- Lightfoot regards his age as ‘‘an ex- 
aggeration,”’ and suggests that his being “8 
son of Cleopas mentioned in the Evangelical 
records ’’ requires us to place his death earlier 


SIMEON STYLITES 


than the generally received date. According 
to Hegesippus, Simeon was unanimously 
chosen to fill the vacant see of Jerusalem on 
the violent death of James the Just, the date 
usually assigned for which being 62 or 63 
(see Josephus, Ant. xx. 9. 1). Whether the 
appointment of Simeon immediately succeed- 
ed or was not made till the retirement of 
the Christian Jews to Pella cannot be deter- 
mined. The former seems rather more prob- 
able. His retreat at Pella would save him 
from the inquisition after descendants of the 
royal line of David, made by Vespasian, 
according to Eusebius (H. E. iii. 12), as well 
as the later inquiry instituted by Domitian 
(7b. το, 20). He must have returned with the 
Christians to Jerusalem when allowed to do 
so by the Roman authorities. Of his epis- 
copate we know nothing. He was martyred 
in the reign of Trajan (ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ; Eus. 
H. E. iii. 32), but the exact date is uncertain. 
By a misinterpretation of the Chronicon of 
Eusebius, which seemed to assign his martyr- 
dom with that of Ignatius to the 9th or roth 
year of Trajan, Simeon’s death has been 
assigned to 107 or 108. Bp. Lightfoot has 
shewn good reason for placing it earlier in 
Trajan’s reign (Lightfoot, Ignatius, i. 21, 58- 
60, ii. 442-450). Hegesippus says that in 
his 121st year Simeon was accused before 
Atticus, then proconsul, by certain Jewish 
sectaries, first, that being of the line of David, 
he was a possible claimant of the throne of his 
royal ancestor, and secondly that he was a 
Christian. He was tortured for many days 
in succession, and bore his sufferings with a 
firmness which astonished all the beholders, 
especially Atticus himself, who marvelled at 
such endurance in one so advanced in age. 
Finally he was ordered to be crucified (Eus. 
H. EB. iii: 32): [r.v.] 
Simeon (12) Stylites, a.p. 388-460. Simeon 
was, according to Theodoret, originally an 
enclosed anchorite, and raised his cell to 
avoid the honours paid to him (cf. Reeves on 
church of St. Doulough, pp. 8-11, with Evagr. 
H. E.i. 21). The fashion rapidly spread even 
to the sects, as we learn from Joannes Moschus 
(Prat. Spirit. cxxix.; cf. Ceill. xi. 701) that 
the 6th-cent. Monophysites had pillar saints. 
Sometimes both parties had opposition Sty- 
lites in the same district. Evagrius tells us 
that Simeon’s pillar was only three feet in 
circumference at the top, which would barely 
afford standing ground. Assemani has de- 
picted Simeon’s column in his Life of the saint 
with a railing or kind of wooden pulpit at the 
summit. Some such structure must have 
been there, not only to prevent his fall, but 
also for him to write the epistles he sent 
broadcast to emperors, bishops, and councils 
on all pressing questions. He was born at 
Sisan, a village on the borders of Cilicia and 
Syria, and when about 16 embraced the 
monastic life. From 413 to 423 Simeon dwelt 
in an enclosed cell near Antioch, where his 
austerities speedily attracted a number of 
followers, who formed a society called the 
Mandra. In 423 he built a low pillar, which 
he gradually raised, till in 430 it was 40 cubits 
high ; there, with his neck manacled by an 
iron collar, he spent his last 30 years of life 
engaged in perpetual adoration, save when 


SIMON MAGUS 


he was bestowing advice about mundane 
matters. His extraordinary life made a great 
impression; large numbers of Arabians, 
Armenians, and other pagans were converted 
by him, while emperors, bishops, and pilgrims 
from distant lands, even Spain and Britain, 
consulted him most reverently. An object 
of deepest reverence all through life, at the 
news of his approaching death great crowds 
assembled (July 459) round his pillar to 
receive his last words. On Aug. 29 he was 
seized with a mortal illness, and died Sept 2, 
459. His body was transported with great 
pomp to Antioch, attended by bishops and 
clergy, and guarded by the troops under 
Ardabryius, commander of the forces of the 
East. The emperor Leo sent letters to the 
bp. of Antioch demanding it to be brought 
to Constantinople. The people of Antioch 
piteously reminded Leo, ‘‘ Forasmuch as our 
city is without walls, for we have been visited 
in wrath by their fall, we brought hither the 
sacred body to be our wall and bulwark,’* and 
were permitted to retain it; but this did not 
avail to protect the city against capture by 
the Persians. Simeon wrote many epistles 
on current ecclesiastical matters: (1) one 
Evagrius mentions (H. E.i. 13), to the emperor 
Theodosius against restoring their synagogues 
to the Jews. It effectually incited the 
emperor to intolerant courses. He withdrew 
the concession and dismissed the official who 
advised it. (2) Anepistle to Leo, on behalf of 
the council of Chalcedon, and against the 
ordination of Timotheus Aelurus (il. 10). (3) 
Evagrius gives (#b.) extracts from one to Basil 
of Antioch on the same topic. (4) An epistle to 
the empress Eudocia on the same (Niceph. xv. 
13), by which she was converted from Euty- 
chian error. (5) Eulogius of Alexandria 
mentions his profession of the Catholic faith, 
which Cave conjectures to have been identical 
with (2) (cf. Phot. Biblioth. cod. 230). Besides 
these, there is extant a Latin version of a 
sermon, de Morte Assidue Cogitanda, which 
in the Biblioth. Patr. is usually ascribed to our 
Simeon. Lambecius, on the authority of a 
MS. in the imperial library at Vienna, ascribes 
it to Simeon of Mesopotamia (Comm. de 
Biblioth. Caesarea, vol. viii. lib. v. col. 198 b, 
ed. Kollar). Evagrius (i. 13) describes the 
appearance of Simeon’s relics in his time, and 
also (i. 14) a visit he paid to the monastery 
and pillar of Simeon. The pillar was then 
enclosed in a church, which no woman was 
ever allowed to enter, and where supernatural 
manifestations were often seen. 
Vogiié (Syrie Centrale, t. i. pp- 141-154, Paris, 
1865-1877) describes fully the present state of 


the church, and shews Evagrius’s minute | 


accuracy. (G.T.s.] 


Simon (1) Magus, the subject of many) 


legends and much speculation. It is import- 
ant to discriminate carefully what is told of 
him by the different primary authorities. 
The Simon of the Acts of the Apostles.—Be- 
hind all stories concerning Simon lies what is 
related Acts viii. 9-24, where we see Simon as 
a magician who exercised sorcery in Samaria 
with such success that the people universally 
accepted his claim to be “some great one, 4 
and accounted him ‘‘ that power of God which 


is called great.” 


Count de. 


We are further told that he 


SIMON MAGUS 905 


was so impressed by the miracles wrought by 
Philip, that he asked and obtained admission 
to Christian baptism; but that he subse- 
quently betrayed the hollowness of his con- 
version by offering money to Peter to obtain 
the power of conferring the gift of the Holy 
|Ghost. All subsequent accounts represent 
him as ἜΝ magical power and coming 
personally into collision with Peter. The 
Acts say nothing as to his being a teacher of 
heretical doctrine ; nor do they tell whether 
or not he broke off all connexion with the 
Christian society after his exposure by Peter. 

The Simon of Justin Martyr.—When Justin 
Martyr wrote his Apology the Simonian sect 
appears to have been formidable, for he 
speaks four times of their founder Simon 
(Apol. i. 26, 56; ii. 15; Dial. 20), and un- 
doubtedly identified him with the Simon of 
Acts. He states that he was a Samaritan, 
born at a village called Gitta; he describes 
him as a formidable magician, who came to 
Rome in the days of Claudius Caesar and 
made such an impression by his magical 
powers that he was honoured as a god, a 
statue being erected to him on the Tiber, 
between the two bridges, bearing the inscrip- 
tion ‘*‘Simoni deo Sancto.” ow in 1574 
there was dug up in the place indicated by 
Justin, viz. the island in the Tiber, a marble 
fragment, apparently the base of a statue, 
bearing the inscription, ‘‘ Semoni Sanco Deo 
Fidio,” with the name of the dedicator (see 
Gruter, Inscrip. Antiq. i. p. 95, n. 5) The 
coincidence is too remarkable to admit of any 
satisfactory explanation other than that 
Justin imagined a statue really dedicated to 
a Sabine deity (Ovid. Fasti, vi. 214) to have 
been in honour of the heretic Simon. 

Justin further states that almost all the 
Samaritans, and some even of other nations, 
worshipped Simon, and acknowledged him as 
“the first God” (‘above all principality, 
power, and dominion,” Dial. 120), and that 
they held that a woman named Helena, 
formerly a prostitute, who went about with 
him, was his “first conception” (ἔννοια 
πρώτη). In connexion with Simon, Justin 
speaks of another Samaritan heretic, Men- 
ANDER, and states that he (Justin) had pub- 
lished a treatise against heresies. When 
Irenaeus (Haer. i. 23) deals with Simon and 
Menander, his coincidences with Justin are 
too numerous and striking to leave any doubt 
that he here uses the work of Justin as his 
authority, and we get the following additional 

articulars : Simon claimed to be himself the 

ighest power, that is to say, the Father who 
is over all; he taught that he was the same 
who among the Jews appeared as Son, in 
| Samaria descended as Father, in other nations 
had walked as the Holy Spirit. He was con- 
tent to be called by whatever name men chose 
ito assign to him. Helen was a prostitute 
| whom he had redeemed at Tyre and led about 
lwith him, saying that she was the first con- 
| ception of his mind, the mother of all, by 
| whom he had in the beginning concelved the 
| making of angels and archangels. Knowing 
thus his will, she had lea away from him 
descended to the lower regions, and generated 
angels and powers by whom this world was 
made. But this “Ennoea" was detained in 


906 SIMON MAGUS 


these lower regions by her offspring, and not 
suffered to return to the Father of whom 
they were ignorant. In this account of Simon 
there is a large portion common to almost all 
forms of Gnostic myths, together with some- 
thing special to this form. They have in 
common the place in the work of creation 
assigned to the female principle, the concep- 
tion of the Deity ; the ignorance of the rulers 
of this lower world with regard to the Supreme 
Power; the descent of the female (Sophia) 
into the lower regions, and her inability to 
return. Special to the Simonian tale is 
the identification of Simon himself with the 
Supreme, and of his consort Helena with the 
female principle, together with the doctrine 
of transmigration of souls, necessary to give 
these identifications a chance of acceptance, 
it not being credible that the male and female 
Supreme principles should first appear in the 
world at so late a stage in history. 

It is possible that Justin’s Simon was 
not identical with the contemporary of the 
Apostles, the name Simon being very common, 
and the Simon of the Acts being a century 
older than Justin. Moreover, Justin’s Simon 
could hardly have carried his doctrine of 
transmigration of souls to the point of pre- 
tending that it was he himself who had ap- 
peared as Jesus of Nazareth, unless he had 
been born after our Lord’s death. Hence it 
is the writer’s opinion that the Simon described 
by Justin was his elder only by a generation ; 
that he was a Gnostic teacher who had gained 
some followers at Samaria; and that Justin 
rashly identified him with the magician of the 
Acts of the Apostles. 

The section on Simon in the Refutation of all 
Heresies, by Hippolytus, divides itself into two 
parts; the larger portion is founded on a work 
ascribed to Simon called the μεγάλη ἀπόφασις, 
which we do not hear of through any other 
source than Hippolytus. But towards the 
close of the art. on Simon there is a section 
which can be explained on the supposition 
that Hippolytus is drawing directly from the 
source used by Irenaeus, viz. the anti-heretical 
treatise of Justin. In connexion with this 
section must be considered the treatment of 
Simon in the lost earlier treatise of Hippoly- 
tus, which may be conjecturally gathered from 
the use made of it by Philaster and Epipha- 
nius. Between these two there are verbal co- 
incidences which prove that they are drawing 
from a common source. When this common 
matter is compared with the section in the 
Refutation, it is clear that Hippolytus was 
that source. : 

But one thing common to them was appar- 
ently not taken from Hippolytus. Both speak 
of the death of Simon, but apart from the 
section which contains the matter common to 
them and Hippolytus, and here they have no 
verbal coincidences. Both, however, know the 
story which became the received account of 
his death, viz. that to give the emperor a 
crowning proof of his magical skill he at- 
tempted to fly through the air, and, through 
the efficacy of the apostle’s prayers, the 
demons who bore him were compelled to let 
him go, whereupon he perished miserably. 

We may conclude that the story known to 
Philaster and Epiphanius, though earlier than 


SIMON MAGUS 


the end of the 4th cent. when they wrote, is of 
later origin than the beginning of the 3rd cent. 
when Hippolytus wrote. That Hippolytus 
did not find his account of Simon’s death in 
Justin may be concluded from the place it 
occupies in his narrative, where it is in a kind 
of appendix to what is borrowed from Justin ; 
and also because this form of the story is 
unknown to all other writers. 

The Simon of the Clementines.—The Clemen- 
tines, like Justin, identify Simon of Gitta with 
the Simon of Acts; but there is every reason 
to believe that they were merely following 
Justin. Justin has evidently direct know- 
ledge of the Simonians, and regards them as 
formidable heretics; but in the Clementines 
the doctrines which Justin gives as Simonian 
have no prominence; and the introduction 
of Simon is merely a literary contrivance to 
bring in the theological discussions in which 
the author is interested. 

The Simon of 19th Cent. Criticism.—The 
Clementine writings were produced in Rome 
early in 3rd cent. by members of the Elkesaite 
sect, one characteristic of which was hostility 
to Paul, whom they refused to recognize as 
an apostle. Baur first drew attention to this 
characteristic in the Clementines, and pointed 
out that in the disputations between Simon 
and Peter, some of the claims Simon is repre- 
sented as making (e.g. that of having seen our 
Lord, though not in his lifetime, yet subse- 
quently in vision) were really the claims of 
Paul; and urged that Peter’s refutation of 
Simon was in some places intended as a 
polemic against Paul. The passages are 
found only in the Clementine Homilies, which 
may be regarded as one of the latest forms 
which these forgeries assumed. In_ the 
Clementine Recognitions there is abundance 
of anti-Paulism ; but the idea does not appear 
to have occurred to the writer to dress up Paul 
under the mask of Simon. The idea started 
by Baur was pressed by his followers into 
the shape that, wherever in ancient documents 
Simon Magus is mentioned, Paul is meant. 
We are asked to believe that the Simon of 
Acts viii. was no real character, but only a 
presentation of Paul. Simon claimed to be 
the power of God which is called Great ; and 
Paul calls his gospel the power of God (Rom. 
i. 16; I. Cor. i. 18), and claims that the power 
of Christ rested in himself (II. Cor. xii. 9), and 
that he lived by the power of God (xiii. 4). 
In Acts viii. the power of bestowing the Holy 
Ghost, which Philip does not appear to have 
exercised, is clearly represented as the special 
prerogative of the apostles. When, therefore, 
Simon offered money for the power of con- 
ferring the Holy Ghost, it was really to obtain 
the rank of apostle. We are therefore asked 
to detect here a covert account of the refusal 
of the elder apostles to admit Paul’s claim to 
rank with them, backed though it was by a 
gift of money for the poor saints in Jerusalem. 
Peter tells him that he has no lot in the matter, 
i.e. no part in the lot of apostleship (see Acts 
i. 17, 25); that he is still in the “gall of 
bitterness and bond of iniquity ’’—1.e. full of 
bitter hatred against Peter (Gal. ii. 11) and 
not observant of the Mosaic Law. We are 
not to be surprised that St. Luke, Paulist 
though he was, should assert in his history 


——— σα, σι σιναπανανο,"... 


SIMON MAGUS 


this libel on his master. He knew the story 
to be current among the Jewish disciples, and 
wished to take the sting out of it by telling it 
in such a way as to represent Simon as a real 
person, distinct from Paul. So, having begun 
to speak of Paul in the beginning of c. viii., 
he interpolates the episode of Philip's adven- 
tures, and does not return to speak of Paul 
until his reader's attention has been drawn 


off, so as not to be likely to recognize Paul | 


under the mask of Simon. 

It is not necessary to spend much time in 
pulling to pieces speculations exhibiting so 
much ingenuity, but so wanting in common 
sense. If, by way of nickname, a public 
character is called by a name not his own, 
common sense tells us that that must be a 
name to which discreditable associations are 
already known to attach. If a revolutionary 
agitator is called Catiline, that is because the 
name of Catiline is already associated with 
reckless and treasonable designs. It would 
be silly to conclude from the modern use of 
the nickname that there never had been such 
a person as Catiline, and that the traditional 
story of him must be so interpreted as best 
to describe the modern character. Further, 
while obscure 3rd-cent. heretics, fearing the 
odium of assailing directly one held in venera- 
tion through the rest of the Christian world, 
might resort to disguise, Paul’s opponents, in 
his lifetime, had no temptation to resort to 
oblique attacks: they could say what they 
pleased against Paul of Tarsus without needing 
to risk being unintelligible by speaking of 
Simon of Gitta. 

Lipsius, whose account of his predecessors’ 
speculations we have abridged from his art. 
““Simon,”’ in Schenkel’s Bibel-Lextkon, exer- 
cises his own ingenuity in dealing with the 
legendary history of Simon. The ingenuity 
which discovers Paul in the Simon of the Acts 
has, of course, a much easier task in finding 
him in the Simon of the legends. But since 
the history, as it has come down to us, leaves 
much to be desired as an intentional libel on 
Paul, we must modify the legends so as best 
to adapt them to this object, and must then 
believe we have thus recovered the original 
form of the legend. Thus, the Homultes 
represent the final disputation between Peter 
and Simon tohave occurred at Laodicea ; but 
we must believe that the original form laid it 
at Antioch, where took place the collision be- 
tween Peter and Paul (Gal. ii.). The Clemen- 
tines represent Simon as going voluntarily to 
Rome; but the original must surely have 
represented him as taken there as a prisoner 
by the Roman authorities, and so on. It is 
needless to examine minutely speculations 
vitiated by such methods of investigation. 
The chronological order is—the historical 
personage comes first; then legends arise 
about him; then the use made of his name. 
The proper order of investigation is, therefore, 
first to ascertain what is historical about 
Simon before discussing his legends. Now, it 
cannot reasonably be doubted that Simon of 
Gitta is an historical personage. The here- 
tical sect which claimed him for its founder 
was regarded by Justin Martyr as most 
πε ρος he speaks of it as predominant 
in Samaria and not unknown elsewhere ; 


| 
Ι 


| ture are extant (Ambr. Epp. 


SIMPLICIANUS 907 


robably he had met members of it at Rome. 
Its existence is testified by Hegesippus (Eus. 
iv. 22); Celsus (Orig. ade. Cels. v. 62), who 
states that some of them were called Heleniani; 
and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vii. 17), 
who states that one branch was called Euty- 
chitae. It had become almost extinet ta 
Origen's time, who doubts (ade. (εἰς. i. $7) 
whether there were then 30 Simonians in the 
world; but we need not doubt its existence 
in Justin's time, nor the fact that it claimed 
Simon of Gitta as its founder. Writings in his 
name were in circulation, teste the Clementine 
Recognitions, and Epiphanius as confirmin 
Hippolytus. The Simon of Acts is also a rea 
person. If we read Acts viii.. which relates 
the preaching of Philip, in connexion with c. 
xxi., which tells of several days spent by Luke 
in Philip’s house, we have the simple explana- 
tion of the insertion of the former chapter, 
that Luke gladly included in his history a 
narrative of the early preaching of the gospel 
communicated by an eye-witness. We need 
not ascribe to Luke any more recondite 
motive for relating the incident than that he 
believed it had occurred. There is no evid- 
ence that this Samaritan magician had ob- 
tained elsewhere any great notoriety; and 
there is every reason to think that all later 
writers derive their knowledge from the Acts 
of the Apostles. We have already said that 
we believe Justin mistaken in identifying 
Simon of the Acts with Simon of Gitta, a eae 
we take to have been a 2nd-cent. Gnostic 
teacher ; but this identification is followed in 
the Clementines. In any case, we see that the 
whole manufacture of the latter story is later 
than Simon of Gitta, if not, as we believe, 
later than Justin Martyr. The anti-Paulists, 
therefore, who dressed Paul in the disguise of 
Simon, are more than a century later than any 
opponents Paul hl in his lifetime, who, if 
they wished to fix @nickname on the apostle, 
were not likely to go to the Acts of the Apostles 
to look for one. (G.s.] 

Simplicianus, St.. bp. of Milan next after 
St. Ambrose, a resident there between 150 
and 360, and instrumental in converting 
Victorinus (Aug. Conf. viii. 2). Later haps 
than this he became intimate with St. Am- 
brose, whose father in the Christian faith he 
is called by Augustine. About 374, the year 
Ambrose was raised to the episcopate, Sim- 
plician appears to have settled at Milan 
(Tillem. vol. x. p. 398). He was held in deep 
reverence by St. Ambrose, who was often 
consulted by him, and speaks of his continual 
study of Holy Scripture (Aug. Conf. vill. 2; 
Ambr. Epp. 37.2; 65.1). Four reply-letters 
to him by St. Ambrose on points of Serip- 
7, 38, 61, 67). 

Augustine, residing near Milan A.p. 356, 
became acquainted with Simplician, whose 
account of the conversion of Victorinus 
awakened an eager desire to follow his example 
(Conf. viii. 5), and the friendship lasted 
throughout Augustine's life. Simplician's ap- 
pointment to the see of Milan, αἍ Ὁ. 997, is de- 
scribed by Paulinus in his Life of St. Ambrose 
(c. 46). He apparently died in 400, and was 
succeeded by Venerius. his inquiries elicited 
the treatise of Augustine, de Diversis Quaes., 
concerning various passages in O. and Ν, T. 


908 SIMPLICIUS 


Tillem. x. 401; Ceill. iv. 325, vi. 7, ix. 6, 78, 249- 
254; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p.299. [H.W.P.] 

Simplicius (7), bp. of Rome after Hilarius, 
from Feb. 22, 468 (according to the conclusion 
of Pagi, in Baron. ad ann. 467, iv.), to Mar. 483. 
According to Lib. Pontif. he was a native of 
Tibur, the son of one Castinus. He witnessed, 
during his episcopate, the fall of the Western 
empire and the accession (A.D. 476) of Odoacer 
as king of Italy. This change, however 
politically important, does not seem to have 
affected at the time the pope or the church 
at Rome. The later emperors, Anthemius, 
Nepos, Augustulus, who reigned during the 
earlier years of Simplicius’s popedom, being 
merely nominees of the Eastern emperor, had 
little power ; and Odoacer, himself an Arian, 
did not interfere with church affairs. 

The reigning emperors of the East were, 
first Leo I., the Thracian, called also ‘“‘ the 
Great,’’ and after him Zeno, his son-in-law, 
who succeeded him A.p. 474, but whose reign 
was interrupted from 475 to 477 by the 
usurpation of Basiliscus. The contemporary 
bp. of Constantinople was Acacius (471-489). 
The most memorable incidents of the ponti- 
ficate of Simplicius were his negotiations, and 
eventual breach, with this prelate and with 
the emperor Zeno who supported him— 
leading up to the long schism between the 
churches of the East and West, which ensued 
in the time of the following pope, FEL1x III. 
(or II.). The difference arose on questions 
connected partly with the rival claims of the 
sees of Rome and Constantinople, partly with 
the Monophysite or Eutychian heresy. 

The first occasion was the promulgation of 
an edict by the emperor Leo I., at the instance 
of Acacius, confirming the 28th canon of 
Chalcedon. This canon, said to have been 
passed unanimously by all present except the 
legates of pope Leo I., not only confirmed the 
3rd canon of Constantinople, which had given 
to the bp. of new Rome (i.e. Constantinople) 
a primacy of honour (1.6. honorary rank) next 
after the bp. of old Rome, but further gave 
him authority to ordain the metropolitans of 
the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, thus 
investing him with the powers as well as the 
rank of a patriarch, second only to the pope 
of Rome. Pope Leo had subsequently ob- 
jected to this canon and never gave it his 
assent. He claimed that it was an infringe- 
ment of the canons of Nice and entrenched on 
the rights of other patriarchs. It indicated 
a desire on the part of the bps. of Constan- 
tinople, then the real seat of empire, to rival 
and perhaps eventually to supersede the old 
primacy of Rome. At Rome the position 
maintained was that the authority of a see 
rested on its ecclesiastical origin, and that of 
Rome especially on its having been the see 
of St. Peter. The view at Constantinople was 
that the temporal pre-eminence of a city was 
a sufficient ground for ecclesiastical ascen- 
dancy. Hence the long struggle. 

Acacius, by inducing the emperor to con- 
firm the 28th canon of Chalcedon by a special 
edict, hoped to make it plain that the emin- 
ence and authority thereby assigned to his see 
were still maintained and had not been con- 
ceded to the remonstrances of pope Leo. The 
language used by the emperor in his edict— 


SIMPLICIUS 


styling the church of Constantinople ‘‘ the 
Mother of his Piety, and of all Christians, and 
of the orthodox faith’’—confirms the supposi- 
tion that an idea was even entertained of the 
new seat of empire superseding the old one in 
ecclesiastical prerogative as well as temporal 
rank. Simplicius naturally took alarm. He 
sent Probus, bp. of Canusium in Apulia, as his 
legate to Constantinople to remonstrate ; but 
with what success we know not. 

In the doctrinal controversies of the day 
between Rome and Constantinople, Simplicius 
appears to have been in accord with the 
emperor Leo, and for some time with Zeno, 
as well as with Acacius. The great patri- 
archal sees were, during the first years of his 
reign, occupied by orthodox prelates, who had 
the imperial support. Alexandria had been 
held by Timothy Salofaciolus since the Euty- 
chian Timothy Aelurus had been banished 
by the emperor Leo I. in 460. At Antioch 
Julian, an orthodox patriarch, elected on the 
expulsion of Peter Fullo by Leo I., a.p. 471, 
was still in possession. But the usurpation 
of the empire by Basiliscus, A.D. 475, intro- 
duced immediate discord and disturbance. 
Basiliscus declared at once for Eutychianism, 
and promptly recalled Timothy Aelurus to 
Alexandria. Having taken possession of the 
see and driven Salofaciolus to flight, Aelurus 
repaired to Constantinople to procure the 
calling of a new general council to reverse the 
decisions of Chalcedon. 

Certain clergy and monks of Constantinople 
sent a messenger with letters to represent this 
state of things to Simplicius at Rome. Sim- 
plicius promptly wrote to Basiliscus and 
Acacius. His letter to Basiliscus expresses 
horror at the doings of Aelurus, of whom he 
speaks in no measured language. The op- 
portunity is not lost, in the course of the 
letter, of insinuating to the new emperor the 
peculiar spiritual authority of the Roman see: 
‘“* The truths which have flowed pure from the 
fountain of the Scriptures cannot be disturbed 
by any arguments of cloudy subtilty. For 
there remains one and the same rule of 
apostolical doctrine in the successors of him 
to whom the Lord enjoined the care of the 
whole sheepfold—to whom He promised that 
the gates of hell should not prevail against 
him, and that what by Him should be bound 
on earth should not be loosed in heaven.’’ And 
the pope conjures the emperor im the voice of 
St. Peter, the unworthy minister of whose see 
he is, not to allow impunity to the enemies of 
the ancient faith, and especially urges him to 
prevent, if possible, the assembling a council 
to review the decisions of Chalcedon. 

Meanwhile Basiliscus at Constantinople, 
issuing an encyclic letter, repudiated and 
condemned the council of Chalcedon; re- 
quired all, under pain of deposition, exile, and 
other punishments, to agree to this condemna- 
tion; and ordered the copies of pope Leo’s 
letters and of the Acts of Chalcedon, wherever 
found, to be burnt. The document is given 
in full by Evagrius (iii. 4). Acacius refused 
to sign it. But in the compliant East else- 
where it was accepted generally. At Constan- 
tinople Acacius, supported by the clergy and 
monks, was resolute and successful in his 
resistance. Daniel Stylites, descending from 


c 


f 


SIRICIUS 


SIRICIUS 909 


his pillar, aided in rousing the populace ; and | When the prefecture of East Ilyricum had 


Basiliscus had to leave the city for safety. been assigned (a.p. 


79) to the Eastern divi- 


The disaffection was taken advantage of by | sion of the empire, Damasus had insisted on 
Zeno, who in 477 marched on Constantinople, | its being still subject to the spiritual authority 


and without further difficulty became again 
emperor of the East. 

During these troubles under Basiliscus 
Simplicius seems to have had no opportunity 
of exercising influence; but as soon as he 
heard of the restitution of Zeno he wrote to 
that emperor, exhorting him tofollow the steps 
of his predecessors Marcian and Leo, to allow 
no tampering with the decisions of Chalcedon, 
to drive all Eutychian bishops from the sees 
they had usurped, and especially to send 
Aelurus into solitude. To Acacius he wrote 
to the same effect. Zeno does not appear, 
however, to have taken any step against Peter 
Mongus. Possibly the emperor and _ his 
advisers were already disposed to the con- 
ciliatory policy towards the Eutychians which 
they afterwards maintained in spite of indig- 
nant protests from the pope. Simplicius 
complained, too, of the Eutychian leaders 
having been allowed to remain at Antioch, 
and attributed the troubles there to this 
cause. 

The death of Timothy Salofaciolus at Alex- 
andria in 482 gave rise to much more serious 
differences between Constantinople and Rome. 
Strained relations now resulted in decided 
conflict, ending in an open schism, which 
lasted 35 years, between Eastern and Western 
Christendom. John Talaias was elected 
canonically by a synod of the orthodox at 
Alexandria in the room of Salofaciolus. Sim- 
plicius received a notification of the election 
from the synod, and was about to express his 
assent, when he was startled by a letter from 
Zeno accusing Talaias of perjury, and intimat- 
ing that Peter Mongus was the most proper 
person to succeed Salofaciolus. Simplicius 
at once (July 15, 482) addressed Acacius (who 
had not written himself), imploring him to do 
all he could to prevent it. The letter written 
to Zeno himself has not been preserved. 
Hearing nothing from Acacius, he wrote to 
him again in Nov., but still got no reply. So 
much appears from the extant letters of 
Simplicius (Epp. xvii. xviii. Labbe). [Acactus 
(7); JOANNEs (11).] 

Liberatus (c. 18) informs us that, driven 
from Alexandria, John Talaias appealed for 
support to Simplicius, who on his behalf wrote 
to Acacius, but received the reply that 
Acacius could not recognize Talaias, having 
received Peter Mongus into communion on 
the basis of the emperor’s HENoTICON. Sim- 
plicius wrote to Acacius that he ought not to 
have received Peter into communion without 
the concurrence of the apostolic see; that a 
man condemned by a common decree could 
not be freed from the ban except by a common 
council; and that he must first accept un- 
reservedly the council of Chalcedon and the 
Tome of pope Leo. Simplicius received no 
reply to this second letter, and died not long 
after, early in Mar. 483, according to Anas- 
tasius. [1.8Β-τὐὺ.] 

Siriclus, bp. of Romeafter Damasus from late 
in Dec. 384, or early in Jan. 385, to Nov. 26 (?), 
398. He followed the example of Damasus in 
inaintaining the authority of the Roman see. 


| observance. 


of Rome, and had constituted Acholius, bp. 
of Thessalonica, and after him Anysius (who 
succeeded Acholius a.p. 383) his own Sa 
for the maintenance of such authority. 
Siricius, on his accession, renewed this vicariate 
jurisdiction to Anysius (Innoc. Epp. i., xiii.) 

One of his earliest acts was to issue the first 
Papal Decretal that has any claim to genuine- 
ness, though he speaks in it of earlier decreta 
sent to the provinces by pope Liberius. It is 
dated Feb. 11, 385. Its genuineness is un- 


disputed. It is eetaty referred to by pope 
Innocent 1. (Ep. vi. ad Exsuperium),. uesnel 
includes it without hesitation in his . Rom. 


cum Leone edit. c. 29. Its occasion was a 
letter from Himerius, bp. of Tarragona in 
Spain, addressed to Damasus but received by 
Siricius, asking the pope's advice on matters 
of discipline and with regard to abuses pre- 
valent in the Spanish church. Siricius, having 
taken counsel in a Roman synod, issued this 
decretal in reply, to be communicated by 
Himerius to all bishops of Spain and neigh- 
bouring provinces with a view to universal 
The opportunity was taken of 
asserting in very decided terms the authority 
of the Roman see > “* We bear the burdens of 
all who are heavy laden; nay, rather the 
blessed apostle Peter bears them in us, who, 
as we trust, in all things protects and guards 
us, the heirs of his administration.” Amon 
the rules thus promulgated for universa 
observance, one relates to the rebaptizing of 
Arians returning to the church, and another 
to clerical celibacy, which is insisted on. 
Thus what the oecumenical council had re- 
fused to require Siricius now, on the authority 
of the apostolic see, declared of general obliga- 
tion. The rule laid down by him affected, 
however, only the higher clerical orders, not 
including subdeacons, to whom it was ex- 
tended by Leo I. (c. 442. See Epp. xiv. 4; 
exlvii. 3), in Sicily, by pope Gregory the 
Great (Greg. Epp. lib. i. Ind. ix., Bp. 42). 
The zeal of Siricius against heresy appears 
in his correspondence with the usurper Maxi- 
mus, who in 383 had obtained the imperial 
authority in Gaul. The pope wrote, exhorting 
him to support the Catholic faith and com- 
plaining of the recent ordination of one Agri- 
cius, who seems to have been suspected of 
heresy. Maximus, in his extant reply, 
declares his desire to maintain the true faith, 
undertakes to refer the case of Agricius to a 
synod of clergy, and takes credit for measures 
already in force against the Manicheans in 
Gaul, doubtless alluding to the Priscillian- 
ists, who were often called Manicheans. The 
pe was zealous against the Manicheans at 
Bone where “he found Manicheans, whom 
he sent into exile, and provided that the 
should not communicate with the faithful, 
since it was not lawful to vex the Lord's body 
with a polluted mouth "' (Ld. Ponts}. in Vila 
Siricii). The reference seems to be to the 
alleged habit of the Manicheans to make a 
show of conformity by frequenting Catholic 
communion. It is ad that even converts 
from them were to be sent into monasteries, 


910 SIRICIUS 


and not admitted to communion till at the 
point of death. 

Another class of heretics afterwards fell 
under the condemnation of Siricius. Jovin- 
ian, notorious through St. Jerome’s vehement 
writings against him, having been expelled 
from Milan, had come to Rome and obtained 
a following there. His teaching came under 
the notice of two eminent laymen, Pam- 
machius and Victorinus, who represented it 
to pope Siricius who assembled a synod of 
clergy at which Jovinian was excommuni- 
cated, together with his abettors, Auxentius, 
Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Frontinus, Mar- 
tianus, Januarius, and Ingenius. These 
departed to Milan, whither Siricius sent three 
presbyters with a letter to the Milanese 
clergy, informing them of what had been 
done at Rome, and expressing confidence 
that they would pay regard to it. The 
letter is full of strong invective against 
Jovinian and his colleagues—‘‘ dogs such as 
never before had barked against the church’s 
mysteries ’’—but contains no arguments. 
Siricius disclaims any disparagement of 
marriage, “αἱ which,’’ he says, ‘‘ we assist 
with the veil,” though he ‘‘ venerates with 
greater honour virgins devoted to God, who 
are the fruit of marriages.” The synodical 
reply from Milan is preserved among the 
epistles of St. Ambrose (Ep. xlii. ed. Bened.), 
who presided at the Milanese synod. He and 
his colleagues thank Siricius for his vigilance, 
concur with his strictures on Jovinian, supply 
the arguments which the pope’s letter lacked, 
and declare that they had condemned those 
whom the pope condemned, according to his 
judgment. The introductory words of this 
epistle have been adduced in proof of the view 
then held of the pope’s supreme authority. 
They are: ‘‘ We recognize in the letter of your 
holiness the watchfulness of a good shepherd, 
diligently keeping the door committed to thee, 
and with pious solicitude guarding the sheep- 
fold of Christ, worthy of being heard and 
followed by the sheep of the Lord.’’ This 
language, though expressing recognition of the 
bp. of Rome as the representative of St. Peter, 
cannot be pressed as implying that he was the 
one doorkeeper of the whole church or an 
infallible authority in definitions of faith. 
On the contrary, thebishops at Milan endorsed 
his judgment, not as a matter of course or as 
being bound to do so, but on the merits of 
the case, setting forth their reasons. These 
proceedings apparently occurred in 390. 

About the same time, or soon after, the 
Meletian schism at Antioch came under the 
notice of Siricius. His attitude to it is not 
certainly known. Some six months after the 
death of Damasus, whose highly valued 
secretary he had been, Jerome had left Rome 
for ever. In his bitterly expressed letter to 
Asilla, inveighing against his opponents and 
calumniators, he does not mention the new 
pope; but it may be concluded, if only from 
his silence, that he had lost the countenance 
he had enjoyed under Damasus. One expres- 
sion suggests that he had been a little dis- 
appointed at not being made pope himself, 
and that coolness between him and Siricius 
may have arisen from this. Siricius and he 
were at one in their advocacy of virginity 


SIRMIUM, STONEMASONS OF 


against Jovinian and in their general ortho- 
doxy, but there seems to have been no inter- 
course between them, and, even in the course 
of the controversy against Jovinian, Siricius 
appears to have joined others at Rome in 
disapproving of J erome’s alleged disparagement 
of matrimony. Further, Rufinus, the once 
close friend of Jerome, having quarrelled with 
him in Palestine about Origenism but been 
temporarily reconciled, in 395 left Jerusalem 
for Rome. He was favourably received by 
Siricius, who gave him a commendatory letter 
on his departure, the quarrel with Jerome 
having recommenced with increased violence. 
For his neglect of Jerome and patronage of 
Rufinus, Baronius disparages Siricius, even 
saying that his days were shortened by divine 
judgment (Baron. ad ann. 397; xxxii.). A 
further ground of complaint (ad ann. 394 ; xl.) 
is his supposed unworthy treatment of another 
ascetic saint, Paulinus of Nola, who says he 
was badly treated by the Roman clergy when 
passing through Rome (A.D. 395) on his way 
to Nola, and especially blames the pope 
(Paulin. ad Sulpic. Severum, Ep. i. in nov. edit. 
v.). For such reasons Baronius has excluded 
Siricius from the Roman Martyrology. Pagi 
(in Baron. ad ann. 398, I.) defends the pope 
against the animadversions of Baronius. 
Siricius died in 398. [1-Β---.] 
Sirmium, Stonemasons of. The Acts giving 
the history of the martyrdom of the five 
stonemasons of Sirmium have been known 
for centuries, being found in substance in 
Ado’s Martyrology, but only last century 
was their relation to the history of Dio- 
cletian’s period recognized. They were stone- 
masons belonging to Pannonia, engaged in 
the imperial quarries; one of them, Sim- 
plicius, was a pagan. They distinguished 
themselves by their genius and ability, and 
attracted the notice of Diocletian by the 
beauty of their carving. Simplicius was 
converted by his four companions, and bap- 
tized secretly by a bishop, Cyril of Antioch, 
who had been three years a slave in the 
quarries and had suffered many stripes for the 
faith. The pagans, jealous of their skill, 
accused them before Diocletian, who, however, 
continued to protect them. When, however, 
the emperor ordered them to make, among 
other statues, one of Aesculapius, the masons 
made all the others, but refused to carve that. 
The pagans thereupon procured an order for 
their execution. They were enclosed in lead 
coffins and flung into the Save. Their Acts 
then proceed to narrate the martyrdom of the 
saints called the Quatuor Coronati, whose 
liturgical history has been told at length in 
D. Ὁ. A. t. i. p. 461. Diocletian, coming to 
Rome, ordered all the troops to sacrifice to 
Aesculapius. Four soldiers, Carpophorus, 
Severus, Severianus, and Victorinus, refusing, 
were flogged to death, and their bodies buried 
by pope Melchiades and St. Sebastian on the 
Via Lavicana at the 3rd milestone from the 
city. These Acts are very valuable illustra- 
tions of the great persecution, but are full of 
difficulties. The whole story is in Mason’s 
Diocletian Persecution, p. 259. Attention was 
first called to the Acts as illustrating Diocle- 
tian’s period by Wattenbach in the Sitzungs- 
berichte der Wiener Akad. Bd, x. (1853) 5: 


4 


SISINNIUS 


118-126. They were discussed in Biidinger, 
Untersuch. sur rom. Kaisergesch. ii. 262, iii. 
321-338, with elaborate archaeological and 
chronological commentaries. (G.t.s.] 
isinnius (7), a bishop of the Novatianists at 
Constantinople, succeeding on Marcian's death 
in Nov. 395 (Socr. H. E. v. 21; vi. 1; Soz. 
H. E.viii.1). He published a treatise warmly 
controverting Chrysostom's impassioned lan- 
guage as to the efficacy of repentance and the 
restoration of penitents to communion, de 
Poenitentia (Socr. H. E. vi. 21). Chrysostom, 
taking umbrage at this and at his claim to 
exercise episcopal functions in Constantinople, 
threatened to stop his preaching. Sisinnius 
jocosely told him he would be much obliged 
to him for sparing him so much trouble, and 
thus disarmed his anger (ἰδ. 22). Sisinnius 
enjoyed a great reputation for witty repartees. 
Several are collected by Socrates (l.c.), but do 
not give a very high idea of his powers. He 
is described as a man of great eloquence, 
enhanced by dignity of countenance and 
person, gracefulness of action, and by the 
tones of his voice. He had a considerable 
reputation for learning, being very familiar 
with philosophical writings as well as exposi- 
tions.of Scripture, and was well skilled in 
dialectics. Together with Theodotus of 
Antioch he composed a synodic letter against 
the Thessalians, in the name of the Novatian- 
ist bishops assembled at Constantinople for 
his consecration, addressed to Berinianus, 
Amphilochius, and other bishops of Pamphylia 
(Phot. Cod. lii. col. 40 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 290). 
Though a bishop of a schismatic body, he was 
much esteemed by the orthodox bishops, 
especially by Atticus, and was the honoured 
friend of leading aristocrats of Constantinople. 
He kept a sumptuous table, though not ex- 
ceeding the bounds of moderation himself. 
Sisinnius died the same year as Chrysostom, 
A.D. 407, and was succeeded by Chrysanthus 
(Socr. H. E. vii. 6; Cave, w.s.). {ε.ν.] 
Sixtus I.—so called in the Liberian Cata- 
logue by Optatus (I. 2) and Augustine (Ep. 
liii.) ; but Xystus, Xistus, or Xestus, in Catal. 
Felic., Yrenaeus (adv. Haer. iii. 3), Eusebius 
(H. E. iv. 4, 5, and Chron.), Epiphanius 
(Haer. 97, 6)—one of the early bps. of Rome, 
called the 6th after the apostles, and the 
successor of Alexander. All assign him an 
episcopate of about 10 years, and place him 
in the reign of Hadrian. Catal. Liber. dates his 
episcopate 117-126; Eusebius (H. E.) 119- 
128; his Chronicle 114-124. Lipsius (Chronol. 
der rom. Bischof.) gives 124-126 as the possible 
limits for his death. The Felician Catalogue 
and the Martyrologies represent him as a 
martyr, and he is commemorated among the 
apostles and martyrs, after Linus, Cletus, 
Clemens, in the canon of the mass. But 
Telesphorus being the first bp. of Rome 
designated a martyr by Irenaeus, the claim 
to the title of Sixtus and other early bps. of 
Rome, to the great majority of whom it has 
been since assigned, is doubtful. [J.8—y.] 
Sixtus II. (Xystus), bp. of Rome after 
Stephen for about one year, martyred under 
Valerian Aug. 6, 258. A contemporary letter 
of St. Cyprian (Ep. 80) confirms this date as 
given in the Liberian Catalogue. Probably 
his accession was on Aug. 31, 257 (see Lipsius, 


SIXTUS IIL ΘΙ 
Chronol. der rim. Bischdf.). His pre- 
decessor Stephen had been at issue with 


Cyprian of Carthage as to the rebaptism of 
heretics. Under Xystus, who was more con- 
ciliatory, though he upheld the Roman usage, 
peace was restored (Eus. H. E. vii. §-7). 
The circumstances of his martyrdom appear 
to have been as follows. The emperor Wite- 
rian had already, before the accession of 
Xystus, forbidden the resort of Christians to 
the cemeteries on pain of banishment. But 
in the middle of 258, when Valerian was 
arming for his Persian war, he sent a resecript 
to the senate of much severer import; order- 
ing bishops, priests, and deacons to be sum- 
marily executed ; senators and other persons 


| of rank to be visited with loss of dignity and 


goods, and, on refusal to renounce Christianity, 
with death; matrons to be despoiled and 
exiled ; and imperial officials (Caesarians) to 
be sent in chains to labour on the imperial 
domains (Cyp. Ep. 80). Xystus fell an early 
victim to this rescript. He was found by the 
soldiers seated on his episcopal chair, in the 
cemetery of Praetextatus on the Appian Way, 
surrounded by members of his flock. As 
these endeavoured to protect him, he thrust 
himself forward lest they should suffer in 
his stead, and was beheaded and several 
companions slain. His body was afterwards 
removed by the Christians to the usual burial- 
place of the bishops of that period, the 
neighbouring cemetery of Callistus. His two 
deacons, Agapetus and Felicissimus, with 
others, were buried in the cemetery where they 
fell. This account of the occurrence 1s 
gathered from Cyprian’s contemporary letter 
to Successus (Ep. 80), and from the Damasine 
inscription in the papal crypt of the cemetery 
of Callistus, of which a few fragments have 
been found by De Rossi, and which originally 
began as follows : 


“ Tempore quo gladius secuit pia viscera matris 
Hic positus rector coelestia dona docebam . . .” 


(Gruter, 1473, 11}, 


That these verses refer to Xystus, and not, 
as assumed in the Acts of St. Stephen, to his 
predecessor, is satisfactorily shewn by Lipstus 
(op. cit.). That he was buried there is ex- 
ressly stated in the Liberian Catalogue of 
Garters. as well as by all later authorities ; 
and the statement is confirmed by numerous 
graffiti on the walls of the crypt, in which his 
name is prominent. The line * Hic positus,” 
etc., may refer to the cathedra on which he sat 
when found by the soldiers, which had been 
removed with his body to the papal crypt. 
That the cemetery of Praectextatus was the 
scene of his martyrdom ancient tradition bears 
witness, and in accordance with it an oratory 
was afterwards built on the spot, “ coemete- 
rium ubi decollatus est Xystus."" The tradi- 
tion is confirmed by representations of him 
and his chair in this cemetery, under one of 
which is the legend svstvs. ().#—y¥.] 
Sixtus IIL, bp. of Rome (432-441) after 
Coelestinus, and the immediate predecessor 
of Leo the Great. Two notable heresies of his 
day were Pelagianistm and Nestorianism. Before 
his accession he had taken —_ in both cone 
troversies. Itappears from Augustine's letters 


912 SIXTUS III. 


to him when he was still a Roman presbyter 
under Zosimus, that the Pelagians had claimed 
him as being, with the pope, on their side ; but 
that, when the pope was at length induced to 
condemn the heresy, he also had written to the 
African church expressing his concurrence with 
avigour of language that fully satisfied Augus- 
tine, who also rejoices to have heard that he 
had been foremost in anathematizing Pelagian- 
ism in a large assembly at Rome (Aug. Epp. 
Igt, al. 104, and 194, al. 105). Apparently 
Sixtus had, before his accession, also inter- 
vened in the Nestorian conflict, for in his letter 
to Johnof Antioch (Ep. ii.) he speaks of having 
once admonished Nestorius; and this must 
have been before the latter’s final condemna- 
tion, and hence before the accession of Sixtus, 
who was evidently a man of mark and influ- 
ence at Rome before becoming pope. 

It seems, however, that the Nestorians as well 
as the Pelagians claimed Sixtus as once having 
favoured them; and he was reported to have 
taken in ill part the condemnation of Nestorius. 
These claims may have arisen from his having 
evinced a conciliatory spirit and a reluctance 
to condemn too hastily. 

There are two extant epistles of his, written 
to Cyril and John of Antioch, expressing his 
great joy in their reconciliation ; from one of 
which it further appears that he had written 
often previously to Maximian, the successor 
of Nestorius at Constantinople. A synod had 
been held at Rome on the occasion of his 
birthday, at which the joyful news of the 
reconciliation had been made known, and he 
was, when he wrote, expecting the speedy 
arrival of a deputation of clergy from John 
of Antioch. These two letters are given by 
Baronius (A.D. 433, xii. and xvii.); from a 
Vatican MS., which he speaks of as corrupt 
but trustworthy. (See also Labbe, Concil. 
Eph. iii. 1689, 1699.) The letter to John is 
quoted by Vincent of Lerins (adv. Haer.). 

Two previous letters of Sixtus, conceived 
in a similar spirit, are given by Cotelerius from 
MSS. in the Biblioth. Reg. (Coteler. Monum. 
Graec. Eccles. vol. i. p. 42). One was to 
Cyril; the other was apparently an encyclic 
to him and the Easterns generally, sent by 
two bishops from the East, Hermogenes and 
Lampetius, who had been present at the 
pope’s ordination. Both announced, as was 
usual, his accession to his see, and declared 
his communion with the Eastern churches. 
But in both, while he fully concurs in the 
condemnation of Nestorius by the council of 
Ephesus, he refers with regret to the dissent 
of John of Antioch and his adherents, whose 
reception into communion he desires and 
recommends, if they should come to a better 
mind, as he hopes they will. 

Sixtus was no less vigilant than preceding 
popes in maintaining the jurisdiction of the 
Roman see over Illyricum, and that of the 
bp. of Thessalonica as the pope’s vicar over 
the rest of the bishops there. Four letters of 
his (two written in 435, another in 437) on this 
subject were read in the Roman council held 
under Boniface II., a.p. 531. (See Labbe, 
vol. v., Concil. Rom. III. sub Bonifac. II.) 
In the fourth, addressed to all the bishops of 
Illyricum, he enjoins them to submit them- 
selves to Anastasius of Thessalonica as, like 


SOCRATES 


his predecessor, vicar of the apostolic see, with 
authority to summon synods and adjudicate 
on all cases, except such as it might be neces- 
sary to refer to Rome. He bids them pay no 
regard to the decrees of “‘ the oriental synod,” 
except those on faith, which had his own 
approval. He probably refers to the council 
of Constantinople, which in its 3rd canon had 
given a primacy of honour after old Rome to 
Constantinople. On the strength of this the 
patriarchs of Constantinople had already 
assumed jurisdiction over the Thracian dio- 
ceses, though not till the council of Chalcedon 
(A.D. 451 ; Can. xxviii.) was the express power 
of ordaining metropolitans in Illyricum for- 
mally given to them, despite the protest of 
pope Leo’s legates. 

Towards the end of his life Sixtus still 
concurred decidedly in the condemnation of 
Pelagianism. For we are told by Prosper 
(Chron.) that Julian, the eminent Pelagian, 
being deposed from the see of Eclanum in 
Campania, essayed in 439, by profession of 
penitence, to creep again into the communion 
of the church, but that Sixtus, under the 
advice of his deacon Leo, “allowed no 
opening to his pestiferous attempts.’’ This 
Leo was the successor of Sixtus in the see of 
Rome, Leo the Great, who thus appears to 
have been his archdeacon and adviser. 

Three works issued under the name of Sixtus 
(de Divitiis, de Malis Doctoribus, etc., and de 
Castitate) are apparently of Pelagian origin 
(see Baron. ad ann. 440, vi.), possibly put out 
in his name on the strength of the old report 
of his having once favoured Pelagianism. 

Sixtus died a.p. 440, and was buried 
(according to Anastasius, Lib. Pontif.), “‘ad 
S. Laurentium via Tiburtini.’”’ He is com- 
memorated as a confessor on Mar. 28: 
“ Romae S. Sixti tertii, papae et confessoris ”’ 
(Martyrol. Roman). Why he should be called 
a confessor is not obvious. The title may 
rest on a spurious letter to the bishops of the 
East, which complains of persecution. 

In the Lib. Pontif. extraordinary activity 
in building, endowing, and decorating churches 
is attributed to him, and to the emperor Valen- 
tinian under his instigation. He is said to 
have built the basilicas of St. Maria Maggiore 
on the Esquiline (called Ad Praesepe), and of 
St. Laurence, and to have furnished both with 
great store of precious instruments and orna- 


mentations. Pope Hadrian, in writing to 
Charlemagne (Ep. 3, c. 19) alludes to the 
former. [J-B—Y. ] 


Socrates (2), one of the most interesting and 
valuable historians of the early Christian age, 
was born at Constantinople, probably early in 
the reign of Theodosius the younger, A.D. 408. 
He tells us that he was educated there under 
Helladius and Ammonius, two heathen gram- 
marians, who had fled from Alexandria to 
escape the emperor’s displeasure. They had 
been guilty of many acts of cruel retaliation 
upon the Christians there, who had sought to 
overthrow the idols and temples (H. E. v. 16). 
Socrates studied rhetoric, assisted Troilus the 
rhetorician and. sophist, and entered the legal 
profession, hence his name Scholasticus, the 
title for a lawyer. His life was spent at 
Constantinople, and hence he, in his history, 
occupies himself much with the affairs of that 


SOCRATES 


city. ‘‘ No wonder,”’ he says, “1 write more 
fully of the famous acts done in this city 
(Constantinople), partly because I beheld 
most of them with my own eyes, partly be- 
cause they are more famous and thought more 
worthy of remembrance than many other 
acts ” (v. 23). Here we see the true spirit of 
the historian, and a worthy anxiety to be 
correct. How sincerely Socrates desired to 
be so is shewn by his use of similar expressions 
in the beginning of bk. vi., where he says he 
had a greater liking for the history of his own 
than of bygone times, because he had either 
seen it or learned it from eye-witnesses. A 
certain Theodorus, otherwise unknown, en- 
couraged him to become a historian of the 
church. His object was to continue its 
history from where Eusebius had ended down 
to his own day. His work is divided into 
seven books, from Constantine’s proclamation 
85 emperor, A.D. 306 to 439, a period of 133, 
or, as he himself calls it, in round numbers, 
140 years. Especially in bks. i. and ii. Rufinus 
appears to have exercised considerable influ- 
ence. But at that point, the writings of 
Athanasius and the letters of other celebrated 
men coming into his hands, he found that 
Rufinus had been misinformed and had misled 
him on many points. His own statement seems 
to imply that he rewrote those books to have 
the satisfaction of knowing that he had set 
forth the history ‘‘in a most absolute and 
perfect manner ”’ (ii. 1). 

Of his own style Socrates, addressing Theo- 
dorus, says, ‘“‘ But I would have you know, 
before you read my books, that I have not 
curiously addicted myself unto a lofty style, 
neither unto a glorious show of gay sentences ; 
for so peradventure, in running after words 
and phrases, I might have missed of my 
matter and failed of my purpose and intent. 
... Again, such a penning profiteth very little 
the vulgar and ignorant sort of people, who 
desire not so much the fine and elegant sort 
of phrase as the furtherance of their know- 
ledge and the truth of the history. Where- 
fore, lest our story should halt of both sides, 
and displease the learned in that it doth 
not rival the artificial skill and profound 
knowledge of ancient writers, the unlearned 
in that their capacity cannot comprehend the 
substance of the matter by reason of the 
painted rhetoric and picked sentences, I have 
tied myself unto such a mean as that, though 
the handling be simple, yet the effect is soon 
found and quickly understood "’ (vi. pref.). 

His matter was to be chiefly the affairs of 
the church, but not to the complete exclusion 
of ‘battles and bloody wars,”’ for even in| 
these there was something worthy to be 
recorded. He believed the narrative of such 
events would help to relieve the weariness 
which might overcome his readers if he dwelt 
only on the consideration of the bishops’ 
affairs and their practices everywhere one 
against another. Above all, he had observed 
that the weal of church and state was so 
closely bound up together that the two were 
either out of joint at the same time, or that | 
the misery of the one followed closely the 
misery of the other (v. pref.). It was 86. 
troubles of the church, too, that he desired 
chiefly to record. His idea was that, when 


SOCRATES 913 
oe prevailed, there was no matter for a 
istoriographer (vii. 47). 

One important qualification Socrates poss- 
essed for his task was that he was a layman. 
This in no degree hindered his capability of 
forming a correct judgment on theological 
controversies, for around these the main 
interest of lay as well as clerical Christians 
centred in his days and they were thoroughly 
understood by all educated Christian men; 
while his lay position and training unquestion- 
ably helped to raise him above the bitter 
animosities and persecuting spirit of his age, 
and led him to see the amount of hairsplitting 
in not a few of the current disputes. His 
recognition of good in those from whom he 
differed forms one of the most pleasing 
characteristics of his history. His imparti- 
ality has, indeed, exposed him to a charge of 
heresy. He saw, and ventured to own, some 
good in the Novatianists, and especially in 
several of their bishops, and he has been 
accordingly often charged with Novatianism. 
But his history shews little, if any, reason why 
we should doubt his orthodoxy. Like the 
most enlightened men of his age, he gave easy 
credence to miraculous stories, and there are 
many scattered throughout his pages uite as 
improbable and foolish as those found in the 
most superstitious writers of his time. Yet 
Socrates often displays a singular propriety 
of judgment, while his occasional reflections 
and digressions constitute one of the most 
interesting and instructive parts of his history. 
Thus his defence of the wae by Christians 
of heathen writers may still be read with 
profit, and perhaps much more could not 
even now be added to his argument (iil. 14). 
His chapter on ceremonies, their place in the 
Christian system, the ground of their obliga- 
tion, and their relation to the true word of the 
gospel, shews an enlargement and enlighten- 
ment of mind (v. 21). is whole history shews 
his keen eye for the mischief done by heat 
ecclesiastics, and for the unworthy motives that 
frequently swayed them (vi. 14). ᾿ 

For many other points the student will find 
his History valuable. It contains many original 
documents, ¢.g. decrees of councils and letters 
of emperors and bishops. It gives many 
important details as to the councils of Nicaea, 
Chalcedon, Antioch, Alexandria, Constanti- 
nople, Ephesus, etc.; the emperors of the 
time treated of; the most distinguished 


bishops, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazian- 
zum, Ambrose, Athanasius, hrysostom, 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Cyril, ete.; the 


Egyptian monks and their miracles ; Ulphilas, 
bp. of the Goths, and the famous Hypatia. It 
embraces some important statements on the 
independence of Rome claimed by the Eastern 
church and the encroachments of the Roman 
see upon the latter; on the beginnings of the 
secular power of the Roman church ; and on 
the introduction of disciplinary arrangements. 
The progress of the gospel amongst the Goths, 
Saracens, and Persians, the persecutions of the 
Jews, and the progress of the Eastern con- 
troversy are treated at large. 

A Greek and Latin ed., with notes, by 
Valesius, was pub. at Paris in 1668, repeated 
at Cambridge in 1720, and in Migne’s Patr. 
Gk. (t. lxvii.) in 1859. In 1853 appeared the 


58 


914 SOPHRONIUS 


Gk. and Lat. ed. of R. Hussey (Oxf. 3 vols. 
8vo). An ed. with Eng. notes and intro. by 
W. Bright is pub. by the Clar. Press. There 
s an Eng. trans. by Meredith Hanmer, Prof. 
of Divinity, pub. in London by Field, 1619, and 
more recent ones pub. by Bagster in 1847, and 
in Schaff and Wace’s Post-Nicene Lib., and in 
Bohn’s Lib. (Bell). [w.M.] 
Sophronius (7), a learned Greek friend of 
Jerome, who was with him in 391-392, and is 
included in his catalogue of ecclesiastical 
writers. He had, while still young, composed 
a book on the glories of Bethlehem, and, just 
before the catalogue was written, a book on 
the destruction of the Serapeum, and had 
translated into Greek Jerome’s letter to Eus- 
tochium on virginity, his Life of Hilarion, and 
his Latin version of the Psalms and Prophets. 
_Jerome records that it was at Sophronius’s 
instance that he wrote the last-named. So- 
phronius had, in dispute with a Jew, quoted 
from the Psalms, but the Jew said that the 
passages read differently in Hebrew. Sophro- 
nius therefore asked from Jerome a version 
direct from the Hebrew, which Jerome gave, 
though he knew that alterations from the 
received version would cause him some 
obloquy. The importance of these alterations 
led Sophronius to translate the versions into 
Greek. They were well received, and were 
read in many of the Eastern churches instead 
of the Septuagint. The translations have 
not come down to us; but a Greek version 
of the catalogue of ecclesiastical writers bears 
the name of Sophronius. It is not quite 
accurate, but appears to have been the version 
used by Photius. The presence of his name 
on this book probably gave rise toi ts insertion 
in some MSS. between the names of Jerome, 
who, however, does not appear to have 
adopted it. Hieron., de Vir. Ill. 134; cont. 
Ruf. ii. 24; Ceillier, vi. 278; and Vallarsi’s 
pref. to Jerome, de Vir. IIl. [w.H.F.] 
Sophronius (10), bp. of Tella or Constantina 
in Osrhoene, first cousin of Ibas, bp. of Edessa. 
He was present at the synod of Antioch which 
investigated the case of Athanasius of Perrha, 
in 445 (Labbe, iv. 728). At the ‘‘ Robbers’ 
Synod ” of Ephesus in 449 (Evagr. H. E. 10) 
he was accused of practising sorcery and 
magical arts. He was also accused of Nes- 
torian doctrine, and his case was reserved for 
the hearing of the orthodox metropolitan of 
Edessa, to be appointed in the place of Ibas. 
No further steps appear to have been taken, 
and at the council of Chalcedon he took his 
seat as bp. of Constantia (Labbe, iv. 81). 
His orthodoxy, however, was not beyond 
suspicion, and in the 8th session, after Theod- 
oret had been compelled by the tumultuous 
assembly reluctantly to anathematize Nes- 
torius, Sophronius was forced to follow his 
example,:with the addition of Eutyches(Labbe, 
lv. 623). Theodoret wrote to him in favour 
of Cyprian, an African bp. driven from his see 
by the Vandals (Theod. Ep. 53). Assemani, 
Bibl. Orient. i. 202, 404 ; Chron. Edess.; Tille- 
mont, Mém. eccl. xv. 258, 579, 686; Martin, 
Le Pseudo-Synode d’Ephése, p. 184 ; Le Quien, 
Or. Christ. ii. 967. [E.v.] 
Soter, bp. of Rome after Anicetus, in the 
reign of Marcus Aurelius, during 8 or 9 years. 
Lipsius (Chronol. der rém. Bischéf.) gives 166 


SOZOMEN 


or 167 and 174 or 175 as the probable dates 
of his accession and death. In his time the 
Aurelian persecution afflicted the church, 
though there is no evidence of Roman Chris- 
tians having suffered under it. But they 
sympathized with those who did. Eusebius 
(H. E. iv. 23) quotes a letter from Dionysius, 
bp. of Corinth, to the Romans, acknowledging 
their accustomed benevolence to sufferers 
elsewhere, and the fatherly kindness of bp. 
Soter: ‘‘ From the beginning it has been your 
custom to benefit all brethren in various ways, 
to send supplies to many churches in every 
city, thus relieving the poverty of those that 
need, and succouring the brethren who are in 
the mines. This ancient traditional custom 
of the Romans your blessed bp. Soter has not 
only continued, but also added to, in both 
supplying to the saints the transmitted 
bounty, and also, as an affectionate father 
towards his children, comforting those who 
resort to him with words of blessing.” 

The unknown author of a book called Prae- 
destinatus (c. 26) states that Soter wrote a 
treatise against the Montanists. But the 
writer is generally so unworthy of credit that 
his testimony is of no value. [MONTANUS ; 
PRAEDESTINATUS. ] 

As to the Easter dispute between Rome and 
the Asian Quartodecimans, it seems probable 
that Soter was the first bp. of Rome who was 
unwilling to tolerate the difference of usage. 
His immediate predecessor Anicetus had 
communicated with Polycarp when at Rome ; 
but Victor, who succeeded Soter’s successor 
Eleutherus, incurred the reproof of St. Ire- 
naeus and others for desiring the general 
excommunication of the Asiatic churches on 
account of the dispute; and Irenaeus, in 
remonstrating with Victor, refers only to 
bps. of Rome before Soter, mentioning them 
by name, and ending his list with Anicetus, as 
having maintained communion with the Quar- 
todecimans (Eus. H. E. v. 24). {j.B—y.] 

Sozomen, author of a well-known Eccle- 
stastical History, born c. 400. In his book 
Sozomen has some notices of his birth and of 
his bringing up (v.15). His family belonged to 
Bethelia, a small town near Gaza in Palestine, 
where his grandfather had been one of the 
first to embrace Christianity. Thus Sozomen 
was nurtured amidst Christian influences. He 
tells us (l.c.) that his grandfather was endowed 
with great natural ability, which he consecrated 
especially to the study of the sacred Scriptures, 
that he was much beloved by the Christians 
of those parts, who looked to him for explana- 
tions of the word of God and the unloosing of 
its difficulties. Sozomen came to the writing 
of ecclesiastical history in no spirit of indiffer- 
ence. He believed in Christianity, and even 
in the more ascetic forms of it, with a genuine 
faith, ‘‘for I would neither,’’ he says, “be 
considered ungracious, and willing to consign 
their virtue [that of the monks] to oblivion, 
nor yet be thought ignorant of their history ; 
but I would wish to leave behind me such a 
record of their manner of life that others, led 
by their example, might attain to a blessed 
and happy end ”’ (i. 1). : 

He was probably educated at first in Beth- 
elia or Gaza, for some memories of his youth 
are connected with Gaza (vii. 28). Thence 


SPYRIDON 


he seems to have gone to Berytus, a city of 
Phoenicia, to be trained in civil law at its | 
famous school. His education finished, he 
proceeded to Constantinople, and there. 
entered on his profession (ii. 3). 

_While thus aged he formed the plan of 
his Ecclestastical History (ii. 3), being attracted 
to the subject both by his own taste and 
the example of Eusebius. It appeared in 9 
books, extending over the years 323-439, and 
was dedicated to Theodosius the Younger. It 
thus covers the same period as that of Soc- 
rates, and as both were written about the same 
time and have many resemblances, the ques- 
tion arises as to which was the original and | 
which not unfrequently the copyist. Valesius, 
upon apparently good grounds, decides against 
Sozomen, although allowing that he often adds 
to and corrects his authority. Like Socrates, 
Sozomen is habitually trustworthy, and a 
conscientious and serious writer. In his 
account of the council of Nicaea, which may 
be taken as a favourable specimen of his work 
as a whole, he seems to have drawn from the 
best sources, to have proceeded with care, and 
to have made a sufficiently good choice among 
the apocryphal traditions and innumerable 
legends which in the 5th cent. obscured the 
reports of this great council (cf. De Broglie, 
iv. siécle, ii. 431). But he inserted in his 
history not a little that is trifling and super- 
stitious. In style heis generally allowed to be 
superior, but in judgment inferior, to Socrates. 

His History is especially valuable for its 
accounts of the monks, which, though by an 
admirer, are not therefore to be despised, or we 
should be equally entitled to set aside accounts 
by their detractors. It is impossible to read 
his repeated notices of the monastic institu- 
tions of his time or his long account of their 
manners and customs (i. 12), without feeling 
that here are statements as to the nature and 
influence of monasticism which cannot be set 
aside. He also gives not a few important 
particulars concerning both theevents and men 
of the time covered by it, particularly of the 
council of Nicaea, the persecutions, the general | 
progress of the gospel, the conversion of Con- 
stantine, the history of Julian, the illustrious 
Athanasius, and many bishops and martyrs of 
the age; and also a number of original docu- 


|p. 284, Clark’s trans. ; 


ments. 
The best ed., by Valesius, appeared at Paris | 
in 1668, and was followed by one, with the | 
notes of Valesius, at Cambridge, in1720. The | 
ed. of Hussey (Oxf. 1860) also deserves men- | 
tion. An Eng. trans. in Bohn’s Eccl. Lib.(1855) | 
deserves high commendation; another was pub. | 
by Baxter in 1847 ; and there is one in the Lib. 
of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. [w.M.] 
Spyridon, bp. of Trimithus in Cyprus, one of | 
the most popularly celebrated of the bishops | 
attending the council of Nicaea, although his 
name is not found in the list of signatures. | 
He was the centre of many legendary stories 
which Socrates heard from his fellow-islanders 
(Socr. H. E. i. 12). Spyridon was married, 
with at least one daughter, Irene. He con-— 
tinued his occupation as a sheep farmer after, | 
for his many virtues, he had been called to the | 
episcopate. He is mentioned by Athanasius | 
among the orthodox bishops at the council of | 
Sardica (Athan. Apol. ii. p. 768). His body | 


STEPHANUS L 915 


was first buried in his native island, then re- 
moved to Constantinople, and when the Turks 
captured the city it was transmitted to Corfu, 
where it is annually carried in procession 


jround the capital as the patron saint of the 


Ionian isles (Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 126). 
His Life, written in iambics by his pupil, 
Triphyllius of Ledra, is spoken of by Quitias 
as ‘‘ very profitable "' (Suidas sub voc. Tri- 
phyllius, ii. 947). Rufin. 1, 3-5; Soer. H. Ε. 
1.8, 12; Soz. H. E.i.11; Niceph. H. E&. viii. 
15, 42; Tillemont, Mém. ecel. vi. 643, 679, 
vil. 242-246; Hefele, Hist. of Councils, vol. 1. 
Stanley, op. cit. pp. 
124-126, 132). fav) 

5 (Stagirius), a young friend of 
Chrysostom, of noble birth, who against his 
father’s wishes embraced a monastic life, join- 
ing the brotherhood of which Chrysostom was 
a member, and continuing there after failure 
of health compelled Chrysostom’s return to 
Antioch. The self-indulgent life Stagirus had 
led was a poor preparation for the austerities 
of monasticism, and he proved a very un- 
satisfactory monk. He found the nightly 
vigils intolerable, and reading hardly less dis- 
tasteful. He spent his time in attending to 
a garden and orchard. He also manifested 
much pride of his high birth. His health 
broke down under the strain of so uncon- 
genial a life. He became subject to convul- 
sive attacks, which were then considered to 
indicate demoniacal possession. He employed 
all recognised means for expelling the evil 
spirit. He applied to persons of superior 
sanctity, often taking long journeys to obtain 
the aid of those who had the reputation of 
healing those afflicted with spiritual maladies, 
and visited the most celebrated martyrs’ 
shrines, and prayed long and fervently both 
there and at home, but in vain, though his 
religious character sensibly improved. He 
rose at night and devoted much time to 
prayer and became meek and humble. Chry- 
sostom’s counsels to him are in the 3 books ad 
Stagirium a daemone vexatum, or de Divina 
Providentia (Socr. H. E. vi. 3). What the 
physical issue was we do not know. Nilus 
highly commends his piety, humility, and 
contrition, but uses language which indicates 
that his attacks did not entirely pass away 


|(Nilus, Epp. lib. iii. 19). [εἰν 


Stephanus (1) 1., bp. of Rome, after Lucius, 
from May 12, 254, to Aug. 2, 257. These 
dates are arrived at by Lipsius (Chron. der 
rom. Bischdj.) after careful examination. 
Those given by the ancient catalogues are 
erroneous and conflicting. If Lucius died, as 
is supposed, on Mar. 5, 254, Stephen was 
appointed after a vacancy of 61 days. 

At the time of his accession the persecution 
of the church, begun by Decius and renewed 
by Gallus, had ceased for a time under 
Valerian. The internal disputes as to the 
reception of the lapsi, which had given rise 
to the schism of NovaTian, still continued. 

In the autumn of 254 a council was held at 
Carthage, the first during the episcopate of 
Stephen, on the matter of two Spanish bishops, 
Basilides and Martialis, deposed for compli- 
ance with idolatry. Basilides had been to 
Rome to represent his case to — and 
procure reinstatement in bis see; an Stephen 


910 STEPHANUS I. 

had apparently supported him. The synod- 
ical letter of the council (drawn up, without 
doubt, by Cyprian) confirmed the deposition 
of the two prelates and the election of their 
successors, on the ground that compliance 
with idolatry incapacitated for resumption of 
clerical functions, though not for reception 
into the church through penance. The action 
of Stephen was put aside as of no account, 
though excused as due to the false representa- 
tions of Basilides (Cyp. Ep. 67). A letter from 
Cyprian to Stephen himself, probably written 
soon after the council and in the same year, 
is further significant of the relations between 
Carthage and Rome. Stephen seems to have 
been determined to act independently in 
virtue of the supposed prerogatives of his see, 
while Cyprian shews himself equally deter- 
mined to ignore such prerogatives. The 
subject of the letter is Marcian, bp. of Arles, 
who had adopted Novatianist views, and 
whose deposition Stephen is urged to bring 
about by letters to the province and people 
of Arles. The letter shews that Faustinus of 
Lyons had repeatedly written to Cyprian on 
the subject, having also, together with other 
bishops of the province, in vain solicited 
Stephen to take action. While allowing that 
it rested with the bp. of Rome to influence 
with effect the Gallic provinces, Cyprian is far 
fiom conceding him any prerogative beyond 
that of the general collegium of bishops, by 
whose concurrent action, according to his 
theory, the true faith and discipline of the 
Church Catholic was to be maintained. In 
praising the late bps. of Rome, Cornelius 
and Lucius, whose example he exhorts 
Stephen to follow, Cyprian seems to imply a 
doubt whether the latter was disposed to do 
his duty (ἐδ. 68). 

A new question of dispute, that of the re- 
baptism of heretics, led to an open rupture 
between Rome and Carthage, in which the 
Asian as well as the African churches sided 
with Cyprian against Rome. The question 
was raised whether the adherents of Novatian 
who had been baptized in schism should be 
rebaptized when reconciled to the church (ἐδ. 
69 ad Magnum). But it soon took the wider 
range of all cases of heretical or schismatical 
baptism. It had been long the practice in 
both Asia and Africa to rebaptize heretics, 
and the practice had been confirmed by 
synods, including the first Carthaginian synod 
under Agrippinus. Cyprian (Ep. 73, ad 
Jubaianum) does not trace the African custom 
further back than Agrippinus, but he insisted 
uncompromisingly on the necessity of re- 
baptism, and was supported by the whole 
African church. At Rome admission by 
imposition of hands only, without iteration 
of baptism, seems to have been the immemo- 
rial usage, the only alleged exception being 
what Hippolytus states (Philosophum. p. 291) 
about rebaptism having been practised in the 
time of Callistus. Stephen took a view 
opposite to that of Cyprian. Cyprian would 
baptize all schismatics, whether heretical in 
doctrine or no; Stephen would apparently 
rebaptize none, whatever their heresies or the 
form of their baptism (Cyp. Ep. 74). 

The first council of Carthage on the subject, 
held in 255, issued a synodal letter supporting 


STEPHANUS Ii. 


Cyprian’s position. Cyprian then sent to 
Stephen a formal synodal letter, agreed on in 
a synod at Carthage, probably at Easter, 256, 
in which the necessity of baptizing heretics 
and of the exclusion from clerical functions 
of apostate clergy on their readmission into 
the church, is urged. But the tone of the 
letter is not dictatorial. Stephen may retain 
his own views if he will without breaking the 
bond of peace with his colleagues, every pre- 
late being free to take his own line, and 
responsible to God (Ep. 72). 

Stephen’s reply, written, according to 
Cyprian, ‘‘ unskilfully and inconsiderately,”’ 
contained things ‘‘ either proud, or irrelevant, 
ΟΥ self-contradictory.’’ Cyprian charges 
Stephen with ‘‘ hard obstinacy,’’ ‘‘ presump- 
tion and contumacy,”’ referring, by way of 
contrast, to St. Paul’s admonition to Timothy, 
that a bishop should not be “ litigious,’’ but 
““mild and docile,’ and replying to the 
arguments advanced by Stephen. Stephen 
had so far apparently not broken off com- 
munion with those who differed from him 
(Ep. 74). Cyprian summoned a plenary 
council of African, Numidian, and Mauritanian 
bishops, numbering 87, with presbyters and 
deacons, in the presence of a large assembly 
of laity, which met on Sept. 1, 256. Cyprian 
and other bishops separately gave their 
opinions, unanimously asserting the decision 
of the previous synod. But Cyprian was 
careful, in his opening address, to repudiate 
any intention of judging others or breaking 
communion with them on the ground of dis- 
agreement. After this great council, probably 
towards the winter of 256, Firmilian, bp. 
of Neocaesarea, wrote his long letter to 
Cyprian, from which it appears that Stephen 
had by this time renounced communion with 
both the Asian and African churches, calling 
Cyprian a false Christ, a false apostle, a deceit- 
ful worker. The question has been raised 
whether Stephen’s action was an excommuni- 
cation of the Eastern and African churches, 
or only a threat. H. Valois and Baronius 
say the latter only ; but Firmilian’s language 
seems to imply more, and so Mosheim (Comm. 
de Rebus Christian. pp. 538 seq.) thinks. Routh 
and Lipsius also hold that excommunication 
was pronounced. Stephen claimed authority 
beyond other bishops as being St. Peter’s 
successor, and took much amiss Cyprian’s 
independent action; Cyprian, supported by 
all the African and Asian churches, utterly 
ignored any such superior authority ; his well- 
known position being that, though Christ’s 
separate commission to St. Peter had ex- 
pressed the unity of the church, this com- 
mission was shared by all the apostles and 
transmitted to all bishops alike. Unity, 
according to his theory, was to be maintained, 
not by the supremacy of one bishop, but by 
the consentient action of all, allowing consider- 
able differences of practice without breach of 
unity. Stephen seems to have taken the 
position, carried to its full extent by sub- 
sequent popes, of claiming a peculiar 
supremacy for the Roman see, and requiring 
uniformity as a condition of communion. 

The arguments of Stephen were mainly 
these: ‘‘ We have immemorial custom on our 
side, especially the tradition of St. Peter’s see, 


STEPHANUS 


which is above all others. We have also 
Scripture and reason on our side; St. Paul 
rejoiced at the preaching of the gospel, and 
recognized it, though preached out of envy and 
strife. There is but one baptism ; to reiterate 
it is sacrilege, and its efficacy depends, not on 
the administrators, but on the institution of 
Christ ; whoever, then, has been once baptized 
in the name of Christ, even by heretics, has 
been validly baptized, and may not be bap- 
tized again.” Cyprian’s answer was: “ As to 
your custom, however old, it is a corrupt one, 
and not primitive; no custom can be set 
against truth, to get at which we must go back 
to the original fountain. Scripture is really 
altogether against you; those at whose 
preaching of the gospel St. Paul rejoiced were 
not schismatics, but members of the church 
acting from unworthy motives ; 
tized those baptized only unto St. John’s bap- 
tism, without acknowledgment of the Holy 
Ghost ; he and the other apostles regarded 
schism and heresy as cutting men off from 
Christ ; the Catholic Church is one, ‘a closed 
garden, a fountain sealed’; outside it there 
is no grace, no salvation, consequently no 
baptism ; people cannot confer grace if they 
have not got it; we do not reiterate baptism, 
for those whom we baptize have not previously 
been baptized at all; it is you that make two 
baptisms in allowing that of heretics as well 
as that of the church.” 


Stephen’s martyrdom under Valerian is_ 
asserted in the Felician Catalogue, but not in| 


the earlier Liberian Catalogue. [J-B—yY.] 
Stephanus (12), bp. of Ephesus at the time 
of the ‘‘ Robber Synod’ and the 4th council of 
Chalcedon. The 11th session of that council 
(Oct. 29, 451) was wholly occupied with in- 
vestigating a complaint brought by Bassianus, 
formerly bp. of Ephesus, against Stephen, 
who was in advanced age, having been then 
50 years one of the clergy of Ephesus. Bassi- 
anus had been expelled by violence from the 
see c. 448, and succeeded by Stephen. Both 
were deprived of the see by decree of the 
synod, but allowed a pension of 200 gold 
pieces (Mansi, t. vil. 271-294; Hefele’s Coun- 
cils, t. iii. p. 371, Clark's trans.). The name 
of Stephen of Ephesus is attached to a MS. 
collection of sermons in the Vienna imperial 
library (Lambecii, Comment. iii. 66; Fabric. 
Bib. Graec. xii. 183, ed. Harles). (G.T.s.] 
Stephanus (16) 1., patriarch of Antioch 
A.D. 478-480 (Clinton, F. R. ii- 536, 553). 
Stephen having sent a synodic letter to Acacius 
bp. of Constantinople acquainting him with 


the circumstances of his consecration, Acacius | 


convened a synod, A.p. 478, by which the 
whole transaction was confirmed. The parti- 
sans of Peter the Fuller accused Stephen to 
Zeno of Nestorian heresy, and demanded to 
have his soundness in the faith investigated 
by a synod. Zeno yielded, and a synod was 


he rebap- | 


SYMMACHUS 917 


nant at the murder of his nominee, despatched 
a military force to punish the Eutychian party, 
at whose instigation the crime had been com- 
mitted (Simplicii Ep. xiv. ad Zenonem, 
Labbe, iv. 1033; Lib. Synod. ib. 1152). Ace 
cording to some authorities it was Stephen's 
successor, another Stephen, who was thus 
murdered. Valesius, Seb. Binius, Tillemont 
(Mém. xvi. 315) and Le Quien (Or. Christ. 
li. 726) take the view given above. [r.v.] 

᾿ tonice, martyr at Cyzicum in Mysia 
with Seleucus her husband at the quinquen- 
nalia of Galerius during Diocletian's persecu- 
tion. The wife of a leading magistrate of the 
town, she came to see a large number of 
Christians tortured. Their patience converted 
her and she converted her husband. Her 
father, Apollonius, after every effort to win 
her back to paganism had failed, became her 
most bitter accuser. Husband and wife were 
beheaded, and buried in one tomb over which 
Constantine built a church (Assemani, Acta 
Mart. Ortent. t. ii. p. 65). The Acts offer many 
marks of authenticity. Cf. Le Blant, Actes des 
Martyrs, p. 224, etc. ; AA. SS. Boll. Oct. xiii. 
pp. 893-916; Ceill. il. 481-483. (G.t.s.] 

Sylvia (Silvania), sister of Flavius Rufinus, 
consul in 392 and prefect of the East under 
Theodosius and Arcadius. A work written 
by her was discovered at Arezzo in 1885, 
bound up with an unpublished work of St. 
Hilary of Poictiers (de Mysteriis). It con- 
tained 2 hymns and an account of a journey 
in the East. M. Ch. Kohler gave an analysis 


| of the text in Bibl. de I’ Ecole des Chartres, and 


M. Gamurrini discussed its authorship in a 
paper before the Academy of Christian Archae- 
ology at Rome (cf. Revue Critique, May 25, 
1885, Ρ. 419). It has since been shown by 
M. Fératin that the pilgrim author is Etheria, 
a Spanish nun, mentioned by the monk 
Valerius(Migne, Patr. Lat. 1xxxvil. 421). It has 
been generally quoted, however, as the Pere- 
grinatio Silviae. It is of the highest interest 
from its account of the services at Jerusalem 
at the time (c. 385). Important extracts from 
it are given in IDuchesne’s Origines du Culte 
Chrétien, of which a good trans. by Mrs. 
McClure has been pub. by S.P.C.K. Cf. also 
F. Cabrol, Les Eglises de Jerusalem; la dis- 
ctpline et la liturgie au IV™ Sidcle, Etude sur 
la Peregrinatio Silviae. (G.T.S. AND abst 
Symmachus (2), author of the Greek version 
of O.T., which in Origen’s Hexapla and Tetra- 
pla occupied the column next after that of 
Aquila and before those of the LXX and 
Theodotion. Eusebius speaks of Symmachus 
as a heretical Christian, while Epiphanius 
represents him merely as passing from the 
Samaritan sect to Judaism. The account of 
Eusebius is confirmed (1) by the name *‘ Sym- 
machians,"’ which, as we know from the 
Ambrosiaster (Prol. in Ep. ad Galat.) and from 
Augustine (cont. Cresc. i. 31; cont. Faust. 


called for the Syrian Laodicea (Labbe, iv.) xix. 4), was applied even in the 4th cent. to 
1152). The charge was declared groundless | the Pharisaic or ‘‘ Nazarean"’ Ebionites; (2) 
(Theophan. 108). Stephen's enemies, rendered | by the fact that Eusebius could refer to a work 
furious by defeat, made an onslaught on the | of Symmachus as extant, in which he main- 


church of St. Barlaam in which he was cele- | tained the Ebionite heresy in the sha 


of an 


brating the Eucharist, dragged him from the | attack on St. Matthew's Gospel. This work, 


altar, tortured him to death, and threw his pene 
body into the Orontes (Evagr. H. E. iii. 10; | monstr. Ev 


Niceph. H. E. xv. 18). 


to Eusebius (H. Ε. vi. 17; De- 
ang. vil. 1), was stated by Origen 


The emperor, indig- | to have been obtained by him, together with 


918 SYMMACHUS 6. AURELIUS 


other interpretations on the Scriptures, from 
one Juliana, who had received them from 
Symmachus himself. A later writer, Palla- 
dius (c. 420), adds that this Juliana was a 
virgin who lived in Caesarea of Cappadocia, 
and gave refuge to Origen for two years during 
a persecution, adducing as his authority an 
entry which he found in Origen’s own hand : 
“‘ This book I found in the house of Juliana the 
virgin in Caesarea, when I was hiding there ; 
who said that she had received it from Sym- 
machus himself, the interpreter of the Jews” 
(Hist. Laus. 147). Heut (Origeniana, libb. I. 
iii. 2; III. iv. 2) is probably right in assigning 
the sojourn of Origen in this lady’s house to the 
time of Maximin’s persecutions (A.D. 238-241). 
Eusebius speaks of the version of Symmachus 
(vi. 16) as being, like those of Aquila and 
Theodotion, in common use in Origen’s day, 
in contrast with the obscure ‘“‘ Fifth’’ and 
‘© Sixth ”’ versions, which Origen brought to 
light ; and Origen’s extant remains shew that 
he knew and used Symmachus’s version long 
before the time of Maximin (236-239). 
Palladius, by his incidental statement, 
coming almost direct from Origen himself and 
resting on the testimony of a lady who had 
known Symmachus personally, powerfully 
confirms Eusebius, and makes it clear that 
Symmachus was a Christian (or ‘‘semi- 
Christian ’’ as Jerome expresses it) of the 
Nazareo-Ebionite sect. Epiphanius’s 80- 
count is therefore to be rejected; and with 
it the theory of Geiger, who seeks to identify 
him with the Jew Symmachus, son of Joseph. 
The authority of Epiphanius has, however, 
been commonly accepted for placing the date 
of Symmachus under the reign of Severus 
(193-211)—e.g. by the compiler of the Chronicon 
Paschale (s.a. 202), Cave (Hist. Lit. s.a. 201), 
etc. The extract from Palladius roughly 
fixes limits for the possible date of Symma- 
chus, by shewing that he was an elder con- 
temporary of Juliana, who was contemporary 
with Origen, but that he had died before 
Origen’s sojourn in her house. 
Symmachus’s object in his version seems to 
have been to imitate Aquila in following the 
Hebrew exclusively, but to avoid his bar- 
barous diction and to commend his work to 
Greek readers by purity of style. Thus, his 
renderings areexternally dissimilar to Aquila’s, 
but (frequently) internally akin. Remark- 
able cases of identity of translation between 
these two versions occur, 6.5. Dan. ix. 26, 27, 
which appears to have been borrowed by 
Symmachus verbally from Aquila. Of his 
other writings nothing is known. _[J.Gw-] 
Symmachus (3) Q. Aurelius, the last eminent 
champion of paganism at Rome, son of L. 
Aurelius Avianus Symmachus, who was pre- 
fect of the city in 364, consul suffect and pre- 
torian prefect in 376, and one of the envoys 
sent by Julian to Constantius (Ammian. xxi. 
12, 24). He was educated at Bordeaux (Epp. 
ix. 88), where he and Ausonius became firm 
friends (Auson. Id. 11, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xix. 
895; Symm. Epp. i. 13-43). After being 
questor and praetor, he became corrector of 
Lucania and Bruttium in 365 and proconsul 
of Africa in 373 (Cod. Theod. viii. tit. v. 25; 
xii. tit. i. 73). Being again in Gaul c. 369, 
he delivered his first panegyric on Valentinian 


SYMMACHUS 6. AURELIUS 


as he witnessed the construction of his for 
tifications on the Rhine (Laud. in Valent. Sen. 
ii. 6). He was appointed prefect of the city 
at the end of 383 or the beginning of 384. He 
bore himself modestly in that office, which had 
been conferred on him unsolicited, declining 
the silver chariot which his predecessors had 
permission to use (Epp. x. 24, 40) and the title 
of ‘‘ Magnificence ” (Epp. iv. 42). In 382 he 
headed a deputation in the name of the 
majority of the senate, to the emperor Gratian, 
to request the replacement of the altar of 
Victory in the senate house and the restoration 
of their endowments to the vestals and the 
colleges of priests. The Christian senators, 
who, according to St. Ambrose, were really the 
majority, forwarded through pope Damasus 
a counter-petition, and by the influence of 
St. Ambrose the efforts of Symmachus were 
defeated, as again in 384, after Gratian’s 
death (S. Ambr. Epp. 17, 18, 57, in Patr. Lat. 
Xvi. 961, 972, 1175; Symm. Epp. x. 61). He 
probably took part in the missions for the 
same purpose sent by the senate by Theodosius 
after the fall of Maximus, and to Valentinian 
II. in 392 (S. Ambr. Ep. 57), and again suffered 
the same disappointment. In 393 the pagan 
party had a momentary triumph. Eugenius, 
at the instigation of Flavian and Arbogast, 
who had placed him on the throne, restored 
the altar of Victory and the endowments of 
the priests (Paulin. Vita S. Amb. in Patr. Lat. 
xvi. 30), but they were again abolished by 
Theodosius after the defeat of Eugenius and 
Arbogast. Symmachus appears to have made 
a final attempt in 403 or 404; at least such is 
the natural inference from the two books of 
Prudentius, contra Symmachum, written after 
Pollentia and consequently c. 404. 

Though a champion of the pagan cause, 
Symmachus was on excellent terms with the 
Christian leaders. He was a friend of pope 
Damasus and apparently of St. Ambrose him- 
self, whom Cardinal Mai considers to be the 
Ambrose to whom seven of his letters are 
addressed (Epp. iii. 31-37), of St. Ambrose’s 
brother Satyrus (S. Ambr. de Excessu Fratris, 
i. 32, in Patr. Lat. xvi. 1300), and of Mallius 
Theodorus, to whom St. Augustine (είν. i. 2, 
in Patr. Lat. xxxii. 588) dedicated one of his 
works. When prefect, he sent St. Augustine 
as a teacher of rhetoric to Milan (Conf. v. 19, 
in Paty. Lat. xxxii. 717), and was thus the 
unconscious instrument of his conversion. 
His Christian opponents always speak in high 
terms of his character and abilities. He was 
a member of the college of pontiffs, and as such 
exercised a strict supervision over the vestal 
virgins. In the case of one of the Alban 
vestals, who had broken her vow of chastity, 
he demanded the enforcement of the ancient 
penalty against her and her paramour (Epp. ix. 
128, 129), and sternly refused the request of 
another to be released from her vows before 
her time of service ended (Epp. ix. 108). 

The letters of Symmachus give a remark- 
able picture of the circumstances and life of a 
Roman noble just before the final break-up of 
the empire. His wealth, though not above 
that of an average senator (Olymp. ap. Phot.), 
was very great. He had a mansion on the 
Coelian near S. Stefano Rotondo and other 
houses in Rome (Ep. iii. 14), and numerous 


ὺ 
¥ ᾿ 
Ι 
7 


SYMMACHUS 


country residences, of which he mentions four 
suburban (Epp. i. 6, ii. 57, iii. 55, vi. 58) and 
several more remote (Epp. i. 1, 8, 10, ii. 60, 
ll. 50, ἵν. 44, Vi. 66, 81, vii. 15, 35). He 
had property near Aquileia and in Sam- 
nium, Sicily, and Mauritania (Epp. iv. 68, vi. 
II, li. 30, Vii. 66). The expenses of his son's 
praetorship, which he paid, amounted to 2,000 
pounds of gold a o's «.s.), and in many of 
his letters he asks his friends to send him rare 
wild beasts for the sports of his son's praetor- 
ship and questorship. Among other, seven 
Irish wolf-dogs are mentioned (Epp. ii. 77). 
In three of his letters he speaks of his advanc- 
ing years (Epp. iv. 18, 32, viii. 48). He was 
certainly alive in 404. 

His letters are reprinted in 10 books in 
Pair. Lat. xviii. Early in the roth cent. 
Cardinal Mai discovered in the Ambrosian 
Library fragments of 9 speeches of Sym- 
machus, which he published in 1815, and 
again in 1846. A new ed. of the Relationes, 
his official correspondence with emperors, was 
pub. in 1872 by W. Meyer. [F.D.] 

Symmachus (9), bp. of Rome from Nov. 
498, to July, 514, when Theodoric the Ostro- 
goth was king of Italy and Anastasius 
emperor in the East. For the circumstances 
of his election see LAURENTIUS (10). 

The virulence of the two opposed parties is 
accounted for by the fact that they repre- 
sented two opposite policies with regard to 
the then existing schism between the Western 
and Eastern churches. Laurentius was elect- 
ed in the interests of the policy of concession 
to Constantinople and the East, which the 
previous pope, Anastasius II., had favoured ; 
Symmachus for the maintenance of the 
unbending attitude taken by Felix III. when 
the schism first began. 

Several extant letters of Symmachus refer 
to the rivalry between the Gallic sees of Arles 
and Vienne. [Zostmus; Leo I.; HILarrius 
(pope); HiLarrus AREvAT.] Anastasius II., 
the predecessor of Symmachus, had sanctioned 
some invasion, on the part of Vienne, of the 
jurisdiction assigned to Arles by Leo. After 
the accession of Symmachus, Eonus, then the 
primate of Arles, complained to him, appar- 
ently in 499, of Avitus of Vienne having, 
under such sanction, ordained bishops beyond 
his proper jurisdiction. The reply of Sym- 
machus shews an evident readiness to impute 


blame to Anastasius (whose whole policy, with | 


regard to the East, he had been elected to 
counteract), and is remarkable as a decided 
repudiation by a pope ot the action of a pre- 
decessor. He lays down the principle that 
the ordinances of former popes ought not to 
be varied under any necessity, as those of Leo 
had been by Anastasius, and must be now 
maintained. He, however, requires both 
Eonus and Avitus to send full statements of 
their case to Rome; 
Avitus, while he repeats that the confusion 
introduced by Anastasius was not to be 
tolerated, he invites Avitus to state any 
reasons for some equitable dispensation under 
existing circumstances. It was not till 513 
that we find the bp. of Arles finally confirmed 
in the rights accorded to his see by pope Leo ; 
Caesarius having then succeeded Eonus. 
Symmachus then wrote to this effect to the 


and in his letter to) 


SYMPHORIANUS 919 


| bishops of Gaul, and in 514 to Caesarius, 
warning him to respect the ancient rights of 
other metropolitans and to report anything 
| amiss in Gaul or Spain to Rome. 

After the defeat of the party of Laurentius 
at Rome and the final settlement of Sym- 
machus in the see, the emperor Anastasius, to 
whom the result would be peculiarly unwel- 
come, issued a manifesto against Symmachus, 
reproaching him with having been unlawfully 
elected, accusing him of Manichean heresy, and 
protesting against his presumption in having 
(as he said) excommunicated an emperor. 
Symmachus replied in a letter entitled 
“ Apologetica adversus Anastasii imperatoris 
libellum famosum,"’ and in strong and indig- 
nant language rebutted the charges against 
himself, and retorted that of heresy on the 
emperor ; he accuses him of presuming on his 
temporal — to think to trample on St. 
Peter in the person of his vicar, and reminds 
him that spiritual dignity is, at least, on a 
par with that of an emperor; and he protests 
strongly against the violence used against the 
orthodox in the East. Anastasius was by 
no means awed or deterred by these papal 
fulminations, which had probably the opposite 
effect. He appears after this more than ever 
determined to support Eutychianism. 

Some time during the episcopate of Sym- 
machus Theodoric visited Rome. Cassio- 
dorus gives an account of the visit, placing it 
under the consuls of a.p. 500; and that 
Theodoric remained at Ravenna while the 
case against the pope was pending may be 

athered from the documents that refer to it. 
imself an Arian, Theodoric evidently had 
no desire to intervene personally in the dis- 
putes of the Catholics, declaring it his sole 
desire that they should agree among them- 
selves and order be restored at Rome. 

Symmachus is said by Anastasius (Ls. 
Pontif.) to have built, restored, and enriched 
with ornaments many Roman churches, to 
have spent money in redeeming captives, to 
have furnished yearly money and clothing 
to exiled orthodox bishops, and to have 
ordered the ‘‘ Gloria in excelsis "’ to be sung 
on all Sundays and Saints’ days. [j.8—y-.] 

ne (1), martyr, according to the 
MSS. of his Acts, under Aurelian, for which 
name Ruinart would substitute Aurelius, 
| dating his passion c. 180. He was born in 
Autun, of noble parentage, and trained in 
Christianity from is childhood. Autun was 
devoted to the worship of Berecynthia; and 
the consular Heraclius, who governed there, 
anxious to convert the Christians by argu- 
ment, entered into discussion with σον 
anus, who reviled his false deities. The judge 
used threats and tortures, and finally beheaded 
him outside the walls in the place of common 
|execution. The Acts of this martyr have been 
evidently compiled out of very ancient docu- 
/ments. The judicial investigation is reported 
‘in the most exact and technical forms of 
Roman law. The questions proposed and the 
answers given are such as we find in the most 
genuine remains of antiquity. Yet there are 
also indications that they have been worked 
up into their present shape. The details of 
| the worship of Cybele may be very usefully 
‘compared with those given in the passion of 


920 SYNESIUS 


St. Theodotus and the Seven Virgins of 
Ancyra. Celtic idolatry-in Asia and in Gaul 
followed precisely the same ritual. Ruinart, 
Acta Sincera, pp. 67-73; Ceillier, i. 472 ; 
AA. SS. Boll. Aug. iv. 496-498. [6.Τ.5.] 

Synesius (2), bp. of Ptolemais in the Libyan 
Pentapolis, early in 5th cent. A treatise by 
H. Druon; Etudes sur la vie et les quvres de 
Synesius (Paris, 1859), gives valuable informa- 
tion respecting the chronological arrangement 
of Synesius’s writings, especially the letters ; 
another by Dr. Volkmann, Synesius von Cyrene 
(Berlin, 1869), is a well-written treatise, but 
not so elaborate. 

Synesius of Cyrene witnessed the accomp- 
lishment of two great events on which the 
whole course of history for many centuries 
depended—the ruin of the Roman empire and 
the complete triumph of Christianity. He 
was born when the pagan world was mourning 
the untimely death of the last of the pagan 
emperors. He died amidst the horrors of the 
barbarian invasions, when the recent fall of 
Rome seemed to every portion of the Roman 
empire a sign of impending ruin. 

He was born c. 365 at Cyrene, “‘a Greek 
city of ancient fame,’’ but then already in 
decay, and superseded by Ptolemais as the 
capital of Pentapolis. He was of good 
family, inheriting an ample fortune, with 
considerable estates in the interior of the 
country. In his early years he served in the 
army and was passionately fond of field 
sports. Leaving the army, he commenced 
his studies at Alexandria, where Hypatia then 
lectured in philosophy. Through her he be- 
came attached to neo-Platonism. 

But the great school of Alexandria was not 
then considered sufficient for any one who 
aimed at the reputation of a philosopher. To 
Athens, therefore, Synesius was driven by the 
remonstrances of his friends. But both with 
the city and its teachers he was profoundly 
disappointed. He returned to Pentapolis, de- 
termined to divide his time between country 
pursuits and literature, planting trees, breed- 
ing horses, training dogs for hunting, writing 
poetry, and studying philosophy. From this 
pleasant life he was called to plead the cause 
of his native city before the court of Constan- 
tinople, arriving there a.D. 397, and remaining 
3 years. Through the friendship and influence 
of Aurelian, a distinguished statesman, the 
leader at that time of what may be called the 
patriotic party, Synesius was allowed to 
pronounce before the emperor Arcadius and 
his court an oration on the nature and duties 
of kingship. This oration is still extant, but 
the language is in parts so bold, the invective 
so personal, as to suggest a doubt whether it 
was actually delivered, at least in its present 
form. 

Some of the evils which Synesius anticipated 
were soon realized. The Gothic leader Gainas 
revolted, and triumphed without difficulty over 
the effeminate court of Arcadius. Aurelian 
was sent into banishment, and his sup- 
porters in Constantinople exposed to consider- 
able dangers. Synesius declared afterwards 
that he had only escaped the devices of his 
enemies through warnings sent him in dreams 
by God. In a few weeks the power of Gainas 
sank as rapidly as it had risen. Part of his 


SYNESIUS 


army perished in a popular rising in Constan- 
tinople. The rest were destroyed by an army 
of Huns in the pay of the emperor. Aurelian 
returned to Constantinople, and for the 
remainder of Arcadius’s reign had great in- 
fluence at court. Through him Synesius 
obtained the boon he asked for Cyrene, and 
was able at length to quit the hateful city. 
From his country retreat, and from the city 
of Cyrene, Synesius kept up a brisk corres- 
pondence with his friends in different parts of 
the world, especially at Alexandria and Con- 
stantinople. Some of his letters were 
to influential friends in behalf of persons in 
distress. Of the 156 letters still extant, 49 
are to his brother Evoptius. They form a 
pleasant series, full of interesting details. 
With the death of Theodosius the last hope 
of maintaining the grandeur of the Roman 
empire seemed suddenly to pass. Rome and 
Milan, Lyons and Arles, fell by turn before 
Goths and Vandals, leaving many records of 
suffering, but not one of a heroic struggle for 
life and liberty. The characteristics of the 
time are well illustrated by the letters of 
Synesius. The miseries of the empire did not 
spare the distant province of Pentapolis. 
The nomadic tribes of Libya took advantage 
of the weakness of the Roman government to 
sweep down upon the fertile land. Their 
inroads were at first merely predatory incur- 
sions. They seem to have begun not long 
after Synesius’s return from Constantinople. 
At Cyrene, as elsewhere, there were no troops 
to oppose them. Synesius’s spirits rose with 
the danger. ‘‘I at all events,’ he writes, 
‘“will see what manner of men these are who 
think they have a right to despise Romans. 
I will fight as one who is ready to die, and I 
know I shall survive. I am Laconian by 
descent, and I remember the letter of the 
rulers to Leonidas—‘ Let them fight as men 
who are ready to die, and they will not die.’ ”’ 
Here and there a few displayed the same 
courage. Things grew worse, till he wrote 
almost in despair this touching letter to 
Hypatia: ‘‘I am surrounded by the mis- 
fortunes of my country, and mourn for her as 
each day I see the enemy in arms, and men 
slaughtered like sheep. The air I breathe is 
tainted by putrefying corpses, and I expect 
as bad a fate myself, for who can be hopeful 
when the very sky is darkened by clouds of 
carnivorous birds? Still, I cling to my 
country. How can I do otherwise, I who am 
a Libyan, born in the country, and who have 
before my eyes the honoured tombs of my 
ancestors ἢ Shortly afterwards, owing to 
the arrival probably of a new general, the 
Ausurians were repulsed, and Synesius in 403 
left for Alexandria, where he married and 
remained two years. Returning, he found 
Cerealis governor, under whose rule the pre- 
datory incursions of the barbarians became 
a regular invasion. ‘‘He is a man,” wrote 
Synesius to an influential friend at Constan- 
tinople, ‘‘ who sells himself cheaply, who is 
useless in war, and oppressive in peace.” 
Obviously Synesius thought that, at least in 
Pentapolis, the country might have been 
easily protected against the barbarians if there 
had been any ability in the government or 
vigour in the people. He was probably right. 


— 


ee 


SYNESIUS 


SYNESIUS 921 


The Roman empire fell because so few of its | tation with which Iamblichus and others 


citizens cared to do anything to preserve it. 
It was but natural that men, even of strong 
oe feeling, like Synesius, should turn 
‘om the degradation of official life to live in 
thought among the glories of the heroic age 
of action in the pages of Homer, and the 
heroic age of thought in those of Plato. Ηἰξ 
philosophical studies did not meet with much 
encouragement among the people of Penta- 
polis. “1 never hear in Libya the sound of 
philosophy, except the echo of my own voice. 
Yet if no one else is my witness, assuredly God 
is, for the mind of man is the seed of God, and 
I think the stars look down with favour on me 
as the only scientific observer of their move- 
ments visible to them in this vast continent.” 
He pursued the study of astronomy, not only 
from his love for the beauties of nature, but 
as a valuable introduction to the highest 
branches of philosophy. To him, as to Plato, 
astronomy is ‘not only a very noble science, 
but a means of rising to something nobler 
still, a ready passage to the mysteries of 
theology.” He had received instruction in it 
from Hypatia, his ‘‘ most venerated teacher,” 
at Alexandria. While at Constantinople he 
sent his friend Paeonius a planisphere, con- 
structed in silver according to his own direc- 
tions, with a letter giving a curious description 
of it. He mentions that Ptolemy, and the 


sacred college of his successors, had been | 


contented with the planisphere on which 
Hipparchus had marked only the 16 largest 
stars by which the hours of the night were 


known, but he himself had marked on his. 


all the stars down to the 6th degree of mag- 
nitude. 

In philosophy Synesius is not entitled to 
rank as an independent thinker. He is simply 
an eclectic blending together the elements of 
his belief from widely different sources, with- 
out troubling to reduce them to a strictl 
harmonious system. He had neither dept 
nor precision of thought sufficient to win a 
high place in the history of philosophy. But 
he constantly speaks of his delight in philo- 
sophical studies, and always claims as his 
especial title of honour the name of a philo- 
sopher. If he had been asked which he con- 
sidered the most philosophical of his writings, 
he would probably have answered his poems. 
For, from his point of view, poetry was in- 
separably connected with philosophy; for 
both are occupied with the highest problems of 
life ; both look at the ideal side of things, and 
in the union of the two religion itself consists. 
The Homeric poems were valuable to him, not 
only for literary excellency, but as furnishing 
a rule of conduct. He quotes Homer as a 
Christian then quoted his Bible. He evident- 
ly regarded Homer as an authority in political, 
social, moral, and even religious questions. 
He was certainly well versed in the whole 
range of Greek literature. There is hardly a 
poet, historian, or philosopher of eminence 
not quoted or alluded to by him. In this, asin 
other respects, he faithfully represents one of 


the latest phases of thought in the Alexandrine | 


school. The ascetic system of Plotinus and 


Porph had failed as an opposing force to 
the Se ae tide of Christianity. The theurgical 


rites and mysterious forms of magical incan- 


sought to prop up the falling creed had had 
| but a limited success. Repeated laws of 
| increasing severity had been passed to repress 
| the magical arts, and many accu of 
| practising them imprisoned and even exe- 
cuted. Besides, the very persons over 
whose credulity such pretensions could ex- 
}ercise any influence would in the 4th cent. 
naturally be much more attracted by the far 
/more wonderful pretensions of the Christian 
| hermits, and the countless tales of visions seen 
and miracles wrought by monks of Nitria and 
| Scetis, which continually excited the wonder 
/and stimulated the religion of the people of 
| Alexandria. In supposed miracles, as in real 
| austerities, no pagan philosopher was likely 
to rival Anthony or Ammon. Among the 
higher classes the great majority of thinking 
men, who were still unwilling to embrace 
Christianity, were chiefly influenced in the 
Eastern empire by their attachment to Greek 
literature, in the Western empire by their 
reverence, partly political, partly religious, 
for Rome itself, whose greatness seemed to 
them to depend on the maintenance of that 
system, partly political, partly religious, under 
which it had been acquired. The Greek 
mythology had lost its hold on their belief, 
but the poetry that mythology had inspired 
still retained its power over the imagination 
of educated men among the cities of the 
Eastern empire, which, however slightly 
Greek in origin, had become thoroughly 
Greek in language and in culture. Besides, 
the ideal of life presented in Greek literature 
was far more attractive to many minds than 
that presented by the popular teaching of 
Christianity, especially to those minds in 
which the intellectual were stronger than the 
moral impulses. Those who “still cared for 
grace and Hellenism,” to use Synesius's 
expression, turned with increasing fondness 
from the intellectual degeneracy of their day 
to the masterpieces of former times, seeking 
to satisfy the universally felt craving for a 
definite religious creed, by taking from all the 
writers they admired the elements of a vague 
system, which they called a philosophy, but 
which depended far more upon poetical feelings 
than philosophical arguments. 

Synesius’s own poems are his most original 
ββδν αν Their literary merit is not of the 
highest order. His power lay not so much in 
the strength of imagination as in warmth of 
oetical feeling. The metres are unfortunate- 
y chosen and not sufficiently varied to escape 
monotony. The fatal facility of the short 
lines constantly led to a jingling repetition of 
the same cadences and turns of construction. 
Still, the ten hymns extant would be interest- 
ing, if only — of a style of lyrical 
poetry, the itative poetry partly philo- 
sophical and partly religious, which was 
hardly ever attempted in ancient Greece, 
though common enough in modern times. 
Their chief value, however, consists in the 
light thrown on the religious feelings and 
experiences of a man of deeply interesting 
|character. Any one who wishes to know the 
religious aspect of neo-Platonism and the 
different phases of thought through which an 
able man of strong religious feelings could in 


922 SYNESIUS 


the 5th cent. pass to Christianity, can hardly 
do better than study these hymns. 

The God to Whom he thus offers the ‘‘ un- 
bloody sacrifice ’”’ of his prayers is at once One 
and Three—‘“‘ one root, one source, a triple 
form.’’ To attempt to explain the mystery 
of this Trinity would be the atheistic boldness 
of blinded men. The three persons of the 
Trinity, to use the Christian form of expres- 
sion never employed by Synesius himself, are 
not as with Plotinus—Unity, Intelligence, 
Soul. Most frequently the Christian terms 
are used—Father, Spirit, Son—for the resem- 
blance between the attributes assigned in 
neo-Platonic philosophy to the soul, the third 
God, the ruler of the world, and the attributes 
assigned by Christianity to the Son apparently 
led Synesius to place the Son third in his 
system of the Trinity. The Father is also 
called the Unity. The Spirit is nowhere 
called the Intelligence, but is often called the 
Will. The Son, Who emanates from the Father 
through the Spirit, is also called, with a curious 
combination of expressions, the Word, the 
Wisdom, and the Demiurgus. The stream of 
life and intelligence descends from the Father 
through the Son to the intellectual worlds, and 
from them to the visible world which is the 
image of the intellectual. To all in heaven 
and in the sky, and on the earth and beneath 
the earth, the Son imparts life and assigns 
duties. Nor is the Father, however myste- 
rious in His nature, so ‘“‘ hidden in His glory ”’ 
as to be inaccessible to sympathy for His 
children. In the efficacy of prayer and in the 
reality of spiritual communion with God 
Synesius firmly believed. ‘‘ Give, O Lord, 
to be with me as my companion the holy 
angel of holy strength, the angel of divinely 
inspired prayer. May he be with me as my 
friend, the giver of good gifts, the keeper of 
my life, the keeper of my soul, the guardian 
of my prayers, the guardian of my actions. 
May he preserve my body pure from disease, 
may he preserve my spirit pure from pollution, 
may he bring to my soul oblivion of all pas- 
sions.” And again in the beautiful prayer of 
the soul for reunion with God: ‘“‘ Have pity, 
Lord, upon Thy daughter. I left Thee to 
become a servant upon earth, but instead of 
a servant I have become a slave. Matter has 
bound me in its magic spells. Yet still the 
clouded eye retains some little strength, its 
power is not altogether quenched. But the 
deep flood has poured over me and dimmed 
the God-discerning vision. Have pity, Father, 
on Thy suppliant child, who, often striving to 
ascend the upward paths of thought, falls back 
choked with desires, the offspring of seductive 
matter. Kindle for me, O Lord, the lights 
which lead the soul on high.” 

Synesius has nowhere expressly stated that 
he regarded matter not as created by God but 
as existing independently and necessarily evil, 
but this idea is most consistent with the lan- 
guage he generally employs. God is nowhere 
said to have created the world, but the Son 
is said to have framed the visible world as 
the form and image of the invisible. At all 
events the corruption of the soul in each 
individual is attributed to the seductive in- 
fluence of matter, a view expressed at some 
length in his very curious treatise on Dreams. 


SYNESIUS 


The soul, he says, descends from heaven in 
obedience to a law of Providence to perform 
its appointed service in the world. It then 
receives, 85 ἃ loan, the imagination, figurative- 
ly called the boat or chariot by which the soul 
travels on its earthward voyage. In other 
words, it is the connecting link between mind 
and matter. It is something intermediate 
between the corporeal and incorporeal, and 
philosophy therefore has great difficulty in 
determining its realnature. It is the duty of 
the soul to purify and elevate the imagination. 
It is the constant aim of the daemon of 
matter to corrupt and degrade it. 

The action of Providence in the government 
of the world is described by Synesius in his 
treatise written at Constantinople. All exist- 
ence, he says, proceeds from God and has 
been assigned by Him to an infinite variety 
of beings, descending in regular gradations 
from God Himself, Who is pure existence, to 
matter, which, being in a state of constant 
flux, does not, properly speaking, admit of 
existence at all. The beings of the highest 
order are called gods, and they are divided 
into two classes, the first controlling the upper 
parts of the universe, the other ruling this 
earth. These gods find their chief happi- 
ness in contemplating the God Who is above 
them, but to preserve the earth from the evils 
which would soon result from the destructive 
activity of the earth-daemons they must in- 
terpose from time to time. This they do 
gladly, because thus they render their ap- 
pointed service to the supreme Deity. 

As regards a future state, Synesius says 
that philosophy teaches us that it is the result 
of the present life. With death the husk of 
matter, which we call the body, perishes, but 
the soul and the imagination remain. 

He repeatedly protests against giving pub- 
licity to doctrines which are above the com- 
prehension of men not thoroughly trained in 
philosophical studies. ‘‘ Philosophy is one of 
the most ineffable of all ineffable subjects.” 
He reproves his friend Herculian for talking 
of such with unphilosophical persons, and 
will not even discuss them in letters lest they 
fall into the hands of others. Proteus is the 
problem of the true philosopher eluding vulgar 
curiosity by concealing the divine under 
earthly forms, and only revealing it to the per- 
sistent efforts of heroic men. This desire for 
secrecy arose from a fear lest the highest 
truths should be corrupted and degraded by 
those unfit to receive them, a feeling by no 
means unknown in the Christian church at that 
time.* Lysis, the Pythagorean, quoted by 
Synesius with great approbation, says that 
““the publicity given to philosophy has caused 
many men to look with contempt upon the 
Gods.’”’ Doubtless enough is plainly stated for 
us to form a sufficiently accurate idea of Syne- 
sius’s philosophical and religious views, but 
there are subjects—e.g. the nature of the 
Trinity, the connexion between the old mytho- 
logy and philosophy, the reabsorption of the 
soul and of all intelligence and existence into 


* So Theodoret (quoted by Bingham, vol. i. p. 35) 
says: ‘‘Wespeak of the divine mysteries in obscure 
language because of the uninitiated (the unbaptized), 
but when they are gone we instruct the initiated (bap- 
tized) plainly.” 


' 


SYNESIUS 


the Divinity, the nature and origin of matter, 
the nature and work of the imagination, the 
scientific arrangement and nomenclature of 
the virtues—on which we have not the last 
word of Hypatia’s teaching. 

We cannot say what means Synesius had of 
becoming acquainted with Christianity in his 
early years. No one living in any part of the 
Eastern empire at the close of the 4th cent. 
could fail to be brought into frequent contact 
with Christians. But throughout his works, 
written before he became a Christian himself, 
the same phenomenon appears which is so 
striking in Claudian’s poems—the existence 
of Christianity is entirely ignored. In his 
speech addressed to Arcadius, though the 
greatest prominence is given to the religious 
idea of duty, there is no allusion to the prin- 
ciples of Christianity, even where such a 
reference would have given force to his argu- 


ments. The orator appears unconscious that | 


he is addressing a Christian emperor. The 
deity to whom he appeals is the god of the 
Theist, ‘‘ whose nature no man has ever yet 
found a name to represent.’’ Still more 
striking is a passage in one of the hymns 
written immediately after his return from 


Constantinople: ‘‘ To all Thy temples, Lord, | 


built for Thy holy rites I went, and falling 


headlong as a suppliant bathed with my tears | 


the pavement. That my journey might not 
be in vain, I prayed to all the gods Thy min- 
isters, who rule the fertile plain of Thrace, and 
those who on the opposite continent protect 
the lands of Chaltedon, whom Thou hast 
crowned with angelic rays, Thy holy servants. 
They, the blessed ones, helped me in my 
prayers ; they helped me to bear the burden 
of many troubles.’’ Of course the temples of 
which he speaks were Christian churches. No 
pagan temples had been erected in Constan- 
tinople, and even in the other cities they had 
been closed some years by an edict of Theo- 
dosius. Yet it is perfectly certain that 
Synesius was not then a Christian. This 
picture of a pagan philosopher praying in a 
Christian church to the saints and angels of 
Christianity, while investing them with the 
attributes of the daemons of neo-Platonism, 
is no bad illustration of the almost uncon- 
scious manner in which the pagan world in 
becoming Christian was then paganizing Chris- 
tianity. As eclectic in religion as in philoso- 
phy, Synesius took from Christianity whatever 
harmonized with the rest of his creed, often 
adapting the tenets he borrowed _to make 
them accord with his philosophical ideas. 
How his opinions were so far altered in the 
next four years that he became a Christian, 
we have, unhappily, but scanty means of 
knowing. 
slightest trace of any mental struggle. The 
change was effected δα σαν ἐ probably 
almost imperceptibly even to himself. He 
had never been really hostile to Christianity, 
and as the world gradually became more 
Christian he became more Christian too. 


In none of his letters is there the | 


SYNESIUS 923 
or to fight to the end a battle already lost. 
Some nal influences had suo hans 


brought to bear on him. He had known and 
highly respected Chrysostom at Constanti- 
nople, and afterwards come into contact with 
Theophilus the a of Alexandria. His 
wife, to whom he was warmly attached and 
whom he married at Alexandria in 403, was a 
Christian, and in her he may have had an 
opportunity of remarking one of the noblest 
features of Christianity, the elevation it im- 
parted to the female character by the promin- 
ence given to the feminine virtues in the 
character of Christ and therefore in the teach- 
ing of the church. But above all, when he 
returned to Pentapolis, in 404, to find his 
country desolated oo barbarian invasion, he 
must have felt how little the highest form of 
neo-Platonism could meet the wants of such 
a troubled age. The philosophical and 
poetical creed was the religion of a prosperous 
man in peaceful times. When suffering and 
danger came, its support failed precisely 
where most needed. Ὁ enjoy that intellec- 
tual communion with God for which he craved 
with his whole heart, and on the possibilit 

of which his whole system of belief depende 

he needed above all things an untroubled 
mind. It was one of the points which had 
marked most strongly his separation from 


_ Christianity, that in his hymns he had always 


prayed at least as earnestly for freedom from 
anxieties as for freedom from sin. He had 
formed an ideal of life which could not be 
maintained in troubled times, and with it 
necessarily fell the beliefs with which it was 
intimately connected. The old creed told 
him that “‘ the woe of earth weighs down the 
wings of the soul so that it cannot rise to 
heaven.” The new religion taught him that 
cares and sorrows rightly borne, so far from 
hiding the divine light, reveal it in increased 
brightness. In former days, when he shrank 
into private life from ‘‘ the polluting influence 
of business and the vicissitudes of fortune,”’ 
he had probably considered the doctrine of the 
Incarnation as the greatest obstacle to his 
becoming a Christian, because it seemed to 
degrade the Deity by connecting it with the 
contamination of matter. Now, when he had 
left his seclusion to battle and suffer with his 
fellow-citizens, no doctrine of Christianity had 
such attraction for him as that which told 
of a God Who had resigned His glory to share 
the sufferings of His creatures and to be 
the Saviour of mankind. Formerly he had 
sought to purify his mind that it might ascend 
in thought to God; now he caught at the 
doctrine of the Holy Spirit descending into 
men’s hearts to make them the temples of God. 
So the first hymn which marks the transition 
to Christianity begins with an invocation to 
Christ as the Son of the Holy Virgin, and ends 
with a prayer to Christ and to the Father to 
send down upon him the Holy Spirit “to 
refresh the wings of the soul, and to perfect 
the divine gifts.” But though his prayers 


Almost without a struggle the old pagan were now addressed to Christ, it is obvious 


society had yielded, and was still yielding, 
the tide which each year set more strongly 


to that he had rather added certain Christian 
in| tenets to his old creed than adopted a new 


the direction of Christianity. With all the| religion. The attributes of Christ are de- 


vigour he displayed, in 


great emergencies | scri 


in almost exactly the same terms as 


Synesius was not a man to stand long alone | the attributes of the Son had been described 


924 SYNESIUS 

in former hymns. The prayers for himself 
are almost identical. It is also curious to find 
that he still considered the Spirit the second 
person of the Trinity ; to use his own illustra- 
tion, ‘‘the Father is the root, the Son the 
branch, the Spirit intermediate between root 
and branch.” Still, the decisive step had 
been taken by acknowledging Christ as the 
Saviour of mankind; after that the subse- 
quent steps were natural and almost inevit- 
able. He was baptized, probably about five 
years after his marriage. How far he then 
felt it necessary to give up the language and 
ideas of his old creed may be imagined from 
the following hymn, addressed to Christ: 
“Thou camest down to earth and didst 
sojourn among men and drive the deceiver, 
the serpent-fiend, from Thy Father’s garden. 
Thou wentest down to Tartarus, where death 
held the countless races of mankind. The old 
man Hades feared Thee, the devouring dog 
(Cerberus) fled from the portal; but, having 
released the soul, of the righteous from suffer- 
ing, Thou didst offer, with a holy worship, 
hymns of thanksgiving to the Father. As 
Thou wentest up on high the daemons, powers 
of the air, were affrighted. But Aether, wise 
parent of harmony, sang with joy to his seven- 
toned lyre a hymn of triumph. The morning 
star, day’s harbinger, and the golden star of 
evening, the planet Venus, smiled on Thee. 
Before Thee went the horned moon, decked 
with fresh light, leading the gods of night. 
Beneath Thy feet Titan spread his flowing 
locks of light. He recognized the Son of God, 
the creative intelligence, the source of his own 
flames. But Thou didst fly on outstretched 
wings beyond the vaulted sky, alighting on 
the spheres of pure intelligence, where is the 
fountain of goodness, the heaven enveloped 
in silence. There time, deep-flowing and 
unwearied time, is not; there disease, the 
reckless and prolific offspring of matter, is not. 
But eternity, ever young and ever old, rules 
the abiding habitation of the gods.” 

While the old and new were thus strangely 
blended in his creed, an unexpected event 
changed the whole current of his life. In 
defiance of the law, which enacted that no 
one should hold the governorship of the 
province of which he was a native, Andronicus 
had been appointed governor of Pentapolis. A 
native of Berenice, of low origin, he had gained 
the office, Synesius says, by bribery. Against 
his appointment Synesius vigorously pro- 
tested, in a letter to an influential friend at 
Constantinople: ‘‘Send us legitimate gover- 
ΠΟΙ͂ ; men whom we do not know, and who 
do not know us; men who will not be biassed 
in their judgments by their private feelings. 
A governor is on his way to us who lately took 
a hostile part in politics here, and who will 
pursue his political differences on the judgment 
seat.” When the ancient Romans were 
threatened with oppressive rulers, they chose 
the bravest of their fellow-citizens as tribunes 
to protect them. In the 5th cent. of the 
Christian era, under similar circumstances, 
the people of Ptolemais elected Synesius a 
bishop. They knew him as a man of high 
character and great abilities, universally liked 
and respected, but probably still more recom- 
mended to them by the vigour he had dis- 


SYNESIUS 


played in the recent siege. No one who has 
attentively studied his life and writings can 
doubt that he was sincere in his wish to decline 
the proffered honour. A frank statement of 
his feelings was made in a letter written to 
his brother Evoptius, then resident at Alex- 
andria, and intended to be shewn to Theo- 
philus: “1 should be devoid of feeling if I 
were not deeply grateful to the people of 
Ptolemais who have thought me worthy of 
higher honours than I do myself. But what 
I must consider is not the greatness of the 
favour conferred, but the possibility of my 
accepting it. That a mere man should receive 
almost divine honours is indeed most pleasing, 
if he is worthy of them, but if he is far from 
being so, his acceptance of them gives but a 
poor hope for the future. This is no new fear, 
but one I have long felt, the fear lest I should 
gain honour among men by sinning against 
God. From my knowledge of myself I feel I 
am in every respect unworthy of the solemnity 
of the episcopal office.* . . . I now divide my 
time between amusements and study. When 
I am engaged in study, especially religious 
studies, I keep entirely to myself, in my 
amusements I am thoroughly sociable. But 
the bishop must be godly, and therefore like 
God have nothing to do with amusements, 
and a thousand eyes watch to see that he 
observes this duty. In religious matters, on 
the other hand, he cannot seclude himself, 
but must be thoroughly sociable, as he is both 
a teacher and preacher of the law. Single- 
handed, he has to do the work of everybody, 
or bear the blame of everybody. Surely then 
it needs a man of the strongest character to 
support such a burden of cares without allow- 
ing the mind to be overwhelmed, or the divine 
particle in the soul to be quenched, when he 
is distracted by such an infinite variety of 
employments.’’ Again, there was the diffi- 
culty of his marriage. ‘‘ God and the law, and 
the sacred hand of Theophilus, gave me my 
wife. I therefore declare openly to all and 
testify that I will not separate entirely from 
her, or visit her secretly like an adulterer. 
The one course would be contrary to piety, 
the other to law. I shall wish and pray to 
have a large number of virtuous children.” 
Still more important in his opinion was the 
question of religious belief. ‘‘ You know that 
philosophy is opposed to the opinions of the 
vulgar. I certainly shall not admit that the 
soul is posterior in existence to the body. I 
cannot assert that the world and all its parts 
will perish together. The resurrection which 
is so much talked about I consider something 
sacred and ineffable, and I am far from sharing 
the ideas of the multitude on the subject.” 
He would indeed be content to keep silence 
in public on these abstruser points of theology, 
neither pretending to believe as the multitude, 
nor seeking to convince them of their errors, 
‘‘for what has the multitude to do with 
philosophy ? the truth of divine mysteries is 

* ἱερεύς and the kindred terms are applied by 
Synesius after he became a Christian only to bishops; 
the term presbyter is always used of the second order 
of the Christian ministry. Before his conversion he 
uses iepevs apparently of heathen priests, and on one 
occasion certainly of Christian presbyters. In one 
or two instances, however, ἱερεύς may be intended to 
include presbyters as well as bishops. 


SYNEsIUS 


nota thing to be talked about. 
called to the episcopacy I do not think it right 
to pretend to hold opinions which I do not 
hold. I call God and man as witnesses to this. 
Truth is the property of God, before Whom I 
wish to be entirely blameless. Though fond 
of amusements—for from my childh I have 
been accused of being mad after arms and 
horses—still I will consent to give them up— 
though I shall regret to see my darling dogs 
no longer allowed to hunt, and my bows moth- 
eaten! Still I will submit to this if it is God’s 
will. And though I hate all cares and 
troubles I will endure these petty matters of 
business, as rendering my appointed service 
to God, grievous as it willbe. But I will have 
no deceit about dogmas, nor shall there be 
variance between my thoughts and my tongue. 
- - + It shall never be said of me that I got 
myself consecrated without my opinions being 
known. But let Father Theophilus, dearly 
beloved by God, decide for me with full know- 
ledge of the circumstances of the case, and let 
him tell me his opinions clearly.” 

For seven months at least the matter re- 
mained undecided. Synesius went to Alex- 
andria to consult Theophilus, and popular 
feeling ran so high throughout the country 
that he felt if he declined the bishopric he 
could never return to his native land. The 
people also sent two envoys to Theophilus 
urging him to use all his influence to overcome 
Synesius’s scruples. This Theophilus was 
sure to do, for, apart from the regard he may 
well have had for Synesius, it must have been 
a welcome triumph for him over his opponents 
at Alexandria that the most distinguished 
pupil of the Alexandrine school should be 
consecrated by him a Christian bishop, a 
visible sign to the people that even the noblest 
form of paganism was found insufficient by 
its noblest disciples. The religious difficulties 
were just those which might be expected in a 
pupil of the Alexandrine school, whether he 
derived his inspiration from Origen or from 
Hypatia. How far, and in what way, Theo- 
philus, already so well known as a a 
opponent of such views, succeeded in inducing 
Synesius to change them we have unfortun- 
ately no means of knowing. After all, these 
views were rather in opposition to the com- 
monly received opinions among Christians 
than to any dogmatical teaching of the church. 
Even as regards the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion, Synesius would probably have had no 
difficulty in accepting the Greek form of the 
creed, the resurrection of the dead, though he 
could hardly have accepted the Latin form, 
the resurrection of the body, or the resurrec- 
tion of the flesh. His amusements and his 
hunting seem to have been given up entirely. 
It has been assumed that he retained his wife, 
but there is no evidence whatever to shew that 
he did so. His own letter isa sufficient proof 
that a bishop was generally expected to 
separate from his wife, or, in the rai oe of 
the day, to live with her as a sister, though it 
may be true, as Socrates asserts, that excep- 


SYNESIUS 925 


But if I am | the hope of benefiting the people of Ptolemais, 


was hardly likely to pursue a course which 
must fatally damage his influence, even if his 
wife would have consented to a mode of life 
which must inevitably lower both herself and 
her husband in public estimation. Besides, 
Synesius never mentions his wife in any sub- 
sequent letter, and in one written only one 
year afterwards he speaks of his desolation 
in terms which make it almost incredible 
that his wife was living with him then. No 
child was born to him after he was elected 
bishop. 

Yielding at last to the importunities and 
arguments of his friends, Synesius, in 410, 
wrote to the presbyters of the diocese of Ptole- 
mais: ‘* Since God has laid upon me not what 
I sought but what He willed, I pray that He 
Who has assigned me this life will guide me 
through the life He has assigned me."’ 

He soon found that his fears had been more 
prophetic than his friends’ hopes. When he 
returned, Ptolemais presented the appearance 
of a city taken by storm. Nothing was to be 
heard in the public places but the groans of 
men, the screams of women, and the cries of 
boys. New instruments of punishment had 
been introduced by Andronicus, racks and 
thumbscrews and machines for torturing the 
feet, the ears, the lips, the nose. 

At first Synesius remonstrated ; his remon- 
strances were treated with contempt. He 
reproved ; his reproofs made the governor 
more furious. His house was beset with 
crowds demanding sympathy and protection. 
He could not move without seeing and hearing 
the sufferings of his people. To add to his 
grief ‘‘ the dearest of his children died."’ With 
a heart wrung with anguish he turned for con- 
solation toGod. ‘* But what was the greatest 
of my calamities, and what made life itself 
hopeless to me, I who had hitherto always 
been successful in prayer, now for the first 
time found that 1 prayed in vain.” He 
had accepted the office of a bishop in times 
of difficulty without being sufficiently in 
sympathy with the prevailing spirit of the 
Christian church, and the consciousness of 
this increased his natural self-distrust. The 
calm serenity of thought, with which in 
happier years he had held communion 
with God, was gone. As he prayed, the 
calamities of his house and country rose up 
before him as a sign that he had, by his un- 
worthiness, profaned the mysteries of God. 
The soul, distracted by conflicting feelings, 
grief and anger, shame and fear, could not 
rise above the earth. He prayed, and God 
was afar off. At first it seemed that he would 
sink in despair under these accumulated 
sorrows ; there were even thoughts of suicide. 
He was roused by fresh tidings of Andronicus’s 
excesses. Ever ready to assist others in their 
misfortunes, however great his own might be, 
he heard the people murmuring that they were 
forsaken by their bishop. Self-distrust gave 
way to indignation. Once roused he acted 
with vigour and judgment. He wrote to 


tions might easily have been found in the | influential friends at Constantinople, detailing 


Eastern empire. 
occupying an important post, felt that by 
retaining his wife he lost caste among his 


people, and Synesius, in giving up so much in | of the state, he pr 


The bishop, especially if| the cruelties of Andronicus, 
ious for his recall. 


and earnestly 

Then, epee —_ 

ng the result of his appeal to the authorit 
oeeededto pronounce against 


926 SYNESIUS 


the offender the judgment of the church by a 
formal act of excommunication. 

Before this letter of excommunication was 
sent, Andronicus professed his penitence for 
his crimes, and entreated that the sentence 
against him might not be published—a strong 
proof of the power which the sentence of ex- 
communication then exercised on men’s minds. 
Synesius unwillingly yielded to his entreaties 
and to the representations of the other bishops 
of the province. Relieved from this moment- 
ary fear, Andronicus soon returned to his old 
cruelties, and the sentence of excommunica- 
tion was definitely pronounced. A short time 
passed and Synesius wrote in triumph to 
Constantinople thanking his friends for pro- 
curing the dismissal of Andronicus. Another 
short interval, and Synesius was writing to 
the patriarch of Alexandria to implore his 
good offices for the fallen governor. ‘‘ Justice 
has perished among men; formerly Androni- 
cus acted unjustly, now he suffers unjustly.”’ 
Freed for a time from these secular cares, 
Synesius could attend to other episcopal 
duties. In a long letter addressed to Theo- 
philus he has given a very interesting account 
of a visitation tour, undertaken at Theophilus’s 
request in the course of the same year, through 
a part of the country still exposed to the 
incursions of the barbarians, to the villages of 
Palaebisca and Hydrax on the confines of the 
Libyan desert. Near the village of Hydrax, 
on the summit of a precipitous hill, stood the 
ruins of an old castle, much desired by the 
people as a place of retreat ininvasion. Their 
bishop Paul had obtained it for them by a 
surreptitious consecration, turning it into a 
church ; but Synesius refused to sanction that, 
and insisted on a regular purchase. 

The next subject which occupied his atten- 
tion was one of the worst evils resulting from 
the misgovernment of the country. He found 
that even bishops were often accused by other 
bishops, not that justice should be done but 
to give the commanders of the armies oppor- 
tunities for extorting money. 

Then Synesius asked the patriarch’s advice 
as to certain bishops who did not choose to 
have a fixed diocese, wandering to wherever 
they thought they would be best off. 

The time during which he held his bishopric 
was so short, apparently only three years, and 
marked by so many public and_ private 
calamities, that we possess but few letters 
which throw much light upon his life. His 
principal correspondent at this period was 
Theophilus, whom he always addresses with 
a reverence and affection which may surprise 
those who have only known that prelate as 
the persecutor of Chrysostom, and which are 
the more important because Synesius, even 
in writing to Theophilus, professed his admira- 
tion for Chrysostom. Equally noticeable is 
the unqualified obedience which Synesius, 
though himself metropolitan of Pentapolis, 
cheerfully yielded to the ‘‘ apostolic throne ”’ 
of Alexandria. ‘‘It is at once my wish and 
my duty to consider whatever decree comes 
from that throne binding upon me,” he writes 
to Theophilus. The unquestionable superior- 
ity of Alexandria to all the cities of E. Africa 
had given to the patriarch of Alexandria an 
authority over their bishops unsurpassed, even 


TARACHUS 


if it was rivalled, by the supremacy of Rome 
in that day over the bishoprics of Italy. 

Of the bp. of Rome, and of the affairs of 
Rome, there is no mention in any of his letters 
—one of the many proofs his works afford of 
the greatness of the separation, in government 
and in feeling, between the Easternand Western 
empires. Though thoroughly well versed in 
all the branches of Greek literature, he never 
alludes to any Latin author. It is almost 
impossible to resist the belief that he was 
ignorant of the Latin language. Still some 
notice of the crowning calamity, when Rome 
yielded to Alaric without a struggle, could 
hardly have failed to appear in his writings, 
had not the misfortunes of Pentapolis been so 
great as to absorb all his thoughts. 

In the winter Synesius lost ‘‘ the last com- 
fort of his life, his little son.’? The blow was 
too much for the father already crushed by 
the cares of his office and the misery of his 
country. As death drew near his thoughts 
were curiously divided between the two 
objects to which in life he had given his faith. 
His last letter was addressed to Hypatia. His 
last poem was a prayer to Christ. The pagan 
philosopher retained to the end the reverence 
and affection of the Christian bishop. ‘‘ You 
have been to me a mother, a sister, a teacher, 
and in all these relationships have done me 
good. Every title and sign of honour is your 
due. As for me, my bodily sickness comes 
from sickness of the mind. The recollection 
of the children who are gone is slowly killing 
me. Would to God I could either cease to 
live, or cease to think of my children’s graves.” 
In the hymn to Christ Synesius added an 
epilogue to the poems in which he had already 
recounted the drama of his soul. The actor 
who began so confident of success ended with 
a humble prayer for pardon. ‘‘O Christ, Son 
of God most high, have mercy on Thy servant, 
a miserable sinner, who wrote these hymns. 
Release me from the sins which have grown 
up in my heart, which are implanted in my 
polluted soul. O Saviour Jesus, grant that 
hereafter I may behold Thy divine glory.” 
So in gloom and sadness, cheered by the 
Christian hope of the resurrection, closed the 
career of one who in his time had played many 
parts, who had been soldier, statesman, 
orator, poet, sophist, philosopher, bishop, and 
in all these characters had deserved admira- 
tionandlove. Acheap popular Life of Synesius 
of Cyrene, by A. Gardner, is pub. by S.P.C.K. 
in their Fathers for Eng. Readers.  [T.R.H.] 


f fy 


Tarachus, also called Victor, martyr, an 
Isaurian from Claudiopolis, and a soldier, who 
left the army on the outbreak of Diocletian’s 
persecution. The Acts of Tarachus and his 
companions Probus and Andronicus are one 
of the most genuine pieces of Christian 
antiquity. They were first pub. by Baronius 
in his Annals, under A.D. 290, but from an 
imperfect MS. Ruinart brought out the most 
complete ed. in Greek and Latin from a com- 
parison of several MSS. in the Colbertine 
Library. The martyrs were arrested A.D. 304 
in Pompeiopolis, an episcopal city of Cilicia. 


TATIANUS 


They were publicly examined and tortured at 
three principal cities—Tarsus, Mopsuestia, 
and Anazarbus, where they were put to death 
and their relics Cerekall reserved. The 
Acts are often quoted b β lant (Les Actes 
des martyrs) to illustrate his argument. Thus, 
p. 9, he notes the sale of copies of the Procon- 
sular Acts by one of the officials for two 
hundred denarii. He also illustrates by them 
the judicial formularies, proconsular circuits, 
etc. wean 27-29, 32, 63, 68, 72, 74, etc.). 
They suffered under a president Numerianus 
Maximus (Ruinart, Acta Sinc. 454-492). [G.7-S.] 
Tatianus (1) the ‘‘ Apologist,” ‘* born in the 
land of Assyria " (Oratio, c. xlii.), te. E. of the 
Tigris, in a land incorporated, under Trajan, 
with Mesopotamia and Armenia into one 
Roman ἜΘ of Syria (Zahn, Forsch. σ. 
Gesch. d. N.T. lichen Kanons; I. Theil, 
“Tatian’s Diatessaron,” p. 268). Of his parents, 
date of birth (c. r10, Zahn ; c. 120, Funk), and 
early training, little or nothing is known. In 
Syria were Greek official representatives of 
Rome, merchants, and residents. Among such, 
stationed in the Assyrian district, may have 
been the parents of Tatian; persons haps 
of birth and wealth (cf. Oratio, c. xi.). The lad, 
Semitic as regards the land of his birth, but 
possibly Greek by parentage and name, was 
educated in the Greek teaching open to him 
(Oratio, c. xlii.). As he grew older his inquiring 
mind led him to a personal examination of 
the systems of his teachers (c. xxxv.). A 
peripatetic by disposition if not in philosophy, 
he ‘* wandered over many lands, learning trom 
no man,” but with eyes open and ears un- 
stopped, listening, observing, hearing, ponder- 
ing, until he abandoned the learning that had 
made him a pessimist, and became a teacher 
of that ‘‘ Word of God” which had taught 
him a holier faith and a happier life (cc. xxvi. 
xlii.). He notes that the simplicity of style 
of Holy Scripture first attracted and then 
converted him (c. xxix.). The ‘ barbaric [t-e. 
Christian] writings,” upon which he stumbled 
by chance, charmed him by their modest 
diction and easy naturalness. He soon dis- 
covered that these writings were older than 
the oldest remains of Greek literature, and in 
their prophecies and precepts diviner and 
truer than the oracles and practices of the 
most powerful gods or the purest philosophers. 
Tatian’s information about himself ceases 
with the autobiographical allusions and state- 
ments in the Oratio. According to Irenaeus 
(adv. Haer. i. c. 28; cf. Eus. H. FE. iv. 29) 
he was a hearer (ἀκροατής) of Justin Martyr; 
and the Oratio indicates that he and the * most 
admirable’ Justin were at Rome together, 
and were both exposed to the hostility of the 
Cynic Crescens (cc. xviii. xix.). 
Tatian’s Christian life, like that of Tertul- 
lian, divides into pre-heretical and heretical 
eriods. So long as Justin was alive, says 
renaeus, he brought out no “ὁ blasphemy” ; 
after his death it was different. 
The testimony of his pupil Rhodon (Eus. 
H. E. v. 13) leaves the impression that Tatian 


for some time after Justin's death worked and | 


taught at Rome, busying with his 
“book of questions ᾿᾿ (προβλημάτων βιβλίον), 
dealing with what was “ hidden and obscure 
in the sacred writings”’ (s.¢. of O.T.). 


TATIANUS 927 


The chronology of his literary career is more 
jor less connected with the martyrdom of 
Jrotie ¢. 163-167. Many critics consider 

ustin’s Apology and the Oratio to have been 
composed about the same time (ef. Zahn, p. 
279; Harnack, Texte u. Untersuch. κε. Gesch. d. 
alichrist. Lit. i. p. 196), #6. A.D. 150.158. 
Others place the Oratio after the death of 

ustin (Lightfoot in Contemp. Rew. May, 1877; 

ilgenteld, Ketsergeschichte, p. 395; Funk, Zur 
Chronol. Tatian's in Tubingen Theol. Quartal- 
schrift for 18583, p. 219, etc.). The difference 
in opinion turns very much upon the estimate 
formed of a passage in Eusebius (ἢ. Ε΄ iv. τὸ}. 
A similar want of unanimity prevails as to the 
place of composition of the Oratio. Harnack 
(pp. 198-199) argues from its language that it 
was not written at Rome, where Sahn (p. 250) 
places it. 

A. The Oratio.—The Oratio, by which he is 
best known, belongs to that part of Tatian’s 
the most interesting and difficult of the Greek 
apologetic writings. The title, Τατιανοῦ πρὸ, 
Ἕλληνας, terse and abrupt, is characteristic of 
life which is reckoned orthodox. It is one of 
the treatise. Tatian did not care for style. 
Christianity was not, in his opinion, dependent 
upon it. It was absent from the Seriptures 
which had fascinated him ; it belonged to the 
Greek culture he had left behind. et he at 
times shews himself no novice in the art he 
condemned. C. xi. is a noble piece of declam- 
ation; c. xix. a scathing denunciation of the 
false, passing into a grave appeal in behalf of 
the true. He can draw word-pictures, ¢.¢.- 
those of the actor (c. xxii.), the wealthy patron 
of the arena (ib.), and the Cynic philosopher 
(c. xxv.), which are as clever and life-like as 
those of Tertullian. The Oratio has two 
principal divisions introduced by a preface (cc. 
l.-iv.). Div. i. states the Christian doctrines 
and their intrinsic excellence and superiority 
to heathen opinions (cc. v.-xxx.); div. i. de- 
monstrates their superior antiquity (cc. ΧΧΧΙ.- 
xli.); the whole closes with a few words 
autobiographical in character (c. xlii.). 

Tatian opens (c. i.) by deprecating as un- 
reasonable the contemptuous animosity of the 

Greeks towards “" Barbarians," and points out 
| that there was no practice or custom current 
among them which they did not owe to 
** Barbarians.” Oneirology, astrology, aug- 
uries from birds or sacrifices had come to them 
from external sources. To Babylonia they 
|owed astronomy, to Persia magic, to Egypt 
geometry, to Phoenicia instruction by letters. 
Orpheus had taught them poetry, song, and 
initiation into the mysteries, the Tuscans 
sculpture, the Egyptians history, rustic 
Phrygians the harmony of the shepherd's pipe, 
Tyrrhenians the trumpet, the Cyclopes the 
_smith’s art, and Atossa, queen of the Persians, 
| the method of joining letter-tablets (see Otto's 
note). They should not boast of their excel- 
lent diction when they imported into it “ bar- 
baric " expression and maintained no uniform- 
ity of pronunciation. Of Doric, Attic, 
Aeolian, ahs ye which was the real Greek ἢ 
Further, let them not boast while the used 
rhetoric to subserve injustice and sycophancy, 


poetry to depict battles, the amours of gods, 
and the corruption of the soul. 
C. v., one of the most important (doc: 


028 TATIANUS 


trinally) and difficult in the Ovatio, opens 
thus: 

“In the beginning was God. We have been 
taught that the beginning is the power of the 
Logos. For the Lord of all, being Himself the 
substance (ὑπόστασις) of all, in so far that 
creation had not yet taken place, was alone ; 
but in so far as He was Himself all power, and 
the substance of things visible and invisible, 
all things were with Him: (and thus) with 
Him by Logos-power (διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως), 
the very Logos Himself, Who was in Him, 
subsisted (ὑπέστησε). By the simple will of 
God the Logos springs forth, and not proceed- 
ing forth without cause (κατὰ κενοῦ), becomes 
the first-begotten work of the Father. Him 
We recognize as the beginning of the world. 
He was born by participation, not by scission 
(κατὰ μερισμὸν ov κατὰ ἀποκοπὴν) ; for He 
Who proceeds by scission is separated from 
the first, but He Who has proceeded by par- 
ticipation and has accepted a part in the 
administration of the world (7d .. , οἰκονομίας 
τὴν αἵρεσιν προσλαβόν), hath not rendered 
Him defective from Whom He was taken. 
Just as many fires are lighted from one torch, 
but the light of the first torch is not lessened 
through the kindling of the many, so the Logos 
coming forth from the power of the Father 
hath not made Him Who begat Him without 
Logos (ἄλογον). 

Tatian upholds the belief in the resurrection 
of the body at the end of all things. His 
argument is briefly: ‘‘ There was a time 
when I did not exist: I was born and came 
into existence. There will be a time when 
(through death) I shall not exist; but again 
I shall exist, just as before I was not, but was 
afterwards born [cf. Tertull. Apol. xlviii.]. 
Let fire destroy my flesh, let me be drowned, 
or torn to pieces by wild beasts, I am laid up 
in the treasure-chambers of a wealthy Lord. 
God Who reigneth can, when He will, restore 
to its pristine state that which is visible to 
Him alone.’’ Inc. vii. Tatian returns to the 
Logos, that he may demonstrate His work as 
regards angels and men. 

The thoughts of the better land and of Gad’s 
revelation by the prophets lead Tatian to 
God’s revelation of Himself in the Incarnation. 
That doctrine he treats in a manner likely to 
be admitted by a Greek, if very differently 
from the way (e.g.) Justin Martyr presented 
it to the Jews. We are not mad, he says (c. 
xXxi.), nor do we utter idle tales when we say 
that God was made (γεγονέναι) in the form of 
man. The mythology of the Greeks was full 
of such appearances—an Athene taking the 
form of a Deiphobus, a Phoebus that of a 
herdsman, etc., etc. Further, what did so 
frequent an expression as the origin of the 
gods imply but that they were mortal? The 
difficulty attendant upon the heathen belief 
was not removed by the tendency to resolve 
all myths and gods into allegory. Metrodorus 
of Lampsacus, in his treatise on Homer, in- 
vited men to believe that the Hera or Athene 
or Zeus, to whom they consecrated enclosures 
and groves, were simply natural beings or 
elemental arrangements. That, argues Ta- 
tian, was to surrender their divinity; a sur- 
render he freely endorses, for he will not admit 


TATIANUS 


any comparison between the Christian God and 
deities who ‘‘ wallow in matter and mud.” 

Tatian (c. xxii.) lashes with ridicule the 
teaching offered to and accepted by the 
Greeks, the teaching of the theatre and arena. 
It might be urged that such places were fre- 
quented and delighted in by the uncultured 
only. Tatian therefore places the philosophers 
also at the bar of judgment, and his contempt 
for their teaching is only equalled by his ridi- 
cule of their appearance (c. xxv.). He 
denounces them as tuft-hunters and gluttons, 
to whom philosophy was simply a means of 
getting money. No two of them agreed. 
One followed the teaching of Plato, a disciple 
of Epicurus opposed him. The scholar of 
Democritus reviled the pupil of Aristotle. 
Why, protests Tatian, do you who are so 
inharmonious fight us Christians who are at 
least harmonious? ‘‘ Your philosophers 
maintain that God has a body: I maintain 
that He is without a body; that the world 
shall be often consumed by fire, I once for 
all; that Minos and Rhadamanthus will be 
the judges of mankind, I God Himself (cf. c. 
vi.); that the soul alone is immortal, I the 
body together with the soul.’’ We, he con- 
tinues, do but follow the Logos of God, why 
do you hate us? Weare not eaters of human 
flesh ; the charge is false. It is among you 
that Pelops the beloved of Poseidon is made a 
banquet for the gods, that Saturn devours his 
own children, and Zeus swallows Metis. 

After all, the philosophers do but make a 
boast of language taken from others (c. xxvi.), 
like the jackdaw strutting about in borrowed 
plumes. The reading of their books is like 
struggling through a labyrinth, the readers 
must be like the pierced cask of the Danaids. 
Why should they affirm that wisdom was with 
them only? The grammarians were at the 
bottom of all this folly; and philosophers 
who parcelled out wisdom to this and that 
system-maker knew not God and did but 
destroy each other. ‘‘ Therefore,’ Tatian 
concludes scornfully, ‘‘ you are all nothing— 
blind men talking with deaf; handling 
builder’s tools but not knowing how to build ; 
preaching but not practising; swaggering 
about in public but hiding your teaching in 
corners. We have left you because this is 
your character. We can have nothing more 
to do with your instructions. We follow the 
word of God.”’ 

Tatian then explains (c. xxix.) how he be- 
came a Christian. It was not through want 
of knowledge of what he was leaving. He had 
been initiated into the (Eleusinian) mysteries, 
and had made trial of every kind of religious 
worship. The result had sickened him. Among 
the Romans he had found the Latiarian J upi- 
ter delighting in human gore, Diana Aricina 
similarly worshipped, and this or that demon 
systematically urging on to what was evil. 
He withdrew to seek by some means to dis- 
cover the truth. ‘‘As,’’ he says, “1 was 
earnestly considering this I came across certain 
barbarian writings, older in point of antiquity 
than the doctrines of the Greeks, and far too 
divine to be marked by their errors. What 
persuaded me in these books was the simplicity 
of the language, the inartificial style of the 
writers, the noble explanation of creation, the 


TATIANUS 


predictions of the future, the excellence of | trines of the barbarians |" 


the precepts, and the assertion of the govern- 
ment of all by One Being. My soul being thus 
taught of God I understand how the writings 
of the Gentiles lead to condemnation, but the 
sacred Scriptures to freedom from this world’s 
slavery, liberating us from thousands of 
tyrants, and giving us, not indeed what we 
had not received, but what we had once re- 
ceived but had lost through error.” 

Tatian, with all the energy of a convert, 


loudly proclaimed the truth which satisfied | 


him. He goes on to shew (cc. xxxi.-xli.) that 


the Christian religion was a “‘ philosophy " far. 


more ancient than that of the Greeks. He 
compares Homer and Moses, ‘‘the one the 
oldest of poets and historians, the other 
the founder of our barbarian wisdom.’ The 
comparison proves the Christian tenets older 
than those of the Greeks, and even than the 
invention of letters. After enumerating 
numerous variant opinions as to the date, 
parentage, and poetry of Homer, he remarks 
upon such discordant testimony as proving 
the history untrue; so different from the 
unanimity common among Christians. ‘‘ We 
reject everything,” he says, ‘‘ which rests 
upon human opinion ; we obey the command- 
ments of God and follow the law of the Father 
of immortality. The rich among us follow 
philosophy, and our poor are taught gratui- 
tously. We receive all who wish to be taught, 
aged women and striplings: every age is 
respected by us. ... We do not test them by 
their looks, nor judge them by their outward 
appearance. In body they may be weak, but 
in mind they are strong. ... What we do keep 
at a distance is licentiousness and falsehood.” 
His mention of the women who received 
Christian instruction leads him to a digression 
in defence of them. The Gentiles scoffed, he 
says, at them, and alleged that the Christians 
talked nonsense among them. Tatian retorts 
(cc. xxxiii. xxxiv.) by pointing to the disgrace 
the Greeks cast upon themselves, not only by 
their unbecoming conduct to women gener- 
ally, but by the statues they erected to court- 
esans and wanton poetesses. ‘All our 
women,” bursts forth Tatian, ‘‘ are chaste ; 
and our maidens at their distaffs sing nobler 
songs about God than a Sappho.’ The 
Greeks should repudiate the lesson of immor- 
ality which their statues had immortalized and 
the foul practices inculcated by indecent 
writers, and turn to Christianity which en- 
joined truth and purity of thought and life. 
**T do not,” says Tatian (c. xxxv.), ‘* speak of 
these things as having merely heard about 
them. I have travelled much; I have 
studied your philosophy (al. rhetoric, cf. Eus. 
H. E. iv. 16, and Otto's note here), and your 
arts and inventions. At Rome I saw the 
multitude of statues you have collected there. 
And, as the result, I have turned from Roman 


boastfulness, Athenian exaggeration,  ill- 
connected doctrines, to the barbaric Christian 
philosophy.” 


He now returns to the subject started in c. 
xxxi., after one word in deprecation of the 
sneer at himself: ‘‘Tatian, the man so 
superior to the Greeks, so superior to the 
numberless teachers of philosophy, has 
opened up a new vein of learning—the doc- 


TATIANUS 020 


Whether Homer 
was contemporary with the Trojan war, or a 
soldier under Agamemnon, or even lived be- 
fore the invention of letters, Moses yet lived 
long before either the building or taking of 
Troy. In proof of this, Tatian appeals to the 
Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Egyptians. ΕΚ. 
Berosus, the Babylonian historian, “a most 
competent authority,”’ spoke of the wars of 
Nebuchadnezzar against the Phoenicians and 
— which happened 70 years before the 
ersian rule, and long after the age of Moses. 
Phoenician historians, such as Theodotus, 
Hypsicrates, and Mochus had referred to 
events connected with Hiram of Tyre, whose 
date was somewhere about the Trojan war, 
Both Solomon and Hiram lived long after 
Moses. The Egyptians were noted for the 
accuracy of their chronicles, and Ptolemy, the 
priest of Mendes, spoke of the departure of 
the Jews from Egypt as having taken place under 
the leadership of Moses under king Amosis. 
This king, according to him, lived in the time 
ot the Argive king, Inachus, after whose reign, 
dating 20 generations, the taking of Troy was 
reached. Therefore, if Moses was a contem- 
porary of Inachus, he lived some 400 years 
before the Trojan war. It was not till after 
the time of Inachus that the most illustrious 
deeds of gods and men in Greece were com- 
mitted to writing and became known. Such 
records, therefore, were far less ancient than 
the time of Moses. Tatian sums up (c. xl.) 
by affirming it self-evident that Moses was of 
far greater antiquity than the ancient heroes, 
wars, or gods (demons). Men ought, there+ 
fore, to believe the more ancient authority in 
reference to the Greeks, who had borrowed 
rom Moses, as from a spring, without acknow- 
ledgment (al. unconsciously); and in many 
cases had perverted what they took. Moses 
was, moreover, older than all the writers 
before Homer, ¢.g. than Linus, the teacher of 
Hercules, who lived in the generation before 
the Trojan war, than Orpheus, who was a 
contemporary with Hercules, and than the 
wisest of the wise men of Greece, ¢.g. Minos — 
so famous for his wisdom, shrewdness, and 
legislative powers—who lived in the ταῖν 
eneration after Inachus; Lycurgus, the 
cedemonian lawgiver, who was born long 
after the taking of Troy; Draco, Solon, 
Pythagoras, and those seven wise men, the 
oldest of whom lived about the soth of those 
Olympiads which began about 400 years after 
the taking of Troy. 

The treatise is a defence of Christianity 
rather than of Christians, and not so much a 
defence of doctrines as an answer or oration 
to those who sneered at them. He depicts 
Christianity as contrasting by its goodness, 
wisdom, and truth with the heathenism 
which revelled in vice, foolishness, and errer. 
Unlike other apologists, there is little care to 
discuss Thyestean banquets (cf. c. xxv.), or 
refute want of patriotism (c. iv.) His 
weapons are weapons of offence rather than 
of defence. In Tatian “ barbaric (s.¢. Chris- 
tian) philosophy " dares to carry the war into 
the enemy's camp, and scorn is turned upon 
the scorners. It is a typical specimen of the 
class to which the I[rrisio Gentilium Philos. 
phorum of Hermias also belongs. 


ὅν 


930 TATIANUS 


The Opinions of Tatian.—(a) God (see c. 
iv.).—With Tatian, as with Justin, God, not 
contemplated as Heis in His nature but as 
revealed in His works, is the starting-point of 
all Christian philosophy. Tatian’s doctrine 
about the creation is ine. v. In the creation 
itself he recognizes two stages (c. ii.) : (a) mat- 
ter, shapeless and unformed, is put forth 
(προβεβλημένη) by God; and (8) the world, 
separated from this matter, is fashioned into 
what is full of beauty and order, though 
eventually to be dissolved by fire (c. xxv.). 

(b) The Logos (see c. v.).—The relation 
between God (ὁ δεσπότηΞ) and the Logos Who 
subsists in Him, the Hypostasis, is conceived 
from a different point of view, and set forth 
in different terms from those of Justin. With 
Tatian the Logos springs forth (προπηδᾶ) by 
the Will of God. The process of begetting, 
the relationships of Father and Son, and the 
worship due to the Son, are not brought 
forward. The inward communion between 
them which carries with it these truths is 
indeed expressed by the deep phrase σὺν 
αὐτῷ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως αὐτὸς Kai ὁ λόγος ; 
but the outward exhibition of this communion 
—the “springing forth’’—is suggestive of 
emanation rather than of begetting. The 
distinction between the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and 
the λόγος mpopopixds, so strongly expressed 
by the apologist Theophilus (ii. 10), is more 
than visible. Tatian, in fact, presents the 
Logos as the personification of an abstraction. 

(c) The Holy Spirit is evidently with Tatian 
a distinct personal Being. He does not, as 
Justin (Aol. i. 60), speak directly of His share 
in the creation ; he rather leads up to His work 
and office as “‘the Minister of the suffering 
God” (c. xiii.), when he would present its 
bearing upon the nature of man. Starting 
from the initial positions, “ἡ God is Spirit,” and 
the Logos ‘‘a Spirit born of the Father,” 
Tatian recognizes two varieties of Spirit: (a) 
“the spirit which pervades matter, inferior 
to (8) the more Divine Spirit’ (c. iv.). To 
the Spirit is attributed prophetic powers. 
Abiding with the just and locked in the em- 
brace of the soul (συμπλεκόμενον τῇ ψυχῇ), 
He proclaims to other souls by means of pro- 


phecies that which is concealed. He uses the 


Prophets as His organ (cf. c. xx.). This action 
Tatian has also attributed to “the Power of the 
Logos ” (c. vii.). Perhaps, as with Justin, this 
title of the Logos, ἡ δύναμις, defines for Tatian 
the meaning of the πνεῦμα (ef. 11. Cor. iii. 17). 
The Spirit is the Divine Power of the Logos. 
(4) Angelology and Demonology.—Of good 
angels Tatian says nothing ; but he speaks as 
strongly as Justin of evil angels, though he 
presents their work and ways in different 
language and (in some respects) from a 
different point of view. When expelled from 
heaven the fallen angels or demons lived with 
animals. Some of these they placed—the 
dog, the bear, the scorpion, etc.—in the hea- 
vens as objects of worship. Of demons, Tatian 
recognizes two classes. Receiving alike their 
constitution from matter, and possessing the 
spirit which comes from it, few only turned 
to what was purer, the many chose what was 
licentious and gluttonous (c. xii.); they be- 
came the very “effulgences of matter and 


TATIANUS 
wickedness ”’ (c. xv.). Though material, none 
of the demons possess flesh; their structure 
is spiritual like that of fire or air (1Ὁ.). 

(6) Man.—Tatian recognizes the three parts 
of body, soul, and spirit. At the fall man lost 
the spirit or highest nature, which had in it 
immortality (c. vii.). As the angels were cast 
down from heaven, so man was driven forth 
from earth, ‘‘ yet not out of this earth, but 
from a more excellent order of things than 
exists here now.’’ Tatian would seem to 
place Paradise above our earth; he describes 
it (c. xx.) as one of the better aeons unaffected 
by that change of seasons which is productive 
of various diseases, as partaking of a perfect 
temperature, as possessing endless day and 
light, and as unapproachable by mortals such 
as we are. Man, though deprived of the 
spirit, must aim at recovering his former 
state. Body and soul are left him. The soul 
is composite: it is the bond of the flesh; yet 
also that which encloses the soul is the flesh. 
The soul cannot appear without a body, nor 
can the flesh rise again without the soul. 

Faith is a necessity for knowledge of divine 
things ; ὁ πιστεύων ἐπιγνώσεται (c. xix.) ; faith 
and knowledge together help towards the 
victory over sin and death. Men, after the 
throwing away (ἀποβολήν) of immortality, 
have conquered death by the death which is 
through faith (cf. c. xi.: ‘* Die to the world ! 
Live to God!’’); and through repentance a 
call has been granted to those who (according 
to God’s word) are but a little lower than the 
angels (c. xv.). Through faith, and as the 
object of faith, Tatian proclaims that ‘* God 
was born in the form of a man ”’ (c. xxi.), and 
speaks of the Holy Spirit as the minister of 
the God Who hath suffered (τὸν διάκονον τοῦ 
πεπονθότος θεοῦ, c. xiii.). If he never men- 
tions the names Jesus or Christ, it is because 
the facts of the Incarnation and Passion would 
commend themselves independently of names 
to Gentiles, to whom such facts were illus- 
trated by their mythology (cf. Justin, Aol. i. 
21). Faith animates the famous passage on 
the soul (c. xiii.), and especially in connexion 
with the resurrection. ‘‘ We have faith in this 
doctrine,’ he exclaims (c. v.); but he does 
not rest his reasons on the resurrection of 
Christ (as St. Paul), but on an argument which 
may have suggested the more elaborate 
reasoning of Tertullian (Apol. c. xlviii.): 
There was a time when as man he was not; 
after a former state of nothingness he was 
born. Again, there would be a time when he 
would die ; and again there would be a time 
when he should exist again. There was no- 
thing of metempsychosis or transmigration of 
souls in his conception. Though the flesh 
were destroyed by fire or wild beasts, or dis- 
persed through rivers or seas, ‘“‘I,’’ says 
Tatian, ‘‘am laid up in the storehouses of a 
wealthy Lord. God the King will, when He 
pleases, restore to its former state my substance 
which is visible to Himself alone” (c. vi.). 

As regards free will, Tatian uses even more 
emphatic language than Justin (e.g. Apol. i. 
43). He opposes the Scriptural (and Platonic) 
belief in free will to the fatalism of philosophers 
(cc. viii.-x.), and while he pours scorn upon 
their views, pens a touching appeal to them 
as men ‘not created to die”’ (see c. xi. end). 


TATIANUS 


Christian Practice.—Though Tatian does not 
speak of his co-religionists as Christians, but 
accepts willingly the contemptuous expression 
Ω barbarians,”’ it is the doctrines of Christ 
which alone have, in his opinion, raised them 
above a world deluded by the trickeries of 
frenzied demons (c. xii.), and wallowing in 
matter and mud (c. xxi.). Where the old 
nature has been laid aside, men have not only 
apprehended God (c. xi.), but through a 


(μεταῤῥυθμίζειν) their lives (c. v.). Holy 
baptism and membership in the church did 
not enter into his argument. A passing allu- 
sion to the Holy Eucharist perhaps underlies 
his indignant protest against the frequent 
defamation that Christians indulged in Thyes- 
tean banquets (c. xxv.). He seems to prefer 
advancing the great help which the Scriptures 
had been to himself, and might be to his 
philosophical opponents. ‘* Barbaric "’ though 
these Scriptures were, they were in the O.T. 
portion both older and more divine, more full 
of humility and of deep knowledge, more 
marked by excellence and unity than any 
writings claimed by the Greeks (c. XxXix.). 
These ‘‘ divine writings '’ made men “ lovers 
of God” (c. xii.); and men thus God-taught 
were helped by them to break down the 
slavery in the world, and gain back what they 
had once received, but had lost through the 
deceit of their spiritual foes (c. xxix.). 

The O.T. seems to have greatly attracted 
Tatian. It probably formed the basis of the 
lost work προβλημάτων βιβλίον mentioned by 
Rhodon; and in his attempt to collect and 
solve O.T. difficulties, Tatian was among the 
first, if not the first, of Christian commenta- 
tors. The Oratio shews that he knew well the 
Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles. If 
reference to O. and N. T. is more marked by 
allusion than by direct quotation, the cause 
is the well-known practice of the apologists, 
who usually abstain from such quotations 
when writing to Gentiles who would have 
allowed little authority to them. Tatian’s 
references to St. John’s Gospel are, however, 
both exceptional and indisputable, and testify 
to a widespread knowledge of that Gospel at 
the period in question. Independently of co- 
incidences of exposition, three passages May 
be specified : 


TATIAN. Sr. JOHN. 
Ch. iv. πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός Ch. iv, 24. πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός. 
Ch. xiii. ἡ σκοτία τὸ φῶς οὐ Ch.i. 5. τὸ φως ἐν τῇ 


σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, 


καταλαμβάνει. ‘ 5 
καὶ ἡ σκοτία 


αὑτὸ ov κατέ- | 


ν. 
Ch. i. 3. πάντα δι᾿ a αὐτοῦ 
ἐγένετο, καὶ 

χωρὶς αὑτοῦ 

vero οὐδὲ 


Ch. xix. πάντα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
καὶ χωρὶς avTou 
γέγονεν οὐδὲ ἕν, 

ἕν. 


υ & Hort.) 


Of these the second is prefaced by τὸ εἰρη- 
μένον, the expression which in N.T. introduces 
the Scriptures (cf. Luke ii. 245 Acts ii. 16, 
xiii. 40; Rom. iv. 18). The third passage is 
punctuated by Tatian in the manner invari- 
ably followed by the early Christian writers 


‘is the only Greek writer of the first 
knowledge of the True One have remodelled | : ee τὺ 


TATIANUS 931] 


remarkable, for the words are extremely simple 
in themselves. Their order and adaptation 
give uniqueness to the expression. 

B. The Diatessaron.—(1) History.—The 
history of the recovery of this work is 
sufficiently romantic. In the literature of 
the Western church there is no serviceable 
testimony to it till the middle of 6th cent. ; 
in the Eastern church Eusebius (Ὁ 339-340) 
our 
cents. who gives any information about it, 
It was apparently (see Codex Fuldensis, ed. 
Ranke, 1868, ix. 1) mere chance which put 
into the hands of bp. Victor of Capua (Ὁ 454) 
a Latin book of the Gospels without title or 
author's name, but evidently compiled from 
the four canonical books. This unknown 
work excited his interest ; and searching in 
vain the Latin Christian literature of the past, 
he turned to the Greek, and found in Eusebius 
two notices of Harmonies. (a) In the letter 
to Carpianus the harmony of Ammonius of 
Alexandria (3rd cent.) was described. Its 
principle was that of comparison. The Gospel 
of St. Matthew was followed continuously, and 
the passages—and only those—from the other 
Gospels which tallied with the text of St. 
Matthew were referred to or inserted in the 
margin or in parallel columns. This excluded 
the greater part of St. John’s Gospel and 
much of St. Luke's. The Harmony was for 
private use, not for the public service of the 
church. Whether or not the descriptive title 
given to it in Eusebius—rd διὰ τεσσάρων 
evayyé\vor—was that of the church historian 
or of Ammonius remains undetermined. (5) In 
his Church History (iv. 29, 6), Eusebius refers 
to Tatian as having composed a “sort of 
connexion or compilation, | know not how, 
of the Gospels, and called it the Diatessaron" 
(συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ old ὅπως 
τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθείς. Cf. Bp. Lightfoot in 
Contemp. Rev. May 1877; Zahn, i. pp. 14, 15); 
and he adds that this work was current in his 
day. Its principle was amalgamation, not 
comparison. Victor came to the conclusion 
that his unknown work was substantially the 
Diatessaron of Tatian. This acute verdict— 

urged of some unimportant errors (see Light- 
oot, l.c.; Zahn, i. pp. 2, 3)—has survived the 


| difficulties which a comparison of the Codex Ful- 


densis with the Diatessaron at first presented. 
A notice in the treatise on Heresies, written 


}in 453 by Theodoret (Ὁ 457-458), bp. of Cyrrhus 


on the Euphrates, is the first definite evidence 
to the Diatessaron after the time of Eusebius, 
The identification of it by Epiphanius (Haer. 
xlvi. 1) with the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews is an earlier testimony in point of 


‘date (Epiphanius tf 403), but is connected with 


Ι 


| tion, 
(Westcott | 


lthan from the Greek. 


a blunder which, though capable of explana- 
somewhat disqualifies the evidence. 
Testimony to the Diatessaron comes rather 
from the Syriac-speaking church of the East 
Theodoret says of 
Tatian: ** He composed the Gospel which is 
called Diatessaron, cutting out the — ies 
and such other passages as shew the Lord to 
have been born of the seed of David after the 
flesh. This work was in use not only among 
persons belonging to his sect, but also among 


trast the textus receptus, οὐδὲ tv ὃ γέγονεν). those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as 
The coincidence is, as noted by Bp. Lightfoot, they did not perceive the mischief of the 


932 TATIANUS 


composition, but used the book in all sim- 
plicity on account of its brevity. And I 
myself found more than 200 such copies held 
in respect in the churches in our parts. All 
these I collected and put away, and I replaced 
them by the Gospels of the four Evangelists ”’ 
(i. 20. Cf. Lightfoot, l.c.; Zahn, i. p. 35). 
This passage indicates a considerable circula- 
tion of the Diatessaron in the bishop’s diocese 
and neighbourhood. The language of that dis- 
trict was Syriac (Zahn, i. pp. 39-44) ; therefore 
the book to which Theodoret refers was in 
Syriac and not Greek. This simple fact helps 
to explain the language of Eusebius and the 
blunder of Epiphanius ; and is itself illustrat- 
ed by the fact that the commentary on the 
Diatessaron was composed not by a Greek 
writer, but by Ephrem the Syrian.  Epi- 
phanius’s statement that Tatian on leaving 
Rome went into Mesopotamia, points to a 
visit to Edessa, the only place in the district 
where Christianity had secure footing (see 
Zahn, i. p. 282 and Excursus ii.) and a city 
famous for its schools. To the same Tatian 
rumour assigned the Diatessaron which some 
called ‘‘ the Gospel according to the Hebrews.” 
How did Epiphanius confound two works so 
essentially different? Zahn’s explanation 
seems perfectly satisfactory. The report 
was current that there was a Syriac book of 
the Gospels, called a Diatessaron, used in the 
Syrian churches, 6.5. those of the diocese of 
Cyrrhus. Further, it was reported that there 
was another book of the Gospels, written in 
a kindred dialect and used e.g. at Beroea, 1.6. 
in the neighbourhood of Cyrrhus, by the half- 
heretical Nazareans. An outsider like Epi- 
phanius might very easily confound them and 
even identify them (i. p. 25. See Wace, 
Expositor for 1882, p. 165). Eusebius had 
not actually seen Tatian’s Diatessaron. His 
statement, “1 know not how”’ Tatian com- 
posed it, shews that he had not personally 
examined it, doubtless because of non- 
acquaintance or non-familiarity with Syriac. 
Theodoret’s language implies, moreover, 
that the Diatessaron had been current in his 
diocese for a very long period; and this is 
confirmed by an examination of the com- 
mentary of Ephrem Syrus ({ 378). Dionysius 
bar Salibi, bp. of Amida in Armenia Major 
(} 1171 MGsinger and Bickell, or 1207 Assemani 
and Lightfoot, see Zahn, i. p. 98, n. 4), states in 
the preface to his own commentary on St. Mark 
(quoted in Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. 57, 11. 159 ; 
see Mosinger, p. iii. ; Zahn, i. pp. 44, 99) that 
Tatian, the pupil of Justin, made a selection 
from the four Gospels (al. Evangelists), which 
he wove together into one Gospel, and called 
a Diatessaron, i.e. Miscellanies. This writing 
St. Ephrem interpreted. Its opening words 
were, ‘‘ In the beginning was the Word.” An 
Armenian version (5th cent.) of Ephrem’s 
Commentary was printed at Venice in 1836, 
but remained unserviceable until a MS. Latin 
and literal translation of the Armenian made 
by J. B. Aucher, one of the Mechitarist monks 
of that city, together with one of the Armenian 
codices, was placed in the hands of a Salzburg 
professor, Dr. G. Mésinger, who revised, cor- 
rected, and published the Latin text at 
Venice in 1876. Internal and. external 
evidence (see Moésinger, pp. vi-x) combine in 


TATIANUS 


justifying the conclusion that in this Latin 
translation of the Commentary of Ephrem is 
contained substantially Tatian’s Diatessaron, 
and that from it Tatian’s text may be in a 
great measure recovered. 

The bearing of MGsinger’s translation upon 
the corresponding portion of the Codex Ful- 
densis may be briefly summarized. Dr. Wace 
(Expositor for 1881, pp. 128 seq.) may be said 
to have proved that Victor of Capua’s Har- 
mony preserved in that Codex is not only very 
closely allied with Tatian’s Diatessaron, but 
exhibits substantially the document on which 
Ephrem commented with some occasional 
alterations of order and few additions; the 
difference being remembered that in Victor’s 
Evangelium Tatian has been transferred into 
the Latin text of St. Jerome, whereas Ephrem 
commented upon him in a Syriac translation. 
The Mosinger text and the Codex proceed pari 
passu, and agree in order where that order is 
certainly remarkable. The very interesting fact 
is thus established, that Tatian’s Diatessaron 
found acceptance in the West as well as the 
East, and was transferred rather than trans- 
lated into a Western version. This is not 
surprising. Theodoret’s statement as to its 
popularity in his diocese may well account for 
its existence in a Latin formacentury later. 

It remains to indicate the manner in which 
the Syriac Diatessaron passed into Latin form, 
such as is preserved in the Codex Fuldensis 
(Zahn, i. pp. 298-328). The interesting fact 
comes out that this took place without the use 
of any intermediary Greek Diatessaron. In 
language and form the Latin Harmony is based 
upon St. Jerome’s version; and the differ- 
ences between the Codex and Tatian—such as 
alterations in chronological order, expansions 
and abbreviations, coincidences and devia- 
tions—indicative as they are of dependence 
of the Codex upon Tatian, do not require the 
explanation which an intermediate Greek text 
would easily supply. The Codex Fuldensis 
must be dated between 383 (when Jerome 
put forward his revision of the translation of 
the Gospels) and 546 (when Victor of Capua 
wrote down the Latin Harmony preserved in 
the Codex); or, more approximately, c. 500 
(Zahn, i. p. 310). Translations from Syriac 
into Greek existed in 4th cent. (Eus. H. E. 
i. 13, iv. 30), and the fact—with its conse- 
quence, a further translation from Greek into 
Latin—might be quoted in proof of a more 
early date than A.D. 500 for the Codex Fulden- 
sis; but, independently of other reasons, the 
age of Victor of Capua has yielded proofs of 
direct translations from Syriac into Latin, 
which render appeals to a Greek Diatessaron 
unnecessary. Kihn (Theodor von Mopsuestia 
und Junilius Africanus ; see Zahn, i. p. 311) 
has shewn that in the days of Victor of Capua, 
JuniLius, Quaestor sacri palatii at Constanti- 
nople (c. 545-552) sent to Primasius, bp. "οὗ 
Adrumetum, a Latin introduction to the 
Scriptures (Instituta regularia divinae legis) 
which was a free rendering of a work written 
(c. 533-544) by the Syrian Nestorian Paul, a 
pupil and teacher of the school of Nisibis. 

(2) Recovery of the Diatessaron. — This is 
due to the energetic scholarship of Zahn. By 
the use principally of Ephrem’s commentary 
(ed. MGsinger) and of the quotations in the 


TATIANUS 


Homilies of Aphraates he has printed the text 
(1. pp. 113-219) in detail; comparing it 
throughout with the Syriac of Cureton (Sc.), 
the Peshito (P.), and frequently the -Philo- 
xenian text revised by Thomas of Harkel 
(H1.), with the Greek MSS. ἐξ, B, and Ὁ, and 
with Sabatier and Bianchini's editions of the 
MSS. of the Itala. Verse by verse the text 
is reconstructed and tabulated in sections. 
Each section is accompanied by an exhaustive 
critical and expository comment, and an index 
to all the passages incorporated in the Har- 
mony enables the student to examine the evi- 
dence respecting any individual verse. These 
sections indicate the character of the Harmony 
and may be seen as given by Zahn, with the 
refs. to Ephrem omitted in favour of Eng. 
ery in Fuller's Harmony of the Gospels 
(S.P.C.K.). Zahn has pursued the subject 
further in his Forschungen zur Geschichte des 
N.T. Kanons, ii. 286-299, and his Geschichte 
des N.T. Kanons, (1888) i. 1, 369-429 ; (1892), 
ll. 2, 530-556. 

(3) The Theological Opinions of Tatian.— 
Until the death of Justin Martyr he was 
considered orthodox; after that heterodox. 
The change can only be roughly sketched. 
In the Oratio are found traces of the three 
heretical views which Irenaeus attributed to 
him. (i) The allusion to Aeons above the 
heavens (c. xx.) may very well have led on to 
theories akin to those of Valentinus (Iren. 
adv. Haer. i. 28). (ii) The doctrine that the 
protoplast lost the image and likeness of God 
(cc. viii. xii. xv.) might lead to the denial of 
the salvation of Adam (tb. iii. 23, § 8). (iii) 
His allusion (c. xv.) to man as distinguished 
from the brute—implying by contrast points 
of resemblance between them—makes pos- 
sible a transition to the severer views of 
denouncing marriage as defilement and forni- 
cation as did Marcion and Saturninus (Iren. 
c. xv.; Hieron. Comm. 1.6. in Ep. ad Gal. vi.), 
and also the use of meats (Hieron. adv. Jovin. 
i. 3). Were the heretical writings in existence 
which Irenaeus affirmed that Tatian had 
written and he himself had read (Zahn, i. p. 
281), we might be able to judge how far they 
justified Irenaeus in describing him as “ elated, 
puffed up as if superior to other teachers, and 
forming his own type of doctrine,’ and to 
trace something of his erroneousness in 
the Problems, and other lost works, ¢.¢ 
Concerning Perfection according to the 
Saviour; and in the criticisms, para- 

hrases, or translations of some of St Paul's 

pistles, which Eusebius (H. E. iv. 29) had 
heard of, and which Jerome described as 
repudiations of those apostolic writings (Prae/. 
in Comm. to Titus, see Zahn, i. p. 6, π. 4). A 
few hints only are forthcoming on these 
points, and these filtered through unfriendly 
channels. But the general impression cannot 
be resisted. Tatian e first suspected 
and then denounced. He left Rome, possibly 
pausing at Alexandria to teach, among his 
pupils being Clement of Alexandria (cf. 
Lightfoot, p. 1133; Zahn, i. p. 12), and then 
proceeding to the East, to Mesopotamia (Epi- 
phan. Haer. xlvi. 1. Correct his error in 
chronology by Lightfoot and Zahn, i. p. 282), 
there to live until his death. It is more than 


| Athanasius) 


“TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 033 


the Diatessaron with him, unpublished. In 
the West he had become unacceptable. The 
language of Irenaeus c. 185—41.¢. probably after 
Tatian’s death—leaves no doubt upon this 
point. Men honoured and valued the Oratio 
(cf. int. al. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, pp. 
86, 387); but say nothing of the Diatessaron. 
n the Greek-speaking churches of the East 
the writer of the Oratio was not less valued 
(cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 29, v. 28), and they speak 
of the Diatessaron; but it is by report or at 
second-hand only. Ugly rumours circulated. 
Tatian, described broadly as ‘' connexio 
omnium haereticorum "’ (Iren. adv. Haer. iii. 
23), had become, in defiance of historical 
probabilit y(Zahn, i. p.288), an Encratite, one 
whose tenets had spread into Asia Minor from 
Antioch, and who blossomed out at last 
into ‘‘Encratitarum acerrimus haeresiarches " 
(Hieron.). Had Irenaeus, Eusebius, or Je- 
rome known the Diatessaron, would they not 
have examined it as they had examined 
Tatian’s Oratio and other works ? Would not 
the very compilation of a Diatessaron have 
been obnoxious to one who, like Irenaeus, 
counted the fourfold Gospels (neither more, 
nor less) an absolute necessity ? But in the 
Syriac-speaking East he was unknown, or not 
followed by troublesome reflections upon his 
orthodoxy, and there the teacher as was 
eclectic rather than heterodox could produce 
and circulate that work, which commended 
itself to the ‘“‘simplicity δ" of the churches 
around Edessa ‘‘ on account of its brevity,"’ 
till Theodoret enlightened them. 

The date of his death is unknown, but if he 
left Rome c. 172 or 173 he would have been 
about 62 years of age, and, humanly speaking, 
with time before him to circulate the Dtates- 
saron before he died. ἔ 

Literature.—In the prolegomena (pp. xili- 
xxix) to Otto's ed. of the Oratio will be found 
a description of the MSS., edd., etc., in exist- 
ence (cf. also Harnack, op. ctl. pp. 1-97; 
Donaldson, History of Christian Literature and 
Doctrine, iii. pp. 60-62). For other works 
besides those freely used and specified in 
this art. see Preuschen’s art. s.n. in Herzog's 
R. E.3 The text of the Diatessaron ed. by J. 
White is pub. by Oxf. Univ. Press, and a trans. 
in Ante-Nicene Lab. (y.M.F.] 

‘‘ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.’’ Bryen- 
nius discovered at Constantinople a MS. thus 
entitled in a vol. containing an unmutilated 
MS. text of the two Epp. ascribed to Clement, 
and pub. it at the close of 1883, no other copy 
being known to exist in MS. or print. 

The MS. bears the heading “ Teaching of 
the Twelve Apostles,"’ followed by the fuller 
title ‘‘ Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve 
Apostles to the Gentiles.” That both titles 
belong to the original form aprons probable 
from the phrase “ the Twelve Apostles." The 
phrase διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων occurs in Acts ii. 
42; and the earliest writers who have been 
supposed to speak of the work (Eusebius and 
o so merely under the name 
** Teaching of the Apostles "'; the addition of 
“Twelve ” being superfluous when the word 
** Apostle "" had become limited to the Twelve. 
In the work itself *‘ Apostle " is used in a very 
wide sense; so that if this really represents 


probable that on leaving Rome he carried church usage when it was written, the title 


934 “TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 


“Teaching of the Apostles ’’ would be quite 
vague without the addition ‘ Twelve”’ (cf. 
Luke vi. 13; Rev. xxi. 14). 

The title was only intended to describe the 
substance of the work, not to assert anything 
as to its direct authorship. Though called 
“* Teaching (Didaché) of the Lord,” our Lord is 
certainly not represented as the speaker ; see 
such expressions as ‘‘ concerning these things 
spake the Lord,’’ ‘‘ as the Lord ordered in His 
Gospel,’’ “45 ye have in the Gospel of our 
Lord.” Neither is it written in the name of 
the twelve apostles ; for the author uses the 
singular, addressing his disciple as ‘‘my 
child.’”’ Nor does the treatise contain any 
indication that the author of the whole 
claimed to be one of the apostles, or that the 
work is to be broken up into sections supposed 
to be spoken by successive apostles. In this 
respect it is favourably distinguished from a 
number of spurious works which claimed 
apostolic authorship in early times. But, as 
in the case of the Apostles’ Creed, a title 
apparently originally only intended to assert 
conformity with apostolic teaching, came to 
be understood as an assertion of authorship, 
and later authorities undertook to specify the 
portions contributed by each apostle; and 
later works founded on the Didaché are 
divided into sections supposed to be contri- 
buted by individual apostles. 

The work divides into two parts: the first, 
which we shall refer to as the ‘‘ Two Ways,”’ 
forming the first 6 chapters of Bryennius’s 
ed., contains moral instruction; the second 
(cc. 7-15 Bryennius) deals with church ritual 
and discipline, a chapter (16) being added on 
our Lord’s Second Coming. Several very early 
writers exhibit coincidences with pt. i., such as 
to prove that they borrowed from the Didaché, 
or the Didaché from them, or that both had a 
common source. With pt. ii. similar coinci- 
dences are much later and much more scanty. 
Part i. was intended for catechumens, or at 
least for use in their instruction, for part ii., 
which begins by treating of baptism, directs 
that candidates shall first have received the 
preceding teaching. 

Contents.—The work begins by declaring 
that there are two ways : one of Life, the other 
of Death ; phrases borrowed from Jer. xxi. 8, 
a passage itself derived from Deut. xxx. 19. 
It then describes first the Way of Life, which 
is summed up in two precepts : love God Who 
made thee ; and love thy neighbour as thyself 
and do not to another what thou wouldest not 
have done to thyself.* Then follow several 
precepts from the Sermon on the Mount. 

As c. i. is based on the Sermon on the 
Mount, so is c. ii. on the second table of the 
Decalogue. C. iii. instructs the disciple to 
flee not only from every evil, but from every- 


* This negative form is found in substance in Tob. 
iv.15. Itmay be due to the influence of the Didaché 
that it is found appended in this form to the instruc- 
tions to Gentiles in Acts xv. in D. and some cursive 
MSS., confirmed by Irenaeus or his translator (III. 
xii. 14) and Cyprian (Test. iii. 119). The precept is 
found in the same form in Theophilus (ad Autol. ii. 
34); but the context does not furnish coincidences 
such as would prove the Didaché the source. Lam- 
pridius says (Alex. Sev. 51) that Alexander Severus 
was fond of quoting this precept, which he had 
learned either from some Jews or Christians. 


| 


‘TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 


thing like it. C. iv. contains miscellaneous 
precepts. C. v. gives an enumeration of the 
sins which constitute the way of death. C. vi. 
is a short exhortation to abide in the fore- 
going teaching ; but giving permission if the 
disciple cannot bear the whole yoke, especi- 
ally as regards food, to be content with bearing 
as much as he can; provided always he 
abstains from things offered to idols. Here 
terminates the section addressed to the 
catechumen. Then follow (c. vii.) directions 
for the baptism of candidates who have 
received the preceding instruction. It. is to 
be in the name of Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit ; in running water if it can be had; if 
not, in any water, even warm water. If 
sufficient water for immersion is not at hand, 
it will suffice to pour water three times on the 
head. Baptizer and baptized must fast 
beforehand ; the baptized for a day or two: 
others, if possible, to join in the fast. This 
rule of fasting may be illustrated by the 
account given in the Clementines (Hom. iii. 
11; Recog. vii. 36) of the baptism of Clement’s 
mother. Peter directs that she shall fast one 
day previous to baptism. 

C. viii. relates to fasting and prayer. The 
disciples must not fast ‘‘as the hypocrites,” 
on the 2nd and 5th days of the week ;. but on 
the 4th and on the preparation day. Neither 
must they pray as the hypocrites, but as the 
Lord ordered in His Gospel. The Lord’s 
Prayer is given in conformity with St. Mat- 
thew’s text with but trifling variations, but 
adding the doxology ‘‘ Thine is the power and 
the glory for ever.”’ This prayer is to be used 
thrice daily. Chaps. ix. x. contain Eucharistic 
formulae. In the opening words ‘‘ Concerning 
the thanksgiving, give thanks in this manner,” 
we can scarcely avoid giving to the word 
εὐχαριστία the technical meaning it had as 
early as Ignatius (Philad. 4; Smyrn. 6, 8; 
Eph. 13; cf. Justin, Apol. 66). This interpre- 
tation is confirmed by a direction that of this 
“Eucharist? none but baptized persons 
should partake, since the Lord has said ‘‘ Give 
not that which is holy unto the dogs.” But 
the forms themselves are more like what we 
should expect in prayers before and after an 
ordinary meal than the Eucharist proper. 
There is no recital of the words of institution ; 
no mention of the Body and Blood of our 
Lord, though both Ignatius and Justin Martyr 
so describe the consecrated food. The sup- 
position that we have here private prayers to 
be said before and after reception is excluded 


| by the direction that ‘‘ prophets ’”’ should be 


permitted to offer thanks as they pleased, 
where it is plain that public thanksgiving is 
intended. The explanation seems to be that 
the celebration of the Eucharist still accom- 
panied the Agape or Love Feast, and that we 
have here the thanksgivings before and after 
that meal. In the Clementines, which in 
several points manifest affinity with the 
Didaché, it is not merely the Eucharist from 
which the unbaptized are excluded. They 
can take no food of any kind at the same table 
with the initiated. An unbaptized person is 
the home of the demon, and until this demon 
has been driven out by baptism, no Christian 
can safely admit him to a common table 
(Recog. ii. 71 ; see also i. 19, vii. 36); and all 


“TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 


through the Clementines the lan e in 
which the benediction of every meal is de- 
scribed is such as to make it uncertain 
whether a celebration of the Eucharist is meant. 
In the form in the Didaché we notice that : (1) 
the benediction of the cup precedes that of the 
bread (see Luke xxii. 17-19). (2) The broken 
bread has the technical name τὸ κλάσμα. (3) 
The thanksgiving for the cup runs : “We 
give thanks to Thee our Father, for the holy 
vine of Thy servant David which Thou hast 
made known to us through Thy servant 
Jesus.” This expression the ‘‘ vine of David" 
was known to Clement of Alexandria, who says 
of Christ (Quts Dives Salv. 29), ‘‘ Who poured 
forth the wine, the blood of the vine of David, 
for our wounded souls.’’ Elsewhere (Paed. i. 
5), treating of Gen. xlix. “binding the colt to the 
vine,”’ he interprets “‘the vine " of the Logos 
Who gives His blood, as the vine yields wine. 
(4) The benedictory prayer contains a petition 
that as the broken bread had been scattered on 
the mountains and had been brought together 
and made one, so might the church be col- 
lected together from the ends of the earth. 
(5) The thanksgiving prayer after reception is 
directed to be said “‘ after being filled ᾿ (μετὰ 
τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι), words answering better to the 
conclusion of an Agape than of a Eucharistic 
celebration (cf. Recog. i. 19). 

Chaps. xi. xii. xiii. treat of the honour to 
be paid to Christian teachers, who are de- 
scribed as ‘‘apostles and prophets.’”’ This 
combination of terms reflects N.T. usage 
(I. Cor. xii. 28, 29 ; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 8, iv. rr). 
The word ‘‘ apostle" in our document is not 
limited to the Twelve, but is used as our word 
“‘missionary.’’ Every true apostle was a 
prophet, but only those prophets received the 
name apostle who were not fixed in one place, 
but accredited by churches on a mission to 
distant localities. This terminology is a proof 
of the antiquity of our document (see Light- 
foot on the word Apostle, Gal. p. 92). The 
word was used by Jews to denote an envoy 


sent by the authorities at Jerusalem to Jews | 


in foreign places, especially the envoy charged 
with the collection of the Temple tribute. 
Our document is solicitous to provide for the 
due entertainment of Christian missionaries, 
and yet to guard against the church's hos- 
pitality being traded on by impostors or lazy 
persons. Every apostle was to be received 
as the Lord; but if he wanted to prolong his 
stay beyond two days at most, he betrayed 
himself as a false prophet. Clearly 
apostle is an envoy on his way to another 
place ; for it could never have been intended 
to forbid a missionary to settle down in one 
spot for a longer period of aig eee. ἢ _The 
false apostle is said to betray himself if he 
asks for money or for a larger supply of tra- 
velling provisions than will provide for his 
next stage. There are commands in a similar 
spirit for the hospitable treatment of ordinary 
Christian strangers. If such a one wishes to 
settle among them, he must work at a handi- 
craft or employ himself in some other way ; 
but if he wants to eat the bread of idleness, he 
is one who makes merchandise of Christ 
(χριστέμπορός ἐστιν). The use of this word 
by Pseudo-Ignatius (ad Trall. 6, ad Magn. 9) 
agrees with the conclusion, drawn from other 


the | 


“TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 035 


| considerations, that the interpolator was 
acquainted with the Didachd. 

here is a command in which commentators 
have found a difficulty, that a prophet speak- 
ing in the spirit must not be proved nor 
tested. ‘‘ Every sin shall be forgiven, but 
not that.” Yet there follow marks for dis- 
cerning the false prophet from the true. The 
subsequent history of Montanism casts a clear 
light on the subject. The bishops attempted 
_ to test the Montanist prophetesses by applying 
to them the formulae of exorcism, to find 
whether it were possible to cast out an evil 
spirit who possessed them. This the Mon- 
| tanists naturally resisted as a frightful indig- 
nity. Such testing by exorcism is here 
manifestly forbidden, as involving, if applied 
to one really inspired by the Spirit of God, 
the risk of incurring the penalties denounced 
| by our Lord, in words plainly here referred to, 
upon blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 
That this precept of the Didaché was appar- 
}ently not quoted in the Montanist disputes is 
|one of many indications that our document 
had only a very limited circulation. Hilgen- 
feld’s notion, that the Didaché is as late as 
Montanism, is condemned both by the whole 
character of the document and by its silence 
on the vital question in the Montanist con- 
troversy, whether true prophets lost their self- 
command when prophesying. To label every 
early document which speaks of prophesying 
Montanistic is to ignore the fact that pro- 
phetical gifts were recognized in the early 
church, and that Montanism was an unsuc- 
| cessful local attempt to revive pretensions to 
them after they had generally ceased to be 
regarded as an ordinary feature of church 
life.* The Didaché gives a different way of 
discerning the false prophet from the true, 
viz. by his life and conversation. If he 
taught the truth but did not practise it, he was 
a false prophet. He might, when speaking 
in the spirit, command gifts to be bestowed 
/on others; but if he asked anything for him- 
self, or gave commands in the benefit of which 
he was to share, he was a false prophet. But 
a true prophet, settling in one place, deserves 
his maintenance. So also does a teacher, by 
which apparently is meant a preacher who 
does not speak in prophetic ecstasv. To the 
prophets are to be given the first-fruits of all 
| produce; ‘‘for they are your high priests." 
| If there are no prophets, the first-fruits are to 
| go to the poor. 
C. xiv. directs Christians to come together 
'each Lord's Day to break bread and give 
| thanks, having confessed their sins in order 
that their sacrifice may be pure. Those at 
| variance must not pollute the sacrifice Ὁ 
᾿φοπιὶηρ without having been first reconciled. 
| Our document then quotes Mal. i. το, in which 
80 many Fathers from Justin downwards 
| (Trypho, 41, 116) have seen a prediction of the 
Eucharistic oblation. C. xv. begins: “ Elect 
therefore to yourselves bishops and deacons.” 
These are to receive the same honour as the 
prophets and teachers, as fulfilling a like 
ministration. In the preceding chapters 
where church officers are spoken of, mention 

*In the Ep. of Ignatius, “the Prophets” 


means O.T. prophets, and there is no indication of 
jan order of prophets then In the Christian church. 


936 ‘‘TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 


is made, as in I. Cor., only of apostles, prophets 
and teachers; and of these, apostles are only 
stranger visitors of the church, and prophets 
are men endowed with supernatural gifts of 
the Holy Ghost, who may or may not be found 
in any particular church. Bearing in mind 
the account given by Justin (Apol. i. 66) of 
the share taken by “‘ the president ”’ and the 
deacons in the Eucharistic celebration, we 
seem warranted in inferring from the ‘‘ there- 
fore”’ at the beginning of c. xv. that it was 
with a view to the conduct of the weekly 
stated service that bishops and deacons are 
described as appointed; and that, though 
gifted men were allowed to preach and teach 
in the church assemblies, the offering of the 
Eucharist was confined to these permanent 
officers. It is possible that the section on 
“bishops and deacons ’’ may have been added 
later when the Didaché assumed its present 
form, the editor feeling it necessary that 
mention should be made of the recognized 
names of the officers of the church in his time. 

C. xvi. is an exhortation to watch for 
our Lord’s Second Coming, in order to be able 
to pass safely through the heavy trial that 
was immediately to precede it. This time of 
trial was to be signalized by the appearance 
of one who is called the ‘‘ deceiver of the 
world ”’ (κοσμοπλάνος), who should appear as 
God’s Son and do signs and wonders, and into 
whose hands the earth should be delivered, so 
that under the trial many should be scandal- 
ized and be lost (cf. II. Thess. ii. 3, 4 ; Rev. xii. 
9; Matt. xxiv. 21, 24, x. 22). But then shall 
appear the signs of the truth: first the sign 
of outspreading (éxmerdoews) in heaven (a 
difficult phrase which need not here be dis- 
cussed); then the trumpet’s voice (Matt. xxiv. 
31; I. Cor. xv. 52; I. Thess. iv. 16); thirdly 
the resurrection of the dead—not of all, but, 
as was said, the Lord shall come and all His 
saints with Him. Then shall the world see 
the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven. 

External Attestatton.—The sketch just given 
shews that our document bears marks of very 
high antiquity. We next ask what ancient 
writers expressly speak of the Didaché, or 
manifest acquaintance with it, earlier than 
the appearance in its present shape of the 
Apostolic Constitutions, the first half of bk. 
vil. of which contains an expansion of the 
Didaché. The forger of this book was plainly 
acquainted with the whole Didaché; for he 
goes through it from beginning to end, making 
changes and additions, the study of which 
throws interesting light on the development 
of church ritual during the interval between 
the two works. Harnack has given good 
reasons for thinking that the same forger 
manipulated the Didaché and the Ignatian 
letters, and that his work may have been as 
early as A.D. 350. Hence the Didaché was 
by then an ancient document, but one in such 
small circulation that it could be tampered 
with without much fear of detection. 

It is necessary here to notice the tract 
professing to contain apostolic constitutions, 
published by Bickell in 1843 and described 
D.C. A. i. 123. This is quite independent of 
and earlier than the work commonly known 
as the Apostolic Constitutions. The two forms 
employ some common earlier documents, but 


“TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 


there is no reason to think that the framer of 
either was acquainted with the other. Bickel 
calls this tract Apostolische Kirchenordnung, 
and to avoid confusion with the Apostolic 
Constitutions, we refer to it as the Church 
Ordinances. It had been translated into 
various languages, and is the foundation of 
Egyptian Canon Law. It hassomuch in com- 
mon with Bryennius’s Didaché that either the 
Church Ordinances certainly used the Didaché 
or both drew from acommon source. In form 
they differ ; for in the Ordinances the precepts 
are distributed among different apostles by 
name, the list being peculiar, Cephas appearing 
as distinct from Peter; he and Nathanael 
taking the place of James the Less and 
Matthias. In substance the two works closely 
coincide, but only in the section on the ‘‘ Two 
Ways.” 

Writers earlier than the Apostolic Consti- 
tutions know of a work which professed to 
contain the teaching of the apostles, but 
concerning them we cannot say with certainty 
whether the work to which they witness is 
the same as ours. The list of direct witnesses 
is indeed much shorter than it must have been 
if the work had obtained any wide acceptance 
as containing really apostolic instruction. 
Earliest is Eusebius, who to his list of canonical 
Scriptures (H. E. iii. 25) adds a list of spurious 
books of the better sort, recognized by church 
writers, and to be distinguished from writings 
which heretics had forged in the names of 
apostles. Among these he enumerates next 
after the Ep. of Barnabas, ‘‘ what are called 
the Teachings of the Apostles ”’ (τῶν ἀποστό- 
λων ai λεγόμεναι διδαχαί). Some years later 
Athanasius (Ep. Fest. 39) adds to his list of 
canonical Scriptures a list of non-canonical 
books useful in the catechetical instruction of 
converts, viz. the Wisdom of Solomon, the 
Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the 
so-called Teaching of the Apostles (διδαχὴ 
καλουμένη τῶν ἀποστόλων), and the Shepherd. 
The only obstacle to our supposing our Didaché 
to be here referred to is the Eucharistic for- 
mulae it contains, which Athanasius would 
scarcely place in the hands of the uninitiated, 
unless indeed he thought them so unlike the 
truth as to make no revelation of Christian 
mysteries. It will be observed that Eusebius 
uses the plural (διδαχαί), Athanasius the sin- 
gular. Unmistakable coincidences with the 
Didaché have been pointed out in writings 
ascribed to Athanasius, but rejected as spu- 
rious in the Benedictine ed., though the 
genuineness of at least the second of these is 
still urged : viz. de Virginitate (Migne, p. 266), 
Syntagma Doctrinae ad Monaches (p. 835), 
and Fides Nicena (p. 1639). Among the 
spurious writings printed with those of Athan- 
asius is a Synopsts Sacrae Scripturae, which, 
because of its coincidences with the Sticho- 
metry of Nicephorus, Credner has dated as late 
as toth cent. The Stichometry doubtless 
preserves an ancient list, and there among the 
apocryphal books appended to the N.T. Canon 
we find the διδαχὴ ἀποστόλων. Those that 
precede it are heretical apocrypha ; but those 
that follow, viz. the Epp. of Clement, 
Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Shepherd, are all 
orthodox. The number of στίχοι attributed 
to the Didaché is 200; whereas 1,400 are 


“TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 


assigned to the Revelation of St. John. Cal- 
culations founded on stichometry are uncer- 
tain; so we cannot lay much stress on the 
fact that this appears to indicate a somewhat | 
shorter work than Bryennius’s διδαχή, which | 
according to Harnack would make about 300 
στίχοι. and ona rough estimate seems about | 
a quarter the len of the Apocalypse. A 
list of 60 books of Scripture appended to a 
writing of Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch in 
the reign of Justinian, is in Westcott's N.T. 
Canon, p. 550. This gives as an ge a 
list of apocryphal books; one being the 
Travels (περίοδοι) and Teachings (didaxai) of | 
the Apostles. The absence of the Didaché | 
from the list of the Codex Claromontanus 
agrees with other indications that this work 
possessed no authority in Africa. In one οὗ 
the fragments, published by Pfaff, as from Ire- 
naeus, we read : ‘* Those who have followed the 
Second Ordinances of the Apostles (οἱ ταῖς 
δευτέραις τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεσι παρηκολου- 
Onxéres) know that our Lord instituted a 
new offering in the New Covenant according | 
to the saying of Malachi the prophet, ‘ From 
the rising of the sun to the going down, my 
name has been glorified in the Gentiles; and 
in every place incense is offered to my name 
and a pure offering.’"” This passage is quoted 
in the Didaché with reference to the Eucharist ; 
not, however, textually, as in the fragment, 
but very loosely. We can only say then that 
it is possible the Didaché may be the Second 
Ordinances of the Apostles referred to here. 
The fragment is probably ancient, but con- 
tains a citation of Hebrews as St. Paul’s, which 
proves, as Zahn and others have remarked, 
that Irenaeus could not have been the author. 
Western testimony to the Didaché is scanty, 
and rather indicates that any book which 
circulated in the West as the Teaching of the 
Apostles was not the same as Bryennius's 
Didaché. Rufinus (Comm. in Symb. Apost. | 
38) gives a list of canonical books which bears | 
marks of derivation from that of Athanasius ; 
but where the Didaché should come he has 
“ qui appellatur Duae Viae vel J udicium Petri.” 
This suggests that either the entire Didaché, 
or at least the first half, the ‘‘Two Ways,” 
had been translated into Latin and circulated 
under the name of the Judgment of Peter, 
to whom, and not to the apostles generally, 
the authorship would seem to have been | 
ascribed. The existence of a Latin ‘‘ Two 
Ways” is independently proved by the dis- | 
covery of a whe, nro by von Gebhardt, re- 
printed in his Texte und Untersuchungen, ii. 
277. Itissoshort as to leave it undetermined | 
whether the Latin version contained anything | 
corresponding to what follows the *‘* Two > 
Ways” in’ Bryennius. Lactantius (Div. 
Instit. vi. 3, etc., and Epit. c. 59) gives an | 
unmistakable expansion of the teaching of the | 
“Two Ways,”’ who must have used our Latin 
version, thus proving it older than A.p. 310. 
The treatise de Aleatortbus, falsely ascribed 
to Cyprian, contains a quotation from Doc- 
trina Apostolorum (Hartel, ii. 96) not found 
in the Didaché, though there is one passage | 
(xiv. 2) which might have suggested the idea 
to the framer of the Latin. If we may ever 
rely on the argument from silence, we should 


| claimed for it. 


“TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 087 


gather from Tertullian's discussion on the 

Stations "" (de Orat. 19, de ejun. 2, τὸ, 14) 
that he was unacquainted with our document. 
Thus, scanty though the Western notices are, 
they seem to prove that the Didaché, in 
Bryennius’s form, never circulated in the 
West ; that the Latin Doctrina A postolorum, 


/even as regards the section on the ‘ Two 


ays,"’ was not a translation of Brvennius’s 


_Didaché, but contained a different manipula- 


tion of a ον common original ; and that 
beyond the ‘‘ Two Ways " there is no evidence 
that the Latin form had anything in common 
with the Didaché. 

We now come to coincidences with the 
Didaché in works which do not mention it by 
name. Far the most important of these are 
found in the Ep. of Barnabas, in which, after 


| the conclusion of the doctrinal teaching, the 


writer proposes to pass to another doctrine 
and discipline (γνώσιν καὶ διδαχήν), and adds 
an appendix of moral instructions. This 
appendix agrees so completely in substance 
with the section on the ‘‘ Two Ways” that a 


literary connexion between the two documents 
|is indisputable. 


But there is great diversity 
of detail. The precepts in Barnabas are 
without any orderly arrangement, while the 
Didaché contains a systematic comment on 
the second table of the Decalogue. Bryennius 
differs from later critics and some earlier 
ones who consider it probable that Barnabas 
was the borrower. he whole character of 
the Didaché makes it unlikely that its author 
collected the precepts scattered in Barnabas’s 
appendix, digested them into systematic 
order, and made a number of harmonious 
additions ; while if in what Barnabas says 
about the ‘‘Two Ways" he is but repro- 
ducing an older document, his unsystematic 
way of quoting its precepts, just as they came 
to mind, is quite like his mode of dealing with 
O.T. We have still to inquire whether Bar- 


/nabas borrowed from the Didaché or from a 


common source. Now a study of the Didaché, 
as compared with Jewish literature, shews 
very clearly its origin among men with Jewish 
training, and the work from which both 
borrowed may have been not only Jewish but 
pre-Christian. For Barnabas's letter is of so 
early a date that, if we suppose him to have 
copied an earlier Christian document, we bring 
that document into the apostolic age, which 
would give it all the authority that has been 
We must, then, in comparing 
Barnabas with the Didaché, distinguish care- 
fully the specially Christian element from 
those parts which might have been written by 
a Jew unacquainted with Christianity. If 
Barnabas copied the Didaché, he would have 
naturally included the Christian element. If 
Barnabas and the Didaché independently 
copied an originally Jewish document, the 
Christian elements they might add would not 
be likely to be the same. In the section in 
Barnabas we are struck by the extreme 
meagreness of the Christian element. There 
is no mention of our Lord, scarcely any coin- 
cidence with N.T. language, very little that 
might not have been written by a Jew before 
our Lord's coming. In the Didaché coin- 
cidences with N.T. are extremely numerous, 
and it begins with a whole section embodying 


938 “TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 


precepts from the Sermon on the Mount. 
This section is entirely absent from Barnabas. 
It is impossible to resist the conclusion that 
Barnabas did not know the Didaché in Bry- 
ennius’s form. He has elsewhere coincidences 
with N.T., and had no motive for avoiding 
them. If a book before him contained a 
number of N.T. precepts he would never have 
studiously avoided these in using the work, 
nor have forgotten them even if he wrote 
from memory. The coincidences between the 
two works, therefore, must be explained by 
the use of a common document. 

This conclusion is confirmed on taking into 
the comparison also the Latin ‘‘ Two Ways,”’ 
and the Egyptian Church Ordinances, both of 
which, like Barnabas, do not recognize the 
Didaché section founded on the Sermon on the 
Mount. Neither is this section recognized in 
Pseudo-Athanasius. The Church Ordinances 
exhibit signs of acquaintance with Barnabas ; 
the Latin form does not. In the order of the 
precepts the Ordinances and the Latin both 
agree with the Didaché against Barnabas. 
The Ordinances differ from the Latin by excess, 
but scarcely at all otherwise. The same 
reasons that forbid us to think that Barnabas, 
if he had known the Didaché, would have left 
out its Christian element, prove the Ordin- 
ances and the Latin likewise independent of 
the Didaché. The phenomena are explained 
if we assume an original document in substan- 
tial agreement with the Latin, enlarged in the 
Didaché by additions from N.T., and after- 
wards independently enlarged by the framer 
of the Church Ordinances, who broke it up 
into sections supposed to be spoken by differ- 
ent apostles; while Barnabas worked up in 
his own way the materials he drew from the 
document. We cannot say positively whether 
this original proceeded beyond the “Two 
Ways.’ The Latin fragment breaks off too 
soon to give any information as to the length 
of the original: the Church Ordinances cease 
to present coincidences with the Didaché after 
the section on the ‘‘ Two Ways”; but this 
may be because the directions for ritual and 
discipline had become out of date when the 
Ordinances were put together, the editor 
therefore designedly substituting what better 
agreed with the practice of his own age. The 
quotation by Pseudo-Cyprian leads us to think 
that the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum did go 
beyond the ‘‘ Two Ways.” No great weight 
can be attached to the length ascribed to the 
Didaché in the Stichometry, but this rather 
favours the idea that the document intended 
was longer than the ‘‘Two Ways,’’ but 
shorter than the Didaché of Bryennius. 

It remains to be mentioned that there is a 
coincidence between Barnabas and_ the 
Didaché outside the ‘‘Two Ways.” The 
opening of the Ep. of Barnabas and the last 
or eschatological chapter of the Didaché both 
contain the warning that the disciples’ faith 
would not profit them unless they remained 
stedfast in the last times. There is a good 
deal of difference in the wording of the warn- 
ing, but not more than is usual in quotations 
by Barnabas. The supposition that Barnabas 
was acquainted with Bryennius’s form of the 
Didaché has already been excluded ; therefore 
either (1) the earlier form which Barnabas did 


“TEACHING OF THE TWELVE” 


use included an eschatological chapter con- 
taining this warning, or (2) the editor 
who changed the earlier form into that of 
Bryennius was acquainted with the Ep. of 
Barnabas. We prefer (2), on account of the 
reasons we shall presently give for thinking 
the document used by Barnabas to have been 
pre-Christian. If the editor of Bryennius’s 
form knew Hermas, he might also have known 
Barnabas, with whom he has a second coin- 
cidence in a passage about almsgiving, which, 
as implying a knowledge of Acts and Romans, 
Barnabas was not likely to have found in his 
original. Possibly there is a third coinci- 
dence ; for a plausible explanation of the diffi- 
cult word ἐκπέτασις in c. xvi. is that it means 
the sign of the cross, being derived from Barna- 
bas’s interpretation of ἐξεπέτασα in Is. Ixv. 2. 

Hermas also presents coincidences with the 
Didaché, but it is not easy to say that there 
is literary obligation on either side, except in 
one case, viz. a coincidence between the 
second ‘‘commandment ”’ of Hermas and the 
“Sermon on the Mount ’”’ section, which we 
have already seen reason to think belongs to a 
later form of the Didaché. In this case the 
original seems clearly that of Hermas. His 
instructions as to almsgiving are perfectly 
clear. The corresponding passage in the 
Didaché has many coincidences of language, 
but expresses the thought so awkwardly as to 
be scarce intelligible without the commentary 
of Hermas. It begins, ‘‘ Blessed is he that 
giveth according to the commandment, for 
he is blameless : woe to him that receiveth.” 
The words ‘“‘for he is blameless,” as they 
stand, are puzzling ; for we should expect the 
“for”? to introduce something stronger than 
merely an acquittal of blame. By comparison 
with Hermas we see that the case contem- 
plated is that of giving to an undeserving 
person. Then the receiver deserves the woe ; 
the giver obtains an acquittal. We conclude, 
then, without disputing the greater antiquity 
of the original Didaché, that the interpolator 
who brought the work to the form published 
by Bryennius was later than Hermas, and 
drew from him. 

Clement of Alexandria was certainly ac- 
quainted with the Didaché in some form. He 
expressly quotes one sentence as Scripture 
(Strom. i. 20, p. 377), ‘‘ My son, be not a liar, 
for lying leads to theft.’’ This saying is not 
quoted by Barnabas; but the Church Ordin- 
ances attest that it belongs to the earlier form 
of the Didaché. Even the later form of the 
Didaché may well be considerably older than 
Clement ; and he might easily have met with 
a copy during his travels in the East. He 
uses (Quis Dives Salv. 20) the phrase “‘ vine of 
David,” found in one of the benedictory 
prayers of the Didaché. He shews a know- 
ledge (Strom. vii. 7, p. 854) of the Wednesday 
and Friday fasts (c. 12, p. 877), but does not 
seem to attribute to these institutions the 
authority which belongs to the name Scripture 
bestowed by him on the Didaché. 

Origen was later than Clement and must 
have been well acquainted with the literature 
current in Egypt and Palestine; so that we 
might naturally expect him to be familiar with 
the Didaché. Yet no satisfactory proof of 
his knowledge of it has been produced. 


“ΤΕΛΟΗΙΝῸ OF THE TWELVE” 


Place of Composition.—The Church Ordi- 
nances, at the basis of which lies the Didaché 
in some form, are with good reason regarded 
as of Egyptian origin; Clement, one of the 
earliest to quote the Didaché, wrote in Egypt, 
and so very possibly did Barnabas. Hence, 


it was natural to think that the Didaché also | 


is of rig tego origin. But attention was 
called to the ear in the prayer of bene- 
diction of the bread, that as it had been scat- 
tered on the mountains, and collected together 
had become one, so the church might be 
collected together from the ends of the earth 
into the Lord’s kingdom ; and it was pointed 
out the words ‘‘ on the mountains " could not 
have been written in Egypt ; and, moreover, 
the proper inference from the use made of the 
Didaché in the Church Ordinances is that when 
the latter work was put together, the former 
was almost unknown in Egypt. There is 
nothing to contradict the inference suggested 
by the intensely Jewish character of the book, 
that it emanated from Christian Jews who, 
after the destruction of Jerusalem, had their 
chief settlements E. of Jordan. 

Time of Composttion.—The theory set forth 
is that the original, alike of Barnabas and of 
all the forms of the Didaché, was a Jewish 
manual for the instruction of proselytes. If 
Palestinian Christians had habitually used 
such a manual while still Jews, it would be 
natural for them to employ it, improved by 
the addition of some Christian elements, in 
the moral instruction of converts before 
admission into the church. The document, 
being a formula in constant practical use, 
would be added to and modified; and we 
seem to be able to trace three stages in its 
growth. 

(1) Barnabas represents for us the original 
Jewish manual; probably quoting, not from 
any written document, but from his recollec- 
tion of the instruction he had himself received 
or had been given to others. Barnabas's 
quotations do not proceed beyond the section 
on the ‘‘Two Ways,” corresponding to ce. 
i.-iv. of the Didaché. 

(2) In the Church Ordinances and in the 
Latin Doctrina we have the manual as it was 
modified for use in a Christian community. 
The Latin book may have been the first pub- 
lication of this catechetical manual of Pales- 
tinian Christians, brought to the West by one 
himself instructed in it. It was probably 
called the Teaching of the Apostles, because the 
authorized formulary of a church founded by 
apostles and claiming to derive its institutions 
fromthem. Weare without evidence whether 
this manual contained more than the *‘ Two 
Ways,” though it probably did. The only 
clue to the date of this publication is that 
the Church Ordinances contain that precept 
about almsgiving which we have already noted 
as the solitary instance of use of the N.T. in 
this section of Barnabas. Reasons have been 
already given for thinking that Barnabas was 
not here employing a Christian document, and 
we find it hard to believe that the phrases in 
which coincidences occur are older than N.T., 
so we seem forced to conclude that the first 
editors of the Teaching of the Apostles knew 
Barnabas. This would not be inconsistent 
with a date before the end of Ist cent. 


TEILO 580 


(3) In the Didaché published by Bryennius 
we have the manual enlarged by further Chris- 
tian additions; the precepts in the original 
manual being expanded, others added from 
N.T., and also some wholly new sections. 
Yet the whole character of the Didaché, and 
in particular the lively expectation of our 
Lord's Second Coming in c. xvi., disposes us to 
give it in its present form as early a date as 
we can; and since we place Hermas at the 
beginning of 2nd cent., we have no difficulty 
in dating the Didaché as early as A.D. 120. 

Literature.—The publication of the Didaché 
by Bryennius produced an enormous crop of 
literature. The lists in Schaff's and in Har- 
nack’s editions may be supplemented by an 
article of Harnack’s Theol. Literaturz. 1886, p. 
271. Here we only mention, of editions, those 
by De Romestan (1884), Spence (1885), Schaff 
(1885 and 1886), Sabatier (1885), Hilgenfeld in 
a 2nd ed. of pt. iv. of his Now. Test. ext. Can. 
(1884), and by Gebhardt and Harnack, Texte 
und Untersuchungen, vol. ii. (1884). Bp. Light- 
foot's paper at the Church Congress of 1584, 
pub. in the Expositor, Jan. 1885; Zahn’s 
discussions in his Forschungen, pt. iii. 278 
(1884), and Taylor's Lectures at the Royal 
Institution, 1885, in which the Didaché is 
illustrated from Jewish literature. A new 
ed. with a fascimile (autotype) text and a 
commentary from the MS. of the Holy 
Sepulchre, Jerusalem, ed. by J. R. Harris, is 
pub. by Camb. Univ. Press, as is also an Eng. 
trans. from the Syriac by Dr. Margaret Gibson; 
while S.P.C.K. pub. an Eng. trans. with 
intro. and notes by Dr. C. Bigg. See also 
Bigg’s Noles on the Didaché in Journ. of 
Theol. Stud., July 1904. (c.s.] 

Teilo, bp. of Llandaff and one of the prin- 
cipal saints of Wales, was son of Enlleu ap 
Hydwn Dwn and cousin to St. David. He 
was born near Tenby, and educated with St. 
David and other celebrated Welsh saints. He 
opened a school near Llandaff, called Bangor 
Deilo, and on account of his proficiency in the 
Scriptures is said to have received the name 
Elios or Eliud. His withdrawal to Armorica 
on the outbreak of the yellow plague in Wales 
is counted by Pryce (Anc. Brit. Ch. 163) one 
of the few incidents in his life which can be 
considered historical. In the Chron. Series of 
the Bpp. of Llandaff (Lib. Landav. by Rees, 625) 
he is said to have become bp. of Llandaff in 
512, so that Rees (Welsh SS. 243) is probe 
ably safest in saying that his period in that 
see ended in its first stage with the appearance 
of the plague. [(Dusricivus.] 

Returning from Armorica after a stay, as is 
said, of 7 years and 7 months, he found St. 
David dead and the see of Menevia vacant. 
St. Teilo is said to have been elected to the 
vacant chair as archbp. of Menevia, but, pre- 
ferring his old see, he consecrated Ishmael, 
one of St. David's earliest disciples, to be his 
suffragan at Menevia, raised others to the 
same rank in different parts of South Wales, 
while he himself removed to Llandaff, and, 
carrying with him the primacy, became arch- 
bp. with the title of the inferior see (Stubbs, 
Reg. 154, 156; Haddan and Stubbs, Counce. 
i. 115 seq.; Rees, Welsh SS. 174, 24 apt 
Pryce, Anc. Br. Ch. 158 seq.) The date ὁ 
his death is variously fixed from 563 (Lid. 


940 TELESPHORUS 


Land. 623) to 604 (Ussher). He is said to 
have died at a very advanced age. 

The chief authority for his Life is Vita S. 
Teliavi Episcopit a Magistro Galfrido Fratre 
Urbani Landavensis Ecclesiae Episcopt dicata, 
belonging to 12th cent., and printed, with 
trans. and notes, in Lib. Land. by Rees, 92 
5664., 332 seq. For MS. and other authorities 
see Hardy, Desc. Cat. i. pt. i. 130-132, pt. ii. 
897, app-; Haddan and Stubbs, Counce. i. 146, 

p- C. 159. [y-G-] 

Telesphorus (2), bp. of Rome, accounted the 
7th from the apostles. According to Euse- 
bius (H. E. iv. 5) he succeeded Xystus in the 
12th year of Hadrian (a.p. 128), and suffered 
martyrdom in the 11th year of his episcopate 
and the 1st of the reign of Antoninus Pius 
(iv. 10). Lipsius (Chron. der rom. Bischof.) 
considers his earliest probable dates to have 
been 124 to 135 or 126 to 137 as the latest. 
If so, Eusebius erred in placing his martyrdom 
in the reign of Antoninus Pius instead of Ha- 
drian. For the fact of his martyrdom he 
alleges the authority of Irenaeus ; the assertion 
of the dateishisown. Telesphorus is remark- 
able as being the only one of the early Roman 
bishops, afterwards accounted martyrs, who 


appears on the early authority of Irenaeus as | 


such (Iren. Haer. iii.; cf. Eus. l.c.). [J.B—y.] 

Tertullianus (1), Quintus Septimius Florens. 

I. Lire.—The earliest of the great Latin 
Fathers, their chief in fire and daring, 
and the first to create a technical Christian 
Latinity, is known almost entirely through his 
writings. It can only be conjectured that he 
was born between A.D. 150 and 160, and died 
between 220 and 240, with preference for the 
later dates. He was born at Carthage (Hieron. 


Catal. Script. Eccl. 53 ; cf. Tertull. A pol. c. ix.) | 


of heathen parents (de Poen. c. i.; Apol. c. 
xviii. ‘‘de vestris sumus’’), his father being 
a proconsular centurion (Hieron.). Tertullian 
received a good education (Apol. c. Xiv. ; 
adv. Prax. c.iii.). In after-life he recalled his 
school studies in Homer (ad Nat. i.c. x.) ; but 
poetry attracted him less than philosophy, 
history, science, and antiquarian lore. He 
spoke and composed in Greek, but his Greek 
writings are lost. He studied the systems of 
the philosophers if he mocked and hated the 
men (cf. de Anima, cc. i.-iii.). Possibly de- 
stined for state-official life, he was celebrated 
for his knowledge of Roman law (Eus. H. E. 
ii. 2), and the legal fence and juridical style 
of the advocate are observable throughout his 
apologetic and polemical writings. 

He was probably attracted to Christianity 
by complex irresistible and converging forces : 
**Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani’’ (Apol. c. 
xviii.). The constancy of the Christians in 
times of persecution staggered him. He knew 
men who began by denouncing such “ obstin- 
acy,’ and ended in embracing the belief which 
dictated it (Apol. c.1.; ad Scap.c.v.). De- 
mons confessed the superiority of the new 
faith (Apol. c. xxiii.), and Tertullian, in 
common with his heathen and Christian con- 
temporaries, was a profound believer in 
demons (cf. Réville, La Religion ἃ Rome sous 
les Sévéres, pp. 44, 46, 130 seq.). These facts 
led him to examine the faith which seemed to 
promise a foothold which no philosophical 
system furnished. It was illustrated by a life 


TERTULLIANUS 


of holiness and humility—that of its Founder, 
the Just One—in contrast with which the life 
of the Cynic and the Stoic sickened him. 

His conversion took place c. 192, in Carthage 
more probably than in Rome. Carthage was 
his home and usual dwelling-place (de Pallio, 
Co TA Dol. Ὁ IX, | SCOLPIACE Cm VISE 
Resur. Carnis, c. xlii.); Rome he had visited 
(de Cultu Femin. i. c. vii.), and he was well 
known there for his abilities (Eus. l.c.), but 
critics are by no means agreed whether he 
ever went there as a Christian (cf. Baron. 
Anmnal. Eccl. ii. 476, ed. Theiner). He was 
married but childless (cf. the two treatises 
ad Uxorem), and became a priest of the 
church. He probably exercised his presby- 
terate at Carthage and not at Rome. 

In middle age (c. 119-203), says Jerome, 
Tertullian became a Montanist, his constitu- 
tion and temperament predisposing him to a 
rigour opposed to the laxity prevalent at 
Rome, and so finding the austere doctrines 
and practices of Montanus perfectly congenial 
(Kaye, Account of the Writings of Tertullian,3 
p- 34). He became the head of the Montanist 
party in Africa—a party which existed till the 
5th cent. under the name of “ Tertullianists.”’ 

11. Times.—The golden age of the empire 
died with Marcus Aurelius (161-180) ; the age 
of iron began with his son Commodus (180- 
193). The golden age of the church began 
with that iron age of the empire (Aubé, Les 
Chrétiens dans Vempire romain, A.D. 180-249, 
pp. iii, 495-498). Expiring polytheism and 
ancient philosophy were confronted by a new 
philosophy and a nascent faith. 

From one quarter only of the empire was 
the comparative peacefulness noticeable else- 
where absent. In Africa persecution, sharp, 
short, fitful, and frequent, marked the reign of 
Septimius Severus and the most active period 
of Tertullian’s life. It is stamped in letters 
of blood upon his pages. 

The church in Africa has no historian before 


| Tertullian, though its foundation is placed, 
| with much probability, at the end of cent. i. 


or the beginning of cent. ii. By the end of 
cent. ii. the Christians in Roman Africa were 
to be counted by thousands (cf. Aubé, p. 152) 


ΤῈ not by millions (cf. Apol. c. xxxvil.; ad 


Scapulam, cc. ii. v.). They were fully organ- 
ized and had their bishops, priests, deacons, 
places of assembly, and cemeteries. Immunity 
from the wholesale decimation which had 
befallen, by imperial command (cf. Α οὶ. c. 
v.), other Christian bodies of the East and 
West, allowed in Africa growth and develop- 
ment, accelerated by occasional suffering and 
martyrdom. But the tempest broke upon the 
African church at last. 

Facts connected with the persecutions can 
be followed in those writings of Tertullian 
which all critics place between A.D. 197 and 212, 
from the ad Martyres to the ad Scapulam. 

The tract ad Martyres depicts men and 
women in prison, visited and relieved by the 
brethren, exhorted to unity, and prepared by 
fasting and prayer for the death which should 
be a victory for the church. Vigellius Satur- 
ninus was the first proconsul to draw the 
sword against Christians (ad Scapulam, c. iii.), 
and his date is not apparently earlier than 
198 (see Aubé, p. 191, etc.). The martyrology 


TERTULLIANUS 


of Africa had begun in 180. In a time of 
peace the Scillitan martyrs had died at Car- 
thage (Gérres, Jahr. ἡ. Prot. Theol. 1884, pts. 
ll. 111.); | but after that there is a blank till 
198, when Namphamo was the new ὁ archi- 
martyr’’ of the church. A few months’ 
respite followed. It was disturbed by an 
event which is with some plausibility alleged 
to have taken place at Carthage. A certain 
soldier refused the donativoum of Severus and 
Caracalla, publicly declined the laurel crown 
accepted by his fellow-soldiers, and pro- 
claimed himself a Christian. The incident is 
described in the de Corona ; Tertullian, making 
it a test case, debated whether the Christian 
could accept military service. His advice, 
and the conduct founded upon it, infuriated 
the heathen. 
secution broke out again. It took the special 
form of refusing the Christian dead their usual 
place of burial; the cry invaded the pro- 
consul’s tribune, δ Areae non sint!’’ (** No 
cemeteries for the Christians!”’). Just then 
the decree issued in 202 by Severus indirectly 
if not directly gave sanction to all measures 
of repression. It forbad proselytizing by 
either Jew or Christian. It was easy, were 
the African proconsul so minded, to read into 
this purely prohibitive measure a licence to 
persecute. The “ fight of martyrdom and the 
baptism of blood "’ which ensued is perhaps 
to be traced in Tertullian’s de Fuga and 
Scorpiace (between 202-212). These treatises 
are fiercely scornful against the flight once 
counselled when persecution raged. The de 
Fuga (c. v.) denounces, not less angrily, a 
growing practice—purchase of immunity. 
Of sterner mould and of more loving faith 
were the brothers Satyrus and Saturninus, the 
slaves Revocatus and Felicitas, and the nobly- 
born and nobly-wedded Perpetua. The Acts 
of their passion, by some (e.g. Bonwetsch and 
Salmon) attributed to Tertullian himself, have 
preserved a picture of the times—a reluctant 
proconsul, all-willing martyrs, and a scoffing 
crowd saluting their baptism of blood with the 
mocking cry, “ἡ Salvum lotum ” (see the Acts 
in Migne’s Patr. Lat. iii., and Aubé’s collation, 
op. cit. pp. 221-224, 509, etc.). 

Again there came a respite, and again must 
the character of the proconsul have been 
instrumental in securing it. Of Julius Asper 
(proconsul in 205 or 206) it is told that not 
only did he refuse to force a Christian to 
sacrifice who under the torture had lapsed 
from the faith, but publicly expressed regret 
to his assessors and the advocates at having 
to deal with such cases (ad Scapulam, c. iv.). 
For five or six years persecution was stayed, 
years of literary activity on the part ot Tertul- 
lian. In 211, for some unknown reason, the 
religious war broke out afresh, and its cruel 
if brief progress is told in the ad Scapulam, 
Tertullian’s last ‘Apology’ is worthy of the 
Christian gladiator. Stroke upon stroke he 
deals his ponderous blows against the procon- 
sul. ‘We battle with your cruelty,"’ he 
cries; but his weapons are the ‘offensive " 
weapons which Christ had put in his hands— 
prayer for the persecutors, love for enemies 
(Matt. v. 44). God's judgments, he warns 
them, were abroad. Drought, fires, eclipses, 
declared His wrath; the miserable deaths 


TERTULLIANUS 941 


persecuting proconsuls betokened it. “ This 
our sect shall never fail,” is his triumphant 
shout. ‘Strike it down, it will rise the more. 
We recompense to no man evil for evil, but 
we warn you—-Fight not against God!" 

In 212 the blessing of peace rested again 
upon Africa and contheand for some years. 

ΠῚ. Writines.—Tertullian’s literary activity 


|is by some confined to 197-212; by others, 


with far greater probability, it is extended to 
at least c. 223. A general chronological 
arrangement only is possible, the dates given 
being few and uncertain. The only work 
which supplies positive evidence of date is the 
first book adv. Marcionem (3rd ed.). In ec. 
xv. Tertullian says he is writing in the 15th 
year of Severus, now considered to be A.p. 207 


Under Hilarian (202-203) per- | (Bonwetsch, Die Schriften Tertullians nach der 


Zeit threr Abfassung, p. 42). Tertullian was 
then a Montanist, but his pen had for some 
years been employed in behalf of the church. 

Tertullian's writings represent him various- 


ΠΝ as layman, priest, and schismatic; and 


divide broadly into works written in the 
Catholic or Montanist periods of his life. 
The latter must further be subdivided into 
treatises in which Catholic or schismatic ele- 
ments are respectively prominent. In 
character they are threefold: (a) Apologetic ; 
(6) Dogmatic and polemical; (c) Moral and 
ascetic. The arrangements of Bp. Kaye and 
Bonwetsch have in the main suggested that 
which follows; though the dates attached 
are in almost all cases conjectural. 

(1) Works written while still in the church : 
(a) Apologetic writings (c. 197-198): ad 
Martyres ; Apologeticum; de  Testimonio 
Animae; ad Nationes, i. ii; adv. Judaeos. 

(b) Other works of this period, but of less 
certain date: de Oratione; de Baptismo ; 
de Poenitentia; de Spectaculis; de Cultw 
Feminarum, i.; de Idololatria; de Cultu 
Feminarum, ii.; de Patientia ; ad Uxorem, i. 
ii. (the last five c. 197-199); de Praescrip- 
tione Haereticorum (c. 199); adv. Marcionem 
i. (1st ed.), c. 200. 

(2) Montanistic writings : — 

(a) Defending the church and her teachings 
(c. 202-203): de Corona; de Fuga in Per- 
secutione ; de Exhortatione Castitalis. 

(b) Defending the Paraclete and His dis- 
cipline: de Virginibus Velandis (c. 203-204, 
a transition work); adv. Marcion. (2nd ed. ; 
c. 206); ἐδ. (3rd ed. ; ¢. 207). Between 200- 
207 or later: adv. Hermogenem; adv. Valen- 
tinianos ; adv. Marcion. (iv.); de Carne Christ ; 
de Resurrectione Carnis; adv. Marcion. (v.). 
De Pallio and de Anima (c. 208-209); Scorpiace 
(c. 212; al. 203 or 204); ad Scapulam (c. 212). 
Three c. 217, al. 203-207: de Monogamia,; 
de Jejunio; de Pudicitia; and adv. Praxean 
(c. 223, al. ες. 208-209). 

A. Tertullian, Layman and A pologist.—Ad 
Martyres.—Two thoughts (c. iii.) should 
animate the martyrs. (1) Christians were 
soldiers, *‘ called to the military service of the 
living God "’ by a sacramental oath, to which 
they must be true. (2) They were Christian 
athletes whose prison was their training-school 
(palaestra), where “ virtus duritia extruitur, 
mollitia vero destruitur.” The words of 
Christ (Matt. xxvi. 41) should help them to 


of | subject the flesh to the spirit, the weaker to 


942 TERTULLIANUS 


the stronger; the example of the heathens, 
Lucretia and Mucius, Heraclitus and Pere- 
erinus, Dido and the wife of Hasdrubal, 
would teach them to count their sufferings 
trifling if, by enduring them, they might 
obtain a heavenly glory and a divine reward. 
In their own day many persons of birth, rank, 
and age had met their death at the hands of 
the emperor. Should Christians hesitate to 
suffer as much in the cause of God ? 

A pologeticum.—This Apology—the greatest 
of his works—was a cry for bare justice. 

(1) A heading to c. i., ‘‘ Quod religio Chris- 
tiana damnanda non sit, nisi qualis sit prius 
intelligatur,”’ sums up its protest: The rulers 
of Carthage were persecuting and condemning 
a “‘sect ’’ which forthcoming evidence proved 
unworthy of condemnation. Their conduct 
was the reverse of that enjoined by the em- 
peror Trajan—that Christians were not to be 
sought out ; but if brought before Pliny were 
to be punished. Tertullian reminds the 
rulers (c. v.) that the laws against Christians 
had been enforced only by emperors whose 
Memory men had learnt to execrate: e.g. 
Nero and Domitian. Not such as these was 
Tiberius (cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 2), in whose day 
Christ came into the world (cf. c. vii.), and 
who had desired the senate to admit Him 
among the Roman deities. Marcus Aurelius 
was a protector. Not even Hadrian, Vespa- 
sian, Pius, nor Verus had put into force the 
laws against Christians. The men who were 
demanding this were daily and contemptuous- 
ly infringing laws of all kinds. In proof he 
draws a sad picture of luxury and immorality. 
The good old laws had gone which encouraged 
in women modesty and sobriety. 

(2) Chaps. vii.-ix. What were the charges 
against the Christians? ‘‘We are called 
miscreants’’—and the evidence was only 
rumour! ‘‘ Fama malum, quo non aliud 
velocius ullum.’’ It was, Tertullian retorts, 
the existence (secret or open) of evil practices 
among the heathen which explained their 
belief in similar deeds among Christians. 

(3) Chaps. x.-xxvii. Tertullian faces the 
first of the two great charges, *‘ sacrilege and 
treason.” His ‘‘apology”’ as regards the former 
consists, briefly speaking, of (4) ‘‘ demon- 
stratio religionis eorum”’ (cc. X.-xvi. Xxiv.- 
xxvii.) and of (b) ‘‘demonstratio religionis 
nostrae’’ (cc. xvii.-xxiii.), a most valuable 
evidential passage. 

(a) You Christians, said the heathen, do not 
worship our gods. No, said Tertullian, and 
we won’t, because we do not recognize them 
to be gods. They were nothing but men of 
long ago, whose merits should have plunged 
them into the depths of Tartarus. How much 
better would it have been if the deus dezficus 
had waited and taken up to heaven in their 
place such men as Socrates, Aristides, The: 
mistocles, and others. The images excite 
Tertullian’s intense scorn, as ‘‘ the homes of 
hawks and mice and spiders.’’ Caustically 
does he describe the heathen treatment of 
their household gods. ‘‘ You pledge them, 
sell them, change them. They wear out or 
get broken, and you turn your Saturn into a 
cooking-pot and your Minerva into a ladle! 
You put your national gods in a sale-catalogue; 
and the man who will sell you herbs in the 


TERTULLIANUS 


herb-market will sell you gods at the Capitol. 
Or what could be more insulting than the 
company you give them? You worship 
Larentina, the prostitute, together with Juno 
or Ceres or Diana. You erect (at Rome) a 
statue to Stmon MaGus and give him as in- 
scription the title of sanctus deus (see Kaye’s 
Tertull. p. 542, and Oehler’s note here). You 
turn into a god a sodomite like Antinous ”’ 
(see Kellner’s note). 

What then, it was asked, did Christians 
worship if not the gods? Tertullian answers, 
“Take in this first of all: they who are not 
worshippers of a lie are worshippers of truth.” 
From this might be deduced the whole of the 
Christian religious belief. But before Ter- 
tullian proceeds to do this, he refutes some 
very false, but common, opinions about the 
Christians, e.g. the vulgar belief that the god 
of the Christians was an ass’s head, that they 
worshipped the cross, or the sun. Lately 
a bestiarius (see Semler’s and Kellner’s notes) 
had exhibited a picture at Rome inscribed 
Deus Christianorum ovoxarns. The figure 
had the ears of an ass, one foot was hoofed, 
in his hand was a book, and he was dressed in 
a toga (see ἢ. C. A. sm. “ Asinarii’’). The 
name and the form only made us laugh, says 
Tertullian ; and then he retorts: ‘*‘ But our 
opponents might well have worshipped such 
a biformed deity: for they have dog-headed 
and lion-headed gods, gods with horns, gods 
with wings, gods goat-limbed, fish-limbed, 
or serpent-limbed from the loins !”’ 

(b) Tertullian turns from what Christianity 
was not to what it was, and the main lines of 
the evidences of Christianity in the 2nd cent. 
are still those of our own. These chapters 
(XVii.-xxiii.), so valuable in the history of 
religious belief, deserve the student’s close 
attention. The eloquence, fervour, humility, 
and devoutness of the writer will be felt to 
be contagious. Irony and passion are com- 
paratively absent. The section details 
(b,) the nature and attributes of the Creator, 
(b,) the mission of the prophets, men full of 
(tnundatt) the Holy Spirit, (6,) the character 
of the Scriptures, and (b,) the history of the 
Lord. Under ὃ. Tertullian notes two things. 
These Scriptures were marked, first, by that 
antiquity which his opponents rightly valued. 
The most ancient heathen writings were far 
less ancient than those of Moses, the contem- 
porary of the Argive Inachus, and (as some 
thought) 500 years older than Homer. Nay, 
the very last prophet was coeval with the first 
of the (heathen) philosophers, lawgivers, and 


historians. sees prius est, semen sit 
necesse est.’’ Secondly, the Scriptures were 
marked by majesty. ‘*‘Divinas probamus 


(scripturas), si dubitatur antiquas.’’ This im- 
ternal evidence was a proof of their antiquity, 
while the external and daily fulfilment of pro- 
phecy was a reason for expecting the verifi- 
cation of what was not yet fulfilled. 

b, is in answer to the questions, Why did 
Jews and Christians differ? Did not these 
differences argue worship of different gods ? 
Tertullian’s reply (c. xxi.) is a history of the 
origin of the Christian sect and name, and an 
account of the Founder of Christianity, such 
as we have in the Gospels. His account is 
interspersed with most interesting statements, 


TERTULLIANUS 


é.g. the Jewish inference from the humility of 
Christ that He was only man, and from His 
miraculous power that He was a magician, 
and not the Logos of God; the record of the 
darkening of the sun at the crucifixion pre- 
served in the secret archives of the empire ; 
the reason for the seclusion of the Lord after 
the resurrection, viz. ‘‘ that the wicked should 
be freed from their error, and that faith de- 
stined for so glorious a reward should be estab- 
lished upon difficulty "’ ; his own opinion that 
Caesars (such as Tiberius) would have believed 
in Christ, if they could have been Caesars and 
Christians at the same time; the sufferings 
of the disciples at the hands of the Jews ; and 
at last, through Nero's cruelty, the sowing the 
seed of Christianity at Rome in their blood 
(εἴ. c. 1.). He concludes : ‘* Deum colimus per 
Christum."’ Count Him a mere man if you 
like. By Him and in Him God wishes to be 
known and worshipped. 

One more point remained. Romans con- 
sidered their position as masters of the world 
the reward of their religious devotion to their 
gods, and affirmed that they who paid their 
gods the most service flourished the most. 
Tertullian traverses this ‘“‘ assumption” in 
ironical terms, or meets it with positive denial. 

(4) Chaps. xxviii.-xxxvi.—The charge laesae 
augustioris majestatis is now reached. The 
evil spirits stirred up the heathen to compel 
Christians to sacrifice pro salute imperatoris ; 
and that compulsion was met by resistance not 
less determined. Ironically does Tertullian 
commend in the heathen the dread with which 
they regarded Caesar as more profound and 
reverential than that which they accorded to 
the Olympian Jupiter. Christians were 
counted publici hostes, because they would not 
pay to the emperor vain, lying, or unseemly 
honours; and because, as verae religions 
homines, they kept the festival days not las- 
civiously, but as conscientious men. Truly 
if public joy was to be expressed by public 
shame, the Christians deserved condemnation. 

(5) Chaps. xxxvii.-xlv.—This section, deal- 
ing with minor points of objection to the 
Christians, opens with an impassioned protest 
on behalf of men who, actuated by the prin- 
ciple ‘‘Idem sumus imperatoribus qui et 
vicinis nostris,”” never took vengeance for the 
wrongs done tothem. Mob-law had attacked 
them with stones and fire, or with Bacchan- 
alian fury had torn their dead from the graves 
to rend their bodies asunder. Had Christian- 
ity tolerated repaying evil with evil, what 
secret vengeance could have been wrought in 
a single night with a torch or two! Or, had 
they determined to act as open enemies, what 
numbers and resources would they have had ! 
**We are but of yesterday,” is Tertullian’s 
proud boast (cf. c. i.), “‘and yet we have 
filled your cities, fortresses, towns, assemblies, 
camp, palace, senate, and forum: sola vobis 
reliquimus templa. Should we determine to 
separate from you and betake ourselves to 
some remote corner of the globe, your loss of 
so many citizens would cover you with shame. 
The solitude, silence, and stupor as of a dead 
world would fill you with fear. You would 
have to seek subjects to govern. Your 


enemies would be more numerous than your | Christian. 


TERTULLIANUS 943 


citizens who make your enemies so few." 
Tertullian therefore asks that Christians 
should be admitted “inter licitas factiones.” 
The “sect " was incapable of any such acts 
as were dreaded in forbidden societies. I 
they had indeed their own occupations 
(negotia), why should that give offence? For 
what were the “‘negotia Christianae fac- 
tionis δ ? (c. xxxix.). Tertullian’s answer is a 
touching picture of the simple Christendom of 
his day. ‘* We are a body linked together by 
a common religious profession, by unity of 
discipline, and by a common hope. We meet 
as a congregation and pray to God in united 
supplication. Haec wis Deo grata est. We 
pray for the emperors, their ministers, and 
those in authority, for the welfare of the 
world, for peaceful times, and for the delaying 
of the end (see c. xxxii.). We come together 
to listen to our Holy Scriptures (cf. Just. Mart. 
A pol. ii.); and by holy words we nourish faith, 
raise hope, stablish confidence, and strengthen 
discipline. Our presidents are elders of 
approved character, who have obtained this 
honour not by purchase but by desert. On 
the monthly day appointed each gives to the 
chest what he likes; the money is disbursed 
not in feasting and drinking, but in supporting 
and burying the poor, in providing for desti- 
tute orphan boys and girls, in supporting the 
aged, the infirm, and the shipwrecked, and in 
succouring those sent to the mines or inecar- 
cerated in prisons ex causa Det sectac.” 

(6) Chaps. xlvi.-l.—Accusations had been 
met and the case of the Christian stated. 
What remained? One last perversion on the 
part of unbelief: “ἢ Christianity was no divine 
Institution, but simply a kind of philosophy.” 
The refutation of this closes the Apology. 
Tertullian, if frequently satirical, is at first 
grave and dignified, sober and patient, more 
than is his wont; but the smouldering fire 
bursts out at last; his last chapter is a climax 
of withering scorn and impassioned appeal. 

Ad Nationes (i. ii.) is practically a short 
form of the Apology. It covers the same 
ground, uses the same arguments and largely 
the same language. But the Apology was 
addressed to the rulers and magistrates of 
Carthage, this to the people. Its whole cast 
is consequently more popular, its arguments 
less prolonged, its illustrations less reserved 
(cf. I. cc. iv. viii. xvi.; Il. ὁ. xi.) 

De Testimonio Animae was written very 
soon after the Apology, to which it refers (c. v.). 
Some have thought it the most original and 
acute of his works (see Neander, Antignos- 
ticus, p. 259). Many of his predecessors, says 
Tertullian (c. i.), had ransacked heathen 
literature to discover in it support of the 
Christian efforts to expel error and admit 
equity. The attempt was, in his opinion, a 
mistake and a failure. He would not repeat 
it. Neither would he adduce Christian 
writings when dealing with heathen, for no- 
body consulted them unless already a Chris- 
tian. Therefore he turns to another and a 
new testimony, that of the soul. Apostro- 
phizing it, he cries, ‘Thou art not, so far 
as I know, Christian. The soul is not born 
Christian [cf. A xviii.), but becomes 
Yet Christians now for a 


citizens. At present it is your Christian | testimony from thee, as from one outside 


944 TERTULLIANUS 


them; a testimony against thine own that 
the heathen may blush for their hatred and 
mockery of us.”’ The testimony of the soul 
to God is found in popular phrases indicative of 
knowledge and fear of God; thenit is adjured 
to speak about immortality and the resurrec- 
tion of the body (c. iv.; cf. Apol. xlviii.). 

Adversus Judaeos.—The authenticity and 
integrity of the treatise, as usually printed, 
have both been disputed; the latter with 
justice, the former needlessly, and principally 
on account of the discredit attaching to the 
latter portion. Chaps. i.-viii. are certainly 
Tertullian’s, written while still a church- 
man. The latter chapters are different, both 
in character and style. The treatise was 
occasioned by a dispute between a Christian 
and a heathen converted, not to Christianity 
but to Judaism. Practically, the question 
between them was the exclusion or not of 
Gentiles from the promises of God. But 
there was a preliminary question. Was any 
one expected, and if expected, had any one 
come, ‘‘novae legislator, sabbati spiritalis 
cultor, sacrificiorum aeternorum antistes, 
regni aeterni aeternus dominator,” or was His 
advent still matter of hope? (c. vii.). The 
fulfilment of prophecy rightly understood was 
the answer. Tertullian does not need to prove 
that the Christ should come. Every Jew 
believed and hopedit. Is. xlv. 1 was sufficient 
proof ofit. [He renders the passage different- 
ly from the present Hebrew text, and with one 
especially interesting variation, reading, 
“Thus saith the Lord God to my Christ the 
Lord (Kuplw),” etc., instead of ‘‘to Cyrus 
Κύρῳ) His anointed,” etc. So also in adv. 
Prax. cc. Xi. xxviii.] In the then fulfilment 
of this prophecy he sees the proof that the 
Christ had come. Upon whom but upon 
Christ had the nations believed ?—nations 
such as (int. al.) Moors, Spaniards, Gauls, 
Britons, ‘‘ inhabiting places inaccessible to the 
Romans but subjugated to Christ” (in the 
same chapter he speaks of them as ‘‘ shut up 
within the circuit of their own seas’’), Ger- 
mans and others, unknown to him, and too 
numerous to mention. Christ reigned every- 
where, was adored everywhere: ‘‘ omnibus 
aequalis, omnibus rex, omnibus judex, omni- 
bus Deus et Dominus est.” 

B. Tertullian the Priest.—Tertullian had 
hitherto written as a layman. The writings 
now to be considered indicate more or less 
directly that he had become a priest (cf. 
de Baptismo, cc. xvii. xvili.). Persecution 
was for a time suspended. It is highly 
probable that about this time a synod of 
African bishops met at Carthage to discuss 
matters affecting the organization, discipline, 
and teaching of the church ; and the occasion 
may have been used to ordain one who, as an 
“ apologist,’ had proved himself so fearless a 
champion of the church. Questions concern- 
ing heretical baptism, and the attitude of the 
church towards the heretical sects, were very 
probably discussed, and Tertullian’s lost 
treatise on heretical baptism was written in 
Greek to circulate the synod’s decisions beyond 
the confines of the African church. 

Other points, however, dealing with Chris- 
tian life and ethics, came before him in his work 
in Carthage as a priest. 


The flock looked to | 


TERTULLIANUS 


their pastors for guidance: prayer, baptism, 
repentance, and the discipline connected with 
them; woman’s dress and woman’s life, 
married or unmarried; pleasures, amuse- 
ments, how far lawful or unlawful,—all were 
matters upon which direction was desirable, 
and to all does Tertullian apply himself. 
Roughly divided, the treatises were practical 
and doctrinal, but the division must not be 
pressed too closely. 

(1) Practical Treatises—De Oratione. (a) 
Of the Lord’s Prayer specifically (cc. i.-xi.) ; 
(b) of prayer generally—times, places, and 
customs (cc. Xii.-end). 

(a) As Christ was Spirit, Word, and Reason, 
so His prayer was formed of three parts: the 
word by which it was expressed, the spirit by 
which alone it had power, the reason by which 
it was appropriated (the reading is disputed) ; 
and the practice of prayer was recommended 
with three injunctions: that it should be 
offered up in secret, marked by modesty of 
faith,’ and distinguished by brevity. It was 
in very truth “‘ breviarium totius evangelii.”’ 
It is reckoned as containing seven clauses, the 
doxology not being given; and each clause is 
considered separately. The comments are 
reflections rather than interpretations; and 
if unequal and sometimes fanciful, they are 
very beautiful and can never be read without 
profit. His own summary (c. ix.) is a mine 
of spiritual thought. He approves of other 
prayers being used corresponding with the 
special circumstances of him who prays, but 
never to the omission of this, the regular and 
set form of prayer. 

(b) Certain ceremonies, ‘“‘empty”’ (vacuae) 
Tertullian calls them, but illustrative of many 
an interesting point of ritual and practice of 
the time, are next considered: Washing the 
hands before prayer ; praying with the cloak 
taken off; sitting after prayer; the kiss of 
peace ; the ‘‘ Stations ᾿᾿ (c. xix. ; see Oehler’s 
note); the dress of women, and veiling or 
non-veiling of virgins; kneeling in prayer ; 
place and time of prayer; prayer when 
brethren met or parted; prayer and psalm. 
The closing chapter, dealing with the power 
and effect of prayer, is one of the gems of 
Tertullian’s writings. ‘‘ Never,’’ he cries, 
‘“let us walk unarmed by prayer. Under 
the arms of prayer guard we the standard 
of our emperor; in prayer await we the 
angel’s trump. Angels pray ; every creature 
prays. ‘Quid amplius? Etiam ipse Dominus 
oravit.’”’ 

De Baptismo.—One Quintilla, “ἃ viper of 
the Cainite heresy,’’ had sought to destroy 
baptism. ‘‘What good could water do? 
Was it to be believed that a man could go 
down into the water, have a few words spoken 
over him, and rise again the gainer of eter- 
nity ?’’ (see c. vi.). Quintilla was apparently 
a Gnostic, and the very simplicity of the 
means of grace repelled her. “* Miratur sim- 
plicia quasi vana, magnifica quasi impos- 
sibilia.”’, Her sneers had corrupted some ; 
others were disturbed by such doubts as, Why 
was baptism necessary? Abraham _ was 
justified without it. The Christ Himself did 
not baptize. No mention was made in 
Scripture of the baptism of the apostles ; St. 
Paul himself was bidden not to practise it, 


των ΜΡ a ol, 


TERTULLIANUS 


Answers had to be given, lest catechumens 
should perish through lack of right in- 
struction. 

_(@) The foundation for the sacrament (re- 
ligionem) of baptism Tertullian finds in (ce. 
1.-ix.) the history of the creation. The hover- 
ing of the Spirit of God over the waters was 
typical of baptism; and water still, after 
invocation of God, furnished the sacrament 
of sanctification. Shortly but beautifull 
he describes the baptismal ceremonies (cf. 
Spect. c. iv.), notes the types and figures of 
baptism in O.T., and the testimony to baptism 
in the life and passion of the Lord. 

(δ) Larger questions acquiescing in the 
necessity of baptism awaited consideration. 

(i) Heretical Baptism. —Christians held 
firmly to a belief in one God, one Baptism, 
one Church. This unity was, as regards 
baptism, imperilled by heretical baptism. 
The ademptio communicationis (by some= 
deprivation of communion; by others= 
excommunication) stamped heretics as stran- 
gers. ‘‘ We and they have not the same God, 
nor one [i.e. the same] Christ. Therefore 
we and they have not one [t.e. the same] 
baptism. What [baptism] they have, they 
have it not rightly, and therefore have not 
baptism atall.’”’ On these grounds he rejected 
heretical baptism. On the whole subject 
consult Libr. of the Fath. x. pp. 280 seq. 

_ (ii) Second Baptism.—The belief and prac- 
tice of the church Tertullian states thus: 
“We enter the font but once; our sins are 
washed away but once, because they ought 
not to be repeated.’’ The Christian had, 
nevertheless, a second baptism, viz. the 
Baptism of Blood (cf. Luke xii. 50). Two 
baptisms had Christ sent forth from the 
wounds in His pierced side, that they who 
believed in His Blood might be washed with 
water, and that they who had been washed 
with water might also drink His Blood. This 
was that Baptism which stood in the place of 
the font when it had not been received, or 
restored it when lost (cf. Scorp. c. vii.). 

(c) The remainder of the treatise deals with 
points of church practice and discipline as 
regards baptism (cc. xvii.-xx.). Laymen as 
well as clerics could administer it, but only 
if disciples and in cases of necessity. ‘* Lay- 
man” was not taken to include women. 
Baptism was not to be administered rashly 
(cf. Matt. vii. 6). Tertullian, like the teachers 
of Alexandria, recommends delaying it in the 
case of children, till they had passed **‘ the age 
of innocence,” and in the case of the unwedded 
and widowed. The times most suitable for 
baptism were the Passover and Pentecost ; 
but not to the exclusion of other opportunities. 
When about to receive baptism, candidates 
should prepare themselves by og br fasting, 
vigil, and confession of sins (cf. Matt. iii. 6) ; 
and after baptism they should rejoice rather 
than fast. Tertullian suggests to them a 
prayer: ‘‘ When you rise from that holy font 
of your new birth and spread your hands for 
the first time in the house of your mother 
Church with your brethren, ask of the Father, 
ask of the Lord, special grace ["* peculia 

atiae'"’) and the divers gifts of the Hol 

pirit ([‘‘distributiones — charismatum "’ ᾿ 
And, he adds with touching humility, “I 


TERTULLIANUS 945 


pray you that when you ask, you remember 
in your prayers Tertullian the sinner.” 

¢ Poenstentia.—Repentance of sin before 
baptism (ce. i.-vi.). rue repentance had its 
measure and its limit in the fear of God. God 
Himself initiated repentance, when He re- 
scinded His sentence on Adam. He exhorted 
men to it by His Prophets; by St. John He 
pointed out its sign and seal in baptism. Its 
aim was the salvation of man through the 
abolition of sin. There was a tendency to 
say ‘‘God was satisfied with the devotion of 
heart and mind. Even if men did sin in act, 
they could do so without prejudice to their 
faith and fear.” With an intensity of sar- 
casm Tertullian replies, “You shall be 
thrust down into hell without prejudice to 
your pardon."’ Such Antinomianism  ex- 
plained another frequent and lamentable 
practice. The Christians of the day most 
firmly believed in the washing away of sins in 
Holy Baptism, and in the necessity of true 
repentance as preparatory to the reception of 
it ; but this led “ novices " (‘‘ inter auditorum 
tirocinia ν᾽) not to a willing and holy eagerness 
to receive baptism, but to a presumptuous and 
unholy spirit of delay, that they (the soldiers 
of the Cross) might steal the intervening time 
as a furlough (‘‘commentum"’) for sinning 
rather than for learning not to sin. Tenderly 
and wisely does Tertullian plead with them. 
“If a man who has apm himself to God is not 
to cease sinning till he be bound by baptism, I 
hardly know whether he will not feel, after 
baptism, more sorrow than joy.” 

ε Spectaculis.—A period of temporary 
peace after persecution (cf. c. xxvii.) had 
fallen upon the church in Carthage. Spec- 
tacular shows and games were being given, 
Sem in commemoration of the victory of 

verus over Albinus, and the grave question 
had to be faced—Should Christians attend 
them ? The seal (signaculum) of baptism 
supplied the reason against attendance. All 
the preparations connected with the spectacles 
were based upon idolatry, and idolatry was 
renounced at the font. In ce. v.-xiii. Tertul- 
lian draws out in detail the origin of the 
spectacles, their titles, apparatus, localities, 
and arts; and the reader can realize to the 
very life the places and scenes he describes in 
impassioned but often one-sided invective. 
Everywhere in the circus were images and 
statues, chariots dedicated to gods, their 
thrones, crowns, and equipments. Religious 
rites preceded, intervened, and succeeded the 
games; guilds, priests, and attendants served 
the conventus daemoniorum. Consecrated to 
the sun, the solar temple rose in the midst, 
the solar effigy glittered on the summit. The 
chariots of the circus were dedicated to the 
gods, the charioteers wore the colours (white, 
red, green, and blue) of idolatry. The 
designator and the haruspex were two most 
befouled masters of the ceremonies connected 
with the funereal and sacrificial rites. The 
theatrum was the home of Venus and Bacchus ; 
the performances there claimed their patron- 
age. The very artistic gifts employed in 
producing the spectacles were the inspiration 
of demons, glozed over by a fallacious con- 
secration. Men pleaded, ** We cannot live 
without pleasure.’ Well, Christians had 


60 


946 TERTULLIANUS 

pleasures many and noble. What greater 
pleasure could be conceived than reconcilia- 
tion to God and pardon of the many sins of a 
past life? What delight should exceed the 
trampling idolatry under foot, the expulsion 
of demons, acts of healing, a life unto God ἢ 
These were the pleasures and spectacles of 
Christians, holy, perpetual, and free. In the 
Christian circus they might behold immodesty 
hurled down by chastity, perfidy slain by 
fidelity, cruelty bruised by mercy, wantonness 
Overcome by modesty! These were the 
contests in which to gain the Christian crown. 
““Or do you wish to see the blood shed ? 
Behold Christ’s !”’ Then Tertullian closes 
his eyes to the spectacles of earth. There 
looms before him (c. xxx.) the spectacle close 
at hand of the Lord coming in His glory and 
triumph. He depicts angels exulting, saints 
rising from the dead, the kingdom of the just 
and the city of the New Jerusalem, the hell 
of the persecutor and scoffer ; and there were 
spectacles even more glorious still. Man 
could not conceive them; but they were 
nobler than those of the circus, the amphi- 
theatre, or the racecourse. 

De Cultu Feminarum, i. and ii.—The luxury 
and extravagance of the women of the time is 
matter of notoriety. Tertullian and Clement 
of Alexandria do not express one whit more 
strongly than Seneca their ambition, cruelty, 
and licentiousness. Therefore, when women 
became Christians, and matronly and wifely 
virtues or virgin purity and modesty char- 
acterized them, it extorted the admiration of 
some and the impatient scorn of others. But 
luxury began to creep in and overrule the 
daughters of the church. Tertullian saw it, 
and the above works were among other efforts 
to recall Christian women to the Christian life. 

De Idololatria is a protest against serving 
two masters—Christianity and heathenism. 
Many Christians had in adult age come over 
to Christianity from heathenism, and many 
Christian craftsmen gained their living by 
distinctly heathen trades, and would not or 
could not see that they were wrong. Many 
“servants of God ”’ had official or professional 
engagements which brought them perpetually 
in contact with heathen customs, legal forms, 
sacrificial acts, and social courtesies. They 
drew sophistical distinctions between what 
they might write but not speak, or the image 
they might make but not worship. To 
Tertullian such contact and collusion, and 
therefore such professions and trades, were 
radically wrong. Heathenism in all its shapes 
was idolatry. Two professions connected 
with idolatry were especially obnoxious to 
him, (4) the astrologer (c. ix.), arguing that 
“ astrology was the science of the stars which 
affirmed the Advent of Christ’; (b) the school- 
master (ludimagister) and other professors of 
letters (c. x.), who had to teach the names, 
genealogies, honours of heathen gods, and 
keep their festivals from which they derived 
their income. On festival-days, in honour of 
emperors, victories, and the like, the doors of 
Christians were more decorated with lamps 
and laurels than those of the heathen (cf. A pol. 
c. XxXxv.), men quoting Christ’s command, 
“Render unto Caesar the things which are 
Caesar’s”’ (Matt. xxii. 21). Private and 


TERTULLIANUS 


social festivals stood on a different footing 
(c. xvi.), e.g. the natural ceremonies connec- 
ted with the assumption of the toga virilis, 
espousals, nuptials, and the naming of children. 
It was a more important question (c. xvii.) 
what was to be the line of slaves or children 
who were believers, of officials in attendance 
upon their lords, patrons, or the chief magis- 
trates when sacrificing ? Tertullian answers 
all such questions in detail. From idolatry 
in act Tertullian passes to idolatry in word 
(c. xx.), forbidding ejaculations such as ‘* By 
Hercules !”’ ‘‘ By the god of truth ”’ (Medius- 
fidius, see Andrews’s Lex. s.n. Fidius). Lastly 
a yet subtler form of idolatry is considered 
(c. xxili.). Christians borrowed money from 
the heathen, and by giving bonds in security 
avoided taking an oath. ‘‘Scripsi sed nihil 
dixi. Non negavi, quia non juravi.’’ In- 
dignantly does Tertullian protest against such 
sophistry: faults committed in mind were 
faults in deed (Matt. v. 28). 

De Patientia, one of the most spiritual of 
Tertullian’s compositions, is a sermon 
preached to himself quite as much as to 
others. His experience as a priest had 
taught him the need of patience every time 
he confronted pettiness not less than pride, 
frivolity not less than idolatry. 

Ad Uxorem,i. and ii.—Among the questions 
discussed in, and disturbing, the Christian 
church at Carthage was that of second mar- 
riages. These were evidently numerous. 
Tertullian gave his advice in a treatise in two 
books addressed to his wife, which he hoped 
might be profitable to her and to any other 
woman ‘‘ belonging to God.’’ He does not 
go here beyond the position taken by St. Paul. 
If he evidently considered celibacy the higher 
state, though himself married, he does not 
forbid marriage. But second marriages were 
different, and he argues strongly against them. 

(2) Doctrinal Treatises —Three positions 
laid down by Tertullian (de Praes. Haer. cc. 
Xxi. XXxxii. XxXvi.), (@) apostolic doctrine, 
(b) episcopal succession from the apostles, 
(c) the apostolic canon of Scripture, were rocks 
on which the church was then firmly fixed. 

(a) His Regula Fidei (cf. de Praes. Haer. c. 
ΧΙ]. de Virg. Vel. c.i.; adv. Prax. c. ii.) is 
the form given by Irenaeus (contr. Haer. τ 
c. x.; cf. the two in Denzinger’s Enchiridion, 
pp- I, 2), expanded upon points which had 
come to the front during a lapse of about 30 
years. But it had become something more 
than a mere regula ; it had risen to a doctrina ; 
and in the brotherhood of Carthage it was the 
contesseratio (cf. de Praes. Haer. cc. xx. 
XXXvi.) which reason and tradition united in 
approving. (b) The regula had come down 
to them through bishops “ῬΕΙ͂ successionem 
ab initio decurrentem ”’ (cf. 2b. c. xxxii.), and 
those bishops had received “‘ cum successione 
charisma veritatis certum’”’ (Iren. iv. c. xxvi. 
2). The former fact gave historical value to 
the regula, the latter dogmatic credibility. 
The unworthy life of many a successor of the 
apostles (cf. de Pudicitia, c. i.) did not annul 
the validity of the doctrine. For (ὁ) it was 
supported by the Scriptures. In the time of 
Irenaeus and Tertullian the Law and the 
Prophets, the Gospels and the Apostolic 
Epistles (cf. de Praes. Haer. c. ΧΧΧΥΪ.) 


TERTULLIANUS 


formed an undisputed canon. Tertullian’s 
nomenclature for the Bible (see Rénsch, Das 
N. T. Tertullian’s, pp. 47-49) is alone sufficient 
record of the high value attached to the 
writings in the custody of ‘‘the one Holy 
Catholic Church."’ The sacred Scriptures 
contained the solution of every difficulty (cf. 
de Idolotat. c. iv. et pass.) It was the 
armoury of weapons offensive and defensive 
which the church permitted her children 
alone to use (cf. de Praes. c. xv., etc.), for she 
alone had taught them to use them aright. 
With such an equipment and in defence of 
“mother ’’ church (ad Mart. c. i.; de Orat. c. ii. 
and aliter), Tertullian went forth to attack 
the ‘‘heresies’’ of men who, calling them- 
selves Christians, yet abandoned the apostolic 
tradition for doctrines whose parentage he 
attributed to the devil, and whose precepts 
he scorned as derived from non-Christian 
religious systems and speculations, or as the 
offspring of self-willed wickedness. 

De Praescriptione Haereticorum. — This 
treatise, with its title drawn from the language 
of jurisprudence, consists of (i), an intro- 
duction (ce. i.-xiv.), (ii) the main division of 
the work (cc. xv.-xl.). It is more than 
probable that it originated in the desire to 
emphasize the doctrinal stability of the 
African church in the face of some fresh 
tendency towards Gnosticism in general and 
the views of Marcion especially. (i) Persons 
of weak faith and character (c. iii.) were un- 
settled because some once accounted firm in 
the faith were passing over to heresy; and it 
was not sufficient simply to refer to Scripture, 
which the Gnostic teachers could apply as 
much as the orthodox. For the time Tertul- 
lian conceived no better way of meeting their 
difficulty than by positive injunction to re- 
fuse appeal to Scripture to their would-be 
seducers, to note the character of the heretics, 
and to surrender themselves entirely to the 
guidance of the church. The authority men 
advanced for their deviations from the faith 
was nothing less than the words of the Lord, 
‘Seek, and ye shall find ’’ (Matt. vii.7). Ter- 
tullian argues that Christ’s words could bear 
no such interpretation; they contained 
advice to search after definite truth and to 
rest content with it when found. There was 
safety only in the belief that ὁ Christus 
instituit quod quaeri oportet, quod credi 
necesse est.” Parables (Luke xi. 5, xv. 8, 
XViii. 2, 3) taught the same lesson—"* finis est 
et quaerendi et pulsandi et petendi.’” There- 
fore Christians were to seek “‘in their own, 
from their own, and concerning their own ; 
and only such questions as might be de- 
liberated without prejudice to the rule of 
faith. 

This mention of the regula fidei leads (c. xiii.) 
to the statement of it. This passage is there- 
fore one of the most important in Tertullian's 
writings as an index to the articles of the 
Christian faith believed and accepted in his 
day (consult Pusey’s notes 1m loco). This 
“rule” the Christians held to have been 
taught by Christ. Tertullian is q ite willing 
(c. xiv.) that it should be examined, discussed, 
and explained to novices by some ** doctor 
gratia scientiae donatus.” But he 
caution. It was not Biblical skill (** exer- 


TERTULLIANUS O47 


citatio scripturarum "') but faith which saved 
(ef. Luke xviii. 42). Faith lay deposited in 
this *“‘ rule "’; it had a law, and in the keeping 
of that law came salvation. ‘' Cedat curiositas 
fidei, cedat gloria saluti.” 

(ii) Chaps. xv.-xl.—Heresy was sometimes 
defended on the ground that heretics used and 
argued from the Scriptures. But, answered 
Tertullian, their use of them was ** audacious” 
and not to be admitted. None but they whose 
were the Scriptures had a right to use them. 
Tertullian adopts this position not from an 
distrust of his cause, but in accordance with 
apostolic injunctions (c. xvi.; ef. 1. Tim. vi. 
3, 4; Tit. iii. ro) Heretics did not deal 
fairly with the Scriptures; one passage they 
perverted, another they interpreted to suit 
their own purposes (cf. c. xxxvili.). A man 
might have a most admirable knowledge of 
the Scripture, but yet make no progress with 
heretical disputants. Everything he main- 
tained they would deny, everything he denied 
they would maintain. Asa result, the weak 
in faith, seeing neither side had decidedly the 
better in the discussion, would go away con- 
firmed in uncertainty. Certain questions 
had therefore to be settled. Where was the 
true faith? Whose were the Scriptures ἢ 
From whom, through whom, when, and to 
whom had been handed down the “* disciplina 

ua fiunt Christiani" ? It might be assumed 
that wherever the true Christian discipline and 
faith was, there would be also the true Scrip- 
tures, true exposition, and all true Christian 
traditions (c. xix.). In Christ, Tertullian 
finds Him Who first delivered the faith openly 
to the people or privately to His disciples, of 
whom He had chosen twelve ‘ destinatos 
nationibus magistros.’’ These twelve (St. 
Matthias having been chosen in the place of 
Judas) went forth and founded churches 
everywhere ; and from them other churches 
derived then, and still derived, the tradition 
of faith and the seeds of doctrine. Hence 
their name of ‘apostolic churches."" Though 
so many, they sprang from but one, the 
xrimitive church founded by the apostles. 

hus all were primitive, all apostolic, all one ; 
and this unity was proved by their peaceful 
inter-communion, by the title of brotherhood, 
and by the exercise of hospitality—all of 
which owed their basis and continuance to one 
and the same sacramental faith. From this 
was to be deduced the first rule (c. xxi.): 
None were to be received (cf. Matt. xi. 27) as 
preachers but those (apostles) whom the Lord 
Jesus Christ appointed and sent. A second 
rule was that what the apostles preached 
could only be proved by those churches which 
the apostles themselves founded, to which they 
preached, and to which they afterwards sent 
epistles. All doctrine therefore which agreed 
with these apostolic churches (ἡ matricibus et 
originalibus fidei"’) was to be counted true, 
and firmly held as having been received by the 
church from the apostles, by the apostles from 
Christ, by Christ from God; and all doctrine 
must be pronounced false which contained 
anything contrary to the truth declared by the 
churches and apostles of Christ and of God. 
These rules Tertullian and his co-religionists 


gives ἃ affirmed to be held by the Holy Church to 


which they belonged ; “" Communicamus cum 


948 TERTULLIANUS 


ecclesiis Apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina 
diversa. Hoc est testimonium veritatis.” 

Heretics advanced two ‘‘mad’”’ objections 
to these rules: (a) The apostles did not know 
all things (c. xxii.). (6) Arguing from 
I. Tim. vi. 20 and II. Tim. i. 14, the apostles 
did not reveal everything to all men. Some 
doctrines they proclaimed openly and to all, 
others secretly and to a few (c. xxv.). Ter- 
tullian addressed himself to both these points. 

C. Tertullian and Montanism.—About the 
end of 2nd cent. Montanism invaded Africa. 
Tertullian would seem to have embraced it 
wholeheartedly. It suited his temperament ; 
it furnished the logical solutions to problems 
practical and theological which had been 
disturbing him. But his Montanism was 
not the Montanism of 172-177 or of Asia 
Minor; it had come to him through the 
purifying medium of distance and time. 
He knew or remembered nothing of the 
extravagances connected with the first de- 
liverances of the ‘‘ new prophets.’”’ Montan- 
ism was in truth to Tertullian little more than 
a name; development and restoration rather 
than novelty underlie the intention, and are 
stamped upon the thoughts, of every treatise 
which follows those hitherto considered. The 
practices Tertullian favoured and advocated, 
the doctrines he loved and enforced, had alike 
their roots in the existing practices and doc- 
trines of the church. It is the manner in 
which he has insisted upon the one which has 
so much discredited it; it is the juridical 
fence with which he has driven home the other 
which has angered opponents. He defended 
his practice and teaching as necessary for his 
day. New fasts, protests against second 
marriages, a sterner accentuation of discipline, 
were conceived as absolutely necessary by the 
man who, beginning by tightening bonds 
which the church had wisely left relaxed, 
ended by the Pharisaic assumption that he 
and his were πνευματικοὶ and his opponents 
ψυχικοί. But if he drew his descriptive lan- 
guage from Gnostic codes, he burned in the 
spirit to depose Gnostic heresy. The merit 
he assigned to ecstasy, dream, vision, new 
prophecy, and special endowment by the 
Paraclete, were expansions of simpler but 
Scriptural teaching, with something of Phari- 
saic lordliness, but ever directed against the 
Sadduceeism, the materialism, the Patripas- 
sianism, and the Monarchianism of his day. 

The career of Tertullian, his whole being and 
character, left him no choice when he had to 
make his decision. He was bound to side 
with the sterner party, and he did. 1 at first 
he retained his position in the church, that 
position before long became intolerable. The 
breach took place of which the de Virg. Vel. 
gives the ostensible cause; and the passion 
which animated the apologist in defence of the 
church was presently employed to revile, 
discard, and injure her. Few treatises are 
more painful to read than the de Monogamia, 
de Jejunio, and de Pudicitia. It is a relief 
to turn from them to the adv. Praxean. If 
the heart of the ascetic has been alienated 
from the church, he can still defend her faith 
with all his old loving energy, and, by his last 
existing writing, command respect from those 
whose affection he had lost. 


TERTULLIANUS 


(1) Practical Treatises.—De Corona is 
usually counted the first treatise which in- 
dicates traces of Montanism (cf. c. i.; Hauck 
places the de Virg. Vel. before it), and it was 
written after the de Spectac. (cf. c. vi.). 
Opinions were divided as to the soldier’s 
conduct. Some blamed him as rash, as eager 
to die, some as bringing trouble on the Chris- 
tian name about a mere matter of dress. 
Tertullian, with one word of laudation of the 
man—“‘solus scilicet fortis inter tot fratres 
commilitones, solus Christianus ’’—turns furi- 
ously upon his decriers. 

De Fuga in Persecutione.—It may well have 
been that excitement threatening persecution 
was aroused against Christians by the conduct 
of the soldier specified in the de Corona. In 
Carthage (c. iii.) the question was anxiously 


debated, ‘‘ May Christians flee from persecu- ἡ 


tion or not ?”’ The clergy answered “‘ Yes,”’ 
and set an example (c. xi.), which they prob- 
ably defended by Christ’s words (Matt. x. 
23), and by the practice of a Polycarp and 
others. A few years before (ad Uxor. i. c. iii.) 
Tertullian himself had conceded that flight 
was “‘ better ’’ where the Christian was likely 
to deny the faith through the agony of tor- 
ture; but now he thought differently. Mon- 
tanistic severity had laid its spell upon him. 
His work deals with the two modes by which 
the timid and doubtful sought to evade per- 
secution: (a) flight (cc. i.-xi.), and (b) 
bribery (cc. xii.-end). 

De Exhortatione Castitatis.—Some years had 
elapsed since Tertullian had written ad 
Uxorem, deprecating for women a _ second 
marriage. The death of a friend’s wife gave 
him an opportunity of urging upon men a like 
continence ; and he did so in language de- 
claratory of views far more exaggerated. 

De Virginibus Velandis.—The veiling of 
virgins was a burning question among Chris- 
tians at Carthage; and partisans in Carthage 
took sides according as they argued from 
what St. Paul (I. Cor. xi.) had said or had left 
to be inferred. Did his term ‘‘ women” 
include virgins? Christian married women 
appeared veiled everywhere, in the church as 
well as the marketplace; their veil was the 
mark of their status. The Christian virgin 
did one of three things : she went everywhere 
unveiled, or veiled in the streets but unveiled 
in the church, or everywhere veiled. Of these 
the first was the oldest and local custom—it 
was the mark of the virgin and the practice 
of the majority. But a strong minority had 
adopted the last of the three practices. This 
Tertullian approved (cf. de Orat. cc. xx.-xxii.). 

(2) Doctrinal Works.—The majority of 
these were written when Tertullian had be- 
come a Montanist. They present more or 
less the catch-words of the sect, and refer to 
the Paraclete and the new prophecy, if the 
doctrines inculcated and defended are those 
of the church Catholic. To be a Montanist 
was not with Tertullian to be a seceder from 
the church in points of faith, though the 
church found it necessary for the sake of her 
unity in life and doctrine to count him and 
his outside her. 

Adv. Hermogenem.—For the nature of the 
opinions of this heretical teacher and of Ter- 
tullian’s treatise against him see HERMOGENES. 


TERTULLIANUS 


The treatise contains two very beautiful 
Ρ es, (4) the eulogy of wisdom (c. xviii.), 
and (δ) the description of the development of 
cosmical order out of chaos (c. xxix.). 

Adv. Valentinianos.—For a review of the 
opinions of this school (ἡ frequentissimum 
plane collegium inter haereticos "’) see VALEN- 
Tinus. Tertullian’s treatise does not so much 
discuss these opinions as state them ; it is not 


so much a refutation as a satire, intended | 


to provoke mirth (c. vi.). It claims no origin- 
ality, but to be a faithful reflection of the 


teaching of Justin, Miltiades (cf. Eus. H. EF. 
v. 17) Irenaeus, and Proculus. 
De Carne Christi.—This is Tertullian's 


principal contribution to the Christological | 


problem of the time: Was the flesh of Christ 
born of the Virgin and human in its nature 
(c. xxxv.)? In his de Resurrectione Carnis 
(c. ii.) he himself specifies the tenets he opposes 
here to be those of Marcion, Basilides, Valen- 
tinus, and Apelles. These ‘‘ modern Saddu- 
cees’ (c. i.; de Praes. Haer. c. xxxiii.) were 
apprehensive lest if they admitted the reality 
of Christ’s flesh, they must also admit His 
resurrection in the flesh, and consequently 
the resurrection generally. It was necessar 

to discuss, therefore, His bodily substance. (1) 
(a) Marcion’s views are examined (cc. ii.-v.) ; 
then (δ) those of Apelles (cc. vi.-ix.) ; then (c) 
that of the Valentinians (cc. x.-xvi.). (1) The 
second part of the treatise deals more especi- 
ally with the single point—‘‘ Did Christ re- 
ceive flesh from the Virgin ’’ (cc. xvii.-end) ? 

The treatise fully responds to the intention 
of the writer. It examines the arguments 
employed and the Scriptures advanced (see 
esp. c. xviii.) ; and does so, on the whole, in a 
style moulded by the recollection that the 
subject was a grave and solemn one. There 
are bursts of irony (e.g. cc. ii. iv.) ; paradoxes 
(see c. v., perhaps the most famous of Tertul- 
lian’s many paradoxes) and retorts; but the 
total result is a valuable contribution to the 
literature of the subject. His line of argu- 
ment and his statement of the church's 
doctrine is that of Irenaeus. For a general 
view of the opinions attacked see APELLES, 
Marcion, and VALENTINUS. 

De Resurrectione Carnis.—Tertullian wrote 
this (c. ii.) in fulfilment of the intention ex- 
pressed in the de Carne Christi (c. Xxv.), 
against those who allowed that the soul would 
rise again, but refused resurrection to the flesh 
on account of its worthlessness. It was a 
logical sequence to their fundamental position 
that the works of the Demiurge, or the god 
who created the world and was op d to the 
supreme God, were marked by corruption and 
worthlessness, and that the flesh of man was 
consequently so also. Tertullian grants that 
his subject was invested with uncertainty ; but 
it was too important to be passed over. The 

uestion affected the very Oneness of the 
dhead. To deny the resurrection of the 
flesh would be to shake that doctrine, to vindi- 
cate the resurrection of the flesh would estab- 
lish it. In contrast to the unseemly language 
(spurciloguium) of heathen and heretic, he will 
adopt a more honourable and modest style (ef ; 
de Anima, c. xxxii.); and he has kept his 
word. There are few sentences which grate 
upon the ear, while there are many passages of 


TERTULLIANUS 949 
ee beauty and profound Christian 


_ Adv. Marcionem, bks. i.-v.—This work in 
its present form is assigned to the 14th year 
of Severus (bk. i. c. xv.) or ¢. 208; and comes 
to us as a work touched and retouched during 
many years (cf. i. c. xxii.) Tertullian had in 
| other cases felt dissatisfaction with his writings 
| of an earlier period, or altered his arguments 
to meet the ever-altering phases of false 
belief. Thus in the earlier work, de Praes. 
Haer. c. xix., he declines to allow appeal to 
the Scriptures in the discussion of heresy ; in 
a later treatise, de Resurr. Carnis, c. iii. he 
demands of heretics that they should support 
their inquiries from Scripture alone (cf. adv. 
Prax. c. xi.). So now, his earliest edition of 
this treatise, if placed (conjecturally) c. 200, 
would have seemed to him very defective 
| when writing c. 208. He had separated from 
| his old friends, now branded as the “ Psy- 
| chics " (iv. c. xxii.), to find among the Mon- 
| tanists the true church (i. c. xxi.; iv. c& v.) 
|To him ‘‘the new prophecy" was now the 
| highest authority, the Paraclete the sole guide 
| unto all truth. The doctrinal controversy 
| between Tertullian and Marcion turned prin- 
|cipally on questions of anthropology and 
| Christology. All that Tertullian has to say 
| upon it has been summed up under Marcon. 
| De Anima.—In the treatise de Testimonto 
| Animae Tertullian had sought to prove that 
| the soul of man bore natural testimony to the 
‘truth of the representations given in Holy 
Scripture of the unity, nature, and attributes 
of God, and of a future state. In the treatise 
| de Anima, written some ten years or so later, 
| he deals with the soul itself. Between these 
| surviving treatises is to be placed one now lost, 
| de Censu Animae, in which he had combated 
| the opinion of Hermogenes that the origin of 
the soul was to be found in matter by the 
counter-opinion that it was formed by the 
afflatus of God (cf. de Anima, cc. i. iii. xi. ; 
adv. Mare. ii. c. ix.). The attributes of the 
soul (animac naturalia) pointed, in his opinion, 
to propinquity to God and not to matter (cf. 
de Anima, c. xxii.), an opinion supported by 
the views of Plato, who had taught the 
divinatio animae (cf. de Anima, c. xxiv.). 
The discussion of its origin is followed by a 
| general inquiry respecting the nature, powers, 
and destiny of the soul. An admirable 
analysis is that of Bp. oe fe (pp. 178-207; ef. 
also Neander, the careful analysis of Bébhr- 
inger, and Hauck). In c. xxii. Tertullian 
gives his definition of the soul as deriving its 
origin from the breath of God (iv. xi.). he 
soul is immortal, corporeal (v.-vill.), and 
endowed with form (ix.); simple in its sub- 
stance (x. xi.); possessing within itself the 
principle of inte ligence (xii.); working in 
different ways or channels (xiii.-xv.); endued 
with free will; affected by external circum- 
stances, and thus producing the infinite vari- 
| ety of disposition observable among mankind ; 
rational (xvi.); supreme over man (xvii. xviil.); 
and ssessing natural insight into futurity 
(xix.). The Gospels, in (¢.g.) the history of 
the rich man in torment (Luke xvi. 24, 24), 
| proved the corporeity of the soul (c. vil. ; also 
la Stoic opinion), and medical science, * the 
\sister of philosophy,” in the volumes of a 


950 TERTULLIANUS 


contemporary physician, Soranus (c. vi.), also 
attested this belief. The invisibility of the 
soul was no disproof of its corporeity ; witness 
St. John, who, ‘‘ when in the spirit,” ‘‘ beheld 
the souls of the martyrs ’”’ (Rev. vi. 9); wit- 
ness also the testimony of ‘“‘the sister so 
endowed with gifts of revelation’’ (c. ix.). 
This latter testimony is of interest as exhibit- 
ing Montanist religious observances. Revela- 
tions used to come to her in the church on 
the Lord’s Day. While the solemn services 
were being performed, she used to fall into an 
“fecstasy in the spirit.’’ In that state she 
conversed with angels, sometimes even with 
the Lord; she saw and heard mysteries 
(sacramenta); she read men’s hearts; she 
prescribed remedies to the sick. Sometimes 
these visions took place when the Scriptures 
were being read, or when the Psalms were 
being chanted, or at the time of preaching or 
of prayer. On one occasion Tertullian thinks 
that he must have been preaching about the 
soul. The ‘‘sister’? was rapt in spiritual 
ecstasy. After the people had been dismissed, 
she told him, as was her habit, what she had 
seen. ‘‘ The soul was shewn to mein a bodily 
form. It seemed a spirit; not, however, an 
empty illusion, but one which could be grasped, 
“tenera et lucida et aerii coloris, et forma per 
omnia humana.’’’ Such testimony was to the 
Montanist Tertullian all-conclusive. 

The main purpose of cc. xxiii.-xxvii. is to 
prove that the souls of all mankind are derived 
from one common source, the soul of Adam. 
In cc. xxviii.-xxxv. Tertullian ridicules the 
conclusions necessitated by metempsychosis 
and metemsomatosis. 

As a preliminary to the consideration of the 
manner in which the soul encounters death, 
Tertullian considers the subject of sleep—the 
image of death (cc. xlii.-end). He adopts by 
preference the Stoic definition of sleep as the 
temporary suspension of the activity of the 
senses (‘‘ resolutionem sensualis vigoris ’’), and 
limits the senses affected to those of the body ; 
the soul, being immortal, neither requiring nor 
admitting a state of rest. While the body is 
asleep or dead, the soul is elsewhere. 

Death, to which Tertullian now turns (c. ].), 
was to be the lot of all, let Epicurus and 
Menander say what they would. The voice 
of God (Gen. ii. 17) had declared death to be 
the death of nature. Independent of heathen 
examples of this truth, Tertullian finds one in 
the translation of Enoch and Elijah. Their 
death was deferred only; ‘“‘they were re- 
served for a future death, that by their blood 
they might extinguish Antichrist ’’ (Oehler 
refers to Rev. xi. 3. Where would the soul 
be when divested of the body (ce. liii.-lvili.) ἢ 
Tertullian answers, In Hades ; but his Hades 
is not that of Plato, nor his answer to the ques- 


tion that adopted by philosophers. To Hades, 
“ἃ subterranean region,’ did Christ go 
(Matt. xii. 40; I. Pet. iii. 19); therefore 


Christians must keep at arms’ length those 
who were too proud to believe that the souls 
of the faithful deserved to be placed in 
the lower regions. From Hades shall men 
remove to heaven at the day of judgment. 
But what would take place while the soul 
was in Hades? Would it sleep? No, Ter- 


tullian replies ; souls do not sleep when men | behaviour of Christians. 


| had virtues of its own (cc. v. vi.). 


TERTULLIANUS 


are alive. Full well the soul will know in 
Hades how to feel joy or sorrow even without 
the body. The “‘prison’’ of the Gospel 
(Matt. v. 25) was Hades, and ‘‘ the uttermost 
farthing ’’ the very smallest offence which had 
to be atoned there before the resurrection. 
Hence the soul must undergo in Hades some 
compensatory discipline without prejudice to 
the full accomplishment of the resurrection, 
when recompense would be paid to the flesh 
also. This conclusion Tertullian affirms to be 
one communicated by the Paraclete, and there- 
fore accepted by all who admitted the force of 
Be words from a knowledge of His promised 
gifts. 

De Pallio.—This, a treatise intentionally 
extravagant, is a vindication of the philoso- 
pher’s mantle (pallium) ridiculed by the people 
of Carthage. It might be called a juridical 
plea, couched in witty and forensic language, 
in an imaginary case of Pallium (see descrip- 
tion s.v.in D. C. A.) v. Toga. Some have seen 
in Tertullian’s assumption of the pallium an 
indication that he adopted it to show his separ- 
ation from the church. The conjecture has 
nothing to prove or disprove it. The mantle 
Did it not 
illustrate simplicity and capacity, economy and 
austerity, in protest against the follies and effe- 
minacies, the gluttony and extravagance, the 
impurity and intemperance of the togati? 
**Grande pallii beneficium est.’’ It was the 
garb not only of the philosopher, but also of 
those benefactors of the human race—the 
grammarian and the rhetorician, the sophist 
and the physician, the poet and the musician, 
the student of astronomy and the pupil of 
national history. In face of such facts, why 
mind the sneer, ‘“‘ The pallium ranked below 
the toga of the Roman knight,”’ or the indig- 
nant question, “‘ShallI give up my toga for the 
pallium’’? There was no indignity in the 
matter. ‘‘‘Gaude pallium et exsulta!’ Thou 
art honoured by a better philosophy from the 
time that thou didst become a Christian 
garment.” 

Scorpiace.—A defence of martyrdom strong- 
er than is found in the Montanist works of his 
previous period, perhaps 6. 211. 

Ad Scapulam.—Probably at the beginning 
of the reign of Caracalla, a.p. 211, the African 
proconsula Scapula authorized the persecution 
to which this work refers. He was a fierce 
opponent of the Christians, and permitted his 
fanaticism to override his sense of justice (c. 
iv.). This treatise uses the arguments of the 
Apology, but with a change in tone. Tertul- 
lian’s passion is still strong, but gravely and 
soberly expressed. There is the same appeal 
for justice, but defiance has given place to 
prayer, and hatred of the persecutor to love 
for the enemy. The treatise may fairly take 
rank among the best and most interesting of 
all which have been preserved. Scapula is 
told frankly that they who had joined the 
““sect ’ of Christians were prepared to accept 
its conditions. The persecutions of men 
ignorant of what they were doing did not alarm 
them or make them shrink from heathen 
‘‘savagery.’’ Against the charges usually 
brought against them (cf. c. ii. ; Aol. ce. vili.- 
ix.) Scapula should set one plain fact—the 
They formed the 


TERTULLIANUS 


majority in every city, yet their conduct was 
always marked by silence and modesty. Their 
“discipline "’ enforced a patience which was 
divine ; if they were known at all among men, 
it was for their reformation of the vices which 
once degraded them. Tertullian does not 
write to intimidate, but to warn—h θεομαχεῖν. 
“Perform your duties as proconsul, but 
remember to be humane.’ If the Christians 
of Carthage should see fit to come to Scapula, 
how many swords and fires would he need for 
such multitudes of every sex, age, and rank ! 


He would have to slaughter the leading persons: 


of the city, and decimate the noble men and 
women of his own rank, friends and relations 
of his own circle. ‘‘Spare thyself, Scapula, 
if thou wilt not spare us. Spare Carthage, 
if thou wilt not spare thyself. Spare thy 
province, which the mere mention of thine 
intention has subjected to the threats and 
extortions of soldiers and of private foes [ef. 
de Fuga, ce. xii. xiii.]. As for us, we have 
no Master but God. Those whom you reckon 
your masters are but men, and must one day 
die. Our community shall never die. The 


more you pull it to the ground, the more it will | 


be built up.” 

De Monogamia.—Some years passed, of 
peace from without but not from within ; and 
a third time (c. 217) Tertullian returns to that 
question—marriage—which had occupied him 
in the ad Uxorem and de Exhortatione Castt- 
tatts. The third treatise is the bitterest. 


Tertullian now claims for his party that 
they and they alone were guided by the 
Paraclete. From Him they had received their 


teaching on monogamy. He had come to 
supersede the teaching of St. Paul by yet 
higher counsels of perfection. Much of Ter- 


tullian’s argument—e.g. from Scripture—is | 


repeated from his former treatises, and much 
of it is strained and conjectural, as he felt it 
would be said to be (c. ix.); but no one will 
dispute Tertullian’s earnestness. Immorality 
was prevalent and contagious, and in mono- 


gamy—supposing celibacy and widowhood | 


to be impossible—he saw a counteracting 
agency. Discipline and spirituality would be 
at least practicable to those who would rally 
round the standard of monogamy. 

De Jejunio Adversus Psychicos (al. de J eju- 
nits)—Another great subject of difference 
between churchmen and Montanists had refer- 
ence to fasts. Tertullian’s paper is most 
distressing to read, scanty in argument, 
plentiful in abuse. Both sides indulged in 
unmeasured invective; both had lost their 
temper. The charges of Juxury, [gece 
and immorality unhesitatingly and almost 
exultingly brought by Tertullian against 
church ecclesiastics and laymen are so gross 
as almost to refute themselves by their very 
exaggeration. They are more than the retort 
of a man infuriated by unjust accusations 
and meeting them by counter-charges. The 
ascetic has become a fanatic, and in his mad 
hatred besmirches and calumniates the church 
he had once so tenderly loved. 

De Pudicitia.—This work has been placed 
before the de Monogamia and the de Jejunto, 
but internal and negative evidence, if slight, 
seems to assign it a place after them. An 
edict (c. i.) of the bp. of Rome (Zephyrinus, 


TERTULLIANUS 951 


202-218, or Callistus, 218-223) lashed Tertul- 
lian into fury, and completely dissolved the 
last links of union between him and the 
Psychics. The treatise is marked by intense 
| bitterness from beginning to end. 

Adversus jee ἀποροῖ He the history of 
Praxeas, the nature of his views and Tertul- 
lian's answer, see PRAXEAS. 

Tertullian was the first who, in the contro- 
versy against the Monarchians, introduced 
epee the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 

axeas did not touch it. Hence the value 
of such chapters as viii. ix. xxv. xxx. He 
fully maintains the personality of the Third 
Person of the Trinity (cf. ad Mart. c. iii.) if 
his language is occasionally ambiguous (ef. 
c. xii., his comment on Gen. i. 26). He bases 
as usual his arguments on Scripture (ec. xxi. 
to end), and if not always free from his well- 
known tendency to read into them what he 
wants, the passages are as a rule well and 
wisely handled either in defence of the Catholic 

ition or in refutation of that of Praxeas. 

6 gives (c. xx.) the 3 texts especially valued 
by this teacher in support of his heresy (15. xlv. 
5; John x. 30, xiv. 9, 10), and refutes his 
views at length (cc. xxi.-xxiv.). 

IV. SummMary.—The brief sketch here pre- 
sented of these powerful writings will have 
indicated the investigation of many a doctrine 
and the record of contemporaneous practices 
heathen and Christian, as well as illustrated 
the mind, character, and style of their writer. 

(a) Tertullian and Heathenism.—On its 
moral side, extravagance, lufury, immorality, 
and cruelty were to all external appearance 
as rampant in his day as ever. ertullian 
knows heathenism only in its coarseness and 
repulsiveness. Yet a reformation was pro- 
ceeding, religious in origin and intention, 
|which must not be forgotten in any true 
estimate of the age. Tertullian lived when 
old pagan traditions and new tendencies were 
co-operating; when there had risen that 
religious movement which, owing its impulse 
to the eclecticism of a Julia Domna, passed 
|through the stirring phases successively 
| represented in the neo-Pythagoreanism of her 
| salon, in the subordination by Elagabalus of 
every other cultus to that of the Oriental 
| sun-god, and in the equalization by Alexander 
Severus of all worshipful beings in his common 
cultus of the heroes of humanity. That move- 
ment was the product of a real awakening. 

The main centre of these changes and 
developments was Rome, but Tertullian’s 
writings against heathenism ΜῈ» that Car- 
thage at least felt the effects of this great tidal 
wave of religiousness. They are as full of 
attack as of defence. He strikes at a vigorous 
paganism as much as he beats off the charges 
lalleged against Christianity. Every page 
teems with allusions which reflect without 
effort the firm foothold acquired by all forms 
of heathen cultus. Ridicule of the worship 
of the ancient deities of Greece and Rome, of 
the cultus of the emperors, of the “ genius,” 
and of demons is found allied with contempt 
of the gods of Alexandria (Isis and Serapis), 
of Phrygia (the Magna Mater and Bellona), of 
Syro-Phoenicia (the Dea Syra), and of Car- 

thage (the Juno Coelestis). The very fierce- 
‘ness of his invective and scorn against the 


952 TERTULLIANUS 


polytheistic revival, the ridicule he pours upon 
galli and flamines, priests and priestesses, 
itinerant and mendicant propagators of this 
or that cultus, guilds, processions, festivals, 
evidences the success and popularity of 
heathenism. The Apology of Apuleius (end 
of 2nd cent.) is illustrated by the Apology of 
Tertullian, and the statements of Dio, Spar- 
tian, Herodian, Lampridius, etc., can be com- 
pared with those of our writer. Were those 
heathen works lost, it would be almost possible 
to reproduce from his pages, shorn of their 
extravagance, a picture of the religiousness 
of the age such as they have given. 

(b) Tertullian and Christianity.—In passing 
from heathenism to Christianity, Tertullian 
believed himself to be passing from darkness 
to light and from corruption to purity. He 
embraced it with all the strength of a matured 
mind and life. All the more intelligible, 
therefore, is his vehement anger with any 
form of Christian precept and practice, 
whether at Rome or Carthage, which fell 
short of his ideal. The church was to him 
the Virgin and spotless Bride of the Ascended 
Lord, and her children—bishops, priests, and 


people—must worthily reflect her purity and | 


faith. He would permit no shortcomings 
because he would admit no failure. A writer 
of the 4th cent. has left on record that the 
Africans as he knew them were “‘ faithless and 
cunning. There might be some good people 
among them, but they were not many” 
(quoted in Mommsen, The Provinces of the 
Roman Empire, “ii. p. 340). This estimate 
is reflected a century earlier in Tertullian’s 
pages. It is a summary of his opinion of the 
spurious devotion which marked the Christian 
fop (de Poenit. c. xi.; cf. de Cultu Fem. ii. 
c. viii.), the would-be penitent (de Poenit. 
c. ix.), the rich Christian lady (de Cultu Fem. 
i. C. ix., ii. cc. v.-vil.; de Virg. Vel. c. xvii.), 
the fashionable virgin (7b. c. xii. ; in contrast 
with her holy sister, c. xv.), the drugged and 
petted martyr (de Jej. c. xii., in contrast 
with the willing and happy martyr, ad 
Martyres, cc. i.-iii.) ; and it explains that final 
revulsion of mind which, spurning every kind 
of compromise, heaped indiscriminate abuse 
on what was best as well as what was worst 
in the life of the Christians of the church, and 
turned to find in asceticism and Montanism a 
seriousness and elevation impossible to him 
elsewhere. Paradoxical as it may seem, it 
was the same impulsive spirit which kept him 


staunch to the faith of that church whose | 


discipline and ritual he abjured or carried 
with him to a schismatic body. Gnosticism 
was to Tertullian the embodiment of theo- 
logical corruption, darkness, and falsehood, 
and he fought it with all his natural vehem- 
ence. His theology, if developed by Mon- 
tanism, is in substance that which the church 
accepted, and accepts. The admiration felt 
for his writings by his countryman Cyprian 
(200-258), bp. of Carthage, should never be 
forgotten. Cyprian, says St. Jerome, never 
passed a day without reading a portion of 
Tertullian’s works ; he frequently asked for 
them with the w ords, ‘ “Da mihi magistrum (i 
and it is impossible to read Cyprian’s existing 
treatises without seeing how largely the 
thoughts of Tertullian have been absorbed by 


TERTULLIANUS 


him, if the language has been softened and 
deepened. In our own country Bp. Bull 
(Defensio Fidet Nicenae) and Pearson (On the 
Creed) have used many an argument which 
the Montanist of Africa had prepared for 
them, and Bp. Kaye’s illustrations of the 
Articles of the Church of England from Ter- 
tullian’s writings (pp. 246, ete.) concur in 
establishing the force of Modhler’s description 
of his dogma as “850 homelike’”’ (Patr. i. p. 
737). It is based on the teaching of Christ 
as handed down by apostles and apostolic 
men, and formulated in the “‘ regula fidei una, 
sola, immobilis et irreformabilis”’ (cf. de 
Praes. Haer. ce. viii. ix.; de Virg. Vel. c. i.). 
Theology owes practically to him such words 
(int. al.) as Trinitas, satisfactio, sacramentum, 
substantia, persona, liberum arbitrium, trans- 
ferred (some of them) from the Latin law 
courts to take their definite place in the 
language of Latin divinity (cf. the dex 
verborum at the end of Oehler, vol. ii.). 

(c) Tertullian, the Man. OF no one, says 
Ebert, is Buffon’s saying truer, “‘the style is 
the man,’ and the best illustration of his 
style he finds in the Apology (Geschichte der 
Christlich-Lateintschen Literatur, pp. 34-37): 
Tertullian cared nothing for form save as it 
best expressed his thought. He said right 
out from his heart what he had to say about 
friend or foe, without attempt to clothe his 


| speech with the graceful charm of the Greek 


cr the dignified periods of the Roman. A- 
brupt and impetuous, eloquent and stern, his 
sentences follow one another with the sweep- 
ing, rushing force of storm-waves. The very 
exceptions do but prove the rule. Such 
tender or beautiful passages as those which 
depict the life of Christ on earth (de Pat. c. 
iii.; Apol. c. xxi.; were these written with 
any acquaintance with the Life of the pagan 
Christ, Apollonius of Tyana, edited by Philo- 
stratus at the command of Julia Domna ?), 
the power and effect of prayer (de Orat. c. 
xxix.), the virtues and portrait of patience 
(de Pat. c. xv.), contemporary civilization 
(de Anima, c. xxx.), the happy marriage (ad 
Uxor. ii. 8), and faith, the barque of the 
church (de Idol. c. xxiv.); or the impressive 
analogies of the resurrection he finds in nature 
(ve Resurr. Carnis, c. xii.), and the illustra- 
tions of the Trinity (adv. Prax. c. viii.), come 
upon the reader as a surprise, as something 
so unlike one who is more in his recognized 
element when describing the place-hunter (de 
Poentt. c. xi.), the traitor (A pol. c. xxxv.), and 
the knowing Valentinian (adv. Val. end), or 
painting that ghastliest of his portraits, 
murder and idolatry crooning over adultery 
(de Pud. c. v.). His paradoxes are charac- 
teristic: To him the unity of heretics was 
schism (de Praes. Haer. c. xlii.); and heresy 
itself “‘ tantum valeat quantum si non fuisset ”’ 
(1b. c. i.). ‘‘God is great when little’ (adv. 
Mare. ii. c. ii.); “116 to be true”’ (de Virg. 
Vel. c. xvi.), contain thoughts only a shade 
less startling than the ‘‘ Mortuus est Dei 
Filius; prorsus credibile est quia ineptum 
est; et sepultus resurrexit ; certum est quia 
impossibile est ’’ (de Carne Christi, c. v.), or 
the well-known ‘‘ the blood of martyrs is the 
seed of the church”’ (Apol. c. i.) His right 
appreciation of the methods of Scripture 


- 


TERTULLIANUS 


exegesis (de Pud. c. ix.; οἵ. de Res. Carn. 
c. xxi.) is found side by side with such signal 
examples of perverse interpretation as those 


which disfigure the de Jejunio and de Pudi- | 


οἵα, or such fanciful expositions as his view 
of the cross (adv. Marc. iii. c. xviii. ; ef. adv. 
Jud. ce. X. Xili.), St. Peter and the sword (de 
Idol. c. xix.), God's Voice to Adam (adv. 
Mare. ii. c. xxv.), and the phoenix (de Res. 
Carn. c. xiii.). Such paradoxes, contrasts, 
and contradictions are characteristic indica- 
tions not so much of a want of comprehensive- 
ness as of a determination to occupy himself 
with but one idea or one aspect of a great 
truth, and subjugate to that the wider bear- 
ings of the question. His great acuteness, 
power, eloquence, and causticity are concen- 
trated for the time being upon a single prin- 
ciple; and whatever will illustrate it, prove 
it, and drive it home, is drawn into its service, 
often regardless of its fitness (see this drawn 
out in Pusey’s pref. to Libr. of the Fath. vol. x.) 
Tertullian’s style is strongly marked by the 
early training of his life: it is juridical in 
thought, language, and exposition—a_ fact 
which explains so much of its difficulty. The 
advocate is always present. His conduct of 
the contest between Christianity and heathen- 
ism is that of a law-court contest, God v. the 
devil; his conception of the contest between 
Montanist and Churchman is that of one who 
asserted and developed Christianity v. one 
who surrendered it or left it defective. Ter- 
tullian was often wrong, and the church has, 
with sorrow, so adjudged him ; but the charac- 
ter of the man explains everything. 

What that character was he has himself 
told: ‘‘ Miserrimus ego, semper aeger calori- 
bus impatientiae’’ (de Pat. c. i.). The 
sentence, caught up by Jerome, explained to 
him the man (‘‘homo acris et vehementis 
ingenii’’), as it explains his secession to 
Montanism and his intellectual and moral 
defects. Perverse in the sense of wrong- 
headed he often was in his narrow estimates, 


but he was never wrong-hearted. His life and — 


work, full of the shades and contrasts of one 
who loved well and hated well, were after all 
a life and a work from which more has been 
gained than lost. If Hilary can regret that 
his “later error took away from the authority 
of what he had written,’”’ Vincentius can 
remind us that those writings were ‘‘ thunder- 
bolts’; they were hurled forth in defence of 
faith and practice. 


will turn with Cyprian by preference, and in 


the perverse impatience of his later life see at 
once ‘‘ the fire which kindles and the beacon 


which warns ”’ (Pusey). 

V. Literature.—Oehler’s ed. of Tertullian 
is on the whole the best extant. A new and 
scientific ed. was commenced by Rufferscheid 
and Wissowa in the Vienna Corpus Scr. Eccl. 
Lat. xx. See a full list of recent litt. in Bar- 
denhewer’s Patrology (Freiburg im Br. 1905). 
Kaye is most serviceable in elucidating many 

oints as to his life, era, teaching, and style. 
Radiation into Eng. of some of his apolo- 


It will be to his earlier | 
life or less polemical treatises that the reader | 


THECLA 


are de Praescrip. Haer., ad Martyres, and ad 
Scapulam in one vol. with intro. and notes, and 
adv. Gentes, both ed. by T. H. Bindley (Oxf. 
Univ. Press); de Baptismo, ed. with intro. and 
| notes by J. M. Lupton (Camb. Univ. Press); 
de Poen. and de Pud. with French notes and 
intro. by Prof. de Labriolle (1906); and a 
reprint of the bp. of Bristol's illustrations of 
Ecclesiastical History from Tertullian’s writings 
inthe A. and M. Theol. Libr. (Griffith). ().-¥.] 
Thaddaeus. Eusebius (ist. Feel. i. ty) gives 
|} a story, which he says he found in the archives 
οὐ Edessa, that after the ascension of our 
Lord, the apostle Judas Thomas sent Thad- 
daeus, one of the seventy disciples, to Edessa, 
to king Ἐ" χὶ- the Black, and that he cured 
the king of a serious illness, converted him 
with all his people to Christianity, and died 
at Edessa after many vears of successful 
labours. The name of this apostle of the 
Edessenes is given by the Syrians as Addacus 
| (Doctrina Addai, ed. Phillips, p. 5, Eng. 
| trans. 1876), and it is possible that Eusebius 
misread the name as Thaddaeus. Thaddaeus 
was at a later date confused with the apostle 
Judas Thaddaeus. The documents given by 
| Eusebius contain acorrespondence between Ab- 
| gar and our Lord, which of course is spurious. 
| Cf. R. A. Lipsius, Die Edessenische Abgarsage 
| krttisch untersucht (Braunschweig, 1880), and 
}in D. C. B. vol. iv.; also, by the same, Die 
Peony: A postelgeschichten, vol. ii. 2, 178+ 
zor, and Suppl. p. 105; also Texeront, Les 
| Origines de T'Eglise d'Edesse εἰ la légende 
| d’ Abgar (Paris, 1888). {u.w.] 
| Thais, St., a penitent courtesan of Egypt, 
}converted c. 344 by Paphnutius of Sidon. 
Her story illustrates her age. Her fame reached 
| to Paphnutius’s monastery, whereupon he de- 
termined to make a great effort to convert her, 
though she was evidently a nominal Christian. 
He assumed a secular dress and put a single 
| coin in his pocket, which he offered to Thais 
on arriving at her house. Recognizing his 
true character, she cast herself at his feet 
destroyed all her precious dresses, an 
entered a female monastery, where Paph- 
nutius shut her up in a cell, sealing the door, 
and leaving only a small window, through 
which to receive food. After ἢ years she received 
absolution, and died 15 days after (Vit. PP. in 
Migne’s Patr. Lat. Ixxiii. 661). [6.τ.5.} 
ecla (1), the heroine of a romantic story 
which from a very early date has had a stron 
hold on the imagination of the church, anc 
which, though under the form in which it is 
| now extant it can only be received as a fiction, 
has enough appearance of a foundation in fact 
to warrant us in treating of her as a py 
son. She was, as we read in the Acts of Paul 
jand Thecla, a contemporary of St. Paul, a 
virgin of Iconium, daughter of a woman of 
rank (apparently a widow) named Theocleia, 
'and afhanced to Thamyris, a youth who was 
| first among the nobles of that city. At the 
‘time when the narrative opens St. Paul is 
| represented as being on his way to lconium, 
‘after having been driven from Antioch of 
| Pisidia; but whether his flight from Antioch, 


getic and practical treatises are in Lib. of the related in Acts xiil. 15, is meant, and con- 
Fathers, vol. x., and of almost all his works | sequently whether the ensuing events are to 
in Ante-Nicene Lib. vols. ii. vii. xi. xviii.; but | be taken as belonging to his first visit to 
the translations are very unequal. Recent edd. | Iconium, is not clear. One Onesiphorus of 


954 THECLA 


Iconium, whose house adjoined that of Theo- 
cleia, hearing of his approach, went with his 
wife and sons to meet him, and recognizing 
him by a description he had received fiom 
Titus, invited him to his house with joy. Two 
persons named Demas and Hermogenes, who 
under a hypocritical guise of seeking instruc- 
tion in the gospel had attached themselves 
to the apostle on his journey, were at their 
urgent request admitted along with him by 
Onesiphorus (though not without demur). 
In this house Paul began at once to preach 
“the word of God concerning temperance and 
the resurrection’’; his discourse consisting 
of a series of beatitudes, in form like those of 
the Sermon on the Mount, but in substance 
taken up with the commendation of asceticism 
and celibacy. Thecla, sitting at a window in 
her mother’s house, heard his words and 
became filled with passionate faith and zeal 
for virginity. Being restrained from satisfy- 
ing her longing to see him and hear his doc- 
trine face to face, she remained listening at 
her window, despite her mother’s remon- 


strances. The tender entreaties of her be- 
trothed Thamyris, whom Theocleia sum- 
moned, proved equally unavailing. The 


lover, thus repulsed, hurried into the street 
and watched the house where the stranger was 
preaching, whose eloquence had cast this 
deplorable spell over Thecla. Observing 
Demas and Hermogenes among those going 
in and out, he questioned them, invited them 
to a rich banquet at his house, and offered 
them money for information concerning the 
preacher. They disclaimed personal know- 
ledge of Paul, but represented him as urging 
on the young abstinence from marriage, under 
the threat of forfeiting their part in the resur- 
rection, which (they said) he promised to the 
celibate only ; whereas the true resurrection 
(as they professed themselves ready to explain) 
was already past for those that have children 
in whom they live anew; and men rise again 
when they fully know the true God. They 
also advised him to bring Paul before Castelius 
the governor on the charge of teaching ‘‘ the 
new doctrine of the Christians,” which (they 
assured him) would ensure his execution. 
Accordingly, next morning Thamyris, with 
other magistrates, and a great multitude, 
repaired to the house of Onesiphorus, and 
dragged Paul before the tribunal of Castelius 
the ‘“proconsul,’’ accusing him merely of 
dissuading maidens from marriage; though 
Demas and Hermogenes were at hand prompt- 
ing him, ‘“‘ Say that he is a Christian, and thus 
shalt thou procure his death.”’ St. Paul, being 
called on by the governor for his defence, de- 
livered a speech, not answering the specific 
charge of Thamyris, but declaring his gospel 
message and pleading his mission from 
God. The governor committed him to prison 
until it was convenient to hear him more 
attentively. Thecla made this imprisonment 
her opportunity. That very night, by bribing 
her mother’s doorkeeper with her bracelets 
and the jailer with her silver mirror, she 
visited St. Paul’s cell ; and there, after a night 
spent at his feet in hearing his doctrine, was 
found next morning by her mother and lover. 
At their instance St. Paul was immediately 
dragged again before the governor, pursued 


THECLA 


by the multitude with the cry, ‘‘He is a 
sorcerer! Away with him!’ Thecla was 
summoned likewise, and followed him exult- 
ingly to the tribunal. Castelius was at first 
disposed to listen favourably to Paul, as he 
declared the works of Christ ; but afterwards, 
finding that Thecla would give no reply to 
his interrogations, but remained silent with 
her eyes fixed on Paul, and being wrought on 
by her mother, who demanded that her 
daughter should be burnt alive as an example 
to warn other women, he scourged Paul and 
cast him out of the city, and sentenced Thecla 
to the stake. When the pyre was ready, she 
mounted it undismayed. A deluge of hail 
and rain quenched the fire, the people fled, 
and Thecla escaped. Meantime St. Paul, with 
Onesiphorus and his family, on their way to 
Daphne, had taken refuge in a tomb, where 
he continued in prayer for Thecla, and sent 
one of the lads back to Iconium to sell his 
outer garment and buy bread. The youth 
met Thecla, who was seeking Paul, and 
brought her to the hiding-place. There they 
found Paul praying for her deliverance, and 
a scene of joyful thanksgiving ensued. The 
apostle with Thecla went on his way to 
Antioch. As they entered Antioch her 
beauty caught the eye of Alexander the Syri- 
arch (this seems to prove that the city here 
meant is the capital of Syria), who sought to 
obtain possession of her by offering money to 
Paul. Baffled and enraged the Syriarch 
brought her before the Roman governor, who 
condemned her to be cast to wild beasts; 
committing her meanwhile to the care of 
Tryphaena, a widow lady (afterwards de- 
scribed as a queen, and kinswoman of the 
emperor), who, having lately lost her daughter 
Falconilla, found comfort in the charge of the 
condemned maiden, who converted her to 
Christ. After a series of marvellous escapes 
from the beasts, Thecla, interrogated by the 
governor, made profession of her faith: “1 
am a handmaid of the living God, and I be- 
lieve in His Son in Whom He is well pleased ; 
and therefore it is that none of the beasts hath 
touched me. . . . Whoso believeth not on Him 
shall not live for ever.’’ Amid the jubilations 
of the women she was released. To rejoin 
St. Paul was her first thought, and hearing 
he was at Myra in Lycia, she disguised herself 
in man’s attire and set out with a train of 
attendants, male and female. There she 
found him preaching the word. After relating 
to him in the house of Hermaeus (or Hermes) 
the wonderful story of her deliverances, she 
proceeded to Iconium, receiving from him the 
parting charge, ‘‘Go and teach (δίδασκε) the 
word of God.” Arrived at Iconium, she first 
visited the house of Onesiphorus, and there 
prostrating herself on the spot where St. Paul 
had sat and taught, she thanked God and 
the Lord Jesus Christ for her conversion and 
preservation. There was no longer anything 
to fear from the importunities of Thamyris, 
who had died. She found her mother still 
living, and endeavoured, but apparently 
without success, to bring her to believe in the 
Lord. Finally, she departed to Seleucia, 
where she ‘“‘enlightened many and died in 
peace.’ Thus the story ends in its oldest 
form, as preserved in ancient Syriac and 


a 


THECLA 


Latin versions; but the four extant Greek 
Copies represent her as living an anchorite’s 
life in a cave, on herbs and water, and they 
subjoin a marvellous account (certainly of 
more recent composition) of her latter years. 
She (according to three of these copies, A, 
B, and C) went to Rome to see St. Paul 
again, but was too late to find him alive. 
She died there soon after, aged 90, and was 
buried near his tomb 72 years after her 
martyrdom. 

Though the story was undoubtedly written 
originally in Greek, the oldest Greek MS. is 
not earlier than roth cent. 
of its high antiquity are forthcoming. The 
so-called Decree of Gelasius, de Libris Rect- 


piendis et non Reciptendis, which is probably | 


of the early years of the 7th cent., formally 
excluded (c. vi.) from the list of “scriptures 


received by the church "’ the ‘‘ book which is | 


called the Acts of Paul and Thecla.”’ The 
Syriac version, extant -in four MSS., one 
of 6th cent., contains internal evidence that 


the Greek text had been long in existence and | 
frequently copied before the Syrian translator | 


d his work. We have also an expanded 


Life of Thecla, composed before the middle of | 


5th cent. by Basil, bp. of Seleucia (in Isauria), 
professedly framed on the lines of a previous 
work then ancient. A comparison of our 
Acts of Paul and Thecla with this Life leaves 
no doubt that the former is the basis of the 
latter. These Acts (as we shall now call 
them ’’) were thus ‘‘ancient "’ early in the 
5th cent., and can hardly therefore be later 
than 300. In the 4th cent. Hilary (the 
Ambrosian) has several clear references to 
these 4cts (Comm. on I. Tim. i. 20; II. Tim.i. 
15, iv. 14; cf Acis 1: also on II. Tim ii. 18; 
cf. Acts 14); and even, as it seems, cites them 
in connexion with the last passage, as “alia 
Scriptura.”’ Jerome, then or a few years 
later, mentions (de Vir. Ill. c. 7) but rejects a 


book called Περίοδοι Παύλου καὶ Θεκλης, which | 


he says was discredited by startling marvels ; 
probably Jerome is here inaccurately describ- 
ing the book as we have it. The very early 
currency in Christendom of a written narrative 
of the life of Thecla is proved by the much 
earlier, more exact, and more authentic 
evidence of the writer whose authority Jerome 


here appeals to, Tertullian, in his treatise de 


Baptismo (c. 17), written c. 200. Tertullian 
refuses to admit the authority of certain 
writings falsely assuming the name of Paul, 


which some alleged in support of the claim of | 


women to teach and baptize after ‘the 
example of Thecla"’ ; for these (he says) were 
the production of a certain “‘ presbyter of 
Asia,” who was, on his own confession, proved 
to have composed them ‘through love of 
Paul "’ (as he said) and who for this fraud was 
degraded from the presbyterate. Jerome 
represents this degradation as occurring in 
St. John’s time, which seems to be merely an 
addition of his own, and is inconsistent with 
our Acts, for are in the age to which they 
prolong Thecla’s life, imply that she survived 
St. John. Tertullian is our earliest witness 
that a story of Thecla existed; but whether 
the extant book of her Acts is identical with 
the Asian presbyter’s production is a question. 
The balance of probability distinctly favours 


But ample proofs | 


THECLA 955 


| the identification. If so, it would be the 
| oldest of the extant N.T. Apocrypha. 
The story thus traced back, certainly as 
regards its substance and probably as regards 
its existing written form, to 2nd cent., was 
widely current in the church, East and West, 
thereafter. But though she is frequently 
|mentioned by the Fathers, none of them, 
except Basil of Seleucia, cite our Acts or any 
written narrative. But of all the references 
᾿ἴο Thecla in ecclesiastical writers, not one 
(except that already noticed in Jerome) lies 
distinctly outside the range of the incidents 
which the Acts relate; so that a history of 
| Thecla reconstructed out of the references to 
her in early Christian writers would be in fact 
an abridgment of these Acts, containing nearly 
all its chief points and adding nothing to 
them. Of these writers, the earliest seems to 
be Methodius, in his Symposium Decem Wir- 
ginum (written c. 300; see Migne, Patr. Gk. 
xviii.). The incident of Thecla’s sacrificing 
her ornaments to purchase access to Paul is 
turned to account by Chrysostom, “ Thecla, 
for the sake of seeing Paul, gave her jewels ; 
_ but thou, for the sake of seeing Christ, wilt not 
ive an obolus” (Hom. 25 tm Acta App. 4). 
sidore of Pelusium (lib. i. Ep. 87) is apparent- 
ly the first to style her by the glorious title, 
ever since appropriated to her, of proto- 
| martyr—that is, as Basil of Seleucia explains 
(p. 232), first rages women as Stephen among 
men. Theodore of Mopsuestia is stated by 
Solomon of Bassora, a r3th-cent. Nestorian 
(cf. Assem. B. O. iii. p. 323), to have com- 
posed an oration on Thecla, in which it 
| appears that her prayer for Falconillawas men- 
|tioned. Epiphanius (Maer. Ixxviii. 16; xxix. 
5) praises her for sacrificing under St. Paul's 
teaching her prospects of age pe marriage, 
and reckons ΕΣ near to Elias, John the Bap- 
tist, and even the Virgin Mother. In the West 
her name is similarly joined with that of 
Agnes as a virgin worthy to rank with Mary 
herself, by Ambrose (de Lapsu Virg. p. 307); 
and by Sulpicius Severus (c. 400), who relates 
(Dial. ii. 13) how St. Martin of Tours was 
favoured with a vision, in which Mary, Agnes, 
and Thecla appeared and conversed with him 
(Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xx. col. 210). Ambrose 
likewise associates her with Mary the Lord's 
mother, and Miriam, Moses’ sister (Ep. 63, 
ad Vercell. Eccl. t. ii. pt. 1, p. 1030); and here 
‘and in de Virginibus (ii. 19, p. 166) dwells on 
| her deliverance from the wild beasts. Jerome 
in one of his Epp. (xxii. p. 125) also associates 
her with Mary and Miriam, promising that 
they shall welcome Eustochium, to whom he 
writes, into the virgin choir of heaven. And 
in his Chronicle (s.a. 377) he tells of one 
Melania, a Roman lady who by her sanctity 
earned the name of Thecla. 
| That the book as we have it is a fiction few 
will doubt; but it is a fair question whether 
it has been formed on a nucleus of fact; and 
if so, how far we can distinguish fact from 
fiction. The incidental reference to Theela 
by Eusebius proves that he regarded her as a 
real person ; and if Athanasius wrote her Life, 
he must be reckoned on the same side. Ter- 
tullian, even in rejecting her written history, 
raises no doubt as to her existence, as he 
certainly would if he had suspected her to be 


956 THECLA 


a creature of the Asian presbyter’s imagina- 
tion. Jerome, while still more emphatic in 
condemning the book, expressly names her 
as a virgin saint. It is hardly likely that if 
Thecla had not existed, her history and 
example could have so powerfully impressed 
themselves on the mind of Christendom for 
50 many ages and been honoured by so many 
generations of the devout faithful, including 
some of the foremost intellects of the church. 
The monastery that marked her place of 
retreat and bore her name, which, as we learn 
from Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. xxi. p. 399, 
tins Poemata Hist. 5. 1. ΤΥ, Ὁ- 705, t- 112), had. 
made Seleucia a place of pilgrimage before he 
retired there (c. 375), is a further evidence of 
her reality, and also confirms the localization 
in that city of the traditions concerning her. 
It thus appears that our Acts probably grew 
out of a true tradition, handed down from the 
later apostolic age, of a maiden of Asia Minor 
who was converted to the Gospel and for its 
sake renounced all and braved death that she 
might remain a chaste virgin for Christ, and, 
having escaped martyrdom, lived and died in 
sanctity at Seleucia. The Asian presbyter 
whom Tertullian makes known to us, casting 
about for materials for a story in exaltation 
of virginity, would naturally choose for his 
hero St. Paul, as an unmarried apostle and the 
only N.T. writer from whom the doctrine of 
the superiority of the celibate over the married 
state couldclaim any support. The tradition 
which we have supposed current in the church, 
of a Christian who incurred the peril of mar- 
tyrdom for virginity and ended her days as 
an anchorite near Seleucia, would supply his 
heroine and leading incidents. Her name 
was probably part of the traditional story ; 
for an invented name would no doubt have 
been either a Scriptural one or one of obvious 
Christian significance. IJ. Tim. iii. rr might 
suggest the scene, “αἱ Antioch, at Icontum.”’ 
Being of no critical turn, and writing for un- 
critical readers, the author would not inquire 
to what stage of St. Paul’s course this Epistle 
belonged, or which Antioch was meant. 

The history of Thecla, as we have it, 
whether this account of its origin be accepted 
or not, is not without literary merit. It has 
many touches of pathos, its incidents are 
striking and effectively told, and here and 
there the speeches (never of tedious length) 
rise nearly to the height of eloquence. De- 
fective as we have seen it to be in structure, 
yet even here, as well as in interest of narra- 
tive, it compares advantageously with the 
clumsy dullness of the Clementine literature ; 
its marvels, however startling, are less extra- 
vagant than those of the apocryphal Gospels 
and Acts; and on the whole it is distinctly 
above the level of the class of writings (most, 
if not all, of later date) to which it is usually 
referred. Its chief defect is the failure to 
realize and reproduce the spirit and personality 
of St. Paul. Schlau’s opinion (p. 17), that the 
local knowledge displayed in the work is such 
as might naturally belong to a resident in 
Asia Minor, is not to be accepted without 
qualification. It might, on the contrary, be 
said that if the author had more carefully 
studied the canonical Acts with a view to 
local and chronological knowledge, he might 


THECLA 


have assigned the scene and date of his 
narrative with much more definiteness and 
accuracy. For instance, he seems uncertain 
how Lystra lay relatively to Iconium (ce. I, 3), 
and his idea of the position and distance of 
Daphne seems equally indistinct (c. 23). So 
too in his records of Thecla’s journeys he is 
content to name the starting-point and the 
terminus, never noting any place on the way. 
His knowledge of political geography is shewn 
to be lacking when he represents the chief 
magistrates of Iconium (c. 16) and Antioch 
(c. 33) as addressed by the title of proconsul 
(ἀνθύπατε), thus betraying that he supposed 
these cities to belong to proconsular provinces, 
whereas Iconium, though territorially in- 
cluded in Lycaonia, was in St. Paul’s time 
extra-provincial, as the head of an independ- 
ent tetrarchy (Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 25), and 
Antioch was the capital of Syria, an imperial 
province governed by a propraetor. Even if 
we regard Iconium as of Lycaonia, and the 
Antioch meant to be the Pisidian, in neither 
city would so high an official as the proconsul 
of Asia be resident, as the Acts represent. 
The author, being of Asia—that is, of the 
Roman province—supposed a proconsul to be 
found at Iconium and at Antioch, because he 
had himself been accustomed to see a pro- 
consul at Ephesus or Smyrna; and thus 
Tertullian’s statement that he was of Asia 
(taken in that limited sense) is borne out, not 
by his exact knowledge, as Schlau supposed, 
but by his mistake. He has such knowledge 
of places and political arrangements, and only 
such, as would naturally belong to an untra- 
velled ecclesiastic of the Roman province of 
Asia, possessing a familiar but far from 
critical or precise knowledge of N.T. in 
general and the book of Acts in particular. 
The contents of these Acts serve indirectly to 
confirm the authenticity of the canonical Acts 
by shewing how difficult—it may safely be 
said how impossible—it would be for a fal- 
sarius, even if writing at no great distance in 
place or time from the scene and date of his 
fictitious narrative, to avoid betraying himself 
by mistakes ; and the history of the reception 
of his work proves that such attempt to palm 
off pseudo-apostolic documents for genuine 
was not difficult of exposure, nor passed over 
as a light offence. The Asian church of the 
2nd cent. was quick to detect the pious fraud 
and severe in punishing it; and in her 
dealing with the case there is no trace of 
uncritical promptitude to receive whatever 
offered itself as apostolical, or of the lax 
morality that would accept as true whatever 
seemed edifying—such as some writers have 
imputed to the early generations of Christians. 
Dr. Lipsius, indeed, maintains (p. 460) that 
the work and its author were condemned, not 
because of the fraud attempted, but because 
of the Gnostic doctrine which he supposes it 
to have originally embodied. But this is 
mere conjecture ; and, moreover, one which, 
while professedly based on Tertullian’s au- 
thority, substitutes for his express statement 
an essentially different one. Tertullian, writ- 
ing of a matter on which he was apparently 
well informed, and which was recent, is surely 
a competent witness; and his testimony is 
express, that the author of the Acts was de- 


THEMISTIUS 


posed from the presbyterate, not because the 
teaching of his book was heretical, but because 
its narrative was an imposture. 

Of edd. the best is Tischendorf's (in his Acta 
Apost. Apocrypha, p. 40; 1851). For Eng. 
translations see Hone’s A yphal N.T. p. 83, 
and Clark's Ante-Nicene Libr. vol. xvi. p. 270. 
The principal authorities on which this article 
is based have been specified. To Dr. Schlau's 
work it is largely indebted for its materials, 
and in some cases for its conclusions. For 
further discussion of the story see Tillem. 
Mém. t. ii. p. 60 (2nd ed.) ; Spanheim, Hist. 
Christiana, i. 11 ; Ittig, de Bibliotecis, c. xx. 
p- 700; Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkath. 
Kirche (2 Aufl.), pp. 292-294; Harnack, Zeit- 
Schrift f. Kirchengesch. ii. pp. 90-92; Ramsay, 
Church in Roman Empire balers 170 (2nd ed. 
Lond. 1893), pp. 375-428; and by the same, 
A Lost Chapter of Early Christian Hist. (Acta 
Pauli et Theclae), in Expositor, 1902, pp. 
278-295. es | 

Themistius. [AGNoFraer.] 

Theootistus (2), bp. of Caesarea in Palestine, 
who on Origen’s visit to Palestine received 
him at Caesarea and, like Alexander of Jeru- 
salem, permitted him, though still a la n, 
to preach before him (Phot. God. 118). n the 
remonstrance of Origen’s bishop, Demetrian- 
us, he joined with Alexander in a letter defend- 
ing their conduct (Eus. H. E. vi. 19). Later, 
c. 230, Theoctistus and Alexander ordained 
Origen (ἐδ. vi. 8, 23). Theoctistus probably 
died when Xystus was bp. of Rome 257-259, 
and was succeeded by Domnus (tb. vii. 14). 
Clinton, Fasti Romani, i. 245, 271, 287, No. 83; 
Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii. 541. [ε.ν.] 

Theoctistus (3) Psathyropola (ἡ αθυροπώλητ). 
or the cake-seller, the head of a sect among 
the Arians of Constantinople c. 390. His fol- 
lowers were called, from his occupation, 
Psathyr .5. Led by a certain Marinus from 
Thrace, they maintained that the First Person 
of the Trinity was in a proper sense Father, 
and so to be styled before the Son existed ; 
while their opponents, the followers of the 
Antiochene Dorotheus, maintained that He 
was only a Father after the existence of the 
Son. A large party of the Arian Goths, taught 
by their bp. Selena, adopted the Psathyrian 
view, which continued to divide the church 
of Constantinople for 35 years, tillin the reign 
of Theodosius Junior a reconciliation was 
effected (Socr. H. E. v. 23). (G.7.s.] 

Theodebert (1) I., king of the Franks (534- 
548), the most capable and ambitious of the 
Merovingian line after Clovis. For the extent 
of the kingdom inherited from his father in 
533 see TuEoporicus I. 


Burgundy (Marius, Chron. ad ann. 534). In 
538 an army of Theodebert’s Burgundian 
subjects entered Italy with his connivance and 
helped the Goths to conquer Milan (Procop. 
de Bell. Gotth. ii. 12 ; Marius, Chron. ad ann.). 
In 539 Theodebert, invading Italy at the head 
of 100,000 Franks, overran a great part of 
Venetia, Liguria, and the Cottian Alps, till 
hunger and disease drove the remnant of his 
army back to France (Marius, ann. 539; Marcell. 
Chron. ann. 539; Procop. μ.5. 25). Death 
cut short his ambitious projects in 548. 


It was increased in| 
534 by a portion of the now finally conquered 


THEODORA I. 957 


| Merovingian kings. Marius calls him “ the 
Great " (Chron. ad ann. 545); and according 
to Gregory of Tours, when he had come to the 
_ throne “he shewed himself governing with 
| justice, honouring the priests, doing good to 
the churches, succouring the poor and dis- 
_tributing benefits charitably and liberally ” 
(Hist. Franc. iii. 25, 36). Instances of his 
| good qualities appear in his liberality to the 
| churches of the Auvergne, which his father 
had plundered (iii. 25), and his generosity to 
the impoverished city of Verdun, at the suit 
of their bishop (iii. 34). See, too, Aimoin, ii. 
25, and the letter of Aurelianus, archbp. of 
Arles, in Bouquet, iv. 63. [5...5.} 
Theode queen of the Lombards, 
daughter of Garibald, king of the Bavarians, 
| married to a ὦ Authari probably in 589. On 
Sept. 5, 590, Authari died (Greg. Epp. i. 17). 
| Theodelinda, taking counsel with her wise men, 
chose in Nov. Agilulf, the duke of Turin, a 
| kinsman of her late husband (Paul. Diac. iii. 
| 55), who in the following May was accepted by 
all the Lombards as king in Milan. The Lom- 
| bards, like the other Teutonic nations, except 
the Franks, had received Christianity under 
an Arian form, to which they still adhered. 
Further, nearly all who held the orthodox 
creed in the territories conquered by the 
Lombards were in schism from their refusal 
to accept the fifth general council which had 
condemned the Three Chapters. In this 
| complication the position of Theodelinda was 
‘peculiar By her influence king Agilulf be- 
came eventually a Catholic, though apparently 
not till after a.p. 603 (Greg. Epp. xi. 4; χίν. 
12), gave munificently to the church, and 
| restored the orthodox bishops to their posi- 
tions (Paul. Diac. iv. 6). On the other hand, 
she continued to support the Three Chapters, 
threatened to withdraw from communion with 
Constantius, archbp. of Milan, and refused to 
accept the fifth council (Greg. Epp. iv. 2, 3, 
4, 38, 39; cf. Columbanus, Epp. 5 in Migne, 
Pair. Lat. \xxx. 274). Gregory touches this 
difference most delicately, and was, notwith- 
standing, on most friendly terms with Theo- 
delinda. Mainly by her influence Agilulf was 
induced to make peace (Paul. Diac. iv. 8; 
'Greg. Epp. ix. 42, 43), and Gregory con- 
| gratulated her upon the birth of her son Ada- 
loald in 602, and sent him a cross containing a 
piece of the true cross and a lection from the 
gospels, and three rings to his sister Gundi- 
ga. Theodelinda built and endowed the 
Basilica of St. John Baptist at Monza. After 
| the death of Agilulf in 616, Adaloald succeeded 
with Theodelinda as regent. The date of her 
death was probably before 626 (Paul. Diac. 
iv. 41). Her crown, the most ancient in 
existence except the Iron Crown, her fan, her 
comb, the golden hen and chickens she gave 
| to the church, and the cross sent by Gregory, 


are still preserved in the treasury © the 
cathedral at Monza. sore. 
| Theodora (10) L., empress, wife of J ustini- 


an I., daughter of Acacius, a bear-keeper at the 
amphitheatre at Constantinople, who died in 
| the reign of Anastasius when she was 7 years 
old. hen old enough, she appeared on the 
stage, as her elder sister had done. h 
‘from the whole animus of his work and 


Theodebert was perhaps the best cf the | absolute silence of all other writers we may 


958 THEODORETUS 


infer that Procopius exaggerates, yet we may 
well believe that her life was an abandoned 
one, without believing all his scandalous 
stories. Reduced to great distress, she in 
appearance or reality changed her mode of 
life, and supported herself by spinning wool. 
Justinian, nephew of the reigning emperor 
Justin, married her, and succeeding his uncle 
in 527, caused her to be crowned as empress 
regnant, but not till 532 does she appear to 
have exercised a preponderating voice in 
public affairs. She died of cancer in June 
548. Unlike her husband, she was an ardent 
Monophysite. Her influence was unbounded, 
her cruelty insatiable. She assumed an especial 
jurisdiction over the marriages of her subjects, 
giving the daughters of her former associates 
to men of high rank, and marrying noble ladies 
to the lowest of the people. 

Her portrait in the mosaics at St. Vitale at 
Ravenna has been well engraved in Hodgkin’s 
Invaders of Italy, vol. iii. 606. 

Sources.—The three works of Procopius, 
esp. the Anecdota; Evagr. H. E. iv. 10, 11; 
Victor. Tunun. Chron.; Liberat. Breviar. 
20-22 ; Lib. Pont., Vitae Silverti et Vigilit. 

Literature.—Gibbon, cc. 40-41; Dahn, 
Prokopius von Casarea; Hodgkin, Invaders 
of Italy, iii.-iv.; Prof. Bryce, in Contemp. Rev. 
Feb. 1885; M. Debidour, Thesis (pub. in 1877), 
who tries to make the best of Theodora. [F.p.] 

Theodoretus (2), bp. of Cyrrhus, or Cyrus, 
in the province of Euphratensis, was born 
at Antioch probably c. 393 (Tillemont). His 
parents held a high position at Antioch. His 
maternal grandmother was a lady of landed 
property (Relig. Hist. p. 1191, vol. v. ed. 
Schulze, Halae, 1771). His writings indicate 
a well-trained and highly cultivated mind, 
enriched by complete familiarity with the 
best classical authors. But his chief study 
was given to the Holy Scriptures and the 
commentators upon them in several lan- 
guages. He was master of Greek, Syriac, 
and Hebrew, but unacquainted with Latin. 
His chief theological teacher, to whom he 
never refers without deserved reverence and 
admiration, was Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
“the great commentator,” as he was called, 
the luminary and pride of the Antiochene 
school, but one who undoubtedly prepared 
the way for the teaching of Nestorius by his 
desire to provide, in Dorner’s words, “for a 
free moral development in the Saviour’s 
manhood.” Theodoret speaks also of Diodorus 
of Tarsus as his teacher, but this can only 
have been through his writings. 

The parents cf Theodoret were both dead 
when he was 23 years old. Being their sole 
heir, he immediately proceeded to distribute 
his inheritance among the poor (Ep. 113), 
taking up his abode in a monastery, one of two 
founded in a large village called Nicerte, 3 
miles from Apamea, and about 75 from 
Antioch (Ep. 119). 

After some 7 years in the Apamean mon- 
astery, he was drawn to assume the cares of 
the episcopate. Of the circumstances of his 
consecration we are entirely ignorant. Thesee 
was that of Cyrus, or more properly Cyrrhus, 
the chief city of a district of the province of 
Euphratensis, called after it Cyrrhestica, an 
extensive fertile plain between the spurs of 


THEODORETUS 


the Amanus and the river Euphrates, inter- 
sected by mountain ranges. His diocese was 
40 miles square, and contained 800 distinct 
parishes, each with its church. It was singu- 
larly rich in monastic houses for both sexes, 
some of them containing as many as 250 in- 
mates, and it boasted of a large number of 
solitaries. All of these enjoyed Theodoret’s 
unremitting and affectionate solicitude and 
frequent visits. Cyrrhus was equally fertile 
in heretics. The East has ever been the nur- 
sery of heresy. Lying, as it were, in a corner 
of the world, not reached by the public posts, 
isolated by the great river to the E. and the 
mountain chains to the W., peopled by half- 
leavened heathen, Christianity there assumed 
many strange forms, sometimes hardly recog- 
nizable caricatures of the truth. Eunomians, 
Arians, Marcionites, and others who still more 
wildly distorted the pure faith abounded. 
To the recovery of these Theodoret devoted 
his youthful ardour and still undiminished 
strength, at personalrisk. ‘‘ Often,’ he writes, 
““have I shed my blood; often have I been 
stoned; nay, brought down before my time to 
the very gates of death.’”’ Nor were his labours 
fruitless. Eight villages polluted by Marcionite 
errors, With their neighbouring hamlets com- 
prising more than a thousand souls, one village 
filled with Eunomians, another with Arians, 
were brought back to the sound faith. He 
could boast with all honesty to pope Leo I. 
in 449 that by the help of his prayers not a 
single plant of tares was left among them, and 
that his whole flock had been delivered from 
heretical errors (Epp. 81, 113, 116, vol. vi. pp. 
1141, 1190, 1197). He carried his campaign 
against error, which embraced Jews and hea- 
then as well as misbelieving Christians, beyond 
his own diocese. He was unwearied in preach- 
ing, and his acquaintance with the Syrian 
vernacular enabled him to reach the poorest 
and most ignorant. His care for the temporal 
interests and material prosperity of his diocese 
was no less remarkable. The city of Cyrrhus, 
though the winter quarters of the tenth legion, 
could boast little dignity or architectural 
beauty. He calls it “ἃ small and desolate 
city,’’ with but ‘‘ few inhabitants, and those 
poor,’’ whose ugliness he had striven to re- 
deem by costly buildings erected at his own 
expense (Ep. 183, p. 1231). From his own 
ecclesiastical revenues—which cannot have 
been small—he erected public porticos, two 
large bridges, and public baths, and, finding 
the city without any regular water-supply, 
constructed an aqueduct, and by a catchwater 
drain guarded the city against inundation 
from the marshes (Epp. 79, 81). These works 
attracted architects and engineers to the city, 
and afforded remunerative employment to 
many people, for whose benefit he secured the 
help of presbyters skilled in medical science 
(Epp. 114, 115). Finding that the severity 
of the state imposts caused many to throw up 
their farms, leaving the civil authorities to 
make good their deficiency, a liability they 
were seeking to avoid by flight, he wrote to 
the empress Pulcheria, entreating her to light- 
en so intolerable a burden (Ep. 43, p. 1102), as 
well as to the patrician Anatolius (Ep. 45, p. 
1104). With considerable trouble he obtained 
from Palestine relics of prophets, apostles, and 


THEODORETUS 


martyrs, for the greater glory of a church he 
had built (Relig. Hist. c. xxi. p. 1251; Ep. 66). 
So great Was his zeal for orthodoxy that, 
having discovered in the churches of his 
diocese more than 200 copies of the Diates- 
saron of Tatian, which he regarded as tainted 
with heresy, he destroyed them all, and 
substituted the ordinary text of the four 
Gospels (Haer. Fab. lib. i. c. 20). His life as 
bishop differed as little as possible from that 
he had lived in his monastery. State and 
official routine were very distasteful to him, 
and he avoided them as far as possible, de- 
voting himself to the spiritual side of his 
office (Epp. 16, 79, 81, 145). 

The critical period in the life of Theodoret 
was in connexion with the Nestorian contro- 
versy, through which he is chiefly known to 
us. His personal share in it began towards 
the end of 430, with the receipt by John, the 
patriarch of Antioch, of the letters of Celestine 
and Cyril, relative to the condemnation of 
the doctrines of Nestorius obtained by the 
Western bishops in Aug. 429. The high- 
handed behaviour of the patriarchs of Rome 
and Alexandria towards the bp. of the new 
Rome, a personal friend of long standing to 
both of them, was no less offensive to Theo- 
doret than to John. When these documents 
arrived, Theodoret was at Antioch with other 
bishops of the province. The admirable 
letter (see Labbe, iii. 390 seq.; Baluz. col. 
445, C. xxi.) despatched in the name of John 
and his suffragans to Nestorius, exhorting 
him to give up his objections to the term ** The- 
otokos,”’ seeing that its true sense was part 
of the Church’s faith, and entreating him not 
to throw the whole of Christendom into con- 
fusion for the sake of a word, has been with 
great show of probability ascribed to the 
practised pen of Theodoret. The controversy 
was speedily rendered much fiercer by the 
publication of Cyril’s celebrated twelve 
** Anathematisms "’ or “ Articles."’ Designed 
to crush one form of heretical teaching as 
regards our Lord’s personal nature, these 
“articles '’ (detached, against Cyril's inten- 
tion, from the letter on which they were 
based) hardly escaped falling into the opposite 
error. The Godhead of Christ was asserted 
with such emphasis that to some readers His 
manhood might seem obscured. John was 
shocked at what he deemed the positive affinity 
to Apollinarian doctrine of some of these 
articles, and applied first to Andreas of Samo- 
sata and then to Theodoret to confute them. 
Theodoret readily replied to the anathematisms 
seriatim. So completely at variance with or- 
thodoxy did he regard them, that in the letter 
to John (reckoned as Ep. 150) prefixed to his 
observations upon them, he expresses a sus- 
picion that some “‘ enemies of the truth '’ had 
been sheltering themselves under Cyril's name. 
For the nature of these documents and for the 
objections urged by Theodoret and his friends, 
which, with much that is illogical and incon- 
sistent, contain much that is prima facte 
Nestorian see Cyrittus. The documents 
were prior to the council of Ephesus and to 
the formal condemnation of Nestorius then 
passed. At that gathering Theodoret, ac- 
companying his metropolitan, Alexander of 
Hierapolis, was among the earlier comers, 


THEODORETUS 059 
anticipating the Oriental brethren, whose 


arrival he, with 68 bisho vainly urged 
should be waited for before the council 
opened (Baluz. c. vii. 697-699). On the 


arrival of John and his Oriental brethren, 
Theodoret at once united himself to them, 
and gave his voice for the deposition and 
excommunication of Cyril, Memnon, and 
their adherents (Labbe, iii. 497-5990). He 
took part also in the proceedings which ensued, 
when the “concilium" and the “ concilia- 
bulum " launched thunderbolts against each 
other, deposing and excommunicating. Theo- 
doret was one of the Oriental commissioners 
to the emperor Theodosius Il. at Constanti- 
nople, representing his metropolitan Alex- 
ander (ἰδ. 728). The deputies not being 
allowed to enter Constantinople, audiences 
with the emperor were held at Chalcedon, 
Sept. 431. heodoret’s name appears in the 
letters and other documents passing between 
the Oriental party at Ephesus and their 
representatives in Chalcedon, in which much 
was said and written in a bitter spirit (Labbe, 
vol. iii. 724-746; Theod. ed. Schulze, vol. iv. 
ΒΡ. 1336-1354). Of the five sessions held at 
Chalcedon the proceedings of the first alone 
are recorded. We have also a few scanty 
fragments of speeches and homilies of Theo- 
doret at this period, characterized by dis- 
tressing acrimony (Theod. ed. Schulze, vol. v. 
pp. 104-109), and a letter of his to Alexander 
of Hierapolis, whom he was representing, 
informing him how matters were going on at 
Chalcedon, telling him of the popularity of 
the deputies with the people, who, in spite of 
the hostility of the clergy and monks by whom 
they had been repeatedly stoned, flocked to 
hear them, assembling in a large court sur- 
rounded with porticos, the churches being 
closed against them; but Theodoret laments 
their ill-success with the emperor. Before the 
deputies finally left Chalcedon, the Orientals 
delivered addresses to the adherents of the 
deposed Nestorius who had crossed the Bos- 
phorus from Constantinople. The first of 
these was by Theodoret. He and his com- 
panions, he said, were shut out from the royal 
city on account of their fidelity to Christ, but 
the Heavenly Jerusalem was still open to 
them. On their way home from Ephesus the 
Orientals, Theodoret among them, held a 
synod at Tarsus and renewed the sentence of 
deposition on Cyril in conjunction with the 
seven orthodox deputies to Theodosius IL. 
which they wublished in a circular letter. 
They en πα also never to abandon Nes- 
torius. heodoret returned to his diocese, 
and devoted himself to composing a fresh 
work assailing the obnoxious anathematisms, 
entitled Pentalogus, from its division into 
five books. Only a few fragments remain. 
Other treatises he wrote then are lost. But 
we have, in a Latin version, a long letter 
addressed to the followers of Nestorius at 
Constantinople, declaring his adherence to the 
orthodox faith, although he had felt unable 
to acquiesce in the condemnation of Nestorius 
not believing that the doctrines ascribed to 
him were actually held by bim (Baluz. aggro 
c. 40, 742). Cyril found it impossi to 


accept the terms pro in eodoret’s 
articles. He poe D x gam objections in a 


960 THEODORETUS 


long letter to Acacius, which, however, 
opened a way for pacification by interpreta- 
tions of some questionable points in his 
anathematisms which he refused to withdraw. 
This letter Theodoret regarded as orthodox, 
but irreconcilable with the anathematisms, 
which he still regarded as heretical. He was, 
however, precluded from accepting the terms 
of peace which John and others were in- 
creasingly inclined to acquiesce in, by the 
demand that he should anathematize the 
doctrine of Nestorius and Nestorius himself. 
To do this (Theodoret writes to his friend 
Andrew of Samosata) would be to anathema- 
tize godliness itself. He is ready to anathe- 
matize all who assert that Christ was mere man, 
or who divide Him into two Sons, or who deny 
His Godhead. But if they anathematized a 
man of whom they were not the judges, and 
his doctrine which they knew to be sound, en 
bloc, “‘indeterminate,” they would act im- 
piously (δ. 766, c. 61). At this epoch, as 
Hefele remarks (Hist. of Councils, vol. iii. 
p- 127, Eng. trans.), the Orientals were divided 
into two great parties: the peace-seeking 
Majority, with John of Antioch and the 
venerable Acacius at their head, ready to 
meet Cyril half-way; the violent party of 
irreconcilables, with Alexander of Hierapolis 
as their leader, opposed to all reconciliation as 
treason to the truth; while a third or middle 
party was led by Theodoret and Andrew of 
Samosata, anxious for peace, but on terms of 
their own. Theodoret and his scanty band 
of adherents failed to secure the confidence of 
either of the two great parties. His inflexible 
metropolitan, Alexander, vehemently de- 
nounced as treason to the truth any approach 
to reconciliation with Cyril. Against this 
reproach and against the suspicion that he 
had given in to escape persecution or to secure 
a higher place Theodoret sought to defend 
himself (7b. c. 72, 775). Though still hold- 
ing back from reconciliation with Cyril, he was 
virtually the means of bringing about the 
long-desired peace. The declaration of faith 
presented to Cyril by Paul of Emesa, as 
representing the belief of John, and accepted 
by Cyril, had been originally drawn up by 
Theodoret at Ephesus. The paragraphs 
directed against Cyril’s twelve articles were 
slightly modified, but the main body was 
unaltered (Cyril. ed. Pusey, vi. 44; Baluz. 
c. 96, 97, 804; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xiv. 531; 
Hefele, op. cit. iii. 130 ff.). The reconciliation, 
however, was by no means acceptable to 
Theodoret. For it demanded acceptance of 
the deposition of Nestorius, the anathematiz- 
ing of Nestorius’s doctrines, and the giving up 
the four metropolitans of his party who had 
been deposed at Constantinople. Theodoret’s 
protest was in vain. Theodosius insisted on 
the deposition and expulsion of all bishops 
who continued opposed to union. Finding 
his growing isolation more and more intoler- 
able, Theodoret invited the chiefs of the fast- 
lessening band of his sympathizers, Alexander, 
Andrew, and others, to take counsel at Zeug- 
ma, in reference to the union with Cyril, which 
had been accepted by John and earnestly 
pressed upon them by the combined weight 
of the ecclesiastical and civil power. Alex- 
ander refused to attend the synod except 


THEODORETUS 


on his own terms. The bishops who met, 
as Theodoret informed John (Baluz. c. 95, 
662, 801), accepted the orthodoxy of Cyril’s 
letter and regarded it as a recantation of his 
obnoxious twelve articles, but would not 
pronounce an anathema on Nestorius. John, 
now hopeless of peace otherwise, applied to the 
secular power. His method proved generally 
effectual. One by one the recalcitrant pre- 
lates yielded, except Alexander and some 
others. Theodoret was one of the last to 
yield. The coldness arising between him and 
John after John’s reconciliation with Cyril 
had been much increased by John’s uncanon- 
ical intrusion into the province of Alexander 
in the ordination of bishops. Theodoret, with 
the other bishops of the province, on this, 
withdrew from communion with him, and 
published a synodical letter charging him with 
ordaining unworthy persons (1b. 831, 850). 
Long and painful controversy ensued, only 
crushed at last by John’s appealing to the 
imperial power. All eventually yielded to 
combined entreaties and menaces save Alex- 
ander and a small band of irreconcilables, 
who were banished from their sees. Theo- 
doret was assailed on his tenderest side by 
harassing his diocese. The unhappy renewal 
of strife, concerning the doctrines of Diodorus 
and Theodoret, brought Theodoret and Cyril 
once more into collision. For the details of 
the conflict see CyrILLUS OF ALEXANDRIA; 
ProcLtus ; RapBULAS; IBas. The long and 
bitter controversy, in which both parties did 
and said many regrettable things, was closed 
by the death of Cyril, June 9 or 27, 444. 
The succession of Dioscorus to Cyril’s patri- 
archal throne led to fresh trials for Theo- 
doret. Dioscorus was resolved to bring about 
Theodoret’s overthrow, as Theodoret was one 
of the first to discern the nascent heresy of 
Eutyches, and directed the powers of a well- 
trained intellect and great theological learning 
to exposing it. The ear of the emperor was 
gained, and Theodoret was represented as a 
turbulent busybody, constantly at Antioch 
and other cities, taking part in councils and 
assemblies instead of attending to his diocese ; 
a troublesome agitator, stirring up strife 
wherever he moved (Ep. 79, p. 1135, etc.). 
He was also accused on theological grounds. 
Dioscorus, who seems to have regarded him- 
self as “‘ the lawful inheritor of Cyril’s guard- 
ianship of anti-Nestorian orthodoxy,’’ wrote 
to Theodoret’s patriarch, Domnus, who 6. 442 
had succeeded his uncle John in the see of 
Antioch, informing him that Theodoret was 
creating a crypto-Nestorian party, practically 
teaching Nestorianism under another name 
and striking at ‘“‘the one Nature of the In- 
carnate.”’ These accusations were accepted 
at court, and Dioscorus obtained an imperial 
edict (dated by Tillemont Mar. 30, 449) that 
as a disturber of the peace of the church 
Theodoret should keep to his own diocese. 
Theodoret submitted, leaving the city without 
bidding his friends farewell (Ep. 80, p. 1137). 
From the “ Latrocinium” or ‘‘ Robbers’ 
Synod,”’ at Ephesus (449) [D1oscorus ; Euty- 
cHES], Theodoret was excluded by an imperial 
edict of Mar. 4, unless summoned unanimously 
by the council itself (Labbe, iv. 100). Theod- 
oret’s condemnation was evidently the chief 


ἢ 


THEODORETUS 


urpose in summoning this infamous synod. 
rom his ‘‘internement” at Cyrrhus Theodoret 
calinly watched his enemies’ proceedings. He 
had not long to wait for the confirmation of 
his worst fears. Dioscorus and his partisans, 
hav by brutal violence obtained the ac- 
uittal of gg hen and the deposition of 
Flavian, Ibas, Irenaeus, and other sympath- 
izers with Theodoret, proceeded on the thitd 
session to deal with him. The indictment was 
formulated by a presbyter of Antioch named 
Pelagius, who, in language of the most atro- 
cious violence, proceeded to demand of the 
council to take the sword of God and, as’ 
Samuel dealt with Agag, and Elijah with the 
pars of Baal, pitilessly destroy those who) 
ad introduced en ἢ doctrines into the 
church. Those who adhered to the poisonous 
teachings of Nestorius deserved the flames. 
“Burn them!—burn them!" he cried. 
Pelagius was allowed to lay before the synod | 
the proofs of his accusation, contained in 
‘The Apology of Theodoret, bp. of Cyrrhus, 
in behalf of Diodorus and Theodorus, cham- 
ions of God.” The council exclaimed that they 
ad heard enough to warrant the immediate | 
deposition of Theodoret, as the emperor had 
already ordered. The unanimous sentence was 
that he should be deposed from the priesthood 
and deprived of even lay communion. His 
books were to be committed to the flames (ἐδ. 
125, 126, 129; Le Brigandage, pp. 193-195). 
Dioscorus was now master of the whole 
Eastern church; “il régne partout.”’ Theo- 
doret knew that deposition was usually fol- 
lowed by exile, and prepared for the worst. 
He was allowed to retire to his monastery 
near Apamea (Ep. 119, p- 1202). An appeal | 
to the West, forbidden him in person by Theo- | 
dosius, was now prosecuted by letter, which, | 
though addressed to Leo individually, was | 
really meant for the bishops of the West, 
assembled in the synod, to which he begs his | 
cause may be submitted (Mém. eccl. xv. 
294). ‘“‘In this remarkable letter,’’ writes | 
Dr. Bright (Hist. of Church, p. 395), “‘he| 
traces the primacy of Rome to her civil great- | 
ness, her soundness of faith, and her possession 
of the graves of the apostles Peter and Paul. | 
He eulogizes the exact and comprehensive | 
orthodoxy with which the Tome of Leo con- 
veys the full mind of the Holy Spirit." He. 
entreats Leo “ to decide whether he ought to 
submit to the recent sentence. He awaits his 
decision. He will acquiesce in it, whatever 
it be, committing himself to the judgment of 
his God and Saviour.’’ Theodosius continued 
to pay no heed to the remonstrances of Leo, 
asserting that everything had been decided 
at Ephesus with complete freedom and in 
accordance with the truth, and that the pre- | 
lates there deposed merited their fate for 
innovations in the faith. The interposition 
of Pulcheria and of the Western princesses was 
employed in vain. On July 29, 450, Theo- 
dosius II. was killed by a fall from his horse, 
and the imperial dignity passed to the resolute | 
hands of the orthodox Pulcheria and her 
soldier-husband Marcian. All was now, 
changed. Eutychianism became the losing 
cause, and the orthodox sufferers were speedily | 
recalled. Theodoret appears to have been 
mentioned by name in the edict of recall. | 


THEODORETUS ool 


The stigma of heterodoxy was speedily re- 
moved from him. There is no reason to doubt 
that he was one of the bishops who signed the 
Tome of Leo, prefixing a short résumé of his 
own faith regarding the Incarnation, and that 


jon this Leo recognized him as a Catholic 


bishop (Tillem. xv. 304; Baron. 450, §§ 22-24). 
Though now at liberty to go where he pleased, 
Theodoret preferred to remain in his monas- 
tery (Ep. 146). His chief desire was to witness 
the complete triumph of truth, and to con- 


| vince others of the purity of his own teaching. 


This desire he saw in part fulfilled. But for 
his complete satisfaction an oecumenteal 
council was necessary, and to bring that about 
he laboured with all his might. 

The council of Chaleedon met on Oct. ὶ 
451. 


. 


Theodoret's entrance was the signal for 


| outrageous violence on the part of the adher- 


ents of Dioscorus. The hall re-echoed with 
cries and counter-cries which interrupted all 
proceedings. Theodoret sat down “in the 
midst,"" not among his brother-bishops. He 
continued to attend the sessions of the 
council, but without voting, and taking no 
part in the deposition of Dioscorus. His own 
cause came on at the eighth session, Oct. 26. 
Although his orthodoxy had been acknow- 
ledged by Leo and his restoration required by 
the emperor, the anti-Nestorian section would 
not hear of his recognition as a bishop until 
he had in express terms anathematized Nes- 
torius. This step he had repeatedly declared 
he would never take, and he now tried to 


satisfy the remonstrants with something short 


of it, but in vain. Wearied out, at last he 
yielded to their clamour and pronounced the 
test words, ‘‘ Anathema to Nestorius, and to 
every one who denies that the Holy Virgin 
Mary is the mother of God, and who divides 
the one Son, the Only-begotten, into two 
Sons.” The imperial commissioners now 
declared that all doubt had been removed and 
that Theodoret should now receive back his 
bishopric. The whole assembly raised the 
cry that Theodoret was worthy of his throne, 
and that the church must receive back her 
orthodox teacher. The leading bishops voted 
for his restoration, the rest signified their 
assent by acclamation, and the commissioners 
gave sentence that by the decree of the holy 
council Theodoret should receive again the 
church of Cyrrhus (Labbe, iv. 619-624). 

But few years remained to Theodoret, and 
of these very little is known. It is not even 
certain whether he returned to his episcopal 
duties at Cyrrhus or remained in the quiet 
Apamean monastery, devoting himself to 
literary labours. Tillemont thinks that he 
probably did not live beyond 453. But if the 
statement of Gennadius (c. 89) be truce, that 
his death took place under the γε θὰ Leo, 
he must have fived till 447 of 455. 

His writings may be divided σιν, into: 
I. Exegetical, on the Scriptures of Ὁ, and 
N. T. U1. Controversial, dealing with the an- 
athematisms of Cyril, the Eutyehian heresy, 
and, in a work written towards the end of bis 
life, with heresies in general. 11. Theologteal, 
including the Graccarum affectionum Curatso, 
Orations on Divine Prow 4 and « 
orations and lesser treatises. IV. Mis 


and V. Epistolary. 
σι 


962 THEODORETUS 


I. Exegetical.—These include works on (1) 
the Octateuch, (2) the books of Sam., Kings, 
and Chron., (3) the Pss., (4) the Canticles, (5) 
the Major Prophets, (6) the Twelve Minor 
Prophets, (7) the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 
including that to the Hebrews. The work on 
the Octateuch consists of answers to difficult 
points, for the most part characterized by the 
sound common-sense literalism of the Antio- 
chene school, with but little tendency to alle- 
gory. Heoften, instead of his own opinion, cites 
that of his great masters Diodorus of Tarsus 
and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Origen. In 
Leviticus and Numbers he naturally adopts 
more of the allegorical method, regarding the 
whole Levitical ritual and the moral ordin- 
ances as typical of the sacrificial and media- 
torial work of Christ, and of the new law He 
came to inaugurate. The commentary on the 
Canticles was his earliest exegetical work. 
He controverts the opinion that this book 
contains the story of the earthly loves of 
Solomon either with Pharaoh’s daughter or 
with Abishag, or that it is a political allegory, 
in which the bridegroom represents the 
monarch and the bride the people, and adopts 
the spiritual interpretation by which the 
bridegroom stands for Jesus Christ and the 
bride for the church. From one passage in 
the very interesting prologue we learn that 
Theodoret held the then current opinion, that 
the whole of the O.T. books having been burnt 
under Manasseh and other godless kings, or 
destroyed during the Captivity, Ezra was 
divinely inspired to rewrite them word for 
word on the return from the Captivity. He 
denounces the iniquity of the Jews, who had 
excluded Daniel from the prophets and placed 
his book among the Hagiographa, because no 
prophet had so clearly predicted the advent of 
Jesus Christ, and the very time of His appear- 
ance. The only portions of the N.T. com- 
mented on by him are the Epistles of St. Paul, 
including that to the Hebrews. Of these bp. 
Lightfoot writes, ‘‘ His commentaries on St. 
Paul are superior to his other exegetical 
writings, and have been assigned the palm 
over all patristic expositions of Scripture. 
For appreciation, terseness, and good sense 
they are perhaps unsurpassed, and if the 
absence of faults were a just standard of 
merit, they would deserve the first place ; but 
they have little claim to originality, and he 
who has read Chrysostom and Theodore of 
Mopsuestia will find scarcely anything in 
Theodoret which he has not seen before. It 
is right to add, however, that Theodoret him- 
self modestly disclaims any such merit. In 
his preface he apologizes for attempting to 
interpret St. Paul after two such men who 
are ‘luminaries of the world,’ and he pro- 
fesses nothing more than to gather his stores 
“from the blessed Fathers.’ ”’ (Gal. p. 220). 

II. Controversial.—(1) The Refutation of the 
Twelve Anathematisms of Cyril. (2) Eranistes 
or Polymorphus, ‘‘a work of remarkable in- 
terest and of permanent value for theological 
students, to be read in connexion with the 
Tome of Leo and the definitions of Chalcedon” 
(Bright, Later Treatises of Athanas. p. 177). 
It consists of three dialogues between the 
““Mendicant”’ Ἐρανίστης who represents Euty- 
chianism, and Theodoret himself as ’Op@édofos. 


THEODORETUS 


Their respective titles indicate the line adopted 
in each. These are “Atperros, Immutabilis, 
᾿Ασύγχυτος, Inconfusus, and ᾿Απαθής, Impati- 
bilis. (3) Λὶρετικῆς Κακομυθίας ἐπιτομή, 
Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, a work 
directed against heresies in general, in five 
books. The fourth book, the most important 
as treating of matters with which he was more 
or less personally acquainted, begins with the 
heresies of Arius and Eunomius and comes 
down to those of Nestorius and Eutyches. 
His disgracefully violent language with regard 
to his former friend Nestorius—whom he 
stigmatizes as an instrument of Satan, a man 
who by his pride had plunged the church into 
disorders, and under the cloak of orthodoxy 
introduced the denial of the Divinity and of 
the Incarnation of the Only-begotten Son, and 
who at last met with the punishment he de- 
served, a sign of his future punishment— 
would warrant the charitable hope that this 
chapter has been erroneously ascribed to 
Theodoret. Of this, however, there is no 
evidence, and we are, though most reluctantly, 
compelled to accept it as his work, together 
with the equally atrocious letter to Sporacius 
on the Nestorian heresy. It is accepted by 
Photius (Cod. 56) and Leontius of Byzantius 
(art. 4, de Sectis) (cf. Neander, iv. p. 246, note, 
Ceillier, Aut. ecclés. x. 84). 

III. Theological.—The chief is an apologetic 
treatise, intended to exhibit the confirmations 
of the truth of the Christian faith contained 
in the philosophical systems of the Gentiles, 
under the title ᾿Εληνικῶν θεραπευτικὴ παθη- 
μάτων, Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, seu 
Evangelicae Veritatis ex Gentilium Philosophia 
Cognitio. It isin 12 discourses, and furnishes 
a very able and eloquent defence of Christian- 
ity against the ridicule and ignorant accusa- 
tions of pagan philosophers, written probably 
before 437. It was followed by another of a 
similar character, in ten orations, on Divine 
Providence, regarded by the best critics as 
exhibiting Theodoret’s literary power in its 
highest form, as regards the careful selection 
of thoughts, nobility of language, elegance and 
purity of style, and the force and sequence of 
his arguments (Ceillier, p. 88, ὃ 10). To these 
may be added a discourse on Charity, περὶ 
θείας καὶ ἁγίας ἀγάπης (Schulze, 14, 1296 seq.) 
and some fragments of sermons, etc., given by 
Garnier (A uctarium, ib. t. v. pp. 71 seq.). 

IV. Historical—This class contains two 
works of very different character and of very 
different value: (1) the Ecclesiastical History 
and (2) the Religious History. (1) The former, 
in five books, was intended to form a continu- 
ation of that of Eusebius. It commences with 
the rise of Arianism under Constantius and 
closes with the death of Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, A.D. 429. From his opening words 
he has been thought to have had in view the 
histories of Socrates and Sozomen, and to have 
written to supply their omissions and correct 
their mistakes (Valesius). This is questioned 
by some, and must be regarded as doubtful. 
He gives more original documents than either 
of his brother-historians, but is very chary of 
dates, and writes generally without sufficient 
chronological exactness. Photius finds fault 
with his too great fondness for metaphor, 
while he praises his style as ‘‘ clear, lofty, and 


-* 


THEODORETUS 


free from redundancy " (Cod. 31). The his- 
tory is learned and generally impartial, 

though it is occasionally one-sided and runs 
off into a theological treatise.” An Eng. 
trans. was pub. by Baxter in 1847. (2) The 
Religious History, φιλόθεος ἱστορία, is devoted | 
to the lives of 30 celebrated hermits and | 
ascetics, his contemporaries, and was written 
from personal knowledge and popular report 
before his Ecclesiastical History. It excites 
our wonder at what Dr. Newman calls the 
κε easy credence, or as moderns would say large | 
credulousness,”’ which appears more reo or μ | 
ing as he had been brought up in the most | 
matter-of-fact, prosaic, and critical school of 
ancient Christendom. ‘* What,"’ writes Dr. | 
Newman, ‘“‘made him drink in with such) 
relish what we reject with such disgust ? 
Was it that, at least, some miracles were 
brought home so absolutely to his sensible 
experience that he had no reason for doubtin 
the others which came to him second-hand 
This certainly will explain what to most of us 
is sure to seem the stupid credulity of so well- 
read, so intellectual an author” (Hist. 
Sketches, iii. 314). The whole subject presents 
a very curious intellectual problem. 

V. Epistolary—No portion of Theodoret's 
literary remains exceeds in interest and value 
the large collection of his letters. As throw- 
ing light on his personal history and character, 
and as helping us to understand the perplexed 
relations of the principal actors in that stormy 
period of theological strife and their various 
shades of theological opinion, their import- 
ance cannot be over-estimated. They give us 
a heightened esteem of Theodoret himself, 
his intellectual power, theological precision, 
warm-hearted affection, and Christian virtues. 
An Eng. trans. of this remarkable series of 
letters, arranged according to date and subject, 
is much to be desired. 

The Auctarium of Garnier also contains the 
following: (1) Prolegomena and Extracts of 
Commentaries on the Psalms, probably derived 
from Catenae. (2) A Short Extract from a 
Commentary on St. Luke. (3) Sermon on the 
Nativity of S. John Baptist. (4) Homily 
spoken at Chalcedon in 431. (5) Fifteen 
additional letters of Theodoret. (6) Seven 
dialogues composed a little before the council 
of Ephesus, 2 each against Anomoeans and 
Apollinarians, and 3 against Macedonians. 
Their authorship is doubtful; they have been 
ascribed to Athanasius or Maximus, but 
Garnier claims them for Theodoret. 

Editions.—There are 2 edd. of his complete 
works in Gk. and Lat.; the first in 4 vols. fol. 
(Paris, 1642), by the Jesuit Jac. Sirmond, to 
which a 5th vol. was added after Sirmond's 
death by his fellow-Jesuit, J. Garnier (Paris, 
1684), containing an auctarium, compris- 
ing fragments of commentaries and ser- 
mons and some additional letters, together 
with Garnier’s 5 learned but most one- 
sided dissertations on (1) the life, (2) the 
writings, (3) the faith of Theodoret, (4) on the 
fifth general council, and (5) the cause of 
Theodoret and the Orientals. This was 
succeeded by another ed. based on it, with | 
additions and corrections by Lud. Schulze and 
J. A. Noesselt (Halae Sax. 1769-1774), in 5. 
vols. and in 10 parts. 


To this edition our | 


THEODORICUS 963 


references are made. The ed. of T. Gaistord 
is pub. by the Clarendon Press. There is 
a trans. of Theodoret's works in Bohn's Lib. 
(Bell), and by Blomfield Jackson in Lid. of 
Post-Nicene Fathers. Ct. N. Ghibokowski, 
The Blessed Theodoret, bp. of Cyrus (Moscow, 
1890, 2 vols.); Harnack in Theol. Literatur 
Zeitung (1890), p. 502. {x.v.] 
eodoricus (1) I. (Theodericus), chosen 
king of the Visigoths on the death of Valia, 
A.D. 419. He was the real founder of the Weat 
Gothic kingdom. On his accession the Visi- 
goths held nothing in Spain, but occupied in 
Gaul Aquitania Secunda, the region lying, 
roughly speaking, between the Lowe and the 
Garonne, with some neighbouring cities, of 
which Toulouse, their capital, was the most 
important. This territory had been ceded 
to Valia as the price of the foedus with Rome. 
The history of Theodoric’s reign consists of a 
series of endeavours to extend this territor 
when the Romans were otherwise occupi 
with intervals of renewal of the foedus, the 
Goths, however, retaining what they had won. 
In the great battle of the Mauriac Ars Theo- 
doric, who was advanced in life, fell from his 
horse and was trampled to death by his own 
troops (A.D. 441). Salvian (de ων. Dei, vii. 
154) praises him for his piety, to which he 
attributes the defeat of the self-confident 
Litorius. Though, like the rest of his race, 
an Arian, he did not persecute the Catholics. 
Prosper and Idatius, Chronica; Jordanes, Get. 
34-40; Isidorus, Hust. Goth., Hist. Suev., Dahn, 
Die Koénige der Germanen, v. γι. [¥.p.] 
Theodoricus (3) (Theodericus), the Ostro- 
goth, king in Italy. The secondis the spelling 
of all inscriptions (Mommsen, Jordanes, 144). 
He was the son of Thiudimer by his concubine 
Erelieva, and was born probably in 444. 
His father was the second brother of Valamir, 
king of the Ostrogoths, Vidimer being the 
third. The three lived in amity, occupying 
N. Pannonia, the part of the tribe under 
Thiudimer being settled near Lake Pelso at 
Theodoric’s birth. He succeeded his father in 
474 or 475, and assisted in 477 in Zeno's 
restoration. In 487 Zeno induced Theodoric 
to undertake an expedition to Italy for the 
purpose of overthrowing Odoacer. Theo- 
doric willingly consented ; his people, who in 
the course of their wanderings had mostl 
settled in Lower Moesia, Nova near Rustchu 
being his capital, were discontented with their 
settlements ; and in the autumn of 458 they 
started. It was not the march of an army, 
but the migration of a whole people. Their 
progress by Sirmium and Pannonia was slow, 
impeded by the winter weather and the 
opposition of the Gepidae and Sarmatians; 
not till the summer of 489 did they force their 
way through the Julian Alps into Italy. For 
the events of the war, terminated in Mar. 49 
by Theodoric’s complete victory, see D. C. ἢ, 
(4 vols. 1900), art. “Odoacer.” After Theo- 
doric had shut up Odoacer in Ravenna in 
autumn 490, he sent Faustus, the chief of the 
senate, and Irenacus (Gelasius, Ep, 8) to Zeno 


‘to ask his permission to assume the royal 


robes. Zeno died in Apr. 491, and, no answer 
having come from his successor Anastasius, on 
the fall of Ravenna the army proclaimed 
Theodoric king (An. Val. 53. 57). Already 


964 THEODORICUS 


king of the Ostrogoths, he was thus recognized 
as king over his new conquests; but, like 
Odoacer, he assumed the title without any 
territorial definition such as ‘‘ king of Italy.” 
Gregory of Tours (iii. 31) indeed styles him 
“Rex Italiae,’”’ but this is merely a description, 
not a formal title ; cf. the parallel of Odoacer 
and Victor Vitensis. This independent as- 
sumption was regarded at Constantinople as 
a usurpation, and not till 498 was a recognition 
grudgingly obtained by the embassy of the 
senator Festus, and the imperial ornaments 
returned which Odoacer had sent to Con- 
stantinople (An. Val. 64, Theodorus Lector, 
ii. 16, 17, in Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. 1, 189). 
Theodoric, while really independent, was 
ready to pay the emperor marks of respect, 
such as submitting for approval the name of 
the consul he nominated. But there was no 
real cordiality between the two. At Con- 
stantinople Theodoric was regarded merely as 
de jure the lieutenant of the emperor who had 
commissioned him to recover Italy, and the 
Byzantine claims were only kept in abeyance 
for a convenient opportunity. 

His first care after the overthrow of Odo- 
acer was to arrange the settlement of his 
followers in Italy. A third part of the lands 
was distributed to them. The Goths were 
very unequally distributed. In Calabria and 


Apulia there were none (Procop. i. 15); they | 


began to appear in Samnium, and then in- 
creased to the N. and E., the settlements being 
thickest in the Aemilia and Venetia. The 
Goths were probably settled by families and 
tribes (Var. v. 27), and did not, like the 
Vandals, clear out and occupy the whole of a 
continuous province. Their dispersion among 
the previous inhabitants had many important 
consequences, the most important perhaps 
being the increase of the royal power, which 
was further strengthened by Theodoric uniting 
to his hereditary kingship the derelict pre- 
rogatives of the Western emperor. He 
governed the two nations—the Romans and 
the Goths—who lived side by side without 
intermingling, in a twofold capacity: the 
former as the successor of the emperor, the 
latter as the king of immemorial antiquity. 
The Roman forms of government were kept 
up ; the senate met, and Theodoric submitted 
his appointments of patricians, consuls, etc., 
for their ratification. The Roman systems of 
taxation and administration were maintained. 
The Goths, like the Romans, had to pay taxes, 
but their special obligation was that of mili- 
tary service. Theodoric’s care for his domin- 
ions is shewn by the multifarious subjects of 
the Variarum—e.g. drainage of marshes, 
regulations of the posting service, repairs of 
harbours, roads, and public buildings, such as 
Pompey’s theatre and the cloacae at Rome, 
fortifications, searches for mines, etc. Under 
his firm rule Italy enjoyed 33 years of peace 
and prosperity such as she had not known for 
nearly a century, and was not to know again 
for generations. 

The state of affairs in Gaul after 507 de- 
manded Theodoric’s interference. When his 
negotiations failed to prevent a breach be- 
tween Clovis and his son-in-law Alaric, and 
when the rout and death of Alaric threatened 
that all Gaul, and perhaps Spain, would pass 


THEODORICUS 


into the hands of the Franks, he felt compelled 
to interpose. The result was the preservation 
of Spain and the district of Narbonne or Septi- 
mania for the Visigoths, and the acquisition 
by Theodoric of a territory corresponding 
with the modern Provence, including Arles 
and Marseilles. He was thus placed in 
immediate communication with the Visigoths, 
among whose kings he is reckoned by Spanish 
historians as guardian of his infant grandson. 

Though, like his countrymen, an Arian, 
Theodoric for most of his reign acted not only 
with impartiality but favour to the Catholics, 
some holding high offices under him. On his 
one recorded visit to Rome in 500, where he 
spent six months (An. Val., Cassiod. Chron.), 
he gave magnificent presents to St. Peter’s as if 
he had been a Catholic; he was on friendly 
terms with the most eminent bishops, such as 
EPIPHANIUS, whom he employed on an em- 
bassy to the Burgundians to obtain the release 
of the prisoners taken in their inroads into N. 
Italy during the war with Odoacer; and in 
his interference in the troubles following the 
disputed election of SymMmMAcHUS and LAUR- 
ENTIUS he seems to have acted solely with a 
view to benefit the church. Nor did he object 
to the nullification by the synod, under 
Symmachus, of Odoacer’s law against the 
alienation of ecclesiastical property, on the 
ground that it rested only on lay authority. 
He was careful also not to infringe on the 
privileges of the church, and extended his 
protection to the Jews. 

During most of his reign the difficulties of 
his position were much lightened by the schism 
between the Eastern and Western churches. 
To the pope and the orthodox party a Euty- 
chian emperor was as hateful as an Arian king. 
But when in 518 Anastasius was succeeded by 
Justin and the 37 years’ schism was ended by 
the complete triumph of Hormispas, whose 
negotiations with the East had been conducted 
by Theodoric’s permission (Vita Hormisdae), 
the obstacle to the desires of the orthodox 
Romans for reunion with the empire was 
removed. On the Eastern side the breach was 
widened by the persecution of heretics, com- 
menced by Justin in 523. By the law of that 
year (Cod. i. v. 12), heretics were subjected 
to many civil and religious disabilities. The 
Goths serving in the army (foederati) were 
exempted from its provisions, but must, like 
the rest of their co-religionists, have felt the 
next measure, the seizure of all the churches 
belonging to heretics. Theodorie appears to 
have intended to occupy the churches of the 
Catholics and hand them over to the Arians as 
reprisals for the similar treatment they had 
experienced in the East, when. he was seized 
with illness, and died Aug. 30, 526. He 
apparently never had a son. His only sur- 
viving daughter Amalasuintha he had given 
in marriage in 515 to Eutharic, a descendant 
of the Amals, whose consulship in 519 was 
celebrated with great magnificence at Rome. 
He died before Theodoric, leaving one son, 
Athalaric, whom his grandfather, shortly 
before his death, declared king, under the 
regency of his mother. 

Theodoric was a great builder. He restored 
the aqueducts at Verona and Ravenna, built 
palaces at Verona and Ravenna, and baths 


THEODORICUS 


there and at Pavia. 
are at Ravenna, his own mausoleum, with its 
marvellous dome, formed of one block of 
Istrian stone, and what is now St. Apollinare 
Nuovo, the church he built for his Arian 
fellow-worshippers, of which they retained 
possession till the time of bp. Agnellus (Ag- 
nellus, Lib. Pont. in Rerum Script. Lang. 334). 

Almost our only source of information as to 


But his greatest works | ΘΕΌΝ saw a chance of ener rag ὅδ ery 


ip 


his internal administration is the Vartarum of | 


Cassiodorus (vid. Mr. Hodgkin's preface to 
this work). Of modern writings, Dahn's 
Konige der Germanen, ii.-iv. is the most valu- 
able. Du Roure has published a Life of 
Theodoric, and there is a brilliant sketch in 
Gibbon, c. 39, of his rule in Italy. {r.p.] 
_Theodoricus (5) I. (Thierry, Theuderich), 
king of the Franks (511-533), one of the four 
sons of Clovis, by a concubine. He was con- 
siderably older than his three half-brothers, 
the sons of Clotilda, and had a grown-up son, 
Theodebert, when his father died (Greg. Tur. 
Hist. Franc. ii. 28, iii. 1) in 511. The four 
sons divided the kingdom, nominally into 


equal portions, but really Theodoric, owing | 


probably to his greater age and capacity, 
obtained the largest portion. His capital 
was Metz, and his kingdom comprised the 
Ripuarian Frankish territory, Champagne, 
the eastern portion of Aquitaine and the old 


THEODORUS O65 


authorities on the Nestorian side, et, 
Theodore, and Ibas. Working, therefore 
through the empress Theodora, he persuaded 
Justinian to attempt to reconcile the Mono- 
hysite party; Justinian, at his suggestion, 
issuing his celebrated edict which gave rise to 
the great controversy concerning the Three 
Chapters. At the general counsil of Constan- 
tinople archbp. Theodore subscribed the con- 
demnation of Origen on the one hand, and of 
Theodoret, Theodore, and Ibas on the other. 
He died probably ¢. 558 at Constantinople. 
The Testimonium of Theodore and of Cethegus 
the patrician concerning the contradictions of 
pope Vigilius about the Three Chapters is in 
Mansi, t. ix. col. 363 (Ceill. xi. 327, 865, 881; 
Hefele's Councils, § 258). [α.τ.4.} 

Theodorus (26), bp. οἱ Mopsuestia ; 
known, from the place of his birth and pres- 
byterate, as Theodore of Antioch, the most 
prominent representative of the middle 
Antiochene school of hermeneutics. 

I. Life and Work.—Theodore was born at 
Antioch c¢. 350 (see Fritzsche, de Th. M. 
V. et Ser. pp. 1-4, for the chronology; ef. 
Kihn, Theodor u. Junilius, p. 39, ἢ. 1). His 
father held an official position at Antioch, 


}and the family was wealthy (Chrys. ad Th. 


Salian Frankish possessions to the Kohlen- | 


wald (Richter, Annalen, p. 46). Fauriel says 
that besides Frankish Germany he had so 
much of Gaul as lies between the Rhine and 
the Meuse and, as his share of Aquitaine, the 


Auvergne with the Velai and Gévaudan, its | 
|early companion and friend of Chrysostom, 


dependencies, the Limousin in part or whole, 
and certain other cantons of less importance 
(Hist. de la Gaule Mérid. ii. 92). Theodoric 
died in 533. He was a strong and capable 
king, but to the ferocity and lawlessness of his 
_ race he added an unscrupulous cunning of his 
own (ib. iii. 7). His attitude towards the 


church seems to have been one of indifference, | then at Antioch in the zenith of his fame. 


Laps. ii. in Migne, Pair. Gk. xivii. 209). 
Theodore's cousin, Paeanius, to whom several 
of Chrysostom’'s letters are addressed (Epp. 
95, 193, 204, 220, in Migne, lii.), held an impor- 
tant post of civil government; his brother 
Polychronius became bp. of the metropolitan 
see of Apamea. Theodore first appears as the 


his fellow-townsman, his equal in rank, and 
but two or three years his senior in age. 
Together with their common friend Maximus, 
afterwards bp. of Isaurian Seleucia, Chrysos- 
tom and Theodore attended the lectures of the 
sophist Libanius (Soer. vi. 3; cf. Soz. eg 

ec 


influenced neither by fear nor superstition. have the assurance of Sozomen that he en- 


Orthodoxy had been so useful a political | joyed a philosophical education (/.c.). 


weapon to his father that the son was pre- 
sumably a professing Christian, though he is 
not mentioned among the members of Clovis's 
family baptized by St. Remigius. He did not 
shrink from involving churches in his army's 
pillage and destruction in the Auvergne (iii. 
12), and though he exalted St. Quintian, bp. 
of Clermont, it was not as a priest, but as a 
partisan who had suffered in his cause (iii. 2), 
while he bitterly persecuted Desiderius, bp. 
of Verdun (ili. 34). 


| 
| 


| 
! 


Chry- 
sostom credits his friend with diligent study, 
but the luxurious life of polite Antioch seems 
to have received an equal share of his thoughts. 
When Chrysostom himself had been reclaimed 
from the pleasures of the world by the influ- 
ence of Basil, he succeeded in winning Maxi- 
mus and Theodore to the same mind. The 
three friends left Libanius and sought a 
retreat in the monastic school (ἀσκητήριον) of 


| Carterius and Diodorus, to which Basil was 


He has the credit of το | 


ducing to writing and amending the laws of the | 
| sostom, however, speaks of him shortly after- 
'wards in terms which seem to imply his 


Franks, Alamanni, and Bavarians (Migne, Pair. 

Lat. 1xxi. 1163). ἣν Ν [8...5.} 
Theodorus (6) Askidas (6 ᾿Ασκιδᾶτ), archbp. 

of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the chief supporter 


of Origen’s views in the first half of cent. vi. 


and the originator of the celebrated contro- 
versy concerning the ** Three Chapters.” The 


general history of his life belongs to that sub- | 


ject ; we now give merely a brief outline. He 
was a monk of the convent of Nova Laura in 
Palestine, and made, ¢. 537, archbp. 
Caesarea under Justinian. He supported the 
views of Origen when they were 


τ in Palestine. He secretly favoured Monophy- | of his new-found life. 
rs ustinian condemned | signed himself to a celibate life w he 


site views, and, when 


of His conversion was 


already attached. Whether Theodore had 
been previously baptized is doubtful; Chry- 


baptism (ad Th. Laps.). He gave himself to 
the new learning with characteristic energy. 
His days, as his friend testifies, were spent in 
reading, his nights in prayer; he fasted long, 


αν on the bare ground, and practised wee 


form of ascetic self-discipline; he was fu 
withal of light-hearted joy, as having found 
the service of Christ to be perfect freedom. 
speedy, sincere, and 
marvellously complete, but was followed by a 


uted reaction which threatened an utter collapse 


He had but jost re- 


.- 


966 THEODORUS 


was fascinated by a girl named Hermione 
(Chrys. 7b. i., Migne, xlvii. p. 297), and 
contemplated marriage, at the same time 
returning to his former manner of life (Soz. 
vili. 2). His ‘“‘fall’’ spread consternation 
through the little society. Many were the 
prayers offered and efforts made for his re- 
covery. ‘‘ Valerius, Florentius, Porphyrius, 
and many others,’ laboured to restore him ; 
and the anxiety drew forth from Chrysostom 
the earliest of his literary compositions—two 
letters ‘‘to Theodore upon his [411]. The 
second letter reveals at once the strength of 
Chrysostom’s affection, and the greatness of 
the character in which at that early age 
(Theodore was not yet 20) he had already 
found so much to love. Theodore remained 
constant to his vows (Soz. l.c.), although the 
disappointment left traces in his after-life. 
Chrysostom’s connexion with Diodore was 
probably broken off in 374, when he plunged 
into a more complete monastic seclusion ; 
Theodore’s seems to have continued until the 
elevation of Diodore to the see of Tarsus A.D. 
378. During this period doubtless the foun- 
dations were laid of Theodore’s acquaintance 
with Holy Scripture and ecclesiastical doc- 
trine, and he was imbued for life with the 
principles of scriptural interpretation which 
Diodore had inherited from an earlier genera- 


tion of Antiochenes, and with the peculiar | 


views of the Person of Christ into which the 
master had been led by his antagonism to 
Apollinarius. The latter years of this decade 


witnessed Theodore’s first appearance as ἃ 


writer. He began with a commentary on the 
Psalms, in which the method of Diodore was 
exaggerated, and which he lived to repent of 
(Facund. iii. 6, x. 1; v. infra, § III.). The 
orthodox at Antioch, it seems, resented the 
loss of the traditional Messianic interpretation, 
and, if we may trust Hesychius, Theodore was 
compelled to promise that he would commit 
his maiden work to the flames—an engagement 
he contrived to evade (Mansi, ix. 284). 
Gennadius (de Vir. Ill. 12) represents 
Theodore as a presbyter of the church of 
Antioch ; and from a letter of John of Antioch 
(Facund. ii. 2) we gather that 45 years elapsed 
between his ordination and his death. It 
seems, therefore, that he was ordained priest 
at Antioch a.p. 383, in his 33rd year, the 
ordaining bishop being doubtless Flavian, 
Diodore’s old friend and_ fellow-labourer, 
whose ‘loving disciple’? Theodore now be- 
came (John of Antioch, ap. Facund. l.c.). 
The epithet seems to imply that Theodore was 
an attached adherent of the Meletian party ; 


but there is no evidence that he mixed himself | 


up with the feuds which for some years after 
Flavian’s consecration distracted the Cath- 
olics of Antioch. Theodore’s great treatise 
on the Incarnation (Gennad. /.c.) belongs to 
this period, possibly also more than one of his 
commentaries on the O.T. Asa preacher he 
seems to have now attained some eminence 
in the field of polemics (Facund. viii. 4). 
Theodore is said by Hesychius of Jerusalem 
(Mansi, ix. 248) to have left Antioch while 
yet a priest and betaken himself to Tarsus, 
until 392, when he was consecrated to the see 
of Mopsuestia, vacant by the death of Olym- 
pius, probably through the influence and 


THEODORUS 


by the hands of Diodore. Here he spent his 
remaining 36 years of life (Theodoret, I.c.). 

Mopsuestia was a free town (Pliny) upon 
the Pyramus, between Tarsus and Issus, some 
40 miles from either, and 12 from the sea. It 
belonged to Cilicia Secunda, of which the 
metropolitan see was Anazarbus. In the 4th 
cent. it was of some importance, famous for 
its bridge, thrown over the Pyramus by Con- 
stantine. It is now the insignificant town 
Mensis, or Messis (D. of G. and R. Geogr.). 

Theodore’s long episcopate was marked by 
no striking incidents. His letters, long known 
to the Nestorians of Syria as the Book of 
Pearls, are lost; his followers have left us 
few personal recollections. In 394 he at- 
tended a synod at Constantinople on a ques- 
tion which concerned the see of Bostra in the 
partiarchate of Antioch (Mansi, iii. 851; cf. 
Hefele, ii. 406). Theodore preached, probably 
on this occasion, before the emperor Theo- 
dosius I., who was then starting for his last 
journey to the West. The sermon made a 
deep impression, and Theodosius, who had 
sat at the feet of St. Ambrose and St. Gregory 
of Nazianzus, declared that he had never met 
with such a teacher (John of Antioch, ap. 
Facund. ii. 2). The younger Theodosius in- 
herited his grandfather’s respect for Theodore, 
and often wrote to him. Another glimpse of 
Theodore’s episcopal life is supplied by a letter 
of Chrysostom to him from Cucusus (A.D. 
404-407) (Chrys. Ep. 212, Migne, lii. 668). 
The exiled patriarch ‘“‘can never forget the 
love of Theodore, so genuine and warm, so 
sincere and guileless, a love maintained from 
early years, and manifested but now.”’ Chry- 
sostom (Ep. 204) thanks him profoundly for 
frequent though ineffectual efforts to obtain 
his release. No titles of honour, no terms of 
affection, seem too strong to be lavished on 
his friend. Finally, he assures Theodore 
that, ‘“‘exile as he is, he reaps no ordinary 
consolation from having such a treasure, such 
a mine of wealth within his heart, as the love 
of so vigilant and noble a soul.” Higher 
testimony could not have been borne, or by 
a more competent judge; and so much was 
this felt by Theodore’s enemies at the fifth 
council that they vainly made efforts to deny 
the identity of Chrysostom’s correspondent 
with the bp. of Mopsuestia. 

Notwithstanding his literary activity, Theo- 
dore worked zealously for the good of his 
diocese. The famous letter of Ibas (Mansi, 
vii. 247; Facund. vii. 7) testifies that he 
converted Mopsuestia to the truth, 1.6. extin- 
guished Arianism and other heresies there. 
Several of his works are doubtless monuments 
of these pastoral labours, e.g. the catechetical 
lectures, the ecthesis, and possibly the treatise 
on “‘ Persian Magic.’’ Yet his episcopal work 
was by no means simply that of a diocesan 
bishop. Everywhere he was regarded as “‘ the 
herald of the truth and the doctor of the 
church’’; ‘‘even distant churches received 
instruction from him.’’ So boasts Ibas to 
Maris, and his letter was read without a 
dissentient voice at the council of Chalcedon 
(Facund. ii. 1 seq.). Theodore ‘“ expounded 
Scripture in all the churches of the East,” 
says John of Antioch (2b. ii. 2) with Oriental 
hyperbole, and adds that in his lifetime Theo- 


THEODORUS 


dore was never arraigned by any of the ortho- 
dox. But in a letter to Nestorius (tb. x. 2) 
John begs him to retract, urging the example 
of Theodore, who, when in a sermon at Antioch 
he had said something which gave great and 
manifest offence, for the sake of peace and to 
avoid scandal, after a few days as publicly 
corrected himself. Leontius tells us (Migne, 
Ixxxvi. 1363) that the cause of offence was a 
denial to the Blessed Virgin of the title 
Θεοτόκος. So great was the storm that the 
people threatened to stone the preacher (Cyril. 
Alex. Ep. 69; Migne, Ixxvii. 340). The hereti- 
cal sects attacked by Theodore shewed their 
resentment in a wa 
more formidable. 


dox statements (Facund. x. 1). 

Theodore’s last years were perplexed by a 
new controversy. When in 418 the Pelagian 
leaders were deposed and exiled from the West, 
they sought in the East the sympathy of the 


less overt, but perhaps | 
re hey tampered with his. 
writings, hoping thus to involve him in hetero- | 


THEODORUS 961 


| Meletius, his successor at Mopsuest! : 
᾿ 

| tested that his life would have καὶ is dahon 
| if he had uttered a word against his predeces- 
sor (Tillem. Mém. xii. p. 442)“ We beliewe 
as Theodore believed; long live the faith of 
Theodore!" was a cry often heard in the 
churches of the East (Cyril. Alex. Ep. 69). 
“We had rather be burnt than condemn 
Theodore,” was the reply of the bishops of 
Syria to the party eager for his condemnation 
|(Ep. γι). The flame was fed by leading men 
who had been disciples of the Interpreter: by 
Theodoret, who regarded him as a “ doctor 
of the universal church " (HM. F. ν. 39); by 
Ibas of Edessa, who in 411 wrote his famous 
letter to Maris in praise of Theodore; by 
John, who in 429 succeeded to the see of 
Antioch. Yet Theodore’s ashes were scarcely 
cold when in other quarters men began to 
hold him up to obloquy. As early perha 

| aS 431 Marius Mercator denounced him as the 
real author of the Pelagian heresy {11}. subnot. 


chief coe ἢ representative of the school of i verba Juliant, prae/; Migne, Patr. Lat. 
Antioch. he fact is recorded by Marius XIviii. 110); and not long afterwards prefaced 
Mercator, who makes the most of it (Prae/. | his translation of Theodore’s ecthesis with a 
ad Symb. Theod. Mop. 72). With Theodore | still more violent attack on him as the pre- 
they probably remained till 422, when Julian cursor of Nestorianism (1. pp. 208, 1046, 
returned to Italy. Julian’s visit was doubt- | 1048). The council of Ephesus, however, 
less the occasion upon which Theodore wrote | While it condemned Nestorius by name, con- 
his book Against the Defenders of Original | tented itself with condemning Theodore’s 
Sin. Mercator charges Theodore with having | creed without mentioning Theodore ; and the 
turned against Julian assoonas the latter had | Nestorian party consequently fell back u 

left Mopsuestia, and anathematized him in ἃ the words of Theodore, and began to circulate 
provincial synod (op. cit. 3). The synod can them in several languages as affording the best 
hardly be a fabrication, since Mercator was a available τε Tp of their views (Liberat. 
contemporary writer; but it was very pos- Brev. το). This circumstance deepened the 


sibly convened, as Fritzsche suggests, without 
any special reference to the Pelagian question. 
If Theodore then read his ecthesis, the 
anathema with which that ends might have 
been represented outside the council as a 
synodical condemnation of the Pelagian 
chiefs. 
this explanation. 

A greater heresiarch than Julian visited 
Mopsuestia in the last year of Theodore’s life. 
It is stated by Evagrius (H. E. i. 2; Migne, 


Ixxxvi. 2425) that Nestorius, on his way from | 


Antioch to Constantinople (A.D. 428), took 
counsel with Theodore and received from him 
the seeds of heresy which he shortly after- 
wards scattered with such disastrous results. 
Evagrius makes this statement on the author- 
ity of one Theodulus, a person otherwise 


unknown. We may safely reject it, so far as | 


it derives the Christology of Nestorius from 
this single interview. The germ of the 
Nestorian doctrine was in the teaching of Dio- 
dore and in the earliest works of Theodore ; 
it could not have been new to Nestorius, as a 
prominent teacher of the church of Antioch. 
Towards the close of 428 (Theodoret, H. E. 
v. 39) Theodore died, worn out by 50 years 
(Facund. ii. 2) of literary and astoral toil, at 
the age of 78, having been all his life engaged 
in controversy, and more than once in conflict 
with the popular notions of orthodoxy; yet 
he departed, as Facundus (ii. 1) triumphantly 
oints out, in the peace of the church and at the 
height of a great reputation. The storm was 
gathering, but did not break till he was gone. 
Il. Posthumous History.—The popularity 
of Theodore was increased by his death. 


Mercator’s words, in fact, point to. 


| mistrust of the orthodox, and even in the East 
there were not wanting some who proceeded 
to condemn the teaching of Theodore. Hesy- 
chius of Jerusalem, about 435, attacked him 
| in his Ecclesiastical History ; Rabbdlas, bp. of 
Edessa, who at Ephesus had sided with John 
of Antioch, now publicly anathematized 
Theodore (Ibas, Ep. ad Marin.). Proclus 
| demanded from the bishops of Syria a con- 
demnation of certain propositions = 

| to have been drawn from the writings o o- 
dore. Cyril, who had once spoken favourably 
of some of Theodore’s works (Facund. viii. 6), 
πον under the influence of Rabbdélas took a 
decided attitude of opposition ; he wrote to 
the synod of Antioch (Ep. 67) that the opinions 
of Diodore, Theodore, and others of the same 
schools had “* borne down with full sail upon 
the glory of Christ"’; to the emperor (Fp. 
71), that Diodore and Theodore were the 
arents of the blasphemy of Nestorius; to 
oclus (Ep. 72), that had Theodore been still 
‘alive and openly approved of the teaching of 
Nestorius, he ought undoubtedly to have been 
anathematized ; but as he was dead, it was 
/enough to condemn the errors of bis books, 
|having regard to the terrible disturbances 
more extreme measures would excite in the 
| East. He collected and answered a series of 
| propositions gathered from the writings of 
| Diodore and Theodore (Migne, xxvi. 1458 
| seq.), a work to which Theodoret replied short- 
‘ly afterwards. The ferment then subsided 
| for a time, but the disciples of Theodore, re- 
| pulsed in the West, pushed their way from 
astern Syria to Persia. Ibas, who succeeded 
| Rabbdlas in 435, restored the school of Edessa, 


968 THEODORUS 

and it continued to be a nursery of Theodore’s 
theology till suppressed by Zeno, a.pD. 489. 
At Nisibis Barsumas, a devoted adherent of 
the party, was bp. from 435 to 489. Upon 
the suppression of the school of Edessa, Nisibis 
became the seat of the Antiochene exegesis and 
theology. The Persian kings favoured a 
movement distasteful to the empire; and 
Persia was henceforth the headquarters of 
Nestorianism. Among the Nestorians of 
Persia the writings of Theodore were regarded 
as the standard both of doctrine and of 
interpretation, and the Persian church re- 
turned the censures of the orthodox by pro- 
nouncing an anathema on all who opposed or 
rejected them (cf. Assem. iii. i. 84; and for 
a full account of the spread of Theodore’s 
opinions at Edessa and Nisibis see Kihn, 
Theodor u. Junilius, pp. 198-209, 333-336). 
At a later period the school of Nisibis reacted 
on the West, and the influence, though not the 
name, of Theodore appears in the IJnstituta 
Regularia of Junilius Africanus, and in the de 
Institutione Divinarum Literarum of Cassio- 
dorus (Kihn, pp. 209 seq.). 

The 6th cent. witnessed another and final 
outbreak of bitter hatred against Theodore, 
The fifth general council (553), under the in- 
fluence of the emperor Justinian, pronounced 
the anathema which Theodosius II. had re- 
fused to sanction and which even Cyril shrank 
from uttering. This condemnation of Theo- 
dore and his two supporters shook the fabric 
of the Catholic church. This is not the place 
to enter upon the history of the ‘‘ Three 
Chapters,’’ but we may point out one result 
of Justinian’s policy. The West, Africa 
especially, rebelled against a decree which 
seemed to set at nought the authority of the 
councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and also 
violated the sanctity of the dead. It was from 
no particular interest in Theodore’s doctrine 
or method of interpretation that the African 
bishops espoused his cause. 
plainly told the emperor that he had asked 
them to condemn men of whose writings they 
knew nothing (Migne, Patr. Lat. |xvii. 997). 
But the stir about Theodore led to inquiry ; 
his works, or portions of them, were translated 
and circulated in the West. It is almost cer- 
tainly to this cause that we owe the preserva- 
tion in a Latin dress of at least one-half of 
Theodore’s commentaries on St. Paul. Pub- 
lished under the name of St. Ambrose, the 
work of Theodore passed from Africa into the 
monastic libraries of the West, was copied into 
the compilations of Rabanus Maurus and 
others, and in its fuller and its abridged form 
supplied the Middle Ages with an accepted 
interpretation of an important part of Holy 
Scripture. The name of Theodore, however, 
disappears almost entirely from Western 
church literature after the 6th cent. It was 
scarcely before the roth cent. that justice was 
done by Western writers to the importance of 
the great Antiochene as a theologian, an 
expositor, and a precursor of later thought. 

Ill. Literary Remains.—Facundus (x. 4) 
speaks of Theodore’s ‘‘ innumerable books ”’ ; 
John of Antioch, in a letter quoted by Facun- 
dus (ii. 2), describes his polemical works as 
alone numbering ‘‘ decem millia ”’ (1.6. μυρίαν, 
an exaggeration of course, but based on fact. 


Bp. Pontian | 


THEODORUS 


A catalogue of such of his writings as were 
once extant in Syriac translations is given by 
Ebedjesu, Nestorian metropolitan of Soba, 
A.D. 1318 (J. S. Assem. Bibl. Orient. iii. i. pp. 
30 seq.). These Syriac translations filled 41 
tomes. Only one whole work remains. 

(A) EXEGETICAL WRITINGS.—(i) Old Testa- 
ment. (a) Historical Books —A commentary 
on Genesis is cited by Cosmas Indicopleustes, 
John Philoponus, and Photius (Cod. 3, 8). 
Fragments of the Greek original survive in the 
catena of Nicephorus (Lips. 1772). Latin 
fragments are found in the Acts of the second 
council of Constantinople, and an important 
collection of Syriac fragments from the Nitrian 
MSS. of the British Museum was pub. by Dr. 
E. Sachau (Th. Mops. Fragm. Syriaca, Lips. 
1869, pp. I-21). Photius, criticizing the 
style of this work in words more or less 
applicable to all the remains of Theodore, 
notices the writer’s opposition to the allegori- 
cal method of interpretation. Ebedjesu was 
struck by the care and elaboration bestowed 
upon the work. The catenae contain frag- 
ments attributed to Theodore upon the re- 
maining books of the Pentateuch and of 
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings 
(Mai, Scr. Vet. Nov. Coll. i. praef. p. XXi.). 
Theodore is stated by Leontius (Migne, Patr. 
Gk. 1xxxvi. 1368) to have rejected the two 
books of Chronicles, and there is no trace of 
any comments upon them bearing his name. 

(b) Poetical Books.—Theodore’s commentary 
on Job was dedicated to St. Cyril of Alex- 
andria. Of all his works it seems to have been 
the least worthy of this dedication. Only 
four fragments survive (Mansi, ix. pp. 223 seq.), 
but they are sufficient to justify the censure 
pronounced upon the work by the Fifth 
council. Theodore regards Job as an histori- 
cal character, but considers him as traduced 
by the author of the book, whom he considers 
to have been a pagan Edomite. 

The Psalms were the earliest field of Theo- 
dore’s hermeneutical labours. The printed 
fragments, Greek and Latin, fill 25 columns in 
Migne. More recently attention has been 
called to a Syriac version (Baethgen), and new 
fragments of a Latin version and of the ori- 
ginal Greek have been printed. That his 
first literary adventure was hasty and pre- 
mature was frankly acknowledged by Theo- 
dore himself (Facund. l.c.). His zeal for the 
historical method of interpretation led him to 
deny the application to Christ of all but 3 or 
4 of the Psalms usually regarded as Messianic. 

No fragments have hitherto been discovered 
of the commentary of Ecclesiastes, which 
Ebedjesu counts among the Syriac transla- 
tions. From the remains of the commentary 
on Job it appears that Theodore expressly 
denied the higher inspiration of both the 
sapiential books of Solomon. Of the Canticles 
he writes in terms of positive contempt (Mansi, 
ix. 225). He repudiates imputations of im- 
modesty on it, but denies its spiritual charac- 
ter. It is merely the epithalamium of 
Pharaoh’s daughter, a relic of Solomon’s 
lighter poetry, affording an insight into his 
domestic life. For this reason, he adds, it 
had never been read in synagogue or church. 

(c) Prophetical Books.—-A commentary on 
the four greater prophets is in Ebedjesu’s list ; 


THEODORUS 


but one or two inedited fragments alone 
remain. The commentary on the minor 
prophets has been preserved and published in 
its integrity by Mai (Rome, 1825-1832) and 
Wegnern. ts exegetical value is dimin- 
ished by Theodore's absolute confidence in the 

XX, excessive independence of earlier her- 
meneutical authorities, and reluctance to 
admit a Christological reference, as well as 
by his usual defects of style. It is, neverthe- 
less, a considerable monument of his exposi- 


tory power, and the best illustration we. 


possess of the Antiochene method of inter- 
preting O.T. prophecy. 


(ii) N.T. (a) The Gospels.—Ebedjesu re- 
counts commentaries on SS. Matthew, Luke, 
and John. Fragments of these, with the 


remaining N.T. fragments, were collected and | 
ed. by O. F. Fritzsche (Turici, 1847), and | 


reprinted by Migne. 
St. John exists in a Syriac version, and has 
been pub. by J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1897). 
(δ) Acts and Catholic Epistles.—One frag- 
ment only remains of the commentary on the 
Acts; we owe it to the zeal of Theodore's 
opponents at the Fifth council. Notwith- 
standing Mai(l.c. p. xxi), it is morethan doubt- 


The commentary on) 


THEODORUS 900 


| distinct treatises against Apollinarius. One, 
jentitled de Apollinario εἰ ejus Haeresi, was 
| written, as Theodore states in the only surviv- 
| ing fragment, 30 years after the treatise on the 
| Incarnation (Facund. x. 1). A number of im- 

portant fragments preserved in the Constanti- 
nopolitan Acts and in the writings of Facun- 

dus, Justinian, Leontius, ete., are referred to 
| bks. ii. and iv. * Against Apollinarius.” 

(c) Theodore wrote aseparate polemic against 
| Eunomius, and a single hvashehats fragment 
has survived (Facund. ix. 3). The work pro- 
fessed to be a defence of St. Basil. In the 
original it reached the prodigious length of 25 
(Phot. Cod. 4) or even of (Cod. 177) 28 books. 
Photius complains bitterly of the faults of 
| style, and doubts the orthodoxy of the 
writer, but admits its clearness of argument 
and wealth of scriptural proof. 

(d) Ebedjesu includes in his list “ two tomes 
on the Holy Spirit"; probably a work directed 
| against the heresy of the Pneumatomachi ; but 
| see Klener, Symb. Liter. Ὁ. 76. 

(ε) Three books on “ Persian Magic.” We 
| learn from Photius that bk. i. was an exposure 
of the Zoroastrian system; bks. ii. and iii. 
|contained a comprehensive sketch of the 


| 


ful whether Theodore wrote upon the Catholic | history and doctrines of Christianity, begin- 
Epistles. With the rest of the Antiochians he | ning with the Biblical account of the Creation. 
probably followed the old Syrian canon in| In this portion, especially in bk. ili., Theodore 


rejecting II. Peter and II. and III. John. 

(c) The Epistles of St. Paul.—Ebedjesu dis- | 
tinctly states that Theodore wrote on all the | 
Pauline epistles, including among them) 
Hebrews. The commentary on Hebrews is | 
cited by the Fifth council, Vigilius and Pela- | 
gius II.; that on Romans by Facundus (iii. | 
6). A fortunate discovery last century gave 
us a complete Latin version of the commentary 
on Galatians and the nine following epistles. 
The Latin, apparently the work of an African 
churchman of the time of the Fifth council, | 
abounds in colloquial and semi-barbarous 
forms ; the version is not always careful, and - 
sometimes almost hopelessly corrupt. But 
it gives us the substance of Theodore's inter- | 
pretation of St. Paul, and we have thus a) 
typical commentary from his pen on a con- 
siderable portion of each Testament (pub. by 
Camb. Univ. Press, 1880-1882). 

(B) CONTROVERSIAL Writincs.—(a) Chief | 
amongst these, and first in point of time, was 
the treatise, in 15 books, on the Incarnation. 
According to Gennadius (de Vir. Ill. 12) it 
was directed against the Apollinarians and _ 
Eunomians, and written while the author was 
yet a presbyter of Antioch, 1.¢. A.D. 382-392. 
Gennadius adds an outline of the contents. 
After a logical and scriptural demonstration 
of the truth and perfection of each of the. 
natures in Christ, Theodore deals more at 
length with the Sacred Manhood. In bk. xiv. 
he approached the mystery of the Holy) 
Trinity and the relation of the creature to the 
Divine Nature; in xv. the work was con-. 
cluded, teste Gennadius, with an appeal το, 
authority: “‘citatis etiam patrum traditioni- | 
bus.”’ Large fragments of this treatise have 
been collected from various quarters. None_ 
of the remains of Theodore throw such import-_ 
ant light upon his Christology. _ 

(δ) Books against A pollinarianism.—F acun- 

dus (viii. 2) says that Theodore wrote several 


50 marked in the 


is inherent in human nature.” 


betrayed his “ Nestorian" views, and even 
advanced the startling theory of a final re- 
storation of all men. One cannot but regret 
the utter loss of so remarkable a volume, 
especially as it seems to have been written in 
the interests of Christian missions, an earnest 
of the missionary spirit which was afterwards 
estorian church. 

(/) According to Ebedjesu, Theodore wrote 
““two tomes against him who asserts that sin 
The heading, 
as given in Marius Mercator, who published 
Latin excerpts from this book shortly after 
Theodore’s death, is merely an ἐν parle de- 
scription of its contents: ‘ Contra S. Augus- 
tinum defendentem originale peceatum et 
Adam per transgressionem mortalem factum 
catholice disserentem.” Mercator, a friend 
and disciple of St. Augustine, not unnaturally 
imagined Theodore’s work to be directed 
against the great Western assailant of Pela- 
gius; but Theodore seems actually to have 


|selected Jerome as the representative of the 


principles he attacks. Such as they are, the 
remains of this book form our best guide to 
the anthropology of Theodore. 

(c) Practica, Pastorat, AND LiturGicaL 
WritinGcs.—Ebedjesu mentions a treatise On 
the Priesthood, which seems to have been an 
extensive one, probably unfolding the doctrine 


| of the Sacraments as based upon the doctrine 
οἵ the Incarnation. 


It was written, Hesy- 
chius tells us, in Theodore’s old age. A 
more popular treatment of the same subject 


| seems to have been attempted in the Catechet- 


ical Lectures ("* Catechismus,"’ according to 
Marius Mercator; the Fifth council calls it 
**Allocutiones ad baptizandos,” Facundus 
(ix. 3) less correctly, “ Liber ad baptizatos™). 
The fragments, which are chiefly from bk. 
viii., refer almost exclusively to the doctrine 
of the Incarnation. A MS. of the whole in 
Syriac exists in the library of the American 


970 THEODORUS 


College at Beyrout. Fritzsche thinks that to 
some copies at least of these lectures Theodore 
appended (1) an explanation of the creed of 
Nicaea, a fragment of which, preserved by the 
Fifth council, suggests that its object was to 
interpret the creed in harmony with the 
bishop’s teaching upon the Person of Christ ; 
and (2) the ecthesis afterwards produced at 
the Third council by the Philadelphian pres- 
byter Charisius, and condemned, but without 
mention of the author’s name (Mansi, iv. 1347 
seq.). The document corresponds closely 
with Theodore’s teaching, reveals his style in 
both its weakness and strength, and was 
attributed to him by his contemporary Mer- 
cator, who bases on it his attack upon Theo- 
dore’s Christology. The ecthesis was probably 
composed in good faith, and intended to serve 
the interests of the Catholic doctrine. 

Lastly, Leontius intimates that Theodore 
wrote a portion of a liturgy; ‘‘not content 
with drafting a new creed, he sought to impose 
upon the church a new Anaphora”’ (Migne, 
Ixxxvi. 1367). A Syriac liturgy ascribed to 
““Mar Teodorus the Interpreter ”’ is still used 
by the Christians of Assyria for a third of the 
year, from Advent to Palm Sunday. The 
proanaphoral and post-communion portions 
are supplied by the older liturgy ‘‘of the 
Apostles ”’ (so called), the anaphora only being 
peculiar. A Latin version of this anaphora is 
in Renaudot, pub. in English by Dr. Neale 
(Hist. H. E. Ch.) and Dr. Badger (Eastern Ch. 
Assoc., occasional paper, xvii., Rivingtons, 
1875). Internal evidence confirms the judg- 
ment of Dr. Neale, who regards it as a genuine 
work of Theodore. 


IV. Doctrine.—We deal with the peculiari- | 


ties of Theodore’s teaching under: (A) An- 
thropology, (B) Christology, (c) Soteriology. 
(A) His whole doctrinal system hinges, as 
Neander and Dorner rightly judged, upon his 
conception of man’s relation to the Universe 
and to God. (1) The Universe (ὁ κόσμος Ξε ἣ 
σύμπασα κτίσις) is an organic whole (év σῶμα). 
consisting of elements partly visible and 
material, partly invisible and spiritual. Of 
this organism man is the predestined bond 
(φιλίας ἐνέχυρον, σύνδεσμος, συνάφεια, copula- 
tio), and therefore made a composite creature, 
his body derived from material elements, 
his spiritual nature akin to pure spirits, the 
vontai φύσεις. He was also to be the image 
of God, 1.6. His visible representative, and as 
such to receive the homage of all creation. 
Hence all things minister to him, and even 
angelic beings superintend the movements of 
the physical world for his benefit. Man is 
thus the crowning work of the Creator, and 
the proper medium of communication between 
the Creator and the creature. (2) In the 
history of all intelligent created life, Theodore 
distinguishes two stages (καταστάσεις), the 
first a state of flux, exposed to conflict, temp- 
tation, and mortality ; the second immutable, 
and free from all the forms of moral and 
physical evil. From the beginning God pur- 
posed that the second of these conditions (7 
μέλλουσα KaTdoracis) should 6 revealed 
through the Incarnation of His Son. Man 
was created in the former state, his nature 
being from the first liable to dissolution. 
“Earth to earth ’’—the human body natur- 


THEODORUS 


ally returns to the element from which it was 
taken. (3) The fall therefore did not intro- 
duce mortality, but converted the liability 
into a fact. It was not said, ‘‘ Ye shall 
become mortal,’ but ‘‘ Ye shall die.” As a 
matter of fact, ‘‘death came by sin’’; and 
the dissolution of soul and body was followed 
by the still more serious dissolution of the 
bond which in the person of man had hitherto 
knit together the visible and invisible crea- 
tions. The fall of the first man gave sin a 
foothold in the world. The same result fol- 
lowed in the case of each descendant of Adam 
who sinned; and since all sinned, death 
““passed upon all men, for that all sinned.” 
(4) As our mortality was no after-thought with 
God, so neither was the sentence of death 
a vindictive punishment. The present life, 
with its vicissitudes and probationary trials, 
is a wholesome discipline, affording room for 
the exercise of free will and the attainment of 
goodness, which without our efforts would be 
destitute of moral worth. Although human 
nature is free, yet in its present condition of 
mortality and mutability it is insufficient to 
conquer the forces of evil and attain perfect 
virtue without supernatural aid. A new 
creation is needed to abolish sin and death. 
(B) We are thus brought to Theodore’s doc- 
trine of the mission and Person of Christ. 
(1) The mission of Christ is primarily to restore 
the shattered unity of the κόσμος and gather 
up all things to Himself, by realizing in His 
Person the position of man as the visible 
Image of God and the head of the whole 
Creation ; secondarily, to restore mankind by 
union with Himself as the Second Adam and 
the Head of the Church to a condition of per- 
fect deliverance from sin and death. (2) To 
fulfil this mission it was necessary that God 
the Word should become perfect man. The 
perfection of His manhood required Him to 
possess a rational human soul, capable of 
exercising a real choice between good and 
evil, although persistently choosing good ; and 
to attain the perfection of human experience 
it was necessary for Him to take human nature 
in its mutable state, to pass through a period 
of growth, and to enter into conflict not only 
with the Evil One, but with the passions of 
the human soul. (3) Though perfect man, 
the man Christ surpassed all other men. He 
was absolutely free from sin, and His life was 
a continual progress from one stage of virtue 
to another, a meritorious course of which the 
end was victory over death and an entrance 
into the immortal and immutable state. This 
sinlessness and ultimate perfection of the 
manhood of Christ was due (a) to His super- 
natural birth and subsequent baptism of the 
Spirit, which He received in a manner peculiar 
to Himself, 1.6. in the fullness of His grace ; but 
yet more (δ) to His union with the Person of 
the Divine Word. This union he had indeed 
received as the reward of His foreseen sin- 
lessness and virtue, for with Him, as with the 
rest of mankind, divine gifts depended upon 
the action of the human will. The union, 
however, necessarily reacted on the Man, with 
whom the Word was made one; the co- 
operation of the Indwelling Godhead rendered 
it morally impossible for him to fall into sin. 
(4) But after what manner did the Word unite 


THEODORUS 


Himself to the Man whom He assumed? A 
Priort there are three conceivable modes of 
divine indwelling: it might be essential, 
effectual, or moral (κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν, 
κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν). An essential indwelling of 
God is excluded by every adequate idea of His 
Nature. _ The indwelling of God in Christ and 
in the saints is generically the same, but there 
is an all-important specific difference, by which 
Theodore strives to retain the conception of a 
true incarnation of God. “1 am not so mad," 
he says, ‘‘as to affirm that the indwelling of 
God in Christ is after the same manner as in 
the saints. He dwelt in Christ as im a Son (ws 
ἐν vig); I mean that He united the assumed 
man entirely to Himself and fitted him to 
partake with Him of all the honour of which 
the ce Person, Who is Son by nature, 
partakes."” Further, the union of the Word 
with the man Christ differs from the divine 
indwelling in the saints in two other important 
particulars. It began with the first formation 
of the Sacred Manhood in the Virgin's womb 
(“a prima statim plasmatione ... Creator... 
occulte eidem copulatus existens non aberat 
cum formaretur, non dividebatur cum nasce- 
batur’’). And once having taken effect, the 
union remains indissoluble (ἀχώριστον πρὸς 
τὴν θείαν φύσιν ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν). So close 
was the union, so ineffable, that the Word and 
the man He assumed may be regarded and 
spoken of as One Person, even as man and 
wife are “πὸ longer two but one flesh"; or 
as “‘the reasonable soul and flesh are one 
man.’’ Hence in Scripture things are often 
predicated of one of the natures which belong 
to the other. Hence the question whether the 
Virgin is rightly called ἀνθρωποτόκος or θεοτό- 
xos is an idle one; for she was both. She 
was the mother of the Man, but in that Man 
when she gave Him birth there was already the 
indwelling of God. On the other hand, every 
idea of the Incarnation which tends to a con- 
fusion of the natures is to be jealously ex- 
cluded. When St. John says that “ the Word 
was made flesh,’’ we must understand him to 
speak only of what the Word apparently be- 
came; not that the flesh He took was unreal, 
but that He was not really transformed into 
flesh (rd ‘ ἐγένετο᾽... κατὰ τὸ δοκεῖν... οὐ 
γὰρ μετεποιήθη εἰς σάρκα). (5) There are not 
two Sons in Christ, for there are not two 
Christs; the unity of the Person must be as 
carefully preserved as the distinction of the 
Natures ; the Man is Son only by virtue of 
His indissoluble union with the Divine Word ; 
when we call Christ the Son of God, we think 
principally of Him Who is truly and essentially 
Son, but we include in our conception the man 
who is indissolubly One with Him, and there- 
fore shares His honours and His Name. 

(c) Lastly, what are the elements, condi- 
tions, and ultimate results of the restorative 
work which the Incarnate Son came to do? 
(1) Theodore placed the redemptive virtue of 
the death of Christ chiefly in this, that it was 
the transition of the Second Adam from the 
mutable state into the immutable, the neces- 
sary step to the resurrection-life, in which 
death and sin are finally abolished. (2) Bap- 
tism, which represents the death and resur- 
rection of the Lord, unites us to the risen 


Christ by a participation of His Spirit, so that 


THEODORUS 971 


in it we pass as by a second birth into the 
sphere of the future life. (1) The ate 
occupy middle ground between ke two 
worlds, living in the present yet belonging to 
the future, potentially sinless and immortal, 
actually liable to sin and death. It is their 
business, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to 
mould their present lives into conformity with 
the life of the risen Christ, and the conditions 
of the future state. Living thus they are 
justified by faith, 1.6. their faith enables them 
in some sort to anticipate their future sinless. 
ness. (4) But actual and final justification 
can only be obtained at the resurrection. 
Parousia is therefore the great hope of the 
church, as bringing with it the two great 
results of the Incarnation, the ἀγαμαρτησία 
and the d@@apeia of the Body of Christ. 
Nothing short of the final state of perfection 
which will be then inaugurated can exhaust the 
meaning of such terms as ‘ redemption,” 
“forgiveness of sins,’ and “ salvation.” (4) 
Although the Second Advent will bring these 
blessings only to those who have in some de- 
gree responded to their baptismal calling, and 
co-operated with the Spirit of Christ, Theodore 
is far from pronouncing the case of the unpre- 
pared to be hopeless. The punishments of the 
condemned will indeed be in their nature 
eternal, being such as belong to eternity and 
not to time; but both reason and Seripture 
shew that they will be remissible upon repent- 
ance. Where (he asks) would be the benefit 
of a resurrection to such persons if they were 
raised only to be punished without remedy or 
end? What would, then, be the meaning of 
such texts as Matt. v. 26, Luke xii. 47, 48? 
Moreover, Theodore's fundamental conception 
of the mission and Person of Christ compels 
him to believe that there will be a final re- 
storation of all creation. 

V. Method of Interpretation.—As a scholar 
and successor of Diodore (cf. Soer. vi. 4; Sor. 
viii. 2), Theodore inherited the Antiochene 
system of grammatical and historical inter- 
pretation, and denounced the licence of the 
Alexandrian allegorizers. The recovery of the 
commentary on Gal. iv. 24 shews that Theo- 
dore convinced himself that the allegorical 
method was essentially rationalistic, under 
mining the historical truth of the O.T. narra- 
tive. St. Paul's use of ἀλληγορία was different 
in kind, since it presupposed the facts of the 
history and employed them only by way of 
illustration. In his own interpretation of 
both the historical and prophetical Scriptures 
it was a first principle with Theodore to ascer- 
tain the intention of the writer, and to refuse 
a secondary and more subtle meaning when 
the words were capable of a literal and prac- 
tical sense. But the application of this prin- 
ciple was checked by several considerations, 
such as (i) the usage (ἰδίωμα) of Scripture of 
of the individual writer; (ii) the guidance of 
the context ; (ili) in the case of O.T. writers, 
the general purpose of the older covenant. 
The third point requires careful examination. 
(a) Theodore was deeply convineed of the 
propaedeutic character of O.T. He saw that 
the divine purpose which runs through the 
whole of its course culminates in the Incarna- 
tion and the Gospel of Christ. His comment- 
ary on the minor prophets appears to have 


972 THEODORUS 


been written to counteract the allegorists. 
The God of both Testaments, being one and 
the same, worked out His purpose with a 
single aim. Hence the events of O.T. were so 
ordered as to be typical of those which were 
to follow. Consequently the histories and 
prophecies of the older revelation are suscep- 
tible of an application to the facts and doc- 
trines of the Gospel, to which they offer a 
divinely foreseen and instinctive parallel. 
The words of the Psalmists and Prophets are 
constantly Christological, because the events 
to which they relate find a perfect counterpart 
in Christ (την Ps. xvi. xxii.). Their language 
is often hyperbolical or metaphorical, if viewed 
in reference to its original object ; exhausting 
itself only in the higher realities of the king- 
dom of heaven (7 Joel ii. 28). (δ) Except- 
ing some few passages in which he recognizes 
direct prophecies of the Messiah and His times, 
Theodore holds that the language of O.T. is 
applied to Christ and the Christian dispensa- 
tion only by way of accommodation. This 
accommodation is, however, amply justified 
by the fact that in the divine foreknowledge 
the earlier cycle of events was designed to be 
typical of the later. Thus Ps. xxii., Theodore 
says, is clearly a narrative of David’s conflict 
with Absalom, yet rightly used by the Evan- 
gelist to portray the passion of Christ, in which 
the words found a complete, and even to some 
extent a literal, fulfilment. Again, the words 
of Joel ii. 28 cannot possibly have been a 
prediction of the coming of the Holy Ghost, 
since the O.T. writers knew nothing as yet of 
a personal Spirit of God; ‘‘I will pour out of 
my Spirit ’’ meant only ‘I will extend to all 
the divine favour and protection.” Yet St. 
Peter rightly quotes the prophecy as finding 
its accomplishment in the Pentecostal effu- 
sion; for its fulfilment to the Jews of the 
Restoration was a pledge and type of the 
descent of the Spirit upon the universal 
church. This view (so Theodore argues) at 
once secures for the prophecy a historical 
basis, and magnifies the Christian economy as 


that which converted into sober fact the} 


highest imagery of the ancient Scriptures. 
If Theodore’s N.T. exegesis is less charac- 
teristic, it is certainly more satisfactory than 
his interpretation of the Hebrew prophecies. 
His mind and education were Greek; in 
expounding the O.T. he trusted entirely to 
the guidance of the LXX; in commenting 
on the Evangelists and St. Paul he found 
himself face to face with an original which he 
was competent to handle upon his own prin- 
ciples. In the remains of his commentaries 
of the Gospels we notice the precision with 
which he adheres to the letter of his author 
(e.g. on Matt. xxvi. 26), his readiness to press 
into the service of the interpreter minor words 
which are commonly overlooked (John xiii. 
33, ἄρτι), his attention to the niceties of 
grammar (iii. 21) and punctuation (ix. 27), his 
keen discussion of doubtful readings (i. 3), his 
acuteness in seizing on the ἰδιώματα of Scrip- 
ture (i. 14), and in bringing out the points of 
a parable or discourse (Mark iv. 26; John iii. 
5, X- I seq., XV. 4, 26). Yet we note a want 
of spiritual insight (John xi. 21, ὃ δὲ λέγει 
k.7.X.) and feeling (xi. 35), and detect an 
occasional departure from the author’s own 


THEODORUS 


first principles under’ the pressure of theo- 
logical prejudice (xx. 22, 28). The com- 
mentary on the Pauline Epistles seems on the 
whole worthy of its author’s great name. It 
manifests in yet greater measure his care and 
precision, and, in addition, an honest and 
unceasing effort to trace the sequence of St. 
Paul’s thought. Its principal fault is the 
continual introduction of theological disquisi- 
tions, which break the course of the interpre- 
tation and not seldom carry the reader into 
speculations entirely foreign to the mind of the 
Apostle. But even these digressions have 
their value as expositions of Antiochene theo- 
logy and as shewing the process by which so 
acute an intellect as Theodore’s could elicit 
that theology from the Epistles of St. Paul, or 
reconcile the two systems where they appear 
to be hopelessly at variance. 

The worth of Theodore’s contributions to the 
exegesis of Scripture has been very variously 
estimated. He is for ourselves the best 
exponent of Antiochene exegesis. Diodore 
has left too little to be representative ; Chry- 
sostom was a homilist rather than a scientific 
expositor ; Theodoret is little else than a 
judicious compiler from Chrysostom and 
Theodore. Theodore is an independent writer, 
yet influenced more deeply than either Chry- 
sostom or Theodoret by the Antiochene 
traditions. He had no audience to propitiate, 
no council to dread, and treads with the firm- 
ness of a man conscious that he represents a 
great principle and is fully convinced of its 
truth. His expositions, especially of N.T., 
possess intrinsic value of no common kind. 
Except when led astray by theological pre- 
possessions, his firm grasp of the grammatical 
and historical method and a kind of instinctive 
power of arriving at the drift of his author’s 
thought have enabled him often to anticipate 
the most recent conclusions of exegesis. Be- 
sides, however, being deterred by his unwieldy 
style, the reader misses the devotional and 
spiritual tone which recommends most Pat- 
ristic commentaries. His abundant theo- 
logical discussions and moral teachings do not 
compensate for this. Yet after every fair 
deduction on these and other grounds, we may 
still assign to Theodore a high rank among 
commentators proper, and a position in which 
he stands among ancient expositors of Scrip- 
ture almost alone—that of an independent 
inquirer, provided with a true method of 
eliciting the sense of his author and consider- 
able skill in the use of it. 

Life and Writings.—O. F. Fritsche, de 
Theod. Mops. Vita et Scriptis Commentatio 
Hist. Theologica (Halae, 1836); J. L. Jacobi in 
Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Christl. Wissenschaft 
(1854); F. J. A. Hort in the Journal of Class. 
and Sacred Philology, iv. (Camb. 1859); 
Bickell, Conspect. Ret Syror. Liter. (Monast. 
1871); H. Kihn, Theodor. v. Mops. u. Juntlius 
Africanus (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1880); F. 


-Loofs, art. ‘“Theodor. v. Mopsuestia”’ in Hauck- 


Herzog, Realencyvklopddie, xix. (1907); O. 
Bardenhewer, Patr. pp. 301 ff.; F. Barthgen, 
“Ὧι Psalmenkommentar d. Theodor. v. Mops 
in Syrichen Bearbeitung,” in Z. A. T. W. v. 
(1889), ‘‘ Sichenzahn Makkabaische Psalmen ” 
in Z. A. Τ. W. vi. {1887}:..].. 8: Chabot 
Commentarius Theod. Mops. in Evang. D. 


THEODORUS 


Johannis i. (textus Syriacus) (Paris, 
J. Lietzmann, Der Psalmenkommentar, 
(1902). 
terpretation see Neander, Allgem. Geschichte, 
Il. iii.; Dorner, Lehre v. der Person 
Christi, 11. i.; art. in Ch. Quart. Rev. 
Oct. 1875, entitled ‘Theodore and Modern 
Thought"; Prof. Sanday in Exposttor, June 
1880; A. Harnack, art. ‘ Antiochenische 


SB 


Ι 


᾿ 


Schule” in Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopddie, | 


i. (1896); History of Sa (Eng. trans.), iii. 
279 ἢ, iv. 165 ff.; J. H. Soarsby, art. ‘* An- 
tiochene Theology”’ in Hastings, Encyclo- 
paedia of Religion and Ethics, i. (1908); J. F. 
Bethune-Baker, Early History of Christian 
Doctrine, pp. 256 ff. ; Nestorius and his Teach- 
ing, passim (1908). Migne’s useful but un- 
critical ed. (vol. 66, 1864) of all the pub. works 
and fragments is in his Patr. Gk. In 1869 
Dr. E. Sachau published the inedited Syriac 
fragments scattered through the Nitrian MSS. 
of Brit. Mus., with a reprint of the Theodorean 
matter already collected by P. de Lagarde in 
his Analecta Syriaca (Lips. 1858). The an- 
cient Latin version of the commentaries on 
some of the Epp. of St. Paul, with a fresh colla- 


Camb. Univ. Press in 1880-1882. A complete 
critical edition of all the literary remains of 


Theodore is stilla desideratum. Cf.Zahn, Das | 
Theodors von Mops. in Neue Kuirch. 


N.T. 
Zeitschr. 1900, xi. pp. 788 f. [.5.5.} 
Theodorus (50), bp. of Tyana, a fellow- 
countryman and correspondent of Gregory 
Nazianzen. He was a native of Arianzus. 
Accompanying Gregory to Constantinople in 
379, he shared in the ill-treatment received 
there from the Arian monks and rabble. He 
subsequently became bp. of Tyana, but not 
before 381. After Gregory returned to Arian- 
zus many letters of friendship passed between 
him and Theodore. On the attempt of the 
Apollinarians to perpetuate the schism at 
Nazianzus, by appointing a bishop of their 
own, Gregory wrote very earnestly (A.D. 382) 
to Theodore, calling on him, as metropolitan, 
to appoint a bishop to replace him, as age 
and ill-health forbad his efficient superintend- 
ence of the church there (Ep. 88). After 
being compelled reluctantly to resume the care 
of Nazianzus, Gregory felt reason to complain 
of Theodore apparently siding with his 
enemies, and expressed his feelings with 
vehemence (Ep. 83). Their friendship, how- 
ever, was not weakened, and on the comple- 
tion, in 382, of the Philocalia—the collection 
of extracts from Origen made by him and 
Basil many years before—Gregory sent Theo- 
dore a copy as an Easter gift (Ep. 115 al. 87). 
Theodore was one of the bishops attending the 
council summoned against Chrysostom by 
Theophilus at the end of 403. Palladius 
describes him as a man of much wisdom and 
authority, who, when he discovered the 
malicious intention of Theophilus and his 
partisans, retired to his diocese soon after his 
arrival (Pallad. p. 23). The Theodorus to 
whom Chrysostom addressed his Ep. 112 has 


been identified with Theodore of Tyana by the | 


second council of ee none Br (Labbe, v. 
490). Tillemont decides (xi. 608) for Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia. {e.v.] 


Theodorus (53), priest and abbat of Tab- | conscript. 


THEODORUS 973 


); | enna in the Thebaid. Born a.p. 314, of noble 


A. parents in the U Thebaid, he ἡ 
For doctrine and method of ΕΣ pper Thebaid, he forsook, at 


an early age, his worldly prospects, and found 


/ asylum with Palaemon the anchorite, and then 


in the monastery at Tabenna with Pachomius, 
under whom he became oeconomus, When 
Pachomius died Theodorus was offered the 
abbacy, but withdrew in favour of Orsisius, 
on whose retirement he succeeded, made many 
reforms, visited the subject monasteries, and 
founded § new ones at or near Ptolemais, Her- 
mothis, Caius, Obi, and Bechre (Boll. AA. SS. 
Mai, ili. 327-328). During the lifetime of 


| Pachomius Theodorus met St. Athanasius in 
the Thebaid, and is said to have announced to 
him the death of the emperor 


ulian, then 
occurring in Persia (Athan. Opp. ii. 695). St. 
Athanasius had a great regard for Theodorus, 
and bewailed his decease (ΕρΡ. ad Orsisium 
in Patr. Gk. xxvi. 978). St. Nilus (de Oras. 
c. 8) gives an anecdote of him. He died a.p. 
367 (Tillem. H. Ε. vii. 225) or 368 (Boll. wos. 
291). Gennadius (de Script. Evel. i. 8) calls 
him presbyter, and gives the substance of 4 
epistles he is said to have addressed to other 


c | monasteries. Boll. u.s. 287-362, give the most 
tion of the Greek fragments, was issued by the | 


elaborate account of Pachomius and Theodorus. 
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. ix. 318; Tillem. H. Ε. 
vii. 469 seq. 758 seq. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 208; 
Ceill. Aut. Sacr. iv. 233 seq. 391 U-c.) 
Theodorus (64) Lector, reader of the church 
of Constantinople. He composed in two 
books a tripartite history out of Socrates, 
Sozomen, and Theodoret, extant in MS. at 
Venice. It was copied by Leo Allatius, but 
not published. Valesius used his MS. in his 
edition of those authors. He also com 
a history which extends from the last days of 
Theodosius the younger to the reign of the 
elder Justin, A.D. 518; some portions of which 
remain, and are in Migne’s Pair. Gk. Ixxxvi. 
col. 157-2280. They have been collected out 
of Nicephorus Callistus, John of Damascus, 
and the fifth action of the seventh general 
council. His history abounds with wonder- 
ful stories in defence of orthodoxy. He tells 
that Timotheus, bp. of Constantinople, a.o. 
571, was the first to ordain the recitation of 
the Nicene Creed at all celebrations of the Holy 
Communion. It was previously only recited 
once a year, at the end of Lent. Evidently 
the Arian party must have been still strong 
at Constantinople in cent. vi. A question has 
been raised whether our Theodore did not live 
in cent. viii. rather than cent. vi. Combefis 


in his Originum Rerumque Constant. Manip. 
and Baudurius in his /mper. Orient. have 
iven some quotations from a Theodorus 
geet relating to the statues with which 
Constantinople was adorned, one containing 
an incident which proves the writer to have 
lived in the reign of Philip, 711-713 (Combet. 
p-1r; Baud. p. 88); but twomenof the same 
name may have occupied the same office. 
Ceill. xi. 103-105 ; Fab. Bibl, Grace. [G.7.4-] 

Theodorus (83) of Amasea, a young soldier 
who suffered in the persecution under Maxi- 
mian and Galerius c. 306; surnamed “ Tiro,” 
arecruit. Our authorities are the Encomium 


of Gregory Nyssen (t. ili. pp: §78-586) and the 
less trustworthy Acts. e was of humble 
origin (Gregory says “a poor recruit ") and a 
In winter quarters at Amasea the 


974 THEODOSIUS I. 


capital of Pontus, his refusal to join his com- 
rades in sacrifice declared him a Christian. 
His trial was deferred some days to offer him 
time to recant. This interval he employed in 
firing the temple of the Mother of the Gods on 
the banks of the Iris in the midst of the city. 
The building and the statue of the deity were 
reduced to ashes. At the judgment-seat Theo- 
dore boldly acknowledged and gloried in the 
act. From prison, where he was visited at 
night by angels who filled the cell with light 
and song, he passed to death in a furnace. 
No fewer than three churches were dedi- 
cated in his honour at Constantinople (Du 
Cange, Constantinop. Christ. vol. iv. c. 6, Nos. 
100-102). He had also a martyry at Jeru- 
salem (Cyr. Vit. S. Sab. ap. Coteler. Eccl. Gr. 
Mon. iii. No. 78) and Damascus (Johan. 
Damasc. de Sacr. Imag. Or. iii.). The little 
circular church of San Teodoro, popularly 
known as St. Toto, at the base of the Palatine 
Hill in Rome, is well known. Zonaras, Annal. 
lib. xvii. c. 3, p. 213 (ed. Par. 1687) ; Credenus, 
Hist. Compend. pars. ii. p. 681 (ed. Par. 1647) ; 
Greg. Nyssen. Oratio de Magno Martyre Theo- 
doro, t. iii. pp. 578-586 (ed. Par. 1633); Surius, 
Nov. 9, Ὁ. 231, § 7; Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. v. 
Pp. 369-377, notes 732-735; NRuinart, Acta 
Martyrum, pp. 505-511. [E.v.] 
Theodosius (2) I., the Great, born a.p. 346 
at Cauca, a Spanish town upon a small 
tributary of the Douro; died Jan. 17, 395. 
His father, an eminent general serving under 
Valentinian and Valens, was _ treacherously 
executed in 376. For the secular history of 
Theodosius see D. of G. and R. Biogr. We 
shall here set forth his ecclesiastical polity and 
his powerful influence on the fortunes of the 
church. His accession was the turning-point 
which secured the triumph of Trinitarian 
orthodoxy over the Arianism dominant in the 
East for at least the previous 40 years. Theo- 
dosius turned what seemed in many places an 
obscure and conquered sect into a triumphant 
church, whose orthodoxy, on this point at 
least, never afterwards wavered. In 378 the 
Roman empire was in great danger. Valens, 
the emperor of the East, had been defeated 
and put to death by the Goths on Aug. 9 in the 
fatal battle of Hadrianople, and the whole 
empire was depending on the young Gratian, 
then less than 20 years old. Gratian per- 
ceived that the crisis demanded the ablest 
general the empire possessed; he boldly 
summoned the deeply-injured Theodosius 
from his retirement, and invested him with 
the imperial purple, Jan. 19, 379, allotting him 
the government of the East with Illyricum in 
Europe. Theodosius fixed his residence at 
Thessalonica, skilfully selected as the head- 
quarters of his operations against the Goths. 
Constantinople was just then the centre of the 
conflict between the Catholics and Arians. 
About July 379 Gregory of Nazianzus, coming 
there, assumed the care of its one orthodox 
church, the Arians having possession of the 
see and all the other churches. Meanwhile 
at Thessalonica, during the winter of 379-380, 
Theodosius had a severe illness which led to his 
baptism by Ascolius, the local bishop, a devoted 
adherent of the orthodox party. This was fol- 
lowed by his first edict about religion, issued 
at Thessalonica, Feb. 28, 380, and addressed 


THEODOSIUS I. 


to the people of Constantinople. It orders that 
the religion which St. Peter taught the Romans 
and which Damasus of Rome and Peter of 
Alexandria profess, should be believed by all 
nations; that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
should be equally adored ; that the adherents 
of this doctrine should be called Catholic 
Christians, while all others were to be desig- 
nated heretics, their places of assembly refused 
the name of churches, and their souls threat- 
ened with divine punishment. 

On Nov. 24, 380, Theodosius made his 
formal entry into Constantinople, and at once 
took action against the unorthodox. He 
turned the Arian bp. Demophilus out of the 
churches, and personally installed Gregory 
in the great church. But he does not seem 
to have satisfied the orthodox zeal of Gregory, 
who in his Carmen de Vita Sua, 1279-1395, 
speaks very slightingly of him, finding fault 
with his toleration, and complaining that he 
made no attempt to heal the wounds and 
avenge the wrongs of the Catholics. Theo- 
dosius, however, soon improved under Gre- 
gory’s tuition, direct or indirect. Gregory’s 
tenure of the bishopric of Constantinople was 
only for 7 months. He retired about the end 
of June 381, yet continued to exercise a most 
active influence over the emperor through his 
successor Nectarius. Gregory in the East and 
Ambrose in the West must be largely credited 
with the intolerant ecclesiastical legislation of 
the Theodosian Code, lib. xvi. We may take 
the ecclesiastical legislation under two heads : 
(1) against heretics; (2) against pagans. 
Theodosius’s first laws against heretics were 
issued immediately after the council of 
Constantinople, and rapidly increased in 
severity. In June or July, 381, he issued a 
law which must have been directly inspired 
by the council (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v. 
leg. 6), prohibiting all assemblies of Arians, 
Photinians, and Eunomians, and ordering the 
surrender of all churches to the orthodox. 
A few weeks later two edicts (δ. tit. 1. 
leg. 3, and tit. v. leg. 8) prohibited Arians, 
Eunomians.) and Aetians from _ building 
churches to replace those taken from them. 
In law ix., Mar. 382, first appeared the word 
inquisitor in connexion with religious contro- 
versy, officers being appointed to detect and 
punish the Manicheans. Law xi. of July 383 
prohibited any kind of heretical worship, 
while in Sept. law xii. prohibited heretical 
assemblies for worship, building of churches 
and ordinations of clergy, and confiscated to 
the fiscus places where they met. Evidently 
the heretics had many official supporters, and 
many magistrates were lax in proceeding 
against them, as stern penalties were threat- 
ened against such. Yet the heretics main- 
tained their ground. Soin Feb. 384, law xiii. 
was directed against the Eunomian, Mace- 
donian, Arian, and Apollinarian clergy who 
had ventured back again and were concealed 
in Constantinople. The Apollinarians especi- 
ally erected a regular church organization 
and established an episcopal succession. 
Gregory of Nazianzus, much troubled by the 
Apollinarian party, addressed Ep. 77 to the 
prefect, telling how they took advantage of 
his absence at the hot baths at Xanxaris to 
ordain a bishop at Nazianzus. He calls on 


THEODOSIUS I. 


the prefect to punish them for disobeying 
the edict, but requests a light penalty. His 


influence, too, seems to have caused the) 


original issue of this edict of Feb. 384, for in 
Orat. 46, addressed to Nectarius, patriarch of 
Constantinople, he calls for it as necessary, 
and in his Ep. to Olympius praises it, apolo- 
gizing for his own toleration which had led 
the heretics to act with increased boldness. 
Nectarius, Ambrose, and Ascolius of Thessa- 
lonica, who baptized Theodosius, also urged 
persecution (cf. esp. Ep. x. of St. Ambrose, 
written in the name of the council of Aquileia, 
demanding the suppression by force of here- 
tical assemblies and ordinations (Opp. Am- 
bros. in Migne’s Patr. Lat. xvi. 940)). In 
Mar. 388, when marching against the usurper 
Maximus, he issued for the East, and in June 
caused the younger Valentinian to issue for 


the West, a still more stringent edict, specially | 


directed against the Apollinarians (Cod. Theod. 
Xvi. tit. v. 14 and 15), and against clergy and 
laity alike. It banishes all Apollinarians, 
deposes and degrades their bishops, forbids 
new consecrations, and denies 
approach to the emperors. Even this does 
not seem to have satisfied his advisers or to 
have stopped the progress of heresy. The 
Eunomians were very troublesome at Con- 
stantinople, where Eunomius himself had 
long lived, and whence Theodosius had ban- 
ished him. Theodosius, in May 389, issued a 
law rendering him and his followers incapable 
of making bequests and confiscating to the 
public treasury all bequests made to them. 


Theodosius sought to suppress paganism | 


also. The ruins of many temples, statues, and 
fountains may be traced to his legislation, which 
went far beyond that of his predecessor. Cod. 
Theod. xvi. tit. x. ‘‘ de Paganis, Sacrificiis et 
Templis,”’ enables us to trace accurately his 
progress. The policy of Constantine and his 
sons may be said to have abolished sacrifices 
as madness and essentially connected with 
immorality and crime, specially those cele- 
brated at night, while at the same time pro- 
tecting the temples. Constantius was the 
severest legislator in this respect. The temples 
were closed, but preserved as public monu- 
ments and caretakers appointed at the public 
expense. Had this policy continued, the world 
would have been now much richer in artistic 
treasures. It continued, with the short interval 
of Julian’s reign, till the accession of Theo- 
dosius. 
it. He issued no decree for the 
the temples. But anew force, the monks, had 
now become a power throughout the East. 
They began the destruction in the very teeth 
of imperial edicts, — for protection to 
the influence of Ambrose, Nectarius, and other 
bishops with the ay re In 382 Theodosius 
issued a rescript to Palladius, dux of the pro- 
vince of Osrhoene, which was marked by a 
wise and tolerant spirit. There was a magni- 
ficent temple in Edessa, useful for popular 
assemblies, festivals, elections, and other public 
meetings. Theodosius seems to have been 
specially anxious to use such temples for his 
provincial councils, a form of local government 
he largely developed and strengthened (cf. Cod. 
Theod. xii. tit. xii. legg. 12, 13). The local 
bp. Eulogius wished, however, to shut up the 


them all> 


Even he retained the appearance of | 
estruction of | 


THEODOSIUS 1. 


| temple completely, 


75 


He pleaded that the law 
was clear. All access to temples was long 
since forbidden, and this one was specially 
dangerous, being richly furnished with idols 
of rare beauty. The advocates of toleration 
for once gained the upper hand. All sacrifices 
were strictly forbidden, but the building was 
to be used for public purposes, and the statues 
retained as ornaments and public curiosities. 
Five years, however, elapsed. The emperor 
was taking sterner measures against Oriental 
paganism, and had just sent Cynegius as his 
deputy into Egypt and the East to see that 
| his orders were strictly carried out; where- 
| upon the monks, as Libanius ex ressly states, 
rose up and utterly destroyed the temple. 
The rage for destruction spread. The mob 
in another part of the same province, headed 
by the bishop, attacked and burned a Jewish 
synagogue and a Valentinian meeting-house. 
heodosius was contemplating their punish- 
ment when Ambrose intervened, addressing 
a letter (Ep. x1.), which frightened the emperor 
from his purpose. He issued, however, a 
decree in 393 to the count of the East, pro- 
hibiting all interference with Judaism and 
specially forbidding attacks on their syna- 
gogues ; but he significantly omitted all such 
rotective measures as regards pagan temples. 
Jestruction and confiscation raged on every 
side, and the destroyers found perfect im- 
punity. The most notorious acts of destrue- 
tion were in Egypt, and specially at Alex- 
andria, as described by Socrates (H. E. v. 16, 
17) when the celebrated Serapeum was de- 
stroyed. Socrates asserts, indeed, that this 
destruction took place at the imperial order, 
᾿ἃ special decree having been issued at the 
desire of the patriarch Theophilus, but of this 
| there is no trace in the code. At Rome the 
}same policy was pursued, either directly or 
|indirectly, by Theodosius. In 382 Gratian 
issued an order abolishing the altar of Victory 
| as hitherto retained in the senate house, and 
| the other traces of paganism which still re- 
/mained. He confiscated the property of the 
vestal virgins, and probably seized their 
college. In 383 an effort to rescind this order 
was defeated by the vigorous action of pope 
Damasus. Symmachus renewed the attempt 
in 384 and appealed to the young emperor 
Valentinian. j esate replying with extreme 
intolerance, warned Valentinian to consult 
Theodosius before complying with the senate’s 
prayer. For this letter of Ambrose and the 
Relatio of Symmachus, see St. Ambros. Ep, 
Classis i. Epp. xvii., xviii. The protest of Am- 
| brose was successful. The usurper Eugenius 
|restored the pagan emblems and ritual, but 
| Theodosius, on his victory, again abolished 
} them, and adopted sterner measures against 
the vestal college. 

Theodosius was a positive as well as a 
negative legislator. His legislation about the 
| clergy and the internal state of the church was 
| minute and far-reaching. He issued, in 486, 
'ἃ stringent edict for the observance of the 

Lord's Day, suspending all public business 
and branding as sacrilegious any one violating 
| its sanctity (Cod. Theod. viii. tit. vill. leg. 4). 
Another edict, a.p. 489, prescribed among t 

annual holidays the 7 days belore and after 
Easter (ib. ii. tit. viii. leg. 2), (cf. “Lord's 


970 THEODOSIUS II. 


Day” in D. C. A. p. 1047), and another (ib. 
xvi. ii. 27) lays down most minute rules for 
deaconesses ; while the previous law exempted 
guardians of churches and holy places from 
public duties. Cod. xi. xxxix. 10 exempted 
bishops and presbyters from torture when giving 
evidence, but left the inferior clergy subject to 
it. Theodosius was appealed to on all kinds of 
subjects by the bishops, and we find decrees 
dealing with all manner of topics. If, e.g., 
religious controversy burst forth with special 
violence in Egypt or Antioch, the bishop ap- 
plied for edicts imposing perpetual silence on 
the opposite factions (cf. Cod. xvi. iv. 2 and 3). 

Theodosius was devout to superstition, 
passionate to an extreme. Two incidents, the 
insurrection of Antioch upon the destruction 
of the imperial statues, and the massacre of 
Thessalonica, illustrate his character in many 
respects. [AMBROSIUS ; CHRYSOSTOM.] [G.T.S.] 

Theodosius (3) II., emperor, born early in 
401, the only son of the emperor Arcadius by 
Evupoxta (2), had four sisters, Flaccilla, Pul- 
cheria, Arcadia, and Marina. Pulcheria 
exercised a predominant influence over Theo- 
dosius throughout his life. He was appointed 
Augustus Jan. 402, and succeeded to the 
throne at the age of 7 on his father’s death 
in 408. For the secular history of his reign 
see D. of G. and R. Biogr. ; we deal here only 
with his actions and legislation so far as they 
bore on the history of the church. His reign 
was very long, covering the first half of 5th 
cent., and embracing the origin and rise of 
two great heresies, the Nestorian and Monophy- 
site. His education was conducted by Pul- 
cheria, who acted as Augusta and his guardian, 
from July 4, 414, when she was herself little 
more than 15 years old. Sozomen (ix. 1) tells 
us that she “‘ superintended with extraordin- 
ary wisdom the transactions of the Roman 
government, concerted her measures well, and 
allowed no delay to take place in their exe- 
cution. She was able to write and to converse 
with perfect accuracy in the Greek and Latin 
languages. She caused all affairs to be trans- 
acted in the name of her brother, and devoted 
great attention to furnishing him with such 
information as was suitable to his years. She 
employed masters to instruct him in horse- 
manship and the use of arms, in literature, and 
in science. He was also taught how to maintain 
a deportment befitting an emperor. ... But 
she chiefly strove to imbue his mind with 
piety and the love of prayer; she taught him 
to frequent the church regularly, and to be 
zealous in contributing to the embellishment 
of houses of prayer. She inspired him with 
reverence for priests and other good men, and 
for those who in accordance with the law of 
Christianity had devoted themselves to philo- 
sophical asceticism.’’ Socrates (vii. 22) tells us 
about his training that “‘ such was his fortitude 
in undergoing hardships that he would cour- 
ageously endure both heat and cold; fasting 
very frequently, especially on Wednesdays and 
Fridays, from an earnest endeavour to ob- 
serve with accuracy all the prescribed forms 
of the Christian religion. His palace was so 
regulated that it differed little from a mon- 
astery ; for he, together with his sisters, rose 
early in the morning and recited responsive 
hymns in praise of the Deity. By his training 


THEODOSIUS II. 


he learnt the Holy Scriptures by heart, and 
would often discourse with the bishops on 
scriptural subjects as if he had been an eccle- 
siastic of long standing. He was an indefati- 
gable collector of the sacred books and of 
expositions written on them, while in clem- 
ency and humanity he far surpassed all 
others.’’ Pope Leo I., in one of his letters to 
Theodosius, which is intended to be very laud- 
atory (Mansi, v. 1341; cf. Socr. vii. 43), de- 
scribes him as having ‘“‘ not only the heart of 
an emperor but also that of a priest.”” Theo- 
dosius delighted in that magnificent cere- 
monial which gathered round the cultus of 
relics. He brought the remains of John 
Chrysostom back to Constantinople, laid his 
face on the coffin, and entreated that his 
parents might be pardoned for having per- 
secuted such a holy bishop. He assisted at 
the discovery and removal of the relics of the 
Forty Martyrs (Soz. ix. 2), and felt his reign 
honoured through the simultaneous discovery 
of the relics of the proto-martyr St. Stephen 
and Zechariah the prophet (ix. 16, 17). Dur- 
ing the latter portion of his reign, terminated 
by a fall from his horse July 28, 450, his sister 
lost her power, a comparatively healthy 
influence, and Theodosius fell completely 
under the guidance of selfish and tyrannical 
eunuchs. Pulcheria had vigour and deter- 
mination. Theodosius seems to have taken 
refuge from her sway by yielding himself 
completely to a rapid succession of favourites. 
He had 15 prime ministers in 25 years, the 
last of whom, the eunuch Chrysaphius, 
retained his power longest, A.D. 443-450. 
Under Theodosius II. paganism became in 
itself a disability. Some of the highest ser- 
vants of the state towards the end of cent. iv. 
had been pagan; now by a law of Dec. 7, 416 
(Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. x. 21), pagans were pro- 
hibited from entering the military and civil 
services or attaining any judicial office. 
This law was followed by 4 others within the 
next ten years, following closely upon the 
lines of Western legislation in the same direc- 
tion as contained in the previous laws; law 
25, for instance, passed at Constantinople 
Nov. 426, orders the cross, “‘ signum veneran- 
dae crucis,’’ to be placed on such temples as 
were allowed to remain intact, while the 
materials of those pulled down were to be used 
in repairing bridges, roads, aqueducts, etc. 
(7b. t. v. lib. xv. tit. 1, leg. 36). These meas- 
ures seem to have produced an apparent uni- 
formity, as Theodosius, in law 22 passed in 
423, refers to the “‘ pagans who remain, though 
we believe there are none such.” The law, 
however, as yet protected them if they lived 
peaceably ; thus law 24 forbids Christians 
making attacks on Jews and pagans living 
among them. Heretics scarcely came off so 
well. The Novatianists still, as throughout 
cent. iv., were specially favoured, though 
occasionally a Jaw was aimed against their 
rebaptisms and unorthodox celebrations of 
Easter (lib. xvi. tit. vi. leg. 6, passed on Mar. 
21, 413); but severe measures of exile, con- 
fiscation, and other penalties were dealt out 
against Montanists, Eunomians, etc., and 
their employment in the army or civil service 
was prohibited except apparently in the local 
militia (xvi. y. 58 and 61). Law 65 (tit. xvi.) 


THEODOSIUS 


is the most sweeping passed in this reign. 
Nestorius was its author, and law 66 is a 
severe one against himself and his party. 
The Jews were protected, as hitherto, but 
certain restrictions were by degrees placed 
upon them. Their synagogues were not to 
be seized or destroyed, and if destroyed were 
to be restored, but no new ones were to be. 
built (xvi. tit. vili. 25). They were forbidden | 
to serve in the army, but permitted to be 
physicians and lawyers (lex 24). Their eccle- | 
Siastical and civil organization under their | 
patriarchs was protected. The patriarchs, 
indeed, c. 415, seem to have advanced so far 
as to exercise jurisdiction over Christians and 
to force them to receive circumcision, while the | 
Jewish people mocked the Christian religion | 
and burned the cross (Socr. H. EF. vii. 16). | 
Under the influence of Nestorius, however, 
severer laws were enacted against Jews. 
In 429 we find one forbidding and confiscating | 
the usual tribute to the patriarchs. This | 
law with Gothofred’s commentary is very im-_ 
portant as regards the organization of Judaism > 
in cent. v. (cf. the whole series of laws in lib. | 
XVi. tit. viii. leg. 18-29). (G.T.s.] 
Theodosius (20), a celebrated solitary of 
Syria contemporary with Theodoret, born at 
Antioch of a rich and noble family. Aban-— 
doning his worldly possessions, he dwelt in ἃ 
hut in a forest on the mountain above the. 
city of Rhosus, where he practised the severest 
self-discipline, loading his neck, loins, and 
wrists with heavy irons, and allowing his 
uncombed hair to grow to his feet. He 
speedily gathered a colony of ascetics, whom _ 
he taught industrial arts, as weaving sack- 
cloth and haircloth, making mats, fans, and 
baskets, and cultivating, setting an example 
of laborious diligence, and carefully superin- | 
tending every department. He was an object 
of reverence even to the Isaurian banditti, 
who on several predatory inroads left his— 
monastic settlement uninjured, only request- 
ing bread and his prayers. Fearing, however, 
that the Isaurians might carry him off for 
ransom, Theodosius was persuaded to remove 
to Antioch, settling near the Orontes and 
gathering about him many who desired to_ 
adopt an ascetic life, but not long surviving | 
his removal (Theod. Hist. Relig. c. x.). [f.v-] 
Theodosius (21), a fanatical Monophysite 
monk. Having been expelled from his mon- 
astery for some crime, he repaired to Alex- 
andria, where hestirred up strife, was scourged, 
and paraded round the city on camelback as 
a seditious person (Evagr. H. E. ii. 5). He 
attended the council of Chalcedon in 451, 
apparently as one of the ruffianly followers of 
Barsumas. On the termination of the synod | 
Theodosius hastened to Jerusalem, complain- 
ing that the council had betrayed the faith, 
and circulating a garbled translation of Leo's 
Tome (Leo Magn. Ep. 97 [83}. His protes-_ 
tations were credited by a large number of the 
monks and people, and having gained the ear 
of the empress dowager Eudocia, the former 
 aniner τσ of Eutyches, who had settled at 


erusalem, he so thoroughly poisoned the- 
minds of the people of Jerusalem against | 
JuveENAL as a traitor to the truth that they 
refused to receive him as their bishop on his | 
return from Chalcedon, unless he would 


and shall bear a son’; 


| as 189 or earlier than 140. 


THEODOTION 077 


anathematize the doctrines he had so recently 
joined in declaring. On his refusal the mal- 
contents attempted his assassination, and he 
barely escaped with his life to Constantinople. 
After Juvenal’s flight Theodosius was ordained 
bp. of Jerusalem in the church of the Resur- 
rection, and at once proceeded to ordain 
bishops for Palestine, chiefly for those cities 
whose bishops had not yet returned from 


Chalcedon. A reign of terror now began in 
Jerusalem. The public prisons were thrown 
open and the liberated criminals were em- 


ployed to terrify by their violence those who 
refused communion with Theodosius. Those 
who refused to anathematize the council were 
pillaged and insulted in the most lawless 
manner. Finally, the emperor Marcian inter- 
posed, and issued orders to Dorotheus to 
apprehend Theodosius, who, however, man- 
aged to escape to the mountain fastnesses of 


Sinai (Labbe, iv. 879). What ultimately 
became of him is unknown. Evagr. H. Ε. 
ii. 5; Coteler. Mon. Grace. i. 415 $eq.; 


Theophan. Chron. p. 92; Leo Magn. Ep. 126 
(157]; Labbe, Concil. iv. 879 seq.; Niceph. 


| H. E. xv. 9; Fleury, H. E. livre 38; Tillem. 


Μόνη. eccl. xv. 731 Le Quien, Or. 
Christ. iii. 164). {e.v. 
Theodotion, otherwise Theodotus (so Suidas 
s.v. κνίζων), author of the Greek version of 
the O.T. which followed, as those of Aquila 
and Symmachus preceded, that of the LXX 
in Origen’s columnar arrangements of the 
versions. Of his personality even less is 
known than of either of the other two trans- 
lators. The earliest author to mention him 


seq. ; 


|is Irenaeus, in a passage which, by reason 


of its higher antiquity and authority, must be 
our standard to test the accounts of later 
writers, who probably derived their accounts 
partly from it. Irenaeus (III. xxi. 1, p. 215), 
referring to the word “ virgin’ (παρθένον) in 
Is. vii. 14, affirms that the passage is to be 
read “‘not as certain of those who now 
venture to misinterpret the Scripture, * Be- 
hold, the damsel (vedms) shall be with child 
as Theodotion of 
Ephesus interpreted it and Aquila of Pontus, 
both Jewish proselytes ; following whom the 
Ebionites pretend that he was begotten of 
Joseph.” Eusebius cites this (H. Ε΄. v. 8), 
adding nothing to it. 

In attempting to fix the time when Theo- 
dotion flourished, the one certain and tolerably 
determinate datum we possess is, that his 
version must have been made before the com- 
position of the above treatise of lrenacus— 
therefore before 180-189. <A second but less 
available datum is the fact, admitted by all, 
that he came after Aquila. Thus we con- 
clude that his work cannot have been 90 late 
Some consider that 
the expression of Irenaeus, * those who are now 
venturing" implies that Theodotion had then 
only just completed his translation ; but this 
puts undue force on the words. The expres- 
sion merely contrasts comparatively recent 
translations with the ancient and primary 
authority of the LXX. But direct evidence 
leads us to place Theodotion ¢. 180, and Sym- 
machus from 14 to 10 years later -—dates 
which agree well with the few known facts. 
Indirect evidence of an earlier date for 


62 


978 THEODOTION 


Theodotion has been claimed as found in 
the apparent use of his version in the Trypho 
of Justin Martyr, a work written not later 
than 164, perhaps some 20 years earlier. 
But the fallacious character of this evidence 
is shewn in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed. 1887). 
Theodotion’s work was not so much an 
independent translation as a revision of the 
LXX, with its insertions usually retained, 
but its omissions supplied from the Hebrew— 
probably with the help of Aquila’s version. 
Theodotion’s was the version Origen usually 
preferred to the other two for filling omissions 
of the LXX or lacunae in their text as he 
found it; and from it accordingly comes a 
large part of the ordinary Greek text of 
Jeremiah, and still more of that of Job. Thus 
in these books we have fuller materials for 
learning the character of his version than that 
of either of the others; and still more in his 
version of Daniel, which has come down to us 
entire, having since before Jerome’s time (how 
long before we are not told) superseded that 
of the LXX so completely that the latter was 
lost for centuries, and is now extant only in 
a single Greek copy, the Cod. Chistanus, and 
in the Syro-Hexaplar translation contained in 
Cod. Ambrosianus (C. 313 Inf.). Any one 
who compares this version with Theodotion’s 
which is usually printed in all ordinary edi- 
tions of the Greek O.T. must agree with 
Jerome (Praef. in Dan.) that the church chose 
rightly in discarding the former and adopting 
the latter. Indeed, the greater part of this 
Chisian Daniel cannot be said to deserve the 
name of a translation at all. It deviates from 
the original in every possible way ; transposes, 
expands, abridges, adds or omits, at pleasure. 
The latter chapters it so entirely rewrites that 
the predictions are perverted, sometimes even 
reversed, in scope. We learn from Jerome 
(tn Dan. iv. 6, p. 646) that Origen himself 
(‘‘in none Stromatum volumine ’’) abandoned 
this supposed LXX Daniel for Theodotion’s. 
Indeed, all the citations of Daniel, some of 
them long and important passages, in Origen’s 
extant works, agree almost verbatim with the 
text of Theodotion now current, and differ, 
sometimes materially, from that of the reputed 
LXX as derived from the Chisian MS. He 
seems, moreover, to have found the task of 
bringing its text to conform to the original 
by the aid of Theodotion’s a hopeless one, as 
we may judge by his asterisks, obeli, and 
marginalia in the two MSS. referred to. Yet 
that this is the version which Origen placed 
as that of the LXX in the penultimate 
column of the Hexapla and Tetrapla is certain. 
Theodotion, though not an independent 
translator, was by no means an “‘ unlearned ”’ 
one, as Montfaucon (Praelimm. in Hexapla) 
calls him. The chief, and apparently the 
only, ground for this is his practice of fre- 
quently transliterating words of his original. 
Dr. Field, however, has well shewn (Prolegg. 
in Hexapla, IV. iii.) that he guides himself 
mostly by definable rules—the words so dealt 
with being names of animals (as θεννὶν for 
σειρῆνες), plants (as axi for βούτομον), vest- 
ments (as Baddiv for ποδήρη), or articles used 
in worship (as θεραφὶν for κενοτάφια or [Aq.] 
μορφώματα). In such cases, his chosing to 
transliterate, rather than adopt a conjectural 


THEODOTUS 


Greek rendering from a former version or 
hazard a new guess of his own, indicates 
scrupulous caution, not ignorance. He proves 
at least that he diligently consulted the 
original, and often shews a wise discretion in 
forbearing to translate a word whose meaning 
cannot be determined, or for which the Greek 
language has no equivalent. As well might 
the English translators of 1611 be called “* un- 
learned ’’ for retaining such words as “ tera- 
phim,” ‘‘ Belial,’ or the revisers of 1881-1884 
because they replace the ‘“‘scapegoat’’ of 
A.V. by ‘‘Azazel,” and for “hell” give 
‘*Sheol ”’ in O.T. and ‘‘ Hades ”’ in N.T. 

Theodotion’s version included all the 
canonical books of O.T. except, probably, 
Lamentations. Of the apocryphal books, he 
is only known to have included Baruch and 
the additions to Daniel. [j.Gw.] 

Theodotus (4) of Byzantium. Eusebius 
(H. E. v. 27) has preserved extracts from a 
treatise directed against the heresy of Arte- 
mon, who taught that our Lord had been mere 
man. Theodoret (Haer. Fab. ii. 5) says that 
this treatise was called the Little Labyrinth ; 
and the author was doubtless Caius of Rome, 
and its date the end of the first quarter of 
cent. iii. [H1ppoLytus ROMANUS.] These 
| heretics claimed to hold the original doctrine 
of the church which, they alleged, had con- 
tinued incorrupt till the episcopate of Victor, 
the truth being first perverted by his successor 
Zephyrinus (c. 199). Their antagonist replies 
that, on the contrary, it was in the episcopate 
of Victor that this God-denying heresy had 
been first introduced, that Theodotus the shoe- 
maker (σκυτεύς) was the first to teach that 
our Lord was mere man, and he had been 
excommunicated for this by Victor, and had 
| then founded an organized sect, with a bishop 
| (Natalius) to whom they paid a salary. Its 
leading men in the time of Victor’s successor 
were Asclepiades and another Theodotus, a 
banker. These two undertook to clear the 
text of N.T. of corruptions, but our authority 
describes what they called ‘‘ corrected” 
copies as simply ruined, the two not even 
agreeing as to their corrections. 

Our sole other primary authority for this 
Theodotus is Hippolytus. The section on 
Theodotus in the lost earlier work on heresies 
by Hippolytus may be partly recovered by a 
comparison of the corresponding articles in 
Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Philaster ; 
and Epiphanius, whose treatment (Haer. 54) 
is the fullest, almost certainly drew his 
materials altogether from Hippolytus. There 
is an article on Theodotus in the later treatise 
of Hippolytus (Ref. vii. 35). The influence of 
Theodotus did not extend much beyond his 
own generation ; later church writers appear 
to have only known him from the two nearly 
contemporary authorities we have named. 

The place in which the article on Theodotus 
came in the lost work of Hippolytus exactly 
corresponds to the date assigned to him in the 
Little Labyrinth. He comes immediately after 
Blastus, whom we otherwise know to have 
caused schism in Victor’s time by endeavour- 
ing to introduce the Quartodeciman usage in 
Rome. Hippolytus stated that Theodotus 
was a native of Byzantium, who denied Christ 
in time of persecution—a fact which accounted 


; 


THEODOTUS 


for his heresy, since he could thus maintain 
that he had only denied man, not God. Hip- 
polytus reports that as to the Deity and the 
work of creation the doctrine of Theodotus 
was orthodox, but as to our Lord's person he 
agreed with Gnostic speculations, especially 
in. distinguishing Jesus and Christ. The 
miraculous conception of Jesus he was willing 
to admit ; but he held Him a man like others, 
though of the highest virtue and piety. He 
taught that at the baptism of io Christ 
descended on Him in the form of a dove, and 
that He was then able to work miracles, though 
He had never exhibited any before : but even 
so He was not God; though some of the sect 
were willing to acknowledge His right to the 
title after His resurrection. 

Theodotus chiefly relied on texts of Scrip- 


ture, specimens of which are given by Ἐρὶ- 


phanius (Haer. 54). He evidently acknow- 
ledged the authority of St. John's Gospel, 
for one of these texts was John viii.40. He 


appealed to the prophecy, Deut. xviii. 15, of | 


the prophet who was to be like unto Moses, 
and therefore man, and quoted also Is. liii. 3, 
Jer. xvii.g (LXX), and other texts in which 
our Lord is called man. (G.s.] 
Theodotus (5) the banker, distinct from 


TueEoportus (4), as asserted both in the Little. 


Labyrinth and by Hippolytus. For the 
speculations which this Theodotus added to 
the heresy of (4) see MELCHIZEDEK. [0.5.} 
Theodotus (9), May 18, martyr at Ancyra 
in Galatia in Diocletian's persecution. The 
narrative of his martyrdom is intermingled 
with that of the Seven Virgins of Ancyra. 
Theodotus was a devout dealer in provisions. 


THEOTECNUS, the apostate from Christianity, | 


was sent with ample power to enforce con- 


formity to the imperial edicts, and began by | 


ordering all provisions sold in the market to 
be first presented to the gods. This would 
render them unfit for use in the Holy Com- 
munion. Theodotus supplied the Christians 
with bread and wine free from pollution. The 
persecution waxing hot, he was compelled to 
fly from Ancyra to a place, distant some 40 
miles, where a cave, through which the Halys 
flowed, was a refuge for some fugitive Chris- 
tians. The narrative shews us how quietly 
Christians in country districts pursued their 
occupations and enjoyed daily worship, while 
those in the cities were suffering tortures and 
death, and is most valuable as illustrating the 
general condition of the Christians in Asia 
Minor during the earlier years of Diocletian's 
persecution. In the cave Theodotus found 
certain brethren who had overturned the altar 
of Diana, and were being carried by their 
relations for judgment to the prefect when 
Theodotus had bribed the accusers to let them 
off. They were delighted to see their deliver- 
er, and invited him to a meal, of which we 
have a graphic picture : the fugitives reclining 
on the abundant grass, surrounded with trees, 
wild fruit, and flowers, while grasshoppers, 
nightingales, and birds of every kind made 
music around. In this passage (§ 11) we find 
one of the few instances where an early Chris- 
tian author seems capable of appreciating the 
beauty of nature. e then have a glimpse 
of the religious life of the time. Before he 
would eat, Theodotus sent some of their 


THEODOTUS 979 


number to summon the presbyter from the 
neighbouring village of Malus to dine with 
them, pray with them before they started 
afresh on their journey, and ask a b on 
their food, for, says the Acts, “ the saint never 
took food unless a presbyter blessed it." The 
resbyter, whose name was Fronto, or, accord- 
ing to the Bollandist Papebrochius, Phorto, 
was just leaving the church after the midday 
|}hour of prayer. The village dogs attacked 
the messengers, and the priest ran to drive 
them away, asked if they were Christians, and 
informed them that he had seen them in a 
vision the night before, bringing a precious 
treasure to him. They told him they had the 
most precious of treasures with them, the 
| martyr Theodotus, to whom the presbyter at 
once departed. During the meal Theodotus 
suggested the spot as a fit place for a martyrium 
| or receptacle for relics, and exhorted the priest 
᾿ἴο build one. When he said he 
no relics, Theodotus gave him a ring off his 
finger in token that he would provide them. 
He then returned to Ancyra, which he found 
greatly disturbed by a violent persecution. 
[Ancyra, SEVEN Martyrs oF.] A writer in 
the Rev. archéol. (t. xxviii. p. 303) notes a 
passage in the Acts of these sufferers (§ 14) 
as a valuable illustration of the paganism of 
Galatia. Theodotus, having rescued the 
bodies of the nuns from the lake into which 
Theotecnus had cast them, prepared to suffer. 
He prayed with the brethren, and told them 
to give his relics to Fronto if he brought a ring 
as a token. Then he went to the tribunal, 
where the priests of Minerva were demanding 
his arrest as the leader of the Christian 
opposition. The Acts now offer some of the 
most striking illustrations used by Le Blant 
in his Actes des Martyrs (cf. pp. 25, 62, 78, 80). 
They illustrate every detail of Roman criminal 
procedure, especially the offer made to the 
| martyrs of high promotion and imperial favour 
‘if they recanted. Theodotus was offered the 
_high-priesthood of Apollo, now esteemed the 
greatest of all the gods, but in vain, till at last 
the president ordered him to be beheaded and 
his body burned. He was executed and his 
body placed on a pyre, when suddenly a bright 
light shone around it, so that no one dared 
approach. The president ordered it to be 
guarded all night, in the place of common 
execution, by soldiers whom he had just 
flogged for suffering the bodies of the nuns to 
be carried off. Fronto, who was a farmer, 
and kept a vineyard where he made wine, 
came to Ancyra to sell his wine, bringing the 
ring of Theodotus with him, and arriving at 
the place of execution just when night was 
falling and the gates of the city had been 
nen | found the guard erecting a hut of willow 
branches wherein to spend the night. The 
soldiers invited him to join them, which he 
did. Discovering what they were guarding, 
he made them drunk with his own wine and 
carried off the martyr's body, placing it in the 
spot Theodotus had marked as the site of a 
martyrium. The Acts purport to have been 
written by one Nilus, an eye-witness. They 
speak of the chapel erected to the memory of 
Theodotus, which could only have been done 
when peace was restored to the church. They 
are in Ruinart, Acta Sine. p. 354, and trans- 


THEODOTUS 


lated into English as an appendix to Mason’s 
Persecution of Diocletian. [G.T.s.] 
Theodotus (11), bp. of Laodicea in Syria 
Prima, claimed as a zealous advocate of Arian 
doctrines by Arius in writing to Eusebius of 
Nicomedia (Theod. H. Ε. 1. 5; v. 7). Eusebius 
gives him a high character for skill as a 
physician of both body and soul, remarkable 
for kindness, sympathy, sincerity, and zeal to 
help all who needed aid, reinstating the church 
in its prosperity which had suffered much by 
the cowardice of its last bishop, Stephen, who 
seems to have renounced the faith in the 
persecution of Diocletian (Eus. H. E. vii. 32). 
Theodotus was at the council of Nicaea in 
325 (Labbe, ii. 51) ; before which he is coupled 
by Athanasius with the Eusebian party 
(Athan. de Synod. c. i. § 17, p. 886). On the 
visit of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Jerusalem 
In 330 ΟΥ̓ 331, ostensibly to see the newly built 
church, he formed one of the Arian cabal 
which, proceeding to Antioch, succeeded in 
deposing Eustathius (Theod. H. E. i. 21) and 
electing Eusebius of Caesarea in his room (Eus. 
Vit. Const. iii. 62). He also took part in the 
council of Tyre in 335 (Labbe, ii. 436) and of 
the Dedication at Antioch in 341 (2b. 560), and 
is mentioned by Athanasius as having been at 
Seleucia in 359 (Athan. de Synod. c. i. ὃ 12, 
Ρ- 880). The two Apollinarii, father and son, 
were excommunicated by Theodotus for being 
present at the recitation of a hymn in honour 
of Bacchus, composed by a sophist of Laodicea 
with whom he had interdicted an intercourse. 
He restored them on their repentance (Soz. 
H. E. vi. 25; Socr. H. E. ii. 46). Gelasius of 
Cyzicus (bk. iii. c. 3) gives a letter from the 
emperor Constantine to Theodotus, warning 
him to return to the orthodox faith (Labbe, ii. 
284). It is quoted as genuine by Benignus of 
Heraclea at the fifth general council (ib. v. 
481). According to Gams, Theodotus was 
bishop 30 years. [E.v.] 
Theodotus (18), patriarch of Antioch, a.p. 
420-429 (Clinton, F. R. ii. 552). He suc- 
ceeded Alexander, under whom the _ long- 
standing schism at Antioch had been healed, 
and followed his lead in replacing the honoured 
name of Chrysostom on the diptychs of the 
church. He is described by Theodoret, at 
one time one of his presbyters, as ‘‘ the pearl 
of temperance,” “adorned with a splendid 
life and a knowledge of the divine doginas ” 
(Theod. H. E. v. 38; Ep. 83 ad Dioscor.). 
Joannes Moschus relates anecdotes illustrative 
of his meekness when treated rudely by his 


980 


clergy, and his kindness on a journey in insist- | 


ing on one of his presbyters exchanging his 
horse for the patriarch’s litter (Mosch. Prat. 
Spir. c. 33). By his gentleness he brought 
back the Apollinarians to the church without 
rigidly insisting on their formal renouncement 
of their errors (Theod. H. E. v. 38). On the 
real character of Pelagius’s teaching becoming 
known in the East and the consequent with- 
drawal of the testimony previously given by 
the synods of Jerusalem and Caesarea to his 
orthodoxy, Theodotus presided at the final 
synod held at Antioch (mentioned only by 
Mercator and Photius, in whose text Theo- 
philus of Alexandria has by an evident error 
taken the place of Theodotus of Antioch) at 
which Pelagius was condemned and expelled 


THEONAS 


from Jerusalem and the other holy sites, and 
he joined with Praylius of Jerusalem in the 
synodical letters to Rome, stating what had 
been done. The most probable date of this 
synod is that given by Hefele, a.p. 424 (Marius 
Mercator, ed. Garnier, Paris, 1673, Com- 
monitor. C. 3, p- 14; Dissert. de Synodis, p. 
207; Phot. Cod. 54). When in 424 Alex- 
ander, founder of the order of the Acoemetae, 
visited Antioch, Theodotus refused to receive 
him as being suspected of heretical views. His 
feeling was not shared by the Antiochenes, 
who, ever eager after novelty, deserted their 
own churches and crowded to listen to Alex- 
ander’s fervid eloquence (Fleury, H. E. livre 
XXv. 6. 27). Theodotus took part in the 
ordination of Sisinnius as patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, Feb. 426, and united in the 
synodical letter addressed by the bishops then 
assembled to the bishops of Pamphylia against 
the Massalian heresy (Socr. H. E. vii. 26; 
Phot. Cod. 52). He died in 429 (cf. Theodoret’s 
Ep. to Diosc. and his H. E. v. 40). Tillem. 
t. xii. note 2, Theod. Mops. ; Theophan. Chron. 
p- 72; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 720; Cave, 
Hist. Lit. i. 405. [Ε.ν.] 
Theognostus (1), a priest of Alexandria and 
a writer of about the middle of cent. 111., whom 
we only know from quotations in St. Athan- 
asius and Photius. He composed a work 
called Hypotyposes in seven books, still extant 
when Photius wrote (Cod. 106). He used lan- 
guage in bk. ii. of very Arian sound, speaking 
of the Son as a creature, andin bk. iii. of the 
Holy Ghost in a style as little orthodox as that 
of Origen. In bk. v. he attributed bodies to 
angels and devils. In bks. vi. and vii. he 
discussed the doctrine of the Incarnation in 
a more orthodox manner than in bk. ii. Yet 
St. Athanasius regarded him as a useful wit- 
ness against Arianism. Philip of Side says 
that he presided over the school of Alexandria 
after Pierius A.D. 282 (cf. Dodwell, Dissert. in 
Trenaeum, p. 488). The fragments of Theog- 
nostus are collected in Routh’s Relig. Sac. 1. 
111. 407-422, and trans. in Ante-Nic. Lib. Cf. 
Migne, Patr. Gk. t. x. col. 235-242; Ceill. ii. 
450; Athan. Ep. 4 ad Serap., de Decretis Nic. 
Syn. [6.τ.5.] 
Theonas (1), 15th bp. of Alexandria (whom 
Eutychius absurdly calls Neron), succeeded 
Maximus in 282. His episcopate, says Neale 
(Hist. Patr. Alex. i. 86), was a time of much 
suffering to the Egyptians, owing to the revolt 
of Achilleus. Diocletian besieged Alexandria 
in 294; and after eight months’ siege the city, 
‘* wasted by the sword and fire, implored the 
mercy of the conqueror, but experienced the 
full extent of his severity’ in the form of 
‘promiscuous slaughter ’’ and sentences “ of 
death or of exile”? (Gibbon, ii. 76). Yet 
Theonas has left a very interesting and attrac- 
tive picture of the relations which the emperor 
earlier in his reign maintained towards his 
Christian servants. Eusebius’s testimony 
that those imperial domestics who held the 
faith (three of whom he afterwards names, 
Dorotheus, Gorgonius, and Peter) were al- 
lowed perfect freedom therein, and were even 
peculiarly valued by their master (viii. 1), is 
singularly illustrated by the “letter of Theo- 
nas the bp. to Lucian, praepositus cubiculart- 
ovum or high chamberlain,” published in cent. 


THEOPHILUS 


xvii. by D’Achery. 
lation from a Greek original, which no one 
will now hesitate to ascribe to Theonas of 
Alexandria. (See it in Routh’s Rel. Sae. iii. 
439, and an Eng. version in Mason's Persecu- 
tion of Diocletian, p. 348, and see ἐδ. p. 39). 
After some opening words on the duty of so 


using the peace which the church was then 


enjoying ‘‘ by means of a kindly sovereign " 


that God might be glorified by genuinely 


Christian lives, Theonas urges Lucian to thank 
Him for a signal opportunity of thus promot- 
ing His cause by fidelity to “an emperor who 
was indeed not yet enrolled in the Christian 
ranks,"’ but who might be favourably im- 
ressed in regard to Christianity by the 
oyalty of the Christians to whose care he had 
“ entrusted his life.’’ Thus it was a primary 
duty to avoid everything that was “* base and 
unworthy, not to say flagitious,”’ lest the name 
of Christ should thereby be blasphemed. The 
Christian chamberlains were not to take money 
for procuring audience, must be clear of all 
avarice, duplicity, and scurrility, acting in all 
things with modesty, courtesy, affability, and 
justice, must discharge their several duties in 
the fear of God, with love for their prince and 
with exact diligence, regarding all his orders 
which did not clash with God's as coming from 
God Himself, and taking care in their minis- 
trations to put away all gloom or bad temper, 
and to refresh his weariness by a cheerful 
manner and glad obedience. [ε.ν.] 
Theophilus (4), bp. of Antioch (Eus. H. E. 
iv. 20; Hieron. Ep. ad Algas. quaest. 6), 
succeeded Eros δ. 171, and was succeeded by 
Maximin c. 183, according to Clinton (Fasts 
Romani), but the dates are only approxima- 
tions. His death may probably be placed c. 
183-185 (Lightfoot, 5. Ignatius, vol. ii. p. 466). 
We gather from his writings that he was born 
a heathen, not far from the Tigris and Eu- 
phrates, and was led to embrace Christianity 
by studying the Holy Scriptures, especially 
the prophetical books (ad Avtol. i. 14, 11. 24). 
He makes no reference to his office in his 
existing writings, nor is any other fact in his 
life recorded. Eusebius, however, speaks of 
the zeal which he and the other chief shep- 
herds displayed in driving away the heretics 
who were attacking Christ's flock, with special 
mention of his work against Marcion (H. E. 
iv. 24). He was a fertile writer in different 
departments of Christian literature, polemics, 
exegetics, and apologetics. Dr. Sanday de- 
pa him as ‘‘ one of the precursors of that 
group of writers who, from Irenaeus to Cy- 
prian, not only break the obscurity which 
rests on the earliest history of the Christian 
church, but alike in the East and in the West 
carry it to the front in literary eminence, and 
distance all their heathen contemporaries "’ 
(Studia Biblica, p. 90). Eusebius and Jerome 
mention numerous works of Theophilus cur- 
rent in their time. They are (1) the existing 
Apology addressed to Autolycus; (2) ἃ work 
against the heresy of Hermogenes; (3) against 
that of Marcion; (4) some catechetical writ- 
ings ; (5) Jerome also mentions having read 
some commentaries on the gospel and on 
Proverbs, which bore Theophilus’s name, but 
which he regarded as inconsistent with the 
elegance and style of his other works. 


It is obviously a trans- | 


THEOPHILUS Ont 


The one undoubted extant work of Theo 
an is his Apologia ad Aulolycum, in three 
oaks. Its ostensible object is to convinee a 
heathen friend, Autolycus, a man of great 
learning and an earnest seeker after truth, of 
the divine authority of the Christian religion, 
while at the same time he exhibits the false- 
hood and absurdity of paganism. His argu- 
ments, drawn almost entirely from O.T., with 
but very scanty reference to N.T., are largely 
chronological. He makes the truth of Chris- 
tianity depend on his demonstration that the 
books of O.T. were long anterior to the writ- 
ings of the Greeks and were divinely inspired. 
Whatever of truth the heathen authors con- 
tain he regards as borrowed from Moses and 
the prophets, who alone declare God's revela- 
tion to man. He contrasts the perfect con- 
sistency of the divine oracles, which he 
regards as a convincing proof of their inspira- 
tion, with the inconsistencies of heathen 
philosophers. He contrasts the account of 
the creation of the universe and of man, on 
which, together with the history contained in 
the earlier chapters of Genesis, he comments 
at great length but with singularly little 
intelligence, with the statements of Plato, 
“reputed the wisest of all the Greeks" (lib. 
iii. cc. 15, 16), of Aratus, who had the hardi- 
hood to assert that the earth was spherical 
(ii. 32, iii. 2), and other Greek writers on whom 
he pours contempt as mere ignorant retailers 
of stolen goods. He supplies a series of dates, 
beginning with Adam and ending with Marcus 
Aurelius, who had died shortly before he wrote, 
i.e. early in the reign of Commodus. He 
regards the Sibylline verses as authentic and 
inspired productions, quoting them largely 
as declaring the same truths with the pro- 
phets. The omission by the Greeks of all 
mention of O.T., from which they draw all 
their wisdom, is ascribed to a_ self-chosen 
blindness in refusing to recognize the only 
God and in persecuting the followers of Him 
Who is the only fountain of truth (iii. 30, ad 
fin.). He can recognize in them no aspira- 
tions after the divine life, no earnest gropings 
after truth, no gleams of the all-illumining 
light. The heathen religion was a mere 
worship of idols, bearing the names of dead 
men. Almost the only point in which he will 
allow the heathen writers to be in harmony 
with revealed truth is in the doctrine of retri- 
bution and punishment after death for sins 
committed in life (ii. 37, 38) The literary 
character of the Apology deserves commen- 
dation. The style is characterized by dignity 
and refinement. Jt is clear and forcible. 
The diction is pure and well chosen. Theo- 
philus also displays wide and multifarious 
though superficial reading, and a familiar 
acquaintance with the most celebrated Greek 
writers. His quotations are numerous and 
varied. But Donaldson (Hust. Christ. Lat, til. 
. 69) remarks that he has committed many 
cata Big misquoting Plato several times (ii). 
6, 16), ranking Zopyrus among the Greeks 
(iii. 26), and speaking of Pausanias as having 
only run a risk of starvation instead of being 
actually starved to death in the temple of 
Minerva (i.). His critical powers were not 
above his age. He adopts Herodotus's 
derivation (ii. 52) of θεόν from τίϑημι, since 


982 THEOPHILUS 


God set all things in order, comparing with it 
that of Plato (Crat. 397 c) from θέειν, because 
the Deity is ever in motion (Apol. i. 4). He 
asserts that Satan is called the dragon (δράκων) 
on account of his having revolted (ἀποδεδρα- 
κέναι) from God (ii. 28), and traces the Bac- 
chanalian cry ‘‘ Evoe”’ to the name of Eve as 
the first sinner (7b.). His physical theories 
are equally puerile. He ridicules those who 
maintain the spherical form of the earth (ii. 
32) and asserts that it is a flat surface covered 
by the heavens as by a domical vault (ii. 13). 
His exegesis is based on allegories usually of 
the most arbitrary character. He makes no 
attempt to educe the real meaning of a pas- 
sage, but seeks to find in it some recondite 
spiritual truth, a method which often betrays 
him into great absurdities. He discovers the 
reason of blood coagulating on the surface of 
the ground in the divine word to Cain (Gen. 
iv. 10-12), the earth struck with terror 
(φοβηθεῖσα ἣ yh) refusing to drink it in. 
Theophilus's testimony to the O.T. is copious. 
He quotes very largely from the books of 
Moses and to a smaller extent from the other 
historical books. His references are copious 
to Ps., Prov., Is., and Jer., and he quotes Ezek. 
Hos. and other minor prophets. His direct 
evidence respecting the canon of N.T. does 
not go much bevond a few precepts from the 
Sermon on the Mount (iii. 13, 14), a possible 
quotation. from Luke xvili. 27 (ii. 13), and 
quotations from Rom., I. Cor., and I. Tim. 
More important is a distinct citation from the 


opening of St. John’s Gospel (i. 1-3), mention- | 


ing the evangelist by name, as one of the 
inspired men (πνευματοφόροι) by whom the 
Holy Scriptures (ai ἅγιαι γραφαί) were written 
(ii. 22). The use of a metaphor found in II. 
Pet. i. 19 bears on the date of that epistle. 
According to Eusebius (/.c.), Theophilus quoted 
the Apocalypse in his work against Hermo- 
genes ; a very precarious allusion has been seen 
in ii. 28, cf. Rev. xii. 3, 7, ete. A full index 
of these and other possible references to O. 
and N. T. is given by Otto (Corp. Apol. 
Christ. ii. 353-355). Theophilus transcribes 
a considerable portion of Gen. i.-iii. with his 
own allegorizing comments upon the success- 
ive work of the creation week. The sun is 
the image of God; the moon of man, whose 
death and resurrection are prefigured by the 
monthly changes of that luminary. The first 
three days before the creation of the heavenly 
bodies are types of the Trinity—rvra τῆς 
Tpiados—the first place in Christian writings 
where the word is known to occur (lib. ii. c. 15) 
—t.e. ‘‘God, His Word and His Wisdom.”’ 
The silence regarding the Apology of Theo- 
philus in the East isremarkable. We find the 
work nowhere mentioned or quoted by Greek 
writers before the time of Eusebius. Several 
passages in the works of Irenaeus shew an 
undoubted relationship to passages in one 
small section of the Apology (Iren. v. 23, 1; 
Autol. ii. 25 wmit.: Iren. iv. 38, 1, iii. 23, 6; 
Autol. ii. 25: Iren. iii. 23, 6; Avtol. ii. 25, 
26), but Harnack (p. 294) thinks it probable 
that the quotations, limited to two chapters, 
are not taken from the Apology, but from 
Theophilus’s work against Marcion (cf. 
Mohler, Patr. p. 286; Otto, Corp. Apol. τι. 


THEOPHILUS 


viii. p. 357; Donaldson, Christ. Lit. iii. 66). 
In the West there are certain references to the 
Autolycus, though not copious. It is quoted 
by Lactantius (Div. Inst. i. 23) under the title 
Liber de Temporibus ad Autolycum. There 
is a passage first cited by Maranus in Nova- 
tian (de Trin. c. 2) which shews great similar- 
ity to the language of Theophilus (ad Autol. i. 
3). In the next cent. the book is mentioned 
by Gennadius (c. 34) as ‘‘tres libelli de fide.”’ 
He found them attributed to Theophilus of 
Alexandria, but the disparity of style caused 
him to question the authorship. The notice 
of Theophilus by Jerome has been already 
referred to. Dodwell found internal evidence, 
in the reference to existing persecutions and 
a supposed reference to Origen and his fol- 
lowers, for assigning the work to a younger 
Theophilus who perished in the reign of 
Severus (Dissert. ad Iren. §§ 44, 50, pp. 170 ff. 
ed. 1689). His arguments have been care- 
fully examined by Tillemont (Mém. eccl. iii. 
612 notes), Cave (Hist. Lit. i. 70), Donaldson 
(u.s. ii. 65), and Harnack (u.s. Ὁ. 287), and 
the received authorship fully established. Cf. 
W. Sanday in Stud. Bibl. (Oxf. 1885), p. 89. 
Editions.—Migne’s Patr. Gk. (t. vi. col. 1023- 
1168), and a small ed. (Camb. 1852) by the 
Rev. W.G. Humphry. Otto’s ed. in the Corpus 
Apologet. Christ. Saec. Secund. vol. ii. (Jena, 
1861, 8vo) is by far the most complete and 
useful. English trans. by Belty (Oxf. 1722), 
Flower (Lond. 1860), and Marcus Dods (Clark’s 
Ante-Nicene Lib.). [E.v.] 
Theophilus (9), bp. of Alexandria, succeed- 
ing Timotheus in the last week of July 385. 
He had probably been a leading member of 
the Alexandrian clergy. Socrates states that 
Theophilus (probably two years later, Clinton, 
Fast. Rom. i. 522) obtained from Theodosius a 
commission to demolish the pagan temples of 
Alexandria (Socr. v. 16). Sozomen corrects 
this by saying that Theodosius granted to 
Theophilus, at his own request, the temple of 
Dionysus, on the site of which he proposed 
to build a church (vii. 15). Socrates says that 
Theophilus “cleared out the temple of Mith- 
ras, and exposed its bloody mysteries.”’ 
Socrates adds that the foul symbols used in 
the worship of Serapis and other gods were, 
by the archbishop’s order, carried through the 
agora as objects of contemptuous abhorrence. 
The votaries of Alexandrian idolatry arranged 
a tragically successful onslaught on the Chris- 
tians and then took possession of the vast 
Serapeum, in the N.W. quarter of the city, 
which had been the popular sanctuary of Alex- 
andrian paganism, and now became their 
stronghold of ‘‘furious despair’? (Orat. of 
Athan. against the Arians, p. 5, ed. Oxf.). 
They made sallies from its precincts, cap- 
tured several Christians, dragged them within, 
and inflicted torture or death on those who 
would not sacrifice. The general in com- 
mand at Alexandria and the Augustal prefect 
summoned them to surrender, but in vain. 
Olympius, a philosopher, sustained their 
obstinate resolution until the arrival of an 
edict ordering the destruction of all the 
temples. Terrified by the shouts which pro- 
claimed this mandate, the desperadoes 
abandoned the Serapeum; and Theophilus, 
with a great body of soldiers, exultant Chris- 


THEOPHILUS 


tians, and astounded 


ans, ascended th 
hundred steps leading’ up ᾿ 4 


up the mound, and 


penetrated into the faintly lighted sanctuary, | 

m within which the Christians afterwards | 

believed that ng τὰ I on the night before | 
a 


the evacuation, had heard a voice chanting 

“ Alleluia”? (Soz. vii. 15). There was the) 
huge seated statue of Serapis, constructed of | 
various metals, now dusky with age, and | 
inlaid with various precious stones (Clem. 

Alex. Cohort. 48). The successor of Athan- 

asius gazed on this visible concentration of 

the inde of Egyptian idolatry, no doubt the | 
symbol to many Alexandrians of the principle | 
of life and of the powers that ruled the under- 

world. It was a supreme moment; at last | 
the church had her foot on the neck of her. 
foe. Mutterings of superstitious fear were | 
heard ; to draw near the image was to cause 

an earthquake. The archbishop turned to a) 
soldier who held an axe, and bade him “ strike | 
hard.” The man obeyed. A shriek of terror | 
burst from many; another and another blow 

followed, the head was lopped off, and there 

ran out a troop of mice, which had “ dwelt | 
within the god of the Egyptians.” Misgiving | 
and alarm gave way to noisy triumph ; the 
body of Serapis was broken up and burned; | 
the head was made a public show. At Cano-— 
pus, 14 miles from Alexandria, temples were | 
immediately laid low. The images were | 
melted down into cauldrons and other vessels | 
required in the eleemosynary work of the 
Alexandrian church. The one exception was | 
an image of an ape, which Theophilus set up 
in a public place ‘“‘in perpetuam rei memo- 
riam,”’ to the vexation of the pagan gram- 
marian Ammonius, who lived to teach the 
young Socrates at Constantinople, and used _ 
to complain seriously of the injustice thus 
done to ‘‘Greek religion’’ (Socr. v. 16). 
During the demolition of various temples 
there were found hollow statues of bronze and 
wood, set against the walls, but capable of 
being entered by the priests, who thus carried 
on their impostures, which Theophilus ex- 
plained to his pagan fellow-citizens (Theod. | 
v.22). But when the Nile-gauge was removed 
from the Serapeum to the church, the pagans | 
asked, Would not the god avenge himself by 

withholding the yearly inundation his power. 
had been wont to effect? It was, in fact, | 
delayed. Murmurs swelled into remon-| 
strances ; the state of the city was becoming | 
dangerous; the prefect had to consult his 
sovereign. Theodosius’s answer was: ΠῚ 
the Nile would not rise except by means of 
enchantments or sacrifices, let Egypt remain | 
unwatered.”’ Forthwith the river began to) 
rise with vehemence ; the fear was now of a 

flood (Soz. vii. 20). We know not the nature | 
of those concessions to the pagans which, | 
according to a letter from Atticus to Theo- 
philus’s nephew Cyril, Theophilus made at 
this time for the sake of peace (Cyril, Epp. p. 

202), but they did not prevent a pagan like 

Eunapius from abusing him. To Eunapius— 
the temple-breakers were impious men who 
κε threw everything into confusion, boasted of 

having conquered the gods," enriched them- 

selves by the plunder, 


‘brought into the. 
sacred places the so-called monks, men in form | 
put swinish in life,"’ deified the “ bones and_ 


THEOPHILUS 983 


heads of worthless men who had been punished 


by the courts for their offences,” and a 

to “bad slaves who had borne the marks of 
the lash the title of martyrs and intercessors 
with the gods." 

In 301 or 392 Theophilus was named by 
the council of Capua as arbiter of the dispute 
between Flavian, as esenting the Meletian 
succession to the see of Antioch, and Evagrius, 
whose claims, like those of his predecessor 
Paulinus, were upheld by the West. Theo- 
philus undertook to examine the case with the 
aid of his suffragans. Evagrius soon died, 
but Flavian was not recognized by the West 
until Chrysostom primarily, and Theophilus 
secondarily, effected that result in 998 (Sox. 
viii. 3; cf. Tillem. x. « 18). 

_ In a.p. 394 we find Theophilus for the first 
time at Constantinople, at a council in the 
baptistery of the great church, on Sept. 29. 
He sat next to Nectarius of Constenthncnia: 
and there were ἡ με τον also Flavian, Gregory 
of Nyssa, and Theodore of uestia. 
Theophilus was in close relations with the 
solitaries of Egypt. In the Sayings of the 
Fathers he appears as inviting some of them 
to be present at the destruction of the temples, 
and again as visiting those of the famous 
Nitrian settlement, and penetrating to the 
more distant Scetis. stilt more celebrated 
was his intimacy with four monks of Scetis, 
known as “the Tall Brothers." These years 
were the best in Theophilus's episcopate ; and 
if it had lasted only ten years, he might have 
left the name, if not of a saint, at least of a 
good as well as an able and energetic prelate. 
But in 395 the story of his life changes its 


|character. He begins to justify the descrip- 


tion afterwards given of him by an adversary : 
“Naturally impulsive, headlong, intensely 
contentious, insatiable in grasping at his 
objects, awaiting in his own case neither trial 
nor inquiry, impatient of opposition, deter- 
mined to carry out his own resolves " (Pallad. 
Dial. p. 76). In 395, at the request of bp. 
John of Jerusalem, he sent his friend Isidore, 
said to have been an Origenist, as his envoy 


‘into Palestine, to abate the strife between 


John and Jerome. Isidore visited Jerome 
three times, but would not give him a letter 
which Theophilus had written him (+). 39); 
and his so-called mediation only produced a 
soreness on Theophilus's part towards Jerome, 
whose letters for some time he ignored. At 
last he wrote, coldly exhorting Jerome to 
respect the authority of the bp. of Jerusalem, 
and again in 399 (according to Vallarsi), 
urging Jerome to come to terms with John. 
Theophilus had been throwing his whole 
weight against the extreme literaliem of the 
Anthropomorphists, a coarse reaction from 
the Alexandrian allegorism. A number of 
ill-informed and enthusiastic monks recoiled 
even from the ordinary explanation of those 
O.T. economies by which, as Epiphanius 
himself held, the divine manifestation had 
been adapted to the capacities of human 
nature (Haer. 70. 7; see also Aug. Haer. 
and 76; Theodoret, iv. to). They Seon 
scriptural expressions “as to eyes, face, 
econ“ of God, as they found them, without 
examination" (Soz. vill. 11). Hence, when 
Theophilus, in his Paschal Letter for 599. in- 


984 THEOPHILUS 


sisted peremptorily on the immateriality of the | 
divine nature, a storm of wrathful zeal broke 
out among the solitaries; one of them, 
indeed, named Serapion, was candid enough 
to be convinced by argument, but the pain 
which ensued was such that when his brethren 
were engaged in their devotions, he exclaimed 
with tears, ““ They have taken away my God, 
and I know not whom to adore!” (Cassian, 
Coll. x. 3). Many others were of fiercer mood : 
was the “‘image of God ”’ to be thus nullified ? 
They hurried from their deserts to Alexandria 
and menaced the “ pope’’ whom they had 
been wont to honour. ‘‘Impious man! thou 
deservest death!” He saw that they were 
not to be defied, but a smooth prevarication 
might disarm them. ‘‘In seeing you I see 
God’s face!’’ It was enough: he had 
appeared to accept the imperilled phrase: 
they asked more calmly, “ If you admit that 
God’s face is like ours, anathematize the books 
of Origen; for some people contradict us on 
their authority. If you will not do this, be 
prepared for the treatment due to those who 
fight against God.” Theophilus uttered the 
fateful words of compliance: ‘“ I will do what 
you think fit ; do not be angry with me, for I 
object to Origen’s books, and blame those | 
who approve them.” Here he was using | 
“economy’’; he stooped to propitiate the 
Anthropomorphists by using their phrase in a | 
sense of his own and letting them think that | 
he condemned Origen absolutely. About the 
end of 399 or beginning of 400 he held a synod 
at Alexandria, at which ‘ Origenism”’ was 
condemned. He then wrote to Anastasius of 
Rome and Jerome, informing them of this. 
At the beginning of 401 he attacked Origenism 
in his Paschal Letter (Hieron. Ep. 96), a re- 
markable document which anticipates the 
Christology of his nephew and successor Cyril, 
while excluding all Apollinarian ideas. Theo- 
philus traces to Origen the (Marcellian) notion 
that Christ’s kingdom would have an end. 
He goes on to denounce Origenistic Univer- 
salism, and the notions that Christ would 
suffer again on behalf of the demons, and that 
after the resurrection human bodies would 
again be subject to dissolution. Fortified by 
an imperial edict forbidding all monks to read | 
Origen (Anastasius, ad Joan. Jerus.), he 
ordered the neighbouring bishops to banish 
the chief Nitrian monks from their own moun- | 
tains and from the farther desert. Some of 
the monks came to remonstrate with him. 
They probably disclaimed the special errors 
associated with the name of Origen, and urged 
that they ought not to be treated as heretics 
because they opposed the degrading literalism | 
of the Anthropomorphists. Palladius repre- 
sents him as glaring at them in a fury, throw- 
ing his scarf or omophorion over the neck of 
Ammonius, one of the Tall Brothers, and with 
a blow on the face drawing blood, and fiercely 
exclaiming, ‘‘ You heretic, anathematize Ori- 
gen!” (Dial. p. 54). Palladius adds that 
he induced five of the Nitrian monks (‘men 
unworthy even to be doorkeepers”’), whom he 
had promoted to ecclesiastical office, to sign 
accusations against three of their chief bre- 
thren, who were accordingly excommunicated 
in a council. At his request the Augustal | 
prefect decreed their expulsion from Egypt ; | 


| warned by Theophilus (7b. p. 58). 


᾿ἴο seek redress at Constantinople. 


THEOPHILUS 


and Theophilus is said to have attacked the 
Nitrian settlement by night at the head of a 
force which was to execute this order. A wild 
scene, according to Palladius, ensued (Dzal. 
p- 57). Against this account is to be set 
Theophilus’s own statement in what is called 
the synodical letter to the bishops of Palestine 
and Cyprus (trans. by Jerome, Ep. 92), 
intended to be read by them when assembled 
for the Dedication Festival at Jerusalem in 
Sept. 401. Theophilus says that, having been 
memorialized by orthodox “fathers and 
presbyters,” he went to Nitria with a great 
number of neighbouring bishops, and there, 


/in presence of many fathers who come together 


from nearly the whole of Egypt, some of 
Origen’s treatises were read, and the adherents 
of Origenism condemned. The Origenist monks 
were now going about in foreign provinces, 
“seeking whom to devour with their im- 
piety’; their mad impetuosity must be 
restrained. Theophilus protests that he has 
done them no hurt and taken nothing wrong- 
fully from them. It is clear that Theophilus 
did personally visit Nitria, and that its 
‘* Origenist monks ’’ were put under ban, and 
driven forth, probably in the early summer of 
401, and that their places were filled by others 
of whose “‘ docility ’’ Theophilus could rely. 
The persecuted “Ὁ Brothers’’ found a tem- 
porary refuge with many other fugitives (Dzal. 
p. 160) at Scythopolis, on the slope of mount 
Gilboa. Some bishops of Palestine who 
shewed them countenance were peremptorily 
Hunted 
from place to place, the Nitrians determined 
Here the 
current of the Origenistic controversy flows 


| suddenly, and with momentous consequences, 


into the stream of Chrysostom’s episcopate. 
Towards the close of 401 some 50 elderly 
men of the Nitrian party fell at his feet as 
suppliants (δ. p. 58). The bishop, moved 
to tears, asked who had accused them. 
‘*Sit down, father,’ they answered, ‘‘ and 
provide some remedy for the harm that pope 
Theophilus has done us. If out of regard to 
him you will not act, we shall be obliged to 
apply to the emperor. But we beg you to 
induce Theophilus to let us live in our own 
country ; for we have not offended against 


/}him or against the law of our Saviour.” 


Chrysostom promised to do his best. “* Mean- 
while,”’ he said, “‘ until I have written to my 


| brother Theophilus, keep silence about your 


aftairs.’’ He assigned them a lodging in the 
precincts of the church of Anastasia, and 
pious ladies contributed to their support. 
He wrote to Theophilus, ‘‘ Oblige me as your 
son and brother”’ (alluding to his own con- 
secration by Theophilus), ‘“‘by being recon- 
ciled to these men.’”’ Theophilus saw his way 
to a blow, not only at the Origenists, but at 
Chrysostom, whom, according to Palladius, 
he had disliked from the first. He wrote to 
Epiphanius, urging him to get Origenism con- 
demned bya synod of his suffragans in Cyprus. 
Epiphanius obtained from a synod of his 
insular church a decree forbidding the faithful 
of Cyprus to read Origen’s works (A.D. 402). 
Meantime the “‘ Brothers ”’ had laid before the 
emperor Arcadius their charges against Theo- 
philus, and requested the empress Eudoxia 


THEOPHILUS 
to promote a formal hearing of the 


Constantinople to 
Arcadius ordered Theophilus to be summoned. 
ggg delayed to obey the imperial cita- 

on. 
through Lycia he is said to have boasted that 
he was ‘‘ going to court to depose John "’ (1. 
p- 72). It was not a mere brag; he knew his 
own diplomatic ability, and that Chrysostom's 
unworldly strictness had alienated Eudoxia 
and some people of rank, and even not a few 
ecclesiastics. The — name of the see of 
Athanasius would also go for much, and the 
watchword of ** No Origenism "' for yet more. 
He felt that he could exchange the position 
of a defendant for that of a judge. Theophilus 
landed at Constantinople at midday on a 
Thursday in the latter part of June 403 (1. 
p- 64). Not one of the clergy went to meet 
him or pay him the usual honour (Socr.). 
Chrysostom invited him to the episcopal resi- 
dence (Chrys. Ep. i. to Innocent; Pallad. p. 
12), but he ignored all friendly messages, 
would not enter the cathedral, and betook 
himself to lodgings without the city. The 


emperor now urged Chrysostom to sit as judge © 


in the case; he refused, for he “ἡ knew " (so 
he says) ‘‘the laws of the Fathers, and had a 
respect for the man.’’ Theophilus had no such 
scruples. Proceedings against 


Chrysostom 


were taken at the council of “the Oak,” a> 


suburb of Chalcedon, and a sentence of deposi- 
tion passed. [CHrysostom.] Theophilus was 
afterwards pleased to take up the almost 
forgotten question of the Nitrian exiles. 
They were persuaded to ask their pope's 
forgiveness, and Theophilus restored them to 
his communion. Returning to Constanti- 
nople he boldly entered the cathedral with an 


armed following to enforce the installation of | 


a successor to ‘‘ John,’’ but finding that he 
had undertaken too much, and that the people 
were resolutely loyal to Chrysostom, he went 
on board a vessel at midnight and fled with 
his followers (Dial. p. 16). It was high time, 
for, says Palladius drily, ‘‘ the city was seeking 
to throw him into the sea’ (ἰδ. p. 75). Theo- 


philus did not attack Chrysostom in his | 


Paschal Letter for 404, but returned to the 
subject of Origenism as an error which de- 
ceived ‘“‘simple and shallow"’ minds. He 
informed pope Innocent that he had deposed 
Chrysostom; and Innocent, disposed to 
censure his ‘‘ hasty arrogance" in not com- 
municating the grounds of the condemnation 
(ib. p. 9) wrote, “‘ Brother Theophilus, we are 
in communion with you and with our brother 
John. . . . Again we write, and shall do so 
whenever you write to us, that unless that 
mock trial is followed by a ἰὸν τω one, it will 
be impossible for us to withdraw from com- 
munion with John.” ᾿ 

Theophilus seems to have written ἃ work 
of great length against Origenism (Gennadius, 
de Vir. Ill. 33), from which Cyril quotes in 
his treatise, ad Arcadiam εἰ Marinam (P. 
Pusey’s Cyril, vii. 166), in support of the 
«Personal Union,’’ and Theodoret in his 
second dialogue on the distinction between 
Christ’s a and the Word. Theophilus 
affirmed that Origen had been condemned (not 
only by Demetrius, but) by Heraclas. Either 


THEOPHILUS O85 


and | in this work (as Tillemont thinks, xi. 
even to cause Theophilus to be brought to in another, he strove to shew that he he μὰ . 
tried by its bishop. seemed to 


only 
with the Anthropomorphists, 


for “he shewed,” says Gennadius, that, 


| according to the faith, God incorpe 
When at last he set forth, as he passed : ~ ἌΣ ΜΌΝ 


“neque ullis omnino membrorum lineamentia 
compositum." In 410 he consecrated the 
eccentric philosopher and sportaman Sywe- 
5105 to the metropolitan see of Ptolemais, who 
thanked him warmly for his Paschal Letter of 
4t1, and wished him a long and happy old 
age (Synes. Ep. 9). In another letter Syne- 
sius, after professing his readiness to “ treat 
as a law whatever the throne of Alexandria 
might ordain," asks the archbishop what should 
be done in regard to the people of Palacbisea 
and Hydrax, who were most reluctant to be 
placed, as Theophilus intended, under a bishop 
of their own, and asked leave to remain under 
Paul, bp. of Erythrum, to which diocese these 
** villages " had always belonged, save while 
Siderius was their bishop. Theophilus had 
also asked him to reconcile the bps. of Ery- 
thrum and Dardanis to each other (Ep. 67). 

Theophilus died ‘ of lethargy " on Oct. 15, 
412 (Socr. vii. 7), after an episcopate of 27 
years and nearly 3 months. he moral of his 
life is the deterioration which too great power 
can produce in one whose zeal in the cause of 
religion, although genuine and active, is not 
combined with singleness of heart. 

All his extant remains are collected in 
Gallandius (Β δ]. Patrum, vol. vii. pp. 603 4.) ; 
his ‘‘canons"’ in Beveridge (Pand. Can. ii. 
170). The sense of these canons is given in 
Johnson's Vade Mecum, ii. 255. See also 
Zahn, Forschungen, ii. 234 ff. [νν.5.} 

Theophilus (13), a Christian who discussed 
Christianity with Simon, a Jew, in a treatise 

ublished by a Gallic writer named Evacarus 
in 5th cent. The title as given by Gennadius 
(de Vir. Ill. c. §1) is Allercatio Simonis Judaes 
et Theophili Christiani. This work lay hid 
till Zacagni, the Vatican Librarian, noticed it 
in 1698 in his Collect. Mon, pp. §1, $3, 114. It 
was printed by Migne (Patr. Lat. t. xx. ce. 
1165) and by Gebhardt and Harnack (Texte u. 
Untersuch. sur Gesch. der Alichrist. Lit. Bd. i. 
Hft. 3; Leipz. 1883), with exhaustive notes 
and dissertations. It has animportant bearing 


/on the controversy during patristic times be- 


tween the church and Judaism. The disputants 
discuss various arguments against the deity of 
Christ drawn from O.T., Theophilus making a 


| very liberal use of the mystical method of 


| virgin shall conceive.” 


exposition. The Jew begins by objecting that 
Christ cannot be God because in Deuteronomy 
it is said ‘* There is no other God beside Me,” 
and Isaiah says, ‘1 am the first and the last, 
and beside Me there is no God." Theophilus 
then defends his ition from the conduct 
of Abraham towards the angel whom he wor- 
shipped at the oak of Mamre and from the 
Psalms. He quotes Is. vii. 14, “ Behold, a 
Simon lies that 
the virgin was the daughter of Jerusalem, 
whom Isaiah represents as despising Shal- 
manezer, while the angel who smote the 
Assyrians is the fulfilment of the prophecy 
contained in the name Emman since he 
was for them indeed “ Nobiscum Deus." 
Theophilus retorts that the virgin daughter of 
Jerusalem had brought forth no son. The 


986 THEOPHRONIUS 


difficulties of the Incarnation are then dis- 
cussed, and Christ’s descent from David 
maintained by Theophilus, who argues that 
conception by a virgin was no more difficult 
to God than bringing water out of a rock. 
Simon then raises the favourite difficulty of 
the Jews from 2nd cent. downwards, drawn 
from Deut. xxi. 23, ‘“‘He that is hanged is 
accursed of God ”’ [Aristo PELLAEUS], which 
introduces the subject of Christ’s passion, 
where Theophilus urges that Ps. xxii. describes 
all the circumstances of our Lord’s sufferings. 
Harnack (/.c.) has alearned monograph on this, 
and discusses the Jewish controversy as it was 
maintained by the Fathers. He devotes 50 
pages to stating the relation between the Alter- 
eatio and Tertullian’s Tvact.adv. Jud., Cvprian’s 
Testimonia, Lactantius’s [nstitutiones, and Jus- 
tin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone, and skilfully uses 
the Altercatio to determine the nature and con- 
tents of the similar 2nd-cent. work, Altercatio 
Jasonis et Papisct, which he considers the 
groundwork of the 5th-cent. document. [G.T-.s.] 
Theophronius. [AGNoETAE]. 
Theophylactus (1) Simocatta, an Egyptian 
by birth, related to Peter, who was viceroy 
of Egypt at the death of the emperor Maurice 
in 602. His Oecumenical History, or Historiae 
Maurictt Tiberit Imperatoris, is very impor- 
tant for Byzantine history at a critical period, 
just before the rise of Mahomet, and during 
the beginning of the struggles with the Turks 
and Slavs. For church history his historical 
writings are interesting, as giving a vivid 
picture of the rites, superstitions, and ideas of 
the close of cent. vi. They shew, e.g. that the 
emperor Maurice was in many points superior 
to his spiritual teachers. Thus in lib. i. c. 11 
we have the story of a sorcerer named Paul- 
inus, whom the patriarch of Constantinople 
brought before the emperor, pressing for his 
capital punishment. The emperor suggested 
that instruction, rather than punishment, was 
required. Many other points of interest occur, 
e.g. the frequent use of a miraculous image 
(ἀχειροποίητοΞς) of our Lord (ii. 3; iii. 1); the 
conversion of Chosroes (v. 15), and of a woman 
of noble birth among the Magi of Babylon, 
named Golinducha, her escape, pilgrimage to 
Jerusalem, and life at Nisibis (v. 12) ; the con- 
tinued existence of the Marcionists (viii. 9); 
the church in honour of St. Paul at Tarsus 
(viii. 13) ; the incredulity of the emperor about 
the liquefaction of the blood of St. Euphemia 
(viil.14); his overthrow and murder by Phocas, 
and the miraculous announcement of it by his 
statues at Alexandria the same night (viii. 13). 
The History of Theophylact is included in the 
Bonn series of Byzantine historians, but the 
most complete and convenient ed. is by C. H. 
Fabrottus in Labbe’s Corpus Hist. Byzant. 
(Paris, 1648). [{G.T.s.] 
Theosebas, a deacon of the Thirian (? 
Tyrian) church, ordained priest by bp. John 
of Jerusalem. Jerome takes this ordination 
as a justification of the ordination of his 
brother Paulinian by Epiphanius, bp. of 
Salamis. He describes Theosebas as an 
eloquent man, and believes John to have 
ordained him in order to employ him to speak 
against himself and his friends (Hieron. Cont. 
Joan. Hterosol. 41). [w.H.F.] 
Theotimus (2), bp. and metropolitan of 


THOMAS EDESSENUS 


Tomi, the capital of Scythia Minor in Lower 
Moesia. By birth a Goth, he was educated 
in Greece, where he took the name by which 
he is known. Adopting strict asceticism for 
himself, he kept a liberal table for the savage 
Goths and Huns who visited Tomi as the great 
central market of the province, endeavouring 
by hospitality, gifts, and courteous treatment 
to prepare them to receive the Gospel. In 
some instances the seed was sown in good 
soil, and the Hunnish strangers returned to 
their distant homes as converts, eager to 
convert their fellow-barbarians. Theotimus 
is with much probability identified by Baro- 
nius (sub ann. 402) with the successful mission- 
ary to the Huns mentioned by St. Jerome. 
He was regarded by the Huns with super- 
stitious reverence, and was styled by them 
““the God of the Romans.”’ The long hair of 
a philosopher flowed over his episcopal attire. 
He was a frequent and much revered visitor 
at Constantinople. In 403, during the visit 
of Epiphanius of Salamis, he refused to affix 
his signature to the decree of the council of 
Cyprus condemning the teaching of Origen, 
denouncing the attempt to cast insult on a 
justly honoured name and to question the 
decisions of wise and good men before them. 
He supported his refusal by publicly reading 
passages from Origen. He was an author of 
some note. Jerome ascribes to him some 
treatises in the form of dialogues. Fragments 
of his are in John Damascene’s Parallel. Sacr. 
(vol. ii. pp. 640, 675, 694, 785, Le Quien’s ed.). 
The archimandrite Carosus at the council of 
Chalcedon boasted that he had been baptized 
by Theotimus and charged by him to keep the 
Nicene faith inviolate (Labbe, Concil. iv. 530). 
Socr. Ἧ-: Ε- vi. τῶ; Sozs Η- Ἐπ 11: 265 vila 
Tillem. Mém. eccl. xi. 190; Le Quien, Or. Chist. 
ii. 1217 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 288. [E.v.] 
Thomas (8) Edessenus appears in the Life 
of Mar Abas. The latter, originally Magian 
by religion, was converted to Christianity, 
learnt Syriac at Nisibis, and Greek at Edessa 
from Thomas a Jacobite, whom he afterwards 
took with him to Alexandria and there with 
his help translated the Scriptures (or, the 
books) from Greek into Syriac (Gregory 
Bar-hebr. Chr. Eccl. ii. 22, t. iii. col. 189). 
Amrus (ap. Assem. iii. 75) gives a similar 
history of their relations; but only ascribes 
to them the translation of the works of Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia. He relates how they 
went to Constantinople, and finding their lives 
in peril in consequence of their refusal to 
‘“‘anathematize the Three Fathers,’ fled to 
Nisibis. There Mar Abas became a teacher, 
and an eloquent assailant of Zoroastrianism. 
Gregory says that he was at one time taught 
by John Grammaticus, the Tritheite ; but the 
facts alleged by Amrus lead us to conclude 
that he lapsed early into Nestorianism. He 
was elected catholicus of the Chaldeans in 
536, and persecuted by the Magians. Chos- 
roes called on him to return to his original 
faith or to conform to Christian orthodoxy. 
Refusing to do either, he was exiled, and 
venturing to return to his see without the 
king’s permission, was cast into prison, and 
died there, 552. Among his disciples Amrus 
(Assem. ii. 411) reckons ‘‘ Thomas of Edessa,”’ 
no doubt his former teacher drawn by him 


THOMAS APAMEENSIS 


from the opposing sect into Nestorianism. 
Of their joint work, the version of Theodore’s 
liturgy survives (Brit. Mus. 7181, Rich., 
R.-F. Catal. p. 59—see also Rénaudot, Liturg. 
Or. t.i. p. 616) ; and the liturgy of Nestorius 
(1b. p. 626), still in use in the Nestorian 
churches, is probably their version mentioned 
by Ebedjesu (Catal. Assem. iii. 36), who also 
says they translated the O.T. (ἐδ. 75), and adds 
a list of the writings of Mar Abas. [}.Gw.) 
Thomas (9) Apameensis, bp. of Apamea, 
the metropolis of Syria Secunda; one of the 
bishops sent to invite pope Vigilius to the 
second council of Constantinople. He him- 
self attended it. Two contemporary histo- 
rians, Procopius and Evagrius (the latter 
praises Thomas as a “‘man most mighty in 
word and in deed’’), record his tact and 


courage when a great peril threatened his city. | 


In 540 Chosroes, at the head of his Persians, 
after burning Antioch, was reported to be 


marching on Apamea. The panic-stricken | 


people entreated their bishop to strengthen 
them to meet their fate by displaying a piece 
of the true cross, a cubit in length, which was 
treasured in their church in a casket richly 
decorated with gold and gems, and usually 
shewn to the faithful but once a year. Thom- 
as fixed a day for its exhibition, to which 
the people of the neighbouring towns also 
eagerly repaired ; among them the parents of 
Evagrius, bringing with them the future 
historian, who vividly describes the crowds 
pressing to see, and seeking to kiss, the sacred 
wood. The bishop (as both narrators relate) 
took it out of the casket, and raising it up in 
both hands proceeded round the church, 
according to usage. ‘‘A flame of fire shining, 
but not consuming,” around and above the 
relic, moved as he moved, lighting oe the roof. 
This was repeated several times. The people 
greeted with joy this visible token of divine 
protection, and drew from it confident hopes 
of deliverance. As Chosroes approached, the 
bishop met him, and assured him that no 
resistance was contemplated by the citizens, 
on whose behalf he engaged that the king with 


a limited guard should be admitted within the | 


gates. Chosroes accordingly, leaving his army 
in camp, entered with 200 men. In violation 
of a compact he had recently entered into with 
the emperor (to receive 5,000 pounds of gold 
paid down and 500 annually, and make no 
further demands), he exacted from the bishop 
more than 10,000 pounds of silver, and all 
the gold and silver ornaments in the church 
treasury. Thomas produced last of all the 
casket that enshrined the cross, and, shewing 
its contents to the king, said, ‘* This alone is 


left ; take the gold and gems—I grudge them 
not; only leave us the precious w of sal- 
vation.” The king granted his petition. 


Thomas conciliated Chosroes by assiduously 
courting his favour. It would be unfair to 


judge him hardly under circumstances of such | 


great responsibility and peril, though he shews 
politic suppleness and tact rather than the 
higher virtues of a prelate and patriot. [J.ow.] 

Tiberius (2) II., emperor of Constantinople, 
578-582. For the secular history of his reign 
see D. of G. and R. Biogr. We shall confine 
ourselves to the religious history of the period, 
for which the church history of the Monophy- 


TICHONIUS 087 


| site John of Ephesus (Dr. Payne Smith's 


|} trans.) afforded fresh material. Tiberius 
| presented a striking example of toleration in 
)an intolerant age. The patriarchs of Con- 
|) Stantinople were ardent opponents of the 
| Monophysites. The patriarch, John Scho- 
| lasticus, soon after the emperor's accession to 
| the position of Caesar (a.p. §74), called on 
/him to persecute the Monophysites. The 
jemperor, having extorted from the patriarch 
}an acknowledgment of their Christian char- 
| acter, declared he would not become a Diocle- 
tan in persecuting such followers of Christ. 
| Eutychius, restored after John in $77, again 
urged Tiberius in the same direction, and 
again Tiberius refused, whereupon Eutyehius, 
of his own motion, set the laws against heresy 
in operation (cf. John of Ephesus, H. &. pp. 
72, 201). On p. 207 John relates Tiberius's 
}only act of persecution. He had hired an 
army of Goths (Arians) to fight against the 
Persians. They left their families at Con- 
| stantinople, stipulating for the use of a church 
for Arian worship. Tiberius consulted the 
patriarch, whereupon interested parties roused 
δε mob to hoot the emperor and accuse him 
of Arianism. To clear himself he itted 
the mob to attack the houses of all heretics. 
A book concerning the nature of the resur- 
| rection, published by Eutychius, taught that 
| the body would be impalpable like a pure 
| spirit. Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory the 
| Great, then a deacon and Roman apocrisiarius 
| at the imperial court, at once detected heresy 
|in the patriarch's teaching. The emperor, 
| being area to, decided in favour of Gre- 
| gory, while the patriarch was induced to burn 
| the obnoxious book. John of Ephesus, p 
192, says that Tiberius substituted a cross on 
his coins for a female figure, like Venus, which 
Justin introduced. See also Evagr. H. Ε΄ ν. 
11-22; Paul Diac. Hist. Miscell. lib. xvii. ; 
Theophan. Chronogr. i. 380-387 ; Baron. Annal. 
A.D. §82-585 ; Clinton's Fasts, p. 840. [G.1.4.] 

Tiburtius, (CAgcILIA.] 

Tichonius (/ychonius), an African Dona- 
tist, whose personal history is very little 
known, but who was conspicuous in the 
Donatist controversy, chiefly because Augus- 
tine mentions him in his letters to Parmenian 
|}and elsewhere. He appears to have flourished 
between 380 and 420, but according to Tille- 
mont his date may be as early as 370. He 
was apparently a layman with a strong turn 
|for church matters, including theology, was 
well versed in Scripture, and though a Dona- 
tist, revolted from the exclusive views of the 
sect, and occupied a position intermediate, as 
Neander says, between it and the church 
(Ch. Hist. iil. 280, ed. Clark; ef. Dr. Sparrow 
Simpson, St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions 
[1910], p. 51). Early in his career, perhaps 
370-373, he published a work maintaining 
the universality of the church, and that 
no misconduct of a portion can annul the 
| promise of God or contaminate Christians 
lelsewhere. Consequently Catholic Christians 
in Africa were not cut off from the church of 
| Christ, but still in communion with it. He 
| pointed out the arbitrary character of the 
Donatist test of holiness, summing it up in the 

igrammatic phrase, * quod volumus sanc- 
jtum est’ (Aug. ¢ Parm. i. 1; i. γα, 81; eee 


Ι 


988 TIMOTHEUS I. 
also ii. 21, 40, and 22, 42; iii. 3, 173 Ep. 93, 
43). In support of his argument he quoted 
the decision of a council at Carthage of 270 
bishops, who, having debated for 75 days, con- 
cluded, as the words of Augustine seem to 
imply, that traditors ought to be invited to 
receive rebaptism, but if they declined to do 
so ought to be admitted to communion. He 
adds that down to the time of Macarius, A.D. 
348, communion was not refused to Catholics 
by Donatists (Aug. Ep. 93, 43). Of this 
council no other record exists than the state- 
ment of Tichonius, who gives it no date. His 
book has perished, but is probably the same 
either as the one in three books mentioned by 
Gennadius under the title Bellum Intestinum, 
or the one entitled Expositiones Diversarum 
Causarum, unless these two titles refer to one 
book only, in which, says Gennadius, Tichonius 
mentions some ancient councils (de Scr. Eccl. 
18). Though denounced strongly for his incon- 
sistency by St. Augustine, he appears to have 
continued his allegiance to the Donatists (Aug. 
de Doctr. Chr. iii. 30; Gennad. u.s.), and while 
still belonging to them wrote another book 
entitled The Seven Rules or Keys of Christian 
Life, which was discussed by Augustine in his 
work de Doctr. Christ. iii. 30-42. Its main 
heads are: (1) The church is the Lord’s body, 
indivisible from Him, so that in Scripture lan- 
guage applicable to Him is applied also to the 
church. (2) The two-fold Body of the Lord, 1.6. 
the distinction between bad and good people in 
the church. (3) The promises and the law. 
(4) Genus and species. Readers must be careful 
not to ascribe to the one what belongs to the 
other, e.g. in explaining Ezek. xxxvi. 23, which 
must be compared with N.T. and the promise of 
baptism there contained. The ‘‘ new land” 
is the church to be gathered from all nations, 
but not yet revealed. (5) Concerning Jewish 
expressions denoting time, as ‘‘ three days and 
three nights,’’ etc., and also such numbers as 
7, 10, 12, etc. (6) Concerning what he calls 
Recapitulation. (7) The personality of Satan. 
Tichonius also wrote a commentary on the 
Revelation, which, Gennadius tells us, he 
interpreted entirely in a spiritual sense—that 
the human body is an abode of angels (‘‘ an- 
gelicam stationem corpus esse’’); that the 
Millennium in a personal sense is doubtful, 
that there is only one resurrection in which 
human bodies of every sort and age will rise, 
and that of the two resurrections mentioned, 
one is to be understood of the growth of grace 
in the soul of man and in the church. The 
Seven Rules are printed at length in the Bzbl. 
Max. Patr. (Lyons, 1677), vi. 49, and Bibl. Patr. 
Galland. (Venice, 1765), viii. 107. Prof. F. C. 
Burkitt pub. a critical ed. of them in the Camb. 
Texts and Studies (1894), iii. 1. [H.W.P.] 
Timotheus (7) I., archbp. of Alexandria, 
unanimously elected, as Theodosius I. affirms 
(Cod. Theod. t. vi. p. 348; Tillem. vi. 621), 
on the death of his brother, Peter II., in the 
latter half of Feb. 381. He was an elderly 
man of high character, who had sat at the feet 
of Athanasius ; and his distinguishing epithet 
of ἀκτήμων (Coteler. Eccl. Gr. Mon. i. 366) 
indicates that he had parted with all his 
property. The council of Constantinople met 
in May 381; he and his attendant suffragans 
arrived late, and did not contribute to the 


TIMOTHEUS 


| peace of the assembly (Greg. Naz. Carm. de 
Vita Sua, 1800 ff.). They were annoyed at 
finding Gregory of Nazianzus established in 
the see of Constantinople; their jealousy of 
the ‘‘ Oriental’? bishops who had “‘ enthroned 
him”’ broke forth in angry debate. They 
assured Gregory that they had no objection 
to him personally ; but they probably resented 
the disgrace of Maximus, who had attempted, 
by the aid of some Egyptian bishops, to 
possess himself of the see. Gregory was glad 
to take this opportunity of resigning it, and 
Timotheus perhaps presided over the council 
during the few days between this abdication 
and the appointment of Nectarius (Tillem. 
ix. 474). The third canon gave to the see of 
Constantinople the second rank throughout 
the church; Neale says that Timotheus 
“refused to allow” its “validity’’ (Hist. 
Alex. i. 209). The council of Aquileia alludes 
to some annoyance given to him and Paulinus 
of Antioch by those whose orthodoxy had 
previously been suspected (Ambr. Ep. 12); 
yet that he did not break off openly from the 
majority is proved by the law of July 30, 381, 
in which Theodosius names him as one of the 
centres of Catholic communion (Soz. vii. 9; 
| cf. Tillem. ix. 720). His episcopate was brief 
|}and uneventful. Facundus transcribes a 
letter of his to Diodore of Tarsus, referring to 
Athanasius as having spoken highly of Dio- 
| dore, and professing his own inability to do 
justice to his virtue and orthodox zeal (Pro 
| Defens. Tri. Capit. iv. 2). Timotheus wrote 
|/an account of several eminent monks, which 
|Sozomen used (vi. 29). His 18 ‘‘ canonical 
| answers”’ to requests by his clergy for direction 
are interesting, and became part of the church 
law of the East (see Beveridge, Pand. Can. ii. 
165; Galland. vii. 345). He died on Sun., 
July 20, 385 (see Tillem. vi. 802), and was suc- 
ceeded by Theophilus. [w.B.] 
Timotheus (18), commonly called Aelurus, 
a Monophysite intruder into the see of Alex- 
andria. He had been at first a monk, then a 
presbyter under Dioscorus, and soon after the 
deposition of the latter at the council of 
Chalcedon had come into collision with his 
successor ProTERIUS. Deposed from office 
and banished into Libya (Mansi, Concil. vii. 
617), he awaited, as his opponents afterwards 
|said, the death of the emperor Marcian (16. 
525, 532). When that occurred in Jan. 457, 
he returned to Alexandria, and practised the 
artifice which apparently procured him the 
epithet αἴλουρος, ‘‘cat.’’ “‘Creeping’’ at night to 
the cells of certain ignorant monks, he called 
to each by name, and on being asked who he 
was, replied, “1: am an angel, sent to warn 
you to break off communion with Proterius, 
and to choose Timotheus as bishop ”’ (Theod. 
Lect. i. 1). Collecting a band of turbulent 
men, he took possession, in the latter part of 
Lent, of the great ‘‘ Caesarean’ church, and 
| was there lawlessly consecrated by only two 
bishops, whom Proterius and the Egyptian 
synod had deposed, and who, like himself, had 
been sentenced to exile. Thus, without the 
countenance of a single legitimate prelate (see 
Mansi, vii. 585), ‘‘ he enthroned himself,”’ as 
14 Egyptian bishops express it in their mem- 
| orials to the emperor Leo I. and to Anatolius 
of Constantinople (7b. 526, 533), while the real 


TIMOTHEUS 


archbishop was sitting in his palace amo’ 
clergy. e instantly proceeded to orm 
episcopal acts; but after thus playing the 
anti-patriarch for a few days, he was expelled 
by the “‘dux ” Dionysius ; and it was appar- 
ently in revenge that his adherents (1). 526, 
533) hunted Proterius into a baptistery and 
murdered him (Easter, 457). Thereupon 
Timotheus returned and acted as archbishop. 
He declared open war against the maintainers 
of “two natures’ as being in effect Nesto- 
rianizers, and on this ground boldly broke off 
communion with Rome, Constantinople, and 
Antioch, denouncing bishops of the Alex- 
andrian patriarchate who had accepted the 
formula of the council, and some of whom had 
held their sees before the accession of Cyril; 
he also sent to cities and monasteries a pro- 
hibition to communicate with such bishops or 
to recognize clerics ordained by them. The 
14 prelates who supply our most authentic 
information on these events were forced by 
the storm thus raised to abandon their homes, 
travel to Constantinople, and present me- 
morials to the emperor and archbishop. 
These are extant in Latin versions (1). 524 ff.). 
Timotheus Aelurus sent some bishops and 
clerics to plead his cause with the emperor. 
We possess a fragment of their petition 
(ib. 536), to the effect that under their “ἡ most 
pious archbishop, the great city of the Alex- 
andrians, with its churches and monasteries, 
was God’s favour enjoying complete 


his | 


| private houses (Mansi, /.c.). 


peace,’”’ and that they and their archbishop | 


held firmly to the Nicene Creed, refusing to 
admit any alterations in, or additions to, its 
text. The document, as we now have it, 
breaks off abruptly with the words, ‘‘ for the 


church of the great city of the Alexandrians ene 


does not accept the council of Chalcedon "’ ; 
but it appears from other evidence (Leo, Ep. 


TIMOTHEUS SALOFACIOLUS a9 


15) “The Cat" was then ὁ but 
shewed his wonted acuteness ager 

permission to come to Constantinople 

pretend that he had adopted the Chaleedonian 
doctrine, as if heterodoxy had been his only 
fault, and so on becoming orthodox he might 
hope to retain his see. Pope wrote, on 
June 17, 460, to the emperor Leo and to Gen- 
nadius, the new patriarch of Constantinople, 
urging that Timotheus, even supposing his 
conversion sincere, was disqualified by having 
“invaded so great a see during the lifetime 
of its bishop" (Epp. τόρ, 170). Accor ly 
| Timotheus was a second time exiled with his 
brother Anatolius—first to Gangra and then, 
on his causing fresh disturbances, to a village 
on the shore of the Chersonesus which Euty- 
|chius calls Marsuphia (cf. Evagr. il. τα; 
Liberat. Brev. 16; Theophan. Carinain, i. 
186; Eutychius, ii. 103); and during 16 years 
the church over which he had tyranni was 
at peace under the rule of his namesake, 
Timotheus, called Salofaciolus. But when the 
next emperor, Zeno, fled from the usurper 
Basiliscus, towards the close of 475, a new 
scene opened for Aelurus. He was summoned 
to Constantinople, where his admirers greeted 
him with “ Blessed is he that cometh in the 
name of the Lord!"’ (Simplicius, in Mansi, vii. 
976). The patriarch Acacius closed the 


| churches against him, but he held services in 


Basiliscus recog- 
nized him as rightful bp. of Alexandria, and 
by his advice put forth a circular to the epis- 
copate, condemning “the innovation in the 

| faith which was made at Chalcedon " (Evagr. 

iii. 4). But when the Eutychians of Constan- 
tinople, deeming his arrival a godsend, hast- 

to pay court to him, he disappointed 

them by declaring that he for his part accepted 
the statement which Cyril had in effect 


149; Mansi, vii. 522) that it went on to ask | adopted at his reunion with John of Antioch, 


that the sanction given to that council might | 


be recalled, and a new council summoned, 
asserting that the Alexandrian people, the 
civil dignitaries, the municipal functionaries, 
and the company of transporters of corn- 
freights, desired to retain Timotheus as 
bishop. The emperor Leo refused the re 


action against the authority of the council of 
Chalcedon, which he had already constructive- 
ly upheld by confirming the ecclesiastical acts 
of his predecessors (cf. pope Leo's Ep. 149 
with Mansi, vii. 524), but yet deemed it 


expedient to send copies of both memorials to | 


the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, 
and Jerusalem, and to 55 other prelates and 
three leading monks (one of them being 


Symeon Stylites), requesting their opinion as_ 


to the case of Timotheus and as to the author- 
ity of the council (Evagr. ii. 9; Mansi, vii. 
521). Of the prelates consulted, all but one, 
the inconstant Amphilochius of Side, accepted 
the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. ii. 10), and 
all condemned Timotheus in more or less 
energetic terms, although some with “‘a salvo, 
if the statements of the exiles were true 

(Mansi, vii. 537 ff.). ‘ a of 
460 Leo I. sent orders to Stilas, the * dux 

commanding at Alexandria, to expel Timo- 
theus from the church, and to promote the 


election of an orthodox bishop (Liberat. Brev. | 


In the early summer of | 


that ‘‘ the Incarnate Word was consubstantial 
with us, according to the flesh " (1. 4. On 
his way home he visited Ephesus, and gratified 
its clergy and laity by declaring their church 
(the fifth in Christendom in point of dignity) 


their to be free from that subjection to Constan- 
uest | tinople which had been imposed on it by the 
of the emissaries of Timotheus for immediate | 


28th canon of Chalcedon (1b. 6). When he 
reached Alexandria, the kindly and ular 
Salofaciolus was allowed to retire to his mon- 
astery at the suburb called Canopus. Aclurus 
did not long survive, dying —, in the 
autumn of 477 (Neale, Hust. Ales. ii. 17}. [νν.5.} 

Timotheus (19), commonly called Salo- 
faciolus, patriarch of Alexandria, elected after 
the expulsion of Timotheus Aclurus, at the 
beginning of Aug. 460. He was attached to 
the Chalcedonian dogma, and may be iden- 
tified with the “ Timotheus, presbyter, and 
a steward of the Alexandrian church,” who 
signed the memorial which the persecuted 
Catholic bishops esented to the emperor Leo 
in 457 (Mansi, Cones. vii. $30) His name 
Salofaciolus, or Salafaciolus, appears to be 
made up of a Coptic and a Latin word, and to 
signify ‘* wearer of a white head-gear or cap “ 
(Du Fresne, Gloss. Med. εἰ Infim. Graced. i. 
1659). After his consecration he sent a letter 
to pope Leo, who replied in terms of warm 
congratulation, and urged the eer - 
ed “Catholic bishop of the Alexandrian 


990 TIMOTHEUS 

church ” to root out all remains of Nestorian 
as well as of Eutychian error (Ep. 171, Aug. 18, 
460). Ten orthodox Egyptian bishops had 
also written to Leo that the election had been 
unstained by ‘‘ canvassing, sedition, or unfair- 
ness of any kind,’ and that Timotheus was 
approved as worthy of so eminent a bishopric 
for purity of character and integrity of faith 
(Ep. 173). ‘“‘Inhis episcopal administration,” 
says Liberatus, ‘‘he was exceedingly gentle, 
so that even those who were of his communion 
complained of him to the emperor for being 
too remiss and easy-going towards heretics, 
in consequence of which the emperor wrote to 


him not to allow the heretics to hold assem- | 


blies or to administer baptism; but he con- 
tinued to treat them gently, and while he thus 
discharged his office the Alexandrians loved 
him, and cried aloud to him in the streets and 
in the churches, ‘Even if we do not com- 
municate with thee, yet we lovethee.’’’ This 
gentleness became weakness when, in the hope 
of conciliating the Monophysites, he reinserted 
the name of Dioscorus in his church diptychs 
(Mansi, vii. 983), and so gave occasion for the 
blundering Eutychius to rank him with the 
other Timotheus as a “ Jacobite”’ (Amn. ii. 
103). 
476 and took possession of the archbishopric, 


Salofaciolus was allowed to reside in the mon- | 


astery of the monks of Tabennesus, situated 
in a suburb of Alexandria called Canopus (see 
Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 415). He remained 
there when Aelurus died, fearing to cause a 
““tumult ’’ if he shewed himself in the city ; 
whereupon the Monophysites took the oppor- 
tunity of electing and enthroning Peter 
Mongus, 
Aelurus ; but the Augustal prefect Anthemius, 


acting on a mandate from Zeno, expelled Peter | 


from the church, and reinstated Timotheus 
Salofaciolus (Evagr. ii. 11). This step was 
followed up by rigorous edicts, intended to 
overawe the numerous clerics, monks, and 
laymen who refused to communicate with the 
restored patriarch (Brev. Hist. Eutych. in 
Mansi, vii. 1063). 
in corners of Alexandria, ‘‘ plotting against 
the church’’; the patriarch wrote to Zeno 
and Simplicius, begging that he might be 
removed to a distance (Liberat. Brev. 16; 
Mansi, l.c.). Simplicius pressed the point in 
letters to Acacius ; 
induced to take this step against Peter, and 
probably Acacius was at least lukewarm in the 
cause. 
Timotheus sent John Talaia again to Con- 
stantinople, and obtained a promise that he 
should have a Catholic successor. Soon after- 
wards he ‘‘died undisturbed’”’ (Liberat.), 
about midsummer 482, as 


vii. 991). [w.B.] 
Timotheus (24), patriarch of Constanti- 
nople, appointed in 511: by the emperor | 


Anastasius the day after the deposition of 
Macepontius (3). He had been priest and 
keeper of the ornaments of the cathedral, and 
was a man of bad character. He apparently 
adopted the Monophysite doctrines from 
ambition, not conviction. Two liturgical 
innovations are attributed to him, the prayers 
on Good Friday at the church of the Virgin, and 


When Timotheus Aelurus returned in | 


who had been archdeacon under | 


Peter Mongus was lurking | 


but Zeno could not be) 


At last, according to the Breviculus, | 


we learn from) 
letters of Simplicius dated July 15, 482 (Mansi, | 


TITUS 


| the recital of the Nicene Creed at every service, 
though the last is also ascribed to Peter the 
| Fuller. He sent circular letters to all the 
bishops, which he requested them to subscribe, 
and also to assent to the deposition of Mace- 
donius. Some assented, others refused, while 
|others again subscribed the letters but 
refused to assent to the deposition of Mace- 
donius. The extreme Monophysites, headed 
by John Niciota, patriarch of Alexandria, 
whose name he had inserted in the diptychs, 
at first stood aloof from him, because, though 
he accepted the Henoticon, he did not reject the 
council of Chalcedon, and for the same reason 
Flavian II. of Antioch and Elias of Jerusalem 
δ first communicated with him. With 
| SEvERus of Antioch he afterwards assembled a 
synod which condemned that council, on which 
| Severus communicated with him. Timothy 
|sent the decrees of his synod to Jerusalem, 
| where ELtAs refused to receive them. Timothy 
then incited Anastasius to depose him (Lib- 
|erat. 18, 19; Mansi, viii. 375). He also 
| induced the emperor to persecute the clergy, 
| monks, and laity who adhered to Macedonius, 
| many of whom were banished to the Oasis in 
πε Thebaid. His emissaries to Alexandria 
| anathematized from the pulpit the council of 
| Chalcedon. Within a year of his accession 
Timotheus directed that the Ter Sanctus should 
| be recited with the Monophysite addition of 
“* Who wast crucified for us.’”’ On Nov. 4 and 
5 this caused disturbances in two churches, in 
| which many were slain, and the next day a 
terrible riot broke out which nearly caused 
| the deposition of Anastasius. Timothy died 
Apr. 5,517. Vict. Tun. Chron.; Marcell. Chron.; 
Theod. Lect. 11: 28, 20; 30; 32, 33: vase 
111. 33; Theophanes; Tillem. Wém. eccl. xvi. 
691, 698, 728. [F.D.] 
Titus, emperor. [VESPASIANUS.] 
Titus (2), bp. of Bostra in Arabia Auranitis, 
c. 362-371, of very high repute for learning and 
eloquence. He is named by Jerome among 
the many distinguished Christian writers of 
| great secular erudition and knowledge of Holy 
Scripture (Hieron. Ep. 70 [84]). Jerome 
mentions his works, dwelling especially on 
three written against the Manicheans (Hieron. 
| de Vir. Ill. c. 102). He is also enumerated 
| by Sozomen (H. E. iii. 14, ad fin.) with Euse- 
bius of Emesa, Basil of Ancyra, Cyril of Jeru- 
salem, and others, as writers of the highest 
celebrity, whose learning is proved by the 
many remarkable writings they left. The 
| appearance of Titus in such company, and his 
| being distinctly reckoned among the Acacians 
by Socrates (H. E. iii. 25), makes his ortho- 
doxy doubtful. He is chiefly known to us 
from the attempt made by the emperor Julian 
to induce the citizens of Bostra to expel him 
as a calumniator of their city. The pagan 
inhabitants made the authoritative revival of 
| their cult by Julian the signal for organized 
attacks on their Christian fellow-citizens. 
|The Christians retaliated. Julian, choosing 
| to assume that the Christians were responsible 
'for these disturbances, threatened to call 
| Titus and the city clergy to judicial account if 
| any fresh outbreak occurred (Soz. H. E. v. 15). 
| Titus replied that though the Christian popu- 
lation exceeded the heathen in numbers, in 
obedienceto his admonitions they hadremained 


TRAJANUS, M. ULPIUS 


quiet under severe provocations, and there 
was no fear of the peace of the city being dis- 
turbed by them (ε.). 7s then issued a 
rescript to the citizens of Bostra, Aug. 1, 362, _ 
charging Titus with calumniating them by his 
representations that they only abstained from 
violence in obedience to his monitions, ἀπὰς 
calling upon them to drive him out of their 
city as ene enemy (Julian Imp. Ep. 52, 
Ρ. 437). he death of Julian found Titus still 


188, 222). On the accession of Jovian, Titus 
15 enumerated by Socrates (H. E. iii. 25) as a 
member of the Acacian party. 
Jerome, he died in the reign of Valens, c. 370. 
Of his works (Soz. H. E. iii. 14) we have only 
very scanty remains. Of that ainst the 
Manichees in four books (** fortes libros," /.c.) 
commended by Jerome and referred to by 
~ peat (Haer. Ixvi. c. 21) and Theodoret 
(Haer. Fab. lib. i. c. 26), three books exist in 
MS. in the library of the Johanneum at Ham- 


burg. Tillem. Mém. eccl. vii. 385 ; Ceill. Aut. | 


’ 


bp. of Bostra (Rendell, Emperor Julian, pp. 


According to | 


eccl. vi. 43 ff.; Cave, Hist. Lit.i. 228; Migne, | 
Patr. Gk. xviii. 1069 ff.; Fabr. Bibl. Graec. vi. | 


748, viii. 684, ix. 320; Clinton, Fasti Rom. 
vO. 141. [εΕ.ν.] 
Trajanus (1), M. Ulpius (Nerva), emperor, 
belonged to a family of Italian origin settled | 
in the colony of Italica in Baetica. 
born on Sept. 18, probably in a.p. 53, and) 
passed his early life in the army under his 
father, a distinguished officer who had risen 
to the consulship. In Oct. 97, being then in| 
command of the army of Lower Germany, he 
was adopted by Nerva, with whom, till his 
death on Jan. 27, he reigned jointly, and then 
became sole emperor. He remained on the 
Rhine, placing that frontier in a state of 
defence, till in the latter half of 99 he made 
his entrance into Rome, being received with 
the greatest joy. He died at Selinus in 
Cilicia, probably c. Aug. 7 or 8, 117. 

For us the interest of his life centres in the 
famous rescript, addressed to his friend Pliny | 
in reply to his letter detai his procedure | 
towards the Christians in Bithynia. Pliny | 
had arrived in his province immediately before 
Sept. 18, 110, or more probably 111 (Momm- | 
sen, Hermes, 1869, 59), and the letter was | 
probably written in the year after his arrival. | 
The rescript is one of a series of replies to 
inquiries on the most various subjects—police, 
baths, sewerage, precautions against fires, | 
water supply, public buildings, ete.—and_ 
neither Pliny nor Trajan seems to have con- | 
sidered the subject one of special importance. | 
Pliny’s letter is the earliest heathen account | 
of the services and behaviour of the Christians, | 
and Trajan’s reply is the earliest piece of 
legislation about Christianity that we possess. 

After stating that, having never been pre- 
sent at trials of Christians, he was ignorant of 
the precise nature of the crime and the usual 
punishment, and also how far it was the 
practice to pursue the inquiry, Pliny asks the 
emperor whether any distinction should be 
made on the ground of age; whether those 
who abjured Christianity should be pardoned, 
or a man who had embraced Christianity gain 
by renouncing it; whether the mere name 
apart from any crime or the crimes associated 
with the name should be punished? Pro- 


He was 


TRAJANUS, M. ULPIUS 901 


visionally he had taken the following course 
in the case of those charged before him with 
being Christians. “I demanded,” he says, 
“of the accused themselves if they were 
Christians, and if they admitted it, 1 repeated 
the question a second and a third time, 
threatening them with punishment; if they 
a lordered them to be led to execution, 
or I felt convinced that, whatever it might be 
they confessed they were, at any rate their 
unyielding obstinacy deserved punishment, 
Some others, who were Koman citizens, I 
decided should be sent to Rome for trial. In 
the course of the proceedings, as is generally 
the case, the number of persons involved 
increased and several varieties appeared. An 
anonymous document was presented to me 
which contained the names of many. Those 
who denied that they were or ever had been 
Christians I thought should be released when 
they had, after my example, invoked the gods 
and offered incense and wine to your image, 
which I had ordered to be brought for t 
purpose along with those of the gods, and had 
also blasphemed Christ, none of which things, 
it is said, can those who are really Christians 
be compelled to do. Others, who were 
accused by an informer, first said they were 
Christians and then denied it, saying that they 
had been, but had ceased to be, some three 
years, some several, and one twenty years ago. 
All adored your image and those of the gods, 
and blasphemed Christ. They declared that 
all the wrong they had committed, wittingly 
or unwittingly, was this, that they had been 
accustomed on a fixed day to meet before 
dawn and sing antiphonally a hymn to Christ 
as a god, and bind themselves by a solemn 
pledge [sacramento] not to commit any 
enormity, but to abstain from theft, brigand- 
age, and adultery, to keep their word, and not 
to refuse to restore what had been entrusted 
to their charge if demanded. After these 


| ceremonies they used to disperse and assemble 


| (ministrae|, and even to use torture. 


again to share a common meal of innocent 
food, and even this they had given up after I 
had issued the edict by which, according to 
your instructions, | prohibited secret societies 
{hetaeriac). 1 therefore considered it the more 
necessary, in order to ascertain what truth 
there was in this account, to examine two 
slave-girls, who were call deaconesses 
I found 
nothing except a perverted and unbounded 
superstition. I therefore have adjourned the 
investigation and hastened to consult you, for 
I thought the matter was worth consulting 
ou about, especially on account of the num- 
s who are involved. For many of every age 
and rank, and of both sexes, are already and 
will be summoned to stand their trial. For 
this superstition has infected not only the 
towns, but also the villages and country; yet 
it apparently can be checked and corrected. 
At any rate it is certainly the case that the 
temples which were almost deserted begin to 
be frequented: the sacred ceremonies which 
had long been interrupted to be resumed, and 
there is a sale for fodder for the victimes 
a venire victimarum,” so Light- 
oot), for which previously hardly a buyer was 
to be found. From this one can easily conclude 
what a number of people may be reformed, 


902 TRAJANUS, M. ULPIUS 


if they are given a chance of repentance.” | 


Trajan replied with the following rescript : 
““ You have followed the right course, my dear 
Secundus, in investigating the cases of those 
denounced to you as Christians, for no fixed 
rule can be laid down for universal adoption. 
Search is not to be made for them; if they 
are accused and convicted they are to be 
punished, yet with the proviso that if a man 
denies he is a Christian and gives tangible 


proof of it by adoring our gods, he shall by his | 
repentance obtain pardon, however strong the | 


suspicion against him may be. But no notice 
should be taken of anonymous accusations in 
any kind of proceeding. For they are of most 
evil precedent and are inconsistent with our 
times ” (Plini et Trajani Epp. 96, 97). 
Besides the interesting information thus 
afforded on the belief and practice of the early 
Christians (hints are apparently given of the 
existence of some formula of prayer, of the 
Eucharist and Agape), what light does it 
throw on the legal position of the Christians ? 
That trials of Christians had to Pliny’s know- 
ledge already taken place appears by it, and 
the allusion cannot be to the Neronian per- 
secution when he was scarcely three vears old, 
and hardly can be to that which was com- 
menced and almost immediately discontinued 
by Domitian, assuming that the objects of it 
were Christians and not Jews. 


guage points rather to proceedings of a regular | 
On the other hand, | 


kind against Christians. 
the fact that a man who had attained dis- 
tinction at the bar, and who had held all the 
high offices of state, had never witnessed a 
trial of this kind, proves that they were rare. 
Again, no statutory enactments as to Chris- 
tianity existed, or Trajan would have referred 
to them in his rescript according to his usual 
custom, when senatus consulta or edicts of pre- 
ceding emperors bore on the subject on which 
he is writing (cf. Ixvi. and Ixxiii.). 
action was therefore based on the fact that 
Christianity was a religio illicita, its professors 
members of a collegium illicitum, at what 
might be termed the Roman common law. 
While Christians were regarded by the Roman 
government as a mere variety of Jews, they 
shared in the toleration enjoyed by Judaism 
as a religio licita. When the separation be- 
tween the two religions became apparent to 
Roman eyes, Christianity lost this shelter and 
its professors fell under the ban that extended 
to all unlawful associations. The exact time 
when the Romans became aware of the dis- 
tinction has been the subject of much contro- 
versy ; at any rate, it had become apparent 
by the end of the rst cent. Nero does not 
appear to have issued any edicts against 
Christians in general, and if Christianity, 
either apart from or along with Judaism, 
suffered under Domitian (Dion, lxvii. 14), all 
the measures on the subject were repealed by 
Nerva on his accession (2b. Ixviii. r). 

What, then, was the effect of Trajan’s 
rescript ? Formally it made the position of 
the Christians worse. It confirmed, by a 
positive enactment, the view Pliny had taken 
of their status at common law. Practically, 
however, the qualifications that they were 
not to be sought for, and anonymous accusa- 
tions ignored—qualifications due to Trajan’s 


Pliny’s lan- | 


Pliny’s | 


| 


TROPHIMUS 


abhorrence of delation in all its forms (cf. Juv. 


| iv. 87; Tac. Ann. iv. 30; Pliny, Pan. 34, 35), 


and from which it was his especial pride to 
be free—must frequently have been a boon 
to the Christians. This secondary bearing of 
the rescript was first insisted on by Tertullian 
(e.g. Apol. c. 5, in Migne, Patr. Lat. i. 276) and 
the primary thrown into the background. 
From Tertullian this view of the rescript 
passed to Eusebius and from him to other 
Christian writers, till at last it came to be 
taken as an edict of toleration terminating a 
general persecution (Sulp. Sev. ii. 31 ; Orosius, 


| vii. 12, in Patr. Lat. xx. 146, xxxi. Iogr), a 


theory excluded by the words of the rescript 
itself, ‘‘ That no fixed rule could be laid down 
for the whole empire.” It was not from 
favour to the Christians that these limitations 
were introduced, and Trajan’s chief objection 
to them was his dread of secret societies, which 
were especially prevalent in Bithynia (Epp. 
XXXiV. Xciii. Cxvii.). 

Overbeck (Studien zur Geschichte der Alten 
Kirche) maintained that the rescript was the 
law that regulated the position of the Chris- 
tians till the beginning of the persecution of 
Severus in 202, and that from Tertullian down- 
wards a thoroughly mistaken view of it had 
been taken. He asserts that during this 
period it regulated the practice of the em- 
perors, and that they did not deviate from it 
either in favour of the Christians or against 
them. He supports his position by pointing 
out that Justin Martyr under Antoninus Pius, 
Athenagoras under M. Aurelius, and Tertullian 
under Severus (4 pol. I. 4, Legatio pro Christ. 1 
and 2, in Patr. GR. vi. 333, 892-893, and A pol. 
1-4, in Patr. Lat. i. 259-289), all agree in 
stating that the mere name of Christian was 
punishable. The trials of Ptolemy and Lucius 
before the prefect of the city are conducted 
precisely in the manner laid down by the 
rescript (Justin, Apol. 11. in Patr. Gk. vi. 445). 
M. Aurelius, on the occasion of the persecution 
of Lyons, issues a rescript following the same 
rule, that those who abjured Christianity 
should be released, those who refused should 
be executed (Eus. H. E. v. 1). Overbeck, 
therefore, rejects not only the protection edicts 
ascribed to M. Aurelius and Antoninus Pius, 
which are now generally considered to be 
forgeries, but also, following Keim, argues 
(134-148) for the spuriousness of Hadrian’s 
letter to Minucius Fundanus, which has usu- 
ally been thought to be genuine, and which 
is not really inconsistent with Trajan’s 
rescript. 

The only martyrs known by name as 
having suffered under Trajan are the bishops 
Symeon of Jerusalem and Icnatius of 
Antioch. 

For Trajan’s relations with the Christians 
consult also Eusebius (H. E. iii. 32, 33, 36), 
Tillemont, Mém. eccl. (ii. 167-212), and 
Gibbon (c. 16). The ancient authorities for 
his reign are singularly meagre, and the dates, 
and even the order of many important events, 
have been determined only by the evidence of 
inscriptions and coins. [F.D.] 

Trophimus (1) (Cyp. Ep. 55, 11), an Italian 
bishop (sacerdotit) who with all his flock offered 
incense in the Decian persecution. He was 
restored to lay-communion by Cornelius, bp. 


TROPHIMUS 


of Rome. It is not denied that his people's 
attachment to him, and the assurance that 
they would follow his return, eased the recep- 
tion of Trophimus. The Novatianists for- 
warded to Africa the misstatement that Cor- 
nelius had restored him to his episcopal 
orders, and so shook the confidence of some 


in him; but Cyprian of his own knowledge | 


denies the statement. It is improbable that 
a = ie bishop would be obliged or allowed 
to do public penance. The expression that 
Trophimus with “ ance of entreaty con- 
fessed his own fault" is itself against it, and 
although it is said that he made “ satisfac- 
tion,” it is presently added that “the return 
of the brethren made satisfaction for him.” 
The restoration seems to have been made at 
the Roman council of June (or July) a.p. 
251, from the words (Ep. 55, ix. [6], H. rr), 
Tractatu cum collegis plurimis habito sus- 
ceptus est.” Ritschl (Cyprian von Karthago, 
p- 79) calls Trophimus a “ sacrificatus,"’ 
though the case of the sacrificati is treated 
separately in the next section of Ep. 55, 
and the words “Trofimo et turificatis’ do 
not make it certain that he was even a 
“ Turificatus.”’ (e.w.B.] 
Trophimus (3), St., 1st bp. of Arles, a 
subject of eager controversy. According to 
the tradition of the see, he was the disciple 
of St. Paul mentioned in Acts and II. Tim., 
and was sent forth as a missionary to Arles 
by St. Peter or St. Paul, or both. As early as 


417 7. Zosimus, in a letter to the bishops of | 
Ga i 


speaking of the city of Arles, says, 
“‘Ad quam primum ex hac sede Trophimus 
summus antistes, ex cujus fonte totae Galliae 
fidei rivulos acceperunt, directus est ἡ (Ep. 1, 
Patr. Lat. xx. 645); and in the same pope's 
letter to Hilary, bp. of Narbonne, Trophimus 
was “quondam ad Arelatensem urbem ab 
apostolica sede transmissus"’ (Ep. 6, Patr. 
Lat. +b. 667). Again, the 19 bishops of the 
province of Arles, writing to pope Leo about 
the middle of 5th cent., assert that it is known 
to all Gaul and to the church of Rome “* prima 
intra Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum a 
beatissimo Petro apostolo sanctum Trophi- 
mum habere meruit sacerdotem, et exinde 
aliis paulatim regionibus Galliarum bonum 
fidei et religionis infusum"’ (Patr. Lat. liv. 
1880), though it should be mentioned that the 
ag otis of this letter has been questioned. 
, too, Ado, in his Martyrologium (Dec. 29) 
and Chronicon. On the other hand, Gregory 
of Tours, apparently quoting from the Acta 
of St. Saturninus, says in effect that Tro- 
phimus arrived in Gaul with the first bishops 
of Tours, Paris, and other cities in the con- 
sulate of Decius and Gratus, t.¢. after the 
middle of 3rd cent. ; and in a very old cata- 
logue of the archbishops published by Mabil- 
lon, Vetera Analecta, p. 220 (Paris, 1723), he 
is preceded by Dionysius, as though he were 
the second bishop. The question, to which 
some bitterness has been imparted as bein 
closely connected with the hotly resent 
claims of the early archbps. of Arles to a 
sort of primacy in Gaul, is elaborately dis- 
cussed by Trichaud (Hist. de l'Eglise αἱ Arles, 
i. 21-143). The cathedral church at Arles 
was dedicated to Truphimus, with St. Stephen 
(Gall. Christ. i. 510). [5...8.} 


ULFILAS 
| U 


UlOlas (Urphiias in Philostorgius), the 
apostle of the Goths in the 4th cent. His 
career is involved in much obscurity. The 
§th-cent. church historians were our onl 
| source until Waits, in 1840, discovered a MS. 
of the Louvre, containing an independent 
}account, written by one of Ulfilas’s own 
| pupils, Auxentius, Arian bp. of Silistria, who 
is thus an original witness. This MS. gives 
| details which shed light on the obscurity, 
| From these two sources we learn that he was 
| born early in 4th cent., probably in 411. He 
was consecrated bishop when 40 years of age, 
| possibly by Eusebius of Nicomedia, at ‘the 
council of the Dedication, held at Antioch 
1341. In 380 he went to Constantinople, and 
died there the same year or carly in 48r. 
| The circumstances of his life raise the question 
|) of the origin of Gothic Christianity. Philo- 
| storgius tells us that, under Valerian and 
| Gallienus in the second half of cent. iii., the 
Goths from N. of the Danube invaded the 
Roman territory, laid waste the province of 
Moesia as far as the Black Sea, crossed into 
Asia and ravaged Cappadocia and Galatia, 
| whence they took a vast number of captives, 
| including many Christian ecclesiastics. 
| * These pious captives, by their intercourse 
with the barbarians, brought over large aum- 
bers to the true faith, mon ας persuaded them to 
j}embrace the Christian religion in place of 
heathen superstitions. Of the number of 
these captives were the ancestors of Urphilas 
/ himself, who were of Cappadocian descent 

deriving their origin from a village call 

Sadagolthina, near the city of Parnassus” 
| (Philost. H. E. ii. 5). The Goths carried back 
| these Christian captives into Dacia, where they 
| were settled, and where considerable numbers 
embraced Christianity through their instru- 
| mentality. Ulfilas, the child of one of these 
| Christian captives, was trained in Christian 
| principles. Socrates asserts that he was a 
disciple of a bishop, Theophilus, who was 
| present at Nicaea and subscribed its creed. 
He was at first a reader in the church. The 
| king of the Goths then sent him to Constan- 
| tinople as ambassador to the emperor, ¢. 340, 
|when he was consecrated bishop. He re- 
| turned to Dacia, laboured there for 7 years, 
land then migrated into Moesia, driven from 
his original home by a persecution, probably 
| between 347 and 350. About that period he 
| produced his great literary work, inventing 
the Gothic character and translating “ all the 
books of Scripture with the exception of the 
| Books of Kings, which he omitted because they 
| are ἃ mere narrative of military exploits, and 
the Gothic tribes, being especially fond of 
war, were in more need of restraints to cheek 
their military passions than of spurs to urge 
them on to deeds of war" (Philost. Le.) We 
next hear of him as present at the synod of 
| Constantinople A.D. 360, when the Acacian 
party triumphed and issued a creed taking a 
μα view between those of the orthodox 
‘and Arian parties. This was the creed of the 
| Homoean sect, headed by Acacius in the East 
and Ursacius and Valens in the West. It is 
important to note its exact words, as it defines 
ithe position of Ulilas. The material part 


09 


903 


994 URBANUS 


runs thus: ‘“‘We do not despise the An- 
tiochian formula of the synod im Encoeniis, but 
because the terms 'Ομοούσιος and ᾿Ομοιούσιος 
occasion much confusion, and because some 
have recently set up the ἀνόμοιος, we there- 
fore reject ὁμοούσιος and ὁμοιούσιος as 
contrary to the Holy Scriptures ; the ἀνόμοιος, 
however, we anathematize, and acknowledge 
that the Son is similar to the Father in accord- 
ance with the words of the apostle, who 
calls Him the image of the invisible God. We 
believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Who 
was begotten by Him before all ages without 
change, the only-begotten God, Logos from 
God, Light, Life, Truth, and Wisdom. .. . And 
whoever declares anything else outside this 
faith has no part in the Catholic church ” (see 
Hefele, ii. 265, Clark’s ed.; and Gwatkin’s 
Studies of Arianism, pp. 180-182). The sub- 
sequent history of Ulfilas is involved in much 
obscurity. Sozomen (vi. 37) intimates that 
Ulfilas and his converts suffered much at the 
hands of Athanaric, a lively picture of whose 
persecution, A.D. 372-375, will be found in the 
Acts of St. Sabas (Ruinart’s Acta Sincera, p. 
670) and of St. Nicetas, Sept. 15 (cf. AA. SS. 
Boll. Sept.), both of which documents are full 
of most interesting details concerning the life 
and manners of the Goths. Mr. C. A. Scott, 
of Cambridge, published an interesting and 
full monograph on Ulfilas, in which he dis- 
cusses his history and that of Gothic Chris- 
tianity during this period. Arianism seems 
to have specially flourished during the first 
half of cent. iv. in the provinces along the 
Danube. VaLEens and Ursacius, who lived 
there, were the leaders of Western Arianism, 
and Sulpicius Severus expressly asserts (Chron. 
ii. 38) that almost all the bishops of the two 
Pannonias were Arians. This would suffi- 
ciently account for the Arianism of the Goths 
who were just then accepting Christianity. 
The literary fame of Ulfilas is connected with 
his Gothic translation of the Bible, the one 
great monument of that language now extant. 
It does not exist in a complete shape. 
The fragments extant are contained in (1) 
the Codex Argenteus, now at Upsala; (2) the 
Codex Carolinus; and (3) the Ambrosian 
fragments published by Mai. A complete 
bibliography of these fragments, as known till 
1840, will be found in Ceillier (iv. 346), and 
a complete ed. in Migne (Patr. Lat. t. xviii.) 
with a Life, Gothic grammar, and glossaries. 
Scott (Ulfilas, the Apostle of the Goths, 1885) 
gathered together the literature after 1840, 
and gave a long account of the MS. of Waitz. 
He also discussed (p. 137) some fragments 
attributed to Ulfilas. The best German works 
on the life of Ulfilas are those of Waitz (1840), 
Krafft (1860), and Bessel (1860). Works on the 
Gothic Bible are by E. Bernhardt (Halle, 1875), 
and Stamm (Paderborn, 1878); Bosworth’s 
Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels (1874); Skeat, 
Gospel of St. Mark in Gothic (Oxf. 1883); 
An Introduction, Phonological, Morphological, 
Syntactic, to the Gothic of Ulfilas, by T. Le 
Marchant Douse (1886). The chief ancient 
sources for the life of Ulfilas are Philostorgius, 
H. ΕΠ ii. 5; Soer. ii. 41, iv. 33; Soz. vi. 37; 
Theod. iv. 37. (G.T.s.] 
Urbanus (1), bp. of Rome under the 
emperor Alexander Severus, from 223 (or 222) 


URBANUS 


to 230. The Liberian Catalogue gives 8 years 
11 months and 11 days as the length of his 
episcopate. Nothing certain is known of his 
life. The Acta S. Urbani cannot be relied on. 
The discovery by De Rossi in the papal 
crypt of the cemetery of St. Callistus of a 
broken stone (apparently once the mensa of an 
altar-tomb), bearing the imperfect inscription 
OVRBANOC E. . . has raised an interest 
in the question of his burial-place and alleged 
connexion with St. Caecilia. Lipsius inclines 
to the view that the Urban of the papal crypt 
was some other Urban, not necessarily a 
bishop, since the letter E after his name might 
have begun some other expression than 
ἐπίσκοπος, e.g. ἐν εἰρήνῃ. De Rossi, however, 
thinks that the slab in the papal crypt must 
have been that of the pope, who was actually 
buried there; and he attributes the contrary 
tradition to a confusion between him and the 
earlier Urban, whom he supposes to have been 
contemporary with St. Caecilia and buried 
in the cemetery of Praetextatus. [jJ.B—y.] 
Urbanus (6), bp. of Sicca Veneria, a town 
of proconsular Africa (Kaff) 22 miles from 
Musti (Ant. Jtin. xli. 4; Shaw, Trav. p. 95; 
Aug. Ep. 229). Apparently a member of 
Augustine’s monastic society at Hippo (Aug. 
Ep. 139. 34), he had occasion to remove 
from his office for grave misconduct a pres- 
byter named Apiarius. Apiarius appealed to 
Zosimus, bp. of Rome, who ordered his 
restoration. In a council which met May 1, 
418, the African bishops decreed that no 
priest, deacon, or inferior clerk should pro- 
secute any appeal beyond sea. Zosimus then 
sent a commission to Africa, headed by 
Faustinus, bp. of Potenza, with instructions 
as to four points they were to impress on 
the African bishops: (1) That appeals from 
bishops of other churches should be made to 
Rome. (2) That bishops should not cross 
the sea unnecessarily (¢mportune) to visit the 
seat of government (comitatum). (3) About 
settling through neighbouring bishops matters 
relating to priests and deacons excommuni- 
cated by their own bishops. Zosimus quotes 
a decree purporting to be one of the council 
of Nicaea, enjoining appeal to the bp. of Rome 
in case of bishops degraded by the bishops of 
their own province. (4) About excommuni- 
cating Urbanus, or at least summoning him 
to Rome unless he revoked his decision against 
Apiarius. This was in the latter part of 418. 
The African bishops were willing to accept 
provisionally the first and third propositions, 
until the canons of Nicaea, on which they were 
said to be founded, should be examined, for 
they were not aware of the existence among 
them of such rules. But at the end of 418 
Zosimus was succeeded by Boniface, and no 
further action was taken until May 419, when 
217 bishops met in council at Carthage 
(Hardouin, Conc. vol. i. p. 934; Bruns, 
Cone. i. 156, 157 D). Faustinus and _his 
colleagues attended, and stated the conditions 
proposed by Zosimus. The bishops insisted 
on seeing them in writing, and the documents 
were accordingly then produced and read. 
On this Alypius, bp. of Tagaste, remarked that 
the decree referred to as one of Nicaea and 
quoted by Zosimus did not appear in the 
Greek copies with which the African bishops 


URSACIUS 


Were acquainted. He pro 
should be made by ahs vig by Boniface 
to the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, | 
and Antioch, to obtain information as to its 
genuineness. Pending these consultations, | 
the council determined that Apiarius should | 
be allowed, under a circular letter, to exercise 
his office in any place except Sicca. No 
mention is made of γα action taken in this | 
matter by Boniface, who died a.p. 422, ἀπὰς 
was succeeded by Celestine 1.; but in 426 the 
question was revived by further misconduct 
on the part of Apiarius at Tahraca, and, when 
removed from his office by the African bishops, 
he again appealed to Rome. At a council. 
summoned for the purpose Faustinus ap- | 
pealed again and behaved with great insolence, 
demanding on the part of the Roman pontiff 
that Apiarius should be restored. The 
bishops refused. A strenuous dispute lasted 
3 days, and was ended by Apiarius confessing | 
his guilt. The assembled bishops took the 
opportunity of requesting the bp. of Rome to 
be less easy in receiving appeals, and not to 
admit to communion persons excommunicated | 
by them ; all ap s ought to be terminated 
in the province in which they begin, or in ἃ. 
general council. Rohrbacher says some good 
theologians thought the whole history of 
Apiarius a forgery (Hist. de l'Eglise, vol. iv. 
ΡΡ. 348-371). (u.w.P.) 
Ursacius (1), bp. of Singidunum (Belgrade). 
He and Valens, bp. of Mursa, appear at every 
synod and council from 330 till ς. 370, as 
leaders of the Arian party both in the East and 
West. They seem to have imbibed their 
Arian views from Arius himself during the 
period of his exile into Illyricum immediately 
after the council of Nicaea. They are de- 
scribed by Athanasius (ad Episec. Aegypt. 7, 
p- 218) as the disciples of Arius. This could 
scarcely have been at Alexandria, but they 
may easily have come in contact with him | 
during his exile, which seems to have been. 
very fruitful in spreading his views, as almost 
all the bishops of the Danubian provinces, 
together with Ulfilas and the Gothic converts, | 
appear as Arians immediately afterwards (cf. 
Sulp. Sever. Chron. ii. 38). Ursacius must 
have been born, at latest, c. 300, as we find 
him a bishop, actively engaged in conspirac 
against Athanasius, when Arius was κοτε 
ς.332. From Socrates we gather the leading 
events of his life. In H. E. i. 27 we find him 
united with Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis 
of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Valens, 
in getting up a case against Athanasius and 
fabricating the scandalous charges of theft, 
sacrilege, and murder, investigated at the 
council of Tyre in 335, Ursacius and Valens 
being present there. They must have been | 
very active and influential members of the 
party even at that early iod, for they were 
sent to Egypt, as deputies of the synod, to 
investigate the charge on the spot, notwith- | 
standing the protests of Athanasius (J.c. i. 31). 
In 342 they assisted at Constantinople at the 
consecration of Macedonius as patriarch. | 
Upon the triumph of Athanasius in 346 they 
made their peace with Julius, bp. of Rome, | 
accepted the Nicene formula, and wrote to 
Athanasius, professing their readiness to hold 
communion with him. 


that reference | Sirmium in 45 


'also Tillem. Mém. vi. 


At the synod of | 


URSINUS 005 


they were ain active 
members of the Homoean party, who drew up 
the Dated Creed, May 22, 3590. They duly 
presented this creed to the council of Arimi- 
num a few weeks later, which omptly 
rejected it, deposing Ursacius and Valens from 
their sees, ‘as well for their present con- 
5 ag to introduce heresy, as for the confu- 
sion they had caused in all the churches by 
their repeated changes of faith." Ursacius 
and Valens at once sought the emperor's 
resence and gained him over to their side. 
he council also sent a long epistle to the 
emperor, which Socrates (ii. 47) inserts. The 
emperor refused to see the deputies of the 
council, and sent them to wait his leisure at 
Hadrianople first, and then at Nice in Thrace ; 


|} where Ursacius and Valens induced these 


same deputies to sign, on Oct. τὸ, 350, ἃ fe. 
vised version of the creed, which the council 
had rejected. Socrates tells us that Nice in 
Thrace was chosen in order that it ht 
impress the ignorant, who would confound it 
with Nicaea in Bithynia, where the orthodox 
symbol had been framed. Cf. Soz. H. Ε. iv. 
19; Hieron. adv. Luci/. p. 189; Sulp. Sev. 
Chron. ii. 44; and Gwatkin'’s Studies of 
Arianism, pp. 157-178, for the history of this 
period. Ursacius and Valens seem to have 
remained influential with the court till the 
end of life, for the last notice of either of them 
in history tells how Valens obtained the recall 
of the Arian Eunomius from exile in 167 
(Philostorg. H. E. ix. 8). The writings of 
Athanasius and Hilary frequently mention 
them. Gwatkin's Studies is very full of 
information, and Hefele’s Cowness (t. i. 
Clark's trans. s.nn.) gives abundant references 
to the synods in which they took yee ᾿ i 
G.1.4. 
Ursinus (2) (Ursicinus), antipope, elected 
after the death of Liberius in Sept. 366, in 
opposition to Damasus. For the conflicts 
during the life of Liberius between his adher- 


ents and those of Felix, who had been intruded 


into the see by the emperor Constantius, see 
Liperius (4) and Fevix (2); Damasus being set 
up by the part of Felix, Ursinus by that of 
Liberius. Conhicting evidence exists as to the 
circumstances. St. Jerome (Chron.), Rufinus (il. 
10), and Socrates (iv. 24), agree that Damasus 
was elected first, and lay the blame on Ursinus, 
who after this election is said to have got bold 
with his followers of the church of Sicinus (or 
Sicininus), and to have been ordained. Sozo- 
men (vi. 22) and Nicephorus (xi. $o)give similar 
accounts. A council at Rome twelve years 
afterwards, and an influential one at Aquileia, 
A.D. 381, in which St. Ambrose took ἃ pro- 
minent part, both declared Ursinus to be a 
usurper, and addressed letters to the emperors 
Gratian and Valentinian against him (ΕΗ, 
Concil. Roman. ad Grat. εἰ Valentin., Labbe, τ, 
ii. p. 1187; Ep. 1. Cone, Aquil. ad Grat. Imp. 
ib. p. 1183). St. Ambrose (Ap. 11) speaks of 
Damasus having been elected by the judgment 
of God. The emperors also, and the civil 
authorities at Rome, throughout the contest 
supported Damasus as the lawful . 

Bat a different account is given by Mar- 
cellinus and Faustinus, two Luciferian priests, 
who, being expelled from Kome under Dam- 
asus, presented a petition (Libelius Precwm) 


996 URSINUS 


to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and 
Arcadius (c. 383). They had been supporters 
of Ursinus, and in the preface to their petition 
assert that he was elected before Damasus by 
the people who had been in communion with 
Liberius in the church of Julius beyond the 
Tiber, and was ordained by Paul, bp. of Ti- 
voli; and that Damasus had subsequently, 
with a mob of charioteers and other low 
fellows, broken into the church of Julius, 
massacred many persons there, and after 
seven days had, with his bribed followers, got 
possession of the Lateran Basilica, and been 
there ordained. The balance of evidence 
appears decidedly in favour of Damasus, the 
only witnesses against him, the two Luciferian 
presbyters, being partisans whose veracity 
we have no means of testing. After the two 
elections all accounts agree that the rival 
parties disturbed Rome by continual con- 
flicts, in which lives were lost. At length 
Juventius, the praefectus urbi, and Julianus, 
the praefectus annonae, concurred in banish- 
ing Ursinus, but the disturbances continued. 
Ammianus Marcellinus, the historian, throws 
light on the Roman church at this time from 
the point of view of an intelligent and im- 
partial heathen. ‘‘ The ardour of Damasus 
and Ursinus to seize the episcopal seat sur- 
passed the ordinary measure of human 
ambition. They contended with the rage of 
party; the quarrel was maintained by the 
wounds and death of their followers, the pre- 
fect . .. being constrained by superior violence 
to retire into the suburbs. Damasus pre- 
vailed: .. . 137 dead bodies were found in the 
basilica of Sicininus, where the Christians hold 
their religious assemblies; and it was long 
before the angry minds of the people resumed 
their accustomed tranquillity. When I con- 
sider the splendour of the capital, I am not 
astonished that so valuable a prize should 
inflame the desires of ambitious men and 
produce the fiercest contests. The successful 
candidate is secure that he will be enriched 
by the offerings of matrons; that as soon as 
his dress is composed with becoming care and 
elegance, he may proceed in his chariot 
through the streets of Rome; and that the 
sumptuousness of the imperial table will not 
equal the profuse and delicate entertainment 
provided by the taste and at the expense of 
the Roman pontiffs. How much more 
rationally would those pontiffs consult their 
true happiness if, instead of alleging the 
greatness of the city as an excuse for their 
manners, they would imitate the exemplary 
life of some provincial bishops, whose temper- 
ance and sobriety, mean apparel and downcast 
looks, recommended their pure and modest 
virtue to the Deity and His true worshippers!”’ 
(Ammian. 27, 3, Gibbon’s trans. c. xxv.). 

In 367 the emperor Valentinian permitted 
those who had been banished to return, but 
threatened severe punishment in case of 
renewed disturbance. (Baronius, ad ann. 368, 
11., 111. iv., gives extracts from these rescripts.) 
Ursinus returned, and is said to have been 
received by his followers on Sept. 15, 367, 
with great joy (Lib. Precum), but was again 
banished by order of the emperor (Nov. 16), 
with seven of his adherents, into Gaul. Yet 
peace was not at once restore ‘is followers 


VALENS 


continued to assemble in cemeteries, and got 
possession of the church of St. Agnes without 
the walls. Thence they were dislodged ; 
Marcellinus and Faustinus say by Damasus 
himself with his satellites, and with great 
slaughter. We may doubt the pope’s per- 
sonal complicity. After this the prefect 
Praetextatus banished more of the party, 
and the two presbyters allege cruel persecu- 
tion, having been themselves among the 
sufferers. Rescripts of the emperors 
Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian (A.D. 371) 
again release Ursinus and his friends from their 
confinement in Gaul, allowing them to live 
at large, but away from Rome and the sub- 
urbicarian regions (Baron. ad ann. 371, i. 11. 
iii.) A Roman council (A.D. 378) addressed a 
letter to the emperors Gratian and Valentinian 
II., representing that Ursinus and his followers 
continued their machinations secretly (Labbe, 
t. 11. pp. 1187-1192). 

After this we find Ursinus at Milan, where 
he is said to have joined the Arian party, who 
promised him their support (Ambrose, Ep. 4). 
But St. Ambrose, bp. of Milan, having 
informed the emperor Gratian of what was 
going on, the latter banished Ursinus from 
Italy, and confined him to Cologne (Ep. I. 
Conc. Aguil. u.s.). Nomore is heard of Ursinus 
till after the death of Damasus (Dec. 384), 
when he opposed Siricius, who, having been a 
supporter of Damasus against him, was elected 
with the general consent of the Roman people. 
Ursinus appears not to have then had suffi- 
cient support in Rome to cause conflict and 
disturbance. {j.B—y.] 

Ursula, a famous British virgin and martyr, 
celebrated as having suffered with 11,000 
other virgins at Cologne. Her notice in the 
Roman Martyrology is simple: “Αἴ Cologne, 
the natal day of SS. Ursula and her com: 
panions, who, being slain by the Huns for 
their Christianity and their virginal constancy, 
terminated their life by martyrdom. Very 
many of their bodies were discovered at 
Cologne.”’ On this foundation the new Bol- 
landists have raised a prodigious edifice of 230 
folio pages, where they discuss (AA. SS. Boll. 
Oct. t. ix. pp. 73-303) every conceivable fact, 
topic, or hypothesis concerning these prob- 
lematical martyrs. Their story, which is 
purely medieval, is briefly this. Ursula, the 
daughter of Dionoc, king of Cornwall, was 
sent by him with her numerous companions 
to Conan, a British prince, who had followed 
the tyrant Maximus into Gaul, c. 383. They 
were somehow carried up the Rhine to Cologne 
by mistake, where the Huns murdered them 
all. The enormous number of her compan- 
ions has been explained as a mistake of the 
early copyists, who found some such entry as 
“Ursula et xi. M. V.’”’, which, taking M. for 
millia, not for martyrs, they read Ursula and 
I1,000 virgins instead of 11 martyr virgins. 
Such mistakes frequently occurred in the 
ancient martyrologies. [Maximus (2).] [G.T.s.] 


ν 


Valens (4), Arian bp. of Mursa in Pannonia, 
and together with Ursactus the leading 
Western opponent of Athanasius. He must 
have been born c. 300, as we find him “ most 


VALENS 


influential bishop from a.p. 332 (cf. Soer. H. F. 
i. 27). The activity and influence of Valens 
was confined to the East. The West was 
always hostile to him, and uently excom- 
municated him, the last on being at a 
council held at Rome in 369. He bly 
died some time prior to 375. G.T.S.] 
alens (δ), emperor, a.d. 364-378, the 
brother of Valentinian I. and oon c. 328. 
By his wife, Albia Dominica, he had a son, 
Galates, and two daughters, Anastasia and 
Carosa. Made emperor of the East in Mar. 
364, he immediately displayed sympathy with 
Arian doctrines, and was actively hostile to 
the Athanasian ef For his secular history 
see D. of G. and R. Biogr. He was baptized 
in 368 ΡΟ Arian Eudoxius, patriarch of 
Constantinople. In 370 he is credited by all 
the historians (Socr. iv. 16; Soz. vi. 14; 
Theod. iv. 24) with an act of atrocious cruelty. 
Eighty ecclesiastics, led by Urbanus, Theo- 
dorus, and Mendemus, were sent by the 
orthodox party of Constantinople to protest 
ainst the conduct of the Arians there. 
alens is said to have sent them all to sea, 
ordering the sailors to set fire to the ship and 
then to abandon it. They all perished off the 


coast of Bithynia, and are celebrated as | A 


martyrs on Sept. 5 (Mart. Rom.). In 371 he 
made a tour through his Asiatic province. 
At Caesarea in Cappadocia he came into con- 
flict with St. Basil, whose letters (Migne, Patr. 
Gk. t. xxxii.) afford a ven ey picture of the 
ution of Valens. e proposed to send 

t. Basil into exile. Just then his only son 
fell sick. Valens had recourse to the saint, 
who promised to heal him if he received 
orthodox baptism. The Arians were, how- 
ever, allowed to baptize the young prince, who 
thereupon died. Basil and the orthodox 
attributed his death to the judgment of 
heaven on the imperial obstinacy. In 374 
Valens raised a persecution against the neo- 
Platonic philosophers, and put to death 
several of their leaders, among them Maximus 
(25) of Ephesus, the tutor and friend of the 
emperor Julian, Hilarius, Simonides, and 
Andronicus. His anger was ee at this 
iod against magical practices by a con- 
seen at Antioch (Socr. H. E. iv. 19; Soz. 
vi. 35) for securing the succession of Theo- 
dorus, one of the principal court officials. 
Numerous acts of persecution at Edessa, 
Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople are 
attributed to Valens, in all of which Mopestvus, 
the pretorian specie. was his most active 
agent, save in Egypt, where Lucius, the Arian 
successor of Athanasius, endeavoured in vain 
to terrify the monks into conformity. The 
last year of Valens’s life was marked by a 
stri manifestation of monkish —- 
In 378 he was leaving Constantinople for his 
fatal struggle with the Goths at Adrianople. 
As he rode out of the city an anchorite, Isaac, 
who lived there, met the emperor and boldly 
edicted his death. The emperor ordered his 
imprisonment till his return, when he would 


unish him—a threat at which the monk 
aughed. See Clinton's Fasts, i. , li. 119, 
for the chronology of Valens. illemont's 


Emp. (t. v-) and De Broglie’s L'Eghse εἰ 
lV Empire Romain (t. v.) es accounts of 
the career and violence of Valens. [6.15] 


VALENTINIANUS L 


007 
Valentinianus (1 pera ο ᾿ 
a native of "5 ba ve ng spe be 


μεν : in gy τ ν ma me he was 
captain of t mg the οἵ 
Jslian, when he bold! pm Fi Ἃς 
eodoret tells us (MH. F. til, 16) that when 
ulian was one day entering the temple of 
ortune with great pomp, Valentinian was 
marching in the procession before him. Two 
priests were at the gate to inkle all who 
entered with lustral water. fell w 
Valentinian's robe, whereupon, crying out that 
he was defiled, not purified, he struck the 
est and banished him to a desert fortress. 
Then Jovian died, Valentinian was elected, 
Feb. 26, 364, and reigned till his death, Nov. 
17, 375. For an account of his civil history 
see ἢ. of G. and R. Biogr. He presents the 
rare phenomenon of an emperor who, sincerely 
attached to orthodoxy, was yet tolerant of the 
Arians and other heretical sects. He pub- 
lished an edict at the very beginning of his 
reign, giving complete toleration in religious 
opinion. To this fact we have the most 
opposite testimonies. The emperor refers to 
it in Cod. Theod. ix. 16. 9, in a law directed 
against the practices of the haruspices. 
mmianus Marcellinus (xxx. 9) praises him 
for it, and St. Ambrose, in his oration de 
Obitu Valent. Junioris, implicitly censures him 
(cf. Hilar. Pictav. Cont. Aurent. Opp. τ iil. 
p- 64). His toleration did not, however, 
extend to practices. Thus in Sept. 364 he 
issued a law (Cod. Theod. ix. 16. 7) prohibiting 
nocturnal sacrifices and magical incantations, 
and further enforced it by legg. vill. and ix. 
of the same title. These edicts seem to have 
been issued more from a moral and social than 
πρὸ μές point of view. They were directed 
against immorality, not paganism, as is 
evident from the fact, which Ambrose (Lc) 
laments, that he tolerated the public profes- 
sion and practices of paganism in the Roman 
senate-house. One cumstance demon- 
strates his tolerance towards the followers of 
the ancient religion. There is not a single 
edict in the Theodosian code, lib. xvi. tit. x.— 
the celebrated title de Paganis, which is filled 
with persecuting laws—dating from any year 
between 356 and 381; while the same remark 
will also apply with one exception to the titles 
de Haeretics and de Judaeis, lib. xvi. Ut ¥. 
and viii. The one exception is the Manichean 
heresy, which he strictly prohibited by a law 
of 372 (Cod. Theod. xvi. ν. 3), oF ing the 
punishment of their teachers and the confisea- 
tion of the houses where they instructed their 
pupils in Rome; for Manicheism seems at 
that time to have assumed the character of a 
philosophy rather than of a religion. That 
this tolerant spirit of the emperor was Ἦν 
to true religion appears from the fact that, 
under Valentinian heatheniem began first to 
be called the peasant’s religion (" religto 
paganorum "), a name first so applied in a law 
of 368 (i). xvi. ii. 18). Valentinian legislated 
also for the clergy (id. xv. li. 17-22), restraining 
the tendency of rich men to take holy orders 
to escape civil duties (legg. 17, 8, 19); and 
rendering illegal the uests to clergy and 
monks from widows and by a celebrated 
law (leg. 20) addressed in 170 to Damasus, bp. 
of§ Rome, under the description “De Vita, 


998 VALENTINIANUS II. 


Honestate, Conversatione Ecclesiasticorum et 
Continentium,’’ which was the model for much 
subsequent legislation. (Cf. the commentary 
of Godefroy, Theod. Cod. t. vi. p. 54, where all 
contemporary notices of this law are collected.) 
The legislative activity of Valentinian in 
every direction was very great, as shewn by 
the Theodosian Code. 

Other modern authorities are Clinton’s 
Fasti, i. 460, and appendix, pp. 110-119, where 
is an exhaustive statement of all his legislation, 
together with notices of medals, coins, etc., 
bearing on his reign, and De Broglie’s L’ Eglise 
et ’ Empire Roma, pt. 111. c. i. (G.T.s.] 

Valentinianus (2) II., emperor, a.p. 375- 
392, son of Valentinian I. and of Justina, his 
second wife. For his secular life see D. of G. 
and R. Biogy. His name is celebrated in 
church history in connexion with two matters: 
(1) An attempt in 384 by the Roman Senate 
to restore the altar of Victory and the pagan 
rites connected with the Senate. We possess 
the document Relatio Symmachi Urbis Praefecti 
on the one side and the Epp. xvii. and xviii. 
of St. Ambrose to Valentinian on the other 
(cf. St. Ambr. opp. Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xvi. 
col. 962-982). St. Ambrose carried the day, 
and the senatorial petition was rejected, as 
again in 391 (see Tillem. Emp. v. 244, 300, 
349). (2) The other matter concerned the 
necessity of baptism. Valentinian died at 
Vienne in Gaul, being then about 20, and only 
a catechumen. Being anxious to receive 
baptism, he sent for St. Ambrose to baptize 
him. Before the sacrament could be admin- 
istered, he was found dead. St. Ambrose’s 
treatise, de Obitu Valentiniant Consolatio, §§ 
51-56, shews how Ambrose rose superior to 
any hard mechanical view of the sacraments 
and recognized the sincere will and desire as 
equivalent to the deed (cf. Tillem. Emp. v. 
356; De Broglie, L’Eglise et l Empire, pt. iii. 
cc. v. and viii.) At one time Valentinian 
was inclined to support the Arian party at 
Milan, influenced by his mother Justina, who 
was bitterly hostile to St. Ambrose. Sozomen 
(H. E. vii. 13), followed by Ceillier (v. 386), 
represents Valentinian and the empress as 
persecuting St. Ambrose and the Catholics of 
Milan in 386, referring to Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. 
tit. 1.166. 4. [AMBROSIUS ; JUSTINA.] [6.1.5.] 

Valentinianus (3) III., emperor, 425-455, 
the son of Constantius III. by Galla Placidia, 
daughter of Theodosius the Great and con- 
sequently great-grandson of Valentinian I. 
For his civil history see D. of G. and R. Biogr. 
His reign was signalized by several laws 
bearing on church matters. At its very 
beginning (July 17, 425) there was issued at 
Aquileia in his name a decree (Cod. Theod. lib. 
Xvi. tit. v. 1. 62), expelling all heretics and 
schismatics from Rome. A special provision 
ordered the adherents of Eulalius, elected 
anti-pope in 419, to be removed to the rooth 
milestone from the city. This law has been 
illustrated at great length by Gothofred, t. vi. 
204. Identical laws (tit. v. ll. 63, 64) were 
issued for the other cities of Italy and for 
Africa in 425, and also edicts (lib. xvi. tit. ii. 
ll. 46 and 47) renewing clerical privileges and 
reserving clerical offenders to the tribunal of 
the bishops alone, a rule which he abrogated 
later. In tit. vii. of the same bk. is a law against 


VALENTINUS 


apostates dated Ravenna Apr. 7, 426, depriv- 
ing them of all testamentary power. On the 
next day a law was enacted (tit. viii. 1. 28) 
preventing Jews from disinheriting their 
children who became Christians. The most 
interesting portion of his ecclesiastical legisla- 
tion is in his Novels embodied in Ritter’s 
appendix to Gothofred’s great work (Lip. 
1743, t. vi. pt. ii. pp. 105-133). Thus tit. ii. 
Ρ- 106, A.D. 445, treats of the Manicheans and 
gives particulars as to the action of pope Leo 
the Great against them; tit. v. p. 111, A.D. 
447, of the violations of sepulchres, with severe 
penalties against such crimes, of which the 
clergy themselves were frequently guilty. Tit. 
Xll. p. 127, A.D. 452, his most celebrated law, 
is an anticipation of medieval legislation ; it 
withdraws the clergy from the episcopal courts 
and subjects them to lay judges. Baronius 
(Annals, A.D. 451) heartily abuses Valentinian 
for this law, and considers Attila’s invasion a 
direct and immediate expression of Heaven’s 
anger. [α.τ.5.] 

Valentinus (1) (Οὐαλεντῖνος), founder of 
one of the Gnostic sects which originated in 
the first half of 2nd cent. 

I. Biography.—According to the tradition 
of the Valentinian school witnessed to by 
Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. vii. 17, 106, p. 
898, Potter), Valentinus had been a disciple 
of Theodas, who himself, it is very improbably 
said, knew St. Paul. Valentinus cannot have 
begun to disseminate his Gnostic doctrines 
till towards the end of the reign of Hadrian 
(117-138). Before this he is said to have been 
a Catholic Christian. It must have been, 
therefore, at most only shortly before his 
appearance as the head of a Gnostic sect that 
Valentinus became a hearer of Theodas and 
received, as he said, his doctrines from him. 
The Gnostics were fond of claiming for their 
secret doctrines apostolic tradition and tracing 
them back to disciples of the apostles. To 
this otherwise unknown Theodas the Valen- 
tinians appealed as an authority in much the 
same way as Basilides was said to have been 
a disciple of Glaucias, and he, in turn, an 
““interpreter of Peter.” 

Irenaeus (i. 11, 1) speaks of Valentinus as 
the first who transformed the doctrines of the 
Gnostic ‘‘ Heresy”? to a peculiar doctrinal 
system of his own (els ἔδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασ- 
kaXeiov). By the expression γνωστικὴ αἵρεσις 
we understand a party which called them- 
selves “ὁ Gnostics,’”’ whom we may recognize 
in the so-called Ophites, described by Irenaeus 
(i. 30), when he remarks that the Valentinian 
school originated from those unnamed heretics 
as from the many-headed Lernean Hydra (i. 
30, 15). Concerning the home and locality of 
these so-called ‘‘ Gnostics’’ Irenaeus tells us 
nothing. But we know from other sources 
that those Ophite parties to whom he refers 
had their homes both in Egypt and Syria. 

Concerning the fatherland of Valentinus 
himself Epiphanius is the first to give accurate 
information, which, however, he derived 
simply, it appears, from oral tradition (Epiph. 
Haer. xxxi. 2). According to this his native 
home was on the coast of Egypt, and he 
received instruction in Greek literature and 
science at Alexandria. Epiphanius, who 
makes him begin to teach in Egypt, relates 


VALENTINUS 


further that he also went to Rome, and 
appeated as a religious teacher there, but that 
both in Egypt and at Rome, he was regarded 
as orthodox, and first made shipwreck of faith 
in Cyprus and began to disseminate heretical 
opinions. But this statement rests merely 
on a combination of different accounts. 
According to Irenaeus, Valentinus ‘ flour- 
ished " at Rome in the times of Pius and 
Anicetus. Epiphanius, on the other hand, 
read (as we learn from Philaster, Haer. 38) in 
the σύνταγμα of Hippolytus, that Valentinus 
stood once in the communion of the church, 
but being drawn by overweening pride into 
apostasy had, during his residence in Cyprus, 
propounded his heretical doctrine. But we 
cannot doubt that when Irenaeus speaks of 
Valentinus’s flourishing at Rome during the 
times of Pius and Anicetus, he refers to the 
fact that his chief activity as a religious 
teacher was then displayed, and that under 
Anicetus he stood at the head of his own 
Gnostic school. With this there is no diffi- 
culty in reconciling Tertullian’s statement, 
that Valentinus no more than Marcion 
separated himself from the Church on his 
arrival at Rome (Praescript. Haeret. 36). For 
the Gnostics, for the very sake of disseminat- 
ing their doctrines the more freely, made a 
great point of remaining in the Catholic 
church, and made use for that end of a twofold 
mode of teaching, one exoteric for the simpler 
sort of believers, the other esoteric for the 
initiated, as is shewn in the fragments which 
have come down to us, the most part of which 
purposely keep the peculiarly Gnostic doc- 
trines in the background. 

We may, then, conclude that Valentinus, 
towards the end of Hadrian's reign (c. 130), 
appeared as a teacher in Egypt and in Cyprus, 
and early in the reign of Antoninus Pius he 
came to Rome, and during the long reign of 
Antoninus was a teacher there. He had 
probably developed and secretly prepared his 
theological system before he came to Rome, 
whither he doubtless removed for the same 
motive as led other leaders of sects, ¢.g. 
Cerdon and Marcion, to go to Rome—the hope 
to find a wider field for his activity as a 
teacher. From a similar motive he attached 
himself at first to the communion of the 
Catholic church. : 

Il. History of the Sect.—Valentinus had 
numerous adherents. They divided them- 
selves, we are told, into two schools—the 
anatolic or oriental, and the Italian school 
(Pseud-Orig. Philosoph. vi. 35, P- 195, Miller, 
cf. Tertullian, adv. Valentinian. c. 11, and the 
title prefixed to the excerpts of Clemens Ex 
τοῦ Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ᾿Ανατολικῆς καλουμένην 
διδασκαλία). The former of these schools 
was spread through Egypt and Syria, the 
latter in Rome, Italy, and S.Gaul. Among his 
disciples, Secundus appears to have been one 
of the earliest. Tertullian (adv. Valentinian. 
4) and the epitomators of Hippelytes men- 
tion him after Ptolemaeus (Pseudo-Tertull. 
Haer. 13; Philast. Haer. 40) ; the older work, 
on the other hand, excerpted by Irenaeus is 
apparently correct in namin him first as 

alentinus’s earliest disciple (Haer. i. 11, 2). 
Then follows, in the same original work as 
quoted by Irenaeus (Haer. i. 11, 3), another 


VALENTINUS 999 


jillustrious teacher (ἄλλοι ἐσιῴφανὴν διδάσκα. 
| Aes), of whom a misunderstanding of later 
| heresiologists has made a Valentinian leader, 
| named Epiphanes; who this illustrious teacher 
was is matter of ute. The more prob. 
|able conjecture is with Neander (Gnostiuchke 
Systeme, p. 169) and Salmon to suppose it 
was Marcus (17), whose first Tetrad exactly 
corresponds to that of this unnamed teacher 
(ef. Haer. i. 15, 1, «a0 ἃ προείρηται), Marcus 
himself will, in any case, be among the earliest 
(of Valentinus's disciples (Lipsius, Quellen der 
altesten Kelzergesch. p. 43). His labours in 
Asia were probably contemporaneous with 
| Valentinus's residence and activity at Rome, 
and there a ‘ godly elder and herald of the 
truth,” whom Irenaeus quotes from as an 
older authority, made him the subject of 
| metrical objurgation as the “forerunner of 
anti-Christian malice "ἡ (lren. Haer. i. 15, 6). 

ProLeMAgUS, on the other hand, was a 
contemporary of Irenaeus himself, and one of 
| the leaders of the Italian school (Iren. Haer. 
Praef. 2, Pseud-Orig. Philos. vi. 35), whom 
Hippolytus in the Synéagina, and probably on 
the basis of an arbitrary combination of Lren. 
|i. 8, 5 with 11, 2, puts at the head of all other 
disciples of Valentinus. Heractron was still 
aes than Ptolemacus, and the second 
ead of the Italian school. His doctrinal 
system appears to be that mainly kept in view 
in the Philosophumena (cf. vi. 29, 15). lre- 
naeus names him as it were in passing (/aer. ii. 
4, 1), while Tertullian designates his relation 
| to his predecessors with the words, Valentinus 
| shewed the way, Ptolemacus walked along it, 
| Heracleon struck out some side paths (ade. 
| Valentinian. 4). He makes also the like 
remark concerning Secundus and Marcus. 
Clemens speaks of Heracleon (c. 193) as the 
most distinguished among the disciples of 
Valentinus (Strom. iv. 9, 73, Pp. $95), Meaning, 
of course, among those of his own time. 
| Origen’s statement, therefore, that he had a 
personal acquaintance with Valentinus (Ori- 
gen, in Joann. t. ii. 8) is to be received with 
caution. In part contemporancously with 
| him appear to have worked the heads of the 
| 


anatolic (oriental) school Axionikos and Bar- 
| desanes (‘Apdnoidyns, Philos. vi. 45), who both 
lived into the first decennia of cent. ii. 
| Axionikos was still working at Antioch when 
Tertullian composed his book against the 
Valentinians, therefore c. 218 (Tertull. Le.) 
We cannot here discuss how far the celebrated 
Edessene Gnostic Barpesanes (οὐ. 225) is 
|rightly accounted a Valentinian. Tertullian 
| indicates Axionikos as the only one who in his 
) day still represented the original teaching of 
| Valentinus. Theotimus, therefore, who is pre- 
| viously mentioned by Tertullian, and seems to 
have occupied himself much with the “ Figures 
of the Law," was, it appears, an older teacher, 
/The same was also probably the case with 
| Alexander, the Valentinian whone syl ams 
Tertullian had in his hands (de Carne C 

cc. 16 8qq.-)- 

| Concerning the later history of the Valen- 
tinian sect we have but meagre information. 
Tertullian, writing ¢. 214, speaks of the Valen- 
| tinjans in his against them as the 
_“ frequentissimum collegium inter haeretioos. 
This is confirmed by what is told us of the 


1000 VALENTINUS 


local extension of the sect. From Egypt it 
seems to have spread to Syria, Asia Minor, and 
to Rome. Its division into an oriental and 
an Italian school shews that it had adherents 
even after the death of its founder, in both the 
East (Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia) and West 
(specially at Rome). In Asia Minor the doc- 
trine appears to have been mainly dissemin- 
ated by Marcus, who was so _ vigorously 
attacked (c. 150) by the “ὁ godly elder,’’ quoted 
by Irenaeus (Haer. i. 15, 6). Disciples of 
Marcus were found by Irenaeus in the Rhone 
districts (Haer. i. 13, 7), where also he appears 
to have met with adherents of Ptolemaeus 
(Haer. Praef. 2). In Rome, c. 223, an impor- 
tant work of the Italian school came into the 
hands of the writer of the Philosophumena, 
who speaks of both schools as being in exist- 
ence in his time (Philos. vi. 35, p- 195). Ter- 
tullian also mentions the duae scholae and 
duae cathedrae of the party in his time 
(adv. Valent. 11). 
still found in Egypt in the time of Epiphanius 
(Haer. xxxi. 7). Theodoret, on the other 
hand (H. f. Praef.), can only speak of the 
Valentinians as of other Gnostic sects (whom 
he deals with in his first book) as belonging 
to the past—7radaas αἱρέσεις---οἱ whom he 
possesses a mere historical knowledge. 

111. Writings.—The fragments of the writings 
of Valentinus have been collected by Grabe 
(Spicilegium, ii. 45-48), and more completely 
by Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, pp. 93-207). 
They consist of fragments of letters and 
homilies preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus 
(Strom. 11. 8, 36, p. 448; ii. 20, 114, pp. 488 seq.; 
iil. 7; 59, Ρ- 538; iv. 13, 91, Ὁ: 603 ; vi. 6, 52, 
p- 767), and of two pieces contained in the 
Philosophumena, the narrative of a vision 
(ὅραμα) seen by Valentinus (Philos. vi. 42, p. 
203), and the fragment of a psalm composed 
by him (Philos. vi. 37, pp. 197 564... Psalms 
of Valentinus’s authorship are mentioned by 
Tertullian (de Carne Christi, 17, 20). 

Remains of the writings of the school of 
Valentinus are more abundant. Beside the 
numerous fragments and quotations in Ire- 
naeus and the Philosophumena, and in the 
excerpts from Theodotus, and the anatolic 
school, which seem yet to need a closer 
investigation, we may mention : the letter of 
Ptolemaeus to Flora(ap. Epiphan. Haer. xxxiii. 
3-7), numerous fragments from the comment- 
aries (ὑπομνήματα) of Heracleon on St. Luke 
(ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 9, 73 seq-, Pp- 595 
seq. ; excerpt. ex prophet. ὃ 25, p- 995), and 
on St. John (ap. Origen 7m Joann. passim), 
collected by Grabe (Spicil. i. 80-117) and 
Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, 472-498); lastly, 
a rather large piece out of an otherwise un- 
known Valentinian writing preserved by 
Epiphanius (Haer. xxxi. 5 and 6). 

IV. Accounts given by the Fathers.—State- 
ments concerning Valentinus and his school 
are very numerous, but many are so contra- 
dictory that it is difficult to distinguish the 
original doctrine of Valentinus from later 
developments. Even in his day Tertullian 
made the complaint (adv. Valentinian. 4), 
“Ita nunquam jam Valentinus, et tamen 
Valentiniani, qui per Valentinum.’”’ Among 
those who before him had controverted the 
Valentinians, Tertullian enumerates (7b. 5): 


Remains of the sect were | 


VALENTINUS 


Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Irenaeus, and the 
Montanist Proculus. Of the writings of these 
four on this subject one only has been pre- 
served, the great work of Irenaeus in five 
books, entitled “EXeyxos καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς 
ψευδωνύμου yvwoews, which has come down to 
us in great part only in the ancient Latin 
version. This work was written (see iii. 3, 3) 
in the time of the Roman bp. Eleutherus, c. 
180-185. The greater part of bk. i., which 
Epiphanius has preserved to us almost com- 
pletely, deals exclusively with the Valentini- 
ans, and the refutations in the following books 
are principally concerned with them. 

The sources which Irenaeus used are of 
sufficient variety. In the preface to bk. i. 
(c. 2) he refers to the writings of those who call 
themselves disciples of Valentinus, adding 
that he had met some of them himself and 
heard their opinions from their own mouths. 
Immediately afterwards he indicates that the 
contemporary Valentinians, whose doctrine 
he promises to describe, are those of the school 
of Ptolemaeus. In bk. i. (c. 8, 5) he intro- 
duces into a detailed description of the 
Valentinian method of interpreting Scripture 
a large fragment which undertakes to prove 
the truth of the higher Ogdoad of the Valen- 
tinian Pleroma from the prologue of the 
Gospel of St. John. The concluding notice 
(found only in the Latin text) expressly 
ascribes the authorship of this fragment to 
Ptolemaeus. Irenaeus likewise obtained his 
information as to the doctrine and practices of 
the Marcosians partly from a written source, 
partly from oral communications. We can 
hardly assume that Marcus was still alive 
when Irenaeus wrote, but it is not unlikely 
that adherents of Marcus may have appeared 
then in the Rhone districts. The section 
which specially treats of Marcus (i. 12-15) is 
apparently from a written source ; but what 
he brings to light for the first time (cc. 16-18) 
concerning the mysteries celebrated by the 
Marcosians is from oral information. 

Next in importance to the statements of 
Irenaeus, as a source of information con- 
cerning Valentinus and his school, are the 
fragments preserved among the works of 
Clemens Alexandrinus, and entitled "Ex τῶν 
Θεοδότου Kai τῆς ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης 
διδασκαλίας ἐπιτομαί. The text has come 
down to us in a somewhat forlorn condition. 
The best ed. is Bunsen’s, in Analecta Antini- 
caena, vol. i. (Lond. 1854), pp. 205-278. The 
general character of these excerpts is similar 
to others in other writings of Clemens Alex- 
andrinus, and does not justify the assumption 
that their present abrupt fragmentary form 
proceeded from Clemens himself. 

Very little is obtainable from the Syntagma 
of Hippolytus, preserved in the excerpts of 
Pseudo-Tertullian (Haer. 12) and by Philaster 
(Haer 38), as also partly by Epiphanius (Haer. 
xxxi. 8; cf. Quellen d. alt. Ketzergesch. p. 166). 
Hippolytus combined Irenaeus (cc. 1-7) with 
some authority belonging to the older anatolic 
system. 

. Pseud-Origines, now almost universally 
assumed to be Hiprpotytus, gives us in the 
Philosophumena (the larger “EXeyxos κατὰ 
πασῶν αἱρέσεων) a quite peculiar account of 
the Valentinian system, one more uniform and 


VALENTINUS 


Synoptical than that of Irenaeus. The 
original authority on which this description 
is based cannot have been the same as that in 
the Svntagma which belonged to the anatolic 
school, the former being a product of the | 
Western or Italian. The doctrinal system 
reproduced by Pseud-Origines is in general 
akin to the Ptolemaic presented by Irenaeus. 
But his original authority is entirely inde- 
pendent of the sources oat by Irenaeus. 

_ Tertullian’s tractate adversus Valentinianos 
15 not an independent authority. Apart from 
a few personal notices concerning him and his 
disciples which he may have taken from the 
lost work of Proculus (c. 4, ef. c. rr), his whole 
account Is a paraphrase of Irenaeus, whom he 
follows almost word for word, and more or 
less faithfully from c. 7 onwards. 

Epiphanius (Haer. xxxi. 9-32) has incorpor- 
ated the whole long section of icons (i. 1-10) 
in his Panarion. Haer. xxxii. and xxxiv. 
(Secundus, Marcus) are simply taken from 
Irenaeus. He follows Irenaeus also in his 


VALENTINUS 1001 


| (rod ict aldvor), 80 is man an image of the 
“existent man of the ἄνθρωποι νροών, 
alentinus, according to ὅδ Alexand- 
nus (Valentini Homil. ap. Clem. Strom. iv. 
13, 92), spoke of the Sophia as an artist 
᾿{ξωγράφοε) making this visible lower world a 
ἣν of the glorious Archetype, but the 
| hearer or reader would as readily understand 
| the heavenly Wisdom of the Book of Proverbs 
| to be meant by this Sophia as the rath and 
/fallen Aeon. Under her (according to Valen- 
| tinus) stand the world-creative angels, whose 
head is the Demiurge. Her formation 
(πλάσμα) is Adam created in the name of the 
| Av@pwros προών. In him thus made a higher 
_ power puts the seed of the heavenly pneuma- 
tic essence (σπέρμα τῆς ἄνωθεν οὐσίατ). Thus 
furnished with higher insight, Adam excites 
_the fears of the angels; for even as κοσμικοὶ 
ἄνθρωποι are seized with fear of the images 
| made by their own hands to bear the name 
| of God, 1.¢. the idols, so these angels cause the 
somewhat arbitrary way in what he says !Mages they have made to disappear (Ep. ad 
about Ptolemaeus, Colarbasus, Heracleon | 4™#cos ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 8, 36). The 
(Haer. xxxiii. χχχν. xxxvi.). On the other Pneumatic seed (πνεῦμα διαφέρον or γένοι 
hand, Haer. xxxi. 7, 8, is taken from the διαῴόρον) nevertheless remains in the world, 
Syntagma of Hippolytus; Haer. xxxiii. 3-7 ἃ5 a race by nature capable of being saved 
contains the important letter of Procemarus (φύσει σωζόμενον yévos), and which has 
to Flora. Haer. xxxi. 5 and 6 gives a frag- | come down from a higher sphere in order to 
ment of an unknown Valentinian writing, | put an end to the reign of death. Death 
from which the statements in c. 2 are partly originates from the Demiurge, to whom the 
derived. This writing, with its barbarous | word (Ex. xxxiii. 20) refers that no one can 
names for the Aeons and its mixture of see the face of God without dying. The 
Valentinian and Basilidian doctrines, shows | members of the pneumatic church are from 
anatolic Valentinianism as already degenerate. | the first immortal, and children of eternal life. 

Later heresiologists, ¢.g. Theodoret, who They have only assumed mortality in order 
(Haer. Fab. i. 7-9) follows Irenaeus and Epi- to overcome death in themselves and by 
phanius, are not independent authorities. | themselves. They shall dissolve the world 


, 


| ri 


V. The System.—A review of the accounts | 
given by the Fathers confirms the judgment | 
that, with the means at our command, it is | 
very difficult to distinguish between the ori- | 
ginal doctrine of Valentinus and the later 
developments made by his disciples. A 
description of his system must start from the 
Fragments, the authenticity of which (apart. 
from the so-called ὅρος Οὐαλεντίνου in Dial. 
de Recta Fide) is unquestioned. But from the 
nature of these fragments we cannot expect 
to reconstruct the whole system out of them. 
From an abundant literature a few relics only 
have been preserved. Moreover, the kinds 
of literature to which these fragments belong | 
—letters, homilies, hymns—shew us only the 
outer side of the system, while its secret 
Gnostic doctrine is passed over and concealed, 
or only indicated in the obscurest manner. | 
The modes of expression in these fragments are 
brought as near as possible to those in ordinary 
church use. We see therein the evident desire 
and effort of Valentinus to remain in {π᾿ 
fellowship of the Catholic church. Of specific 
Gnostic doctrines two only appear in their 
genuine undisguised shape, that of the celestial 
origin of the spiritual man (the Pneumaticos), 
and that of the Demiurge; for the docetic 
Christology was not then, as is clear from 
Clemens Alexandrinus, pe ga paced 
to the Gnostics. All the more emphatically is 
the anthropological and ethical side of the 
system insisted on in these fragments. 

As the world is an image of the living Aeon 


| that Jesus, Ὁ 


without themselves suffering dissolution, and 
be lords over the creation and over all tran- 
sitory things (Valent. Hom. ap. Clem. Strom. 
iv. 13, ΟἹ ὰ But without the help of the 
only good Father the heart even of the 
spiritual man (the pneumaticos) cannot be 

eansed from the many evil spirits which 
make their abode in him, and each accom- 
plishes his own desire. But when the only 
good Father visits the soul, it is hallowed and 
enlightened, and is called blessed because one 
day it shall see God. This cleansing and 
illumination is a consequence of the revelation 
of the Son (sd. ii. 20, 114). 

We learn from the fragments only (Valent. 
Ep. ad Agathopoda ap. Clem. Strom. iv. 7, $9) 
steadfastness and abstinence, 
If Deity, and by virtue of 
suffer to be 


earned for Himse 
His abstinence did not even 


| corrupted the food which He received (#.¢. it 


did not undergo the natural process of diges- 
tion), because He Himself was not subject 
to corruption. It must remain undetermined 
how Valentinus defined the relation of Jesus 
to the vids. If the text of the passage quoted 
above be a = Himself in posses- 
sion of Godhead by His own abstinence, a 
notion we should expect in Ebionite rather 
than in Gnostic circles. But the true reading 
may be εἰκάζετο (not εἰργάζετο), and in that 
case the mean will be that by an ex- 
traordinary asceticism Jesus avoided every 
kind of material pollution, and so became 
Himself the image of the incorruptible and 


1002 VALENTINUS 


imperishable Godhead. At any rate, this 
fragment does not tell us whether, according 
to the teaching of Valentinus, the body of 
Jesus was pneumatic or psychical. According 
to another fragment attributed to Valentinus, 
and preserved by Eulogius of Alexandria (ap. 
Photium, Bibl. Cod. 230), he appears to have 
treated with ridicule the opinion of the “‘ Gali- 
leans ” that Christ had two natures, and to 
have maintained that He had but one nature 
composed of the visible and the invisible. 
Hilgenfeld (l.c. pp. 302 seq.) supposes the 
Valentinus of this fragment to be the Gnostic, 
while others take him to have been the 
Apollinarian. But we have no other instance 
of any Gnostic giving to Catholic Christians 
(as did the emperor Julian later) the epithet 
“*Galilean.”? Further, although Tertullian (adv. 
Prax. 29) and Origen (de Princip. i. 2, 1) may 
have spoken of two natures or two substances 
in Christ, we can hardlyimagine Valentinus pro- 
nouncing a doctrineridiculous, and yet it find- 
ing acceptance in his school. For we find the 
Occidental Valentinians actually teaching in 
very similar terms, that Soter, the common pro- 
duct of the whole Pleroma, united himself with 
the Christus of the Demiurge the Man Jesus. 
Could we otherwise assume that the fragment 
is genuine, it would serve to prove that the 
doctrine of the Oriental school concerning 
the pneumatic body of Christ was in fact the 
original teaching of Valentinus. How Valen- 
tinus thought concerning the origin of matter 
and of evil cannot be made out from existing 
fragments. When, however, we find him 
designating the Demiurge as author of death, 
we can hardly suppose that he derived the 
transitory nature and other imperfections of 
the terrestrial universe from an originally evil 
material substance. The view, moreover, 
which underlies the psalm of Valentinus, 
of which the Philosophumena have preserved 
a fragment (Philos. vi. 37, pp. 197 seq.) is 
decidedly monastic. He there sees in the 
spirit how “all things are hanging (xpeudmeva) 
and are upborne (ὀχούμενα), the flesh hanging 
on the soul, the soul upborne by the air, the 
air hanging on the aether, from Bythos fruits 
produced and from the womb the child.”’ An 
interpretation of these sayings current in the 
Valentinian school is appended. According 
to this interpretation, flesh is the ὕλη which 
depends upon the soul (the psychical nature) 
of the Demiurge. Again the Demiurge hangs 
from the spirit which is outside the Pleroma, 
t.e. the Sophia in the kingdom of the Midst, 
the Sophia from Horus and from the Pleroma, 
and finally the world of Aeons in the Pleroma 
from the abyss, 1.6. their Father. If this 
interpretation be, as we may assume, correct, 
Valentinus must have conceived the whole 
universe as forming a grand scale of being, 
beginning with the abysmal ground of all 
spiritual life, and thence descending lower and 
lower down to matter. The whole scale then 
is a descent from the perfect to ever more and 
More imperfect images; according to the 
principle expressly laid down by Valentinus, 
that the cosmos is as inferior to the living Aeon 
as the image is inferior to the living counten- 
ance (ap. Clem. Strom. iv. 13, 92). This view 
of the nature of the universe exhibits a much 
nearer relationship to Platonic philosophy 


VALENTINUS 


than to the Oriental dualism which underlay 
the older Gnostic systems; and Hippolytus 
is therefore completely right, when dealing 
with the psalm of Valentinus, to speak of 
Platonizing Gnostics (Philos. vi. 37, p. 197). 
The fragments do not give us any detailed 
acquaintance with the doctrine of Valentinus 
concerning the Aeons. The Πατήρ or Βυθός 
stands at their head; but what place in the 
Valentinian Pleroma was assigned to the 


"Av@pwios προών in whose name Adam was 


created, is difficult to determine. 

Of a two-fold Sophia, a higher and a lower, 
weread nothing. Sophia is theartist (ζωγράφος) 
who forms the world after the archetype of the 
living Aeon, in order to be honoured by his 
name. The world as formed obtains credit 
and stability through the invisible nature of 
God (Strom. iv. 13, 92). 

To what authority Valentinus made appeal 
as the source of his doctrine cannot be made 
out from the fragments. From the Homily 
to the Friends Clemens Alexandrinus has 
preserved a sentence which defines ‘‘ many of 
the things written in the public books” 


(δημοσίοις BiBXos: he means doubtless 
the writings of the O.T.) as “‘ found written 
in the church of God ’’—“‘for,’’ he adds, 


““those things which are common”? (1.6. not 
merely found in books—read, with Heinrici 
κοινά instead of κενά) ‘‘ are words from the 
heart ’’; and proceeds, ‘‘ The law written in 
the heart is the People of the Beloved One, 
both loved and loving ”’ (Grabe was wrong in 
proposing to emend λαός into λόγος). The 
meaning is that this “‘ People ’’ is in virtue of 
the inward revelation of the Logos a law unto 
itself (cf. Rom. ii. 14). But this inward 
revelation has reference only to ‘‘ that which 
is common”’ (τὰ κοινά), 1.6. to the universal 
ethical truths written in the heart which “‘ the 
church of God ”’ needs not first to learn from 
““the public books.’’ But this passage tells 
us nothing about the sources whence Valen- 
tinus derived his Gnosis. For these we must 
go back to the statement of Clemens (Strom. 
vii. 17, 106), according to which the Valen- 
tinians spoke of their leader as having learned 
of a certain Theodas, a disciple of St. Paul. 
But the actual statement of Irenaeus is more 
to be depended on, that Valentinus was the 
first who transformed the old doctrines of 
““the Gnostics’’ into a system of his own 
(Haer. i. 11, 1; cf. Tert. adv. Valentinian. 4). 
The fragments, moreover, give a series of 
points of contact with the opinions of these 
older ‘‘ Gnostics.’” We may therefore regard 
as an axiom to be adhered to in our investi- 
gations that of any two Valentinian doctrines, 
that is the older and more original which 
approaches more closely to the older and 
vulgar Gnosis (Iren. i. 30). Yet the system 
of Valentinus had a peculiar character of its 
own. He was the first to breathe a really 
philosophic spirit into the old vulgar Gnosis, 
by making use of Plato’s world of thought to 
infuse a deeper meaning into the old Gnostic 
myths. Baur, therefore, was quite right in 
emphasizing the Platonism of Valentinus 
(Christliche Gnosis, pp. 124 seq.), to which the 
Philosophumena had already called attention 
(Philos. vi. 21 sqq.-). 

Irenaeus completes the information afforded 


VALENTINUS 


by the ca sag concerning Valentinus's 
doctrine of the Aeons. At the head of them 
stands a δυὰς dvrovduacros, the “Appnros 
(called also Bu@éés and Πατὴρ ἀγέννητον) and 
his σύζυγος the Ley}. From this Dyad ro- 
ceeds a second Dyad, Πατήρ and ᾿Αλήθεια, 
which with the first Dyad forms the highest 
Tetrad. From this Tetrad a second Tetrad 
roceeds—Adyos and Zw), “Av@pwros and 
Ἐκκλησία, and these complete the First Ogdoad. 
From Λόγος and Zw proceed a Decad, from 
Av@pwros and Ἐκκλησία a Dodecad of Aeons. 
In this the number 30 of Aeons forming the 
Pleroma is completed. The names of the 
Aeons composing the Decad and the Dodecad 
are not given. We may, however, venture 
to assume that the names elsewhere given by 
Irenaeus (i. 1, 2), and literally repeated by 
Pseud-Origenes (Philos. vi. 30), and then again 
by Epiphanius (xxxi. 6) with some differences 
of detail, in his much later account, did really 
originate from Valentinus himself. They are 
as follows: From Λόγος and Zw proceed 
Βύθιος and Miss, ᾿Αγήρατος and ᾿ἔνωσις, 
Αὐτοφνὴς and ᾿Ηδονή, ᾿Ακίνητος and Σύγκρα- 
σις, Μονογενής and Μακαρία. From Ανθρωπος 
and Ἐκκλησία proceed: Παράκλητος and 
Πίστις, Πατρικός and "EXrls, Μητρικός and 
Aydrn, ᾿Αείνους and Σύνεσις, ᾿κκλησιαστικός 
and Μακαριότης, Θελητός and Σοφία. How- 
ever arbitrary this name-giving may seem, it 
is evident that the first four masculine Aeons 
repeat the notion of the First Principle, and 
the first four feminine the notion of his 
syzygy, in various forms of expression. The 


VALENTINUS 1003 
the original doctrine of Valentinus appears to 
have had in common with that of the ites 

| (Iren. i. 30), that both doctrines knew of only 


one Sophia, and that for the Ophites also 
Christus leaves the Sophia behind and escapes 
| himself into the upper realm of light. 
| The notion of a fall of the last of the Acons 
| from the Pleroma, and the consequent forma- 
tion of this lower world as the it of that 
| fall, is new and uliar to Valentinus in his 
reconstruction of the older Gnosticism. He 
/set his Platonic Monism in the place of the 
| Oriental Dualism. The Platonic thought of 
| the soul's fall and longing after the lost world 
of light he combined with the other Platonic 
| thought of the things of this lower world — 
| types and images of heavenly Archetypes, an 
| so obtained a new solution of the old problems 
| of the world's creation and the origin of evil. 
| The statements of Irenacus concerning his 
| teaching are, alas! too fragmentary and too 
| uncertain to supply a complete view of the 
| system of Valentinus. But the excerpts in 
| Clemens Alex. taken from Theodotos and the 
anatolic school contain a doctrine in §§ 1-42, 
| which at any rate stands much nearer to the 
views of Valentinus than the detailed account 
of Ptolemaic doctrines which Irenacus gives in 
i. 1-8. We have in these excerpts a somewhat 
|complete whole, differing in some important 
respects from the doctrinal system of the Italic 
school, and agreeing with that of Valentinus in 
that it knows of only one Sophia, whose off- 
spring Christus, leaving his mother, enters the 
| νυ. and sends down J esus for the redemp- 
| tion of the forsaken One. 
The doctrine of the Acons stands as much 


names Μονογενής and Νοῦς (here Aeivous) | behind the anthropological and ethical pro- 
meet us again among the Valentinians of blems in these excerpts as it does in the 
Irenaeus as expressions for the secend Mas- fragments. We find something about the 
culine Principle, and Παράκλητος as that for Pleroma in an interpretation of the prologue 
the common product of all the Aeons—the | of St. John's Gospel (Excerpt. $6.7). By the 
Soter. Πατρικός, Μητρικότ, ᾿Ἐκκλησιαστικός ἀρχή of St. John i. 1, in which the Logos 
are names simply expressing that the Aeons ‘ was,"’ we must understand the Moroyerds 
which bear them are derived from the higher ‘*Who is also called God" (the reading ὁ 
powers within the Pleroma. The feminine μονογενὴς θεός John i. 18 being followed). 
names Μακαρία, Πίστις, ᾿Ελπίς, ᾿Αγάπη. Σύνε- |“ The Logos was ἐν ἀρχῇ " means that He was 
σις, Σοφία, describe generally the perfection | jn the Monogenes, in the Νοῦς and the ᾿Αλήθεια 
of the Pleroma by means of Predicates bor- | —the reference being to the syzygy of Δ όγον 


rowed from the characteristics of the perfect — 
Pneumaticos. So that all these inferior Aeon | 
names are but a further and more detailed 
expression of the thought contained in the | 
names of the first and second Tetrad. The 
first Tetrad expresses the essence of the U 
Pleroma in itself, the second Tetrad divided | 
into two pairs of Aeons expresses its revelation | 
to the Pneumatici and the Pneumatic World. | 

The last of the 30 Aeons, the Sophia or | 
Μήτηρ, falls out of the Pleroma. In her re-— 
membrance of the better world she gives birth | 
to Christus with a shadow {μετὰ σκιᾶς Tiwot), | 
Christus, being of masculine nature, cuts away | 
the shadow from himself and hastens back 
into the Pleroma. The mother, on the other 
hand, being left behind and alone with the | 
shadow, and emptied of the pneumatic sub- | 
stance, gives birth to another Son the Demi- | 
urge, called also Παντοκράτωρ, and at the same 
time with him a sinistrous archon (the Koryo | 
κράτωρ). So then from these two elements, | 
“the right and the left," the psychical and 
the hylical, proceeds this lower world. This 


and Zw which is said to have pre from 
Νοῦς and ᾿Αλήθεια. The Logos is called God 
because He is in God, in the Not. But when 
it is said δ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ Fr, the refer- 
ence is to the Zwh as σύζυγον of the Logos. 
The Unknown Father (πατὴρ 4yrerrot) willed 
to be known to the Acons. On knowing Him- 
self through His own ‘Er@éuqeu, which was 
indeed the spirit of knowledge (τνεῦμα 
γνώσεωτ), He, by knowledge, made to emanate 
the Monogenes. The Monogenes having 
emanated from the Gnosis, ἐς. the Enthy- 
mesis of the Father, is in Himeelf Gnosis, +¢. 
Son, for it is through the Son that the Father 
is known. The πνεῦμα ἀγάπσην mingles itself 
with the πνεῦμα γνώσεων as the Pather with 
the Son (i.¢. the Monogenes or Νοῦν) and the 
Enthymesis with "A\j@aa, proceeding trom 
the Aletheia as the Gnosis peeeeens s from 
the Enthymesis. The soroyerin ridt, Who 
abides in the bosom of the Father, emanates 
from the Father's bosom and thereby declares 
(ἐξηγεῖται) the Enthymesis through Gnosis to 


1004 VALENTINUS 


the Aeons. Having become visible on earth, 
He is no longer called by the apostle Monogenes 
(simply), but ὡς μονογενής. For though 
remaining in Himself one and the same, He is 
in the creation called πρωτότοκος. and in the 
Pleroma Movoyevyjs, and appears in each 
locality as He can be comprehended there. 

The preceding survey shews that in the first 
42 paragraphs or sections of Clemens’s frag- 
ments from Theodotus we really have a well- 
connected and consistent doctrinal system. 
The scattered notices in §§ 1-28 fit tolerably 
well into the dogmatic whole, and doubtless 
we have here an account of the so-called 
anatolic school, and in substance the oldest 
form of the Valentinian system. 

The historical development of the Valen- 
tinian doctrine can be traced with only approx- 
imate certainty and imperfectly. The roots 
of the system are to be found in the old vulgar 
Gnosis. For even if the original dualistic 
foundation is repressed and concealed by a 
Platonizing pantheism, it still gives evident 
tokens of its continued existence in the back- 
ground. The ὕλη and ‘‘ dark waters” into 
which the Ophitic Sophia sinks down (Iren. i. 
30, 3) are here changed into the κένωμα or 
ὑστέρημα, which in antithesis to the πλήρωμα 
is simply an equivalent for the Platonic μὴ ὄν. 

The notion of a psychical Christus who 
passes through Mary as water through a 
conduit (Iren. vii. 2) is to be found everywhere 
in the Italic school (Phzlos. vi. 35, pp. 194 564:). 

The centre of gravity of the whole system 
lies undoubtedly in its speculative interests. 
The names alone of the 30 Aeons are a proof 
of this. It deserves notice that the designa- 
tions Νοῦς and Movoyev7js applied to the first 
masculine principle emanating from the 
supreme Father do not seem to have been used 
by Valentinus himself. It was called simply 
Πατήρ or “AvOpwros (vids ἀνθρώπου). It is a 
genuinely speculative feature that the know- 
ledge of the Father through the Son is derived 
from a union of the Spirit of Love with the 
Spirit of Knowledge. 

Since the doctrine of Valentinus concerning 
the Aeons originated in the cosmogonic and 
astral powers of the old Syrian Gnosis, one 
cannot doubt that the Aeons were originally 
thought of as mythological personages and not 
as personified notions, although Tertullian 
(adv. Valentin. 4) would refer the former view 
to Ptolemaeus, and not Valentinus, as its first 
author. 

A yet more widely different conception of 
the Valentinian doctrine of Aeons is found in 
the fragment given by Epiphanius (xxxi. 5-6). 
Here, too, the speculative interest is manifest 
in the endeavour to follow up in detail the 
process of the emanation of individual Aeons 
within the Pleroma fromthe A’tord7wp. But 
the whole description, bathed as it is in sen- 
suous warmth, with its peculiar plays with 
numbers and its barbarous names for individ- 
ual Aeons, appears to be merely a degenerate 
Marcosian form of Gnosis. 

Finally, we have a quite peculiar trans- 
formation of the Valentinian system in the 
doctrine of the so-called Docetae, as preserved 
in the Philosophumena (viii. 8-11). From the 
πρῶτος θεός, who is small as the seed of a fig- 


VALERIANUS 


tree but infinite in power, proceed first of all 
three Aeons, which by the perfect number ten 
enlarge themselves to thirty Aeons; from 
these proceed innumerable other bisexual 
Aeons, and from these an infinite multiplicity 
of Ideas, of which those of the third Aeon 
are expressed and shapen in the lower world 
of darkness as φωτειναὶ χαρακτῆρες. 

The Platonic foundation of the Valentinian 
system is very perceptible in this its last 
offshoot, though mixed up in a peculiar way 
with Oriental Dualism. At the same time 
these Docetae endeavour to reduce the meta- 
physical distinctions which they maintain to 
merely gradual ones. No part of Christen- 
dom therefore is entirely excluded from the 
knowledge of the Redeemer, and participation 
in His Redemption: all, even those of the 
lower grades of the spirit-world, participate 
at least ἐκ μέρους in the Truth. The way in 
which all, and each according to his measure, 
attain knowledge of the truth, is, as in the doc- 
trine of the church, Faith. Sincethe Redeemer’s 
advent—so we read expressly—“‘ Faith is an- 
nounced for the forgiveness of sins.” 

Beside working out philosophical problems, 
the disciples of Valentinus were much occupied 
with seeking traces of their Master’s doctrine 
in Holy Scripture. The excerpts of Clemens 
and abundant notices in Irenaeus tell of an 
allegorical method of scriptural exposition 
pursued with great zeal in the Valentinian 
schools, not limited to the Gospels or the 
Pauline Epistles, but extending to the O.T., 
and attaching special significance to the 
history of creation in Genesis. Valentinian 
expositors shew a special preference for St. 
John’s Gospel, and above all for its prologue. 
Some allegorical expositions have been pre- 
served belonging to the anatolic school (Exc. 
ex Theod. §§ 6, 7) and others derived from 
Ptolemaeus (Iren. i. 8, 5). But before all we 
must make mention of the labours of Hera- 
cleon, of which Origen has preserved numerous 
specimens. From Heracleon proceeded the 
first known commentary on St. John’s Gospel. 

VI. Literature.—Valentinus occupies a dis- 
tinguished place in all works on Gnosticism, 
e.g. in Neander, Baur, Matter, Lipsius, Mohler 
(Geschichte der Kosmologie in der Christlichen 
Kirche), Mansel (The Gnostic Heresies of the 
First and Second Centuries—a posthumous 
work, ed. by Bp. Lightfoot), and in the Prole- 
gomena of Harvey’s ed. of Irenaeus. The best 
monograph is by Heinrici (Die Valentinianische 
Gnosis und die Heilige Schrift, Berlin, 1851), 
with which cf. the review by Lipsius (Protes- 
tantische Kirchenzeitung, 1873, pp- 174-186). 
[HERACLEON ; Marcus (17). [R.A.L.] 

Valerianus (1), C. Publius Licinius, emperor. 
A.D. 253-260. Before the close of 253 Valerian 
was proclaimed emperor by the legions of 
Rhaetia and Noricum, and he associated his 
son Gallienus with him in that dignity. 

Their reigns were the most disastrous period 
in the history of Rome until that of Honorius. 
The empire seemed on the verge of dissolution. 
Every frontier was menaced by barbarian 
attacks, and even the interior provinces were 
invaded and ravaged. A German_ host 
entered Italy itself, and penetrated to Raven- 
na. The Franks, now first appearing under 
this name, assailed the Rhine frontier. The 


VALERIANUS 


Goths and their kindred tribes 
the Danube into Ilyricum and Macedonia. 
The Persians took Nisibis, and, penetrating 
into Syria, captured Antioch (7 a.p. 255). 
Worse even than all these wars was the great 
τα ὑπαὶ which had begun in the reign of Decius 
and which raged for 15 years (Zon. xii. 21). 
To these calamities was added the most 
terrible persecution the church had yet 
‘experienced. In the early part of his tolen 


Valerian was exceedingly favourable to the. 


Christians, and his palace was filled with them. 


ured across | 


But in 257 a terrible change took place. 
Valerian fell more andmore under the influence 
of the pretorian prefect Macrianus, an Egyp- 
tian, chief of the “‘ magi” of that country. 
Under his influence Valerian ordered those 
who did not belong to the religion of Rome 
at least to render outward signs of conformity 
to it under pain of exile. By the same edict, 
Christians were forbidden, under pain of 
death, to assemble for worship or enter their 
cemeteries. The cases of St. Cyprian (Acta 
Procons. c. 1, in Migne, Patr. Lat. iii. 1499) 
and St. Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. Ε. 
vii. 11) shew how uniform the procedure was 
under this edict. St. Cyprian was apparently 
the first to suffer in Africa, and the date of his 
exile (Aug. 257) shews when the persecution | 
began. is sentence was simple banishment, 
but a great number of African bishops, priests, 
deacons, and some of the laity, were sent to the 
mines and endured great hardships (Cypr. 
as 77-80 in Patr. Lat. iv. 414). 
his edict was followed in 258 by a rescript 
of tremendous severity from Valerian, who, 
in the interval, had probably set out to the 
East to take command against the Persians. 
(Early in the year he had held a council of war 
at Byzantium [Vopiscus, Vit. Aureliani, 13).) 
The punishment for the clergy of every grade 
‘was death. Apparently even recantation was 
unavailing. Senators, viri egregii, and knights 
were punished with degradation and con- 
fiscation of property, and with death if they 
refused torecant. Noble ladies were to forfeit 
their pro y and beexiled. Members of the 
imperial household suffered a similar forfeiture, 
and were to be sent in chains to work on the 
imperial possessions. It is remarkable that 
mention is only made of the clergy and the 
higher classes of the laity. The emperor's 
licy was apparently to strike at the leaders. | 
The first victim of this rescript was pope) 
Xystus, put to death on Aug. 6 as he sat in his | 
pe. ocnadl ἡ chair. Four of his deacons suffered 
with him. This was the beginning of a violent | 


ution at Rome (Cypr. Ep. 82) in which | Juncensis in Byzacena. 


our days later the famous St. Lawrence fol- 
lowed his master. Cyprian was beheaded on 
Sept. 14. Both in Rome and Africa a great 
number of Christians suffered. The best proof 
of the violence of the persecution is the long 
vacancies (about 11 months) of the sees of 
Rome and Carthage. In Spain Fructuosus, | 


VERECUNDUS 1005 


to be of long duration. Dionysius regards 
his persecution as lasting the 42 months men- 
tioned in the Apocaly His campaign 
ainst Sapor, king of 4, the scene of 
which was the neighbourhood of Edessa, was 
disastrous. He was taken prisoner late in 
260. How long he lived in captivity is un- 
known. Gallienus, imanediately cher his 
father’s captivity, stopped the persecutik 
but it probably lasted te the East till the fal 
of Macrianus, who had assumed the purple 
in 262. Zos. i. 28-36; Zon. xii. 22, 25; Bern- 
hardt, Geschichte Roms von Valerian: Tillem. 
Emp. iii., Μ νι. eccl. iv. 1; Vietor, de Caes. 
32; Epi. 32; the Life of Valerian in the 
Augean history ; Gibbon, cc. τὸ, 16). (ν.Ὁ.] 
alerianus, martyr. [(Canctita.) 
Valerius (6), bp. of Hippo Regius, predeces- 
sor of Augustine, whom he had admitted to 
the priesthood at the earnest desire of the 
people, against Augustine's wish, expressed in 
a letter to Valerius, but in answer, as Valerius 
thought, to his own prayers (Aug. Ap. a1; 
Possidius, Vit. Aug. 4, §) Contrary to 
African, but in accordance with Eastern, 
usage, Valerius caused Augustine to preach in 
his presence when he himself became unable 
to do so. When Valerius felt his own in- 
firmities increase, he obtained the consent of 
the other bishops, but at first not that of 
Megalius of Calama, primate of Numidia, to 
ordain Augustine as coadjutor to himself, 
contrary to the usual —_— of the church 
and to the express wish of Augustine, who 
refused on this ground to accept the office, 
though, as he said afterwards, he was not then 
aware of the canon of the council of Nicaea, 
forbidding two bishops in the same place. 
(Conc. Nic. can. 8, Bruns, Conc. p. 16; Aug. 
c. Petil. iii. 16, § 19, ¢. Crese. iv. 64, ἢ 79; 
Brevic. Coll. iii. 7, § 9). His objection was 
overruled τῇ the earnest desire of all con- 
cerned, and by similar instances in Africa and 
elsewhere (Aug. Epp. 31, 4; 213, 4). Valerius, 
better acquainted with Greek than with 
Latin, was rejoiced to have one so able as 
Augustine to teach and preach in the Latin 


language. He is spoken of in the highest 
terms by Augustine, Possidius, and Paulinus 
of Nola (Aug. Epp. 31, 4; 32; Possid. Vat. 


Aug. 5; Paulinus, Ep. 5). After Augustine's 
appointment, Valerius gave him a piece of land 
for his monastery (Aug. Serm. 444, 1, 2) He 
died a.p. 396 (Aug. Ep. 33, 4). Proculeianus 
was bp. of the Donatists at Hippo during his 
lifetime (Aug. Ep. 43). (wer) 
Verecundus (2), d. 552, bp. of the Civitas 
He was summoned 
to Constantinople in 549, — the ques- 
tion of the “ Three Chapters.” He died at 
Chalcedon the year before the second council 
of Constantinople. In the controversy on the 
“Three Chapters” he seems to have acted 
until his death with Virgilius, defending the 
works in question, and joining with Virgilius 


- of Tarragona, with two deacons, was burnt | in his censure on Theodore of (ἀπάγοι and 
i 


ve in the amphitheatre (Jan. 21, 259). 


served by Eusebius (H. Ε΄. vii. 12). 

came before the governor and declared them- 
selves Christians. A woman who was a fol- 
lower of Marcion shared their fate. 


But the reign of Valerian was not destined | 


In) 
Palestine the names of three martyrs are + nt 
ey 


Menas of Constantinople. He is probably the 
presbyter Verecundus who composed a com- 
mentary on the ecclesiastical canticles, com- 

ehending the of Miriam, Moses (from 
Jeut.), Azariah, Hezekiah, Habakkuk, and 
Deborah, the prayer οἱ Manasech, and the 
thanksgiving of Jonah. The commentary is 


1006 VERONICA 


printed in vol. iv. of the Spicilegium Soles- 
mense, with other works attributed to Vere- 
cendus. It shews some philosophical learning 
and historical knowledge, and some illustra- 
tions are drawn from his own experience. 
His manner of referring to the Vandal per- 
secution in Africa and the unsettled state of 
affairs seems to fix its date before 534, when 
the persecution ended. The poems attributed 
to him, and also published in the Spicilegium, 
are (1) ‘‘Exhortatio Poenitendi,”’ (2) ‘‘de 
Satisfactione Poenitentiae,’’ (3) ‘‘ Crisias.”’ 
The spirit of the first two poems is alike: 
both express a strong sense of the need of 
Tepentance and an earnest anticipation of 
the Judgment. The poems are hortatory 
rather than penitential. The third poem, 
concerning the signs of the Judgment, is 
probably not by the samehand. It has much 
more artificiality and much less earnestness. 
A Breviarium Concilit Chalcedonensis, 
drawn up so as to favour the supporters of the 
“ Three Chapters,’’ is attributed to Verecun- 
dus. It is very possibly his, but may have 
been composed by a more extreme partisan 
and issued under his name by one who re- 
garded him as a confessor and wished to obtain 
the influence of his reputation. Pitra prints 
this also in the Spicilegium. [H.A.W.] 
Veronica (Haemorrhoissa, ἡ aiuoppoodca), 
the woman cured of a bloody issue (Matt. ix. 
20). Eusebius (H. E. vii. 18) relates that she 
was a native of Caesarea Philippi, and adds 
that ‘‘at the gates of her house, on an 
elevated stone, stands a brazen image of a 
woman on a bended knee, with her hands 
stretched out before her, like one entreating. 
Opposite to this there is another image of a 
man erect, of the same materials, decently 
clad in a mantle, and stretching out his hand 
to the woman. Before her feet, and on the 
same pedestal, there is a strange plant growing 
which, rising as high as the hem of the brazen 
garment, is a kind of antidote to all kinds of 
diseases. This statue, they say, is a statue 
of Jesus Christ, and it has remained even until 
our times, so that we ourselves saw it whilst 
tarrying in that city. Nor is it to be won- 
dered at that those of the Gentiles who were 
anciently benefited by our Saviour should 
have done these things. Since we have also 
seen representations of the apostles Peter and 
Paul and of Christ Himself still preserved in 
paintings, it is probable that, according to 
a practice among the Gentiles, the ancients 
were accustomed to pay this kind of honour 
indiscriminately to those who were as saviours 
or deliverers to them.’”’ Legendary tradition 
about Veronica flourished during and after 
4th cent. Macarius Magnesius says she was 
princess of Edessa, and that her name was 
Veronica or Berenice (Macarii Magnet. ed. 
Blondel, Paris, 1876; Tillem. Mém. i. 20; 
Hist. des emp. iv. 308), following whom 
Baronius (Ammnal. xxxi. 75) makes her rich 
and noble. A late tradition represents her 
as a niece of king Herod and as offering her 
veil, or a napkin, as a sudarium to the suffering 
Christ on the Way of the Cross, Whose pictured 
features were thus impressed upon the linen. 
This tradition has found no acceptance since 
the 11th cent. ; the “‘ veronicas ’’ often shewn, 
and accredited with miraculous powers of 


VETTIUS EPAGATHUS 


healing, are face-cloths from the catacombs 
on which Christian reverence and affection 
have painted the features of the Saviour (see 
Wyke Bayliss, Rex Regum, 1905), and the 
legend has arisen from the finding of these ; 
the name of the saint being clearly formed 
from the description of such a face-cloth as a 
vera icon. The Gospel of Nicodemus introduces 
her as one of the witnesses on behalf of 
Christ at His trial by Pilate; (Thilo, Cod. 
Apocryph. N.T. p. 560; Acta SS. Bol. Jul. iii. 
273-279). [G.T.S. AND ED.] 
Vespasianus, Titus Flavius, emperor July 1, 
69, to June 24, 79, and his son Titus, emperor 
June 24, 79, to Sept. 13, 81. Asa great part 
of the imperial power was exercised by Titus 
during his father’s reign, of which his own 
short reign may be regarded as the continua- 
tion, it seems convenient to treat them to- 
gether. The influences of these princes on 
Christianity was wholly indirect. The de- 
struction of Jerusalem and the temple tended 
to hasten the complete separation of Judaism 
and Christianity. This distinction, however, 
had not as yet become apparent to the Roman 
authorities, and as far as they had any know- 
ledge of the existence of Christians, they 
regarded them as merely a Jewish sect. A 
long and almost unbroken chain of Christian 
authorities bear witness to the favourable 
condition of Christianity under these emperors. 
Melito of Sardis, writing in the reign of M. 
Aurelius (Eus. H. E. iv. 26), knows of no 
imperial persecutors except Nero and Domi- 
tian. Tertullian (Apol. 5) expressly denies 
that Vespasian was a persecutor. Lactantius 
(Mortes 2, 3) knows of no persecution between 
Nero and Domitian. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 17) 
expressly asserts that Vespasian did no harm 
to the Christians. Hilary of Poictiers, writing 
after 360, is the first to make any charge of 
persecution against Vespasian. In a rhetori- 
cal passage (contra Arianos, 3,in Migne, Patr. 
Lat. x. 611), contrary to all previous Christian 
testimony, he couples Vespasian with Nero 
and Decius. Sulpicius Severus (H. E. ii. 30 
in Patr. Lat. xx. 146), in a passage whose style 
suggests it was borrowed from one of the lost 
books of Tacitus, states that the motive of 
Titus in destroying the temple was to abolish 
not only Judaism but Christianity, but he 
does not mention any hostile act on the part 
of Vespasian or his son against the Christians. 
We may consider that the reigns of these 
first two Flavian emperors were a period of 
tranquillity for the church. For their relation 
to the church see Tillemont, Mém. eccl. ii. 
102, 152, 555; Aubé, Hist. des persec. c. 4; 
Gorres, Zeitsch. fiir wissent. Theol. xxi. 492. 
M. Double (L’Empereur Titus) ingeniously 
that maintains, contrary to the usual opinion, 
he was a monster of wickedness. [F.D.] 
Vettius Epagathus. In the early persecu- 
tions the Christians felt it to be a gross injus- 
tice that a man should be put to death merely 
because he acknowledged himself to be a 
Christian, and without any investigation 
whether there was anything contrary to 
morality or piety in the Christian doctrines 
or practices. It not unfrequently happened 
[Lucius] that a bystander at a trial would 
press on the judge the necessity of such an 
investigation, whereupon the magistrate 


--Ο el 


ee a. copia 


VICTOR 


would say, I think you must be a Christian also 
* pea and on the advocate's confessing that 
6 was, would send him to share the fate of | 
those whom he had attempted to defend. 
This befell Vettius ha a distinguished 
Christian citizen of Lyons in the persecution 
of a.p. 177. He came forward as the advocate | 
of the Christians first apprehended, and in 
consequence was himself ** taken up unto the 
lot of the martyrs.’’ The word ‘‘ martyr,"’ as 
at first used, did not necessarily imply that he 
who bore witness for Christ seal is testi- 
mony by death; and Renan (Mare Auréle, 
Ῥ. 307) is of opinion that Vettius had “* only 
the merits of martyrdom without the reality,”’ 
since no mention is made of Vettius in the 
subsequent narration of the sufferings of 
Christians tortured in the amphitheatre, ἀπά, 
what Renan thinks decisive, the epistle of the 
churches says of Vettius that “‘he was and ts 
a genuine disciple of Christ, following the 
Lamb whithersoever he goeth."’ But the. 
addition ** following the Lamb, ete.”’ indicates 
that the “is” does not refer to the life οὐ 
Vettius in this world, but rather tothat which 
he enjoyed in company with Christ. Vettius 
was probably a Roman citizen, and as such 
was simply beheaded instead of undergoing 
the tortures of the amphitheatre. (G.s.] 
Vietor (1), bp. of Rome after Eleutherus, | 
in the reigns of Commodus and Severus. The_ 
Eusebian Chronicle assigns him 12 years, | 
ending 198 or 199 ; Eusebius (H. Ε. v. 28) τὸ, 
years, and says that Zephyrinus succeeded | 
him about the 9th year of Severus, #.¢. A.D. | 
202. Lipsius (Chron. der rom. Bischof.) supposes 
his episcopate to have been from 189 to 198 
or 199. n probably after his accession he 
excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium (ὁ 
oxute’s), who had come to Rome, and taught 
that Christ was a mere man (Eus. H. E. v. 28 ; 
cf. Epiphan. Haeres. liv. 1). Eusebius is 
uoting from an opponent of the sect of 
emon, who afterwards under pope Zephy- 
rinus maintained a similar heresy. It appears 
from the quotation that the Artemonites 
alleged all the b 
rinus to have held the same views with them- 
selves; and the allegation is refuted by the 
fact of Victor, the predecessor of Zephyrinus, 
having excommunicated Theodotus, * the 
founder and father of the God-denying 
apostasy.” Montanism also was rife in Asia 


inor during the reign of Victor, who is sup- 


posed by some of have been the bp. of Rome 
alluded to by Tertullian (adv. Prax. c. 1) as 
having issued letters of peace in favour of its 
upholders, though afterwards persuaded by 
Praxeas to revoke his approval. But others 
think it more probable that Eleutherus was 
referred to. See, however, MONTANUS. 
Victor’s most memorable action was with 
regard to the Asians αν ὑπο — question. 
Theystill persisted in the Quart man 
pleading the authority of St. John for rahe σι 
their Pasch on the 14th of Nisan, on whatever 
day of the week it fell. So far intercommu- 
nion between them and the church of Rome 
had not been broken on this account. In the 
time of Victor the usage of the Asians (in which, 
according to Eusebius, they stood alone a 
all the churches of Christendom) attract 
general attention. Synods were held on the 


| with them. 


. of Rome before Zephy- | 


VicTOR 1007 


subject in various parte—in Palestine under 
Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of 
Jerusalem, in Pontus under Palmas, in Gaul 
under Irenacus, in Corinth under its bishop 
Bachillus, at Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, and 
elsewhere, by all of which synodical letters 
were issued, unanimous in disapproval of the 
Asian custom, and in declaring that “on the 
Lord's Day only the mystery of the resurree- 
tion of the Lord from the dead was accom- 
plished, and that on that day only we keep the 
close of the paschal fast δ (Bus. HW. &. ν. 24) 
But the general feeling was that the retention 
of their own tradition by the Asians was no 
sufficient ground for breaking off communion 
Victor alone was intolerant of 
difference. He had issued a letter in behalf 
of the Roman church to the like effeet with 
those of the synods held elsewhere. Prom a 
reply to it we may conclude it to have been 


pormnptnry in its requirement of compliance. 


his reply was from Polyerates, bp. of Ephe- 
sus, as head of the Asian churches, who, at 
Victor's desire, had convened an assembly of 


| bishops which concurred with Polyerates in 


his rejoinder. He resolutely up the 
Asian tradition, supporting it by the authority 
of Philip the apostle, who, with his two aged 
virgin daughters, was buried at Hierapolis ; 
of another saintly daughter of his who lay at 
Ephesus ; of St. John, also at rest at Ephesus; 
of Polycarp of Smyrna, bishop and martyr ; 
of Thraseas of Eumenia, also bishop and 
martyr, who slept at Smyrna. After naming 
others who had kept the 14th day according 
ἴο the Gospel, he speaks of seven of his own 
kinsmen, all tishoos. who had maintained the 
same usage. He adds, “1 therefore, having 
been for 65 years in the Lord, and having 
| conferred with the brethren from the whole 
world, and having used all the Holy Serip- 
ture, am not scared with those who are ic- 
| stricken. For those who are greater t I 
have said, ‘ It is right to obey God rather than 
men.’ After receiving this reply Victor 
|endeavoured to induce the church at large 
to excommunicate the Asians, but failed. 
Whether he himself, notwithstanding, re- 
nounced communion with them on the part 
οὗ the Roman church is not clear from the 
language of Eusebius. Socrates (4, &. v. 22) 
says he did; and this is probable. Jerome 
(de Vir. Ill, ©. 35) speaks only of his desire to 
have them generally condemned. Evidently 
the judgment of the bp. of Rome did not in 
that age carry any irresistible weight with 
other churches, for Eusebius expressly tells 
us that “these things did not please all the 
bi " and that they wrote “ sharply 
assailing Victor.” He cites a letter sent on 
| the occasion to Victor by lrenacus, who, though 
holding with him on the question at issue, 
‘exhorted him in the name of a « of the 
church of Gaul “that he should not cut 
off whole churches of God for preserving the 
tradition of an ancient custom.” Lastly, he 
cites “ the elders before Soter,” chiefs of the 
| Roman church, who had been at peace with 
those from other dioceses differing from them 
in the matter at issue; and especially Anice- 
‘tus, who, though unable to persuade the 
blessed Polyearp to give up the custom which, 
“with John the disciple of our Lord, aod the 


1008 VICTOR, CLAUDIUS MARIUS 


other apostles with whom John lived,”’ he had 
always observed, and though himself not 
persuaded to renounce the custom of the 
elders in his own church, had still honourably 
accorded the Eucharist in the church to 
Polycarp, and parted from him in peace (Eus. 
H. E. v.24). Jerome (u.s.) alludes to several 
letters written by Irenaeus to the same purpose. 
The Quartodecimans seem to have maintained 
their usage till the council of Nicaea, which 
enjoined its discontinuance. The intolerance 
of Victor evidently neither won _ general 
approval nor effected his intended purpose. 
Victor is mentioned by St. Jerome (op. cit. 
c. 34) as a writer of a treatise on the Easter 
question and other works. [1-8--.] 
Victor (39) (Victorius, Victorinus), Clau- 
dius Marius, the author of three books in 
hexameter verse, containing the narrative of 
Genesis down to the destruction of the cities 
of the Plain; author also of a letter to 
“*Salmon,”’ or Solomon, an abbat, in hexa- 
meter verse, on the corrupt manners of his 
time. He is probably the Victorius, or 
Victorinus, mentioned by Gennadius (de Vir. 
Ill. 60) as a rhetorician of Marseilles, who died 
““Theodosio et Valentiano regnantibus ”’ (1.6. 
425-450), and who addressed to his son 
Aetherius a commentary on Genesis. Genna- 
dius says “8 principio libri usque ad obitum 
patriarchae Abrahae tres diversos. edidit 
libros.”” This does not accurately describe the 
work we have under the name of Cl. M. Victor. 
But there is a diversity of reading in the 
passage of Gennadius. In Erasmus’s ed. of 
St. Jerome the passage stands ‘‘ quatuor ver- 
suum edidit libros.” If this be the right 
reading, it seems almost certain that the three 
books we have of Cl. M. Victor, ending as they 
now do at a point which seems to call for some 
explanation, are the first three books of those 
mentioned by Gennadius, and that a fourth 
book, now lost, carried on the narrative to 
Abraham’s death, where a natural halting- 
place for the work is presented. The three 
books correspond very well with what Genna- 
dius says of the work of Victorius; they are 
written in a pious and Christian spirit, but 
without depth or great force of treatment. 
They are, mainly, a paraphrase in verse of 
part of Genesis with but few reflections; 
the narrative, with one or two exceptions, 
keeping closely to that of Scripture. The 
most notable variation is the introduction of 
a prayer by Adam on his expulsion from 
Paradise, which is followed by a strange 
episode. The serpent is discerned by Eve, 
who urges Adam to take vengeance on him. 
In assdiling him with stones, a spark is struck 
from a flint, which sets fire to the wood in 
which Adam and Eve had taken shelter, and 
they are threatened with destruction. This 
mishap is the means of revealing to them 
metals, forced from the ground by the heat, 
and of preparing the earth, by the action of the 
fire, for the production of corn. The style 
of the poem and its language are in no way 
remarkable; its versification is generally 
tolerable, but there are instances of wrong 
quantities of syllables. The Ep. to Salomon 
is a poem of about roo hexameters, and more 
original, though not of special interest. Both 
are in De la Bigne’s Bibl. Patr. viii. 278, and 


VICTOR VITENSIS 


Appendix; and in Maittaires’ Corpus Poet- 
arum Lat. ii. 1567. [H.A.W.] 
Victor (44) Vitensis, a N. African bishop and 
writer. The known facts of his life are very 
few. He was called Vitensis either after his 
see or after his birthplace. He seems to have 
been numbered amongst the clergy of Car- 
thage c. 455. His Hust. Persecuttonis Pro- 
vinciae Africanae is very interesting, as he 
appears to have been with safety an eye- 
witness of the Vandal persecution for more 
than 30 years. He was actively employed by 
Eugenius, metropolitan of Carthage, in 483. 
Early in that year Hunneric banished 4,966 
bishops and clergy of every rank. Victor was 
used by Eugenius to look after the more aged 
and infirm of the bishops. The History gives 
us a view of the religion of the Vandals. It 
also relates many particulars about Carthage, 
its churches, their names and dedications, as 
those of Perpetua and Felicitas, of Celerina and 
the Scillitans (i. 3). It shews the persistence 
of paganism at Carthage, and mentions the tem- 
ples of Memory and of Coelestis as existing till 
the Vandals levelled them after their capture 
of Carthage. This temple of Coelestis existed 
in the time of Augustine, who describes in his 
de Civ. Det, lib. ii. ce. 4, 26 (cf. Tertull. A pol. 
c. 24) the impure rites there performed. Its 
site was elaborately discussed by M. A. Castan 
in a Mém. in the Comptes rendus de V Acad. 
des Inscript. t. xiii. (1885), pp. 118-132, where 
all the references to its cult were collected out 
of classical and patristic sources. Victor’s 
History contains glimpses of N. African ritual. 
In lib. ii. 17 we have an account of the healing 
of the blind man Felix by Eugenius, bp. of 
Carthage. The ritual of the feast of Epiphany 
is described, while there are frequent refer- 
ences to the singing of hymns or psalms at 
funerals. In Hist. lib. v. 6, we read that the 
inhabitants of Tipasa refused to hold com- 
munion with the Arian bishop. Hunneric 
sent a military count, who collected them all 
into the forum and cut out their tongues by 
the roots, notwithstanding which they all 
retained the power of speech. This remark- 
able fact has been discussed by Gibbon, c. 
XXXxvii., by Middleton in his Free Inquiry, 
PPp- 313-316, and by many others. The 
History of Victor is usually divided into five 
books. Bk. i. narrates the persecution of 
Genseric, from the conquest of Africa by the 
Vandals in 429 till Genseric’s death in 477. 
Bks. ii. iv. and v. deal with the persecution 
of Hunneric, a.D. 477-484; while bk. iii. 
contains the confession of faith drawn up by 
Eugenius of Carthage and presented to Hun- 
neric at the conference of 484 (cf. Gennadius, 
de Vir. Ill. No. 97). In the Confession (lib. 
iii. 11) the celebrated text I. John v. 7, con- 
cerning the three heavenly witnesses, first 
appears. (See on this point Porson’s letter 
to Travis, and Gibbon’s notes on c. xXxxvii.). 
The life and works of Victor have been the 
subject of much modern German criticism, 
which has not, however, added a great deal 
to our knowledge. Ebert’s Literatur des 
Mittelalters im Abendlande (Leipz. 1874), t. i. 
433-436, fixes the composition of the History 
at c. 486. In A. Schaefer’s Historische Unter- 
suchungen (Bonn, 1882), Aug. Auler (pp. 253- 
275) maintains, with much learning and 


VICTOR 


acuteness, that Victor was born in Vita, that 
his see is unknown, that he was consecrated 
bishop after the persecution, and wrote his 
History before 487, and that this History is a 
πῆρ οὗ tendency-writing and untrustworthy. 
€ cannot recognize in the action of Genule 
against the Catholic party anything but a 
legitimate measure of state repression. The 
best of the older editions of the History is 
that of Ruinart, reprinted with its elaborate 
dissertations in Migne's Patr. Lat. Iviii. 
Michael Petschenig, in the Vienna Corpus 
Scriptt. Ecclesiast. Lat. τ. vii. (Vindob. 1881) 
abandons the old division of the text, dating 
from Chifflet in 17th cent., and divides it into 
three books. In all the editions will be found 
the Notstia Prov. εἰ Civit. Africae, a valuable 
document for the geography and ecclesiastical 
arrangements of N. Africa. Ceill. (x. 448- 
465) gives a full analysis of Victor's History. 
It was translated into French in 1563 and 
1664, into English in 1605. [ο.τ.5. 

V ἴδιον (47), bp. of Capua, apart from his 
writings is known only by his epitaph, which 
States that he died in Apr. 554, after an 
oon of about 13 years from Feb. 541 
(Ughelli, vi. 306). 

ritings.—I. He is best known from his 
connexion with the Codex Fuldensis (F), after 
the C. Amiatinus the most ancient and 
valuable MS. of the Vulgate, transcribed by 
his direction and afterwards corrected by 
him. The MS. is remarkable for containing 
the Gospels in the form of a Harmony. In his 
reface he relates that a MS. without a title 
ad come into his hands containing a single 
Gospel com d of the four. Inquiring into 
its auth ip, he concludes, though with 
some doubt, that it was identical with the 
works of Tatianus (ΤΊ, which by a blunder 
he calls Diapente instead of Diatessaron. So 
little was known till 1876 of the Diatessaron 
that it was generally supposed that Victor was 
mistaken. It was known that the Diatessaron 
began with John i. 1, whereas F begins with 
the preface from Luke. But Mésinger’s ed. in 
1876 of Aucher’s Latin trans. of the Armenian 
version of Epuraim Syrus’s Commentary on 
the Diatessaron (E), followed by Zahn's Fors- 
chungen zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen 
Kanons, i. (Z), made known the contents and 
arrangements of the Diatessaron suthciently 
to show that the archetype of F was formed 
by taking T and substituting for each Syriac 
fragment in Tatian's mosaic the correspond- 
ing fragment from the Vulgate, the adapter 
occasionally altering ἮΝ = — = 
assages missing in T. e discrepancies 
Larwemn the index and text in F shew that it 
underwent further changes after assuming a 
Latin shape, but it is impossible to say how 
far the differences between it and T proceed 
from such subsequent alterations or are due 
to the original adapter. The date of the 
adaptation is uncertain, the limits being 353, 
the date of the be ge being brought out, and 
545, the date of F. The discrepancies be- 
tween index and text demand a date con- 
siderably before the latter limit, but it must 
have been made after the Vulgate had become 
well known and popular, which was not till long 
after it appeared. The most probable date, 
therefore, seems to be midway between the 


VICTOR 1009 


| limits, or the second half of sth cont. say ¢, 
470. The notices in Gennadius (d¢ Vir. 11.). 
who wrote gy this period, collected by 
Zahn (312, 315), that cither the author 
was a Syriac scholar or was uainted 
with one; pilgrimages from the ot to 
Egypt and Palestine were then went. To 
substitute in Tatian’s mosaic τ proper 
fragments of the Vulgate would require a 
| much less thorough knowledge of Syriac than 
| an independent translation would imply, 
| _ F also contains the rest of the ΝΥ. with 
δὲ Ep. to the Laodiceans in the order: 
| Pauline Epistles (Phil. being followed by L. and 
11. Thess., Col., Laodiceans, I. and IL. Tim., 
| Tit., Philemon, and Heb.), the Acts, the seven 
| Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, the 
whole concluding with the verses of 
Damasus on St. Paut. To each book, except 
the Laodiceans, is prefixed a brevis or table of 
headings, and to each Pauline Epistle except 
Hebrews, and to the Acts and the Apocalypse, 
a short face. To the Pauline Epistles are 
also prefixed a table of lessons from them, a 
general preface or argument of them, a long 
| special argument of the Romans, and a con- 
| cordance of the Epistles giving references to 
the various passages treating of each particular 
doctrine. To the Acts is prefixed an account 
lof the burial-places of the Apostles. There 
| is a short general preface to the seven Catholic 
Epistles, and also the remarkable preface 
purporting to be St. Jerome's, which contains 
the accusation, referred to by Westcott and 
Hort (G. T. #4. Notes on Select Readings, 105), 
against the Latin translators of omitting ¢ 
*Patris Filii et Spiritus testimonium"™ in I. 
John v. 7, 8, while the text itself is free from 
the interpolation. Besides this there are 
other places where, as in the Gospel, the text 
and supplementary matter no longer corre- 
| Spond exactly, shewing that changes have 
loccurred since the former was composed. 
E.g. the General Argument to the Pauline 
Epistles reckons but 14 in all, including the 
Hebrews, and therefore —t that to the 
Laodiceans, though it stands in the text. 
Again, the preface to the Colossians, “ Colos- 
senses et hii sicut Laodicienses sunt Asiani,"’ 
| must have been written when the Laodiceans 
| preceded the Colossians, but the transposition 
| may be due to Victor himself. 
| The whole MS. was carefully revised and 
corrected by Victor, in whose hand are three 
| notes, one at the end of the Acts ne ων at 
the end of the Apocalypse, respectively re- 
cording that he had finished reading the MS. 
on May 2, $46, Apr. τὸ, $46, and a second 
time on Apr. 12, $47. In the same hand are 
| occasional glosses, the most remarkable being 
the explanation of the number of the beast in 
ithe Revelation as Teitan. The MS. was 
ed. in 1868 by E. Ranke, whose preface fully 
describes it and its history; the Harmony 
only is in Migne (Patr. Lat. levill. 255) 
i. Victor was the author of several com 
| mentaries on the Ο, and N. T., ly comsist- 
of extracts from various fathers, partly 
‘original. Pitra (Spicil. Sol, i.) has edited 
‘fragments of some on O.T., contained in 
an Expositio in Heptateuchum by Joannes 
Disconus. Another work is the Keticwles, of 
On Noah's Ark (p. 287), containing an extra- 


way 


1010 VICTOR TUNUNENSIS 


ordinary calculation to shew that its dimen- 
sions typify the number of years in the life of 
our Lord. On N.T. Victor wrote a commen- 
tary, 11 fragments of which, preserved in the 
Collections of Smaragdus, are collected by 
Pitra (Patr. Lat. cii. 1124), according to whom 
a St. Germinain MS. of Rabanus Maurus’s 
Commentary on St. Matthew marks numerous 
passages as derived from Victor. Fragments 
of Capitula de Resurrectione Domini are given 
in Spicil. Sol. i. (liv. lix. 1Χ11. lxiv.), in which 
Victor touches on the difficulties in the 
genealogy in St. Matthew and on the dis- 
crepancy between St. Mark and St. John as to 
the hour of the Crucifixion. Of the last he 
gives the explanation of Eusebius in Quaestiones 
ad Marinum, and also one of his own. 

III. Victor’s most celebrated work was that 
on the Paschal Cycle mentioned by several 
chroniclers and praised by Bede (de Rat. 
Tempa. 51), whose two extracts are in Patr. 
Lat. \xviii. 1097, xc. 502. The rest was sup- 
posed to be lost till considerable extracts from 
it contained in the Catena of Joannes Diaconus 
were pub. in Spicil. Sol. (i. 296). It was 
written c. 550, to controvert the Paschal Cycle 
of Vicrortus (2), according to which Easter 
Day would have fallen that year on Apr. 17, 
while Victor considered Apr. 24 the correct 
day in accordance with the Alexandrine 
computation which he defends. [F.D.] 

Victor (48) Tununensis, an African bishop 
and chronicler. He was a zealous supporter of 
the ‘Three Chapters,’ enduring much per- 
secution after 556 and till his death c. 567, 
both in his own province and in Egypt. Of 
his Chronicle, from the creation to A.D. 566, 
only the portion 444-566 remains, dealing 
almost exclusively with the history of the 
Eutychian heresy and the controversy about 
the ‘‘ Three Chapters.’’ It also gives details 
about the Vandal persecution, the memory of 
which must have been still fresh in his youth, 
and various stories telling against Arianism. 
The Chronicle is very useful for illustrations of 
the social and religious life of cent. vi. It is 
printed in Migne’s Patr. Lat. t. Ixviii. with 
Galland’s preface. Cf. Isid. de Vir. Ill. c. 38 ; 
Cave’s Hist. Lit. i. 415. A treatise On Peni- 
tence, included among the works of St. 
Ambrose, is attributed to Victor; Ceill. v. 
512, x. 469, xi. 302. (G.T.s.] 

Victorinus (4), St., of Pettau, bishop and 
martyr. He was apparently a Greek by 
birth, and (according to the repeated state- 
ment of Cassiodorus) a rhetorician before he 
became bp. of Pettau (Petavio) in Upper 
Pannonia. He is believed to have suffered 
martyrdom in_ Diocletian’s persecution. 
St. Jerome (our chief authority concerning 
him) mentions him several times, and with 
respect even where his criticisms are adverse. 
He enumerates among his works (Catal. Script. 
Eccl. 74) commentaries on Gen., Ex., Lev., 
Is., Ezek., Hab., Eccles., Cant., Matt., and 
Reyv., besides ἃ treatise ‘‘adversus omnes 
haereses.”’ Jerome occasionally cites the opin- 
ion of Victorinus (7 Eccles. iv. 13; in Ezech. 
Xxvi. and elsewhere), but considered him to 
have been affected by the opinions of the 
Chiliasts or Millenarians (see Catal. Script. 
18, and im Ezech. l.c.). He also states that he 
borrowed extensively from Origen. In con- 


VICTORINUS 


sequence, perhaps, of his Millennarian ten- 
dencies, or of his relations to Origen, his works 
were classed as “‘ apocrypha ”’ in the Decretum 
de Libris Rectpiendis, which Baronius (ad ann. 
303) erroneously refers to a synod held under 
Gelasius. Little or nothing is left—nothing, 
indeed, which can be said to be his with any 
certainty. Poems are attributed to him with 
no authority better than that of Bede; while 
the two lines Bede quotes as his were clearly 
written by some one with a tolerable know- 
ledge of Latin. [H.A.W.] 

Victorinus (6), called Caius Marius (Hieron. 
Comm. on Gal. Proleg.) and also Marius 
Fabius (see Suringar, Hist. Scholiast. Lat. p. 
153, note); known also as Afey, from the 
country of his birth. He is to be distinguished 
from two Christian writers called Victorinus 
mentioned by Gennadius (de Scriptor. Eccl. 
cc. 60 and 88), and from Victorinus of Pettau, 
the commentator on the Apocalypse. He was 
a celebrated man of letters and rhetorician in 
Rome in the middle of 4th cent. 

His conversion is the subject of the well- 
known narrative in St. Augustine’s Confes- 
stons (bk. viii. cc. 2-5). In extreme old age 
zealous study of Scripture and Christian 
literature convinced him of the truth of 
Christianity. He told Simplician, afterwards 
bp. of Milan, that he was a Christian, and when 
Simplician refused to regard him as such till 
he saw him ‘‘in the church,’”’ asked him in 
banter ‘‘ whether walls, then, make Chris- 
tians ? ’’—a characteristic question from one 
disposed to regard Christianity rather as 
another school of philosophy than as a social 
organization. The fear of his friends, how- 
ever, which kept him from making profession 
of his faith, was removed by further medita- 
tion, and after being enrolled as a catechumen 
for a short time, he was baptized, and by his 
own deliberate choice made his preliminary 
profession of faith with the utmost publicity. 
St. Augustine gives us a vivid account of the 
excitement and joy his conversion caused in 
Christian circles at Rome. This was at 
least before the end of the reign of Constantius, 
A.D. 361; but he continued to teach rhetoric 
in Rome till 362, when Julian’s edict forbad 
Christians to be public teachers (Aug. Conf. 
l.c.). Then, “choosing rather to give over 
the wordy school than God’s Word,” he 
withdrew, and as St. Jerome emphasizes his 
great age before conversion, it is not surprising 
that we hear no moreof him. He lived, how- 
ever, long enough to write a number of 
Christian treatises and commentaries, and it 
is possible that Jerome alludes to him as 
alive on the outbreak of the disputes con- 
nected with the name of Jovinian in 382. 
(See Proleg. to Victorinus in Migne’s Patr. Lat. 
vol. viii. p. 994 for question of reading.) 

The following is a list of his Christian 
writings: (1) The anti-Arian treatise, de 
Generatione Verbi Divint, in reply to the de 
Generatione Divina by Candidus the Arian. 
(2) The long work adversus Arium, elicited by 
Candidus’s brief rejoinder to the former 
treatise. Bk. ii. must have been written not 
later than 361 (see 6. 9), bk. i. c. 365 (see c. 28). 
(3) The de ὁμοουσίῳ Recipiendo, a summary 
of (2). (4) Three Hymns, mainly consisting 
of formulas and prayers intended to elucidate 


VICTORINUS 


the relations of the Trinity. (s) Com- 
mentaries on Gal., Phil., and Eph. Though 
lacking continuous merit (see Lightfoot, Gal, 
Ῥ. 227), these are probably the first Latin 
commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles (see 
Hieron. Comm. in Gal. Proleg.). (6) An 


anti-Manichean treatise, with reasonable cer-_ 


tainty ascribed to him (Migne, Proleg. § 3), 
ad Justinum Manichaewm, is the earliest extant 


treatise against the Manicheans, and insists 
with considerable insight on the inconsistencies | 


of their dualism. 7) A very strange little 
treatise, de Verbis Scripturae “" Factum est 
vespere εἰ mane dies unus.”’ For an Eng. 
trans. of the fragments see Ante-Nicene Lib. 

Besides these we may notice the de Physicts, 
ascribed to him by Cardinal Mai (see his re- 
marks in Migne prefixed to the treatise, p. 
1295). It is an ably written treatise on the 
Creation, Fall, and Recovery of Man. But the 
Style does not suggest the authorship of Vic- 
torinus, and the character of the quotations 
from N.T. seems to argue a different author. 

We have some allusions in his extant works 
to others which have perished, ¢.g. on Eph. iv. 
Io (lib. ii. ist.) there is an allusion to a com- 
mentary on Cor. Cardinal Mai refers to a 
commentary on Leviticus by Victorinus 
extant in the Vatican (see Ceillier, Auteurs 
Sacrés, vol. iv. p. 328, note 2). 

All these writings of Victorinus (except the 
commentaries, which approach more nearly to 
lucidity) are very astonishingly obscure for 
one of Victorinus’s reputation as a rhetorician. 
This, together with the recondite nature of the 
theological subjects he treats, the ert 
corrupt condition of the text as hitherto edited, 
the barbarous mixture of Greek and bad Latin 
in which he often writes, and his prolixity and 
repetitions, have caused him to be ignored 
more than his substantial merits deserve. 
There is one notable exception to the usual 
severe judgments on his style and matter. 
Thomassin, whose theological judgment is 
weighty, speaks of him as “inferior to none 
in the profundity of his insight into the 
inmost mysteries "’ of the Divine Being, and 
the relation of the Persons ef the Trinity to 
one another (de Incarn. Verbi, bk. ii. c. i. § 6). 
This judgment will put us on the right lines 
for estimating his position and powers. He 
has no special merits as a commentator, nor 
the capacities of a dogmatic theologian in the 
ordinary sense. He does not manipulate 
skilfully the stock anti-Arian arguments. 
combats, generally as badly as possible, the 
objection to the ὁμοούσιος as an unscriptural 
term (adv. Ar. i. 30, p. 1063 B,c*; and ii. 
8, 9, Pp- 1094-1095). He has none of the 
controversial power and vividness of Athana- 
sius or Augustine. Almost all his importance 
lies in his metaphysical and speculative 
capacities, and in his belief in the power of the 
intellect to give a rational presentation of the 
Trinitarian Creed, etc. He does, indeed, feel 
the danger of such speculation. “It is mad- 
ness,” he says (adv. Justin. 2, 1000 6), “to 
suppose that while we are almost unknown to 
ourselves, we should have either the capacity 
or the leave to investigate what lies beyond 
ourselves and the world.” He rebukes Can- 
didus for writing about God “ tam audenter, 

Φ References are to vol. vill. of Migne’s Pair. Gk. 


He. 


VICTORINUS 1011 
and not keeping to Seripture, "" agnam 
tuam intelligent quis yf να >” he 


asks. “De Deo dicere, supra hominem 
audacia est (de Gen. i. p. τοῖο © Ὁ), δ 
ends his own first answer to Candidus with a 
striking prayer to God to forgive his sin in- 
volved in writing about God (de Gen., ad fin.) 
But the “fascination of such subjects he 
feels to the full, and, on the whole, he is cure 
that they are within the power of the illu- 
minated Christian intellect. “Lift ap thy- 
self, my spirit!" he cries, “and ite 
that to understand God is difficult, but not 
beyond hope " (ade. Ar. iii, 6, t1oz Ὁ} 

The special character of his theology may 
be further explained by two epithets. (1) 
Though post-Nicene in date, it is anle-Nicene 
in character. The doctrine of the subordina- 
tion of the Son is emphasized by him, and this 
very subordination doctrine is used against 
Arianism without the least suspicion of its 
being itself open to the charge of any Arian- 
izing tendency. He sees, as boldly as the 
earlier theologians, anticipations of the In- 
carnation in the Theophanies of O.T. (ade. 
Ar. iv. 32, 1136 c). He retains the ante- 
Nicene interpretations of crucial texte—" My 
Father is greater than I" (John xiv. 28), ete. 
“What has come into being in Him was life" 
(John i. 3). He keeps the functions of the 
Incarnate in the closest possible relation to the 
cosmic function of the pre-Incarnate Word. 

(2) His theology is neo-Platonist in tone. 
Here is the special interest attaching to Vie- 
torinus’s works. He had grown old in the 
neo-Platonist schools before his conversion. 
When converted, he applied many principles 
of the Plotinian philosophy to the elucidation 
of the Christian mysteries. His importance 
in this respect has been entirely overlooked 
in the history of theology. He preceded the 
| Pseudo-Dionysius. He anticipated a great 
deal in Scotus Erigena. If sometimes more 
neo-Platonist than Christian, this is no doubt 
due in part to the great age he had attained 
before studying Christian theology. 

We deal with, 1. his theological system ; 
II. its relation to neo-Platoniom ; IIL. further 

ints in his theology which demand notice ; 

V. his importance in relation to ante-Hiero- 
nymian versions of the Latin Bible. 

I. The following is a summary of his mode 
of conceiving the relations of the Trinity and 
the processes of creation and redemption. 

Candidus had objected to the orthodox 
doctrine that in asserting generation in God, 
it asserted change (“‘ omnis generatio per 
mutationem est"), and thus contradicted the 
essential idea of God; and further that the 
idea of a “genitus Deus cx prac-existente 
substantia" is in contradiction to the “ sim- 
plicity " of the Divine substance. Dwelling 
on ideas such as these of the Divine immuta- 
bility and simplicity, he beliewed himeelf, in 
fighting against the Catholic doctrine, to be 
contending for the dignity of God, “ the 
infinite, the incomprehensible, the unknow- 
able, the invisible, the unchangeable“ 
(Candidi Arian. Lab. de Gen. Die. 1-4; Migne, 
Patr. Lat. vill. 1014). Vietorinus’s reply is 
central and final. Your transcendent and 
immutable God is so conceived that He can 
‘come into no possible relation to anything 


1012 VICTORINUS 

beyond Himself. To become a creator at a 
certain moment in time—to act in creation as 
much involves change as the act of generation. 
If you admit, as you must, that God can 
create without change, you must admit equally 
that He can generate. You have admitted a 
““motus’’ which is not “‘ mutatio’’ (de Gen. 30, 
1035, A,B). But this proceeding forth of Godin 
the action of creation is only not a ‘‘change”’ 
in the Divine Essence, because it has its origin 
and ground there. It has been the eternal 
being of God to proceed forth, to move, to live. 
This eternal motion, eternal transition in God, 
it is, that we, speaking in the necessarily in- 
adequate terms of human discourse, call the 
‘“eternal generation of the Son ”’ (de Gen. τ, 
ΙΟΙ9 D; de Gen. 29, 1034 B; adv. Arium, i. 


43, 1074 A, B. The ‘‘esse”’ of God is equi- 

valent to ‘“‘ moveri,’’ “‘ et moveri ipsum quod 
:? ce -} ΣΧ ΣῈ 

est esse’’). This ‘* generatio ᾿᾿ is expressed 


as the eternal utterance of the Divine Will, 
moving eternally into actuality; the will of 
God not for one instant failing of its absolutely 
self-adequate effect. ‘*‘ Every act of willis the 
progeny of that which wills.”’ Thus of the 
Father’s will, the Word or Son is the summary 
or universal effect. 

As the Son is thus conceived of as the eternal 
object of the Divine will, so He is the eternal 
and adequate object of Divine self-knowledge. 
As the Father eternally wills, so He eternally 
knows Himselfin the Son. The Divine know- 
ledge, like the Divine will, must have its 
adequate object. God knows Himself in the 
Son; for the Son is the expression of His own 
being. The Son is thus the ‘‘ forma ”’ of God 
and His limitation. This thought constantly 
recurs. It is not that God is limited from 
outside, but that the infinite and the indeter- 
minate in expressing Himself limits or con- 
ditions Himself. He knows Himself in the 
Logos or determinate, definite Utterance ; 
and thus the unconditioned, the absolute, the 
Father, limits or conditions Himself in that 
eternal utterance by which He knows Himself. 
Knowledge is thus conceived of as limitation 
or form; it is an eternal abiding relation of 
subject and object. Once for all the Father 
knows Himself as what He is in the Son. 


It is only stating this same principle in| 


broader terms to say that the Son is to the 
Father as effect to cause (adv. Arium, iv. 3, 
1115 A), that is to say, He is the revelation of 
all the Father is. What the Father 7s, the 
Son expresses, exhibits, manifests. As outward 
intelligence and life express our inner being, 
so the Father, the inner Being, is expressed in 
the Son. The Father is the esse, the vivens, 
the Son the vita, the actualized life (i. 32, 42). 
Substance can only be known by its mani- 
festations in life (iii. 11, 1107 B). The Father 
is the “ὁ motio,”’ the Son the ‘*‘ motus.’? What 
the Father is inwardly (‘‘in abscondito ’’) the 
Son is outwardly (‘‘ foris ’’). 

The passages in which the distinction 
between the ἐνδιάθετος and the προφορικὸς 
“Λόγος are implied are not many nor emphatic 
in Victorinus, as, 6.5., in Tertullian. The Son 
is eternally Son and self-subsistent. That 
“ἢ effulgentia ’’ ‘* Filietas”’ is out of all time, 
absolute (i. 27, 1060 D). ‘‘ Catholica disciplina 
dicit et semper fuisse Patrem et semper 
Filium”’ (την Phil. 1210 A). Yet Victorinus 


| 


VICTORINUS 


admits a sense in which he may be called 
““maxime filius’’ in Humanity (1061 A), and 
speaks of Him as getting the name of Son, 
the ‘“‘ Name above every Name,”’ only in His 
Incarnate exaltation (1210 c, pb, ‘“‘ita ut 
tantum nomen accesserit, res eadem fuerit ’’). 
His thought expresses itself thus naturally in 
the doctrine of the generation of the Son and 
His co-essential equality with the Father. 
But it does not so easily adapt itself to for- 
mulae which express the Being, Procession, and 
Substantiality of the Holy Ghost. He intends 
to be perfectly orthodox. He accepts the 
faith, even though he finds it difficult to 
formulate. He teaches emphatically that the 
Holy Ghost proceeds ‘‘from the Father and 
the Son.”’ He is subsequent in order to the 
Son. But as “Spirit of the Father” there 
is a sense in which He precedes the Son; 
that is, as that which God is—Spirit—He is 
that in which the Father begets the Son. He 
conveys the Father’s Life to the Son. 

The distinction of Son and Spirit is carefully 
maintained, but yet the essential duality 
which is in God—the distinction of that which 
is from that which proceeds forth—the dis- 
tinction expressed in all the antitheses 
referred to above, is clearer to Victorinus than 
the Trinity of relations. The Son and the 
Spirit seem to him more utterly one than the 
Father and the Son. They are “ existentiae 
duae,”’ but they proceed forth “‘in uno motu ” 
and that ‘‘motus” ἦς the Son; so that the 
Spirit is, as it were, contained in the Son 
(adv. Ar. iii. 8, 1105 A). Thus Victorinus 
sometimes speaks as if the Spirit were the Son 
in another aspect (he even says ‘‘ idem ipse 
et Christus et Spiritus Sanctus,”’ see 7b. iii. 18, 
1113 Ὁ and i. 59, 1085 B). He has also 
a subtle mode of speaking of the Spirit as the 
“Λόγος in occulto,’”’ and Christ Incarnate as 
the “Λόγος in manifesto”’; Logos and 
Spiritus being used interchangeably *; or again 
Christ is the ‘‘ Spiritus apertus,’’ the Spirit 
the ‘‘Spiritus occultus”’ (iii. 14, Ι109 B, 
c). Again, the Spirit is the “interior Christi 
virtus” (iv. 17, 1125 0) in Whom Christ is 
present (1109 Cc). The confusion seems to 
spring from the use of ‘‘ Spiritus ’’ as meaning 
the Divine nature. But in intention and 
generally the two persons are kept distinct. 
If Christ is the ‘‘ vox,” the Spirit is the “‘ vox 
vocis.””” (ill.. 16, ΣΙΤῚ Ὁ, 1: 13, 1048 5A) or 
again, as the Son is Life the Spirit is Know- 
ledge (‘‘vivere quidem Christus, intelligere 
Spiritus,” i. 13, 10488), or again the rela- 
tions of the Trinity are expressed in formulas 
such as these: ‘‘ visio, videre, discernere’”’ ; 
‘esse, vivere, intelligere,’’ expressing three 
stages of a great act (iii. 4, 5; the latter 
chapter should be studied). Victorinus is the 
first theologian to speak of the Spirit as the 
principle of unity in the Godhead, the bond 
or ‘copula ”’ of the eternal Trinity, complet- 
ing the perfect circle of the Divine Being, the 
return of God upon Himself (i. 60, 1085 Cc, D, 
“* sphaera,”’ “ὁ circularis motus”’). 


* So the words “‘ genitus,’”’ ‘‘ procedens,”’ are not 
kept strictly to the second and third Persons of the 
Trinity respectively. The Spirit is said once (adv. 
Ar. iv. 33, 1138 A) to be “‘ genitus,” and the “ pro- 
cessio ’’ of the Son is frequently spoken of, e.g. i. 27, 
1060D; i. 14, 1048 B. 


We on to his tion of the relation! But these Platonizing elements teach. 
of ito Creation. All tht are conceived as | ing do not oceup all ‘the aod The lie 
pre-existing in God—potentially in the Father, side by side with the stock conceptions of 
actually in essence in the Son. In Him dwells | Christian truth, no less emphasized sometimes 
all the fullness bodily, that is (according to V.)| than the Platonic views. Thus the common 
in the Eternal Word dwells all existence sub- | view of sin and responsibility and the of 
stantially—ovevacas. Whatever came into of evil in the corrupt chotee of the free will ts 
being subsequently in time, in Him was emphasized several times (¢¢. ad Jwstin, Man. 
eternally Life. Thus the Λόγος is the ‘ Λόγος | 16, too8 n), and it would seem that, much as 
of all things ""—the universal Logos—the seed | the mode of conceiving Redemption which 
of all thi even in His Eternal Being, con- Victorinus adopts would lead to Universaliem, 
taining all things in Himself in archetypal he is not a Universalist. (/m Eph. εχ: a wy 
reality. (Adv. Ar. i. 25, 10594; ii. 3, 1091 wm; Οἵ. 1282 c, Ὁ; 1286 8, c. On Universaliom, 
iii. 3, 1100 Ὁ, and iv. 4, 1116c, where the Word see i Phil, raat κι “universos, sed gus 
is almost identified with the Platonic “ideas”; S¢qwerentur’’; im Eph. t245 8, “pon omnia 
at least, He contains the ideas in Himself, as | festaurantur sed quae in Christo sunt"; ef. 
““species ’ or ‘‘ potentiae principales.) It | 1274 ¢, “ quae salvari possent.” This inter- 
follows that the Son is very mainly considered | prets such passages as 1252 ©.) 
as existing with a view to Creation. Heexists Again, though on one occasion the view 
as the ‘‘ Λόγος of all that is’ with a view to given of the Incarnation is vitiated by the 
the being of whatever is ("δὰ id quod est esse notion of the essential corruption of matter 
iis quae sunt"). It is His essence to move, as | (440. Ar. i. 58, to84 6), in general his Incarna- 
it is the Father's to repose. The “ motus "| tion teaching ts strikingly sound and repu- 
in virtue of which He is, is still pressing out- diates by anticipation a good deal of 4th-cent. 
ward, so to speak, from the “ fontana vita” heresy. God the Son enters into conditions 
of the Father. of real humanity. He takes human nature 

All this is somewhat neo-Platonic in tone. | Whole and complete into the unity of ἃ single 
What follows is almost pure and undiluted | Person (it is an “ acceptio carnis,” not ἃ 
neo-Platonism, ¢.g. his description of the fives G generation” of a won), and He 
process of Creation, as a drawing out of the | lives, God in Manhood (" Deus tm homine 
plenitude of God into a chain or gradation of | (homo = manhood) adv. Ar. 1. τῷ, tog8 DO; b 
existences. He adopts the neo-Platonic con- 45. 1075 8; mm Phil. 1208 ©, τὴ 6.5 he, 
ception of “‘anima” as something capable of however, uses an Adoptionist phrase, ade. Ar. 
spiritualization, but not yet “ spirit —inter- !- τὸ, 1045 6.) The humanity which He takes 
mediate between spirit and matter. He '5 emphasized as universal (ἢ universalis caro, 
follows neo-Platonism in his conception of the Universalis anima; in isto omnia universalia 
“return of all things " into God (adv. Ar. iii. erant,"’ tii. 3, ττὸῖ A). Thus the passion in 
1, 1098 B; iv. 11, 1121 A, B; de Gen. 10, which He suffers for man’s redemption is uni- 
1026 A, B; adv. Ar. iii. 3, τοῦς; Hymn τ, Versal, because He suffers as representative of 
1141 a; tn Eph. i. 4, 12398, Cc). He is the race He is to re-create (in Phil. tto6 Ὁ, 
simply "neo-Platonic in his conception of 1221 B, and adv. Ar. ἰ.ε... The effect of Christ 
matter and the material world. ‘ Matter” | taking humanity ts to make the whole of that 
has no existence independent of God ; in itself” which He romper ET -ὸ or vital with 
it is ‘non-existent "—an abstraction. Man ΠΕ Capacities of ὩΣ Η 8 - made 
is regarded as a mixed being, a spiritual flesh makes the hl 6 took to be life in 
“anima” (see in Eph. τ, 4, 1230 0) merged in | Him Who is the Life (“omne quod ee I 
the corruption of matter. He calls the human st vita acterna est,” ete., iv. 7, rh a; εἰ. 
race ‘‘animae seminatae saeclis" corrupted | language about Eucharist below) ; and in this 
by the material darkness in which they are humanity ~ aa *.' a ee 
merged (Hymn 1, 11424; adv. Ar. i. 26, | Christ took, He is glorified and exalted (iv. 7, 
10604; i. 62, 10878). Misled by (δία 118; cf. in Eph. 1259 &, " acterna caro, 
ineradicable misconception of material life, |“ Corporalis majestas °). Through it He ue 
he thinks in a Platonic and non-Christian | in His people, so that they become what Ife 
spirit of men as existing in an unfallen con- ἴδ, through γι ᾿ ey ἔδαδα pert « ι 

ition, in a pre-mundane state of being, and Christ. The chure ἮΝ τὲ scribe 
being born into the corruption of material life © P+ cf. 1154 5), and we are to be καὶ 


i Ι about 
ictorinus’s anthropol is to produce a Victorinus ‘uses suggestive 
Lag te and unmitigated Predestinarianism. the sacraments and ἸΟῪ οι t - ach ες 
is ideology leads him (in his Comm. in Eph. telation to the communication ν᾽. . 
at least) to assert not only the pre-existence οἱ Christ, δι. (on baptism) sm Gal. th. 37 ; 
of the absolute “ anima” in the Eternal Word, | 1173.8 and 1184 8; τ᾿ 4 25, a8 0} 
but the pre-existence of all particular souls. | (on the Eucharist) oe Ae ; 109s 6 aoe 
All the history of the soul in its descent into | accipimus Corpus ost, ipse ἃ 


matter, and its recovery therefrom through Christus, _ ye cz ie y? ie 
the Incarnate Christ, is only the development oi Conpus ipaius Vita est, Corpus auton 
of the idea of the soul which pre-existed eter- | 1003 ®, Corpus paius ἐπ = γος 
nally, individually, and substantially in the Panis. Panis ἐνσισύσισε͵" in “πα 


ἱ d Will of God. (1244 ¢, 1243 ς, 1238, | Prayer, is interpreted as “ panis ex ipsa aut 
~ aricept What exists in God's thought | in ipsa Substantia, hoc est vitae panis, 
must exist substantially.) and referred to the Eucharist, and, in the 


1014 VICTORINUS 


same way, ‘‘ populus περιούσιος ᾽᾽ is given an 
Eucharistic reference, as meaning ‘“ populus 
circa Tuam Substantiam veniens.’’ See 
quotation from old African Liturgy, p. 25; 
and (on ministry) in Eph. iv. 12, 1275 c. 

II. It is necessary further to explain in what 
general relation Victorinus’s teaching stands 
to the neo-Platonic system, since his chief 
claim upon our attention is that he was the 
first systematically to convert the results of 
that system to the uses of Christian theology 
and that he developed in one or two cases as 


against Arianism the really higher philosophi- | 


cal truth latent in Catholic doctrines. 

The idea of a being or beings mediating 
between the supreme God and the lower world 
was common to almost all the later schools of 
ancient philosophy (see Zeller, pp. 219, 220). 
Eusebius of Caesarea had already seen in this 
a common ground tor philosophers and Chris- 
tians. (See Gwatkin’s Studies of Arianism, 
ΡΞ 22. Cf. Athan. de Incarn. c. xii.) It 
appeared in Plotinus’s theory of the νοῦς and 


anima, which with the One, the God, make up | 


what is called “‘the neo-Platonic Trinity.” 


Now, a good deal of Victorinus’s language, in | 
which he seeks to express the relation of the | 


Λόγος to the Father, is based on Plotinus’s 


language about the relation of the νοῦς to the | : 
| Augustine. 


| Trinitarian theology on the double Procession 


One. But as a Christian, Victorinus is able 
to fill the neo-Platonic formulas with the 
powers of a new life. Again, Victorinus’s 
formula for the Trinity, the ““ 
gressio, regressus,’’ is the reflex of a neo- 
Platonic idea—an idea first definitely for- 
mulated by Proclus but implied by Plotinus— 
the idea of all progress and development of 
life involving (1) the immanence of the caused 
in that which causes it, (2) the issuing of the 
caused out of that which causes it, (3) the 
return of the caused into that which causes it. 


return, the neo-Platonist regarded as essential 
to the development and unity of life both in 
general and in detail (Zeller, pp. 787-789). 
This conception in its earlier stage Victorinus, 
whether consciously or not, adopts, and what 
new force it gains when it is seen to find its 
highest expression in the very life of God 
Himself! This threefold relation is seen to 
be the very being of God. The Son is eteinally 
abiding in the Father, eternally proceeding 
from the Father in His eternal Generation, and 
eternally pouring back into the bosom of the 
Father that which He receives, in that Holy 
Ghost Who is Himself the life of Father and 
Son, the love and bond of the Holy Trinity. 
It isin describing the relation of the Adyos to 
the world, in His function as Creator, that, aswe 
have seen, Victorinus allows himself to be too 
entirely moulded by neo-Platonic ideas. His 
“development of the plenitude’ (Gwatkin, p. 
20), his pre-existing ‘‘ anima ”’ and “‘ animae,”’ 
his corporeal demons, his matter the seat of 
corruption—all these have their source in the 
Plotinian system, and are only very imperfect- 
ly adapted to Christianity (see Zeller, pp. 545- 
557, 570-575). We may wonder that he did 
not use even more emphatically an element 
of right-minded inconsistency in neo-Platon- 
ism and with that system emphasize the 
freedom of the will (Zeller, pp. 585-587). 
This brief account will help us to recognize 


status, pro- | 


VICTORINUS 


the “‘divine preparation’? for Christianity 
involved in the independent growth of the 
neo-Platonic system—so many philosophic 
ideas needed for the intellectual presentation 
of Christianity being made ready to hand— 
and shows Victorinus as a pioneer in claiming 
for Christianity the products of philosophy, a 
pioneer whose name has well-nigh passed into 
undeserved oblivion. 

III. A few other characteristic points in 
Victorinus’s teaching still deserve notice. He 
is an intensely ardent follower of St. Paul, 
devoted to St. Paul’s strenuous assertion of 
justification by faith. Indeed, he uses very 
strongly solifidian language and (by anticipa- 
tion) very strongly anti-Pelagian language. 
This element in his teaching is most remark- 
ably emphatic in his commentaries, 6.5. in Gal. 
lil. 22, L172 > τπ Pl: ἯΙ. 9, Τ2 ΤῸ Ὁ De IS 
solifidian tendency led him, like Luther, to a 
disparagement of St. James and a somewhat 
minimizing tone as regards the efficacy of good 
works. (See some very remarkable passages 
in Comm. in Gal. i. 19, 1155 B, C, 1156 A, B, 
cf. 1161 B, 1162 D.) 

It is worth while calling attention to the 
evidence, suggested by a good deal of Vic- 
torinus’s theology, of a closer connexion than 
has been yet noticed between him and St. 
His strong insistence in his 


of the Holy Spirit—his conception of the Holy 
Spirit as the “‘ Bond ”’ of the Blessed Trinity 
—his emphasis on the unity of Christ and His 
church—his_ strong predestinarianism—his 
vehement assertion of the doctrines of grace 
—his assertion of the priority of faith to 
intelligence (p. 16, note n),—all reappear in 
St. Augustine, and it may be that the (hither- 
to unsuspected) influence of the writings of 
the old philosopher whose conversion stirred 


This threefold relation of immanence, progress, | him so deeply was a determining force upon 


the theology of St. Augustine.* 
IV. A word must be said on the Latin text 
of the Bible used by Victorinus. No adequate 


use seems yet to have been made of the very 
| large bulk of quotation in his writings. 


Sabatier (Bibl. Sacr. Lat. Versiones Antiq. 
t. ili. Remis 1749) occasionally refers to him, 


| but omits some of his most remarkable quota- 


tions, and wrote before Mai’s publication of 
the commentaries, etc. Some quotations, 
not noticed by Sabatier, may be given: 

St. John i. r is quoted as “Λόγος erat circa 
Deum,” and it is added, ‘“‘ Romani apud Deum 
dicunt,” Libri de Gen. 20, 1030 c. Elsewhere 
he uses ‘‘ circa Deum ” and ‘‘ad Deum ”’ (adv. 
Ar. τ, 3). These do not seem to be merely his 
own renderings. (‘‘ Ad Deum ”’ is noticed by 
Sabatier.) In Phil. ii. 30 (p. 1216) “‘ ex- 
ponens in incertum animam suam ” is a better 


* There are one or two contributions to the history 
of heresies, made by Victorinus, which are worth 
noticing. Jn Gal. i. το, we have an account of a 
Judaizing or Ebionite sect called the “ Symma- 
chians ’’ (see pp. 1155 Band 1162D). They madea 
point of the apostolate of James, the Lord’s brother. 
See also for heresies in regard to Christ’s person an 
interesting passage, adv. Ar. i. 45, 1075 B,C; cf. i. 
28, 1061 B,C. He calls the definition of Nicaea ‘a 
wall and a defence”’ (ii. 9, 1095 D). We notice also 
that he probably is the first to use “‘ paganus ”’ for the 
heathen (de Κορ. δμοουσίῳ,1.; in Gal.1158C). For 
the origin of the term godfather see in Gal. 1184 B. 


VICTORIUS 


rend than the Vulgate “ tradens " and 
the St Cermain “ parabolatus de anima sua.” 
7b. iii. 20 (p. 1225) he uses “* Salutaris " for 
Saviour, a term not found in other authorities 
in this place (cf. Rénsch, fala und V 

). 100, 1875). Jb. iv. 3 (p. 1228) “ unijuge ' 
is a remarkable rendering of σύνζυγε. 1d. 
iv. 6, 7 (p. 1229) reads: ‘* Nihil ad sollicitud- 
inem igatis, sed in omni precatione et 
oratione cum bona gratia eng vestrac 
innotescant apud Deum. Et pax Dei quae 
habet omnem intellectum custodiat corda 
vestra, item corpora vestra in Jesu Christo." 
St. Luke ii. 14: ‘* Pax in terra hominibus bond 
decreti"’ (p. 1306). These words, from the 
de Phystcis, conclude a long quotation 
thoroughly independent of any known version. 
Eph. iv. 14 (πρὸς τὴν μεθοδείαν τῆς πλανῆτ), 
"δὰ remedium erroris "’ (p. 1276 B), a reading 
found also in other authorities. Jb. vi. 14, 
“et omnibus effectis stare,’ supports the 
correct reading of Jerome's text, "ἡ et omnibus 
perfectts stare.” Tit. ii, 14: besides the 
version ‘‘ populum abundantem " (p. 1094 Ὁ), 
a remarkable rendering of the word περιούσιον 
15 given as occurring in a Eucharistic office 
(‘‘ the prayer of the oblation"’) to which he 
more than once refers (see adv. Ar. 1, 30, 1063 
B, and il. 7, 1094 D). It is as follows: ** Munda 
tibi populum circumvttalem emulatorem bon- 
orum operum, circa tuam substantiam venien- 
tem ”’ (p. 1063 B). {c.G.] 

Victorius (2) of Aquitaine. During the 
pontificate of Leo the Great in 444 and 453 
differences arose between the Western 
churches headed by Rome, and the Eastern 
headed by Alexandria as to the correct day for 
celebrating Easter. Pope Lro yielded on 
both occasions, but to avoid such disputes in 
future, directed his archdeacon H1iLarivs, who 
succeeded him, to investigate the question. 
Hilary referred it to his friend Victorius, who 
in 457 drew up a cycle to determine the date 
of Easter in past and future years. 

The cycle of 532 years, consisting of 28 
Metonic (28 x 19) orrather 7 Calippic (7 * 76) 
cycles, was adopted or independently dis- 
covered by Victorius. He began it with the 

ear of the crucifixion, which he placed on 

ar. 26, in the consulship of the two Gemini. 
As the year in which he composed his cycle, 
the consulship of Constantinus and Rufus, 
which corresponds with A.D. 457, was the 430th 
of his cycle, its first year corresponded with 
A.D. 28. He made his earliest Easter limit 
Mar. 22, the same as the Alexandrians; his 
latest Apr. 24, while theirs was the 25th. 

The cycle of Victorius was widely, though 
not universally, accepted in the West, and 
especially in Gaul. In 527, however, Diony- 
5105 published a new period of the Cyrillian 
95-year cycle, which would terminate in $31 ; 
and. Victor of Capua, c. 450, wrote against 
Victorius’s cycle and in favour of the Alex- 
andrian method of computation. Victorius's 
cycle seems thereafter to have become disused 
in Italy, but lingered much later in parts of 
Gaul. It has been edited with elaborate dis- 
sertations by Bucherius, de Doctrina Tem- 
πον where all notices οἱ Victorius are col- 
ected. The only additional information they 
give is Gennadius’s statement (de Vir. Ill. ΒΒ) 
that he was a native of Aquitaine, As Hilary 


VICTURINUS 1015 
calls him ‘“Dilectissimus ot abilis 
sanctus frater,"" he was probably orders. 
A full account of his cycle is given by Ideler 


(Handbuch d. Chromol. ii. 275-255), who points 
out that what Dionysius did waa to continue 
the 95-year cycle, and that there is no evidence 
that he did a to the Victorian ree. 
The fact that his continuation of the ὦ lian 
cycle began in $32, which would be the first 
year of a new period of the Victorian cycle if 
the latter commenced with the year of Christ's 
birth, probably suggested the notion that he 
had thus altered the beginning of the Victorian 
cycle, and started a new period of it from 442. 
ictorius is by later writers sometimes cal 
Victorinus and Victor, the last mistake leading 
to confusion with Victor of Capua.  [F.p.] 
Ictriclus, St., &th archbp. of Rouen, friend 
of St. Martin of Tours (Sulpic. Sev. Deal. iil. 2; 
Boll. Acta SS. Aug. ii. 194) and St. Paulinus 
of Nola, to whose letters we owe some details 
of his life. He became bp. of Rouen before 
390, and occupied himself with the conversion 
of the heathen Morini and Nervii in Flanders 
and Brabant. He was summoned in 104. or 
395 to Britain to assist the bishops there in 
re-establishing peace, probably in their con- 
test with Pelagianism (Victricius, Lib. de 
Laude SS., Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 43). Aa 
accusation of heresy, as it seems (cf. Ceillier, 
viii. 76), brought him to Rome at the close of 
403 to defend himself before the pope (Paul- 
inus, Ep. xxxvii. [16], Migne, Pair. Lat. χί. 
353). ‘hile there he received, in answer to a 
request for information, the famous letter of 
Innocent I. called the Liber Regularum, treati 
of various heads of ecclesiastical practice an 
discipline (Pair. Lat. lvi.519). [Insoce tis.) 
The church at Rouen flourished under his 
care. The relics he obtained, the musical 
services he instituted, and the devotion—under 
his guidance—of the virgins and widows, 
caused the city, hitherto unknown, to be 
spoken of with reverence in distant lands, and 
counted among cities famed for their 
spots (Paulinus, Ep. xviii. δ 5, Patr. Lat. col. 
239). In 409 he was apparently dead (Ep. 
xiviii. col. 398). (Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 457, 
438; Hust. Litt. ii. 752-754; Le Brun in Boll. 
Aca SS. «.s.; Gall. Christ. xi. 7.) 

An extant treatise or sermon called the 
Liber de Laude Sanctorum, composed on the 
occasion of the receipt of some relics from St. 
Ambrose of Milan, was formerly ascribed to 
St. Germanus of Auxerre (Hest. Litt. il. 261, 
750), but the discovery of a MS. at St. Gal 
in the 18th cent., made it clear that it belon 
to Victricius (see Pracfatio of the abbé Lebeuf 
in Migne, Pair. Lat. xx. 437-442) It gives ἃ 
few details of the condition of the church at 


Rouen. Paulinus had perhaps read this 
document (Ep. xviil.). [5»...5.} 
Victurinus (1) (Victor), St.. bp. of Gre 


. acorrespondent of St. Avitus, of Vienne. 
Whethes ama and church furniture which 
heretics had made use of could again, by virtue 
of a fresh consecration, be made serviceable 
for the orthodox, to which Avitus replies in 
the negative (Avitus, Ep. vi.) and as to the 
penalties to be inflicted in the case of marriage 
with a deceased wife's sister, which were 7 
severe (Epp. xiv. xv. χνί.). are points on whic 
he consulted the archbishop. He ts among 


1016 VIGILANTIUS 


the bishops present at the council of Agaunum, 
in 515, if it is to be accepted as genuine, and 
also at Epaon and Lyons in 517. [5.4.8.] 
Vigilantius (1), a presbyter of Comminges 
and Barcelona, known by his protests against 
superstitious practices in the church. He 
was born c. 370 at Calagurris, near Comminges 
(Convenae), a station on the great Roman 
road from Aquitaine to Spain (Itiner. Antonin. 
quoted in Gilly’s Vigilant. p.128). His father 
probably kept the statio or place of refresh- 
ment there; and Vigilantius was apparently 
brought up as an inn-keeper and wine-seller 
(‘‘Iste Caupo Calagurritanus,’’ Hieron. cont. 
Vig. 1), but had from the first an inclination 
to learning. Sulpicius Severus, who had 
estates in these parts, took him into his 
service, and probably baptized him. It is 
certain that in 395 he was sent with letters 
from Sulpicius to Paulinus, then recently 
settled at Nola (Paul. Ep. i. 11), by whom he 
was treated as a friend. Paulinus speaks of 
hm as ‘‘ Vigilantius noster ’’ (Ep. v. 11), and 
reports the care with which he had watched 
him during illness, refusing to let him depart 
till well. On his return to Severus, then 
living at Elusa in Gaul, he was ordained ; and, 
having a desire for learning and a wish to visit 
Jerusalem, set forth by way of Nola. His 
father, it seems, had died, since he was wealthy 
enough to have many notaries in his employ 
(Hieron. Ep. |xi. 4), and he was the proprietor 
of the inn at Convenae (7b. Ixi. 3; cont. 
Vig. i.). Paulinus gave him a very honour- 
able introduction to Jerome (Hieron. Ep. 1xi. 
3), then living at Bethlehem, where he was 
received with great respect (Ivili. 11). He 
remained there a considerable time, staying 
partly with Jerome, but partly, it is supposed, 
with others, possibly with Rufinus (Hieron. 
Apol. iii. 11). The schism between the mon- 
asteries of Bethlehem and the bp. of Jerusalem 
was at its height ; and probably in connexion 
with this Vigilantius had his first disagree- 
ment with Jerome (Hieron. Ep. lxi. 1; Apol. 
iii. 19). Origenism, which had caused the 
schism, and with which Vigilantius afterwards 
connected Jerome’s name, was, no doubt, the 
subject of this disagreement. But Vigilantius 
was brought to confess himself in the wrong 
and to ask pardon (Hieron. Ep. lxi. end). He 
was an inmate of Jerome’s monastery on the 
occasion of a tremendous storm with earth- 
quake and eclipse (cont. Vig. ii.). He was for 
a time favourably impressed by what he saw 
at Bethlehem, and on one occasion, when 
Jerome was preaching upon the reality of the 
body at the resurrection, sprang up, and with 
applause of hands and feet saluted Jerome as 
champion of orthodoxy (Ep. 1xi. 3). But the 
extremes of asceticism, the corruption pro- 
duced by indiscriminate almsgiving, and the 
violence, perhaps the insincerity, of Jerome’s 
dealing with the question of Origen [H1ERonyY- 
MuS, ὃ Origenism] produced a reaction against 
Jerome. Vigilantius begged to be dismissed, 
and left in great haste (Ep. cix. 2) without 
giving any reason. He bore Jerome’s reply 
to Paulinus at Nola (Ep. Ixi. 11); but his 
journey home was first by Egypt (7b. 1; cont. 
Ruf. iii. 12), “by Hadria and the Cottian 
Alps” (Hieron. Ep. cix. 12). He landed 
probably at Naples, and, after visiting Nola, 


VIGILANTIUS 


went home by the land route, staying a con- 
siderable time at various places. His account 
of what he had seen in the East, which was 
related to Jerome either by report or by some 
writing of Vigilantius to or about Jerome, pro- 
voked areply (Ep. 1xi.), wherein Jerome shews 
a jealous sensitiveness for his own orthodox 
reputation, and treats him with contempt, 
declaring that he had never understood the 
points in dispute (lxi. 1). On his return to 
Gaul, Vigilantius settled in his native country. 

His work against superstitious practices was 
written c. 403. We may presume that his 
intercourse with Severus, Paulinus, and 
Jerome furnished the principal motives and 
materials for it. Similar practices no doubt 
arising in a grosser form in his own neighbour- 
hood among a population emerging from 
heathenism provoked his protest against the 
introduction of heathen ceremonial into Chris- 
tian worship. The work is only known to us 
through the writings of Jerome, of whose 
unscrupulousness and violence in controversy 
we have many proofs. Nothing of the kind 
appears in the quotations from the book of 
Vigilantius, which, considering the extreme 
difficulty of his position in the rising flood of 
superstition, we must presume to have been 
a serious and faithful protest. It was not 
written hastily, under provocation, such as 
he may have felt in leaving Bethlehem, but 
after the lapse of six or seven years. His own 
bishop (Hieron. Ep. cix. 2) and others in his 
neighbourhood (cont. Vig. ii.) approved his 
action, and he was apparently appointed 
after the controversy to a church in the 
diocese of Barcelona (Gennad. ut infra). 

The points against which he argues are four : 
(1) The superstitious reverence paid to the 
remains of holy men, which were carried round 
in the church assemblies in gold vessels or 
silken wrappings to be kissed, and the prayers 
in which their intercession was asked; (2) 
the late and frequent watchings at the basili- 
cas of the martyrs, from which scandals 
constantly arose, the burning of numerous 
tapers, which was a heathen practice, the 
stress laid on the miracles performed at the 
shrines, which, Vigilantius maintained, were 
of use only to unbelievers; (3) the sending 
of alms to Jerusalem, which might better 
have been given to the poor in each diocese, 
and generally the monkish habit of divesting 
oneself of possessions which should be admin- 
istered as a trust by the possessor; and (4) 
the special virtue attributed to the unmarried 
state. Vigilantius held that for the clergy to 
be married was an advantage to the church ; 
and he looked upon the solitary life as a 
cowardly forsaking of responsibility. 

The bishop of the diocese (possibly Exu- 
perius of Toulouse, known to have had com- 
munications with pope Innocent about this 
time on points of discipline) strongly favoured 
the views of Vigilantius, and they began to 
spread widely in S. Gaul. The clergy who 
were fostering the practices impugned by him 
found their people imbibing his opinions, and 
two of them, Desiderius and Riparius, wrote 
to Jerome, representing the opinions of 
Vigilantius and asking for his advice. Jerome 
answered Riparius at once (Ep. 109, ed. Vall.), 
expressing chagrin and indignation but with- 


ἄνα, calles 


VIGILIUS THAPSENSIS 


out sober argument. He declares that no 
adoration was paid to martyrs, but that their 
relics were honoured as a means of peg oe 
God. He expresses wonder that the b shop 
of the diocese should acquiesce in Vigilantius’s 
madness. It was a case for such dealing as 
that of Peter with Ananias and Sapphira. He 
offered to answer more fully if the work of 
Vigilantius were sent him. This offer was 
accepted. Through their friend Sisinnius, 
Riparius and Desiderius sent the book in the 
latter part of 406 (Pref. to Comm. on Zach.). 
erome ida little attention to it at first, but 
ding Sisinnius obliged to leave Bethlehem 


in haste, sat down, and in one night wrote. 


his treatise contra Vigilantium. This treatise 
has less of reason and more of mere abuse than 
any which he wrote. He throughout imputes 
to his adversary extreme views, which it may 
certainly be assumed he did not hold. 

What effect was produced by this philippic 
is unknown. Possibly Exuperius, if Vigilan- 
tius was in his diocese, by degrees changed 
towards him, and that it was on this account 
that Vigilantius passed into the diocese of 
Barcelona, where Gennadius places him. 
Jerome in his Apology (iii. 19) expressly repels 
the imputation of ha 
character of Vigilantius had been stained by 
communion with heretics. But the official 
leaders of the church came to reckon as 
enemies those whom Jerome had so treated, 
and Vigilantius was by degrees ranked amon 
heretics. The ig ne of Gennadius ( 
Sc. Eccl. 35) is: ‘* Vigilantius the presbyter, 
a Gaul by birth, held a church in the Spanish 
diocese of Barcelona. He wrote with a cer- 
tain zeal for religion; but was led astray by 
the praise of men, and presumed beyond his 
strength ; and ag | a man of elegant speech 
but not trained in discerning the sense of the 
Scriptures, interpreted in a perverse manner 
the second vision of Daniel, and put forth 
other works of no value, which must be δ πόσος 
in the catalogue of heretical writings. e was 
answered by the blessed presbyter Jerome.” 
This judgment lasted κα In 1844 Dr. 
Gilly, canon of Durham, published a work on 
Vigslantius and his Times (Seeley), bringing 
together all the known facts, and shewing the 
true significance of his protest by κά. ἔτι 
the life of Severus, Paulinus, and Jerome from 
their own ge ages Nag 

Vigilius (4) an African 
mentioned in the Nofstia published at the end 
of the Historia of Victor Vitensis, was present 
at the conference convened oy the Vandal 
Hunneric in 484. He belonged to the Byza- 
cene province, and was banished by the Vandal 
ee He seems to have fled to Constanti- 
nople, where he wrote against Eutychianism 
and Arianism. He published one work alone 
under his own name, bp hemes books — 
Eutyches, stating very c the usual argu- 
2st gga μας Αν παν an system. An 
extremely good and copious analysis of it ts 
in Ceillier (x. 472-485). It is an interesting 
specimen of sth and 6th cent. controversy, 
and shews the evolution of thought among 
the Eutychians who in his day had not com- 

leted or thought out their system. They 
had not fixed, ¢.g., on a date for the disappear- 
ance of Christ’s human nature. <A cent. or 


ving asserted that the 


VIGILIUS 1017 


| 80 later they determined upon the resurree- 


tion as the time when the human nature was 


swallowed up in the divine. Vigilius refers 
τὸ this in - i. as ἃ view taught by some, 
}not byall. In bk. iv. he discusses the Tome 


of St. Leo and the orthodoxy of the decrees of 
_Chaleedon, and has some remarks, important 
for liturgiology, on the form of the creed used 
at Rome (“ Creed," D.C. B. g-wol. ed.) He 
| defends St. Leo on the ground that he quoted 
| the creed used in the Romish church from 
| apostolic times. Vigilius wrote several works 
under various distinguished names. Thos 
|Chifflet, whose is the best edition (Dijon, 
1664) of his writings, attributes to him a 
| dialogue in 12 books on the Trimiy, printed 
among the works of St. Athanasius, a treatise 
against an Arian called Varimadus published 
under the name of Idacius Clarus, a book 
against Felicianus the Arian under that of 
St. Augustine ; and two conferences, in which 
he represents Athanasius as disputing against 
Arius before a judge named Probus, who of 
course gives sentence against Arius. These 
conferences he published in two editions, one 
in two books, where Athanasius and Arius 
alone appear; another in three books, in 
which Sabellius and Photinus are introduced. 
His authorship of these conferences is abso- 
lutely certain, because in his contra Eutyck. 
(bk. v. p. 58) he speaks of his argument “ in 
eis libris quos adversus Sabellium, Photinum 
et Arianum sub nomine Athanasii, conserip- 
|simus."” Chifflet also ascribes to him a treatise 
against Palladius, an Arian bishop, printed 
j}among the works of St. Ambrose and of 
Gregory Nazianzen, and also the Acts of the 
council of Aquileia found among the Epp. οἱ 
St. Ambrose. The Athanasian Creed has also 
been attributed to him, chiefly because both in 
the creed and in his treatise against Eutyehes 
the union of two natures in man is brought 
forward as an explanation of the union of two 
natures in the one person of Jesus Christ. 
Chifflet’s edition and elaborate commentary, 
which includes the works of Victor Vitensis, is 
| reprinted by Migne, Pair. Lat. t. Ixii. [ὁ.τ.κ.} 
lus (δ), bp. of Rome, intruded into the 
866 in the room of Silverius, a.p. 417, by 
| Belisarius, by order of the empress Theodora. 
| By birth a Roman of good position, he had 
accompanied AGaretus as one of his deacons 
when that pope went to Constantinople αν. 
| $36 and procured from Justinian the depoal- 
| tion of the Monophysite patriarch Anthimus, 
‘and the appointment of Mennas in his room. 
The Monophysite party (then called commonly 
the Acernatt), who continued to reject the 
| council of Chalcedon, had a resolute supporter 
}in the empress Theodora. Agapetus dying 
| April, $36, when about to depart for Rome, 
i she sent for Vigilius and promised him an 
‘order to Belisarius to him ordained 
| if he would secretly ake to disallow t 
council of Chaleedon. Vigilius (save Liberatus) 
| willingly complied, and procreded to 
but found Sirvesius already ordained. 
Ἢ Ἔα having been thus ordained in 457 
on Nov. 22, according to the conclusion of 
Pag : on Mar. 24, according to that of Mansi), 
the death of Silverius having been cer- 
tainly not earlier than June 20, 534 for at 
|least seven months his position was that of 


1018 VIGILIUS 


an unlawful antipope, his predecessor never 
having been canonically deposed. However, 
as pope he was accepted, the deposition of 
bishops and the ordination of others in their 
room under imperial dictation being at that 
time, however irregular, common enough 
elsewhere ; and the ancients seem to have 
dated his episcopate from his intrusion. 

Through Antonina, the wife of Belisarius 
and the real agent of the empress throughout, 
Vigilius sent without delay letters to Anthi- 
mus, Theodosius, and Severus, in fulfilment 
of his secret promise, expressing his entire 
agreement with them in matters of faith, but 
charging them to keep his avowal in the dark, 
that he might more easily accomplish what he 
had undertaken. He added a confession of 
his own faith, condemning the Tome of pope 
Leo (in which the orthodox doctrine of two 
Natures in Christ was enunciated), and 
anathematizing Paul of Samosata, Diodorus 
of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, 
and all who agreed with them. Binius and 
Baronius, jealous for the credit of the Roman 
see, argue that this letter was forged by the 
Monophysite party. But no valid ground has 
been adduced for suspecting it. It is given 
by Liberatus and Victor Tununensis; and 
Facundus (c. Mocianum), like them a con- 
temporary, seemingly alludes to it. Pagi 
(Baron. ad ann. 538) refutes all the arguments 
of Baronius, while alleging that the Roman see 
was not compromised, since Vigilius was not 
the true pope when he wrote. 

Justinian was evidently kept in the dark 
about these secret proceedings, since, after 
the death of Silverius, he wrote to Vigilius, 
sending a confession of his own faith and 
recognizing him as pope without any suspicion 
of his orthodoxy. In his reply, dated 540, 
Vigilius declares himself altogether orthodox, 
accepts the Tome of Leo and the council of 
Chalcedon, and condemns by name all abettors 
of the Eutychian heresy. 

In 541 began at Constantinople the new 
theological disputes which led to the 2nd 
council of Constantinople (called the 5th 
oecumenical), in the course of which Vigilius 
came in conflict with the emperor. Peter, 
the patriarch of Jerusalem, who was opposed 
to the Origenists, sent two abbats to Con- 
stantinople, with a letter to the emperor, and 
extracts from Origen’s writings, complaining 
of the commotions excited by the Origenistic 
party and praying for their condemnation 
(Vit. S. Sabae). The emperor, readily acced- 
ing, issued a long edict, addressed to the 
patriarch Mennas, setting forth and confuting 
the heresies attributed to Origen ; command- 
ing the patriarch to assemble the bishops and 
abbats then at Constantinople for the purpose 
of anathematizing him, his doctrine, and his 
followers, and to suffer no bishop or abbat to 
be thenceforth appointed except on condition 
of doing the same. There seems to have been 
no resistance to this imperial command. 

Justinian was engaged, we are told, after 
his condemnation of Origen, in composing a 
treatise on the Incarnation in defence of the 
council of Chalcedon and in refutation of the 
Eutychians. But there were two Origenistic 
abbats from Palestine, resident at his court, 
in great credit with him, Theodore of 


VIGILIUS 


Ascidas and Domitian, who suggested that 
he might better serve the cause of orthodoxy 
by procuring a condemnation of certain 
writers accused of Nestorianism but acquitted 
by the council of Chalcedon, viz. Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas, the 
alleged author of a letter to Maris. It was 
represented to the emperor that, if these were 
now authoritatively condemned and the 
council of Chalcedon freed from the imputa- 
tion of having approved their errors, the 
Acephali would no longer refuse to accept that 
council. The emperor, who warmly desired 
this reconciliation, readily fell into the snare. 
The writings thus prepared for condemnation 
are known as the ‘‘Three Chapters ” (‘‘ Tria 
Capitula’’). The imperial edict against them 
(περὶ τριῶν κεφαλαίων), issued probably c. 
544, anathematized their deceased authors 
and all defenders of them, with a saving clause 
to guard against any inculpation of the 
council of Chalcedon. But the edict was re- 
garded as disparaging its authority. Mennas, 
at first refusing, at length gave his acquiescence 
in writing. The three other patriarchs of the 
East also yielded to threats of deposition, as 
did the rest of the Eastern bishops, except a 
few who were deposed and banished. In the 
West, less accustomed to imperial despotism, 
there was more difficulty. Vigilius, from his 
antecedents, might have been expected to 
obey, but shewed considerable independence 
of spirit, being probably influenced by the 
prevailing feeling at Rome and in the West 
generally. He refused his assent to the 
emperor’s edict, and being thereupon sum- 
moned peremptorily to Constantinople, un- 
willingly obeyed. 

He sailed first to Sicily, where he was joined 
by Datius, bp. of Milan, a resolute opponent 
of the condemnation of the Three Chapters. 
Arrived at Constantinople (A.D. 547), he per- 
severed for a time in the same attitude, but 
before long gave a secret promise to condemn 
the Chapters (Facund. c. Moc.), and presided 
over a synod with the hope of inducing it to 
do what the emperor required. Meeting 
opposition there, especially from bp. Facundus 
of Ermiana, who requested leave to argue the 
question (Facundus himself tells the story), 
he suspended the proceedings, requiring the 
bishops separately to send him their opinions 
in writing. Seventy bishops were thus 
induced to declare for the condemnation of the 
Chapters, including many who had previously 
refused. Vigilius, supported by these 7o sig- 
natories, issued the document known as his 
Judicatum, addressed to Mennas, on Easter 
Eve, 548 (Ep. Vigilii, ad Rustianum et Sebas- 
tianum), condemning the Chapters, though dis- 
avowing any disparagement of Chalcedon. The 
Judicatum provoked serious opposition. At 
Constantinople Facundus continued resolute, 
protesting against bishops who betrayed their 
trust to win favour with princes. Vigilius’s 
own deacons, Rusticus and Sebastianus, 
declared against him, but were deposed and 
excommunicated. The bishops of Illyricum 
condemned the Judicatum in synod ; those of 
N. Africa did the same, and even formally 
excommunicated Vigilius (Vict. Tunun. ad 
ann. 549, 550). Alarmed by these conse- 
quences, Vigilius now recalled his Judicatum, 


VIGILIUS 


and seems to have represented to the Westerns 
that he had issued it unwillingly. Facundus 
See ontonae pours. to desire of court 
vour an on, as his earlier secret pro- 
mise to Theodora had been due to ambi- 
tion. Vigilius could not now undo what he 
had done, for the Judicatum was known 
far and wide. If any further { were 
needed of his double dealing we should have 
a oo one in the fact (if it be one) that, even 
hile thus trying to uade the Westerns 
that he was on their side, he was induced by 
the emperor to take a secret oath before him 
to do all he could to bring about the con- 
demnation of the Three Chapters. The oath, 
dated the 23rd year of Justinian, is given 
among the Acts of the 7th session of the sth 
council (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 194). There seems 
to be no sufficient reason to doubt its genuine- 
ness. In it he swore to unite with the 
emperor to the utmost of his power to cause 
the Chapters to be condemned and anathe- 
matized, and to take no measures or counsels 
with any one in their favour against the 
emperor's will. The result of his crooked 
policy was that neither party trusted him. 
In the year in which the Judicatum was 
issued Theodora died; but the emperor 
continued resolute in carrying out his project 
for the condemnation of the Three Chap- 
ters by full ecclesiastical authority. Vigil 
ius, hampered by the repudiation of his 
Judicatum in the West and by his own secret | 
understanding with the emperor, would gladly 
have left the scene of action. But his presence 
was still uired at Constantinople by the 
emperor. The plan he now adopted was to 
Stella the emperor to summon the bishops, 
th of the East and West (including especi- 
ally those of Africa and Illyricum who had 
shewn themselves so strongly opposed to the 
Judicatum), to a council at Constantinople, and 
meanwhile to take no further steps. Justin- 
jan acted on his advice; but though the 
Obsequious Easterns obeyed the summons, 


VIGILIUS 1019 


at the council, at length acceded to his con- 
ditions, and revoked the eclict. 

Vigilius returned to Constantinople towards 
the end of 552, after nearly a year in St. 


Euphemia. Justinian summoned the council 
to meet on May 5, $583. The Easterns met. 
in number 165, under the 


οἱ 
Eutychius, who had succeeded on the death of 
Mennas. Vigilius and the Westerns aloot, 
assembling by themseclves in the 
—— and Evers a very lengthy document, 
wo as his Consiitutum ad Imperatoren, 
to the emperor. It refutes extracts 
that had been made from the works of Theo- 
dorus of Mopsuestia, and condemns the views 
expressed as heretical, but proceeds to protest 
against the condemnation of Theodorus him- 
self as a heretic after his death, since he had 
not been so condemned when alive and had 
died in communion with the church; and 
also against any such condemnation of Theo- 
doret or of the letter of Ibas, both ha been 
acquitted of heresy by the council of Chalee- 
don. This Conststutum, dated May 14, 53. 
was signed also by 16 Western bishops. It 
does not appear that the emperor tranamitted 
it to the council; but he handed in, on 
May 26, a statement of how Vigilius had 
once himself condemned the Chapters, had 
pledged himself to do so by word, writing, and 
solemn oath, and had been invited to the 
council and refused to come. Anathemas 
were pronounced against Theodorus of Mop- 
suestia and his writings, against the inculpated 
μων πε. ο but not the persons, of Theodoret 


and | and all who should continue to 
defend the condemned writ were, if 
ecclesiastics, to be deprived, if monks of 


laymen, excommunicated. 

Vigilius soon changed sides once more, 
assenting to the decrees of the council, and 
thus giving them at length the sanction of the 
Roman see. That he did this is indisputable, 
and according to Evagrius (lib. iv. ες. 44) in 
writing, ἐγγράφων ; nor does there seem valid 


very few of the Westerns came—a small reason to doubt the genuineness of the two 


number from Italy, two from Illyricum, but 
none from Africa. Justinian would have had 


Vigilius proceed at once with such bishops as the patriarch Eutychius, dated Dee. 
i Vigilius, with con: | 


were in Constantinople. 
siderable spirit, refused. Thereupon the 
emperor issued a new edict against the 
Chapters, which he caused to be posted in 
the churches. Vigilius protested against this 
as a violation of their agreement, called an 


assembly of bishops in the palace of Placidia | 


where he lodged, conjured them to use their 
efforts to procure a revocation of the edict 


᾿ 


written documents in which his recantation 
is declared. The first of these is a letter to 


8, 44}, 
i.¢. six months alter the conclusion of the 
council. The other document (dated Feb. 24, 
$54) is entitled “Constitutum Vigilii pro 
damnatione Trium Capitulorum™ (given in 
Labbe, vol. vi. p. 239 It expresses entire 
agreement with the decisions the council, 
and ends with the same declaration, word for 
word, as the letter to Eutychius. 

Justinian, having thus attained his end, 


till the episcopate of the West should have an | Vigilius was allowed to leave Constantinople 

Sepattuity of pronouncing its opinion, and | for Rome, after a compelled absence of 7 years, 

in virtue of the authority of = τὰν τ πο .- re τῆ —, — —— — 
1 communicat who and exem 

poitie ues « and Italy (Baron. a4 amm. $54, ix. & 


oe πες ican colt 
i in his place of ref Vigilius | ¥ Was conve to 

senor to and ¢ Δι πασι church of St. Marcellus on the Salarian Way. 
sanctuary in the church of St. Euphemia two | He was evidently a man with no firmness 
days before Christmas, $51. No attempt was of character or 
made to violate this sanctuary. pa god bee yee to 
was able from it to dictate terms on , 

would take part in the forthcoming council. 


poor 
The emperor, anxious to secure his concurrence  pitiably unavailing. 


1020 VINCENTIUS 
to Justinian’s will is due the important fact 
that the Fifth council, the origin, purpose, and 
conduct of which had so little to commend 
them, came at last to be universally accepted, 
in the West as well as the East, though not 
without prolonged resistance in some parts of 
the West, as oecumenical and authoritative. 
For, though its anathemas against the dead 
and their writings were passed under imperial 
dictation in defiance of the pope and of the 
Western church, Vigilius’s eventual approval 
of them was endorsed by his successors. 
There is no lack of contemporary authority 
for the history given above—viz. the Brevt- 
artum of Liberatus, archdeacon of Carthage ; 
the Eccl. Hist. of Evagrius; the Chronicon of 
Victor, bp. of Tununum ; the Pro Defensione 
Trium Capitulorum, and the Liber contra 
Mocianum of Facundus, bp. of Ermiana ; and 
the Hist. Bell. Goth. and the Anecdota, or 
Hist. Arcana, of Procopius. The writings of 
Facundus are peculiarly valuable in giving an 
insight into the state of parties, and the course 
of events in which he was himself implicated, 
having been, with Victor Tununensis, a pro- 
minent opponent at Constantinople of the 
condemnation of the Three Chapters. We 
have also the letters written by Vigilius, of 
great historical value, and the Acts of the 
Fifth council, with contemporary documents 
preserved among them. [j.B—y.] 
Vincentius (8), presbyter of Constantinople, 
intimately attached to Jerome, through whose 
writings we hear of him throughout the last 
20 years of 4th cent. Jerome became 
acquainted with him when he came to Con- 
stantinople in 380, from which time Vincentius 
shared his interests and pursuits. To him, 
with Gallienus, Jerome dedicated his trans- 
lation of Eusebius’s Chronicle in 382 (Hieron. 
cont. Joan. Hteros. c. 41). We may therefore 
suppose he was ordained early in 382. But he 
never fulfilled the office of presbyter. That 
he knew Greek and Latin and was interested 
in general history is shewn by Jerome’s preface 
to the Chronicle of Eusebius. He shared 
Jerome’s admiration of Origen, then at its 
height, and asked Jerome to translate all his 
works into Latin. In 382 he accompanied 
Jerome to Rome, but without intending to 
stay there. We do not hear of him during 
Jerome’s stay, but they left Rome together in 
385 and settled at Bethlehem (cont. Ruf. iii. 
22). He shared Jerome’s studies and his 
asceticism and controversial antipathies. He 
was severe in his judgment upon Vigilantius 
(Hieron. Ep. 1xi. 3, A.D. 396), and co-operated 
eagerly in the subsequent condemnation of 
Origenism. In 396 or 397 he went to Rome, 
for what cause is unknown (cont. Ruf. iii. 24). 
No doubt he took part in the proceedings 
against Origenism, in which Eusebius of 
Cremona and Jerome’s Roman friends were 
actively engaged. On his return to Bethle- 
hem in 400 he was full of the subject. All 
Rome and Italy, he reported, had been de- 
livered; and his praise of Theophilus of 
lexandria as having by his letter to the pope 
Anastasius procured this deliverance is com- 
municated to that prelate in Jerome’s letter 
(Ep. 88, ed. Vall.) to him, the last mention of 
Vincentius which we have. [W.H.F.] 
Vinecentius (11) Lirinensis (Vincent of 


VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS 


Lerins), St., a distinguished presbyter of 
Gaul in 5th cent. Date of birth uncertain; 
must have died in or before A.D. 450. 
Authorities—Gennadius, Vivorum  Illus- 
trium Catalogus (c. 64). References to himself 
and to his times in his chief (most probably his 
sole) work, the Commonitorium. 
Life-—Concerning the events of Vincent’s 
life we are almost entirely ignorant. He was 
a native of Gaul, possibly brother of St. Loup, 
bp. of Troyes [Lupus (2)], involved in the 
turmoils of worldly life before his retirement 
into a monastery near a small town, remote 
from the stir of cities. This was that of Lerins 
(Lerinum), situated in the island of that name 
near Antibes, now known as L’Ile de St. 
Honorat, from the founder of this celebrated 
institution. Here he wrote adversus Profanas 
Omnium Novttates Haereticorum Commont- 
tortum, almost 3 years (as he tells us in c. 42) 
after the council of Ephesus, 1.6. in 434. 
Writings.—The only one wniversally ad- 
mitted to be the genuine and authentic pro 
duction of Vincent is briefly known as Com- 
monitortum. In the form in which we have it 
it extends, even in a 12mo ed., to only 150 
pages, and consists of 42 short chapters. 
Peregrinus (as Vincent called himself) begins 
by stating that he thought it might be useful 
and in accordance with scriptural precepts 
(Deut. xxxii. 7; Prov. xxii. 17, iii. 1) to write 
down certain principles which he had received 
from holy Fathers. His tests to discern the 
truth of the Catholic faith from heresy will be 
sought first in the authority of the divine law, 
and next in the tradition of the Catholic church. 
The second source of information would not 
be needed had not all the leading heretics 
claimed the support of Holy Scripture (cc. 
i. ii.)} We must hold that which has been 
believed everywhere, always, by all (‘‘ quod 
ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus 
creditum est’’); in other words, we must 
follow Universttatem, Antiquitatem, Consen- 
stonem ; understanding by the last the agree- 
ment of all, or almost all, bishops and doctors 
(c. ii.). A small portion of the church dis- 
senting from the rest must be cut off like an 
unsound limb; nay, even a large portion if it 
does not abide by antiquity. Illustrations are 
afforded negatively by Donatism and Arian- 
ism; positively by the teaching of St. Am- 
brose and other eminent confessors (cc. iv.- 
viii.). Antiquity was on the side of pope 
Stephen, bp. of the apostolic see, and against 
the excellent Agrippinus, bp. of Carthage, 
who desired to rebaptize heretics. True, the 
rebaptizers claim the sanction of the holy 
Cyprian; but to do so is behaving like Ham 
towards Noah, for on this point that pious 
martyr erred (cc. ix.-xi.). Apostolic warrant 
for what has been advanced may be found in 
St. Paul’s writings, e.g. in Tim. and Tit. 
(passim), Rom. xv. 17, and Gal. i. 7-Io. 
Those who would make accretions to the faith 
stand thereby condemned for all time. The 
Pelagians are such (cc. xii.-xiv.). Valentinus, 
Photinus, Apollinaris, and others are similarly 
condemned by the warnings of Moses (Deut. 
xiii. 1-11). Even good gifts, such as those of 
Nestorius, or useful labours like those of 
Apollinaris against Porphyry, cannot be plead- 
ed against their novelties (cc. xv. xvi.). He ex- 


VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS 


plains with some minuteness wherein consisted 
the heresies of Photinus, Apollinaris, and 
Nestorius, and the true doctrine of the church 
as opposed to them (cc. xvii.-xxii.). 

The danger of ignoring the principles here 
laid down, more especially the test of anti- 
uity, is painfully exhibited in the case of 

rigen, whose acute, profound, and brilliant 
genius (fully recognized by imperial disciples 
and the church at large) has not saved his 
writings from becoming a source of tempta- 
tion ; though it is just possible, as some think, 
that they may have been tampered with (c. 
xxil.). A very similar judgment must be 
passed upon Tertullian, of whom Hilary (of 
Poictiers) too truly said that ‘‘ by his errors 
he had diminished the authority due to his 
approved writings "’ (c. xxiv.). he true and 
genuine Catholic is he who loves Christ’s body, 
the Church; who puts God’s truth before all 
things, before any individual authority, 
affection, genius, eloquence, or philosophy. 
Many who fall short of this standard, when 
not slain, are yet sadly stunted in their spirit- 
ual growth (c. xxv.). Additions to the faith 
or detractions from it are alike condemned by 
Holy Scripture, especially by St. Paul (I. Tim. 
vi.). The deposit is the talent of the Catholic 
faith, which the man of God must, like a 
spiritual Bezaleel, adorn, arrange, and display 
to others, but not injure by novelties (cc. 
XXvi. xxvii.). Certainly there is to be pro- 
gress (‘‘ profectus religionis’’), but it must 
resemble the growth of the infant into man- 
hood and maturity—a growth which preserves 
identity. The dogmas of the heavenly philo- 
sophy may by the operation of time be 
smoothed and polished, and gain, by greater 
fullness of evidence, light and elucidation 
(‘‘distinctionem’’), but they must retain 
integrity and all essential characteristics (cc. 
XXVlli.-xxx.). Such has been the church's 
task in the decrees of councils, which have 
simply aimed at adding clearness, vigour, and 
zeal to what was believed, taught, and prac- 
tised already (cc. xxx.-xxxii.). St. John, in 
his 2nd epistle, is as emphatic as St. Paul 
against the teacher of false doctrine. Such 
an one cannot be encouraged without a virtual 
rejection of saints, confessors, and martyrs— 
a rejection, in short, of the holy church 
throughout the world. Pelagius (with his 
disciple Coelestius), Arius, Sabellius, Nova- 
tian, Simon Magus, were all introducers of 
novelties (cc. xxxiii. xxxiv.). The heretics 
use the Scriptures, but only in the way in 
which bitter potions are disguised for children 
by a previous taste of honey, or isons 
labelled as healing medicines. The Saviour 
warned us against such perils by His words 
concerning wolves in sheep’s clothing. We 
must attend to His subsequent advice, by 
their fruits ye shall know them. His apostle 
bids us beware of false apostles (II. Cor. xi. 
13-15), the imitators of Satan, who transform 
themselves into angels of light. Their em- 
ployment of Scripture resembles that of Satan 
in the temptation of our Lord. They pre- 
sume, in the teeth of the teaching of the 
church, to claim a special illumination for 
their own small conventicle (cc. xxxv.-xxxvii.). 
Catholics must apply to the interpretation of 
Scripture the tests of universality, antiquity, 


VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS 


and consent. Where they can, let them 
adduce the decrees of general councils ; failing 
those, the consistent rulings of great doctors. 
This does not apply to small questions, but 
only to whatsoever affects the rule of faith, 
Inveterate heresies can generally be met 
by Holy Scripture alone, or by clear decisions 
of oecumenical councils. New ones often 
resent at first greater difficulty, and we must 
e careful to cite those Fathers only who lived 
and died in the faith. What all or the 
majority clearly and perseveringly received, 
held, and taught, let that be held as undoubted, 
certain, and ratified. But any merely private 
opinion, even of a saint or martyr, must be 
put aside. This again agrees with St. Paul 
(I. Cor. i. 10, xii. 27, 28, xiv. 33, 36; Eph. iv. 
tr). That Pelagian writer Julian neglected 
these cautions, and broke away from the senti- 
ments of his colleagues (cc. xxxviii.-xl.). 

Bk. ii., as Gennadius informs us, was mostly 
lost, having been stolen from its author, 
who gives a recapitulation of its substance, 
which occupies 3 additional chapters. The 
first of these (c. xli.) simply re-states the main 
proposition of the earlier book. The author 
then, to shew that his view is no offspring of 
private presumption, adduces the example of 
the council of Ephesus, held nearly 3 years 
before the time of writing, in the consulship of 
Bassus and Antiochus. Great pains were taken 
to avoid an unfortunate issue, such as that of 
the council of Rimini (Concil. Ariminense); 
and the testimonies of martyrs, confessors, 
and orthodox doctors were considered by an 
assemblage of nearly 200 bishops to prove 
Nestorius an irreligious impugner of Catholic 
truth, and Cyril to be in accordance with it. 
Amongst the saintly doctors present in person, 
or whose works were cited as authoritative, 
were Peter of Alexandria, Athanasius, Theo- 
philus, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil and 
his excellent brother Gregory of Nyssa. The 
West was represented by letters of Felix and 
of Julius, bps. of Rome; the South by the 
evidence of Cyprian of Carthage ; the North 
by that of Pe sae of Milan. The whole of 


1021 


the bishops, for the most part metropolitans, 
acted upon the principles maintained in this 
treatise and censured Nestorius for his 


unhallowed presumption—that he was the 
first and only man who rightly understood the 
Scriptures (xli.). 

One element must be added, lest to all this 
weight anything seem lacking, namely, the 
δότε παῦδας of the apostolic see, which was 
illustrated by the twofold testimony of the 
reigning pope, Sixtus III., and of his pre- 
decessor Coelestine. It was on the principles 
herein set forth that pope Sixtus condemned 
Nestorius ; and Coelestine wrote in the same 
spirit to certain priests in Gaul who were 
fostering novelties. It is, in fact, an accept- 
ance of the warning of St. Paul to Timothy 
to keep the deposit (1. Tim. vi. 20, ΕΝ, marg.) 
and to the Galatians, that he would be ana- 
thema who should preach to them any other 
gospel (Gal. i. 8). fustly upon these grounds 
are Pelagius and Coelestius as well as Nes- 
torius condemned * (xlii.). 

9 It must be owned that there is a certain amount 
of difficulty, one may almost say mystery, connected 
with these last two chapters. In the first place, they 


1022 VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS 


It may safely be asserted that few theo- 
logical books of such modest bulk, published 
within our period, have attracted so large a 
share of attention. It has been included in 
all the best known collections of the Fathers 
(e.g. in the Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum, Lug- 
duni, A.D. 1677; and in that of Migne), re- 
peatedly published separately in many lands, 
and not unfrequently translated. A Scottish 
trans., dedicated to Mary Queen of Scots, was 
issued by Knox’s opponent, Ninian Winzeit, 
at Antwerp, in 1563; an Engl. one in 
Schaff and Wace’s Post-Nicene Lib. by Dr. 
Heurtley, and another by Rev. W. B. Flower 
(Lond. 1866). 

The Commonitorium has gathered around 
itself a literature. How far its leading prin- 
ciples have been accepted, either explicitly or 
implicitly, in the past; how far they made 
a line of demarcation between those who 
accepted or rejected the Reformation; to 
what extent they are available in the contro- 
versies between the various Christian com- 
munions, or in the contest between Christian- 
ity and unbelief—these questions have all 
been keenly discussed. To review these con- 
troversies would far exceed our limits, but it 
seems right to call attention to one or two 
features of the debate which have not received 
elsewhere the notice which they deserve. 

That the Commonitorium lays down a broad 
line of demarcation between the Protestant 
and the Roman churches is an obvious over- 
statement. The Magdeburg Centuriators 
distinctly pronounced in its favour as a 
work of learning and acuteness; as a book 
which revealed and forcibly assailed the 
frauds of heretics, supplied a remedy and 
antidote against their poisons, set forth a 
weighty doctrine and displayed a knowledge 
of antiquity with skill and clearness in its 
treatment of Holy Scripture. The praise 
given by Casaubon to the principles of the 
English Reformation, the challenge of Jewel. 
and a large consensus of 17th-cent. divines, all 
rest, more or less explicitly, upon the famous 
dictum of Vincent—which, indeed, derives 
considerable support from certain portions of 
the Prayer-Book, Articles, and Canons. 

It is, of course, equally true that Roman 
Catholic divines, especially at the epoch of the 
Reformation and long after, also professed to 
take their stand upon the principles asserted 
in the Commonitorium. There is no reason 
to doubt their sincerity in so acting. They 


introduce a newelement into thediscussion—namely, 
theauthority claimed forthe Roman see. Theauthor 
appears to assume that this authority will always 
be manifested on the side of his great maxim of the 
“quod semper, quod ubique, quad ab omnibus,”’ and 
makes no provision for the possibility of a divergence 
between the teaching of Rome and that of antiquity. 
Secondly, while the language concerning Nestorius 
and his opponent Cyril is clear and emphatic, there 
does seem to be a certain degree of reticence about 
some of the opponents of Augustine, e.g. Julian. The 
name of Augustine is not even mentioned, and 
though this is equally true of Jerome and Chrysos- 
tom, there was no special reason to introduce 
their names, while the repeated mention of Pelagius 
would have rendered the introduction of that of 
his chief opponent only natural. 

* “A richt goldin buke writtin in Latin about xic 
3erTis [years] passit and neulie translated in Scottis be 
Niniane Winzet a catholik Preist.’”’ (Original title.) 


VITALIUS 


were not in a position to judge the evidence 
on behalf of this and that portion of medieval 
doctrine and practice, and they appealed with 
confidence to such stores of learning as lay 
open to them. A day came when this confi- 
dence was rudely shaken. The Benedictine 
editions of the works of the Fathers appeared, 
with honest and discriminating criticism ap- 
plied to their writings. Not only was it seen 
that a considerable portion of their works, 
long accepted as genuine and authentic, was 
in reality spurious, but also that while dis- 
tinctively Roman _ tenets and _ practices 
received much support from the sermons and 
treatises relegated into the appendix of each 
volume, the case was widely different when 
reference was made to genuine Patristic 
remains. A new school of Roman Catholic 
divines arose, of whom Father Petau (Peta- 
vius) may perhaps be considered the earliest, 
as he is certainly among the greatest. The 
process of development in the church of Rome 
has widened the breach between her teaching 
and the principles of Vincent of Lerins. 
The church which set forth the doctrine of the 
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother, 
not merely as a lawful opinion but as a dogma, 
has broken with the maxim, ‘‘ Quod semper, 
quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.” A new 
ed. for academical use was ed. by Jiilicher, 
Sammlung . . . Quellenschriftey (Freiburg i. 
Br. 1895). [J.G.c.] 
Vitalius (Vitalis), bp. of the Apollinarian 
congregation at Antioch. Vitalius was a man 
of high character, brought up in the orthodox 
faith at Antioch, and ordained presbyter by 
Meletius (Theod. H. FE. v. 4; Soz. H. E. vi. 
25). Jealousy of his fellow-presbyter Flavian 
caused a breach between him and his bishop, 
deprived of whose guidance Vitalius fell 
under the influence of Apollinaris and em- 
braced his theological system. Tidings of his 
unsoundness having reached Rome, Vitalius 
made a journey thither in 375 to clear him- 
self before pope Damasus, and to be received 
by him into communion. By the use of 
equivocal terms he convinced Damasus of his 
orthodoxy. Damasus did not, however, re- 
ceive him into communion, but sent Vitalius 
back to Antioch with a letter to Paulinus, 
whom, during the Meletian schism, Rome 
and the West recognized as the orthodox 
and canonical bishop of that see, remitting 
the whole matter to his decision. Shortly 
after Vitalius had left Rome Damasus des- 
patched a second letter to Paulinus, contain- 
ing a profession of faith, which, without 
naming Apollinaris, condemned his doctrines, 
desiring Paulinus to require signature to it as 
the terms of admission to communion (Labbe, 
ii. g00 seq.; Theod. H. E. v. 11).  Vitalius 
refused, and the breach between him and 
Paulinus became complete. Apollinaris or- 
dained Vitalius bishop of his schismatical 
church, his holiness of life and pastoral zeal 
gathering a large number of followers, the 
successors of whom were still at Antioch under 
the name of Vitalians when Sozomen wrote 
(Soz. H. E. vi. 25). The unsoundness of 
Vitalius on the point on which Apollinaris 
diverged from the orthodox faith did not 
prevent his receiving much esteem and 
affection from leaders on the orthodox side, 


VITUs 


with whom, this one point excepted, he com. | 
It must have been very | 


pletely agreed. 


ZEPHYRINUS 1023 


whole Roman world, and in which Hostilianas 
the son of Decius, who had been associated 


shortly after Vitalius's return to Antioch that with the Galli in the empire, died. Their 


Epiphanius, urged thereto by Basil (Bas. τ 
258 [325]}, visited Antioch to try to heal 
differences then rending that church. There 
he met ‘ Vitalius the bishop,” of whom he 
speaks in the highest terms. He earnestly 
besought him to reunite himself to the 
Catholic church. Finding that the misunder- 
standing was chiefly a sonal one between 
him and Paulinus, charging the other 
with unsoundness in the faith, Epiphanius 
rage both to a conference. At first Vita- 
jus’s language appeared perfectly orthodox. 
He Saeiedadeed oa fully as Paulinus that 
Christ was perfect man with a human body 
and soul (ψυχή); but when pressed as to 
whether He also had a human mind (rods), he 
said that His divinity was to Him in its place. 
Neither party could persuade the other, and 
Epiphanius had to give up the hopeless attempt 
(Epiph. Ixxvii. cc. 20-23). [ιμοκκιτακ. 
The schism of Vitalius added ἃ third or, 
counting the Arians, a fourth church at 
Antioch, each denouncing theothers. Meletius, 
Paulinus, and Vitalius each claimed to be the 
orthodox bishop. The perplexity created is 
graphically described by Jerome to pope Da- 
masus (Hieron. Epp. 57, 58). Tillem. Mémm. 
eccl. Vii. 617-622; Dorner, Person of Christ, 
div. 1, vol. ii. pp. 386 ff., Clark's trans. [Ἑ.ν]. 
Vitus (1) (Guy), St., a youthful martyr in 
Diocletian's persecution ; the son of a pagan 
| pam in Sicily, but secretly trained in 
hristianity by his nurse Crescentia and her 
husband Modestus. After the boy had en- 
countered much cruel suffering, they suc- 
ceeded in carrying him over to Italy, where all 
three fell victims, either in Lucania or at Rome 
(Boll. Acta SS. 15 Jun. iii. 491, ed. 1867). 
He is invoked against sudden death and hy- 
ce a (sb. mn p- 21°), and against 
prolonged sleep and the complaint known as 
the chorea or dance of St. Vitus (Guérin, Les 
Pet. Boll. vii. 30). He is also, says Guérin, 
the patron of comedians and dancers. Two 
German medical writers, Gregory Horst and 
John Juncker, of the 17th and 18th cents. 
respectively, relate how the malady came to 
take his name (see Rees’s Encyclopedia, s.v. 
“Chorea”). There sprang up, they say, in 
seared in the 17th cent., a superstitious 
belief that by presenting gifts to the image 
of St. Vitus, and dancing before it day and 
night on his festival, poops ensured themselves 
the year. The saint's 
became 


Gallus, A.D. 251-254. 

Gallus was proclaimed emperor after t 
defeat and death of Decius, which he is said 
to have caused by his treachery. He asso- 
ciated Volusian with himself in the empire, 


prisoners and pa 


numerous medals, bearing representations of 
Apollo and Juno, the deities of the sun and 
the air (Eckhel, vil. 357), support the state. 
ment of St. Cyprian (Ap. $5 in Migne, Par, 
Lat. iii, 805), that they issued an edict, 
ordering sacrifices to be offered everywhere 
to appease the wrath of the gods. Ey refuse 
ing to obey the Christians aroused the hatred 
of the populace. In Africa the ery of “Cy- 
prianum ad leonem" was again raised, and 
the outbreak of ὦ ὧν... worse than that 
of Decius was ly feared (Ap. 54 in "Ὁ. 
855, 861). Fortunately these fears were not 
realized. The only overt acts all peg me 
we certainly know of were confined to Kome. 
The outbreak was sudden (Ap. 54 in . 274), 
and Cornelius, bp. of Rome, was specially 
singled out for attack. His fock rallied 
bravely round him, and some who had fallen 
away in the Decian persecution distinguished 
themselves by their firmness (fp. 7 in Ὁ. 
832). He with some of them was banished 
to Centum Cellae, where he died, probably 
a natural death, June 253 (see Lipsius, (νον. 
der rom. Bisch. 207). His suceessor Lucius 
was apparently elected in exile but soon 
allowed to return, the persecution ceasing, 

robably owing to the outbreak of civil war. 

here is no clear proof of any severer — 
ment than exile in this persecution. is is 
the worst mentioned by the contemporary 1. 
Cyprian and St. Dionysius of Alexandria (in 
Eus. H. E. vii. 1) In the summer of 241 
Aemilianus was es emperor by his 
soldiers, and ¢. Feb. 244 Gallus and Volusianus 
were murdered by their troops at Torni (Zos. 
i. 23-28; Zon. xii. 21). (ν.υ.] 


Χ 


(Sixtus 11.} 


Xystus. 
Z 


Zeno (16), emperor of the East a.p. 474-494, 
is famous in church history for the publication 
of the Hewxoticon and for his active part in 
the prolonged disputes about Timotheus 
Aclurus, Timotheus Salofaciolus, Peter Μοῦ. 
gus, and Peter the Fuller. Pope Simriicies 


and Acactus used him very effectually against 
their ts. For a full anal of the 
letters o Simplicius and Felix 11]. to 


him see Ceillier, t. x. pp. 410-420. [6.7.4.] 
us, bp. of Rome after Victor, under 
the emperors Septimius Severus and Cara- 
calla. Lipsius concludes his episcopate to 
have been cither 18 of τὸ years, from 194 oF 
199 to 217. His reign was marked by 
serious disturbance at Kome owing to doc 
trinal controversies and consequent schiem. 
Zephyrinus seems to have been of no sufficient 
mark to take a personal lead, but to have been 


to Rome. 
was παόρεηςανς by the dreadful lenee Hi ytus appear to have been the 
began in Ethiopia and over the | spirits of the time at Rome. 


1024 ZEPHYRINUS 


The two notable heresies of the time were 
Montanism and Monarchianism. The see of 
Rome, when occupied by Zephyrinus, declared 
against Montanism (Eus. H. E. ii. 25; iii. 
28, 31; vi. 20). [Carus.] Thus Zephrinus, 
though no action of his in the matter 
is recorded, may certainly be concluded 
to have been no favourer of the Montanists. 
But neither he nor Callistus, who succeeded 
him, is free from the imputation of having 
countenanced one school of the Monarchians, 
that which Praxeas had introduced into Rome. 
Montanism and Monarchianism represented 
two opposite tendencies. The former was the 
product of emotional enthusiasm, the latter 
of intellectual speculation grounded on the 
difficulty of comprehending the mystery of 
the Godhead in Christ. Those called by the 
general name of Monarchians, though differing 
widely in their views, agreed in denying a 
divine personality in Christ distinct from that 
of the Father, being jealous for the Unity, and 
what was called the Monarchy of God. One 
school was also called Patripassian, because 
its position was held to imply that in the 
sufferings of Christ the Father suffered. 
““They taught that the one Godhead, not one 
Person thereof only, had become incarnate, 
the terms Father and Son with them denoting 
only the distinction between God in His 
Eternal Being, and God as manifested in 
Christ. Such views were obviously incon- 
sistent with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, 
and their outcome was the Sabellian heresy. 
Praxeas appears to have been the first to 
introduce this form of heresy at Rome, and, 
if Tertullian is to be believed, the popes of the 
time supported Praxeas and his doctrine rather 
than otherwise. In addition to this testimony 
of Tertullian (whose treatise against Praxeas, 
written in the time of Zephyrinus, has been 
supposed, not without reason, to have been 
directed against the reigning pope as much as 
against the original heresiarch) we have that 
of the Refutation of all Heresies, attributed to 
HIPPOLYTUs, a learned writer of great note in 
his day, whose real ecclesiastical position is 
still open to discussion. He probably was 
bishop over a community at Rome which 
claimed to be the true church, out of com- 
munion with the pope, after the accession of 
Callistus, and possibly also under Zephyrinus. 

Callistus, in the time of pope Victor, had 
been residing under suspicion at Antium. 
Zephyrinus, the successor of Victor, seems to 
have had no misgivings about him, recalled 
him to Rome, gave him some position of 
authority over the clergy, and ‘set him over 
the cemetery.’’ Zephyrinus is described as 
an unlearned and ignorant man, entirely 
managed by Callistus, who induced him, for 
his own purposes, to declare generally for, but 
sometimes against, the Patripassians. The 
picture of the Roman church during the 
episcopate of Zephyrinus, as given in the 
Refutation of Hippolytus, discloses a state of 
discord and disruption not recorded by the 
historians. The picture, indeed, may be 
somewhat overcoloured under the influence 
of odium theologicum, and Callistus may not 
be the unprincipled adventurer, or Zephyrinus 
altogether the greedy and ignorant tool, that 
the writer describes. Dr. Déllinger (Hip- 


ZEPHYRINUS 


polyt. und Callist.), who attributes the whole 
work to Hippolytus, takes this view. He 
defends Callistus against the libel on his 
character, which, however, he allows may 
have had some ground, but acquits Hippolytus 
of wilful misrepresentation, supposing him to 
have been partly misled by false reports and 
partly by prejudice, being himself a strict 
maintainer of ancient discipline, while Callis- 
tus was a liberal. It is difficult, however, to 
acquit the writer of deliberate and malignant 
slander unless the picture given of the popes 
was mainly a true one. There remains the 
idea of Dr. Newman, that ‘‘the libellous mat- 
ter’’ in the Elenchus of Hippolytus was not 
his ; but for this there is no foundation beyond 
the supposed difficulty of believing it so. 
If Hippolytus wrote it, it is to be remembered 
that he was undoubtedly a divine of greater 
learning and repute than his rivals, and that 
he seems to have left a name without reproach 
behind him. All three (like some others who 
were bitterly at variance during life) are 
now together in the Calendar of Saints. 
Zephyrinus is further accused of undue 
laxity in matters of discipline. Our informant, 
Tertullian, writing in his time, speaks indig- 
nantly of a papal edict allowing admission of 
adulterers, after penance, to communion. 
There was yet another school of Monarch- 
ians at Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, adding 
to the discord. Its teacher, Theodotus the 
banker, who held that Christ, though con- 
ceived by the Holy Ghost, was a mere man, 
and even inferior to Melchizedek, had his sect 
apart and out of communion with the church 
(Eus. H. E. v. 28; Tertull. de Praescript.). 
Eusebius (/.c.), quoting from an unnamed 
writer of the time, tells a story of Natalius, 
a confessor for the faith, having been per- 
suaded by Theodotus and his colleague 
Asclepiodotus to be made bishop of their 
sect, of his having subsequently thrown him- 
self in sackcloth and ashes with many tears 
at the feet of Zephyrinus, and been thereupon 
received into communion. Another of the 
same school, Artemon or Artemas, taught at 
Rome under Zephyrinus, and apart from his 
communion. He alleged that his own doc- 
trine was that which the apostles had handed 
down, and which had been accepted by the 
Roman see till pope Victor’s time, Zephyrinus 
having been the first to falsify the ancient 
creed. To this bold assertion his opponents 
replied that the fact of Victor having excom- 
municated Theodotus the currier, who was 
“the leader and father of this God-denying 
apostasy,’’ was proof that Artemon’s doctrine 
had not been formerly that of the Roman 
church (Eus. H. E. v. 28; cf. Epiphan. Haer. 
lxv. 1, 4; Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 4; Phot. 
Biblioth. 48). During this episcopate the 
emperor Severus, A.D. 202, issued an edict 
which forbade any person to become a Jew 
or a Christian (Aelii Spartiani Severus, c. 17), 
which was probably interpreted so as to 
include existing converts ; for in some parts it 
was followed by severe persecution, though 
there is no evidence that Zephyrinus or the 
Christians at Rome were then molested. 
Some time during this episcopate Origen 
paid a short visit to Rome (Eus. H. E. vi. 14). 
Zephyrinus is said (Catal. Felic.) to have 


ZOARAS 


been buried ‘‘in cimiterio suo juxta cimite- 
rium via Appia '’—+.¢. ne at not in ‘the 
cemetery "’ itself, over which Callistus had 
been set (supra), but in one of his own adjoin- | 
ing it. Lipsius supposes that the cemetery. 
here meant was one which Zephyrinus had 
acquired, and that, Callistus having greatly 
added to it, the larger extension was after- 
wards called ‘‘the cemetery.” 

Zephyrinus is said in Catal. Feltc. to have 
ordered that no cleric of any order should be 
ordained except in the presence of the clergy 
and faithful laity, and to have made a con- 
stitution, the purport of which, as it stands 
now in the texts of Cat. Fel., it is not easy to 
understand, but which is given in the Lib. 
Pontif. (Vit. 5. Zephyr.) as meaning that 
“the ministers should carry patens of glass 
in the church before the priests when the. 
bishop celebrated masses, and that the priests 
should stand in attendance while masses were | 
thus celebrated.’’ There is other conclusive | 
evidence that anciently, and to a date con-| 
siderably later than that of Zephyrinus, glass 
patens as well as chalices were in use (see 
Labbe, p. 619—nola Binii (c.) in Vit. Zephyr.). 

Together with most of the early popes, St. | 
Zephyrinus is commemorated as a martyr ; 
““Aug. 26. Romae 5. Zephyrinus Papae et | 
martyris’’ (Martyr. Rom.). There is no 
ground for supposing him to have been one. 
Two spurious epistles have been assigned to 


him (see Labbe). {j.B—y. | 

Zoaras (2), a turbulent Monophysite Syrian | 
monk, a zealous adherent of Severus, asso- 
ciated with him and Peter of Apamea in the 
petitions of the orthodox clergy of Syria to the 
council of Constantinople under Mennas, a.p. 
536, as leaders of the Monophysite heresy, and 
condemned with them by the synod. He be- 
came a Stylite. On being driven after several 
years from his pillar by the orthodox party 
(the ‘‘ Synodites *’), he started for Constanti- | 
nople with ten of his monks to complain to J us- 
tinian, who hastily summoned a synod to give | 
him audience. Zoaras uncompromisingly de- | 
nounced “‘ the accursed council of Chalcedon.” | 
This greatly irritated Justinian, who rebuked 
him for his presumption. Zoaras in no meas- 
ured terms denounced the emperor for his | 
support of heresy. A monastery in the suburb > 
of Sykas was assigned as a residence to him | 
and his followers by the emperor, where he) 
lived quietly, exercising great liberality. The) 
embassage of Agapetus, patriarch of Rome, | 
with whom Zoaras held a very stormy en- 
counter which resulted in the deposition of | 
the patriarch Anthimus as ἃ concealed | 
Monophysite and the appointment of Mennas, | 
A.D. 536, caused an outbreak of orthodox fury | 
against Zoaras and his followers. In the | 
various ‘‘libelli’’ presented to the synod 
under Mennas he and his heresy are denounced | 


ZOSIMUS 1025 
Justinian assigned him a monastery in Thrace, 
named Dokos, 30 miles away. el Theo- 


dorus, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexand- 
ria, was living and propagating his doctrines. 
The length of Zoaras’s residence here is 
uncertain. After a time he left Thrace, and 
after some years died, leaving as his successor 
his disciple the presbyter Ananias. Assem. 
Bibl. Or. ii. 58, 235; Land, Anecdot. Syr. ii. 
12-22; Bar-heb. Chron. Eccl. ed. Abbeloos, i. 
pp. 206-208; Labbe, v. 108, 254, 267. [x.v.] 

Zosimus (4), bp. of Rome after Innocent L., 
from Mar. 18, 417, to Dec. 25, 418, under 
Honorius as the Western and Theodosius II. 
as the Eastern emperor. 

CoeELestius, having been expelled from 
Constantinople by the patriarch Atticus, went 
to Rome, A.p. 417, hoping for the support of 
Zosimus, who had newly succeeded to the 
Roman see. Atticus had written letters about 
Coelestius to Asia, Carthage, and Thessalonica, 
but not to Rome ; the churches of Rome and 
Constantinople not being then in full com- 
munion, owing to the name of John Chry- 
sostom not having been restored to the 
diptychs of the latter church. On the other 
hand, Zosimus had before him, when Coeles- 
tius appealed to him, letters addressed by 
Pelagius to pope Innocent, but not received 
by him before his death. These letters had 
by no means satisfied St. Augustine (de Pecc. 
Ortg. c. 17, 21; De Grat. x. 30, 3x); but 


| being expressed so as to evade the main points 


at issue, they may have seemed a sufficient 


_ exculpation to the pope, less sharpsighted than 


Augustine in detecting heresy, and apparently 
less ready to find fault with it in this case. 


| Thus Zosimus was disposed to receive Coe- 
‘lestius with favour, while the independent 


action of the African bishops in the time of 
Innocent may have further inclined him to 
give the condemned persons a chance of 
clearing themselves. Coelestius appeared 
before him in the church of St. Clement, 
presented his defence, and was questioned as 
to whether he spoke sincerely and assented 
to what pope Innocent had written to the 
African bishops against the heresies imputed 
to him and Pelagius. This, Augustine tells 
us, he did, but refused to condemn the alleged 
errors imputed to him in the Iibellus of 
Paulinus (his original accuser at baa Ἢ 
A.D. 412), which had been sent to Rome. δ 
further, according to Augustine, desired the 
pope’s correction of any error of which he 
might through ignorance have been guilty 
(Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 607). Zosimus there- 
upon took up his cause, as that of one unfairly 
and improperly condemned. He wrote to this 
efiect to Aurelius and the African bishops, 
desiring them either to send persons to Rome 
to convict the accused of heresy or to hold him 
innocent, and inveighing against the two 


in no measured terms. He is described as ἃ Gallican bishops, Heros and Lazarus, who had 
leader of the Acephali (Labbe, v. 108). He) been the accusers of Coelestius. Zosimus 
had been already condemned and excom-| wrote a second time to Aurelius and the 
municated by Anthimus’s predecessor Ερὶ- Africans, having meanwhile received a letter 
phanius (ib. 251). Mennas and his synod | in favour of Pelagius from Praylius, bp. of 
repeated the condemnation, and Justinian | Jerusalem, and others from Pelagius himself. 
banished Zoaras from Constantinople and its | These last had entirely satisfied him of the 
vicinity, and from all the chief cities of the | writer's orthodoxy ; they had been publicly 
empire, charging him to live in solitude.| read at Rome, and received (says Zosimus) 
According to the biography in Land, however, with universal joy; and Zosimus wrote again 
65 


1026 ZOSIMUS 

to Carthage, declaring Pelagius and Coelestius 
to have fully vindicated themselves against 
the calumnious accusations of those ‘‘ whirl- 
winds and storms of the church,’’ Heros and 
Lazarus ; to have been condemned by unjust 
judges; and to be still in the church’s com- 
munion. He sent with his letter copies of 
those which he had received from Pelagius. 

By the same messenger Zosimus summoned 
Paulinus, the original accuser of Coelestius, 
to Rome. Coelestius had retorted on Paulinus 
the charge of heresy, and neither the latter 
nor any other accusers had come to Rome to 
prove their charges, and now Paulinus respect- 
fully refused to go, saying there was no need. 
He assumes in his extant reply that the pope’s 
verdict had already been on his side, in that 
Coelestius had been called upon at Rome, 
however in vain, to condemn the heresies 
which he, Paulinus, had charged him with. 
Aurelius also, and the other African bishops, 
remained resolute. Several letters, no longer 
extant, appear to have passed between them 
and Zosimus, alluded to by Augustine (contra 
Duas Ep. Pelag. lib. ii. c. 3), and by Zosimus 
himself. Early in 418 they held a council of 
214 bishops at Carthage, which confirmed their 
condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius, and 
declared, with regard to Rome, that they must 
hold the verdict of Innocent against the heresi- 
archs to be still in force, unless the latter 
should recant. The decrees of this council 
were sent to Zosimus; and he, in his extant 
reply, dated Mar. 21, 418, begins by a lengthy 
assertion of the authority of the Roman see 
inherited from St. Peter, which was such, he 
says, that none might dare to dispute its 
judgment. Still, he declares himself willing 
to consult his brethren, though not as being 
ignorant of what ought to be done or requiring 
their concurrence. 

Zosimus is further memorable for his ad- 
judication on the question of the jurisdiction 
of the see of Arles in Gaul, when some of the 
Gallic bishops were as little ready as the 
Africans to submit to his authority. Patro- 
clus had been elected and ordained metro- 
politan of Arles, A.D. 412, on the expulsion by 
the people of the former metropolitan, Heros 
—the Gallican bishop, above named, who 
subsequently, with Lazarus, accused Pelagius 
of heresy in Palestine and Africa. There had 
been a long rivalry and struggle for jurisdiction 
between the two ancient sees of Arles and 
Vienne. A recent synod at Turin had decided 
against the claim of Arles to general jurisdic- 
tion over other provinces. Consequently 
other metropolitans—Simplicius of Vienne, 
Hilarius of Narbonne, and Proculus of Mar- 
seilles—had claimed the right of ordaining 
bishops in their respective provinces; and, 
notably, Proculus, acting on powers assigned 
him by the Turin synod as metropolitan of 
Narbonensis Secunda, had ordained Lazarus 
(the friend and associate of Heros) to the see 
of Aquae Sextiae (Aix). Patroclus appealed 
to Zosimus (A.D. 417), who at once wrote to 
the bishops of Gaul, to the Spanish bishops, 
and to Aurelius of Carthage and the rest of 
the African bishops, asserting the authority 
of the bishop of Arles over the provinces of 
Vienne and Narbonensis Prima and Secunda, 
and declaring all who should ordain bishops, 


ZOSIMUS 


or be ordained, within those provinces without 
his concurrence, to be degraded from the 
priesthood. He required that ecclesiastics of 
all orders from any part of Gaul whatever, pro- 
ceeding to Rome, or to any other part of the 
world, should not be received without letters 
commendatory (fiymatae) from the metropoli- 
tan of Arles. This last privilege he rests, not 
on ancient right, but on the personal merits of 
Patroclus. The jurisdiction of Arles over the 
above-named provinces he rests on ancient 
right, derived from Trophimus having been 
sent from Rome as first bishop of the see, and 
all Gaul having received the stream of faith 
from that fountain. Gregory of Tours (Hist. 
Franc. i. 28), referring to Passio 5. Saturnint 
Episc. Tolos., speaks of seven missionary 
bishops, including Trophimus, who founded 
the see of Arles, having been sent from Rome 
to Gaul, ‘“‘ Decio et Grato consulibus,”’ 1.6. A.D. 
250. But the see of Arles must have existed 
before then, since it appears from Cyprian (Ep. 
vi. 7) that in 254 Marcion had long been bishop 
of it. Possibly some Trophimus of an earlier 
date had been sent from Rometo Arles; but 
if so, nothing is known about him. 

Zosimus wrote also to the bishops of the 
provinces Viennensis and Narbonensis Se- 
cunda, disallowing the independent authority 
conceded to the metropolitans of those pro- 
vinces by the Turin synod; to Hilarius of 
Narbonne, the metropolitan of Narbonensis 
Prima, forbidding him to ordain bishops 
independently of Arles, declaring all whom he 
should so ordain excommunicate, and threat- 
ening him with the same sentence; and also 
to Patroclus, confirming to him the alleged 
ancient rights of his see, together with the 
privilege, above mentioned, of alone giving 
firmatae to ecclesiastics from all parts of Gaul. 
Simplicius of Vienne so far deferred to the 
pope’s authority as to send a legate to him ; 
and Zosimus, writing to him on Oct. I, 417, 
allowed him, for the sake of peace, to go on 
for the present ordaining bishops in the 
neighbouring cities of the province in accord- 
ance with the order of the Turin synod. No 
such deference to Rome was shewn by Pro- 
culus of Marseilles, who continued to ordain, 
though the pope had pronounced his deposi- 
tion. Tumults ensued at Marseilles, where 
there seem to have been two parties. Con- 
sequently in 418 Zosimus wrote to the clergy 
and people there, warning them to oppose the 
attempts of Proculus, and to submit to Patro- 
clus; and to Patroclus himself, enjoining him 
to assert his authority. Notwithstanding this, 
Proculus maintained his position as bp. of 
Marseilles and metropolitan of Narbonensis 
Secunda. The jurisdiction of Arles was long 
a bone of contention in Gaul. Zosimus died 
soon after writing the letters last mentioned, 
and was buried, according to the Lib. Pontif., 
on Dec. 26, ‘‘ via Tiburtina juxta corpus beati 
Laurentii martyris.”’ 

The main authorities for his life are his own 
letters and other documents to be found in 
Baronius and Labbe, the works of Augustine, 
and Prosper (Chron.). [j-B—Y.] 

Zosimus (5), a Byzantine historian worthy 
of particular attention, not only for his general 
merits as an historian, but because, as a 
heathen bitterly opposed to Christianity, he 


ZOSIMUS 


gives the heathen view of the causes of the 
decline and fall of the Roman empire. There 
is considerable uncertainty as to when he 
flourished. The middle of the 5th cent. is a 
probable date. Zosimus was not a polytheist, 
for in one passage at least of his history, when 
referring to an oracle which had predicted the 
greatness of Old Byzantium, he speaks of the 
Deity in highly worthy terms (li. 37). He 
paid honour, however, to the heathen religious 
rites, as having come down from former 
generations (v. 23), complaining of the 
attempts of various emperors to extinguish 
them (ii. 29; iv. 59), lamenting that the oracles 
of the gods were no longer listened to (i. 57), 
and finding in the abandonment of the old 
religion one main cause of the decline of the 
empire (iv. 59). He ridicules Christianity as 
an unreasonable conglomerate, ἄλογος συγ- 
κατάθεσις (iv. 59), sneers at Christian soldiers 
as only able to pray (iii. 2; iv. 23), and wel- 


false representations of the Christian faith (ii. 
29; iv. 59). An historian of such a spirit can 
hardly be relied on for an account of the events 
of a time when the old superstitions he 


venerated were compelled to yield to the | 
advancing power of a religion he abhorred; | 


and even his admirers are constrained to admit 


that he is not to be trusted where his religious | 
Reitemeier, who | 


prejudices come into play. 
defends him on the whole, alloWs that he was 
too partial to the heathen, too unjust to 
Christians (Disquis. p. 26) ; and Gibbon speaks 
of his “‘ passion and prejudice,”’ ὁ ignorant and 
malicious suggestions,’ and ‘* malcontent 
insinuations ’’ (cc. xvii., xx.). His accounts 
of the conversion of Constantine, and of the 
character of Theodosius (ii. 29; iv. 26-33) 
suffer from this prejudice. To the former, 
as well as to many other of his most scandalous 
charges against that emperor, Evagrius replied 
in fierce language, addressing him as a 
“wicked spirit and fiend of hell’’ (iii. 41); 
and for the latter he has been condemned by 
Gibbon in hardly less emphatic language (c. 
xxvii.). De Broglie refers, for a full refuta- 
tion of the story regarding the conversion 
of Constantine, to the Mém. de l’Acad. des 
Inscrip. 49, P- 470, etc. 

The inference must not, however, be hastily 
drawn that Zosimus is an historian unworthy 
of our regard. On the contrary, he may be 
justly described as one of the best historians 
of these early centuries. Even his views on 
church matters are highly interesting, as 
shewing how they were regarded by the more 
intelligent heathen; nor are they always 
wanting in truth. In estimating, too, his 
value as an historian, it must be remembered 
that he treats more largely of civil affairs than 
others had done, and we owe to him many 
facts connected with the condition of the 
military, their degeneracy, exactions, and 
dissoluteness, which contributed in no slight 
degree to the fall of the empire. 

There seems indeed no sufficient ground 
to ascribe intentional bad faith to his history. 
That he was mistaken in many of his conclu- 
sions, and especially in those relating to the 
influence of Christianity, is unquestionable. 
That he occasionally gave too easy credence 
to unfounded statements is not less so; but 


ZOSIMUS 1027 


it has never been proved that he wilfully per- 
verted facts to establish any theory. 

He was not in all respects an original his- 
torian. His History closeswitha.p. 410. Either 
he had been hindered by death from prosecut- 
ing it further or some portions have been lost. 
He is thus occupied throughout with events 
before his own day, and in relating these he 
seems rather to epitomize works of predeces- 
sors than to write original narrative. Reite- 
meier finds that in the first part of his History 
he followed the Synopsis of Denippus, in the 
middle and larger part the Chronicon of 
Eunapius, and in the last part the Silva of 
Olympiodorus (Disquis. p. 35). Photius 
charges him with extensive copying of Euna- 
pius (cf. Fabric. vi. p. 232, note). It seems 
to have been his admiration of Polybius that 
led him to write. That historian had de- 
scribed the rise of the Roman empire, and 


| Zosimus, beholding everywhere around him 
comes any opportunity of giving the most | 


its majestic ruins, would describe its fall. 
Nor will he merely describe the phenomena : 
he proposes also to investigate their causes. 
He begins, accordingly, with the reign of 
Augustus, and, passing hastily over the time 
till the accession of Constantine, he occupies 
himself mainly with the reigns of that em- 
peror and his successors. He sets forth as the 
causes of the fall of the Roman empire: the 
change of government to its imperial form 
(i. 5); the removal of the soldiery into cities 
where they were debased by luxury and vice 
(ii. 34); the iniquitous exactions of successive 
emperors (ii. 38; iv. 28, 29, 41; v. 12); above 


all, the casting aside of the old religion, and 


the neglect of the responses of the oracles (i. 
57). There can be little doubt that he re- 
garded this last as the most important, so 
frequently does he allude to it (ii. 7; iv. 37, 59; 
v. 38, etc.). He expresses what was often 
thought and said at the time, and to the 
view thus taken we owe, in no small degree, 
St. Augustine’s immortal work, de Civitate 
Dei. 

The style of the Htstory of Zosimus has been 
praised by Photius as concise, perspicuous, 
pure, and, though not adorned by many 
ngures, yet not devoid of sweetness (Cod. 98). 
(Cf. Heyne, Corp. Ser. H. B., Zosimus, p. 16.) 
These commendations are deserved. Zosimus 
is generally free from the ambitious periods of 
most historians of his age. His narrative is 
circumstantial, but clear; his language well 
chosen, and often very nervous and anti- 
thetical. He was not free from superstition ; 
and the fact that an historian, generally so 
calm and so far removed from the credulity 
of his day, should have put his faith in oracles 
and recorded without hesitation appearances 
of Minerva and Achilles to Alaric, and various 
other miracles (see them in Fabric. vi. p. 610), 
shews how deep-seated such ideas were in the 
minds of his contemporaries, and may help to 
prove that the Christian belief in visions and 
miracles then prevailing was not inconsistent 
with sobriety of judgment and sound prin- 
ciples of criticism in other matters. 

The History of Zosimus may be consulted 
for the lives and actions of the emperors 
between Augustus and A.p. 410, more especi- 
ally for those of Constantine, Constantius, 
Theodosius the elder, Honorius, and Arcadius ; 


1028 ZOSIMUS 


for accounts of the Huns, Alamanni, Scythians, 
Goths, and minor barbarous tribes; the war 
in Africa in the time of Honorius, the cam- 
paign of Alaric in Italy, and the taking of 
Rome ; for the right of asylum in Christian 
churches, and the changes introduced into the 
army ; for animportant description of Byzan- 
tium, old and new, and of Britain; and 
finally, for an account of the secular games to 


'notes. 


ZOSIMUS 


which, celebrated only once in 110 years, the 
people were summoned with the stirring yet 
solemn cry, ‘“‘Quos nec spectavit quisquam 
nec spectaturus est.’”’ Some of the ancient 
oracles are preserved by him. 

The best ed. is by Reitemeier, in Gk. and 
Lat., with Heyne’s notes (Leipz. 1784); 
Bekker’s ed. (Bonn, 1837) has Reitemeier’s. 
[w.M.] 


THE END 


Printed by Hazell, Waison & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury 


> ἣν 
* Cie 
oa? hate 3 


ἐδ 


RETURN TO the circulation Gesk of any 
University of Catforvia ΕἸ ταῖν 
Univer ἴφ ANG. enia 


€O421110e21 


τ 
eo Oe Bee 
oso 
πο += eo 


ae 


o 
— 


ἘΠῚ 


a ς"- 


ea 
eee eee 


{ 
ajay 
9 τ 
nil 


Sere 


5055 τ τὰς 
ΩΣ Δ ὦ ες 
oe Sele oS 


aa 


oe 
ἘΣ ΤΣ 
Coe oe 


nt) 
ree a) Plt 
ee el? 
eater ὙΠ] 
the i ἐπ 
πὴ; 


ϑ 


ΠΝ" 


atin 
Ἀν. Ὁ, 

ἮΝ ΠΡ 

ΠΟ 


ae 
ἔν 
τινι’ 


Se OS ee 


ΗΝ 
ae 4 
ὍΝ i} ἮΝ Ἷ 
me hinitatyt 

want 


ie 


eee. 


Matatetalaletatet 
SEDER 
τὰ at 


= 


ΠΡ αν 
ΜΉΤ Ἷ eels 
' ae ἮΝ 
Ν ἢ ὯΝ ἣ Ἧ 
: ἘΠ μὴ serait 
el ih 


Ἷ ΜΗ i Ἧ ν 
rene te i i a 
i af ‘ + tee) 
Note i τῇ ‘eee 


o_o ow 
γ 7 


fat 
retinue 
. "» _* 
tile 


’ 
“ὸ 


φως 


"ΧΙ et ete ee 


τ τ ;- 
=: oe 
το το, 
πασῶν. 
5 
~% 


Tey 
ne yt 
* 


ὭΣ 
5 4--ο-- 


ἌΣ aa nS S28 US 


ee ee ee ee ee 


ὭΣΤ ὩΣ 


